Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 09/14/04 12:23am
In reply to:
Duane
's message, "Oh goody..." on 09/13/04 9:41am
>>>Ever noticed that you never hear an affirmative
>>>definition of Intelligent Design Theory (ID)?
>>
>>I'm not sure what you mean by "affirmative
>>definition," but here's a definition: life on earth
>>was artificially created.
>
>OK - perfect. That's exactly what I was asking for!
>
>Now, since you're the proponent of this theory, I'm
>asking the questions:
>
>if life on earth was artificially created,
>
>1) who or what created it?
>2) if it was a "who," does this "who" still exist?
>3) if this "who" exists, is it intelligent?
>4) if it's intelligent, can we communicate with it?
>5) can we objectively observe it?
>6) by what means was life created? nanomachines?
>molecular design in a laboratory somewhere?
>7) if it was in a lab, where was the lab?
>8) what methods were used in the lab?
>9) what technology existed in the lab?
>10) how was the technology created?
>11) how is it used?
>
>the really big important question:
>
>12) HOW DID THE CREATOR COME INTO BEING?
None of those questions fall into the realm of testable science (so far). We can test for design without being able to answer those questions.
For instance, suppose we found an obelisk on a moon of Jupiter. Does the fact that we cannot answer those questions mean we should pretend it wasn't designed? Of course not.
>See? You have to defend your assumptions.
What assumptions?
>So, batter up, Wade. Here's your chance to defend the
>assumptions neccessary for ID. We can start with the
>above questions...
Those questions aren't about the assumptions of ID theory. Yes there is a designer, but none of the assumptions ID contains necessarily has answers to those questions. And that is not intrinsically problematic.
>Well, we "know" about quarks because, in the latest
>version of our mathematical physical model of the
>universe, the assumption that quarks exist "seems" to
>make mathematical sense.
>
>We'll someday probably be able to observe them, just
>not yet.
No you won't. Quarks are in principle unobservable. (We can, of course, observe their effects that allow us to reasonably infer their existence.)
>(A little background - the problem with subatomic
>particles is that they are physically smaller than the
>wavelength of light, which means that photons actually
>"miss" them, which is why we can't see them using a
>light microscope. So we'd need to use particles with
>a shorter wavelength than that of photons, and a
>detector that can detect them in order to see things
>smaller than the wavelength of a photon.
Hence they are unobservable. We can of course use other particles, but the existence of those particles is wrapped up in theories inferred from data and...long story short they are still unobservable entities even if we can rationally infer their existence from empirical data (just as I think we can rationally infer intelligent design from the data even if we never see the designer).
>I said:
>>>The problem with ID is that we, as curious humans,
>are
>>>prone to asking questions about our assumptions. In
>>>fact, this questioning of assumptions is a neccesary
>>>part of "sanity checking" the assumptions we've made
>>>about any given theory.
>
>You said:
>>How is this intrinsically problematic?
>
>I tell you what. Answer my questions about your
>assumption that "life was artificially created," let
>us discuss them, and then let's see if you don't think
>that this question is a little silly.
It's not silly at all. Confer my example with the obelisk on a moon of Jupiter. Does the fact that we can't answer those questions become intrinsically problematic? Not in the least.
>
>I said:
>>>If a scientific theory cannot allow a rigorous
>>>discussion of its assumptions, and why they are
>>>reasonable and valid, then it is not a scienfitic
>>>theory.
>
>and you responded:
>>Careful, a lot of people have set themselves on
>>tenuous ground when it comes to defining a "theory"
>>especially in matters like these.
>
>No, Wade. That's the way science works.
Not quite. A theory by itself cannot do anything. The adherents of a theory can discuss the assumptions, hence I suspect you were on tenuous ground (we're talking about the theory--not its adherents).
>>The "assumptions" aren't much different from
>>mainstream science, depending on the philosophy of
>>science used (in this case, let's assume realism). In
>>that case, it has all the assumptions of realism.
>
>OK - good. That's a good starting ground.
>
>
>>There is also the explanatory filter and the
>>assumption (justified or not) that it is at least in
>>principle rational, and of course the assumption that
>>intelligent design can at least in principle be
>>rationally detectable and inferred from the data even
>>if we can't identify the designer.
>
>No. You stated that "life was artificially created."
>BY WHO OR WHAT?
That is not an issue that is part of the assumptions. Do you actually question the assumptions or do you have questions of a different sort?
>>>Intelligent Design Theory assumes the existence of a
>>>sentient being or beings who may or may not exist
>>>presently, that, through unknown means, created
>>>specific biological systems in either exactly, or
>>>close approximation to, the forms in which they exist
>>>today.
>>
>>I don't see how that's an assumption of ID theory.
>>Certainly the notion that a designer exists is
>>part of the theory, however.
>
>OK, then if we assume that a "designer" exists, why
>aren't we trying to figure out who or what that
>designer is?
You think of a scientifically valid means to do that, let me know. Again, we can still rationally infer design even if we can't identify the designer. Perhaps that is the "assumption" we should focus on.
>>ID does not contain much in the way of assumptions as
>>to what the designer is. In its current scientific
>>form, it assumes we can rationally determine if
>>something is designed even if we can't identify the
>>designer.
>
>Well, it DOES contain the assumption that there is or
>was a "designer."
>
>Look. Here's the whole point of this discussion.
>Biological evolution has an analogous assumption - and
>here it is:
>
>"Life arose from simple spontaneously occurring
>precursor molecules, which then evolved via currently
>understood and demonstrable processes into the form
>that life exists today."
And that does contain the assumption that there existed molecules and natural processes back then.
Let's see if I can find an analogy to the "who designed the designer" objection. Attempts to explain the origin of life by natural processes are invalid, because it fails to explain the origin of natural processes. And if you appeal to the big bang (or anything else) will similarly generate the exact same problem with that explanation.
I'm also not comfortable with the "demonstrable processes" considering they don't (yet?) exist for the origin of life any more than “demonstrable processes” exist for how a computer can be made solely by natural (i.e. non-artificial) means.
>You state an assumption: "There is/was a designer."
>Then you IGNORE that aspect of your theory, and say,
>"Whew! Now that THAT'S settled, we can ignore it!"
>NO, Wade, you can't.
And you have ignored the origin of matter, natural processes etc. Therefore origin of life is completely wrong, anti-scientific, religious...obviously none of that is true. The fact (if it so) that we can't identify the designer is not intrinsically problematic (again, consider the obelisk scenario).
>That assumption of biological
>evolution I just stated - there are entire periodical
>publications devoted to trying to figure out if it's
>true or not, and if it is true, how it happened.
And I don't think they will ever succeed in showing any possible means for organic evolution.
>If ID were legitimate, why aren't there scientists
>trying to show how the designing was done, and by who
>or what? Why aren't we looking for the designer?
The explanatory filter allows us to reasonably infer design even when we don't know who the designer is. If you have a similar procedure for identifying the designer, submit it to the ID scientists. If not, please recognize the limitations of science.
>mean, that's a HUGE assumption, that some one or some
>thing DESIGNED life!!! That's a significant claim you
>and ID proponents are making!!!
>
>WHY AREN'T THEY TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF IT'S TRUE OR
>NOT???
They are, e.g. explanatory filter, examination of biological information and chemical processes etc.
>I mean, they claim, from within a realism-based
>framework, that some designer REALLY existed that
>actually, artificially DESIGNED LIFE! Why aren't they
>looking for him/it?
>
>That's why I say that ID is disingenuous. They're not
>even trying to legitimize their assumption.
What assumption? That such a designer exists? Of course they are. But, as I have said before, that is independent of determining the identity of the designer.
>So, explain, in addition to answering my first
>questions,
>
>13) Why don't any ID-scientists study the designer?
Asked and answered.
>14) Why doesn't anybody examine the things that must
>follow from the assumption of "design?" Such as
>who/what is the designer? How was the designing done?
Asked and answered (for the first ones). We can rationally infer design even if we don't know exactly how it was done (e.g. the pyramids).
>15) WHY DO THEY ALL IGNORE THIS?!?!?!?
The limitations of science etc.
>>I never though you'd be this paranoid. Look, there
>>are a lot of people who don't have any religious or
>>political agendas here (such as myself). Behe was a
>>Roman Catholic, and only "converted" to ID theory as a
>>result of the evidence (as he perceived it). That's
>>true for most in the ID movement. Most are perfectly
>>willing to modify their religious views if the
>>evidence demands it (some common examples: the age of
>>the earth and the big bang theory). But as they see
>>it, an ID is rationally necessary. The new
>>“upper-tier” movement is showing some considerable
>>differences over the “lower-tier” movement (ICR and
>>the rest).
>
>Paranoid? I'm only saying what every rational person
>(including myself) thinks about ID.
All these "rational" people are paranoid (or at least irrational, seriously confused etc.) if they think it's being motivated solely by political/religious matters, especially given the lack of evidence to support that assertion (confer my examples) etc.
>I'm only basing
>my statements on the way ID's proponents have
>presented it
Apparently not. Have you read what Behe has said on the matter, for instance?
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 