quote:
John Paul:
That is irrelevant. ID is not concerned with the designer only the design.
schrafinator:
I disagree. If you are saying that something in nature is designed, it is a natural question to wonder who did the designing.
John Paul:
Being a natural question is of little relevance as to the
focus of ID. Heck, I'm curious about that too. But I realize first things first. Do you read the last chapter of a mystery novel first and try to figure out how it all came together? Or do you read it one chapter at a time, in sequence, try to figure it out and then read the last chapter to see if you got it right?
quote:
John Paul:
That is why it is call it is called the design inference. Inference is how science is conducted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schrafinator:
No, inference hasn't been conducted.
John Paul:
Yes it has.
schraf:
For inference to have been conducted, there would have to be an actual hypothesis proposed, positive evidence, and potential falsifications.
John Paul:
Potential falsifications have been provided and we use the knowledge available to do the rest.
schraf:
Only analogy has been conducted, and one cannot do science with only analogies.
John Paul:
More than that. Biochemical systems are no longer being compared to machines, they are machines:
quote:
"With parts that resemble pistons and a drive shaft, the enzyme F1- ATPase looks suspiciously like a tiny engine. Indeed, a new study demonstrates that's exactly what it is. A movie of a single enzyme molecule in action shows that it spins like a motor to crank out ATP, the ubiquitous molecule that provides energy for biochemical processes in cells.......[The investigators] anchored molecules of F1-ATPase to a glass slide and - like putting a flag on top of a pole - attached a long, fluorescent filament of actin to the end of the drive shaft. By bathing the enzyme in ATP, the researchers made F1-ATPase break down the energy molecule and watched as it whirled the fluorescent filament around like a propeller. The enzyme puts out a very large torque, considering that the actin filament is more than 100 times the length of the enzyme itself, Yoshida [one of the investigators] says. "Can a man rotate a 150-meter rod?" The enzyme can spin such a long filament because it ratchets down the rotation rate when it carries a heavy load, he explains, suggesting that F1-ATPase can change gears - as a good motor should."
Noji et al., 1997, Nature 386,p. 299- 302 (summarized in Science News).
schraf:
One cannot make positive claims about natural phenomena by pointing out the lack of an explanation by another theory of the same phenomena.
John Paul:
What natural phenomenon? You can't call something a natural phenomenon without anything to substantiate that claim. To you everything is a result of a natural process until proven otherwise.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would infer purely natural processes when there isn’t any evidence to substantiate that claim?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
There is no way to provide evidence for a negative.
John Paul:
I didn't ask you to. I want you to provide the
positive evidence to support your claim that purely natural processes can give rise to life from non-life.
schraf:
This is pretty basic logic. I can't provide evidence that invisible unicorns aren't flying over my apartment building right now. Does that mean they exist?
John Paul:
So I take there isn't any positive evidence that life can arise from non-life via purely natural processes. IOW your extreme bias is all that is required for you to infer that it did. Thanks.
schraf:
Perhaps we tend to think that naturalistic phenomena have naturalistic explanations because this is the basis for scientific inquiry.
John Paul:
So you are saying life is just a result of a natural phenomenon. That bias works every time. Doesn't make for good science though.
schraf:
Perhaps we also have a log history of claims of "Godidit" being explained by science eventually.
John Paul:
That could be true or it could just be hearsay. This isn't a game where we keep score. There are still many things science cannot explain.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually it is not inferred. It is dogmatically asserted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
Not true.
John Paul:
True.
schraf:
When we don't know the explanation for something, we simply say "We don't know".
John Paul:
Not true.
schraf:
Perhaps Behe didn't now about the blood-clotting mechanism work that was ongoing when his book was published...
John Paul:
Did you even read the book? It was a challenge, not a refutation.
schraf:
How do you tell a designed system from a narual system that we don't understand?
John Paul:
How can you call it a natural system if we don't understand it?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is OK to attribute something to an alleged natural process we don’t understand and not OK to follow everything we know about design and how to detect it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
We don't know how to detect it. That's the problem.
John Paul:
We have a very, very good idea. Ther is a better case
for design in living organisms than there is for life arising from non-life via purely natural processes.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schrafinator:
Unless thare are falsifiable criterion instead of a "I know it when I see it" kind of explanation, there is no evidence at all.
John Paul:
Been there, done that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
Well, you haven't made your case, so if you are quitting, I'll consider that you have conceded the point.
John Paul:
But you have made no point at all. To you everything that can't yet be explained is attributed to some phantom natural process. Sad part is you don't even see the double-standard you are applying.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
Behe has not made his case that the ordering of components couldn't have arisen naturally, as has been explained previously.
John Paul:
Hello? No one has made a case that they could. As has been explained to death. And yes,
mind correalation is a part of detecting design.
Behe isn't the only IDist who has a say in this. Perhaps you should read how CSI is being defined and refined.
------------------
John Paul
™ Version 4.2
