Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
107 online now:
dwise1, nwr, Tanypteryx (3 members, 104 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,180 Year: 6,292/6,534 Month: 485/650 Week: 23/232 Day: 23/28 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does ID predict genetic similarity?
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 175 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 104 of 167 (670850)
08-20-2012 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Taq
08-16-2012 12:04 PM


That same mutating DNA molecule also produces disease. Would an omnipotent and omniscient designer leave us with biological systems that produce children with devastating and painful cancers? It would seem to me that such a designer would have to purposefully include this in the design. This is not something that would just slip by quality assurance. Such a designer would have to consciously decide that yes, children will die an early and painful death because of this design.

This is a troubling problem indeed, but is the only convincing evidence of a designer a perfect world with no death or trouble? This is a physical universe, subject to decay and strife. I don't claim to understand why. But do you think that a perfect world without death and suffering is the prediction of an ID hypothesis?

Let's use the recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) as our example. In tetrapods this nerve exits the spinal column, goes down through the neck into the chest, loops under the aorta, goes back up the neck, and then connects to the larynx very close to the spot where the nerve exits the spinal column. This is analogous to running an extension cord across your living room, looping it around the couch, and then back to the tv even though the plug in is right by the tv. It is just poor design.

Yes, but aren't there numerous connections off the RLN? It's more like running the extension cord across the livingroom and plugging in a lamp, a clock , looping it behind the couch, plugging in a heating pad, then back to the tv even though the plug is right by the tv. Poor design? Yea, sure, I wouldn't do it.

But don't you think this is problematic for the ToE also? Both the length of the RLN and the length of the neck need to coincide during development. As the neck vertebra get longer, so the RLN gets longer. Are the vertebra and the RLN controlled by the same genes and the same developmental pathway? For example, as the giraffe's neck gradually became longer, ie. the vertebra became longer, the RLN could stay basically the same length, no longer loop around the aorta but still make an "unnecessary" loop.

from Message 82

Even Behe admits that biological systems can best be described as Rube Goldberg mechanisms. When you look at the molecular world you see the equivalent of this toothpaste dispenser:

Here are cellular apoptosis pathways:

Well it sure makes learning biochemistry a nightmare! But wouldn't a designer need to program in redundant fail-safe systems to prevent unwanted PCD? There are also several pathways to regulate the process under different conditions and for different situations. There are also cascades that control expression and offer another level of regulation. Hardly a toothpaste dispenser. Could you come up with a simpler, more efficient design? Probably. Would it work as effectively in all conditions? Uncertain.

The discussion on this thread seems to be centered around whether intelligent design is even a legitimate question to pursue in the first place. Let's assume it is, since the reasons for asking the question in the first place are philosophical and that's not what I wanted to discuss.

I would suggest that their philosophical ideals force them to ignore the evidence, and then propose ideas that are not supported by the evidence.

This is what I want to NOT do. I think genomicus is also trying hard to take a positive approach to this as well. Whether you agree with his conclusions or his predictions, you should agree that he is trying to make testable predictions based on his philosophical ideal. That type of work should be embraced, even by those who are skeptical of an intelligent designer, as it could lead to new understanding of our world.

From everything I have seen, it appears to be a material world operating all on its own without any supernatural influence. That would seem to be the simplest explanation.

What would you predict a material world that was operating WITH supernatural influence would appear like?

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Taq, posted 08-16-2012 12:04 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Taq, posted 08-20-2012 10:26 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 175 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 105 of 167 (670851)
08-20-2012 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by RAZD
08-20-2012 7:23 AM


Re: Make up your minds!
This is also waay off topic regarding genetic similarity ...............

I did open it up to allow other predictions that ID makes or could make. I didn't want a deeply philosophical discussion, but it seems the question is considered illegitimate to begin with. You can't make predictions if you can't ask the question.

But then I don't think ID as currently used, or as it should properly be used (in philosophy rather than science), can make scientific predictions (my personal opinion).

I guess where I personally am stuck at on this subject, is that I feel there should be an overlap, a place where philosophy and science interact. Do you feel philosophy and science are two completely independent ideals or that scientific observation is sufficient to support philosophy but philosophy is just unable to make scientific predictions?

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by RAZD, posted 08-20-2012 7:23 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by RAZD, posted 08-20-2012 10:29 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 175 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 126 of 167 (671053)
08-21-2012 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by bluegenes
08-20-2012 11:13 AM


An actual prediction of ID theory?
I was going to let this go and let you and RAZD deal with it in the GD, but then I realized that since I had opened it up in the OP to present other predictions that ID makes I realized your point is actually on topic.

You proposed three options regarding the existence of principals in deciding whether principals are a prediction of ID theory or not.

1> If we found ourselves in a world in which magic seemed to operate freely and there were no rules, that's perfectly compatible with the hypothesis.
2> If we found ourselves in a world which seemed to operate very consistently on predictable laws, but we identified the occasional miracle that broke those laws, that's perfectly compatible with the hypothesis.
3> And if we found ourselves in a world that appeared to have set physical principles that were never to our knowledge broken, that's perfectly consistent with the hypothesis.

{reference numbers added}

Magic would not be magic without principals. What makes something magic is that it defies or breaks known principals. Are you familiar with the magician Criss Angel? What makes his magic so incredible is that he defies these principals that we know just cannot be defied. He levitates (defies gravity), walks on water, passes through solid objects, has two objects occupy the same space at the same time, and can read people's minds. Criss is actually an illusionist - he creates the illusion that he is breaking these principals. However, the point is that if his tricks did not defy (or appear to defy) those principals, who would find them interesting? And they wouldn't be magic - they would be normal.

Magic defies known principals. As an example, if we were in a universe without the principal of gravity, it would not be magic for me to levitate. It would simply be the norm. Without principals ... no magic.

So your option #1 (magic with no principals) cannot exist. Which leaves us with option 2 and 3, both of which require principals. Therefore, according to your own assertion, an ID hypothesis would predict a universe with principals since it is necessary to that hypothesis.

HBD

Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by bluegenes, posted 08-20-2012 11:13 AM bluegenes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by RAZD, posted 08-22-2012 6:40 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 175 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 127 of 167 (671054)
08-21-2012 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Genomicus
08-13-2012 10:23 PM


Re: Does ID predict genetic similarity?
Hi Genomicus,

I have been meaning to reply to some of your posts, but have been distracted, so I am finally getting around to it.

In the first place, ID as a concept is so loosely defined that one cannot say what it predicts at all.

While the global concept of ID doesn't make any true predictions, specific ID hypotheses do make testable predictions. For example, the ID hypothesis that "irreducible complexity can only arise through intelligent intervention" is quite testable. The hypothesis would predict that there are no non-teleological pathways to IC systems.

Conclusion:
Before we can make any statement about what ID predicts, ID as a scientific hypothesis must first be adequately defined.

This is probably one of the biggest reasons why I have not personally been able to support or "buy into" the ID movement. A specific, unified and cohesive hypothesis that can be tested and modified would go a long way to gaining support of the scientific community. However, it doesn't appear to be forthcoming at the moment.

I can appreciate the work you have done developing specific, testable hypotheses. Honestly, they are a little beyond my comprehension at this time, I don't know a whole lot about molecular genetics, just intro level genetics. So its hard for me to comment on whether it is a viable hypothesis or not. I did have some questions on your Front Loading thread and I will ask them over there when I get a chance.

So, good work.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Genomicus, posted 08-13-2012 10:23 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Genomicus, posted 09-02-2012 12:27 PM herebedragons has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 175 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 128 of 167 (671055)
08-21-2012 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Genomicus
08-16-2012 12:57 PM


Also, the question is a bit irrelevant to me because, for the most part, I'm trying not to argue for ID based on the implausibility of evolution but rather based on positive evidence for ID. In other words, it is perhaps possible for non-teleological processes to produce life but this does not mean that these processes did produce life. When discussing biological origins, it must be remembered that we are talking about actual history and not about what could have been.

Yes, too many creationist and IDers are anti-evolutionists rather than pro-creation or pro-intelligent design. Their misconception is that if evolution is proven false, then their theory is true by default. This approach causes them to ignore reality on many occasions. So, a positive approach is quite refreshing.

In summary, the argument that ID necessarily leads back to a deity is not at all rigorous and makes several problematic assumptions.

But ultimately the argument would lead back to some type of non-created, teleological entity. A deity would imply that this supernatural being has contact with the human race and that would not necessarily be true. But without a final cause, you have the problem of infinite regression. So, are you referring to deity in the above quote in the context of a supernatural being that has contact with humans? Not meaning a supernatural, final cause?

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Genomicus, posted 08-16-2012 12:57 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Genomicus, posted 09-02-2012 12:39 PM herebedragons has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 175 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 129 of 167 (671056)
08-21-2012 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Genomicus
08-17-2012 10:10 AM


By the way, a designer is limited by its building materials (unless it is supernatural). Designers have limits too, ya know. Furthermore, if a designer is designing through evolution, then of course we'll see a nested hierarchy.

It seems that the main difference (at least the difference we should care about) between a 'designer designing through evolution' and 'standard evolution' is purpose. Without purpose there would just be no real difference between the two. Why should we put the effort into distinguishing between the two if there is no real difference in the effect.

It should stand to reason then that in order for this to be a worthwhile pursuit, we should be able to detect not only design, but also purpose. In fact, perhaps purpose should be a prediction of sorts of an intelligent design hypothesis. Although, I have absolutely no idea how you could test for purpose.

Without purpose don't we just have evolution?

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Genomicus, posted 08-17-2012 10:10 AM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Genomicus, posted 09-02-2012 12:40 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 175 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 133 of 167 (671084)
08-22-2012 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Straggler
08-22-2012 8:08 AM


Re: universal principles
Surely there is no contest in terms of which of these two alternatives genetic similarity can be considered positive evidence in favour of – Right?

I think this is pretty much agreed by all. (If anyone disagrees they haven't spoken up yet)

When I wrote my OP, I was sure that the main question would be easily answered and would lead to a short discussion. Therefore, I opened it up by asking a follow-up question: What other predictions does ID make? My expectation was for it to follow in the same vein as the original position, ie. an observation may be compatible with both alternatives, but not predicted of one or the other. In order for an ID hypothesis to be valid, it must make a prediction that common descent does not.

I didn't intend it to be a free-for-all discussion of everything related to ID, but for discussion related to what ID does or should predict.

So far, it hasn't gone too far away from that. At this point, I would conclude that a general ID hypothesis is too vague to make any predictions. In order for ID proponents to make predictions, they need to state a very specific hypothesis and what prediction that specific hypothesis makes. This is the type of work Genomicus is doing, and should be commended for his efforts, even if one doesn't agree with the conclusion.

So as far as I am concerned, the main question has been answered, but we still have room for 170 more posts in this thread, so we may as well use them . Not much else being discussed except politics

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Straggler, posted 08-22-2012 8:08 AM Straggler has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 175 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 134 of 167 (671085)
08-22-2012 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by RAZD
08-22-2012 8:27 AM


Re: universal principles
and thus this cannot be used to back-predict or reverse engineer a designer or a lack of designer/s.

Good point RAZD. It does seem that some think that because ID doesn't make a particular prediction that it means the reverse is true, ie. there is no designer, which is not actually a valid conclusion based on the evidence.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by RAZD, posted 08-22-2012 8:27 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Tangle, posted 08-22-2012 10:04 AM herebedragons has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 175 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 137 of 167 (671115)
08-22-2012 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Tangle
08-22-2012 10:04 AM


Re: universal principles
I think the issue is more that because we already have a perfectly adequate theory, we just don't need a designer. The designer is superfluous - it fails Ockham.

Of course that doesn't mean that there wasn't a designer, just that science so far says that we don't need one.

The discussion of origins is not just an issue of science, but about the history of our existence. In the pursuit to understand the origin of life and indeed the universe, our search should be for truth. IF there was a designer science should seek to know that. Science doesn't NEED there to be a designer to continue to be science, but in order for science to be the "truth" then it needs to find the answers that are true. So, IF there is a designer, then science NEEDS it.

Ockham's is not a scientific law that can be tested against, but rather a principal or a guideline that helps scientists develop theories. A simple explanation is not always the best or the correct one (I may be even willing to say that a simple explanation is rarely the best or correct choice, but I don't want to have to support so bold a claim). Ockham's is not a test we apply to judge failure or success, we need to chose the hypothesis that is most correct or has the best explanatory power.

That said, I don't think science has the ability or the tools (and maybe never will) to address the issue of a designer and the issue of origins in general. In the sense that science is intended to understand the natural world, a supernatural explanation is superfluous. But that doesn't mean we should stop our pursuit for the truth.

our OP has to provide some actual hard evidence of front loading.

Not at all. This thread is merely exploring what predictions ID does or should or could make. Actual, hard evidence of a specific prediction and deeper discussion of that evidence should be handled in a separate thread. For discussion regarding front-loading see Deep Homology and Front-loading

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Tangle, posted 08-22-2012 10:04 AM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Straggler, posted 08-22-2012 11:51 AM herebedragons has replied
 Message 140 by Taq, posted 08-22-2012 3:13 PM herebedragons has replied
 Message 143 by RAZD, posted 08-23-2012 10:33 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 175 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 145 of 167 (671301)
08-24-2012 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Taq
08-22-2012 3:13 PM


Re: universal principles
What science should do is follow the evidence.

I agree with this to a point. The project I am working on for my senior thesis involves an invasive species glossy buckthorn, Frangula ulnus, that has invaded a local calcareous fen. I have done several research projects in that area involving glossy buckthorn and the fen environment and during this time I observed a large area of buckthorn that had died for no apparent reason. Not once have I considered the possibility that there is a supernatural explanation for this die-off. I have been investigating it and have made several hypotheses that turned out to be wrong, so I developed a new hypothesis and moved on. I have now found a pathogenic fungus that has the potential of being host specific and could possibly be used as a biological weapon against this invasive species. (But that remains to be seen)

This is an example of "following the evidence". If I had hypothesized that a supernatural force caused this buckthorn stand to die, that would be "jumping the gun" and could easily be disproven by someone demonstrating that it was actually a fungus that caused the demise. Then I could hypothesize that God caused the fungus to grow in order to kill the buckthorn. This is where Occam's razor comes in. Since we know that the spores of this particular fungus can be transported by the wind or carried by insects, there is no need to speculate about a supernatural cause. We can never know for absolute certainty that the fungus actually DID come to infect this particular stand by either wind, insects or some other natural means; it COULD have been caused supernaturally, but there is really no reason to suggest that it was.

Unfortunately, this is how most ID proponents and creationists approach the issue, they come to a place in science that can't be known with absolute certainty (or at least they don't think so at the time) and then stick in "God did it." (or another approach is that they just deny evidence and facts) I can understand your rallying against such an approach and indeed, I too am critical of such an approach.

My issue is with something different. My problem is with the philosophical worldview of naturalism, the belief that nature is all there is, and was and ever will be. Everyone brings a worldview (a system of beliefs) to this debate about origins. It is a starting point for your understanding of the universe. You may be able to modify and adjust your worldview, but no one comes to this debate neutral.

So, let me propose a hypothesis based upon my worldview.

"Everything in this universe ultimately owes its existence to a divine creator."

Notice I say nothing about HOW everything came to be, only what the ultimate first cause was.

Now, in order for you to disprove this hypothesis outright, you would need to show that everything has a natural cause. Not possible.

Now, let's apply Occam's razor. My hypothesis makes an additional assumption, that a divine creator exists, that the current theory does not , so it would seem that it fails Occam's razor. (actually I would say the current theory makes an assumption that nature is all there is, so there really is not an additional assumption)

But does my theory have more explanatory power than the current theory? Well, it includes or allows all of the current theory, so it is equal in that regard. In addition, it has the power to explain the origin of the singularity and what existed before the singularity. It can explain why the universe is so extremely ordered and why there are principals that govern its day-to-day operation. It explains the fine tuning that we observe in natural phenomenon.

So, it would seem to me that my hypothesis passes the first test and is, in fact, a valid hypothesis.

Now, in order for me to gain support for my hypothesis and have it accepted as a scientific theory, I need to make valid predictions and support those predictions with evidence.

Uhmmm ???? ahhh??? let's see .... a little help here ....

This is the point of this thread! Not whether it is a valid question to ask in the first place. If you approach this with the view that "nature is all there is, and was and ever will be," then of course you will see it as an invalid hypothesis. I believe GDR said that the premise of this tread assumed the existence of a designer. Well, that is not exactly correct. It assumes a worldview that nature is NOT all there is!

Science does have the tools to explain our origin and the origin of the universe.

No it does not. Science can only go so far. It has limits. And those limits are imposed, in part, by the worldview we bring to the discussion. Excluding the divine from the discussion excludes a whole realm of possible explanations while providing no additional information. On the other hand, imposing the divine at every sticky spot also limits our possible explanations and could prevent us from discovering important solutions to problems. A true case of allowing the evidence to lead us must include the possibility of a divine creator, otherwise we are limiting where the evidence can actually lead us. If your view is that "nature is all there is" then that is the only place that the evidence can lead you.

The only problem is that some people are afraid that the answer will differ from the one they want.

I agree. But it goes both ways.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Taq, posted 08-22-2012 3:13 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Taq, posted 08-24-2012 11:39 AM herebedragons has not replied
 Message 152 by Straggler, posted 08-24-2012 6:00 PM herebedragons has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 175 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 146 of 167 (671304)
08-24-2012 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Straggler
08-22-2012 11:51 AM


Re: universal principles
So far no-one has put forward any predictions that can be made from ID

Not true. Genomicus has done some good work on this. See Message 23 where he refers to Nature's Engines and Engineering, also Message 96 where he refers to Deep Homology and Front-loading and, while not actually a prediction as such, see Message 81.

So I am left asking on what basis, other than human belief in such things, a designer is being postulated here at all?

Why should we consider this designer or give it any more credence than any other baselessly conceived of entity?

See my response to taq in Message 145

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Straggler, posted 08-22-2012 11:51 AM Straggler has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 175 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 147 of 167 (671308)
08-24-2012 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Straggler
08-22-2012 5:38 PM


Re: universal principles
If we look around us and see these "principles" and then we assume that there is a designer and also assume that this designer will incorporate these "principles" in his design - It is hardly surprising that this exercise in circularity will result in the conclusion that there is a designer who incorporates the observed "principles" in his design.

Can you explain the existence of these principals using the current theory?

But how anyone can think this is a valid exercise in logic or even evidence based reasoning I don't know......

For my discussion on this idea see Message 126

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Straggler, posted 08-22-2012 5:38 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Straggler, posted 08-24-2012 6:31 PM herebedragons has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 175 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 160 of 167 (672059)
09-02-2012 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Genomicus
09-02-2012 12:27 PM


Re: Does ID predict genetic similarity?
Apologies for the belated response. I thought this thread had died, only to find that you had responded to my posts.

It did sort of taper off, mainly because I have been busy and have not been active. School is starting and I will only be on sporadically. So no problem on the delay.

Although I am an ID proponent, I do not consider myself part of the ID "movement" - that is, the movement that is associated with the Discovery Institute etc. One of the reasons for this is that the present ID movement is more concerned with disproving Darwinian evolution than with presenting testable ID hypotheses.

Unfortunately, even a hint of an intelligent designer almost automatically puts someone in that category and makes it difficult for many to even consider your hypotheses. It would almost be better to coin an entirely new term. But I agree completely with your point about needing to present testable hypotheses rather than attempt to disprove Darwinian evolution.

But if this is supposed to be about biology, then I'd expect all discussion to revolve around biology.

Don't you consider the issue to be more than just about biology? Front-loading deals specifically with biological origins , as does biological evolution, but what about the other issues related to the topic of origins. An ID model would need to address those issues too (specific hypotheses may not though).

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Genomicus, posted 09-02-2012 12:27 PM Genomicus has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 175 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 161 of 167 (672063)
09-02-2012 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Genomicus
09-02-2012 12:39 PM


And once you grant that this is possible then there is no basis for arguing that ID must invoke a supernatural being at some point.

I understand what you are getting at, but I guess unless you postulate an infinite universe, the issue is merely pushed back a step. Personally, I feel the search for an intelligent designer is rather superfluous without the search for the supernatural. If an intelligence evolved from a non-biological source and then front-loaded life here on earth, and there was a naturalistic explanation behind this non-biological intelligence, it pretty much changes nothing here on earth.

On the other hand, such a non-biological intelligence would pretty much be "supernatural" to us whether there was a naturalistic explanation or not.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Genomicus, posted 09-02-2012 12:39 PM Genomicus has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 175 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 162 of 167 (672064)
09-02-2012 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Straggler
08-24-2012 6:00 PM


Re: universal principles
So - Just to be clear - The answer "something-supernatural-did-it" you reject as valid in all cases (e.g. the death of buckthorn) except when it comes to the question of origins?

I reject philosophical naturalism not methodical naturalism.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Straggler, posted 08-24-2012 6:00 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Straggler, posted 09-04-2012 12:47 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022