Putting God's Design In Perspective

[leroy]

Science is not in the business of testing for the supernatural. How do you test for the supernatural?

I would say that science in principle can test the paranormal and the supernatural, for example if I claim to be have supernatural powers and that I can see the future, you could test my “powers” by simply asking me stuff about the future.

If my predictions happen to be correct, one can use the scientific method to test whether if:

1 I was lucky, it happened by chance,

2 there is a natural explanation, (maybe the events that I predicted where inevitable)

3 I really do have supernatural powers.

One can use science to test which of the 3 alternatives is more likely to be true.

If I predict the results of 1000 football games you could tests each of the possibilities, perhaps I was lucky, perhaps I bribed the teams that lost, or perhaps I really do have supernatural powers, given the contexts and the circumstances, there would be objective methods to see which of the alternatives is more likely to be true



----

In an analogous way, you can also use science to test these 3 claims

1 the fine tuning of the universe is due to chance

2 the fine tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity

3 the fine tuning of the universe is due to design

One can use science to determine which explanation is a best explanation for the fine tuning of the universe.

 

[viole]

Its not direct evidence (seeing God) its indirect by seeing design.

Also, if you fund research to test the paronormal, then you can come up with a variety of tests. If you dont do the research because you presuppose theres nothing there, thats called BIAS.



> INDIRECT < evidence.



Why are you making this silly argument? This is a misrepresentation of the issues. Pink unicorms are not God and pink unicorns are not order and design in the universe. If your gonna make an argument make one that represents the real issue.



There is indirect evidence. Indirect means its not proven.



How has intelligent design been shown to not be INDIRECT evidence?



I didnt say conspiracy (although i would not put it out of thought). Im saying theres a strong bias against anything paranormal. In fact, i think theres a combination of bias, stupid and conspiracy.



No, i became a christian after having some spiritual experiences, plus seeing design in nature myself. Those spiritual experiences by the way wer not beliefs, they wer experiences. As for my reading of the bible, my parrents did not get me to read it, nor did any christian lead me to it. I read it all on my own volition. It amazes me that two people can read that book, one it turns them into a atheist and the other it turns them into a dieheart believer.



What are you talking about? Your misrepresenting AGAIN. Intelligent design does not say WHO the designer is, it says theres evidence of design within the physical world. Anyone can adhere to intelligent design, a theist, a deist, a polytheist, those who believe aliens made us, christians, jews or muslims.

ID deals with the physical evidence. It sees design, order and information and then infers a intelligent cause.



I didnt respond to that because i didnt understand it, and still dont.



Ok, thats a contradiction then. The "details" ARE the claims.



Fine tuning, Design, order and information are all verified and infered to be actual, rather then illusory.



I dont think you truely know what your saying here. I want to know your reasons for belief in God. You know my reasons. My reasons for belief are based on evidence of design. You have issue with my reasons. So, i ask you, whats your reasons for belief so i can see if your reasons are better then mine. Whats so hard about that?



Fit? How do you determine whos fit to judge your reasons?



I didnt ask you for evidence of your belief in God, i asked you for your reasons for belief in God. So?



No, its to call your reasons for belief into question. Its not to call into question your actual belief itself. The God belief i agree with, so why would i question that which i agree with? Think man. Your questioning my reasons for belief, so i want to see if your reasons for belief are better then mine. Lets hear it already.



Look, heres what i find really odd, you believe in God, that he created the universe. Yet, you dont believe he designed it or fine tuned it or anything. That to me dont add up. And you told me your a christian too, so your not a deist, your a theist. Theism means God had an active role in the creation of the universe. Unlike deism where God makes the laws, stands back and lets it go like dice. So, explain your reasons for belief. Your not making any STAND. For all intents and purposes you attack the very thing you say you believe in. That boggles the hell out of my mind.



Thats correct, yes.



Now you just contradicted yourself. The "apparent" design IS the evidence.

Inference is belief, yes, but its inference based on apparent design.

Atheists or naturalists will INFER no design and say the apparent design is only illusory.



Where did behe admit that? Cough up the source.

Stephen myer would not agree even if behe did admit that. But, cough it up, i wanna see it.



In otherwords they say its illusion. You keep contradicting yourself. Saying its from natural forces (none intelligence) is the same as saying design is illusion.



More misrepresentations. Just keep pounding away at that strawman.



My point EXACTLY! The evidence of design and information does not say WHO the designer is, it just says there is a designer.

Just like you dont know if im a app or a person. But either way, the evidence is a form of intelligence via the information you see in the posts.

Same with intelligent design in the universe.

Why do you guys keep on putting the label "intelligent" to design?

We are miles away from having evidence that we have a design to start with, and even if that goal will ever be reached, we have no guarantee that it is intelligent and not stupid.

My suspicion is that under the premise of design, it looks quite silly.

Take the antelope. She looks finely designed to escape the lion.
Take the lion. She looks finely designed to eat the antelope.

Ok, maybe the designer is not stupid. But a bit like those loners who like to play chess against themselves. Isn't He?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok if the “steps” where not achieved in one generation then these “steps” are not really steps right? …. I mean this is semantics but a “step” by definition has to be something that can be achieved at once

The claim is falsifiable, all you have to do is grow a flagellum in a lab (or at least part of it) if things like antibiotic resistance has been observed to evolved in a lab, and we even can identify the “steps” why can’t you do the same with flagellums?

Growing a flagellum in the lab would demonstrate evolution of a flagellum, not design. This was an admission in Kitzmiller v Dover.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I would say that science in principle can test the paranormal and the supernatural, for example if I claim to be have supernatural powers and that I can see the future, you could test my “powers” by simply asking me stuff about the future.

If my predictions happen to be correct, one can use the scientific method to test whether if:

1 I was lucky, it happened by chance,

2 there is a natural explanation, (maybe the events that I predicted where inevitable)

3 I really do have supernatural powers.

One can use science to test which of the 3 alternatives is more likely to be true.

If I predict the results of 1000 football games you could tests each of the possibilities, perhaps I was lucky, perhaps I bribed the teams that lost, or perhaps I really do have supernatural powers, given the contexts and the circumstances, there would be objective methods to see which of the alternatives is more likely to be true



----

In an analogous way, you can also use science to test these 3 claims

1 the fine tuning of the universe is due to chance

2 the fine tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity

3 the fine tuning of the universe is due to design

One can use science to determine which explanation is a best explanation for the fine tuning of the universe.

If you have the ability to see into the future, then it would not be supernatural.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I would say that science in principle can test the paranormal and the supernatural, for example if I claim to be have supernatural powers and that I can see the future, you could test my “powers” by simply asking me stuff about the future.

If my predictions happen to be correct, one can use the scientific method to test whether if:

1 I was lucky, it happened by chance,

2 there is a natural explanation, (maybe the events that I predicted where inevitable)

3 I really do have supernatural powers.

One can use science to test which of the 3 alternatives is more likely to be true.

If I predict the results of 1000 football games you could tests each of the possibilities, perhaps I was lucky, perhaps I bribed the teams that lost, or perhaps I really do have supernatural powers, given the contexts and the circumstances, there would be objective methods to see which of the alternatives is more likely to be true

What exactly would we be testing? We would be testing you. Your alleged ability and not the supernatural.


----

In an analogous way, you can also use science to test these 3 claims

1 the fine tuning of the universe is due to chance

2 the fine tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity

3 the fine tuning of the universe is due to design

One can use science to determine which explanation is a best explanation for the fine tuning of the universe.

Fine tuning is apparent in some instances, but it has not been established. Given that it could be, it would still require that a tuner be established and that the tuning was done to establish conditions for life as we know it.

Is design the only alternative? Is a designer the only alternative? How could you tell design by intent from design by natural processes?

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

I would say that science in principle can test the paranormal and the supernatural, for example if I claim to be have supernatural powers and that I can see the future, you could test my “powers” by simply asking me stuff about the future.

If my predictions happen to be correct, one can use the scientific method to test whether if:

1 I was lucky, it happened by chance,

2 there is a natural explanation, (maybe the events that I predicted where inevitable)

3 I really do have supernatural powers.

One can use science to test which of the 3 alternatives is more likely to be true.

If I predict the results of 1000 football games you could tests each of the possibilities, perhaps I was lucky, perhaps I bribed the teams that lost, or perhaps I really do have supernatural powers, given the contexts and the circumstances, there would be objective methods to see which of the alternatives is more likely to be true



----

In an analogous way, you can also use science to test these 3 claims

1 the fine tuning of the universe is due to chance

2 the fine tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity

3 the fine tuning of the universe is due to design

One can use science to determine which explanation is a best explanation for the fine tuning of the universe.

You can test your power to see the future with the scientific method.

What objective evidence do you have for a designer? Is your designer part of the physical universe?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Its like saying my post to you is indirect evidence i exist. Because of the information. You dont have direct evidence through seeing me.



How do you test for anything? By getting creative, asking different questions and coming up with methods to test.

As an example. The program remote viewing, they did lots of tests. One of the statistical scientists, jessica utts concluded ESP was real because the HITS wer above chance. While hyman, the hyper skeptic concluded it was merely an anomoly.

Jessica showed many independent labs produced the same average hits, above chance. She concluded also that if the government would continue funding we could ask different questions and do different testings then prior in order to gain a better understanding of HOW it works.



Define objective?

I thought you said there was no research being funded or conducted in the paranormal.

That may be that the hits were above chance, but it does not illustrate a mechanism or that it was some sort of mind power. You conclusions to that end are biased.

Objective is something that is same for every observer, no matter what they believe.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok if the “steps” where not achieved in one generation then these “steps” are not really steps right? …. I mean this is semantics but a “step” by definition has to be something that can be achieved at once

Could a big step be made of a series of smaller steps? Could those smaller steps be broken down further into even smaller steps? Like a point, a step is undefined here. If it were defined to cover only a single generation, then you would have to continually redefine it for it to make sense. A step is subjective.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You can test your power to see the future with the scientific method.

What objective evidence do you have for a designer? Is your designer part of the physical universe?

I do not see how a human ability, even one based on conjecture, is supernatural. All we know to hypothesize in science is natural causes. The test would have to be carried out under that consideration. Not finding a connection between forecasting the future and the supernatural would neither eliminate the supernatural nor support it.

It is still not testing the supernatural.

I think there is a distinct misunderstanding of what supernatural means by some people.

Something without explanation is not automatically the result of the supernatural and automatically eliminate natural causes. Someone's biased desire for a particular supernatural description or cause does not automatically make that the cause. Something unusual or novel is not automatically the result of the supernatural with all natural possibilities eliminated without review.

I think for many people, the above is actually the case and they do not understand why it is not.

 

[leroy]

You can test your power to see the future with the scientific method.

What objective evidence do you have for a designer? Is your designer part of the physical universe?

In the context of the fine tuning argument for example the evidence for a designer is typically that design is a better explanation than chance or physical necessity.

 

[leroy]

If you have the ability to see into the future, then it would not be supernatural.

Then how would you define “supernatural”? Science can test whether if I have the ability to see the future or not, whether if you what to call it “supernatural” or not is just semantics. In the same way science can (at least In principle) be used o test if the universe was designed or not, label It as “supernatural” or not is just a matter of semantics

 

[leroy]

Could a big step be made of a series of smaller steps? Could those smaller steps be broken down further into even smaller steps? Like a point, a step is undefined here. If it were defined to cover only a single generation, then you would have to continually redefine it for it to make sense. A step is subjective.

Again, just semantics it all depends on what do you mean by step

Let’s call the “steps” that are achievable in 1 generation “micro steps” ….. can you show all (or at least a relevant portion) of the micro steps needed to build a flagellum?........scientists can show the “micro steps” needed to build things like “resistance to antibiotics” …can they do the same with the flagellum?

 

[leroy]

----

Fine tuning is apparent in some instances, but it has not been established. Given that it could be, it would still require that a tuner be established and that the tuning was done to establish conditions for life as we know it.

Is design the only alternative? Is a designer the only alternative? How could you tell design by intent from design by natural processes?

I wouldn’t say that it is the only alternative, I would say that it is the best alternative……..but whether if there is another better alternative or not is subject to the scientific method, we can use the scientific method (and other objective methods) to determine which alternative is the best……….agree?

One can compare “design” vs some version of the “atrophic principle” for example, and use scientific and objective methods to determine which alternative is better

 

[leroy]

Growing a flagellum in the lab would demonstrate evolution of a flagellum, not design. This was an admission in Kitzmiller v Dover.

Granted, all you have to do is grow a flagellum in the lab (In the same way scientists grew “resistance to antibiotics”) and evolution would be proven to be the best explanation for the origin of the flagellum

 

[Jollybear]

Thank you, turned 52 today.

If god was real, then there would be objective evidence it was real.

You defined objective as existing outside the mind. The issue is though, you cannot presupose God does not exist without first testing this. Otherwise, thats bias, and bias is the OPOSITE of objective.

But, you may say, how can we test that which we dont see? Well thats where the tests got to be creative.

We cant see wind, gravity, light (no, we dont see light, we see what it shines on). We dont see atoms, we dont see other peoples dreams, we can only see brain waves firing off, we dont see feelings or emotions, ect.

Its no different with God.

Maybe esp is real, more testing needs to be done.

If the supernatural was easy to test for science would have found it.

Theres scientists that already have. Theres a strew of peer reviewed journals on alot of this stuff.

 

[Jollybear]

Granted, all you have to do is grow a flagellum in the lab (In the same way scientists grew “resistance to antibiotics”) and evolution would be proven to be the best explanation for the origin of the flagellum

Theyed have to grow it without using there intelligence too, lol.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Theyed have to grow it without using there intelligence too, lol.

That might be part of the creationist methodology, but growing in a lab is not designing in a lab and would not require that it be shown without input of human intelligence.

That is very silly. Thanks for the laugh.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Granted, all you have to do is grow a flagellum in the lab (In the same way scientists grew “resistance to antibiotics”) and evolution would be proven to be the best explanation for the origin of the flagellum

Scientists did not grow bacterial resistance to antibiotics, it developed naturally from overuse of antibiotics.

Yes. Evolution is still the best explanation for the origin of the flagellum.

 

[Jollybear]

From: Falsifiability - Wikipedia

falsifying hypotheses - A statement, hypothesis, or theory has falsifiability (or is falsifiable) if it is contradicted by a basic statement,

Theres 2 statements that contradict ID, its 1 the universe came from nothing or 2 the universe was always here.

which, in an eventual successful or failed falsification, must respectively correspond to a true or hypothetical observation. The criteria of demarcation define the limits of falsifiability.

Popper uses falsification as a criterion of demarcation to draw a sharp line between those theories that are scientific and those that are unscientific. It is useful to know if a statement or theory is falsifiable, if for no other reason than that it provides us with an understanding of the ways in which one might assess the theory. One might at the least be saved from attempting to falsify a non-falsifiable theory, or come to see an unfalsifiable theory as unsupportable. Popper claimed that, if a theory is falsifiable, then it is scientific.

Ok

The Popperian criterion excludes from the domain of science not unfalsifiable statements but only whole theories that contain no falsifiable statements; thus it leaves us with the Duhemian problem of what constitutes a 'whole theory' as well as the problem of what makes a statement 'meaningful'. Popper's own falsificationism, thus, is not only an alternative to verificationism, it is also an acknowledgement of the conceptual distinction that previous theories had ignored."

Ok.....ID is falsifiable as i see it.

ID remains theological/philosophical proposition that an 'outside intelligent source created our physical existence and life.

So, is the views that the universe came from nothing or that it was always existent, is THAT philosophical?

ID is not rejected off hand nor absolutely. Simply the scientists at the Discovery Institute hae not come up with a falsifiable hypothesis that demonstrates ID. There is no imaginary barrier that prevents scientists from trying.

Heres a quote from micheal behe

"The National Academy of Sciences has objected that intelligent design is not falsifiable, and I think that’s just the opposite of the truth. Intelligent design is very open to falsification. I claim, for example, that the bacterial flagellum could not be produced by natural selection; it needed to be deliberately intelligently designed. Well, all a scientist has to do to prove me wrong is to take a bacterium without a flagellum, or knock out the genes for the flagellum in a bacterium, go into his lab and grow that bug for a long time and see if it produces anything resembling a flagellum. If that happened, intelligent design, as I understand it, would be knocked out of the water. I certainly don’t expect it to happen, but it’s easily falsified by a series of such experiments.

Now let’s turn that around and ask, How do we falsify the contention that natural selection produced the bacterial flagellum? If that same scientist went into the lab and knocked out the bacterial flagellum genes, grew the bacterium for a long time, and nothing much happened, well, he’d say maybe we didn’t start with the right bacterium, maybe we didn’t wait long enough, maybe we need a bigger population, and it would be very much more difficult to falsify the Darwinian hypothesis.

I think the very opposite is true. I think intelligent design is easily testable, easily falsifiable, although it has not been falsified, and Darwinism is very resistant to being falsified. They can always claim something was not right."

The argument by ID scientists is that ID must be considered as an alternative. Yes, it can be if they come up with falsifiable hypothesis that may be falsified by objective evidence. At present the claims of indirect evidence have not provided a sufficient basis for falsification.

Ive shown how ID can be falsified, if the alternative views wer proven. So, how can the alternative views be falsified to you?

For example: The hypothesis of 'irreducible complexity' claims that complex mechanisms and organs cannot be explained by step by step formation by natural processes. The claim of 'cannot be' is a negative claim, and essentially an attempt at arguing from ignorance of what science cannot explain. Behe proposed that the flagellum was an example of irreducible complexity. At the time science did not have and explanation for how the flagellum evolved by step by step natural processes. Since scientists have described in detail how the flagellum formed in a step by step natural evolving process.

The whole point is if all vital parts arent there at once, the complex organism wont work.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I wouldn’t say that it is the only alternative, I would say that it is the best alternative

How was this determined? There is still the problem with determining natural design from intended, intelligent design.

……..but whether if there is another better alternative or not is subject to the scientific method, we can use the scientific method (and other objective methods) to determine which alternative is the best……….agree?

Since we do not have another universe to compare and contrast ours with, it is going to be difficult.

One can compare “design” vs some version of the “atrophic principle” for example, and use scientific and objective methods to determine which alternative is better

I am not sure I follow you here. It sounds like you are saying that design should be compared to the philosophical position that the universe is here for our benefit. I am not seeing a distinction to make a comparison.