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, August 12, 2009

Why Intelligent Design is Scientific

Why is Intelligent Design Scientific?

1- It is based on observations and experience

2- It can be tested

Which brings us to the question:


How can one test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

posted by Joe G @ 9:04 AM  

37 Comments:

  • At 9:17 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Actually, wouldn't it bring us to the question:

    How can we test that the bacterial flagellum was designed?

    I mean, your set-up is all about ID and then *poof* it's gone.

     

  • At 9:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    How can we test that the bacterial flagellum was designed?-

    The criteria for inferring design in biology is, as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin ' s Black Box: "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”

    He goes on to say:
    ” Might there be some as-yet-undiscovered natural process that would explain biochemical complexity? No one would be foolish enough to categorically deny the possibility. Nonetheless, we can say that if there is such a process, no one has a clue how it would work. Further, it would go against all human experience, like postulating that a natural process might explain computers.”

    But anyway I have already gone over how to test and falsify the design inference.

    What you cannot provide is how to test your position.

    So have at it or fuck off.

     

  • At 10:04 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Right. Behe. Very convincing. Well, anyway, you go about doing setups that don't lead to your questions and we'll all point and laugh.

    You might try questions that actually follow from your setups. Who knows, you might get more done.

     

  • At 10:34 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What do you have Erik?

    Why is it that to refute the design inference all you have to do is substantiate the claims of your position but you refuse to do so?

    You might try questions that actually follow from your setups.-

    The question I asked followed directly from what was posted before it.

    Ya see moron I have already gone over and over and over 1 & 2.

    And you are incapable of answering teh question because you are ignorant.

     

  • At 10:36 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    What is baseball?

    1- It's a game.

    2- It can be played.

    Which brings us to the question:

    How can football fans drink more beer?

     

  • At 11:37 AM, Blogger noname said…

    Joe,

    How do you know that the criteria you are using is correct? For example if an event (or a series of event during the experiment) which should be considered as "designed", happens in a controlled experiment in a laboratory, what would you think? (1) The criteria is wrong or (2) the event is somehow designed.

     

  • At 1:17 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    How do you know that the criteria you are using is correct?-

    It's called an INFERENCE for a reason.

    That is because given our current state of knowledge that criteria works just fine.

    And to refute the design inference all you have to do is substantiate your claim that it wasn't designed.

     

  • At 1:20 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Baseball is a sport.

    Monopoly is a game.

    But thanks Erik for proving your position has one and only one criteria:

    "We refuse to accept the design inference no matter what."

     

  • At 2:22 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Why is Intelligent Design Scientific?

    1- It is based on observations and experience

    2- It can be tested    -

    Already established:

    Intelligent Design in Biology Textbooks

    Intelligent Design in Biology Textbooks Continued

    The Design Inference in Peer-Review

    To test the design inference specific criteria must be met. Criteria such as irreducible complexity, complex specified information and/ or the mere presence of counterflow.

    To falsify the design inference all one has to do is to demonstrate that the object/ event in question can arise via nature, operating freely- ie it is reducible to matter, energy, chance and necessity.

    If nature, operating freely can account for it then the design inference is unwarranted.

    So there you have it. All the anti-ID mob has to do is to actually start supporting their position and ID will fade away...

    And that is what brings us to:

    How can one test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

    IOW clownie's inability to follow along does not mean my OP is disjointed.

     

  • At 6:50 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Follow along, Joe. I'm not saying your two premises are wrong here (that's another matter). I'm saying it's ludicrous to set up "A" and then say "Why is B wrong?".

     

  • At 7:11 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Erik, you cannot follow along.

    My two premises have been well covered.

    The question I asked has not been answered.

    Ya see I am saying that ID has scientific support but your position apparently does not.

     

  • At 7:18 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    I'm also not necessarily talking about your question (at least by itself).

    It's the connection that is faulty, Joe.

     

  • At 8:49 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Erik,

    The connection is only faulty to you and perhaps to other morons as well.

    You said:

    I'm saying it's ludicrous to set up "A" and then say "Why is B wrong?".-

    That isn't what I did. Not even close.

    Ya see people like you say ID is not scientific.

    Yet it has all the earmarks of being scientific whereas your position doesn't have any of those earmarks.

    So the flow goes: ID is scientific because of 1 & 2, so then I ask for something that would demonstrate why your position should be scientific.

    You have failed to provide something, anything, that would support your position.

    All you can do is blindly follow those who tell you that your position is scientific.

    You are a clueless clown and you prove that with every post.

     

  • At 10:03 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Everything is part of the universe. Is teh universe designed?

    You say it's testable. Show me.

     

  • At 12:53 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    According to the scientific data the universe is designed.

    But that doesn't mean everything in the universe was designed.

    And I have already provided a testable hypothesis:

    Intelligent Design: The Design Hypothesis Updated-

    And the best you can do is complain about that hypothesis without offering up one to test your position.

    IOW your complaints are hollow.

     

  • At 1:13 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Please use an EXAMPLE to test the design of the universe.

     

  • At 1:26 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Erik,

    Where are any of your examples that support your position?

    Provide one or fuck off

     

  • At 1:37 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Explain how there can be an example of the universe being designed.

     

  • At 2:58 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Explain how there can be an example of a universe arising via non-telic processes.

     

  • At 4:10 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Well, Joe. Science (for the great majority of things) takes the universe as a given and then works to discover why things are the way they are.

    If you're wanting to talk about the design of the way things are, you're going to have to invoke something supernatural.

    Science -- takes the universe as a given

    JoeG & ID -- invokes something outside the univserse in order to explain it.

    What is that something, Joe?

     

  • At 4:41 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Well, Joe. Science (for the great majority of things) takes the universe as a given and then works to discover why things are the way they are.-

    So you think that excuses you from explaining the universe?

    Do you also think tat means the universe exists due to non-telic processes?

    Assholes take the universe as a given so they can keep from having to explain it.

    Science asks three basic questions for everything we investigate, the universe included.

    If you're wanting to talk about the design of the way things are, you're going to have to invoke something supernatural.-

    Why, because you and your moronic ilk say so?

    JoeG & ID -- invokes something outside the univserse in order to explain it.-

    You do realize that even your position requires something beyond the universe.

    That is why you invoke ignorance.

     

  • At 11:54 AM, Blogger One Brow said…

    I left a reponse to this post at http://lifetheuniverseandonebrow.blogspot.com/2009/08/few-less-popular-blogs-looked-at.html

     

  • At 4:49 PM, Blogger noname said…

    Joe,

    Do you think that Dembski's explanatory filter (EF) is a legitimate and successful tool for detecting design?

     

  • At 5:55 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Da Vinci,

    Yes I do.

    Do you have a better process for design detection that isn't biased toward that end?

    As far as I can tell the only problem with the EF is the people who use it. And it can give a false negative. But that is because agencies can mimic nature, operating freely.

     

  • At 11:56 AM, Blogger noname said…

    Joe,

    Didn't Dembski accept that it can give false positives? Then what use does it have?

     

  • At 8:53 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Da Vinci,

    The EF is only as good as the people who use it.

    I asked you a question.

    Why did you not answer it?

    The EF mandates a thorough investigation.

    It mandates that we test alternatives first.

    It also mandates that the design inference is more than just an elimination of alternatives.

    To reach a design inference the alternatives must not only be eliminated but a criteria must be met.

    So again I ask:

    Do you have a better process for design detection that isn't biased toward that end?

     

  • At 10:42 AM, Blogger noname said…

    Joe,

    It is not about having a better process. If a method of design detection gives false positives than it is useless because you can never be sure about the truth of any detection, can you? If so, how?

     

  • At 11:09 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If you have a process that works then until a better process comes along you stay with it.

    Again the method doesn't produce false positives.

    The people using it may but only because they weren't qualified to use it in the first place.

    And the design inferemce is called an inference for a reason.

    That is because as with ALL scienific inferences future knowledge may refute it.

    But that is the nature of science.

    We have to go with our current state of knowledge and cannot wait for what the future may or may not bring.

     

  • At 5:04 PM, Blogger noname said…

    William Dembski says in No Free Lunch page 14: "John Wilkins and Wesley Elsberry attempt to offer a general argument for why the filter is not a reliable indicator of design. Central to their argument is that if we incorrectly characterise the natural necessities and chance processes that might have been operating to account for a phenomenon, we may omit an undirected natural cause that renders the phenomenon likely and that thereby adequately accounts for it in terms other than design. Granted that is a danger for the Explanatory Filter. But it is a danger endemic to all of scientific inquiry."

    Isn't this an admission of the possibility of false positives?

     

  • At 10:12 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Da Vinci,

    Do you having reading comprehension issues?

    ALL scientific inferences have the possibility that they may be wrong.

    However no one can complain if the initial investigation was as thorough as the time period allowed.

    We make scientific inferences based on our current knowledge of cause and effect.

     

  • At 4:43 AM, Blogger noname said…

    And lets look at what Dembski said another time: "And this brings us to the problem of false positives. Even though the Explanatory Filter is not a reliable criterion for eliminating design, it is, I argue, a reliable criterion for detecting design. The Explanatory Filter is a net. Things that are designed will occasionally slip past the net. We would prefer that the net catch more than it does, omitting nothing due to design. But given the ability of design to mimic unintelligent causes and the possibility of our own ignorance passing over things that are designed, this problem cannot be fixed. Nevertheless, we want to be very sure that whatever the net does catch includes only what we intend it to catch, to wit, things that are designed.

    I argue that the explantory filter is a reliable criterion for detecting design. Alternatively, I argue that the Explanatory Filter successfully avoids false positives. Thus whenever the Explanatory Filter attributes design, it does so correctly."

    This was written in 1998. At that time he was sure that EF was a reliable criterion for detecting design and it does never give false positives. But in No Free Lunch, he accepted the fact that EF can give false positives. And this means he conceded that EF is not a reliable source. Because you can that rely on a criterion if it gives false positives. It contradicts with the very definition of criterion.

    From Wikipedia: "A criterion is a condition/rule which enables a choice, therefore upon which a decision or judgment can be based (the plural is criteria)."

    How can you base your decision on something that you don't know whether it is true or not? You can never say whether a detection by EF is true or not. Then how can you rely on it?

     

  • At 9:36 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Da Vinci,

    If we listen to you scientists would not be allowed to conduct science.

    I say that because their inferences are just as reliable as anything cioming from the EF.

    How do you think scientists do it now?

    As I said scientific inferences must be allowed to be made based on our current understanding/ knowledge.

    Again it is the PEOPLE using the EF, not the EF itself, which reach fasle positives.

    The EF mandates a thorough investigation.

    Only nimrods would oppose such a thing.

    So what is it- should scientists be allowed to have inferences or are you going to change science such that only proof be allowed?

    Because if we listen to you we have to scrap the whole theory of evolution as it is all about inferences.

     

  • At 4:16 PM, Blogger noname said…

    Joe,

    Look, I am not against the concept of design detection. But Dembski's way is a flawed one. If you have a method for distinguishing As from Bs and Cs, and your method has the potential of erroneously choosing some (and you can't know how much) Bs and Cs as an A, then it is better not to use this method. It is a bad method. But if you have no choice but to use it, then you have to tell everyone: "This is a flawed method, we can't be sure that everything it gives is an A, some of them may be B or C. Use it at your own risk.".

    Moreover, EF has never been demonstrated to be working on biological entities or features. Did Dembski ever make thorough calculations about biology? What is Demski doing? Why didn't he provide any thorough calculations of CSI for the last 10 years? What is he waiting for?

     

  • At 4:54 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    By your "logic" all science is flawed.

    Darwin should never have proposed his theory.

    Einstein should have shut up.

    Moreover neither you nor anyone else has ever substantiated the non-telic position.

    No tests, no predictions, no hypothesis, nothing.

    All you can do is gripe when someone suggests we conduct as thorough of an investigation as possible and come to an inference based on knowledge.

     

  • At 12:15 PM, Blogger noname said…

    As Mike Gene described, ID is like a criminal investigation. Design detection is not science. You may be using science but what you do is not science. Design detection is an investigation.

    Theories describes things. There are no ID theories. A theory of ID should describe how ID works, happens or occurs. ID, itself is not a theory. ID is an investigation in which science is used but it is not science.

    Your investigation method is flawed. It gives false positives. Innocent people are charged because of this flawed investigation method. False negatives may be acceptable in an inestigation but false positives can not.

     

  • At 2:57 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    As Mike Gene described, ID is like a criminal investigation. Design detection is not science. You may be using science but what you do is not science. Design detection is an investigation.

    Science is an investigation.

    In order to answer the three basic questions science asks there must be an investigation.

    Or do you think that only psychics can conduct science via telepathy?

    Theories describes things. There are no ID theories. A theory of ID should describe how ID works, happens or occurs. ID, itself is not a theory. ID is an investigation in which science is used but it is not science.

    ID describes things.

    Design works by directed processes. With random effects thrown in.

    OTOH your position doesn't describe anything.

    You can't even provide a testable hypothesis based on your proposed mechanisms.

    Your investigation method is flawed. It gives false positives. Innocent people are charged because of this flawed investigation method. False negatives may be acceptable in an inestigation but false positives can not.

    Nothing is 100% perfect. All we can do is our best given our current state of knowledge.

    BTW science isn't 100% perfect either. Science is done via inference and as with all inferences the future can refute it.

    Science used to have the Earth as the center.

    Darwin thought bears evolved into whales.

    I could list many, many cases in which scientists have been wrong.

    I would say science is more trial and error than engineering is.

     

  • At 3:47 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW Da Vinci,

    A false positive wouldn't be when the wrong person was apprehended.

    A false positive would be when a crime is said to have been committed when in fact no crime had occurred.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home