A quibble: From the science perspective, no amount of evidence or argument could ever falsify the hypothesis of design in nature.
1 Like
That formulation does not contradict the one I gave.
In any case, the plain fact of the matter is that the atheists here are existentially closed to the possibility of design in nature. None of the purely technical fencing around definitions of science, testability, falsifiability, etc. can ever mask that fact.
Here I disagree. There are ways to test hypotheses of Design using well accepted methodology. To date such tests are mostly “throwing down the gauntlet” to ID supporters. These test have so far supported common ancestry over independent origins, BUT if the results showed otherwise there could be no technical objections. So far no ID researchers have taken up the gauntlet to put their ideas to the test, and that cannot be blamed on existentially close atheists.
An example:
Busy day here, so I probably won’t pursue this any further.
Perhaps the case. who knows? The best way to test that would be to find clear and convincing evidence of the sort that these atheists accept for other aspects of the world and see if they change their mind.
Problem is, no such evidence has yet been produced, so your cocksure assertion remains nothing but an expression of your personal bias.
OTOH, the planet is unfortunately crawling with people so convinced of particular religious beliefs that preclude the acceptance of unguided evolution that they insist that such a thing could not occur. Some of them even set up Institutes, purportedly to Discover scientific evidence to support this religious doctrine.
3 Likes
I predict that Eddie’s not going to look at your stinkin’ evidence, but this does rigorously distinguish between separate origins (the obvious prediction of design) and common descent, so it utterly disproves Eddie’s claim that existential closure is a plain fact.
If Eddie has devised a way to test for design that just happens to produce superimposable nested hierarchies, I’m all ears and I’ll bet my house that all atheists here are too, again disproving his alleged “plain fact.”
Or existentially closed Christians, either. The firmly closed mind here, both existentially and epistemologically, is Eddie’s.
I would be a little kinder in my criticism here. I don’t expect or require Eddie to produce testable hypotheses. I think there are existential limits to methodological naturalism, but I don’t think Eddie has pinned them in the right place.
1 Like
I think that you probably should have evidence of design before you make that claim. I’m not epistemically closed to this. But I do expect that those who argue that it’s true, and empirically demonstrable, will accept the burden of presenting evidence which bears in some way upon the issue. Instead we get all this evolution-negation and fine-tuning stuff. Where is the positive case? When has IDC ever produced a shred of evidence in support of its extraordinary speculations?
I’m not epistemically closed to invisible dragons living in the walls of my house. But I do expect the proponent of that theory to have something to back it.
3 Likes
“We”? You’re presumptuous. “We” didn’t agree to discuss anything together. You butted in on another topic. I owe you no clarification of any kind, nor will I provide any, especially as it’s very plain from the remarks you are making that you are trying to “catch me out.” Your passive-aggressive intimation that you are just seeking intellectual clarity fools no one. Good-bye.
Ooops. There you go again! After reading hundreds of my posts, you still don’t understand my position! Design is not opposed to common ancestry. I’ve quoted Behe, Dembski and Discovery many times to show this.
Correct – an opposite metaphysical bias exists for many religious believers. But the at least those believers will usually admit they have the bias, caused by the Bible. No atheist here admits having any bias at all.
Right, and I did not mean to speak for you. The point is this serves as an example of how design hypotheses might be tested with well accepted methods. *A positive result would have to be taken seriously, and subjected to confirmatory testing.
There is another example (I’d have to dig for it) which test a hypothesis of a gene sequence inserted in final form then accumulating mutations over time versus gradual accumulation of mutations as it evolves. This is not limited to common descent, and there is an expanding wealth of data that could be tested. As I have mentioned elsewhere, Design answers no how/when/why/what/where/who? questions ("It’s not that kind of science"). Without such a question, there isn’t any hypothesis to test.
In any case, I still disagree there is any atheistic existential closure to hypotheses of design. There are multiple demonstrations for how this might be done. Pose an idea about the how/when/why/what/where for design, and we can probably find a way to test it. Note that I left off WHO, that one is hard. 
3 Likes
This all reminds me of the earliest experiences I had arguing with people who basically said that my refusal to assent to the truth of religious propositions that were dominant in my own culture was a failure to have an “open mind.” Apparently open-mindedness required assent to the things our culture already told us to believe – who knew?
The funny thing is that when I’ve been presented with evidence for some scientific finding that seemed improbable to me, and have expressed skepticism, nobody has ever asked me to have an “open mind.” Instead, they’ve just kept explaining the evidence, and why that evidence led to the conclusion. An “open mind” would surely be of use, but nobody asks for it; they assume you have it, and show you the evidence.
Well, here I am, sixty years old and many, many discussions later. That exhortation to have an “open mind” about arguments for the existence of gods has changed form over the years, but it’s never gone away. What else hasn’t changed? The fact that there’s never any bloody evidence. Well, you know, nobody would have to ask me to have an open mind or to not be “epistemically closed,” if they just brought the goods. The expectation seems to be that this accusation is the best go-to strategy, if there’s no evidence. It’s not. Going and getting the evidence would be the best go-to strategy, and the fact that nobody ever does that shows just how confident they are of their ability to produce anything of value.
3 Likes
I don’t think @Eddie advocates for separate origins, so the evidence presented in that excellent study shouldn’t be particularly relevant to any of his claims AFAIK.
1 Like
True, but is it not reasonable to expect that a hypothesis concerning origins distinguish such a very basic element, in order to be considered? ID does not offer a test or criteria to differentiate design via common descent from design via instantaneous ex nihilo creation, or what level of granularity of created kinds to expect. Whether one accepts the constraint of naturalism or not, at least what is offered embraces questions of what happened? how did it happen? why did it happen? and where did it happen? Answers may be wrong, or tabled pending further investigation, of course, but they are at least integral to the idea. As such, ID does not present a complimentary alternative to the modern synthesis.
2 Likes
That flounce would have worked better if it were not preceded by several posts worth of evasion.
In fact I was interested in the question of whether you had any sensible way in which science should be “altered to accommodate theology”. It seemed unlikely. And your actions show that you did not.
1 Like
Design events would produce discontinuities in the nested hierarchy unless there was a deliberate effort to conceal them.
Not if the designer allowed evolution to occur without any input in following the natural formation of the earliest lifeforms from abiogenetic mechanisms.
Exactly. Evolution predicts common ancestry, at least at some level (strictly speaking, there could have been multiple origins and we would see common ancestry from those points).
“Design” makes no such prediction. So we have a very obvious and pervasive phenomenon that is accounted for by the existing theory, and for which those who claim to have an alternative theory cannot account. Those neo-creationists who accept common ancestry can only account for it by stealing from evolutionary theory.
This issue is pertinent to the claim that ID is a serious scientific endeavour rather than a dishonest exercise in religious apologetics. Simply asserting that some ID’ers accept common ancestry does not address this problem.
Behe asserts the occurrence of “design events” that do not produce discontinuities. He has no interest in explaining how this happens.
It is perhaps worth noting that, while most ID neo-creationists are evangelicals, Behe is a Catholic and the leadership of his Church has endorsed common ancestry with God interfering in some poorly defined way.
But, right, ID is all science and not religion…
Of course, but then @Eddie et al. would have no beef with evolution whatsoever. They very clearly do.
1 Like
No, my actions show that I wasn’t even trying to do what you suggested. By the way, I blotted out your name so I should not see any future posts by you. Hope it works.
Is this orthodox?
“I agree God is capable of using miracles to do what he wants. I don’t think the evidence for evolution revolves around what God is capable of, it revolves around what we see in rocks and genes and fossils. I don’t think we know why it was the tool and not something else, but it is pretty clear based on empirical evidence that it is what happened. So then it is up to us to work out how the facts of the matter fit with our beliefs about God and the future.”
That was from one of the BL staff.
2 Likes