ID is not creationism

[RickSp]

Quote by: Warren Your got it wrong. Someone here made the claim that there is no evidence for ID. They need to support their claim. I asked them what they would count as evidence for ID. I assume that if someone claims there is no evidence for ID they would have some idea of what they think evidence for ID would look like and after searching for it came up empty. But that doesn't seem to be the case. So what is the basis for the no evidence claim? It's better to simply say that you don't see any evidence for ID, rather than make a truth claim. The only way the claim "there is no evidence for ID" can be true is if one shows that ID is false (i.e., never happened).

This is getting to be a running joke. You won't even bother to define it but you demand that we prove that it is false. You ask that we provide evidence for a claim that no evidence exists? That is a rhetorical mobius strip.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Warren Your got it wrong. Someone here made the claim that there is no evidence for ID. They need to support their claim.

I made the assertion because it seems obvious to me that if there were any such evidence, you would have presented it by now.

Quote by: Warren The only way the claim "there is no evidence for ID" can be true is if one shows that ID is false (i.e., never happened).

Utter nonsense. In the 12th century, there was no evidence for quantum mechanics. Does this mean that quantum mechanics has been proven false?

You are completely incomprehensible.

[Warren]

Quote by: Starboy Fine then. I am aware of no evidence to support any claim purported to support any form of ID. As evidence I submit nothing.

Fine, but you still didn't answer my question. I'm trying to determine if you can IMAGINE or CONCEIVE of any data hidden in nature that if discovered would cause you to merely suspect design.

Note, that I'm not asking for proof of design or for data that has been confirmed to exist. I'm attempting to gauge the level of open-mindedness of the ID critics on this board. I'm trying to save time. I've been down this road before. In my opinion, a person is not open-minded about ID if they can't answer this question. Since evidence is interpreted data and all data can be interpreted from a teleological or non-teleological perspective it seems obvious to me that a person that can't conceive of any evidence that would cause them to merely suspect ID is incapable of viewing biological data from a teleological perspective.

I'm like a lawyer involved in a jury selection process. If the lawyer asks a potential juror if there is any conceivable evidence that would cause them to suspect the defendant is innocent and they say no, the lawyer has good reason for concluding this person isn't open-minded and likely even biased against his client. But, its okay with me if one is closed-minded just don't pretend otherwise.

In particular, for the materialist, no facts of biology can count as evidence for intelligent design. Thus, when it is claimed that there are no articles supporting intelligent design in the peer-reviewed biology journals, it is appropriate to ask whether any data from biology could even in principle provide such evidence, and, if so, what these data might look like. If the answer is that no data could even in principle provide support for intelligent design, then that’s a good indication that our conversation has moved from biology and the natural sciences to epistemology and metaphysics.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Warren In particular, for the materialist, no facts of biology can count as evidence for intelligent design. Thus, when it is claimed that there are no articles supporting intelligent design in the peer-reviewed biology journals, it is appropriate to ask whether any data from biology could even in principle provide such evidence, and, if so, what these data might look like.

So we have reduced the issue to this nonsense. If the evidence exists why would it be effectively invisible to a biologist or any other scientist?

If you argue that ID is serious and a worthwhile tool, model or theory (you have never made it clear which you suggest ID might be) then it is up to you to suggest what form the evidence might take. If you cannot do this then you might as well admit that your purposes are religious or have some other agenda other than scientific. If you cannot even suggest the form that evidence might take, then you are just peddling another con.

[Warren]

Quote by: RickSp If you cannot even suggest the form that evidence might take, then you are just peddling another con.

Evidence is interpreted data and all data can be interpreted from a teleological or non-teleological perspective. There is indeed data from the natural world that can be interpreted as supporting a design inference. That's why there are scientists that are design theorists.

Sure, I can submit data that I interprete as supporting a design inference but why should I waste time with critics that can't conceive of any evidence that would cause them to merely suspect ID?

Let’s do a thought experiment. Science is used to determine the age of the Earth. What if science determined that the Earth was 6000 years old?

Science is used to explore the relationships between living things. What if science determined that living things can be neatly fitted into discrete, discontinuous groups, such that it would be impossible for them to be related by common descent?

Science is used to study the surface of the Earth. What if science determined that there once was a global flood?

If science determined that the Earth was 6000 years old, that evolution could not occur and all living things were fitted into discrete, discontinuous groups, and a global flood once covered the Earth, wouldn't it be rational to suspect design?

But when I asked you ID critics if there was any conceivable data that would cause you to merely suspect design you were completely stumped. I can only assume that if the above extreme examples wouldn't trigger a mere suspicion of design from you then it's a waste of my time to submit what is admittedly much more subtle evidence.

[Warren]

Quote by: RickSp If the evidence exists why would it be effectively invisible to a biologist or any other scientist?

It's only effectively invisible to those like youself that can't even conceive of what evidence for ID would look like. If you don't know what to look for it could be staring you in the face and you wouldn't recognize it.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Warren Fine, but you still didn't answer my question. I'm trying to determine if you can IMAGINE or CONCEIVE of any data hidden in nature that if discovered would cause you to merely suspect design.

Sure. Angels, unicorns, dragons, trolls, elves, mermaids, jinn, Santa Clause, satyr and so on. I can imagine all sorts of crazy stuff but so what. Science is not about what you can imagine, it is about what you can demonstraite. Sure, imiagination can be a spark but there comes a time when you accept that the spark is a dud and you move on. The Nobel Prize in science is not awarded for imagination.

Starboy

[RickSp]

Quote by: Warren It's only effectively invisible to those like youself that can't even conceive of what evidence for ID would look like. If you don't know what to look for it could be staring you in the face and you wouldn't recognize it.

Maybe if I only put my faith in Jesus, everything would become clear. Is that it?

Well, Warren, this has been an amusing waste of time. Whatever your designs may be, I doubt that they are intelligent. Your snake oil pitch has become boring and repetitive. If you plan to continue the con you do need to work on your material.

[Warren]

Quote by: Starboy Sure. Angels, unicorns, dragons, trolls, elves, mermaids, jinn, Santa Clause, satyr and so on. I can imagine all sorts of crazy stuff but so what. Science is not about what you can imagine, it is about what you can demonstraite. Sure, imiagination can be a spark but there comes a time when you accept that the spark is a dud and you move on. The Nobel Prize is not awarded for imagination.

The fact that you can only come up with "crazy stuff" to support a design inference just goes to show how biased against design you are. I never said science was about what you can imagine. I was just attempting to gauge your level of open-mindedness. Scientific hypotheses often begin with suspicions. Any investigation needs to build on suspicions and hunches. Take away these, and you have no investigation.

[Pooeypants]

Let's ask the critical question here, Intelligence design posits a designer, who is this designer and where did it come from? Who designed the designer?

[Warren]

Quote by: Starboy Sure. Angels, unicorns, dragons, trolls, elves, mermaids, jinn, Santa Clause, satyr and so on. I can imagine all sorts of crazy stuff but so what.

Let's not lose track that I started this this thread to dispute that ID is creationism. No one here has offerred a shread of evidence that it is. No evidence that ID is based on a literal reading of Genesis, no evidence that ID is anti-evolution, no evidence that ID invokes the supernatural, no evidence that ID is anti-science.

Now the subject has changed to whether or not there is evidence for ID.

We need to keep in mind that there is such a thing as a continuum of evidence. There are data that provoke suspicions. There are data which work to strengthen or weaken these original suspicions. There are data that leads to investigations. Data that generate testable hypotheses. There are data likely to convince one predisposed to be convinced. Data likely to convince those who are neutral. And data likely to convince a hard core skeptic. Starboy is a hard core skeptic. Thus for him to merely suspect ID not prove ID he needs to find angels, unicorns, dragons, trolls, elves, mermaids, jinn, Santa Clause, satyr and so on.

This is precisely why I asked the question: "what would cause you to merely suspect design?" It prevents the ID critic from masquerading as an open-minded investigator.

[Warren]

Quote by: Pooeypants Let's ask the critical question here, Intelligence design posits a designer, who is this designer and where did it come from? Who designed the designer?

After a few moments of stunned silence, I realized what a powerful objection this is. In fact, it's a universal acid, a show stopper. Its application is almost limitless. For example, people say that Mt. Rushmore was sculpted. But that does nothing to explain the origin of the sculptors! There is no explanatory value in attributing the Jupiter Symphony to the artistry [design] of mozart, because we don't know who designed Mozart. Similarly with respect to all examples in which we infer the activity of an intelligent agent. All those explanations fail to explain the origin of the agent itself, and are therefore unjustified. Therefore, we can never infer design in any case. Therefore, if you are reading this, you have no justification for inferring that someone has written this post. It's best just to stop the regress of explanation at the computer screen itself.

[Starboy]

Warren, it is not as if there is only one concept of ID. But even so, in order to address your particular concept you would have to state it clearly. What little you have done makes it clear that for you ID includes design. But for some reason (dishonesty perhaps) you are unable to comprehend that saying that something that exists is designed means there is a designer and a creator. By advocating this you are saying that existence is explained by a creator. As stated before, ID does not supply the specific account but it doesn't rule any out either. If is a very lame form of creationism. In terms of science it is worthless because it doesn't even try to explain anything nor does it provide a workable way to determine if something was designed. It is a dead end.

Starboy

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Warren After a few moments of stunned silence, I realized what a powerful objection this is. In fact, it's a universal acid, a show stopper. Its application is almost limitless. For example, people say that Mt. Rushmore was sculpted. But that does nothing to explain the origin of the sculptors! There is no explanatory value in attributing the Jupiter Symphony to the artistry [design] of mozart, because we don't know who designed Mozart. Similarly with respect to all examples in which we infer the activity of an intelligent agent. All those explanations fail to explain the origin of the agent itself, and are therefore unjustified. Therefore, we can never infer design in any case. Therefore, if you are reading this, you have no justification for inferring that someone has written this post. It's best just to stop the regress of explanation at the computer screen itself.

Mozart had a biological mother and father. He was human and we can assume that humans in the past are the same as they are now correct? It's a very plausible explanation of his origins wouldn't you say? Or do perhaps he was the spawn of leprachaun? Maybe from the backside of an elephant?

You've still yet to answer my question and I doubt you ever would.
However, my point still stands, Intelligent design posits an external "force", so who is this designer?

Why go through all this facade when the end result is just another "God did it"?
No matter how you dress it up, that is what you're claiming when you prop up "Intelligent design".

[RickSp]

Warren is getting funny. He argues that ID is not creationism but refuses to define what he means by the term. He did fall back on "teleological evolution" but gave almost no hint of what he meant by that either. Now he claims that our biases prevent us from seeing ID, whatever he means by the phrase.

And when asked who the designer might be he goes off on a wierd riff involving Mount Rushmore. He claims there is "nothing to explain the origin of the sculptors!" a very curious statement as there is no end of evidence that would identify that Mount Rushmore was sculpted including much that identifies the sculptor my name. I guess this is evidence of ID that we are somehow not too biased to see.

Weird.

[rez]

it sounds like Warren is stating that the final answer to the universe will never be reached, however, there will be an end.

Its like the universe is a prison. Conscious beings can investigate the inside, but the outside will forever be a mystery. However, what Warren is saying, is that the prison has Intelligent Design, although there is no way to tell of a creator.

Warrens theory of ID, to me, sounds more of a metaphysical question rather then a scientific question and should be moved to the "Philosophy/Religion" messageboard.

It sounds like ID is trying to say the universe is really a petry dish created by an Alien species.

either way, this thread belongs in the Philosophy forum.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Warren, I'm very curious as to why you keep ignoring my posts. You have yet to answer the question I keep asking:

Is ID functionally equivalent to the ToE, and if so, what's the use of it?

And also, no, I cannot concieve of or imagine any evidence that would support ID, because you have yet to explain what you mean by "ID".

[Starboy]

So Warren, are you a deist or a supernaturalist?

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: Warren The fact that you can only come up with "crazy stuff" to support a design inference just goes to show how biased against design you are. I never said science was about what you can imagine. I was just attempting to gauge your level of open-mindedness. Scientific hypotheses often begin with suspicions. Any investigation needs to build on suspicions and hunches. Take away these, and you have no investigation.

Maybe you are right. Maybe I am so biased that I can only come up with "crazy stuff" but since when are supernatural explanations and constructs not crazy? And even if I am completely close minded that still doesn't change that you are as lacking in imagination as I or lack the honesty to just state what you know because you have not provided anything that indicates that your open-mindedness is any better than what you presume to be my close-mindedness. And as I have stated before, a suspicion is enough to investigate but if there are no result all you have is a dead end. If you want to investigate ID - whatever you may understand that to mean - then go ahead and do it. No one is stopping you. But please have the honesty to admit that at this stage it is nothing more than a hope and has no more place in a science class than Santa Clause.

Starboy

[RickSp]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Warren, I'm very curious as to why you keep ignoring my posts. You have yet to answer the question I keep asking: Is ID functionally equivalent to the ToE, and if so, what's the use of it? And also, no, I cannot concieve of or imagine any evidence that would support ID, because you have yet to explain what you mean by "ID".

You aren't the only one. He seems to be ignoring all of our questions. I've given up. Good luck getting an answer.