Intelligent Design vs the Methodological Naturalism standard for science

[robocop (actually)]

That's not how you convince scientists. You convince scientists by producing science.

He did.

 

[robocop (actually)]

How in the world are introns in any way related to comments in program code?



If you had clicked on the link, you would have all your questions answered.

The natural and observed process of mutation produces more transitions than transversions due the fact that A and G are chemically similar as are C and T. Therefore, if the natural process of random mutation were responsible for the differences between species then we should see more transitions than transversions, and that is exactly what we see. The natural process of random mutation also produces more mutations at CpG sites, and once again we see that same bias when we compare genomes.

You have also not explained how emulators would necessarily produce nested hierarchies.




No.



There isn't a nested hierarchy in art.

I read the whole article.

 

[robocop (actually)]

.

I guess with art some things can be handled with normal genes. Humans grow taller over time to attract each other. Other things wouldn't get off the ground and there could be simpler ways to cover the same niches.

 

[robocop (actually)]

.

Let me know if you still want the list of scientists Stephen C. Meyer talked to.

 

[Jose Fly]

In Signature in the Cell, Stephen C. Meyer describes many encounters with professionals to convince them of his views.

Except that's not how you present your material to the scientific community.

Even without dodging the question, I still don't really know.

Ok, thanks.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

He did.

No, he didn't. The only paper I am aware of was a review paper which is only comments on science done by other people. He needs to produce his own data and publish it.

 

[robocop (actually)]

I think that he found other IDers to reference in his work, made papers with original work and talked to other scientists to try to convince them.

 

[shunyadragon]

Consciousness:

Let us discuss consciousness in the context of a computer, brain and cells. In a computer you can have say, lines 50-100 of a program read,

If lines 50-100 == decompress(code) consciousness=TRUE.

The code part decompresses into the same statement "If lines 50-100 == decompress (code) consciousness=TRUE."

This is a statement thinking about itself where the itself is removed from thinking about itself but not the thinking. If it is in the RAM it can be perpetual. If a computer does its task to get recharged and gets recharged, that might be seen as pleasure/happiness.

In a brain I dropped the article but there was an article that showed they found a single neuron could distinguish two thoughts. There may be independent thoughts and consciousness all over and when one ties into another we think of it as coming from the subconscious.

Anyway a brain can think "I am trying to survive against a bear." I is certainly consciousness in this context, and beling able to have this consciousness helps it to think about itself and what it can do.

Brain vs contemporary computer; terrible comparison.

Lastly, a cell.

Cells control their boundaries, organize and clean up content, turn energy into composition, and proteins run DNA which runs protein. These actions can be thought as a sort of "programming language" made of a lot more physical/chemical actions. If a cell calculates with its machinery that it has the size to absorb three other cells this calculation/chemical.

Sort of okay, but in a way misleading, because non sequitur, the logic does not follow.

reaction/programming instruction has the word "I" in it. When you look at it this way I think it is obvious that cells have consciousness.

No, because among other things there are no alternatives of thought and consciousness in a cell. I do not like the word programmed here as in a computer. The cell simply acts and responds to the specialization purpose of the cell determined by DNA nothing else nor nothing more.

We take the activity of a cell, put it into language, and ask if it involves consciousness.

We? No, scientists do not.

Art: If ID is correct the art is a great way to see it, but could these artistic mating/survival mechanisms develop from mutation?

Yes it is possible that the creative intelligence can possibly be evolved. It has not, nor likely cannot be determined. The only objective evidence we have is that these are attributes of the human brain.

A bird sings a song to its potential mate to show that it can take in a lot of air or that it has stamina. How would it come about by mutation? A male bird only after serious mutation could start making sound/song and the female only after the same could start recognizing it. I could be wrong about this one.

Of course it can, It has been observed that subtle variations in varieties and subspecies of birds have developed these variations to differentiate other related birds from mating.

A peafowl fans its feathers to scare attackers when mating (I think). How would the first feather form and why would any animal care?

You are unfortunately proposing the possibility of a Lamarkian anthropomorphic slant on evolution which is shear foolishness. The mechanisms of evolution do not remotely consider this.

Birds that collect trinkets show that they have the ability to fly long distances, but how do the brains get ready to test whether something is hard to come by? The brain would be neutral to trinkets that didn't associate themselves with survival.

Not necessarily so, the ability of the male Raven to select the most attractive trinkets may when the mate. Just as the most attractive feathers, or the best song.

Give me other examples of so-called art and we'll look at whether they could come about.

Come about? That is not how evolution works. The earliest pre-human ancestors were found to make and collect bead jewelry particularly as gifts to attract females. Tattoos and ornamentation are known as far back as humans have been human. It is pretty much an observed fact that from the first primitive beads found that jewelry and other decorative items evolved to be more artistic over time.

What evolved is not art, but creative intelligence that gave humans an advantage over others to creatively manipulate and adapt to different environments. Art is a result of creative intelligence.

I often wonder if there would be so many nitches by mutation.

The more niches the more opportunities for the best niches fir survival as animals evolve,[/quote]

 

[robocop (actually)]

I'm sorry for comparing contemporary computers to humans; the computers are much better. In some ways.

The brain acts and responds too. We know it is conscious by direct observation. We don't know cells aren't consciousness this way because we aren't cells. But what is the significant difference between the brain and the cell in acting and responding that would preclude consciousness from cells?

Putting cellular machinery activity into language was meant to be a thought experiment.

Some living things vary like humans getting taller over time. Some things don't seem to get off the ground.

I don't believe in the saltational.

In humans the beads probably became more attractive as the mate came to understand the rarity or difficulty of finding such beads.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I think that he found other IDers to reference in his work, made papers with original work and talked to other scientists to try to convince them.

You think?

Why don't you cite the primary peer reviewed papers?

 

[robocop (actually)]

You think?

Why don't you cite the primary peer reviewed papers?

Here are 6 articles he wrote:
Stephen C. Meyer - Research

Here are more articles he wrote:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=submitSearchQuery&query=Stephen C. Meyer&orderBy=date&orderDir=DESC&searchBy=author&searchType=all&includeBlogPosts=true

Peer reviewed yes although you may not like some of the publications.

 

[Jose Fly]

Here are 6 articles he wrote:
Stephen C. Meyer - Research

Here are more articles he wrote:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=submitSearchQuery&query=Stephen C. Meyer&orderBy=date&orderDir=DESC&searchBy=author&searchType=all&includeBlogPosts=true

Peer reviewed yes although you may not like some of the publications.

I gotta say.....that's hilarious.

 

[robocop (actually)]

I assume most of them are peer-reviewed. Then why don't you rate my post funny?

 

[robocop (actually)]

There's still a lot of information there that is meant to be scientifically evaluated and Michael Denton may have written two papers but they were original.

Again, I only hang out with Stephen C. Meyer and Michael Denton when it comes to the Discovery Institute. Rudolf Steiner's Sensitive Chaos is something else I like.

 

[Jose Fly]

I assume most of them are peer-reviewed. Then why don't you rate my post funny?

The first is a paper in a fluff journal, the second was pulled after publication, the third is a religious publication, and the last three are books he co-authored with other creationists.

The second link lists a bunch of blog posts and political op-eds.

I think that speaks for itself.

 

[robocop (actually)]

The first is a paper in a fluff journal, the second was pulled after publication, the third is a religious publication, and the last three are books he co-authored with other creationists.

The second link lists a bunch of blog posts and political op-eds.

I think that speaks for itself.

Not quite! People with new science almost always have a tough time being recognized. If he had succeeded we wouldn't be having this conversation. Think of how some scientists were treated who were later accepted.

 

[Jose Fly]

Not quite! People with new science almost always have a tough time being recognized. If he had succeeded we wouldn't be having this conversation. Think of how Darwin was treated.

Except Meyer isn't even trying to make his case to the scientific community. He's just preaching to believers and making money selling them books.

If you look at past cases where scientists faced initial opposition but eventually won out, they're quite different. They submitted their work to actual scientific journals and presented at scientific conferences and the like. And when they were rejected or faced criticism, they went back to work, collected more data, and kept submitting their results until they prevailed.

Completely different than Meyer, who never submitted his work at all and focuses entirely on selling his material to the religious.

 

[robocop (actually)]

The first journal doesn't appear to be fluff and the second journal was peer-reviewed but then pulled because they decided it was too controversial.

Also, people co-author papers all the time.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Be back later.

 

[atanu]

...

...I am only arguing that they are not supported by the accepted standards of science.

Yes surely, IMO.

OTOH, IMO, the assumption that the empirical methods of science only can determine the truth about reality (whatever that may be) entails metaphysics and not mere method.

As per Rational WIKI

Philosophical naturalism - RationalWiki
Methodological naturalism accepts that there is no way to contact, detect, or otherwise empirically observe the supernatural. In consequence methodological naturalists believe the scientific method to be the best way to determine the truth about reality.

The red highlight suggests to me that what Rational WIKI is proposing as methodological is already philosophical.