Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Intelligent Design: The Design Hypothesis

The conclusion that something was designed can be made quite independently of knowledge of the designer. As a matter of procedure, the design must first be apprehended before there can be any further question about the designer. The inference to design can be held with all firmness that is possible in this world, without knowing anything about the designer.—Dr Behe
As a scientific research program, intelligent design investigates the effects of intelligence and not intelligence as such.- Wm. Dembski page 33 of The Design Revolution
Observation: (What's there?) The Universe Question(s) How did the universe come to be (the way it is)? (Is the universe the result of intentional design or purpose-less stochastic processes?) Prediction: 1) If the universe was the product of a common design then I would expect it to be governed by one (common) set of parameters. 2) If the universe were designed for scientific discovery then I would expect a strong correlation between habitability and measurability. Test: 1) Try to determine if the same laws that apply every place on Earth also apply throughout the universe. 2) Try to determine the correlation between habitability and measurability. Potential falsification: 1) Observe that the universe is chaotic. 2) A- Find a place that is not habitable but offers at least as good of a platform to make scientific discoveries as Earth or B- Find a place that is inhabited (indiginous) but offers a poor platform from which to make scientific discoveries. Confirmation: 1) Tests conducted all over the globe, on the Moon and in space confirm that the same laws that apply here also apply throughout the universe. 2) All scientific data gathered to date confirm that habitability correlates with measurability. Observation: Living organisms Question(s) How did living organisms come to be (on this planet)? (Are living organisms the result of intentional design, purpose-less stochastic processes or perhaps even alien colonization?) Prediction: If living organisms were the result of intentional design then I would expect to see that living organisms are (and contain subsystems that are) irreducibly complex and/ or contain complex specified information. IOW I would expect to see an intricacy that is more than just a sum of chemical reactions (endothermic or exothermic). Further I would expect to see command & control- a hierarchy of command & control would be likely. Test: Try to deduce the minimal functionality that a living organism requires. Try to determine if that minimal functionality is irreducibly complex and/or contains complex specified information. Also check to see if any subsystems are irreducibly complex and/ or contain complex specified information. Potential falsification: Observe that living organisms arise from non-living matter via a mixture of commonly-found-in-nature chemicals. Observe that while some systems “appear” to be irreducibly complex it can be demonstrated that they can indeed arise via purely stochastic processes such as culled genetic accidents. Also demonstrate that the apparent command & control can also be explained by endothermic and/or exothermic reactions. Confirmation: Living organisms are irreducibly complex and contain irreducibly complex subsystems. The information required to build and maintain a single-celled organism is both complex and specified. Command & control is observed in single-celled organisms- the bacterial flagellum not only has to be configured correctly, indicating command & control over the assembly process, but it also has to function, indicating command & control over functionality. Conclusion (scientific inference) Both the universe and living organisms are the result of intention design. Any future research can either confirm or refute this premise, which, for the biological side, was summed up in Darwinism, Design and Public Education page 92: 1. High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design. 2. Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity. 3. Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity. 4. Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems. (see also Science asks 3 basic questions)

posted by Joe G @ 8:41 AM  

6 Comments:

  • At 12:26 PM, Blogger Matteo said…

    Why you evil theocrat! Didn't anyone tell you intelligent design is not science!?! It's an empirical fact that it is unfalsifiable and makes no predictions!! So what you've said here is wrong, wrong, wrong! Would you rather die in the hospital because there are no antibiotics?!? I can hear 500 breeds of dogs howling at you!!!

    Seriously, though, good job. I look forward to reading your other posts...

    You might enjoy this old one of mine:

    http://tinyurl.com/lkm3x

     

  • At 3:58 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I am evil, I mean live.

    But anyway I just wanted a place to link to when I get told that ID doesn't even have a hypothesis.

    Nice blog- I needed a laugh today...

     

  • At 3:13 AM, Blogger noname said…

    Joe: "Prediction:

    1) If the universe was the product of a common design then I would expect it to be governed by one (common) set of parameters.

    2) If the universe were designed for scientific discovery then I would expect a strong correlation between habitability and measurability."

    Do you think that the confirmation (let's suppose they are confirmed) of only these two predictions are enough to come to the conclusion that the universe is designed?

    Do you mean if these predictions are true, it is impossiblee that the universe is a result of purpose-less stochastic processes? Is this your argument?

     

  • At 9:33 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    My apologies da vinci- I have been very busy lately. I haven't even checked my email since the 21st.

    Do you think that the confirmation (let's suppose they are confirmed) of only these two predictions are enough to come to the conclusion that the universe is designed?

    What is the number of correct predictions required?

    Does the anti-ID materialistic position make any predictions? I say it does not. Therefore 2-0 is a winning score. ;)

    Do you mean if these predictions are true, it is impossiblee that the universe is a result of purpose-less stochastic processes? Is this your argument?

    No, that is not my argument. My conclusion is a scientific inference. And as with all scientific inferences it can either be confirmed or refuted with future knowledge, ie further scientific investigation.

    Ya see we have experience and knowledge of designing agencies putting parameters in place- that is parameters that the design adheres to. We do not have any experience or knowledge of stochastic processes doing the same. Therefore if we ever gain such knowledge then the design inference will be challenged.

     

  • At 3:52 PM, Blogger noname said…

    Joe: "My apologies da vinci- I have been very busy lately. I haven't even checked my email since the 21st."

    No problem.

    Joe: "What is the number of correct predictions required?"

    Of course there isn't a certain number of correct predictions but it is wierd to say "I have two confirmed predictions, so my hypothesis is true". Don't you think these two ambiguous predictions doesn't mean that much? I don't know what you mean by "habitability and measurability".

    And how do you explain black holes in the light of design? Do you have any prediction about black holes?

    And how do you explain the expansion of universe? Is there a prediction of design argument about the expansion?

     

  • At 10:06 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Of course there isn't a certain number of correct predictions but it is wierd to say "I have two confirmed predictions, so my hypothesis is true".

    The anti-ID materialistic position doesn't make any predictions yet it is the reigning paradigm!

    Also this entry- the design hypothesis- does not encompass every prediction. My only goal was to present a design hypothesis- one that can be tested.

    Don't you think these two ambiguous predictions doesn't mean that much?

    What makes them "ambiguous"?

    I don't know what you mean by "habitability and measurability".

    Habitability- the scenario in which a place is inhabited by complex organisms- ie metazoans.

    Measure-ability- the scenario in which measurements can be taken.

    For example the Earth is inhabited by metazoans. For that to happen many factors are required to be in place. And it just so happens that those same factors also come into play for making scientific discoveries.


    The following are taken from "The Privileged Planet":

    “The same narrow circumstances that allow for our existence also provide us with the best over all conditions for making scientific discoveries.”

    “The one place that has observers is the one place that also has perfect solar eclipses.”

    “There is a final, even more bizarre twist. Because of Moon-induced tides, the Moon is gradually receding from Earth at 3.82 centimeters per year. In ten million years will seem noticeably smaller. At the same time, the Sun’s apparent girth has been swelling by six centimeters per year for ages, as is normal in stellar evolution. These two processes, working together, should end total solar eclipses in about 250 million years, a mere 5 percent of the age of the Earth. This relatively small window of opportunity also happens to coincide with the existence of intelligent life. Put another way, the most habitable place in the Solar System yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them.”

    “The combined circumstance that we live on Earth and are able to see stars- that the conditions necessary for life do not exclude those necessary for vision, and vice versa- is a remarkably improbable one.

    This is because the medium we live is, on one hand, just thick enough to enable us to breathe and prevent us from being burned up by cosmic rays, while, on the other hand, it is not so opaque as to absorb entirely the light of the stars and block the view of the universe. What a fragile balance between the indispensable and the sublime.” Hans Blumenberg- thoughts independent of the research done by Gonzalez.

    And how do you explain black holes in the light of design? Do you have any prediction about black holes?

    I doubt there is a hypothesis- ID or anti-ID that predicts black holes. Although it may be that gravity wells- ie a black hole- are required to form galaxies. That is the enormous gravity exerted by them is what attracts "wayward" matter such that galaxies can form and remain somewhat stable.

    And how do you explain the expansion of universe? Is there a prediction of design argument about the expansion?

    Again I doubt there is a scenario that predicts expansion.

    That said there copuld be models, not based on ID or anti-ID, that make those predictions based on observations. However that is very different than a specific over-all scenario that does so.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home