Intelligent Design vs the Methodological Naturalism standard for science

[shunyadragon]

It is nice that you have new material that I haven't seen. I couldn't read the third article without paying, but as per the first two: unfortunately if you read them close they have found nothing conclusive yet.

Why is a DNA/RNA backbone an intermediate step?
If for DNA we need to come up with sentence A and for RNA we need to come up with sentence B, don't we still need to write "Sentence A. Sentence B?" Where is the use of the second half of sentence A with the first half of sentence B?

They apparently didn't answer this question, IMHO.

Is there more RNA product in the second article? They didn't say so!

"To claim ancestry, we would have to show a mechanism by which these nucleotides we made in the lab could turn into the existing nucleotides in RNA," said Ram Krishnamurthy, Hud's collaborator from the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California. "It's a complex path that we'd have to at least design on paper, and we're not there."

Abiogenesis research is work in progress and young, and yes there are yet unanswered questions, but be careful with the argument, because scientists at present do not know, therefore . . .

 

[robocop (actually)]

"Life exists therefore abiogenesis must have happened. “How?” is another question entirely."

That makes no sense to me, but life exists therefore something must have happened makes perfect sense. Will keep reading down here.

 

[robocop (actually)]

It's like I've said. These scientists are not considering ID at all and theists are not really considering it either. Until theists consider that their God might be limited and until scientists consider that their makeup might have involved intelligence, it is impossible for ID to flourish.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Abiogenesis research is work in progress and young, and yes there are yet unanswered questions, but be careful with the argument, because scientists at present do not know, therefore . . .

I will try to be careful about things we don't know.

 

[shunyadragon]

Great. You know what else's research is young? ID. On to https://www.quora.com/What-scientific-evidence-exists-for-abiogenesis

The problem is that I can easilly fined peer reviewed academic research on abiogenesis, but I do not see this from the advocates of ID.

I have never totally negated the possibility of ID, but as a scientist I believe the scientific basis of ID is not plausible.

I am a Theist, and believe i God, and the harmony of science and religion is central to my beliefs, but unfortunately the extent I can go is the knowledge of science reflects God's Creation.

 

[robocop (actually)]

The problem is that I can easilly fined peer reviewed academic research on abiogenesis, but I do not see this from the advocates of ID.

I have never totally negated the possibility of ID, but as a scientist I believe the scientific basis of ID is not plausible.

I am a Theist, and believe i God, and the harmony of science and religion is central to my beliefs, but unfortunately the extent I can go is the knowledge of science reflects God's Creation.

There have been scientists on the other side of Darwin presenting information since the age of Darwin. Richard Owen for example. You may not be able to find them, but that doesn't mean they aren't there. How could they be common? You saw yourself from that wiki answers thread that no one even considers it (atheist ID), neither theists or scientists.

Then as a scientist you doubt ID that's fine every scientist has the right to their convictions.

If you believe in God I do not have a problem with that either. I am not anti-religious.

 

[robocop (actually)]

I'm going to Taco Bell. Want to come? (I'll come back later)

 

[atanu]

You do not get off easily on this one.

I do not have to get off at all.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You are obviously confused about the meaning of the word "natural" and that confusion is not a basis for an intelligent conversation - let alone a rational argument.

^ sticks and stones, you obviously put some time into your answers, so don't waste it by throwing insults in- stick to substance and I am happy to answer any questions

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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

sure, and computer viruses automatically replicate themselves also. So again, intelligent design is actually the ONLY scientifically proven mechanism by which self reproductive information systems are originated.

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.

The info you are entering is handled by the forum software, which in turn is supported by web browser software, which is supported by the software in your operating system, which is supported by the BIOS frimware, and ultimately hardware under that.

Same nested hierarchy with life, and if you attempt to write a new operating system for your computer using this forum input box... you run into the exact same paradox as trying to explain all life with adaptation, or gravity with classical physics.- the forum, adaptation, gravity- are all specifically supported functions of a design that lies deeper in the hierarchy, they are not design mechanisms- that's a tempting but fallacious assumption

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.

I think the origin of life argument is even stronger than the development of life argument yes.. But are you suggesting that an intelligent being could have set up all the excruciatingly precise mechanisms from space-time to solar systems, physics, chemistry, DNA to allow life to exist.... but then had no particular interest in the outcome of it all? And the culmination of a being capable of pondering all this.... just a bizarre unexpected coincidence?

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.

Again, If we see a historical record of shared traits, some sudden appearances, gaps, jumps, some dead ends, regressions, vestigial features, but a general trend towards increased sophistication and better adaptation to environments, what does all this denote to you?

 

[siti]

^ sticks and stones, you obviously put some time into your answers, so don't waste it by throwing insults in- stick to substance and I am happy to answer any questions

Not an insult - an observation - you were clearly working under the misapprehension that if something has been done by humans it is not "natural" - the rosetta stone is clearly a man-made artifact that has been produced entirely by natural processes - if you are "insulted" by my pointing out your error I apologize and if you want to pass over the rest of my questions that's perfectly OK - I understand if you are unable to furnish intelligent arguments to support your contentions (oops! I fear I've made another 'observation' - yikes!).

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I understand if you are unable to furnish intelligent arguments to support your contentions (oops! I fear I've made another 'observation' - yikes!).

my hopes were not high

 

[siti]

my hopes were not high

Well at least we share that - but if you really are interested in substantive discussion perhaps you could begin by answering the questions I already posed:

You suggested that the Rosetta stone was produced by supernatural causes - I argued that it was produced by the perfectly natural process of humans carving symbols into a piece of rock. Which one do you think is correct?

You asked if it were proven that the earth and its life forms were designed by some super-intelligent alien species whether that would qualify as "intelligent design" - I suggested that of course it would but it would still be natural. Do you disagree with that? If so, on what basis?

You asked why not allow science to follow the evidence where it leads and I agreed with that. Where, in any scientific discovery yet made, do we find any evidence whatsoever of supernatural intelligent design as the cause of anything we have ever observed?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Well at least we share that - but if you really are interested in substantive discussion perhaps you could begin by answering the questions I already posed:

As I said I disregard any posts that resort to attacking people's intellect- I'm not offended it's just boring- leave that out and I'm always happy to respond

You suggested that the Rosetta stone was produced by supernatural causes - I argued that it was produced by the perfectly natural process of humans carving symbols into a piece of rock. Which one do you think is correct?

You asked if it were proven that the earth and its life forms were designed by some super-intelligent alien species whether that would qualify as "intelligent design" - I suggested that of course it would but it would still be natural. Do you disagree with that? If so, on what basis?

You asked why not allow science to follow the evidence where it leads and I agreed with that. Where, in any scientific discovery yet made, do we find any evidence whatsoever of supernatural intelligent design as the cause of anything we have ever observed?

So by your definition, Mount Rushmore was formed by 'natural processes'... you see the problem here..

Of course I get how you can claim this as technically correct, but you would be the one introducing obvious confusion with this definition

Likewise when people describe evolution as a 'natural process' they are obviously not referring to alien ID!

'supernatural' is not a word I generally use to describe ID, it's usually introduced by skeptics of ID to simply dismiss it as inherently impossible.
But again it depends on the definition of the word, the reason we know the Rosetta stone or Mount Rushmore involved ID, is because it required processes that transcend what unintelligent natural processes can achieve- i.e creative intelligence is literally super- natural in this sense. But as above it would be misleading as a stand-alone statement, to claim a 'supernatural' process created them

So all of this is far more semantic than substantive,

whatever created nature as we know it, necessarily transcends nature as we know it, so whichever of these forces is responsible -either side can throw the term 'supernatural' at it- and make no substantive point whatsoever

Substantively, we know that -whatever we want to call them- both mechanisms do exist, we know they have distinct capabilities, we have no basis to rule either out as inherently 'impossible' or 'intellectually inferior' , I just think the evidence points to the natural mechanism explanation being far more improbable

 

[Milton Platt]

it is too simplistic but in essence that is true, we do not have any other answer...

The point is, when we do not have an answer, we do not just say that a god did it to fill in the gaps between our actual knowledge. Accept that there is currently no answer.

If you can demonstrate that the god exists and that it can indeed do the thing in question, then you have grounds to say so. Otherwise, you can just say that an invisible dragon did it with equal justification.

 

[socharlie]

The point is, when we do not have an answer, we do not just say that a god did it to fill in the gaps between our actual knowledge. Accept that there is currently no answer.

If you can demonstrate that the god exists and that it can indeed do the thing in question, then you have grounds to say so. Otherwise, you can just say that an invisible dragon did it with equal justification.

God answer currently satisfies me, I do not have to accept non existent answer, some me do. I do not accept without reason.

 

[Milton Platt]

God answer currently satisfies me, I do not have to accept non existent answer, some me do. I do not accept without reason.

You may have a reason.....you do not have evidence. But you are free to believe in any unsubstantiated thing you wish

 

[socharlie]

You may have a reason.....you do not have evidence. But you are free to believe in any unsubstantiated thing you wish

I do have evidence derived through my intuition.

 

[socharlie]

The point is, when we do not have an answer, we do not just say that a god did it to fill in the gaps between our actual knowledge. Accept that there is currently no answer.

If you can demonstrate that the god exists and that it can indeed do the thing in question, then you have grounds to say so. Otherwise, you can just say that an invisible dragon did it with equal justification.

God demonstrated existence to me. I have no doubt.

 

[Sapiens]

I do have evidence derived through my intuition.

Evidence is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid, deriving evidence through intuition is, at at best, an oxymoron and, at worst, sheer stupidity.