|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/29/2008 9:32:41 AM
|
|
|
ferdgoodfellow
Posts: 237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Regarding TRIZ, Demski sez:
The only well-documented example we have of the evolution of complex multi-part integrated functional systems (as we see in biology) is the technological evolution of human inventions...The picture of technological evolution that emerges out of TRIX maps amazingly well onto the history of life as we see in the fossil record....Mapping TRIZ onto bio evolution provides a potentially fruitful avenue of design-theoretic research that is entirely consonant with the principle of methodological engineering...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/29/2008 9:43:50 AM
|
|
|
ferdgoodfellow
Posts: 237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
8. Evolutionary computation. study of bio-genetic algorithms.
Method sed: What does evolution have to do with ID?
Dembski sez (my summary): Organisms use evolutionary computation to solve many of the tasks of living. But does this show that organism originated through some form of E computation? see. e.g. the immune system. Are such general purpose genetic algorithms actually designed or themselves the result of E computation?
E computation occurs in the behavior repertoire of organisms but is also used to account for the origin of certain features of organisms. It would be helpful to explore the relationship between these two types of E computation as well as any design intrinsic to them. See my book No Free Lunch. We need, in addition to theoretical work, a large contingent of design-theorist computer programmers to write and run computational simulations that investigage the scope anbd limits of E computation.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/29/2008 10:27:55 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ferdgoodfellow
I'll more or less quote Dembski:
EB is in the business of drawing evolutionary connections between bio systems. This requires identifying bio systems, relating them according to some similarity metric and then telling evolutionary stories that connect the dots. Yet for large-scale changes, these stories tend to be imaginative reconstructions for which evidence is thin to nonexistent. This is certainly true of attempts to bridge major divisions in the fossil record. It is also true of molecular phylogenies. Eb's preferred strategy consists in taking distinct bio systems and trying to merge them. ID focuses on a different strategy, namely, taking individual bio systems and perturbing them to see how much the systems can evolve (with and without intelligence). Limitations on evolvability by material mechanisms constitute evidence for design.
In discussing the next research them, the principle of methodological engineerings, Dembski sez:
The reason EB has lost all sense of proportion about how much evolution is possible as a result of blind material mechanisms (like random variation and natural selections) is that it floats free of the science of engineering. At every crucial juncture where some major evolutionary transition needs to be accounted for, EB invokes a designer-substitute (such as natural selction, lateral gene transfer or symbiogenesis) to do the necessary design work. Yet unlike the science of engineering, EB does not actually perform the necessary design work or specify a detailed procedure by which it might be be accomplished. ID takes what I call "methodological engineering" as a fundamental regulative principle for understanding bio systems....
These are some interesting thoughts from Dembski. On the limits of evolvability constituting evidence of design, I wonder if Dembski is taking into account the limits already recognized by evolutionary biology: namely the limits of gene flow which define speciation. I wonder if one can find a limitation which would not already be accounted for in this way?
As for engineering, I wonder how familiar Dembski is with the information coming out of the study of the evolutionary study of embryological development (evo-devo). If he looks into that field more deeply he may be less inclined to think evolutionary biology floats free of engineering.
A good introduction to evo-devo for the layperson is Endless Forms Most Beautiful by Sean Carroll.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/29/2008 10:35:03 AM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
ferd,
I haven't read you recent responses here. I think you ought to consider my earlier posts: ID amounts to telling stories at the moment of refutation of reductionist, evolutionary explanations (which I have yet to see. Dembski's math is thin -- He only speaks of permutations. It is a rhetorical device, I believe.) Further, the design inference is a sham, as it ignores the elementary distinction between sufficient conditions (design) and necessary (the key question) ones behind complexity.
Dembski is a sophist and a bookseller, in my not so humble opinion. I think his writing -- from what I have seen viewing it for free on the web (not in its entirety) -- is intentionally obscure in that it glosses over the fantastic fallacy of assuming that the large number of permutations of DNA codes is by itself a mathematical refutation of the likelihood of development of life by natural selection. He is saying nothing else that I know of. He is just shrouding it in other respectable-looking language.
However, I still appreciate that you are trying to think your way through this. Perhaps I will respond to your other posts in time.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/29/2008 11:00:15 AM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 853
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ferdgoodfellow
1. Design detection. Does the explanatory filter reliably detect design?
You sed: Well, does it reliably detect design in biological systems? What experiments have been done? What experiments can be done?
Well, I'm no biology or chemistry guy, but seems to me the task of ID in any given instance is to eliminate all possible material mechanisms as an explanation.
I thought this was about detecting design, not eliminating explanations. Again, ID needs to stand on it's own. No theory is supported solely by eliminating competing theories. A theory must offer positive evidence, positive predictions, etc. It would seem that the only fruitful research that ID has to offer is in searching for evolutionary pathways for complex systems. That is exactly what evolutionary theory already does for us, so why do we need ID?
quote:
The way to test the validity of the inference, then, is to practice evolutionary biology. Come up with possible physical explanations which overcome the daunting improbability. Maybe at the biochemical level the experimental method is best applicable in this respect. Here, as evolutionary biologists come up with possible explanations, these can be tested in the lab. Then, if successful, one can say that this instance of alleged complexity isn't so complex after all.
How does finding an evolutionary explanation for a complex system make it less complex?
quote:
The debate between Behe and guys like Miller ought to be fertile ground for experimentation.
So where is the ID research? Why do evolutionists have to do all the work while ID proponents sit on their laurels?
quote:
What will emerge from this process, as possible material mechanism are eliminated, is an increasing confidence in the design inference as to the specific object of study and the overall theory of design.
ID points to human activity as ID. Isn't that a material mechanism?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/29/2008 11:01:34 AM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 853
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ferdgoodfellow
Regarding TRIZ, Demski sez:
The only well-documented example we have of the evolution of complex multi-part integrated functional systems (as we see in biology) is the technological evolution of human inventions...The picture of technological evolution that emerges out of TRIX maps amazingly well onto the history of life as we see in the fossil record....Mapping TRIZ onto bio evolution provides a potentially fruitful avenue of design-theoretic research that is entirely consonant with the principle of methodological engineering...
And this evolution produces non-reproducing designs that do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Life does reproduce and it falls into a nested hierarchy. It seems that the one example we do have fails as an explanation.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/29/2008 1:09:23 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 190
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
I think you ought to consider my earlier posts: ID amounts to telling stories at the moment of refutation of reductionist, evolutionary explanations (which I have yet to see. Dembski's math is thin -- He only speaks of permutations. It is a rhetorical device, I believe.) Further, the design inference is a sham, as it ignores the elementary distinction between sufficient conditions (design) and necessary (the key question) ones behind complexity.
Dembski is a sophist and a bookseller, in my not so humble opinion. I think his writing -- from what I have seen viewing it for free on the web (not in its entirety) -- bla bla bla
Such arrogance. I suggest you head over to www.uncommondescent.com and debate Dembski in person. I'm sure he'd be happy to oblige debate over your own sophisms and glaring lack of logical analysis.
Statistical mechanics and combinatorial dependencies coupled with information theory literally demolish macro-evolutionism's "rm + ns + time = 13.6 million life forms" nonsense. NDE (neo-Darwinian evo) is anything but realistic.
Reductionism is the name of the game in evolutionism. Everyone but you seems to know this.
Again, coded information does not and cannot arise without intelligence and you have yet to provide a single example, without begging the question, of it occurring without intelligent sources. Code implies intelligence by definition so give up while you can do so honestly. Chemically coded algorithms are at the heart of life.
I don't think you have a clue on Dembski. Dembski's explanatory filter is used every day - even by you here. It is used in numerous fields of forensics and in Genetic-Id GMO identification algorithms. The design inference is used by every human throughout their life, every day. We could not survive without it. No forensic science could exist without it.
In fact no science can exist without it. Abductive reasoning is a necessary part of all true science.
quote:
"The formation within geological time of a human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components." Kurt Godel to logician Hao Wang
You really should learn something about probability and the laws of information before handing out any further not so humble yet seriously erroneous opinions.
_____________________________
"The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." Sir F. Hoyle
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/29/2008 1:20:05 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1064
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
quote:
"The formation within geological time of a human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components."
You really should learn something about probability and the laws of information before handing out any further not so humble yet seriously erroneous opinions.
Perhaps you should as well. The a priori probability of the average evening of bridge is equally infinitesimal. Each hand is less likely than winning the lottery.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/29/2008 3:12:48 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
I suggest you head over to www.uncommondescent.com and debate Dembski
I did just now, but I didn't see any personal contact info. Do you mean I ouht to comment on the articles there? Maybe.
Anyway, I don't think it is arrogant for me to honestly admit that he appears to me to be a sophist and bookseller. I don't say I am right, only that that is his appearance to me after giving him a read.
I was hoping that ferd might consider such a possibility while he reads. Whether I call my self not so humble or not really has nothing to do with whether I am or not.
I consider anyone who states supposed facts without any backing are the measure of arrogance. If I offer an opinion and honestly state it as such, I don't see why I should be labelled arrogant.
Of course I think I'm right! So what. The point is, can I humble accept that I am wrong when I am shown. I do not now invite you to analyze my psychological nature. I don't see the point.
If you would like to have a meaningful discussion, please express on this forum whether Dembski even considers the numbers of trials and whether successive trials are independent and the rate of such trials when he investigates the likelihood of particular permutations.
State your case. I am all ears to a refutation of evolution. I just don't think Dembski has it: I think he goes for teh semblance of such in order to sell books to a vulnerable Christian public.
I think ID is pointless vis-a-vis Christianity anyways! Are we supposed to derive prescriptions for human behavior based on genetic endowment? Wouldn't that be moving from "what is" straight to "what ought" to be. How does the concept of free will and the paradox of sin/ salvation work into this? I don't get it at all. Nor do I care about what externalities appear to say about God. It all comes down to what are you doing with yourself: Do you believe or do you merely think you believe? Do you love God or do you flee His love? Do you try to run from the truth and spout nonsense all day, or do you repent everytime you recognize your shortcomings?
Does God want us to tinker with our DNA -- has he passed teh matle of designer on to us?
Not only is ID completely unscientific, but I think it is dangerous to religion. Please speak directly to what I am saying. If I am arrogant, then why don't you swallow your pride and show me the way. Such is the obligation of the truthteller.
Bring more quotes from Dembski! I don't care. I offerred some earnest analysis above, as it appeared ferd was interested. I do not know if I had a charitable interpretation of his writings, but I will undertake a second analysis if I have been found to be lacking in charity.
What in the world do you mean by "abductive reasoning?"
Again, however, the design inference is a sham:
Just because it can be safely said that design is a sufficient condition for "complexity" does not mean that this has any bearing on the question at hand which is whether there are any NECESSARY conditions for complexity.
Please set aside peronal attacks. Later.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/29/2008 4:13:44 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 853
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
Such arrogance. I suggest you head over to www.uncommondescent.com and debate Dembski in person. I'm sure he'd be happy to oblige debate over your own sophisms and glaring lack of logical analysis.
I suggest you head over to www.pubmed.com and find the peer reviewed original research that Dembski has done. Running a website is not science.
quote:
Statistical mechanics and combinatorial dependencies coupled with information theory literally demolish macro-evolutionism's "rm + ns + time = 13.6 million life forms" nonsense. NDE (neo-Darwinian evo) is anything but realistic.
How does it destroy it? Try to avoid any Texas Sharpshooting*.
*Texas Sharpshooting is the practice of shooting a wall and painting a bull's eye around it. For biological systems, assuming that the observed systems were the only systems possible through evolution would be equivalent to Texas Sharpshooting.
quote:
Reductionism is the name of the game in evolutionism. Everyone but you seems to know this.
The study of emergence and evo-devo are trending against this.
quote:
Again, coded information does not and cannot arise without intelligence and you have yet to provide a single example, without begging the question, of it occurring without intelligent sources.
Prove that it can not arise through something other than intelligence.
quote:
Code implies intelligence by definition
No, it implies a specific output from a specific input.
quote:
I don't think you have a clue on Dembski. Dembski's explanatory filter is used every day - even by you here. It is used in numerous fields of forensics and in Genetic-Id GMO identification algorithms. The design inference is used by every human throughout their life, every day.
Then how did we get by without it until Dembski produced it? Could you actually show someone using it in the field of biology?
quote:
You really should learn something about probability and the laws of information before handing out any further not so humble yet seriously erroneous opinions.
The same could be said about you. In your probabilities of the flagella evolving did you factor in all of the millions of alternate motility systems that could have evolved but didn't?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/29/2008 4:22:23 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
Yay, Method!
I would do better to leave the discussion to you.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/29/2008 7:24:29 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7796
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
I know spiritualist like to distinguish the difference between the mind and the brain as two different entities, but this is an improper usage of the word. Wikipedia clearly identifies that the mind is a combinations of thought, perception, memory, emotion, will and imagination. And everybody has one.
So lets use it in that term.
Actually, the only people who don't distinguish between the mind and the mechanical processes of the brain are reductionists who think humans nothing more than a collection of chemical processes - and they make up a very small percentage of humans that exist now, or have ever existed.
SO I would suggest we don't adopt the definition that most people don't take seriously to begin with; particularly as having an opinion on the matter itself contradicts the notion of reductionism.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/29/2008 8:14:05 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 853
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Actually, the only people who don't distinguish between the mind and the mechanical processes of the brain are reductionists who think humans nothing more than a collection of chemical processes - and they make up a very small percentage of humans that exist now, or have ever existed.
Don't ID proponents argue that organisms are best viewed as machines that can be reduced to parts and systems?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/29/2008 8:27:16 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7796
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Don't ID proponents argue that organisms are best viewed as machines that can be reduced to parts and systems?
No, they argue that aspects of organisms are composed of information systems and machines - which of course they are.
This doesn't mean everything is reducible to a mechanical or material processes - in fact, machines and information systems can't exist apart from the existence of a mind.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/29/2008 10:08:43 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 853
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
No, they argue that aspects of organisms are composed of information systems and machines - which of course they are.
Except for the stuff that isn't. Seems quite arbitrary to me.
quote:
This doesn't mean everything is reducible to a mechanical or material processes
Why not? What in ID says that not everything is reducible to mechanical or material processes?
quote:
- in fact, machines and information systems can't exist apart from the existence of a mind.
Why not?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/30/2008 8:09:20 AM
|
|
|
ferdgoodfellow
Posts: 237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Hey Method
Re TRIZ
Dembski brings it up in several contexts, the first being the testability of ID. From p. 286, he sez (paraphrased):
But what about the predictive power of ID? ID offers one obvious prediction, namely, that nature should be full of SC and therefore be full of pointers to design. That prediciton is increasingly confirmed. What's more, once designed systems are in place, opeational and interacting (e.g an ecosystem or economy), ID predicts certain patterns of technological evolution, notable among these being sudden emergence, convergence to local optima and extinction. Although research in this area is only now beginning, preliminary results are that biology confirms these patters of technological evolution. Significantly, these patterns are non-Darwinian.
Me: I was re-reading Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker. He sez that until life-forms evolved which were capable of designing stuff, all design in nature was only apparent and a result of blind natural processes. IOW, no design until hooman beans hit the scene. Genrich Altshuller, the founder of TRIZ, undertook to study the evolution of technological systems, and he found their evolution is not random but follows certain patterns. So, in the era after the onset of true (not apparent) design, we can study how designed systems work. But if we apply TRIZ to biology and find the same patterns, isn't that suggestive of design even in biology?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/30/2008 8:14:39 AM
|
|
|
ferdgoodfellow
Posts: 237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
3H,
And this seems to be a very good response to your demand for testable assertions. If humanly designed systems evolve in a certain way, and we believe biological life forms are really designed, then we would expect biological evolution to follow the same patterns.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/30/2008 8:19:50 AM
|
|
|
ferdgoodfellow
Posts: 237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Meth sed: And this evolution produces non-reproducing designs that do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Life does reproduce and it falls into a nested hierarchy. It seems that the one example we do have fails as an explanation.
Me: praps it does, but at least TRIZ gives us one way to test ID. ID is testable. ID ist therefore scientifick.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/30/2008 8:26:47 AM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ferdgoodfellow
3H,
And this seems to be a very good response to your demand for testable assertions. If humanly designed systems evolve in a certain way, and we believe biological life forms are really designed, then we would expect biological evolution to follow the same patterns.
1) So biology may have been designed AND subsequently evolved?
2) Natural selection is: Heritable variation within a population that confers relative reproductive leads to relatively greater representation in successive generations. Such would act upon either artificial, reproductive and varied or non-humanly created.
That is, I don't see your point as valid.
Also, please explain TRIZ -- It is a computer program, no?
Please explain for us or bring the relevant quotes that express its claims to test ID. I am not able to speculate as to how at present. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/30/2008 8:53:32 AM
|
|
|
ferdgoodfellow
Posts: 237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Method sed: Why do evolutionists have to do all the work while ID proponents sit on their laurels?
Well, the burden of proof has been shifted. Recall that the claim of proponents of Darwinism and other naturalistic explanations of biology is that it all came about by blind natural processes. Design is excluded in principle. But when Darwinism runs into intractable problems which haven't been solved in 150 years, there are no solutions in sight, and design is credibly re-introduced as a possible explanation, then Darwininsm rightfully is called upon to prove its assertions. After all, the best refutation of ID is to actually demonstrate the SC has arisen by blind natural processes.
In this regard, ID is actually helpful to Darwinism cuz it should serve to spur you guys into greater efforts as opposed to "resting on your laurels." Darwinism has been accepted as dogma so long that it has gotten lazy. If someone suggests that some bear-like land mammal evolved into the whale, then get into some serious study of the whale so we unnerstand the re-engineering that would have to take place before a bear-like aminal could become whale-like. And then splain how it all happened. Maybe throw in some evidence from the fossil record.
And when you think about it, the guys that make the exclusive claims (it's only blind natural processes), as opposed to those who assert roles for both natural processes and design, should have the burden of proof.
But having said all that, ID guys also share the burden. In addition to testing the positive assertions of ID to help make the case for ID, they can also practice evolutionary biology, demonstrate its limiatations, and help make the case for ID that way as well.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/30/2008 9:14:43 AM
|
|
|
ferdgoodfellow
Posts: 237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
HI 3H,
ID guys see design and evolution working in tandem.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
TRIZ (IPA: /triːz/) is a romanized acronym for Russian “Теория решения изобретательских задач” (Teoriya Resheniya Izobretatelskikh Zadatch) meaning "The theory of solving inventor's problems" or "The theory of inventor's problem solving". It was developed by a Soviet engineer and researcher Genrich Altshuller and his colleagues starting in 1946. It has been evolving ever since.
Today, TRIZ is a methodology, tool set, knowledge base, and model-based technology for generating innovative ideas and solutions for problem solving. TRIZ provides tools and methods for use in problem formulation, system analysis, failure analysis, and patterns of system evolution (both 'as-is' and 'could be'). TRIZ, in contrast to techniques such as brainstorming (which is based on random idea generation), aims to create an algorithmic approach to the invention of new systems, and the refinement of old systems.
Some TRIZ is in the public domain. Some TRIZ resides in knowledge bases held by commercial consulting organizations. A complete and open TRIZ development process is not yet evident. Various camps vie for control of TRIZ and interpretation of its findings and applications
*****
from www.triz-journal.com
What Is TRIZ?
"TIPS" is the acronym for "Theory of Inventive Problem Solving," and "TRIZ" is the acronym for the same phrase in Russian. TRIZ was developed by Genrich Altshuller and his colleagues in the former USSR starting in 1946, and is now being developed and practiced throughout the world.
TRIZ research began with the hypothesis that there are universal principles of invention that are the basis for creative innovations that advance technology, and that if these principles could be identified and codified, they could be taught to people to make the process of invention more predictable. The research has proceeded in several stages over the last 50 years. Over 2 million patents have been examined, classified by level of inventiveness, and analyzed to look for principles of innovation. The three primary findings of this research are as follows:
1. Problems and solutions were repeated across industries and sciences
2. Patterns of technical evolution were repeated across industries and sciences
3. Innovations used scientific effects outside the field where they were developed
In the application of TRIZ all three of these findings are applied to create and to improve products, services, and systems.
TRIZ works! Large and small companies are using TRIZ on many levels to solve real, practical everyday problems and to develop strategies for the future of technology. TRIZ is in use at Ford, Motorola, Procter & Gamble, Eli Lilly, Jet Propulsion Laboratories, 3M, Siemens, Phillips, LG, and hundreds more.
The TRIZ Journal will introduce you to case studies, theoretical articles, TRIZ history, events (symposia andclasses) and book reviews to help you learn TRIZ. Use the archives to browse and search all the articles published since the first issue in November, 1996.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/30/2008 9:40:03 AM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
TRIZ, then, in short, is what I think is neat about ID: Pretend that biology IS engineered and see if that helps you understand how it works (e.g.: How does a bumblebee fly?)
However, such would just be a convention of talking. It is peculiar for a scientists to seriously posit investigation of an invisible intelligent omniscience or what-have-you, though.
Is the ToE a convention of talking? No, actually, we all know that evolutionists use design-laden language all the time. ID is already the convention of talking.
My hope, however, is that we can use teh word "science" clearly and responsibly as "inquiry into that observable." If you want to investigate living things from an engineering perspective, go right ahead.
Is, however (and this is beside the point) the ToE correct in its assertion that diversity could have been produced from relatively little via natural selection, genetic drift, and sexual selection. Sounds really plausible to me in general, and it is really interesting to consider in its particulars.
Is it possible that God created the whole thing, as well as setting the stage in which evolution could take place? Yeah, so.
Have some things been mathematically demonstrated to be less than evolvable? Hardly. I think Dembski math reeks of rhetoric -- or at the least, his presentation of it is poor and unconvincing.
Is it possible that some things will be demonstrated to be less than evolvable? Yeah, cool, maybe. What would that mean? I have no idea, scientifically how to investigate it -- simply because science can only investigate what is observable. If a secretive intelligence created the livings, can we apply forensics and learn its identity? Well, there is no roster of suspects (hmm: Christian God, hindu gods, flying spaghetti monster, aliens). Can we find out something about it? But what in the world have we found out about its identity?
Is the creator also physical (observable)? Then, is it of the type of simplicity (evolvable) or of some uber-complexity, which itself implies another uber-designer??!! Is it not observable -- then such does not fall under the jurisdiction of science!!
I think this thread has been concluded!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/30/2008 11:18:57 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7796
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Except for the stuff that isn't. Seems quite arbitrary to me.
Not really. ID doesn't say it can detect everything that is designed, only that when certain indicators are present, it can reliably say something is designed.
For example, if I found a rock on a path, it may be a product of intention (ID) or it may have been the product of ntural undirected occurences - there is sufficient evidence to know. If I found a group of rocks arranged in the words "I was here", then one has sufficient evidence to determine the intention of a mind.
quote:
Why not? What in ID says that not everything is reducible to mechanical or material processes?
That would be the "I".
quote:
Why not?
Because, absent some novel force being found in the universe, the probabilities of undirected forces causing the specific and complex nature of such structures and systems is too improbable to consider as an option.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/30/2008 11:25:39 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1374
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
and unlike UCD, ID is perfectly falsifiable. UCD is unfalsifiable. UCD has a record of getting most things wrong and it doesn't falsify it because UCD is unfalsifiable.
Another example of something that evolution got wrong.
But of course, the fact that evolution was wrong about something else (as usual) does not falsify UCD because UCD is unfalsifiable.
Another thing that evolution got wrong.
Loennig and Becker on the origin of carnivorous plants
According to evolution (at least Darwinian evolution), these traps should provide a survival advantage for evolution to create and maintain them. Yet, they barley do and they have no demonstrable function until many interdependent components are present. There is no reason for evolution to spend all the energy required to produce and maintain such an elaborate trap that provides such a low benefit. But of course, none of this falsifies evolution, for evolution is unfalsifiable.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 7/30/2008 11:37:32 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/30/2008 12:04:31 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Except for the stuff that isn't. Seems quite arbitrary to me.
Not really. ID doesn't say it can detect everything that is designed, only that when certain indicators are present, it can reliably say something is designed.
For example, if I found a rock on a path, it may be a product of intention (ID) or it may have been the product of ntural undirected occurences - there is sufficient evidence to know. If I found a group of rocks arranged in the words "I was here", then one has sufficient evidence to determine the intention of a mind.
quote:
Why not? What in ID says that not everything is reducible to mechanical or material processes?
That would be the "I".
quote:
Why not?
Because, absent some novel force being found in the universe, the probabilities of undirected forces causing the specific and complex nature of such structures and systems is too improbable to consider as an option.
Here is something interesting to consider:
We remark about come biological structures that they are complex. This we suggest may be evidence for their being designed. However, when we look at something like an arrangement of stones that says, "I was here," is it truly the complexity of the arrangement that strikes us or rather that this particular arrangement among numerous hypothetical ones within a defined field or grid of placement, I suppose, is meaningful.
Now, what if we came upon an untterly unfamiliar script scrawled into the sand. By what could we recognize that it was created by intelligent, subjectivities rather than simply representing an example of the chaotic but equally probable examples of various configurations of sand that wind and water and wave-action (if we are at the beach) can produce? Is it lack of repetition? Or is it repetition? Is it something circumstantial, such as replication of teh same pattern in similar disparate media, such as being carved into nearby rock or scrawled with pigment? That seems like a good indicator. (Here, I would like to argue in passing that DNA represents the same medium rather than different organisms representing fundamentally different media. Organisms are not the media, but rather the depiction/symbol-candidate.)
Further, what is the definition of complexity? I would offer: when a series of objects cannot be generated by an algorithm shorter than the series itself. One can formulate this in terms of bytes, if you like.
Do biological organisms meet this criteria? Would you like to offer another definition or argue that ID theorists operate using a different one?
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
