Taking emergence really seriously

You seem to be disagreeing with Steve but Steve's argument is that we should take into account the motives behind ID authors - which is in line with what you seem to advocate in taking into account the subconscious motives.

I am disagreeing with both you and Steve in that we should ignore subconscious or even concious motives and just focus on the arguments being advanced.
I'm disagreeing with Steve that ID papers are fraught with postulations about a Christian God, not that Christianity pushes a Christian scientist's agenda to support. I just don't see any scientifically oriented ID papers concluding that the Christian God is real; they just suggest something more non random than blind evolution.

I have no doubt their faith motivates them.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

Ah. Aliens. Yep possible, but then your sentient bunnies could be aliens too? I refer you back to the bit about pulling claims out of your butt...

BTW, in your post "many ID proponents" should read as "a tiny fraction of ID proponents"....
But bunnies immune to detection cannot be investigated at all. That's very different than trying to find evidence of a designer, which involves not just possible flaws in evolution but also fine tuning and possible error correcting computer code in the universe's firmament*.

Examining the possibility of design, to me, seems akin to trying to find the Multiverse. As one writer noted, the scientific grounding of "photon torpedo" is not much better than "magic missile spell".

*These codes are part of a mathematical description that AFAIK is part of speculative theory rather than hard evidence. But then the Multiverse is just a story as well...
 
Ah. Aliens. Yep possible, but then your sentient bunnies could be aliens too? I refer you back to the bit about pulling claims out of your butt...

BTW, in your post "many ID proponents" should read as "a tiny fraction of ID proponents"....
No, I properly defined the bunnies as unfalsifiable. You can claim that the aliens are unfalsifiable as well, but I haven't.

You're seriously demonstrating a lack of general intelligence here. I don't mean to present this as an ad hom, but how you're not able to grasp this very simple example is beyond me. I clearly defined a proposition that was open to scientific scrutiny and one that was not. You then changed the parameters of my example to try to form some incoherent argument against my analogy, but you basically proved the analogy by doing that. If the aliens are unfalsifiable, then it's not open to scientific scrutiny. The postulations of design in living system IS a falsifiable proposition and open to scientific scrutiny.
 
No, I properly defined the bunnies as unfalsifiable. You can claim that the aliens are unfalsifiable as well, but I haven't.

You're seriously demonstrating a lack of general intelligence here. I don't mean to present this as an ad hom, but how you're not able to grasp this very simple example is beyond me. I clearly defined a proposition that was open to scientific scrutiny and one that was not. You then changed the parameters of my example to try to form some incoherent argument against my analogy, but you basically proved the analogy by doing that. If the aliens are unfalsifiable, then it's not open to scientific scrutiny. The postulations of design in living system IS a falsifiable proposition and open to scientific scrutiny.
Sorry. I was confused over bunnies that couldn't interact with the physical world yet could "come to your room" and "tickle your cat"
 
Arouet, take time if you have not to look over creationist sites.
Ok, pick one pro creation argument and examine the con argument.
I know what creatonists say. I know that there are many IDrs who believe the designer is the Christian God. However: it possible that the ID argument advanced in a paper is right, though the author may be wrong about the identity of the designer. I'm not saying the argument advanced in the paper is right - just that it has to be evaluated on its own.

Or think about it another way. If you're arguing with William Lane Craig about the ontological argument it doesn't help the discussion any to refer to his arguments about the empty tomb.
 
I'm disagreeing with Steve that ID papers are fraught with postulations about a Christian God, not that Christianity pushes a Christian scientist's agenda to support. I just don't see any scientifically oriented ID papers concluding that the Christian God is real; they just suggest something more non random than blind evolution.

I have no doubt their faith motivates them.
But Steve isn't arguing that ID papers are fraught with postulations about a Christian God: he's referring to unstated premises in the papers that the authors believe the designer is the Christian God - even though they don't write that.

He's doing the same thing you are: arguing against the unstated premises rather than the argument itself.
 
But Steve isn't arguing that ID papers are fraught with postulations about a Christian God: he's referring to unstated premises in the papers that the authors believe the designer is the Christian God - even though they don't write that.

He's doing the same thing you are: arguing against the unstated premises rather than the argument itself.
There's nothing to imagine, every paper, every argument has two goals. The first is to disprove evolutionary theory. The second is to find evidence of God's direct intervention.
Well, the goals are clearly stated in the abstracts of each paper. If he was saying that each paper has a HIDDEN objective of pushing those objectives, he needs to state that. The way I read it was that the goal was specifically defined in the abstract as giving evidence God's direct intervention.

If that's not the case, we need to hammer out the definition of what ' goals ' means in reference to scientific papers.
 
Sorry. I was confused over bunnies that couldn't interact with the physical world yet could "come to your room" and "tickle your cat"
Yes, that's exactly the point. That's what makes it unfalsifiable and not open to scientific inquiry. You can't both state that the bunnies are the cause of the tickling, and also don't interact with the world. If the creator theory is scientific, the creator needs to be falsifiable and open to scientific scrutiny.
 
Well, the goals are clearly stated in the abstracts of each paper. If he was saying that each paper has a HIDDEN objective of pushing those objectives, he needs to state that. The way I read it was that the goal was specifically defined in the abstract as giving evidence God's direct intervention.

If that's not the case, we need to hammer out the definition of what ' goals ' means in reference to scientific papers.
Steve can clarify - but I'm betting I'm right!
 
Yes, that's exactly the point. That's what makes it unfalsifiable and not open to scientific inquiry. You can't both state that the bunnies are the cause of the tickling, and also don't interact with the world. If the creator theory is scientific, the creator needs to be falsifiable and open to scientific scrutiny.
Sure you can, it's just like the Higgs boson/Higgs field. The Higgs field is everywhere, but we can't detect it without building a gigantic hadron collider. Even then, the Higgs is fleeting. In the same way, there could (humorously) exist a tickling field where the bunnies are fleeting and very hard to detect. But the overall result is that kitties get tickled by it when they're trying to sleep.
 
Is it just me or has the quality of discussion dropped dramatically the past few days?
Well, I think it's an important discussion we're having here. The question of whether we can scientifically study intelligently guided design has some spillover with psi related phenomena.
 
Sure you can, it's just like the Higgs boson/Higgs field. The Higgs field is everywhere, but we can't detect it without building a gigantic hadron collider. Even then, the Higgs is fleeting. In the same way, there could (humorously) exist a tickling field where the bunnies are fleeting and very hard to detect. But the overall result is that kitties get tickled by it when they're trying to sleep.
But the field would still be falsifiable, as was the higgs. The higgs was falsifiable by failed Lhc findings.
 
Yes, that's exactly the point. That's what makes it unfalsifiable and not open to scientific inquiry. You can't both state that the bunnies are the cause of the tickling, and also don't interact with the world.
I didn't. you did.

If the creator theory is scientific, the creator needs to be falsifiable and open to scientific scrutiny.
Which is why you brought up aliens. I'm not unsympathetic to the view that we're all in some alien experiment, but where did the aliens come from? From another "intelligence" or is it aliens all the way down?
 
Well, I think it's an important discussion we're having here. The question of whether we can scientifically study intelligently guided design has some spillover with psi related phenomena.
I was referring to the totality of the discussions the past few days. Not this thread specifically. Maybe it is just me... I need a drink.
 
I didn't. you did.



Which is why you brought up aliens. I'm not unsympathetic to the view that we're all in some alien experiment, but where did the aliens come from? From another "intelligence" or is it aliens all the way down?
The 'you' was rhetorical. Replace it with ' one ' and that was the intention.

The subject ' Aliens ' came from an example of a plausible, physical, and falsifiable creator that could be scientifically investigated. What if we found an organic self-correcting micro-device in each cell that sends a signal in the direction of a star? At that star, there is a planet with advanced life forms that are receiving this signal. That would be some good evidence towards intelligent design with a creator agency that is tangible and falsifiable. The aliens themselves may be a product of abiogensis, but the argument here is not one of origins. I understand wanting to make everything into a pigeon-holed first cause argument, when one has very little experience in discussing other matters intellectually . However, the question of ' where did the aliens come from? ' is not relevant to whether or not terrestrial life systems had guidance in their evolution.

Please stop trying to make this very simple discussion into something it's not. This is not a first-cause argument, nor is it a debate Christianity argument. I'm merely making the point that the hypothesis of guided evolution is a scientific claim, and can be studied scientifically.
 
The 'you' was rhetorical. Replace it with ' one ' and that was the intention.

The subject ' Aliens ' came from an example of a plausible, physical, and falsifiable creator that could be scientifically investigated. What if we found an organic self-correcting micro-device in each cell that sends a signal in the direction of a star? At that star, there is a planet with advanced life forms that are receiving this signal. That would be some good evidence towards intelligent design with a creator agency that is tangible and falsifiable. The aliens themselves may be a product of abiogensis, but the argument here is not one of origins. I understand wanting to make everything into a pigeon-holed first cause argument, when one has very little experience in discussing other matters intellectually . However, the question of ' where did the aliens come from? ' is not relevant to whether or not terrestrial life systems had guidance in their evolution.

Please stop trying to make this very simple discussion into something it's not. This is not a first-cause argument, nor is it a debate Christianity argument. I'm merely making the point that the hypothesis of guided evolution is a scientific claim, and can be studied scientifically.
I can understand why you want to keep it simple. However, having read and reread your posts over the last few pages, I can't help notice the mental gymnastics employed to cling to your position, culminating in
What if we found an organic self-correcting micro-device in each cell that sends a signal in the direction of a star? At that star, there is a planet with advanced life forms that are receiving this signal.
Gosh, one could be excused for thinking you might have an unstated premise. I'm sure we need more than "what ifs?" to make something a scientific claim
 
I can understand why you want to keep it simple. However, having read and reread your posts over the last few pages, I can't help notice the mental gymnastics employed to cling to your position, culminating in

Gosh, one could be excused for thinking you might have an unstated premise. I'm sure we need more than "what ifs?" to make something a scientific claim
Exactly. Wouldn't that constitute good evidence for intelligent design? I think it would constitute great evidence for intelligent design. The ' what if ' is discussing evidence that would suggest intelligent tampering with terrestrial life forms. I don't think such evidence exists at the moment, hence why I'm skeptical of ID. Here's a segment presented by Paul:

It could possibly be inquired about scientifically, but it isn't. I thought you were asking why the current project isn't scientific, not why it isn't scientific in principle.
First they need to determine how they are going to detect design, then try to detect some. Dembski's current method of detecting design involves ruling out all possible naturalistic (non-design) causes. That's a tough job. If they can't jigger that down to something actually manageable, then that's a dead end.
The other approach is to find positive evidence of design. I'm not sure how to do this. If you could prove that certain types of information cannot arise naturalistically, that would do the trick. So would finding the reference manual.
~~ Paul
Notice the similarities here? Paul gave examples of things that would be constituted as good scientific evidence for ID. If you didn't notice, both of our ' what ifs ' seemed to match in principle. Some sort of signal, some deviating of form that wouldn't arise from natural settings ( I mentioned this earlier in the thread ). I'm trying to keep it simple because I understand complex things can be a bit confusing for you. I'm sorry if this is confusing to you, but it's a fairly simple concept and one I feel is worth repeating:

Intellectual design, in theory, is a concept that can be studied scientifically. That is not to say that today's proponents of intellectual design are actually studying the phenomena scientifically ( the goal of ID scientists is more to prove aspects of evolution wrong, than it is to demonstrate positive evidence for ID ), but that the hypothesis can be tested with the scientific rigor. If this is a statement that is still confusing, as I suppose it is, then maybe you should take some time researching what a scientific claim actually is.
 
Last edited:
What is "self-guided evolution" and why is it in the same vein?

Edited to add: Do you mean mechanisms by which organisms can affect the probabilities of mutations and such like?

~~ Paul
Yes, all-though one might classify those as culmination of a series of random mutations. Self-correcting or self-improving mechanisms engrained in nuclei, etc.

I'm not saying there is any support to that hypothesis, but it would seem that this would imply intelligent repair and construction of DNA without the need for a creator god, etc. It would still fall under the umbrella of non-random evolution, but I would classify it as a sub-section of intelligent design. Maybe scientists don't, and I'm wrong.
 
But the field would still be falsifiable, as was the higgs. The higgs was falsifiable by failed Lhc findings.
Falsifiability is, unfortunatey, a bias against things that might exist in nature but that are not-consistent. If there were a quantum field lifeform, a ghost if you will, or even something more unusual like a hostile entity or a demon, that entity might get angry and shove somebdy down the stairs or scratch someone or attack somebody. The problem is that such an entity is not going to be as consistent as Maxwell's equations or gravity. Basically, such an entity might exist but would always be falsified by a standard physics test. What say you?
 
Top