Summations Only

Allow me to elaborate. The modern synthesis might be able to explain some biological feature, while an ID hypothesis would predict that biological feature. If the prediction is confirmed, this is evidence for that ID hypothesis, regardless of whether non-telic evolution can explain it or not. Science is built upon a track record of successful predictions, not on whether some alternative model can explain the feature under consideration.Consider the following example. Evolution predicts that if the bacterial flagellum evolved, a number of its components will share similarity with proteins that are more ancient than the bacterial flagellum. Can the hypothesis that the flagellum was engineered explain this? Yes. Engineers very often re-use parts in different systems. But the ID hypothesis does not predict that the flagellar components will share similarity with more ancient proteins. This is because engineers can also design from scratch. So, while ID can explain this, it does not predict it. Which means that, when it comes to similarity, evolution is the superior explanation (note that the similarity flagellar components share with other proteins is not incompatible with the hypothesis that it was engineered).

See my response to this (I wrote the response before I saw this comment of yours, so read in context).What you just said is just as philosophically sound as saying that "since the hypothesis that the flagellum was engineered can explain the similarity flagellar proteins share with other non-flagellar proteins, this means that the engineering hypothesis predicts that flagellar proteins share will share with other non-flagellar proteins."

But it would be difficult to find such predictions. IDists generally refuse to identify either what the Designer's goals were or what constraints existed on Him attaining them --- besides affirming that he wanted organisms and had the power to produce them.You could refine the hypothesis by supposing that (for example) he wanted giraffes in particular, and had the power to produce those, and then giraffes would be a necessary consequence of the hypothesis, but this would seem a little ad hoc would it not?

Let's focus on one thing at a time Dr Adequate, if you don't mind (not at all trying to evade your point, just trying to prevent us from going 'round and 'round in circles ).Do you agree that if an ID hypothesis necessarily predicts biological feature X, while evolutionary theory only explains it, then confirmation of that prediction is a chunk of data in favor of the ID hypothesis?Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

Well, it would depend on what the theory IDists have yet to produce would actually do. If it was predictive in the same sort of way as evolution, but they differed in the areas in which they were more specific, then the specificity of one in one area would not actually give it the upper hand over the other.Perhaps this discussion should wait until IDists have a hypothesis with any predictive power at all.

Well, that would depend. Take my example of a Designer who is really keen on giraffes. This would predict giraffes, whereas evolution would only explain them. Nonetheless, this isn't really evidence in favor of the hypothesis of a giraffophile Designer.If you could predict giraffes without recourse to adhoccery, then that would be a point in favor of ID, I'll grant you that.

Your example does not work because the method for inferring the design is presented as an assumption. By including a naked assumption that we can tell remotely whether a transit of a star is by an artificial planet, you simply kicked the can done the street. Do you have any idea how we would tell a designed transit from a natural one?

Hello Genomicus But to the best of my knowledge, designers (human ones at least) don't re-use parts in dangerous configurations. Which fool decided that we should have a food pipe and a breathing pipe so connected to allow a choking option. Why do we have monstrosities like the recurrent laryngeal nerve which is an engineering disgrace. And why do cephlapods get a much better deal in the wiring up of their eyes than we do?A human designer will always take the best he has from not only his product lines but other ones - antilock braking systems first appeared on aircraft but didn't stay confined to them!A human designer who put together Earth's ecosystem would easily lose his licence for engineering stupidity. I fail to see how the Earth's ecosystem provides a support for ID in any way.

Well, such a hypothesis of a designer (why on earth do you capitalize designer?) who is keen on giraffe's would have been inspired by the existence of giraffes, so you couldn't predict the existence of giraffes precisely because they already exist. Now, if we were living on Mars, instead of on Earth, and using teleology (I don't know how this would work) we predicted that giraffe-like animals would be found on earth, and we found that this was indeed the case, it would be evidence for the telic hypothesis.

I'm a proponent of the ID hypothesis of front-loading, wherein eukaryotes, Metazoa, plants, and other "higher" taxa were front-loaded from genomes that were engineered and delivered to earth via directed panspermia. So I don't think humans were specifically engineered.The bacterial flagellum is a different case because (a) it is found in basal bacterial lineages, which means it could have been present in the LUCA, and therefore directly engineered, and (b) I don't think you're going to find the molecular equivalent of the backward wiring of the eye in the core flagellar structure.

The paper describes a method whereby we could identify the shape of an orbiting body by its lightcurve signature. So, if we find that an orbiting body has an exotic shape (something not likely produced by gravity), we could reliably infer design - unless the author of this paper and many other scientists are wrong about inferring design.

We do not need the physical and specific lab. I already said that above.But we do need to be able to describe (even if we cannot currently duplicate) the way that the signal could be generated.The generic idea of "Intelligent Design" is not new. Almost every culture has some myths about how humans and the other animals were created by some other entity.The modern "Intelligent Design" though is just another attempt by the Creationists to get around the laws in the US.It is presenting the desired conclusion and then looking for evidence that supports the desired conclusion and excluding all evidence that refutes the desired conclusion.Let's look at design as we see it in human societies.As I pointed out back over a half decade ago in Message 8 of the thread INTELLIGENT DESIGN: An Engineer’s Approach, when we look at life from an engineering perspective there is no Intellegent Design.

quote:

---

Consider cars. There are many species or kinds of cars, Packard, Ford, Chevy, Mercedes, Humber, DKW, AutoUnion, Alfa Romeo, Citroen just as there are many kinds of mammals, lions, tigers, bears, man, orangutan, elephant, horse and of course, ohmys.

​

The difference between something designed, like cars, and those things that are not designed like mammals though can be seen in the difference in how good ideas do not propagate through out the living species or kinds.

​

In the early 1920s power windshield wipers appeared on the first car. Within only a few years they were found on every car.

​

In 1923 the first standard equipment radio appeared. Within only a few years they were found on every car.

​

In 1939, Buick introduced turn signals. Within only a few years they were found on every car.

​

The list is almost endless.

​

• electric wipers instead of vacuum.
• internal combustion engines.
• radial tires.
• heaters.
• air conditioning.
• roll down windows.
• headlights.
• mirrors.
• steering wheels.
• tops.
• spare tires.
• space saver spares.
• starters.
• the change from generator to alternator.

​

I could go on but that list should give you an idea.

​

In each instance this was a new feature that first appeared in only one make, sometimes only one model of a car. The designer though took good ideas from one model and applied those same ideas to EVERY model.

​

We do not see that when we look at examples of living critters. The humans brain is not then repeated in all mammals, the eagles eyes are not then repeated in all animals, good features, advances do not get incorporated across all the makes and models, species or kind, of mammals.

​

Looking at living critters what we find is NOT Intelligent Design.

---

When this subject comes up we often get responses such as "What if SETI gets a signal that includes the first 500 Prime Numbers"; but the reality is that SETI has not received any such signal.If and when the ID proponents produce some evidence comparable to such a signal, then, and only then, should other groups bother to try and research, duplicate and confirm the findings.There is more though.One thing mentioned in this thread was "front loaded genomes".That wasn't really explained and no evidence was presented that "front loaded genomes" exist, but it really doesn't much matter.Even if there was a designer, other than as a historical footnote or for product liability would it matter. See Even if there was a Designer, does it matter? for a detailed discussion.For life as we find it today we have a pretty good handle on how evolution works; we have the model. It's nice to know who first designed tail fins or who first designed the bikini, but only as a bit of trivia.It would be nice to know who the designer was if we could initiate product liability suits. Looking at life today that alone could keep an infinite number of lawyers occupied and out of the way.But so far all that has come out of the ID marketers has been incredulity and down right silly assertions such as "complexity is a sign of design" when every designer knows that simplicity is a better indicator of design.Now if the ID marketers were willing to change the name to Inept Design, Incomprehensible Design, Incompetent Design, Inexpert Design or Inefficient Design then I think they would have a very high probability of success.

And you have as much evidence for this as there is for biblical creation, correct?

Yes, and you also said: So, we need evidence of the lab, no?You also said: So, yourself said that SETI would have to have the lab, or at least the location of the lab that generated this hypothetical signal.Next, you said: And now you're saying we need a way how the signal could have been generated, and not how it was generated. There is a difference ya know. One has to do with possibility of how it was generated, the other has to do with the historical fact of how it actually was generated. So which one do we have to know to infer design? Specifically, why are you saying something that is contrary to what you said before?

Hello Coyote,You will note that I do not at all agree with teaching ID in schools, precisely because it is not a rigorously developed hypothesis - not yet.Further, ID doesn't imply that the supernatural even exists.