Your laughably inept attempts to defend Edge of Evolution in the other discussion is a pretty good indicator of how good that “evidence” is.
It would be more accurate to say that people unwilling and/or unable to honestly understand the relevant areas of science. math and logic are easily convinced by the arguments made by ID propagandists. Of that, we have overwhelmingly conclusive evidence.
This is like saying to falsify the null hypothesis it must be possible at least in theory to disprove the null hypothesis.
It looks like you are trying to put an unfair burden on falsifying design and using it as a comparative hypothesis tool.
Good catch - I have edited here and above.
It looks like you are trying to put an unfair burden on falsifying design and using it as a comparative hypothesis tool.
Nothing unfair here - this is the burden all scientific hypotheses must meet.
On the contrary:
“With the criterion of two protein-protein binding sites [at the edge], we can quickly see why stupendously complex structures such as the cilium, the flagellum, and the machinery that builds them are beyond Darwinian evolution. The flagellum has dozens of protein parts that specifically bind to each other; the cilium has hundreds. The IFT particle itself has sixteen proteins; even complex A, the smaller subset of IFT, has half a dozen protein parts, enormously beyond the reach of Darwinian processes. In fact, drawing the edge of evolution at complexes of three different kinds of cellular proteins means that the great majority of functional cellular features are across that line, not just the most intricate ones that command our attention such as the cilium and flagellum. Most proteins in the cell work as teams of a half dozen or more.” (The Edge of Evolution, p. 146)
There is no demonstration that a single thing mentioned in that quote requires multiple simultaneous mutations.
Proof or disproof is not a scientific burden. The burden that you are putting on design is outside science.
Hypothesis testing is about finding the direct cause of the observed effect. While design may not be falsifiable as the ultimate cause of the universe it can be falsified as a direct cause of an observation. In the same way “random” or no cause can be falsified as a direct cause in hypothesis testing.
Gravity is an example of this.
While a ball falling to the ground may be attributed to the properties of matter (gravity) the origin of the force that caused this (gravity) may be due to design. We can however falsify design as the direct cause by testing either Newtons or Einsteins model and showing the direct cause is a property of matter called gravity.
Do you think we can falsify random chance as a direct cause of the origin of the universe?
True enough. But the rest of that was hopeless. You can’t falsify design as the direct cause of gravitational phenomena, because the designer or his angels could easily be moving things around so as to simulate some non-existent thing you call gravity. Design can’t be falsified.
It’s all how you set up the hypothesis. Falsifiability is about setting up a testable hypothesis, In this case design is falsified by repeatable testable models that show how nature alone can explain the cause.
If you are able to discover the act of angels working on matter you can overturn the hypothesis that it is the property of matter alone causing the effect.
Just plain wrong. That is NOT what hypothesis means in science.
In short, a hypothesis is testable if there is a possibility of deciding whether it is true or false based on experimentation by anyone . This allows to decide whether a theory can be supported or refuted by data. However, the interpretation of experimental data may be also inconclusive or uncertain.
While design may not be falsifiable as the ultimate cause of the universe it can be falsified as a direct cause of an observation.
To date there is one (1.0) hypothesis - you know the one - which could allow Design, as specified by the Discovery Institute, to be refuted by data. With that sole exception there are no scientific claims for design.
Like ID, you haven’t provided enough information to define the question, much less tested. Even allowing such a test is possible, you are going to need a much larger sample size (currently N=1).
That’s not how it works, Bill. Refuting one hypothesis does not automatically provide support for another. If it did, then the same evidence is equally supportive of any and all alternatives, including Invisible Pink Unicorns, Flying Spaghetti Monsters. Karma, Hyper-Intelligent Shades of the colour Blue, etc… A simple unwritten rule here, is that hypotheses should be plausible, and an unknown and unknowable Designer almost as plausible as a flying spaghetti Monster.
Apologies if I have stepped on anyone’s beliefs, but ridiculous claims beg ridicule.
This is a straw man argument. The design argument is about inferring design not the identity of the designer.
The data is a vehicle to test for the cause. The hypothesis is about finding cause. The null most of the time is no identifiable cause. An alternative null can be design.
Are you claiming that Behe’s method is not scientific? How are you making this assessment? What you need to think about is how often the properties of matter are the cause in science. The problem is the properties of matter are limited in their explanatory power.
You can break down the test into components such as origin of matter and origin of life. I think both have a case to be made that you can falsify random chance as the cause.
No it’s not. Name evidence, real or speculative, which could falsify Design.
ETA: Suppose that I claim to be the Designer. Unlikely, but there is nothing in the ID that disqualifies me in any testable way. Hey, I could change my title …
Three nonsense sentences.
I am stating fact. What evidence could possibly falsify design? Recall that evidence FOR nature is not evidence for design.
Do go on?
I think what we have here is two different definitions of design. Unless this is agreed upon we will argue in circles.
Can design be defined in such a way that it is falsifiable? Do you think Behe has thought about this?
So define it, and state how design might be falsified.
Rubber, meet road!
Yes. Theobald (2005?), White? and Penny (2009?)
I can look those up later, but they aren’t hard to find.
This gets back to irreducible complexity, are there selectable paths to a cilium, a flagellum, etc.?
It is not my job to demonstrate your claim. If you are claiming that ID/IC are useful, then you need to demonstrate the applicability of the argument to some actual example. That’s the way this works.
Design which is a known product of a mind can be inferred from observing a purposeful arrangement of parts. (Behe). The more closely matched parts the stronger the design inference.
Design is falsified by an inference being explained by matter alone for example. Gravity theory is an example of this falsification.
This assumes that what Behe considers a “selectable path” is how such things arise.
It isn’t.
He’s wrong.
You should know this by now,
Problem: If Design is already the KNOWN product of a mind, then no test is needed, WE ALREADY KNOW. Your wording allows a circular definition. I think the second sentence is OK.
Though we have not yet fully agreed on the definition, I think this has flaws too. The Designer must be capable of manipulating matter in some way (by definition). “Explained by matter alone” can also be design, so design is not falsified.
Gravity is not a good example of matter. How about a pocket watch?