Summations Only

You are welcome to think anything you want.

The issue though is NOT SETI, it's ID.

Do we, or do we not need the lab where the orbiting body was constructed before reliably inferring design?

They back up my methodology of detecting design.

Except that they don't actually do so, do they?

I mean, you can't quote them doing so. This agreement between you and them is something that you have inferred and that they do not in fact agree with.

Put differently, my methodology of inferring design is the same as SETI scientist et al.

You use a big radio receiver?

You've talked with me before, Dr Adequate, and I think you should know that I don't infer design simply because "it's so complex it must be designed!" Which seems to be your point with crude clay pots. Try not to confuse me with other ID proponent, mmk?

Feel free to tell me how you do go about it.

Yes, there are several methods to make clay pots AFAIK. According to jar's logic (remember, I'm critiquing his logic here), you'd have to know which method was employed for which pot before being able to infer design. Still, you might want to take on the SETI example: I freely confess that the archaeology example isn't as close to home with regards to my point.

I think jar overstates the case.

What about SETI? They are looking for artificial radio signals. I'm guessing you're not.

You use a big radio receiver?

That's not what I mean by "methodology." I mean the principle is the same.

Feel free to tell me how you do go about it.

The same principle that SETI scientists use.

Feel free to tell me how you do go about it.

It's not by looking at something and ooh-ing and ah-ing and saying "oh, look how complex it is! It must be designed!" It's through the testing of various predictions of a teleological hypothesis. That, and the same principle SETI scientists use.

The same principle that SETI scientists use.

Could you elaborate on that a little? What do you think this principle is?

For bonus points, you should explain why if you and the SETI people share this principle, the SETI people are not all IDists.

Could you elaborate on that a little? What do you think this principle is?

I could outline it briefly, although I haven't been able to nail it down completely in my own mind. I am completely open to your ideas as to the principle used by SETI scientists.

The principle, as I see it, can be outlined thusly:

1. There is no known non-intelligent process that can bring about X,

2. And intelligence is a known method to generate X.

Again, I'm entirely open to revision of this.

I could outline it briefly, although I haven't been able to nail it down completely in my own mind. I am completely open to your ideas as to the principle used by SETI scientists. The principle, as I see it, can be outlined thusly: 1. There is no known non-intelligent process that can bring about X, 2. And intelligence is a known method to generate X. Again, I'm entirely open to revision of this.

In which case you would first have to prove that evolution (a known non-intelligent process) could not bring about the phenomena requiring explanation.

Well, if you could do that, I suppose you would in fact have settled the debate. But people have been trying to do that for some time, with scant success.

In which case you would first have to prove that evolution (a known non-intelligent process) could not bring about the phenomena requiring explanation.

Correct, and proving a negative is always difficult. That's why, in general, I try to steer clear of trying to prove that evolution cannot account for feature X, and instead focus on predictions made exclusively by ID hypotheses. Confirmation of these predictions would yield positive evidence in favor of the hypothesis under consideration.

Hmm. Looks like these shapes of artificial objects would produce an intelligent transit.

Holy cow dude. I guess I have to leave you out on that limb by yourself.

Nothing you've quoted tell us how to detect intelligence. Notice the phrase "assuming these transits are distinguishable from a simple planetary transit".

What is the proposed method for satisfying this assumption?

focus on predictions made exclusively by ID hypotheses.

You're onto something here. Can you list some examples of predictions which must be satisfied if ID is correct, or alternatively results which flow from the hypothesis of ID that would not be true if evolution was correct?

Nothing you've quoted tell us how to detect intelligence.

Sigh. That's not the point of bringing up that paper. Jar specifically asked me to cite papers wherein we would infer design regardless of the fact that (a) we don't know how the object was designed, and (b) we don't have the lab, and (c) we don't have the designer.

Can you list some examples of predictions which must be satisfied if ID is correct, or alternatively results which flow from the hypothesis of ID that would not be true if evolution was correct?

ID is a broad term which includes a number of teleological hypotheses. The ID hypothesis of front-loading makes a number of predictions.

See my article here:
http://thegenomestale.wordpress.com/...ogy-and-front-loading

For the record: I discussed this prediction of the FLH on a thread on this site some months ago.

Correct, and proving a negative is always difficult. That's why, in general, I try to steer clear of trying to prove that evolution cannot account for feature X ...

... OK, so that method's a bust.

That's why, in general, I try to steer clear of trying to prove that evolution cannot account for feature X, and instead focus on predictions made exclusively by ID hypotheses.

But ... if you can't rule out evolution as an explanation for X, then X cannot be a prediction made exclusively by ID hypotheses, since it would also be compatible with evolution. Evolution would also predict that X can happen.

But ... if you can't rule out evolution as an explanation for X, then X cannot be a prediction made exclusively by ID hypotheses, since it would also be compatible with evolution. Evolution would also predict that X can happen.

You're confusing a model's explanation with a model's prediction. There's a difference, ya know. Can you tell me what the difference is?

Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

You're confusing a model's explanation with a model's prediction. There's a difference, ya know. Can you tell me what the difference is?

I can, but giving you so extensive a lesson in the philosophy of science would hardly be germane to my argument.

If evolution can explain something happening, it also predicts that it can happen. If it can happen under an evolutionary hypothesis, then it is not unique to an ID hypothesis.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.