It's getting harder and harder to dismiss Intelligent Design

Cisco Qid

Active member
Materialism has a partial explanation for life and a complete explanation for DNA: all the necessary components for DNA can form chemically and have been shown to form chemically.
You have no theory not even a partial theory. If you are referring to the Miller-Urey experiment, the building blocks are not the issue. Just as the existence of cement does not explain a brick building without intelligence.
Unfortunately Intelligent Design cannot explain how intelligence arrived on the planet. You assume the pre-existence of a complex phenomenon like intelligence and then use it to 'explain' other complex phenomena. Your explanation of complexity starts by assuming the presence of ... complexity.

Explaining X by assuming you start with X is a most unsatisfactory explanation. When materialism explains the presence of, say, purines, it does not start by assuming the presence of purines.

ID assumes what it claims to explain, and hence fails as an explanation.
There are no physical laws for intelligence and the term complexity is reserved for physical structures and does not apply to spirit. Given this, our starting point is perfectly valid.
 

vibise

Well-known member
One more time, and pay attention. Materialism is unable to explain abiogenesis or the origin of life or how DNA arrived on the planet. Intelligence can easily explain these types of phenomenon therefore Intelligent Design is the more likely of the two theories - no probability calculation required only the scientific method for defaulting to the more likely of the two opposing theories. This does not follow the fallacy that secularists falsely claim is used by ID proponents. Their claim is that since materialism can't explain life then ID must be the solution. This would follow the fallacy that since A can't explain c then B must be the answer which is not the case used in ID. It goes more like A can not explain c but B can explain c therefore B is the more likely than A to be the correct answer. This is the scientific method always used to determine which of two opposing theories is the more likely. Your accusations are without merit.
There are not two opposing theories, only one of which has to be chosen. The default is actually "don't know".

Also "intelligence" does not explain anything unless you can provide data to identify the designer, along with her methods, purposes, limitations, etc.
 

rossum

Well-known member
You have no theory not even a partial theory.
We have a number of hypotheses for abiogenesis. ID does not have even that, or is your Intelligent Designer a non-living intelligence? Some self-replicating von Neumann machine perhaps?

If you are referring to the Miller-Urey experiment, the building blocks are not the issue.
I was referring to purines, as in Becker et al. (2016). I await your reference to any deity creating purines.

There are no physical laws for intelligence and the term complexity is reserved for physical structures and does not apply to spirit. Given this, our starting point is perfectly valid.
So human intelligence does not require design? Better inform the rest of the ID movement.

You also need to provide scientific evidence for your claimed existence of "spirit". I am Buddhist, so my scriptures do not match yours on the question of "spirit":

"All the elements of reality are soulless."​
When one realises this by wisdom,​
then one does not heed ill.​
This is the Path of Purity.​
-- Dhammapada 20:7​
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Materialism is unable to explain abiogenesis or the origin of life or how DNA arrived on the planet.
It would be more accurate to say that so far no-one yet has a good and complete explanation for abiogenesis. We don't yet have a good and complete theory of quantum gravity either, but that doesn't mean we should blame materialism and start looking to magical pixies instead, right?

It goes more like A can not explain c but B can explain c therefore B is the more likely than A to be the correct answer. This is the scientific method always used to determine which of two opposing theories is the more likely.
I think you may have a rather simplistic view of comparative theory evaluation. I asked you before what criteria you employ in evaluating theories and you didn't answer. I recommend actually researching the topic of IBE (inference to the best explanation). I can recommend some authors if you like. You will come to see why ID fails as a theory, and why it is better to keep looking for a naturalistic solution - just as we are doing in all other areas where we don't yet have good and complete theories.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
"Although the majority of scientists still insist that it must be possible to explain everything in science without the God hypothesis, it is becoming harder and harder to dismiss intelligent design as unscientific and its supporters as ignorant, as a glance at the endorsers of Meyer’s book will make clear. Among the many top scientists who have endorsed the book is Nobel Prize-winner Brian Josephson, a physicist at Cambridge University, who says: “This book makes it clear that far from being an unscientific claim, intelligent design is valid science.”"

Source

What I have been saying all along.
To dismiss

They are required to demonstrate how luck can bring order from chaos. primordial soup kitchen.
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
We have a number of hypotheses for abiogenesis. ID does not have even that, or is your Intelligent Designer a non-living intelligence? Some self-replicating von Neumann machine perhaps?
But no working theory, just possibilities where problems arise in each case. Close but no cigar.
I was referring to purines, as in Becker et al. (2016). I await your reference to any deity creating purines.
Sorry, still building blocks. Making building blocks is what intelligence does best as observed in human intelligence, no need to revert to a deity. It is what is done those blocks that counts.
So human intelligence does not require design? Better inform the rest of the ID movement.
ID deals with the physical. There is no theory that deals with intelligence except maybe in Psychology and socialiolgy. And if you recall Genesis, God breathed into the man's nostrils the soul. It was not created.
You also need to provide scientific evidence for your claimed existence of "spirit". I am Buddhist, so my scriptures do not match yours on the question of "spirit":

"All the elements of reality are soulless."​
When one realises this by wisdom,​
then one does not heed ill.​
This is the Path of Purity.​
-- Dhammapada 20:7​
The spirit is there because of the effect just like dark energy and dark matter. But no need any why since ID does not concern itself with spirit since it is not a quantity that can be measured.
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
There are not two opposing theories, only one of which has to be chosen. The default is actually "don't know".

Also "intelligence" does not explain anything unless you can provide data to identify the designer, along with her methods, purposes, limitations, etc.
The elimination of the avenue of design is what secularists do best, ignore the elephant in the room. Identification of a designer is not a limiting criteria along with the rest of your made up hurdles.
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
In your opinion, are Intelligent Design and Creationism the same thing?
Creationism uses the Bible as a reference while ID relies strictly on what can measured and observed. The Bible is never used as an arguing source in ID. I may occasionally use scripture but that is me not ID.
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
It would be more accurate to say that so far no-one yet has a good and complete explanation for abiogenesis. We don't yet have a good and complete theory of quantum gravity either, but that doesn't mean we should blame materialism and start looking to magical pixies instead, right?
No, keep looking but in the mean time don't dismiss the theory that actually has an explanation. The search for quantum gravity continues because quantum mechanics and general relativity don't agree with each other. The real search is for TOE (Theory of everything) that includes both.
I think you may have a rather simplistic view of comparative theory evaluation. I asked you before what criteria you employ in evaluating theories and you didn't answer. I recommend actually researching the topic of IBE (inference to the best explanation). I can recommend some authors if you like. You will come to see why ID fails as a theory, and why it is better to keep looking for a naturalistic solution - just as we are doing in all other areas where we don't yet have good and complete theories.
What could be simpler. A can't explain c but B can explain c therefore B is more likely than A. You don't close off B simply because you're looking for a way out for A.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
No, keep looking but in the mean time don't dismiss the theory that actually has an explanation. The search for quantum gravity continues because quantum mechanics and general relativity don't agree with each other. The real search is for TOE (Theory of everything) that includes both.

What could be simpler. A can't explain c but B can explain c therefore B is more likely than A. You don't close off B simply because you're looking for a way out for A.
We can also reject a bad non-explanation while continuing to look for a good one.

You've still not addressed my point about the criteria for IBE.
 

rossum

Well-known member
But no working theory, just possibilities where problems arise in each case. Close but no cigar.
That is what I said, hypotheses but not yet a theory. All ID has is a hypothesis as well. It does not yet have a theory; it can't even put a date on when things happened.

Sorry, still building blocks.
And ID does not even have that yet. You have no evidence of any deity making any purines, or if you do you have failed to post the reference. Material causes can make purines and I posted the reference upthread. So far the material explanation is doing better than ID.

ID deals with the physical.
And you have no evidence of the ID designer making physical purine molecules.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
One more time, and pay attention.
I paid attention last time. That was how I spotted your argument was based on probabilities, and yet you had no basis for your probability estimates.

Materialism is unable to explain abiogenesis or the origin of life or how DNA arrived on the planet.
Sure it can: "Nature"

Of course, some might say that is not a real explanation, but it is just as good as the ID explanation, which is "Intelligence". They are both vacuous, but as good - or as bad - as each other.

Of course, science goes further, and is actively developing ideas on abiogenesis. We might never know how it happened, but we are getting towards having a good idea of how it probably happened.

Intelligence can easily explain these types of phenomenon therefore Intelligent Design is the more likely of the two theories - no probability calculation required only the scientific method for defaulting to the more likely of the two opposing theories.
You argue fails because material also can easily explain them, as I just showed: "Nature."

This does not follow the fallacy that secularists falsely claim is used by ID proponents. Their claim is that since materialism can't explain life then ID must be the solution.
Right. You added "more likely".

But when I ask the basis for your probability estimate, you say actually it is not based on probability.

And so ID shilly-shallies between these two arguments, depending on which way the wind is blowing.

It is getting harder and harder to dismiss ID because ID proponents routinely engage in this sort of rhetorical trickery.

This is the scientific method always used to determine which of two opposing theories is the more likely. Your accusations are without merit.
And that is why evolution wins. There is such an overwhelming abundance of evidence for the planet being 4 billion years old, for common descent, for the underlying mechanisms for evolution.

Meanwhile ID is not prepared to say if life was created billions of years ago by aliens seeding the planet or last Thursday in a computer simulation. There is no evidence of a designer and - perhaps more damning - there is no effort to look for that evidence.

Plus, evolution gives us actual explanations. The pattern of the vitamin C pseudogene, for example, is actually explained by evolution, while ID has a single word to cover over its ignorance.

Let us be honest here. ID is more likely to YOU because of your religious faith that the Christian God exists. If we assume God exists, then sure, ID becomes more likely. But that is a huge "if", and something we have no reason to suppose is true besides faith.
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
I paid attention last time. That was how I spotted your argument was based on probabilities, and yet you had no basis for your probability estimates.


Sure it can: "Nature"

Of course, some might say that is not a real explanation, but it is just as good as the ID explanation, which is "Intelligence". They are both vacuous, but as good - or as bad - as each other.

Of course, science goes further, and is actively developing ideas on abiogenesis. We might never know how it happened, but we are getting towards having a good idea of how it probably happened.


You argue fails because material also can easily explain them, as I just showed: "Nature."


Right. You added "more likely".

But when I ask the basis for your probability estimate, you say actually it is not based on probability.

And so ID shilly-shallies between these two arguments, depending on which way the wind is blowing.

It is getting harder and harder to dismiss ID because ID proponents routinely engage in this sort of rhetorical trickery.


And that is why evolution wins. There is such an overwhelming abundance of evidence for the planet being 4 billion years old, for common descent, for the underlying mechanisms for evolution.

Meanwhile ID is not prepared to say if life was created billions of years ago by aliens seeding the planet or last Thursday in a computer simulation. There is no evidence of a designer and - perhaps more damning - there is no effort to look for that evidence.

Plus, evolution gives us actual explanations. The pattern of the vitamin C pseudogene, for example, is actually explained by evolution, while ID has a single word to cover over its ignorance.

Let us be honest here. ID is more likely to YOU because of your religious faith that the Christian God exists. If we assume God exists, then sure, ID becomes more likely. But that is a huge "if", and something we have no reason to suppose is true besides faith.
Very simply nature can't produce CSI which is what DNA full of but intelligence can. End of story.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Very simply nature can't produce CSI which is what DNA full of but intelligence can. End of story.
I am aware of the claims ID makes.

However, I think we have established CSI is meaningless. In the other thread, when asked what specified means, you stated: "Shannon information simply classifies it as information and uses Claude Shannon definition while specificity is an added quality to mark it as CSI." However, you were later forced to retract that, and conceded: "Added specificity is a quality of the existing system not something added by the user which is classified as user intervention."

Is it something we can add to mark information as specified? Or is it not? IDists change their mind as and when convenient. And that is the only reason nature cannot produce CSI - it cannot keep up with the changing definition!
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Intelligence is capable of CSI while dead matter is not that's the defining criteria.
You have not understood the question. I am asking for your general criteria by which you judge one theory in comparison to another. What is it that makes one theory better than another?
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
I am aware of the claims ID makes.

However, I think we have established CSI is meaningless. In the other thread, when asked what specified means, you stated: "Shannon information simply classifies it as information and uses Claude Shannon definition while specificity is an added quality to mark it as CSI." However, you were later forced to retract that, and conceded: "Added specificity is a quality of the existing system not something added by the user which is classified as user intervention."

Is it something we can add to mark information as specified? Or is it not? IDists change their mind as and when convenient. And that is the only reason nature cannot produce CSI - it cannot keep up with the changing definition!
I was giving an ad lib answer when I stated that specificity was added in. I didn't intend it to mean that the observer could haphazardly add in specificity. By add in, I meant to the definition. But nice try. Shannon does not regard meaning while CSI does. Shannon is used to measure the complexity of the information while specificity is a measure of it functionality and meaning. This is how I understand CSI and not speaking as an associate member of the Discovery Institute.
 
Top