Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 75 (8963 total)
185 online now:
PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle (3 members, 182 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Post Volume: Total: 870,778 Year: 2,526/23,288 Month: 717/1,809 Week: 149/225 Day: 8/44 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Intelligent Design An Open Movement?
Straggler
Member (Idle past 40 days)
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 66 of 91 (689691)
02-03-2013 5:37 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Genomicus
02-02-2013 7:05 PM


Re: Is Intelligent Design An Open Movement?
Am I right in thinking that the 'intelligent design' you are referring to (one that uses a metaphorical wrench rather than a metaphorical wand) is non-supernatural in terms of abilities and origins?

Are you talking about beings that are part of a physical reality and which utilise physical laws of one sort or another to construct their creations (life, our universe, whatever)?

Are you talking about beings that evolved or otherwise formed as a result of physical laws rather than omnipotent super-beings that have existed for all eternity (whatever that actually means)?

What sort of intelligent designer are you proposing?

And how would one distinguish between that which has been designed with a mataphorical wrench, that which has been designed by a metaphorical wand and that which is the result of entirely mindless natural processes? What are the defining characteristics of each such that they can be recognised as distinct from one another?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Genomicus, posted 02-02-2013 7:05 PM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by AZPaul3, posted 02-03-2013 7:44 AM Straggler has not yet responded
 Message 70 by Genomicus, posted 02-04-2013 12:52 AM Straggler has responded

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 40 days)
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 71 of 91 (689728)
02-04-2013 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Genomicus
02-04-2013 12:52 AM


Re: Is Intelligent Design An Open Movement?
Well it's an interesting proposition you are putting forward and doesn't seem to me to be the same as biblical creationism at all (which involves magically 'pooffing' things into existence).

Geno writes:

I cannot specify the exact nature of the proposed designers. My overall position operates on the assumption that the designers of biological life had a degree and type of intelligence similar to our own.

It has been postulated that we are all part of a computer simulation on a similar basis:

ARE YOU LIVING IN A COMPUTER SIMULATION? BY NICK BOSTROM Department of Philosophy, Oxford University

Link writes:

Many works of science fiction as well as some forecasts by serious technologists and futurologists predict that enormous amounts of computing power will be available in the future. Let us suppose for a moment that these predictions are correct. One thing that later generations might do with their super-powerful computers is run detailed simulations of their forebears or of people like their forebears. Because their computers would be so powerful, they could run a great many such simulations. Suppose that these simulated people are conscious (as they would be if the simulations were sufficiently fine-grained and if a certain quite widely accepted position in the philosophy of mind is correct). Then it could be the case that the vast majority of minds like ours do not belong to the original race but rather to people simulated by the advanced descendants of an original race. It is then possible to argue that, if this were the case, we would be rational to think that we are likely among the simulated minds rather than among the original biological ones. Therefore, if we don’t think that we are currently living in a computer simulation, we are not entitled to believe that we will have descendants who will run lots of such simulations of their forebears. That is the basic idea.

What do you make of that variation of your design proposition?

Geno writes:

By testing specific predictions of the design hypothesis.

I'll read your other thread later - But in the meantime - Can you give one example of a logical consequence (i.e. prediction) that applies to a designed entity but which would not be expected to be true for a non-designed entity?

Given this it should be a simple matter of testing for this attribute in order to detect design - No?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Genomicus, posted 02-04-2013 12:52 AM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Genomicus, posted 02-04-2013 8:31 PM Straggler has responded

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 40 days)
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 74 of 91 (689773)
02-04-2013 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by New Cat's Eye
02-04-2013 10:33 AM


Re: ID is Christian
CS writes:

Well, apparently you do think life was created (engineered), so I'd call you a creationist too.

As I understand it Geno is suggesting that life as we know it was engineered by some prior form of life that wasn't itself engineered. Advanced aliens or somesuch. These aliens presumably evolved (or something similar).

But I'm interested to know what signs of design he would be looking for in life as we know it......

I expect proponents of more traditional forms of ID would be delighted to see evidence of such as well....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-04-2013 10:33 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-04-2013 2:47 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 40 days)
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 82 of 91 (689849)
02-05-2013 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Genomicus
02-04-2013 8:31 PM


Re: Is Intelligent Design An Open Movement?
Geno writes:

The hypothesis that, say, the bacterial flagellum was directly engineered by rational design of proteins (and similar techniques of protein design), predicts a specific pattern of divergence times (as determined by molecular clocks) for various flagellar parts and their homologs.

What specific pattern? And (more importantly) why is this pattern a necessary consequence of conscious design?

Geno writes:

The same goes, of course, for any other molecular machine (e.g., the F-ATPase, replisomes, ribosome, etc.).

Why?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Genomicus, posted 02-04-2013 8:31 PM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Genomicus, posted 02-06-2013 7:21 PM Straggler 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 © 2020