A simple case for intelligent design

[BilliardsBall]

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?

I agree with your assertion. Can you think of a religious tradition where it's stated that God, seeking to interact with the physical universe, specifically the humans He created, engaged with them hundreds of times, performed works, and ultimately, appeared as a person to interact with people--so influentially, that now, 1/3 of Earth acknowledges this person as God and a further 1/3 regard this person as a prophet? Can you think of a religious tradition that claims its texts detail thousands of facts verifiable in archaeology, by prophecy and by history?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Um, yes, they are. Dark matter, for example, has definite location. It has gravitational influence that can be measured and used to map out where it is. This *is* a detection, by the way. it just isn't a detection via *light* (which isn't going to happen given that dark matter doesn't interact via E&M).

Dark energy is just the cosmological constant of Einstein in a different guise. As such, it has been on the table of possibilities for about a century. Again, it was use because it was driven by the evidence, not because it was driven by a specific dogma.

I see! And here I thought that they are assumptive. Help me out:

Dark Matter is composed of the following detectable particles or quanta, measured regarding their specific position, direction or momentum:

Dark Energy " "

Baloney.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Have there been any outcomes of these tests yet?

While you're at it, test to prove the Universe wasn't created Last Thursday.

There are reasonable tests to show the Universe is older than a week, unless God is a prankster who created the Universe with an old appearance. That's one reason I believe the Universe is over 13B years old, however, it's not entirely unreasonable to posit a younger Solar System/Sun/Earth.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, you are no assuming the hypothesis is true.

Hypotheses are NEVER TRUE “by default”.

When a scientist to formulate his hypothesis, he has to make sure that his hypothesis CAN BE TESTED in the future, meaning his explanation and predictions are “falsifiable”.

Hypothesis is neither true, nor false, when he write the explanation, the predictions and the mathematical equations (if there are any).

When the time come to test it, you would perform the experiment (if you are in the lab) or find the evidence (if you are out in the field), you would record the outcomes, such as the current number of experiment, record any measurements, and if the status of experiment is a success or failure. Then you would repeat the experiment again, and again, as many as required, to ensure there are no errors or anomalies, and there are not experiments to either refute or validate the hypothesis.

The success or failure of the number of repeated experiments, are what determine the hypothesis to be true or false.

Your first point (“Assume X is true HYPOTHESIS”), only demonstrated how little you understand how science work, or what is involved in the scientific method and falsifiability of the hypothesis.

You never assume the hypothesis to be automatically true, or true by default.

Making such assumptions before you even started to test the hypothesis, only demonstrated the scientist being incompetent, bias and a cheat.

I'm neither a scientist by profession nor a dishonest cheat, so please help me understand:

The dictionary definition of a hypothesis is "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation."

So I could hypothesize any of the following, legitimately:

1) It should be testable that X is true
2) It should be testable/verifiable/falsifiable that X is false
3) It should be " " that X exists
4) " " X does not exist
5) " " X may be observed under controlled conditions

And whatever the hypothesis, we can test to inductively observe as "True" or falsify appropriately as "False" or "More testing needed!".

The best way to be open-minded about all religious and non-religious claims, in my opinion, is, instead of saying "No! Unscientific! Not true! Stupid!" is to merely assume whatever one is told MIGHT be true, then testing for the expected results.

For example, you tell me the universe is far older than some Christians say it is, 15+B years instead of 10,000 years... if that is so, I would reasonable expect to find scientific evidence of same, else you are making a philosophical assertion. Over a dozen accepted scientific explorations like light telescopes, radio telescopes, red shift, star observation, etc. show the universe is indeed many billions of years old... therefore I agree with you, the universe isn't only a few thousand years old. The science lines up with the presumption.

What does not make sense in your post is this sentence:

"Making such assumptions before you even started to test the hypothesis, only demonstrated the scientist being incompetent, bias and a cheat."

Every person makes some rough assumptions regarding expected outcomes. That's natural, normative.

 

[BilliardsBall]

ID proposition is just that a proposition, a claim.

ID isn't a "hypothesis" in the sense of "scientific hypothesis", which need everything in the hypothesis, including the "DESIGNER" to be falsifiable or testable.

The hypothesis used in every day language, like in the courtrooms, are not the same as the hypothesis used in science. And if you want to use ID or Creationism as science, then you must agree to use the correct terminology and definition as being used in science. And in science, hypothesis have to meet with certain conditions.

Behe's Irreducible Complexity doesn't meet the conditions that of being falsifiable or testable (therefore, ID isn't hypothesis), and it doesn't meet the condition of Scientific Method (therefore ID isn't a "scientific theory"). This is why Irreducible Complexity, as well as Intelligent Design fall under the category of "PSEUDOSCIENCE".

Discovery Institute don't use science to verify or validate ID, instead it used their money to fund a campaign of propaganda, and flooding the media with misinformation, not only about ID itself, but about evolution. It is dishonest tactics, that DI used time, and time again.

If the DESIGNER isn't testable, then the whole proposition of ID isn't falsifiable.

The problem is the Designer, because you cannot observe/detect, measure or quantify the DESIGNER.

You need EVIDENCES to show that's the DESIGNER is real.

All you are doing is conjecturing the DESIGNER exist because you think nature, including life, have to be "designed", and therefore requiring a "designer".

But there have been no evidences for designer, so your conjectures are merely circular reasoning, and wishful thinking.

Your belief in the DESIGNER is no more than superstition, just like superstitions of Neolithic people, the Bronze and Iron Ages people, the people of Dark Ages and the Middle Ages.

The ID proposition "designed requiring Designer" is just as superstition as thinking that YHWH, Indra, Zeus or Thor causing thunders and lightning. The Designer is no more falsifiable than YHWH, Indra, Zeus and Thor. You cannot test the Designer, you cannot detect or observe the Designer, you cannot measure the Designer.

Discovery Institute have been trying to promote Intelligent Design for years now, but not once have they provided any evidences for the existence of Designer, because the Designer is as fake and fictional as dragons, giants, fairies, goblins and ghouls, angels and demons.

No, BilliardsBall. You still don't understand the concept of hypothesis, evidences, falsifibility, etc.

As far as I understand, ID doesn't say, "Here's the designer" but instead, "Complexity argues against a lack of a designer."

If you see an electronic watch, which is a more reasonable hypothesis:

"No one made this watch, we should be able to demonstrate/observe that it arose from chemical/physical reactions in nature" or "Intelligent people made this watch, a hypothesis we may be able to test for, which hypothesis comes to mind since the watch has numerals, letters, minute functions, day/night functions, etc. -- all anthropomorphic functions for people to use."

 

[BilliardsBall]

While SETI may be searching for evidences of life outside the solar system, and it may be still hypothetical, the fact remains is that they are not looking for “supernatural” entities, “magical” entities, “divine” entities or “spiritual” entities.

They are not looking for god, angel, demon or jinn. They are not looking for spirits, fairies or other supernatural beings.

The entities they are looking for, are totally physical.

That is true, it is reasonable in my opinion to search for non-divine physical universe entities via SETI. This is one reason the Bible makes sense to me--it states near its beginning that God made man in His image and that God is a somewhat anthropomorphic, creative intelligence.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I agree with your assertion. Can you think of a religious tradition where it's stated that God, seeking to interact with the physical universe, specifically the humans He created, engaged with them hundreds of times, performed works, and ultimately, appeared as a person to interact with people--so influentially, that now, 1/3 of Earth acknowledges this person as God and a further 1/3 regard this person as a prophet? Can you think of a religious tradition that claims its texts detail thousands of facts verifiable in archaeology, by prophecy and by history?

Can you demonstrate that the specific God you worship has ever done any of that? Like I pointed out, if this God has done these things you say "he" has, then there should definitely be some actual evidence/demonstration of these interactions occurring over and over. I mean, the things you're talking about would be occurring in the physical, material world, where data is quantifiable and testable.

Nobody has managed to do it yet. But maybe you can?

 

[SkepticThinker]

As far as I understand, ID doesn't say, "Here's the designer" but instead, "Complexity argues against a lack of a designer."

If you see an electronic watch, which is a more reasonable hypothesis:

"No one made this watch, we should be able to demonstrate/observe that it arose from chemical/physical reactions in nature" or "Intelligent people made this watch, a hypothesis we may be able to test for, which hypothesis comes to mind since the watch has numerals, letters, minute functions, day/night functions, etc. -- all anthropomorphic functions for people to use."

Complexity doesn't necessarily indicate design though. How complex is a bookmark, for instance? Or a paperweight? Or a pencil? Those are all designed by humans, yet are quite simple objects.

 

[ecco]

While you're at it, test to prove the Universe wasn't created Last Thursday.

There are reasonable tests to show the Universe is older than a week, unless God is a prankster who created the Universe with an old appearance. That's one reason I believe the Universe is over 13B years old, however, it's not entirely unreasonable to posit a younger Solar System/Sun/Earth.

You can't possibly know a god's motivations. You have failed to prove the Universe wasn't created Last Thursday.

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 .

Have there been any outcomes of these tests yet?

There are reasonable tests to show the Universe is older than a week, unless God is a prankster who created the Universe with an old appearance. That's one reason I believe the Universe is over 13B years old, however, it's not entirely unreasonable to posit a younger Solar System/Sun/Earth.

You did not answer the question regarding testing your NO designer falsifiability/testability.

 

[ecco]

If you see an electronic watch, which is a more reasonable hypothesis:

"No one made this watch, we should be able to demonstrate/observe that it arose from chemical/physical reactions in nature" or "Intelligent people made this watch, a hypothesis we may be able to test for,

I do believe that you have finally stated something reasonable. Indeed, if we see an electronic watch, the more reasonable hypothesis would be "Intelligent entities made this watch".


However, we never saw electronic watches prior to two hundred years ago. We did see other things, like trees. So let's substitute "oak tree" for "electronic watch" and check your hypothesis again:

If you see an oak tree, which is a more reasonable hypothesis:
"No one made this oak tree, we should be able to demonstrate/observe that it arose from chemical/physical reactions in nature" or "Intelligent people made this oak tree, a hypothesis we may be able to test for,​

Clearly, one can "demonstrate/observe that it arose from chemical/physical reactions in nature". Clearly there is no need for an IDer or a Creator.

 

[ecco]

Complexity doesn't necessarily indicate design though. How complex is a bookmark, for instance? Or a paperweight? Or a pencil? Those are all designed by humans, yet are quite simple objects.

Mmm. I don't think I'd agree with your comments as regards to pencils. People were making marks on parchment and paper with graphite long before some came up with the idea of a pencil. Then they had to figure out how to make one. Kudos too to the person who quickly recognized the need to attach an eraser.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see! And here I thought that they are assumptive. Help me out:

Dark Matter is composed of the following detectable particles or quanta, measured regarding their specific position, direction or momentum:

Dark Energy " "

Baloney.

The descriptive term "Dark" is also used because there are aspects of Dark Matter and Dark Energy that are unknown.

So why do you think that they are baloney? You need to be very careful when you use such terms. There is far less evidence for your beliefs, are you saying that they are baloney too? Hmm, we may finally be agreeing on something.

 

[Polymath257]

I see! And here I thought that they are assumptive. Help me out:

Dark Matter is composed of the following detectable particles or quanta, measured regarding their specific position, direction or momentum:

Dark Energy " "

Baloney.

Once again, we don't know the specific composition, but we can still map out dark matter is. We use gravity to measure their specific location.

 

[gnostic]

I'm neither a scientist by profession nor a dishonest cheat, so please help me understand:

The dictionary definition of a hypothesis is "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation."

So I could hypothesize any of the following, legitimately:

1) It should be testable that X is true
2) It should be testable/verifiable/falsifiable that X is false
3) It should be " " that X exists
4) " " X does not exist
5) " " X may be observed under controlled conditions

And whatever the hypothesis, we can test to inductively observe as "True" or falsify appropriately as "False" or "More testing needed!".

The best way to be open-minded about all religious and non-religious claims, in my opinion, is, instead of saying "No! Unscientific! Not true! Stupid!" is to merely assume whatever one is told MIGHT be true, then testing for the expected results.

For example, you tell me the universe is far older than some Christians say it is, 15+B years instead of 10,000 years... if that is so, I would reasonable expect to find scientific evidence of same, else you are making a philosophical assertion. Over a dozen accepted scientific explorations like light telescopes, radio telescopes, red shift, star observation, etc. show the universe is indeed many billions of years old... therefore I agree with you, the universe isn't only a few thousand years old. The science lines up with the presumption.

What does not make sense in your post is this sentence:

"Making such assumptions before you even started to test the hypothesis, only demonstrated the scientist being incompetent, bias and a cheat."

Every person makes some rough assumptions regarding expected outcomes. That's natural, normative.

You still don’t understand, billiardsball.

A “falsifiable” hypothesis only determine that scientists can perform some sort of future or proposed experiments, to test the hypothesis.

A falsifiable hypothesis doesn’t mean the hypothesis is true. It only determine the hypothesis is “testable”.

Do you understand the difference between “testable” and “tested”?

They are not the same thing.

Being testable (or falsifiable) mean you can perform a test on the hypothesis. You haven’t tested the hypothesis yet.

Being “tested” means you have already performed the experiments for the hypothesis. It is only AFTER the tests, will the test results demonstrate the hypothesis to be true or false.

Your logic here -

1) It should be testable that X is true
2) It should be testable/verifiable/falsifiable that X is false
3) It should be " " that X exists
4) " " X does not exist
5) " " X may be observed under controlled conditions

Your logic here isn’t test or experiment. It is merely you applying some false rules as what is falsifiable and what has been tested, in a illogical circular reasoning.

Science isn’t about so much as being open-minded, but being open that any hypothesis you write up, could be wrong, when rigorously and repeatedly tested.

Falsifiability mean refutability. If you can potentially test or refute your hypothesis, then you are doing your job as scientist, which clearly you are not.

I am not a scientist too, and I have so many times before. My background is more in the engineering side. But as an engineer, I know the importance of testings. You would test soil, you would test the foundation, you would test materials being use for construction, and you test the engineering design or blueprint.

I understand why scientists needs to test their hypotheses or theories. You apparently don’t.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Can you demonstrate that the specific God you worship has ever done any of that? Like I pointed out, if this God has done these things you say "he" has, then there should definitely be some actual evidence/demonstration of these interactions occurring over and over. I mean, the things you're talking about would be occurring in the physical, material world, where data is quantifiable and testable.

Nobody has managed to do it yet. But maybe you can?

I would think the predictive prophecy exceeds all statistical likelihood:

1) People have persecuted Jews for millennia
2) Even the "churches" who killed Jews worship one Jew

...
Nations to spend their wealth on raising churches and memorials to Messiah: "The Gentiles shall come to your light, And kings to the brightness of your rising." ... The wealth of the Gentiles shall come to you. -Isaiah 60:3

...
Incense burned in Messiah's name worldwide: "For from the rising of the sun,

even to its going down, My name shall be great among the Gentiles; In every

place incense shall be offered to My name, And a pure offering; For My name

shall be great among the nations," says the Lord of hosts."-Malachi 1:11


...

Jews scattered for rejection of Messiah: "The Gentiles shall know that the

house of Israel went into captivity for their iniquity; because they were

unfaithful to Me, therefore I hid My face from them. I gave them into the

hand of their enemies, and they all fell by the sword."-Ezekiel 39:23


...
Messiah from a woman and hidden, also despised by Israel. "...The Lord has

called Me from the womb; From the matrix of My mother He has made mention of

My name. And He has made My mouth like a sharp sword; In the shadow of His

hand He has hidden Me, And made Me a polished shaft; In His quiver He has

hidden Me." ... "It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant, To

raise up the tribes of Jacob, And to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I

will also give You as a light to the Gentiles, That You should be My

salvation to the ends of the earth. Thus says the Lord, The Redeemer of

Israel, their Holy One, To Him whom man despises, To Him whom the nation

abhors, To the Servant of rulers: "Kings shall see and arise, Princes also

shall worship, Because of the Lord who is faithful, The Holy One of Israel;

And He has chosen You."-Isaiah 49:1-7




Which Jewish person, from the House of David, made secretly inside a woman's

womb, who lived in Galilee and was despised by [most of] Israel, has

worldwide worshippers (from among all the Gentiles who spend their wealth in

His name and service) and came to earth to be rejected just before Israel

was scattered in 70 AD?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Complexity doesn't necessarily indicate design though. How complex is a bookmark, for instance? Or a paperweight? Or a pencil? Those are all designed by humans, yet are quite simple objects.

How complex is one DNA strand?

How complex is a "simple cell"?

How complex is a unicellular animal?

How complex is a human?

Which is more complex in its operations, a Cray supercomputer or a human mind?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I do believe that you have finally stated something reasonable. Indeed, if we see an electronic watch, the more reasonable hypothesis would be "Intelligent entities made this watch".


However, we never saw electronic watches prior to two hundred years ago. We did see other things, like trees. So let's substitute "oak tree" for "electronic watch" and check your hypothesis again:

If you see an oak tree, which is a more reasonable hypothesis:
"No one made this oak tree, we should be able to demonstrate/observe that it arose from chemical/physical reactions in nature" or "Intelligent people made this oak tree, a hypothesis we may be able to test for,​

Clearly, one can "demonstrate/observe that it arose from chemical/physical reactions in nature". Clearly there is no need for an IDer or a Creator.

Clearly, scientists are wholly unable to replicate how the original tree/original one-celled animals/plant progenitors arose.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The descriptive term "Dark" is also used because there are aspects of Dark Matter and Dark Energy that are unknown.

So why do you think that they are baloney? You need to be very careful when you use such terms. There is far less evidence for your beliefs, are you saying that they are baloney too? Hmm, we may finally be agreeing on something.

I said the response was baloney. However, any assertion that dark matter/dark energy has been inductively observed IS baloney.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Once again, we don't know the specific composition, but we can still map out dark matter is. We use gravity to measure their specific location.

And gravity, of course, is composed of gravitons. Where can I see a photo of gravitons?

PS. Don't answer, I'm being rhetorical.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You still don’t understand, billiardsball.

A “falsifiable” hypothesis only determine that scientists can perform some sort of future or proposed experiments, to test the hypothesis.

A falsifiable hypothesis doesn’t mean the hypothesis is true. It only determine the hypothesis is “testable”.

Do you understand the difference between “testable” and “tested”?

They are not the same thing.

Being testable (or falsifiable) mean you can perform a test on the hypothesis. You haven’t tested the hypothesis yet.

Being “tested” means you have already performed the experiments for the hypothesis. It is only AFTER the tests, will the test results demonstrate the hypothesis to be true or false.

Your logic here -

​

Your logic here isn’t test or experiment. It is merely you applying some false rules as what is falsifiable and what has been tested, in a illogical circular reasoning.

Science isn’t about so much as being open-minded, but being open that any hypothesis you write up, could be wrong, when rigorously and repeatedly tested.

Falsifiability mean refutability. If you can potentially test or refute your hypothesis, then you are doing your job as scientist, which clearly you are not.

I am not a scientist too, and I have so many times before. My background is more in the engineering side. But as an engineer, I know the importance of testings. You would test soil, you would test the foundation, you would test materials being use for construction, and you test the engineering design or blueprint.

I understand why scientists needs to test their hypotheses or theories. You apparently don’t.

No, it's simple.

An hypothesis needs to be just what you said, but first must be conceived, mentally, first, the scientist(s) hypothesizes, then they ask themselves what is testable in that frame of reference.

Hypothesis - The Bible, since it is an ancient set of documents, yet ones covering many peoples, leaders, tribes and places, if it is valid, should concur with archaeology.

Proven.