The Flaw(s) in Intelligent Design...

Harry Leggs

Super Member
Based on what observations can you conclude that there definitely wasn't a designer?
The humblest bacterium contains more genetic information than the instruction manual for NASA space probes.

Thomas, Neil. Taking Leave of Darwin: A Longtime Agnostic Discovers the Case for Design . Discovery Institute. Kindle Edition.

No designer there!!!! :cool:
 

rossum

Well-known member
The humblest bacterium contains more genetic information than the instruction manual for NASA space probes.
The humblest designer contains more information than the instruction manual for NASA space probes.

What designed the designer?
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
The humblest bacterium contains more genetic information than the instruction manual for NASA space probes.

Thomas, Neil. Taking Leave of Darwin: A Longtime Agnostic Discovers the Case for Design . Discovery Institute. Kindle Edition.

No designer there!!!! :cool:
How much genetic information would you expect to find in a NASA instruction manual?

Also, you didn't answer what I asked.
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
The humblest designer contains more information than the instruction manual for NASA space probes.

What designed the designer?
That is why we propose the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (not ID which only detects design). Who had no beginning and will have no ending. Anything or anyone that has no beginning does not require a cause or an origin. This is simple Philosophy, check Kalam's argument. or as King David stated 30 centuries ago:

Psalms 90:2

Before the mountains were brought forth,
or ever you had formed the earth and the world,
from everlasting to everlasting you are God.
 

rossum

Well-known member
That is why we propose the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (not ID which only detects design). Who had no beginning and will have no ending. Anything or anyone that has no beginning does not require a cause or an origin. This is simple Philosophy, check Kalam's argument. or as King David stated 30 centuries ago:

Psalms 90:2

Before the mountains were brought forth,
or ever you had formed the earth and the world,
from everlasting to everlasting you are God.
You need to study the origin of Intelligent Design following the Edwards v Aguillard decision banning the teaching of Creation Science in science classes. What you have done here is only to confirm the correctness of the Kitzmiller decision that ID is just creationism in a lab coat.
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
You need to study the origin of Intelligent Design following the Edwards v Aguillard decision banning the teaching of Creation Science in science classes. What you have done here is only to confirm the correctness of the Kitzmiller decision that ID is just creationism in a lab coat.
ID is more of a science than materialism because materialism has eliminated a possible pathway without cause. Any evidence that points to design in life and the Cosmos is simply ignored or swept under the rug. That is not how science is supposed to work. The search for the truth should leave all possibilities open. Materialism is in contrast to ID where ID uses both natural and intelligent causation as possibilities with no pathways eliminated.
 
Last edited:

rossum

Well-known member
ID is more of a science than materialism because materialism has eliminated a possible pathway without cause. Any evidence that points to design in life and the Cosmos is simply ignored or swept under the rug. That is not how science is supposed to work. The search for the truth should leave all possibilities open. Materialism is in contrast to ID where ID uses both natural and intelligent causation as possibilities with no pathways eliminated.
Science does not accept unevidenced claims. Do you have evidence of intelligent aliens visiting earth about 4.5 billion years ago? Do you have evidence that Vishnu created life on earth about 4.5 billion years ago?

ID does not even have a tested design detector. Where is the ID research paper showing successful double blind testing of a design detector on a variety of designed and undesigned test objects? A claim to have a design detection method is insufficient on its own. The method has to be tested and shown to work reliably for it to be considered valid.

Do you have a link to an ID paper showing the results of such a test?

Without a validated way to detect design, then all ID has is: "It sure looks designed to me," which is insufficient for scientific purposes.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
ID is more of a science than materialism because materialism has eliminated a possible pathway without cause. Any evidence that points to design in life and the Cosmos is simply ignored or swept under the rug. That is not how science is supposed to work. The search for the truth should leave all possibilities open. Materialism is in contrast to ID where ID uses both natural and intelligent causation as possibilities with no pathways eliminated.
Materialism is a conclusion, not a science. It doesn't close off any possibilities, as it can be rejected any time legitimate evidence is provided for something non-material. The evidence doesn't show life to be designed, and that is why ID is rejected. It's not supported by evidence and it's just not science. It's religion pretending to be science.
 

Harry Leggs

Super Member
Materialism is a conclusion, not a science. It doesn't close off any possibilities, as it can be rejected any time legitimate evidence is provided for something non-material.
Truth exists and is nonmaterial. Besides any evidence that does not support your atheism is ignored like all the data (building instructions) contained in the simplest bacterium.
The evidence doesn't show life to be designed,
The data does. But you ignore because you have dogmatic convictions to atheism.
and that is why ID is rejected.
The reasone ID is rejected is stated above.
It's not supported by evidence and it's just not science.
You do not get to define science.
It's religion pretending to be science.
It is a valid deduction based on the facts.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Truth exists and is nonmaterial. Besides any evidence that does not support your atheism is ignored like all the data (building instructions) contained in the simplest bacterium.
Truth is a relational property of material things. You haven't presented any evidence against atheism.

The data does. But you ignore because you have dogmatic convictions to atheism.

The reasone ID is rejected is stated above.
Completely unsupported.

You do not get to define science.
Falsifiability is a defining criterion of science, and ID is not falsifiable.

It is a valid deduction based on the facts.
So show me the deductive syllogism and prove its formal validity.
 

Harry Leggs

Super Member
Truth is a relational property of material things.
So you concede truth exists and is nonmaterial.
You haven't presented any evidence against atheism.
Everything is evidence and the fact being mind and teleology best explains instructional data in bacterium far better than matter, energy and chance or whatever your postulate.
Completely unsupported.


Falsifiability is a defining criterion of science,
By who? It is no more valid than speeding signs since its origin is with humans. It is not like falsification is as relevant as gravity. By the by, common descent will never obtain to the status of laws of physics or Einstein's relativity.

All falsification does here is to provide a lame excuse for refusing to look thru the telescope. Just like the Bishops and Galileo.
and ID is not falsifiable.
Sure it is. Just come up with a better explanation.
So show me the deductive syllogism and prove its formal validity.
What for? If you wish to revisit freshman philosophy classes then be my guest. Perhaps you flunked the first time around. Science is insufficient to explain certain phenomena like origins. To go there is to enter Theology, not science.
 
Last edited:

Nouveau

Well-known member
So you concede truth exists and is nonmaterial.
No, I said that truth is a component part of material things.

Everything is evidence and the fact being mind and teleology best explains instructional data in bacterium far better than matter, energy and chance or whatever your postulate.
That's not a fact. It's a completely unsupported religious opinion.

By who? It is no more valid than speeding signs since its origin is with humans. It is not like falsification is as relevant as gravity. By the by, common descent will never obtain to the status of laws of physics or Einstein's relativity.

All falsification does here is to provide a lame excuse for refusing to look thru the telescope. Just like the Bishops and Galileo.
Falsifiability is necessary for science because it is what makes it possible for a position to be based on evidence. You can't consistently claim to believe something because of the evidence if there is no possible evidence that would have led you to believe differently.

Sure it is.
No it isn't. If you think it is, then please provide the observable falsification criteria by which one can know for certain that something is not the product of design.

What for?
Because you claimed ID to be a valid deduction. If you can't support that claim then you shouldn't have made it.
 

Harry Leggs

Super Member
So you do not believe truth exists. What about math equations? Do they exist? What about triangles? Do they exist? Squares? Ther is no common ground here because you seem to be ensconced in la la land. You asked for evidence for nonmaterial and you were provided and have not falsified the evidence. So you are wrong. Nonmaterial objects do exist. Live with it. How many molecules does gravity have? Are you asserting gravity does not exist because it has no molecules?
I said that truth is a component part of material things.
In order for truth to be a component part .... truth would have to exist. :rolleyes: How can truth be a component part of anything if truth does not exist? Yours is a dodge. At least have the courtesy to provide a direct answer to a direct question. How hard can this be?
That's not a fact. It's a completely unsupported religious opinion.
You got a better one given your (fact) strawman response? It is two postulates for the source of the instructional data. Mind or mindless and what better explains? That is all it has to do and there is your applied science. Spare us your irrational prejudice against religion. As long as a mind beats out mindless, for the instructional data, mindless is eliminated, and mind is put forward as provisional truth pending further discoveries. This is schoolboy.
Falsifiability is necessary for science because
It gives you an excuse to refuse to look thru the telescope. The point of this thread is falsification against ID. Look at the title in case you forgot.
it is what makes it possible for a position to be based on evidence. You can't consistently claim to believe something because of the evidence if there is no possible evidence that would have led you to believe differently.


No it isn't. If you think it is, then please provide the observable falsification criteria
There have been falsification arguments against ID. All you have to do is google it.
by which one can know for certain that something is not the product of design.
Is your post a product of design? What is the source of your post? The primary cause? A nonmaterial mind? How many molecules does a thought have?

Because you claimed ID to be a valid deduction.
It is. It only works with logical minds which excludes you.
If you can't support that claim then you shouldn't have made it.
The claim has been supported and rejected by you. The problem here is with you and not with any claims.
 
Last edited:

rossum

Well-known member
So you do not believe truth exists. What about math equations?
Mathematical equations may or may not be true. Their truth is dependent on the external premises in use.
  • 1 + 1 = 0 (modulo 2)
  • 1 + 1 = 1 (symbolic logic)
  • 1 + 1 = 2 (base 10 arithmetic)
  • 1 + 1 = 10 (base 2 arithmetic)
  • 1 + 1 = 11 (base 1 arithmetic)
You would do well to find a better example.

It gives you an excuse to refuse to look thru the telescope. The point of this thread is falsification against ID. Look at the title in case you forgot.
Darwin provided possible falsifications for his theory in 1859:

• If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.​
• If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.​

Professor Behe used the first of these with his concept of irreducible complexity. What we are looking for is something along the lines of:

• If it could be demonstrated that ... Intelligent Design theory would absolutely break down.​

So far, ID has not produced any such thing. Essentially you need to describe something that your designer could not design, just as Darwin described things that could not evolve.

Evolution has had potential falsifications from the beginning; we are still waiting for ID to catch up.
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
Science does not accept unevidenced claims. Do you have evidence of intelligent aliens visiting earth about 4.5 billion years ago? Do you have evidence that Vishnu created life on earth about 4.5 billion years ago?

ID does not even have a tested design detector. Where is the ID research paper showing successful double blind testing of a design detector on a variety of designed and undesigned test objects? A claim to have a design detection method is insufficient on its own. The method has to be tested and shown to work reliably for it to be considered valid.

Do you have a link to an ID paper showing the results of such a test?

Without a validated way to detect design, then all ID has is: "It sure looks designed to me," which is insufficient for scientific purposes.
They have the perfect design detector. It's called specified complexity of which specified functionality is a subset. It's the same tool used by archeologists in search for artifacts, forensic science in solving a crime and also used by SETI in their search for extra-terrestrial intelligence. When SETI searches for EM waves from space what to you think they are searching for in the signal? It called specificity in the signal such that they know it's not coming from a rotating pulsar or some other natural object. It's the same design detector they used to determine that the Rosetta stone was intelligently designed and not natural. It's funny how you put all those hoops for ID to jump through but neglect it everywhere else. This goes along with my statement that you people have ignored the design option and just want to sweep everything that is in favor of design under the rug.

This is further compounded by the ineffectiveness of natural selection to produce any kind of observed specificity as demonstrated in Lenski's LTEE or anywhere else. And all those computer simulations using GA's (genetic algorithms) and Avida have been abandoned in doing research because they relied on information oracles not available to natural selection. Without these oracles, the programs fail.

So the solution is obvious. RMNS is incapable of explaining the varieties of species and Materialism has no theory for the origin of life. So what does explain life? Does this mean that Intelligent Design then becomes the default? No, not at all. What this means is that since ID can explain these things, it becomes the better theory. This has always been the method used in selecting one theory over the other. That is, if you're not ignoring the design option.
 
Last edited:

rossum

Well-known member
They have the perfect design detector. It's called specified complexity
It is far from perfect, because it does not include a useable definition of what is, and what is not, a valid specification.

Without a valid specification you do not have specified complexity. Remember that to be valid, you need a pre-existing specification. A post-hoc specification gets you into the Texas sharpshooter fallacy: shoot at the barn door and paint the target round where you hit it. You need to have the target in place before you fire.

See Dr. Dembski's Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information for more detail.

You have failed to produce a reference to a double-blind test of CSI as a design detector. Without such a test, all you have is an unsupported claim. Has ID examined the Covid-19 virus to determine if it was produced in a lab or came from a natural source? That would seem to be a good way to get ID in the news.

they relied on information oracles not available to natural selection.
Natural selection has its own oracle: how many grandchildren do you have? If you are producing fertile offspring, and more of them that other genetic variants in your species, then your genetic variants will spread through the population. We can observe this today as the earlier Alpha variant of Covid-19 is being replaced by the Delta variant because the Delta variant makes more copies of itself.

Your understanding of natural selection is faulty.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
Mathematical equations may or may not be true. Their truth is dependent on the external premises in use.
  • 1 + 1 = 0 (modulo 2)
  • 1 + 1 = 1 (symbolic logic)
  • 1 + 1 = 2 (base 10 arithmetic)
  • 1 + 1 = 10 (base 2 arithmetic)
  • 1 + 1 = 11 (base 1 arithmetic)
You would do well to find a better example.
In base 10 arithmetic 1+1= 2 is true. Is that improved?

Darwin provided possible falsifications for his theory in 1859:

• If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.​
• If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.​

Professor Behe used the first of these with his concept of irreducible complexity. What we are looking for is something along the lines of:

• If it could be demonstrated that ... Intelligent Design theory would absolutely break down.​


So far, ID has not produced any such thing. Essentially you need to describe something that your designer could not design, just as Darwin described things that could not evolve.
I am not sure I buy into the premise that something must be falsifiable in order for it to be true. I think you guys have taken the scientific method a bit too far.
I feel as if science has become your god and you attribute to it more than it can reasonably do.

The erroneous idea was explicitly expressed above by another poster.

“You can't consistently claim to believe something because of the evidence if there is no possible evidence that would have led you to believe differently.”

Science tests what it can and what it cannot test it says nothing. How you use science to conclude that there is no Designer because everything is designed, is beyond me.

Evolution has had potential falsifications from the beginning; we are still waiting for ID to catch up.
Here is a way to disprove a single Designer of the cosmos.

Demonstrate the creation of something from nothing and you will have shown how something exists without a cosmic Designer.
 
Last edited:

docphin5

Well-known member
It is far from perfect, because it does not include a useable definition of what is, and what is not, a valid specification.

Without a valid specification you do not have specified complexity. Remember that to be valid, you need a pre-existing specification. A post-hoc specification gets you into the Texas sharpshooter fallacy: shoot at the barn door and paint the target round where you hit it. You need to have the target in place before you fire.

OMG, that was highly technical. You may have to unpackage that for us if there was a take home message. Ha ha! Would I be accurate to guess your profession is related to math or data management?
 
Last edited:

rossum

Well-known member
I am not sure I buy into the premise that something must be falsifiable in order for it to be true.
It should be falsifiable in order to be science. Science is not necessarily true, but it is the best approximation to the truth we currently have. Newton's theory wasn't true, but it was a good approximation for the time.

OMG, that was highly technical. You may have to unpackage that for us if there was a take home message. Ha ha! Would I be accurate to guess your profession is related to math or data management?
My degree is in Mathematical Physics and I worked in computers, starting as a grunt programmer: "If it's not green on black it's not real programming." :) Dembski's maths is correct. As I said, he waffles about how to define a valid specification; lacking a valid specification his CSI becomes mere CI: Complex Information, and natural processes can easily produce complex information. You might be surprised how much information there is in something like a pebble.
 
Top