No, you have no idea how science works. To falsify or test a hypothesis (not really a good model; it should be a statistical question, but never mind) you need to imagine some data you should not observe if the hypothesis is true and then find out if you observe those data. Since any data whatsoever are compatible with design, there are no data possible that would falsify design, either of gravity or of life.
Word salad again. You have no idea what you’re saying.
The hypothesis is that an irreducibly complex system can not evolve through pathways that involve neutral mutations. How do we falsify that hypothesis?
Now that I get to thinking about it, that needs a better definition too. For example, LEGOS ™ are closely matched parts. Is it the parts themselves or the arrangement of those parts which indicate design? Is there ANY arrangement of parts which would contradict design? (I don’t think so).
By changing a known to the known you have created a different argument.
Again you are invoking a straw man. The argument does not involve the Designer. Evidence for design…hard stop.
Gravity is a testable property of matter. So is electro magnetism. A watch is a conglomeration of matter arranged for a purpose.
You are making your own definition of design unfalsifiable. The data that shows matter behaving in a repeatable fashion according to Newton/Einsteins models falsifies design (mind) as a direct cause. The properties of matter can explain the observation.
An arrangement of parts that are not well matched and have no defined function have a weak at best and perhaps no design signal. Rocks on a beach are an example.
Is that Behe’s hypothesis? This is a genuine question, I don’t know that he has ever worded it in quite that manner.
To my understanding (and according to how @lee_merrill keeps presenting it) Behe argues that a system of a given level of complexity cannot arise without a number of selectable steps, and sometimes (e.g. for a “CCC”) a “selectable step” would require that two or more mutations occur at the same time. He then argues that the number of “selectable steps” required exceeds the number that could be expected to arise thru unguided natural processes.
Behe does not seem to seriously consider the possibility of them arising thru a series of neutral mutations, in part because this would not be “Darwinian”, which is correct as far as it goes but remains a serious oversight.
Beyond that, I don’t know how much more he explicitly explains that would justify the conclusion that there exist features in biology that could only have been “designed.” The above simulacrum of an argument is evidently enough to convince his devoted fans of this, and at that point he seems to consider his work to be done.
But maybe I am wrong and there is more to his argument. I have been involved in a protracted discussion with @lee_merrill, in part, to determine if that is the case. But instead, I keep finding there is less to Behe’s argument than meets the eye, rather than more.
OK, but it’s still your definition. Fix it so that it is not ambiguous. It’s OK to define terms separately from the definition, if necessary.
No straw man - I invoked the proposed evidence, and noted that it does not falsify design. Again, how would you falsify design? (on second thought, hold on this until you have a definition.)
Aside: If the Designer cannot manipulate matter in some way, then ID is entirely pointless. What use is a Designer that cannot design?
MASS is a testable property of matter. Gravity is a FORCE. Definition matter.
To my knowledge no one has ever suggested gravity as evidence for ID. Gravity has no parts to match or arrange, no design signal at all *your definition). I suggest there are better examples, just pick one.
I guess it depends on whether Behe thinks a known and demonstrable natural pathway for evolving an IC system would falsify his design hypothesis, even if that process is non-Darwinian. It’s a bit like ignoring Relativity because it is non-Newtonian.
In a conversation with @dsterncardinale he explains that basically any natural process is a Darwinian process in his view, including neutral mutations.
Just repeating what you claimed before isn’t a response or an argument. In order to test Newton vs. Einstein there must be some difference in expected data between Newton and Einstein, for example the details of Mercury’s orbit. In order to test design vs. Newtonian gravity there must be a difference in expected data between design and Newtonian gravity. What is that difference? What is your definition of design, and how does it predict characteristics of the data that differ from the predictions of other models?
The absence of a design signal isn’t evidence against design unless you’re willing to say that design must produce a design signal. The presence of a design signal (leaving aside what that actually means and how you would detect it) doesn’t show design unless you’re willing to say that only design can produce a design signal. And by “you” here I don’t mean you specifically, I mean a reasonable person.
How is this statement ambiguous?
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.
You simply changed the argument to make in unfalsifiable. The designers activity is not evidence available to us. Only the results of His activity.
Again beyond the scope of the argument. You are continuing to beg to invoke a straw man argument. Have you thought about your need to do this?
I also not making this claim. Gravity theory is a way to falsify ID for that application. This discussion is not about inferring ID it is about falsifying it. ID is about a purposeful arrangement of parts which is a separate discussion then testing the properties of matter. ID is not required to create a testable model of gravity.
My hypothesis is that Behe’s intention is to lead people to reject evolution while minimizing the number of outright lies he has to tell.
So he can truthfully say “There is not plausible Darwinian pathway to an irreducibly complex system”. And if his readers incorrectly interpret this as “There is no plausible evolutionary pathway,” that’s not his fault. He didn’t say that.
While he seeks to minimize the number of outright lies he has to tell, he may not be able to completely avoid them. If he concedes the existence of non-Darwinian mechanisms, the jig is up.
You just had an example. Here is your definition again, let’s break it down …
“Design which is a known product of a mind can be inferred …”
Do you mean:
If you can’t define it so that anyone else understands what you mean, then maybe you don’t understand it yourself. So do define it, or admit there IS no workable definition.
I think John and I are on the same track here.
You are the one supporting claims of Intelligent Design. You support that a purposeful arrangement of parts implies design. Therefore a designer is capable of purposefully arranging parts. This should be … you know … obvious.
So lets settle on that definition, then tell me how any how it might be falsified. Recall that evidence FOR nature is not evidence AGAINST design. IF something other than matter is involved, how can it be falsified?
Bill, do you notice that you abandoned all mention of a hypothesis there? Why did you do that?
I think either statement is fine.
You can make many hypotheses unfalsifiable depending on how you set them up. You both are trying to set up the design hypothesis to be unfalsifiable which you can but you can also set it up to be falsifiable. The assertion that you and John are making that design is categorically unfalsifiable is an unsupported assertion as I showed you a case where it is falsified…
I agree your statement is logically true however the argument is not about the designer. That becomes a philosophical discussion. Again, evidence for design…hard stop.
evidence for nature is not evidence AGAINST design
It is evidence against design as a direct cause.
.
Again the design inference is falsified when you can put a successfully tested natural hypothesis against it as you have tentatively identified the direct cause.
Oh he acknowledges such mechanisms exist. He just calls them “Darwinian”. All of them.
What I get out of that verbiage is that design apparently doesn’t behave in a repeatable pattern. Design gravity would cause things to fall down or up, perhaps even sideways, apparently at random.
Yes, which (whether by accident or design) makes it very easy for his followers to think that when he is talking about “Darwinian” mechanisms proper, he is including all the non-Darwinian mechanisms that, at other times, he includes under that rubric.
The other thing he does is minimize the degree to which non-Darwinian mechanisms can account for evolutionary outcomes. So he might begrudgingly admit that neutral processes can produce some changes, but then resort to dismissing these as not “new” enough or only involving the destruction of systems that already existed.
The approach I have usually seen him use is handwave neutral theory away as some newfangled thing that evolutionists cooked up to avoid dealing with his brilliant arguments, and which has yet to be demonstrated to account for the things he believes are beyond “Darwinism”. His followers are easily impressed by such tactics as, again, we see in this very discussion.
Why so? Ford makes fords, and that does not involve any philosophy. Why does ID get to be transcendental? Design, really, is relatively boring. It is the making and makers, building and builders, and creation and creators, that are the interesting investigation. Find an artifact - was it forged or cast? At what temperature? We do not stop at a purposeful arrangement of parts, we want to know how it was made. And we can, there is physical evidence of the means of manufacture, just as physical as the anything else about the object. ID is supposed to be independent of philosophy or theology, so why should they be required at all? The test is, we know other design can in principle be investigated as to designer and manufacture based on material only, so that is an inherent property of design.
But a random walk to a new protein-protein binding site is not going to get very far, very fast.