Intelligent Design vs the Methodological Naturalism standard for science

[Thermos aquaticus]

If the argument is that there is no God directly flying the sun across the sky in a chariot, then the same rationale says that automated software denotes that it was written spontaneously without intelligent agency.

We see genomes written spontaneously all of the time. It is called biological reproduction.

We also have a 3 billion year fossil history for life, and that life fits into a nested hierarchy. None of this is true of automated software, especially the nested hierarchy part.

Ultimately, your argument only really works for the origin of life. If the first life were created by an intelligent species it still doesn't change the fact that life evolved after that point.

The problem ID has is that it doesn't make any predictions about patterns of shared features or shared DNA. Evolution does make tons of those predictions, and those predictions have been shown to be exceedingly accurate. Why do we see differing patterns of intron and exon divergence between species? Evolution explains this in detail, and ID can't even start to talk about the subject. Why do we see fossils with a mixture of mammal and reptile features, but no fossils with a mixture of mammal and bird features? Evolution explains this in vivid detail, yet ID is silent on the matter.

 

[robocop (actually)]

We see genomes written spontaneously all of the time. It is called biological reproduction.

Yes but we don't see it between different enough groups of life.

We also have a 3 billion year fossil history for life, and that life fits into a nested hierarchy. None of this is true of automated software, especially the nested hierarchy part.

v. 2.0? v. 3.0? I can run Windows 7 on my Window 10.

Ultimately, your argument only really works for the origin of life. If the first life were created by an intelligent species it still doesn't change the fact that life evolved after that point.

How does this negate the possibility that an intelligent entity created the organisms systematically, replacing genes at about the same rate as it went, to create more life. We cannot actually measure how many years ago a living thing was because our isotope tests don't work that way.

The problem ID has is that it doesn't make any predictions about patterns of shared features or shared DNA. Evolution does make tons of those predictions, and those predictions have been shown to be exceedingly accurate. Why do we see differing patterns of intron and exon divergence between species? Evolution explains this in detail, and ID can't even start to talk about the subject. Why do we see fossils with a mixture of mammal and reptile features, but no fossils with a mixture of mammal and bird features? Evolution explains this in vivid detail, yet ID is silent on the matter.

Sure it does. See last statement from last quote in this post. Birds were/would have been created before reptiles and reptiles before mammals.

 

[Polymath257]

Did you see my later response?: You have just tried to falsify #2 yourself. Let's discuss.

OK let's start fresh on the subtopic of falsifiability. Here are five questions about whether ID may one day be falsified. I'm sorry I am losing it so these questions may not be written perfectly. Please try to understand what I'm saying.
1) Does consciousness always come from other consciousness? If so, practically proven. If not, that is a lack of evidence (but then there can be one civilization that springs up and makes several others). We may answer this question someday. If there is a lack of evidence here, it detracts from ID.

Does the consciousness of a human baby come from another consciousness? Not in any traditional sense.

2) Is there too much artistry in creation for there to not have been a Creator (capitalized out of respect)? For instance, why don't mammals have their anuses and penises as one?

Not true for all mammals. Monotremes have a cloaca, as do some marsupials. This seems to be a very early development in mammals, but is universal in placentals.

If it's impossible to test whether creation had artistry like we put art into things we design, that is a lack of evidence and detracts from ID. But again if possible, this would outright decide it.

I consider the term 'artistry' to be way too vague to be useful here. Do you have a working definition?

3) After looking at the stars that are close enough can we conclude with Einstein's relativity that it is not possible to have Alien life exist on a close enough planet to come here in time? Remember there might have been recent creation if it's true.

Well, the solar system has been around for about 5 billion years, with life on Earth being present by 3.8 billion years ago. The difficulty with your hypothesis is that multicellular life didn't arise until within the last billion years, which makes a bit less than 3 billion years of single-celled life. That is hardly an inspiring seeding from another planet.

As for distances, it all depends on the resources involved. if the technology exists to have complete conversion of mass to energy, we could get across the galaxy with 1G acceleration in less than a human lifetime (for those inside the payload). The problem is that such would require the complete conversion of all but a small percentage of the mass of the craft into energy (much less than .0001%).

So, what technological restrictions are you placing on the spread of life? If you allow for a hundred million years, 1/1000 of the light would get across the galaxy (but relativistic effects would be minimal).

4) Is it easier for a civilization on one planet to spring from another civilization on another or just crop up itself? Depending on the odds we may have a theory that mixes the two or we may find that it is too difficult and then give in to chance.

Interstellar travel is hard if you want to convey multicellular life. Potentially spores of some sort could survive the conditions in space, but then there is no way to direct to specific stars or planets. Given the relative volumes, this is highly unlikely.

Even if these do not prove falsifiable I still have my own philosophy which I have never experienced disproof of and people heard my replies without responding. But that doesn't mean it might one day be proven impossible.

It is way too easy for those raised on Star Trek to think interstellar travel is easy. It isn't. Here is a simply scale: if one inch represents the distance from the sun to the Earth, then the distance to the moon (the farthest humans have been from the Earth) is about the width of a human hair. Jupiter is a bit less than 10 inches away from the sun. The *nearest* star outside of our solar system is 4 miles away on this scale. To go across the galaxy would be, on this scale, equivalent to going 40% of the way to the moon.[/QUOTE]

 

[Polymath257]

With philosophy you can get pretty close!

Sorry, but no. Philosophy gets almost exactly nowhere. it phrases the debate, but cannot resolve any issues until actual observations are done.

 

[Jose Fly]

Thank you if we've both read Signature in the Cell we can discuss it!

Sure. If there's anything specific you find compelling, feel free.

Again, I am out of it a little bit. By "doing well" I mean "holding up." By "holding up" I mean not successfully criticized in the public arena.

Which critical reviews of the book have you read?

ID means to me that consciousness created our consciousness or that we somehow came from it instead of consciousness coming from nonconsciousness. For me it's like non-creation ex nihilo but instead of with matter with the mind.

First, can you give me an idea of what you mean by "consciousness", like say are H. sapiens the only organisms on earth that posses it and therefore everything else was not created by this consciousness? Also, are you more in line with Denton and Behe, where they acknowledge universal common ancestry of all life on earth, but they believe a "designer" played a role in the process?

Also in case you forgot I am atheist.

I will keep that in mind. Thanks.

 

[shunyadragon]

With philosophy you can get pretty close!

No, because philosophy like theology is too subjective and lacks objective verifiable evidence at its foundation. Philosophy and theology may incorporate objective evidence, but most often this done selectively.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Yes you are very smart. And I know it seems like I may be grasping at straws but this I confirm that I believe wholeheartedly.

I thought about the question of babies getting consciousness from parents and I actually believe they do. Cells to me have consciousness and a sperm and an egg go into the creation. This is true even in cloning even if the sperm or egg are copied. It is still indivisible in creation. That's what I think anyhow. When you get into creating brand new life that is the very ID we are talking about.

People die too though so perhaps consciousness can be destroyed but not created. It is indivisible in creation. Since that person may one day be cloned, it is like an electron leaving and then later being able to be rejoined, with consciousness instead of matter. The consciousness changes where it is but still might be shown one day to not be derivable from non-consciousness.

I didn't know that about mammals... still it would be uglier if all mammals were that way.

Again, concerning art I wrote:

"Artistic vision would be going above and beyond what is necessary to make life more interesting. Things that don't have a direct reason that balance themselves out anyway. "

I am not as knowledgeable as you on space travel. You'll have to answer if this could be falsifiable for me. However I know that starlight is enough to power a ship forever, at least in a galaxy.

Couldn't you have a machine clone the multicellular beings once it got there?

I'm reading Star Talk by Neil deGrasse Tyson and it is showing me the problems with space travel.

 

[robocop (actually)]

No, because philosophy like theology is too subjective and lacks objective verifiable evidence at its foundation. Philosophy and theology may incorporate objective evidence, but most often this done selectively.

I guess I am a theoretical philosopher. I seek to take all the known rules of the Universe and find the simplest explanation.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Sorry, but no. Philosophy gets almost exactly nowhere. it phrases the debate, but cannot resolve any issues until actual observations are done.

Again, I seek the simplest answers for the observations.

 

[shunyadragon]

I thought about the question of babies getting consciousness from parents and I actually believe they do. Cells to me have consciousness and a sperm and an egg go into the creation. This is true even in cloning even if the sperm or egg are copied. It is still indivisible in creation. That's what I think anyhow. When you get into creating brand new life that is the very ID we are talking about.

Consciousness is only known as originating from the brain in humans and in many higher mammals and possible other animals, and not anything else, If it is based on what you "think." That fits the definition of philosophy and not science.

People die too though so perhaps consciousness can be destroyed but not created. It is indivisible in creation. Since that person may one day be cloned, it is like an electron leaving and then later being able to be rejoined, with consciousness instead of matter. The consciousness changes where it is but still might be shown one day to not be derivable from non-consciousness.

I didn't know that about mammals... still it would be uglier if all mammals were that way.

Again, concerning art I wrote:

"Artistic vision would be going above and beyond what is necessary to make life more interesting. Things that don't have a direct reason that balance themselves out anyway. "

I am not as knowledgeable as you on space travel. You'll have to answer if this could be falsifiable for me. However I know that starlight is enough to power a ship forever, at least in a galaxy.

Couldn't you have a machine clone the multicellular beings once it got there?

I'm reading Star Talk by Neil deGrasse Tyson and it is showing me the problems with space travel.

All this is too hypothetical for me, and ripe fruit for science fiction and fantasy.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Sure. If there's anything specific you find compelling, feel free.

Not particularly, but if you have a problem with it feel free.

Which critical reviews of the book have you read?

I know that there are many scientists quoted in Stephen C. Meyer's and Michael Denton's works making ID claims. In Stephen C. Meyer's work he talks about how a judge ruled against ID and goes on to debunk what the judge said. What I'm trying to say is that he has explained his defense to everything thrown at him. In Michael Denton's work he explains that after a 30 years old publication the things he said still hold up very well. Feel free to comment.

First, can you give me an idea of what you mean by "consciousness", like say are H. sapiens the only organisms on earth that posses it and therefore everything else was not created by this consciousness? Also, are you more in line with Denton and Behe, where they acknowledge universal common ancestry of all life on earth, but they believe a "designer" played a role in the process?

Good question. I have a lot of copyright information about this (not that it's likely you guys are interested), but have introduced the subject in advertisements. I will share the introduction with you.

Matter and thought go hand in hand like two ends of a magnet. Matter is What it is and Thought is what it Is. Everything is doing something in a system. What it is doing is obtainable from what it is. What it is doing is the thought. What it is is the matter. They are one and the same.

Consciousness is a thought about itself, with the "itself" being removed from thinking about "itself" but not the "thought".

I have developed a lot of science that goes into understanding from shapes how different types of thoughts can exist.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Consciousness is only known as originating from the brain, and not anything else, If it is based on what you "think." That fits the definition of philosophy and not science.

All this is too hypothetical for me.

I have heard that a piece of the cerebral cortex influences the decision of which sperm inserts itself in the egg. I would disagree about cells.

Matter and thought go hand in hand like two ends of a magnet. Matter is What it is and Thought is what it Is. Everything is doing something in a system. What it is doing is obtainable from what it is. What it is doing is the thought. What it is is the matter. They are one and the same.

Consciousness is a thought about itself, with the "itself" being removed from thinking about "itself" but not the "thought".

I have developed a lot of science/theoretical philosophy that goes into understanding from shapes how different types of thoughts can exist.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Yeah I am just a theoretical philosopher. My only merit is that my work is simple and that's the only way to credit it with being reliable to explain phenomena. I feel completely comfortable with what I'm saying here and being objective I am happy to keep talking.

 

[Polymath257]

I guess I am a theoretical philosopher. I seek to take all the known rules of the Universe and find the simplest explanation.

You said you have a masters degree in math. How much physics have you had? With just a bit of Differential Equations, you can understand most of Newtonian physics. With a smattering of Hilbert space theory, you can get the basic ideas of quantum mechanics. If you do some differential geometry, you can get general relativity.

Seeking out 'all' the known rules is not such a simple thing. For example, while there are *proposals* for the merger of quantum mechanics and general relativity, none of those proposals has been tested and the ones we have all give different results in many situations of interest.

You seem to think that starting from the basic rules, it is easy to get large scale conclusions. That is also quite false. For one thing, most of the basic equations are highly non-linear partial differential equations. On the mathematical side, we don't even know if the equations for fluid flow have solutions in any generality (that is a Millenium problem). All we have is approximation methods, but even those have no proof that they converge to a correct answer.

 

[Polymath257]

Again, I seek the simplest answers for the observations.

So does all of science. But even finding *one* answer is not so easy. Finding two and being able to test between them is much harder.

 

[Polymath257]

I have heard that a piece of the cerebral cortex influences the decision of which sperm inserts itself in the egg. I would disagree about cells.

I call BS.

Matter and thought go hand in hand like two ends of a magnet. Matter is What it is and Thought is what it Is. Everything is doing something in a system. What it is doing is obtainable from what it is. What it is doing is the thought. What it is is the matter. They are one and the same.

Consciousness is a thought about itself, with the "itself" being removed from thinking about "itself" but not the "thought".

I have developed a lot of science/theoretical philosophy that goes into understanding from shapes how different types of thoughts can exist.

Uh huh. Go try and get your revolutionary ideas published and see what the reviewers say. I'm betting they will snicker a bit before what you wrote hits the round file.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Yes but we don't see it between different enough groups of life.

We shouldn't see vastly different species giving birth to one another if evolution is true. Are you sure you understand the theory of evolution?

v. 2.0? v. 3.0? I can run Windows 7 on my Window 10.

How do those versions of Windows fit into a nested hierarchy?

How does this negate the possibility that an intelligent entity created the organisms systematically, replacing genes at about the same rate as it went, to create more life. We cannot actually measure how many years ago a living thing was because our isotope tests don't work that way.

Why would this cause introns to diverge more quickly than exons?

Why would this produce a nested hierarchy?

Also, the half lives of the isotopes used for radiometric dating are in the hundreds of millions to billions of years. They are more than appropriate for measuring the age of rocks, and hence the fossils associated with those rocks.

Sure it does. See last statement from last quote in this post. Birds were/would have been created before reptiles and reptiles before mammals.

Then why do we see fossil species with a mixture of dinosaur and bird features?

 

[shunyadragon]

I have heard that a piece of the cerebral cortex influences the decision of which sperm inserts itself in the egg. I would disagree about cells.

I heard?!?! not good enough.

Matter and thought go hand in hand like two ends of a magnet. Matter is What it is and Thought is what it Is. Everything is doing something in a system. What it is doing is obtainable from what it is. What it is doing is the thought. What it is is the matter. They are one and the same.

Consciousness is a thought about itself, with the "itself" being removed from thinking about "itself" but not the "thought".

I have developed a lot of science that goes into understanding from shapes how different types of thoughts can exist.

Not science No evidence for this. You're playing with the Vedic (Hindu) metaphysical belief that our existence is consciousness and does not in reality exist.

 

[robocop (actually)]

You said you have a masters degree in math. How much physics have you had? With just a bit of Differential Equations, you can understand most of Newtonian physics. With a smattering of Hilbert space theory, you can get the basic ideas of quantum mechanics. If you do some differential geometry, you can get general relativity.

Seeking out 'all' the known rules is not such a simple thing. For example, while there are *proposals* for the merger of quantum mechanics and general relativity, none of those proposals has been tested and the ones we have all give different results in many situations of interest.

You seem to think that starting from the basic rules, it is easy to get large scale conclusions. That is also quite false. For one thing, most of the basic equations are highly non-linear partial differential equations. On the mathematical side, we don't even know if the equations for fluid flow have solutions in any generality (that is a Millenium problem). All we have is approximation methods, but even those have no proof that they converge to a correct answer.

I only got a minor in Physics, but I am about average for a graduate degree holder in differential equations (my specialty), Hilbert Spaces and differential geometry. I love differential equations and differential geometry.

The reason I think I can skip the hoops is that my working memory IQ is 148 and maybe should be higher. I make a lot of different assumptions in my work. My goal is to get to all the concepts. Yes I know we don't have fluid flow even figured out yet. I claim the same in my work. Yet as I've explained these fluids could be matter as well as thoughts.

You mentioned even finding one answer is not easy. I am barely and I mean barely able to have one explanation that works which doesn't have anything I consider mystical. The fact that it is intuitive however is my merit. I am not allowed to reference where my work can be found.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yeah I am just a theoretical philosopher. My only merit is that my work is simple and that's the only way to credit it with being reliable to explain phenomena. I feel completely comfortable with what I'm saying here and being objective I am happy to keep talking.

OK, but try and distinguish between science, and "I think" philosophy