Evolution And I.d. Evidence Arguments

[Feathers in Hair]

*grabs a soda, more popcorn, and sits in a lawnchair nearby, head looking back and forth as if she's watching a tennis match*

Seriously, though, Vash, you may also want to consider changing your avatar and quote. Vash the Stampede sees no reason to join in a debate it may be impossible to prove.

 

[Steve]

"When there are only two possible explanations, evidence against one is evidence for the other." Why should i abandon that logic if its reasonable? … That is logical and reasonable.

No – it isn't.

If thats all you can offer as why that statement isnt logical then why comment on it at all?

…"Just because your mind cannot conceive of any other possibility does not preclude them."

Is that not a perfect example of an "Argument from ignorance" The very thing you accuse me of! The very definition of an Argument from ignorance you presented condemns your own Argument.

Are you trying to make me look good?

Im curious, pointing out that you yourself use the very arguments that you accuse me of, how does that make you look good? you condemn a type of argument and then end up using that exact type of argument.

And like Vash pointed out Design Detection is a valid science.

No – it isn't. That is why the the National Academy of Sciences and the National Center for Science Education have described ID as pseudoscience.

Have you ever seen anything at all and been convinced that designed/inteligence must have been involved for it to be the way it is, without knowing who, seeing who, or knowing how? If you could take a car back in time 3000 years, i bet the people would conclude that it was designed with inteligence. The people wouldnt know who or how but they being rational would still know there was a who even though they couldnt explain it all. Ive said it befor and ill say it again, if i showed you a building would you conclude there was a builder even if i never showed you the builder? I think you would detect that there is design so there must have been a designer. Call it what ever type of science you want but it can still be used to arrive at valid conclusions.

You took about half a page to build a hypothetical situation around the SETI project, to bolster your position on ID. Only one minor technicality – you based your entire hypothetical situation on the argument that SETI had produced EVIDENCE. Just in case you haven't read the foregoing 10 pages of this thread – virtually everyone on here is asking you to provide EVIDENCE. Lacking that, your hypothetical situation damns your own position. Why am I not surprised?

My point was that Seti is based on Design Detection! and also that if they did detect evidence then they could draw a logical conclusion that there is Inteligence out there. We here on earth are surrounded by the very type of evidence that the Seti scientists are looking for, so much of what we see appears very Designed, isnt that evidence to support that there is a designer and if not explain why? If the many scientist that are using the SETI project to look for ETI just applied their same logic to what we see on earth they would have an abundance of the very type of evidence they are looking for!

Oh and just out of interest, if the SETI project today did pick up a whole 5 minites worth of "alien" music from another planet in another galaxy. What would you conclude? Would it be fair to say that there must be ETI? and if so you do agree that Design Detect is valid for this type of topic.

 

[Pah]

...
My point was that Seti is based on Design Detection! and also that if they did detect evidence then they could draw a logical conclusion that there is Inteligence out there. We here on earth are surrounded by the very type of evidence that the Seti scientists are looking for, so much of what we see appears very Designed, isnt that evidence to support that there is a designer and if not explain why? If the many scientist that are using the SETI project to look for ETI just applied their same logic to what we see on earth they would have an abundance of the very type of evidence they are looking for!

Oh and just out of interest, if the SETI project today did pick up a whole 5 minites worth of "alien" music from another planet in another galaxy. What would you conclude? Would it be fair to say that there must be ETI? and if so you do agree that Design Detect is valid for this type of topic.

Are you familar with the "WOW" signal.?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Oh and just out of interest, if the SETI project today did pick up a whole 5 minites worth of "alien" music from another planet in another galaxy. What would you conclude?

Classical, Blue Grass, or Heavy Metal?

.. and if so you do agree that Design Detect is valid for this type of topic.

What topic - creation or music appreciation? The observation that Homo sapiens create music is hardly a coherent argument against descent with modification.

Perhaps you could help out your friend Vash and apply your 'theory' to our friendly Dolphin.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

If thats all you can offer as why that statement isnt logical then why comment on it at all?

I should ask the same question about your incessant claims, without evidence. I thought you might appreciate the succinct reply, since the ones with a lot of words seem to be beyond comprehension.

Im curious, pointing out that you yourself use the very arguments that you accuse me of, how does that make you look good? you condemn a type of argument and then end up using that exact type of argument.

Okay, I'll try to explain this, but I have my doubts about whether you really care. You are committing the fallacy of the Argument from Ignorance every time you claim that evidence against Evolution is equivalent to evidence FOR ID. Whether you grasp that or not is immaterial - it is still so. When you charge me with committing the fallacy, you are misapplying the fallacy to my argument. This happens because you either did not actually read the clip from Wikipedia, or, if you read, you did not digest it. It is not that I am incapable of committing that (or any other) logical fallacy when presenting my side of an issue, but, unfortunately for you, I will not point out my mistakes - you'll have to find them yourself. That's gonna be a tall moutain to climb, with no climbing gear, and no oxygen bottles.

Have you ever seen anything at all and been convinced that designed/inteligence must have been involved for it to be the way it is, without knowing who, seeing who, or knowing how? If you could take a car back in time 3000 years, i bet the people would conclude that it was designed with inteligence. The people wouldnt know who or how but they being rational would still know there was a who even though they couldnt explain it all. Ive said it befor and ill say it again, if i showed you a building would you conclude there was a builder even if i never showed you the builder? I think you would detect that there is design so there must have been a designer.

You need to familiarize yourself with Paley's "Watchmaker" argument for ID, the variation the Dembski espouses (the "Lute"), and then read a rebuttal of either. They have both been shown to be fallacious, but unless you understand logic, you will miss the point.

Call it what ever type of science you want but it can still be used to arrive at valid conclusions.

This is like boxing with someone that is unconscious. "Pseudo" is a prefix that means "false" or "spurious". The National Academy of Science is saying that ID is a "False" science - that is, they are saying that ID is not a science at all. And no, it (a false premise) cannot be used to arrive at valid conclusions, unless it is by sheer coincidence. Again, logic rears it's ugly head, revealing that you have misstated your position.

My point was that Seti is based on Design Detection! and also that if they did detect evidence then they could draw a logical conclusion that there is Inteligence out there.

You are absolutely correct! IF they did detect evidence. See how that "Evidence" thing works? When evidence is present, we can make determinations about the validity of a hypothesis. When evidence is not present (as in the case of ID), we can only guess. Did you see that? No slight of hand - just plain old logic.

Oh and just out of interest, if the SETI project today did pick up a whole 5 minites worth of "alien" music from another planet in another galaxy. What would you conclude? Would it be fair to say that there must be ETI? and if so you do agree that Design Detect is valid for this type of topic.

Can I withhold my judgement until some evidence occurs? I know this is a radical concept for you, but some people choose to withhold making decisions until they have some facts.

Thanks,
TVOR

 

[Steve]

You are absolutely correct! IF they did detect evidence. See how that "Evidence" thing works? When evidence is present, we can make determinations about the validity of a hypothesis. When evidence is not present (as in the case of ID), we can only guess. Did you see that? No slight of hand - just plain old logic.

Can I withhold my judgement until some evidence occurs? I know this is a radical concept for you, but some people choose to withhold making decisions until they have some facts.

Ok how bout you read this bit again.

My point was that Seti is based on Design Detection! and also that if they did detect evidence then they could draw a logical conclusion that there is Inteligence out there. We here on earth are surrounded by the very type of evidence that the Seti scientists are looking for, so much of what we see appears very Designed, isnt that evidence to support that there is a designer and if not explain why? If the many scientist that are using the SETI project to look for ETI just applied their same logic to what we see on earth they would have an abundance of the very type of evidence they are looking for!

Oh and just out of interest, if the SETI project today did pick up a whole 5 minites worth of "alien" music from another planet in another galaxy. What would you conclude? Would it be fair to say that there must be ETI? and if so you do agree that Design Detect is valid for this type of topic.

Maybe read this part twice...
"If the many scientist that are using the SETI project to look for ETI just applied their same logic to what we see on earth they would have an abundance of the very type of evidence they are looking for!"
now read what you wrote in regard to this type of evidence "When evidence is not present (as in the case of ID), we can only guess. Did you see that? No slight of hand - just plain old logic."
This exact type of evidence that SETI is looking for you say is not present in the case of ID, are you blind?

Oh and i liked this part when talkabout this type of evidence you said "When evidence is present, we can make determinations about the validity of a hypothesis." Good so your now happy for me to present this type of evidence.


Oh and "You are absolutely correct! IF they did detect evidence."
So you do except Design Detection provided somthing is detected! Nice good to see your starting to see the light

 

[Pah]

Intelligence detection? Perhaps you had better define again exactly what Intelligent Design is and how it correlates to the lambasting of evolution science

 

[Steve]

Intelligence detection? Perhaps you had better define again exactly what Intelligent Design is and how it correlates to the lambasting of evolution science

Design Detection is a way to detect Intelligence! perhaps you could tell me how you detect Intelligence? would looking for the result of that Intelligence be a fair test? Is that not the point in SETI?

 

[painted wolf]

or its an exersize of human design recognition behavior. Humans are hard wired to detect designs. Is a horse seen in the shape of a cloud evidence of Intelligence?
No.

SETI's aim is to capture a non-natural repeating signal indicitive of communication by extraterrestrial beings. Simple repeating patterns are found all the time in nature and are not indications of intelligence. Pulsars, Quasars and other space phenomina create such patterns. Infact repeating patterns/designs are clear indication of lack of inteligence as far as SETI is concerned.

Then there is Chaos theory and the formation of complex patterns such as Fractals through randomness/chaos.

wa:do

 

[Pah]

Design Detection is a way to detect Intelligence! perhaps you could tell me how you detect Intelligence? would looking for the result of that Intelligence be a fair test? Is that not the point in SETI?

How is that related to the discussion of evolution or a designer?

 

[Yerda]

How is that related to the discussion of evolution or a designer?

I think Steve is maybe invoking an argument that whiffs of a watchmaker.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

From what I can tell, Design "Detection" boils down to the following:

1) Assume that a supernatural spirit exists.
2) Assume this spirit wants things to be the way they are.
3) Make careful observations to confirm that things are the way they are.
4) This spirit must be very clever, or things would not be the way they are.

Or, as I argue here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5481&page=5&pp=10

Harris and Calvert propose that, though we cannot detect the designer, we can detect that life and the universe were designed. The authors note that "Modern science...has discovered the mind-boggling intricacy of cellular (and cosmic) structure" (549). Clearly Harris and Calvert have not thought this through: if anything, complexity better supports clumsy evolution than supernatural intelligent design. The designs of an intelligent engineer, after all, are as simple and as efficient as possible, so there is less chance of something going wrong. If living things were extremely simple rather than complex, there is no doubt ID proponents would cite this as evidence of design. Thus, just like the existence of a supernatural entity, the existence of 'design' is outside the scope of science, as any observation could be interpreted to confirm it. Perhaps Harris and Calvert are on to something when they state that "design detection is an intuitive process that occurs without any thoughtful deliberation" (542).

 

[Vash]

Thus a likelihood analysis that pits competing design and chance hypotheses against each other must itself presuppose the legitimacy of specified complexity as a reliable empirical marker of intelligence.

http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_responsetowiscu.htm

As science moves in this direction, its difference from ID dwindles.

http://www.idthink.net/biot/shap/index.html

"Design' is a sterile hypothesis. 'Design' is a dead end, because it discourages research into the possible natural mechanisms that could have produced design-like features."

So says Gert Korthof on his web page critical of Mike Behe. Yet Korthof is not alone, as perhaps the most common complaint against ID (and most damaging if true) is that it is a scientifically useless concept that is incapable of generating research. But is it?

http://www.idthink.net/biot/proof/index.html

A "veil of theory" is indeed inherent in science and more often than not, the veil is shaped by reductionism. Now, it is often said that ID is useless to science. It is sometimes asked, "how would science look any different if ID was included?" In this case, reductionism falls where ID stands. That is, if ID was considered as a serious scientific explanation at the time the quest to understand the cell began, I think there is a good chance that our science of cell biology would be much more highly advanced.

I'm thinking of ID as a parallel, alternative approach and not as a replacement.

http://www.idthink.net/biot/dif/index.html

While many skeptics can come up with many reasons why they think the standard appeals to design in nature are without evidence, they have great difficulty explaining what type of data would cause them to suspect intelligent design (ID). When pressed, some will acknowledge that they would consider ID a reasonable hypothesis if scientists were to uncover a message encoded in the DNA, such as part of the Book of Genesis. It's nice to know that that such critics would be convinced of ID if only we could find some text from Genesis encoded in the DNA...

http://www.idthink.net/back/evid/index.html

While it sounds reasonable to demand ID theorists provide the “mechanisms” behind intelligent design, we must remember that in cases of direct intervention, such a mechanism is otherwise known as a protocol, recipe, blueprint, and means to implement the protocol, recipe, or blueprint. Yet can we really derive this type of information from studying the thing in question coupled with the regularities of Nature?

Consider a scientific experiment. It is something that scientists design. The expression of the design is the experimental results. Thus, the results are the products of design. The mechanism of design is listed as the material and methods. Yet, faced only with the results, how easy is it to reconstruct the materials and methods?

Here is the result of one experiment involving RNA and protein in a matrix of acrylamide.

Can anyone take this result and easily reverse engineer the mechanism behind its existence? Take a stab at it.

Here’s the protocol

How did you do?

http://www.idthink.net/back/mech2/index.html

As a rule, evolution is not going to design new molecular tools. It is merely going to make use of the tools it has been given. This is front-loading. And this also points us to the design of evolutionary mechanisms...

Let me merely say that we have just begun to understand evolution and I think we will one day find that the processes of evolution are far too sophisticated to fit comfortably in the Modern Synthesis. Darwin helped us to understand things like finch beaks and the spread of antibiotic resistance. His concept has been extrapolated to all other origin events merely because we don't understand evolution very well and have no better explanation. Those days are changing.

http://www.idthink.net/biot/scm/index.html



http://www.idthink.net/
http://www.idthink.net/biot/index.html
http://www.idthink.net/back/index.html

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Vash, please review post #53 and explain why, in your opinion, descent with modification is not the best inference.

 

[Vash]

Vash, please review post #53 and explain why, in your opinion, descent with modification is not the best inference.

I explained why descent with modification is questionable. As to your insightful "No design, bud" comment and dolphin example, Im afraid im gonna need you to explain why your dolphin means there is "no design"...bud.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I explained why descent with modification is questionable. As to your insightful "No design, bud" comment and dolphin example, Im afraid im gonna need you to explain why your dolphin means there is "no design"...bud.

Thanks for sharing, now please review post #53 and explain why, in your opinion, descent with modification is not the best inference.

 

[painted wolf]

I think Duet is trying to get you to tell us why the fact that Cetacens have vegestial legs is evidence of intelligent design. Why if an intelligent designer made all the animals without the benifit of the tool of evolution does the dolphin have leg remnants?

what intelligent purpose does this design imply?
where is the evidence that the dolphin did not inherate the leg remants from four legged land animals?

I have to admit that I'm curious as well.

wa:do

 

[Pah]

Thanks for sharing, now please review post #53 and explain why, in your opinion, descent with modification is not the best inference.

I curious too! and I make the third to express a desire for you to show what Deut asked

 

[Vash]

where is the evidence that the dolphin did not inherate the leg remants from four legged land animals?

in my post post: #98, the link i gave would have answered that question, i believe, had he bothered to read it all

i dont mind doing a little research for you, and honestly attempting to find stuff to answer questions for you all but as a courtesy i would appreciate it if you all would actually read stuff i link to before you continue to ask

if, after reading it, it still does not answer your questions to your satisfaction i would be happy to try again

 

[Fatmop]

Sorry to butt in, but I am in a position of ignorance and don't want to 'argue from that - ' what is the Paley's watchmaker argument?