Extrapolation and the Design Inference
-
The design inference in a nutshell:
Every time we observe X (be that CSI or IC) and know the cause it has always been via agency involvement. Always. Meaning there has never been an observed instance of X (be that CSI or IC) arising spontaneously, ie without agency invlovement. Never.
Therefor when we observe X (be that CSI or IC) and don't know the cause we can infer, due to our knowledge of cause and effect relationships in accordance with uniformitarianism, that an agency was involved.
True the usual evotardgasm is "Man (humans) are the only agency we know of that produces X (be that CSI or IC)", but that is the point of extrapolation.
Ya see if we have already determined design and we also have determined that man (humans) could not be the agency, then we infer it was some other agency-> extrapolation.
So simple my eight year old understands it...
The design inference in a nutshell:
Every time we observe X (be that CSI or IC) and know the cause it has always been via agency involvement. Always. Meaning there has never been an observed instance of X (be that CSI or IC) arising spontaneously, ie without agency invlovement. Never.
Therefor when we observe X (be that CSI or IC) and don't know the cause we can infer, due to our knowledge of cause and effect relationships in accordance with uniformitarianism, that an agency was involved.
True the usual evotardgasm is "Man (humans) are the only agency we know of that produces X (be that CSI or IC)", but that is the point of extrapolation.
Ya see if we have already determined design and we also have determined that man (humans) could not be the agency, then we infer it was some other agency-> extrapolation.
So simple my eight year old understands it...
posted by Joe G @ 8:15 PM
15 Comments:
At 11:49 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
I thought time travellers could be the agency, According to leading ID theorists.
At 2:58 AM,
aaam said…
I think the real problem is the a deep seated presumption that biological life has to be natural? A complete and absolute inability to consider (even in abstract) that biological life might be artificial. Trained by culture & education to not see and to never even consider that biological life might actually be exactly what it looks like: An advanced technological artifact.
At 9:31 AM,
Joe G said…
Richtard:
I thought time travellers could be the agency,
Yup, every time RichTard gets exposed as the ignorant evotard he is- and that is quite often- he just sez anything.
At 9:32 AM,
Joe G said…
And obvioulsy RichTard did not understand the OP of this thread- typically pathetic...
At 1:15 AM,
Brent said…
How do we determine that man could not be the agency in any given circumstance?
In addition, since every time we observe X (be it apples falling or babies being born) and know the cause has been via material means. Always. There has never been an observed instance of X (be it apples falling or babies being born) arising spontaneously, ie being without material explanation.
Therefore when we observe X (be that falling apples, or babies being born) and don't know the cause we can infer, due to our knowledge of cause and effect relationships in accordance with uniformitarianism, than an agency was involved.
Does extrapolating your inference to the study of the origins of life and materialism indicate that the origin of life must have had a material cause since we have never observed spontaneous miracles?
I personally support the notion that ET beings designed all life on Earth as we know it producing its designed appearance and why life is so limited, and error prone and relies on common design rather than omnipotent power.
At 8:46 AM,
Joe G said…
Brent:
How do we determine that man could not be the agency in any given circumstance?
ONE way is by determining man did not yet exist at the time of design and manufacture.
Brent:
In addition, since every time we observe X (be it apples falling or babies being born) and know the cause has been via material means.
What does that even mean- "via material means"?
Are cars manufactured by material means? I say they are.
IOW Brent you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
Perhaps you could pull your head out of your ass long enough to have a coherent thought.
At 8:51 AM,
Joe G said…
Brent:
I personally support the notion that ET beings designed all life on Earth as we know it producing its designed appearance and why life is so limited, and error prone and relies on common design rather than omnipotent power.
I have no problem with that except to say thermodynamics is the main reason for the errors. And our ignorance is the reason they are not being corrected.
At 9:58 AM,
Brent said…
Sorry for not being clearer with my questions Joseph.
What I meant was, everything we have ever observed being designed has occurred by natural, and not supernatural means.
Extrapolating back to me that means the the origin of life must also have a nonsupernatural explanation.
To me that's why ET interference is the only explanation thus far that makes sense to me for the creation of CSI and ID.
Thanks for the quick responses!
At 10:08 AM,
Joe G said…
Brent:
What I meant was, everything we have ever observed being designed has occurred by natural, and not supernatural means.
1- What do you mean by "natural"? You do realize that natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for its origin, which science says it had.
2- ID does not require the supernatural.
Brent:
Extrapolating back to me that means the the origin of life must also have a nonsupernatural explanation.
Unless of course it is demonstrated it could not have had a nonsupernatural origin.
But anyways, many things to do today and not one involves the internet.
As the Ahhnold once said:
"I'll be back...."
At 10:33 AM,
Brent said…
"What do you mean by "natural"? You do realize that natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for its origin, which science says it had."
ET interference would not be the origin of nature or life as a whole. Only here on Earth.
"Unless of course it is demonstrated it could not have had a nonsupernatural origin."
Absolutely, if there is evidence that the origin of life on Earth was supernatural then I would accept that.
The reason I do not is exactly the reasons you provided for extrapolating the design inference although I have never before been able to word it as well as you have.
The fact that we have never observed the supernatural designing anything means that when we observe X like the origin of life and don't know the cause we can infer due to our knowledge of cause and effect relationships in accordance with uniformitarianism that a nonsupernatural cause was involved.
To me the only nonsupernatural possible explanation is ETs, but I am open to other suggestions or to obviously changing my mind if evidence for a supernatural designer was found.
At 4:36 PM,
Joe G said…
Brent:]
To me the only nonsupernatural possible explanation is ETs, but I am open to other suggestions or to obviously changing my mind if evidence for a supernatural designer was found.
To me it is irrelevant if the designer was supernatural or nonsupernatural.
And I agree- I also need evidence for the supernatural before I accept it.
At 11:16 AM,
aaam said…
Isn't the term "supernatural" meaningless?
Just try to define it? How would we know if something might be be supernatural? What would make something supernatural and not natural or artificial?
At 11:31 AM,
Joe G said…
aaam-> 2 for 2
Somewhere, some time ago, I heard:
"Sufficiently advanced techology may be indistinguishable from the supernatural or magic."
At 3:46 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Somewhere, some time ago, I heard:
"Sufficiently advanced techology may be indistinguishable from the supernatural or magic."
errr
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". Arthur C. Clarke, "Profiles of The Future", 1961 (Clarke's third law)
Nice of you to make your own bit up that wasn't there to tie it to your point.
At 7:20 PM,
Joe G said…
RichTard:
Nice of you to make your own bit up that wasn't there to tie it to your point.
I didn't make it up- that is what I heard. And even without the word "supernatural" it still makes my point as supernatural is indistinguishable from magic, moron.
Post a Comment
<< Home