Intelligent Design vs the Methodological Naturalism standard for science

[Darkstorn]

Right. Exactly. That's why we compare the two competing hypotheses. On the one hand if you really put together all the information required, you have to use multiverses to justify a >50% chance. The chance is very low.

On the other hand, when I say "Could have," I mean we can look at it for ourselves. Drake equation - Wikipedia . This shows that there are scientific factors we can measure to determine the likelihood. Right now we can't measure them very accurately. However it's something like 1%. As time goes by, we can compare the two with these two measurements. There is also the hypothesis that we were created and then left alone.

The two competing hypotheses being ID and magical pixies? Because that's the point i was trying to make.

Both are equally strong and valid. Agreed.

/E: In case you want to refresh your memory on how the magical pixies hypothesis goes, it's like this: There are invisible, magical, omniscient, omnipotent and entirely undetectable magical pixies responsible for the creation of the universe and all its laws.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No it wasn't Guy. It was not the methodology that was wrong at all, it was the philosophical conclusion. It was wrong for atheists to jump to anti-creation conclusions and it was wrong of creationists to jump at the pro-creation conclusions because methodological naturalism says nothing about either -

You'd have to argue this assertion with Hoyle himself, he was completely open about his ideological stance

(wiki)
He found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms"

and the others.,

In the 1920s and 1930s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady state universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory


Lemaitre on the other hand agreed with both of us- he went out of his way to disassociate the theory with any implication either way, even telling the Pope to quit gloating, that's how science should work, we should do our best to separate our beliefs from the scientific method. The problem with atheism is you can't separate a belief you refuse to even acknowledge as such

at least for now - and will never be able to say anything about either if theistic ID is true. Like I said earlier, the only way that methodological naturalism could ever uncover genuine evidence of a creator is if (and only if) the creator turns out to be part of the natural world. Its fine to engage in speculative metaphysics - I have my own speculative metaphysical ideas - and I think that to remain relevant and avoid obvious absurdity, speculative metaphysics must keep in lock-step with advancing scientific knowledge - but it will never BE science. ID is a speculative metaphysical idea and it is not and never will be science - and inasmuch as it denies scientifically established facts - like evolution for example - it runs the risk of descending into philosophical absurdity and irrelevance.

belief in Darwinian evolution is about 19% in the US, (Gallup) and far less in many other places, so ID is not the theory struggling with credibility right now!

As before, phrenology was science, canals on Mars was science, while the Big Bang was religious pseudoscience...

So if ID is not 'science' that's fine, I'm more interested in what is actually true.


But if someone digs up the Rosetta stone and concludes ID, is that a metaphysical argument?

arguably yes, intelligence is not something we can explain naturally, but it's true none the less

 

[Darkstorn]

belief in Darwinian evolution is about 19% in the US, (Gallup) and far less in many other places, so ID is not the theory struggling with credibility right now!

I don't think a 19% belief in "Darwinian Evolution" tells anything about the percentage of ID believers... So this is a non-sequitur. Would you happen to have the numbers for ID?

And i find it cute you keep equating ID to a theory. Good luck with that. If so, my magical pixies hypothesis is also a "theory."

 

[robocop (actually)]

The two competing hypotheses being ID and magical pixies? Because that's the point i was trying to make.

Both are equally strong and valid. Agreed.

/E: In case you want to refresh your memory on how the magical pixies hypothesis goes, it's like this: There are invisible, magical, omniscient, omnipotent and entirely undetectable magical pixies responsible for the creation of the universe and all its laws.

I am an atheist! These are probably Aliens. And science is on an upward curve in believing that there are more and more Aliens out there. Stephen Hawking even believes that we will contact them in the next 100 years.

You can't tell me Aliens are the same as pixies or an all-powerful God.

These are facts you must deal with. However I do apologize for being so combative about it.

 

[Darkstorn]

I am an atheist! These are probably Aliens. And science is on an upward curve in believing that there are more and more Aliens out there. Stephen Hawking even believes that we will contact them in the next 100 years.

You can't tell me Aliens are the same as pixies or an all-powerful God.

These are facts you must deal with. However I do apologize for being so combative about it.

Uh. Okay. Question:

Why do you capitalize "aliens?"

 

[siti]

belief in Darwinian evolution is about 19% in the US, (Gallup) and far less in many other places, so ID is not the theory struggling with credibility right now!

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.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Uh. Okay. Question:

Why do you capitalize "aliens?"

Because in the Drake equation I am talking about the chance that they created us. They would not be God but would be respect-worthy. If I wanted to be more scientific I could not capitalize it because they might be hostile to us, but we've been around long enough as a race that this doesn't worry me.

Capitalizing aliens means that I believe in the ID hypothesis more.

 

[Darkstorn]

Because in the Drake equation I am talking about the chance that they created us. They would not be God but would be respect-worthy. If I wanted to be more scientific I could not capitalize it because they might be hostile to us, but we've been around long enough as a race that this doesn't worry me.

So, just because there's a chance that they created us, you are willing to believe that they did, and are worthy of respect?

I'm sorry. That sounds to me exactly like theism, and exactly like you elevating these possible aliens to the level of deities. Basically, the very same thing as gods. In fact, some gods don't even have the same level of power you attribute to these aliens.

And from the wiki link you gave:

"Criticism of the Drake equation follows mostly from the observation that several terms in the equation are largely or entirely based on conjecture. Star formation rates are well-known, and the incidence of planets has a sound theoretical and observational basis, but the other terms in the equation become very speculative. The uncertainties revolve around our understanding of the evolution of life, intelligence, and civilization, not physics. No statistical estimates are possible for some of the parameters, where only one example is known. The net result is that the equation cannot be used to draw firm conclusions of any kind, and the resulting margin of error is huge, far beyond what some consider acceptable or meaningful.[67]"

 

[robocop (actually)]

So, just because there's a chance that they created us, you are willing to believe that they did, and are worthy of respect?

I'm sorry. That sounds to me exactly like theism, and exactly like you elevating these possible aliens to the level of deities. Basically, the very same thing as gods. In fact, some gods don't even have the same level of power you attribute to these aliens.

And from the wiki link you gave:

"Criticism of the Drake equation follows mostly from the observation that several terms in the equation are largely or entirely based on conjecture."

Not a chance but a much better chance. The chance that they advanced and created us is exactly the same that we might advance and create life on another planet. I am just respecting the hypothesis by capitalizing Aliens but you know what I can just say aliens.

And all I assume about them with the Drake equation is that they are powerful enough to do it.

Also, the Drake equation is scientific in its formulation and I already mentioned that some of the variables are inaccurate. That is why I said that in the future we can compare the two hypotheses better.

 

[Jose Fly]

I don't think a 19% belief in "Darwinian Evolution" tells anything about the percentage of ID believers... So this is a non-sequitur. Would you happen to have the numbers for ID?

And i find it cute you keep equating ID to a theory. Good luck with that. If so, my magical pixies hypothesis is also a "theory."

He's just repeating another dishonest talking point that he refuses to let go of. It stems from THIS 2014 GALLUP POLL, where 19% of respondents agreed with "Humans evolved but God had no part in the process". Of course another 31% agreed with "Humans evolved with God guiding", but Guy doesn't like to talk about that.

It's amazing to watch the lengths creationists will go to in defending their beliefs.

 

[robocop (actually)]

I have read two Discovery Institute papers, Signature in the Cell by Stephen C. Meyers, Philosophy of Biology (Princeton Foundations of Contemporary Philosophy by Peter Godfrey-Smith, and am reading a book by Dembski. I also read the "Life Sciences" book at UCLA when I was a student there.

Philosophy of Biology was mainstream but didn't really try to argue the mainstream view very much. After reading both sides, I think that creation stands better for me. I'm not jumping through hoops... I'm just happy with my beliefs. Whether I can convey them to you is another story. But again, my IQ is 134 and I am happy this way.

 

[Darkstorn]

Not a chance but a much better chance. The chance that they advanced and created us is exactly the same that we might advance and create life on another planet. I am just respecting the hypothesis by capitalizing Aliens but you know what I can just say aliens.

... Just because something CAN happen doesn't actually mean that it DID. That's all. You are drawing way too many conclusions based on belief there. It is not reasonable to believe something to have happened just because it could happen. I'm not sure you even have a hypothesis, really.

And all I assume about them with the Drake equation is that they are powerful enough to do it.

"The net result is that the equation cannot be used to draw firm conclusions of any kind, and the resulting margin of error is huge, far beyond what some consider acceptable or meaningful." - From the article you linked to.

You cannot draw assumptions from it.

Also, the Drake equation is scientific in its formulation and I already mentioned that some of the variables are inaccurate. That is why I said that in the future we can compare the two hypotheses better.

"The equation was written in 1961 by Frank Drake, not for purposes of quantifying the number of civilizations, but as a way to stimulate scientific dialogue at the first scientific meeting on the search for extraterrestrial intelligence(SETI)."

"Criticism related to the Drake equation focuses not on the equation itself, but on the fact that the estimated values for several of its factors are highly conjectural, the combined effect being that the uncertainty associated with any derived value is so large that the equation cannot be used to draw firm conclusions."

"It's scientific!11" isn't just an empty catchphrase you can use, sorry. But yes, while it's a formulation, it's based on conjecture. You cannot draw your conclusions from it. But you did anyway. You're not an atheist, sorry.

 

[robocop (actually)]

... Just because something CAN happen doesn't actually mean that it DID. That's all. You are drawing way too many conclusions based on belief there. It is not reasonable to believe something to have happened just because it could happen. I'm not sure you even have a hypothesis, really.



"The net result is that the equation cannot be used to draw firm conclusions of any kind, and the resulting margin of error is huge, far beyond what some consider acceptable or meaningful." - From the article you linked to.

You cannot draw assumptions from it.



"Criticism related to the Drake equation focuses not on the equation itself, but on the fact that the estimated values for several of its factors are highly conjectural, the combined effect being that the uncertainty associated with any derived value is so large that the equation cannot be used to draw firm conclusions."

"It's scientific!11" isn't just an empty catchphrase you can use, sorry. But yes, while it's a formulation, it's based on conjecture. You cannot draw your conclusions from it. But you did anyway. You're not an atheist, sorry.

I'm sorry but the other hypothesis has a chance next to zero. You not only have to get the DNA, but the RNA proteins and interlinking mechanisms as well. I'm riding the Drake Equation pony so far because it is still much more likely even by very conservative estimates. If the Drake equation gives a chance of 0.01% for instance, then some beings might just have lasted long enough to do it 10,000 times. (Yes I know that doesn't equal 1). But if we were created by chance, we have to have a great many wasted Earths. The number is too high! How would you explain consciousness this way?

The factors are inaccurate but the Drake equation itself is based on sound principles of probability.

 

[Darkstorn]

I'm sorry but the other hypothesis has a chance next to zero.

This statement has near zero chance of being correct. Although you can increase your odds by supporting it.

You not only have to evolve the DNA, but the RNA proteins and interlinking mechanisms as well.

So you can't imagine it, therefore it cannot be true?

I'm riding the Drake Equation pony so far because it is still much more likely even by very conservative estimates.

"Criticism related to the Drake equation focuses not on the equation itself, but on the fact that the estimated values for several of its factors are highly conjectural, the combined effect being that the uncertainty associated with any derived value is so large that the equation cannot be used to draw firm conclusions."

Very biased estimates maybe. You keep drawing conclusions in a way you cannot really do with the equation. The equation simply does not tell us this: That aliens created us. Or that we'll ever even find any aliens. Or that there even are aliens. The equation does not answer those questions with any meaningful accuracy. And it's not even supposed to.

If the Drake equation gives a chance of 0.01% for instance, then some beings might just have lasted long enough to do it 10,000 times. (Yes I know that doesn't equal 1). But if we were created by chance, we have to have a great many wasted Earths. The number is too high! How would you explain consciousness this way?

This is a non-sequitur world salad argument.

I tried to learn more about your beliefs, sadly doing that would involve buying books written by yours truly. But this is informative too.

Oh and for the record: When i was talking about magical pixies, i was actually talking about the very same guys you were: Aliens. Beings so advanced that they have the ability to create other life. I never said they were gods. They are actually aliens. Honest.

And incidentally, no one created these magical pixie aliens. They were the first.

 

[robocop (actually)]

You are not listening... sorry... go away.

 

[Darkstorn]

You are not listening... sorry... go away.

I don't think you are listening: The equation doesn't tell us what you're trying to claim that it tells us.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Hold on... a little busy but will respond in ten minutes.

 

[leibowde84]

I am saying that majority of human beings ever lived were theists - I can not dismiss this.

But, that in no way makes theism more likely. Almost every human in the world thought that the earth was the center of the universe for a very long time. That didn't make it more likely true.

 

[robocop (actually)]

I don't think you are listening: The equation doesn't tell us what you're trying to claim that it tells us.

I claim that the Drake equation tells what the probability formula is of us or a random population in space being created by aliens. This probability is based on several factors and although we are nowhere near estimating some or even all of them if we had these figures the Drake equation would be correct. The probability is very low. However it doesn't factor in the possibility that the average length of a civilization might not relate to the highest timeframes of civilizations. If this is the case these civilizations might be able to colonize far more civilizations in their lifetime.

Now that I've answered you, you may accept or reject this, explain why and you may also tell me what you think of the possibility of perpetual extra-terrestrial creation. You may type anything else but if you annoy me I go away.

 

[Grandliseur]

I couldn't agree more. Like you, I like to sit at my computer in the comfort of my air conditioned home in the glow of electric lighting while linked to a vast network of other computers so that I can tell the world almost instantaneously how disappointed I am by science.

Isn't humor grand!
I'm a bit of a techno-nerd myself. In fact, I was raised around machines, and educated with their usage.

This is why it irritates me when the very clear evidence of high tech machinery having been used in ancient times is disregarded. That is also why I can see clearly what is being said about it when we are shown these things. Most people have no idea to what degree modern machines work, their tolerances, limits, drill speed, the way the hardness of the object, metal, affects how we work with it.