Denying ID would be denying the possibility that designed objects can be identified in nature through observation.
If we are talking about life than proving that evolution works would be sufficient.
However as I said before not any kind of proof is acceptable.
The problem with evolution is that people simply assume that there are pathways that can be taken step by step without asking how likely the existence of such pathways really are.
With the exception of self reproduction there is absolutely no difference between the computer world and the living world, and self reproduction alone proves nothing so why should something impossible in the computer world be possible in the living one?
In this case, I assume by “the object”, you mean a Creator Being, who - as an intelligent entity - must necessarily possess your property of “specified complexity”. So since your Creator Being clearly shows evidence that it was designed, we must ask - who designed the Designer?
While it would necessarily have the property of specified complexity it would not necessarily be the product of design. ID is not philosophy it is science based on observation and the induction fallacy. Just because all known specified complex objects have been designed doesn’t mean all specified complex objects have been designed especially if designed objects require the presence of a specified complex designer. It only means that a specified complex object was most likely designed. The same way not everyone charged with a crime is a criminal not everything that looks designed was designed. Maybe the designer always existed or maybe there is process (like evolution) that can create it. However the same way as not any kind of evidence will convince a judge not any kind of evidence should convince us regarding such a process.
In the case of criminals we call it the presumption of innocence in the case of ID we would call it the presumption of design. (There’s also a presumption of atheism advocated by the late philosopher Anthony Flew).
Yes evolution or a different natural process can defeat the presumption of design the same way evidence can defeat the presumption of innocence, but it must be proven!
I know I know it is very radical… scientific theories are needed to be proven… Until evolution has not been properly proven the idea of design should prevail.
But those are the rules of the game and I wasn’t the one who made them.
My question was very clear and simple. Is there ANY evidence that would cause you to conclude that ID is not a valid hypothesis? If not, then any discussion with you would be a waste of time. Nothing would ever change your mind.
I believe my answer was quite clear and simple as well.
There are two things that could change my mind:
a ) the simplest living being does not fulfill the requirement of specified complexity
b ) there is an observable or provable process that can create the complexity at the rate necessary for the living beings to exist.
If single celled organisms that reproduce a lot rapidly than animals would evolve (increase complexity) at a rate necessary for evolution to be true than I would be convinced.
Is there ANY evidence that would cause you to conclude that evolution is not a valid hypothesis?
New Buddha, there is only one set of evidence to appeal to. I don’t see it as the selection from the available evidence, but the ability to distinguish between the designed and the natural within it. The I.D. proponents see patterns that exist naturally and point those patterns out as being similar to a designers use of patterns in developing man-made objects and conflate the two.
Geometry, a man derived science, permits the development of gears, springs, circles, square and triangles that are seldom seen directly in nature, allowing the development of a watch.
As we continue to identify patterns in nature (causal connections) such as electrons, protons, neutrons making up a multitude of different atoms - which further interact to become a greater multitude of compounds and so on, the issue becomes one of interpretation of the evidence: is it simply discovering the nature of eternal existence, or do we apply the fundamental alternative of life (existence or non-existence) to inanimate indestructible matter and try to force fit an explanation that more or less aligns with the I.D. proponents (unchallengeable?) premise in this case.
The problem with evolution is that people simply assume that there are pathways that can be taken step by step without asking how likely the existence of such pathways really are.
Name a biological structure that you think is irreducibly complex.
I do not believe that it is my job to prove that such pathways do not exist.
Irreducible complexity was the idea of Michael Behe and it isn’t really part of the mainstream of ID.
The idea is that if you take the parts of a complex machine sooner or later you will arrive at a point where the machine can’t function at all, however it is really unclear what constitutes a irreducible complex machine and whether founding one would prove anything at all.
Behe said that the Bacterial flagellum (a sort of microscopic motor) and any mousetrap would be irreducibly complex structure.
Darwinists responded to that with the co-option theory asserting that evolution can pick the genetic data from different parts of the genome and put them together in one or in a few steps creating complex structures.
Of course as usual there’s absolutely no evidence whether such a thing can happen or did happen in the past. They just made it up like everything else.
If anything can account as irreducible complex than that would be the self reproducing capability of living organisms.
To self reproduce the organism need a ) information b ) a data storage to store the information and c ) machines that can use the information.
Without these things replication or at least evolution becomes impossible.
Self replicating RNA will never gain molecular machinery that will read out its own content.
For one there’s no content and two self replicating RNA - assuming such things are possible - have already achieved everything that the RNA reading machines and the genetic code would be required for.
So why read out the non existent content of RNA if that is not necessary for the organism to survive? Also at which point will these readers become incorporated into RNA? How will this species survive long enough for that to happen?
Also why do scientists believe RNA was the thing that needed to self replicate? RNA for the most is part only good at temporarily storing genetic information? Is it blind luck that the structure that somehow started to self replicate also works perfectly as a storage device? What a coincidence…
Of course as usual there’s absolutely no evidence whether such a thing can happen or did happen in the past. They just made it up like everything else.
Today there is a load of evidence for both of Darwin’s key ideas.
Considering that Darwinism almost died with the advent of genetics I’m not sure how much of that is true. In Darwin’s time change was self evident, but genetics proved not just that change was not self evident, but that evolution was not responsible for the changes observed by Darwin. And so the idea that change takes too long to be observable and that genetic mutations are the driving force of evolution were created and became known as Neo-darwinism. The idea of natural selection predates Darwin, so the only thing that was Darwin’s idea and later supported by evidence was the tree of life or common descent. Which doesn’t really prove evolution since any set of objects can be organized based on similarity.
While Darwins ideas on how traits are inherited may have been proven wrong, that’s besides the point. His two key ideas are supported by loads of evidence.
Why do you need to prove ID to disprove evolution and what would in your opinion prove that ID is real?
While Darwins ideas on how traits are inherited may have been proven wrong, that’s besides the point. His two key ideas are supported by loads of evidence.
Not as much evidence as physics, chemistry, astronomy and geology. Evolution is the theory least supported by evidence.
Not as much evidence as physics, chemistry, astronomy and geology. Evolution is the theory least supported by evidence.
Firstly, Physics, chemistry, astronomy and geology are not theories or laws, they’re huge subjects. Secondly, trying to make a relative statement “not as much evidence” is the wrong way to approach knowledge. The question is not is there is “not as much” but whether that is “not much”. The first is meaningless, the second is important. Darwin’s two key ideas is supported by loads of evidence: that’s all that matters as far as those two key ideas go. The amount of evidence for other ideas, whether from Physics or Astronomy has no bearing on this particular finding in Biology
I can’t argue with something like: “evolution is supported by loads of evidence” or “the resurrection of Jesus Christ is supported by loads of evidence”
I disagree with both based on lack of evidence and based on the extraordinary claims they make…
The problem with evolution is that people simply assume that there are pathways that can be taken step by step without asking how likely the existence of such pathways really are.
Actually, statistics is the best argument for a natural account of the origin of life. You are right to claim that the odds of the evolutionary process are very small - Even infinitesimal. You could say the odds are .00000000001 or even greater if you wish.
But we also know from observable evidence that there are 10^21 stars in the sky so you have sextillion possible star systems available. The sheer magnitude of the known universe demonstrates that there have been literally millions of times life could have developed naturally by those odds. The universe is a very big place indeed.
In fact, the statistics involved in the known universe are so big that it automatically reduces the ID question to academics when you realize that if we are going to claim it is statistically impossible for life to evolve naturally then it is even more unlikely to have created a creator even smarter than us with the power to create life and that huge complex universe. Either you need a supernatural entity (magic) to explain why we are statistically impossible but someone superior is possible, or you have to admit that if the universe could naturally generate a superior designer of that power then it is certainly more probable that it could have naturally generated us – many times over.
You’re changing the subject (again). First you deflected my original question with a question, then you deflected my response to your deflection with another question.
You asked (as part of your second deflection) if I would be open to rejecting evolution in favor of ID, and I said yes – if there is evidence in support of ID. And I mean that.
Logically, your response should have been to provide me with that evidence. But this you did not do. Can you please provide me with the evidence? Or will you now create a third deflection?
Logically, your response should have been to provide me with that evidence. But this you did not do. Can you please provide me with the evidence? Or will you now create a third deflection?
You did not ask me anything so I’m not sure how not answering what you did not ask constitutes a deflection.
I can only repeat what I have already sad:
While it would necessarily have the property of specified complexity it would not necessarily be the product of design. ID is not philosophy it is science based on observation and the induction fallacy. Just because all known specified complex objects have been designed doesn’t mean all specified complex objects have been designed especially if designed objects require the presence of a specified complex designer. It only means that a specified complex object was most likely designed. The same way not everyone charged with a crime is a criminal not everything that looks designed was designed. Maybe the designer always existed or maybe there is process (like evolution) that can create it. However the same way as not any kind of evidence will convince a judge not any kind of evidence should convince us regarding such a process.
In the case of criminals we call it the presumption of innocence in the case of ID we would call it the presumption of design. (There’s also a presumption of atheism advocated by the late philosopher Anthony Flew).
Yes evolution or a different natural process can defeat the presumption of design the same way evidence can defeat the presumption of innocence, but evolution must be proven!
So why must one prove ID to disprove evolution and not the other way around?
Because Darwin is mainstream now? Aristotle was mainstream before him and for a lot longer time. Not that I believe it actually matters to reality who is currently considered mainstream.
Actually, statistics is the best argument for a natural account of the origin of life. You are right to claim that the odds of the evolutionary process are very small - Even infinitesimal. You could say the odds are .00000000001 or even greater if you wish.
But we also know from observable evidence that there are 10^21 stars in the sky so you have sextillion possible star systems available. The sheer magnitude of the known universe demonstrates that there have been literally millions of times life could have developed naturally by those odds. The universe is a very big place indeed.
In fact, the statistics involved in the known universe are so big that it automatically reduces the ID question to academics when you realize that if we are going to claim it is statistically impossible for life to evolve naturally then it is even more unlikely to have created a creator even smarter than us with the power to create life and that huge complex universe. Either you need a supernatural entity (magic) to explain why we are statistically impossible but someone superior is possible, or you have to admit that if the universe could naturally generate a superior designer of that power then it is certainly more probable that it could have naturally generated us – many times over.
I’m not sure an appeal to probability can be called a “best argument” for evolution. Or begging the question: since life exists the probability of nature creating it must be larger than zero. The same way life can arose by chance alone so could teddy bears and since there would be much more teddy bears that came about via a natural process due to the vastness of space if one would find one a teddy bear on Earth it would be more likely that it was the product of nature and not of design.
In statistics we compare numbers, but to do that we need to have numbers first. Every number that has been provided by evolutionary science regrading the probability of life or evolution was not based on evidence (literally) and any number based on evidence has been excluded since they did not converse with the current paradigm. So there are no numbers in this field of silence even though the process is supposedly algorithmic and predictable. It is pointless to argue about statistics under those conditions.
The difference between a miracle (magic) and a natural process is that you can realize how improbable a natural process is but not how improbable magic is. Saying that a natural process is the cause of a phenomena regardless how probable it is is equal to saying that evolution is true even if it is not.
I’ll ask again. Please give me some physical, testable, replicable evidence of ID so that I can determine if it offers a better explanation than evolution.
And by the way, I agree with you that statistics is not a way to agrue for or against evolution (or ID).
I’m not sure an appeal to probability can be called a “best argument” for evolution. Or begging the question: since life exists the probability of nature creating it must be larger than zero. The same way life can arose by chance alone so could teddy bears and since there would be much more teddy bears that came about via a natural process due to the vastness of space if one would find one a teddy bear on Earth it would be more likely that it was the product of nature and not of design.
All your analogies are way off because each of the designed objects you pick has an easily identifiable designer (us) operating through known causal processes, which is completely unlike your hypothetical and unidentified designer of biological structures.
All your analogies are way off because each of the designed objects you pick has an easily identifiable designer (us) operating through known causal processes, which is completely unlike your hypothetical and unidentified designer of biological structures.
And your claims are way off since your way of identifying designers (us) is not rooted in science but in tradition and since any complex entity without exception can be the product of nature (evolution) such claims cannot be justified at all.
Just because people tell you that a computer was designed doesn’t mean it was yet you accept it like it is the most rational thing to do.
Anyway just because we don’t know who designed life doesn’t mean we will never discover the designer the same way just because we don’t know how life began doesn’t mean we won’t find a natural explanation for it. As far as science goes there is absolutely no known natural process that could have created life. Does that disprove evolution? No. Does that prove evolution? No. (Yes I know it is called abiogenesis)
I’m not sure an appeal to probability can be called a “best argument” for evolution. Or begging the question: since life exists the probability of nature creating it must be larger than zero. The same way life can arose by chance alone so could teddy bears and since there would be much more teddy bears that came about via a natural process due to the vastness of space if one would find one a teddy bear on Earth it would be more likely that it was the product of nature and not of design.
I’ll clarify since I think I led you astray on the first part – I’m not claiming proof since it is scientifically possible by statistics. I was reacting to the text I quoted where you said those who claim evolutionary processes don’t ask “how likely the existence of such pathways really are”. Your quote claimed that those who support natural accounts of life never considered the odds that they are right. I’m simply pointing out that statistically it is very possible and moreso than the ID argument. There is a chance we might come to a different conclusion someday as to how life naturally evolved but statistically speaking the universe will support a natural reason for the origin of life. This is also important for a reason I’ll return to.
In statistics we compare numbers, but to do that we need to have numbers first. Every number that has been provided by evolutionary science regrading the probability of life or evolution was not based on evidence (literally) and any number based on evidence has been excluded since they did not converse with the current paradigm. So there are no numbers in this field of silence even though the process is supposedly algorithmic and predictable. It is pointless to argue about statistics under those conditions.
Sorry, I’m missing something here. I honestly have no idea what this means.
The difference between a miracle (magic) and a natural process is that you can realize how improbable a natural process is but not how improbable magic is. Saying that a natural process is the cause of a phenomena regardless how probable it is is equal to saying that evolution is true even if it is not.
Yes - I can say with certainly how improbable magic is - It is impossible. Magic is a contradiction in the facts. Magic is the claim A does not equal A since magic can make a thing act against its nature. There has never been a demonstrable act where someone could change the laws of the universe and since we have the basic tools of logic we can demonstrate that A will never be anything other than A. A horse is a horse and will act like a horse. It cannot be turned into a cat, a rain cloud, or a lecture on monetary policy. A horse is a horse, of course.
You can feel free to dispute evolution as a fact and set about coming up with your own scientific reasons for how life naturally evolved. That is what science is supposed to do. But the bottom line is that it either happened naturally according to demonstrable laws of nature, which means you can explore the science involved, or you believe it was magic. And yes, a supreme designer is the claim of magic. If the designer was natural then you are begging the question where he came from, and whether he is natural or created by magic. And so forth ad infinity with the regress argument. At some point you are admitting that life originated naturally or it was magic. Then we are at the heart of the argument - What causes life to naturally develop. That is debatable. But if you’re going to answer the question it is magic then we are done. No debate is possible when someone sees the unknown in the universe and simply fills in the blanks with magic.