Hey, ID Creationists!

[Jose Fly]

For myself actually, I don’t think that the Covid-19 virus was created de novo. It seems to have been a man-made alteration from some previously existing SARS corona ancestral strain.

Then use ID creationism's "design detection" methods to show that.

Either way, man-made or through natural processes, it doesn’t dispute ID.

You do know that I accept evolution in the sense that organisms change over time, right? I always have. All species that we observe, have evolved from their first ancestral forms, and branched out from them — but those first forms were created, probably for most at their respective Family taxon level. So I only claim that there are limits to what evolution has accomplished / created.

The empirical evidence, through experiments and observation, consistently reveals those limits…

Drs. Bechly, Meyers, Behe, Axe & others agree.

As Gerd Müller put it in his paper “Why an EES is necessary” on 18 Aug 2017, “The limitations of the MS theory are not only highlighted by the criticisms directed against several of its traditional tenets but also by the failure to address some of the most important phenomena of organismal evolution. The question, for instance, of how complex phenotypic organizations arise in evolution is sidestepped by the population theoretical account, as is the reciprocal influence of these features of higher levels of organization on the evolutionary process. Indeed, the MS theory lacks a theory of organization that can account for the characteristic features of phenotypic evolution, such as novelty, modularity, homology, homoplasy or the origin of lineage-defining body plans.”

As long as I’ve been posting here, you and other materialists have never acknowledged any deficits within evolutionary theory.

None of that has anything to do with the topic of this thread.

As of now, the reasonable and obvious conclusion is that all the ID creationists' claims about being able to "detect design" and having methods to do so were lies. You can prove me wrong simply by applying whatever methods you believe can "detect design" to the COVID virus and show us the outcome.

But neither you, nor any other ID creationist, will. I guarantee it.

 

[AlexanderG]

Thanks for that.
What sort of evidence from science would you think could tell you that there is a God?

I would accept any novel testable prediction based on the hypothesis that a certain god exists, which is then tested and confirmed, and then is able to make more accurate novel predictions. By novel, I mean something we don't know yet about reality.

For example, "I have a conceptual model of a god that exists, namely is has certain properties that affect the natural world in certain ways. If my model is in fact true, then I would expect [effect X] to be the data we find if we do [new experiment Y that no one has tested before.]" The moon being pulled around the earth by ethereal fairies is a technically a sufficient explanation for what we already know about the moon, but there is no scientific evidence that support it. Invisible, magical, tree-growing turtles are a sufficient explanation for why trees grow, but we already know that trees grow. And so when we observe trees growing, that is not evidence that these turtles exist. And yet this is the kind of fallacious presentation of "evidence" that theists attempt all the time, including for ID creationism.

Novel predictions about supernatural healing have been made in prayer studies, but those fail to produce the effects that theists predicted. Namely, prayer has no statistically significant effect on outcomes compared to no prayer. Alternatively, if Calvinists could reliably grow back amputated limbs by invoking their particular limb-growing prayers, and do so repeatedly and reliably in controlled tests, and the effect didn't happen with the prayers of any other religion or denomination, then that would be good evidence for the model of reality described by Calvinism.

Again, post hoc rationalization doesn't count as scientific evidence. "I can imagine an explanation X that, if true, would be sufficient to explain all past data," fails because an infinite number of such explanations can be proposed and be equally sufficient, absent any novel testable predictions. The requirement that a model creates testable, accurate predictions about things we haven't observed yet, is the hallmark of scientific evidence. Likewise, stories and anecdotes are not evidence. Pointing out the explanatory limits of one theory is also not evidence for any other theory.

I don't know what you believe about your god, and so it's up to you to make the novel testable predictions. But if a god has no demonstrable effect on reality that we can reliably observe, and all models of god fail to accurately predict any new information about reality, then it's indistinguishable from a god that doesn't exist. It does not warrant belief, at the very least.

 

[Jose Fly]

@Brian2 and @AlexanderG if it's not too much trouble, could you please move the "does god exist" debate to another thread? I'd like to keep this one focused on applying "design detection methods" to the COVID virus.

Thanks.

 

[Brian2]

The problem with ID is that, while it is not science, as you rightly observe, it is presented as science to credulous people and those with a religious agenda. It is in other words a pseudo-science.

To the extent that it is intelligent, therefore, it is mendacious.

I suppose it is presented as a science, I don't know what they claim about it being a science.
It certainly works with the observable world.
It works with the observable world in the sense of trying to show that it does show intelligent design.
Aren't there other "real" sciences that work with the observable world to try to show a hypothesis to be true, or to see if that hypothesis is true.
The problem might be that "intelligence" in design is hard to quantify and measure.
In that respect it could be seen to be a subjective science.
I was sitting down earlier today and noticed a spider making a web.
To me that shows intelligence in the design and shows intelligent design, but how do I quantify it?
It seems to be falsifiable however when real science comes up with interesting possibilities about how things could have happened without outside input or guidance. But of course that is subjective also and does not really falsify ID.
It seems to me that it is good to have a "science" which is looking into the question of whether there is a creator God however even though they start off with the idea that there is a God and go at it from that angle. Usually people who work to show a hypothesis to be true or not, start with the idea that it could be true.

 

[Brian2]

That's fine, but doesn't really have anything to do with the topic of this thread (ID creationists' claims about detecting design).

You speak about "tools" that ID uses. What sort of tools are these? Have they got a machine which measures a design factor and if it was designed by God or man?
Maybe all scientists have the use of the same machines, since all scientists seem to say they can or cannot detect design.
That ability is probably common to all humans.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

For years now we've been hearing ID creationists go on and on about ways to "detect design", with some prominent IDC's claiming to have tools, "filters", and the like (e.g., Bill Dembski).

Well, given the current COVID pandemic and the questions about the origin of the virus (i.e., whether it was created in a lab), we have an obvious challenge.

Why aren't ID creationists applying their tools and methods to the COVID virus to help us figure out if it was deliberately designed in a lab by "intelligent agents"? Isn't this a perfect opportunity to show their stuff, to put their claims to the test? The sequences are publicly available, so what's stopping them?

Or........now stick with me here......maybe all that was just a bunch crap?

Would it matter if they did or not?

You wouldn't believe them no matter what they concluded.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Then use ID creationism's "design detection" methods to show that.

The following may help (but I doubt it):

None of that has anything to do with the topic of this thread.

Hey, you provided a vehicle. I’m just taking it for a ride.

all the ID creationists' claims about being able to "detect design" and having methods to do so were lies.

See the vids above.

You’re too inflammatory & volatile, man.

Still, I do wish you the best, cousin.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It seems to have been a man-made alteration from some previously existing SARS corona ancestral strain.

How does that "seem" to be the case, exactly?
Be specific.

The empirical evidence, through experiments and observation, consistently reveals those limits…

No, it doesn't. It really, really doesn't.

Drs. Bechly, Meyers, Behe, Axe & others agree.

No kidding? Creationists with a religious agenda agree with a misrepresentation of the evidence in support of an idea that rivals their religious beliefs? Shocking!

As long as I’ve been posting here, you and other materialists have never acknowledged any deficits within evolutionary theory.

But we did point out quite a few PRATTS and other repeating misunderstandings and strawmen.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Thanks for that.
What sort of evidence from science would you think could tell you that there is a God?

Since gods are usually defined in unfalsifiable ways, there can't be any evidence by definition.

 

[exchemist]

I suppose it is presented as a science, I don't know what they claim about it being a science.
It certainly works with the observable world.
It works with the observable world in the sense of trying to show that it does show intelligent design.
Aren't there other "real" sciences that work with the observable world to try to show a hypothesis to be true, or to see if that hypothesis is true.
The problem might be that "intelligence" in design is hard to quantify and measure.
In that respect it could be seen to be a subjective science.
I was sitting down earlier today and noticed a spider making a web.
To me that shows intelligence in the design and shows intelligent design, but how do I quantify it?
It seems to be falsifiable however when real science comes up with interesting possibilities about how things could have happened without outside input or guidance. But of course that is subjective also and does not really falsify ID.
It seems to me that it is good to have a "science" which is looking into the question of whether there is a creator God however even though they start off with the idea that there is a God and go at it from that angle. Usually people who work to show a hypothesis to be true or not, start with the idea that it could be true.

You are spot-on in what you say about the difficulty in defining, let alone quantifying, "design" in nature. It just is not a scientific idea. It is an aesthetic one, and thus subjective. So there is no chance of making reproducible observations of nature to confirm that "design " is present.

Equally importantly, ID offers no testable hypothesis. Without that, you simply do not have anything scientific to say.

Thirdly, the untestable hypothesis of ID is that some outside agency, one not bound by the laws of nature, intervened to "design" aspects of life. This contradicts the principle of methodological naturalism, which is basic to the scientific method. It's a "God of the Gaps" idea.

So there you have three fundamental reasons why ID cannot be science.

You, personally, may find the idea of design in nature aesthetically compelling evidence of a Creator. If so, you would be in good company with many scientists past and present. But those scientists marvelled at the way the ordered principles of nature seem so exquisitely to lead to the ordered systems and structures we observe around us, not that they were made by a God who has to constantly tinker with His creation as if it were a 1970s car.

 

[Jose Fly]

You speak about "tools" that ID uses. What sort of tools are these? Have they got a machine which measures a design factor and if it was designed by God or man?

That's for the creationists to answer. They've been claiming to be able to "detect design" for decades, so I'm asking them to do that with the COVID virus.

Maybe all scientists have the use of the same machines, since all scientists seem to say they can or cannot detect design.
That ability is probably common to all humans.

Not sure what you're talking about.

 

[Jose Fly]

Would it matter if they did or not?

You wouldn't believe them no matter what they concluded.

Standard excuse # 1: "I could do it, but you wouldn't believe it anyways, so I won't."

What I'm doing is known as "calling the bluff" and taking note when they can't back up their claims.

 

[Jose Fly]

The following may help (but I doubt it):

None of those constitute an ID creationist using their "design detection" techniques on the COVID virus (or anything else really).

See the vids above.

You’re too inflammatory & volatile, man.

Still, I do wish you the best, cousin.

So that's a "No, I can't" from you too. So noted.

 

[Brian2]

Since gods are usually defined in unfalsifiable ways, there can't be any evidence by definition.

The supposed words of a God can be falsified I guess.

 

[Brian2]

You, personally, may find the idea of design in nature aesthetically compelling evidence of a Creator. If so, you would be in good company with many scientists past and present. But those scientists marvelled at the way the ordered principles of nature seem so exquisitely to lead to the ordered systems and structures we observe around us, not that they were made by a God who has to constantly tinker with His creation as if it were a 1970s car.

The constant tinkering is first of all to create the building blocks and then after that to build things from them.
The other tinkering is because parts of the creation with wills of their own decided to go their own way and in so doing the whole of the creation was marred and things had to be fixed so that this would not happen again, without taking away the wills of the creatures.
But yes, creation is awesome.

 

[Brian2]

That's for the creationists to answer. They've been claiming to be able to "detect design" for decades, so I'm asking them to do that with the COVID virus.

Well it is a natural virus so if they can detect design scientifically than they should be able to do that with Covid, but I don't know if they would detect human tinkering however in a natural virus.

Not sure what you're talking about.

If some scientists say they have detected no design, how have they arrived at that without first running tests?
Those scientists should be able to test Covid to see if there was design as easily as the ID scientists.

 

[Brian2]

I would accept any novel testable prediction based on the hypothesis that a certain god exists, which is then tested and confirmed, and then is able to make more accurate novel predictions. By novel, I mean something we don't know yet about reality.

For example, "I have a conceptual model of a god that exists, namely is has certain properties that affect the natural world in certain ways. If my model is in fact true, then I would expect [effect X] to be the data we find if we do [new experiment Y that no one has tested before.]" The moon being pulled around the earth by ethereal fairies is a technically a sufficient explanation for what we already know about the moon, but there is no scientific evidence that support it. Invisible, magical, tree-growing turtles are a sufficient explanation for why trees grow, but we already know that trees grow. And so when we observe trees growing, that is not evidence that these turtles exist. And yet this is the kind of fallacious presentation of "evidence" that theists attempt all the time, including for ID creationism.

Novel predictions about supernatural healing have been made in prayer studies, but those fail to produce the effects that theists predicted. Namely, prayer has no statistically significant effect on outcomes compared to no prayer. Alternatively, if Calvinists could reliably grow back amputated limbs by invoking their particular limb-growing prayers, and do so repeatedly and reliably in controlled tests, and the effect didn't happen with the prayers of any other religion or denomination, then that would be good evidence for the model of reality described by Calvinism.

Again, post hoc rationalization doesn't count as scientific evidence. "I can imagine an explanation X that, if true, would be sufficient to explain all past data," fails because an infinite number of such explanations can be proposed and be equally sufficient, absent any novel testable predictions. The requirement that a model creates testable, accurate predictions about things we haven't observed yet, is the hallmark of scientific evidence. Likewise, stories and anecdotes are not evidence. Pointing out the explanatory limits of one theory is also not evidence for any other theory.

I don't know what you believe about your god, and so it's up to you to make the novel testable predictions. But if a god has no demonstrable effect on reality that we can reliably observe, and all models of god fail to accurately predict any new information about reality, then it's indistinguishable from a god that doesn't exist. It does not warrant belief, at the very least.

The God of the Bible is testable by the prophecies in the Bible. Past fulfilments are always going to be seen as non valid tests by people who want to see before they believe, so future fulfilments are important, or current fulfilments.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The supposed words of a God can be falsified I guess.

Not necessarily.
And even then, that would refute the words, not the god that supposedly uttered them.

 

[exchemist]

Well it is a natural virus so if they can detect design scientifically than they should be able to do that with Covid, but I don't know if they would detect human tinkering however in a natural virus.



If some scientists say they have detected no design, how have they arrived at that without first running tests?
Those scientists should be able to test Covid to see if there was design as easily as the ID scientists.

No, that's not so. See post 30. There is no way to define "design" in an objectively scientific way, so that researchers can agree when it is observed in nature.

Design can be detected in human artefacts, e.g. flint axeheads, or Paley's watch, but that is because we know how humans design things. Once you try attributing design to God, who is specifically presumed not to be bound by the laws of nature, it could take any form at all. So it becomes useless as a criterion for discriminating between one thing and another.

So no scientists (or no reputable ones) have said they have detected design. That's a myth.

 

[exchemist]

The constant tinkering is first of all to create the building blocks and then after that to build things from them.
The other tinkering is because parts of the creation with wills of their own decided to go their own way and in so doing the whole of the creation was marred and things had to be fixed so that this would not happen again, without taking away the wills of the creatures.
But yes, creation is awesome.

If you consider the laws of nature to be the building blocks, then I might agree with you.

But from then on, there is no reason not to apply the principle of methodological naturalism, i.e. presumption of natural causes for natural phenomena, in other words to uncover how nature works by means of science, given its fantastic track record of success and its continuing progress.