On "Non-Supernatural Intelligent Design": Viable Epistemology/Probative Science Tool?

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Mr. G, Aug 18, 2002.

  1. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    I know, and now everybody else who reads this thread knows... All of which, as everyone observed...

    Uh, John... Not one single person has supported anything you've ever said here, so far. In fact, various members have taken the time to show non-support of your extraordinary claims. In other words, you've been entirely on your own.

    *John romanticizes - "It's lonely at the top."*
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,109
    John MacNeil:

    This thread was begun for the specific purpose of further investigating Warren's claim in another thread of non-supernatural intelligent design of the universe. I created this thread to distance the discussion from supernatural design irrationalities. Thereafter, Warren never offered to suggest nor explain, in any terms--particularly rational terms--any possible agents of non-supernatural intelligent design of the universe. In fact, no one has. The thread's purpose therefore is fulfilled: not only is no one aware of any evidence to support non-supernatural intelligent design of the universe, no one even knows how to characterize possible agents behind NSID.

    Then you spoke up with your more limited-in-scope alien intervention/alien ark hypothesis (for which you have absolutely no incontrovertible evidence that aliens brought humans to this planet, nor even that aliens actually exist) and used it to announce the death of Darwinian Evolution Theory that most everyone else in Science considers being alive and doing quite well, based on actual evidence. Then you added your hypothesis that Halton Arp & his anamolous redshifts has killed the Standard Cosmological Model Theory that most everyone else in Science considers alive and doing quite well, based on actual evidence. Then you moved on to the SMC is just another religion operating in support of just another self-serving creation myth even though it is derived from the very same physics and mathematics in which you claim to believe. And then you claim that only Einstein is capable of determining the truth of the origin and workings of the universe because nobody else has finished Einstein's earlier version of the currently non-existant unified field theory which modern Science is working toward under the such names as the Grand Unified Theory with more physics, math and resources than was available to Einstein.

    Invisible, non-existant, or impossibly isolated aliens haven't killed Evolution. Arp hasn't killed the Big Bang. Science is not a religion, scientists aren't automatically "supernatural creation"-ists, and the SMC is not another super-natural creation myth. Einstein, though inarguably a great thinker, isn't the only great thinker the planet has known or will know. Einstein's unified field theory is incomplete and thus not field-unified except in theory.

    And everyone but you is an immature, foolish child for not seeing things your way.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    This thread continues to have utilitarian purpose, though the original purpose so far has been satisfied. Thus your opining that this thread is due an overdue, merciful death are premature but characteristic.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. chroot Crackpot killer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,350
    I think it's pretty funny how you guys (John and Mr. G) fluff your intellectual feathers and try to outdo each other with increasingly terse sentence structures. Mr. G, you're a smart guy, why waste your time? John, why aren't you out scanning the skies for flying saucers with your whiz-bang buddies?

    - Warren
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,109
    To get the thread to 2000 views.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    To find John's embarassment threshold.
    Argument's sake.
    Writing practice.
    Beats housework.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. John MacNeil Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    345
    Mr.G., you know very well that all of science doesn't agree with your creationist view, as I've presented many example of scientists, including Nobel Laureates, who think that the Ultimate Creation Theory is so much hogwash. If you persist in denying reality, you should at least be gracious enough to refer to the proponents of your view as the supporters of "corporate/science", a group with a particular interest in "going along to get along".

    And why do you think the person who you set this thread up to ambush hasn't stepped into the ambush? If it wasn't an ambush, then why didn't you offer your own lucid commentary to present your view?

    And why are you so afraid of discussing the evidence that I have presented, which you so plaintively called for? And why won't you defend the theories you profess to believe and which I have given evidence against? There can only be one reason. You can't, and you know it. You can wail on and on about how the thread has fulfilled it's purpose, for you, but you can't hide the fact that you haven't presented one post in the whole thread that defended your creationist view or which scientifically refuted the evidence that I have presented. So what are your posts about? Obviously, ...obfuscation. And why? Equally obviously ...you can't engage in the discussion because you know your stated position is not defensible. Otherwise, you would be jumping into the debate to prove me wrong and prove you right.

    The Grand Unified Theory that you say physicists are working on can be discussed later in this thread, as well, and it can be shown to be so much heretical nonsense, as is your Ultimate Creation Theory. Where we differ in our outlook is that I have a definitive understanding of my view and you can only have a foggy understanding of your stated view. My view is all based on physics and your view is based on a creationist concept which the proponents of try to use some theoretical physics to justify some aspects of, with the caveat emptor that your theory is malleable. The Unified Field Theory that Einstein proposed is based on his famous theories, and your creationist view is based on wishy-washy fantasy.
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2002
  9. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    John exclaims:

    My view is all based on physics

    There are high school students on this forum with a better understanding of physics than yourself. You've made that quite evident time and again. But of course, you can redeem yourself by simply visiting the following thread and engaging JamesR's so-called relativity errors. Please RSVP, ASAP. Don't delay.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=10436
     
  10. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,109
    John MacNeil:
    I'm an atheist. I have no creationist's views.
    Why is it you folks always give to theories you find disagreable decidedly derisive alternative names, and then give to your own pet theories decidedly impressive, scientific-sounding names? What's that all about?
    I'm just denying your reality, not mine nor the reality of others with whom I agree--same as you.
    You're having trouble getting people to discuss your evidence, and we're having trouble getting from you evidence that speaks to us on its own. All we're hearing is you. The evidence's deafening silence makes refutation unnecessarily redundant.
    Of course.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,109
    So, much can be said about intelligent design, but none of it is informatively conclusive.

    Which leaves us free to speculate about equally--even more--likely alternatives.

    I'd dare say unintelligence rules, but then we'd have to entertain unconvincing intelligent design issues all over again. The Universe being unable to reason is quite different from reasoning gone amiss.

    --Signing off.
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2002
  12. John MacNeil Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    345
    You were signed off from the first page of this thread, Mr.G. If you refuse to entertain the evidence, while dercying the lack of evidence, then the question must be asked, What are you doing in a science based thread? The kind of responses that you and some others have supplied in this thread were decidedly non-discussable and would be more appropriate for a Chat! room than a discussion forum.
     
  13. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    John

    The kind of responses that you and some others have supplied in this thread were decidedly non-discussable...

    That is because the kind of responses you yourself have supplied in this thread, and others, were decidedly non-sense...

    ...and would be more appropriate for a Chat! room than a discussion forum.

    ...and would be more appropriate in Pseudoscience.
     
  14. Warren Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    54
    Mr.G>>This thread was begun for the specific purpose of further investigating Warren's claim in another thread of non-supernatural intelligent design of the universe. I created this thread to distance the discussion from supernatural design irrationalities. Thereafter, Warren never offered to suggest nor explain, in any terms--particularly rational terms--any possible agents of non-supernatural intelligent design of the universe. In fact, no one has. The thread's purpose therefore is fulfilled: not only is no one aware of any evidence to support non-supernatural intelligent design of the universe, no one even knows how to characterize possible agents behind NSID. <<

    In the previous thread I presented the case for intelligent design as an alternative to the blind watchmaker hypothesis as it relates to the origin of biological complexity here on earth. I never claimed to have an explanation for the non-supernatural intelligent design of the universe. Also, Mr. G seemed incapable of processing any evidence I supplied for ID in the biological realm, given his approach is enslaved to a designer-centric demand. I suppose he wants me to travel back in time and videotape the designers at work.

    Keep in mind that biology does not attempt to answer the questions: "did X evolve" or "was X designed", it simply ignores them. Since biology cannot process these questions unless we capture the designer, biology cannot offer any meaningful judgment or opinion on these questions.

    Mr. G, why don't you present the evidence you see that indicates the Earth did in fact spawn Life. Tell us the real evidence you see that indicates the flagellum (or any other molecular machine) was strung together by random mutations and natural selection.

    I have found that ID speculations do indeed generate testable hypotheses and in some cases, have allowed me to correctly infer things about biology. As for your interest in the “actual evidence,” I’m afraid you’d always be disappointed since you seem to require a specific form of evidence - evidence of the designers and their methods, the very things we have no reason to expect from the truth of life’s design.

    I seem to recall that Mr.G was under the impression that I was arguing for ETI as the designers. Others think I am arguing for God. Yet my interest is in exploring the biotic world for traces of intelligent design. Now, there are various features of life that lead me to tentatively infer some form of intelligent causation (direct or indirect). Yet there is nothing about these features which allows me to distinguish between a supernatural intelligence or a natural intelligence. Thus, since the data cannot distinguish between the two, any attempt on my part to “identify” the designer would have to be completely extrinsic to the analysis.

    Were the designers a form of ETI? My answer is simply “Who knows?” An explanation does not have to be exhaustive and metaphysically complete to be a working explanation. In fact, the notion that any valid explanation would be able to satisfactorily answer all questions relevant to it is merely a function of human psychology. There are some things human beings may never be able to answer, in principle, or for pragmatic reasons.

    Like I said, my approach is not designer-centric. I realize people like Mr.G probably think I am employing some type of trick (i.e., not wanting to “identify” the designer for political reasons), but my restraint and agnosticism on this question seem only logical.

    Does anyone wonder why it is that non-teleologists are so blinded to the possibility of ID? This is why they need some “extraordinary evidence,“ proof, or actual contact with the designers to fall into their laps instead of thinking about how one might go about investigating things to strengthen or weaken an ID hypothesis.

    They have dared ID supporters to find something that evolution could not possibly explain, thus they adopt the easy position of having merely to defend the possible. Keep in mind also that if one is to employ Mr. G's designer-centric approach, this is also a handy way of labeling all ID arguments as “arguments from ignorance” (even though it is not ignorance which leads one to infer an intelligent origin from a sophisticated machine). This is because such an approach requires independent confirmation of the designer and without this, an unknown law or lost evidence for the non-teleological explanation will always be preferred. Any ontological gap will be perceived as merely an epistemological gap.

    Look, Mr.G is surely free to continue looking at the world through non-teleological filters. But he errs in thinking that the teleological approach can't generate testable hypotheses and help us better understand biotic reality.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2002
  15. m0rl0ck Consume! Conform! Obey! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    415
    Warren:

    Great post.
    What do you think of this:

    http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11774


    It seems to me that an ID debate is related to the existence and importance of conciousness in the universe and I would be really interested in your opinions.
     
  16. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,109
    A mis-statement on my part. It's been a long conversation, and revisiting the other thread and the beginning of this one has become increasingly unnecessary continuity-wise.
    You are proposing that biological complexity is extant evidence of intelligent design. My 'demand' for extant corroborating evidence of intelligent designers is not unreasonable--additional evidence that can only increase the confidence level of the ID hypothesis. Without evidence of non-supernatural, intelligent designers, biologic complexity from design remains indistinguishable from biological complexity from naturally-occuring serendipity.
    That would be a rather senseless expectation on my part, time travel-wise. However, proof of designers at work could be had without time travel were we to find in a flagellum's genetic coding "a small but periodic nucleotide sequence that to the discerning eye would shout out, "Made on Tau Ceti 4 by @.4>2.4345, Inc." That kind of evidence would not be explainable with equal likelihood by naturally-occuring serendipity.
    Since we have an abundance of direct and extant evidence of natural occurence(s) in Nature but none unambiguous for intelligent designers (other than for ourselves and certain others in the animal kingdom), Occam's razor recommends favoring natural serendipity over intelligent design pending further evidence of design--like high-confidence evidence of designers.
    Such as?
    The Truth which is Life is obvious, it's me and it's you. The truth of Life's design is as hypothetical as is proof of intelligent design.
    'Intelligent design'-like traces, perhaps. At risk of sounding unnecessarily repetitive, biological complexity can be only indirect "evidence of ID" without something akin to "a small but periodic nucleotide sequence that to the discerning eye would shout out, "Made on Tau Ceti 4 by @.4>2.4345, Inc."
    Precisely why "a small but periodic nucleotide sequence that to the discerning eye would shout out, "Made on Tau Ceti 4 by @.4>2.4345, Inc." arising from your analysis would be most desireable.
    Maybe non-teleologists do it for a purpose: to know the means precludes personal bias in estimating the purpose sans the evidence.
    Um, a "small but periodic nucleotide sequence that...." Oh, never mind.
    The skeptic is not obligated to find the proof of a claim for the claimant. The skeptic has only to independently evaluate the proof the claimant offers. If that can be regarded as 'defending the possible', so be it. It is an easier position to take because it does not carry the burden of proving the claim. That burden always belongs to the claimant--the harder position, no doubt.
    Are not shameful, just awaiting educating factors.
    Can you offer here the sourced results of lab-/field-tested testable ID hypotheses for skeptical evaluation?

    ref: Argument from design.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2002
  17. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,109
    m0rl0ck:
    If you're destined only to cheerlead from the sidelines, don't you owe The Players respectfully gratuitous augmented breasts and shaved legs?
     
  18. John MacNeil Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    345
    Mr.G., when you acknowledge that we, that is the present society of human on this planet, are possible evidence of intelligent designers, then you acknowledge the single species that has had more effect on this planet, in the brief 30,000 year of our social development, than any other individual species in the last 500,000,000 year. Therefore we should be construed as the main, most abundant, and most obvious, evidence against Darwinian Evolutionary Theory, which leaves open the probability that there are other possible alternatives to our residence on this planet, and we would be remiss, as a science based society, if we didn't pursue such possible lines of thought.

    The Human Genome Project is discovering knowledge about DNA that is proof that individual human species are biologically different from other human species. Most human genes are virtually identical, but there are some, loci clusters that prove genes for race are different, that tell us that black people couldn't have changed into white people, as the evolutionary emigration out of Africa theory would have us believe. This has recently been reported on here;

    www.iht.com/articles/67698.htm

    Neil Risch, geneticist, who is a Professor at Stanford University, presented his findings here;

    http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007

    Since we now know that humans are genetically similar in many aspects, but are genetically different in the most important aspect, we must revise our view of human evolvement on this planet.

    Mr. Risch states,-- "Effectively, these population genetic studies have recapitulated the classical definition of races based on continental ancestry - namely African, Caucasian (Europe and Middle East), Asian, Pacific Islander (for example, Australian, New Guinean and Melanesian), and Native American."--N.R. This study, supported by scientific evidence, dispels the belief in a common ancester out of a single continent. The emigration out of Africa theory, which, strangely, considering the work Mr. Risch has done, is still supported by Mr. Risch in that same article. But the emigration theory does not stand up to scientific scrutiny. For the emigration out of Africa theory to be valid, and Darwinian Theory depends on it, the black people of Africa would have had to go north and get lighter and turn into white people and the white people would have had to go west and get darker again and turn into red people. All in the span of 30,000 year, which is the oldest evidence of our kind of human. To create an artificial timeline, to connect us to Neanderthals or Skhul V, is not scientific and avoids an objective analysis of the known evidence.

    The efforts of corporate/science to support the Darwinian Theory of Evolution make preposterous claims, such as this;

    -- "Hispanics, who represent a recently admixed group between Native American, Caucasian and African, did not form a distinct subgroup, but clustered variously with the other groups." --Neil Risch

    So what world renowned geneticists are telling us, and expecting us to believe, is that black people moved out of Africa and turned white, then the white ones emigrated to the Americas and turned red, and then they all three converged on southern Europe and mixed to turn into Hispanic. And each time they did one of these emigrations they developed a totally new gene that no other race, human or otherwise, had ever had before.

    Since every different race, several thousand of them, on the planet has different loci clusters of gene that determine race, then the race gene for humans must be the most prolific natural selective gene in nature, since all our evidence shows that natural selection takes tens of million of year to change all other species we've studied. Our scientists, who study genetics, tell us that human genes must change from one biologic form into an entirely different biologic form from one generation to the next. Such accelerated race change is, obviously, impossible. So where is the discrepancy? Is the observable and recorded science data that the Human Genome Project produces ficticious? Or is the Darwinian Theory of Evolution of corporate/science ficticious?
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2002
  19. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,109
    In the interpretation of the data--based on peoples' individual abilities to assimilate and synthesize.
     
  20. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,109
  21. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,109
    Fate, predetermination, and destiny are the province of designer druggies.
     
  22. le coq Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    75
    Warren:
    Incorrect. Biology is extremely involved with understanding the process of evolution and the origin of species. It has consistently resisted ID, which is a form of the age-old philosophy that tends to plague the natural sciences from time to time known as "vitalism", claiming that there is a "life force" that causes life to be; rather, biology seeks to explain life from chemical and physical foundations, that every "property" and phenomenon in organisms can be seen as emergent properties from the synthesis of more fundamental components. There is no need to ponder a designer because there is no evidence for one, or even an observation that would lead to theory of one. The various monologues by certain biochemists claiming basis for ID because of "irreducible complexity" of certain organic molecules have been thoroughly critiqued and dismissed by the scientific community at large.

    Warren:
    And hence your lack of scientific thought: to look for evidence to prove a theory, without actually constructing a testable hypothesis (why? where? when? how? who?) or an experiment first. A real scientist, if he were trying to prove ID, would construct a set of parameters to find evidence within. All falsifying evidence in this range would have to be factored in. Picking and choosing various aspects of phenomena to support a theory is not science. Ignoring Occam's Razor and the evidence to the contrary, this exploration is merely a fantasy novel lived large- to make life more interesting by putting elves in it because the complexity of the real world (which has beauty and wonder still beyond our comprehension) requires difficult thinking and synthesis.

    So, when you write:
    You progress from "tentatively inferring" to accepting it as probable and in the same turn add that it may not be provable. Then why waste time (in a science forum at least) talking about it? In science a theory that has been supported by at least one good experiment or observation is a workable explanation (to lead to the next hypothesis or experiment). There are many things in science that are not exhaustively proved. There just isn't enough proof to support even a working explanation in the case of ID.

    Mr. G:
    Or as Eric Hoffer called them, "true believers."

    Le Coq
     
  23. chroot Crackpot killer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,350
    There are two Warrens on this board. One will have to die. :squint:

    - Warren
     

Share This Page