|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
 Posted - 01/29/2008 : 20:01:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
She's made more "predictions," all about how persecuted religious people will be by the intelligencia sometime soon. User Annyday has done a complete fisking over at AtBC.
|
Denyse's post was has this little tidbit in it regarding the response she got from "Darwinists" regarding her original "predictions":
| People who can force the taxpayer to fund their activities are generally mega rotten at understanding the point of view of people who make a living offering goods and services to a public that actually has a choice in the matter. But that is a story for another day. |
It is important to note that she claimed that ID predicted the things she wrote. When people point out that ID does no such thing she moans that they don't understand her point of view. I take it that the official ID line is that science=postmodernism(?). |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
 |
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2008 : 20:09:47 [Permalink]
|
| Oh, and it's now some two weeks since Dembski claimed that he has a list of fulfilled ID predictions. That's he's keeping secret... |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2008 : 21:46:14 [Permalink]
|
I have been discussing the ability of ID to make predictions at arn. Another poster, don provan disagrees with me and we have had a discussion going on for what seems like two ice-ages (it's actually five pages, but...). We seem to differ in our views on two main points. I claim:
1. ID predictions are invariably invalid in the sense that they are not scientific.
2. The main purpose of a hypothesis is to test the hypothesis, not it's assumptions.
don provan claims:
1. ID predictions are valid, it's just that so far, they have always been wrong.
2. "Hypotheses are predictions based on assumptions. You test them in order to test the assumptions they are based on.".
Any input (either here at Skeptic Friends or at arn) from readers of this forum regarding the above would be appreciated. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2008 : 22:38:08 [Permalink]
|
All hypotheses are of this form:Assuming these premises are true, we should find that this consequence is also true. They are about testing assumptions, or at least the logic and reasoning tying the assumptions to the conclusion (which are assumed to be valid).
More interesting would be to see an actual hypothesis that followed logically from any ID premise. I don't know of any, so don provan claiming there are some and that they are valid and all falsified is a real tease. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2008 : 00:05:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
More interesting would be to see an actual hypothesis that followed logically from any ID premise. I don't know of any, so don provan claiming there are some and that they are valid and all falsified is a real tease.
|
I assume he considers such things as Irreducible Complexity to be an example of a falsified ID hypothesis. However, as you say, IC never actually logically followed from ID. As such, falsifying IC leaves the main ID assertion untouched (since it is unfalsifiable in principal).
Predictably, ID advocates actively work to conflate the idea of intelligent design and its various unrelated assertions: | ID is said to be unscientific because it is supposedly unfalsifiable or untestable: Nothing can count against it. Some critics even claim, in the same breath, both that ID is unfalsifiable and that it has been falsified. We recently received a set of questions from a reporter doing a story on ID. One question asked how we dealt with the fact that intelligent design was unfalsifiable. Another asked for our response to biologist Ken Miller's refutation of Michael Behe's design argument. But these objections can't both be true. If ID can't be falsified, then scientific evidence can't falsify it. And if evidence can falsify it, then ID can't be unfalsifiable. Such contradictory objections should arouse our suspicions. |
Except those objections can both be true. That Behe's design argument fails only means that Behe cannot demonstrate design. It doesn't mean something wasn't designed, though. "Magic man poofed everything into existence" remains as utterly unprovable--and unfalsifiable--and vacuous as a explanation--as ever.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 02/01/2008 00:06:16 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2008 : 01:57:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Except those objections can both be true. That Behe's design argument fails only means that Behe cannot demonstrate design. It doesn't mean something wasn't designed, though. "Magic man poofed everything into existence" remains as utterly unprovable--and unfalsifiable--and vacuous as a explanation--as ever. |
Exactly correct. Though the ID Creationist notion itself is an unfalsifiable nonscientific idea that attempts to have religion encroach upon the turf of science, some of the arguments for ID make falsifiable -- and sometimes already falsified -- claims. (Other such arguments are as faith-based and unfalsifiable as the ID notion itself, and may be swiftly dismissed as pseudo-scientific posturing.)
Of course, DI understands this, and is merely trying to confuse people with false logic.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 02/01/2008 01:58:15 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2008 : 13:05:59 [Permalink]
|
It seems the closest Dembski and his pathetic company will ever come to real science and scientists is pasting their mugs into a picture with them. Kind of reminds me of Soviet era photo-manipulations, though in this case it's just in pursuit of a demented dream.
Why not publish a report about the real secret "second Wistar" meeting, in which the IDers did so badly they asked that nobody talk or write about it?
Next, perhaps, they can glue "ID science" articles into old peer reviewed journals.
(Hmmm... Gotta think on this stuff for Moonscape.)
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 02/12/2008 13:07:49 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2008 : 11:14:08 [Permalink]
|
Dembski posts his predictions:(1) ID predicts that although there will be occasional degeneration of biological structures (both macroscopic and microscopic), most structures will exhibit function and thus serve a purpose. This prediction assumes knowledge of the designer's motives, a piece of information that IDists steadfastly disavow to non-Christian audiences.(2) ...ID predicts that the cell would have... engineering features... Again, this assumes that the designer acts like a human designer.(3) ...ID has always predicted that there will be classes of biological systems for which Darwinian processes fail irremediably, and conservation of information is putting paid to this prediction. ID has never demonstrated that there is a biological system that cannot be built via evolutionary processes, and every time they've tried (see "bacterial flagellum") they have failed. Furthermore, there is no law of "conservation of information," and Dembski's claim that the NFL theorems provide such a thing is pure baloney. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2008 : 16:19:56 [Permalink]
|
Is it really Dembski who made the pic? I doubt it, because when I click on it, I'm sent to theBRITES.org, which looks like a satire site. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2008 : 17:29:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Dembski posts his predictions:(1) ID predicts that although there will be occasional degeneration of biological structures (both macroscopic and microscopic), most structures will exhibit function and thus serve a purpose. |
Dembski goes further, saying, "ID proponents have been saying this from the start, and they are now being vindicated," and as an example, says| The human appendix, just in the last months, has been found to serve as a repository of friendly flora to keep the gut healthy. |
This isn't very convincing on a number of levels. First off, how do we quantify "most"?? If 85% of structures "exhibit function and thus serve a purpose" is that enough? Or does it need to be 86%? Moreover, even if Dembski were to offer some concrete number, he can fudge by saying that we just haven't figured it out yet. That is, suppose the number is 86%, and at some point X we can confidently say that only 80% of structures serve a purpose. ID isn't proven wrong in such cases; it's just that we haven't yet discovered the 6% of purpose-serving structures needed to "confirm" ID.
All of this ignores the fact, of course, that, as Dave noted, being able to say "most structures will exhibit function and thus serve a purpose" assumes knowledge of the mind and motive of the designer. If I design a car that calls for 3 coats of paint, is that to "exhibit function and thus serve a purpose" or is that done on a whim so I can use up all the paint? Was the paint green because of function, or because it was on sale?
I'm also curious about his example of the appendix. While the appendix may (or may not) function as Dembski says now did it always have that function? Do all structures exhibit function for exactly the same reason in a modern organism as they did in a long-extinct one?? |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 02/15/2008 17:30:50 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2008 : 17:46:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
All of this ignores the fact, of course, that, as Dave noted, being able to say "most structures will exhibit function and thus serve a purpose" assumes knowledge of the mind and motive of the designer. If I design a car that calls for 3 coats of paint, is that to "exhibit function and thus serve a purpose" or is that done on a whim so I can use up all the paint? Was the paint green because of function, or because it was on sale? |
Exactly. Dembski never says how these predictions follow from ID, and that's because they don't. At best, he might claim they stem from his Christian theology. Of course, ID isn't supposed to be the same thing.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 02/15/2008 17:47:29 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2008 : 17:47:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
I'm also curious about his example of the appendix. While the appendix may (or may not) function as Dembski says now did it always have that function? Do all structures exhibit function for exactly the same reason in a modern organism as they did in a long-extinct one?? |
No. And that just shows that creationists such as Dembski don't understand that when biologists say "vestigal," they mean "has lost a function it once had." Calling something a vestigal organ doesn't mean it has no function at all. The appendix has certainly lost its old function of digesting plant matter. It's vestigal. That it has a new use now is something we'd expect from evolutionary processes. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2008 : 17:51:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Is it really Dembski who made the pic? I doubt it, because when I click on it, I'm sent to theBRITES.org, which looks like a satire site. |
It attempts to be a satire site, with very poor satires of evolutionary science appearing often. And there is textual evidence that Galapagos Finch is a sockpuppet of Bill Dembski, but I can't re-find it right now. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
ID predicts.......
