(2017-11-01, 10:58 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]Please cite specifically what research goes against ID and rather than just post links, describe specifically how it does that.
No, Nb, you are trying to flip the burden of proof.
Modern evolutionary theory is enough to explain the diversity of species, enough is known about the mechanisms, principles behind it, etc... More than enough is known to make this a mature theory that is not easily overturned.
It is ID that needs to show research that goes against TOE, please provide credible, peer reviewed, research that goes against the basic tenets of modern biology.
Quote:Please explain specifically how DI's output is not scientific.
Again, this is not about a religious bias of some individuals, i have seen religious scientists work around that perfectly.
This is about the founding principles of an organization, founding principles that simply leave no room to follow the science if it goes against their central dogma.
Let us try something else, because this seems so hard to understand.
Compare the "Wedge Document" withe the constitution of a nation, in that case the DI is constitutionally unable to be honest if the science goes against their creed.
I do not expect you to agree, but you could at least try to see what my point is, and not put up a straw man.
Quote:How is ID theory mere intuition?
That is not what wrote, i was talking to David, with whom i had debates about this in the past, go back to my post and see if that remark makes more sense in that context.
Quote:Concerning the "God of the gaps" claim. First, to assume that every phenomenon that we cannot explain yet must nonetheless have a materialistic explanation is to commit a converse “materialism-of-the-gaps” fallacy. It assumes what is in contention, as an inherent assumption of and prior allegiance to metaphysical naturalism.
We are not talking about every phenomenon that we can not explain, we are specifically talking about the gaps in the knowledge concerning TOE.
TOE is based on observation and evidence, it does not start from an unproven central dogma, it makes predictions based on previous observations.
The gaps that are highlighted by the DI are not lacking in principle knowledge, they are just fragmentary by nature.
For instance the fossil record can, by it's very nature, not be complete. The same goes for molecular biology, we can not trace the history of every protein, some information is lost for ever, some things we are finding out.
Filling in these gaps with predictions based on the tested principles is only logical. Do not forget that these gaps are also getting smaller and smaller, so the space to inject the supernatural gets smaler and smaller.
There is a fundamental difference between ID/creationism and TOE, you can not simply return the ".... of the gaps argument"
TOE is a scientific theory based on observation, hypothesis, evidence, and prediction.
ID/creationism is based on unfalsifiable ideas.
The way the DI tries to falsify TOE is ridiculous, pointing at the gaps is doomed to fail, if the gaps get smaller, the assumed veracity of the idea gets smaller.
Since the launch of the DI large parts of these gaps must have closed, have you seen anything, by the DI that acknowledges that?
Again, this also illustrates the unfalsifiable nature of ID/creationism, no matter how detailed the historical record gets, be it DNA, fossil record, the goalpost can always be moved.
Even if we have a complet record of every individual of every species, even if we know exactly which random mutation happened at what time, the ID/creationists can point to that mutation as the hand of god, or the action of a generic omnipotent designer.
Quote:But more importantly, even making the unwarranted prior assumption of metaphysical naturalism (the belief that absolutely all of reality is physical), ID is proposing a positive scientific testable hypothesis, and is then proceeding to test it by observation and experiment, rather than just making a "God of the gaps" claim.
How is the idea of ID testable?, what is that positive evidence? i need some credible arguments for that.
And yes, i am assuming that evidence is given within the realm of scientific naturalism, if have to accept evidence from supernatural cause, things are going to get circular very fast.
Quote:Anyway, the scientific method goes from observation, to formulating the hypothesis, to formulating the predictions of the hypothesis, then to testing of the hypothesis by experiment or observation. Science is all about having hypotheses and then testing them. Science can only support or refute hypotheses that are empirically testable.
I am glad you don't deny that.
Quote:The problem is when Darwinist critics say that ID isn't science, isn't such a testable hypothesis. We can indeed empirically know and understand the actions of intelligent agents, so then we can make testable predictions about what we should find if intelligent causation was at work. That’s exactly what ID proponents do. And the predictions of ID can be put to the test.
No, as shown above, ID/creationism can always move the goalpost, even into the absurd. To many people, including me, it already has reached that point.
But that goes to the core assumption of the DI, short version goes a bit like this:
We find great complexity in nature, human design is complex, therefore complexity in nature is designed.
The obvious logical problem with that this human design capability appears, in an evolutionary time frame, only the very last moment of our history.
So we recognize design from human design, but the intelligent designer(s) can not be human? Now we are in the situation that we have to assume a race of beings, or an individual, that are human like? Or "design" itself is some sort of supernatural force?
But, maybe even a bigger problem for that basic premise, the capability of complex design, as we know it from humans, is itself a product of evolution as far as we can see, without making any further assumption.
So to the basic premise of ID becomes that evolution is the result of evolution?
Quote:ID is a historical science, meaning it employs the principle of uniformitarianism, which holds that the present is the key to the past. Design proponents use the standard uniformitarian reasoning of historical sciences to apply an empirically-derived cause-and-effect relationship between intelligence and certain types of informational patterns to the historical scientific record in order to account for the origin of various natural phenomena.
What?
If anything, it is TEO that uses
uniformitarian principles to come to a full understanding of the evidence.
Uniformitarianism applied to modern TOE, is what allows us to fill the gaps in the record with what we know from previous observation, an observationally derived principles.
To do anything else, would necessitate us to make large, and unnecessary assumptions
I would compare this to a train that goes into a tunnel. We can not see what happens in that tunnel, but we see the train coming out at the other end on the tracks. We also know that that everywhere we see trains, they run on tracks.
Now if we ask anyone to tell us, on what do the trains rides in the tunnel? Most people will say tracks, what else?
But if draw an analogy to what ID says, we must assume that the moment the train enters the tunnel, it starts to be supported by rainbows an unicorn farts. The moment it leaves the tunnel, the train neatly returns to well understood running on tracks.
Quote:ID as a historical science is a legitimate use of abductive reasoning, a form of logical inference. This is the inference to the best explanation among several contenders. This methodology asks, “Given what we know about the explanatory efficacy of the various competing hypotheses, which cause best explains the evidence we observe?"
But in that case ID is the least efficacious in explaining evolution, because it has to assume a supernatural force or being that we do not have any evidence for.
An assumption that does not help explaining, it only adds an new level of unknowns. If we assume a supernatural force/being, we have to explain how that works, how that came about, en so much more.
The only way i can see the ID explanation being the most parsimonious, is if we know from other evidence that such a force/being exists.
Any other way, it is simply not needed.
Quote:The two main contenders in this case, for the origin of certain biological structures, are neo-Darwinian evolution by random mutation plus natural selection, and some kind of intelligent agency. In these cases of biological structures combined with behavior, origin by random mutation plus natural selection is shown to be extremely implausible (though remotely possible), given factors like the complexity and sometimes irreducible complexity of the structure, the time observed to have been available, etc. But, another source of such complex machine-like structures is actually observed in the present - namely intelligent agents.
As said above, these intelligent agents are themselves at the last known point of a long, and continuing, evolutionary process.
Quote:Abductive reasoning has a long tradition of being useful in various areas of science and technology, such as philosophy of science, artificial intelligence, medicine, and analysis of competing hypotheses in intelligence.
My guess is , that in this case, it is used far beyond what is legitimate.