• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Intelligent Design

One question that I find interesting is - suppose the biology of this planet were designed - for example engineered by some alien race - rather than having arisen through an unguided natural process - how would we tell?

Is there a generic test for intelligent origins? My feeling is that there would be no reliable test. We can tell human artifacts with a high degree of accuracy but that is probably because of our pattern matching skills. Where there is no pattern these abilities would be useless.

Irreducible complexity is no use because it has been demonstrated that unguided algorithms can produce irreducible complexity for example through change of function.

Dembski's complex specified information is unsatisfactory for a number of reasons and even his proposed 'Law of Conservation of Information' allows for small increases in complexity in line with mainstream neo-Darwinism.
 
Robin said:

The concept of materialism is meaningless.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The question is, is what exists non-sentient and gives rise to sentience, or is sentience all there is?



Irreducible complexity is no use because it has been demonstrated that unguided algorithms can produce irreducible complexity for example through change of function.
Click to expand...
What do you have in mind that exhibits such irreducible complexity?

Might I mention that so far life has proven to be complexly irreducible? ;)
 
Robin said:
One question that I find interesting is - suppose the biology of this planet were designed - for example engineered by some alien race - rather than having arisen through an unguided natural process - how would we tell?
Click to expand...
Robin,

Who designed the aliens?
 
Darat: Learn that in the 5th grade, or 6th?

Glad to see you right on the ball, moderating away to the best of your abilities. :)
 
It's a definition of energy that is often used.

"What is energy?" is a meaningless question unless some context is provided.
 
hammegk said:
Darat: Learn that in the 5th grade, or 6th?
Click to expand...
Hey, cool! You're patronising Darat for being able to answer a question that you found it necessary to ask. Do you realise that your perpetual assumption of your own superiority is fooling no-one? Except possibly yourself.
 
Dr Adequate said:
Hey, cool! You're patronising Darat ....
Click to expand...

Same as for many areas of your life, here's another ... little do you know.... ;)


As to "What is energy?" requiring context, pick any context you'd care to, answer it, and then we can discuss blind evolution vs. intelligent design. I'd probably settle for 'strong anthropmorphic principle' as a rational answer and better than most.

I don't even have to worry about abiogenesis with that one. Of course evolutionists don't worry about it either; they just ignore it.
 
I suppose these sort of oblique, incomprehensibile non-statements are a learned defence mechanism to protect his ideas from scrutiny (see also Iacchus, lifegazer). Unfortunately, it also protects his "ideas" from having meaning, content, or relevance to the real world.
 
Dr Adequate said:
I suppose these sort of oblique, incomprehensibile non-statements are a learned defence mechanism to protect his ideas from scrutiny (see also Iacchus, lifegazer). Unfortunately, it also protects his "ideas" from having meaning, content, or relevance to the real world.
Click to expand...

Er, yeah, like this one ???

I don't even have to worry about abiogenesis with that one. Of course evolutionists don't worry about it either; they just ignore it.
Click to expand...
 
hammegk
Of course evolutionists don't worry about it either; they just ignore it.
Click to expand...

Just as people studying gravity do not worry about how gravity was created.

Darat quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by hammegk
What is energy?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A measure of the ability to do work.

hammegk:

Learn that in the 5th grade, or 6th?

Glad to see you right on the ball, moderating away to the best of your abilities.
Click to expand...
Actually Darat is on the ball. It does not matter when he learned it, he is right. Energy is a measure of the ability to do work.

Physics, like all science, is descriptive but hammegk and Interesting Ian appear to be suggesting that it is prescriptive.
 
Robin said:
Just as people studying gravity do not worry about how gravity was created.
Click to expand...
You disregard one of the current holy grails of physics? Of course, you are right in that science is still trying to explain it. Seen any gravitons lately, or scalar fields named Higgs?


Actually Darat is on the ball. It does not matter when he learned it, he is right. Energy is a measure of the ability to do work.
Click to expand...
Kewl. What is the "ability to do work"? BTW, I predict you will tire of this silliness before I do.


Physics, like all science, is descriptive but hammegk and Interesting Ian appear to be suggesting that it is prescriptive.
Click to expand...
Not sure how you are using 'prescriptive', but if it involves future predictions, it is prescriptive (or it's descriptive butterfly collecting).
 
hammegk said:
You disregard one of the current holy grails of physics? Of course, you are right in that science is still trying to explain it. Seen any gravitons lately, or scalar fields named Higgs?
Click to expand...

I have not heard that there is anybody with a theory about how gravitons came into being but then I am not in the field - I would be interested in hearing about it.

But you must surely admit that you can study a lot about gravity without having any opinion on how gravity came into being. It is perfectly reasonable for people to study evolution without having a theory of abiogenesis.

Kewl. What is the "ability to do work"? BTW, I predict you will tire of this silliness before I do.
Click to expand...

Oh unquestionably you could go on playing the "but what is" game to an infinite degree. But it would simply be a way of avoiding the point I made. It is not a "thing" but a measure of an observation. That is the best we can do - we can observe, measure and makes theories about how things work.

So when you say that scientists 'reduce' things to the physical, they do not try to make things fit in categories - they simply say that something can be described.

Not sure how you are using 'prescriptive', but if it involves future predictions, it is prescriptive (or it's descriptive butterfly collecting).
Click to expand...

Predictive does not mean prescriptive.

I am just using the commonly known definition that can be found in a dictionary.

If I describe something I do not try to change it, I merely say what is. If I prescribe then I am trying to change something or make it the way I want it to be.

If a scientist makes a prediction then he/she learns as much from a failure of the prediction as from a success.

I suspect that you are not even trying to understand what I am saying but here is a question - do you know of any real thing that cannot be studied by science?
 
Of course the philosophical stuff is totally irrelevant to the Intelligent Design topic. When Behe and Dembski say 'irreducible complexity' they are not using 'reduce' in its philosophical sense as in 'reductionism', they are using it's common meaning - ie that you cannot reduce the number of components in a particular system without significant loss of function.

So for the purposes of this debate the leading proponents of ID are materialists and would probably identify themselves as such, even though they believe in God.

There is a kind of back and forth argument between Dembski and Orr (there is no single URL to this so you have to do a search on the main terms). It starts with Dembski's "No Free Lunch" book and the review of it by Orr (quoted by Paul above). Dembski responds to this review and Orr responds to the response, and so on.

Basically Dembski winds up agreeing that there are possible Darwinian paths to irreducibly complex systems but contends that they are too improbable a solution.

So both sides have agreed on the definition of irreducible complexity and both sides have agreed that IC can be produced by natural selection.

So the argument comes down to improbability. Now suppose for the sake of argument that Dembski was right and there existed an entity that could not be reasonably accounted for by natural selection.

Any alternative would only have explanatory power if it could explain or reduce that improbability.

But a designer is by definition at least as complex as the designed system - so any designer is at least as improbable as the aggregate improbability of the system in question (or as BillHoyt has already noted "who designed the aliens?").

So Intelligent Design has no explanatory power and should be discarded as a hypothesis at least until there is some independent evidence for such a being.

All Dembski and Behe have really done is to identify improbability and move it to the borders of the system and give it a name.

Natural selection still remains the best hypothesis, even for entities that it has not yet explained.
 
Robin said:
Physics, like all science, is descriptive but hammegk and Interesting Ian appear to be suggesting that it is prescriptive. [/B]
Click to expand...

Could you be so good as to point out where the hell I remotely suggested this??

I am really pig sick of the lies and idiocies spouted forth by the complete cretins on this board.

Seriously.

Robin, Be so good as not to lie about what I believe and maintain I believe precisely the opposite of what I actually believe; otherwise I'm going to be seriously pis*ed off.

Now do I make myself abundantly clear??
 
Robin said:

Predictive does not mean prescriptive.

I am just using the commonly known definition that can be found in a dictionary.
Click to expand...

pre·scrip·tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-skrptv)
adj.
1.Sanctioned or authorized by long-standing custom or usage.
2.Making or giving injunctions, directions, laws, or rules.
3.Law. Acquired by or based on uninterrupted possession.
4.Linguistics. Based on or establishing norms or rules indicating how a language should or should not be used rather than describing the ways in which a language is used.
Click to expand...

As I said, I had no idea what you meant, and I still don't.


I will also admit I have minimal interest in ID per-se and will herewith stop hijacking this thread.


Move along .... nothing to see, here ..... :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom