Dreamcatcher :: View topic - What about the Design Inference is Unscientific?

Science is knowledge according to Merriam Websters. ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science )

Science is the state of knowing based not upon reductionism or prejudice, but upon verification between at least two entities. It is based upon the principles of logical reasoning inwhich no single entity can claim truth without the support of at least one other witness. That is why we test things 'scientifically'.

This is also the reason that SETI researchers can claim to be able to verify (scientifically) the presence of ET intelligence, if only they could receive a signal containing 'information', rather than random or repetative natural emissions coming from space.

The existence of the most complex and efficient digital code in the universe (DNA) can be inferred scientifically to be caused in the same manner as other digital codes (information).

Is empirical evidence the most important part of 'natural science' or not?

What (exactly) about the design inference is 'un-scientific'?

Science is knowledge according to Merriam Websters. ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science )

Science is the state of knowing based not upon reductionism or prejudice, but upon verification between at least two entities. It is based upon the principles of logical reasoning inwhich no single entity can claim truth without the support of at least one other witness. That is why we test things 'scientifically'.

That's not the meaning in common use. I don't much like any of the definitions at the link you provide. May I suggest that the Wikipedia definition is more useful.

Sorry, but I don't like that definition at all. Among other problems, it omits the important point that science is systematic.

Do they actually make that claim? Do you have a citation? What particular definition of "information" is being used here?

The existence of the most complex and efficient digital code in the universe (DNA) can be inferred scientifically to be caused in the same manner as other digital codes (information).

People don't all agree on this. Personally, I do not concede that DNA is information. It is part of a causal mechanism, and therefore lacks the abstractness that I consider to be an important characteristic of information.

What (exactly) about the design inference is 'un-scientific'?

The fact that it is based on special pleading; the fact that it is based on misconstruals; the fact that there is no evidence of a designer; the fact that biological organisms are very different from designed things.

According to the principle of parsimony (a cornerstone of science), the best explanation is the one that accounts for all the relevant observations without introducing additional factors that themselves need explanation.

Now the theory of intelligent design is in competion with other theories, particularly the theory of evolution, so we have to ask the following questions:

1. Does it account for all the relevant observations?
2. If it does, does it introduce additional factors that themselves need explanation?

The answer to question 1 is No, it doesn't account for all the relevant observations. It particularly has difficulty with observations about mutation and speciation. In order to be considered scientific, the theory needs to address these shortcomings seriously by extending the model it provides.

The answer to question 2 is Yes, it does introduce a complicating factor, the designer. For the theory to be truly scientific, there needs to be an attempt to include explanations about the designer into the model.

As for the designer, Crick and Orgel offer an explanation called panspermia which you well know. So I'll ask you the same question I asked nwr... Why is that considered scientific and the design inference is not?

The definition at Websters is superb for the purposes of objectivity.

It removes the partiality of opinion and incorporates the historical meaning of science.

Date: 12th century 1 a (1): a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (4): the formal principles of a branch of knowledge ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?logic )

Logic, knowledge, and science are inseperable.

Any scientifically valid knowledge must be logical.

nwr, you do not agree that we apply the laws of reason as a means of 'knowing' the natural world scientifically?

Didn't the science of philosophy come first?

Rob wrote:

nwr wrote:

Do they actually make that claim? Do you have a citation? What particular definition of "information" is being used here?

What do you think they are searching for?

The fact that you do not concede does not mean that DNA is not information.

Rob wrote:

What (exactly) about the design inference is 'un-scientific'?

nwr wrote:

Information is a very special entity. It is a mass-less quantity, just as gravity is not an orbiting body. The two are inseperable, but distinct.

Newspapers are also such a 'special' case. We would not try to explain the origin of the information in a newspaper by studying the ink and paper or the laws of physics. We would invoke intelligence.

Biological organisms are much more complex than human designed systems.

What evidence for a designer would be scientific?

Orgel and Crick for instance have proposed (back in the 70's) that life originated by panspemia. Why is that hypothesis considered 'scientific' and the design inference is not?

The design inference is only trying to explain the origin of information. The natural causes after the origin still apply. Natural selection is indisputable. It doesn't mean everything is designed intelligently, just as the process of an oxidizing automobile is not designed, but the paintjob is. The implication is that natural selection is not 'evolution', but de-volution.

Websters' classic definition (unchanged to fit a particular agenda) reminds us that science is not only about the 'natural world' ('natural science' is a relatively recent application of science)

[science] is first and foremost about reasoning itself. And that is why I agree with you that empirical evidence is not the most important aspect of science. Logical (objective) reasoning is...

Show me the designer.

Rob]What evidence for a designer would be scientific?[/quote]
[quote="nwr wrote:

Show me the designer.

Rob wrote:

Ah... you mean empirically, not what some call 'pixie dust'?

In other words... if the designer was to come (or did come) in the flesh and blood as it were, and declare Himself, you would believe?

What if He comes in the future, or the past?

Nope. That would be no different than any other unsupported claims. Declarations and $2.50 will get you a Charbucks coffee but that's about all.

Somebody coming and claiming to be the designer would not prove a thing. There would need to be a demonstration.

jar wrote:

Nope. That would be no different than any other unsupported claims. Declarations and $2.50 will get you a Charbucks coffee but that's about all.

So the alien author of life in the flesh (empirical) wouldn't cut it?

What would such a life form have to do to prove Himself to jar?

Author:	Rob [ Tue Apr 08, 2008 5:34 am ]
Post subject:	What about the Design Inference is Unscientific?
Science is knowledge according to Merriam Websters. ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science ) Science is the state of knowing based not upon reductionism or prejudice, but upon verification between at least two entities. It is based upon the principles of logical reasoning inwhich no single entity can claim truth without the support of at least one other witness. That is why we test things 'scientifically'. Empirical evidence is the most powerful of these entities. It can sustain and even deny the authority of our ideas, but only if the evidence contradicts our coheres with our ideas. We have empirical evidence that intelligent agents can produce digital information. Any form of written langauge be it the English alphabet, or binary computer codes, are created by intelligent human agents. This is also the reason that SETI researchers can claim to be able to verify (scientifically) the presence of ET intelligence, if only they could receive a signal containing 'information', rather than random or repetative natural emissions coming from space. It is because of this evidence that the design inference is a powerful concept. It is powerful not because of prejudice, but because of the verification by actual empirical evidence, in combination with the idea. All theory is preconceived btw... we look for empirical evidence and logical coherence to sustain our theories. The existence of the most complex and efficient digital code in the universe (DNA) can be inferred scientifically to be caused in the same manner as other digital codes (information). The inference is falsifiable as any proven case of digital information being caused by natural or material means would refute the inference. It would also put SETI researchers out of funding. By the same token, the existence of empirical evidence for intelligent design refutes the induction that because many things have natural causes, that all things have natural causes. The fact remains that there is no empirical evidence to support the induction that information must have a natural cause. There is however, empirical evidence to support intelligent causation. Is empirical evidence the most important part of 'natural science' or not? Intelligent design can make predictions such as so called vestigial organs being found to have function necessary to the survival of an organism. It also predicts that so called junk-DNA (generally, the part of DNA that does not contain genes which code for proteins) will be found to serve all kinds of other functions such as gene expression timing etc... What (exactly) about the design inference is 'un-scientific'?

Author:	nwr [ Tue Apr 08, 2008 6:23 am ]
Post subject:	Re: What about the Design Inference is Unscientific?
Rob wrote: Science is knowledge according to Merriam Websters. ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science ) That's not the meaning in common use. I don't much like any of the definitions at the link you provide. May I suggest that the Wikipedia definition is more useful. Rob wrote: Science is the state of knowing based not upon reductionism or prejudice, but upon verification between at least two entities. It is based upon the principles of logical reasoning inwhich no single entity can claim truth without the support of at least one other witness. That is why we test things 'scientifically'. Sorry, but I don't like that definition at all. Among other problems, it omits the important point that science is systematic. Rob wrote: This is also the reason that SETI researchers can claim to be able to verify (scientifically) the presence of ET intelligence, if only they could receive a signal containing 'information', rather than random or repetative natural emissions coming from space. Do they actually make that claim? Do you have a citation? What particular definition of "information" is being used here? Rob wrote: The existence of the most complex and efficient digital code in the universe (DNA) can be inferred scientifically to be caused in the same manner as other digital codes (information). People don't all agree on this. Personally, I do not concede that DNA is information. It is part of a causal mechanism, and therefore lacks the abstractness that I consider to be an important characteristic of information. Rob wrote: Is empirical evidence the most important part of 'natural science' or not? No. It is important, but it cannot be singled out as "the most important part". Rob wrote: What (exactly) about the design inference is 'un-scientific'? The fact that it is based on special pleading; the fact that it is based on misconstruals; the fact that there is no evidence of a designer; the fact that biological organisms are very different from designed things.

Author:	JavaMan [ Tue Apr 08, 2008 1:43 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: What about the Design Inference is Unscientific?
Rob wrote: Science is knowledge according to Merriam Websters. ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science ) Science is the state of knowing based not upon reductionism or prejudice, but upon verification between at least two entities. It is based upon the principles of logical reasoning inwhich no single entity can claim truth without the support of at least one other witness. That is why we test things 'scientifically'. Science is what scientists do. And what scientists do is look for the best explanation for phenomena. According to the principle of parsimony (a cornerstone of science), the best explanation is the one that accounts for all the relevant observations without introducing additional factors that themselves need explanation. Now the theory of intelligent design is in competion with other theories, particularly the theory of evolution, so we have to ask the following questions: 1. Does it account for all the relevant observations? 2. If it does, does it introduce additional factors that themselves need explanation? The answer to question 1 is No, it doesn't account for all the relevant observations. It particularly has difficulty with observations about mutation and speciation. In order to be considered scientific, the theory needs to address these shortcomings seriously by extending the model it provides. The answer to question 2 is Yes, it does introduce a complicating factor, the designer. For the theory to be truly scientific, there needs to be an attempt to include explanations about the designer into the model. Scientists don't take intelligent design theory seriously for a very simple reason - there is a better theory available for explaining the phenomena it is trying to account for: we call it the theory of evolution.

Author:	Rob [ Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:02 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: What about the Design Inference is Unscientific?
nwr wrote: That's not the meaning in common use. I don't much like any of the definitions at the link you provide. May I suggest that the Wikipedia definition is more useful. The definition at Websters is superb for the purposes of objectivity. It removes the partiality of opinion and incorporates the historical meaning of science. Websters' classic definition (unchanged to fit a particular agenda) reminds us that science is not only about the 'natural world' ('natural science' is a relatively recent application of science) but is first and foremost about reasoning itself. And that is why I agree with you that empirical evidence is not the most important aspect of science. Logical (objective) reasoning is... Main Entry: log·ic Pronunciation: \ˈlä-jik\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English logik, from Anglo-French, from Latin logica, from Greek logikē, from feminine of logikos of reason, from logos reason Date: 12th century 1 a (1): a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (4): the formal principles of a branch of knowledge ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?logic ) Logic, knowledge, and science are inseperable. Any scientifically valid knowledge must be logical. Otherwise it is only blind belief or existential (emotional) bias. nwr, you do not agree that we apply the laws of reason as a means of 'knowing' the natural world scientifically? Didn't the science of philosophy come first? nwr wrote: Sorry, but I don't like that definition at all. Among other problems, it omits the important point that science is systematic. Perhaps you misunderstood... My whole point is that science is systematic. That it does not rely on reductionism or ecclesiastical declaration. Rob wrote: This is also the reason that SETI researchers can claim to be able to verify (scientifically) the presence of ET intelligence, if only they could receive a signal containing 'information', rather than random or repetative natural emissions coming from space. nwr wrote: Do they actually make that claim? Do you have a citation? What particular definition of "information" is being used here? What do you think they are searching for? Rob wrote: The existence of the most complex and efficient digital code in the universe (DNA) can be inferred scientifically to be caused in the same manner as other digital codes (information). nwr wrote: People don't all agree on this. Personally, I do not concede that DNA is information. It is part of a causal mechanism, and therefore lacks the abstractness that I consider to be an important characteristic of information. People don't all agree that man went to the moon either. Since when is knowledge and science determined by the Catholic Church's willingness to agree that the earth moves around the sun? The fact that you do not concede does not mean that DNA is not information. Rob wrote: What (exactly) about the design inference is 'un-scientific'? nwr wrote: The fact that it is based on special pleading; the fact that it is based on misconstruals; the fact that there is no evidence of a designer; the fact that biological organisms are very different from designed things. Information is a very special entity. It is a mass-less quantity, just as gravity is not an orbiting body. The two are inseperable, but distinct. Newspapers are also such a 'special' case. We would not try to explain the origin of the information in a newspaper by studying the ink and paper or the laws of physics. We would invoke intelligence. Biological organisms are much more complex than human designed systems. But here we are not talking about irreducible complexity, we are talking about digital information specifically. What evidence for a designer would be scientific? Orgel and Crick for instance have proposed (back in the 70's) that life originated by panspemia. Why is that hypothesis considered 'scientific' and the design inference is not?

Author:	Rob [ Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:15 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: What about the Design Inference is Unscientific?
Javaman wrote: According to the principle of parsimony (a cornerstone of science), the best explanation is the one that accounts for all the relevant observations without introducing additional factors that themselves need explanation. Now the theory of intelligent design is in competion with other theories, particularly the theory of evolution, so we have to ask the following questions: 1. Does it account for all the relevant observations? 2. If it does, does it introduce additional factors that themselves need explanation? The answer to question 1 is No, it doesn't account for all the relevant observations. It particularly has difficulty with observations about mutation and speciation. In order to be considered scientific, the theory needs to address these shortcomings seriously by extending the model it provides. The answer to question 2 is Yes, it does introduce a complicating factor, the designer. For the theory to be truly scientific, there needs to be an attempt to include explanations about the designer into the model. The design inference is only trying to explain the origin of information. The natural causes after the origin still apply. Natural selection is indisputable. It doesn't mean everything is designed intelligently, just as the process of an oxidizing automobile is not designed, but the paintjob is. The implication is that natural selection is not 'evolution', but de-volution. As for the designer, Crick and Orgel offer an explanation called panspermia which you well know. So I'll ask you the same question I asked nwr... Why is that considered scientific and the design inference is not?

Dreamcatcher http://www.worldwideword.net/dreamcatcher/

What about the Design Inference is Unscientific? http://www.worldwideword.net/dreamcatcher/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=119	Page 1 of 3

Author:	jar [ Tue Apr 08, 2008 4:00 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: What about the Design Inference is Unscientific?
Rob wrote: As for the designer, Crick and Orgel offer an explanation called panspermia which you well know. So I'll ask you the same question I asked nwr... Why is that considered scientific and the design inference is not? Because panspermia simply increases the time, potential niches and number of potential paths for originating life and does not require pixie dust.

Author:	nwr [ Tue Apr 08, 2008 4:43 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: What about the Design Inference is Unscientific?
Rob wrote: The definition at Websters is superb for the purposes of objectivity. Nonsense. The meaning of a word comes from the way people use that word, not from any dictionary. At best, a dictionary gives hints that help you find what is the meaning of a word. Dictionary definitions are not meanings. The Websters definition is useless because it has little to do with how the word "science" is used today. Rob wrote: It removes the partiality of opinion and incorporates the historical meaning of science. ROTFL Meanings are in how the word is used today, not in how it was used historically. Rob wrote: Date: 12th century 1 a (1): a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (4): the formal principles of a branch of knowledge ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?logic ) Hilarious. The current usage of the word ``science'' dates from the 18th century. Your appeal to 12th century usage is an example of the pervasive dishonesty that we find among the intelligent design religious apologists. Rob wrote: Logic, knowledge, and science are inseperable. More nonsense. There are plenty of books on mathematical logic which don't even mention science. Clearly they are separable. Rob wrote: Any scientifically valid knowledge must be logical. That's not even wrong. In other words, it is meaningless nonsense. The word "logical" is properly applied to arguments, not to knowledge. Rob wrote: nwr, you do not agree that we apply the laws of reason as a means of 'knowing' the natural world scientifically? There are no "laws of reason." Rob wrote: Didn't the science of philosophy come first? "Science of philosophy" is an oxymoron. Rob wrote: Rob wrote: This is also the reason that SETI researchers can claim to be able to verify (scientifically) the presence of ET intelligence, if only they could receive a signal containing 'information', rather than random or repetative natural emissions coming from space. nwr wrote: Do they actually make that claim? Do you have a citation? What particular definition of "information" is being used here? What do you think they are searching for? I'll note that you have completely evaded my question. I'll take that as suggesting you don't have a good answer. As far as I know, SETI is searching for "interesting" signals from outer space. As far as I know, there is no commitment to declaring an interesting signal to be information, and there is no commitment to declaring that an interesting signal had an intelligent origin. Rather, an interesting signal would give reason for further investigation, and no conclusions about intelligent life could be reached without such additional investigation. Rob wrote: The fact that you do not concede does not mean that DNA is not information. You seem to be confused about how language works. There is no fact of the matter as to whether DNA is information. The word "information" is a human invention, and we use that word for our own purposes. At present the usage of "information" is not completely settled, so questions such as whether DNA is information are contentious. Rob wrote: Rob wrote: What (exactly) about the design inference is 'un-scientific'? nwr wrote: The fact that it is based on special pleading; the fact that it is based on misconstruals; the fact that there is no evidence of a designer; the fact that biological organisms are very different from designed things. Information is a very special entity. It is a mass-less quantity, just as gravity is not an orbiting body. The two are inseperable, but distinct. You quoted material, but your response does not seem to be related to what you quoted. I agree with you that information is massless. For your enlightenment, may I point out that DNA is not massless? You only support my contention that DNA is not information. When you say that "The two are inseperable, but distinct," I have no idea what you are talking about. Rob wrote: Newspapers are also such a 'special' case. We would not try to explain the origin of the information in a newspaper by studying the ink and paper or the laws of physics. We would invoke intelligence. However, we do study the amino acids that are components of DNA, and we do find that study to be very useful. Your example further illustrates why DNA is not information. Rob wrote: Biological organisms are much more complex than human designed systems. Biological systems are complex in detail, but appear to be based on simple principles. Designed things tend to be simpler in detail, but to involve more complex principles. Rob wrote: What evidence for a designer would be scientific? Show me the designer. Rob wrote: Orgel and Crick for instance have proposed (back in the 70's) that life originated by panspemia. Why is that hypothesis considered 'scientific' and the design inference is not? Panspermia is a speculative hypothesis. It is not accepted as scientific fact. It is used to suggest empirical tests, such as looking for organic molecules on meteorites or on Mars. Thus far the tests have not allowed any sort of conclusion to be reached. The "design inference" pretends to be far more than a speculative hypothesis. It makes factual claims which it cannot support with evidence. The proponents are not devising empirical tests, but instead are devising dubious philosophical arguments.

Author:	JavaMan [ Tue Apr 08, 2008 5:14 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: What about the Design Inference is Unscientific?
Rob wrote: The design inference is only trying to explain the origin of information. The natural causes after the origin still apply. Natural selection is indisputable. It doesn't mean everything is designed intelligently, just as the process of an oxidizing automobile is not designed, but the paintjob is. The implication is that natural selection is not 'evolution', but de-volution. Then are you're suggesting it as an alternative to theories of biogenesis rather than the theory of evolution? In which case, what did the designer design: precursors to DNA, DNA itself, simple single-celled organisms, or all the different kinds of animals that exist today? Rob wrote: As for the designer, Crick and Orgel offer an explanation called panspermia which you well know. So I'll ask you the same question I asked nwr... Why is that considered scientific and the design inference is not? Panspermia is just a speculation about the origins of life on this planet, not about the origins of life per se. Even if it did prove to be true that life arrived on this planet from somewhere else, we'd still be left with the question of how life originated in the place where it came from. The theory of design could be considered science if its proponents actually did any honest scientific work on their model (like thinking about the questions I raised above). They get ignored because they're clearly following a religious agenda with no interest in the scientific truth of the matter.

Author:	JavaMan [ Tue Apr 08, 2008 9:04 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: What about the Design Inference is Unscientific?
Rob wrote: Websters' classic definition (unchanged to fit a particular agenda) reminds us that science is not only about the 'natural world' ('natural science' is a relatively recent application of science) This is very far from the case. The term 'science' as it is used today nearly always means 'natural science'. Your argument is absurd. Replace the word science by the word 'gay' and see where your argument takes us. 1. The word 'gay' means happy, glad (I'll show you a dictionary definition, to prove it); 2. Anyone who claims that 'gay' people (meaning homosexuals) are sad or miserable doesn't know what they're talking about, because, as I showed in point #1, 'gay' means happy, glad. Rob wrote: [science] is first and foremost about reasoning itself. And that is why I agree with you that empirical evidence is not the most important aspect of science. Logical (objective) reasoning is... No it's not. Science is about empirical investigation of the natural world. It uses reasoning where it can, but its primary aim is to ensure that its explanations of phenomena match Reality as closely as possible, and that can only be done by experimentation, observation and inductive reasoning. Logic (deductive reasoning) has its place, but it is of secondary importance.

Author:	Rob [ Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:43 am ]
Post subject:	Re: What about the Design Inference is Unscientific?
Rob]What evidence for a designer would be scientific?[/quote] [quote="nwr wrote: Show me the designer. Ah... you mean empirically, not what some call 'pixie dust'? In other words... if the designer was to come (or did come) in the flesh and blood as it were, and declare Himself, you would believe? What if He comes in the future, or the past?

Author:	nwr [ Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:53 am ]
Post subject:
Somebody coming and claiming to be the designer would not prove a thing. There would need to be a demonstration.

Author:	jar [ Wed Apr 09, 2008 2:09 am ]
Post subject:	Re: What about the Design Inference is Unscientific?
Rob wrote: Rob]What evidence for a designer would be scientific?[/quote] [quote="nwr wrote: Show me the designer. Rob wrote: Ah... you mean empirically, not what some call 'pixie dust'? In other words... if the designer was to come (or did come) in the flesh and blood as it were, and declare Himself, you would believe? What if He comes in the future, or the past? Nope. That would be no different than any other unsupported claims. Declarations and $2.50 will get you a Charbucks coffee but that's about all.

Author:	Rob [ Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:31 am ]
Post subject:	Re: What about the Design Inference is Unscientific?
jar wrote: Nope. That would be no different than any other unsupported claims. Declarations and $2.50 will get you a Charbucks coffee but that's about all. So the alien author of life in the flesh (empirical) wouldn't cut it? What would such a life form have to do to prove Himself to jar?

Author:	Rob [ Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:33 am ]
Post subject:
nwr wrote: Somebody coming and claiming to be the designer would not prove a thing. There would need to be a demonstration. Like miracles? Walking on water? Rising from the dead? What exactly do you mean by 'demonstrate'?

Page 1 of 3	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	jar [ Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:33 am ]
Post subject:	Re: What about the Design Inference is Unscientific?
Rob wrote: jar wrote: Nope. That would be no different than any other unsupported claims. Declarations and $2.50 will get you a Charbucks coffee but that's about all. So the alien author of life in the flesh (empirical) wouldn't cut it? What would such a life form have to do to prove Himself to jar? Huh?