Village Journals
Resonate your identity with Naseeb journals. Express your opinions, share your thoughts, post your writings and connect with like minded people through the power of expression.
Resonate your identity with Naseeb journals. Express your opinions, share your thoughts, post your writings and connect with like minded people through the power of expression.
Rebuttal in Defense of the Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design (Part 3)
IDT as Science
>> Nevertheless, since you mentioned reading and agreeing with the refutations of various adversaries of Behe?s claims, you overlooked one minor yet a crucial detail of this debate, viz, by them so-called systematically falsifying Behe?s arguments they actually PROVED the falsifiability of Behe?s claims, hence scientific, basically the opposite of what wanted to prove! ? Now let us turn the table and ask: How could one falsify the claim that a particular biochemical system was produced by a Darwinian process? The claim of ID is that ?NO unintelligent process could produce this system? the claim of Darwinism is that ?SOME unintelligent process could produce this system.? To falsify the first claim, one need only show that at least one unintelligent process could produce the system. To falsify the second claim, one would have to show the system could not have been formed by ANY of a potentially infinite number of possible unintelligent processes, which effectively IMPOSSIBLE to do?! ?Asif
>> Now let us turn the table and ask: How could one falsify the claim that a particular physical system (say, solar system or a particular galaxy) was produced by a natural gravitational process (say, clumping of planets or distribution of stars)? The claim of IF (intelligent falling) is that "NO unintelligent process could produce this system" the claim of gravitational physics is that "SOME unintelligent process could produce this system." To falsify the first claim, one need only show that at least one unintelligent process could produce the system. To falsify the second claim, one would have to show the system could not have been formed by ANY of a potentially infinite number of possible unintelligent processes, which effectively IMPOSSIBLE to do"!
>> Yet, is Intelligent Falling scientific? Just like ID, it is not. Clever yet obfuscatory rephrasing of the falsifiability condition will do nothing to remedy that. It's all nothing more than a big argument from incredulity, since it is not any sort of positive, substantial claim. ID is merely a proclamation of ignorance, and an appeal to stay in ignorance. ?Saif
Another straw man argument. You misrepresented the argument of IDT (i.e., created a straw man) and then attacked the misrepresented argument (i.e., attacked the straw man). In the claim, "NO unintelligent process could produce this system," it is clear to me from the context of the discussion that Asif specifically designated the ?system? as Behe?s biochemical (not a cosmic) system characterized by irreducible complexity, the telltale sign of intelligent design. In Darwin?s Black Box Behe defined an irreducibly complex system as ?a single system which is composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning? (39). IDT does not claim that cosmic systems such as asteroids, moons, planets, stars, solar systems, or galaxies, also exhibit irreducible complexity as defined. Hence, since these cosmic systems are not irreducibly complex, IDT does not deny that they are a result of naturalistic gravitational clumping. Your caricature of the IDT argument misrepresents the cosmic systems as irreducibly complex. Since the straw man argument is invalid, the conclusion founded on the straw man is uncorroborated, to wit, IDT is not science and IDT is an argument from incredulity or ignorance.
This is an apt occasion to reiterate my earlier advice. It is prudent to first comprehend in detail the pertinent literature at issue before diving into the argumentative combat zone. Otherwise, this is how one gets misled.
>> ID of course does not include a framework with which to make future predictions. Could you give me an example of one? -Saif
The theory?s predictions have been cited in various works on intelligent design. But since you have chosen to merely sit tight and throw questions at the proponents of IDT instead of consulting IDT literature on your own first, I will list predictions to close the loop on this objection:
- High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
- Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information).
- Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
- The genetic code will not contain functionless junk DNA.
- Vestigial organs or structures will be found to be fully functional systems, indispensable for the survival, reproduction, and multiplication of species.
The theory?s predictions above continue to be corroborated today with full vigor.
Cambrian Explosion
>> I think it's reasonable to accept that larger-scale changes are at least possible, If ID was true, I would have expected to see the abrupt changes and sudden arisals of new body parts, with new species being created that had no relation to pre-existing ones. ?Saif
Have you deliberately overlooked the Cambrian Explosion from 543 to 525 million years ago when many morphologically novel phyla and body plans arose in a geologically brief period of time and with ?no clear morphological antecedents in earlier Vendian or Precambrian fauna? (Meyer 215)? Or, are you unfamiliar with the Cambrian Explosion? Any debate on evolution and IDT would be incomplete without a discussion of the vitally significant Cambrian Explosion, which in retrospect appears to be biology?s Big Bang and an information explosion.
Do you think that the morphologies of the creatures of the Cambrian Explosion bears resemblance to prior morphologies? Or, do you maintain that not enough fossils have been unearthed and that, therefore, the proponents of IDT are arguing from ignorance? Or, do you maintain that the Cambrian Explosion does not constitute an abrupt change and a sudden explosion of new body plans? If so, did jellyfishes or other invertebrates naturalistically give rise to fishes with backbones, which were fittingly set up for aquatic life? What brought forth the genetic code that laid out the information for proper embryological construction of a backbone, which never before existed in the history of the planet - random mutations in Hox genes? Did trilobites come about naturalistically from unknown species of some vertebrate that did not fossilize for some ad hoc reason?
Nadeem
References
Behe, Michael J. Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York: The Free Press, 1996.
>> Nevertheless, since you mentioned reading and agreeing with the refutations of various adversaries of Behe?s claims, you overlooked one minor yet a crucial detail of this debate, viz, by them so-called systematically falsifying Behe?s arguments they actually PROVED the falsifiability of Behe?s claims, hence scientific, basically the opposite of what wanted to prove! ? Now let us turn the table and ask: How could one falsify the claim that a particular biochemical system was produced by a Darwinian process? The claim of ID is that ?NO unintelligent process could produce this system? the claim of Darwinism is that ?SOME unintelligent process could produce this system.? To falsify the first claim, one need only show that at least one unintelligent process could produce the system. To falsify the second claim, one would have to show the system could not have been formed by ANY of a potentially infinite number of possible unintelligent processes, which effectively IMPOSSIBLE to do?! ?Asif
>> Now let us turn the table and ask: How could one falsify the claim that a particular physical system (say, solar system or a particular galaxy) was produced by a natural gravitational process (say, clumping of planets or distribution of stars)? The claim of IF (intelligent falling) is that "NO unintelligent process could produce this system" the claim of gravitational physics is that "SOME unintelligent process could produce this system." To falsify the first claim, one need only show that at least one unintelligent process could produce the system. To falsify the second claim, one would have to show the system could not have been formed by ANY of a potentially infinite number of possible unintelligent processes, which effectively IMPOSSIBLE to do"!
>> Yet, is Intelligent Falling scientific? Just like ID, it is not. Clever yet obfuscatory rephrasing of the falsifiability condition will do nothing to remedy that. It's all nothing more than a big argument from incredulity, since it is not any sort of positive, substantial claim. ID is merely a proclamation of ignorance, and an appeal to stay in ignorance. ?Saif
Another straw man argument. You misrepresented the argument of IDT (i.e., created a straw man) and then attacked the misrepresented argument (i.e., attacked the straw man). In the claim, "NO unintelligent process could produce this system," it is clear to me from the context of the discussion that Asif specifically designated the ?system? as Behe?s biochemical (not a cosmic) system characterized by irreducible complexity, the telltale sign of intelligent design. In Darwin?s Black Box Behe defined an irreducibly complex system as ?a single system which is composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning? (39). IDT does not claim that cosmic systems such as asteroids, moons, planets, stars, solar systems, or galaxies, also exhibit irreducible complexity as defined. Hence, since these cosmic systems are not irreducibly complex, IDT does not deny that they are a result of naturalistic gravitational clumping. Your caricature of the IDT argument misrepresents the cosmic systems as irreducibly complex. Since the straw man argument is invalid, the conclusion founded on the straw man is uncorroborated, to wit, IDT is not science and IDT is an argument from incredulity or ignorance.
This is an apt occasion to reiterate my earlier advice. It is prudent to first comprehend in detail the pertinent literature at issue before diving into the argumentative combat zone. Otherwise, this is how one gets misled.
>> ID of course does not include a framework with which to make future predictions. Could you give me an example of one? -Saif
The theory?s predictions have been cited in various works on intelligent design. But since you have chosen to merely sit tight and throw questions at the proponents of IDT instead of consulting IDT literature on your own first, I will list predictions to close the loop on this objection:
- High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
- Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information).
- Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
- The genetic code will not contain functionless junk DNA.
- Vestigial organs or structures will be found to be fully functional systems, indispensable for the survival, reproduction, and multiplication of species.
The theory?s predictions above continue to be corroborated today with full vigor.
Cambrian Explosion
>> I think it's reasonable to accept that larger-scale changes are at least possible, If ID was true, I would have expected to see the abrupt changes and sudden arisals of new body parts, with new species being created that had no relation to pre-existing ones. ?Saif
Have you deliberately overlooked the Cambrian Explosion from 543 to 525 million years ago when many morphologically novel phyla and body plans arose in a geologically brief period of time and with ?no clear morphological antecedents in earlier Vendian or Precambrian fauna? (Meyer 215)? Or, are you unfamiliar with the Cambrian Explosion? Any debate on evolution and IDT would be incomplete without a discussion of the vitally significant Cambrian Explosion, which in retrospect appears to be biology?s Big Bang and an information explosion.
Do you think that the morphologies of the creatures of the Cambrian Explosion bears resemblance to prior morphologies? Or, do you maintain that not enough fossils have been unearthed and that, therefore, the proponents of IDT are arguing from ignorance? Or, do you maintain that the Cambrian Explosion does not constitute an abrupt change and a sudden explosion of new body plans? If so, did jellyfishes or other invertebrates naturalistically give rise to fishes with backbones, which were fittingly set up for aquatic life? What brought forth the genetic code that laid out the information for proper embryological construction of a backbone, which never before existed in the history of the planet - random mutations in Hox genes? Did trilobites come about naturalistically from unknown species of some vertebrate that did not fossilize for some ad hoc reason?
Nadeem
References
Behe, Michael J. Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York: The Free Press, 1996.