A simple case for intelligent design

[Polymath257]

I'm trying to conceive of the depth of your intellectual smugness, when you post snobbish things like "Easy. If there were something outside of the observable universe and close to it, that would affect the dynamics of what we see. This is part of how we know that the observable universe is only a small part of the larger whole."

Um--why do you think dark matter/dark energy are conjectured? To try to account for forces not measurable that are inductively observed by effect (like gravity). How can you be this closed minded? Why are you so closed minded?

Dark matter and dark energy are part of the universe, so your objection is irrelevant. They are even part of the 'observable universe'.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I apologize for leaving the OP with my notes.

ID is science, and offers alternative hypotheses for yet-unsolved mysteries. For example, scientists spend millions on SETI, affirming that aliens both exist and are intelligent enough to decode SETI messaging.

We are on the verge of vast changes to species via genetic engineering. Do you believe it is impossible for aliens to have made life on Earth via ID? I thought you are an open-minded scientist.

ID is not scientific. Not as it stands now.

Your comparison of SETI to ID is doesn't work because SETI isn't searching for supernatural entities. Scientists haven't gone into it it believing that lifeforms from other planets are supernatural deities that created the universe. The lifeforms they are looking for are physical beings in a physical universe.

 

[ecco]

ID is science, and offers alternative hypotheses for yet-unsolved mysteries.

So, you consider GodDidIt to be a valid alternative hypothesis put forward by Creationists.

 

[gnostic]

ID is science, and offers alternative hypotheses for yet-unsolved mysteries.

As I have already explained to you in my previous reply, I told you that the hypothesis (meaning the proposed statements and set of predictions) needs to be at least falsifiable and testable to be given the status of being “HYPOTHESIS”.

Intelligent Design isn’t even a “hypothesis” because the entity that you call “Designer” isn’t falsifiable and isn’t testable.

Falsifiability occurred before the actual tests being performed. There is a difference between “testable” and “tested”.

Any statement (eg explanation, prediction or equation presented) that are “falsifiable”, meaning having the potential of being “testable” and “refutable”, has the status of being hypothesis.

Those statements that are not falsifiable, don’t even meet the grade of being called “hypothesis”.

If you cannot setup an experiment, where you can actually detect, measure or test the Designer, then it (ID) is pseudoscience.

The term “tested” means the experiments have already being performed, and any detectable/measurable/quantifiable evidences will either be

1. refuted
2. verified/validated

ID certainly haven’t been “tested”, because can you “measure”, “observe/detect” or “test” this Designer?

No.

And no ID adherents have been able to detect/observe the Designer, no one has ever measure or test the Designer. So in the testing phase of scientific method, testing the validity of hypothesis (explanation/prediction), ID haven’t met the requirements of Scientific Method.

So Intelligent Design isn’t a hypothesis because the Designer isn’t testable.

And Intelligent Design isn’t a scientific theory because there are no recorded observations or measurements to the Designer.

I thought you are an open-minded scientist.

I have never claimed to be scientist.

My backgrounds in science and mathematics are applicable in engineering - more specifically in civil engineering, first, then later in computer science.

Both courses involved in “applied science”, meaning any field in science that I’ve studied, are related to the respective courses.

Examples, in civil engineering, you need basic understanding of mechanics, masses and forces, hence Newtonian mechanics (physics).

Examples in computer science, in the hardware side of computing, you need some basic understanding of electricity, electrical and electronics devices, hence knowing about power, current and voltage (physics), and if I was studying networking, then I need to understand electromagnetism, eg satellite network, WiFi, or if I was into business of laser and fibre optics, I again to know the basic of electromagnetism (physics), as well as optics, such as reflection and refraction (physics).

However, in both course, they both stressed the importance of testing, so evidences and test results and data are important both:

1. to civil engineers (eg testing soils, testing the strength and stresses of construction materials (be the materials be concrete or steel or others), ensuring that the design and materials used meet safety standards, etc);
2. and to computer programmers (eg creating prototypes, testing and debugging codes), or to computer/systems engineers (eg testing the electronics, circuitry, network, operating systems, etc).

Because of my grounding in engineering and applied science, I hold testable evidences to be of utmost importance, just as experimental science required empirical and verifiable evidences.

 

[gnostic]

For example, scientists spend millions on SETI, affirming that aliens both exist and are intelligent enough to decode SETI messaging.

We are on the verge of vast changes to species via genetic engineering. Do you believe it is impossible for aliens to have made life on Earth via ID?

As to this above, about SETI and aliens, I don’t have to say anything because I agreed with SkepticThinker’s reply to you.

 

[gnostic]

Why are we over-complicating the issues? I don't believe in oscillation or Steady State for two reasons:

1) Almost 100% of cosmologists are BB
2) Entropy and other obvious issues

What I do understand is that all matter is quantized energy, and that matter/energy cannot be destroyed or created, and that therefore there is a large, not small, problem with 1) infinite regression from where the BB singularity came from 2) scientists who are closed-minded and will not consider any possible externals/multiverses to begin to tackle this problem 3) scientists who affirm again and again, without physical or measurable evidence, that dark matter and dark energy MUST exist because SOMETHING is stretching space/operating gravity but NOTHING outside the universe CAN exist.

Sorry, but why are you mentioning Steady State model?

Hoyle’s SS model have been refuted and debunked since 1964, when they finally discovered CMBR.

No ones are following Steady State model, today, because it is now history of failed hypothesis of almost 55 years now.

And yet, you keep bringing up bloody SS.

Multiverse and Oscillating models have not been debunked, yet, but nor have either been verified. So these two alternatives fall under the categories of “theoretical physics”, because while the mathematical proofs are feasibly possible, the fact they cannot being able to tested, make both of them improbable so far. Hence the “theoretical” status.

(Intelligent Design and Behe’s Irreducible Complexity don’t even meet the theoretical category, because neither presented any viable mathematical model (eg equations, formulas or constants, hence proof), hence they don’t have proofs.

That’s why I haven’t accepted the Oscillating model or the Multiverse model, because both don’t meet the requirements of Scientific Method, so they are not “scientific theory”.

 

[gnostic]

As to Dark Matter and Dark Energy, @BilliardsBall.

They may not be directly observed, but there there indirect notable observable effects on galaxies.

It is funny, how you harp on and on about some invisible magical or supernatural beings, such as God, Creator and Designer being responsible for the Design or Creation of universe and life, but you balked on undetectable but measurable Dark Energy and Dark Matter.

When it comes to supernatural divine being (whom you can’t see) performing magic and miracles, it is ok, but any attempt at explanations on the physical and natural, but cannot see, you are skeptical.

You are such a hypocrite using double standard.

Dark Energy and Dark Matter, you cannot observe directly, but they do have notable gravitational effects.

You cannot directly see microwave or most electromagnetic waves (except for visible light and color), but they are there and they are measurable.

The same cannot be said about God, Creator or Designer. Cannot detect them, cannot measure them. Cannot not even put these entity into equations (hence, no proofs).

 

[Milton Platt]

So you've not seen water in a container? And you feel laws for this universe also apply in the multiverse? Thus the whole multiverse breaks the Conservation of Law/Energy by EXISTING?

Put the container of water in a vacuum and the water will boil off.

I have no idea about multiverses, and neither do you. The difference is, I do not claim to know.

 

[Audie]

Put the container of water in a vacuum and the water will boil off.

I have no idea about multiverses, and neither do you. The difference is, I do not claim to know.

Put water at near absolute zero, not so much.

 

[gnostic]

And what the BB theory explain (going backward in time), is how galaxies and stars formed first formed, then how the earliest matters from different subatomic particles, and how the earliest particles, and how the four fundamental interactions or forces separated. And for each of these stages, they explain in certain details, but at each stage, going backward, the universe was hotter and denser in the earlier epoch.

In this paragraph, it should be rewritten as

And what the BB theory explain (going backward in time), is how galaxies and stars formed first formed, then how the earliest matters form from different subatomic particles, and how the earliest particles form, and how the four fundamental interactions or forces separated. And for each of these stages, they explain in certain details, but at each stage, going backward, the universe was hotter and denser in the earlier epoch.

I should have picked up on my missing words. It is too late to edit that reply.

I would also like to add what I said in this part:

...and how the four fundamental interactions or forces separated.

This referred to what astrophysicists call, “symmetric breaking”.

According to Big Bang cosmology, when the universe was a “singularity”, the universe was so infinitely hot and infinitely dense that it was not possible to distinguish between the four different forces or four fundamental interactions:

1. Gravitational force
2. Electromagnetic force
3. Weak nuclear force
4. Strong nuclear force

While the universe was at the stage, ie the singularity, the four forces were unified as one “unified force”.

When the singularity (universe) began cooling, so begin the universe expansion, the earliest epoch, or the Planck Epoch (from 0 to 10^-43 second), the universe was still too hot for any symmetric breaking, so all four interactions were still unified as one.

In the next epoch, known as Grand Unification Epoch (GUE), the universe cooled down enough for gravitational interaction to break away from the unified force (of strong and electroweak interactions).

Following (GUE), the Electroweak Epoch, involved the universe further expansion and cooling temperature involved Strong nuclear interaction breaking away from the still unified (electroweak) force.

The last symmetric breaking occurred 3 epochs later at the Quark Epoch (after Inflationary Epoch and Baryogenesis), when electromagnetic interaction and weak nuclear interaction separated.

Science currently accepted the Standard Model of particle physics, and that the 3 forces that of strong, weak and electromagnetic, affect the particles at quantum levels, while gravitational force affect much more massive objects.

Hence, it does pose a problem for physicists trying to unify General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics together as a single theory that explains everything. Both GR & QM worked fine separately but it seem difficult to unify them as one.

They tried solving it with String Theory and with the elaborate Superstring Theory, but so far, while the maths is good, the reality isn’t, so it would seem that ST & SsT are turning out to be duds.

Perhaps is too early for me to say such thing about String and Superstring models, but it does seem physicists are pulling away from these two theoretical models, even by theoretical physicists themselves who were once adherents, but who are now seeking alternative theoretical models to the ST & SsT.

 

[gnostic]

To @BilliardsBall

I still think you don’t understand what is hypothesis in science is.

The hypothesis don’t determine what is true or false, it is the testings or the evidences that may or may not support the given hypothesis.

All the hypothesis do, is to give a possible logical explanation along with some predictions and maths (equations or formulas or both).

The hypothesis is only a proposal or a proposed solution that provide some answers to WHAT the natural phenomena is and HOW it work.

It is the culmination of evidences or test results, that determine if the hypothesis is probably true or probably false.

That’s how science should work, that the evidences support the logic of the hypothesis.

All you are doing, is trying to use logic alone, not logic plus verifiable evidences.

It is the verifiable evidences and the testings that make or break a hypothesis.

Theoretical science, and thus, theoretical physics, are different cup of tea, because they only provide the explanation with the mathematical models.

They (theoretical physicists) tried to solve the equations, by breaking large equations into smaller and hopefully useful ones that meet with reality. But it may or may not work, but the only way to determine which is reality is, is through finding the evidences (through testings and experiments), not trying to prove or disprove the maths.

I am not saying maths and numbers are not important to science. They are important, but they don’t always meet with reality.

This old post of your, where you say this:

I believe you are misunderstanding my perspective. A simplified method, which we use often/constantly as people:

1) Assume X is true
2) Follow X as true to expect Y
3) See if Y is there

This you only providing 3 assumptions, which you assume to be true, but hypothesis is more than just about making assumptions, it is about making sure whatever explanation or predictions given in the hypothesis, are testable and falsifiable.

If you cannot test the assumptions, then it is merely personal but baseless opinions.

 

[gnostic]

To @leroy and @BilliardsBall

Intelligent Design isn’t a scientific theory, because it doesn’t meet the standard of the scientific method.

Intelligent Design isn’t a scientific hypothesis, because it doesn’t meet the requirements of being falsifiable.

Intelligent Design isn’t even a theoretical model, because it can’t add Designer into the equations.

Intelligent Design, like Creationism, is a theological attempt of pretending to be science or scientific, but all end up is being pretentious and pseudoscience BS.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Dark matter and dark energy are part of the universe, so your objection is irrelevant. They are even part of the 'observable universe'.

Not at all. They represent two conjectural items, to account for invisible influence in the universe.

 

[BilliardsBall]

ID is not scientific. Not as it stands now.

Your comparison of SETI to ID is doesn't work because SETI isn't searching for supernatural entities. Scientists haven't gone into it it believing that lifeforms from other planets are supernatural deities that created the universe. The lifeforms they are looking for are physical beings in a physical universe.

Sorry, but SETI is looking for hypothesized, unproven entities. While searching for God is eminently logical and the natural human condition.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Put the container of water in a vacuum and the water will boil off.

I have no idea about multiverses, and neither do you. The difference is, I do not claim to know.

How do you know that there is a vacuum similar to the one we know of OUTSIDE the known universe?

 

[BilliardsBall]

As I have already explained to you in my previous reply, I told you that the hypothesis (meaning the proposed statements and set of predictions) needs to be at least falsifiable and testable to be given the status of being “HYPOTHESIS”.

Intelligent Design isn’t even a “hypothesis” because the entity that you call “Designer” isn’t falsifiable and isn’t testable.

Falsifiability occurred before the actual tests being performed. There is a difference between “testable” and “tested”.

Any statement (eg explanation, prediction or equation presented) that are “falsifiable”, meaning having the potential of being “testable” and “refutable”, has the status of being hypothesis.

Those statements that are not falsifiable, don’t even meet the grade of being called “hypothesis”.

If you cannot setup an experiment, where you can actually detect, measure or test the Designer, then it (ID) is pseudoscience.

The term “tested” means the experiments have already being performed, and any detectable/measurable/quantifiable evidences will either be

1. refuted
2. verified/validated

ID certainly haven’t been “tested”, because can you “measure”, “observe/detect” or “test” this Designer?

No.

And no ID adherents have been able to detect/observe the Designer, no one has ever measure or test the Designer. So in the testing phase of scientific method, testing the validity of hypothesis (explanation/prediction), ID haven’t met the requirements of Scientific Method.

So Intelligent Design isn’t a hypothesis because the Designer isn’t testable.

And Intelligent Design isn’t a scientific theory because there are no recorded observations or measurements to the Designer.



I have never claimed to be scientist.

My backgrounds in science and mathematics are applicable in engineering - more specifically in civil engineering, first, then later in computer science.

Both courses involved in “applied science”, meaning any field in science that I’ve studied, are related to the respective courses.

Examples, in civil engineering, you need basic understanding of mechanics, masses and forces, hence Newtonian mechanics (physics).

Examples in computer science, in the hardware side of computing, you need some basic understanding of electricity, electrical and electronics devices, hence knowing about power, current and voltage (physics), and if I was studying networking, then I need to understand electromagnetism, eg satellite network, WiFi, or if I was into business of laser and fibre optics, I again to know the basic of electromagnetism (physics), as well as optics, such as reflection and refraction (physics).

However, in both course, they both stressed the importance of testing, so evidences and test results and data are important both:

1. to civil engineers (eg testing soils, testing the strength and stresses of construction materials (be the materials be concrete or steel or others), ensuring that the design and materials used meet safety standards, etc);
2. and to computer programmers (eg creating prototypes, testing and debugging codes), or to computer/systems engineers (eg testing the electronics, circuitry, network, operating systems, etc).

Because of my grounding in engineering and applied science, I hold testable evidences to be of utmost importance, just as experimental science required empirical and verifiable evidences.

I think you've never "heard" the ID proposition:

We are testing the opposite, the assertion that there is NO designer. Certain things should occur, based on known natural laws, if there is NO designer. Thus, we have falsifiability/testability.

Hope that helps.

 

[BilliardsBall]

As to Dark Matter and Dark Energy, @BilliardsBall.

They may not be directly observed, but there there indirect notable observable effects on galaxies.

It is funny, how you harp on and on about some invisible magical or supernatural beings, such as God, Creator and Designer being responsible for the Design or Creation of universe and life, but you balked on undetectable but measurable Dark Energy and Dark Matter.

When it comes to supernatural divine being (whom you can’t see) performing magic and miracles, it is ok, but any attempt at explanations on the physical and natural, but cannot see, you are skeptical.

You are such a hypocrite using double standard.

Dark Energy and Dark Matter, you cannot observe directly, but they do have notable gravitational effects.

You cannot directly see microwave or most electromagnetic waves (except for visible light and color), but they are there and they are measurable.

The same cannot be said about God, Creator or Designer. Cannot detect them, cannot measure them. Cannot not even put these entity into equations (hence, no proofs).

I didn't balk at Dark Energy/Dark Matter. I merely asserted that scientists accept as real conjectural energy/matter, which is a consequence of the following:

1) Observing gravity
2) Failing to (yet) account for gravity via natural explanations

Hypocrisy is rather saying "There MUST be dark matter because it's impossible for a God to be the force behind gravity."

 

[BilliardsBall]

To @BilliardsBall

I still think you don’t understand what is hypothesis in science is.

The hypothesis don’t determine what is true or false, it is the testings or the evidences that may or may not support the given hypothesis.

All the hypothesis do, is to give a possible logical explanation along with some predictions and maths (equations or formulas or both).

The hypothesis is only a proposal or a proposed solution that provide some answers to WHAT the natural phenomena is and HOW it work.

It is the culmination of evidences or test results, that determine if the hypothesis is probably true or probably false.

That’s how science should work, that the evidences support the logic of the hypothesis.

All you are doing, is trying to use logic alone, not logic plus verifiable evidences.

It is the verifiable evidences and the testings that make or break a hypothesis.

Theoretical science, and thus, theoretical physics, are different cup of tea, because they only provide the explanation with the mathematical models.

They (theoretical physicists) tried to solve the equations, by breaking large equations into smaller and hopefully useful ones that meet with reality. But it may or may not work, but the only way to determine which is reality is, is through finding the evidences (through testings and experiments), not trying to prove or disprove the maths.

I am not saying maths and numbers are not important to science. They are important, but they don’t always meet with reality.

This old post of your, where you say this:



This you only providing 3 assumptions, which you assume to be true, but hypothesis is more than just about making assumptions, it is about making sure whatever explanation or predictions given in the hypothesis, are testable and falsifiable.

If you cannot test the assumptions, then it is merely personal but baseless opinions.

1) Assume X is true HYPOTHESIS
2) Follow X as true to expect Y HYPOTHESIS/LOGIC
3) See if Y is there TEST FOR Y AND EITHER CONFIRM X OR FALSIFY X

 

[BilliardsBall]

To @leroy and @BilliardsBall

Intelligent Design isn’t a scientific theory, because it doesn’t meet the standard of the scientific method.

Intelligent Design isn’t a scientific hypothesis, because it doesn’t meet the requirements of being falsifiable.

Intelligent Design isn’t even a theoretical model, because it can’t add Designer into the equations.

Intelligent Design, like Creationism, is a theological attempt of pretending to be science or scientific, but all end up is being pretentious and pseudoscience BS.

Intelligent Design helps falsify test this assumption, "There is NO designer." This is eminently testable.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sorry, but SETI is looking for hypothesized, unproven entities. While searching for God is eminently logical and the natural human condition.

They aren't looking for supernatural deities. They are looking for physical beings in a physical universe.


If the God you worship interacts with the physical universe and the physical beings in that universe, then said God should theoretically be detectable in some way. So where's all the evidence of this?