Can ID be disproven?

[Melendwyr]

3. A being of supernatural powers or attributes There's the problem right there. Science does not recognize the concept of "supernatural". The natural world is defined as what we can observe and what causes what we can observe. An entity that can cause observable phenomena is part of the natural world by definition, and one that is not part of the natural world cannot cause observable phenomena (in other words, does not exist).

[hammegk]

There's the problem right there. Science does not recognize the concept of "supernatural". The natural world is defined as what we can observe and what causes what we can observe. An entity that can cause observable phenomena is part of the natural world by definition, and one that is not part of the natural world cannot cause observable phenomena (in other words, does not exist).
What you can conclude from that is that if god exists he.she.it is not supernatural.

[kuroyume0161]

What you can conclude from that is that if god exists he.she.it is not supernatural.

Yes, exactly. Bring on that good ole' religion! The Gods of Olympus, I mean. At least they had a 'worldly' realm, one might say, and were in some ways restricted to the natural world. The god of the new religion is supernatural - working out of a shop beyond physical observation. If it even sneezed the wrong way into the universe, we'd have 'proof' (i.e.: evidence). None forthcoming, what are we to deduce?

And, although I complained about 'Gaussian distribution', my point is that randomness is homogeneous. Any perceived pattern in randomness is not randomness, it is Chaos. And if the pattern is strong enough, it is ordered. My point before was that using computer random number generators (discreet and pseudo) is not a means to discuss analog, real-world randomness - of which true randomness may not exist.

As discussed at length, so I'll just add a quick comment, there is a difference between random 'numbers' (or events) and random processes. There is randomness in facets of evolution. There are chaotic patterns to evolution. There are strict orderings to evolution. Evolution isn't all about the random mutation of a single gene and it isn't encompassed solely in the looking at organisms. There are 'random' systems in physical models. There are chaotic systems in physical models. There are strictly ordered systems in physical models. Does that make Physics random?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

3. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

Let me guess. It doesn't talk about "how" he affects nature or reality, it just says he does. So that definition doesn't count.
That definition doesn't say a damn thing. The Easter Bunny is also thought to control some part of nature, namely chocolate delivery.

Look, why don't you specify how science is going to accommodate supernatural whatevers? Give us a new scientific epistemology that covers it. Let me repeat Stimpy's definitions and axioms, then you can update them:

Definition 1: The term "real" is defined to refer to everything which has any kind of effect on something else which is real. This self-referential definition is completed with the definition that I am real.

Axiom 1: Everything real can be described according to some set of consistent logical rules (Naturalism).

Axiom 2: The natural laws describing real events can be determined through observation of the effects those events have.

Definition 2: The term "physical" is defined to refer to anything which is, in principle, observable. If axioms 1 and 2 are true, then everything which can meaningfully be said to exist is physical.


~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

What you can conclude from that is that if god exists he.she.it is not supernatural.
You could conclude that, yes. So far, no evidence for god in the natural world.

~~ Paul

[Meadmaker]

Meadmaker - don't blame the dictionary, at least not too much.

The second word in definition 3 is missing - is should be "imaginary".



Stupid dictionary.


Well, folks, I have good news. I've gotten about all I can out of this thread. Some comments.

I love this quote:



Nonetheless, there are several points intimately related to Dembski's work that bear emphasizing. First, biologists in particular and scientists in general are horribly confused defenders of their field. When responding to attacks from non-scientists, rather than attempt the rigor that the geometry of induction and similar bodies of statistics provide, they fall back on Popperian incantations, trying to browbeat their opponents into acceding to the homily that if one follows certain magic rituals---the vaunted "scientific method"---then one is rewarded with The Truth. No mathematically precise derivation of these rituals from first principles is provided. The "scientific method" is treated as a first-category topic, opening it up to all kinds of attack. In particular, in defending neo-Darwinism, no admission is allowed that different scientific disciplines simply cannot reach the same level of certainty in their conclusions due to intrinsic differences in the accessibility of the domains they study.

It's from here:

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/jello.cfm

One of those Popperian incantations is the necessity of falsifiability. If anyone is interested in ID and falsifiability, I suggest using that as a google search term on the site www.discovery.org. If it's easier, just go to the site, select search and one of the options will be search using google. There will be several hits, including from Behe and Dembski, describing, using purely materialistic means, how to falsify ID.

On the subject of information and complexity theory. It's hard. It's especially hard to apply it to the real world. Treating things as discrete combinatorial objects is, in fact, one way to treat the subject, which is why I had homework in physics class related to poker hands, but there are other, mathematically equivalent, ways, to treat the subject, and those ways are sometimes better suited to different problem domains. If you get a basic understanding of the subject, you can find Dembski's error in its application. Yes, he did make a "whopper" in applying it.

Speaking of complexity theory and falsifiability, I have been looking at Schneiders' paper, which I mistakenly attributed to Paul. I said that if their claims are correct, they would refute Dembski. I meant his arguments related to specified complexity. I have concluded that his arguments are in fact correct, and that Dembski did indeed make a "whopper". Dembski attacked Schneider's paper, and said that Schneider must have "smuggled in" some complex specified information, and Dembski is right, but here is where he made his "whopper". The way Schneider smuggled in the information seems to me exactly how nature "smuggles in" information. The complexity inherent in selection function, whether Schneider's in his paper, or the nonuniform random selection action of nature can, be transferred to the organism. If you are interested, look up Dembski's "Law of Conservation of Information". The error Dembski makes is confusing information in the sense of information theory with information in the colloquial sense.

So is ID falsified? Well, one of their arguments certainly is, and Schneider's program drives at another. Is it enough to falsify ID? Do that googling if you are interested, and you'll see what it takes to totally falsify it. Schneider points the way to how to falsify it.

On the other hand, read Schneider's paper to see a hideous example of how to write a convincing paper. It's so full of anger that it's hard to actually see the point.

I also think that if you presented Schneider's paper and Dembski's to a class of fourteen year olds, with the appropriate explanations to get over the difficult mathematics, they would come away with a better understanding of evolution and ID, and those who were interested would be able to sort out the BS for themselves. For those of you confused, that means I think fewer of them would believe ID when they graduated high school and became voters.


Let me tell you a few things about myself. I have an MS in Electrical Engineering, with more advance coursework. I'm an atheist. I read science books for fun. I've read two books by Dawkins, three by Sagan, and "The River that Flows Uphill." (I think William Calvin was the author.) One of the reasons I'm winding down is because "Spark of Life" arrived, and I want to read it. I believe, hook line and sinker, in evolution. If test scores are to be believed, I could walk into a Mensa meeting and complain about the low standards for admission. In short, I am the guy who you think ought to be the crusader for your side, because I'm intelligent, educated, non-religious, and knowledgable about science.

You folks just spent a lot of time trying to convince me I was an idiot who didn't understand science or evolution. At the end of it, I am much, much, more sympathetic to the other side, because I have more personal experience with people who insist that science is the reserved exclusively to the non-religious, and I have seen how ugly that can be. Michael Behe, in his testimony at Dover, described one of the plaintiffs' expert witnesses as "almost histrionic" in describing the effects of that silly little statement that the trial was about. I agree with Behe, and some of you ought to consider whether the "almost" is appropriate for you.

There are some of you I've enjoyed all the time, and some of you that I've enjoyed some of the time, and it is probably true that I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.

I said I was winding down, but I have a pet peeve. When I am a participant in a thread, I can't stand it when someone repeatedly ignores what I think is just a completely incredible point that I make, or when someone won't answer a question. So I won't do that to you. If you are curious about how someone like me would respond to an argument that you bring up, go ahead. Bring it up again. There are some that have been asked and answered repeatedly, so if I think you are just interested in browbeating me with Popperian incantations, I might ignore you, but it's worth a try.

Enjoy.

(Edited for style)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Speaking of complexity theory and falsifiability, I have been looking at Schneiders' paper, which I mistakenly attributed to Paul. I said that if their claims are correct, they would refute Dembski. I meant his arguments related to specified complexity. I have concluded that his arguments are in fact correct, and that Dembski did indeed make a "whopper". Dembski attacked Schneider's paper, and said that Schneider must have "smuggled in" some complex specified information, and Dembski is right, but here is where he made his "whopper". The way Schneider smuggled in the information seems to me exactly how nature "smuggles in" information. The complexity inherent in selection function, whether Schneider's in his paper, or the nonuniform random selection action of nature can, be transferred to the organism.
There you go. The information has to come from somewhere: It comes from the environment. The information build-up in DNA comes as a response to the information in the environmental pressures.

You did notice that Schneider enhanced Ev to account for Dembski's specific complaint? It didn't matter (and I don't believe Dembski has ever retracted his complaint). I recently enhanced Evj to account for two complaints from another IDer. It didn't matter, either. In fact, one of the new parameters allows the perfect creature to evolve even faster.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Meadmaker, it was fun to chat with you. I wish I understood why god should get some special allowance in science, whereas the Easter Bunny and Invisible Pink Hamster apparently don't. I wish I understood how god gets that special allowance. I hear this argument often, but I never get any satisfaction.

~~ Paul

[Meadmaker]

Thanks, Paul. I enjoyed it as well. (If your comments re the Easter Bunny and God are an example of something that you want addressed, per the "pet peeve" issue of the last post, let me know. Otherwise, it will wait for another day, and another thread.)

I want to correct something. I went back and reread my last post. I referred to things being "ugly". While I was reading and writing here, I was also doing a lot of blog reading and perusing public commentaries. Some of those are really, really, ugly. A little of that came through here, as well, but I don't think most of you are ugly, in any sense ot the word.

I also apologize for saying "you" so much, as if the other participants who generally disagreed with me are some sort of mob. I know you have individual identities. I ask your pardon for an occaisional linguistic shortcut.

[BillHoyt]

Stupid dictionary.


Well, folks, I have good news. I've gotten about all I can out of this thread. Some comments...
I'm absolutely underwhelmed, sir, by your self-proclaimed understanding of science and reason. It is abudantly clear to me that you do not understand either. It is equally clear to me that you won't achieve any understanding of what you don't understand. And, finally, it is equally clear that you arrived here with pre-conceived convictions that continue to be unsullied by facts. That is sad. Almost as sad as your need to grant yourself a victory ribbon before you exit. It is a wise move before we have an opportunity to point out you've no chest on which to pin it.

[Tricky]

Well, it can be proven (in court) to not be science.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/intelligent.design/index.html

YEE-HAW!!!
:wave1

[kuroyume0161]

Obviously, the 'battle' cannot be won using scientific rules of engagement - since the IDers have already stated that they would use any method available.

It is about time to take the battle to the IDers field thereof - politics and courts. And it looks like they are, as happened with Creationism, loosing the battle there as well.

A hearty Coloradan "YEE-HAW!" indeed!

[Meadmaker]

Well, it can be proven (in court) to not be science.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/intelligent.design/index.html

YEE-HAW!!!
:wave1

The judge's opinion was simply brimming with "Popperian incantations".

[Tricky]

The judge's opinion was simply brimming with "Popperian incantations".
I'm not familiar with that term. Best I can find out there on the web is this. (http://www.wisewords.demon.co.uk/popper/p-mean.html)
In my pages, I shall often use the term "popperian". This is pure shorthand for the general attitude and practice of critical rationalism, and I use it because I expect that most people with whom I discuss these matters will understand this term.

I'm guessing that's not what you meant.

But yeah, the judge sounded angry, and one can hardly blame him. The defendants openly,blatently and shamelessly lied. I cannot fault him for having disgust with those who would have so little respect for the judicial system. What were they thinking? Was it, "God is on our side, so he will forgive our lying"? Well, God may, but the courts won't.

[BillHoyt]

The judge's opinion was simply brimming with "Popperian incantations".
Fascinating. So now we've moved beyond your problems with "evolution," past your general problems with "science," right to the very heart of your problems with logic! Bravo, spoken in the truest woo fashion. Now would you care to get serious or do you just want to show us your problems?

[Meadmaker]

[QUOTE=Tricky;1339250]I'm not familiar with that term. Best I can find out there on the web is this. (http://www.wisewords.demon.co.uk/popper/p-mean.html)


I'm guessing that's not what you meant.

[QUOTE]

In my post wrapping up this thread, I posted a quote that discussed the term. I'll probably start a thread based on it in a week or two. I thought it was an excellent quote.

[BillHoyt]

In my post wrapping up this thread, I posted a quote that discussed the term. I'll probably start a thread based on it in a week or two. I thought it was an excellent quote.
It isn't YOUR call to wrap up a thread. It isn't YOUR call to ejaculate assertions and not stand ready to defend them. JREF is about critical thinking. It is time for you to learn about those techniques.

[Meadmaker]

Edited to remove duplicate post.

You are correct, Bill. I cannot, and did not, "wrap up" the thread.

[BillHoyt]

Edited to remove duplicate post.

You are correct, Bill. I cannot, and did not, "wrap up" the thread.
Good to hear. So how about we talk about your "Popperian incantations" quip?

[Elind]

Perhaps this link is already here somewhere, but here it is anyway:

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/thank_you_michael_behe/#continue