Intelligent Reasoning

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

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Intelligent Design: The Design Hypothesis Updated

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:

The Universe

Question

Is the universe the result of intentional design?

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.

3) Also if the universe was designed for scientific discovery I would expect it to be comprehensible.

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.

3) Try to determine if the universe is comprehensible.

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 but offers a poor platform from which to make scientific discoveries.

3) Observe that we cannot comprehend the universe, meaning A) what applies locally does not apply throughout or B) what applies in one scenario, even locally, cannot be used/ applied in any similar scenario, even locally.

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.

3) “The most incomprehensible thing about our universe is that it is comprehensible.” Albert Einstein



Observation:

Living organisms

Question

Are living organisms the result of intentional design?

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 a possibility.

Test:

Try to deduce the minimal functionality that a living organism. 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.


My original design hypothesis

14 Comments:

  • At 11:28 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Um. Given that you observe the universe (wow, deep), and given that the universe is suitable for life, one might expect it to have a set of laws that is internally consistent. This really isn't a prediction of ID that is any different than what non-wack jobs believe.

    Anthropic principle anyone?

     
  • At 2:45 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    If an Y was designed for X it would be Xable.

    If an Y was designed not for X it would be unXable

    Design 'theory'. Magic. Literally.

    Good mangling of the anthropic principle, though.

     
  • At 9:31 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Umm, the whack-jobs are the people who deny the design inference in favor of sheer dumb luck. IOW you and your ilk are the whack-jobs.

    Ya see clowny in the sheer dumb luck scenario there aren't any predictions to be made. And the only way you and your whack-jobs account for the laws that govern this universe is to say "They just are (the way they are)."

    So the bottom line is you are a clueless whack-job, just like the rest of the imbeciles who deny the design inference.

     
  • At 9:44 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Let Y = the universe and let X = Humans

    Plug those into Rich's drivel:

    If an universe was designed for humans it would be humanable.

    Ya Rich that makes sense.

    But thank you for once again proving you are an imbecile.

    If either you or blipey could present a testable hypothesis based on sheer dumb luck- your position- that would help make your case against ID and the design hypothesis.

    However given that you had the opportunity to do so and came up empty it is clear that the only tactic left is to disparage that which you cannot comprehend.

     
  • At 1:07 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "sheer dumb luck" doesnt really encapsulate the recursive auto-corrective nature of evolution, does it Joe?

     
  • At 9:13 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "sheer dumb luck" doesnt really encapsulate the recursive auto-corrective nature of evolution, does it Joe?

    But sheer dumb luck is all your position is. Just how do you think that "recursive autocorrection nature of evolution, came about? Sheer dumb luck, that is if it wasn't designed.

    The mutations are nothing but genetic accidents- that is in your scenario. And whatever survives, survives.

    The laws that govern the universe- sheer dumb luck. This solar system- sheer dumb luck. This planet- more sheer dumb luck.

    "The old, discredited equation of evolution with progress has been largely superseded by the almost whimsical notion that evolution requires mistakes to bring about specieswide adaptation. Natural selection requires variation, and variation requires mutations- those accidental deletions or additions of material deep within the DNA of our cells. In an increasingly slick, fast-paced, automated, impersonal world, one in which we are constantly being reminded of the narrow margin for error, it is refreshing to be reminded that mistakes are a powerful and necessary creative force. A few important but subtle “mistakes,” in evolutionary terms, may save the human race." -page 10 ending the intro to [i]Biological Evolution: An Anthology of Current Thought[/i]

    Magical mystery mutations- that is what your position relies on.

    Magical because they can do what no one has ever observed.

    Mystery because they still elude us.

    Mutations are those genetic accidents.

    Chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, is at the very root of the stupendous edifice of creation.-Nobel Prize-winning chemist Jacques Monod

    "The main conclusion of Rare Earth is that Earth is a very special place. Many circumstances and events had to happen just right for Earth to remain a healthy habitat for advanced life. It appears that our planet won the comic lottery and we should cherish our very special place and time in the Universe." Scientists Peter Ward & Donald Brownlee


    Amazing sheer dumb luck...

     
  • At 12:22 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Argument from improbability.

    *yawn*

     
  • At 9:01 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Umm I did NOT make an argument from improbability.

    I just stated the facts and those facts say your anti-ID position is nothing but sheer dumb luck.

    And guess what? I have the scientists to back me up. Go figure...

     
  • At 12:32 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    luck=chance=probabilty.

    So if "luck" can't do it then improbability.

    I've seen your 'scientists', Joe. Creobots all.

     
  • At 10:29 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Umm Nobel Prize-winning chemist Jacques Monod was no Crebot.

    Peter Ward and Donald Browlee are not Creationists nor IDists.

    All three agree with what I have posted.

    Ya see Rich the FACT is your anti-ID postion is nothing but sheer-dumb-luck, starting from the laws that govern our universe, to the formation of our solar system and right down to living organisms. All sheer dumb luck.

    And that is why your position is a science-stopper- which is why you cannot provide a clear-cut hypothesis for your position. Just how does one incorporate sheer dumb luck into a hypothesis?

    BTW Biological Evolution: An Anthology of Current Thought is a high school supplemental text book.

    IOW every authority I quoted to support my position is on your side.

    And it is very telling that you would ignore that fact and instead post a response based on nothing but your ignorance.

     
  • At 12:41 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Ya see Rich the FACT is your anti-ID postion is nothing but sheer-dumb-luck, starting from the laws that govern our universe, to the formation of our solar system and right down to living organisms. All sheer dumb luck"

    Argument from improbability, again.

     
  • At 8:54 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Ya see Rich the FACT is your anti-ID postion is nothing but sheer-dumb-luck, starting from the laws that govern our universe, to the formation of our solar system and right down to living organisms. All sheer dumb luck"

    Argument from improbability, again.

    It's not an argument Rich- it is a fact. And it is a fact backed up by non-ID, non-Creation scientists.

    If not by design or special creation then all that is left is chance and necessity- but even the "necessity" component had to arise by chance.

    So the bottom line here is Rich is living in denial.

     
  • At 11:58 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "It's a fact"

    Schoolyard debate.

    Your false dichotomoy is another example of yor Nth use of the holmesian fallacy.

    One trick pony.

     
  • At 10:13 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich,

    I have provided 3 non-ID/non-Creation scientists and one supplemental high school biology text to support my claim.

    IOW it is reality that your position is nothing but chance and necessity and necessity really arose by chance.

    And instead of your bald assetion of a false dichotomy you would be better served to explain why it is- IOW demonstrate that your position is not sheer dumb luck.

    And if you cannot then it is clear that I, along with the scientists that support YOUR position, are correct.

    IOW Rich show me that you are not the mental midget that you appear to be.

    BTW you should read "On the Origins of Species..." by Charles Darwin- count how many times the word "chance" is used.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home