Independent Evidence for the Designer(s)
-
Another "argument" against Intelligent Design is the so-called "independent evidence for the designer(s)".
My answer to that is the evidence for design in biology is independent of the evidence for design in physics, which is independent from the evidence for design in cosmology, which is independent from the evidence for design in chemistry.
Yet that doesn't appear to be good enough.
These "critics" want some sort if evidence that the designer(s) exist.
So I tell them the design is that evidence.
The evidence for the designers of Stonehenge? Stonehenge.
IOW artifacts are that evidence.
Still not good enough.
They want to observe the designer(s) in action.
IOW those "critics" are not interested in science.
So I tell them that all they have to do is demonstrate that a designer is not required and they would have refuted the design inference.
But therein lies the problem- they cannot do that so they have to make up some "argument" that sounds good - to them I guess- and spew that all over the internet.
Go figure...
Another "argument" against Intelligent Design is the so-called "independent evidence for the designer(s)".
My answer to that is the evidence for design in biology is independent of the evidence for design in physics, which is independent from the evidence for design in cosmology, which is independent from the evidence for design in chemistry.
Yet that doesn't appear to be good enough.
These "critics" want some sort if evidence that the designer(s) exist.
So I tell them the design is that evidence.
The evidence for the designers of Stonehenge? Stonehenge.
IOW artifacts are that evidence.
Still not good enough.
They want to observe the designer(s) in action.
IOW those "critics" are not interested in science.
So I tell them that all they have to do is demonstrate that a designer is not required and they would have refuted the design inference.
But therein lies the problem- they cannot do that so they have to make up some "argument" that sounds good - to them I guess- and spew that all over the internet.
Go figure...
posted by Joe G @ 9:38 AM
91 Comments:
At 9:33 AM,
Ghostrider said…
Joe, do you think you'll ever scrape together enough working neurons to figure out that "this looks designed to me!!!" just doesn't cut the muster in the scientific community?
At 12:34 PM,
Joe G said…
Well Thorton, what does this "scientific community" have besides - "It looks designed but it ain't"?
IOW look what this "scientific community" accepts- "anything but design- no matter what".
Obviously you cannot scrape together enough working neirons to present some positive evidence for your position.
Go figure...
At 3:09 PM,
Hawks said…
You don't understand what is meant by independent evidence. I recommend that you read:
http://philosophy.wisc.edu/sober/what%27s%20wrong%20with%20id%20qrb%202007.pdf
At 5:36 PM,
Joe G said…
A paper by Elliot Sober?
What makes you think that Sober is correct?
And why didn't Sober ever provide any positive evidence for his position?
At 7:50 PM,
Hawks said…
What makes you think that Sober is correct?
Do you have a problem with the requirement that reasoning should not be circular? Or that a theory should be able to predict more that that which has already been found?
At 8:31 PM,
Joe G said…
The reasoning for ID is not circular.
It is based on our knowledge and experience with cause and effect relationships.
As for predictions perhaps Sober should have presented some examples of what blind, undirected processes predict.
That would have given some weight to what he has to say.
Show us IDists how it is done by actually providing some positive evidence for his position- predictions, how it can be tested- something.
And show us the methodology used to determine chance and necessity can account for all we observe.
At 8:32 PM,
Joe G said…
IOW Hawks, what does Sober or anyone one else have besides "It looks designed but it ain't"?
At 9:17 PM,
Ghostrider said…
IOW Hawks, what does Sober or anyone one else have besides "It looks designed but it ain't"?
You mean besides the 150+ years of consilient positive evidence from hundreds of different scientific disciplines that show an "intelligent designer" wasn't necessary?
The same evidence people have been showing you for the last five years on C/E boards all over the web but you are still too stupid to understand?
What else is there?
At 9:21 PM,
Joe G said…
You mean besides the 150+ years of consilient positive evidence from hundreds of different scientific disciplines that show an "intelligent designer" wasn't necessary?
If it existed you would have a point.
Yet I have noticed you have failed to present any of it.
The same evidence people have been showing you for the last five years on C/E boards all over the web but you are still too stupid to understand?
Not one person has presented such evidence.
IOW Thorton you are a liar.
Thank you for proving that all you can do is lie.
At 9:35 AM,
Hawks said…
The reasoning for ID is not circular.
We were talking about what independent evidence is. Sober is talking about a theory's ability to make predictions - something ID can't without having indendent evidence about the designer.
As for predictions perhaps Sober should have presented some examples of what blind, undirected processes predict.
When claiming that a theory can predict something, one usually has in mind one or several specific hypotheses. For example, one could say that evolution predicts that there should be fossils found that are transitionals between fish and amphibians and that these should be found in rocks from the late Devonian.
One can say this because, for example:
1) Lobe finned fishes first appear in the fossil record 390-380 mya.
2) The first tetrapods first appear in the fossil record 363 mya.
Ergo: Transitional forms between fish and tetrapods should have arisen 380-363 mya ago.
I.e. we have pretty good reasons for why evolution would predict the existence of such fossils.
Points 1 & 2 above is independent evidence. They, in turn, rest on assumptions for which there is other independent evidence.
Contrast this with ID and, for example, Dembski's claim that ID predicts the existence of very little (or no) junk DNA:
Although ID says NOTHING about the designer, I (Dembski) think that that the designer both WANTED and COULD create eukaryotes (presumably) without junk DNA. I think this because ... well, I like the idea.
And show us the methodology used to determine chance and necessity can account for all we observe.
You're going to have to get over the fact that evidence for evolution does not require one to specify that all was due to chance and necessity.
At 10:26 AM,
Joe G said…
We were talking about what independent evidence is.
Still waiting for you to post something valid about that.
Sober is talking about a theory's ability to make predictions -
ID makes predictions.
something ID can't without having indendent evidence about the designer.
That is false.
All we require is knowledge and experience with cause and effect relationships.
As for predictions perhaps Sober should have presented some examples of what blind, undirected processes predict.
When claiming that a theory can predict something, one usually has in mind one or several specific hypotheses. For example, one could say that evolution predicts that there should be fossils found that are transitionals between fish and amphibians and that these should be found in rocks from the late Devonian.
That says absolutely nothing about blind, undirected processes.
BTW "evolution" isn't being debated.
One can say this because, for example:
1) Lobe finned fishes first appear in the fossil record 390-380 mya.
2) The first tetrapods first appear in the fossil record 363 mya.
Ergo: Transitional forms between fish and tetrapods should have arisen 380-363 mya ago.
The evidence says tetrapods appeared about 395 MYA.
And again your "prediction" is not based on any mechanism so it is meaningless to this debate.
And show us the methodology used to determine chance and necessity can account for all we observe.
You're going to have to get over the fact that evidence for evolution does not require one to specify that all was due to chance and necessity.
ID is not anti-evolution and the debate is all about mechanisms- blind, undirected vs planned, directed processes.
At 10:38 AM,
Ghostrider said…
ID makes predictions.
ID hasn't successfully predicted a goddamn thing. The IDiots make postdictions of things science has already discovered, then lie their asses off and claim "ID predicted it!!.
The classic example is in the function of non-coding ('junk') DNA. ID didn't have one word to say on the topic until after biological functions for it were found. Then after the fact ID jumps on the bandwagon and goes "see!!".
The other category of "prediction" lies told by the IDiots are about things that have no logical connection to the ID position. Saying things like "ID predicts the sky will be blue, so a blue sky is evidence for the Designer!!".
Such is the stupidity and dishonesty of the IDiots.
At 10:45 AM,
Joe G said…
ID hasn't successfully predicted a goddamn thing.
Sure it has.
OTOH your position hasn't successfully predicted a goddamn thing.
The classic example is in the function of non-coding ('junk') DNA. ID didn't have one word to say on the topic until after biological functions for it were found. Then after the fact ID jumps on the bandwagon and goes "see!!".
And your evidence for that is what, exactly?
Also it is very telling that you still haven't presented any positive evidence for your position.
Why is that?
At 1:14 PM,
Hawks said…
Still waiting for you to post something valid about that.
Eeeer. Are you being facetious? I posted a link from a professor of philosophy that is writing about scientific philosophy. I'm sorry, Joe, but that trumps your opinion.
ID is not anti-evolution and the debate is all about mechanisms- blind, undirected vs planned, directed processes.
You're REALLY going to have to get over the fact that evidence for evolution does not require one to specify that all was due to chance and necessity.
And again your "prediction" is not based on any mechanism so it is meaningless to this debate.
Get over yourself.
Sure it has.
That would be funny if it wasn't so crappy. Examples:
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.
What you personally expect is totally irrelevant. I might expect something different entirely. What trumps your opinion over mine?
2) If the universe were designed for scientific discovery then I would expect a strong correlation between habitability and measurability.
Here is my personal expectation (since that seems to be what we are talking about): If the universe were designed for scientific discovery then I would expect there to be hundreds a habitable worlds within fairly easy reach from Earth. Conclusion: The universe was NOT designed for discovery. Wow. That was so easy. ID can predict ... whatever you want it to.
At 2:13 PM,
Joe G said…
I posted a link from a professor of philosophy that is writing about scientific philosophy.
So what?
Does that make him the only authority?
Does that mean whatever he writes is 100% correct?
And it is very telling that he didn't provide any examples from his position.
ID is not anti-evolution and the debate is all about mechanisms- blind, undirected vs planned, directed processes.
You're REALLY going to have to get over the fact that evidence for evolution does not require one to specify that all was due to chance and necessity.
Evolution isn't being debated- the mechanisms are.
Evidence for evolution is meaningless in a debate about mechanisms.
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.
What you personally expect is totally irrelevant.
The expectation is based on observations and experience.
2) If the universe were designed for scientific discovery then I would expect a strong correlation between habitability and measurability.
Here is my personal expectation (since that seems to be what we are talking about): If the universe were designed for scientific discovery then I would expect there to be hundreds a habitable worlds within fairly easy reach from Earth.
Except mine is backed up with science.
Go figure...
Now how about your position?
What predictions does it make?
Also chance and necessity could be wrong- your position is all about chance.
All mutations are genetic accidents.
The Earth? Formed via many thousands/ millions of cosmic collisions- chance.
IOW you don't have anything.
At 3:00 PM,
Hawks said…
Does that make him the only authority?
Does that mean whatever he writes is 100% correct?
That makes him an authority. You are not an authority. Why don't you explain why you think he is wrong about what is meant by independent evidence instead?
Evolution isn't being debated- the mechanisms are.
What is really being debated is your inability to understand what is meant by independent evidence.
The expectation is based on observations and experience.
...
Except mine is backed up with science.
And if ID made any sort of claim about the designer (more than that it is intelligent), you would perhaps have a point. And this is exactly what Sober is discussing in his paper, which I take that you didn't understand.
Now how about your position?
What predictions does it make?
Considering that I made an evolutionary prediction above, I assume that you didn't read my post. Or, alternatively, that you have failed to understand that my positions is that predictions don't require the mention of anything about chance and necessity. Or something else entirely that you don't understand...
At 3:35 PM,
Joe G said…
Sober doesn't appear to be any type of authority.
What makes you think I am wrong pertaining to independent evidence?
Also we don't need to know anything about the designer in order to make predictions about what we should see in a design.
Considering that I made an evolutionary prediction above, I assume that you didn't read my post.
Evolution isn't being debated and your prediction is wrong.
In order for a prediction to have any merit in this debate it has to entail the proposed mechanisms.
Your position sez the mechanisms are blind and undirected- not planned, no foresight, shit just happens.
Or, alternatively, that you have failed to understand that my positions is that predictions don't require the mention of anything about chance and necessity.
Then they are meaningless for the reasons provided.
I take it that you are too stupid to understand the debate...
At 9:08 PM,
Hawks said…
Sober doesn't appear to be any type of authority.
Because...?
What makes you think I am wrong pertaining to independent evidence?
Because an article published in a peer-reviewed paper says so. You can't make up your own definitions, you know. But please show me wrong. Show me the sources of the people using the 'Another "argument" against Intelligent Design is the so-called "independent evidence for the designer(s)".' and we'll see how they use it.
Evolution isn't being debated and your prediction is wrong.
You asked me for my position, didn't you? And my prediction is not wrong. Said fossils were found in said strata.
Your position sez the mechanisms are blind and undirected- not planned, no foresight, shit just happens.
That is of course irrelevant to whether or not life forms came from earlier life forms. SOmehow I' suspect you'll never understand this.
I take it that you are too stupid to understand the debate...
You can take it anyway and anywhere you want... Keep Mr Freud happy.
At 8:04 AM,
Joe G said…
Sober doesn't appear to be any type of authority.
Because...?
He doesn't say anything that is supported.
And he doesn't provide any examples that would show his position does it correctly- ya know so we can compare.
IOW just saying stuff is BS if you cannot back it up.
What makes you think I am wrong pertaining to independent evidence?
Because an article published in a peer-reviewed paper says so.
If that is a peer-reviewed article then I know what is wrong with peer-review- nonsense gets published!
Evolution isn't being debated and your prediction is wrong.
You asked me for my position, didn't you?
If your position is not about the mechanisms then yours is a position of intellectual cowardice.
And my prediction is not wrong. Said fossils were found in said strata.
Your prediction is wrong because eviudence for tetrapods has been found in strat dated 395 mya.
What part of that don't you understand?
Your position sez the mechanisms are blind and undirected- not planned, no foresight, shit just happens.
That is of course irrelevant to whether or not life forms came from earlier life forms.
That is irrelevant as ID does not argue against evolution nor Common Descent.
HOW life forms changed is the debate.
You childish ignorance is duly noted.
And you keep mentioning Freud as if he has some relevance.
Go figure...
At 8:14 AM,
Joe G said…
Hawks,
If Sober wants to be taken seriously then he needs to show that his position meets his criteria from that paper.
IOW he needs to show how blind, undirected processes can be tested- independently.
But Sober doesn't even know if any amount of mutational accumulation can account for the changes required.
IOW not even the premise of Common Descent can be objectively tested.
So forget about testing Common Descvent via an accumulation of genetic accidents.
At 10:22 AM,
Hawks said…
And he doesn't provide any examples that would show his position does it correctly- ya know so we can compare.
IOW just saying stuff is BS if you cannot back it up.
This is a matter of DEFINITION of words. I am claiming that you are using a different one compared to the the people you claim use 'the so-called "independent evidence for the designer(s)".' argument. Go ahead, Joe. Show me how these people used it. Get a quote. Do it. Or are you, by any chance, just bull-shitting?
If that is a peer-reviewed article then I know what is wrong with peer-review- nonsense gets published!
Beyond stupid. We are talking about a definition of what "independent evidence" for a designer means. I.e., how people who require it are actually using the phrase. Again: quotes, please.
That is irrelevant as ID does not argue against evolution nor Common Descent.
How come you are the only one insisting on this crap line of reasoning? Ever thought about that? Not even the numb-skulls at uncommondescent use that one.
At 10:28 AM,
Joe G said…
Hawks,
You show me how that person- Sober- uses it.
Also provide the quote(s) that demonstrate my usage is incorrect.
That is irrelevant as ID does not argue against evolution nor Common Descent.
How come you are the only one insisting on this crap line of reasoning?
I am not the only one insisting on that.
Dr Behe accepts Common Descent.
He flat out states that evidence for Common Descent is not evidence for a mechanism.
Jonathon Wells freely admits that evolution occurs.
Heck YECs freely admit that evolution occurs.
It is obvious from the ID literature that ID does not argue against evolution nor Common Descent.
IOW Hawks you don't know what you are talking about- as usual.
At 11:33 AM,
Joe G said…
Sober:
"The single thesis of what I will call mini-ID is that the complex adaptations that organisms display (e.g., the vertebrate eye) were crafted by an intelligent designer."
That doesn't even represent ID.
Then Sober mentions the Wedge document.
Why is it that he fails to mention the rebuttal?
See Wedge document- so what?
As I said if this paper passed through peer-review then there are serious problems with the peer-review process.
At 3:10 PM,
Hawks said…
You show me how that person- Sober- uses it.
It's right there under the "Auxiliary Propositions Must Be
Independently Supported" headline.
I am not the only one insisting on that.
Oh boy, did you misunderstand me. What I meant, of course, is that you are the only one insisting that the only evidence that counts is the one dealing with chance and necessity.
That doesn't even represent ID.
Given that ID claims that only intelligence can craft such a thing he sure isn't far off the mark. But I'm glad you at least managed to read the first paragraph of the paper.
At 4:36 PM,
Joe G said…
It's right there under the "Auxiliary Propositions Must Be
Independently Supported" headline.
Yeah I read that- a bunch of meaningless jibberish.
What I posted makes more sense than Sober's drivel.
What I meant, of course, is that you are the only one insisting that the only evidence that counts is the one dealing with chance and necessity.
That is false.
The whole debate is about what chance and necessity can do vs. what designing agencies can do.
That is all spelled out in the pro-ID literature.
So the bottom line is neither you nor Sober understand ID, and neither you nor Sober can present positive evidence for your position.
At 4:41 PM,
Joe G said…
So one more time-
ID only argues against blind, undirected (chemical/ physical) processes- ie chance and necessity.
And when you get down to it even necessity- the laws that govern nature- are due solely to chance.
Again from 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.
At 7:43 PM,
Joe G said…
The “No Designer Worth His Salt”
Objection"
The answer to that is what we now observe is the result of random effects on the original design.
IOW no one said the original design had to be perfect or even if it started out "perfect" that it had to/ would remain that way.
Testability-
If it is ever observed that living organisms can arise from non-living matter via blind, undirected chemical processes then ID would be falsified as the requirement for a designer would be eliminated.
When we test the laws of optics by observing eclipses, the auxiliary propositions we use are “independently justified” in the sense that our reasons for accepting them do not depend on (i) assuming that the theory being tested is true or (ii) using the data on eclipses.
Testing ID does not require (i).
Contrasted with Common Descent via an accumulation of genetic accidents which relies on (i).
Testing ID does not require data on the designer(s) (ii).
At 10:27 PM,
blipey said…
What about "independent from the assumption that there is a designer"?
Does ID do that?
I can say that my theory of tasty ice cream is independent from literary theory, and also independent from Mornington Crescent Play Theory, and also independent from the Germ Theory of Disease. While true, this nonetheless says nothing about the truth of tasty ice cream.
Rather than being independent from chemistry, physics, and cosmology, maybe you should be looking for a things that tie ID to those disciplines.
At 7:56 AM,
Joe G said…
What about "independent from the assumption that there is a designer"?
Does ID do that?
Absolutely.
IDists do not assume a designer exists/ existed unless there is evidence for that.
ID is evidence first, unlike your position which is "no designer no matter what".
At 11:18 AM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
Rather than being independent from chemistry, physics, and cosmology, maybe you should be looking for a things that tie ID to those disciplines.
My answer to that is the evidence for design in biology is independent of the evidence for design in physics, which is independent from the evidence for design in cosmology, which is independent from the evidence for design in chemistry.
IOW there is evidence that ties ID to all of those disciplines- independently.
At 1:11 PM,
Doublee said…
Joe G:
So I tell them that all they have to do is demonstrate that a designer is not required and they would have refuted the design inference.
Has anyone ever outlined in principle what would be required to demonstrate that a designer is not required?
Of course, what can be envisioned in principle cannot necessarily be implemented in practice.
In principle, one could write a computer program that emulates life, but in order to do that science would have to know how life works in all its astonishing details.
My suspicion is that if science knew all of the astonishing details of how life works, writing a program would be superfluous.
It would be almost self-evident that a designer would be required to change a land animal into a whale for example.
At 4:39 PM,
Joe G said…
Has anyone ever outlined in principle what would be required to demonstrate that a designer is not required?
Demonstrate that in question can arise without agency involvement- ie via chance and/ or necessity.
That is why we no longer think lightning is from Zeus and why we no longer think the giant's causeway was built by giants nor any other agency.
At 8:00 PM,
Hawks said…
IDists do not assume a designer exists/ existed unless there is evidence for that.
But even if I was to give you, for the sake of argument, that life of Earth was designed, ID would still not be able to make any predictions. You even inadventently agree to this when you talk about the "no designer worth his salt objection". As you say, even if a design started out perfect or even really good, it could have degraded heaps since then. I take it that you agree, then, that ID says nothing about, for example, junk DNA.
I'd also like to revisit some predictions that you said ID makes (such as the common parameters of the universe). You say that these are backed up by observation, experience and science. Can you explain how?
My answer to that is the evidence for design in biology is independent of the evidence for design in physics, which is independent from the evidence for design in cosmology, which is independent from the evidence for design in chemistry.
IOW there is evidence that ties ID to all of those disciplines- independently.
I think that you'll find that each of these "independent evidences" themselves fail to have independent evidence of a designer for them. Better luck next time.
At 8:33 AM,
Joe G said…
But even if I was to give you, for the sake of argument, that life of Earth was designed, ID would still not be able to make any predictions.
That is false.
The only thing ID cannot predict is what the designer(s) will design next.
However we can make predictions on what design entails.
Ya see just like forensics, archaeology and SETI ID predicts that things that are designed cannot be reduced to matter, energy, chance and necessity.
IOW as with all design-centric venues ID predicts that agencies leave traces of their involvement behind.
And again if you want to complain about predictions perhaps you can provide ONE prediction based on blind, undirected processes.
I'd also like to revisit some predictions that you said ID makes (such as the common parameters of the universe). You say that these are backed up by observation, experience and science. Can you explain how?
Experience with common designs Hawks.
I have over 4 decades of experience and observations dealing with common designs. So I know what that entails.
The rest is in "The Privileged Planet". Read it.
I think that you'll find that each of these "independent evidences" themselves fail to have independent evidence of a designer for them.
I think I found that you are just an ignorant blowhard with nothing to say.
And again evidence for design is evidence for a designer or designers.
Also it is very telling that you still can't provide any positive evidence for your position.
At 10:03 AM,
Hawks said…
IOW as with all design-centric venues ID predicts that agencies leave traces of their involvement behind.
No, it doesn't. Unless by traces, what you mean is that only intelligence can create CSI. I.e. CSI is a trace of intelligence.
I have over 4 decades of experience and observations dealing with common designs. So I know what that entails.
Are you saying that you created all this complexity around us then? Or even someone like you? Listen up, numbnuts: ID says nothing about the designer more than that it is intelligent. And intelligence could work in very mysterious ways.
The only thing ID cannot predict is what the designer(s) will design next.
This intrigued me. What do you really mean?
At 10:50 AM,
Joe G said…
IOW as with all design-centric venues ID predicts that agencies leave traces of their involvement behind.
No, it doesn't.
Yes it does- your ignorance is not a refutation.
How do you think forensic scientists can tell if a crime has been committed?
How do you think archaeologists know if someone or something has been around?
In both cases they look for signs of agency involvement.
No signs of agency involvement no design inference.
I have over 4 decades of experience and observations dealing with common designs. So I know what that entails.
Are you saying that you created all this complexity around us then?
No I am saying I know what common design entails.
I know what it takes to get different things to work together.
ID says nothing about the designer more than that it is intelligent. And intelligence could work in very mysterious ways.
Listen up assface- I am talking about the DESIGN not the designer(s).
The only thing ID cannot predict is what the designer(s) will design next.
This intrigued me. What do you really mean?
It means exactly what it says.
For example I design things on a daily basis.
Yet no one can predict what it is I will design today.
At 11:05 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Brilliant thread. The somewhat ironic "Intelligent Reasoning" is always tops for giggles!
At 12:30 PM,
Joe G said…
Yes ignorant assholes always giggle at that which they cannot understand.
Which means Richtard Hughes is always giggling...
And BTW, you, being an evolutionitwit wouldn't know intelligent reasoning if it was right in front of you.
At 12:39 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Tell us about the other kind of reasoning, "unintelligent reasoning"? The idiocy here even extends to the title. Do you ever ask for a wooden stick?
But, thanks for the giggles.
At 4:02 PM,
Joe G said…
Richtard,
Little girls giggle.
And if you want to know about "unitelligent reasoning" just read what the evolutionitwits, like you, post.
Also the idiocy here extends only to the evolutionitwits who post here- again like you, oleg, blipey, Hawks, Zachriel, Thorton...
At 4:37 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
What do you think of the tea party movement, joe?
At 4:44 PM,
Joe G said…
Is there a movement to have more tea parties?
My youngest has tea paties with her stuffed animals.
I usually spike the tea...
:)
At 4:46 PM,
Joe G said…
In a thread about "Independent Evidence for the Designer(s)" Richtard has exposed his idiocy by not even attempting to address the topic.
Little girly giggle-fits are not refutations RT.
At 8:33 PM,
Hawks said…
IOW as with all design-centric venues ID predicts that agencies leave traces of their involvement behind.
No, it doesn't.
....
Yes it does- your ignorance is not a refutation.
How do you think forensic scientists can tell if a crime has been committed?
How do you think archaeologists know if someone or something has been around?
In both cases they look for signs of agency involvement.
No signs of agency involvement no design inference.
Well, yes, sort of. No design inference means no agency involvement. I.e. No false positives. But there could be lots of false negatives. I.e. all design centric venues will not leave traces of their involvement.
Listen up assface- I am talking about the DESIGN not the designer(s).
Oooh, Freud.
And without knowing at least something about the designer, we can't know what it would design. You're even agreeing to this when you say:
The only thing ID cannot predict is what the designer(s) will design next.
So, we agree here. ID can't predict what a designer would design.
As for your other "predictions":
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.
I must admit that I don't even know what these common parameters are. But why couldn't a bunch of designers use lots of parameters. You're not assuming one designer, are you? Or alternatively, what about the hypothesis "If the universe was the product of a non-common design then I would expect it to be governed by several sets of parameters"? Does ID predict that as well?
2) If the universe were designed for scientific discovery then I would expect a strong correlation between habitability and measurability.
How about "If the universe were NOT designed for scientific discovery then I would NOT expect a strong correlation between habitability and measurability. "? ID prediction?
3) Also if the universe was designed for scientific discovery I would expect it to be comprehensible.
How about "Also if the universe was NOT designed for scientific discovery I would NOT expect it to be comprehensible."? ID prediction?
When answering this, try to take Sober's quote from below into account:
When we test the laws of optics by observing
eclipses, the auxiliary propositions we use
are “independently justified” in the sense that
our reasons for accepting them do not depend
on (i) assuming that the theory being
tested is true or (ii) using the data on eclipses.
The reason to avoid (i) is obvious, since a test
of optical theory should not be question-begging.
But why avoid (ii)? The reason is that
violating this requirement would allow us to
show that any theory, no matter how irrelevant
it is to the occurrence of eclipses, makes accurate
predictions about them. For if O describes
an observation about the occurrence
of an eclipse, and O is used to justify the auxiliary
propositions we use to test theory N, then
we can simply construct the auxiliary proposition
“not-N or O;” this disjunction must be
true if O is, and this auxiliary proposition,
when conjoined to N, allows N to entail O.
At 9:59 AM,
Joe G said…
But there could be lots of false negatives. I.e. all design centric venues will not leave traces of their involvement.
Yup Dembski talks about that in "No Free Lunch".
And without knowing at least something about the designer, we can't know what it would design.
Well we know something about designers Hawks.
And in the absence of designer input or direct observation the ONLY possible way to make any determination about the designer(s) or the processes used is to study the design in question.
That is how it is done in archaeology and forensics.
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.
I must admit that I don't even know what these common parameters are.
The laws that govern the universe.
I explained that in the design hypothesis thread.
IOW thanks for continuing to prove that you are an asshole.
But why couldn't a bunch of designers use lots of parameters. You're not assuming one designer, are you? Or alternatively, what about the hypothesis "If the universe was the product of a non-common design then I would expect it to be governed by several sets of parameters"? Does ID predict that as well?
My hypothesis pertains to a common design only.
But I understand that you would want to try to move the goalposts so to speak.
2) If the universe were designed for scientific discovery then I would expect a strong correlation between habitability and measurability.
How about "If the universe were NOT designed for scientific discovery then I would NOT expect a strong correlation between habitability and measurability. "? ID prediction?
Is that all you have?
LoL!!!
When answering this, try to take Sober's quote from below into account:
Been there, done that:
(i) assuming that the theory being
tested is true or (ii) using the data on eclipses.
ID does not assume ID is true.
ID only assumes that we can capably differentiate between agency involvement and blind, undirected processes.
Contrast that with Common Descent which relies on Common Descent being true.
And ID does not use data of the designer.
At 1:04 PM,
Hawks said…
Me: How about "If the universe were NOT designed for scientific discovery then I would NOT expect a strong correlation between habitability and measurability. "? ID prediction?
Joe:Is that all you have?
LoL!!!
Oh dear. You don't understand that, do you? (surprise, surprise). What I am saying is that depending on what we say about the designer's intentions, we get different predictions. You say If A then B. I say if ~A then ~B. How do you justify A rather than ~A? As far as I can tell you do this by pointing to B and saying that B is what we find. Since we find B, then A. and since we know A, B follows. That argument is circular.
ID only assumes that we can capably differentiate between agency involvement and blind, undirected processes.
And yet, your "predictions"rely you knowing something about the designer's intentions. You can't even say that a designer WILL design something with CSI, only that it CAN.
And in the absence of designer input or direct observation the ONLY possible way to make any determination about the designer(s) or the processes used is to study the design in question.
If A then B. B, therefore A. That circle is so tight that I am quite frankly surprised that you can get so much crap out of it.
That is how it is done in archaeology and forensics.
No. These disciplines to make some assumptions regarding the designer.
At 8:49 PM,
Joe G said…
What I am saying is that depending on what we say about the designer's intentions, we get different predictions.
And by studying the design we can figure out the designer's intentions. Duh.
That is how it is done in archaeology and forensics.
No. These disciplines to make some assumptions regarding the designer.
Just that one existed based on the evidence. Duh.
At 10:54 PM,
Hawks said…
And by studying the design we can figure out the designer's intentions. Duh.
Duh. That makes ID predictions circular.
At 12:36 PM,
Joe G said…
And by studying the design we can figure out the designer's intentions. Duh.
Duh. That makes ID predictions circular.
Then that makes all "predictions" based on Common Decent circular.
Ya know why?
Because you are using the same reasoning.
You think you know what transitionals should be around because you "know" what they evolved from and to.
At 12:39 PM,
Joe G said…
To sum up-
By any rational person's standards- even Sober's- we have independent evidence for the designer(s):
The evidence for design in biology is independent of the evidence for design in physics, which is independent from the evidence for design in cosmology, which is independent from the evidence for design in chemistry.
AND
(i) assuming that the theory being
tested is true or (ii) using the data on eclipses.
ID does not assume ID is true.
ID only assumes that we can capably differentiate between agency involvement and blind, undirected processes.
Contrast that with Common Descent which relies on Common Descent being true.
And ID does not use data of the designer.
Gotta love it...
At 4:15 PM,
Joe G said…
Hawks,
How do you think scientific predictions are made?
I say they are made by going over the scientific data:
And by studying the design we can figure out the designer's intentions.
That is how it is done in archaeology and forensics.
At 11:51 AM,
Hawks said…
Then that makes all "predictions" based on Common Decent circular.
Ya know why?
Because you are using the same reasoning.
You think you know what transitionals should be around because you "know" what they evolved from and to.
No. We know that organisms reproduce and that descendants are different from their ancestors. This is an independent piece of evidence used as an assumption used when testing common descent.
ID only assumes that we can capably differentiate between agency involvement and blind, undirected processes.
And yet you claim that ID can make the assumption that the universe was made for discovery. What gives?
And by studying the design we can figure out the designer's intentions.
That is how it is done in archaeology and forensics.
And, again, these brances of science do make some assumptions regarding the designers - that they are humans. We have good reasons to think that they are humans. ID doesn't. In fact, ID explicitly says that it doesn't make ANY assumptions regarding the designer.
BTW, I'm trying to reconcile these two statements of yours:
And ID does not use data of the designer.
and:
How do you think scientific predictions are made?
I say they are made by going over the scientific data:
And by studying the design we can figure out the designer's intentions.
Care to help me?
At 12:17 PM,
Joe G said…
We know that organisms reproduce and that descendants are different from their ancestors.
How different am I from my parents?
True I am taller but I have all the defining characteristics they had.
IOW there shouldn't be any transitionals given the data we have.
ID only assumes that we can capably differentiate between agency involvement and blind, undirected processes.
And yet you claim that ID can make the assumption that the universe was made for discovery.
Wrong, we make an inference based on the scientific data.
And by studying the design we can figure out the designer's intentions.
That is how it is done in archaeology and forensics.
And, again, these brances of science do make some assumptions regarding the designers - that they are humans.
They don't make that assumption.
Using the evidence they can form that inference however.
IOW Hawks it appears that you think your ignorance is some sort of refutation.
Strange....
At 12:36 PM,
Joe G said…
In fact, ID explicitly says that it doesn't make ANY assumptions regarding the designer.
Please provide a reference for that or admit that you do not know what you are talking about.
At 1:58 PM,
Hawks said…
Me:In fact, ID explicitly says that it doesn't make ANY assumptions regarding the designer.
Joe:Please provide a reference for that or admit that you do not know what you are talking about.
#1:Thus while I argue for design, the question of the identity of the designer is left open...
(Michael J. Behe, ‘The Modern Intelligent Design Hypothesis’, Philosophia Christi, Series 2, Volume 3, Number 1, 2001, p. 165)
#2: 15. Identity Problem -- Who is the designer?
Note that the last four questions are not properly questions of science,
(Dembski@http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_isidtestable.htm
)
#3:It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer.[3](wikipedia's entry on intelligent design)
Of course, one assumption is made - that the designer is/was intelligent, but that sort of goes without saying...
Why are you even arguing about this.
At 1:59 PM,
Hawks said…
They don't make that assumption.
Using the evidence they can form that inference however.
Do you even know what an assumption is?
At 2:14 PM,
Joe G said…
Do you even know what an assumption is?
Do you know what a scientific inference is?
Do you know how one arrives at a scientific inference?
At 2:16 PM,
Joe G said…
In fact, ID explicitly says that it doesn't make ANY assumptions regarding the designer.
You said ID and then you quote IDists.
Also not knowing the identity doesn't mean Dr Behe cannot and does not make assumptions about the designer(s).
IOW Hawks you continue to expose your ignorance as if it means something.
At 2:25 PM,
Joe G said…
Hawks,
An inference is not the same as an assumption.
An assumption means you just take for granted that it is true.
An inference is based on facts, data, evidence, etc.
At 4:54 PM,
Hawks said…
An assumption means you just take for granted that it is true.
An inference is not the same as an assumption.
Thanks, Joe. This is precisely how IDists like yourself treat assumptions. In science, however, when one uses an assumption, one has to justify it, not merely take it for granted.
And a drawn inference can be used as an assumption - providing that it was properly done.
At 5:03 PM,
Joe G said…
This is precisely how IDists like yourself treat assumptions. In science, however, when one uses an assumption, one has to justify it, not merely take it for granted.
Not all the time.
And even when they do "justify" it the "justification" can be just so we can see what we get.
IOW Hawks you speak as if you know something but never follow through with anything of substance.
And a drawn inference can be used as an assumption - providing that it was properly done.
Any examples?
At 5:04 PM,
Joe G said…
And BTW you have accused me of a strawman.
You had better supprt that claim or forget posting here.
At 1:55 PM,
Hawks said…
Any examples?
Sigh. I'll repeat another I did previously: We know that organisms reproduce and that descendants are different from their ancestors. That is an inference that can be used as an assumption.
You said ID and then you quote IDists.
Sigh. I can't believe that you are even trying to beat that particular horse. Here is the Wikipedia entry: "It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer.[3]"
And even when they do "justify" it the "justification" can be just so we can see what we get.
So, go ahead and justify the assumption that the designer designed the universe for discovery.
And BTW you have accused me of a strawman.
I searched this entire page and didn't find any mention of a strawman (apart from yours).
You had better supprt that claim or forget posting here.
Shudder the thought.
At 2:11 PM,
Joe G said…
And BTW you have accused me of a strawman.
I searched this entire page and didn't find any mention of a strawman (apart from yours).
What starwman did you find on this page?
But anyway here is another
IOW you are a fucking asshole.
At 2:15 PM,
Joe G said…
I'll repeat another I did previously: We know that organisms reproduce and that descendants are different from their ancestors. That is an inference that can be used as an assumption.
Actually we know the descendents are very similar.
There isn't any data from reproduction that supports Universal Common Descent.
Also you just love being obtuse.
We don't have to know the designer's identity in order to make assumptions about the designer(s).
The two are separate.
So, go ahead and justify the assumption that the designer designed the universe for discovery.
Read "The Privileged Planet"- it is all there- with science and everything your position doesn't have.
At 6:45 PM,
Hawks said…
That is an inference that can be used as an assumption.
There isn't any data from reproduction that supports Universal Common Descent.
Thanks for demonstrating that you are clueless. I gave an example of something that can be used as independent evidence. Whether or not one uses that for trying to say something about common descent or something else entirely in irrelevent.
We don't have to know the designer's identity in order to make assumptions about the designer(s).
Go ahead, then. Make some assumptions about the designer (other than that it is intelligent, obviously).
So, go ahead and justify the assumption that the designer designed the universe for discovery.
Read "The Privileged Planet"- it is all there- with science and everything your position doesn't have.
Aaaah. You don't know. Pathetic.
And BTW you have accused me of a strawman.
You had better supprt that claim or forget posting here.
I searched this entire page and didn't find any mention of a strawman (apart from yours).
What starwman did you find on this page?
I didn't find a strawman. I found you mentioning it.
At 6:51 PM,
Hawks said…
The evidence for design in biology is independent of the evidence for design in physics, which is independent from the evidence for design in cosmology, which is independent from the evidence for design in chemistry.
So, what is the independent evidence used in predictions in each of these disciplines? For cosmology, you seem to think that one can use the assumption that the designer designed the universe for discovery. When called on it, you obviously can't justify that assumption. Do you get that assumption from, perhaps biology or physics? And if you did, how was the justification done there?
At 7:25 PM,
Joe G said…
I gave an example of something that can be used as independent evidence.
Not independent evidence for Universal Common Descent via an accumulation of genetic accidents.
Whether or not one uses that for trying to say something about common descent or something else entirely in irrelevent.
It is the context so it is very relevant you clueless twit.
Read "The Privileged Planet"- it is all there- with science and everything your position doesn't have.
Aaaah. You don't know. Pathetic.
You are pathetic.
Of course I know but I am not going to repeat what you can read for yourself.
IOW you think your ignorance refutes what I say and that means you are an ignorant wanker.
At 7:27 PM,
Joe G said…
So, what is the independent evidence used in predictions in each of these disciplines? For cosmology, you seem to think that one can use the assumption that the designer designed the universe for discovery. When called on it, you obviously can't justify that assumption.
Obviously the justification is in "The Privileged Planet" and your ignorance of the evidence does not refute its existence.
Also it is a design inference, not an assumption.
IOW you are cluueless when it comes to terminology also.
At 10:24 PM,
Hawks said…
I gave an example of something that can be used as independent evidence.
Not independent evidence for Universal Common Descent via an accumulation of genetic accidents.
Eeer yes. Common descent for the life we see today requires there to be reproduction with variation. You are clueless as per usual.
Obviously the justification is in "The Privileged Planet" and your ignorance of the evidence does not refute its existence.
Cute Joe. You don't know. Just like you can't measure the SI of a cake. A clueless liar is what you are.
Also it is a design inference, not an assumption.
How would you know? You don't understand it.
IOW you are cluueless when it comes to terminology also.
Apart from the fact that an inference can be used as an assumption? Stop embarrasing yourself.
Of course I know but I am not going to repeat what you can read for yourself.
I just had to include the above written by Joe-clueless. It's an argument from PMS/cluelessness/stupidity.
At 7:29 AM,
Joe G said…
Common descent for the life we see today requires there to be reproduction with variation.
Perhaps but what we observe does not provide any evidence for universal common descent.
Ya see as I said descendents are very similar to their ancestors- meaning they have all the same defining characteristics.
You don't have any evidence that those defining characteristics can change.
Obviously the justification is in "The Privileged Planet" and your ignorance of the evidence does not refute its existence.
You don't know.
Wrong again- YOU don't know Hawks.
I read the book and even blogged about it.
OTOH all you have is your ignorance.
Also it is a design inference, not an assumption.
How would you know?
Because unlike you I read the book and have an understanding of science.
IOW you are cluueless when it comes to terminology also.
Apart from the fact that an inference can be used as an assumption?
Thank you for proving my point.
At 4:14 PM,
Hawks said…
I read the book and even blogged about it.
OTOH all you have is your ignorance.
And you still can't give the requested justification. You still have to hide behind your "read-the-book-argument". Joe, when you make a claim, it's up to you to support it. It's not my responsibility.
Thank you for proving my point.
No, thank you. It's sort of a shame that more people don't read this blog. Your stupidity is blatant, endless and entertaining.
At 5:55 PM,
Joe G said…
And you still can't give the requested justification.
I cited the justification.
I have even blogged about it.
OTOH you still think your ignorance is some sort of refutation.
Strange.
Your stupidity is blatant, endless and entertaining.
Right because you are an ignorant fuck I am stupid.
Because you are too much of an intellectual coward to actually provide positive evidence for your position, I am stupid.
You are a wanker Hawks.
Deal with it
At 9:04 PM,
Hawks said…
I cited the justification.
No, you cited something that doesn't have a justification. Prove me wrong.
I have even blogged about it.
How about a link to that?
OTOH you still think your ignorance is some sort of refutation.
You seem to think that a mere claim is evidence of something (apart from your own stupidity).
At 9:32 PM,
Joe G said…
I cited the justification.
No, you cited something that doesn't have a justification.
Again your ignorance is not a refutation.
I have even blogged about it.
How about a link to that?
How about searching for it?
OTOH you still think your ignorance is some sort of refutation.
You seem to think that a mere claim is evidence of something.
Not a mere claim.
The book exists and so does the scientific evidence that supports the inference.
OTOH you still haven't provided any positive evidence for your position.
That doesn't exist.
At 10:43 AM,
Hawks said…
Aaaah, Joe can't back his assertions up.
At 12:09 PM,
Joe G said…
Aaah, Hawks is too stupid to use the search feature of the blog.
No surprise there...
At 2:57 PM,
Hawks said…
Aaaah, Joe can't back his assertions up.
At 4:36 PM,
Joe G said…
Aaah, Hawks is too stupid to use the search feature of the blog.
No surprise there...
Ya know if you are too stupid to use the search feature it is a given you are too stupid to understand anything you would read if successful.
At 10:55 PM,
Hawks said…
Aaaah, Joe can't back his assertions up.
At 6:59 AM,
Joe G said…
Aaah, Hawks is too stupid to use the search feature of the blog.
No surprise there...
At 4:14 PM,
Hawks said…
Aaaah, Joe can't back his assertions up.
At 5:52 PM,
Joe G said…
Ya Hawks you would know about not beiong able to back up one's assertions.
You evotards are pros at doing just that.
At 4:54 PM,
Hawks said…
Aaaah, Joe can't back his assertions up.
At 6:28 PM,
Joe G said…
Exposing Hawk's ignorance
Follow the link and read away.
That is just the tip of the iceberg.
And you still don't have any positive evidence for your position.
At 8:55 PM,
Hawks said…
Wow, a link with approximately a gazillion words. Why not just supply a quote?
Joe can't back his assertions up.
At 10:48 PM,
Joe G said…
Thanks for proving that you are an ignorant wanker.
At 2:53 PM,
Hawks said…
I can't see anything in your link that supports your assertion.
Joe can't back his assertions up.
At 5:40 PM,
Joe G said…
I can't see anything in your link that supports your assertion.
You are a proven liar- if you know what I mean...
At 6:44 PM,
Hawks said…
Aaaah, Joe can't back his assertions up.
At 7:17 PM,
Joe G said…
Aah, Hawks is still a lying intellectual coward...
Post a Comment
<< Home