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

Friday, March 18, 2011

"A Totally Different Kind of Biology"

-
That's right- under ID or Creation we are looking at a totally diffrent kind of biology than we are today, even though we are looking at the same biology!

That is because once you change the way you look a things, the things you are looking at change.

But anyway who says it is a different kind of biology? Richard Dawkins:
The implication you make is that there’s something about religion which is personal and upon which evidence doesn’t have any bearing. Now, as I scientist I care passionately about the truth. I think that the existence of a supreme being – a supernatural supreme being – is a scientific issue. Either there is a God or there isn’t. Either there are gods or there are no gods. That is a scientific issue. Yes, it’s a supremely important scientific question. If the universe was created by an intelligence, then we are looking at an entirely different kind of scientific theory than if the universe came into existence by natural means. If God or gods had something to do with the creation of life, then we’re looking at a totally different kind of biology.

That was taken from here- Dawkins starts talking near the 14:30+ mark.

Repost:

In other forums I have been asked to describe/ define intelligence. I have stated that intelligence is that which can create counterflow*. Now I will tell you why that is important. Sorry, very, very important.

ID critics & anti-IDists are always saying that ID isn't science because it doesn't attempt to answer questions about the designer- such as its capabilities; the implementation process/ mechanism of design (how); when or where it was designed.

But that is exactly why ID is scientific. Because it forces us to ask those questions.

IDists understand that in order to possibly answer those questions there is quite a bit of work to be done. The first is the detection- that is what gets archaeologists and SETI researchers going. Then we look for more (clues of design) while others are going over the first. We fit the pieces together, unless of course we find a short-cut, but the answer turns out to be 42** but we don't know the question. (those darn mice).

I have always maintained that ID isn't interested in answering those questions but IDists are. I have always maintained that is the same as the ToE not being concerned with life's origins but evolutionists are. IOW the theory of evolution is about what happened after life appeared. But if life didn’t arise from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes, i.e. the only scenario that excludes ID, then there wouldn’t be any reason to infer its subsequent diversity arose solely due to those type of processes. I never could or will understand why anti-IDists can't understand that pure & basic logical connection. But anyway...

Why isn’t ID interested in those questions? ID is about the detection and understanding of the design. SETI- first detect then try to understand; archaeology- first identify artifacts (detect) and then put the pieces together (understand). In the absence of direct observation or designer input the ONLY way to make a reasonable inference about the designer is by studying the design. The same goes for how, why, when and where.

Can anyone tell me how to get any information about the Wright brothers JUST by studying airplanes? How about how it was designed or manufactured?

The odd part is the people who rail against ID insist we have those answers or ID isn’t science. However if we had the answers then we wouldn’t need science to help us find them, ID would be a given and the point would be moot.

The design inference matters because reality demonstrates we care whether or not something is intentionally designed. We care enough to have the word artifact as part of our defined vocabulary. We care enough to have laboratories set up to help us make the determination (intentional design or not). And we know it does make a difference to any investigation- that is it matters whether the object/ structure/ event in question was intentionally designed, happened by chance/ accident, or happened by necessity. For example when a fire investigation determines arson, the investigation from that point on is different than had the initial investigation determined “accident”. And guess what? We didn’t have to know who the arsonist was to determine arson as the root cause. Nor did we have to know how the arson was initiated. We know that only via rigorous investigation can we hope to determine those answers. And sometimes the person/ people who made the determination of arson aren’t the same. IOW one “team” made the determination of arson and another went about finding the arsonist. With ID scientists have enough to do with the detection and understanding part. And I agree the questions not answered by ID- the who, why, where, how- can and should be a guiding “force” behind extending the design inference- i.e. using the design inference as a foundation from which to ask those questions. Nasca, Peru- the lines and the figures- designed? Yes. The who, why, how were only “answered” via years of investigation, and we are still working on what we do have. The point being that the discovery of design led to the research. And it also disproves the foolish notion that the design inference is a show stopper (held by those who say ID is another way of saying “Goddidit! We give up!”).



*Counterflow refers to things running contrary to what, in the relevant sense, would (or might) have resulted or occurred had nature operated freely. Del Ratzsch page 5 of Nature, Design and Science: The Status of Design in Natural Science

or as I refer to it as anything that nature, acting alone, could not or would not do.

** from “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”

26 Comments:

  • At 9:17 AM, Blogger Thorton said…

    JoeTard, isn't it time to give this tired old dumb analogy a rest?

    Archaeologists, arson investigators, etc, are looking for signs of HUMAN activity. The way they identify such activity is that THEY ALREADY KNOW FROM PREVIOUS EXAMPLES what to look for.

    You IDiots claim a HON-human intelligent designer produced things. But how do you know what a non-human designer would do? What previous examples do you have to compare to?

    BTW, you can tell quite a bit about the HUMAN designers of the Flyer by examining it. For one, its construction draws heavily from known bicycle manufacturing techniques and materials, especially the use of steel bicycle tubing in the frame. Once again, you can tell this from previous examples of HUMAN bicycle manufacture.

    If you IDiots spent 1/100 as much time on research as you do on producing empty rhetoric you might get somewhere. But you won't.

     
  • At 11:30 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thorton, you ignorant slut. FIRE investigators look for signs of agency involvemet- tat i they look to detemine the root cause- cause and effect relationships- just as I have been saying.

    Archaeologists too- only once design or arson has been determined do they try to figure out who did it.

    And yes our knowledge of cause and effect relationships is based on years of observaions and experiences. That is the whole point.

    And to refute ANY given design inference all you have to do is step up and demonstrate that chance and necessity can account for it.

    As for research, well, again is your position had something intlligent design would be a non-starter.

    But you won't- all you have is empty rhetoric.

    BTW I understand your hatred of analogies seeing that your position can't even manage that level of evidence.

     
  • At 3:29 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    JoeTard said...

    And yes our knowledge of cause and effect relationships is based on years of observaions and experiences. That is the whole point.


    What observations and experience do we have with non-human, possibly supernatural intelligent designers? Please provide a short list.

    And to refute ANY given design inference all you have to do is step up and demonstrate that chance and necessity can account for it.

    Er...no JoeTard. Science doesn't have to waste time refuting your IDiot fantasies that no one has produced a single speck of positive evidence for. The burden of proof for ID is on the IDiots making the claim. That is the real whole point.

     
  • At 3:55 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And yes our knowledge of cause and effect relationships is based on years of observaions and experiences. That is the whole point.

    Thortard:
    What observations and experience do we have with non-human, possibly supernatural intelligent designers?

    If we had that then we wouldn't be talking about a design INFERENCE.

    But again your tard misses the point.

    What observations and experinces do we have with non-natural, non-intelligent processes producing a universe?

    And to refute ANY given design inference all you have to do is step up and demonstrate that chance and necessity can account for it.

    Thortard:
    Er...no Joe.

    That is exactly how it is and has always been.

    Your ignorance is meaningless here.

    thortard:
    Science doesn't have to waste time refuting your IDiot fantasies that no one has produced a single speck of positive evidence for.

    We have produced the evidence. You choke on it eery time I bring it up. OTOH your position hasn't produced anything.

    The burden of proof for ID is on the IDiots making the claim.

    Srange how your position is immune from supporting their claims.

     
  • At 4:13 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    LOL!

    JoeTard: "We infer a non-human intelligent designer created the universe and life based on years of observations and experiences with intelligent non-human designers."

    T: "What observations and experience do we have with non-human, possibly supernatural intelligent designers?"

    JoeTard: "We don't have any"


    You're priceless JoeTard. Just priceless.

     
  • At 5:02 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    We infer an intelligent designer(s) created the universe and life based on years of observations and experiences with cause and effect relationships, coupled with the fact that natural processes cannot account for the origin of nature as they only exist in nature.

    "What observations and experience do we have with non-human, possibly supernatural intelligent designers?"

    We have plenty of observations of non-human and human designing agencies. We have plenty of observations with nature, operating freely.

    We then put the two together to make a scientific inference. And seeing the design inference mandates the elimination of nature, operating freely, just demonstrating nature, operating freely can produce it will falsify ID.

    Yet you cannot do so because you position is void of content- a bullshit lie, told by bullshit liars, like yourself.

     
  • At 5:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What observations and experinces do we have with non-natural, non-intelligent processes producing a universe?

    What observations and experinces do we have with non-natural, non-intelligent processes producing a living organism?

    What the fuck is thortard's position based on besides the refusal to allow the design inference no matter what?

     
  • At 5:16 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    tardtard:
    What observations and experience do we have with non-human, possibly supernatural intelligent designers?

    If SETI is any indication that isn't required.

     
  • At 6:21 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "We have plenty of observations of non-human and human designing agencies."

    Do we? Can you give me an example of such a non-human designer?

     
  • At 8:02 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Can you give me an example of such a non-human designer?

    Beavers, termites, ants, bees....

     
  • At 8:30 AM, Blogger Thorton said…

    JoeTard said...

    OM: Can you give me an example of such a non-human designer?

    Beavers, termites, ants, bees....


    Now all you have to do is explain how to extrapolate "beavers build dams" into "an intelligent super-being designed and build the entire universe including all life forms on Earth"

    You seem to be missing a few steps

     
  • At 8:33 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    tardtard:
    Now all you have to do is explain how to extrapolate "beavers build dams" into "an intelligent super-being designed and build the entire universe including all life forms on Earth"

    Wrong again- keep grasping though, it is very entertaining.

     
  • At 8:33 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What observations and experinces do we have with non-natural, non-intelligent processes producing a universe?

    What observations and experinces do we have with non-natural, non-intelligent processes producing a living organism?

    What the fuck is tardtard's position based on besides the refusal to allow the design inference no matter what?

     
  • At 8:34 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    tardtard:
    You seem to be missing a few steps

    Your position seems to be missing everything.

     
  • At 8:39 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Seth Shostak:
    If SETI were to announce that we're not alone because it had detected a signal, it would be on the basis of artificiality. An endless, sinusoidal signal - a dead simple tone - is not complex; it's artificial. Such a tone just doesn't seem to be generated by natural astrophysical processes. In addition, and unlike other radio emissions produced by the cosmos, such a signal is devoid of the appendages and inefficiencies nature always seems to add - for example, DNA's junk and redundancy.

    Cause and effect relationships- just as I have been saying.

     
  • At 8:17 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "the refusal to allow the design inference no matter what?"

    There's no refusal. There's no denial.

    It's just you need to support your position with evidence before it can be considered.

    "We have plenty of observations of non-human and human designing agencies. We have plenty of observations with nature, operating freely."

    But as ID is not about the designer and can tell us nothing about the designer (according to you) then those observations are useless and pointless with regard to ID.

    So you have plenty of nothing at all that helps you.

     
  • At 8:32 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "the refusal to allow the design inference no matter what?"

    OM:
    There's no refusal. There's no denial.

    All evidence to teh contrary, of course.

    OM:
    It's just you need to support your position with evidence before it can be considered.

    Been there, done that- and you choke on it every time.

    OM:
    But as ID is not about the designer and can tell us nothing about the designer (according to you) then those observations are useless and pointless with regard to ID.

    ID isn't about the designer but we may be able to learn about the deisgner by studying the design you ignorant fuck. I have only been over and over this with you.

    Also there is plenty of scientific work to do just studying the fucking design you moron- it's a totally different biliogy you freaking retard.

     
  • At 6:21 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    "it's a totally different biliogy you freaking retard. "

    A totally different biology from what Joe?

    "ID isn't about the designer but we may be able to learn about the deisgner by studying the design you ignorant fuck."

    Name 1 single thing you have discovered so far.

    Some things you've not discovered so far include:

    You don't know if the designer is supernatural or not.

    You don't know if the designer acted once, all the time or somewhere in between.

    You don't know via what mechanism the designer acts when it acts.

    "And to refute ANY given design inference all you have to do is step up and demonstrate that chance and necessity can account for it. "

    For such to be worth refuting it has to be supported with evidence. You've not done that nor has any other ID proponent. What's been done so far does not come up to the level of a science fair project.

     
  • At 8:16 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    A totally different biology from what Joe?

    From blind watchmaker biology, you dipshit- ask Dawkins.

    "ID isn't about the designer but we may be able to learn about the deisgner by studying the design you ignorant fuck."

    OM:
    Name 1 single thing you have discovered so far.

    The designer(s) is very capable.

    OM:
    You don't know if the designer is supernatural or not.

    You don't know if the designer acted once, all the time or somewhere in between.

    You don't know via what mechanism the designer acts when it acts.


    Hey looks like ID isn't a dead-end after all- there are plenty of questions to be answered.

    OTOH your position still can't answer shit and never will.

    "And to refute ANY given design inference all you have to do is step up and demonstrate that chance and necessity can account for it. "

    OM:
    For such to be worth refuting it has to be supported with evidence.

    And we have done just that and you have choked on it every time.

    Do you really think your ignorance is meaningful discourse?

     
  • At 8:18 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM,

    Here is your chance- produce a testable hypothesis along with positive (supporting) evidence or admit you cannot and your position is shit.

     
  • At 8:29 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "From blind watchmaker biology, you dipshit- ask Dawkins."

    Oh, I see. Suddenly Dawkins knows what he's talking about.

    "The designer(s) is very capable."

    For all you know the "designer" might be a machine that can create an infinite number of parallel universes, brute forcing it's way to solutions to problems. And therefore "capable" in the same what that an abacus is capable.

    "Hey looks like ID isn't a dead-end after all- there are plenty of questions to be answered."

    ID is nothing but questions, none answered. Glad to see you are starting to realize this, however obliquely.

    "OTOH your position still can't answer shit and never will."

    That's why it's so unpopular amongst people who work in the field as opposed to people who sit in their armchairs.

    "And we have done just that and you have choked on it every time."

    Evidence cooked up to sell books wrapped up in pseudo scientific talk. When it does get published where scientists might take notice it does not go down too well. Check this link for example:

    http://dvunkannon.blogspot.com/2011/03/retraction-of-granville-sewell.html

    "Do you really think your ignorance is meaningful discourse?"

    Any conversation with you Joe is far away from anything resembling meaningful discourse.

     
  • At 9:19 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Om:
    Oh, I see. Suddenly Dawkins knows what he's talking about.

    It ain't just Dawkins. Anyone with an education understands what he said.

    "OTOH your position still can't answer shit and never will."

    OM:
    That's why it's so unpopular amongst people who work in the field as opposed to people who sit in their armchairs.

    Yet not one of those "people" can produce positive evidence to support their claims.

    "And we have done just that and you have choked on it every time."

    OM:
    Evidence cooked up to sell books wrapped up in pseudo scientific talk.

    You are projecting again.

    Ya see moron it is the failure of evolutionists y=to support their claims that has allowed ID to persist.

    Go figure...

     
  • At 10:21 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "Ya see moron it is the failure of evolutionists y=to support their claims that has allowed ID to persist."

    No, rather it's the fact that you live in a society that allows dissenting views to be heard, however unlikely or unsupported.

    The persistence of ID can be linked to the persistence of the timecube guy. The internet allows anybody to make their case.

    Scientific journals on the other hand are somewhat more choosy.

     
  • At 11:22 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Ya see moron it is the failure of evolutionists y=to support their claims that has allowed ID to persist."

    OM
    No, rather it's the fact that you live in a society that allows dissenting views to be heard, however unlikely or unsupported.


    Your position is unlikely and unsupported. That is the whole point.

    OM:
    Scientific journals on the other hand are somewhat more choosy.

    Yet their evidence supports ID.

    Go figure...

     
  • At 1:17 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "Yet their evidence supports ID."

    Yep, all evidence published anywhere supports ID. That's why ID is about to overtake Darwinism and replace it.

     
  • At 1:28 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Yep, all evidence published anywhere supports ID.

    Nope, there is plenty of evidence for the blind watchmaker breaking things.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home