Originally posted by AThousandYoungI understand completely where you're coming from, and agree that 'intuition' is not science. Looking at something and somehow 'knowing' that it was designed is not how science is done. But I will assert that the 'intuition' aspect IS often how it begins. As you expressed, it's the formalizing of the grounds for asserting the idea after that initial 'knowing' that is where the rubber meets the road.
[b]So, should I, for the purposes of this thread, accept that non-ID people CAN'T tell the difference between a designed and non-designed object?
Well I certainly can't. Therefore any experiments would not be reproducible. There should be some sort of objective facts you can point to as evidence of design.
Your 'premise' is not a premise. ...[text shortened]... scientific facts into account that they failed to account for the first time.[/b]
I believe ID is a more developed theory than you give it credit for. I have read some of William Dembski's writings, and while I can't keep up with understanding those probability equations, I can sometimes understand the ideas that are being formalized with those equations. The main idea that he has/is developed is 'specified complexity' as a proof of intelligent design, which uses the same types of mathematical analysis you spoke about with communication theory.
Originally posted by dizzyfingersCan you give one of his "specified complexity" examples that you believe is adequate proof in favour of ID?
I understand completely where you're coming from, and agree that 'intuition' is not science. Looking at something and somehow 'knowing' that it was designed is not how science is done. But I will assert that the 'intuition' aspect IS often how it begins. As you expressed, it's the formalizing of the grounds for asserting the idea after that initial 'kn ...[text shortened]... the same types of mathematical analysis you spoke about with communication theory.
Originally posted by dizzyfingersNo, they have a hard time with the existence of an all-powerful, non-natural being which cannot be tested for, nor scientifically explored or explained.
I was only using SETI as an example of how we are already scientifically attempting to detect design in the universe, not equating ID and SETI's goals. What seems to make ID so controversial, though, is that it is taking that same type of scientific reasoning used in SETI and applying it to biology, attempting to demonstrate that there is an un-evolved ...[text shortened]... ific grounds, but generally, I think they are just having a hard time with it's implications.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungMy understanding is that people who see evidence for Intelligent Design believe there are two possible universes models to choose from.
The ID argument, as I understand it, includes the idea that one can just look at an object and be able to determine whether or not an intelligence of some sort designed it.
It seems to me that this necessarily means that one can describe objects that are clearly NOT intelligently designed. Would someone point such an object out to me?
Incidenta ...[text shortened]... that this makes ID incompatible with the existence of any sort of deity who created everything.
1. Events are random in nature. If you throw a dice repeatedly it will show a random sequence of numbers.
2. Some events are controlled by an external entity and it is possible to see the effects - for example if you throw a dice and it shows a 6 every time 100 million times in a row, then you can conclude that it is so highly improbably that something must be making to show a 6.
I suspect that ID followers do not think that God interferes with every single event or if he does, he still makes them follow a random pattern in a significant proportion of cases. Therefore I don't think your argument really gets anywhere.
Also even if it is possible to determine that some objects are intelligently designed that does not necessarily mean that one can show that another object is not. For example, I may be able to convince you that a car is man made, but that does not mean that I can therefore prove that a rock is not man made.
My problem with the Intelligent Design concept is none of its supporters seem to be willing to actually put a finger on what method they are using. When pushed they more or less claim it is intuition.
Originally posted by timebombtedIt would be interesting to see a "specified complexity" calculation for an intelligent supreme creator. Clearly intelligently designed, or something that could naturally occur?
Can you give one of his "specified complexity" examples that you believe is adequate proof in favour of ID?
1 edit
Originally posted by dizzyfingersWhat rigorous proof did Demski use to form this conclusion?
I understand completely where you're coming from, and agree that 'intuition' is not science. Looking at something and somehow 'knowing' that it was designed is not how science is done. But I will assert that the 'intuition' aspect IS often how it begins. As you expressed, it's the formalizing of the grounds for asserting the idea after that initial 'kn the same types of mathematical analysis you spoke about with communication theory.
In December 2007 Dembski told Focus on the Family that "The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God."
http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000006139.cfm
I think I've already proved this cannot be the case. How do you reconcile this conclusion of his with my earlier argument that any ID'er cannot be the Christian God because he supposedly designed EVERYTHING?
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadAlso even if it is possible to determine that some objects are intelligently designed that does not necessarily mean that one can show that another object is not.
My understanding is that people who see evidence for Intelligent Design believe there are two possible universes models to choose from.
1. Events are random in nature. If you throw a dice repeatedly it will show a random sequence of numbers.
2. Some events are controlled by an external entity and it is possible to see the effects - for example if you th ut a finger on what method they are using. When pushed they more or less claim it is intuition.
The argument is that human beings can simply look at a intelligently designed object and know it's intelligently designed. Why should some ID objects be obvious and others not? If design can be 'hidden' as in the case of the hypothetical man-made rock, then the whole premise of ID (that you can just TELL it was designed) is a crock.
If there can be something that doesn't look designed but is, why not something that looks designed but was not?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungChrysler
The ID argument, as I understand it, includes the idea that one can just look at an object and be able to determine whether or not an intelligence of some sort designed it.
It seems to me that this necessarily means that one can describe objects that are clearly NOT intelligently designed. Would someone point such an object out to me?
Incidenta ...[text shortened]... that this makes ID incompatible with the existence of any sort of deity who created everything.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungBut we already do something similar in a scientifically accepted branch of science. If we find a stone arrowhead we conclude that it was made by humans, yet there are a lot of stone tools made by humans that we do not identify as being man made and possibly have no way of telling whether or not they were designed by humans. I know that my example is not based on looking solely at the object but includes knowledge we already have about human behavior so it doesn't prove that an object can be identified as intelligently designed based solely on its properties but I think it still demonstrates that your concept is flawed.
The argument is that human beings can simply look at a intelligently designed object and know it's intelligently designed. Why should some ID objects be obvious and others not? If design can be 'hidden' as in the case of the hypothetical man-made rock, then the whole premise of ID (that you can just TELL it was designed) is a crock.
If there can ...[text shortened]... ething that doesn't look designed but is, why not something that looks designed but was not?
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf we find a stone arrowhead we conclude that it was made by humans, yet there are a lot of stone tools made by humans that we do not identify as being man made and possibly have no way of telling whether or not they were designed by humans.
But we already do something similar in a scientifically accepted branch of science. If we find a stone arrowhead we conclude that it was made by humans, yet there are a lot of stone tools made by humans that we do not identify as being man made and possibly have no way of telling whether or not they were designed by humans. I know that my example is not b ...[text shortened]... d based solely on its properties but I think it still demonstrates that your concept is flawed.
We know that humans make arrowheads! We know how such objects come to be. We don't assume some intelligent designer made it having never seen it before and having no idea what an arrowhead is. You recognize why your example is a poor one but you offer it up anyway.
During post-excavation analysis, archaeologists do extensive comparisons with other, previous artifacts. That's how they come to much of their conclusion about what an object is.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungID is a form of Creationism designed to be able to pass the test of being taught in public schools.
The ID argument, as I understand it, includes the idea that one can just look at an object and be able to determine whether or not an intelligence of some sort designed it.
It seems to me that this necessarily means that one can describe objects that are clearly NOT intelligently designed. Would someone point such an object out to me?
Incidenta ...[text shortened]... that this makes ID incompatible with the existence of any sort of deity who created everything.
The PBS series NOVA did a two-hour program on this in the Dover, Pennsylvania case about ID.
The transcript is below. You can skim it, read it, or completely ignore it, but it lays out the Creationist plan to put ID in the schools, and how it was thwarted by science.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3416_id.html
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou are correct that we do not identify a stone arrowhead as intelligently designed simply by observing its properties. I too do not believe that we have any fool proof method for identifying design in an object without other information such as a potential designer and his design habits.
We know that humans make arrowheads! We know how such objects come to be. We don't assume some intelligent designer made it having never seen it before and having no idea what an arrowhead is. You recognize why your example is a poor one but you offer it up anyway.
During post-excavation analysis, archaeologists do extensive comparisons with othe ...[text shortened]... previous artifacts. That's how they come to much of their conclusion about what an object is.
However, my example still highlights the flaw in your argument. You are claiming that if we could identify one object as being designed then we would therefore have a foolproof method for all objects. I have shown that even though we can identify one object as being designed by humans (even though the properties of the object were not the only source of information) it does not guarantee that we have a fool proof method of identifying all human artifacts.
Imagine that somebody in Ancient Egypt found a computer mouse (ok, ok, imagine time travel is possible). Would this person not recognize this as something designed? Perhaps he would attribute it to some God, perhaps he would attribute to human design, but I'm pretty sure he would recognize it as designed. But why would he do so?
It's not because there is something inherent in this object that tells hims so, but because he has seen what naturally shaped objects look like. Obviously, this is not proof but it is certainly evidence.
The problem with ID is that if we accept the hypothesis that everything is designed by God, then we cannot know what an object that wasn't designed by God looks like. So we have no frame of reference.
I think this makes both your views compatible. We can then identify design in some created items even without knowing about similar objects and yet there is no way to justify ID theory because we would need examples from beyond this universe.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhen you say 'designed everything', then use your example of a volcano, your logic is a bit faulty, and your argument, too. That's like saying God also designed those trees that were floating around in Spirit Lake after Mt. St. Helens blew up.
What rigorous proof did Demski use to form this conclusion?
In December 2007 Dembski told Focus on the Family that "The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God."
http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000006139.cfm
I think I've already proved this cannot be the case. How do you reconcile this conclusion of his wi ...[text shortened]... that any ID'er cannot be the Christian God because he supposedly designed EVERYTHING?
Originally posted by dizzyfingersI thought your god was omniscient?
When you say 'designed everything', then use your example of a volcano, your logic is a bit faulty, and your argument, too. That's like saying God also designed those trees that were floating around in Spirit Lake after Mt. St. Helens blew up.