A thought on Intelligence behind Design

Warren,Science, very simply, works thusly: an inductively derived hypothesis is put forward to be deductively tested with predictions & potential falsifications. The working fault with ID is that it can come up with the inductively derived hypothesis, no problem: if it is complex it might be designed, right? But it has no real way of deductively testing that hypothesis. The only way this can be done is by objectively answering the question Quetzal has already proposed. How are you to differentiate natural "designoid" systems and true [intelligent] design? And then looking to see if those conditions are met.Every single creationist has drawn a blank answering this logically required question. ID simply, logically, cannot proceed without first being able to tell the difference between designed & naturally occurring objects, & then seeing if those predictions are borne out. Instead, their arguments are based on incredulity, fallacies of composition, question begging, & false dichotomies. For example, the evolution of the flagellum you yourself have brought up. But there is a problem here. A lack of evidence for one position does not therefore automatically support the opposite position. That is, a lack of evidence in no way can be considered positive evidence. In other words it is a false dichotomy. Even proving the flagellum didn't evolve doesn't therefore mean it was designed. It, like it's supposed designer could always have existed. I often wonder what IDers would make of God, surely something so complex was designed, right? Regardless, you haven't proven that the flagellum hasn't evolved, & a plausible evolutionary pathway exists that is consistent with current knowledge. Enter the argument from incredulity...........Anyway..........Given that there is ample evidence that complexity & function is able to evolve via natural processes, what positive evidence is there that determines that a system is either naturally occurring, or is intelligently designed? False dichotomies & lack of evidence for other hypothese are not evidence of design.Of course, not being able to make a logically acceptable argument in favour of ID doesn't make it wrong. But it does mean that no one is obliged to accept an essentially evidenceless, untestable, unfalsifiable proposition.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 07-18-2003][This message has been edited by mark24, 07-18-2003]

Warren, This illustrates my final point precisely. "Of course, not being able to make a logically acceptable argument in favour of ID doesn't make it wrong. But it does mean that no one is obliged to accept an essentially evidenceless, untestable, unfalsifiable proposition." The burden of proof is on ID to be able to tell the difference, not for it's sceptics to disprove ID. This adds another logical flaw to the raft already being invoked; shifting the burden of proof. ID M-U-S-T answer the question of how to tell the difference between a designed system & a non-designed one.If I showed you a gene complex, an operon, that digests lactose, provides a system whereby the transport of lactose into the cell is facilitated, & an expression control system, you would claim it is designed. It wasn't, the one I have in mind evolved under lab conditions (Hall 1982). The point being, even if I couldn't show you that, your claim of ID would still be pissing in the wind as it pertains to science. Untestable & unfalsifiable. It doesn't make you wrong, but it does mean no one is obliged to accept your argument.You & Mike can believe what you like, but it ain't science, & it doesn't have the required level of logical support. This is why Mikes beloved teleological argument is bullpuckey. Everyone schooled in logic realises this, why not you & Mr Gene? Could there be an alternative agenda?Logical fallacies used so far. Argument from incredulity, fallacies of composition, question begging, false dichotomies, & shifting the burden of proof.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Warren, It is no one elses fault that you have no way to tell a non-designed from a designed one. This is your problem that you cannot, not ours.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Warren, Nonsense. You have to contend with the broad consensus provided by cladograms & phylogenetic analyses, that against all the odds, return similar evolutionary relationships. If we are to accept these analyses, then by definition IC must have evolved, the question becomes one of how.Your argument simply seeks to ignore all of the congruent, corroborating evidence that clearly points to evolution having had occurred, & at the same time seeks to stand on a soapbox of incredulity & lack of evidence. Like the fossil evidence that so clearly points to mammalian inner ear bones being originally derived from reptilian jaw bones? Which, in a world of amazing coincidence is precisely what both morphological data & sequence data suggest. That's three independent lines of evidence suggesting that the IC structure formed by the malleus, incus, & stapes was derived from jaw bones.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Warren, What empirical evidence supports the alleged "empirical argument"? I expect the subsequent argument to be logically sound. You do that for me, & I'll show you empirical evidence that supports the evolution of IC.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 07-26-2003]

Warren, The "Duh!" is on you. How can ANY method of getting closer to the truth accept teleolgy as anything other than unsupported belief, when we don't know what an ID'd thang looks like?It goes like this:1/ Hypothesis. Mmmmm, I wonder if all that complexity in living things is the result of ID.2/ Predictions/Tests ?????????Well? The inducively derived hypothesis can hardly contain the same observations as the predictions without getting circular, right?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Warren, The point is, whether anyone can give a valid example of what they would consider ID evidemnce. It isn't the rest of the worlds fault that all of the so called ID evidences are flawed logically; argument from ignorance, compostional errors .... etc.ID is simply an unsupported assertion, an untestable hypothesis, & certainly an unfalsifiable one.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Warren, Nonsense. ID doesn't even meet the basic standards of science, there's absolutely no need whatsoever to go into details of what is & isn't science by looking at technicalities.Any given hypothesis for ID is untestable & unfalsifiable. If it ain't those two, it ain't science. Given that you would have shown how ID meets the two criteria above if you could of by now, ID can safely be relegated back to the "unsupported belief" shelf, not that it was ever off it, of course. No one is obligated to accept something whose "truth" can only exist on this level.Essentially you are pleading that hypotheses that cannot/do not have legitimate supporting evidence, & can never be knowably shown to be untrue, should be allowed as science. In that case my hypothesis that the universe was blown out of the arse of the Galactic Goat should be considered science, non?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 08-06-2003]