You could be right, but for simplicity I didn’t want to add that to the discussion. In essence, rejecting the null means that one or more of the assumptions is wrong. In ID this almost always comes down to unstated assumptions about the Designer - a sort of begging the question.
I’ve been trying to do that for 15 years now. It’s not how we describe it, but a refusal to accept the definition.
A clear example and counter-example couldn’t hurt. Busy day tho - but shoot me a message tomorrow.
You are going off on a tangent. @Dan_Eastwood is not defending I.D.
We need to show why I.D. fails… and sometimes people deflect these discussions by pointing out the SIMILARITIES of INDUCTIVE REASONING is to science.
The challenge is to show that even the BEST INDUCTIVE REASONING falls short… and why!
That’s what I just did. A single methodology has its own inherent bias since no method is perfect. Almost every sampling of a population is going to have flaws. The way to limit this impact is to use multiple methodologies that have different biases. If the statistical significance of your results holds up after testing with multiple methodologies then you can have much more confidence in those results.
This relates to ID in many ways. For example, ID proponents have a tough time linking different parts of biology together. For example, linking genetics and morphology together really hasn’t happened in ID circles. On the flip side, evolution predicts matching phylogenies for morphology and genetics which are two independent data sets. Evolution naturally explains seemingly disparate observations and ties them together in a way that ID simply can’t.
People keep telling you that induction isn’t the problem, and you keep ignoring them. Induction isn’t the problem. Behe’s problem is not that he used induction. Pretty much all science depends on induction.
It doesn’t have to be conclusive for fork’s sake, that’s the whole point of probabilistic reasoning. It CAN’T be conclusive. No scientific conclusion is “conclusive” in that sense you seem to be unable to stop obsessing over. Your argument here is BAD. You are not attacking ID, you are attacking the very basis of science that it is based on probabilistic reasoning to tentative conclusions.
Hold it guys, I think I can settle this, give me a few minutes to write …
… a few minutes later …
The trouble is more fundamental than induction, probability, cause and proof. It’s the very hypothesis of Design itself. Without a hypothesis as a basis there is no inference. Without some definition of Design or Designer there is nothing we can infer-to by any means.
The implied assumption of Intelligent Design is the Designer exists. Expressed mathematically, this is a Bayesian prior assumption “The Designer Exists” with probability =1.0." I have a post somewhere explaining how I arrive at that conclusion which I will search and link - I’m too lazy/busy to reproduce it.
The implications of such a prior are that all evidence is ignored and the conclusion favors Design, always. This is why arguments about ID always devolve into nonsensical conclusions and discussion, because the implicit assumption of ID is nonsensical. Given a false assumption we can conclude anything we like as a “true” statement.
Now to find that link …
One: From a discussion of the premises of Design arguments.
Two: A discussion of ID math.
Both versions say essentially the same thing.
Is there a real difference in how we come to faith in God and how we come to faith that some scientific claim is true?
Are you an I.D. proponent?
If you aren’t … please focus on why Behe’s self-confessed use of Inductive Reasoning is NOT convincing reasoning for DEFENDING God’s role in design.
Yes, absolutely! And if, in a particular person’s situation there is no difference, then that particular person doesn’t understand the limits of science.
Please explain the difference.
I have done so several times. Science methodology is meant to evaluate repeated events.
Miraculous and divine events are not repetitive. So they cannot be assessed scientifically.
God cannot be treated as an Independent Variable. So, again, God cannot be assessed scientifically.
And this is the basic problem with I.D. It claims that it doesn’t need methodology for us to draw conclusions… and yet Behe has yet to explain how we can tell which virus God has designed and which virus God has NOT designed…
… which bear God has designed, and which bear God has NOT designed.
Comment finished … don’t miss it at #66
Yes, there is an enormous difference.
We accept a scientific claim because we test it thoroughly. We design experiments that attempt to show the claim is false. And if it stands up to all of that testing, we tentatively accept it.
People come to faith in God by means of human persuasion. And they are taught to never rigorously test it, for such testing would show a lack of faith.
With all the respect that is due to you George, you are a long way from understanding Behe’s argument. You are simply misrepresenting it.
God cannot be treated as an Independent Variable. So, again, God cannot be assessed scientifically.
This is an assertion and not an argument grounded in the scientific method.
So tell us how we do lab work controlling for God’s presence as an independent variable?
I think you have gathered the perfect, eager audience for your counter-assertion!!!
We observe a cell divide, we grow a tree from the original seed, we watch the process from inception to the birth of a human child.
I other words we observe the process he designed.
Are you claiming another independent variable responsible for the origin of these processes.
Objection Your Honor! Assumes facts not in evidence.
Bill, how do you falsify the hypothesis God designed anything in biological life? Because if your hypothesis isn’t falsifiable it isn’t science.
You falsify it by finding a mechanism that explains it. Like Einstein falsified divine involvement (per Newton) when he showed with an experimentally validated model how mass as a mechanism could accurately explain planetary motion.
That doesn’t work. How could you conclusively show God wasn’t behind the scenes directing whatever mechanism (i.e. evolution) was found? Couldn’t an omnipotent Deity do that without you detecting it?
Sorry Bill, once you start inserting supernatural forces you leave the realm of science.
