Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9025 total)
40 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 39 visitors)
Newest Member: JustTheFacts
Post Volume: Total: 883,278 Year: 924/14,102 Month: 327/597 Week: 105/96 Day: 0/22 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is my rock designed?
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 6 of 219 (481346)
09-10-2008 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by BVZ
09-10-2008 5:55 AM


We can prove that your rock was designed in a few easy stages.

(1) Do not find out anything about the geological processes that actually produce rocks. This step is crucial and cannot be omitted.

(2) Your rock either does or does not have a crystaline structure. In the first case, describe it as ordered, in the second case describe it as complex.

(3) Commit the logical fallacy known as petitio principii --- you remember how we practiced that in Sunday School? Declare loudly that whatever is ordered (or complex, depending on the properties of your rock) must proceed from an Intelligent Designer, thus assuming the thing you were required to prove.

(4) Announce that "evolutionists" claim that your rock came into being "by random chance".

(5) Call everyone who disagrees with you an atheist.

(6) Try to convince a judge that what you are doing is science. Fail.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by BVZ, posted 09-10-2008 5:55 AM BVZ has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 116 of 219 (638684)
10-24-2011 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by subbie
10-24-2011 10:27 AM


Re: is my rock design
He doesn't need to here, Panda. He's already addressed this many times in other threads.

Are you joking? I can't tell.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by subbie, posted 10-24-2011 10:27 AM subbie has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 169 of 219 (641200)
11-17-2011 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Dawn Bertot
11-17-2011 7:00 PM


The Flight Of The Frightened Rabbit
Just like Dewise1 and Panda I defy you to produce the line, argument or statement ,where I have ran

Here are some of the questions that you have ducked, refused to answer, or simply totally ignored on one single thread; one of the ones on which you now disdain to post because it is "dead".

panda, #20 writes:

The start seems like a good place to start:
Please describe an example of an observation made by IDM.

Also, I do not currently understand how 'determination' is linked to the scientific method.
Please ellaborate on what you mean by 'determination'.

Tanypteryx, #23 writes:

I am eager to finally see what the actual hypothesis of ID is and how the Scientific Method can be applied to test whether any evidence of ID can be detected and explained.

Dr Adequate, #24 writes:

Let us hear the ID hypothesis, so that I can figure out its predictions and test them.

If you can't do that then ID has fallen at the first hurdle towards being a scientific theory.

Coyote, #29 writes:

What you will be looking at, if you want any credibility at all, is a rule or set of rules to distinguish design from non-design.

If you have no reliable way to distinguish between design and non-design you have nothing.

So lay off the double-talk and tell us how one can reliably determine whether a particular item is designed or not.

Coyote, #45 writes:

So let me repeat, and try not to duck this time: What is your set of rules for distinguishing design from non-design?

You see from the definition of intelligent design given by IntelligentDesign.org that design "theorists" are able to do this, and that this is a critical part of their "scientific" method. As such it is not off topic. I think you just can't answer the question.

dwise1, #45 writes:

Now after persistently avoiding the question of ID's methodology or even whether one even exists, Dawn claims that it does indeed exist. And that it is identical to the scientific method! Fine! Great! So then finally please tell us, Dawn, just how is the scientific method supposed to deal with supernaturalistic hypotheses? That is, after all, what ID wants to force science to do (not through scientific channels, but rather by appealing to the general public which is largely scientifically illiterate. So just how is that supposed to happen?

Or, Dawn, you could start with the really simple question. The one that you have been avoiding and refusing to answer all along:
What is the methodology for detecting and determining design?

dwise1, #66 writes:

Please take the opportunity to express, in a logical manner, the inexorible chain of logic that leads to your conclusion.

Straggler, #68 writes:

But the hypothesis is part of the scientific method. How can you be following the scientific method if your methods are hypothesis-free?

Admin, #72 writes:

In order to demonstrate that ID does actually follow the scientific method you will have to provide examples of ID actually following the scientific method. Coyote is requesting that you show how ID followed the scientific method to reach the conclusion of design, and addressing this issue is precisely what this thread is about.

You don't have to use the example of concluding design if you don't want to, but you are going to have to find at least one example of ID actually following the scientific method.

Admin, #74 writes:

In this thread you have not as yet provided any observations, experiments, evaluations or predictions. Please provide at least one example of ID following the scientific method by describing the original hypothesis, the experimental framework, the observations, the analysis, the predictions, the validation of those predictions, and the theory resulting from generalizing what was learned.

Coyote, #78 writes:

How do you evaluate those physical properties? In other words, how do you differentiate design from non-design?

What is your method for doing this?

Taq, #83 writes:

The SM itself requires you to make presuppositions AND THEN TEST THEM. They are called hypotheses. The SM also requires you to presuppose that your hypothesis is wrong and to describe the evidence that one would see if the hypothesis is wrong. This is called the null hypothesis.

So how does one construct the hypothesis and null hypothesis in the IDM, and what types of experiments does one run to test both the hypothesis and null hypothesis?

Taq, #85 writes:

More importantly, a hypothesis is a TESTABLE and FALSIFIABLE statement that has observational consequences in the real world. So what are the ID hypotheses and how are the both testable and falsifiable. What type of scientific experiments are used to test these hypotheses?

Taq, #87 writes:

You have yet to show how those basics are employed in the IDM. You claim they are there, but until you show how they are used you have no argument. Science is an actual activity, it is something you DO. So show us what you specifically do when using the IDM. What are the experiments, and what are the hypotheses that are being tested? What is the null hypothesis?

Bluejay, #91 writes:

I would like you to write a post containing four lines. This is what I would like to see on those four lines:

An example of ID making observations of the natural world.

An example of ID formulating a hypothesis based on those observations.

An example of ID experimenting to test that hypothesis.

An example of ID forming a theory based on the results of the experiment.

If you can provide examples of all of these steps, then I would say that ID has at least passed the barest minimum standards of the scientific method.

I suspect that most scientists would require more than just this bare minimum, but it would at least be a start.

Can you do this much?

Modulous, #117 writes:

It is your claim that ID uses the same rules of empiricism and reasoning: Show us an example.

Admin, #20 writes:

Bluejay's request to provide examples of ID using various parts of the scientific method is identical to the requests I made in messages earlier in the thread. Illustrating how ID uses the scientific method is the very raison d'ĂȘtre of this thread.

Panda, #126 writes:

I would like to do one thing.

I would like you to write a post containing four lines. This is what I would like to see on those four lines:

A real world example of IDM making observations of the natural world.

A real world example of IDM formulating a hypothesis based on those observations.

A real world example of IDM experimenting to test that hypothesis.

A real world example of IDM forming a theory based on the results of the experiment.

jar, #128 writes:

You have not yet addressed the issue of how IDM uses any processes or procedures so it is impossible for use to address IDM at all. [...] Tell us how the IDM investigates how the designer actually effects change.

ringo, #130 writes:

Now show us how you use the ID method to design an experiment to test that hypothesis.

jar, #132 writes:

Tell us how the IDM investigates how the designer actually effects change.

Modulous, #137 writes:

So Dawn, provide an example observation, evaluation, experimentation, construction, prediction that might occur in the investigation of ID. This will enable to compare the way this is done with the way it is done in science in general to see if you are correct. You've drastically failed to so far do so - and I predict you'll fall back to talking about design rather than Intelligent Design should you ever attempt to do this. Do you want me to show an example of how it is done in real science?

At the moment, all I can do is compare the IDM I know (which is not the same as SM) until you instruct me an IDM that is the same as SM. So instruct me.

Bluejay, #141 writes:

I think you're just nitpicking my way of phrasing the question. Let me rephrase it then. This is what I would like you to provide:

An example of a researcher making observations of the natural world.

An example of a researcher formulating an ID hypothesis based on those observations.

An example of a researcher experimenting to test that ID hypothesis.

An example of a researcher forming an ID theory based on the results of the experiment.

ringo, #147 writes:

I asked you to design an experiment. You're standing on the surface of a planet. You've hypothesized that it was designed as some sort of "Genesis Project". What specific data are you going to collect to test that hypothesis? What equipment will you use to collect the data? How will you analyze the data?

ringo, #151 writes:

I asked you to specify exactly what data you would look for to determine whether the Genesis Planet was designed. I asked you what equipment you would use and how you would analyze the data. You answered none of those questions.

The question isn't "who" the designer is. The question is: How would you design an experiment to detect design in the first place. What exactly would you plunk down on the lab bench?

I'm not asking for a general approach. I'm asking for one simple specific experiment.

ringo, #155 writes:

I didn't ask what argument you would use. I asked what data you would collect, specifically. Would you weigh leaves? Would you test soil pH? I asked what equipment you would use, specifically. An infrared spectrometer? A gas-liquid chromatograph? I asked how you would analyze the results, specifically. Linear regression? Standard deviation?

Message 131 says nothing about that. You haven't devised a specific experiment or even hinted at one.

I'm not asking for vague descriptions of what a lab building looks like. I'm asking for specifics.

jar, #156 writes:

How does IDM actually investigate how the designer effects change?

frako, #159 writes:

What that the harmony in nature is so complex it had to be desighned why why could it not acure naturaly?? Whitout any aid from an inteligence??

Dr Adequate, #165 writes:

the question is: what type of test would you need to conduct to detect design in nature? That's design. Not order, not law, not harmony. Design.

dwise1, #176 writes:

Do they indeed use the same methods? You have not demonstrated that, not even attempted to -- nearly 200 messages into the topic and you have not yet tried to support the OP? And just where have you "already descirbed {them} several times now"? You have offered a short list of some basic ideas, but you have most certainly not yet offered any kind description of either method. We keep asking you to and you keep dodging -- probably one big reason for your no longer being able to start new topics. [...] OK, Dawn, so just what is your ID methology? And just how does it work? In detail!

While you're at it, could you also please present in detail how you think that the scientific method works.

dwise1, #190 writes:

Dawn, {biting my tongue here}, what you list are not methods. Rather, they are bases (please note that the pronounciation is for the plural of "basis", not the plural of "base"). We are not asking for bases, but rather for methodologies. A likely candidate for an actual description of a methodology might be what I reproduced for you at the end of my Message 176.

PS
C'mon. What are the details of that methodology? Because we really do need to know those details.

Panda, #191 writes:

Dawn Bertot: give an example of what you are claiming!

Show:

A real world example of a researcher making observations of the natural world.

A real world example of a researcher formulating an ID hypothesis based on those observations.

A real world example of a researcher experimenting to test that ID hypothesis.

A real world example of a researcher forming an ID theory based on the results of the experiment.

If what you claim is so obvious then presenting an example should be child's play.

NB: The answer to a question is not another question, unless you are avoiding giving an answer.

ringo, #195 writes:

We're not talking about "order and harmony". We're talking about intelligent design.

And so far you haven't done any tests, you haven't described any tests, you haven't specified what you're testing for.

I'm asking you for one simple test that you would do to identify design. What would you be holding in your hands while you're doing the test?

Coyote, #198 writes:

Here are some of the problems:

Different observers can look at "a leaf" or any other object and come up with different opinions on "order" and "harmony" (whatever those terms mean). Unless you can define some objective criteria you are dealing with the subjective.

There are all kinds of leaves, from those you don't want growing in your lawn to fossils hundreds of millions of years old. What data will you collect, and from which leaves will you collect it? What will you do to ensure that your data is not subjective? What criteria will you use to ensure you have enough data? What measurements and observations will you take? How much additional data will you need from other organisms? You didn't think you could just study leaves, did you?

When you have enough data, how will you work from that data to a conclusion? What data will you use, and what data will you judge not to be important? What criteria will you use to decide these things? What assumptions will you use, and how well supported are they? Will you be able to establish a theory that explains all the data, as well as related data, and ignores no important data?

Admin, #211 writes:

The topic of this thread concerns whether ID follows the scientific method. What you need is at least one example of ID research following the scientific method. When you return, please address your discussion to the topic.

Taq, #230 writes:

Let me repeat. Your hypothesis is that an intelligent designer is responsible for the order we observe. The null hypothesis is that non-intelligent mechanisms produce this order. Now, what are the experiments we can run to test both the hypothesis and null-hypothesis?

jar, #243 writes:

How does IDM actually investigate how the designer effects change?

Admin, #248 writes:

See my Message 120 and Message 211 where I requested that you provide an example of ID following the scientific method. I'm suspending you for 4 days. See you after Thanksgiving. In your very first message after your suspension I want you to provide responses to this list of requested information composed by Bluejay:

An example of a researcher making observations of the natural world.

An example of a researcher formulating an ID hypothesis based on those observations.

An example of a researcher experimenting to test that ID hypothesis.

An example of a researcher forming an ID theory based on the results of the experiment.

If you post anything else I'll just suspend you again, but for a longer period.

frako, #322 writes:

your method assumes that order needs a desighner can you provide a theory and some evidence to support it to why order cannot arise naturaly. If you cannot your argument is worth as much as this one.

Admin #323 writes:

Hi Dawn,

Please stop posting to this thread until you can provide an example of ID research following all the steps of the scientific method in the point-by-point style requested by Bluejay:

An example of a researcher making observations of the natural world.

An example of a researcher formulating an ID hypothesis based on those observations.

An example of a researcher experimenting to test that ID hypothesis.

An example of a researcher forming an ID theory based on the results of the experiment.

Taq, #324 writes:

So how do you deduce ID from the observations using the SM? Instead of saying that it can be done why don't you SHOW HOW IT IS DONE?

[...]

All you need to do is say "The hypothesis for ID is . . . " and describe the hypothesis.

Then you need to describe the experimental set up. At this point you predict what the experimental results will be if your hypothesis is true, and what results the experiment will produce if your hypothesis is false (the null hypothesis). Then you run the experiment.

Can you do this or not?

Perhaps you could breathe some new life into that thread by answering some of these simple and pertinent questions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-17-2011 7:00 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-17-2011 11:19 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 171 of 219 (641214)
11-18-2011 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Dawn Bertot
11-17-2011 11:19 PM


Re: The Flight Of The Frightened Rabbit
As I looked at each one of these i see and remember that i have actually answered and responded to each one

If you "see" that you are hallucinating; if you remember that you are delusional.

The basic fallacy for each one of these highlights is two-fold.

First you use a contrived and exclusive definition for the words science and evidence. IOWs you have abandoned the basic meaning of the words science and evidence

Secondly, you start in the middle of the process called investigation (Scientific method) and claim that origins dont matter to the process of the scientific method

Which of course in any normal investigation the how and why, always matter

So as a mattter of convience you ignore this point of the process for yourself and require it of the theist in his scientific method

Thereby creating one set of rules for yoursel and another for us. Imagine that

This windy wordy mess of blatant falsehood and drooling nonsense is not actually an answer to any of the questions.

Now why don't you go to the other thread, man up, and answer some of the questions you've been asked instead of whimpering and blubbing and whining out your lame, self-pitying excuses?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-17-2011 11:19 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 177 of 219 (641725)
11-22-2011 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by SavageD
11-21-2011 11:07 PM


Re: Is my rock designed?
Seems there's no way to tell how a rock was designed...therefore design does not exist.

If ever one should come across an alien space craft of some sort, it would only be logical to conclude that it was spat out by the sun since there would be no way to determine that it was designed...Ignorance is bliss.

Your inability to detect design does not mean that it doesn't exist, nor that it is impossible for other people to detect it.

As to whether ignorance is bliss, I find that knowledge also has its charms.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by SavageD, posted 11-21-2011 11:07 PM SavageD has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 181 of 219 (641848)
11-22-2011 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by SavageD
11-22-2011 9:25 PM


Re: Is my rock designed?
How so? If there's no way to detect intelligent design then I'm free to believe that the space craft could have come from anything.

Surely I can't say it was designed by an intelligence because there's apparently no distinguishing qualities by which one can infer design for anything.

As has been pointed out, your inability to detect design is not a universal disability.

I suppose if you yourself really have no criterion at all for detecting design, then you, personally, could believe that a spaceship was "spat out by the sun". The rest of us, however, would not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by SavageD, posted 11-22-2011 9:25 PM SavageD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by SavageD, posted 11-22-2011 10:25 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 184 of 219 (641857)
11-23-2011 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by SavageD
11-22-2011 10:25 PM


Design Detection For Beginners
Well then, enlighten me. How would you know that the hypothetical space ship was designed by some intelligence and not spat out by the sun?

Because it's a spaceship.

How would you detect design?

With reference to the processes actually known to produce things.

For example, since whenever we know how spaceships (and other machinery) are produced, it turns out to involve design, we would infer design in a spaceship even if we hadn't seen it produced.

On the other hand, if we see (for example) a wombat, then since whenever we know how an organism is produced, it turns out to involve reproduction and variation without design, we would infer the same for the wombat even if we didn't see the mummy wombat giving birth to it.

And, in the case of rocks, I know how igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic rocks are produced, and it doesn't involve design, so I should classify the rock itself as undesigned. Of course, it might have been shaped into an arrowhead or a statue or whatever, and I know that those things are designed, since whenever we are able to check, a flint arrowhead has a flint-knapper and a sculpture has a sculptor; so in that case I should identify the material as undesigned but the form as designed.

But what if (you might ask) I encounter a class of thing entirely outside of my experience? Well, in that case I should try to see if I could see one of them being produced.

Of this method in general, we may note that it involves possessing actual knowledge, that it is a straightforward application of the scientific method, and that it leads to conclusions that are true; and for these reasons it will never appeal to the ID crowd who claim to be in the business of "detecting design" --- a method that works can obviously has no allure for them. And yet it does allow me to identify a spaceship as designed while you are unable to think of any reason why it wasn't "spat out by the sun".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by SavageD, posted 11-22-2011 10:25 PM SavageD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by SavageD, posted 11-27-2011 4:07 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 189 of 219 (642027)
11-24-2011 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Portillo
11-24-2011 11:11 PM


Archaeologists infer intelligent design from rocks routinely to determine whether a stone which is shaped in a particular fashion, is actually just a stone or perhaps a tool used by a human.

Yes, they do. But how would the ID crowd like to do it?

When an archaeologist finds a stone tool or a clay pot s/he puts that in the "designed" pile while putting a goat's skull or a tree root into the "natural" pile. But creationists are in need of a different criterion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Portillo, posted 11-24-2011 11:11 PM Portillo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Portillo, posted 11-29-2011 12:37 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 195 of 219 (642338)
11-27-2011 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by SavageD
11-27-2011 4:07 PM


Re: Design Detection For Beginners
Circular argument. ie You know that the hypothetical space ship was designed, because it's a spaceship.

That is not a circular argument.

The entire basis for you argument seems to be that:

1) Intelligent design does in fact, exist.

I wouldn't call that the basis for my argument. But knowledge of what kind of things are designed forms part of the method.

2) You know that rocks are not designed because you have knowledge of how they are formed.

Quite so, how else? Again, this observation about rocks is not the basis of my argument, merely an example of it.

I'm however curious, if ever you were to come across an object that was built by an intelligent agent, using methods outside your knowledge base.

How would you infer a designer?

Different methods wouldn't be a problem. A car fabricated by nanobots or Oompa-Loompas would still recognizably be a car.

The problem would come if I came across a different kind of thing to anything I'd seen before. And, as I said, there'd be nothing to do but try to find out how that kind of thing did in fact come into existence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by SavageD, posted 11-27-2011 4:07 PM SavageD has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 197 of 219 (642451)
11-29-2011 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by Portillo
11-29-2011 12:37 AM


The same way the archaeologist does it.

If they did that then they, like the archaeologist, would put living or formerly living organisms in the "undesigned" pile, and would cease to be cdesign proponentists.

As I wrote in the very post you're replying to:

When an archaeologist finds a stone tool or a clay pot s/he puts that in the "designed" pile while putting a goat's skull or a tree root into the "natural" pile. But creationists are in need of a different criterion.

That's "different" as in not the same.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Portillo, posted 11-29-2011 12:37 AM Portillo has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 201 of 219 (642580)
11-29-2011 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Robert Byers
11-29-2011 7:48 PM


Design always means the fantastic complexity of nature.

So a car, for example, would not be designed by this criterion, since it is not natural.

Design equals complexity equals complex processes.

So a spoon, for example, would not be designed by this criterion, since it is not complex.

Come back when you've got a criterion that works, eh?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Robert Byers, posted 11-29-2011 7:48 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021