Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 06/15/05 11:17am
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "Evidentally not" on 06/15/05 6:38am
>>>Although we really aren't sure of what nature can and
>>>cannot produce since we've only been around for a
>>>smidgen of the time that nature has.
>>
>>Scientific theories are never proven, so that really
>>isn't much of an issue.
>
>Then I guess that means ANY crazy theory holds equal
>sway.
That's not what I said. But I do say that we can have rational reason for our beliefs in the limitations of nature, even though we cannot absolutely prove it.
>>We can be reasonably
>>confident that nature can't reasonably produce robots,
>>trains, planes, and automobiles; even though we can't
>>rigorously prove it.
>
>But we cannot be reasonably confident that nature
>cannot produce life.
When it comes to undirected chemical reactions, that's debatable.
>>(2) is irrelevant. Think about it. Suppose (1)
>>didn't apply; archaeologists find the Rosetta Stone
>>and say, "Well, this could be human-made but we'll
>>never know, because nature could produce something
>>like this too."
>
>A stone with some language sorts of things written on
>it is one thing, life is another.
Yes, life is far more complex and has an even more massive digital language encoded within it.
>>No, they don't say that because it is
>>overwhelmingly acknowledged that nature isn't
>>reasonably capable of making something like the
>>Rosetta Stone.
>
>But life ISN'T overwhelmingly acknowledged as
>something nature couldn't create
Not yet, but you're missing the point. You claimed that we weren't in a position to know what nature can and cannot reasonably do. That is simply false, and I have provided counterexamples. My principle of detecting design ("nature is not reasonably capable of producing X") is sound and applied all the time. Saying it can’t be applied to life sounds little more than special pleading.
>>Not at all. We detect it by examining the data,
>>seeing if ID's empirical predictions come true etc.
>
>Examining the data does absolutely no good if what we
>are looking for isn't well defined in the first place.
>So I'll ask you again, how does one know that
>something was designed and how do we know that that
>particular definition applies to life also?
Again, we look to see if ID's falsifiable predictions match up with the data. Are there significant barriers to the naturalistic formation of life etc.?
>The extrapolations you are making
>concerning the "evidence" are unwarranted and require
>more of a leap of faith rather than logic.
As opposed to abiogenesis, where the leaps are made from non-existent evidence?
>>And the
>>assumption is falsifiable.
>
>How would you falsify it? What would show that a
>designer ISN'T possible?
You are very confused if you think that's the assumption I was referring to. Let's look at what I said:
Now, it’s possible that an alien designer could design something other than what ID says. But then such a theory would not be very empirically testable or falsifiable. So, ID assumes that the designer constructed life in such a way that naturalistic causes are insufficient in producing. You may not like that assumption, but it’s at least empirically testable and falsifiable. It’s certainly more falsifiable than abiogenesis (you may disagree, but then please come up with a conceivable laboratory experiment that would falsify abiogenesis).
The "assumption" of ID is that artificial intervention is necessary; that the currents of nature are not reasonably sufficient. How would you show that belief is wrong? An experimental demonstration showing a known possible means life could have been created without artificial intervention would do the trick. But as predicted, we have found no such means and instead a number of nasty barriers of popped up over the many years of origin-of-life research.
>>abiogenesis doesn't seem anywhere
>>near as falsifiable; your constant arguments based on
>>ignorance are evidence of this.
>
>Basing your arguments on "known things" in this
>particular case doesn't really help your argument
Basing your abiogenesis beliefs on "unknown things" doesn't really help your argument, especially when you're extrapolating this into extraordinary circumstances where they likely don't belong.
>>Easy to say it with words, but what kind of experiment
>>could show that it wasn't possible?
>
>That one.
What one? Care to be a little more specific? We were talking about:
>Here's one: If the Miller experiment had shown that it
>wasn't possible to get proteins from inert matter,
>then abiogenesis would have been in grave trouble.
I asked exactly what kind of experiment would show that it wasn't possible. After all, note what I said about the appeal to...
>>The appeal
>>to laws we've never seen etc. seems to forever save
>>the theory from anything we've discovered about what
>>we currently know about nature.
>
>If life can't come from non-life, then abiogensis
>isn't possible. The problems you are citing as
>uniquely abiogenesis's are not. It's a problem for ALL
>theories.
And why is this the case? Why are significant barriers to the undirected chemical formation of functional proteins, RNA and DNA a problem for all theories?
>>I see, so inferring that--after careful
>>examination--the robots were artificially created
>>would be "jumping to a conclusion."
>
>Yeah, that's right.
Now perhaps you can see why I invoked counterexamples, instances in which we have good reason to believe that nature isn't reasonably capable of producing certain things (Rosetta Stones, automobiles, etc.).
>>>>An animal's explosive diarrhea does not seem like a
>>>>plausible explanation for creating robots.
>>>>Intelligent design appears to be much more reasonable.
>>>
>>>If you mean it seems to make intuitively more sense to
>>>you, then fine. However, that doesn't make it more
>>>reasonable.
>>
>>Nonetheless, ID is far more reasonable in this
>>instance.
>
>Nah.
You'll have to do more than that to justify your claim that an animal's explosive diarrhea is a plausible explanation for creating robots. The idea that robots are instead artificially made seems much more reasonable.
>>(2) Suppose we design life. Then we'll now about
>>it. What then?
>
>We'll know how we went about designing life.
That didn't exactly answer my question regarding what we were discussing.
>>Or suppose it’s the 17th century and we find a replica
>>of a 1979 Oldsmobile. It isn’t of our design (yet)
>>because we don’t have the ability to make it. The
>>twentieth century comes around, and we can make
>>automobiles. Was it rational to infer design in the
>>17th century?
>
>Again, given sufficinetly extraordinary circumstances,
>inferring ANYTHING is going to be premature
Extraordinary or not, you didn't answer my questions. Was it rational to infer design in the 17th century? Would it be rational to accept design in the late 20th century?
>>We can assume they follow the laws of known chemistry!
>
>Which is a bit bold since "known chemistry" is a
>fraction of all knowledge of chemistry and life is
>apparently an extraordinary circumstance.
And therefore we can throw out known chemistry if it coincides with a competing theory we don't like?
>>No.
>
>So you think there are maybe TWO ways of making
>functional proteins?
Well, yes.
>>I have given you known facts of chemistry and
>>mathematical probability as basis for a particular
>>claim.
>
>And I reject your use of these facts in this
>particular realm. Extrapolating the data into
>extraordinary circumstances is not at all warranted
>here.
So...extrapolating non-existent data into extraordinary circumstances is better? When it comes to inference to the best explanation, I think theories based on evidence are better.
Call it an unwarranted extrapolation if you like, but at least ID is based on evidence, as opposed to e.g. unknown, undiscovered laws.
>>Oh? And what complication makes the mechanism
>>unlikely?
>
>A designer.
So the fact that ID's known mechanism includes a designer makes the mechanism unlikely? That's a bit of question begging.
>>That's because it isn't evidence.
>
>Observation isn't evidence?
Your observation didn't adduce your theory. It wasn't an example of something highly probably true and not rational to believe.
>>If something other than X happens, X is no longer
>>highly probably true and thus your argument
>>establishes nothing.
>
>Sure it does. If something other than X happens, even
>if that thing was only expected to happen .5 then it's
>rational to believe the thing that happened
But if that thing (let's call it Y) actually happened, then X is no longer highly probably true. We have new evidence that Y is highly probably true.
Let's call X not winning the lottery, and Y winning the lottery. It is highly probably true that I will not win the lottery. But suppose Y happens. Then X is no longer highly probably true, because it is now highly probably true that I have won the lottery (i.e. it is now highly probable that Y is true).
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 