Observations promoting Intelligence behind life & support systems

[Ponder This]

It is worse than that.

ID is even disqualified as being a HYPOTHESIS, because it cannot even make the grade of being “falsifiable”.

ID is merely unfalsifiable conjecture, based on superstitions and illogical analogies.

if design is not falsifiable, then is lack of design also not falsifiable?
You see finding something that is designed would falsify the hypothesis that "nothing is designed" just as finding something that is not designed would falsify the hypothesis that "everything is designed".
The problem isn't that design is falsifiable.

In other words, "Evolution" is not the hypothesis that "organisms are 'not designed'". Evolution and Design Theory can't be in contradiction to each other without a clear understanding of what constitutes "design".

And you look at DNA and you see that DNA is literally a blueprint for the form an organism will take, which tells us that DNA itself is a "design" by definition. So we really do end up with design and evolution occupying the same space.

But then, this bit about "intelligence" gets thrown into the mix and science is really still very far away from understanding what intelligence is, but scientists really have trouble admitting that they don't really know what intelligence is. It's a big problem.
But if we actually had a good scientific understanding of what constitutes intelligence, then we might be able to ask a falsifiable question about intelligent design. And that means that this notion that ID isn't falsifiable sort of misses the mark. It's more like asking if "mind-sharks are blue-orange" without articulating: What are blue-orange things? What are mind-sharks? So someone putting forth the notion of intelligent design needs to do the hard part that science has trouble with and say something about what intelligence is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

if design is not falsifiable, then is lack of design also not falsifiable?
You see finding something that is designed would falsify the hypothesis that "nothing is designed" just as finding something that is not designed would falsify the hypothesis that "everything is designed".
The problem isn't that design is falsifiable.

In other words, "Evolution" is not the hypothesis that "organisms are 'not designed'". Evolution and Design Theory can't be in contradiction to each other without a clear understanding of what constitutes "design".

And you look at DNA and you see that DNA is literally a blueprint for the form an organism will take, which tells us that DNA itself is a "design" by definition. So we really do end up with design and evolution occupying the same space.

But then, this bit about "intelligence" gets thrown into the mix and science is really still very far away from understanding what intelligence is, but scientists really have trouble admitting that they don't really know what intelligence is. It's a big problem.
But if we actually had a good scientific understanding of what constitutes intelligence, then we might be able to ask a falsifiable question about intelligent design. And that means that this notion that ID isn't falsifiable sort of misses the mark. It's more like asking if "mind-sharks are blue-orange" without articulating: What are blue-orange things? What are mind-sharks? So someone putting forth the notion of intelligent design needs to do the hard part that science has trouble with and say something about what intelligence is.

Evolution is falsifiable. The problem with ID is that the people that came up with the claim is that they will not put the idea into a falsifiable form. Evolution proponents do not have that fear.

 

[gnostic]

if design is not falsifiable, then is lack of design also not falsifiable?
You see finding something that is designed would falsify the hypothesis that "nothing is designed" just as finding something that is not designed would falsify the hypothesis that "everything is designed".
The problem isn't that design is falsifiable.

In other words, "Evolution" is not the hypothesis that "organisms are 'not designed'". Evolution and Design Theory can't be in contradiction to each other without a clear understanding of what constitutes "design".

And you look at DNA and you see that DNA is literally a blueprint for the form an organism will take, which tells us that DNA itself is a "design" by definition. So we really do end up with design and evolution occupying the same space.

But then, this bit about "intelligence" gets thrown into the mix and science is really still very far away from understanding what intelligence is, but scientists really have trouble admitting that they don't really know what intelligence is. It's a big problem.
But if we actually had a good scientific understanding of what constitutes intelligence, then we might be able to ask a falsifiable question about intelligent design. And that means that this notion that ID isn't falsifiable sort of misses the mark. It's more like asking if "mind-sharks are blue-orange" without articulating: What are blue-orange things? What are mind-sharks? So someone putting forth the notion of intelligent design needs to do the hard part that science has trouble with and say something about what intelligence is.

I think you got yourself turned around with what constitutes as “falsifiable” and “what isn’t falsifiable”.

Simply put it, falsifiability is something, be they be explanation or model, that can be tested, have capability of being tested, regardless of the end results (regarding the end results, eg true or false).

So can the model or explanation be tested?

The answer would be either a “yes” or “no”.

(A) If the answer is “no”, then it disqualified itself being a hypothesis.
(Note that failing to be tested, would also automatically disqualified a “scientific theory”.)

(B) If “yes”, then it is a hypothesis.
(Note. Then this model can proceed to testing stage of the Scientific Method. The tests would either verify the hypothesis as probable or refute the hypothesis, ie the hypothesis is improbable.)​

The only requirement for any hypothesis, is that it be falsifiable, hence have the potential of being tested.

The scientific theory, on the other hand, is a well-tested, that pass all 3 requirements:

1. Scientific Theory needs to be falsifiable, just like a hypothesis;
2. next, Scientific Theory must be rigorously tested, either through observable and empirical evidence, or through test results of repeatable experiments, hence the hypothesis must passed the Scientific Method;
3. and Scientific Theory must also passed scrutiny of the Peer Review.

Evolution has already passed all 3 of the above requirements. Intelligent Design failed to be even hypothesis, because the concept (referring to ID) isn’t falsifiable or testable.

Behe himself, admitted that there are no evidence for ID and have never being submitted for reviews by peers, while being cross-examined in the Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District case:

[Mr Rothschild] Q. Now you have never argued for intelligent design in a peer reviewed scientific journal, correct?

[Michael Behe] A. No, I argued for it in my book.

Q. Not in a peer reviewed scientific journal?

A. That's correct.

Q. And, in fact, there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, is that correct?

A. That is correct, yes.

In regarding to Behe's book - Darwin's Black Box - which was supposed to explain Irreducible Complexity (IC) model, he have presented no evidence or data in either his book or in his IC:

[Mr Rothschild] Q. And it is, in fact, the case that in Darwin's Black Box, you didn't report any new data or original research?

[Michael Behe] A. I did not do so, but I did generate an attempt at an explanation.

No data, means Behe have NO EVIDENCE. He has no evidence for Irreducible Complexity, so IC doesn't even qualified as being "HYPOTHESIS".

Source:

TalkOrigins, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Trial transcript: Day 12 (October 19), AM Session, Part 1 (Kitzmiller v. Dover: Day 12, AM: Michael Behe)​

Editor's note: Sorry. My first attempt at quoting the trial transcript failed. I have now fixed the problem.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you got yourself turned around with what constitutes as “falsifiable” and “what isn’t falsifiable”.

Simply put it, falsifiability is something, be they be explanation or model, that can be tested, have capability of being tested, regardless of the end results (regarding the end results, eg true or false).

So can the model or explanation be tested?

The answer would be either a “yes” or “no”.

(A) If the answer is “no”, then it disqualified itself being a hypothesis.
(Note that failing to be tested, would also automatically disqualified a “scientific theory”.)

(B) If “yes”, then it is a hypothesis.
(Note. Then this model can proceed to testing stage of the Scientific Method. The tests would either verify the hypothesis as probable or refute the hypothesis, ie the hypothesis is improbable.)​

The only requirement for any hypothesis, is that it be falsifiable, hence have the potential of being tested.

The scientific theory, on the other hand, is a well-tested, that pass all 3 requirements:

1. Scientific Theory needs to be falsifiable, just like a hypothesis;
2. next, Scientific Theory must be rigorously tested, either through observable and empirical evidence, or through test results of repeatable experiments, hence the hypothesis must passed the Scientific Method;
3. and Scientific Theory must also passed scrutiny of the Peer Review.

Evolution has already passed all 3 of the above requirements. Intelligent Design failed to be even hypothesis, because the concept (referring to ID) isn’t falsifiable or testable.

Behe himself, admitted that there are no evidence for ID and have never being submitted for reviews by peers, while being cross-examined in the Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District case:

[QUOTE="Kitzmiller v Dover, Day 12 AM session]
[Mr Rothschild] Q. Now you have never argued for intelligent design in a peer reviewed scientific journal, correct?

[Michael Behe] A. No, I argued for it in my book.

Q. Not in a peer reviewed scientific journal?

A. That's correct.

Q. And, in fact, there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, is that correct?

A. That is correct, yes.

In regarding to Behe's book - Darwin's Black Box - which was supposed to explain Irreducible Complexity (IC) model, he have presented no evidence or data in either his book or in his IC:



No data, means Behe have NO EVIDENCE. He has no evidence for Irreducible Complexity, so IC doesn't even qualified as being "HYPOTHESIS".

One trait that concepts like ID and other fantasies have in common is that they are poorly defined. Behe's original definition of ID could be tested and was easily refuted. Believers in ID go out of their way to define ID so it is not testable. And that is quite understandable. Creationist ideas that have been testable have all failed. I doubt if any creationist here can come up with a testable model of creationism that has not already been refuted.

 

[Jose Fly]

It is worse than that.

ID is even disqualified as being a HYPOTHESIS, because it cannot even make the grade of being “falsifiable”.

ID is merely unfalsifiable conjecture, based on superstitions and illogical analogies.

More accurately, "intelligent design" is/was a failed legal and political strategy to get creationist talking points into public schools.

 

[Ponder This]

Evolution is falsifiable. The problem with ID is that the people that came up with the claim is that they will not put the idea into a falsifiable form. Evolution proponents do not have that fear.

I think you got yourself turned around with what constitutes as “falsifiable” and “what isn’t falsifiable”.

Simply put it, falsifiability is something, be they be explanation or model, that can be tested, have capability of being tested, regardless of the end results (regarding the end results, eg true or false).

So can the model or explanation be tested?

The answer would be either a “yes” or “no”.

(A) If the answer is “no”, then it disqualified itself being a hypothesis.
(Note that failing to be tested, would also automatically disqualified a “scientific theory”.)

(B) If “yes”, then it is a hypothesis.
(Note. Then this model can proceed to testing stage of the Scientific Method. The tests would either verify the hypothesis as probable or refute the hypothesis, ie the hypothesis is improbable.)​

The only requirement for any hypothesis, is that it be falsifiable, hence have the potential of being tested.

The scientific theory, on the other hand, is a well-tested, that pass all 3 requirements:

1. Scientific Theory needs to be falsifiable, just like a hypothesis;
2. next, Scientific Theory must be rigorously tested, either through observable and empirical evidence, or through test results of repeatable experiments, hence the hypothesis must passed the Scientific Method;
3. and Scientific Theory must also passed scrutiny of the Peer Review.

Evolution has already passed all 3 of the above requirements. Intelligent Design failed to be even hypothesis, because the concept (referring to ID) isn’t falsifiable or testable.

Behe himself, admitted that there are no evidence for ID and have never being submitted for reviews by peers, while being cross-examined in the Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District case:



In regarding to Behe's book - Darwin's Black Box - which was supposed to explain Irreducible Complexity (IC) model, he have presented no evidence or data in either his book or in his IC:



No data, means Behe have NO EVIDENCE. He has no evidence for Irreducible Complexity, so IC doesn't even qualified as being "HYPOTHESIS".

Source:

TalkOrigins, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Trial transcript: Day 12 (October 19), AM Session, Part 1 (Kitzmiller v. Dover: Day 12, AM: Michael Behe)​

Editor's note: Sorry. My first attempt at quoting the trial transcript failed. I have now fixed the problem.

Hmm. I never said Evolution wasn't falsifiable nor did I say ID was falsifiable.
As an aside: Lack of evidence supporting a statement doesn't disqualify a statement from being a hypothesis.

One trait that concepts like ID and other fantasies have in common is that they are poorly defined. Behe's original definition of ID could be tested and was easily refuted. Believers in ID go out of their way to define ID so it is not testable. And that is quite understandable. Creationist ideas that have been testable have all failed. I doubt if any creationist here can come up with a testable model of creationism that has not already been refuted.

That's just it. ID is poorly defined. Particularly, the notion of "intelligent".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hmm. I never said Evolution wasn't falsifiable nor did I say ID was falsifiable.
As an aside: Lack of evidence supporting a statement doesn't disqualify a statement from being a hypothesis.

Correct, but when a concept is not falsifiable it cannot be a hypothesis. The burden of proof belongs upon those positing an idea. Creationists are the one's that need to come up with a testable hypothesis since it is their claim. Without a testable hypothesis by definition they cannot have any scientific evidence for their idea.

Concepts without any evidence are not taken too seriously in the sciences.

That's just it. ID is poorly defined. Particularly, the notion of "intelligent".

Especially since if one looks closely at life the "I" appears to stand for "Incompetent".

 

[gnostic]

As an aside: Lack of evidence supporting a statement doesn't disqualify a statement from being a hypothesis.

My examples, Evolution vs ID & IC (Irreducible Complexity), regarding to which of these being “falsifiable”, is simply to provide instances.

Beside that. I think you are confusing “falsifiable” with being “tested”.

Being “falsifiable” means the concept being “testable”, not “tested”.

You do understand in science, the differences between “testable” and “tested”, don’t you?

They are not same things.

Being “testable” mean that you thought of ways to set up (future) experiments, but have not yet carry out such experiment. If it is falsifiable then it is hypothesis. But if it is unfalsifiable than it isn’t hypothesis.

Being “tested” is post-experiment stage of Scientific Method, where you are done with experiments or evidence-gathering, and you have your test results (eg data), observations or evidence. The accumulated data or evidence will determine if the hypothesis “is probable” or “isn’t probable”.

Being falsifiable (being testable) is more logical premise of whether the concept or explanation have the potential or the possibility of being able to gather evidence or perform experiments/tests at future time.

While testing the hypothesis, a scientist is doing the actual works of finding evidence or actual works of performing experiments, where he, she or they could acquire data from the evidence (eg recording the experiments on video, or measuring and recording measurements on papers or computers.)

Intelligent Design for instance, isn’t falsifiable, because it have no means of testing the ID concept...so, that’s what disqualified ID from being a hypothesis. Being unfalsifiable would also disqualified ID from being scientifically tested (passing scientific method) and from being peer reviewed.

Behe’s Irreducible Complexity concept also failed to be hypothesis because it isn’t falsifiable. And since his IC have no data, (his admission during cross-examination, which I have already posted up) then he has no evidence, and no evidence does disqualified it from being called “science”.

IC and his in his book, Darwin’s Black Box, Behe tried to justify his concept though logic alone. The problem with logic is that it isn’t real, and with someone like Behe, not known for his integrity as a biochemist, logic can be suspected and biased. He is biased, because he is a senior member of the Discovery Institute, and they are the one funding his IC and his books, so he has incentives to support Intelligent Design.

Science does require certain amount of logic, but science don’t hinged on logic alone. Science requires empirical and verifiable evidence, and that’s what determine if it is science or if it is unsubstantiated concept or speculation.

Lack of evidence doesn’t mean any explanation to be true. To me, lack of evidence have no values whatsoever, it is even worse than negative evidence.

Do you understand why scientists must test their works (hypotheses)?

The tests and evidence don’t just verify and validate any hypothesis. The tests are actually done to refute any hypothesis, to weed out false or weak hypotheses. The Falsifiability and Peer Review served the same purposes as that of Scientific Method.

 

[Ponder This]

My examples, Evolution vs ID & IC (Irreducible Complexity), regarding to which of these being “falsifiable”, is simply to provide instances.

Beside that. I think you are confusing “falsifiable” with being “tested”.

Being “falsifiable” means the concept being “testable”, not “tested”.

You do understand in science, the differences between “testable” and “tested”, don’t you?

They are not same things.

Being “testable” mean that you thought of ways to set up (future) experiments, but have not yet carry out such experiment. If it is falsifiable then it is hypothesis. But if it is unfalsifiable than it isn’t hypothesis.

Being “tested” is post-experiment stage of Scientific Method, where you are done with experiments or evidence-gathering, and you have your test results (eg data), observations or evidence. The accumulated data or evidence will determine if the hypothesis “is probable” or “isn’t probable”.

Being falsifiable (being testable) is more logical premise of whether the concept or explanation have the potential or the possibility of being able to gather evidence or perform experiments/tests at future time.

While testing the hypothesis, a scientist is doing the actual works of finding evidence or actual works of performing experiments, where he, she or they could acquire data from the evidence (eg recording the experiments on video, or measuring and recording measurements on papers or computers.)

Intelligent Design for instance, isn’t falsifiable, because it have no means of testing the ID concept...so, that’s what disqualified ID from being a hypothesis. Being unfalsifiable would also disqualified ID from being scientifically tested (passing scientific method) and from being peer reviewed.

Behe’s Irreducible Complexity concept also failed to be hypothesis because it isn’t falsifiable. And since his IC have no data, (his admission during cross-examination, which I have already posted up) then he has no evidence, and no evidence does disqualified it from being called “science”.

IC and his in his book, Darwin’s Black Box, Behe tried to justify his concept though logic alone. The problem with logic is that it isn’t real, and with someone like Behe, not known for his integrity as a biochemist, logic can be suspected and biased. He is biased, because he is a senior member of the Discovery Institute, and they are the one funding his IC and his books, so he has incentives to support Intelligent Design.

Science does require certain amount of logic, but science don’t hinged on logic alone. Science requires empirical and verifiable evidence, and that’s what determine if it is science or if it is unsubstantiated concept or speculation.

Lack of evidence doesn’t mean any explanation to be true. To me, lack of evidence have no values whatsoever, it is even worse than negative evidence.

Do you understand why scientists must test their works (hypotheses)?

The tests and evidence don’t just verify and validate any hypothesis. The tests are actually done to refute any hypothesis, to weed out false or weak hypotheses. The Falsifiability and Peer Review served the same purposes as that of Scientific Method.

Hypothesis: Gnostic is Intelligent
Question: Is this Hypothesis Falsifiable?

 

[gnostic]

Hypothesis: Gnostic is Intelligent
Question: Is this Hypothesis Falsifiable?

Wow, a joke.

...I supposed that I should laugh at this joke.



Nope.

That's just it. ID is poorly defined. Particularly, the notion of "intelligent".

It isn't just poorly defined.

It is untestable/unfalsifiable.

And no so-called ID experts, including Behe and Meyer, could EVER test it, and without evidences, ID isn't science. Even Behe admitted that Intelligent Design (post 483) has -

• never been falsifiable (testable/refutable),
• nor tested (Scientific Method),
• nor peer-reviewed.

 

[Ponder This]

Wow, a joke.

...I supposed that I should laugh at this joke.



Nope.

Not a joke. A real question: Is intelligence falsifiable? Don't try to dodge the question.

It isn't just poorly defined.

It is untestable/unfalsifiable.

So if "Gnostic is intelligent" is not falsifiable, then can you explain why?
For example, "There exists a white swan" is not falsifiable but "white swan" is well-defined (as opposed to poorly defined).

 

[gnostic]

Not a joke. A real question: Is intelligence falsifiable? Don't try to dodge the question.

If it is not a joke, then I am not dodging.

Your example provide little in detail...it is example of what I would call "poorly defined".

In fact, I would call your example, sucked.

The problem is that you are totally science-illiterate.

If you really don't know what a hypothesis is, as it is used in science, then you would know that if you were writing a hypothesis, then you would provide more detailed explanation, then you clumsy 1 line claim, followed by 1 question:

Hypothesis: Gnostic is Intelligent { claim }
Question: Is this Hypothesis Falsifiable? { question }

This claim "Gnostic is Intelligent" isn't hypothesis. It explain absolutely nothing.

And there is really nothing in term of contents, and the 3-word is open to any number of interpretations, so how do you expect me to answer something so ridiculously loose in context?

So a "poorly defined" claim is understatement. It is a sucky example.

And BTW, gnostic don't mean "intelligent". It originated from the word gnosis, a Greek word (gnôsis, γνῶσις) for "knowledge", so it does not mean "intelligence".

PS

Your white swan example also sucked.

 

[Ponder This]

This claim "Gnostic is Intelligent" isn't hypothesis. It explain absolutely nothing.

I think we are done here. Have a nice day!

 

[gnostic]

I think we are done here. Have a nice day!

You can run away or ignore your mistake.

Your claim isn’t hypothesis because it does explain anything, and it proposed no solution.

A “hypothesis” is potential a “scientific theory”. And like a scientific theory, it must offer detail explanation, as to WHAT is you are investigating, and even more importantly, trying to find solutions of HOW does it work.

You don’t explain WHAT is “gnostic”, nor do you explain HOW you would find the answer.

Hypothesis equals to DETAILED EXPLANATION.

Your 4-word line “Hypothesis: Gnostic is Intelligent” is a claim, not an explanation, therefore it isn’t a hypothesis.

I think you are misunderstanding what a hypothesis is (as hypothesis is use in science).

Do you understand what I am saying to you?

You cannot explain everything in one line, Ponder This.