Meant by whom?
There are no standards by which we could judge. I think it is a meaningless question.
That has probably been done.
Not as far as I know.
I would be inclined to say none of them. Some of people involved may make naturalist presuppositions. But others don’t.
You are an ID proponent. Since you are asking this question, that already suggests that ID does not have an answer.
Personally, I see the problem of induction as a bogus problem. It is a philosopher’s mistake.
Seriously Eric, you shouldn’t be making claims like this. This doesn’t make ID or its advocates look good. Although I am not convinced by your arguments, you seem to be a pretty reasonable person. But this is just not true. There are many hypothetical theories with crazy implications if true.
How would you actually go about doing this? What experiments can we do to test this?
I agree that Penrose’s quantum mind ideas are not likely to work out. And the others are philosophers questioning computationalism but not suggesting alternatives. I assume your reference was to Jerry Fodor.
With all due respects ID of biological life isn’t a scientific theory. It’s not even a testable hypothesis. ID as presented now is nothing more than unsupported philosophical speculation.
You have no idea what you are talking about on this.
@EricMH what has your experience been in submitting grants and getting scientific papers published? How many grants have you submitted? How many grants have you reviewed? Do you have any papers published?
“Time travel is considered impossible by the scientific consensus, but can you imagine a technology that would be more revolutionary?”
No sane investor or granting agency would agree with this unless there was very strong preliminary data already published showing a path forward to feasibly test a specific approach to time travel.
Yes, it would be revolutionary if it was possible, but it is most likely impossible and no one has a plan on how to prove it possible. It will not be funded.
That is the conundrum ID is in with divine design. The best hope has been @Winston_Ewert’s work but DI is already declaring success from a single preliminary study. If this is what success is, there is no research programs behind it.
This is honestly the sort of thing that should cocern ID advocates more than anything else:
By way of JP Moreland:
The claim here by Demski is that there is no reason to continue doing ID research. The problem is just no one has found them real estate a top university (what about Biola and Baylor?). I’ve never heard of a parallel in science ever where some one claims to have totally one an argument and just needs a research center ( to so what if the argument is made?) at University.
This at least explains why he doesn’t do work in ID now. He things he has alread made all the points that can be made.
But I want to know about existing disciplines. What would ID being true mean for disciplines such as anthropology, zoology, paleontology, etc.,
What’s an ID-Creationist?
ID or Creationist? Or a Creation is that is ID? Or and ID person that thinks the designer is God?
@EricMH your posts triggered me a bit and I didn’t get to acknowledge this. I agree with you here.
I think a plan that would be helpful would be for them to do a systematic to inventory to shed and disavow all their arguments that have failed. Cleaning house like this would do much to rehabilitate ID’s credibility. It would be painful, but I it seems really important. Honestly, if it could be done, it might actually be worth a JTF grant. I would respect it.
For example, there is no reason for any organization to be touting this article as a good thing:
Do you think an agenda like that could arise in your camp? To ruthlessly get rid of your bad arguments?
To me, that’s telling. People don’t need to be too worried if some private religious foundation is trying to fund ID. As seen in this case, if something is not a good research program then no amount of artificial funding will rescue that.
This could be a good idea but it doesn’t seem to have much to do with ID. How would you approach this rigorously?
A person who thinks all biological life on Earth was designed and created.
That would include Joshua Swamidass, wouldn’t it? I certainly believe that God is the Creator of biological life and I think Joshua does a well. And it’s self-evident that biological life is designed, it’s just a dispute over who are what did the designing. Pretty sure that Joshua allows for God’s role in that as well.
No. That is not what the dispute is over.
The dispute is if any of the specific arguments put forward by ID are (1) valid (factually correct and reasonably warranted) and (2) are fully within science in the language of science by the rules of science. The vast majority of ID arguments appear to be invalid, though I have identified at least 1 exception (Common Ground on Bad Design). I cannot find a single ID argument however that satisfies 2. That is what the disagreement is, because ID advocates dispute that assessment, and it matters deeply to them.
On this you are correct though. The fact you aren’t gonna be able to instigate a fight between the atheists an me on this point demonstrates the real problem is what I just laid out. No one cares what you personally believe about God if you don’t make bad arguments to that effect and fight to put them in science.
Yes, that is certainly one way you could take my statement, as @swamidass did. But, I don’t see ID in the same class as astrology, alchemy and the like. Ironically, those theories were the naturalism of their day, assuming that man was driven entirely by natural forces (alchemy’s ultimate goal was to recreate the soul materially).
I see ID theory, my particular understand articulated in terms of information theory, as both being well established in the mathematical realm, and testable. If true, it means the mind is a 3rd kind of causal force, besides determinism and randomness, which can create information, which has many ground breaking implications. Contra @nwrickert, my perception during my 8 years in university is much of academia is in the thrall of naturalism, due to the success of materialistic science, and the subsequent grant funding it has enjoyed, combined with the anti-religious view of the status-quo today.
At the very least, whenever intelligent agency acts, it means there is fundamental disruption to how a physical system (i.e. the brain) is operating. The physical system suddenly moves from a high probability state to a low probability state. That’s why I say this looks like reduction in net entropy. So, for example, based on my amateur physics background, there seem to be close ties between the free energy equation, the CSI equation and the mutual information equation. Which would imply that intelligent agency can increase free energy in a closed system, similar to Maxwell’s demon.
This seems to match my impressions of what IDists like Demski etal are claiming, that intelligence is somehow magical.
You are right that many of your claims are testable. At this point though @EricMH, not one of your simulations has worked the way you predicted. This seems to indicate that you have tested your claims and they are failing. There now two simulation results that have not yielded a positive result for you.
Sorry but ID is not a scientific theory. As currently presented it is an untested and apparently untestable hypothesis.
So, for example, based on my amateur physics background, there seem to be close ties between the free energy equation, the CSI equation and the mutual information equation. Which would imply that intelligent agency can increase free energy in a closed system, similar to Maxwell’s demon.
Yet you can’t come up with a way to test any of that, correct?
The whole theory is not testable, They do make testable sub-claims that are often falsified. Right? Sometimes, on a subclaim they can also be correct.