Intelligent Causes and the Failings of Scientific Theory

[ericmurphy]

Your post has no scientific theory of design laid out.

Has he claimed that it does?

So, why respond? It is off topic.

What, exactly, is the topic here, TS?

You all have argued till your blue in the face that intelligent design is not scientific, now all the sudden Faid has opened his mind to the issue, wonder why?

Really? Where did that happen? You seem to have this idea that if one admits that certain things were designed (like, oh, I don't know, nuclear submarines or space shuttles), therefore one must have a theory of intelligent design.

Can you explain the logic behind that idea?

[ericmurphy]

Like I said, childish ethics.

So it's okay for you to hurl insults, but it's "childish ethics" for the target of your abuse to respond in kind?

Childish, indeed, TS.

[Theostudent]

Has he claimed that it does?



What, exactly, is the topic here, TS?



Really? Where did that happen? You seem to have this idea that if one admits that certain things were designed (like, oh, I don't know, nuclear submarines or space shuttles), therefore one must have a theory of intelligent design.

Can you explain the logic behind that idea?

Now, as obviously "I have no doubt" is not acceptable to scientific dealings, I am wondering if anyone has a scientific theory that would help to conclude that computers and automobiles and the like, are intelligently designed.

Like I said, answer the OP question, or just remain silent.

I am done with your childish arguments, the OP is quite clear.

[Faid]

Your post has no scientific theory of design laid out.

Really? How so? I specifically describe hypotheses, tests and methods. And predictions which are often quite risky.

So, why respond? It is off topic.

You all have argued till your blue in the face that intelligent design is not scientific, now all the sudden Faid has opened his mind to the issue, wonder why?[/QUOTE]Lol, False Dillema. Have I ever "argued until blue in the face" that detecting design in general is unscientific? I haven't have I?

What does my "off-topic post" say on that topic?

Oh wait, you didn't really read it, did you? Just pretended to.




Well, let me quote it then.

How does the unfalsifiability of a hypothesis (ANY hypothesis) demonstrate the shortcomings of science?

But to answer your strange claim, no, the hypothesis that a computer or an automobile are intelligently designed is not unfalsifiable. The evidence for it is the features of such devices that teleologically connect it with the designer who built them. We see signs of craftsmanship, evident marks of massive production by specific methods, and of course instruments, mechanisms and applications directly related for use by the designer that made them (humans).

But it's not that easy for other artifacts. it's not easy, for example, to say if a stone shard represents an arrowhead, or the chip that fell off in the making of an arrowhead, or a plain piece of rock no human has ever touched. But we still try, using the same criteria: signs of the methods used and the uses applied by the designers. And we get it right a good number of times.

But it can get even harder. Suppose you walk on the beach, and pick up a smooth rock from all the pebbles at your feet. Suppose you have this idea that this rock alone could be the result of intelligent design. You can even have a plausible scenario on how it got there; maybe a girl had bought one of those artificial pebbles made in rock tumblers, and lost it on the beach.
Now how would you go about falsifying such a claim? It's very likely not possible, and your claim might in fact be unfalsifiable. But not necessarily: Perhaps the type of rock is not consistent with the pebbles that should be found on the beach, but that wouldn't be enough... Again, we turn to the methods and uses of the designers. Maybe an electron microscope can reveal a distinct pattern of defects in the smooth surface, found in a continuous tumbling movement, or even metal traces found in defects, indicating the pebble was bumping around in a metal container for a long time while getting that shape. Maybe there are still traces of varnish strokes, applied to make it all shiny. It's not going to be easy, and it's more likely that our claim is unfalsifiable after all, but an attempt to falsify it is at least conceivable.

But what happens when you disconnect the object from the aspects, methods, uses and purposes of the designer? We have nothing to go with. If I take a random piece of rock (or a leaf, or a dog, or a mountain) and 'hypothesize' that that object was "designed" in some unknown and inconceivable way, by some unknown "intelligent entity" whose traits, purposes and methods are completely unknown, then the options to falsify our hypothesis run out.

Our hypothesis is unfalsifiable. But that's hardly a problem for Science; it's a problem for our hypothesis.

[Theostudent]

So it's okay for you to hurl insults, but it's "childish ethics" for the target of your abuse to respond in kind?

Childish, indeed, TS.

I love you like my own brother Eric.

Do not forget that.

[Theostudent]

Our hypothesis is unfalsifiable.

I think we are done here, like I already said, Faid.

[ericmurphy]

Either lay out a scientific theory of intelligent design that applies to the tenants in the OP.

Or let the thread die.

You seem awfully eager to abandon this thread, a thread that you started, TS. Or, at least, you seem to really, really want everyone else to abandon it.

But I don't get why you keep insisting that people who believe theories of intelligent design are scientifically vacuous actually propose their own theories of intelligent design.

And who are these tenants in your OP? Are you getting rent from them?

[Theostudent]

You seem awfully eager to abandon this thread, a thread that you started, TS. Or, at least, you seem to really, really want everyone else to abandon it.

But I don't get why you keep insisting that people who believe theories of intelligent design are scientifically vacuous actually propose their own theories of intelligent design.

And who are these tenants in your OP? Are you getting rent from them?

I am eager to not squibble over opinions, actually.

Waste of time.

[ericmurphy]

Good question, what the hell is he doing posting in here then?

Did I ask for musings on the topic? No.

So no one can post to this thread unless they can propose a scientifically-rigorous theory of intelligent design?

Why are you posting here? I don't see you posting any such theory yourself. What was your purpose in starting this thread? It seems like everyone else is arguing that it is possible to establish that certain classes of objects were in fact designed, a point you seem to be disputing, while simultaneously declaring it off-topic.

[Theostudent]

So no one can post to this thread unless they can propose a scientifically-rigorous theory of intelligent design?

Why are you posting here? I don't see you posting any such theory yourself. What was your purpose in starting this thread? It seems like everyone else is arguing that it is possible to establish that certain classes of objects were in fact designed, a point you seem to be disputing, while simultaneously declaring it off-topic.

That's nice that you have some philosophy of intelligent design, I do not care.

Lay out the rigorous scientific definitions of intelligent and design and then maybe we can continue.

Otherwise, keep your musings to yourself.

[Faid]

I think we are done here, like I already said.

Lol, this is all that Theo had to say about my post. In contrast, this is what I said:

How does the unfalsifiability of a hypothesis (ANY hypothesis) demonstrate the shortcomings of science?

But to answer your strange claim, no, the hypothesis that a computer or an automobile are intelligently designed is not unfalsifiable. The evidence for it is the features of such devices that teleologically connect it with the designer who built them. We see signs of craftsmanship, evident marks of massive production by specific methods, and of course instruments, mechanisms and applications directly related for use by the designer that made them (humans).

But it's not that easy for other artifacts. it's not easy, for example, to say if a stone shard represents an arrowhead, or the chip that fell off in the making of an arrowhead, or a plain piece of rock no human has ever touched. But we still try, using the same criteria: signs of the methods used and the uses applied by the designers. And we get it right a good number of times.

But it can get even harder. Suppose you walk on the beach, and pick up a smooth rock from all the pebbles at your feet. Suppose you have this idea that this rock alone could be the result of intelligent design. You can even have a plausible scenario on how it got there; maybe a girl had bought one of those artificial pebbles made in rock tumblers, and lost it on the beach.
Now how would you go about falsifying such a claim? It's very likely not possible, and your claim might in fact be unfalsifiable. But not necessarily: Perhaps the type of rock is not consistent with the pebbles that should be found on the beach, but that wouldn't be enough... Again, we turn to the methods and uses of the designers. Maybe an electron microscope can reveal a distinct pattern of defects in the smooth surface, found in a continuous tumbling movement, or even metal traces found in defects, indicating the pebble was bumping around in a metal container for a long time while getting that shape. Maybe there are still traces of varnish strokes, applied to make it all shiny. It's not going to be easy, and it's more likely that our claim is unfalsifiable after all, but an attempt to falsify it is at least conceivable.

But what happens when you disconnect the object from the aspects, methods, uses and purposes of the designer? We have nothing to go with. If I take a random piece of rock (or a leaf, or a dog, or a mountain) and 'hypothesize' that that object was "designed" in some unknown and inconceivable way, by some unknown "intelligent entity" whose traits, purposes and methods are completely unknown, then the options to falsify our hypothesis run out.

Our hypothesis is unfalsifiable. But that's hardly a problem for Science; it's a problem for our hypothesis.

As you can see, not only Theo tries to misrepresent me with that snippet, but also tries to hide the fact that I am referring to a clear distinction between detecting human design, and the elusive ID (non-) theory.

Pretty low, Theo. But since you cannot address our points and apparently never intended to, I guess pathetic (and desperate) quote mining is all we can expect from you.

[ericmurphy]

Now, as obviously "I have no doubt" is not acceptable to scientific dealings, I am wondering if anyone has a scientific theory that would help to conclude that computers and automobiles and the like, are intelligently designed.

Like I said, answer the OP question, or just remain silent.

I am done with your childish arguments, the OP is quite clear.

You don't need a "theory" to establish that cars and computers are "designed," TS. All you need is empirical evidence. You know, videos of people designing them. Field trips to auto factories. Blueprints, CAD files, early drafts, specification lists, interviews with the designers, etc.

I'm not sure your grasp of what a "scientific theory" is is necessarily all that firm.

[Theostudent]

Lol, this is all that Theo had to say about my post. In contrast, this is what I said:

How does the unfalsifiability of a hypothesis (ANY hypothesis) demonstrate the shortcomings of science?

But to answer your strange claim, no, the hypothesis that a computer or an automobile are intelligently designed is not unfalsifiable. The evidence for it is the features of such devices that teleologically connect it with the designer who built them. We see signs of craftsmanship, evident marks of massive production by specific methods, and of course instruments, mechanisms and applications directly related for use by the designer that made them (humans).

But it's not that easy for other artifacts. it's not easy, for example, to say if a stone shard represents an arrowhead, or the chip that fell off in the making of an arrowhead, or a plain piece of rock no human has ever touched. But we still try, using the same criteria: signs of the methods used and the uses applied by the designers. And we get it right a good number of times.

But it can get even harder. Suppose you walk on the beach, and pick up a smooth rock from all the pebbles at your feet. Suppose you have this idea that this rock alone could be the result of intelligent design. You can even have a plausible scenario on how it got there; maybe a girl had bought one of those artificial pebbles made in rock tumblers, and lost it on the beach.
Now how would you go about falsifying such a claim? It's very likely not possible, and your claim might in fact be unfalsifiable. But not necessarily: Perhaps the type of rock is not consistent with the pebbles that should be found on the beach, but that wouldn't be enough... Again, we turn to the methods and uses of the designers. Maybe an electron microscope can reveal a distinct pattern of defects in the smooth surface, found in a continuous tumbling movement, or even metal traces found in defects, indicating the pebble was bumping around in a metal container for a long time while getting that shape. Maybe there are still traces of varnish strokes, applied to make it all shiny. It's not going to be easy, and it's more likely that our claim is unfalsifiable after all, but an attempt to falsify it is at least conceivable.

But what happens when you disconnect the object from the aspects, methods, uses and purposes of the designer? We have nothing to go with. If I take a random piece of rock (or a leaf, or a dog, or a mountain) and 'hypothesize' that that object was "designed" in some unknown and inconceivable way, by some unknown "intelligent entity" whose traits, purposes and methods are completely unknown, then the options to falsify our hypothesis run out.

Our hypothesis is unfalsifiable. But that's hardly a problem for Science; it's a problem for our hypothesis.

As you can see, not only Theo tries to misrepresent me with that snippet, but also tries to hide the fact that I am referring to a clear distinction between detecting human design, and the elusive ID (non-) theory.

Pretty low, Theo. But since you cannot address our points and apparently never intended to, I guess pathetic (and desperate) quote mining is all we can expect from you.

Did you have rigorous scientific definitions for intelligent and design with you?

Magellan, look how falsifiabi8lity has suddenly taken a backseat to their "science".

Rather amusing.

[ericmurphy]

I love you like my own brother Eric.

Do not forget that.

In your case, words speak louder than actions, TS.

[Theostudent]

You don't need a "theory" to establish that cars and computers are "designed," TS. All you need is empirical evidence. You know, videos of people designing them. Field trips to auto factories. Blueprints, CAD files, early drafts, specification lists, interviews with the designers, etc.

I'm not sure your grasp of what a "scientific theory" is is necessarily all that firm.

you just need to "look at it"

Interesting.