To be blunt, much of the talk about “MN disallowing design inferences” comes across as whinging to me.
Make a better mousetrap and you’ll have the world knocking at your door. ID isn’t so much handicapped because of prejudice against ‘design inferences’. Its main problem is that it lacks a positive theory of design that does a better job. I know Eddie will disagree but that’s really where it stands, even among many scientists who might be more predisposed to design. Paul knows this too.
Make a better mousetrap. Don’t claim there’s a better mousetrap right around the corner. Don’t whinge that scientists are metaphysically opposed to better mousetraps. Don’t claim to possess a better mousetrap and then make it the work of others to determine the validity of the claim. Just make a better mousetrap.
Falsifiability is over rated. The question is there a natural explanation for a complex sequence that can build a multicellular animal. There is 5 million riding on this and this would replace the design inference if successful. That does not falsify design overall but moves it one further step away as an explanation.
How does it do that? What is it you know about divine design that makes you think MN rules it out, and how do you know this is in fact the case about divine design?
Wrong. DNA is able to create long functional sequences on it’s own, without any mind involved. Plus, in every single example with not one exception, a mind is depends on a DNA containing organism for its existence. Therefore, a mind could not have produced DNA based on your own form of argument.
Yep. And it’s nobody’s fault that biological evolution and common descent seem to make a lot of sense in this world. Clearly it was the creator’s choice to make life hard for today’s ID theorists by choosing a particular mode of enacting its designs that makes special creation and obvious interference hard to demonstrate. You’d almost think that was the point, or something!
You have already stated that there can’t be a natural explanation because minds are the only thing that can create whatever ID buzzword you are using this week. You have already excluded natural processes.
I think it rules out linking the designer to something supernatural. Not that design couldn’t be inferred. So, ‘designer of unknown origin’ would be about the best MN could say.
You need to stop changing arguments it makes your position look weak. Look at my argument and compare it to your words. They are different and that is called creating a straw man which is a logical fallacy.
And in order for a mind to exist, you first need DNA. This is 100% verified by every single observation we have made of minds.
So a mind cannot have created the first DNA molecule, anymore than you could have created your own parents.
The “design inference” dies by the very “logic” its adherents use to try prop it up. I know you will never admit this, though, being the mindless zealot that you are.
On top of that, you have already stated that if there is complex sequence then only a mind can produce it. Any time you see complex sequence you will claim that it came from a mind, no matter what.
This is what the reward is for. Origin of life. We do know when life gets to a certain level the genome can re arrange sequences. De novo sequences that appear along the path are still a mystery.
I said it is the best explanation for what we are observing.
You need to start from scratch.