Re: Can ID be Tested?

On Dec 7, 6:24 pm, Otto Bean <Glemps...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 15:06:35 -0800 (PST), "Greg G." <ggw...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:





On Dec 7, 5:46 pm, Otto Bean <Glemps...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:27:38 -0800 (PST), Christopher Denney

<christopher.den...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 7, 1:48 pm, Otto Bean <Glemps...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If I wanted to create a testible theory of intelligent design, what
would be the best way of going about it?

You're going about it all wrong.
Science doesn't start with with a conclusion and set out to "prove"
it.
Roughly:
1. You observe (usually say something like "hmm, that's odd")
2. You collect more data
3. You formulate an hypothesis
4. You check it against the data
5. You check it against yet more data
6. Revise hypothesis, goto step 1

At some point a solid conclusion can be reached, sometimes fast,
sometimes slow. (sometimes not)
Someone who starts with a conclusion and searches for proof/talking
points is simply engaging in the type of debate they teach in High
School, or wants to.

I don't think you're reply is entirely self consistent. I have two
possible hypotheses in mind to account for the many observable
anthropic coincidences that characterize the physical universe. How am
I to distinguish between the intelligent designer hypothesis and the
many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics? This isn't assuming
one's conclusion. It's preliminary to your step 3. My question
concerned how I am to choose one or the other of these hypotheses.

The "godidit" explanation is invulnerable. A proposed omnipotent (or
sufficiently potent) being could, by definition, do anything to
confound your experiment. Perhaps you could work on an experiment to
show that the designer was limited in power.

If you regard the anthropic coincidences as data, this would seem to
put a very high bound on the designer's power. So it would be
unrealistic to propose a limited designer. Does this, in your opinion,
mean that the anthropic coincidences are not to be considered as data?

Life-as-we-know-it depends on on the laws of physics being what they
are. If things were different, nobody would be asking the question
"Why are we not here?" This makes the "Why are we here?" question less
meaningful.

LAWKI is not possible in the universe we know except for a thin film
around one small planet where it has maintained a tenuous existance
between hits and misses of asteroids, comets and meteors.

I have considered the coincidences but I don't see anything that
indicates an intelligent design.

OTOH, if we existed with magic smoke instead of biochemistry, I might
believe there was a powerful magic creator. A few hundred years ago,
this was the state of human understanding of life itself. Humans have
peeled back a layer of ignorance and replaced it with some
understanding while discovering another layer of ignorance. It seems
too soon to stuff a god-of-the-gaps into that ignorance.

As far as testable goes, formulate a positive statement which can be
demonstrated to be false.
e.g. I stand up in front of a panel at some convention and assert my
name is Fred, it can be easily seen that my badge says Chris, and
further research can be done to show that my DL and other forms of ID
show my name begins with Chris, not Fred.

Can you provide an empirical means to distinguish between these two
hypotheses?

How could you know that the universe isn't designed to appear to be a
multiverse to all experiments?

What experiments favor the multiverse hypothesis?

I wouldn't know. Human understanding of physics breaks down at a
certain threshhold of energy density where we cannot experiment. This
is not to say that physics itself breaks down, just our
understanding.

It is trivially easy for the human mind to conceive of imaginary
beings, like the invisble, pink unicorn behind you. The creator/
designer that was conceived of before science could investigate cells,
gravity, and germs had to be changed in the imagination of believers
as our understanding grew. Should we change our concept of the
designer everytime we peel back a layer of ignorance? Of course, as
long as the designer is based on ignorance.

Theology has refined the concept of their gods as humans have achieved
the capability to test theological claims. Today, gods have been
defined as untestable.

--
Greg G.

Don't you wish people would just shut up about the First Amendment?
..

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Can ID be Tested?
    ... I to distinguish between the intelligent designer hypothesis and the ... If you regard the anthropic coincidences as data, ... understanding while discovering another layer of ignorance. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Fifth Dimension
    ... what you write below does not even have a meaning in English. ... Physics was done in the minds of people before Einstein. ... understanding (view for example, the complete and utter shambles you made ... your ignorance, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Fifth Dimension
    ... what you write below does not even have a meaning in English. ... Physics was done in the minds of people before Einstein. ... understanding (view for example, the complete and utter shambles you made ... your ignorance, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Laws of Intelligence Re Creative Activity
    ... in the normal course of the operation of such a law. ... noting consistent and common characteristics for those items. ... direction that normally do not occur via the laws of physics, ... But what you're talking about isn't the program or the designer ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: What if ID could be proved?
    ... just as quantum physics doesn't change the way we do ... some falsifiable flesh - is the supernatural agent intelligent? ... So your program isn't examining the designer option at all. ...
    (talk.origins)