Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 55 (9054 total)
95 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 94 visitors)
Newest Member: EWolf
Post Volume: Total: 888,178 Year: 5,824/14,102 Month: 410/335 Week: 16/83 Day: 0/16 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does ID predict genetic similarity?
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1536 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 35 of 167 (670468)
08-15-2012 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by GDR
08-15-2012 1:34 PM


Make up your minds!
GDR writes:

This is obviously true but it seems to me that the fact that there are " principles that govern the way they work" should be construed as an indication in favour of intelligent design. It has taken intelligence to find and understand the principles, which seems to me to suggest that it took intelligence to form the principles in the first place.

When we understood little about how the things around us worked, there were those who would say "this must require magic and miracles, therefore intelligent design."

Now, as we learn more and more, and detect "principles", there are growing numbers who say "ah, magic is not required as there are principles, therefore intelligent design."

"Intelligent design" seems to be able to predict everything and nothing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by GDR, posted 08-15-2012 1:34 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by GDR, posted 08-15-2012 2:48 PM bluegenes has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1536 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 41 of 167 (670480)
08-15-2012 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by GDR
08-15-2012 2:48 PM


Re: Make up your minds!
GDR writes:

If we are the result of intelligent design the one thing that we would likely predict is the existence of principles.

Why? Intelligence is notable for improvisation and flexibility.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by GDR, posted 08-15-2012 2:48 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by GDR, posted 08-15-2012 5:22 PM bluegenes has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1536 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 44 of 167 (670484)
08-15-2012 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Genomicus
08-15-2012 4:09 PM


Genomicus writes:

Let me put it this way: why exactly is poor design of a biological system an argument against the engineering of that system? The standard evolutionary explanation for poor design is that evolution works as a tinkerer instead of an engineer. But then we find that at the same time evolution can work as an engineer. This means that both poor design and optimal design are compatible with Darwinian theory. Of course, this comes at a price because there is a loss of predictive power.

On the other hand, it is often argued that suboptimal design is evidence against engineering because engineering should not produce such suboptimal design. Thus, from an ID perspective, if we hypothesize that a given biological system was engineered we would predict that further study of that system will reveal that it is indeed optimally designed. Does that make sense?

I think the mistake you're making here is thinking that Darwinism is making an argument from design in the sense that it would predict suboptimal design. It doesn't. As you say, it's compatible with both optimal and suboptimal.

Rather, the argument starts when apparent optimal design is presented as evidence for I.D., as if it's a prediction of I.D. Then, when apparent suboptimal design is pointed out, the I.D.ists say that that also is compatible with I.D. So, the "Darwinist" then points out that I.D. (like Darwinism) doesn't actually predict whether we should see apparent optimal, sub-optimal design or both. Darwinism itself is not making design predictions (apparent suboptimal isn't essential to the theory).

So, gone is the proposed evidence for I.D.

Intelligence is notoriously unpredictable, it has to be said, even when we're familiar with the species doing the designing. When we're not.......!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Genomicus, posted 08-15-2012 4:09 PM Genomicus has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1536 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 47 of 167 (670487)
08-15-2012 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by GDR
08-15-2012 5:22 PM


Re: Make up your minds!
GDR writes:

Just like we see in the evolutionary process, but there are still principles involved.

Evolution can't choose to do without them. Why would your intelligent designer necessarily choose there to be principles? What binds him to do so?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by GDR, posted 08-15-2012 5:22 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by GDR, posted 08-15-2012 5:44 PM bluegenes has responded
 Message 60 by herebedragons, posted 08-16-2012 11:54 AM bluegenes has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1536 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 51 of 167 (670492)
08-15-2012 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by GDR
08-15-2012 5:44 PM


Re: Make up your minds!
GDR writes:

It seems to me that anything designed and assembled by humans requires principles.

We're constrained by the physical world, for sure. We can't do magic.

GDR writes:

I'm not saying that an intelligent designer would be bound by them, I'm just saying it is what we would expect.

Is that a royal "we"? And why would we expect it? If a designer is designing a world, why is he expected to design any particular type of world?

Be careful about making observations of the world, and then convincing yourself that an observation (there are principles) is a prediction of the hypothesis "the world is intelligently designed".

That's not how it works. The prediction should be necessary to the hypothesis. The designer would have to be bound to design a world of principles in order for principles to be an I.D. prediction.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by GDR, posted 08-15-2012 5:44 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by GDR, posted 08-16-2012 12:39 AM bluegenes has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1536 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 68 of 167 (670641)
08-16-2012 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by GDR
08-16-2012 12:39 AM


Re: Make up your minds!
GDR writes:

Human experience has been that it requires principles for us to design something. As it is all we know, then we would expect that if we are the product of intelligent design there would be principles. That isn't to say that there couldn't be another way that we would be unaware of.

"Principles" aren't a necessary prediction of the hypothesis that the world was intelligently designed, are they?

GDR writes:

We agree that there are principles involved in science including evolution. I also agree that that isn't conclusive proof of anything but we can come to our own conclusions.

It is my belief that seeing as how there are principles and order, and that out of that has come intelligent life that it is more plausible that we have come from an intelligent first cause than not.

I'm well aware of your beliefs, but they have nothing to do with what an I.D. hypothesis would predict.

GDR writes:

If we accept the fact that we are a product of intelligent design then because of human experience it would logical that we would think it likely that there would be certain principles as part of the design. Again, it doesn't mean that we would necessarily be right following that line of thinking.

To summarize: Principles are not a prediction of the hypothesis that the world was intelligently designed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by GDR, posted 08-16-2012 12:39 AM GDR has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1536 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 70 of 167 (670644)
08-16-2012 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by herebedragons
08-16-2012 11:54 AM


Re: Make up your minds!
herebedragons writes:

Perhaps because this a physical universe. If there weren't principals how could it function? There is nothing to bind him to using the principals we observe. But why would he not be bound to establishing principals in designing a material, physical universe? If there were not principals a physical world could not exist.

All of which misses the point. Neither principles nor a physical universe are predictions of an intelligent design hypothesis.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by herebedragons, posted 08-16-2012 11:54 AM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by GDR, posted 08-16-2012 8:19 PM bluegenes has not yet responded
 Message 101 by herebedragons, posted 08-19-2012 10:27 PM bluegenes has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1536 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 86 of 167 (670668)
08-17-2012 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Genomicus
08-16-2012 11:20 PM


Genomicus writes:

A designer is not limited to a nested hierarchy, unless the designer is designing through evolution.

An intelligent designer isn't limited to anything, is it? So, we can easily answer the question in the O.P. title.

quote:

Does ID predict genetic similarity?

No. ID doesn't predict anything. Take this hypothesis:

Our biosphere was intelligently designed.

What would the intelligent design of our biosphere necessarily imply? Nothing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Genomicus, posted 08-16-2012 11:20 PM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Genomicus, posted 08-17-2012 10:10 AM bluegenes has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1536 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 95 of 167 (670720)
08-17-2012 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Genomicus
08-17-2012 10:10 AM


Genomicus writes:

I already explained that ID is so loosely defined that it does not make any real predictions. Nevertheless, ID hypotheses do make testable predictions.

So, the statement "our biosphere was intelligently designed" is so vague that it obviously cannot make any predictions.

Indeed. Just like the hypothesis that evolution was designed. No predictions.

Geno writes:

By the way, a designer is limited by its building materials (unless it is supernatural).

As we don't know what it is, we can only speculate on what its limitations might be.

Geno writes:

Designers have limits too, ya know. Furthermore, if a designer is designing through evolution, then of course we'll see a nested hierarchy.

But what are the predictions of the hypothesis that evolution on this planet (and therefore a nested hierarchy) is intelligently designed? What would this necessarily entail?


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Genomicus, posted 08-17-2012 3:18 PM bluegenes has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1536 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 99 of 167 (670792)
08-19-2012 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Genomicus
08-17-2012 3:18 PM


Rational design?
Genomicus writes:

See here for a discussion on this (specifically, a prediction of front-loading).

I remember the thread, which was where I pointed out to others that you hadn't strayed from naturalism in the implications of your posts at that point.

But I didn't agree that your specific hypothesis made the predictions you claimed. And I thought that there were other more plausible front loading hypotheses.

On this thread, I think that the phrase "rational design" is problematic, and requires a rigorous definition if it's to be useful.

Could the kind of rock arch called a "natural bridge" be said to exhibit rational design if it functioned perfectly as a means by which animals could cross from A to B avoiding a gully and/or stream? If not, why not?

And could the water cycle, which has an essential function for larger land organisms, be said to exhibit rational design?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Genomicus, posted 08-17-2012 3:18 PM Genomicus has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1536 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 102 of 167 (670828)
08-20-2012 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by herebedragons
08-19-2012 10:27 PM


Re: Make up your minds!
herebedragons writes:

I didn't miss your point. You asked why would a designer be bound to using principals. That is what I responded to. A designer would be bound to using principals within a physical universe. How else could it function?

You did miss my point. I asked GDR:

bluegenes writes:

Why would your intelligent designer necessarily choose there to be principles? What binds him to do so?

I was referring to a hypothetical designer of worlds and principles, not one which is constrained by this physical universe.

That there are principles and that we are in a physical universe are observations, not predictions of the hypothesis "an intelligent designer made the world".

herebedragons writes:

You seem to suggest that because a designer could design in any way he wanted that we cannot use observations to formulate a hypothesis. Not so. The principals of the physical world are not predictions of the ToE either, even though they are a requirement of evolution. I say that principals are a requirement of a designer also.

You may say it, but unless you can demonstrate that your designer is constrained to design only worlds with principles, you'll just be making an unsupported claim. What or who constrains your designer?

herebedragons writes:

I agree that that the principals that govern the universe are not a prediction of an intelligent design hypothesis, but for a different reason. They cannot be tested and falsified. We can't test a universe with no principals or exclude certain ones. Principals are just that, principals. A designer would be bound to use them. Not necessarily the ones we observe, but principals none-the-less.

Principles. Again, you can't support your last two sentences, yet you want to state "a designer would be bound to use them [principles]" as if it's a fact, after having seemed to agree that principles are not a prediction of an I.D. hypothesis.

My first post under this subtitle was one in which I was laughing at people who would consider both the breaking or absence of principles (miracles) and the principles themselves as evidence for a supreme intelligent designer.

It's surprising how many theists do actually think like that.

So I said: "Make up your minds."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by herebedragons, posted 08-19-2012 10:27 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by RAZD, posted 08-20-2012 7:23 AM bluegenes has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1536 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 107 of 167 (670857)
08-20-2012 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by RAZD
08-20-2012 7:23 AM


Re: Make up your minds!
RAZD writes:

It is logical that whatever universe the designer/s made, that it would have principles put in place that govern how it operated on a mundane day-to-day basis.

I'd be fascinated to know how you know this.

What I'm saying here is straightforward.

Let's look at the hypothesis: "The world was intelligently designed."

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. 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. 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.

So, that general I.D. hypothesis makes no predictions concerning principles (or miracles), which was what I was trying to explain to GDR. A prediction would be necessary to the hypothesis, not just compatible.

The O.P. question is straightforward. The answer is "no", the general hypothesis of an intelligently designed biosphere doesn't predict genetic similarity (or anything else, when you think about it) but it is compatible with it.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by GDR, posted 08-20-2012 12:04 PM bluegenes has responded
 Message 113 by RAZD, posted 08-20-2012 11:37 PM bluegenes has responded
 Message 126 by herebedragons, posted 08-21-2012 9:07 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1536 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 109 of 167 (670870)
08-20-2012 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by GDR
08-20-2012 12:04 PM


Re: Make up your minds!
GDR writes:

From the magic that is our existence it seems reasonable to me that there is an intelligence that is at the root of it.

How fascinating. I don't doubt it.

Now, if you're in some way trying to defend the view that principles are a prediction of the hypothesis that the world was intelligently designed, then could you actually do it? You would need to make the case that intelligent designers of worlds are constrained by some force that obliges them to create worlds with principles.

So, let's start with this constraining force which leaves them without choice on the matter. What is it?

Edited by bluegenes, : missing letter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by GDR, posted 08-20-2012 12:04 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by GDR, posted 08-20-2012 2:45 PM bluegenes has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1536 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 115 of 167 (670914)
08-21-2012 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by GDR
08-20-2012 2:45 PM


Re: Make up your minds!
GDR writes:

I don't agree that I do. Isn't that how science works? Someone through reason comes up with a hypothesis that he/she works with to see if they can prove it to be accurate or not. For example, string theory is a hypothesis that science is trying to prove or disprove but it is prediction based on human observation.

A hypothesis isn't a prediction (in the scientific sense of prediction). It is a proposed explanation of something that should make predictions. These would be things necessarily true if the hypothesis was true.

Of course you can hypothesise to your heart's content. But what I was asking you to do was to demonstrate that principles are a prediction of intelligent design.

GDR writes:

As humans we can observe that when we create something there are principles involved.

Also, brains. Actually, we observe that we are subject to principles (the constraints of the physical world). That's why I can't design a magic carpet and a pair of seven league boots for you, much though I'd love to. It isn't by choice. So your observation here would be that known designers (us) are subject to principles.

You then seem to want to make an inductive inference, based on your observation of ourselves as designers. You could make many of these, and put them forward as hypotheses. All designers design with brains, all designers are animals, all designers are subject to principles etc.

A prediction of that last one would be that, if there were a designer of this world, he would be subject to principles.

GDR writes:

I submit that with our experience as intelligent beings, as a hypothesis it is reasonable to predict, based on the assumption that an intelligent designer exists, that there should be principles involved in the design.

Of course it isn't conclusive, just as the evidence for the hypothesis which is string theory isn't conclusive, but it is a reasonable prediction.

I think you need to understand the difference between a hypothesis and a prediction. The prediction, used in this sense, means something necessary to the hypothesis. If the prediction turned out to be wrong, the hypothesis would be falsified.

If we found out in the future that what we consider to be physical principles of this world are actually all broken somewhere in the universe, and the place is actually completely unpredictable, that would not falsify the hypothesis that this world is intelligently designed, would it? Therefore, principles are not a prediction of that hypothesis.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by GDR, posted 08-20-2012 2:45 PM GDR has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1536 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 117 of 167 (670916)
08-21-2012 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by RAZD
08-20-2012 11:37 PM


Re: logic
RAZD writes:

Curiously, I did not say that I know this (and you should know better ... )

Here's the exchange:

bluegenes writes:

RAZD writes:

It is logical that whatever universe the designer/s made, that it would have principles put in place that govern how it operated on a mundane day-to-day basis.


I'd be fascinated to know how you know this.

How do you know that it's logical? Or did you mean "it seems logical to me" or "it seems reasonable to me." Note that GDR uses such tentative language when he makes similar claims.

But I'm glad that we're agreed. You do not know that it is logical that any world designed by designers "would have principles put in place that govern how it operated on a mundane day-to-day basis".

Concentrate on the phrase "any world" or your phrase "whatever universe". A prediction of the intelligent design hypothesis would apply to any world. It must be necessary. Therefore, in order to claim that the hypothesis predicts a world like this one in any respect, the designers would have to be obliged to include that feature (whether principles, stars, life, anything else).

Now look below. You're going to make observations about this world, and then claim that it is a logical conclusion that: "IF the universe was created that THEN it was done using a set physical principles that guide how it operates".

Your mistake is substituting "this universe" for "whatever universe" or "any world". What we observe in this universe would have been created if this universe was created. Yes, of course. That doesn't mean that anything we observe in this world is necessary to all possible created worlds.

RAZD writes:

bluegenes writes:

Let's look at the hypothesis: "The world was intelligently designed."

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. And

<3> 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.

format altered: line breaks and reference numbers added.

Note that the "never to our knowledge broken" in would include anecdotal but unconfirmed incidents where magic may have been involved but we don't know.

And by observation we are certainly not in <1> so it is not logical to consider it, as it is falsified ... by our admittedly slim set of evidence (1 universe).

Similarly <2> is also eliminated at this time, even though it operates "very consistently on predictable laws."

The logical conclusion is that IF the universe was created that THEN it was done using a set physical principles that guide how it operates, <3>, albeit again based on our admittedly slim set of evidence (1 universe).

It doesn't matter which of the three that we're in. My point was that I.D. is compatible with all of them.

Do you see the point, now? Sure, it's logical to conclude that, if this world was created, anything we observe in the world (including principles) was created. But that does not mean that I.D. of the world predicts principles (or stars), just as I.D. of biology doesn't predict genetic similarity.

RAZD writes:

bluegenes writes:

So, that general I.D. hypothesis makes no predictions concerning principles (or miracles), which was what I was trying to explain to GDR. A prediction would be necessary to the hypothesis, not just compatible.

And again, I agree with you here, that there just is not enough information on which one can form a valid testable prediction ...

But you don't seem to agree. Shortage of information is not the point. That the I.D. hypothesis is compatible with both magic and non-magic is. It's compatible with anything. It doesn't predict anything about the world, so nothing falsifies it.

RAZD writes:

... but find it fascinating how you seem to see this problem so clearly here, but not at all on another thread ...

Most of what you're misunderstanding on that other thread is different from what you don't seem to be able to grasp on this one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by RAZD, posted 08-20-2012 11:37 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by RAZD, posted 08-21-2012 5:47 AM bluegenes has 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