The Flaw(s) in Intelligent Design...

Nouveau

Well-known member
So you do not believe truth exists.
You are strawmanning. This is dishonest.

In order for truth to be a component part .... truth would have to exist.
Which it does.

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.
It's still an unsupported opinion, not a fact.

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.

There have been falsification arguments against ID. All you have to do is google it.

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?
I asked you for falsification criteria for ID. You haven't provided any, thus confirming my point that ID is not falsifiable.

It is. It only works with logical minds which excludes you.

The claim has been supported and rejected by you. The problem here is with you and not with any claims.
You're resorting to insults, and you still haven't supported the claim. If you think ID is a valid deduction then present the deductive syllogism and prove its formal validity. You won't because you can't.
 

Cisco Qid

Active 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.

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.


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.
Just another example of the double standard used against ID but not required of any of the other sciences. You don't hear of any of these objections when specificity is applied by archeologists, SETI or anywhere else. Besides, you have a conceptually misunderstanding of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy and actually fall victim to the fallacy in your application to grand children. The grand children are already a design in place which is a prime example of drawing the target after the shot. Did you think that the blind search of natural selection had any access to grand children? If the information oracles are all right then why did they drop Avida from the research agenda, after the Marks, Dembki, Ewert analysis?
 

rossum

Well-known member
Just another example of the double standard used against ID but not required of any of the other sciences. You don't hear of any of these objections when specificity is applied by archeologists, SETI or anywhere else.
CSI was devised by Dr, Dembski long after archaeology, SETI and others had become established, with their own individual criteria. CSI requires a measure of complexity (the 'C' in CSI). Neither archaeology nor SETI measure the complexity of what they are looking at. CSI is specific to ID, and CSI remains untested, given that you have not been able to provide any reference to a double blind test.

Did you think that the blind search of natural selection had any access to grand children?
Of course it does. Those grandchildren carry copies of the genes from their grandparent(s). Natural selection selects on those genes. The more copies of a gene in future generations, the more successful that gene is. See Conid-19, Delta variant for a contemporary example.

Do I have to post my natural selection spreadsheet yet again?
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
CSI was devised by Dr, Dembski long after archaeology, SETI and others had become established, with their own individual criteria. CSI requires a measure of complexity (the 'C' in CSI). Neither archaeology nor SETI measure the complexity of what they are looking at. CSI is specific to ID, and CSI remains untested, given that you have not been able to provide any reference to a double blind test.
CSI is just one step above Shannon information in that it uses specificity which is not a requirement in Shannon information. Shannon information is ubiquitous in biology, Dembski simply adds the added restraint of functionality and specificity and renames it CSI which causes neo-Darwinists to go bonkers. But you will note that I did not use the term CSI but rather specified complexity which is applied more generally and not simply to information. A discussion on CSI would be topic all of its own which your misconception of the Sharp shooter fallacy indicates you are not prepared for.

Of course it does. Those grandchildren carry copies of the genes from their grandparent(s). Natural selection selects on those genes. The more copies of a gene in future generations, the more successful that gene is. See Conid-19, Delta variant for a contemporary example.
Which is an application of the Texas sharp-shooter fallacy since you are drawing the target after the design is in place. I also note that you avoided the question and then simply responded with a negation which has been a habit of yours.
Do I have to post my natural selection spreadsheet yet again?
Give me your best shot.
 

Harry Leggs

Well-known member
Materialism is a conclusion,
You mean opinion
not a science.
No materialism is not science but it is a foundational belief, a start point, which dictates the interpretation of endeavors.
It doesn't close off any possibilities,
Materialism closed off nonmaterial.
as it can be rejected any time legitimate evidence is provided for something non-material.
Prove gravity is material. How many molecules does a thought have? That right there falsifies material is all there is. i
The evidence doesn't show life to be designed,
It does. Blood clotting is evidence of design and teleology. Does your bike self-repair when its tire goes flat? Does it duplicate on its own? Your postulate of common descent is full of holes and without foundation. It does not explain origin of life. The Godless have no idea how life happened here. Nothing they have supports your Godless mandates.
and that is why ID is rejected.
ID is rejected because you are a dogmatic atheist.
It's not supported by evidence
It is supported but you choose to ignore and instead prefer ignorance and excuses to refuse to look thru the telescope. In bed with the Bishops of Galileo who also had their excuses.If it is all unplanned and material then humans with the most superior minds available should be able to figure it all out. The cannot and that, in and of itself, is evidence of the divine.
and it's just not science. It's religion pretending to be science.
Y


It's still an unsupported opinion, not a fact.
It i inference which is how origin science is done, not opinion which is ignorant. What does science have to do with fact and esp when the field of study is origin science which is totally different methodology? If fact is your standard (and it is not) then your belief in ape/human common ancestors is not fact and neither is materialism and your atheism. So why do you require fact and exempt your postulates from the same standard? Why the hypocrisy? Either way the previous answer was explained and ignored and you are employing the same defense mechanisms of moving the goalpost to fact.
I asked you for falsification criteria for ID.
You can look it up. Your questions are rhetorical in the sense you are not looking for answers and have a history of rejecting them. It is schoolboy games.
You haven't provided any, thus confirming my point that ID is not falsifiable.

The specified data which are building instructions in a simple bacterium can be falsified by coming up with a better answer than intelligence for its source. In the meantime prove gravity is material. Show us how the moon can pull the ocean tides hundreds of thousands of miles away through empty space. Show us the material aspects of gravity since your challenge had to show something nonmaterial which has been done over and over.
You're resorting to insults, and you still haven't supported the claimsyllogism and prove its formal validity. You won't because you can't.
Now you are moving the goalpost demanding syllogisms or whatever. What more hoops will we have to jump through to satisfy your unscientific schoolboy games? Atheism can't explain anything so don't give us this ''can't'' It is simply another double sandard.
 

Harry Leggs

Well-known member
Of course it does. Those grandchildren carry copies of the genes from their grandparent(s). Natural selection selects on those genes.
Natural selection works on the finished product. Long-necked giraffes over short-necked which are eliminated. Natural selection on genes is an assertion and nothing more. There are other processes happening there which has not one thing to do with NS. Nature does not mindlessly select and neither do genes. Natural selection is simply abracadabra. Magical thinking. It is pseudo, to conceal ignorance. When you don't know which way is up just say natural selection!!!!:LOL:

The C-19 jab enables the short-necked giraffes to survive and is anti-evolution. You guys do not even practice what you claim to believe. Selection works on elimination ......
 

rossum

Well-known member
CSI is just one step above Shannon information in that it uses specificity which is not a requirement in Shannon information.
Correct. Specifity was introduced by Dr. Dembski. Shannon has been around a lot longer.

Shannon information is ubiquitous in biology,
And in anything material. There is a great deal of Shannon information in a pebble.


Dembski simply adds the added restraint of functionality and specificity and renames it CSI which causes neo-Darwinists to go bonkers.
You have still not shown us a tested ID design detection mechanism. Where are the results of those tests?

Give me your best shot.
After you have provided a link to the double blind tests of ID's design detector. An untested detector is unreliable. We cannot tell whether or not it is accurate, and if accurate, how accurate. 25% error rate? 10% error rate? 5% error rate? What?
 

rossum

Well-known member
Natural selection works on the finished product. Long-necked giraffes over short-necked which are eliminated. Natural selection on genes is an assertion and nothing more.
And what defines the finished produce? Genes, for the most part.

There are other processes happening there which has not one thing to do with NS.
Correct. Natural Selection only works on inherited differences. Non-inherited differences are not affected
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
You mean opinion

No materialism is not science but it is a foundational belief, a start point, which dictates the interpretation of endeavors.

Materialism closed off nonmaterial.

Prove gravity is material. How many molecules does a thought have? That right there falsifies material is all there is. i

It does. Blood clotting is evidence of design and teleology. Does your bike self-repair when its tire goes flat? Does it duplicate on its own? Your postulate of common descent is full of holes and without foundation. It does not explain origin of life. The Godless have no idea how life happened here. Nothing they have supports your Godless mandates.

ID is rejected because you are a dogmatic atheist.

It is supported but you choose to ignore and instead prefer ignorance and excuses to refuse to look thru the telescope. In bed with the Bishops of Galileo who also had their excuses.If it is all unplanned and material then humans with the most superior minds available should be able to figure it all out. The cannot and that, in and of itself, is evidence of the divine.

It i inference which is how origin science is done, not opinion which is ignorant. What does science have to do with fact and esp when the field of study is origin science which is totally different methodology? If fact is your standard (and it is not) then your belief in ape/human common ancestors is not fact and neither is materialism and your atheism. So why do you require fact and exempt your postulates from the same standard? Why the hypocrisy? Either way the previous answer was explained and ignored and you are employing the same defense mechanisms of moving the goalpost to fact.

You can look it up. Your questions are rhetorical in the sense you are not looking for answers and have a history of rejecting them. It is schoolboy games.

The specified data which are building instructions in a simple bacterium can be falsified by coming up with a better answer than intelligence for its source. In the meantime prove gravity is material. Show us how the moon can pull the ocean tides hundreds of thousands of miles away through empty space. Show us the material aspects of gravity since your challenge had to show something nonmaterial which has been done over and over.

Now you are moving the goalpost demanding syllogisms or whatever. What more hoops will we have to jump through to satisfy your unscientific schoolboy games? Atheism can't explain anything so don't give us this ''can't'' It is simply another double sandard.
Gravity, like truth, is a property of physical things. Thoughts occur in physical brains made of molecules. You've provided no evidence against materialism, and no understanding of the fact that it is a conclusion and not a starting point, or that one can be a materialist while remaining open to counter-evidence so nothing is closed off. You've still not provided any falsification conditions for ID, and you are still refusing to support your claim that ID is a valid deduction. You fail.
 

Harry Leggs

Well-known member
And what defines the finished produce? Genes, for the most part.
It is all incidental to your postulate of NS working on the gene level if the so-called process is with the body of a short-necked giraffe. Besides your postulate of NS working at the gene level is more speculative than anything else. It all may sound scientific in intention but ideological by derivation.
Correct. Natural Selection only works on inherited differences.
Which begs the question what are noninherited differences? What about offspring are not inherited from their biological parents? Suppose you could say, grandparents or great grandparents. They still pass thru the biological
Non-inherited differences are not affected
 

Harry Leggs

Well-known member
Gravity, like truth, is a property of physical things.
Dodge.
Thoughts occur in physical brains made of molecules.
Dodge.
You've provided no evidence against materialism,
Thoughts and gravity evidence against materialistic orthodoxy since the ybot hexist and are nonmaterial. You even concede as much.
and no understanding of the fact that it is a conclusion and not a starting point,
Atheism is your start point and your nonnegotiable conviction. In spite of the fact atheism explains not one thing nor is any of the atheistic postulates of life from nonlife supported by science.
or that one can be a materialist while remaining open to counter-evidence so nothing is closed off.
You have demonstrated you are not open.
You've still not provided any falsification conditions for ID,
Asked and answered.
and you are still refusing to support your claim that ID is a valid deduction. You fail.
Truth always wins.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Dodge.

Dodge.
Keep dodging.

Thoughts and gravity evidence against materialistic orthodoxy since the ybot hexist and are nonmaterial. You even concede as much.
Materialism allows for physical things to have properties.

Atheism is your start point and your nonnegotiable conviction. In spite of the fact atheism explains not one thing nor is any of the atheistic postulates of life from nonlife supported by science.
Of course atheism is a starting point. It's everyone's starting point. But it isn't meant to explain anything. And my atheism is quite negotiable. All you need is actual evidence that a God exists.

You have demonstrated you are not open.
Projection.

Asked and answered.
And yet you still can't present falsification criteria for ID, or proof of formal validity for ID as a deduction from facts.

Truth always wins.
Yes, it sure does.
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
Correct. Specifity was introduced by Dr. Dembski. Shannon has been around a lot longer.


And in anything material. There is a great deal of Shannon information in a pebble.



You have still not shown us a tested ID design detection mechanism. Where are the results of those tests?


After you have provided a link to the double blind tests of ID's design detector. An untested detector is unreliable. We cannot tell whether or not it is accurate, and if accurate, how accurate. 25% error rate? 10% error rate? 5% error rate? What?
How about a 0% error rate since no known force in the universe has been shown to produce CSI. Neo-Darwinists have proposed that RMNS is capable producing CSI but the ineffectiveness of natural selection in producing innovation at the basic levels makes that unlikely. Innovations that happens at the species level such as woollier sheep are due to information already in preexisting genes in the genome that are re-enforced by either artificial (methodological was the term used by Darwin) selection or by a changing environment (natural selection). Random mutations are ineffective because the sequence space between functional genes is of the order of 10^77 (at 100 amino acids) from the floor up and working on existing genes will more likely destroy the gene or leave it unchanged since beneficial mutations are rare.

But it still amazes me how you attempt to switch the topic from specified complexity to CSI so you can use your bogus arguments. This demonstrates a lack of confidence in your position so that it makes you want to keep bobbing and weaving - not the kind of trait you want to show to your listening audience.
 

Harry Leggs

Well-known member
How about a 0% error rate since no known force in the universe has been shown to produce CSI. Neo-Darwinists have proposed that RMNS is capable producing CSI but the ineffectiveness of natural selection in producing innovation at the basic levels makes that unlikely. Innovations that happens at the species level such as woollier sheep are due to information already in preexisting genes in the genome that are re-enforced by either artificial (methodological was the term used by Darwin) selection or by a changing environment (natural selection). Random mutations are ineffective because the sequence space between functional genes is of the order of 10^77 (at 100 amino acids) from the floor up and working on existing genes will more likely destroy the gene or leave it unchanged since beneficial mutations are rare.

But it still amazes me how you attempt to switch the topic from specified complexity to CSI so you can use your bogus arguments. This demonstrates a lack of confidence in your position so that it makes you want to keep bobbing and weaving - not the kind of trait you want to show to your listening audience.
What Rossum asserts natural selection working at the gene level is akin to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic if it was all happening in the body of a dodo bird.
 

rossum

Well-known member
It all may sound scientific in intention but ideological by derivation.
You are welcome to read through Buddhist scriptures to find the source where I ideologically derived the idea.

Which begs the question what are noninherited differences?
If there is a famine during gestation then the offspring may suffer from deformed bones due to calcium deficiency in the mother. That deformation is not genetic, so any deformation will not be inherited.
 

rossum

Well-known member
How about a 0% error rate since no known force in the universe has been shown to produce CSI.
Dr. Dembski disagrees with you. If a designer deliberately designs something to appear natural, like a very very good piece of camouflage, then his design detector will not detect it. Hence it can fail with a false negative. You really need to study more of what Dembski says about design detection.

Neo-Darwinists have proposed that RMNS is capable producing CSI but the ineffectiveness of natural selection in producing innovation at the basic levels makes that unlikely.
You say "unlikely". Where are your probability calculations for that? Be sure that you include the effects of NS in you calculation of the probability of RMNS producing something. A great many probability calculations omit the effects of NS, so rendering them useless for studying RMNS.

Random mutations are ineffective because the sequence space between functional genes is of the order of 10^77 (at 100 amino acids) from the floor up and working on existing genes will more likely destroy the gene or leave it unchanged since beneficial mutations are rare.
Have you any idea how many globin genes there are in the human genome? As well as the many working genes, there are pseudogenes as well. Gene duplication is a commonly recognised mutation, which gives a spare copy of a gene for RM to work on.

But it still amazes me how you attempt to switch the topic from specified complexity to CSI so you can use your bogus arguments.
Then you are dropping the "Information" part from CSI and concentrating merely on CS. How do you propose to build a living organism without any information? The information needed is included in the design -- the blueprint. You are throwing away the blueprint before you start.
 

Harry Leggs

Well-known member
If there is a famine during gestation then the offspring may suffer from deformed bones due to calcium deficiency in the mother. That deformation is not genetic, so any deformation will not be inherited.
In theory, whatever enabled the mother to survive the famine would be passed on. The other part of the equation is others succumbed to the famine and had no offspring. Besides the deformation in the offspring is a negative trait not conducive to survival and producing offspring. Females usually choose virile males and not cripples. So it is still an evolutionary dead end. None of this is in dispute by anybody since it all can be observed, subject to experimentation, etc. There is no need for common descent to be shoehorned in to add credence to their faith-based postulates of goo to you evolution. Where natural selection and blind processes magically produce eyes, flight in birds, echolocation, brains, lungs all working in conjunction. The claims are supernatural, religious, and extraordinary. (Extraordinary claims require....) Taking an inch does not grant you a mile. You do know in complicated systems working in conjunction, one change means changing in the whole.** You are in a mechanistic world without a mechanic and it is your problem, not ours. You are into faith and supernatural not actual science.

**
the Law of Correlation, which stated that no part of a body could change without the whole changing, since all parts of any given body must be in perfect relation to its other parts. For a species to change dramatically there would have to be co-adaptive changes since, in the words of the old ditty, “The thigh bone is connected to the hip bone,” and so on and so forth. The simultaneous co-adaptation of numberless body parts, including internal organ modifications and information storing systems to make all the reconfiguring function properly, is not easy to imagine, much less to actually engineer.

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

rossum

Well-known member
You have failed to explain the origin of the complex intelligence inherent in any intelligent designer. If design is the cause of such complex intelligence, then you have more explaining to do. If design is not the source of such intelligence, then there is no need of design to explain human intelligence, it can be caused by non-design processes.

In theory, whatever enabled the mother to survive the famine would be passed on.
If and only if the cause was heritable. Only heritable things can be passed on.

The other part of the equation is others succumbed to the famine and had no offspring.
And if their succumbing was due to the effects of their genes, then those genes were not, on average, passed on to as many offspring. That is natural selection. Better adapted genes pass on more copies of themselves to future generations. Less well adapted genes pass on fewer copies to future generations.

the Law of Correlation, which stated that no part of a body could change without the whole changing, since all parts of any given body must be in perfect relation to its other parts.
That word "perfect" is very obviously wrong. Parts merely have to be in a "good enough" relation to the other parts. Our knees evolved to carry half our weight, the problem is that at the time knees were evolving our elbows carried the other half of our weight. Similarly, our backs have not yet completed the changes consequent on moving from quadrupeds to bipeds. What we currently have is good enough, it is far from perfect.
 

Harry Leggs

Well-known member
You have failed to explain the origin of the complex intelligence inherent in any intelligent designer.
Unscientific stipulate.
If design is the cause of such complex intelligence,
Complex intelligence is the cause of design.
then you have more explaining to do.
Not really. It is you who would need to falsify a mind and teleology as the root cause of design and purpose we observed in body plans. Besides you gutted my post and have failed to answer how natural selection can produce eys, sonar and flight.......
If design is not the source of such intelligence,
Intelligence is the source of design.
then there is no need of design to explain human intelligence, it can be caused by non-design processes.
Blind faith and wrong premises.
And if their succumbing was due to the effects of their genes, then those genes were not, on average, passed on to as many offspring.
It does not matter. Natural selection works at the finished product. Any gene change in a dodo bird is analogous to the rearranging of deck chairs on the Titanic.
That is natural selection.
Not really.
Better adapted genes pass on more copies of themselves to future generations.
In dodo birds? So what. They went extinct.
Less well adapted genes pass on fewer copies to future generations.
The extinction event takes place at the species level and not at the gene level. Any so-called gene change is incidental if the finished product is crippled. deformed weak or ill-suited.
That word "perfect" is very obviously wrong. Parts merely have to be in a "good enough" relation to the other parts. Our knees evolved to carry half our weight, the problem is that at the time knees were evolving our elbows carried the other half of our weight. Similarly, our backs have not yet completed the changes consequent on moving from quadrupeds to bipeds. What we currently have is good enough, it is far from perfect.
You are assuming facts not in evidence when you assume human ancestors walked on all fours. The alternative model would be humans never had ancestors who walked on all fours. Assuming your conclusion does not demonstrate it actually happened. It only shows you are manipulating the evidence according to your bias which is unscientific. Science is detached and analytical. It does not start with its conclusion. The postulate human ancestors walked on all fours is useless speculation. Useless to science and only serves as a comforting fiction for adults.
 
Last edited:
Top