08-13-12, 09:32 AM #201
08-13-12, 09:45 AM #202
You should try just responding to what is actually written. It may be a challenge, but it's rewarding iin that the discussion.
can truly proggress instead of stagnating.
08-13-12, 10:12 AM #203
08-13-12, 10:27 AM #204
08-13-12, 11:16 AM #205
Originally Posted by DiscoveryInstitute
It seems to me that natural shapes often contain more raw information than intelligently-designed artifacts. For example, imagine a rough surface compared to a polished machined surface. The rough surface has a slightly different contour at each point. Oftentimes natural shapes resemble mathematical fractals. It's possible to imagine information such as computer files being encoded in the kind of seemingly random irregularities that one finds on natural surfaces.
Crafted objects are often dramatically simplified objects, objects transformed to conform to simple geometrical shapes. Of course, relatively simple physical processes can oftentimes perform these kind of simplifications without there being any underlying purpose or intention.
Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI.
Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information.
One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function.
It looks to me like "CSI" is dropping out of the picture in place of "irreducible complexity", which in turn drops out in favor of something very similar to Paley's old 18'th century "watchmaker" design-argument. This revolves around the idea of functional form, and it introduces the as-yet unsupported assertion that functional forms can only arise through design.
Of course, that's something very much like the thesis that "ID" was trying to "scientifically" demonstrate in the first place. So some circularity seems to be creeping into the argument.
When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.
The whole "ID" argument looks to me like an analogy. Some of the functional forms that we encounter in life are human artifacts like watches, others aren't human artifacts at all, like dogs.
So the design-argument simply chooses to treat all examples of functional form in nature as analogous to human artifacts like watches. Watches are known to be purposeful artifacts created by human beings. So the design-argument analogy insists that dogs must also be purposeful artifacts created by... what? Something hidden and occult, that doesn't appear in our natural experience. And something very powerful, that can do essentially anything. How this occult designer performs its work is left unexplained, it's just... miraculous. As to what the designer is, that's left unexplained too. But obviously the implication is intended to be that it's the "God" figure of whatever religion that the "ID" proponent happens to adhere to.
The thing is, this design-argument is only going to be as persuasive as its underlying analogy. In the 18'th century and prior, that was very persuasive indeed. Even religious free-thinkers couldn't imagine any way that functional form could appear in nature, except as the product of design. That's the 'deist' idea, which is skeptical of the purported revelations of particular religions, but which still accepts that there must be some unknown creator necessary to account for the observed functional forms in nature.
That's why the mid-19'th century idea of natural selection was so devastating to the traditional design argument. It became possible to imagine that history itself might be a giant process of trial-and-error, gradually generating more complex forms with increasingly elaborate functionality. And that made the fundamental design-argument analogy seem far less obvious and far less persuasive, since it provided thinkers with a credible account of how functional form might have appeared in a way other than by intelligent design.
08-13-12, 11:28 AM #206
Garbage in - Garbage out, as they say.
Your conclusion is reasonable, given your definition, but alas the definition is poor.
Fundamentally it misses the need for a scientific theory to be falsifiable. Not merely testable, but falsifiable. There is a significant difference.
ID is not falsifiable.
The conclusion "such structures were designed" is not provable... it is merely a question-begging conclusion - and one among a number of possibilities. And it is unfalsifiable. To show that it can be falsified they need to show that it is not possible for "irreducible complexity" to have arrived any other way.
If they can not show that it is not possible, it can not be falsified (- the falsifiability would be in showing that it is possible).
And the question of "intelligence" is likewise unfalsifiable.
As such ID should not be considered a scientific theory, although it might well employ some of the aspects of the scientific method. But only following some of the aspects does not mean that you can use the label "scientific theory".
Last edited by Sarkus; 08-13-12 at 01:30 PM.
08-13-12, 11:44 AM #207
You'll notice Jan evades questions and challenges on specific items. I think it's pretty clear at this point he hasn't actually read the material he's defending. At what point do the mods step in and hold him to the same standards that they hold, say, RedStar to?
08-13-12, 12:30 PM #208
08-13-12, 01:11 PM #209
08-13-12, 09:33 PM #210
08-13-12, 11:18 PM #211
08-14-12, 12:08 AM #212
It would be ignorant to assume that Darwins ideas are the last in determining how we came to be. Don't you think?
So you needn't be curious about me,
But rather you should ask yourself why information regarding his ideas are so vehemently suppressed
and more importantly, why you yourself cannot accept anything that challenges them.
So, how do you come to believe that everything evolved from one cell, to the diversity we see today.
That's the question I want you to focus on, not actual evolution, which I think everybody on the planet accepts. Okay?
Why would Darwin ask such a question? He was already aware of small changes over time first hand, as were breeders all over the world, from time immemorial.
Who said I ''rely on someone else's explanation''?
Have you actually read that book?
If you have you'll realise it is full of data found by proffesional, and full-blown rejections and suppressions of the results that data, because it contradicts darwinism.
If the authors do make their own comments, it is only on the basis of what they unearthed, and the attitudes, and quotes of the establishment, whose jobs seem to be gate keepers for the idea.
My questions to you is: why do you reject something you haven't read or investigated? And so what if Darwin's ideas are off-base?
Why the need to convince oneself? If he is wrong, or mistaken, then so be it?
Last edited by Aqueous Id; 08-14-12 at 08:47 PM.
08-14-12, 01:33 AM #213
Everything accept goo to man.
So, you don't accept "everything except goo to man".
In fact, at this point I'd conclude that you don't know what you accept because you don't understand the basics of evolution.
Your making all kinds of assumptions and inferences, so much that I cannot keep up with you.
Deal with the things I have written, and take it from there.
Instead of posting arguments or evidence, you post one-line obscure rejoinders to points and questions put to you.
Nevertheless, for a skilled reader such as myself, reasonable inferences can be drawn from your unwillingness and/or lack of ability to engage on specific points.
I can see haw an incomplete mouse-trap used as a tie-clip, or a door-stop, can evolve into a complet mouse-trap, thereby rendering it
NOT irreducibly complex.
08-14-12, 02:02 PM #214
08-14-12, 03:31 PM #215
08-14-12, 03:51 PM #216
08-14-12, 05:17 PM #217
08-14-12, 05:30 PM #218
08-14-12, 07:45 PM #219
I invoke still more magic, and I have the collectible cards to prove my case.
08-14-12, 07:48 PM #220
By pjdude1219 in forum About the MembersLast Post: 03-25-11, 12:48 PMReplies: 153
By coberst in forum Human ScienceLast Post: 02-17-07, 04:12 AMReplies: 0
By MetaKron in forum SF Open GovernmentLast Post: 01-05-07, 08:11 PMReplies: 37
By lightgigantic in forum Religion ArchivesLast Post: 09-08-06, 08:22 AMReplies: 49
By Origen in forum Religion ArchivesLast Post: 03-13-03, 06:07 AMReplies: 44