Intelligent Design Is Just As Valid A Theory As Evolutionism

Originally posted by BASSPLYR
On a side note don't most predators have Binocular or stereo scopic vision of some sort to spatialy locate their prey. Ie. Lions,cats, tigers, dogs, bears, primates, ferrits, spiders(along with really great periphrial vision) owls, eagles, falcons with the eception of sharks.

Sharks, eagles, falcons, no.... The others... not sure about.... Though I do remember reading something re: the primate eye and its eyes forward 'design.' I could be wrong, and in fact, I've been rifling my stuff here for sometime looking for the specific ref.

If you find something that contradicts this, let me know... in the meantime, I'll keep looking.

The trouble with the ID theory is the crack-pot christians who have latched onto it.

Originally posted by BASSPLYR
Like I said earth doesn't have the best stuff to set up a creation shop for anyone who isn't trying to make themself nuts by using inferior building material,

Where is a better location, and what are better materials?

they would have gone elsewhere to create if that is what they it were trying to do,

Where, specifically. You can't say there's must be a better place, I don't know where it is, but it must exist. It's not an effective argument.

which would make my point about how their is nothing intelligently designed about this place,

Okay, so where, specifically is a better place.

Less specifically, what properties does earth have that are so objectionable, and what properties would you seek, specifically?

Thanks to the sun and it's unending supply of outside energy to create complexity on earth.

Funny you should mention this, because there's evidence suggesting that only suns similar to ours are capable of sustaining life. Something about the size, and how quickly it fuses the material.

Build with stuff that will work better than the severly limited capabilities of the chemistry on earth or the universe.

Okay... what are better materials, and where can we find them?

No place is safe- the universe has limitations everywhere because it was not intelligently designed.

Actually... the earth is uniquely suited in many ways for the sustenance of life. Earth is in fact in one of the safest places within the galaxy. Life wouldn't be able to thrive on earth if its location in the Milky Way was much different.

people maybe, but not by very intelligent entities, the universe by a omni potent creator that willingly chose shoddy building material.

What materials should have been chosen? Because thus far all you've done is complain about how horrible life on earth is, and could be much better. Very specifically what materials should have been used and why?

God would have been dumped from just about any construction or engieneering job if he/she designed like it did life.

So if an engineer designed a self-replicating automaton that could feed itself, repair itself and was capable of lasting up to a century they'd be fired. Wow. I hope I never work under you.

What human inventions rival biological entities?

yeah if I use paper machete to build a car it's going to have a lot of comprimises,

You can't build a car with paper mache. How in the world are you going to carry out combustion of gasoline in paper mache? How would one create the pressure necesary to drive pistons forward with paper mache. This is a strawman.

but hey the end that goes forward has a drag co efficient thats 40 percent as efficient as a car built with better material actually up to the task.

Your car wouldn't go forward for the reasons described above.

I'm an intelligent designer now. No just a designer.

You are a designing intelligence, undeniably. Whether or not your design sucks is irrelevant. My down's syndrome sister in law, and my neices and nephews design shoddy stuff all the time. Hell, my first mtn bike was a piece of crap. But nonetheless these were all items designed by an intelligence, and that's the point.

Originally posted by rizla
The trouble with the ID theory is the crack-pot christians who have latched onto it.

Funny... I'll bet I'm more of a heathen than you.

mattison, can you provide me with an example where anyone ever "infers design"?

You see, the fundamental conceptual confusion in all this is that any "inference" is involved. It isn't, and pretending there is gets both the phenomenological and epistemic issues wrong. Because a "design inference" could never be justified.

What actually happens is: (1) humans perceive physical objects, and (2) they happen to know that some of them are created by a designed process, or (3) they recognise relevant similarities to known artefacts, or can reconstruct histories of design. And that's all we ever do, and all we need to do.

Dembski is peddling a philosopher's myth when he talks about "design inference", which will never work and never explain anything, and is never needed. Just like Ayer and the empiricists with their claim that physical objects are "inferred from sense data" - no such inference could ever be justified, but it is never performed anyway.

You need to get away from reading creationist fluff and try reading books for grown-ups. Try Michael Williams' books on epistemology for a start.

Originally posted by JonN
mattison, can you provide me with an example where anyone ever "infers design"?

Absolutely. Archaelogists do it everyday... it's a large part of their discipline. Forensic scientists have also made a business out of inferring design. Behe inferred design with respect to flagellum and vision chemistry. Dembski infers design via genomic sequences. In fact, everyone in all walks of life infers design on a moment to moment basis.

You see, the fundamental conceptual confusion in all this is that any "inference" is involved. It isn't, and pretending there is gets both the phenomenological and epistemic issues wrong. Because a "design inference" could never be justified.

Then someone better let the archaeologists, forensic scientists, and the SETI researchers know.

What actually happens is: (1) humans perceive physical objects, and (2) they happen to know that some of them are created by a designed process, or (3) they recognise relevant similarities to known artefacts, or can reconstruct histories of design. And that's all we ever do, and all we need to do.

Ummm... that's inferring design. Thanks for your support.

Dembski is peddling a philosopher's myth when he talks about "design inference", which will never work and never explain anything, and is never needed. Just like Ayer and the empiricists with their claim that physical objects are "inferred from sense data" - no such inference could ever be justified, but it is never performed anyway.

This contradicts what you've stated above.

You need to get away from reading creationist fluff and try reading books for grown-ups. Try Michael Williams' books on epistemology for a start.

Isn't Williams a philosopher? I'll think about it, but honestly philosophy really bores me. It's just not up my alley.

In any case... not reading too much Creationist stuff these days... not much new Creationist stuff is coming out, right now. I did recently read: Intelligent Thought: Science vs. The ID movement. Do you think that qualifies as a grown up book?
Currently reading Lifes Solution by Morris, and Schopf's Cradle of Life: The Discovery of Earth's Earliest Fossils are these grown up enough for you?

[edit on 20-9-2006 by mattison0922]

I already told you, what archaeologists and every one does is NOT "inferring design"... it is observing similarities with what is already known to be designed, or identifying what is described in documentary/oral records. That's the only way their conclusions would be justified. But it isn't "inferring design", any more than identifying a physical object as a chair involves "inferring chairs".

Like Dembski, you have no genuine, uncontroversial examples of "design inference". What you actually have are cases of identification resting on background knowledge, NOT inference-to-design. The entire philosophical basis of ID (and SETI) is spurious.

Incidentally, you're in a very weak position since you opted for sub-optimality in "design". The only hope of getting "design" to look better than evolution is to show that actual biological structures are more complex than what would arise from evolution. So you need to actual structures to be optimal, whilst evolution would in contrast only give us sub-optimal (or nothing at all). By conceding that actual structures are sub-optimal you ensure that the design alternative can never be more plausible than the evolutionary explanation, since they both deal in sub-optimal structures.

At which point you will have to resort to the "irreducible complexity" handwave, which is (1) no different than the stuff that old guard YECs like Henry Morris were saying for years, contrary to the myth that ID is a shiny new set of ideas, and (2) has been debunked anyway, many times.

ID is junk. It has nothing to offer science, because it has no philosophical merit to start with.

This contradicts what you've stated above.

No it doesn't. But, as a form of therapy, show us how you think it does.

Originally posted by JonN
I already told you, what archaeologists and every one does is NOT "inferring design"... it is observing similarities with what is already known to be designed, or identifying what is described in documentary/oral records.

Definition of Infer: "A logical process of drawing conclusions from a collection of data and relationships between data and potential conclusions. " and "Inference is the act or process of drawing a conclusion based solely on what one already knows."

YOu stated:

archaeologists and every one does is NOT "inferring design"... it is observing similarities with what is already known to be designed,

How does this differ remarkably from what I've bolded above?

Like Dembski, you have no genuine, uncontroversial examples of "design inference". What you actually have are cases of identification resting on background knowledge, NOT inference-to-design.

Please refer again to the definition of inference. When did I say that design wasn't controversial?

The entire philosophical basis of ID (and SETI) is spurious.

Opinions vary... many ID opponents disagree with you re: SETI, including Gould, Dawkins, etc.

Incidentally, you're in a very weak position since you opted for sub-optimality in "design".

When did I opt for this?

The only hope of getting "design" to look better than evolution is to show that actual biological structures are more complex than what would arise from evolution.

Complexity alone has nothing to do with it.

So you need to actual structures to be optimal,

I don't need this at all, and who is a fair judge of what's suboptimal?

whilst evolution would in contrast only give us sub-optimal (or nothing at all).

Okay then so the fact that the ATP synthase functions with nearly a 100% efficiency is evidence for design according to the statement above.

By conceding that actual structures are sub-optimal

When did I do this?

you ensure that the design alternative can never be more plausible than the evolutionary explanation, since they both deal in sub-optimal structures.

Actually you're wrong there are plenty optimized structures. The ATP synthase operates at or near, or according to Frasch greater than 100% efficiency. The flagellum operates with a similar efficiency. So biology and in fact biological systems aren't sub-optimal at all.

At which point you will have to resort to the "irreducible complexity" handwave, which is (1) no different than the stuff that old guard YECs like Henry Morris were saying for years, contrary to the myth that ID is a shiny new set of ideas, and (2) has been debunked anyway, many times.

Well then we should discuss the debunking of IC here.

ID is junk. It has nothing to offer science, because it has no philosophical merit to start with.

What does philosophical merit have to do with scientific potential?

Originally posted by JonN

This contradicts what you've stated above.

No it doesn't. But, as a form of therapy, show us how you think it does.

You stated:

What actually happens is: (1) humans perceive physical objects, and (2) they happen to know that some of them are created by a designed process, or (3) they recognise relevant similarities to known artefacts, or can reconstruct histories of design. And that's all we ever do, and all we need to do.

and the defintion of infer is: "A logical interpretation based on observations and prior knowledge" and "Inference is the act or process of drawing a conclusion based solely on what one already knows" and "A logical process of drawing conclusions from a collection of data and relationships between data and potential conclusions"

So to analyze your statement:

(1) humans perceive physical objects, and (2) they happen to know that some of them are created by a designed process, or (3) they recognise relevant similarities to known artefacts, or can reconstruct histories of design.

or in other words humans observe an object, and "based on observations and prior knowledge" the compare the 'data' and known relationships, and draw a conclusion from this.

You then stated that:

which will never work and never explain anything

Yet clearly when you stated "(1) humans perceive physical objects, and (2) they happen to know that some of them are created by a designed process, or (3) they recognise relevant similarities to known artefacts, or can reconstruct histories of design" you were talking about inferring design and it working... unless the defintions of infer are wrong.

Originally posted by JonN
I already told you, what archaeologists and every one does is NOT "inferring design"... it is observing similarities with what is already known to be designed, or identifying what is described in documentary/oral records. That's the only way their conclusions would be justified. But it isn't "inferring design", any more than identifying a physical object as a chair involves "inferring chairs".

You're wrong, and just to drive the point home, this was taken from the ANTI-ID site, the Panda's Thumb

Experimental archaeologists have done a variety of studies that provide information on characteristic distributions of debris types, characteristic usage wear patterns, and the relative utilities of tools for various functions, as for example testing unretouched flakes against bifacial hand axes as large-animal butchering tools. Again, there’s no probability calculation to eliminate regularity and chance in order to infer design, there is a systematic study of the artefacts and their properties and context in order to make inferences about early hominid tool manufacture

This is a rebuttal written to Dembski's explanatory filter, but clearly demonstrates that archaeologists do in fact, infer design.

Hey JonH & Rizia,

See how he misses the points were all trying to make-He goes off on tangents that I intended as sarcasm and takes me seriously. He's just not getting what we're all getting at here, that there is still no reason for it to be intelligently designed. And by the way I'm pretty sure birds of prey have their eyes on the front of their heads for binocular vision and to give them the superior spatial understanding when they divebomb for their prey scurring around them 150 feet below. Eagles,Falcons,Hawk,Perigrines those sort of birds. Pidgeons and birds of their ilk are the ones with eyes on the side of their head. They may be able to see predators better that way but they still fly into windows and die, Eagles never do...bad not so intelligent design. I want eagle eyes, why not? will I go blind or go shortsighted with that sorta vision? Why'd you put sharks in there when I was specificly refering to them being a predator with the exception of binocular vision?

And by the way nobody's more of a heathen than me...NOBODY!!!
I never take a bath so my girlfriend departed,
I sniff my own farts but i'm not retarded!

Hell I worship women, fornicate regularily, and live da batchleors life.
I'm a bigger heathen than you...I win again!

Come on somethings gotta lighten this one up a bit.

The quote you offer actually demonstrates my point:

Experimental archaeologists have done a variety of studies that provide information on characteristic distributions of debris types, characteristic usage wear patterns, and the relative utilities of tools for various functions, as for example testing unretouched flakes against bifacial hand axes as large-animal butchering tools.

See, they have to START out by classifying items as TOOLS and ARTEFACTS. ****THAT**** is why such cases are not instances of "inferring design", and the author of that passage is as wrong-headed as Dembski.

The point continues to be: in all cases where design is identified, we simply rely on our background knowledge and perceptual classification of items as tools and artefacts. We do NOT infer whether they belong to those classes. We would never be justified in doing so, if we could only rely on the meagre visual evidence, and had to exclude all the implicit knowledge we actually rely on all the time in real life. Dembski, like dozens of other philosophers before him, is peddling an over-intellectualized myth of humans as inference-machines, when no such inferences are ever performed in the cases he claims.

This is a rebuttal written to Dembski's explanatory filter, but clearly demonstrates that archaeologists do in fact, infer design.

It demonstrates no such thing other than that that website is too generous and uncritical toward the false premises that ID rests on.

[edit on 20-9-2006 by JonN]

Originally posted by BASSPLYR
Hey JonH & Rizia,

See how he misses the points were all trying to make

Missed? No, no, no... not missed... disagree.

He goes off on tangents that I intended as sarcasm and takes me seriously.

What shouldn't I have taken seriously? The android comment... you never know what people are going to offer as proof of something around here.

He's just not getting what we're all getting at here, that there is still no reason for it to be intelligently designed.

I get it, just fine. I just happen to disagree with you about it. And 'going off on tangents' as you refer to it, is called offering support for your positions.

And by the way I'm pretty sure birds of prey have their eyes on the front of their heads for binocular vision and to give them the superior spatial understanding when they divebomb for their prey scurring around them 150 feet below. Eagles,Falcons,Hawk,Perigrines those sort of birds. Pidgeons and birds of their ilk are the ones with eyes on the side of their head.

Like I said... I could be wrong.

They may be able to see predators better that way but they still fly into windows and die, Eagles never do...bad not so intelligent design.

Eagles NEVER fly into windows? Ever? How do you know this for sure. But in any case, ummm when was the last time you saw an eagle near a major metro area. Hell, I lived just outside of one of the biggest nesting areas for eagles in all of AZ, but I never saw an eagle anywhere near a the urban areas. I don't think there style of predation is conducive to urban design. Saw lots eagles in the canyons, etc. Other raptors too.

Why'd you put sharks in there when I was specificly refering to them being a predator with the exception of binocular vision?

Must have been a mistake.

mattison, you actually said earlier that design didn't have to "optimal" in order to be "intelligent". But you've got in a terrible muddle trying to follow my comments on that bit, so it's kinder if we all forget it.

Let's also not bother any more with your struggles with the word "inference".

Dude where I live I see red tailed hawks all day hovering around 2 3 story houses swooping in between houses to snatch mice. I've seen Golden Eagles doing some of the same things also and I live in a very metropolitan area. Maybe a eagle has crashed into a window, but I don't think I said never ever do, But have you heard of anyone whos seen an eagle crash into a window? i haven't but along with witnessing it plenty of times and from talking to everybody else I know weve seen plenty of pidgeons crash into windows and die. And with all the dscriptions of how intricate the organs are and what wavelengths of light they're capable of utilizing I don't see how your making a point about anything being intelligently designed, just complicated and having carved out an physical niche for its self in the rat race of the universe, which will happen anyways after eons of evolution. Things generaly fall into place not through choice but because its the way it is.

It comes down to this: there are two kinds of people.

One kind are people like me. When we see a chair, we know its a chair, and we also know that chairs are objects made by humans. At no time in my life have I ever inferred that, any more than I ever "inferred" that I have a pair of legs. And when I see chair-like objects I recognise them as such. I don't do any "inferring" in that case either. Inferring is what I do when I realise from certain clues that a burglar broke into my house, but I don't do that when I identify a category of object. If I encounter a novel kind of artefact, I know it is an artefact (rather than a lifeform, or any other thing) from the context it is introduced in.

Archaeologists are also in this group of people. They assume they are excavating a settlement when they find items that look like pottery or tools, based on the paradigm cases they already know of. If they found a genuinely alien item, they would not be justified in concluding anything about it. In the same way, SETI is a hugely expensive waste of time since whatever unusual signals we find, we will never be justified in concluding they are of alien origin until we have direct, identifying contact and we know that certain items are symbols of communication.

There's another, smaller, group of people, which contains William Dembski and mattison. Whenever they encounter a novel object they go through a tedious and futile proedure of trying to infer whether it is designed or not. The procedure is futile because they can never justify a positive answer, in the absence of the contextual cues and implicit knowledge that us normals use instead. Yet if they helped themselves to that, they wouldn't need to do a "design inference" in any case.

God alone knows why they bother.

[edit on 20-9-2006 by JonN]

Originally posted by JonN
See, they have to START out by classifying items as TOOLS and ARTEFACTS. ****THAT**** is why such cases are not instances of "inferring design",

I see you conveinently left out the portion of the quote wherein it described archaeologist as making design inferences. This is the point that was being addressed: Do archaeologits make design inferences. According the the Panda's Thumb quote, which I acknowledged was a rebuttal of Dembski, archaeologists do in fact make a 'design inference.' I also note that you didn't address any of the earlier stuff re: design inferences.

And in fact, you've missed the point entirely. You don't start with the assumption that you're going to find tools. You sift through layers of dirt, debris, etc, until you find things, relics, shards, whatever, and see that they bear the marks design.

Apparently you've never found an arrowhead.... that's a shame.

and the author of that passage is as wrong-headed as Dembski.

Okay. Whatever. Apparently you're willing to dismiss anyone, even if you don't know who they are, what their credentials are, nor what the full ref. even says, because you disagree with them. Great attitude. You'll learn a lot that way.

The point continues to be: in all cases where design is identified, we simply rely on our background knowledge and perceptual classification of items as tools and artefacts.

So then what you're saying is archaeologist never find pieces of tools, rocks that have been shaped into tools, shards of pottery, or any really primitive tools.

And in any case, in places where the ID movement acknowledges design, they simply rely on knowledge and perceptual classification of things like machines and information.

Untrue. Even the anti-ID mainstream science community acknowledges that both biological machines and biological information exist. It's not a perceptual classification made by IDists. That's the language you take directly from the science journals. Biomolecular machines and biological information exist and are facts; they're not some fanciful notion dreamed up by the ID community.

We do NOT infer whether they belong to those classes. We would never be justified in doing so, if we could only rely on the meagre visual evidence,

Ummm... that's what you do when you find an arrowhead. So then what your saying is no natural forces could ever account for the sharp point and vague symmetry of an arrowhead. Otherwise, I am completely unjustified in stating that I've found an arrowhead, when I have in fact found what archaeologists call arrowheads. Like I said it's a shame you never found one.

and had to exclude all the implicit knowledge we actually rely on all the time in real life. Dembski, like dozens of other philosophers before him, is peddling an over-intellectualized myth of humans as inference-machines, when no such inferences are ever performed in the cases he claims.

You're wrong archaeology makes design inferences, cryptology, forensics, etc. Inferring design is a process that humans do perform.

It demonstrates no such thing other than that that website is too generous and uncritical toward the false premises that ID rests on.

Your credibility with respect to this topic is shot to hell THE PANDA'S THUMB is generous and uncritical towards ID!!!!! Wait a minute, did you really write that? I gotta scroll back.

YOU DID!!

Mel, you have to be able to appreciate this, I know you must be reading. That's classic. Only at ATS. Wow.

I can't believe you wrote that. That's hilarious!! Wow, way to destroy your credibility in a single sentence. That's rich. It's funny, I've been wanting something to put in my signature and this is it!!! Thanks! That is classic.


[edit on 20-9-2006 by mattison0922]

Originally posted by JonN
mattison, you actually said earlier that design didn't have to "optimal" in order to be "intelligent". But you've got in a terrible muddle trying to follow my comments on that bit, so it's kinder if we all forget it.

I did acknowledge that something must be optimal to have been designed, but I never acknowledged that anything was suboptimal. That's the point. I didn't agree to the idea that the eye is somehow suboptimally designed, but I do agree that suboptimal things can be designed. Hell, how could I not. I used to own a pontiac.

Let's also not bother any more with your struggles with the word "inference".

Oh I'm not struggling with it. But apparently inference is a new word for you. I understand you must need time to brush up. We can drop it for now if that's what YOU choose.