Intelligent Design vs the Methodological Naturalism standard for science

[robocop (actually)]

Have you done any modeling or other analysis to justify this? Just how deeply have you modeled the chemistry?

Was basing it on "Signature in the Cell" by Stephen C. Meyer. Still am; I've read some books pro and con and it seems the best.

The Drake equation is accurate as it is usually written. It tells the likelihood of intelligent life (not life that created us). There are several points where the uncertainty is very large, though. But when I was young, we didn't know of any planets outside the solar so we have a much better estimate for that terms than we did then.

Oh! I did not know it was about communication and not colonization. Good thing that didn't go in my books that I've written huh?

Yes, and I've been a working math professor (with PhD) for 30+ years. Now, what was your claim? And what proof do you offer? What axioms are you using?

You cut right to the point. Thank you for correcting me. You are much easier to follow. I guess I have no idea what the relative chances are (although I still think the first chance is very very very low). I guess if I could have an axiom it would be that when civilizations can get developed enough they can spread all over the place given enough time. If chance is too low, this idea may prove useful to science someday. Maybe there can be a combination of chance and colonizing other planets in some future equation.

What do you think about all this? You have got my attention.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Interestingly,

"Drake states that given the uncertainties, the original meeting concluded that N ≈ L, and there were probably between 1000 and 100,000,000 civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy."

 

[robocop (actually)]

I am just a theoretical philosopher...
I have a very different view that I will not bring up here.

I would say it's a crime to not involve consciousness in science but Shunyadragon would likely say it was a crime to do so because scientists cannot agree on it.

 

[robocop (actually)]

As for what I've read in Stephen C. Meyers, he asserts that DNA and RNA and Proteins and other things must all have come up by chance together before they could work and then he hacks away at all the alternative attempts to explain things.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am just a theoretical philosopher...
I have a very different view that I will not bring up here.

I would say it's a crime to not involve consciousness in science but Shunyadragon would likely say it was a crime to do so because scientists cannot agree on it.

Your assertion of my position is not correct. As 'involve consciousness in science,' this would involve more explanation.

I believe that the nature of consciousness is not a mystery and outside the realm of potential understanding of science. Even though there are at present many unanswered questions, assuming that, because science does not presently have a complete explanation, therefore certain aspects of consciousness are outside the potential understanding of science is a classic fallacy.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Its not about popularity or credibility - ID is a speculative metaphysical idea - there is no argument about this and it doesn't matter whether or not it is true - certainly some speculative metaphysical ideas are true - the idea that the universe emerged spontaneously from a primordial singularity is a speculative metaphysical idea - an absurd one in my opinion...the idea of a boundless multiverse in which every possible 'universe' is necessarily actualized is another. Both of these have (still do in some people's minds) masqueraded as science but they are not. Neither is ID. IMO. Its not an atheist/theist thing - if it is based on observing the natural processes of the natural world and making inferences by induction from observations then its science. If it is based on making philosophical deductions from an unproven overarching principle its not science - even if it is true.

"if it is based on observing the natural processes of the natural world and making inferences by induction from observations then its science."

Science is a very difficult thing to define, the above definition rules out forensic science, anthropology, psychology by restricting it to purely natural forces.

But lifting this arbitrary restriction, we are able to make useful inferences by induction that the guy with a knife in his back was probably murdered by design, even if it's not impossible that he accidentally fell backwards on it..
That the Rosetta stone was the product of ID, even if we cannot identify the creator or even understand the meaning
Many scientists at SETI, atheists included, would regard fairly simple mathematical sequence floating across cosmic radiowaves as compelling evidence of ID- even if we had no idea who could possibly have generated them

similarly identifying the fingerprints of ID in biology and physics is based on inferences to our observations of the distinct fingerprints of designed v undesigned objects- regardless of the philosophical implications.

So again, if those implications happen to support something commonly understood as 'God', I have no prejudice against that which would cause me to overrule the scientific observations,

do you?

 

[robocop (actually)]

Your assertion of my position is not correct. As 'involve consciousness in science,' this would involve more explanation.

I believe that the nature of consciousness is not a mystery and outside the realm of potential understanding of science. Even though there are at present many unanswered question, assuming that, because science does not presently have a complete explanation, therefore certain aspects of consciousness are outside the potential understanding of science is a classic fallacy.

That's good to hear.

Because I believe really that thought and material go together and there is no time. I find myself having a very deep understanding of nature from this. We could talk about it forever but I would probably have to stop. Thank you.

 

[shunyadragon]

As for what I've read in Stephen C. Meyers, he asserts that DNA and RNA and Proteins and other things must all have come up by chance together before they could work and then he hacks away at all the alternative attempts to explain things.

There is a problem with the word chance here. First nothing would come about by chance in our natural world, because chance, if it exists, would only be variation without 'known cause,' The variation observed in the outcome of events is fractal, and the only known cause of the outcome any cause and effect event in the natural world is natural laws. To add: The use of chance is more a layman's understanding of the variation of the outcome of cause and effect and no longer a scientific term, though it may be dying slowly among a few hold outs,

Stephan C. Meyers is an advocate and leader in the 'Intelligent Design' and a Vice President of Discovery Institute. Over the years I have read their publications, and as pointed out before, despite all their efforts 'All the King's horses and all the King's men have failed to put Humpty Dumpty back again.' In other words their publication record is miserable, and they have not proposed anything close to a hypothesis that could falsify 'Intelligent Design.'

 

[robocop (actually)]

What about fluids like water and air? I got this from a non-Discovery Institute book "Sensitive Chaos" by Rudolf Steiner and I don't truly know the author's beliefs. But it talks about bones for instance. It says they have perforations that look like liquid water was flowing through them when they were created. It talks about many other organisms and organs and how their body shapes/shapes are like they were formed with fluids running through them.

Also, I'm not saying we don't exist either. Of course we exist so there has to be a reason for it and even if there was a small chance we know that chance must have occurred. However I still don't know (without allowing my own philosophy) if the creation idea (Alien civilization) would have a much greater chance, and if it eventually showed itself more likely, that would be the sensible thing to accept.

 

[robocop (actually)]

and they have not proposed anything close to a hypothesis that could falsify 'Intelligent Design.'

Intelligent Design is falsifiable by us beings not being able to design intelligence. Then you have to ask were the conditions right for this a long time ago. As we develop sciences of consciousness, we'll see how it forms and gets passed on.

 

[robocop (actually)]

I better get to bed... will follow tomorrow.

 

[shunyadragon]

This is a little awkward to understand and needs more explanation

What about fluids like water and air?

I got this from a non-Discovery Institute book "Sensitive Chaos" by Rudolf Steiner and I don't truly know the author's beliefs. But it talks about bones for instance. It says they have perforations that look like liquid water was flowing through them when they were created. It talks about many other organisms and organs and how their body shapes are like they were formed with fluids running through them.

Rudolph Steiner was a philosopher and educator, and he had some off the wall religious ideas. Uncertain as to the reference, because I have not read it.

From the scientific perspective the natural turbulent flow of water and air follows a fractal pattern, which is described by Chaos Theory. If Rudolph is referring to this okay. This observed variation is not true randomness.

The variations in clouds, patterns on butterflies, snow flakes, and the variation in fern leaves all may be described by fractal math. Of course, no two clouds, butterflies, snowflakes, and fern leaves are exactly a like, but all look like clouds, butterflies, snow flakes and fern leaves, because this determined by the chain of cause and effect determined by natural laws,

If you are going to bring into the mix Alien Creators lets break out the aluminum tinfoil helmets with magnetic sparkly antenna.

 

[siti]

Science is a very difficult thing to define, the above definition rules out forensic science, anthropology, psychology by restricting it to purely natural forces.

No it doesn't at all - my definition just says that forensic science, anthropology and psychology (and all the other branches of science) must restrict their search for causes to the natural world - that does not mean we exclude human agency - or even culture - as potential causes - only supernatural agency is excluded.

Many scientists at SETI, atheists included, would regard fairly simple mathematical sequence floating across cosmic radiowaves as compelling evidence of ID- even if we had no idea who could possibly have generated them

But none of them would for a single moment imagine that such a signal was evidence of supernatural agency.

similarly identifying the fingerprints of ID in biology and physics is based on inferences to our observations of the distinct fingerprints of designed v undesigned objects- regardless of the philosophical implications.

If ID is true then there are no "undesigned objects" with which to compare the evidence.

 

[Grandliseur]

I do not accept 'arguments from ignorance.'
Still waiting . . .

The lies, the claims of arguments of ignorance to keep us ignorant, to keep secret what was - I have no respect for this, for the science who is either blind or lying for their own agenda's sake:

The following video is obvious and brief, yet, it damns all the liars who keep us ignorant:

And do me the favor and look beyond the introduction.
What I find astonishing is how ignorant those who claim to be educated in these areas are, and how wicked their attacks are on anyone daring to claim that there is more to our ancient history than bronze hammers and hand tools.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The lies, the claims of arguments of ignorance to keep us ignorant, to keep secret what was - I have no respect for this, for the science who is either blind or lying for their own agenda's sake:

The following video is obvious and brief, yet, it damns all the liars who keep us ignorant:

And do me the favor and look beyond the introduction.
What I find astonishing is how ignorant those who claim to be educated in these areas are, and how wicked their attacks are on anyone daring to claim that there is more to our ancient history than bronze hammers and hand tools.

Ignorant claims that cannot be backed up with peer review in these matters are much more likely to be from a liar than those from reliable sources. Perhaps you should ask an expert how such holes, if they exist, would have been drilled. People that avoid peer review can almost always be guaranteed to be wrong.

 

[shunyadragon]

The lies, the claims of arguments of ignorance to keep us ignorant, to keep secret what was - I have no respect for this, for the science who is either blind or lying for their own agenda's sake:

The following video is obvious and brief, yet, it damns all the liars who keep us ignorant:

And do me the favor and look beyond the introduction.
What I find astonishing is how ignorant those who claim to be educated in these areas are, and how wicked their attacks are on anyone daring to claim that there is more to our ancient history than bronze hammers and hand tools.

I thought the 'argument from ignorance' was coming down the tube, and here it is, You are claiming that scientists today do not know (not necessarily so) how the carvings were made therefore (unknown) advanced technology is the answer.

Absolutely no high technology tools have ever been recovered from ancient cultures.

There is more where? Please document the tools found.

Still waiting . . .

The carving and building techniques are being replicated by contemporary research. Writings and picture descriptions of the cutting and moving of the stones have been found, Stone tools were used with a hardness of 7 or greater, not bronze.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No it doesn't at all - my definition just says that forensic science, anthropology and psychology (and all the other branches of science) must restrict their search for causes to the natural world - that does not mean we exclude human agency - or even culture - as potential causes - only supernatural agency is excluded.

So SETI is unscientific because it looks for intelligence that is not human?

You are just arbitrarily singling out a particular conclusion for restriction, forbidding it to be considered, just as Hoyle did for the BB- and many others who considered the entire concept inherently unscientific. Why not allow science to follow the evidence where it leads, and let that inform us what is real and what is not?

But none of them would for a single moment imagine that such a signal was evidence of supernatural agency.

They would conclude ID, whether or not someone goes on to label that 'supernatural' based on the source of the signal, makes no difference to the objective conclusion of ID

Some believe life on earth was designed and put here by ET, that's one form of ID which even Dawkins is open to - is that 'supernatural'? Some consider intelligence itself 'supernatural' as we cannot explain it by natural laws, and it has a creative capacity, can achieve things that nature alone never can, that's what gives it the power of explanation. This is why when we look at the Rosetta stone we know it was not created by natural processes.- so if that's a 'supernatural' explanation, fine, that does not rule it out being true.

If ID is true then there are no "undesigned objects" with which to compare the evidence.

Likewise of course, If naturalism is true, then there are no non-natural objects to compare with the evidence

That one works just as well both ways, it's odd that people like Dawkins never thought to try that out...


Of course neither really work beyond a word game,
We know there are natural forces AND creative intelligence here in this universe working hand in hand, we know that some objects are created by each. The difference is that you exclude one from being considered as even part of the answer, I don't. I have no need to banish natural forces to let ID win out by default.

 

[Grandliseur]

I thought the 'argument from ignorance' was coming down the tube, and here it is, You are claiming that scientists today do not know (not necessarily so) how the carvings were made therefore (unknown) advanced technology is the answer.

Absolutely no high technology tools have ever been recovered from ancient cultures.

There is more where? Please document the tools found.

Still waiting . . .

The carving and building techniques are being replicated by contemporary research. Writings and picture descriptions of the cutting and moving of the stones have been found, Stone tools were used with a hardness of 7 or greater, not bronze.

So, wait. People who can ignore clear machine tool markings and clear signs are obviously either blind, or worse.
There are a lot of pencil pushers out there with PhD's who cannot sharpen their own pencils nor know how it is done or recognize the signs of it. That seems what we have here.

You have it your way, and I have it mine. This discussion is at an end from my side.

 

[Polymath257]

So SETI is unscientific because it looks for intelligence that is not human?

You are just arbitrarily singling out a particular conclusion for restriction, forbidding it to be considered, just as Hoyle did for the BB- and many others who considered the entire concept inherently unscientific. Why not allow science to follow the evidence where it leads, and let that inform us what is real and what is not?

When you hear hooves, think horses, not zebras.

If SETI gets an interesting signal, the very first thing it has to do is eliminate all *terrestrial* sources for that signal. Then it has to eliminate all known non-intelligent sources for that signal (neutron stars, etc). Then, it has to look at whether there is a new *natural* phenomenon that is going on that we just didn't pick up on before. It is only *after* all other explanations have been considered and discarded that the *possibility* of an extra-terrestrial intelligence might be proposed, tentatively.

Why? Because extreme claims require extreme evidence. In a case like ETs, the evidence has to be very, very, very good before even getting close to that conclusions. There have just been too many times when there have been 'false alarms'.

They would conclude ID, whether or not someone goes on to label that 'supernatural' based on the source of the signal, makes no difference to the objective conclusion of ID

Some believe life on earth was designed and put here by ET, that's one form of ID which even Dawkins is open to - is that 'supernatural'? Some consider intelligence itself 'supernatural' as we cannot explain it by natural laws, and it has a creative capacity, can achieve things that nature alone never can, that's what gives it the power of explanation. This is why when we look at the Rosetta stone we know it was not created by natural processes.- so if that's a 'supernatural' explanation, fine, that does not rule it out being true.

No, aliens would *not* be supernatural. They would be natural beings subject to the same natural laws we are. And human intelligence, no matter what else you think about it, is certainly a natural phenomenon.

So, no, the Rosetta stone was NOT created by a supernatural process, although it *was* produced by intelligence.

Now, we *can* in some cases, test for intelligence. But the *way* we do that is by process of elimination, as I described above. Especially in new or unusual circumstances, we have to be *very* sure what the natural processes can do before we can conclude an intelligence is involved. That alone can require a great deal of legwork. But if you eventually want to conclude an intelligence, it is *required* legwork.

 

[shunyadragon]

So SETI is unscientific because it looks for intelligence that is not human?

Looking for life and intelligent life outside our planet is very scientific, but claiming visitation of aliens and UFOs without objective verifiable evidence is not science,

You are just arbitrarily singling out a particular conclusion for restriction, forbidding it to be considered, just as Hoyle did for the BB- and many others who considered the entire concept inherently unscientific.

Individual scientist, like Hoyle, do not determine that change and advancing knowledge of science. Einstein held on to the view of a static universe too long, but that did not change the fact that based on the objective verifiable evidence the concept of the static universe has been dropped, and at present a number of universe models are under consideration as research continues, There are at least several version of BB, black Hole possible origins and cyclic universe models.

Why not allow science to follow the evidence where it leads, and let that inform us what is real and what is not?

The history of science clearly is a witness as to how this is the reality of actually happens, The Piltdown man, Static universe, geocentric universe models, Lamarkian evolution, and Literal Creationist models of our universe and life, have all been considered no longer viable evidence or explanations as science,

They would conclude ID, whether or not someone goes on to label that 'supernatural' based on the source makes no difference to the objective conclusion of ID.

There is no present falsifiable hypothesis to support the science of ID. If the Discovery Institute comes up with a falsifiable hypothesis, than okay, but it does not look promising.

Some believe life on earth was designed and put here by ET, that's one form of ID, is that 'supernatural'? Some consider intelligence itself 'supernatural' as we cannot explain it by natural laws, and it has a creative capacity, can achieve things that nature alone never can, that's what gives it the power of explanation. This is why when we look at the Rosetta stone we know it was not created by natural processes.- so if that's a 'supernatural' explanation, fine, that does not rule it our being true.

Some believe or some consider . . . does not represent criteria for objective scientific methods to falsify hypothesis.

IF you are seriously considering alien conspiracies without objective verifiable evidence. Let's break out the aluminum foil helmets with magnetic sparkly antenna.

So then If naturalism is true, then there are no non-natural objects to compare with the evidence.

True. Science is only able to falsify natural objects, and natural cause and effect outcomes. It is possible that what is considered non-natural becomes falsifiable as natural in the future, but conjecture and speculation of the non-natural is not the way to go.

That one works just as well both ways, it's odd that people like Dawkins never thought to try that out.

As above individual scientist like Hoyle, Dawkins, and even Einstein do not determine the ultimate outcome of the progressive evolving body of scientific knowledge. Individuals contribute information and knowledge, but science is a vast cooperative coordinated effort involving tens of thousands scientists world wide.

Of course neither really work beyond a word game,
We know there are natural forces AND creative intelligence here in this universe working hand in hand, we know that some objects are created by each. The difference is that you exclude one from being considered as even part of the answer, I don't. I have no need to banish natural forces to let ID win out by default.

True natural forces and human creative intelligence are here in this universe working hand in hand. We do not know of any other creative intelligence here in this universe unless of course, if we discover alien creative intelligence at work in our universe. If you can provide objective verifiable evidence of 'other' creative intelligence at work, please do so,

ID is not arbitrarily being excluded scientists and groups of scientists are free to research a scientific basis for ID all they want, but at present there is nothing to support ID. The discovery Institute has devoted millions of dollars to research? and manged to produce nothing.