Is intelligent design scientifically superior to abiogenesis?

[Tisthammerw]

I moved part of a discussion from another thread because it was getting off topic (I'll move my responses here).

Anyway, there’s a question I’ve been meaning to ask anyway: why is abiogenesis scientifically superior to intelligent design?

Definitions (for this post)

Abiogenesis: the belief that life on Earth spontaneously arose from non-living matter (as through undirected chemical reactions)

Intelligent design: the belief that intelligent causes are necessary for the creation of life on Earth.

[Tisthammerw]

Moved response here:





You are not explaining anything.


Set up a plausible starting point, and don't interfere. Keep your hands off, and see if undirected chemical reactions create life. If they do, intelligent design theory is falsified. If you can't understand that, I'm afraid I can't help you.



You have to find the designer in order to prove Intelligent design.


Theories cannot be proven in science.

Perhaps you mean you need to find the designer to rationally accept a design inference. But that appears false. Consider for instance the scenario (I described earlier) of finding a stainless steel replica of Stonehenge on Mars. We haven’t found the designer, we don’t know where the designer came from. But we a design inference is still rational to accept here.



Stonehenge is designed, not by inference, but by direct evidence: We can see the marks on the stones, we have found the quarries where the stones came from, etc.


You're still making an inference (based on the marks on the stones). In any case, none of that applies to the scenario of finding a stainless steel replica of Stonehenge on Mars.




No, you stole the arguments from other sites, and presented them as your own.


I never claimed I originated those arguments. I paraphrased what I read years ago; hence I am not guilty of plagiarism (contrary to what you accused me of).



What natural causes could an Intelligent Designer have?


The same ones we have perhaps. Laboratories and mechanical equipment. I fully believe that scientists will find a way to artificially create life someday. Using such means is one way a designer could have created life via non-supernatural means.



Behe's claim was not testable wrt Intelligent Design.


Behe's ID claims (regarding irreducible complexity and the like) were obviously testable if they have failed such tests.




But Darwin didn't have the advantage of knowing DNA and proteins. We do. It's been more than fifty years since we found a way for undirected chemical reactions to get amino acids. It's been a strangely long time to get to the next logical step.


How do you know we know everything we need to know to get to "the next logical step"?


Well, I suspect there isn't a means for abiogenesis to create biologically functional proteins (though I am not as confident as this as I am with DNA)--and if my suspicions are correct we will never have everything we need to know to get to that step because there's no way to get there.



You are a liar, once again. It is obvious that you have stole sections of other people's words and claimed them as your own.


Really? Please provide evidence for that. Please show where I claimed that I was the originator of those arguments.




Rubbish. Just because we don't have enough information does not mean something is unfalsifiable.


I notice you didn't answer my questions. Please think about this. If abiogenesis is falsifiable, what conceivable experiment could falsify it? "Please think up an experiment that would falsify abiogenesis." You can't think of one can you? Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd? You can't think of any conceivable experiment to falsify abiogenesis? Do you still believe abiogenesis is a falsifiable theory?



Why this focus on abiogenesis?

That's what you've been responding too, remember? I pointed out that my following belief: ID is scientifically superior to abiogenesis (being agnostic when it comes to orthodox macroevolution).

[TobiasTheViking]

Simple
Abiogenesis is science
Intelligent design isn't science.

nothing more too it.

[TobiasTheViking]

Theories cannot be proven in science.

Sorry?

Do you know what a theory is? Because that sentence makes no sence if you know what a theory is.

But you are right. Gravity us just a theory, it isn't proven by science. That is why i intend to jump of this 10 story building now, because it is just a theory, so i won't fall.

Sorry if i sound mean, but.. been over this so many times.

Sincerely
Tobias :)

[JohnF_73]

Abiogenesis at least has several plausible natural mechanisms through which it could happen, as well as minor (not conclusive by any means) bits of evidence in its favour.

I.D. has NOTHING.

[Tisthammerw]

It's not clear that abiogenesis offers more answers than ID anyway.


But your argument fails on the first example. The entire point of abiogenesis research is to suggest ways in which natural forces can construct complex proteins.


And we have no known means how complex proteins could be made via undirected chemical reactions. So my first example:

Q: How could abiogenesis make proteins?
A: Beats me.

Still seems to hold.





On the final step, you simply beg the question. If all life requires intelligence to produce it, then where did the first intelligence come from?


I don't claim that all life requires intelligence to produce it. You unwittingly misconstrued my position.



Assuming that it evolved on Earth might be a stretch, but pretending you don't need to even address the question is a dodge.


My point is that not knowing the identity/origins of the designer is not at all grounds to reject a design inference. Think back to the stainless steel Stonehenge example.





I should have worded it more carefully: I am an agnostic when it comes to orthodox macroevolution.


I'm sorry, but that only deepens my confusion.

Are you asserting that it has not been demonstrated that genetic distributions in a population change over time?


No.



I repeat; evolution (in the sense of macro-evolution) is an observed fact. Dogs. Anti-biotic resistant bacteria.


That is micro-evolution, not macro. I mean "macro" in the sense of creating new organs etc. I accept mircoevolution, as even ardent creationists do.




ID predicts the existence of "serious and significant" obstacles for naturalistic means


But that, in itself, is inadequate to demonstrate ID, insomuch as other theories could also predict obstacles.


The underdetermination of theories is hardly unique to ID. Alternate theories will always exist no matter what the data; this has long been recognized in the philosophy of science (though probably not as long as the fact that theories cannot be proven).

Incidentally, what alternate theory do you have in mind?


(such as the theory that figuring this stuff out is, like, really really hard).


That sounds more like an ad hoc hypothesis for abiogenesis rather than an entirely different theory. Incidentally, that seems a bit too much like an all-purpose ad hoc hypthesis. No known way for natural processes to create the Rosetta Stone? Well, figuring this stuff out is, like, really really hard.




Let me ask you the same question regarding abiogenesis. What positive evidence could exist there?


You've already answered this. If scientists can create protiens from molecules using only naturally available forces, then there you go.


Precisely! A known mechanism. But what if, as is actually the case, ID has more of a known mechanism than abiogenesis does? On what grounds would you say abiogenesis is scientifically superior to ID?






But let me ask you this: suppose you encountered the same response regarding the stainless steel replica of Stonehenge on Mars (going back to this scenario). Someone says intelligent design is not the answer and we should wait until we have that Grand Unified Theory of physics until we infer design. What would your response be?


My response would be, that is wholly irrelevant. Stonehenge is obviously a product of design, because it bears the hallmarks of design.


My response (playing devil's advocate). No, it does not bear any hallmarks of design. Your belief presents no evidence that it was designed, it presents claims that it could not have been created in any other way.

Your belief is not scientific or rational.



You're saying ID is not falsifiable?


It is not falsifiable, because any observation you make is consistent with it.


I'll give you one that isn't: we create an experiment showing how undirected chemical reactions could have created life. That would prove that intelligent causes are not necessary to create life (confer the definition I am using).




Without knowing what the designer was made of,


Now your theory of design is requiring you to doubt not only chemistry, but physics.


What? Where did that come from? What I was saying was "Without knowing what the designer was made of, it seems difficult to confirm or deny theories regarding the origins of the designers." None of this requires me to doubt chemistry or physics.




You are willing to admit that life evolved on other planets, but not on Earth?


Life of a type other than our own. Some forms of complexity require artificial intervention (as automobiles) others do not (as snowflakes). Perhaps the same is true for life.

Think of it this way. Robot life forms may require an intelligent designer, but us (if abiogenesis and evolution are true) do not. Some kinds of complexity require a designer and some do not.



There is a scientific theory that already covers this; the idea that life got its start from a meteorite, which itself was from a planet where conditions were in fact right to evolve life. But note how this in no way requires an intelligent designer.

In other words, if you concede life evolved on other planets, you are conceding the argument.


You misunderstand. I am talking about our kind of life--not life in general (see above). Suppose we move the theory of abiogenesis to anotehr planet. So what? My point is that moving the place of origin changes nothing. Moving the origins of an automobile wouldn't change my belief that the creation of automobiles requires artificial intervention. And just because I think automobiles must be intelligently designed doesn't mean I think the same goes for snowflakes.

[Tisthammerw]

Abiogenesis at least has several plausible natural mechanisms through which it could happen, as well as minor (not conclusive by any means) bits of evidence in its favour.

I.D. has NOTHING.

Not true. ID has more of a known mechanism (as for RNA and DNA) than abiogenesis does. Scientists already have known means to artificially create biologically functional proteins, RNA and DNA. Abiogenesis does not.

[Tisthammerw]

Simple
Abiogenesis is science
Intelligent design isn't science.


But why is this true? What makes one "science" and the other not? (Remember, keep in mind the definitions I'm using.)

[TobiasTheViking]

But why is this true? What makes one "science" and the other not? (Remember, keep in mind the definitions I'm using.)
you didn't define science. So i assume we are going to use the standard definition of science.

With the standard definition of science there is no theory for ID. Without a theory it isn't science.

[CFLarsen]

Set up a plausible starting point, and don't interfere. Keep your hands off, and see if undirected chemical reactions create life. If they do, intelligent design theory is falsified. If you can't understand that, I'm afraid I can't help you.

I understand perfectly. You can't just say "don't interfere", because that means that you know who the Intelligent Designer is.

But, since you say that you don't know who the Intelligent Designer is, you can't know if he interferes.

Theories cannot be proven in science.

Perhaps you mean you need to find the designer to rationally accept a design inference. But that appears false. Consider for instance the scenario (I described earlier) of finding a stainless steel replica of Stonehenge on Mars. We haven’t found the designer, we don’t know where the designer came from. But we a design inference is still rational to accept here.

Again, you are merely repeating your claim.

You're still making an inference (based on the marks on the stones).

No, I am not making an inference, because those marks are evidence that these stones are man-made.

In any case, none of that applies to the scenario of finding a stainless steel replica of Stonehenge on Mars.

Show me one, and I'll get back to you.

I never claimed I originated those arguments. I paraphrased what I read years ago; hence I am not guilty of plagiarism (contrary to what you accused me of).

Wrong. You plagizarized those arguments. That's called theft.

The same ones we have perhaps. Laboratories and mechanical equipment. I fully believe that scientists will find a way to artificially create life someday. Using such means is one way a designer could have created life via non-supernatural means.

Perhaps? Are you saying that life evolved because man did it? Aliens? Who?

Behe's ID claims (regarding irreducible complexity and the like) were obviously testable if they have failed such tests.

No, it was merely a strawman. It's an appeal to ignorance. "Look, here is something I don't understand. Oh, God did it!"

Well, I suspect there isn't a means for abiogenesis to create biologically functional proteins (though I am not as confident as this as I am with DNA)--and if my suspicions are correct we will never have everything we need to know to get to that step because there's no way to get there.

Why not? Again, you are merely repeating your claim. You don't explain anything.

Really? Please provide evidence for that. Please show where I claimed that I was the originator of those arguments.

I did. You know that. Don't play innocent.

I notice you didn't answer my questions. Please think about this. If abiogenesis is falsifiable, what conceivable experiment could falsify it? "Please think up an experiment that would falsify abiogenesis." You can't think of one can you? Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd? You can't think of any conceivable experiment to falsify abiogenesis? Do you still believe abiogenesis is a falsifiable theory?

Why wouldn't it be? All we have to do is find a way of creating life, test it and see if it works.

That's what you've been responding too, remember? I pointed out that my following belief: ID is scientifically superior to abiogenesis (being agnostic when it comes to orthodox macroevolution).

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with how species evolved!

[Nyarlathotep]

Because the mechanisms involved in abiogenesis (self replicating proteins) can be shown to exist. So far, an "Intelligent Designer" has not been shown to exist. Until a suitable candidate for an intelligent designer is shown to exist, ID will belong in the realm of philosophy, not science.

[Tisthammerw]

Or else the designer never began to exist--an infinite regression is not necessarily true. Or perhaps the designer is a type of life radically unlike our own: possessing a type of complexity that could be made naturally. In any case the origins of the designer at this point seem untestable.


In which case ID is not scientific.


But does this really make sense? Suppose we find a stainless steel replica of Stonehenge on Mars. We have no idea where the designer came from, and any theories thereof are not yet testable. Does this mean we should pretend that it wasn't designed?




Still, none of that appears to be any good reason to reject a design inference. Consider for instance the scenario of a stainless steel replica of Stonehenge on Mars. We don't know where the designer came from, but we know how a designer could make it and a design inference would still be rational.



You have still to show that.


What would make you reject a design inference?



As I said, simply show a means how undirected chemical reactions could create life from non-life.



How will you guarantee that no intelligence interfered with the process?


Observe the process closely, and shoot anyone who tries to interfere. (Kidding, but you get the point.)



What natural causes could an Intelligent Designer have?

How do you know we know everything we need to know to get to "the next logical step"?


Asked in answered in a previous post of this thread.

[TobiasTheViking]

Wait, after CFLarsens post i'm confused.


What do you want to discuss, ID VS Abiogenesis, or ID VS Evolution?

Choose one or the other, please.

[Tisthammerw]

With the standard definition of science there is no theory for ID. Without a theory it isn't science.

Please explain exactly why ID is not science. (E.g. explain your definition of science and why ID fails to meet it.)

[Stellafane]

Hi Tisthammerw. To answer the question in your OP: No, I do not believe intelligent design is scientifically superior to abiogenesis. If life on earth is the result of some intelligent creator, it raises the inevitable question: who is that creator? If it's an advanced civilization, that just moves the question of life's origin one level higher: who created them? And if it's some eternal, all-powerful entity that for the sake of brevity I'll call God, then it moves the question completely out of the realm of science and into the areas of religion, mysticism, and the paranormal (unless you're going to argue that God is a physical entity that can be discovered and studied scientifically, a position I can't recall ever hearing about before).

Abiogenisis is scientific because it is not necessarily unknowable (although admittedly, given the time interval involved, scientists have a number of pretty tough challenges ahead of them for the foreseeable future). For example, continued discoveries about the composition and nature of the primordial ooze might eventually lead scientists to better replicate the conditions of early Earth, perhaps ultimately resulting in the spontaneous creation of a simple life form. This would be very powerful evidence for abiogenisis, wouldn't you agree? Or perhaps someday we'll discover a planet much like Earth was some 3.5 billion years ago, and watch life spontaneously arise there. All this would be within the laws of physics and chemistry, and would prove life doesn't necessarily need an intelligent creator; natural physical processes could do the trick.

As for falsifiability -- I'm not sure exactly how that word is defined in this context, so I'll leave that for others to debate. I do know that it's very hard, perhaps impossible, to prove a negative, if that's what "falsify" means. I suppose this holds equally true, whether the thing being falsified is Bigfoot, UFO's, or abiogenisis -- or ID for that matter.

In my view, ID ultimately fails because it's a scientific dead-end. Sooner or later you have to deal with a creative force that itself wasn't created -- i.e. God. And when you reach that point, all further inquiry into the nature of this creator/God must be done outside the realm of the physical sciences. Abiogenisis, on the other hand, offers all sorts of fruitful lines of scientific inquiry -- the nature of the primordial ooze, the physical events necessary to spark life in this ooze, what other forms of life could arise spontaneously, what other planets could host such life forms, and so on. There's plenty there to study and learn and speculate about to keep us busy for generations. ID, in contrast, kind of ends the discussion on the spot -- it's intellectually impotent.

[Tisthammerw]

Wait, after CFLarsens post i'm confused.


What do you want to discuss, ID VS Abiogenesis, or ID VS Evolution?

ID vs. abiogenesis (hence the title of this thread).

[Dagny]

This might be obvious....but what about the Miller/Urey experiment?

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

[gnome]

But why is this true? What makes one "science" and the other not? (Remember, keep in mind the definitions I'm using.)

Tests can be devised for the conclusions and implications of abiogenesis.

Is there a test for an intelligent designer?

[TobiasTheViking]

ID vs. abiogenesis (hence the title of this thread).
Then why are you dragging evolution into it?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Please explain exactly why ID is not science. (E.g. explain your definition of science and why ID fails to meet it.)

For ID to be a scientific theory it needs to make a prediction of evidence that can be observed as supporting, or falsifying, the prediction. ID does not make a testable prediction.

[TobiasTheViking]

Please explain exactly why ID is not science. (E.g. explain your definition of science and why ID fails to meet it.)
Definitions of science on the Web:

Science refers to either:* the scientific method – a process for evaluating empirical knowledge; or* the organized body of knowledge gained by this process.

systemized knowledge derived through experimentation, observation, and study. Also, the methodology used to acquire this knowledge.


ID does not have "A process for evaluating emperical knowledge" in the way it is done. There is no experimentation, and no real observations done.

Also, ID doesn't follow a scientific methodology. In that it doens't have a theory.

It can't be science without a theory.

This is the third time i say why it isn't science. If you want to go on with this, you prove to me it IS science, show me scientific theory behind ID. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

[TobiasTheViking]

This might be obvious....but what about the Miller/Urey experiment?

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html
ah yes, i could remember that, just not enough to find it, thanks for the link :D

[Tisthammerw]

Then why are you dragging evolution into it?

I'm not really, CFLarson is (despite my wishes).

[Tisthammerw]

Background: there’s the experiment to falsify ID. Show a means how undirected chemical reactions could produce life from non-life. That would demonstrate that intelligent causes are not necessary to create life.


I understand perfectly. You can't just say "don't interfere", [with the experiment] because that means that you know who the Intelligent Designer is.


Well, if any intelligent life form tries to interfere, I'd shoot him. (Kidding, but you get the idea).

I’m really not sure I understand your objection. “What if someone or something interferes with the experiment?” Well, what if they don’t? Won’t the experiment disprove intelligent design theory? That would mean the theory can be conceivably falsified via experimentation. It is possible to falsify the theory via an experiment.



No, I am not making an inference, because those marks are evidence that these stones are man-made.


And from that evidence you are making an inference, get it? By "inferring" I mean "to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises." And that's exactly what you did.



Wrong. You plagizarized those arguments.


This is getting annoying. Can you provide any shred of evidence that I plagiarized anything?

I didn't think so. So stop making these accusations.



Are you saying that life evolved because man did it?


No, I'm just saying that designing life does not require the supernatural.




Well, I suspect there isn't a means for abiogenesis to create biologically functional proteins (though I am not as confident as this as I am with DNA)--and if my suspicions are correct we will never have everything we need to know to get to that step because there's no way to get there.


Why not?


Well, if there's no way for abiogenesis to get there our knowledge is irrelevant: because we even if we know everything that won't change the facts.




Really? Please provide evidence for that. Please show where I claimed that I was the originator of those arguments.


I did.


Where? Which post number? Where did I claim to be the originator of those arguments that I paraphrased?

You never did provide any evidence of me plagiarizing anything. That's why you won't provide any evidence here or elsewhere. This is simply an overreaction arising out of heated emotions.




I notice you didn't answer my questions. Please think about this. If abiogenesis is falsifiable, what conceivable experiment could falsify it? "Please think up an experiment that would falsify abiogenesis." You can't think of one can you? Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd? You can't think of any conceivable experiment to falsify abiogenesis? Do you still believe abiogenesis is a falsifiable theory?


Why wouldn't it be?


Well, because there's no possible experiment that would disprove the theory?

Now answer my questions please. Can you think of any experiment that would falsify abiogenesis? If not, doesn't it strike you as a bit odd that you can't think of any conceivable experiment to falsify abiogenesis? Do you still believe abiogenesis is a falsifiable theory?



Abiogenesis has nothing to do with how species evolved!

Fine, but so what? Read the title of this thread please.

[Tisthammerw]

This might be obvious....but what about the Miller/Urey experiment?

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

The Miller-Urey experiment proved there exists a known means where undirected chemical reactions can create amino acids.

Unfortunately, the same isn't true of biologically functioning proteins, RNA and DNA (abiogenesis runs into chemical problems)--whereas ID does have known mechanisms for those.

[Tisthammerw]

For ID to be a scientific theory it needs to make a prediction of evidence that can be observed as supporting, or falsifying, the prediction. ID does not make a testable prediction.

Its makes two of them:

(1) We will never find a means for undirected chemical reactions to create life from non-life, because artificial intervention is necessary (note: if this prediction is falsified, ID is falsified)

(2) Because artificial intervention is necessary, we should find serious and significant obstacles to the naturalistic formation of life.

Significant barriers exists for e.g. getting functional proteins, RNA and DNA via undirected chemical reactions (though ID has a known means to create them) and the first prediction has been confirmed as well.

This might not seem like much on the surface, but what evidence does abiogenesis have? What confirmed predictions does it make that make it a better scientific theory than intelligent design?

Also, intelligent design is falsifiable, unlike abiogenesis.

[Tisthammerw]

Definitions of science on the Web:

Science refers to either:* the scientific method – a process for evaluating empirical knowledge; or* the organized body of knowledge gained by this process.

systemized knowledge derived through experimentation, observation, and study. Also, the methodology used to acquire this knowledge.

ID does not have "A process for evaluating emperical knowledge"...There is no experimentation


Theories by themselves are incapable of evaluating empirical knowledge, doing experiments etc.--that's what scientists do. Perhaps ID's adherents are guilty of not following proper scientific methodology--but that says something about the adherents, not about the theory (confer the ad hominem fallacy).

What makes the theory of intelligent design less science than abiogenesis? What makes abiogenesis scientifically superior to intelligent design?

[Dogdoctor]

There is a simple way to resolve this. Have god create some life out of nothing and doccument it. Case closed :)

[Tisthammerw]

Hi Tisthammerw. To answer the question in your OP: No, I do not believe intelligent design is scientifically superior to abiogenesis. If life on earth is the result of some intelligent creator, it raises the inevitable question: who is that creator? If it's an advanced civilization, that just moves the question of life's origin one level higher: who created them?


But why does that make intelligent design illegitimate?

Think of it this way. Suppose we find stainless steel replica of Stonehenge on Mars. We have no clue who the designer is or where it came from. Does that mean a design inference is irrational?

True, we may not yet be in a position to tell where the designer came from. Maybe the designer was an alien with a type of complexity radically unlike our own--one that could have been formed naturally. Maybe not. There's no way of knowing. But even if we can't identify the origins of the designer, that doesn't make a design inference illegitimate (confer the steel Stonehenge scenario).



Abiogenisis is scientific because it is not necessarily unknowable (although admittedly, given the time interval involved, scientists have a number of pretty tough challenges ahead of them for the foreseeable future).


Abiogenesis could still contain unanswered questions. For instance, ID might have the designer, abiogenesis has natural processes. Where did those processes come from? Perhaps X created those natural processes. Where did X come from? Y created X. Where did Y come from? And so forth.


For example, continued discoveries about the composition and nature of the primordial ooze might eventually lead scientists to better replicate the conditions of early Earth, perhaps ultimately resulting in the spontaneous creation of a simple life form.


Perhaps we will find a means how abiogenesis could have happened--but the same is true for intelligent design. In fact when it comes to having a known mechanism, ID has abiogenesis beat (e.g. when it comes to RNA and DNA).


This would be very powerful evidence for abiogenisis, wouldn't you agree?


I sure do. That would be powerful evidence. And if it existed not only would abiogenesis be scientifically superior to ID, ID would be downright falsified.

Problem is that evidence doesn't exist. What current evidence do we have that makes abiogenesis scientifically superior to ID?



As for falsifiability -- I'm not sure exactly how that word is defined in this context, so I'll leave that for others to debate.


In short, to prove false. How do prove that intelligent causes aren't necessary to create life? Conduct an experiment showing how life could be created via undirected chemical reactions. ID is falsified.

There's no experiment that can falsify abiogenesis. Even if abiogenesis was utterly horribly wrong, there's no way to prove that's the case. That doesn't mean abiogenesis isn't a scientific theory, but falsifiability is generally considered a good characteristic of a scientific theory (though to be fair, its importance has been exaggerated).



In my view, ID ultimately fails because it's a scientific dead-end. Sooner or later you have to deal with a creative force that itself wasn't created -- i.e. God.


Just because something was artificially created doesn't mean a deity did it. Life on Earth being intelligently designed is no different. There's always the chance that the designer is of a complexity radically unlike our own--a complexity that could have been formed naturally.



Abiogenisis, on the other hand, offers all sorts of fruitful lines of scientific inquiry-- the nature of the primordial ooze, the physical events necessary to spark life in this ooze, what other forms of life could arise spontaneously


All of which have landed in dead ends (at least so far). Despite more than half a century of research, we have yet to find any ooze that can spontaneously produce life (or even RNA) or any physical events that could do so in this said ooze.

Don't pick the fruit before it's ripe.



ID, in contrast, kind of ends the discussion on the spot -- it's intellectually impotent.

Not necessarily. We could do research on how life could be created artificially, examine the obstacles that make naturalistic formation infeasible, etc.

[Tisthammerw]

There is a simple way to resolve this. Have god create some life out of nothing and doccument it. Case closed :)

Note how I defined intelligent design (the first post); no gods required.

[Dogdoctor]

Note how I defined intelligent design (the first post); no gods required.
Ok so then pick the intelligent designer of your choice to participate in the experiment.

[athon]

I've skipped a lot of the posts here just to make a comment.

Where would you determine 'life' being formed? How complicated does a chemical reaction need to be for you to determine it to be living?

Nucleic acid reactions qualify as life if you look at the fact that they replicate and consume energy to do so, with mistakes being made in the process. While it is practically impossible to demonstrate the presence of nucleic acid in early-earth conditions, there are numerous reasons (a wealth of circumstantial evidence) to assume forms of nucleic acid polymers could form naturally in those conditions as a standard chemical reaction.

There are no other chemical reactions as complicated as those we describe as a collective living process. However, this does not mean simple chemistry cannot explain it. Hence the term 'abiogenesis' is misleading; there is no single boundary between chemistry and life.

Athon

[Suezoled]

Its makes two of them:

(1) We will never find a means for undirected chemical reactions to create life from non-life, because artificial intervention is necessary (note: if this prediction is falsified, ID is falsified)

(2) Because artificial intervention is necessary, we should find serious and significant obstacles to the naturalistic formation of life.

Significant barriers exists for e.g. getting functional proteins, RNA and DNA via undirected chemical reactions (though ID has a known means to create them) and the first prediction has been confirmed as well.

This might not seem like much on the surface, but what evidence does abiogenesis have? What confirmed predictions does it make that make it a better scientific theory than intelligent design?

Also, intelligent design is falsifiable, unlike abiogenesis.

1.) Have you looked in my fridge lately?
Means for non-directed chemical reactions... are you saying this is influenced by an outside source (say, lightening striking a beaker and setting off a reaction that will compose life) or that the attractive/repulsive forces of the molecules composing the chemicals is not sufficient to induce a reaction between elements to eventually form life? Did you take into account stability/instability of structures? Mutation? The sheer mathematical probability against humans coming about in the first place? The odds do appear to be against an organized life form ever coming about; the odds that it only took one try is even lesser.

2.) this is a postulate that assumes the first part is true.

[gnome]

Background: there’s the experiment to falsify ID. Show a means how undirected chemical reactions could produce life from non-life. That would demonstrate that intelligent causes are not necessary to create life.

That would not falsify ID--just because it could happen in other ways, would not rule out ID.

To argue that ID was falsifiable, you would need to describe a test that confirmed the implications of ID.

[athon]

Think of it this way. Suppose we find stainless steel replica of Stonehenge on Mars. We have no clue who the designer is or where it came from. Does that mean a design inference is irrational?

It is a rational hypothesis that requires evidence. Like Intelligent Design. If a proposition is made then it requires evidence for support. Not a difficult thing to grasp.

If Steel Henge is found on Mars, it could also be proposed that it is due to natural phenomena. Simply because it looks like somebody built it does not make it so (c.f. Giant's Causeway in the UK). If there are other examples of such a phenomenom existing in nature, and no other reason for intelligence can be described, then it falls aside as a rational explanation.

Abiogenesis could still contain unanswered questions. For instance, ID might have the designer, abiogenesis has natural processes. Where did those processes come from? Perhaps X created those natural processes. Where did X come from? Y created X. Where did Y come from? And so forth.

That's not Intelligent Design, though. That's Deisim. Could some intelligence have set up all the rules and just said 'go'. Sure; science has no say in the origins of laws at this stage. We can only observe them and speculate. So if it makes your heart glow warmly to think God established the laws to nature, go for it.

We are describing those laws, however. And ID describes interference, not establishment.

Perhaps we will find a means how abiogenesis could have happened--but the same is true for intelligent design. In fact when it comes to having a known mechanism, ID has abiogenesis beat (e.g. when it comes to RNA and DNA).

There is ample evidence for 'abiogenesis' (see my earlier post). There is zero evidence for intelligence.

Problem is that evidence doesn't exist. What current evidence do we have that makes abiogenesis scientifically superior to ID?

The problem is, the evidence you are asking for is 'show me in a test tube'. If it were a court case, it would be like asking 'show me the video tape of it happening'. Some forms of evidence are impractical. Physical evidence for abiogenesis relies on a whole range of evidence, not a single witnessed event (such as rapid recreation of the event).

We know that complicated organic chemicals do not require living processes to be produced, and can exist in a wide range of environments such as pre-biotic Earth.

We also know that many of these organic chemicals are interactive and can polymerise easily.

Many variations of certain organic acids have demonstrated chemical interactions in test tubes that are required for a replication process, not just amino and nucleic acids.

Chemical laws dictate that the more efficient a reaction, the more substrates it will produce, hence outcompeting other reactions which utilise the same reagents (i.e., competition is not biological, but chemical).

In short, to prove false. How do prove that intelligent causes aren't necessary to create life? Conduct an experiment showing how life could be created via undirected chemical reactions. ID is falsified.

ID cannot be falsified. As I said, it requires evidence for it to become the preferred model. As it does not even present a proper model to beging with, it is already at a huge disadvantage. Could the universe have been created by intelligence? Sure. How would we know the difference?

But that is not a scientific model.

All of which have landed in dead ends (at least so far). Despite more than half a century of research, we have yet to find any ooze that can spontaneously produce life (or even RNA) or any physical events that could do so in this said ooze.

That's a very pretty straw-man argument. Nice hat. Now, do you have any desire to put him to one side so we can discuss how science really works?

Not necessarily. We could do research on how life could be created artificially, examine the obstacles that make naturalistic formation infeasible, etc.

Again, define the point at which you would call it life.

Athon

[Stellafane]

But why does that make intelligent design illegitimate?

Think of it this way. Suppose we find stainless steel replica of Stonehenge on Mars. We have no clue who the designer is or where it came from. Does that mean a design inference is irrational?

True, we may not yet be in a position to tell where the designer came from. Maybe the designer was an alien with a type of complexity radically unlike our own--one that could have been formed naturally. Maybe not. There's no way of knowing. But even if we can't identify the origins of the designer, that doesn't make a design inference illegitimate (confer the steel Stonehenge scenario).

A steel Stonehenge on Mars would certainly raise the immediate question of who created it (and needless to say would shake the scientific community to its core searching for answers). But I'm sure you can anticipate my response: we haven't found steel Stonehenges in Mars, and I'd wager we never will. Life, on the other hand, is an obvious reality. And for me, the fact that life exists on Earth is eminently more explainable in naturalistic terms than a Stonehenge on Mars would be.


Abiogenesis could still contain unanswered questions. For instance, ID might have the designer, abiogenesis has natural processes. Where did those processes come from? Perhaps X created those natural processes. Where did X come from? Y created X. Where did Y come from? And so forth.

Here I think the argument turns philosophical. I'm comfortable with accepting that natural processes are simply characteristics of the material universe we happen to live in. To me, they don't require an intelligent creator, they just are, so to speak. If you believe that natural processes must be the products of an intelligent creator, then we probably must agree to disagree -- I don't think there's any way to prove our points scientifically (other than for me to say "Prove God did it" and have you retort "prove God didn't," resulting in an impasse).


Perhaps we will find a means how abiogenesis could have happened--but the same is true for intelligent design. In fact when it comes to having a known mechanism, ID has abiogenesis beat (e.g. when it comes to RNA and DNA).

I don't agree. ID has a postulated mechanism; abiogenesis has several in-progress theories. Neither has a known mechanism.


I sure do. That would be powerful evidence. And if it existed not only would abiogenesis be scientifically superior to ID, ID would be downright falsified.

Believe it or not, I don't agree. Spontaneous generation would only prove that an intelligent designer isn't a necessary part of the equation. ID still might be a viable option -- who can say it hasn't happened sometime, somewhere? This is why I stated ID is impossible to completely falsify. All you can do is prove it isn't the only way (although in doing so, some may find ID a far harder theory to support).


Problem is that evidence doesn't exist. What current evidence do we have that makes abiogenesis scientifically superior to ID?

Actually, we have quite a bit of evidence that organic molecules, the precursors of life, arise through naturalistic processes. We just haven't "gone all the way" yet and have something crawl out of the test tube (figuratively speaking). But ultimately, that's irrelevant. What makes abiogenesis scientific is that it allows us to theorize and test, using known physical laws. The reason I say ID isn't scientific is that it eventually runs up against a philosophical dead end -- God did it -- beyond which no further scientific inquiry is possible.


In short, to prove false. How do prove that intelligent causes aren't necessary to create life? Conduct an experiment showing how life could be created via undirected chemical reactions. ID is falsified.

As I stated previously, I don't agree. Randi bends spoons using conjouring tricks. It doesn't prove Uri Geller can't do it with his mind; it only proves that mind power isn't necessary to do it. The same is true for abiogenisis and ID.


There's no experiment that can falsify abiogenesis. Even if abiogenesis was utterly horribly wrong, there's no way to prove that's the case. That doesn't mean abiogenesis isn't a scientific theory, but falsifiability is generally considered a good characteristic of a scientific theory (though to be fair, its importance has been exaggerated).

I believe the same can be said for ID, as I've explained.


Just because something was artificially created doesn't mean a deity did it. Life on Earth being intelligently designed is no different. There's always the chance that the designer is of a complexity radically unlike our own--a complexity that could have been formed naturally.

But isn't that another form of abiogenesis? Perhaps life did not arise spontaneously on Earth, but was created elsewhere and sent here. (No less a figure than Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, promoted this theory, called "directed panspermia.") But even if that's true, and whoever or whatever created life on Earth was created via natural processes, then we're back to abiogenesis -- life arose where no life previously existed (or at a minimum, intelligence arose where none previously existed -- which raises the additional question of how intelligence can exist without life).


All of which have landed in dead ends (at least so far). Despite more than half a century of research, we have yet to find any ooze that can spontaneously produce life (or even RNA) or any physical events that could do so in this said ooze.

Don't pick the fruit before it's ripe.

Yes, but all this means is that we don't know everything yet. Abiogenesis still gives us many avenues to explore, and in bits and pieces it appears we're making progress towards figuring out how life began. That's what makes it scientific. ID, on the other hand, offers no such avenues -- God did it, case closed. Also, if you're implying ID serves as a stop-gap measure until we manage to produce life through abiogenesis, then that doesn't really say much for ID, does it -- it'll do for now until something better comes along. (Forgive me if I've misunderstood your point here.)

[Tricky]

Background: there’s the experiment to falsify ID. Show a means how undirected chemical reactions could produce life from non-life. That would demonstrate that intelligent causes are not necessary to create life.
So is this the only way you will accept falsification of ID, by having abiogenesis happen again without any sort of experimental modeling?

Well sure. Just wait around for a few hundred million years and make sure you observe every protein on the planet for that whole time. I'm sure that will convince you.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Its makes two of them:

(1) We will never find a means for undirected chemical reactions to create life from non-life, because artificial intervention is necessary (note: if this prediction is falsified, ID is falsified)

(2) Because artificial intervention is necessary, we should find serious and significant obstacles to the naturalistic formation of life.

Significant barriers exists for e.g. getting functional proteins, RNA and DNA via undirected chemical reactions (though ID has a known means to create them) and the first prediction has been confirmed as well.

This might not seem like much on the surface, but what evidence does abiogenesis have? What confirmed predictions does it make that make it a better scientific theory than intelligent design?

Also, intelligent design is falsifiable, unlike abiogenesis.

Allow me to restate your reasoning, but in a different context:

(1) We will never find a means for detecting the dragon in my garage, because the dragon is invisible, flies, and whose fire does not give off heat (note: if this prediction is falsified, ID is falsified)

(2) Because the dragon is invisible, flies and has fire that does not emit heat, we should find serious and significant obstacles to the detection of the dragon in my garage.

[Wowbagger]

Pardon me for butting in here, but I theorize this whole thread could save itself a lot of grief if everyone understands a few things:

First a common cliché:
All models are inaccurate. Some models are merely more useful than others.

As a model for describing the origins of life, evolution (and one of its original "cranes*", named on this thread as "abiogenesis") may not have all the answers to every question, yet. Although, in principal it could. So far, such models have been extremely useful in describing how life forms could have originated. And such information is thus useful for understanding and preserving life.

Intelligent Design, on the other hand, offers nothing useful. It basically says, (to partly paraphrase Tisthammerw) "We'll never figure out how life began, therefore we shouldn't even try." That is not science. That is an excuse for not doing science.

Could another model possibly be developed in the future that will make "abiogenesis" and "natural selection" seem quaint and inaccurate? Maybe. But, for such a model to come along, it has to be scientifically accurate (thus "useful") in the extreme! And skyhook* shortcuts such as I.D. won't cut it.

* Read Darwin's Dangerous Idea, by Daniel C. Dennett for an explanation of the crane / skyhook analogy. In fact, you should read the book, anyway, even if you don't care about the analogy.

[bobdroege7]

What if you did an experiment, took a beaker and added the primordial ooze, waited awhile, and found life in there?

Which would this validate?

Intelligent Design or Abiogenisis?

Only IAMME knows

[Mojo]

And we have no known means how complex proteins could be made via undirected chemical reactions. So my first example:

Q: How could abiogenesis make proteins?
A: Beats me.

Still seems to hold. And there you have the whole argument for ID in a nutshell: "beats me".

[Mojo]

I don't claim that all life requires intelligence to produce it. But the basic argument from incredulity/ignorance behind ID kind of requires it, doesn't it?

[CFLarsen]

Intelligent design: the belief that intelligent causes are necessary for the creation of life on Earth.

This is not the definition of ID other people use. Call it "Intelligent Abiogenesis Design".

But does this really make sense? Suppose we find a stainless steel replica of Stonehenge on Mars. We have no idea where the designer came from, and any theories thereof are not yet testable. Does this mean we should pretend that it wasn't designed?

I don't care if you don't think it makes sense.

As I said, simply show a means how undirected chemical reactions could create life from non-life.

But they have. All scientific evidence points in this direction. We have no reason to introduce an intelligent designer, because we have seen no evidence of one such.

Observe the process closely, and shoot anyone who tries to interfere. (Kidding, but you get the point.)

No, I don't get the point. Because we have observed natural processes closely and we have not found evidence of any intelligent designer. You postulate that one exists. How will you guarantee that he doesn't interfer?

You can't.

Therefore, your argument is invalid.

Asked in answered in a previous post of this thread.

What is the post number?

But why is this true? What makes one "science" and the other not? (Remember, keep in mind the definitions I'm using.)

It is futile to discuss your made-up definitions. Either you discuss from commonly accepted definitions, or you don't discuss at all.

Not true. ID has more of a known mechanism (as for RNA and DNA) than abiogenesis does. Scientists already have known means to artificially create biologically functional proteins, RNA and DNA. Abiogenesis does not.

It is not a known mechanism. It is a postulated mechanism, namely an intelligent designer. Which nobody can test for.


I’m really not sure I understand your objection. “What if someone or something interferes with the experiment?” Well, what if they don’t? Won’t the experiment disprove intelligent design theory? That would mean the theory can be conceivably falsified via experimentation. It is possible to falsify the theory via an experiment.

The question is not if they interfere or not. The question is, how will you test if they interfere? You can't.

And from that evidence you are making an inference, get it? By "inferring" I mean "to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises." And that's exactly what you did.

If that's your take on it, what do you base your inference on? That there just has to be an intelligent design, because you can't see it any other way?

This is getting annoying. Can you provide any shred of evidence that I plagiarized anything?

I didn't think so. So stop making these accusations.

Here you go. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1633500#post1633500)

No, I'm just saying that designing life does not require the supernatural.

If you introduce an intelligent designer, it does. Because then, you won't have any need for natural laws to explain the universe. All you need to do is say "Hey, here is something I don't understand. It must be the Intelligent Designer who dood it!"

Well, if there's no way for abiogenesis to get there our knowledge is irrelevant: because we even if we know everything that won't change the facts.

How can you be so sure? We discovered genetics and a loooot of other things. Why are you so sure we won't discover this?

If your argument is simply "It can't, because I say so", well...it's not really convincing.

Where? Which post number? Where did I claim to be the originator of those arguments that I paraphrased?

When you don't tell us that you have gotten your arguments - even whole lines - from somewhere else, then you are plagiarizing.

You never did provide any evidence of me plagiarizing anything. That's why you won't provide any evidence here or elsewhere. This is simply an overreaction arising out of heated emotions.

Go look at the link I just provided.

Well, because there's no possible experiment that would disprove the theory?

This is your whole argument: Appeal to ignorance. You can't fathom it, so it can't be possible.

Fine, but so what? Read the title of this thread please.

It is futile to discuss your own definitions. Stick to the commonly accepted definitions.

[Darat]

Not as an appeal to authority but simply as a clear and precise example of the arguments you need to overcome if you want to establish or make the claim that "Inteliigent Design" is a scientific theory can be found in this document: http://forums.randi.org/dovertrial/decision.pdf in particular see page 64, section 4

....snip....

4. Whether ID is Science
After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that
while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.
...snip...

[clarsct]

Wow.

Ok, so who designed the designer that designed the designer that designed the designer that designed the designer...etc. ?

Simple sugars CAN arise from random reactions. Ribose isn't THAT complex a sugar. Ribose polymerization isn't difficult science, either.

We KNOW amino acids can arise from simple chemical reactions.

Is it really that hard to believe?

ID makes no testable predictions. This is a hallmark of science. Einstein made testable predictions. Newton made testable predicitions. ID make none, nor do the proponents of ID. I can measure the gravitaional field of a body, and it conforms to certain laws. We can measure the increase in mass an object has as we accelerate it to near-light speeds. We have, and indeed do, so.

Abiogenesis predicts that complex molecules can arise through sheer chemical reaction.

This is TRUE, and shown to be true. We can study and measure this, and we have before.

What does ID predict that we can show to be true, that we can measure and study?
Anything at all?

I will await your answer with anticipation.

[asmodean]

One thing hit me, the statment that "abiogensis is not falsifiable". Which I'd say is true since Abiognesis is, to use a bit of sloppy language, the name of the set of theories dealing with the origin of simple self-replicating molecules. The different theories (and hypothesis) that would be classified as Abiognesis theories may indeed be falsifiable.

Urey-Miller might be flawed in some way, but there's been a little bit of progress since than, and they did show that chemical processes was enough to form amino acids, which IMO is a good first step.

[Anacoluthon64]

A few comments:

Tisthammerw, your repeated insistence on the hypothetical case of finding a stainless steel replica of Stonehenge on Mars is just William Paley's Argument from Design dressed up for modern times. It has no weight. It has been refuted many times. It is based on a false analogy. It is entirely unconvincing. Why? Mainly because life (whatever its defining characteristics may be) is nothing like a stainless steel replica - there is no functional basis for comparison between the two.

Your "testable predictions of ID" are ably shown to be hollow by Arkan_Wolfshade, but let me add a point or two. The first prediction, i.e. that "[We] will never find a means for undirected chemical reactions to create life from non-life," isn't testable at all in any practical sense because "never" is a really long time. As for "[b]ecause artificial intervention is necessary, we should find serious and significant obstacles to the naturalistic formation of life," I think we would rather find insurmountable obstacles. But how would these obstacles manifest themselves? How would we know that they are insurmountable? At best, such terminal impediments can only inferred on the basis of other knowledge, which itself may be flawed or incomplete - witness, for comparison, current speculations about tachyons, which, if true, would point to the incompleteness of relativity. The point here is that both your "predictions" assert an effectively untestable negative.

Also, you repeatedly pose the question, "Can you think of any experiment that would falsify abiogenesis?" As it stands, this is like simply asking for ice cream without specifying anything about the desired flavour. For example, a specific instance of a Miller-Urey type experiment has the potential to shed light on the factors or mechanisms that prevent life from being formed in the particular configuration being investigated. In other words, it can falsify a proposed hypothesis that abiogenesis can occur in such-and-such circumstances. Without comparable restrictions, you might as well ask if there's any feasible experiment that would falsify solipsism.

Finally, even if ID and abiogenesis were equally plausible in all other respects, abiogenesis would still be scientifically superior. Again why? Because it makes fewer prefatory assumptions, and therefore is easier to slice up with Occam's Razor. As others have pointed out more than once, ID requires that you first demonstrate the existence of an entity with the capacity for appropriate design before you can begin crediting such an entity with the ability to actually produce life.

'Luthon64

[Dr Richard]

[QUOTE=Tisthammerw;1633034]But why does that make intelligent design illegitimate?

In short, to prove false. How do prove that intelligent causes aren't necessary to create life? Conduct an experiment showing how life could be created via undirected chemical reactions. ID is falsified.


/QUOTE]

This statement is obviously false, but it goes to the heart of why ID is a non-theory and therefore scientifically invalid.

Please explain why, according to you, the demonstration of abiogenesis would falsify ID?

Why cannot the ID proponent simply claim that *in the instance of Earth* the (Flying Spaghetti Monster/insert other intelligent designer as required) did indeed create life. The demonstration of abiogenesis does not falsify this claim.

Indeed, given the omnipotence proposed by FSM theory, it is quite possible for the FSM to (undetectably) interfere with a a scientific abiogenesis experiment and produce life within it unknown to the observers.

Can you see the problem with hypothesising unknown designers of unknown powers? Can you see why this results in logical absurdities?

[Mojo]

ID has more of a known mechanism (as for RNA and DNA) than abiogenesis does.You say this, but your proposed mechanism seems to require the existence of living scientists. Can you suggest a mechanism that would allow ID to play a role in the origin of life?

[Harlequin]

I don't claim that all life requires intelligence to produce it. You unwittingly misconstrued my position.
****SNIP****
Life of a type other than our own. Some forms of complexity require artificial intervention (as automobiles) others do not (as snowflakes). Perhaps the same is true for life.

Hold on, you admit that life can form without an intelligent designer, right?
How is that different from abiogenesis?:confused:

So, you claim that our type of life is some how different from other types of life because we need to be created?

Aren't we special.:rolleyes:

[CFLarsen]

I have a feeling tisthammer is going to be really busy in the near future...

[rocketdodger]

Anyway, there’s a question I’ve been meaning to ask anyway: why is abiogenesis scientifically superior to intelligent design?


Wowbagger is actually the first person in this thread to offer you a valid explanation. He beat me to the punch.

All of the criticisms of ID made thus far are irrelevant to your question, which I am sure you know. You have made a very good case and except for wowbagger nobody has given you an argument winning answer.

It is impossible to prove that we are the result of either ID or abiogenesis in a philosophical sense, so it is pointless even arguing about it. Unfortunately, most of the posts in this thread have been about that.

To answer the question that CFLarson has been dodging: no, it is not possible to disprove abiogenesis from either a theoretical or empirical standpoint. The best we could do is "find out that it is very unlikely given what we know." Thus, from the standpoint of being proven false, abiogenesis is no better than ID. Only with regards to being proven true is abiogenesis likely to be better off.

But in any case the best we can do is show that it is possible that we are the result of either ID or abiogenesis in a scientific sense. I say this is the "best" because both since both theories are impossible to disprove this is where science becomes philosophy.

It is known that we cannot have all the answers regarding our existence. I don't know why everyone against ID keeps repeating this "who is the designer of the designer" question because abiogenesis suffers from the exact same problem.

What wowbagger brings up, and many scientist-philosophers know, is that science is NOT concerned with being right in an absolute sense. Indeed, it can be shown that in our logical system such truth is impossible to achieve. Rather, science is simply concerned with offering an honest person the most utility.

In our current world, an honest person can get the most utility out of a model that explains existence well enough for that person to predict and shape the future. The better the model lets us predict and shape, the more useful. So the bottom line is, a "better scientific theory" only means "a theory that we find more useful in predicting and shaping the future."

In this respect, as wowbagger says, abiogenesis *is* superior to ID. This doesn't have to do with the theories, however. It has to do with how people go about interpreting them.

Abiogenesis is very useful because, in pursuit of a scientific proof of it, we are learning all sorts of stuff about biological chemistry.

ID, on the other hand, is not useful in the typical way the theory is used. There are a few reasons for this. One is that general ID is already known to be possible insofar as we have observed it, which is actually (as you point out) farther than abiogenesis has made it. But we have NOT observed any other designers besides ourselves, and this is a huge obstacle. Another is that usually ID is unfortunately (as the skeptics here point out) simply an "I don't understand, so lets say god did it" argument. Because of all this, in our current society we simply do not gain as much utility from ID as we do from abiogenesis.

As a final note, however, I would like to say that if there were more people like you this might change. If many intelligent people, instead of simply regressing to the "god" idea, pursued evidence for our ID in a scientific way, it is quite possible and quite probable that we would learn many new things of great utility.

In fact I could make the claim that pursuing scientific evidence of our ID would now be of more utility than pursuing further evidence of abiogenesis. This is because abiogenesis is nested in between other areas of science. As soon as we get an experiment to show it occuring, we are done. End of discussion. The questions of "where did the chemicals come from" and "how did basic biochemicals macro-evolve into my consciousness" are for other branches of science, and they may or may not decide to pursue them. ID, on the other hand, is at the fringe and can only push the envelope -- there are no other areas of science that it can "pass the buck" to. A legitimate pursuit of answers in the ID realm would involve much more radical and thus possibly beneficial endeavors. Unfortunately, there are very few ID supporters intelligent enough to do it.

[Darat]

...snip...

It is impossible to prove that we are the result of either ID or abiogenesis in a philosophical sense, so it is pointless even arguing about it. Unfortunately, most of the posts in this thread have been about that.

...snip...

However the question he asked was not a philosophical question so whether it has a "philosophical" (I believe you really mean metaphysical) answer of not is irrelevant to that question.

[rocketdodger]

However the question he asked was not a philosophical question so whether it has a "philosophical" (I believe you really mean metaphysical) answer of not is irrelevant to that question.

I agree but this is actually my point -- the arguments people have been using against ID as a scientific theory are in my opinion more philosophical (metaphysical) than scientific.

[Darat]

...snip..


It is known that we cannot have all the answers regarding our existence.


...snip...

That is nothing more then an assumption.


What wowbagger brings up, and many scientist-philosophers know, is that science is NOT concerned with being right in an absolute sense.


I think you will find most if not all the participants in this thread on this forum are well aware of this.


Indeed, it can be shown that in our logical system such truth is impossible to achieve.

...snip...


A contradictory statement.


In our current world, an honest person can get the most utility out of a model that explains existence well enough for that person to predict and shape the future. The better the model lets us predict and shape, the more useful. So the bottom line is, a "better scientific theory" only means "a theory that we find more useful in predicting and shaping the future."


I don't think anyone in this thread (except perhaps Tisthammerw) would argue for anything else.


In this respect, as wowbagger says, abiogenesis *is* superior to ID. This doesn't have to do with the theories, however. It has to do with how people go about interpreting them.


No it isn't. If your point is correct you will be able to tell me what predictions ID actually makes; one of its failings (in being considered a scientific theory) is that it is a "theory" that does not lead to making any predictions about the world. It is nothing more then a statement.


...snip..

ID, on the other hand, is not useful in the typical way the theory is used.
...snip..

You contradict yourself - here you are saying that it is a "weaker" theory then abiogenesis using the standard you gave just a couple of paragraphs above.


There are a few reasons for this. One is that general ID is already known to be possible insofar as we have observed it, which is actually (as you point out) farther than abiogenesis has made it.


Please show me a life form that we have created. To date we have not created life in a laboratory by any method. (And by life I use the standard scientific definition e.g. the one that means it is a blurred line wether virus should be classed as "alive" or not.)


But we have NOT observed any other designers besides ourselves, and this is a huge obstacle. Another is that usually ID is unfortunately (as the skeptics here point out) simply an "I don't understand, so lets say god did it" argument. Because of all this, in our current society we simply do not gain as much utility from ID as we do from abiogenesis.


No we gain no "utility" from it because according to your definition it makes no predictions so it has no utility. To refute this you will need to tell me what predictions ID makes.


As a final note, however, I would like to say that if there were more people like you this might change. If many intelligent people, instead of simply regressing to the "god" idea, pursued evidence for our ID in a scientific way, it is quite possible and quite probable that we would learn many new things of great utility.

...snip...


How since it is not a theory that makes any predictions?

[drfrank]

Anyway, there’s a question I’ve been meaning to ask anyway: why is abiogenesis scientifically superior to intelligent design?
Ooh, ooh, I think I have a good answer!

...because abiogenesis actually has a f***ing research budget that people do research with, rather than only a PR budget designed for pushing their `theory' into schools.

Until anyone involved with ID does some peer-reviewed research then this entire discussion is a little moot.

[rocketdodger]

That is nothing more then an assumption.

It is not an assumption it is a provable logical statement. I will tell you what someone else in these forums once told ME -- see Godel's theorem.


I think you will find most if not all the participants in this thread on this forum are well aware of this.

For further reference, I know. I am one of YOU guys Darat! I was directly addressing tist' here. Whenever I make a similar statement (something that is obvious to most of us), you can assume that I am addressing the thread starter.


A contradictory statement.


I see how you can consider the statement contradictory, but actually I don't think it is. I mean that we can prove using our logical system that we can't ever know the whole truth outside our logical system. Basically Godel's theorem.


Please show me a life form that we have created. To date we have not created life in a laboratory by any method. (And by life I use the standard scientific definition e.g. the one that means it is a blurred line wether virus should be classed as "alive" or not.)

I could be mistaken but I thought abiogenesis refers only to the evolution of biomolecules from basic chemicals. That is what I am talking about here. Certainly I don't make the claim that we have created what we consider to be "life."



No we gain no "utility" from it because according to your definition it makes no predictions so it has no utility. To refute this you will need to tell me what predictions ID makes.

Well this is what I meant when I said the main obstacle for ID being useful in any way is the way people think about it. Certainly simply accounting for life via a "creator" is pointless to you and me and offers no utility except delusional peace of mind, which you and I are not concerned with anyway.

You could, however, come up with maybe an "instanced" version of ID which (yes this is completely contrived but it illustrates my point) postulates that the "designer's" form was not similar to ours but instead used carbon tetrachloride where we use water. In order to prove this we would then need to figure out if this is even possible and research into something like that would be both very interesting and possibly very fruitful. Or we could postulate that this "designer" was possibly located at the galaxy center, so in order to prove it we would need to figure out how to get there. Or that the "designer" was an abstract being, so we would need to figure out how the hell an abstract being could even exist never mind interact with the real part of our universe.

Now, of course from a pragmatic view, such pursuits would probably be wild goose chases. And you could make the claim (which I would totally agree with) that here and now we are much better off having what few resources we can muster allocated to something like abiogenesis which can offer us direct and certain utility.

From a visionary's view, however, you could say that the increase in rate of scientific advancement from everyone madly pursuing "scientific" proof of any kind of ID that would (scientifically) explain our existence would be much more beneficial to mankind in the long term. You could say the same thing about the zealous pursuit of a scientific proof of a "god." If everyone did nothing but try to figure out how to get to the answer of the current question, then the next, and the next, our species would be much further along technologically than we are now.

Certainly I would not expect humans to ignore the present and focus only on advancing their species for the possible benefit of a far future version of it (I certainly wouldn't, I enjoy wasting my time playing computer games and making love with my girlfriend rather than zealously researching quantum physics so we can develop a faster than light mode of transportation just to look for our "designer" all over the known universe), but it is true that we would progress much faster in a scientific sense.

[Darat]

It is not an assumption it is a provable logical statement. I will tell you what someone else in these forums once told ME -- see Godel's theorem.

...snip...


The assumption you make is that somehow logic "itself" is absolute or correct. We don't know that.



I see how you can consider the statement contradictory, but actually I don't think it is. I mean that we can prove using our logical system that we can't ever know the whole truth outside our logical system. Basically Godel's theorem.


Only if we make the assumption that logic is correct, that somehow it describes reality in some fundamental manner, in other words that reality really is constrained in a way we can describe with "logic".


I could be mistaken but I thought abiogenesis refers only to the evolution of biomolecules from basic chemicals. That is what I am talking about here. Certainly I don't make the claim that we have created what we consider to be "life."


If you wish to use such a definition you need to state what constitutes a "biomolecule" and a "non-biomolecule".


Well this is what I meant when I said the main obstacle for ID being useful in any way is the way people think about it. Certainly simply accounting for life via a "creator" is pointless to you and me and offers no utility except delusional peace of mind, which you and I are not concerned with anyway.

You could, however, come up with maybe an "instanced" version of ID which (yes this is completely contrived but it illustrates my point) postulates that the "designer's" form was not similar to ours but instead used carbon tetrachloride where we use water. In order to prove this we would then need to figure out if this is even possible and research into something like that would be both very interesting and possibly very fruitful. Or we could postulate that this "designer" was possibly located at the galaxy center, so in order to prove it we would need to figure out how to get there. Or that the "designer" was an abstract being, so we would need to figure out how the hell an abstract being could even exist never mind interact with the real part of our universe.

...snip...



But what you are now describing is not what is known as "Intelligent Design" - Intelligent Design is "... Intelligent design is a scientific theory which states that some aspects of nature are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected cause such as natural selection. .... (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3093)"

That is it - nothing more and of course nothing less. It's a statement, an article of faith not a theory.

[rocketdodger]

How since it is not a theory that makes any predictions?

I just realized what you are trying to tell me, sorry it took this long.

I agree -- ID is not a theory that makes any non-arbitrary predictions. Thus it is not a theory with any scientific utility. I am just saying that the pursuit of proof of ID would offer alot of scientific utility and probably do very little harm (well, no more harm than religion already does).

[rocketdodger]

Only if we make the assumption that logic is correct, that somehow it describes relaity in some fundemetal manner, in otherwords that reality really is constrained in a way we can decribe with "logic".


You are on your way to being held in very high regard by me...

I completely agree with all of this, and in fact I posted the suggestion that maybe there is another logic that actually can develop some form of absolute truth in another thread. Lets just stop this argument here because I think we are on exactly the same page (although you may reply ONCE more regarding the issue because I like to let others have the last word :) ). Of course I would be happy to discuss the implications of our head-exploding brain-melting ideas...



If you wish to use such a defintion you need to state what constitutes a "biomolecule" and a "non-biomoleclue".


I don't know what the standard definition is, but I guess just the basic molecules involved in life as we know it, such as amino and nucleic acids, lipids, sugars, etc.

I wouldn't try to argue that basic chemicals could evolve into something greater than those, like an entire protein, without first proceeding through one of the above listed molecules.


But what you are now describing is not what is known as "Intelligent Design" - Intelligent Design is
...

That is it - nothing more and of course nothing less. It's a statement, an article of faith not a theory.

Don't you hate it when you try to argue rationally for an idea and then it turns out to do so you have to change the idea from its original form...

I cannot be held responsible for the fact that the people that thought up ID didn't think it up right! :)

Its like the nazis. I have always thought that the swastika under the German eagle is a damn good looking symbol overall. Why did they have to go ruin it!?!

[drkitten]

Please explain exactly why ID is not science. (E.g. explain your definition of science and why ID fails to meet it.)

The simplest criterion is just that science is evidence-based.

There is no evidence whatsoever for ID. I'm using "no evidence" here in the strongest possible sense, a sense that includes blurry photos as "evidence" for Bigfoot, crop circles as "evidence" for space aliens, and first-hand testimonials as "evidence" that Sylvia Browne can talk to the dead.

Even under this relaxed definition, there is absolutely no evidence to support the conclusions of Intelligent Design.

[hgc]

What if you did an experiment, took a beaker and added the primordial ooze, waited awhile, and found life in there?

Which would this validate?

Intelligent Design or Abiogenisis?

Only IAMME knowsI think I saw that on 30-minute Meals on the Food Network.

[drkitten]

It is not an assumption it is a provable logical statement. I will tell you what someone else in these forums once told ME -- see Godel's theorem.

I'm afraid that you are badly, badly, misinterpreting Godel's theorem.

Godel's theorem is absolutely silent on the question of, as you put it,


It is known that we cannot have all the answers regarding our existence.


...unless you can first prove that humans are formal systems of reasons (hint: they aren't), that humans operate strictly from a finite set of axioms (hint: they don't), and that they never make mistakes in reasoning (hint: they do).

In particular, our knowledge of the world is not restricted to inferences from axioms, but is also grounded in empirical observation. If you have a sentence that cannot be proven via deduction to be true or false, just run an empirical test.

[Kimpatsu]

And we have no known means how complex proteins could be made via undirected chemical reactions. So my first example:

Q: How could abiogenesis make proteins?
A: Beats me.
That is an argument from personal incredulity. It has nothing to do with science.

[Nyarlathotep]

Unfortunately, the same isn't true of biologically functioning proteins, RNA and DNA (abiogenesis runs into chemical problems)--whereas ID does have known mechanisms for those.


No it doesn't. Unless you can demonstrate the existance of an intellignet designer, it has a SPECULATION for those.

[Jekyll]

I'm afraid that you are badly, badly, misinterpreting Godel's theorem.

Godel's theorem is absolutely silent on the question of, as you put it,



...unless you can first prove that humans are formal systems of reasons (hint: they aren't), that humans operate strictly from a finite set of axioms (hint: they don't), and that they never make mistakes in reasoning (hint: they do).

Still we should be able to put some kind of bound on our reasoning.
Assuming the universe can be accurately modelled within an axiomatisable system, then Godel statements of any such system would be non-determinable from within our universe.

In practice this isn't likely to impinge much, unless you are looking for experimental verification of the existence of infinite sets of particular cardinality. Like one between alph0 and 2^alph0.:D

[Mojo]

It is known that we cannot have all the answers regarding our existence. Science doesn't claim to have "all the answers". It is by definition a work in progress, and it is generally accepted by scientists that we will never have "all the answers".

This is another reason why ID is not science: ID does claim to have the answer to our existence, albeit a highly facile one: "God an unnamed designer did it".

I don't know why everyone against ID keeps repeating this "who is the designer of the designer" question because abiogenesis suffers from the exact same problem. No it doesn't: if life can arise spontaneously from non-life, it doesn't need an "abiogenitor" to start it off.

But if, as the basic principle of ID theory states, complexity cannot arise spontaneousy, then any designer must be at least as complex as (and in practice more complex than) anything they design. So if, as ID claims, life is so complex that it must have been designed, then the designer, according to ID, must themselves be so complex that they must have been designed.

[drkitten]

Assuming the universe can be accurately modelled within an axiomatisable system, then Godel statements of any such system would be non-determinable from within our universe.

And assuming that the universe is a peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwich, we should find an extremely large piece of bread if we travel far enough away.

I see no reason whatsoever to make that assumption, especially since it flies directly in the face of quantum uncertainty. The "axiomatizable universe" was the dominant philosophical paradigm for about 200 years (it's basically the Deists' "God-the-watchmaker"), and has been experimentally rejected.

[hammegk]

As most of us have figured out, science can never adaquately address this question. Life crawling out of a random chemical/etc mix says nothing about 'what actually happened'.

In 1874, theologian Charles Hodge asked what is the Question (think Jeopardy) if Darwinism -- or, if abiogenesis-- is the Answer?

"How must creation have occurred if we assume that God had nothing to do with it?"

Looking at it another way, is it true that the only questions worth asking are the ones that assume that naturalism is true?


Logically, this is the same question deists -- or more correctly "those-who-are-not-100%-naturalists" -- (who in today's world get lumped into the ID proponent position) are asking.

[drkitten]

In practice this isn't likely to impinge much, unless you are looking for experimental verification of the existence of infinite sets of particular cardinality. Like one between alph0 and 2^alph0.:D

Well, that's a good example for historical reasons. Godel himself was a confirmed Platonist, and used that very example a number of times of something that may (before Cohen's proof) and later was known to be independent of the then-current axioms of number theory.

His argument was that this meant that we didn't really understand the objects we were operating on in the system, and that we needed more empirical observation of the underlying objects like th real numbers. I'm not sure how one observes "real numbers" empirically, but I'm also not a Gibbs medalist, and I'm willing to believe that Godel was a better mathematician than I will ever be.

[Mojo]

Looking at it another way, is it true that the only questions worth asking are the ones that assume that naturalism is true?What's this got to do with whether ID is "scientifically superior to abiogenesis"?

[Dr Adequate]

I agree -- ID is not a theory that makes any non-arbitrary predictions. Thus it is not a theory with any scientific utility. I am just saying that the pursuit of proof of ID would offer alot of scientific utility and probably do very little harm (well, no more harm than religion already does). But if ID makes no predictions then we cannot pursue proof of it, because the only way we have to test a theory is to compare its predictions with reality. If it makes no predictions there's no way to pursue proof.

Re abiogenisis, it's been done. You just have to stir together some amino acids with Q beta replicase, and eventually you get RNA which catalyses its own synthesis. In the end, you get the evolution of Spiegelman's monster. There you go.

[Anacoluthon64]

In 1874, theologian Charles Hodge asked what is the Question (think Jeopardy) if Darwinism -- or, if abiogenesis-- is the Answer?

"How must creation have occurred if we assume that God had nothing to do with it?"

Not necessarily. Science is loath to use words like "must," and almost invariably focusses far more attention on its assumptions than people would do in ordinary conversation. I think a more likely question would be, "In terms of our current knowledge about the world, what is the most likely mechanism by which life arose on Earth in the past?" (As you probably know, Darwinism is silent on the question of the origin of life)

Looking at it another way, is it true that the only questions worth asking are the ones that assume that naturalism is true?

If one equates "worth asking" with pragmatism, then the history of science and mankind is replete with examples that seem to support affirming such a position, and very few that refute it. Conversely, much harm has come about from the contrary position. Just ask any heretic who got burned at the stake for asking the wrong questions.

Logically, this is the same question deists -- or more correctly "those-who-are-not-100%-naturalists" -- (who in today's world get lumped into the ID proponent position) are asking.

Perhaps, but each one considers the question with certain unstated presuppositions in mind. Again, whose are simpler, and have brought about greater benefits to mankind in general?

'Luthon64

[blutoski]

"How must creation have occurred if we assume that God had nothing to do with it?"

Looking at it another way, is it true that the only questions worth asking are the ones that assume that naturalism is true?

That is probably correct, but the statements aren't equivalent. Here are other corollaries to the first statement, as exemplified by Hodge's model:

How must creation have occurred if we assume that Baal had nothing to do with it?
How must creation have occurred if we assume Raelians had nothing to do with it?
How must creation have occurred if we assume it was not extraterrestrial?
How must creation have occurred if we assume the Greek pantheon had nothing to do with it?
How must creation have occurred if we assume the Roman pantheon had nothing to do with it?
How must creation have occurred if we assume the Egyptian pantheon had nothing to do with it?
How must creation have occurred if every non-biblical culture's explanation had nothing to do with it?
How must creation have occurred if we use revelation as our starting point, instead of objective observations?


&c. Granted, this is not the ID argument. That's a different discussion.

I have many friends who went through a theological education, and it's possible to tie anything to God if you try hard enough. For example, my friend's undergraduate thesis was "Jesus' sacrifice and the backhand" (she's referring to a tennis backhand swing).

I have a mechanic who uses prayer to diagnose frustrating problems.

I'm not sure, though, that the other tennis players and mechanics could be described as "formally assuming that god has nothing to do with it" so much as just plain not needing to invoke the supernatural when there is a natural approach that satisfies all requirements.

This is just ordinary common-sense; it's not applied metaphysics.

A lot of the formal philosophy of science (that is: philosophers who study science and discuss its methodology) is an act of discovery. Science seems to work. How does it work? Where does science end and philosophy or engineering begin? How can we formalize the process of understanding the natural world?

One of the quick definitions of science that I use with my students is: "formalized common-sense" and it's workable in most situations.

To answer the question: scientists are unable to answer your question as scientists, because it is a value question, but as people every scientist I know would answer "no". What they can say is: "today, scientific questions are the ones that assume naturalism is true. That's pretty much the definition of a scientific question."

[fishbob]

Its makes two of them:

(1) We will never find a means for undirected chemical reactions to create life from non-life, because artificial intervention is necessary (note: if this prediction is falsified, ID is falsified)

(2) Because artificial intervention is necessary, we should find serious and significant obstacles to the naturalistic formation of life.

Significant barriers exists for e.g. getting functional proteins, RNA and DNA via undirected chemical reactions (though ID has a known means to create them) and the first prediction has been confirmed as well.

This might not seem like much on the surface, but what evidence does abiogenesis have? What confirmed predictions does it make that make it a better scientific theory than intelligent design?

Also, intelligent design is falsifiable, unlike abiogenesis.

Rhetoric games. Not conclusive, but typical for creationists and IDoids.

1 above - 'undirected chemical reactions to create life from non-life' is 'abiogenesis' using different words.

2 above - if you can't document ID without dragging abiogenesis into it, then you have no theory. You can't develop an idea by only showing what it is not. At some point you have to describe what it is.

lastly - 'ID has a known means to create them'. ID again fails as science because although claimed many times, this has never been shown.

[Jekyll]

And assuming that the universe is a peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwich, we should find an extremely large piece of bread if we travel far enough away.

I see no reason whatsoever to make that assumption, especially since it flies directly in the face of quantum uncertainty. The "axiomatizable universe" was the dominant philosophical paradigm for about 200 years (it's basically the Deists' "God-the-watchmaker"), and has been experimentally rejected.

Accurate is probably not the word I should have used.

Whilst Heisenberg's uncertainty principle guarantees that we can not initialise the model correctly for predictive purposes, that does not mean that such a model can not be stated under an axiomatisable system.

Hence my previous statements should still hold (I think).

[Dr Adequate]

I have many friends who went through a theological education, and it's possible to tie anything to God if you try hard enough. For example, my friend's undergraduate thesis was "Jesus' sacrifice and the backhand" (she's referring to a tennis backhand swing). Jesus serves!

[Anacoluthon64]

Jesus serves!

You wicked man, you!

Utterly [Rule 8]ing brilliant riposte!

'Luthon64

[CFLarsen]

Jesus serves!
But does he score?

[Yahzi]

I don't claim that all life requires intelligence to produce it. You unwittingly misconstrued my position.
I did not unwittingly misconstrue your position. You misrepresented it (whether deliberatly or accidentally is not my place to judge).

If you are arguing that life did not arise spontaneously on Earth, but could have arose spontaneously on other planets, then you are not arguing against abiogensis, you are arguing for it. You are arguing for the mechanism while disputing that it applies in this narrow case. But as I already pointed out, science already covers this position, and nobody cares. The accident of how life came to be on Earth is less interesting than the mechanism by which life comes to be in general.

So, if you merely want to argue the narrow point that you think Earth was not the first abiogenetic event, we are done. Because a) nobody cares, and b) you do not have the evidence or arguments to make this case (go look up the stuff the meteorite people talk about and you will see what I mean).

My point is that not knowing the identity/origins of the designer is not at all grounds to reject a design inference.
Except we are not talking about the narrow example of life on Earth, we are talking about life.

That is micro-evolution, not macro.
I conceded in the other thread that I had reversed the meanings of those phrases.

Here is my standard argument against the notion that evolution occurs in micro and macro scales:

What is evolution? It is a change in genes. What is speciation? It is the creation of creatures that cannot interbreed. What prevents creatures from interbreeding? Their reproductive equipment. What controls the shape of their reproductive equipment? Their genes.

So the question is: what magic defense prevents the genes for sexual reproduction from changing even while the rest of the genes are changing?

I mean "macro" in the sense of creating new organs etc.
I could swear macro just meant speciation, but whatever. The same argument applies. The idea that genes come in little boxes that never change is just a deep misunderstanding of how genetics work. There isn't a gene for an organ; there are many genes that work together. And those genes don't all appear in each organ. Change just one of them, and you will change the organ beyond recognition. Usually this is fatal, but not always.

In any case, the same argument applies: what allows some genes to change but not others? What is the mechanism by which some genes are prevented from changing, but others are free to? Can you identify these genes in advance by some kind of marker or position?

The underdetermination of theories is hardly unique to ID.
But it is not justification to assume a theory. Just because a theory is underdetermined does not mean some other theory is true.

But what if, as is actually the case, ID has more of a known mechanism than abiogenesis does?
ID has a known mechanism? What is it? Are you going to suggest that the mysterious phrase "Intelligent Designer" is a known mechanism? By that logic, "Anoynmous" is a known author.

Simply stating, "some unknown designer did this" is not postulating a known mechanism.

No, it does not bear any hallmarks of design.
I'm not even going to try to explain the difference between designed and undesigned.

I'll give you one that isn't: we create an experiment showing how undirected chemical reactions could have created life. That would prove that intelligent causes are not necessary to create life (confer the definition I am using).
But you have already conceded this point, when you admit life may have arisen this way on other planets.

What I was saying was "Without knowing what the designer was made of, it seems difficult to confirm or deny theories regarding the origins of the designers." None of this requires me to doubt chemistry or physics.
What else is the designer made of besides chemicals and matter? Or are you suggesting that copper-based life can spontaneously evolve? Is your mysterious designer a Vulcan?

Life of a type other than our own. Some forms of complexity require artificial intervention (as automobiles) others do not (as snowflakes). Perhaps the same is true for life.
This is very confused. The forms of complexity that require artificial intervention are called "non-replicating." Objects that do not replicate do not replicate.

Life is defined (in part) by its self-replication.

You misunderstand. I am talking about our kind of life--not life in general (see above). Suppose we move the theory of abiogenesis to anotehr planet. So what? My point is that moving the place of origin changes nothing.
At this point, I have no idea what you are talking about.

The problem with asserting that our form of life requires design, but other forms of life don't, is that this does not address the larger picture. And once you have conceded that life can arise spontaneously, then the burden is on you to show why that could not equally well apply to here.

If your argument is that intelligent life spontaneously arose on other planets from natural forces, but not here, then you have a lot of explaining to do, no data to do it with, and no particular victory when you are done, insomuch as you've merely proved a historical accident rather than a general principle. In any case, you've refuted the claim that life requires design.

In other words, as you have pointed out, moving abiogenesis to another planet changes nothing. So perhaps you are trying to assert that different life forms can evolve, just not ours. But you have no example of these different life forms, or any explanation why they are more reasonable to assume evolution for. You are reduced to postulating unknowns.

Either you are having a philosophical argument (in which case any life will do, and you must retract your claim that life cannot evolve) or you are having a biological argument (in which case you need to explain what is different between viable self-evolved creatures and non-viable ones - a feat I am quite positive you lack the biological education to perform).

In other words, either you admit you are wrong, or admit you are speculating on things beyond your competency (and indeed, beyond the competency of anyone, insomuch as we have only this planet to study).

Please pick one.

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

ID has more of a known mechanism (as for RNA and DNA) than abiogenesis does.

The mechanism for ID seems to be... *POOF*! The IDer waved a magic wand, said a few words... and it was so!!!

Abiogenesis is really the only concievable naturalistic way to arrive at life. All life is chemical and inorganic and organic chemistry are the same, based on those two basic chemical facts; it is only reasonable to conclude that life arose as a result of chemical reactions. Furthermore, scientists have made some of the basic building blocks of life. All you need are the right environmental conditions and life will probably arise quite readily.

Abiogenesis is scientific because it has experimental evidence and it is naturalistic. Science is naturalistic by necessity not choice, anything non-natural is untestable by definition. If there is a God, there's no way we can know anything about it, at least until it starts talking to us.

[rocketdodger]

I'm afraid that you are badly, badly, misinterpreting Godel's theorem.


I could be misinterpreting it since frankly every definition I have seen seems to be purposefully opaque to the point of confusing a dimwit like myself.

But my entire point was that to me, given the current state of logic, it doesn't seem possible to ever know all the answers. I interpreted Godels theorems to basically say that you can't prove everything in a closed logical system as far as we know.


In particular, our knowledge of the world is not restricted to inferences from axioms, but is also grounded in empirical observation. If you have a sentence that cannot be proven via deduction to be true or false, just run an empirical test.

Yes, thank Newton, because this is what keeps my head from exploding. But, the history of science has been exchanges between leaps forward using inferences and collecting data. I don't see how we could make any sustained progress without those axiomatic leaps. Otherwise we would just be counting berries in our wig-wams. We would know alot about integer number theory, for sure, but not much about quantum physics.

[rocketdodger]

No it doesn't: if life can arise spontaneously from non-life, it doesn't need an "abiogenitor" to start it off.


I didn't mean it that way. I meant that all explanations for our existence face the same seemingly insurmountable problem of explaining how something can come from nothing. Certainly just the theory of abiogenesis, when severed from the entire existence question, does not have to worry about that problem (it passes the buck to quantum physics), so you are right.

Sorry I should have worded it differently.


But if, as the basic principle of ID theory states, complexity cannot arise spontaneousy, then any designer must be at least as complex as (and in practice more complex than) anything they design. So if, as ID claims, life is so complex that it must have been designed, then the designer, according to ID, must themselves be so complex that they must have been designed.

I don't even know why I am arguing since I guess I don't know what the formal theory of ID is. I was not aware it stated such a thing, and certainly I would not agree with such a principle.

I am just gonna stop talking about ID because it seems like they screwed up any chance of it being a legitimate idea when they first thought it up.

[hammegk]

To answer the question: scientists are unable to answer your question as scientists, because it is a value question, but as people every scientist I know would answer "no". What they can say is: "today, scientific questions are the ones that assume naturalism is true. That's pretty much the definition of a scientific question."
I agree. Yet a request to specify this -- to you -- minor point when discussing teaching a hot-button topic like evolution, or abiogenesis, draw screams of anguish from naturalists. Why is that? :)

[kevin]

I meant that all explanations for our existence face the same seemingly insurmountable problem of explaining how something can come from nothing.

No, to prove that something came from nothing is not what abiogensis therories attempt to explain. Abiogensis therories attempt to explain how replicating molecules arise from non-replicating molecules. There is no "nothing" involved.

[CapelDodger]

A Possible Primordial Peptide Cycle
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/301/5635/938?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&titleabstract=peptide+metabolism+colloid&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&fdate=10/1/1995&tdate=4/30/2004&resourcetype=HWCIT

Amino acids can undergo peptide formation by activation with carbon monoxide (CO) under hot aqueous conditions in the presence of freshly coprecipitated colloidal (Fe,Ni)S. We now show that CO-driven peptide formation proceeds concomitantly with CO-driven, N-terminal peptide degradation by racemizing N-terminal hydantoin and urea derivatives to http://www.sciencemag.org/math/alpha.gif-amino acids. This establishes a peptide cycle with closely related anabolic and catabolic segments. The hydantoin derivative is a purin-related heterocycle. The (Fe,Ni)S-dependent urea hydrolysis could have been the evolutionary precursor of the nickelenzyme urease. The results support the theory of a chemoautotrophic origin of life with a CO-driven, (Fe,Ni)S-dependent primordial metabolism.

[cbish]

What happened to twisthammerw?

[CFLarsen]

He'll be back.

[blutoski]

I agree. Yet a request to specify this -- to you -- minor point when discussing teaching a hot-button topic like evolution, or abiogenesis, draw screams of anguish from naturalists. Why is that? :)

I'm not sure that's true. What do you mean by 'specify'?

Science teachers I know teach this as part of basic science education at any level. It's called the 'null hypothesis', and implied by parsimony and Ockham's.


I think what the NSF and other scientific organizations object to is the accusation that scientific naturalism is incompatible with theology, and therefore, theories derived from the scientific method are contrived lies - de facto malevolent attacks on religion.

The science isn't hot-button: it's the politics.

[hammegk]

I'm not sure that's true. What do you mean by 'specify'?
Admit would also suffice.

Science teachers I know teach this as part of basic science education at any level. It's called the 'null hypothesis', and implied by parsimony and Ockham's.
Interesting; you Canadians are far ahead of US schools. Our high school graduates can't read, write, or do basic arithmetic, while your ( middle-schoolers?? ) worry about null hypotheses.


I think what the NSF and other scientific organizations object to is the accusation that scientific naturalism is incompatible with theology, and therefore, theories derived from the scientific method are contrived lies - de facto malevolent attacks on religion.
Or, for the alternative viewpoint, I think what many concerned parents object to is the unwillingness of scientists to admit their wordview is based on the assumption that naturalism is 100% truth.

The science isn't hot-button: it's the politics.
We agree that science is not; scientists, being human, are another topic. Also, here as I suspect everywhere, politics makes the final decisions. Science addresses can we/could we; politics addresses the final 'should we'.

[blutoski]

Interesting; you Canadians are far ahead of US schools. Our high school graduates can't read, write, or do basic arithmetic, while your ( middle-schoolers?? ) worry about null hypotheses.

I guess I could say what I mean by 'all levels'. I refer to highschool, undergraduate, and graduate as levels for science.

Elementary school students don't take science as a seperate discipline, although some teachers have a science undergrad and do what they can.

[Lamuella]

Or, for the alternative viewpoint, I think what many concerned parents object to is the unwillingness of scientists to admit their wordview is based on the assumption that naturalism is 100% truth.


It's more based on the worldview that the natural world is the only observable and testable one.

Science as a subject has nothing to say about religion or spirituality except where they intersect with the observable and testable world.

[Wowbagger]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger :
What wowbagger brings up, and many scientist-philosophers know, is that science is NOT concerned with being right in an absolute sense.


I think you will find most if not all the participants in this thread on this forum are well aware of this.


Yes, MOST are well aware of this. However, for the benefit of those few who don't, it is sometimes necessary to state the "obvious". For example, most I.D. advocates (including those who post on this forum), can't seem to get such basic scientific principals into their heads. So we must tirelessly and continuously communicate these principals to them.

[CapelDodger]

He'll be back.
Don't bank on it on this thread. Either his script led from a designer in principle to a god as the only option, or he hadn't realised that any non-supernatural designer was the spawn of abiogenesis.

[Mojo]

The mechanism for ID seems to be... *POOF*! The IDer waved a magic wand, said a few words... and it was so!!!Nah.

Titshammer's proposed mechanism for abiogenesis via ID was certain forms of life creating life.

It's turtles all the way down, man!

[Mojo]

But does he score?No, but St. John netted the rebound.

[simba]

I agree with Tobiasthecommie:
"Abiogenesis is science
Intelligent design isn't science."

The distinction is that abiogenesis might be able to be supported empirically. ID dogma won’t change no matter what scientists discover because it’s adherents won’t let it die. If scientific evidence accumulates against abiogenesis, it will be ignored. However, I would argue that if you could show a empirically verifiable chain of chemical reactions or processes leading to all the components of a cell is in itself not enough evidence to disprove ID. ID and abiogenesis could technically both be true if you believe (the key word in all this) that a higher being initiated abiogenesis. So proving abiogenesis does not disprove abiogenesis to the ID dogma lovers. They would just change their dogma to match abiogenesis, if shown to be true.

Therefore, if you are thinking scientifically Abiogenesis is “superior” because it can be tested scientifically. Theologically speaking though ID still is a poor theory or way to understand the world because its basic premise is ‘because the world is complex an intelligent designer must have created it’. That makes a pretty poor theology in the grand scheme of things. It can’t really explain why my dog died or what to do if someone hits me on the cheek. ANY world religion would be better than ID.

So ID stinks scientifically and theologically. I wonder what these ID types teach their kids in Sunday school. Anyway, back to the point.

Scientists have already created life. One of the scientists who was instrumental in getting the human genome project finished created a completely novel bacteria after synthesizing its genome. I don’t have a link to the reference though. But I remember he did it a few years back. I would bet its in the biotechnology publication put out by the journal Nature. This technically would be an example of ID because one would assume that the guy who sequenced human DNA is at least somewhat intelligent.

If a primordial peptide cycle did not exist and if nucleic acids existed first it seems to me that proteins could have been formed from the existing nucleic acids. Self-replicating nucleic acids (all RNA’s if I remember right) have already been shown to exist. From what I remember from studying biochem and molecular bio RNA is a component of the ribosomes that, along with DNA synthesize proteins. Ribosomes are made of RNA and protein (also if I remember right – it’s been a long time since I studied all this in biochemistry!) so it’s conceivable than some proto ribosome made only of nucleic acids along with another nucleic acid and some sort of proto transfer RNA’s made the first proteins. All of this could have happened in some proto cell membrane made of a phospholipid bilayer. Even with all this (and again if I remembered it all right) or with the existence of a ‘primordial peptide cycle’ it is still a lot to prove abiogenesis actually occured.

To prove that ID occurred, at least in the mind of the adherents, all you have to say is ‘life is to complex to have come about otherwise’.

[Mojo]

Scientists have already created life. One of the scientists who was instrumental in getting the human genome project finished created a completely novel bacteria after synthesizing its genome. I don’t have a link to the reference though. But I remember he did it a few years back. I would bet its in the biotechnology publication put out by the journal Nature. This technically would be an example of ID because one would assume that the guy who sequenced human DNA is at least somewhat intelligent. But this is not evidence for abiogenesis via ID. The scientist was unquestionably alive when he did this.

To prove that ID occurred, at least in the mind of the adherents, all you have to say is ‘life is to complex to have come about otherwise’.But if life is too complex to have come about otherwise than by being designed, then by ID's own argument (that complexity cannot arise spontaneously) then the designer is also too complex to have come about other than by being designed.

Like I said, it's all turtles.

[Tisthammerw]

ID has more of a known mechanism (as for RNA and DNA) than abiogenesis does.


The mechanism for ID seems to be... *POOF*! The IDer waved a magic wand, said a few words... and it was so!!!


Do you honestly believe this is how scientists synthesize RNA and DNA?

Magic is not requied. Technology is sufficient. In any case, we have a known possible mechanism whereby an artificial agent could create RNA and DNA. This is not true for abiogenesis.



Abiogenesis is really the only concievable naturalistic way to arrive at life. All life is chemical and inorganic and organic chemistry are the same, based on those two basic chemical facts; it is only reasonable to conclude that life arose as a result of chemical reactions. Furthermore, scientists have made some of the basic building blocks of life. All you need are the right environmental conditions and life will probably arise quite readily.


If all this is true, and if you find a way undirected chemical reactions can create RNA, DNA etc. by all means submit your mechanism to a peer-reviewed scientific journal. At least for now, the case for abiogenesis having a mechanism isn't nearly as so rosy as your text above seems to imply.

Do we have the “building blocks”? Yes. Amino acids are molecules found in life. But what about the next step? Chemically bonding amino acids into proteins? Well, there abiogenesis faces a serious obstacle. For each amino acid chemically linked, a water molecule is removed. Simultaneously, the presence of water powerfully impedes the formation of proteins. How to get around this? One idea is that amino acids dissolved in the ocean washed up on a rather hot surface, such as the edge of a volcano. There the water would boil away and the amino acids would join. Unfortunately, experimentation has shown that when amino acids are heated, they form a dark brown goo but apparently no proteins. Sidney Fox did an experiment using of heating a specially prepared mix of purified amino acids, but even then he did not get proteins; he got something chemically different. This barrier continues to be a major problem fifty years after we found out how to get amino acids via undirected chemical reactions. And this barrier is small potatoes compared to getting RNA and DNA via random natural processes.

Can scientists make functional proteins, RNA and DNA? Sure. All that laboratory equipment and artificial intervention helps rather well in that department. What about choosing a plausible starting point and letting undirected chemical reactions make those things? No such luck I’m afraid. Intelligent design has a known mechanism, abiogenesis does not. So why is abiogenesis scientifically superior to intelligent design? Because one personally just doesn’t like intelligent design?

I have no doubt that life can be created in a way that is consonant with chemistry—just as automobiles can be created in ways that are consonant with chemistry. But can undirected chemical reactions produce life from non-life? So far, we don’t even remotely have a means where that could possibly happen.



Abiogenesis is scientific because it has experimental evidence and it is naturalistic.


First, intelligent design of life does not require the supernatural (going by the definitions I am using; see the first post).

Second, let's examine that bit of "experimental evidence." What experimental evidence does it have that makes it scientifically superior to intelligent design? (Note what I said before about mechanisms.)

[Lynx2174]

Its makes two of them:

(1) We will never find a means for undirected chemical reactions to create life from non-life, because artificial intervention is necessary (note: if this prediction is falsified, ID is falsified)

(2) Because artificial intervention is necessary, we should find serious and significant obstacles to the naturalistic formation of life.

Significant barriers exists for e.g. getting functional proteins, RNA and DNA via undirected chemical reactions (though ID has a known means to create them) and the first prediction has been confirmed as well.

This might not seem like much on the surface, but what evidence does abiogenesis have? What confirmed predictions does it make that make it a better scientific theory than intelligent design?

Also, intelligent design is falsifiable, unlike abiogenesis.


Those aren't valid falsifiable predictions forID. the two events aren't necesarially mutually exclusive. even if it was demonstrated that abiogenesis was the cause for life on earth, it would be just as valid a claim for the possibility of life elsewhere as it is a claim now. there is no reason to claim that just because life is able to arise from self-replicating chemical reactions, that ID is false. ID is not affected in any way by whether abiogenesis is possible, or by whether or not abiogenesis is what caused life on earth.

you need falsifyable predictions that are valid. meaning that if a different result is found, then ID cannot be true. I can't personally think of any.

Perhaps it is because ID DOES NOT HAVE AN ACTUAL THEORY. (afaik that is.)

[Tisthammerw]

Scientists have already created life. One of the scientists who was instrumental in getting the human genome project finished created a completely novel bacteria after synthesizing its genome. I don’t have a link to the reference though. But I remember he did it a few years back. I would bet its in the biotechnology publication put out by the journal Nature. This technically would be an example of ID because one would assume that the guy who sequenced human DNA is at least somewhat intelligent.


But this is not evidence for abiogenesis via ID. The scientist was unquestionably alive when he did this.


Which is not really relevant. ID (as defined in the first post) isn't explaining the ultimate origin of all possible forms life, just life as we know it on Earth. If what this person says is true (to be fair, I am skeptical that it is) it would mean that intelligent design has a known possible mechanism to work with. The same is not true for abiogenesis.



But if life is too complex to have come about otherwise than by being designed, then by ID's own argument (that complexity cannot arise spontaneously) then the designer is also too complex to have come about other than by being designed.

But intelligent design (as defined in the first post) does not necessarily make the claim you described. It doesn't say that all forms of complexity require a designer, just that some forms (namely the kind of life we see on Earth) do.

[Tisthammerw]

Those aren't valid falsifiable predictions forID.


Why not? (Note: you might want to visit the first post to see the definition being used here.)



there is no reason to claim that just because life is able to arise from self-replicating chemical reactions, that ID is false.


ID as defined here is the theory that artificial intervention is necessary to create life. If undirected chemical reactions can create life, then artificial intervention is obviously not necessary. Hence, ID would be falsified.



Perhaps it is because ID DOES NOT HAVE AN ACTUAL THEORY. (afaik that is.)

Please see the first post where I described the theory.

[Tisthammerw]

Wow.

Ok, so who designed the designer that designed the designer that designed the designer that designed the designer...etc. ?

Simple sugars CAN arise from random reactions. Ribose isn't THAT complex a sugar. Ribose polymerization isn't difficult science, either.

We KNOW amino acids can arise from simple chemical reactions.

Is it really that hard to believe?


No, but it is harder to believe that undirected chemical reactions can make RNA and DNA. More than half a century of research still hasn't produced a mechanism for abiogenesis for those two molecules that are so crucial to life as we know it on Earth. Intelligent design, on the other hand, has a known mechanism.



ID makes no testable predictions.


I seem to be answering this accusation a lot. Please see post #26 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1632990&postcount=26) and also be aware of the definition of intelligent design I am using.



Abiogenesis predicts that complex molecules can arise through sheer chemical reaction.

This is TRUE, and shown to be true.


Abiogenesis predicts that life can spontaneously arise from non-life. This prediction has had almost no success whatsoever. Have we found a mechanism for getting amino acids? Sure. The same is not true for the complex molecules of RNA and DNA however, much less the entire biochemical machine we call a single-celled organism.

[Tisthammerw]

And we have no known means how complex proteins could be made via undirected chemical reactions. So my first example:

Q: How could abiogenesis make proteins?
A: Beats me.

Still seems to hold.


And there you have the whole argument for ID in a nutshell: "beats me".

Actually, I was describing abiogenesis (read the quote again). It is abiogenesis that has a "beats me" attitude for functional proteins and DNA. It is intelligent design that has a known possible mechanism.




I don't claim that all life requires intelligence to produce it.


But the basic argument from incredulity/ignorance behind ID kind of requires it, doesn't it?

An argument you have never seen me use (as far as I know).

[bpesta22]

I read somewhere that the philosophy of science has gone well beyond Popper's idea that theories must be falsfiable to be scientific.

IIRC, this is not necessarily an element of a good scientific theory anymore (as this criterion results in excluding many areas of study that are clearly scientific-- though I can't remember examples of these, of course....)

Anyway, I've heard a few times that Popperian falsification via modus tollens is not the norm for philosophy of science types.

Anyone out there have more info on this? I think it could shed light on the poster's main question.

[CFLarsen]

An argument you have never seen me use (as far as I know).

That is the only argument you are using, Wade: You can't imagine/explain/understand how things happen, so it must be an intelligent designer.

[Tisthammerw]

Intelligent design: the belief that intelligent causes are necessary for the creation of life on Earth.


This is not the definition of ID other people use.


I hope you won't accuse me of plagiarism:


Called intelligent design (ID), to distinguish it from earlier versions of design theory (as well as from the naturalistic use of the term design), this new approach is more modest than its predecessors. Rather than trying to infer God’s existence or character from the natural world, it simply claims "that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable."[3]


From here (http://www.arn.org/idfaq/What%20is%20intelligent%20design.htm). The web page cites Dembski for that quote, and Dembski is a pretty prominent adherent of ID.




As I said, simply show a means how undirected chemical reactions could create life from non-life.


But they have.


This is incorrect. No such thing has been done. There has been no experiment done whatsoever to show how undirected chemical reactions could possibly create life from non-life. We don’t even have a means for abiogenesis to create DNA, much less the entire biochemical machine called a single-celled organism.

The background for the next quote:

I am talking about a conceivable experiment that would falsify intelligent design. Simply create an experiment whereby undirected chemical reactions produce life from non-life.


Observe the process closely, and shoot anyone who tries to interfere. (Kidding, but you get the point.)



No, I don't get the point. Because we have observed natural processes closely and we have not found evidence of any intelligent designer. You postulate that one exists. How will you guarantee that he doesn't interfer?


How will you guarantee that he [the intelligent designer] doesn't interfer?

You can't.


WHY NOT? Do you expect aliens to come down and zap all the scientists? Well, maybe we don't have a defense against such a thing yet. But so what?

Your whole argument seems dependent on "The experiment can't falsify the theory because I can conceive of someone/something interfering with it." But isn't this true of all experiments? For any laboratory doing a scientific experiment, we could conceive somebody nuking the whole place. So what?

Provided nothing interferes with the experiment, we still have a conceivable scientific experiment that would falsify the theory.



The question is not if they interfere or not. The question is, how will you test if they interfere? You can't.


So you're saying what, the designer (say, a group of aliens) could use some kind of special cloaking technology? That they might use some invisible undetectable forces could interfere with the experiment? In that case, nothing is falsifiable. No experiment could falsify anything, because invisible undetectable forces could be interfering it without our knowledge.

I'm sorry, but I don't find this a very good objection. If we find a means where undirected chemical reactions can create life from non-life, that will falsify the theory of artificial intervention being necessary. That's about as much as one can hope for, barring invisible undetectable forces interfering without our knowledge and despite our careful observation.




What is the post number?


The second post.



It is not a known mechanism.


It is a known possible mechanism. We know of a way it could happen. The same is not true for abiogenesis. Thus begging the question: why is abiogenesis scientifically superior to intelligent design? (Note: if you don't want to abide by my definitions, you have the option of not participating in this thread.)



Here you go. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1633500#post1633500)


And here YOU go (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1635389&postcount=2177).




No, I'm just saying that designing life does not require the supernatural.


If you introduce an intelligent designer, it does.


That does not logically follow. Suppose we design life using laboratory equipment. Would this require the supernatural?




Well, if there's no way for abiogenesis to get there our knowledge is irrelevant: because we even if we know everything that won't change the facts.


How can you be so sure?


Let me put it this way. How can you be so sure we won't find a natural means to produce Rosetta Stones? We've discovered a lot of things about geology. Why are you so sure we won't discover this?




Well, because there's no possible experiment that would disprove the theory?


This is your whole argument: Appeal to ignorance.


I notice you are not answering my questions. Please think and answer. If abiogenesis is falsifiable, what conceivable experiment could falsify the theory?

You can't think of one can you? Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd? You can't think of any conceivable experiment to falsify abiogenesis? Do you still believe abiogenesis is a falsifiable theory?

[Tisthammerw]

Background: there’s the experiment to falsify ID. Show a means how undirected chemical reactions could produce life from non-life. That would demonstrate that intelligent causes are not necessary to create life.


That would not falsify ID--just because it could happen in other ways, would not rule out ID.

Please see the first post. Intelligent design here is defined as the theory that artificial intervention is necessary to create life. Show a means how undirected chemical reactions could produce life from non-life, and you will have falsified that theory.

[Tisthammerw]

I don't agree. ID has a postulated mechanism; abiogenesis has several in-progress theories. Neither has a known mechanism.


Let me rephrase. ID has a known possible mechanism. There exists a mechanism we know of that could do the job. When it comes to having a known possible mechanism, ID is ahead of abiogenesis.



Believe it or not, I don't agree. Spontaneous generation would only prove that an intelligent designer isn't a necessary part of the equation. ID still might be a viable option


Ack! It seems like nobody is reading the first post. ID as I am defining it says that intelligent causes are necessary. Show a means where undirected chemical reactions create life, and you will have falsified the theory that intelligent causes are necessary.





Problem is that evidence doesn't exist. What current evidence do we have that makes abiogenesis scientifically superior to ID?


Actually, we have quite a bit of evidence that organic molecules, the precursors of life, arise through naturalistic processes.


Yes, abiogenesis has a known means for various organic molecules. (Note: when I say "known means" I mean we know of a way it could happen.) But none of those molecules include RNA and DNA. When it comes to having a known mechanism, ID is ahead of abiogenesis. So again, why think abiogenesis is scientifically superior to ID?



What makes abiogenesis scientific is that it allows us to theorize and test


The same is true for ID (note the predictions I talked about earlier). Abiogenesis has the following prediction:

(1)There exists a means where life can spontaneously form from non-life

The problem is the success of this prediction is very sharply limited. And when it comes to having a known means how it could have happened ID beats out abiogenesis. Thus, I hope you can understand my question: why think abiogenesis is scientifically superior to ID?



The reason I say ID isn't scientific is that it eventually runs up against a philosophical dead end -- God did it


ID as I defined it requires no deities.




Just because something was artificially created doesn't mean a deity did it. Life on Earth being intelligently designed is no different. There's always the chance that the designer is of a complexity radically unlike our own--a complexity that could have been formed naturally.


But isn't that another form of abiogenesis?


Perhaps a form of abiogenesis, but not of the sort being discussed here. It is my contention that the biochemical machinery of our kind of life cannot be made through undirected chemical reactions—just as automobiles cannot be made through undirected chemical reactions. But that doesn't mean other kinds of life can't be made through undirected chemical reactions. Some forms of complexity require a designer, others do not. (If you’re an adherent of abiogenesis, think of humans creating intelligent robots.)




All of which have landed in dead ends (at least so far). Despite more than half a century of research, we have yet to find any ooze that can spontaneously produce life (or even RNA) or any physical events that could do so in this said ooze.

Don't pick the fruit before it's ripe.


Yes, but all this means is that we don't know everything yet.


True, but consider: ID predicts the serious obstacles that currently plague abiogenesis. How long should we stick with the current paradigm before we switch to one that not only explains but predicts the problems of the old one?

Perhaps ID should not yet be accepted. Perhaps we should give a bit more time for abiogenesis to solve its problems. Maybe abiogenesis will solve its problems and ID will be falsified. But from where I’m standing there doesn’t appear to be any reason why abiogenesis is currently scientifically better.



Abiogenesis still gives us many avenues to explore, and in bits and pieces it appears we're making progress towards figuring out how life began. That's what makes it scientific. ID, on the other hand, offers no such avenues -- God did it, case closed.


Actually ID can use the exact same approach: explore possible avenues how life could have began (via artificial intervention). It's just that we'd be exploring a different kind of mechanism.



(Forgive me if I've misunderstood your point here.)

Well, you have at least in part. For one thing, the theory I described (see the first post) makes no mention of deities.

[Tisthammerw]

That is the only argument you are using, Wade: You can't imagine/explain/understand how things happen, so it must be an intelligent designer.

Please quote a specific example of me using this argument (the one where you said "so it must be an intelligent designer").

[Earthborn]

I read somewhere that the philosophy of science has gone well beyond Popper's idea that theories must be falsfiable to be scientific.Definitely! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakatos) From that page:Lakatos' contribution to the philosophy of science was an attempt to resolve the perceived conflict between Popper's Falsificationism and the revolutionary structure of science described by Kuhn. Popper's theory implied that scientists should give up a theory as soon as they encounter any falsifying evidence, immediately replacing it with increasingly 'bold and powerful' new hypotheses. However, Kuhn described science as consisting of periods of normal science in which scientists continue to hold their theories in the face of anomalies, interspersed with periods of great conceptual change.

Lakatos sought a methodology that would harmonize these apparently contradictory points of view. A methodology that could provide a rational account of scientific progress, consistent with the historical record.

For Lakatos, what we think of as 'theories' are actually groups of slightly different theories that share some common idea, or what Lakatos called their 'hard core'. Lakatos called these groups 'Research Programs'. Those scientists involved in the program will shield the theoretical core from falsification attempts behind a protective belt of auxiliary hypotheses.

Anyone out there have more info on this? I think it could shed light on the poster's main question.I think so. If we use Lakatos concepts we can understand Intelligent Design as a research program that competes with evolution and has a different 'hard core': it assumes as an unfalisifiable hypotheses that some of life's structures require intelligent design to arise. Scientists who accept abiogenesis assume as their unfalsifiable hypotheses that this is not necessary and life can arise by chance occurances.

That is not to say that Intelligent Design does not have serious problems. First of all it does not clearly define what it means with "intelligence" or "design" or how designed structures would necessarily differ from evolved ones. Also, from Lakatos concepts we can say that Intelligent Design is a degenerative research program as it does not make much progress in competition with the abiogenesis program. Scientists do propose promising mechanisms for abiogenesis even if they can't yet come up with a falsifiable theory how it actually did happen.

[Tisthammerw]

There is ample evidence for 'abiogenesis' (see my earlier post).


Abiogenesis has the following prediction:
(1) There exists a means where life could spontaneously come from non-life

So far, the only evidence I've seen is that abiogenesis has is that it has a known mechanism whereby it could have happened--but this is sharply limited. We have a known mechanism for amino acids and some other organic molecules, yes. But not RNA nor DNA--wheras ID does have a mechanism. There abiogenesis hits some serious obstacles. When it comes to having a known mechanism (by which I mean a known means how it could have happened) ID has abiogenesis beat. Hence my question: why think abiogenesis is scientifically superior to ID?



The problem is, the evidence you are asking for is 'show me in a test tube'. If it were a court case, it would be like asking 'show me the video tape of it happening'.


No, it would be more like "Show that the suspect has the means to commit the crime." All I'm asking is for abiogenesis to have a means: some kind of possible mechanism. When it comes to that, ID has abiogenesis beat, as I suggested before.




In short, to prove false. How do prove that intelligent causes aren't necessary to create life? Conduct an experiment showing how life could be created via undirected chemical reactions. ID is falsified.


ID cannot be falsified.


Ack! It almost seems that nobody is reading the first post. ID as defined here is the theory that intelligent causes are necessary to create life. How to prove that intelligent causes aren't necessary to create life? Simply conduct an experiment showing how life could be created via undirected chemical reactions. This would demonstrate that artificial intervention is not needed. Thus, ID is falsifiable.



Could the universe have been created by intelligence? Sure. How would we know the difference?


I think I should remind you that I'm talking about the origins of life on Earth, not the universe.

[CFLarsen]

I hope you won't accuse me of plagiarism:

No, because now, you are doing what you should have done before: Quoting properly.

From here (http://www.arn.org/idfaq/What%20is%20intelligent%20design.htm). The web page cites Dembski for that quote, and Dembski is a pretty prominent adherent of ID.

You, who are so fond of Wikipedia, should take a look at this:

William Dembski, one of intelligent design's leading proponents, has stated that the fundamental claim of intelligent design is that "there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence."
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#Intelligent_design_in_summary)

I know that the ID'ers have taken to exclude God from their explanations, but they still believe - Dembski as well - that God did it.

This is incorrect. No such thing has been done. There has been no experiment done whatsoever to show how undirected chemical reactions could possibly create life from non-life. We don’t even have a means for abiogenesis to create DNA, much less the entire biochemical machine called a single-celled organism.

I am talking about life existing, period. Life exists. Undirected chemical reactions has "created" life from non-life.

No, I don't get the point. Because we have observed natural processes closely and we have not found evidence of any intelligent designer. You postulate that one exists. How will you guarantee that he doesn't interfer?

That's my statement, not yours.

WHY NOT? Do you expect aliens to come down and zap all the scientists? Well, maybe we don't have a defense against such a thing yet. But so what?

Your whole argument seems dependent on "The experiment can't falsify the theory because I can conceive of someone/something interfering with it." But isn't this true of all experiments? For any laboratory doing a scientific experiment, we could conceive somebody nuking the whole place. So what?

Provided nothing interferes with the experiment, we still have a conceivable scientific experiment that would falsify the theory.

But that's the problem with your argument: It requires that something interferes with the experiment. That an intelligent designer steps in and does the trick.

So you're saying what, the designer (say, a group of aliens) could use some kind of special cloaking technology? That they might use some invisible undetectable forces could interfere with the experiment? In that case, nothing is falsifiable. No experiment could falsify anything, because invisible undetectable forces could be interfering it without our knowledge.

I'm sorry, but I don't find this a very good objection. If we find a means where undirected chemical reactions can create life from non-life, that will falsify the theory of artificial intervention being necessary. That's about as much as one can hope for, barring invisible undetectable forces interfering without our knowledge and despite our careful observation.

Now you are beginning to understand: If we invoke something from outside (aliens or an intelligent designer), nothing is falsifiable. If we allow the Hand of God/Aliens to interfere with natural laws, we don't need natural laws to explain the universe.

Do you understand? You just shot down your own argument.

The second post.

But what you suspect is not the same as what you know.

It is a known possible mechanism. We know of a way it could happen. The same is not true for abiogenesis. Thus begging the question: why is abiogenesis scientifically superior to intelligent design? (Note: if you don't want to abide by my definitions, you have the option of not participating in this thread.)

Intelligent Abiogenesis Design is inferior to abiogenesis because it invokes a supernatural force. There is nothing in the natural laws that precludes abiogenesis - we just haven't found the explanation yet.

That doesn't mean that your explanation is superior, because you have to invoke a supernatural designer.

And here YOU go (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1635389&postcount=2177).

You are a plagiarist, Wade. The evidence is unambiguous and clear.

That does not logically follow. Suppose we design life using laboratory equipment. Would this require the supernatural?

No, because we are still adhering to natural laws. Supernatural means something outside the scope of science. Something we can't detect, can't measure, can't find, and that will violate the natural laws.

Let me put it this way. How can you be so sure we won't find a natural means to produce Rosetta Stones? We've discovered a lot of things about geology. Why are you so sure we won't discover this?

We might discover it. As with all scientific explanations, it is a provisional one, but one that is quite sufficient to explain the Rosetta stone. We have plenty of supporting evidence that the Rosetta stone - there is only one - is man-made.

I notice you are not answering my questions. Please think and answer. If abiogenesis is falsifiable, what conceivable experiment could falsify the theory?

You can't think of one can you? Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd? You can't think of any conceivable experiment to falsify abiogenesis? Do you still believe abiogenesis is a falsifiable theory?

I note that you have a habit of posing the same questions, despite them already being answered, to make it look as if they were never answered at all. You are not going to score any points on it.

[Tisthammerw]

I think so. If we use Lakatos concepts we can understand Intelligent Design as a research program that competes with evolution and has a different 'hard core': it assumes as an unfalisifiable hypotheses that some of life's structures require intelligent design to arise.

But this is not an unfalisifiable process. To falsify it, simply demonstrate a means how the said structures could be formed naturally. Applied to the issue this thread is discussing, simply conduct an experiment whereby undirected chemical reactions create life. This would show that intelligent design is not necessary.

[CFLarsen]

Please quote a specific example of me using this argument (the one where you said "so it must be an intelligent designer").
That's what you have been arguing, Wade. In this thread, and in the other one.

Sheesh....don't you even know what you are arguing??

[CFLarsen]

But this is not an unfalisifiable process. To falsify it, simply demonstrate a means how the said structures could be formed naturally. Applied to the issue this thread is discussing, simply conduct an experiment whereby undirected chemical reactions create life. This would show that intelligent design is not necessary.

You are turning it upside down. We have natural explanations for abiogenesis. If you want to challenge that, you have to provide the evidence that you are right.

[Tisthammerw]

This is incorrect. No such thing has been done. There has been no experiment done whatsoever to show how undirected chemical reactions could possibly create life from non-life. We don’t even have a means for abiogenesis to create DNA, much less the entire biochemical machine called a single-celled organism.


I am talking about life existing, period. Life exists. Undirected chemical reactions has "created" life from non-life.


Well, I'm talking about a known mechanism for abiogenesis (by which I mean a known way it could have happened).



But that's the problem with your argument: It requires that something interferes with the experiment. That an intelligent designer steps in and does the trick.


Um, no. It doesn't require that at all. To falsify ID, the experiment shows a means whereby undirected chemical reactions create life from non-life. Interference from intelligent agents is precisely what we don't want in this experiment.



Now you are beginning to understand: If we invoke something from outside (aliens or an intelligent designer), nothing is falsifiable.


Except for intelligent design theory, considering I have been able to come up with a conceivable experiment that would falsify it whereas you have not done the same for abiogenesis.



You are a plagiarist, Wade.


:rolleseys Not this again.



Intelligent Abiogenesis Design is inferior to abiogenesis because it invokes a supernatural force.


Um, see the first post. The definition of intelligent design being used here does not have any supernatural forces in it. If you don't want to abide by the definitions, you have the option of not participating in this thread.






Let me put it this way. How can you be so sure we won't find a natural means to produce Rosetta Stones? We've discovered a lot of things about geology. Why are you so sure we won't discover this?


We might discover it. As with all scientific explanations, it is a provisional one


Technically, yes. But the ID form applied here works rather well here don't you think? I will admit that it's possible that ID will be falsified, I just don't see it as any more likely than finding natural processes that create Rosetta Stones.




I notice you are not answering my questions. Please think and answer. If abiogenesis is falsifiable, what conceivable experiment could falsify the theory?

You can't think of one can you? Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd? You can't think of any conceivable experiment to falsify abiogenesis? Do you still believe abiogenesis is a falsifiable theory?


I note that you have a habit of posing the same questions, despite them already being answered, to make it look as if they were never answered at all.


They were not ever answered--at least when it comes to the first question. Please answer this question: If abiogenesis is falsifiable, what conceivable experiment could falsify the theory?

To my knowledge, you have never told me of any conceivable experiment that could falsify the theory.

[Tisthammerw]

Please quote a specific example of me using this argument (the one where you said "so it must be an intelligent designer").


That's what you have been arguing, Wade. In this thread, and in the other one.

Sheesh....don't you even know what you are arguing??

I do, apparently you do not; as evidenced by your failure to cite any specific post and quote where I've made the argument in question.




But this is not an unfalisifiable process. To falsify it, simply demonstrate a means how the said structures could be formed naturally. Applied to the issue this thread is discussing, simply conduct an experiment whereby undirected chemical reactions create life. This would show that intelligent design is not necessary.


You are turning it upside down. We have natural explanations for abiogenesis.


Do we actually have a known means (by which I mean a known way how it could have happened) for undirected chemical reactions to create life from non-life? If you have found such a way, do the experiment and submit the paper on it to a peer-reviewed scientific journal. You'll be sure to win the Nobel Prize.

[athon]

Abiogenesis has the following prediction:
(1) There exists a means where life could spontaneously come from non-life

Tell me where the line is between 'life' and 'non-life', then. As I said, abiogenesis is a misleading term, indicating that there is a distinct moment 'life' comes into existance. That's not how it works at all.

So far, the only evidence I've seen is that abiogenesis has is that it has a known mechanism whereby it could have happened--but this is sharply limited.

Explain. I disagree; it's by no means limited. Self-replicating organic chemistry is a feature of several type of organic acid. Chemical competition is another feature. Given the right elements, it can complicate into a diverse array of complicated chemistries. What we don't have is the luxury of time to replicate these to the extent of simple life forms.

We have a known mechanism for amino acids and some other organic molecules, yes. But not RNA nor DNA--wheras ID does have a mechanism.

Ah. Ok, so you are speaking through your arse. RNA is an organic acid and one understood rather well. As for ID having a viable mechanism, I echo the other arguments proposed. Explain the mechanism.

There abiogenesis hits some serious obstacles. When it comes to having a known mechanism (by which I mean a known means how it could have happened) ID has abiogenesis beat. Hence my question: why think abiogenesis is scientifically superior to ID?

Huh? The mechanisms of RNA replication are easily known, and described. Indeed, questions remain as to the precise mechanisms of how various chemical reactions have integrated, such as the containment within a micelle etc., however possibilities have been demonstrated.

No, it would be more like "Show that the suspect has the means to commit the crime." All I'm asking is for abiogenesis to have a means: some kind of possible mechanism. When it comes to that, ID has abiogenesis beat, as I suggested before.

Do you even understand what abiogenesis is? I'm beginning to suspect you don't.

Ack! It almost seems that nobody is reading the first post. ID as defined here is the theory that intelligent causes are necessary to create life. How to prove that intelligent causes aren't necessary to create life? Simply conduct an experiment showing how life could be created via undirected chemical reactions. This would demonstrate that artificial intervention is not needed. Thus, ID is falsifiable.

No. Science doesn't work that way. It would not falsify ID at all, as it can always be argued that the means discovered is intelligently controlled, especially when there is no precise definition of what consitutes an intelligently designed phenomenom.

I think I should remind you that I'm talking about the origins of life on Earth, not the universe.

Deisim is in part the description of the laws of the universe as being designed by intelligence (and hence give rise to life as a universal law); as such, it cannot be supported nor invalidated by science. If intelligence is responsible for life arising from simpler chemical reactions through natural laws, it is no different.

Athon

[athon]

Abiogenesis:

All living systems copy themselves, and do so imperfectly. Copies they make of themselves are not always exactly the same as the parent. Chains of nucleic acid molecules (Deoxyribonucleic Acid, or DNA, and Ribonucleic Acid, or RNA) have the special property of being able to make doubles of themselves through matching up to complimentary pieces. This very ‘double stranded’ property, in the right environment (relying on subtle changes in temperature), can produce numerous copies of a single nucleic acid string. No, it’s quite living, but basic forms of this process can technically exist independently of other reactions. Fluctuating temperature is essentially all it requires (we use enzymes in conjunction with this property in Polymerase Chain Reactions – PCR – to turn a small amount of DNA into more useful quantities).
A problem with this is the fact that ultra violet radiation breaks the bonds in chains of nucleic acid. Therefore, such reactions would have to occur in water beneath rock shelves or in deep water, away from direct sunlight.
Where does that leave us? With a rather general reaction of sequences of nucleic acid chemicals reproducing identical sequences? Actually, no. As I said, it’s not perfect. These sequences are not identical; mistakes happen. Now, suppose in a select location some sequences of nucleic acid are better at making copies of themselves. Or, they physically do a better job of just existing than other sequences. These threads will become more common than other nucleic acid combinations; more individual nucleic acid chemicals in the pool will find themselves in these ‘efficient’ sequences than in any other ‘less efficient’ sequences. We know that some combinations of nucleic acid are more stable than others in varying acidities, temperatures and salt concentrations...

...Let’s take this further. Forms of nucleic acid can interact with other chemicals, such as amino acid. Carbon is rather soluble in water, and has bonds that are strong and yet have a degree of flexibility. Organic chemicals have been found inside chunks of meteorite, indicating that they are hardly limited to Earth. Amino acids can form in relatively diverse environments, and have been demonstrated to be found in environments like that of early Earth. In other words, we don’t need life to have simple biochemical building-blocks.
Imagine that some nucleic acid sequences form which can associate with other groups of chemicals; occasionally ones that provide some small benefit. For instance, a select combination of nucleic acid might interact with an amino-acid to provide some basic protection against ultra violet light. Again, these sequences will become more numerous. So far, the only real resource is bits of loose nucleic acid and perhaps an amino-acid molecule. Pretty soon, we have basic competition in a chemical reaction that is beginning to become more complicated. More so, it is evolving due to the property nucleic acid has to be able to make imperfect copies of itself.
All life seems to rely on some form of distinctive boundary between it and its immediate environment. A membrane of lipids (fat molecules) is a perfect way of keeping a wall between the internal environment and the harsh aquatic world, with a hydrophobic tail pointing away from any water and the hydrophilic head forming the outer wall. We don’t recognize any life forms as being ‘acellular’. At some point, nucleic acid / protein structures became associated with biologically-independent bubbles of fat called ‘micelles’.
As the biochemical interactions became more complicated through simple chemical competition, those sequences that could access different forms of energy with greater efficiency gained an advantage. At some point, a sequence developed that allowed it access to a chemical reaction between carbon dioxide and water, inspired by doses of solar radiation. Now able to trap light energy, this opened up the possibility for other reactions to occur that gave further advantages. Unfortunately, this ability to trap light energy and change it into useful chemical energy also released a rather destructive element called ‘oxygen’.
And so the competition goes on. Countless sequences would be destroyed by oxidation, leaving only those that had combinations strong enough to cope.
Life persisted, sequences recombined, and eventually such a combination developed that led to a means of utilising this oxidation as an energy resource in its own right. Enlisting oxygen to reverse the process which initially utilised it to release it from carbon dioxide and water is called ‘respiration’; the main energy resource of a diverse array of modern organisms.
So which exact point can we call ‘the beginning of life’? Where precisely did ‘abiotic’ turn ‘biotic’? Was it when energy could be converted? Perhaps the first cells? The first successful sequences of nucleic acid?
Such is the spectrum of life; this question has no real answer.

Athon

[Tisthammerw]

So far, the only evidence I've seen is that abiogenesis has is that it has a known mechanism whereby it could have happened--but this is sharply limited.


Explain.


Well, for one there exists no known mechanism for abiogenesis to create RNA and DNA.




We have a known mechanism for amino acids and some other organic molecules, yes. But not RNA nor DNA--wheras ID does have a mechanism.


Ah. Ok, so you are speaking through your arse. RNA is an organic acid and one understood rather well.


Well, RNA could be called an organic acid (a type of nucleic acid to be precise) but we don't know of any undirected chemical reactions that could produce it.



As for ID having a viable mechanism, I echo the other arguments proposed. Explain the mechanism.


Scientists have means for creating RNA thanks to some scientific know-how and technological equipment. There's your mechanism.




There abiogenesis hits some serious obstacles. When it comes to having a known mechanism (by which I mean a known means how it could have happened) ID has abiogenesis beat. Hence my question: why think abiogenesis is scientifically superior to ID?


Huh? The mechanisms of RNA replication are easily known, and described.


They sure are. Too bad we can't get the RNA molecule in the first place. Abiogenesis needs to get the RNA first before RNA can self-replicate. Undirected chemical reactions face serious obstacles when trying to get RNA.



Do you even understand what abiogenesis is?


See the first post.



It would not falsify ID at all, as it can always be argued that the means discovered is intelligently controlled


And it can always be argued that an invisible unicorn messed up the experiment. What's your point?

If we truly show a means where undirected chemical reactions create life, it would show that artificial intervention is not necessary. Someone might claim that artificial intervention inappropriately interfered with the process, but that someone would be wrong. Besides, if worse comes to worse, ID can be falsified by observing a naturally-occurring primordial ooze creating life via undirected chemical reactions. That also would falsify ID.

[CFLarsen]

Well, I'm talking about a known mechanism for abiogenesis (by which I mean a known way it could have happened).

You are talking about a postulated mechanism. You have not shown this mechanism to exist.

Um, no. It doesn't require that at all. To falsify ID, the experiment shows a means whereby undirected chemical reactions create life from non-life. Interference from intelligent agents is precisely what we don't want in this experiment.

I am talking about your argument, Wade: That an intelligent designer steps in. Are you with me so far?

Except for intelligent design theory, considering I have been able to come up with a conceivable experiment that would falsify it whereas you have not done the same for abiogenesis.

Except for intelligent design theory?

I'm sorry, but I don't understand you at all. Are you arguing that there can be intelligent design without a designer?

:rolleseys Not this again.

Yes, this again. Everytime you claim you weren't plagiarizing, I will provide the evidence that you did.

Um, see the first post. The definition of intelligent design being used here does not have any supernatural forces in it. If you don't want to abide by the definitions, you have the option of not participating in this thread.

Wade, you can't postulate something that is supernatural and then declare it not to be. You can't make up your own definitions and then declare that we are wrong.

Technically, yes. But the ID form applied here works rather well here don't you think? I will admit that it's possible that ID will be falsified, I just don't see it as any more likely than finding natural processes that create Rosetta Stones.

The "ID form", as you call it, does not include a supernatural force. We also have supporting evidence, also not supernatural.

Do we actually have a known means (by which I mean a known way how it could have happened) for undirected chemical reactions to create life from non-life? If you have found such a way, do the experiment and submit the paper on it to a peer-reviewed scientific journal. You'll be sure to win the Nobel Prize.

You can't have such an "undirected" experiment. The moment you put down the building blocks in the test tube, you have directed the experiment.

[Earthborn]

To falsify it, simply demonstrate a means how the said structures could be formed naturally.The problem is that in Lakatos' view, the different claims that specific structures cannot be formed naturally, are just auxillary hypotheses (see the link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakatos)). Therefore each and everyone of them can be safely abadoned without needing to touch the hard core of the Intelligent Design research program: that life cannot arise without interference of an intelligent being.

The hard core of Intelligent Design is unfalsifiable, as it should be according to Lakatos' philosophy of science.

simply conduct an experiment whereby undirected chemical reactions create life.It cannot be a matter of 'simply conducting an experiment' because first there needs to be an agreement on what constitutes a failure or success of the experiment. That's very difficult in this case, because there is no common definition of what constitutes 'life'. Scientists who believe in abiogenesis do not even believe that such a definition is possible, as they assume there is no clear dividing line between life and non-life.

They come up with all sorts of clever experiments where they manage to create through undirected chemical reactions allsorts of characteristics that are considered life-like. They assume (rightly so, IMHO) that this supports their case that life could have arised that way. But none of them will claim that what they create that way is undisputably alive, because -- according to their theory -- life didn't start out undisputably alive. It supposedly started very simple and over the course of millions of years evolved into something that we would recognise as life.

Asking them to conduct an experiment that through undirected chemical reactions creates something that is undisputably alive within a reasonable time is asking them to do something that they don't even claim is possible.

Even if we exclusively use Popper's falsificationism, it isn't good enough to have a single experiment that could potentially falsify Intelligent Design. Karl Popper thought that a theory is more or less scientific depending on how easily falsifiable it is. If Intelligent Design can only be falsified with an experiment that perhaps needs to run for a million years, than it is not very scientific according to falsificationism.

On the other hand, in Lakatos' philosophy of science, Intelligent Design can be seen scientific. Its research program is just not very successful.

[athon]

Well, for one there exists no known mechanism for abiogenesis to create RNA and DNA.

There are several contenders: http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Ecology/chemical_etiology_of_nucleic_aci.htm

The etiology of present 'vivo' ribofuranosyl nucleic acids has comparitive structures that occur naturally (we know this simply because present life forms do not use them, hence they could only occur through natural chemistry). How they were selected and how they evolved is still debated.

The question of whether amino acid polymers came before RNA's is a contentious issue, however one where the amino acid camp is gaining ground. Personally, I still feel that a polymer precursor of modern vivo RNA is more likely to have been responsible for influencing amino acid polymerisation, however am happy to be swayed.

Well, RNA could be called an organic acid (a type of nucleic acid to be precise) but we don't know of any undirected chemical reactions that could produce it.

Um, could be?

As I said, we do know of several. The problem is that in nature, life is a rather efficient array of reactions, and RNA is rarely found as a polymer outside of a cell (in part because RNA nucleases are an incredibly robust enzyme and can be found nearly everywhere). Organisms will readily snap up any piece of free-floating RNA molecules, thereby outcompeting any new abiogenetic processes. Hence we look to other members of the ribofuranysol nucleic acid family, or to other sugars that exhibit similar properties.

Scientists have means for creating RNA thanks to some scientific know-how and technological equipment. There's your mechanism.

Ok, so that's the crook of your argument? That we don't know which precise mechanism accounts for present RNA evolution?

That by no means disqualifies the science behind it. As I said, we have candidates, of which some are more likely than others.

If we truly show a means where undirected chemical reactions create life, it would show that artificial intervention is not necessary.
Someone might claim that artificial intervention inappropriately interfered with the process, but that someone would be wrong.

Why?

Besides, if worse comes to worse, ID can be falsified by observing a naturally-occurring primordial ooze creating life via undirected chemical reactions. That also would falsify ID.

How would you qualify it to be a novel living process created abiogenically? At what point would you define it to be 'alive'?

Athon

[Mojo]

Please quote a specific example of me using this argument (the one where you said "so it must be an intelligent designer").Your proposed mechanism for abiogenesis via ID seems to involve scientists synthesising the chemicals necessary for life. If that's not an intelligent designer...

Or do you have another mechanism to suggest?

[Mojo]

But intelligent design (as defined in the first post) does not necessarily make the claim you described. It doesn't say that all forms of complexity require a designer, just that some forms (namely the kind of life we see on Earth) do. (post #101)So you are claimig that your "designer" (or at least some ultimate "designer of designers") arose spontaneously somewhere else, without needing a designer? This still doesn't address the objection raised by the basic claim of ID, that complexity cannot arise spontaneously.

And lookee here:ID as defined here is the theory that artificial intervention is necessary to create life. If undirected chemical reactions can create life, then artificial intervention is obviously not necessary. Hence, ID would be falsified. (post #102)

[Darat]

Mojo - yep those damn turtles are still there...

[Dragon]

Mojo - yep those damn turtles are still there...I see a parallel here with the "Berkeley's Demon" of the idealists. Perhaps we should just shout "Turtles!" every time a creationist's logic leads to infinite regression.

[Mojo]

Perhaps we should just shout "Turtles!" every time a creationist's logic leads to infinite regression.:turtle: :turtle: :turtle: :turtle: :turtle:

[Mojo]

To falsify ID, the experiment shows a means whereby undirected chemical reactions create life from non-life. Interference from intelligent agents is precisely what we don't want in this experiment. Well, I assume that it would be the IDers running the experiment.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Well, for one there exists no known mechanism for abiogenesis to create RNA and DNA.

God of the gaps argument.



Well, RNA could be called an organic acid (a type of nucleic acid to be precise) but we don't know of any undirected chemical reactions that could produce it.

God of the gaps argument.



Scientists have means for creating RNA thanks to some scientific know-how and technological equipment. There's your mechanism.

The scientistics may be testing a number of things. Expound on this point please.



They sure are. Too bad we can't get the RNA molecule in the first place. Abiogenesis needs to get the RNA first before RNA can self-replicate. Undirected chemical reactions face serious obstacles when trying to get RNA.

God of the gaps argument.




And it can always be argued that an invisible unicorn messed up the experiment. What's your point?

Because people, such as yourself, will make arguments like

Scientists have means for creating RNA thanks to some scientific know-how and technological equipment. There's your mechanism.

Arguing that is actually evidence _for_ ID.


If we truly show a means where undirected chemical reactions create life, it would show that artificial intervention is not necessary. Someone might claim that artificial intervention inappropriately interfered with the process, but that someone would be wrong.

Why? You use that argument yourself above.


Besides, if worse comes to worse, ID can be falsified by observing a naturally-occurring primordial ooze creating life via undirected chemical reactions. That also would falsify ID.
No, because ID can still claim that what was observed was influenced, but the observer was unaware of the influence occurring.

ID does not make falsifiable predictions.

[T'ai Chi]

Well, for one there exists no known mechanism for abiogenesis to create RNA and DNA.


Time + Chance = Miracle.

It is naturalistic turtle explanations all the way down. :D

[blutoski]

I read somewhere that the philosophy of science has gone well beyond Popper's idea that theories must be falsfiable to be scientific.

IIRC, this is not necessarily an element of a good scientific theory anymore (as this criterion results in excluding many areas of study that are clearly scientific-- though I can't remember examples of these, of course....)

Anyway, I've heard a few times that Popperian falsification via modus tollens is not the norm for philosophy of science types.

Anyone out there have more info on this? I think it could shed light on the poster's main question.

Well, I think this is a good assessment of the state of the field, yes.

It think the key is that while Popper's work was a huge influence on the theory-of-scientific-methodology dialogue, it did not bring the debate to a conclusion. What makes science work well has not been easy to systemize. One obvious reason is that approaches change over time as we learn what works better.

We call it 'falsifiability' today, but Popper called it "conjecture-refutation," and it's not the unquestionable, rigid, definition of a scientific hypothesis, but it's a good place to start. He was talking more about epistemology than methodology at this point.

Which is interesting, because skeptics tend to characterize what makes us different as methodology rather than a body of knowledge.

Also, there's a whole legion of critics who disagree with his attempt to find a 'one size fits all' solution to problem-solving. He argue that conjecture-refutation could help us learn about politics, history, and so on. In other words: his epistemology solution was part of a larger project which has not found much acceptance outside the natural sciences.

[blutoski]

Your proposed mechanism for abiogenesis via ID seems to involve scientists synthesising the chemicals necessary for life. If that's not an intelligent designer...

Or do you have another mechanism to suggest?

Yeah, I think that's a good question: why are ID defenders so stuck on this one particular refutation, when so many others are available?

And it's not even a refutation: it's a counter-demonstration. Nay: it's a complete re-enactment, what they're demanding.

The IDers have made a big concession, compared to CS: they have opened the door for hypotheses like those of the Raelians and panspermia. I suppose they're gambling that these competing apologetics will be marginalized by a parallel campaign to promote their solution to the "and who could that designer be?" Classic rhetoric.



Back to the issue of demands for a demonstration: ID is not saying that they have found a creator: they do not have to produce one for the theory to be entertained. They say that they have found evidence of a creator. OK: so why then, are they demanding more than just evidence for abiogenesis? Why do they want an end-to-end demonstration?

The answer is because if they demand the same level of evidence they're providing, we can supply it. Scaffolding and redundancy examples come to mind. IDers don't discuss these, because it would lead to questions.

[Lamuella]

First, intelligent design of life does not require the supernatural (going by the definitions I am using; see the first post).


It absolutely and entirely does. If you are saying that life on earth was designed by a non-supernatural being, then all you are doing is pushing the question back. Who designed our designers? Who designed their designers?

Ultimately, there has to either be an episode of life coming from non-life by natural means or an episode of life coming from from non-life by supernatural means.

[drfrank]

Well, for one there exists no known mechanism for abiogenesis to create RNA and DNA.

Right, so although there's good evidence that amino acids could form naturally, and that small peptide chains could arise that could spontaneously self-reproduce, the current gap of exactly how RNA and DNA came to be means that God must have come down and prodded the proto-life a little so it had a better way of storing information?

Jeebus but that's a chronically poor God-of-the-gaps argument :p

[Lamuella]

Which is not really relevant. ID (as defined in the first post) isn't explaining the ultimate origin of all possible forms life, just life as we know it on Earth.

Then it's an incomplete and fairly useless definition. If you are saying that intelligent causes were necessary for the formation of life on Earth, then you are either saying that intelligent causes were necessary for the formation of life anywhere, or that there is something about Earth that means that life could not arise naturally here, even if it arose naturally somewhere else. As we have no evidence whatsoever of life on any other planets, the second point is pretty much impossible to support, so you are left with the first.

[Lamuella]

Please see the first post where I described the theory.

You really, really need to go look up the scientific definition of the term "theory". It does not mean what you think it means. "Intelligent causes are necessary for the creation of life on Earth" is not a theory. It's not even a hypothesis.

[hammegk]

Ultimately, there has to either be an episode of life coming from non-life by natural means or an episode of life coming from from non-life by supernatural means.
Alternatively, one could conclude that what is perceived as non-life is an epiphenomena of life. Or, could say non-life supervenes on life. There's nothing supernatural there. :)

Science cannot, ever, answer the actual question. For example, should what we name 'life' be perceived emerging from what we perceive as 'non-life' that will never provide an answer to: "Does life, a 'spark' in some sense, characterize existence? Or is the monism truly non-life?".

[Lamuella]

nothing supernatural, but nothing in any way likely. Are you really suggesting that non-living things depend on living things for their existence? Or are you just waffling metaphysics again?

[hammegk]

We reach an area where physics=metaphysics. As one way to express it:

For naturalism, energy<>matter>life>mind; the physicalists' monism,

For ~naturalism, mind<>energy<>matter>life; the idealists' monism.


Which monism are *you* most certain exists? Note that this choice is what offers the escape from dualism of some sort, and will impact on every subsequent analysis of data you choose to 'believe in'.

[Tisthammerw]

Some of the same issues keep coming up. So I’ll create a reference post: this one.

Sadly, many people seem not to read the first post to see the definitions of the terms I am using. So I’ll reproduce the definitions here:


Definitions (for this post)

Abiogenesis: the belief that life on Earth spontaneously arose from non-living matter (as through undirected chemical reactions)

Intelligent design: the belief that intelligent causes are necessary for the creation of life on Earth.

Note: when I talk about "life" in these contexts I am only referring to the sort of biochemical machinery we see on Earth. I admit the possibility that perhaps there exists other forms of life (other than that of Earth) that could have come about naturally.

Now let’s look at some of the common objections:

Intelligent design is not testable/falsifiable

The importance of falsifiability has been exaggerated, as things like background assumptions and the Duhem-Quine thesis complicate matters (see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhem-Quine_thesis)). Nonetheless, it is true theories that are more falsifiable are preferred in science, and some theories have background assumptions that are relatively trivial so that for all practical purposes they are falsifiable (such as the flat Earth theory—simply fly around the planet in a spaceship and the theory is disproved).

That said, it is easy to conceive of an experiment that would falsify intelligent design. Notably, the same is not true for abiogenesis. ID (intelligent design) also has testable predictions:


(1) We will never find a means for undirected chemical reactions to create life from non-life, because artificial intervention is necessary (note: if this prediction is falsified, ID is falsified)

(2) Because artificial intervention is necessary, we should find serious and significant obstacles to the naturalistic formation of life.


To falsify the first prediction, simply create a realistic and plausible starting point (as conditions resembling the primordial Earth) then step back and let undirected chemical reactions take their course. If they produce life, this would show that intelligent causes are not necessary, since we will have shown that undirected chemical reactions can do the trick. This prediction may not sound like much, but it is empirically testable and makes the theory falsifiable. (Whereas there is no conceivable experiment that could falsify abiogenesis).

To go to the extreme, another scenario that would falsify ID is if we found a naturally occurring primordial ooze, and out of this ooze undirected chemical reactions create life.


Abiogenesis has a known mechanism, thus having evidence

It is true that abiogenesis has the following prediction:

(1) It predicts the existence of a known mechanism (by which I mean a known way it could have happened) to spontaneously form life from non-life.

The problem is that the success of this prediction has been very sharply limited. It is true that we can find a way to get amino acids (components of proteins) and components of RNA and DNA, but trying to get functional proteins, RNA and DNA run into serious obstacles. (In this way, note that the second ID prediction has been confirmed.) Then of course there is also the matter of assembling the molecules to form a complex biochemical machine we call a single-celled organism (to me this barrier seems insurmountable) but for now the three things I listed above should do.

Another problem is when it comes to having a known mechanism, ID beats out abiogenesis. Scientists have machinery that can synthesize RNA and DNA—thus we have a rigorously known means how it could have happened. But a known mechanism for these two molecules is simply not the case for abiogenesis.

A known mechanism constitutes evidence for abiogenesis, sure. But ID is still superior to abiogenesis in that regard. So hence my question: why think abiogenesis is scientifically superior to intelligent design?


Intelligent design is an illegitimate explanation, because it doesn't explain the origin of the designer

But this doesn't seem like a reasonable grounds to reject the theory. Imagine for instance we find a stainless steel replica of Stonehenge on Mars. Do we reject intelligent design here because we don't know the origin or identity of the designers? Obviously not. Also note that ID doesn’t purport to explain the ultimate origin of all life, just the kind of biochemical machinery we see on Earth (see below).

Intelligent design requires the supernatural

The theory defined above does not contain the supernatural. Also, some kinds of complexity require a designer whereas some do not. If you're an adherent of abiogenesis, think of humans creating intelligent robots. Perhaps the same is true for life: our designers have a different sort of complexity that could have come about naturally. There is also the predestination paradox: humans went back in time to create life on Earth. I personally reject these explanations, but the bottom line is that ID doesn't require the supernatural any more than the big bang theory (some theists use the big bang to support the existence of God, as it seems to suggest that the known physical universe had a beginning).


Limits of ID

One of the limitations of ID is that (like most scientific theories) it cannot be proven. There is also at least the outside chance that the predictions will be disproved and the theory falsified. Nonetheless, all things considered I think it wins the game of inference to the best explanation (so far). Given the facts as listed above, on what grounds can we say abiogenesis is scientifically superior?

[Mojo]

Another problem is when it comes to having a known mechanism, ID beats out abiogenesis. Scientists have machinery that can synthesize RNA and DNA—thus we have a rigorously known means how it could have happened.
You really don't get it, do you: this is not a credible mechanism for the origin of life because it requires scientists to have arisen before life did.

[Tisthammerw]

You are talking about a postulated mechanism. You have not shown this mechanism to exist.


We have shown that a means exists, i.e. a known possible way it could have happened.




Um, no. It doesn't require that at all. To falsify ID, the experiment shows a means whereby undirected chemical reactions create life from non-life. Interference from intelligent agents is precisely what we don't want in this experiment.


I am talking about your argument, Wade: That an intelligent designer steps in. Are you with me so far?


The better question is are you with me. You were responding to a conceivable experiment that would falsify intelligent design, remember?




Except for intelligent design theory, considering I have been able to come up with a conceivable experiment that would falsify it whereas you have not done the same for abiogenesis.


Except for intelligent design theory?


Yes, ID is falsifiable as I have shown before.



Yes, this again. Everytime you claim you weren't plagiarizing, I will provide the evidence that you did.


And I will post the same response to your "evidence" as last time.




Um, see the first post. The definition of intelligent design being used here does not have any supernatural forces in it. If you don't want to abide by the definitions, you have the option of not participating in this thread.


Wade, you can't postulate something that is supernatural and then declare it not to be.


Again, read the first post. There is nothing supernatural in the definition I'm using. And my definition of ID really isn't so radical (note the source I gave that used a similar definition). If you are really that upset about it and don't want to talk about this form of ID, you have the option of not participating in this thread.



You can't have such an "undirected" experiment. The moment you put down the building blocks in the test tube, you have directed the experiment.

The best solution appears to be to create a realistic and plausible starting point (as conditions resembling primordial Earth), then step back and let undirected chemical reactions take their course. If you really want to go to the extreme, find a naturally occurring primordial ooze and see undirected chemical reactions create life. That would also falsify ID.

[CFLarsen]

Some of the same issues keep coming up. So I’ll create a reference post: this one.

Sadly, many people seem not to read the first post to see the definitions of the terms I am using. So I’ll reproduce the definitions here:



Now let’s look at some of the common objections:

Intelligent design is not testable/falsifiable

The importance of falsifiability has been exaggerated, as things like background assumptions and the Duhem-Quine thesis complicate matters (see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhem-Quine_thesis)). Nonetheless, it is true theories that are more falsifiable are preferred in science, and some theories have background assumptions that are relatively trivial so that for all practical purposes they are falsifiable (such as the flat Earth theory—simply fly around the planet in a spaceship and the theory is disproved).

That said, it is easy to conceive of an experiment that would falsify intelligent design. Notably, the same is not true for abiogenesis. ID (intelligent design) also has testable predictions:



To falsify the first prediction, simply create a realistic and plausible starting point (as conditions resembling the primordial Earth) then step back and let undirected chemical reactions take their course. If they produce life, this would show that intelligent causes are not necessary, since we will have shown that undirected chemical reactions can do the trick. This prediction may not sound like much, but it is empirically testable and makes the theory falsifiable. (Whereas there is no conceivable experiment that could falsify abiogenesis).

To go to the extreme, another scenario that would falsify ID is if we found a naturally occurring primordial ooze, and out of this ooze undirected chemical reactions create life.


Abiogenesis has a known mechanism, thus having evidence

It is true that abiogenesis has the following prediction:

(1) It predicts the existence of a known mechanism (by which I mean a known way it could have happened) to spontaneously form life from non-life.

The problem is that the success of this prediction has been very sharply limited. It is true that we can find a way to get amino acids (components of proteins) and components of RNA and DNA, but trying to get functional proteins, RNA and DNA run into serious obstacles. (In this way, note that the second ID prediction has been confirmed.) Then of course there is also the matter of assembling the molecules to form a complex biochemical machine we call a single-celled organism (to me this barrier seems insurmountable) but for now the three things I listed above should do.

Another problem is when it comes to having a known mechanism, ID beats out abiogenesis. Scientists have machinery that can synthesize RNA and DNA—thus we have a rigorously known means how it could have happened. But a known mechanism for these two molecules is simply not the case for abiogenesis.

A known mechanism constitutes evidence for abiogenesis, sure. But ID is still superior to abiogenesis in that regard. So hence my question: why think abiogenesis is scientifically superior to intelligent design?


Intelligent design is an illegitimate explanation, because it doesn't explain the origin of the designer

But this doesn't seem like a reasonable grounds to reject the theory. Imagine for instance we find a stainless steel replica of Stonehenge on Mars. Do we reject intelligent design here because we don't know the origin or identity of the designers? Obviously not. Also note that ID doesn’t purport to explain the ultimate origin of all life, just life on Earth (see below).

Intelligent design requires the supernatural

The theory defined above does not contain the supernatural. Also, some kinds of complexity require a designer whereas some do not. If you're an adherent of abiogenesis, think of humans creating intelligent robots. Perhaps the same is true for life: our designers have a different sort of complexity that could have come about naturally. There is also the predestination paradox: humans went back in time to create life on Earth. I personally reject these explanations, but the bottom line is that ID doesn't require the supernatural any more than the big bang theory (some theists use the big bang to support the existence of God, as it seems to suggest that the known physical universe had a beginning).


Limits of ID

One of the limitations of ID is that (like most scientific theories) it cannot be proven. There is also at least the outside chance that the predictions will be disproved and the theory falsified. Nonetheless, all things considered I think it wins the game of inference to the best explanation (so far). Given the facts as listed above, on what grounds can we say abiogenesis is scientifically superior?

"When cornered, go back to square 1, and pretend you have never been cornered".

[Tisthammerw]

Please quote a specific example of me using this argument (the one where you said "so it must be an intelligent designer").


Your proposed mechanism for abiogenesis via ID seems to involve scientists synthesising the chemicals necessary for life. If that's not an intelligent designer...

So what? That is not an instance of me using the argument, "You can't imagine/explain/understand how things happen, so it must be an intelligent designer."


So you are claimig that your "designer" (or at least some ultimate "designer of designers") arose spontaneously somewhere else, without needing a designer? This still doesn't address the objection raised by the basic claim of ID, that complexity cannot arise spontaneously.


As I said, that is not a "basic claim" of ID. You have oversimplified the theory. Both evolutionists and creationists recognize that some kinds of complexity can arise spontaneously (as snowflakes) whereas others cannot (as automobiles). It is logically possible that the designer as a type of complexity that could have come about naturally. What I believe is that life of the sort we find on Earth could not have come about naturally (sorry if I wasn't clear on that before).




To falsify ID, the experiment shows a means whereby undirected chemical reactions create life from non-life. Interference from intelligent agents is precisely what we don't want in this experiment.


Well, I assume that it would be the IDers running the experiment.


Well, not necessarily. In any case it doesn't matter who runs the experiment, so long as we create a realistic and plausible starting point (as one resembling the conditions of primeval Earth) and let undirected chemical reactions take their course.




Another problem is when it comes to having a known mechanism, ID beats out abiogenesis. Scientists have machinery that can synthesize RNA and DNA—thus we have a rigorously known means how it could have happened.


You really don't get it, do you: this is not a credible mechanism for the origin of life because it requires scientists to have arisen before life did.


Which is irrelevant, since ID (as defined here) does not propose to explain the ultimate origin of all life, just the kind of biochemical machinery we see on Earth. (See post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142) for more info.)

[H3LL]

See sig....

.

[CFLarsen]

We have shown that a means exists, i.e. a known possible way it could have happened.

That "possible way" requires a supernatural cause.

The better question is are you with me. You were responding to a conceivable experiment that would falsify intelligent design, remember?

How can you have an experiment that doesn't include outside interference?

Yes, ID is falsifiable as I have shown before.

Let me get this straight, OK?

You are saying that:

1) If we invoke something from the outside (God, Aliens, whatever), we cannot falsify it.

1b) This doesn't apply to Intelligent Design. And only Intelligent Design. Because you say so.

Correct?

And I will post the same response to your "evidence" as last time.

I'm quite alright with that. It will only emphasize that you are a liar and a plagiarist.

Again, read the first post. There is nothing supernatural in the definition I'm using. And my definition of ID really isn't so radical (note the source I gave that used a similar definition). If you are really that upset about it and don't want to talk about this form of ID, you have the option of not participating in this thread.

You need to explain - by natural means - that an intelligent designer exists. You can't just say "Hey, I declare ID to be falsifiable, so my argument is valid".

Explain how an intelligent designer can create life by natural means. No, it's not enough to simply declare that others prove you wrong. You have to provide your own evidence.

The best solution appears to be to create a realistic and plausible starting point (as conditions resembling primordial Earth), then step back and let undirected chemical reactions take their course. If you really want to go to the extreme, find a naturally occurring primordial ooze and see undirected chemical reactions create life. That would also falsify ID.

But then, you have a directed experiment! You have decided what building blocks go in the test tube.

What is it about this you don't understand?

[Earthborn]

(1) We will never find a means for undirected chemical reactions to create life from non-life, because artificial intervention is necessary (note: if this prediction is falsified, ID is falsified)If you can define life and can explain what the difference is between life and non-life, you may have a point. So start explaining.

[Tisthammerw]

First, intelligent design of life does not require the supernatural (going by the definitions I am using; see the first post).


It absolutely and entirely does. If you are saying that life on earth was designed by a non-supernatural being, then all you are doing is pushing the question back. Who designed our designers?


None of this appears to be a good reason to reject the theory. (See post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142).) Think of it this way, if we had videotaped evidence that aliens of a radically different kind of complexity than ours created life on Earth, should science textbooks everywhere exclude the theory because we don't know the origin of the designers? Obviously not.



If you are saying that intelligent causes were necessary for the formation of life on Earth, then you are either saying that intelligent causes were necessary for the formation of life anywhere, or that there is something about Earth that means that life could not arise naturally here, even if it arose naturally somewhere else.

I'm saying that our kind of life has a type of complexity that could not have come about naturally--just as automobiles do. This doesn't rule out the possibility of other forms of complexity arising naturally. If you're an adherent of abiogenesis, think of humans creating intelligent robots. Does the fact that the robots have an intelligent designer mean humans have one too?

[drfrank]

...and all that differs from a God of the gaps argument how?


(1) We will never find a means for undirected chemical reactions to create life from non-life, because artificial intervention is necessary (note: if this prediction is falsified, ID is falsified)

(2) Because artificial intervention is necessary, we should find serious and significant obstacles to the naturalistic formation of life.

Both of these are negative predictions and completely useless. They are true by default and require evidence in order to be disproven. You should be showing evidence why it is impossible, not just stating it and expecting scientists to prove you wrong. Until you show positive evidence, then there's nothing backing up the hypothesis.

To falsify the first prediction, simply create a realistic and plausible starting point (as conditions resembling the primordial Earth) then step back and let undirected chemical reactions take their course. If they produce life, this would show that intelligent causes are not necessary, since we will have shown that undirected chemical reactions can do the trick. This prediction may not sound like much, but it is empirically testable and makes the theory falsifiable. (Whereas there is no conceivable experiment that could falsify abiogenesis).
Sure, got funding for a 10 million years? Such an experiment is completely impossible in practice, and you know it. The best that is possible is to demonstrate the feasibility of the various chemical transitions.

The success of Intelligent Design as regards origins is purely based on creating a false dichotomy and poking holes in current scientific theories of abiogenesis.

Then of course there is also the matter of assembling the molecules to form a complex biochemical machine we call a single-celled organism (to me this barrier seems insurmountable)
...and we should respect your opinion because of all the peer-reviewed articles that you've published in this field?

Argument from personal incredulity (again).

Another problem is when it comes to having a known mechanism, ID beats out abiogenesis

Har-di-har-har. The mechanism for ID is not known, but purely speculative. Knowing the mechanism involves knowing some attributes of the designer, or some of their motivations, and being able to make predictions based on that. You have absolutely no positive evidence for the existence of a designer, never mind any attributes that would produce useful predictions. The only predictions you have are negative ones such as "abiogenesis cannot currently explain X", which is again merely picking holes in the current scientific theory. When X is explained, then you'll simply pick a new X that isn't currently explained.

One of the limitations of ID is that (like most scientific theories) it cannot be proven. There is also at least the outside chance that the predictions will be disproved and the theory falsified. Nonetheless, all things considered I think it wins the game of inference to the best explanation (so far). Given the facts as listed above, on what grounds can we say abiogenesis is scientifically superior?
One of the limitations of ID is that it will be consistent with all possible observations and thus is useless. Short of the ridiculous and impossible experiment you describe, it's completely unfalsifiable.

As I said before, the main thing that makes ID not science is the fact that there isn't a single ID proponent out there actually doing any experiments in this area. Not one. All they do is look superficially at existing science done by real scientists and try to critique it to fit into their agenda.

[Mojo]

Which is irrelevant, since ID (as defined here) does not propose to explain the ultimate origin of all life, just the kind of biochemical machinery we see on Earth. :turtle: :turtle: :turtle: :turtle: :turtle: :turtle:

[drfrank]

:turtle: :turtle: :turtle: :turtle: :turtle: :turtle:
All the way down, you say?

[Tisthammerw]

God of the gaps argument.


Well, for one there exists no known mechanism for abiogenesis to create RNA and DNA.


God of the gaps argument.



Well, RNA could be called an organic acid (a type of nucleic acid to be precise) but we don't know of any undirected chemical reactions that could produce it.


God of the gaps argument.

....


They sure are. Too bad we can't get the RNA molecule in the first place. Abiogenesis needs to get the RNA first before RNA can self-replicate. Undirected chemical reactions face serious obstacles when trying to get RNA.


God of the gaps argument.



None of these are "God of the gaps" argument because I wasn't using those facts to conclude "therefore, design." I was just pointing out some a certain fact of abiogenesis: the limits of its prediction (regarding having a mechanism). I noted that ID has a known possible mechanism to work with--more so than abiogenesis. Hence my question: why think abiogenesis is scientifically superior to intelligent design? (See post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142).)




Besides, if worse comes to worse, ID can be falsified by observing a naturally-occurring primordial ooze creating life via undirected chemical reactions. That also would falsify ID.


No, because ID can still claim that what was observed was influenced, but the observer was unaware of the influence occurring.


But this can be said for any experiment. By this logic absolutely nothing in science is falsifiable--there could always be some invisible undetectable forces interfering with the experiment without our knowledge. For instance, the flat Earth theory is no longer falsifiable because when we fly the spaceship around the Earth there were invisible undetectable influences on the experiment.

Now I will admit the limits of falsificationism due to background assumptions, and ID has background assumptions, sure. But these assumptions are relatively trivial and common to most if not all tests for scientific theories. ID is about as falsifiable as science can get, certainly more so than abiogenesis. (I challenge you to conceive of a possible experiment that would falsify abiogenesis.)

[Mojo]

As I said, that is not a "basic claim" of ID. Ever hear of a chap called Dembski?

Anyway, if his thinking doesn't represent the thinking behind ID perhaps we should see what the other bloke (http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1567967,00.html) says the basic reasoning behind ID is: Everybody - even Richard Dawkins - sees design in biology. You see this design when you see co-ordinated parts coming together to perform a function - like in a hand. And so it's the appearance of design that everybody's trying to explain. So that if Darwin's theory doesn't explain it we're left with no other explanation than maybe it really was designed. That's essentially the design argument.Pretty scientific, huh?

[Mojo]

None of these are "God of the gaps" argument because I wasn't using those facts to conclude "therefore, design." I was just pointing out some a certain fact of abiogenesis: the limits of its prediction (regarding having a mechanism). I noted that ID has a known possible mechanism to work with--more so than abiogenesis. Albeit one that requires intelligence to spontaneously arise before life does.

[Tisthammerw]

...and all that differs from a God of the gaps argument how?


And all that is a God of the gaps argument how?



Both of these are negative predictions and completely useless. They are true by default and require evidence in order to be disproven.


Neither of those statements is true. For instance, "serious and significant barriers" have to be found--they don't automatically exist without scientific research. The first prediction is useful in that it makes the theory falsifiable.



You should be showing evidence why it is impossible


Not impossible, technically. But speaking of evidence of barriers, note the water problem I discussed earlier in this thread (an obstacle to getting functional proteins). That counts as at least some degree of evidence (it confirms the second prediction). Note the even more serious obstacles of getting RNA and DNA via undirected chemical reactions.



Argument from personal incredulity (again).


Huh? I wasn't stating this to be rock solid evidence for ID, I was just stating my personal belief. The obstacle appears insurmountable.




Another problem is when it comes to having a known mechanism, ID beats out abiogenesis


Har-di-har-har. The mechanism for ID is not known, but purely speculative.


Apparently you didn't pay close enough attention to this text in post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142): "known mechanism (by which I mean a known way it could have happened)"

In that sense ID has a known mechanism--more so than abiogenesis. That's all I meant.



One of the limitations of ID is that it will be consistent with all possible observations and thus is useless.


That is not true, as I illustrated in post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142).


Short of the ridiculous and impossible experiment you describe, it's completely unfalsifiable.


The experiment is not impossible. It involves no violations of physical laws etc. to set up the experiment that in one day falsifies the belief that artificial intervention is necessary. Whether the experiment is "ridiculous" I suppose is a matter of subjective interpretation. In any case, it is not the case that ID is "consistent with all possible observations." If anything, it is abiogenesis that is not falsifiable. There is no conceivable experiment that could falsify it--whereas we can at least conceive of an experiment that would falsify ID.



As I said before, the main thing that makes ID not science is the fact that there isn't a single ID proponent out there actually doing any experiments in this area. Not one.


But this attacks the adherent, not the theory. The empirical data and the predictions of both theories remain unchanged. So now we get back to my question: what makes the theory of ID scientifically inferior to abiogenesis? What makes abiogenesis scientifically superior to ID?

[Rasmus]

Regarding the known mechanisms of ID:

If someone asks me where ny bicycle came from, and I just point to a guy and say "he built it", would you then know a single thing about how the bicycle was made?

I think not.

Rasmus.

[Tisthammerw]

We have shown that a means exists, i.e. a known possible way it could have happened.


That "possible way" requires a supernatural cause.


You're saying that scientists creating DNA invokes supernatual causes? I wouldn't go that far.

When I say "possible means" I am talking about what scientists have done. Scientists have synthesized functional proteins, RNA and DNA.




The better question is are you with me. You were responding to a conceivable experiment that would falsify intelligent design, remember?


How can you have an experiment that doesn't include outside interference?


Shoot anyone who tries to interfere (kidding, but you get the idea).



Let me get this straight, OK?

You are saying that:

1) If we invoke something from the outside (God, Aliens, whatever), we cannot falsify it.


No, I am not saying that. If we say that cause of type X is necessary for Y, to disprove this theory simply conduct an experiment where Y is produced without X.



Explain how an intelligent designer can create life by natural means.


Through the use of technology (scientists already use technology to create DNA). No supernatural forces are required.



But then, you have a directed experiment!


But not in any relevant way. As long as the starting point we create is realistic and plausible (i.e. resembling early Earth conditions) we will have shown that artificial intervention is not necessary.

If worse comes to worse, we can conceive of a completely undirected experiment: a naturally occurring primordial ooze spontaneously forming life (we would merely be the observers).

[Mojo]

In that sense ID has a known mechanism--more so than abiogenesis. That's all I meant.Have you got a mechanism for intelligence spontaneously arising in the absence of life? If not, you don't have a mechanism for ID as the origin of life.

[Tisthammerw]

As I said, that is not a "basic claim" of ID.


Ever hear of a chap called Dembski?


Yes, but (1) the basic claim does not appear--directly or otherwise--in the definition of ID this thread is using (see the first post and post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142); and (2) I have never seen Dembski claim that all complexity requires a designer.

Have you got a mechanism for intelligence spontaneously arising in the absence of life? If not, you don't have a mechanism for ID as the origin of life.

That doesn't logically follow. Remember, we're talking about the biochemical machinery we see on Earth. When it comes to that, ID has more of a known mechanism than abiogenesis (e.g. in getting RNA).

Now let's get back to question at hand. Given what I said at #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142), why do you believe abiogenesis is scientifically superior to ID? (Note: remember which theory has advanced the most in having a known mechanism.)

[Lamuella]

We reach an area where physics=metaphysics.

no, we don't.

Science is about what is detectable. It could all be caused by magic pink unicorns behind the scenes, but until they become detectable, science will just have to go with what actually has any impact on the natural world.

[CFLarsen]

You're saying that scientists creating DNA invokes supernatual causes? I wouldn't go that far.

No, I am not saying that. Since there weren't any scientists when life was formed, who did it?

If you accept that scientists can create life, then you also need to consider this intelligent designer of yours. Who is that, if not a supernatural force?

When I say "possible means" I am talking about what scientists have done. Scientists have synthesized functional proteins, RNA and DNA.

But there weren't any scientists then. Who made the first proteins, RNA and DNA?

Shoot anyone who tries to interfere (kidding, but you get the idea).

Why do you keep repeating a refuted argument? We have been through this, yet you keep coming back to it.

No, I am not saying that. If we say that cause of type X is necessary for Y, to disprove this theory simply conduct an experiment where Y is produced without X.

No. You need to prove your own theory. It isn't proved because you think nobody can disprove it.

Through the use of technology (scientists already use technology to create DNA). No supernatural forces are required.

Again, who used this technology then?

But not in any relevant way. As long as the starting point we create is realistic and plausible (i.e. resembling early Earth conditions) we will have shown that artificial intervention is not necessary.

Yes, in a very relevant way! If we start out with the building blocks we know will create life, then the experiment is not undirected anymore.

If worse comes to worse, we can conceive of a completely undirected experiment: a naturally occurring primordial ooze spontaneously forming life (we would merely be the observers).

Yeah. And, by all accounts, that's what happened.

[Lamuella]

Tisthammerw, you are the only person I have ever met who describes intrelligent design as just referring to life on Earth. Why do you make this very artificial limitation?

If you think life on Earth was designed, who do you think designed it?

If it was a god, then what you are talking about is creationism.

If it was an intelligent being, then who designed this intelligent being?

[Tisthammerw]

You are wrong, and clearly lack some basic understanding of genetics. There are many valuable and supportable suggestions as to how DNA fragments and proteins can come into existence via natural forces--no designer needed...we've duplicated it in a lab.


Then by all means submit your research to a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

We've created DNA in the lab all right (we have machinery that can do so), but not one involving a realistic scenario how undirected chemical reactions could have done it in the primeval Earth.



And given eons of time and natural selection, why you get a world that looks pretty much like the one we live in. It's an intelligent designer that needs to be explained--why so much waste? why so much suffering? Why would a man need to make 2000 billion sperm in his life time given that sperm making reduces life expectancy? Why birth defects. Why not clue humans into the unintelligent designs that can kill them--especially the microscopic viruses and bacteria?


Now you're getting philosophical, not scientific.

[Lamuella]

Yes, ID is falsifiable as I have shown before.


but you haven't shown it. At all.

Answer me this: if it was shown that life could occur without intervention from an intelligent agent, how would this rule out the possibility that an intelligent agent created life?.

If I find a leaf on my porch, it could have been put there by someone, or it could have been blown there by the wind. In my efforts to see if this is the case, I try to work out how the wind blows leaves off a nearby tree.

even if I prove that the wind could have blown this leaf off a tree, that neither proves that this is what happens nor disproves that someone put it there. Falsifiability is about showing that one thing cannot be the case, not about showing that another possibility can be the case.

[Mojo]

Yes, but (1) the basic claim does not appear--directly or otherwise--in the definition of ID this thread is using (see the first post and post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142); and (2) I have never seen Dembski claim that all complexity requires a designer. And Dembski and Behe are not Scottish names, as far as I'm aware. ;)

Now let's get back to question at hand. Given what I said at #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142), why do you believe abiogenesis is scientifically superior to ID? (Note: remember which theory has advanced the most in having a known mechanism.)ID as the origin of life requires intelligence to spontaneously arise in the absence of life. If you have no mechanism for this, you have no mechanism for ID as the origin of life.

So far we appear to have a mechanism for the appearence of amino acids, and self-replicating proteins can be shown to exist.

Have you made any progress with your mechanism for the spontaneous appearence of intelligence in the absence of life? Provide details of your mechanism for this and I'll let you know which "theory" appears to have more in the way of a credible mechanism.

Or are you too busy rounding up an infinite number of turtles?

[Lamuella]

What I believe is that life of the sort we find on Earth could not have come about naturally (sorry if I wasn't clear on that before).

what other sort of life is there?

[Mojo]

what other sort of life is there?Turtles!

[Lamuella]

I'm saying that our kind of life has a type of complexity that could not have come about naturally--just as automobiles do. This doesn't rule out the possibility of other forms of complexity arising naturally. If you're an adherent of abiogenesis, think of humans creating intelligent robots. Does the fact that the robots have an intelligent designer mean humans have one too?

so what is this kind of "naturally occurring complexity" that results in life? Define it for us. Show it exists and is different from the life we know.

[Lamuella]

Tisthammerw, let me ask you a question: are you of the opinion that life can occur without intelligent input? I'm not talking about life on earth, I'm talking about life of any kind whatsoever anywhere in the universe.

[Mojo]

Does the fact that the robots have an intelligent designer mean humans have one too?The unscottish Dr. Behe certainly seems to think that it implies that this is the case: Whenever we see these complex functional systems we realise that they have to be designed.

[hammegk]

.... let me ask ... a question: are you of the opinion that life can occur without intelligent input?
Define 'intelligent input' .... ;)



no, we don't.
We can agree to disagree.


Science is about what is detectable. It could all be caused by magic pink unicorns behind the scenes, but until they become detectable, science will just have to go with what actually has any impact on the natural world.
The question I ask concerns the 'natural world' and its' attributes.

As I said, naturalists/physicalists have their own set of difficult problems to overcome; life, mind, intent being some of them. If you personally feel comfortable that what you see in the universe has no rhyme or reason beyond what you and other human minds postulate, that is your choice. Many do not share it, nor will science ever answer that question.

The ongoing blather re abiogeneis / ID is a perfect example of the inherent problem we all face -- or apparently most choose to ignore. :)

[Lamuella]

it's not the job of science to answer the questions of philosophy. Attempts to reconcile the two make for bad science and worse philosophy

[hammegk]

Yes, it's much more human to pretend that science -- good or bad -- does not rest on the philosophy -- good or bad -- of individual, human, scientists (at least here on earth).

[Lamuella]

Define 'intelligent input' .... ;)


define "obfuscatory philosophical bollocks"

[hammegk]

Awwww. :rub:

[drfrank]

Define 'intelligent input' .... ;)
Shouldn't that be your job? :p

[Yahzi]

But my entire point was that to me, given the current state of logic, it doesn't seem possible to ever know all the answers. I interpreted Godels theorems to basically say that you can't prove everything in a closed logical system as far as we know.
Don't feel too bad. Lots of people misinterpret Goedel (like my college Theory of Computation professor).

The key phrase is "closed logical system." The key point is that we are not limited to formal systems. Human beings have another method for establishing truth: brute observation.

This is how we can escape the limits of formal systems: by recourse to the real world. Brings to mind that old Baseball Bat test of mine... :D


Edit: Bah! I see you are already aware of this. Never mind. :)

[Yahzi]

Let me rephrase. ID has a known possible mechanism. There exists a mechanism we know of that could do the job. When it comes to having a known possible mechanism, ID is ahead of abiogenesis.
You assert that because scientists can make DNA, the idea that DNA is designed is plausible. But there wouldn't be any scientists without DNA! If the known possible mechanism for DNA requires the previous existance of DNA, then it doesn't count as a possible mechanism.

[Cynric]

This thread has gotten quite long, so I apologize if this has been said earlier.

The reason why abiogenesis can be called a scientific hypothesis is that it fits well within our current understanding of the physical universe, and offers testable predictions.
The laws of physics (especially thermodynamics, gravity etc.) predict the spontaneous formation of simple molecules. Once a replicator exists, evolution by natural selection will lead to complex life. So, we have a gap, from non-replicating simple molecules (hydrogen, helium, methane etc.) to a replicating molecule (such as DNA, in principle). Abiogenesis postulates that the physical conditions on primordial earth could trigger chemical reactions that promote the appearance of a replicator. The exact conditions are unknown. Experiments are ongoing to test various hypotheses, and some notable successes have already been observed (such as ribose, amino acids etc.)

In contrast, intelligent design makes no predictions, apparently contravenes physical laws, and arises chiefly from asserting that evolution can't explain some complex structures, because the "scientists" involved really can't imagine how it possibly could. I mean, look at the flagellum... as if that could happen by chance. Pfft!

[athon]

(1) It predicts the existence of a known mechanism (by which I mean a known way it could have happened) to spontaneously form life from non-life.

Is it simply convenient to ignore some posts in order to perpetuate nonsense? There is nothing 'spontaneous' about generating a living process. It is an evolution of competing chemical reactions. I have already asked you to draw a line where you conceive life to be, however you continue to use language that builds a straw-man impression of how life developed.

I ask again; define life.

The problem is that the success of this prediction has been very sharply limited. It is true that we can find a way to get amino acids (components of proteins) and components of RNA and DNA,

Non-vivo amino acids occur in nature. Amino acids that are not used by living things (due to their chirality) are common . Nucleic acids exist as well, external to living processes.

Go back and read the article I linked to see the research into how biological nucleic acids might have evolved.

You should have put this argument to bed a long time ago.

...but trying to get functional proteins, RNA and DNA run into serious obstacles. (In this way, note that the second ID prediction has been confirmed.) Then of course there is also the matter of assembling the molecules to form a complex biochemical machine we call a single-celled organism (to me this barrier seems insurmountable) but for now the three things I listed above should do.

Because you don't understand it, it becomes unlikely?

The truth is, we've observed a whole range of interactive chemical reactions that reflect those required for living processes. We understand how lipid membranes form without the need for life, how nucleic acid polymers can replicate without the need for enzymes, how simple amino acid polymers can form without the need of enzymes... What we are yet to determine is a precise order this occured in and the conjoining mechanisms.

You require replication in a laboratory in order to falsify ID (again, others have given ample reason why this approach is flawed). The variables in such a feat make this unlikely to occur any time soon; as it was, it took billions of years for it to occur in nature in a chemical competition. For a laboratory to substitute intelligence for randomness and competition in order to decrease the experiment time, it would lend little weight to the hypothesis (it would only suggest possiblilities, not actuality) and would indeed be used in support of ID. Therefore, other means of evidence are sought.

You are speaking from ignorance, in other words.

Another problem is when it comes to having a known mechanism, ID beats out abiogenesis. Scientists have machinery that can synthesize RNA and DNA—thus we have a rigorously known means how it could have happened. But a known mechanism for these two molecules is simply not the case for abiogenesis.

You have ignored my posts in favour of your own personal reality. Therefore this argument is invalid.

Athon

[Wowbagger]

I've actually just done a smidgeon of research into abiogenesis, and I think I might be able to offer some clearer insights than my last post:

On the surface, abiogenesis does not look any better than Intelligent Design. This is mostly due to its proponents treating it like some sort of shortcut (or as Dennett calls it: "a skyhook") to evolution. And that is because too much focus has been brought to the word "spontaneous", in its description of how organic compounds are formed. Modern science is really telling us the formation was quite gradual.

However, under the surface, there is real science going on under elements of abiogenesis: the results of careful study and experimentation.

Examples:
* The Miller-Urey experiment demonstrating the plausibility of primordial soup, and
* Dr. Alexander Graham Cairns-Smith's theory of clay helping along the formation of DNA.
These may not be the best examples, (only the most convenient for me to post here), but they are examples of real, useful science.

Intelligent Design, on the other hand, is empty: Totally void of any real science. Give me an argument I.D. advocates use to "prove" their case, and I will show you that it is either: 1. a logical fallacy, or 2. a misunderstanding of science (what most here would call a "strawman").

Unfortunately, some otherwise smart people have fallen for the ridiculous ideals of I.D. For example, Michael Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box, is just one thick appeal to ignorance: "I can't figure out how this could have evolved, therefore no one ever will".

Therefore, despite its reputation for being a shortcut, abiogenesis is more scientifically valid than Intelligent Design.

[TobiasTheViking]

Tisthammerw: Ok, please, just drop the entire abiogenesis thing. You obviously don't understand it, and it is, in any case, TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.

Even if abiogenesis is proven to be false(not likely) that doesn't make ID(even as defined by you) a viable solution.

ID(Even as defined by you in the first post) is NOT scientific because it does not have.
1) A hypothesis
2) A theory
3) A testable prediction
4) ANY PREDCTIONS
5) Any way of being falsified

And even if abiogenesis is proven wrong, that doesn't change any of those 5 things missing for ID to be a science(and i'm sure more is missing as well).

So please, all this abiogenesis is totally irrelevant, it serves no purpose what so ever in this discussion.

You have stated many many many times that ID has a solution for making RNA and DNA, but you haven't shown that solution.

Please show it.

You have stated many many many times that ID has a theory, but you haven't shown that theory.

Please show it.

You have stated many many many times that ID can be falsified, but you haven't shown a way to falsify it.

Please show it.

You have stated many many many times that ID is the only way that human life on earth can have originated, but you haven't shown why we are different or more complex than, for instance,turtles

Please show it.

You have made many claims in this discussion, and backed none of them.

Sincerely
Tobias

[Dr Adequate]

'Tis the thirteenth century: behold, two Natural Philosophers sitte in cheerfulle discourse.

A : Here's good Frankish wine, then, that will keep out the cold. Brother, thou spakest of Rainbows, didst thou not? I prithee, continue thou thy discourse.

B : Aye, twas of Rainbows. Bethynkst thee not, that when we find a Circle, or that Piece of the Circle that we calle an Arck, then find we eke the hand of a Subtile Designer, that hath fashioned it, be he a Geometer, anne Architect, a Wheelwright, or howbeit?

A : Aye, 'tis true.

B : Thus must it be with Rainbows, then, and thus they shew plan and Design, which is the proof of a Designer --- what sayest thou?

A : Brother, I tell thee that with geometrick Figures, with Arches, and with the rims of Wheels, we do see plainly a Designer; but of the Rainbow we see no Deisgner.

B : What if the Designer be Invisible?

A : Speak thou plainly, brother, dost thou speak of God?

B : I speak of God, yet I speak not plainly, let I should offend against the First Amendment of a nation yet unborn.

A : Even so. For when thou speakest of other wonders in Nature, as the Snow, and the Wind, then thou speakest learnedly, like a Philosopher, of the hot and the moist, and the cool and the dry. But when thou speakest of the Rainbow, then thou wishest to take Genesis for an Historie, and heedest not the words of that most pious Saint, Augustine, that such is Vanitie and Folly.

B : And yet, brother, thy Natural Philosophie cannot explain --- but hark, what is that? Who stands at the door?

A: Why, 'tis that most learned Fransiscan, Roger Bacon, and he saith that he hath goode Newes.

[Stitch]

Well, for one there exists no known mechanism for abiogenesis to create RNA and DNA.


Please explain, in detail, the mechanism that ID uses to produce DNA and RNA, you keep saying it exists, but you haven't explained it yet.

[hammegk]

Maybe 'thought'? ;)

[Lamuella]

what a fascinatingly detailed mechanism you lay out there, Hammy.

[hammegk]

Thought: It's like dehydrated H2O; to enjoy a glass-full you just need to add water. :D

[CapelDodger]

Intelligent design: the belief that intelligent causes are necessary for the creation of life on Earth.
Falsifiability isn't the only criterion for an idea being scientific. The idea must also define its terms. At the root of ID is the concept of "irreducible complexity". What ID doesn't provide is a definiton of the term, beyond "What are the chances of that happening?". It provides no algorithm whereby a system can be determined to be irreducibly complex or not.

Your argument is mostly based on short-term chemistry at Earth-normal conditions, but that isn't the ID argument. That's not going to get side-tracked into specifics. Nor are they going to limit their argument to life on Earth, designed by non-supernatural aliens. The existence of "irreducible complexity" is their Lakotosian "hard core" (thanks for boosting this thread's Google rating, Earthborn :) ). Just in case some non-DNA-based alien spawn of abiogenesis, not supernatural at all, turns up with convincing documented evidence that they did it. And an explanation for their own abiogenesis, confirmed by experiment. Billions of years ago. Perhaps something concerning salt, or neutrinos. Whatever.

The chances of that and of the Rapture are equal. If the Rapture happens, scientists will take note. Let's face it, not even Randi could pull that illusion off. If the designer aliens turn up, ID will say they're irreducibly complex and scientists are more likely to be the harvest.

[blutoski]

Tisthammerw, you are the only person I have ever met who describes intrelligent design as just referring to life on Earth. Why do you make this very artificial limitation?

If you think life on Earth was designed, who do you think designed it?

If it was a god, then what you are talking about is creationism.

If it was an intelligent being, then who designed this intelligent being?


I'm going to defend Tishammerw's assertion, here, because technically this is a good description of the theory. ID stems from specific examples of irreducible complexity. In principle, it is not really incompatible with abiogenesis because these examples could have been designed at the same time as natural evolution progressed. Or, they could have been deposited into an abiogenetic biome.

What they're asserting is that these particular structures, systems, tissues, &c, cannot have had ancestors, and therefore must have materialized in the biome in their completed state.

This is a retreat from Creation Science which tries to argue that the biblical explanation is the best explanation for observations.

It is not, however, a departure from Creation Science, in that it is essentially an anti-theory, which concentrates 90% of its rhetorical firepower on discrediting evolution.



However, to address the challenge of comparing 'mechanisms'. I think saying "created" is not providing a mechanism any more than "happened". Consequently, if they want to match abiogenesis theory in terms of mechanisms, they would have to plausibly explain how these systems were designed and constructed with a little more detail: was it a laboratory? (what the evidence of laboratory mechanics?) Was it seeded from elsewhere, where it might have formed abiogenetically? (is there evidence of panspermia?) These would get closer to the provision of Intelligent Design 'mechanisms'.

There is nothing like this in the theory. ID is less than CS in that they propose no actual mechanism, wheras abiogenesis has a body of literature to support it. ID advocates are either unaware of this body of knowledge, or they dismiss it without reference (in case a reader is tempted to look it up for himself, and discover the proposals have merit). I recommend Ark of Life, by Wills and Bada.

But it doesn't even have to get to this point, because there are huge gaps in the reasoning that brought us ID in the first place. It's basically a 200-year-old argument-from-design that has donned the veneer of modern scientific inquiry.

A good example of a cargo cult.

[drkitten]

Falsifiability isn't the only criterion for an idea being scientific. The idea must also define its terms. At the root of ID is the concept of "irreducible complexity". What ID doesn't provide is a definiton of the term, beyond "What are the chances of that happening?". It provides no algorithm whereby a system can be determined to be irreducibly complex or not.

I'm not sure this is true. I have, for example, seen clear-cut and unambiguous definitions of "irreducible complexity," mostly offered by mathematicians and information theorists (whom one would expect to offergood definitions). One that I'm too lazy to Google for right now simply stated that a system was "irreducibly complex" if it had no viable evolutionary precursors.

The author was very clear to define evolutionary precursors in terms of overall development, including the removal of scaffolding from a newly constructed arch.

And, actually, I can live with that.

The problem comes in when you attempt to merge such a rigorous and precise definition with Behe's claim that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex, because it demonstrably isn't (we can demonstrate an evolutionary precursor). The author described above was well-aware of this problem; he admitted that that there are no known "irreducibly complex" systems and that much additional work would be required to find them, but his point was that "irreducibly complex," properly defined, is not simple gibberish.

The problem boils down to : Behe and Dembski are liars.

Neither of them have any problem with telling the most enormous and improbable whoppers in the name of the God of Truth. They would swear black is white and that the Sun rises in the West from the witness box if they felt it would help the Great Commission -- in fact, if you read the transcripts from the Dover Panda's trial, that's more or less exactly what Behe did (and what Dembski did in deposition).

And this is the true problem with ID. It's scientifically worse than the theory of evolution because there are evolutionists who do not tell lies. There are, to the best of my knowledge, no ID proponents who are not liars. And the liars are actually detracting from the little bit of genuine science that might be done within the intellectual framework of the argument-from-design.

Your argument is mostly based on short-term chemistry at Earth-normal conditions, but that isn't the ID argument. That's not going to get side-tracked into specifics. Nor are they going to limit their argument to life on Earth, designed by non-supernatural aliens. The existence of "irreducible complexity" is their Lakotosian "hard core" (thanks for boosting this thread's Google rating, Earthborn :) ). Just in case some non-DNA-based alien spawn of abiogenesis, not supernatural at all, turns up with convincing documented evidence that they did it. And an explanation for their own abiogenesis, confirmed by experiment. Billions of years ago. Perhaps something concerning salt, or neutrinos. Whatever.

The chances of that and of the Rapture are equal. If the Rapture happens, scientists will take note. Let's face it, not even Randi could pull that illusion off. If the designer aliens turn up, ID will say they're irreducibly complex and scientists are more likely to be the harvest.[/QUOTE]

[H3LL]

I will hammer and hammer and hammer and hammer until that square peg fits in the round hole I made....and I don't care if the peg fits perfectly elsewhere.


.

[Wowbagger]

The problem boils down to : Behe and Dembski are liars.

...(snip)...

And this is the true problem with ID. It's scientifically worse than the theory of evolution because there are evolutionists who do not tell lies. There are, to the best of my knowledge, no ID proponents who are not liars. And the liars are actually detracting from the little bit of genuine science that might be done within the intellectual framework of the argument-from-design.

Hey, maybe they are liars. I assumed they were all merely delusional, but you bring up some points to ponder there.

One question, though: what "little bit of genuine science that might be done within the intellectual framework of the argument-from-design" do you think there is?

[CapelDodger]

I'm not sure this is true. I have, for example, seen clear-cut and unambiguous definitions of "irreducible complexity," mostly offered by mathematicians and information theorists (whom one would expect to offergood definitions). One that I'm too lazy to Google for right now simply stated that a system was "irreducibly complex" if it had no viable evolutionary precursors.

The author was very clear to define evolutionary precursors in terms of overall development, including the removal of scaffolding from a newly constructed arch.

And, actually, I can live with that.
So can I (the centering of an arch is such an appropriate metaphor). A proper definition of "irreducibly complex", and ideally some way of determining whether a system fits the definition, is not going to be provided by ID (which was kinda my point). A scientist/mathematician might, but it's a hard problem for non-trivial systems. Easy when applied to polystyrene Stonehenges on Mars.

Beyond the blatant lying of its gurus, ID can only appeal to systems that have not yet been shown to be reducibly complex. It's the God of the Gaps thing all over again.

Apart from anything else, ID would have to provide a definition of IC that did not apply to its Designer, which would otherwise itself be created, not the Primordial Creator. Infinite regression, and Turtles all the way down. :)

[Lynx2174]

To falsify the first prediction, simply create a realistic and plausible starting point (as conditions resembling the primordial Earth) then step back and let undirected chemical reactions take their course. If they produce life, this would show that intelligent causes are not necessary, since we will have shown that undirected chemical reactions can do the trick. This prediction may not sound like much, but it is empirically testable and makes the theory falsifiable. (Whereas there is no conceivable experiment that could falsify abiogenesis).

bullhockey. this is like when creationists argue that evolution is unfalsifyable: there are plenty of things that could falsify it, WERE THEY DIFFERENT. for example, if organic chemestry was fundamentally different than inorganic chemestry, you could easily consider abiogenisis falsified. as it stands, this is not the case, organic chemestry is exactly the same as inorganic chemestry, but on a rather more complicated and elegant scale.

abiogenesis is a rather broad idea, so it is certainly difficult to falsify, and it has not been falsified by all the easy experiments which could falsify it.

that particular experiment would be no good. why? because it took about 1,000,000,000 years on earth before anything (we know about) was alive, and this had the entire chemical resources of the planet sitting about with a miniscule, but as far as we know, finite chance of forming a self-replicating molecule from which life as we know it originated.

I'm willing to bet that you wouldn't be willing to wait a billion years (but more likely, due to the nature of the scale of the experiment, untold trillions). heck, if it didn't make something recognisible as life within the first year or two, I'd bet you'd think abiogenesis is falsified.

Personally, I actually think your definition of ID in the OP is actually a strawman of ID. Odd, but whatever. there's no reason whatsoever that if life could arise by abiogenesis that it would become impossible for ID to happen any more than it already is. that's like saying that if life could arise by abiogenisis, then scientists could not syntesise RNA polymers. it makes no sense. I doubt anyone would accept that definition as an actual theory.

[CapelDodger]

Hey, maybe they are liars. I assumed they were all merely delusional, but you bring up some points to ponder there.
I agree with drkitten that the leading proponents of ID are deliberate liars. Their dupes aren't, they know no better, but Behe, Dembski et al know that their arguments are bogus. They also know that their target audience doesn't know it, and is unlikely to be exposed to contrary information.

One question, though: what "little bit of genuine science that might be done within the intellectual framework of the argument-from-design" do you think there is?
For my part, a rigorous definiton and test of a given system's necessary design would be satisfying in itself and might have practical application if we ever get into serious extra-solar exploration. Archaeologists already have their own criteria for determining natural from man-made, not perfect but practicable, and they're only dealing with periods measured in thousands of years. Exo-archaeology will be dealing in many millions of years.

It's a very little bit of genuine science, but there it is.

[Wowbagger]

For my part, a rigorous definiton and test of a given system's necessary design would be satisfying in itself and might have practical application if we ever get into serious extra-solar exploration. Archaeologists already have their own criteria for determining natural from man-made, not perfect but practicable, and they're only dealing with periods measured in thousands of years. Exo-archaeology will be dealing in many millions of years.

It's a very little bit of genuine science, but there it is.

I can agree with that: Finding methods of determining if something is artifically created or not would, in principal, be useful in extra-solar exploration. But, I hope you agree it is not useful for theorizing the origins of life.

[drkitten]

One question, though: what "little bit of genuine science that might be done within the intellectual framework of the argument-from-design" do you think there is?

Well, one of the main points that Dembski likes to lie about is the misapplication of probability theory to evolution. This is where he does some really bad analysis can calculates that the odds of some particular feature occurring were approximately a Brazilian:1 against, and that it would therefore take approximately 1-followed-by-a-contrail-of-zeros years to occur.

But there's some genuine questions of scientific interest in the proper application of probabiliy to evolution. BIrd flu is a good example. Scientists (mostly) accept that it's not a question of if, but of when, the H5N1 virus mutates to a form more transmissible to humans. But how long is that expected to take? If I play the lottery long enough, it's not a question of if, but when, my descendants will win a jackpot -- but I have time to plan for the expected windfall. If we could figure, on a per-feature basis, how long a feature was legitimately expected to take to evolve, that would help epidemiologists a lot.

And if Behe and Dembski were real scientists instead of liars, they might be able to help humanity out.

Another example is the formalization of "irreducible complexity" and a serious analysis of whether or not there are unbridgeable gaps in evolution. Basically, do (well-defined) IC systems exist? Can that be proven (rather than just lied about)? This would also help provide a firmer discussion of micro/macro-evolution, and might possibly lead to some more intelligent re-structuring of the higher categories such as Orders and Classes in the biological taxonomy.

[Yahzi]

Brazilian:1 against
Chances that the person at the door is a Brazilian: about 170 million out of 6 billion.

lnery:1 against
Chances that the person at the door is Luciana Nery, asking you out on a date: about .1 out of a hundred gazillion.

:D

[rocketdodger]

You assert that because scientists can make DNA, the idea that DNA is designed is plausible. But there wouldn't be any scientists without DNA! If the known possible mechanism for DNA requires the previous existance of DNA, then it doesn't count as a possible mechanism.

So far this is the only real argument I have seen that successfully shoots down tisthammer.

In my opinion this snippet closes the debate. It just goes to show that alot of smart people (all of us) can totally miss the tiny simple point that wins the argument. Only Yahzi saw it.... but, at least we can all use this argument to debate against ID proponents from now on.

*cheers Yahzi*

[hammegk]

Hi, Yahzi: Long time, no see/read words on screen ... :)

PS. You're still making circular-logic comments trying to "prove" physicalism, I see. . :D

[Wowbagger]

Well, one of the main points that Dembski likes to lie about is the misapplication of probability theory to evolution.

(snip)

But there's some genuine questions of scientific interest in the proper application of probabiliy to evolution. BIrd flu is a good example.

(snip)

And if Behe and Dembski were real scientists instead of liars, they might be able to help humanity out.

That's a very good complaint. I agree with you, here. But, it doesn't tell me what "little science" is actually in I.D., itself. All it does is describe a misapplication of another science.

Another example is the formalization of "irreducible complexity" and a serious analysis of whether or not there are unbridgeable gaps in evolution. Basically, do (well-defined) IC systems exist? Can that be proven (rather than just lied about)? This would also help provide a firmer discussion of micro/macro-evolution,

You can "formalize" the definition of "irreducible complexity" all you want to. You're never going to find anything irreducibly complex, though. The history if biology, since Darwin, is dotted with failed attempts to find unbridgeable gaps in evolution. What (real) scientists realize is there can be no such thing, since, logically, you can't prove gaps: everyone of them will dissipate with more careful and precise applications of natural selection, (working along with other principals of physics, perhaps).

It's like trying to prove paranormal abilities: If a psychic is (in theory) successful enough to baffle JREF into handing out the $1 Million, it would only be a matter of time before the actual scientific explanation is found: For example, perhaps this "psychic" secretly invented a wireless communication device that could be implanted in their brain, or something.

Also, nature makes no distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution. Those are just words some humans use to confuse the issue (sometimes inadvertently).

and might possibly lead to some more intelligent re-structuring of the higher categories such as Orders and Classes in the biological taxonomy.

Give me a break! Nature is never going to hand out convenient gaps in its life forms! Nature doesn't give a dang how people organize things! Genetics is already replacing the old fashioned phenotypic taxonomy, with a genotypic "tree of life". And, the "difference" between "species" is getting less and less distinct as a result! And, guess what: Science is thriving off this fuzzy logic! The declaration of "gaps" can only kill scientific innovation.

[hammegk]

"Life" is irreducibly complex, and science will never demonstrate it is not.

Engineer an appropriate life-form that "lives"; you'll never know if "life" chose to animate your structure, or if you actually made something from nothing.

And, engineering being what it is, some models you make will not work. ;)

[Yahzi]

So far this is the only real argument I have seen that successfully shoots down tisthammer.
Why thank you! :)

These threads move so fast... I didn't see where tisthammer responded to this argument?

[steenkh]

So far this is the only real argument I have seen that successfully shoots down tisthammer.
Actually, no! Tisthammerw has all the time claimed that it was possible that aliens could have started life. He can do it because he limits his version of ID to be only applicable to earthly life, and he claims to be open on how the aliens have been created. In fact, the aliens could also be based on DNA, and his argument would still not be circular.

His limited version of ID is certainly harder to reject, but it still has no facts to support it. There is no evidence for aliens visiting the Earth, nor any evidence for life outside Earth.

[Mojo]

His argument for ID seems to consist entirely of his claim that ID has a better established mechanism than abiogenesis. Using this argument, the theory that there were large numbers of computers in the Precambrian is just as well supported as ID is: we have a mechanism by which computers can be made...

[Mojo]

"Life" is irreducibly complex...Do you have any evidence to support this assertion?

Oh, and by the way, do you mean all life, or just life of the sort that we see on Earth?

[CapelDodger]

I can agree with that: Finding methods of determining if something is artifically created or not would, in principal, be useful in extra-solar exploration. But, I hope you agree it is not useful for theorizing the origins of life.
It could at least be used to dismiss the ID argument - not that that would make any difference to True Believers, of course, but it might save a few open minds from error.

It would be useful for extra-terrestrials studying life on Earth, who might be saved a lot of effort working out how fluorescent mice evolved naturally :) . GM organisms are actually products of ID, but they're pretty obvious ones.

[Lamuella]

"Life" is irreducibly complex, and science will never demonstrate it is not.


Hammy, if you don't understand what "irreducibly complex" means, all you have to do is ask for a definition.

[hammegk]

Things that are irreducibly complex cease to operate under the probing of reductionism, and cannot be successfully re-assembled.

Behe-Dembski have jumped the shark.

[drkitten]

You can "formalize" the definition of "irreducible complexity" all you want to. You're never going to find anything irreducibly complex, though. The history if biology, since Darwin, is dotted with failed attempts to find unbridgeable gaps in evolution. What (real) scientists realize is there can be no such thing, since, logically, you can't prove gaps:

Really?

Do me a favor, then. Please give me an example of an element with atomic number 31.7.

Physical chemists may not have proven gaps, but the periodic table of elements, and the resulting theory of atomic formation strongly suggests that our list of current light elements is all that there is. If I were a funding agency and I got a proposal from someone wanting to revise the periodic table on the basis that "logically, you can't prove gaps," I would not be supportive of the application.

You don't know whether or not any irreducibly complex organisms exist. You simply know that none have been found.


Also, nature makes no distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution. Those are just words some humans use to confuse the issue (sometimes inadvertently).

Well, of course. Nature makes no distinction between words, because words are human inventions. On the other hand, nature does make a lot of distinctions between different types of reproductive process, of which speciation is merely the best known and most studied.

But is there also a parallel natural watershed like family-ation, or class-ation, or order-ation? I don't think you know.

The framework of ID could easily be used to explore such a possibility. We could, for example, create a web-of-life using graph/network theory, where the nodes are individual species (or even individual members of species) and the links between them are weighted by the probabilistic evolutionary distance between them. Assuming we could create such an analytic web, this would give us a very simple test for something akin to ID -- does the graph have two or more "connected components"? I expect, of course, that it wouldn't.

However, this graph would also let us analyze the taxonomic relationships between various groups, simply by looking at the so-called "min cut" properties. Basically, which links would need to be severed in order to make the graph fall into disconnected components? And what's the total weight of those links?

So far, as far as I can tell, no one is looking at "the probability of such-and-such feature evolving" except for the ID proponents. No one in mainstream biology is investigating questions such as "the expected time to appearance" of a particular structure/feature. Merck just announced a new antibiotic designed to operate on a new metabolic pathway. But just how long will it take before new superbugs evolve that make this new antibiotic clinically ineffective? Did they just buy us another six months, six years, or sixty years? No one is even in a position to answer that question.

You can say that Behe and company are just performing "a misapplication of another science." But as far as I know, no one is applying this science properly. There is a genuine hole in current scientific research in terms of probabilistic evolution.....

[Lamuella]

Things that are irreducibly complex cease to operate under the probing of reductionism, and cannot be successfully re-assembled.


so what you're saying is that your definition of irreducibly complex has nothing to do with whether a particular structure or feature could have evolved?

[blutoski]

so what you're saying is that your definition of irreducibly complex has nothing to do with whether a particular structure or feature could have evolved?

I call this the "Jenga is a miracle" argument.

[hammegk]

If I've understood the facts recently brought to my attention here, what separates biochemistry from chemistry is the ability to correctly guess 'heads' the myriad number of times required to achieve and sustain terran life. Chemistry has a 50/50 chance of making that choice each time it's presented.

What miracle were you talking about?




Do me a favor, then. Please give me an example of an element with atomic number 31.7.

.... There is a genuine hole in current scientific research in terms of probabilistic evolution.....
Which begins to address my earlier comment likening -- at the moment, lacking data, as a thought experiment-- rna/dna combinations to pre-ordained solutions ala the table of elements.

[drkitten]

If I've understood the facts recently brought to my attention here, what separates biochemistry from chemistry is the ability to correctly guess 'heads' the myriad number of times required to achieve and sustain terran life.

You obviously have not understood the facts recently brought to your attention.

Which does not surprise me, since I pointed this out to you earlier. Nor does it surprise me that despite the fact that you recognize that you do not understand them correctly, you continue to prattle in utter pig-ignorance of the actual facts and ignore the discussion taking place over your head.

Now go away and let the grownups talk.

Play nice, please.

[rocketdodger]

Really?

Do me a favor, then. Please give me an example of an element with atomic number 31.7.



On the other hand, you should define exactly what you mean by "an atomic number of 31." I predict that if you try, you will run into wowbagger's point like a bird into a clean window.

[drkitten]

On the other hand, you should define exactly what you mean by "an atomic number of 31." I predict that if you try, you will run into wowbagger's point like a bird into a clean window.

Hardly. The atomic numer is simply the number of protons in the nucleus of an atom. We've got ample evidence that protons are conceptually discrete dating back to the 19th century, and we've got a pretty good lineup of supporting evidence that the objects "comprising" protons -- quarks -- are also conceptually discrete and only stable enough to form atoms in particular discrete combinations.

We can't prove that there's not a really wierd atomic nucleus out there made up of a strange collection of ninety-four and a half quarks, but we have enough evidence that quarks themselves don't come in halves, and that quarks don't form up in collections of ninety-four, that no one would take such a theory at all seriously absent some major evidence.

We've done lots of experiments about the "gaps" in quantum physics, and no one in their right mind believes at this point that they will be filled.

Wowbagger is simply off his trolley.

[DrMatt]

This is a long thread for an argument from ignorance. Tisthammerw has been making stuff up from the get-go, and obviously has no interest in truth. Let 'm lie.

[hammegk]

You obviously have not understood the facts recently brought to your attention.
That could well be.

I said "If I've understood the facts recently brought to my attention here, what separates biochemistry from chemistry is the ability to correctly guess 'heads' the myriad number of times required to achieve and sustain terran life. Chemistry has a 50/50 chance of making that choice each time it's presented."

In what way does that violate the facts?

[DALAYNE]

Because the mechanisms involved in abiogenesis (self replicating proteins) can be shown to exist. So far, an "Intelligent Designer" has not been shown to exist. Until a suitable candidate for an intelligent designer is shown to exist, ID will belong in the realm of philosophy, not science.
It's interesting to read all of your arguments. I have to say that Nyarlathotep seems to have put it all in perspective. ID is philosophy, evolution is science. So far, I haven't seen or heard of conclusive evidence of either. On the ID side, it is a philosophical belief. One either has it or doesn't. On the evolution side, scienctists seek a very elusive answer. In some ways, scientists are very similar to religeous believers in that they argue so vehemtly a point that they can't prove. When it comes to what we teach our children in school, I think we should teach them about scientific theory in science class, teach them about ID in philosophy class, and let them decide for themselves. It is not appropriate to eliminate one or the other completely. I do agree that ID should not be taught as science or theory.

[Lamuella]

In some ways, scientists are very similar to religeous believers in that they argue so vehemtly a point that they can't prove.

you need to look up what "proof" actually means in a scientific context.

also, you miss the fact that scientists love to be proven wrong. Nothing advances science more than finding a circumstance in which established theory does not work.

[Yahzi]

Actually, no! Tisthammerw has all the time claimed that it was possible that aliens could have started life. He can do it because he limits his version of ID to be only applicable to earthly life, and he claims to be open on how the aliens have been created. In fact, the aliens could also be based on DNA, and his argument would still not be circular.
If the aliens were based on DNA, then yes, it would be circular: DNA cannot be the explanation for DNA.

However, if the aliens were based on something else, some unknown form of life... then they hardly count as a known possible mechanism. They in fact would be the very definition of an unknown mechanism, insomuch as we would not know them.

What Tist is trying to say is this: imagine something exactly like scientists, but that aren't scientists. This is the essential nature of theology: word-magic, the manipulation of sentences without regard to their ideas. Tist wants the functionality of scientists without the actuality of scientists, while ignoring the fact that the actuality of scientists is what gives them functionality in the first place.

It's like ghosts: imagine a person that's just like us, except dead.

His limited version of ID is certainly harder to reject, but it still has no facts to support it.
It's worse than that - it's pointless. Asserting that life had to originally evolve elsewhere has no metaphysical point.

[DALAYNE]

[QUOTE=Lamuella;1646401]you need to look up what "proof" actually means in a scientific context.QUOTE]


Lamuella,

I was using the word "proof" in the actual definition of the word, not scientific context.

Also, I have not missed any facts. If scientist are so willing to be proven wrong, why do they argue in favor of theories as though there were absolute proof. And this drivel about scientific proof, use the english language correctly. "Proof" is very well defined, and it does not mean "strongly supported by scientific means".

[TobiasTheViking]

[QUOTE=Lamuella;1646401]you need to look up what "proof" actually means in a scientific context.QUOTE]


Lamuella,

I was using the word "proof" in the actual definition of the word, not scientific context.

The imperfection is yours, this thread is called "Is intelligent design scientifically superior to abiogenesis?"
Read closely, it says scientifically

Also, I have not missed any facts. If scientist are so willing to be proven wrong, why do they argue in favor of theories as though there were absolute proof. And this drivel about scientific proof, use the english language correctly. "Proof" is very well defined, and it does not mean "strongly supported by scientific means".
Scientists love to be proven wrong, it appears that you really haven't studied how science works. Yes, scientists argue in favour of their theories, untill they are replaced with a better theory.

[rocketdodger]

Hardly. The atomic numer is simply the number of protons in the nucleus of an atom. We've got ample evidence that protons are conceptually discrete dating back to the 19th century, and we've got a pretty good lineup of supporting evidence that the objects "comprising" protons -- quarks -- are also conceptually discrete and only stable enough to form atoms in particular discrete combinations.


Yeah but what are quarks made of and why are they only relatively stable in these particular combinations?

[Lamuella]

you need to look up what "proof" actually means in a scientific context.


Lamuella,

I was using the word "proof" in the actual definition of the word, not scientific context.

Also, I have not missed any facts. If scientist are so willing to be proven wrong, why do they argue in favor of theories as though there were absolute proof. And this drivel about scientific proof, use the english language correctly. "Proof" is very well defined, and it does not mean "strongly supported by scientific means".

the actual definition of the word "proof" differs, depending on the context. What might be considered "proof" in a civil trial might not be considered "proof" in a civil one. It certainly wouldn't be considered "proof" to a publisher, who takes the word to mean a finished manuscript. I'm not even going to mention the word as it applies to waterproofing. There are many definitions of the word "proof" applicable in different contexts.

When talking about science, we talk about what science considers to be proof. In fact, science rarely talks about proof. It more commonly talks about "evidence". A "theory" in scientific terms also has a different meaning to how the word is used in everyday conversation. Rather than meaning an idea, a guess, or an opinion, a theory is a model of how something works that has been repeatedly tested and has a weight of evidence in its favour.

[TobiasTheViking]

Yeah but what are quarks made of and why are they only relatively stable in these particular combinations?
We don't know yet. Maybe strings, but we don't know yet.

As for stability, there is an answer, but i can't remember it.

I fail to see why it matters. it has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

And even if you don't know exactly what a quark is made off, that doesn't change the fact that they are there, and exist.

[Hellbound]

The stability and combinations are the result of the strong nuclear force, as I understand it.

Some of the actions of the SNF are included in string theory and M-theory, as well as the current Standard Model.

Besides, you can't have half-a-proton. You either have a proton or you don't. So, by definition, you can't have anything with an atomic number of, for example, 31.7. There's no such thing as .7 protons.

[chance]

why is abiogenesis scientifically superior to intelligent design?


Because at It’s core ID relies on the premise of: “If Not, X, then Y” (i.e. if no natural cause can be found, then, ID). (or the “I can’t believe it’s not butter!” argument).

Abiogenesis in contrast is falsifiable, i.e. find the right chemicals, find the right conditions = the beginnings of life. There is no default position, there is a legitimate line of research to peruse.

If your not convinced, show me how ID can be researched as described above.

[Wowbagger]

It could at least be used to dismiss the ID argument - not that that would make any difference to True Believers, of course, but it might save a few open minds from error.
I'll buy that much. ID is only useful in science class, for discussing is dismissal among scientists. Like Lamarckism, and stuff like that.

Things that are irreducibly complex cease to operate under the probing of reductionism, and cannot be successfully re-assembled.

Behe-Dembski have jumped the shark.
In principal, you can always re-construct something disassembled through reductionism. We just might not have the technology, yet.

Do me a favor, then. Please give me an example of an element with atomic number 31.7.
I can't think of a terribly good example, right now. This is the best I can do off the top of my head:

Let's suppose an atom of Gallium (atomic #31) is about to become Germanium (atomic #32). A few particles from another atom is about to join it. When they reach about 70% of the way towards it, that Gallium could effectively be said to have an "atomic number" of 31.7.

Okay, that's not the best argument in the world, but it is useful in making my point: Whenever humans seek "black and white" distinctions, they tend to find fuzzy "gray areas" instead. That's not to argue that the periodic table is useless: on the contrary it’s a brilliant tool for chemists and other scientists to utilize. (In other words, its a "useful model".)

However: You're never going to find gaps in organizing life forms, nor in determining their origins: Science will always find a way to bridge it.

(Recent example: CNN.com is reporting that the distinction between humans and chimps is a lot "messier" than scientists "expected": http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/05/17/human.chimp.split.ap/index.html . Of course, I'm not the least bit surprised.)

On the other hand, you should define exactly what you mean by "an atomic number of 31." I predict that if you try, you will run into wowbagger's point like a bird into a clean window.
Hope you have plenty of Windex.

Well, of course. Nature makes no distinction between words, because words are human inventions. On the other hand, nature does make a lot of distinctions between different types of reproductive process, of which speciation is merely the best known and most studied.
Nature makes no distinction of any sort. Only humans do so. These human-determined distinctions are none-the-less valuable to us, for reference purposes and such. But, you can not realistically expect nature it care or follow what we think, in the long run.

The framework of ID could easily be used to explore such a possibility. We could, for example, create a web-of-life using graph/network theory, where the nodes are individual species (or even individual members of species) and the links between them are weighted by the probabilistic evolutionary distance between them. Assuming we could create such an analytic web, this would give us a very simple test for something akin to ID -- does the graph have two or more "connected components"? I expect, of course, that it wouldn't.
What you would be doing is studying the genomic tree of life, which would be a study of evolution.

Taxomony, though it tends to be more of an art, than a science, is still vitally useful for scientists, since such practices are what builds our useful models.

Please understand that is is not what ID advocates are advocating. They want natural gaps, and they want science to stop fiddling with gray areas now!
So, leave out the words "intelligent design", and you'll be fine.

Obligatory attempt to get back on track of thread: Abiogeneisis, with all of its warts, is at least testable, and therefore is science.
I.D., with its pathetic attempt to find gaps, is anti-science!

[athon]

I'm going to back Wowbagger up on this one; there are no razor-sharp lines of distinction in nature, only progressions of a spectrum. And speciation is a perfect example of that.

We can all see the difference between 'cat' and 'dog', just as we can see the difference between 'red' and 'green'. Likewise, we can see an easy distinction between 'biotic' and 'abiotic' just as we see a vast difference between a gamma ray and a radio wave. However, when you make small progressive steps away from each classification, the spectrum varies and you find there is no real line that you cross.

We know cats and dogs cannot breed. However, if you get a farm that has every single animal that has ever breathed and arranged the genotypes into some form of relationship, you'd have a spectrum where all organisms could produce offspring with their neighbour. There'd be no line. Removing intermediatories would be the only means to provide special distinctions between groups.

Athon

[Anacoluthon64]

It's interesting to read all of your arguments. I have to say that Nyarlathotep seems to have put it all in perspective. ID is philosophy, evolution is science. So far, I haven't seen or heard of conclusive evidence of either. On the ID side, it is a philosophical belief. One either has it or doesn't. On the evolution side, scienctists seek a very elusive answer. In some ways, scientists are very similar to religeous believers in that they argue so vehemtly a point that they can't prove. When it comes to what we teach our children in school, I think we should teach them about scientific theory in science class, teach them about ID in philosophy class, and let them decide for themselves. It is not appropriate to eliminate one or the other completely. I do agree that ID should not be taught as science or theory.

Some conceptual quibbles:

ID is not philosophy. Philosophy is a zetetic enterprise, i.e. it proceeds by enquiry, while ID remains stuck on an a priori position of unshakeable faith in a bald assertion of what its proponents hold must be. Nor is evolution science in the sense of being a hypothesis. Evolution is fact; it is the neo-Darwinian synthesis which is science, and which, as a scientific theory, seeks to describe and explain the facts of evolution. Moreover, evolutionary theory is completely silent on the issue of the origin of life - that is at present a problem of biophysics and biochemistry, one that self-important fundamentalists of various stripes keep making fatuous and meddlesome claims about.

ID should be taught in science class for one reason only: as the standard model that exemplifies anti-science and its insidious dangers.

'Luthon64

[steenkh]

If the aliens were based on DNA, then yes, it would be circular: DNA cannot be the explanation for DNA.
No, it is not a circular argument to claim that DNA on Earth is created by DNA from outside Earth!

However, if the aliens were based on something else, some unknown form of life... then they hardly count as a known possible mechanism. They in fact would be the very definition of an unknown mechanism, insomuch as we would not know them.

Quite right.

[hammegk]

In principal, you can always re-construct something disassembled through reductionism. We just might not have the technology, yet.
Heisenberg proves you wrong. Your track record with biochemical life does not appear promising for future efforts either.

Of course, as a working philosophy -- let's call it physicalism --that would be a logically defensible position as long as you don't fall into the illogic of dualism.


Please understand that is is not what ID advocates are advocating. They want natural gaps, and they want science to stop fiddling with gray areas now!

I.D., with its pathetic attempt to find gaps, is anti-science!
Strawmen are fun to destroy, huh?

And if no "gaps" exist, neo-Darwinism will be the only example of reality that does not look to catastrophism in some guise as the actual mechanism for significant, rapid change.

ID is not philosophy.

Philosophy is a zetetic enterprise, i.e. it proceeds by enquiry, while ID remains stuck on an a priori position of unshakeable faith in a bald assertion of what its proponents hold must be.
The same problem applies to physicalism.


Nor is evolution science in the sense of being a hypothesis. Evolution is fact;

In that "things change" and the mechanisms of heredity are not controversial, of course.


it is the neo-Darwinian synthesis which is science, and which, as a scientific theory, seeks to describe and explain the facts of evolution.
Describe=butterfly collecting.

Explain=look at the pretty butterflies. Changes will occur.


Moreover, evolutionary theory is completely silent on the issue of the origin of life - that is at present a problem of biophysics and biochemistry, one that self-important fundamentalists of various stripes keep making fatuous and meddlesome claims about.
Including physicalists who defend their views with equal vociferousness. And for them life must emerge from non-life.

[Mojo]

Strawmen are fun to destroy, huh?
And to construct, apparently. ;)

And if no "gaps" exist, neo-Darwinism will be the only example of reality that does not look to catastrophism in some guise as the actual mechanism for significant, rapid change. remember your made-up distinction between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution"? Evolution happens via small changes. Over time, these add up to large changes. Change that may be described as "rapid" by paleontologists or geologists actually take place over many generations.

Evolution does not progress by sudden large jumps because, basically, there are a lot more ways of being dead than being alive. Sudden large changes tend to result in stillbirth or spontaneous abortion.

Even if the wildly unlikely happened, and an individual of one species suddenly gave birth to an individual of a new species, what would a single member of a new species breed with?

[drkitten]

Yeah but what are quarks made of and why are they only relatively stable in these particular combinations?

We don't yet know.

Which doesn't detract from the fact that we do know they are only stable in these combinations, to the best standards of experimental evidence.

Similarly, we don't know why a hammer will fall if you drop it, but we are sure that it will.

[drkitten]

I
We know cats and dogs cannot breed. However, if you get a farm that has every single animal that has ever breathed and arranged the genotypes into some form of relationship, you'd have a spectrum where all organisms could produce offspring with their neighbour. There'd be no line. Removing intermediatories would be the only means to provide special distinctions between groups.


I'm afraid that you're wrong

That's where the ID/probability/network theory comes in. Just because you can get from point A to point B doesn't mean that you're likely to, and just because every organisms have intermediaries doesn't mean that all intermediaries are created equal.

For example, a current well-attested theory (see Dawkins' Ancestor's Tale) about the various origins of some New World mammals, particularly primates and hystricognath rodents, descended from a single individual immigrant, who was presumably blown across the Atlantic on a mass of logs or something. (To be absolutely accurate, the primates are theorized to be descended from one single primate ancestor, the rodents from a single rodent ancestor.) This indeed would provide a special distinction for "New World monkeys" among the primates, one that taxonomists have already recognized. In network theory, this individual primate would be a 'min cut'; eliminating her (she was presumably a pregnant female at the time of crossing) would have "separated" a hundred or so species of monkeys from the main tree-of-life, so that they would never have happened. In the evolutionary network of life, she (and her species) was a main nexus point. As an intermediary, she was much more critical than (for example) any of her great-grand-children, because by that time there was demonstrably a breeding population of monkeys established in the New World.

Of course, if we wanted to look for nexus points, continent- or island-hopping events are good places to start. But how about speciation events that don't happen in conjunction with island hopping? Humans and chimpanzees are not (currently) believed to have been separated by vast seas, and the recent genetic data suggests that the speciation took quite some time. So we're not looking at a single individual, but at a small group. How small? Can we construct a similar nexus between humans and chimps using the evolutionary probabilities? How about going further back in time and seeing the split between rodents and rabbits? Etc.

[drkitten]

I said "If I've understood the facts recently brought to my attention here, what separates biochemistry from chemistry is the ability to correctly guess 'heads' the myriad number of times required to achieve and sustain terran life. Chemistry has a 50/50 chance of making that choice each time it's presented."

In what way does that violate the facts?

What separates biochemstry from chemistry is, as has been repeatedly explained to you, NOTis the ability to correctly guess 'heads' the myriad number of times required to achieve and sustain terran life.

And in particular, guessing 'heads' is not required either to achieve or to sustain life.

[hammegk]

What separates biochemstry from chemistry is, as has been repeatedly explained to you, NOTis the ability to correctly guess 'heads' the myriad number of times required to achieve and sustain terran life.
Perhaps my terms "biochemistry" vs "chemistry" are not the best way to differentiate the concept. Any corrections in fact would be appreciated.


And in particular, guessing 'heads' is not required either to achieve or to sustain life.
I may not have understood y'all correctly as stating that all known terran life has done so to date. What are the facts?

[drkitten]

Perhaps my terms "biochemistry" vs "chemistry" are not the best way to differentiate the concept. Any corrections in fact would be appreciated.


I may not have understood y'all correctly as stating that all known terran life has done so to date. What are the facts?

Re-read the relevant thread. Repeated explanations in the teeth of willful and deliberate misunderstanding and misrepresentation get tedious.

[CFLarsen]

We know cats and dogs cannot breed.

Creationist: "We know humans can't breed with animals."

Pervert: "No....but we can try!" *snort*

[hammegk]

Re-read the relevant thread. Repeated explanations in the teeth of willful and deliberate misunderstanding and misrepresentation get tedious.

LOL. A copout spiced with a bit more character assasination.

I said "Perhaps my terms "biochemistry" vs "chemistry" are not the best way to differentiate the concept. Any corrections in fact would be appreciated."

SFAIK, the conceptual situation I pose, sematics aside, is fully supported by the facts, and you offer no correction, only voice your displeasure at my concept since you as physicalist must disagree with it.


As to "I may not have understood y'all correctly as stating that all known terran life has done so to date. What are the facts?"
Do you cite an example of terran life that has not chosen heads every time?

[drkitten]

As to "I may not have understood y'all correctly as stating that all known terran life has done so to date. What are the facts?"
Do you cite an example of terran life that has not chosen heads every time?

And there is a good example of dishonesty, coupled with willful misreading.

And the statement that "any corrections would be welcomed" is also demonstrably a lie, because you have been corrected and have not welcomed them.

[hammegk]

As I have said, facts are not open to dispute.

I still don't know if it is a fact that all terran life to date displays the "always chose heads" for the topic we are discussing. What is your counter-example, or do you agree none exist or have been known to exist?

[rocketdodger]

We don't yet know.

Which doesn't detract from the fact that we do know they are only stable in these combinations, to the best standards of experimental evidence.


My point is that because we don't know, the claim that atomic numbers are completely discrete cannot be proven. It could be that the difference between what we call atomic numbers 31 and 32 is in fact so minute that it would appear continuous if we had all the facts, and we simply defined a threshold between 31 and 32 where the behavior of those elements became different.

In other words what I am saying is that we know elements behave like discrete entities because there is no continuous spectrum of elements. But this does not mean that the underlying components that make up elements are not a continuous spectrum at some point.

[blutoski]

As I have said, facts are not open to dispute.

I still don't know if it is a fact that all terran life to date displays the "always chose heads" for the topic we are discussing. What is your counter-example, or do you agree none exist or have been known to exist?

I guess the 'counter-example' would be chemistry as we know it. That's what I meant when I was saying that the major chore of chemistry is that reactions produce racemic products, so how do we improve yield? This is both observed in nature, in labs, and understandable/ explainable/ predictable by what we know about atoms and their symmetry.

[drkitten]

My point is that because we don't know, the claim that atomic numbers are completely discrete cannot be proven.

No more can the the law of conservation of mass-energy, or the laws of gravity, or for that matter that the sun will rise tomorrow be proven.

Which is why no serious thinkers expect absolute "proof" in matters of scientific import.


It could be that the difference between what we call atomic numbers 31 and 32 is in fact so minute that it would appear continuous if we had all the facts,

It could be. There also could be invisible fire-breathing dragons in my garage, and the reason that bread rises could be due to elves and their magic powers.

But no one in their right mind considers this kind of "could be" even to rise to the level of a debatable question.

Show me some evidence in favor of your "could be" and we can re-discuss.



In other words what I am saying is that we know elements behave like discrete entities because there is no continuous spectrum of elements. But this does not mean that the underlying components that make up elements are not a continuous spectrum at some point.

No, but since there's no evidence that such continuous components exist at all, I'm entitled to be exactly as dismissive of that idea as I am of the idea that faeries cause bread to rise. More dismissive, in fact, since I've seen photographs and drawings of faeries.

[drkitten]

I still don't know if it is a fact that all terran life to date displays the "always chose heads" for the topic we are discussing. What is your counter-example, or do you agree none exist or have been known to exist?

Fallacy of false dichotomy, combined with another lie when you say that "you still don't know."

[hammegk]

I guess the 'counter-example' would be chemistry as we know it. That's what I meant when I was saying that the major chore of chemistry is that reactions produce racemic products, so how do we improve yield? This is both observed in nature, in labs, and understandable/ explainable/ predictable by what we know about atoms and their symmetry.
And may I be so bold as to state unequivocably that "all forms of terran life so far identified do not follow the 50/50 chance implied by physics and seen in non-life, including non-life structures that replicate in test-tubes"?

That was the meaning I took from the comments provided in the other thread. Coupled with the current smokescreens being sent up, I'm becoming more convinced that my position stated above meets all the facts.

I am willing to accept drk's D.Sc. Only those at PhD level could mistake a layman 'testing for understanding' for 'lying'.