Why jump to this conclusion? Scientist openly admit that everything is subjective and nothing is known with 100% certainty, yet science prevails. There's nothing particularly wrong with subjectivity. Deny it is where a problem would present itself. But if you believed that the person didn't commit suicide because you believe you knew that person and you stood to gain the proceeds of a life insurance policy which will not pay in cases of a suicide, I bet you'd hopr the investigators didn't rest their laurels on Occam's razor. See? Again, another leap. I didn't say it was weak. Nor did I imply it. I simply stated a fact. It's subjective. Scientist know this and that's why they continue to review the evidence, review each others findings and conclusions(peer review), and debate, at times hotly, certain thoughts on the subject. That's why they use the phrase "considered to be" when discussing most aspects of evolution. BTW, all science is ultimately speculative. But that is the beauty of science. It wouldn't be scienctific if it was otherwise.
I'm not dismissing ID out of hand. I'm simply suggesting that the ID advocate produce some evidence to support ID, other than just saying that something looks designed. If you go into court, you have an affirmative duty to prove the case. You can't go in and say that because there is no evidence to deny your allegation, other than the denial of your opponent, that therefore you should be granted judgment. You have to produce some affirmative evidence to support your allegation(s). Negating your opponent's evidence is a defensive tactic. It can never lead to a win. ID supporters can chip away at evolution until nothing is left except the bare claim that evolution is true, and ID will still not be proven true as a consequence. All that will have occurred is that evolution will have been discredited sufficient to render it non-science. But, ID will not suddenly be rendered scientific. For that, you need some affirmative proof. Do you have some affirmative proof of ID? If so, what is it?
Teleologist wrote: kjkent1 replied: This supports my contention that the only one's that are going to investigate the possibility that life is designed are those that think life looks designed. If scientists discovered a message etched into biological organisms, that would cause them to suspect design. Based on that suspicion they would then begin an investigation into design. How this is suppose to rebut what I said escapes me. Teleologist wrote: kjkent1 replied: What are you talking about? You claim there is no evidence of design. I'm simply asking how you know this if you have no idea what evidence of design would look like? Evidence of design could be right in front of your face and you wouldn't recognize it. kjkent1wrote: ID doesn't dispute common ancestry. kjkent1wrote: But what about your "who designed the designer" argument? I thought this was suppose to trump any evidence of design. Have you changed your mind? kjkent1wrote: You keep confusing inference with proof. I never claimed I could prove design. From my perspective design is always inferred, it's never a direct intuition. You seemed to have grasped this for a moment when you said above that scientists would suspect design if they found a message etched into a biological organism. Based on nothing more than a suspicion they would then launch an investigation into design. The only difference between your senario and what design theorists are doing right now is that design theorists don't need something as spectacular as a message written in an organism to trigger a suspicion of design. Something as spectacular as a message written in an organism, is in my opinion, closer to proof of design than merely something capable of triggering a suspicion of design.
Re subjectivity: I didn't say that subjectivity was wrong. I said that subjectivity is inescapable, but that eventually enough subjective facts may make for a pretty inescapable objective conclusion, and at the moment, those facts point to evolution and not ID. Re the investigation example: What I might hope from the investigators is irrelevant. If I see a benefit to further investigation which outweighs the risk of leaving the matter entirely within the hands of others, then I would investigate so as to obtain the advantage. And, that's exactly the problem. The ID advocate doesn't investigate further. Instead, the ID advocate is content to sit back and complain about the lack of investigation conducted by evolution advocates. Nothing is preventing evidence of ID from being produced, except for its apparent non-existence. I am not discounting the possibility that some evolution advocates might be so fixated on their own beliefs, that they might not sabotage or misrepresent results in order to prop up their own position (and in fact, I know of an example where this has occurred on the net, even in the face of a peer group published paper which refutes a previously believed correct scientific study re evolution of considerable importance). Nevertheless, if sufficiently compelling evidence of design were available, some credible scientists would speak out. The evidence heavily favors evolution, and there is no credible evidence of design, except from those who take it as self evident that the universe is designed, and therefore, that every conclusion drawn from results must be that design is true and evolution is false.
Agreed. Not yet. ID is in the early stages. It's partly a rethink of creation stories, a rethink of abiogenesis, and perhaps a rethink of what guided evolution. But it doesn't deny evolution. At least not as far as I understand it. I see ID as no less viable than say, the theory of multiverse. Or the concept behind abiogenesis. Macro molecules of the building blocks of life aren't life itself. So the experiments that had the right conditions inorder for these macromolecule compounds to form only proved that macro molecules will form under certain conditions. Nothing more, but also nothing less. But that's true for many compounds. You know, the flipside of this would be to ask evolutionists for proof that life came non-life. There is none yet. It just seems "natural." But that doesn't stop abiogenesis from being attached to evolution (which has nothing to do with abiogenesis or cosmology for that matter given that evolution only deals with the change in species over time) in classrooms or in the thoughts of many scientists. They merely accept it because it seems more rational and/or accords with their present worldview.
Inference: to draw a conclusion from a predicate fact. Proof: Evidence which tends to make a material fact more or less probable. I have steadfastly advocated testing predicate facts rather than drawing conclusions. However, there are cases when many facts exist and all inferences drawn from those facts lead to the same conclusion, that a particular conclusion becomes more than mere inference -- it tends to become statistically more or less probable. So, I am not confusing either inference or proof. Given enough facts and circumstances leading to the same place, the inference becomes proof. Your above-stated position is that you never claimed to be able to prove design and that design is always inferred. But, as I've just shown, sufficient inferences leading to the same place can become statistical proof. So, where are all of your inferences leading to the same place? The theist will fall back on the position that everything is designed, because God exists. This means that all inferences must lead to the same place and that place is God. However, if you are a scientist, then you must ignore God as the answer, and this means that you cannot rely on the a-priori conclusion that evidence may be inferred as designed. So, now you need proof of how all the various inferences which you choose to draw all lead to the same conclusion: design. OK, has anyone laid out all of the inferences and shown how they all must reasonably lead to the single design inference? Or is it just the opposite: ID advocates that design is self evident, therefore all inferences lead to design. If it's the former, then I've yet to see anyone produce a credible analysis. And, if it's the latter, then that is just another name for theism: God is the answer.
Agreed. I think that the reason why the scientist tend to favor the "natural" answer is simply because the alternative is a supernatural answer. Some may argue that God is a natural actor, because God is in everything. But, if that's true for scientific purposes, then God must be scientifically measurable in everything, and since God is not scientifically measurable in anything, therefore God must be supernatural. I doubt that it will be more than a decade more before we are able to produce a living organism from non-organic chemicals. However, this will not end the debate, because the design advocate will simply declare that we have proven that a designer was necessary. Thus, I doubt that any experiment, no matter how compelling will ever be sufficient to demonstrate that life arose by purely natural processes, because ultimately, every experiment we conduct is the product of human design. The scientist would be satisfied -- but not the theist.
kjkent1 wrote: There is evidence to support ID, other than just saying that something looks designed, but I haven't been able to get into this due to all the red herrings you keep bringing into this debate. For example, why should I bother to present evidence of design if in the end you are going to dismiss it all with your "who designed the designer" nonsense? Why should I bother to present evidence of design to someone that wants me to prove evolution impossible or wants me to show them the designer in action? Why should I bother to present evidence of design to someone that wants extraordinary evidence that'll shock them into belief? The case presented for a non-teleological origin of life is essentially an intuitive, cumulative, circumstantial case. Likewise, the case presented for a teleological origin of life is essentially an intuitive, cumulative circumstantial case. I don't want to waste my time presenting an intuitive, cumulative circumstantial case to someone that will only accept extraordinary evidence or to someone that has a philosophical need to see no design in nature. Investigating ID involves being sensitive to subtle clues. So why don't you tell me what subtle clues would cause you to merely suspect ID? If you are looking for extraordinary evidence that'll shock you into belief, I don't have it.
I'm completely open to your proof, if it is based on some verifiable test (including a statistical test inferring a certain conclusion). However, if your proof is not based on any verifiable test, then it's not scientific, so it's not proof. So, what proof do you have?