to Nums and PY

[PurpleYouko]

Testable? Why, ID is very nearly testable. Right now we're just copying and pasting genes around, but very soon I'll wager we will be able to create custom genes that do what we want (or not do what we want, but that's really another issue). Genetic manipulation is truly coming into its own.

That doesn't make inteligent design testable though.

That would mean that it is possible to create life and not that that is what did happen.

ID as a theory claims that at some point in the past (or possibly even right now and still ongoing) some inteligence did, is continuing to have an input on the development of life.

This theory is 100% untestable. It cannot be falsified and is therefore unscientific.

The fact that something is possible is NOT evidence that it happened.

Science does not make any attempt to say that it is not possible for life to have been inteligently created. It simply says that there is ZERO evidence that it happened. There is simply no way to investigate/test the hypothesis.

It falls entirely outside the realms of science and so science utterly ignores it.

ID is a philosophical concept and until ID proponents come up with a real theory that is scientifically testable, it will and should stay that way.

It is a perfectly valid and even possible scenario that deserves a good examination of it's tenets. However this should NOT take place in any kind of science class.

[PurpleYouko]

Is forming an artificial organism impossible? I'd say no, as I bet most people would say.

Then you are in the minority.

Most people, and in fact all creationists/IDists that I have spoken to, claim that we will never be able to do this and that this is the primary reason for believing in an omnipotent designer.

If we were able to create life (artificial is not really the point. Life is life) then we would be the equal of the designer so the concept falls apart. You are then left with the question of who designed the designer. This goes back an infinite number of steps until you finally reach the point of an omnipotent designer who exists outside of time and has no beginning.

Wait a minute.  :idea:

We already have one of those. His name is GOD.

ID is a thinly veiled attempt to get religion back into our schools, in spite of the constitution.

[Numsgil]

ID as a theory claims that at some point in the past (or possibly even right now and still ongoing) some inteligence did, is continuing to have an input on the development of life.

I'd call that the strong ID theory.  In a weaker version, I'd say something like:

some intelligence did and may be continuing to shape our evolution.

The "may be doing it now" is indeed quite untestable.

As to what happened millions of years ago, it is no more possible to say that the organisms evolved than to say they were just plopped here.  Now, saying they evolved is a fairly good claim.  Fossil record seems to support the idea of a gradual increase in complexity.  Don't get me wrong.

But let's say some intelligent designer influenced the development of organsisms at key points in our history.  Key points that evolution was incapable of doing (in limited time).  Then we must reexamine the nature of evolution in general.

It's sort of like Gaia theory.  It doesn't really change anything or present new facts, it just changes how we approach the data and information.

Right now if you see something in the fossil record, you're assuming it's a direct ancestor of the first organism.  You're assuming natural forces alone led to its creation.  While probable, it's hardly exhaustive.

[Numsgil]

Is forming an artificial organism impossible? I'd say no, as I bet most people would say.

Then you are in the minority.

Most people, and in fact all creationists/IDists that I have spoken to, claim that we will never be able to do this and that this is the primary reason for believing in an omnipotent designer.

If we were able to create life (artificial is not really the point. Life is life) then we would be the equal of the designer so the concept falls apart. You are then left with the question of who designed the designer. This goes back an infinite number of steps until you finally reach the point of an omnipotent designer who exists outside of time and has no beginning.

Wait a minute.  :idea:

We already have one of those. His name is GOD.

ID is a thinly veiled attempt to get religion back into our schools, in spite of the constitution.

Yes, I know most creationists would scoff at that statement.

Who designed the designers?  Evolution, on the galactic scale over galactic time could indeed very probably produce intelligence.  Simple numbers game.

But lets say it's a 1 in a 10^100 shot.  There are some major hurdles to overcome after all.  Everytime the designers expanded past their planet, they seeded, wether intentionally or not, that planet with some of their own planet's organisms.

In that sense alone, life developing in one part of the galaxy could expland and grow into other parts.

[PurpleYouko]

But let's say some intelligent designer influenced the development of organsisms at key points in our history. Key points that evolution was incapable of doing (in limited time). Then we must reexamine the nature of evolution in general.

OK I have a problem with this logic. What is the proposed nature of this inteligent designer and where did it come from?

If it evolved itself then the same time constraint applies to it.

If not then we are talking about God which makes ID religion.

[PurpleYouko]

Yes, I know most creationists would scoff at that statement.

Who designed the designers? Evolution, on the galactic scale over galactic time could indeed very probably produce intelligence. Simple numbers game.

But lets say it's a 1 in a 10^100 shot. There are some major hurdles to overcome after all. Everytime the designers expanded past their planet, they seeded, wether intentionally or not, that planet with some of their own planet's organisms.

In that sense alone, life developing in one part of the galaxy could expland and grow into other parts.

Granted that this scenario could be possible. It still comes down to evolution eventually though and the universe only has a finite lifetime in which it could have happened.

What you are suggesting is not typical of ID though.

They mouth off about not being specific about who the designer was but when it comes right down to it they always bring God in at some point.

Did you catch that story on the news this morning. In response to a recent decision by a Pensylvanian school board to reject ID from its science classes, some pillock (can't remember his name) declared "If a natural disaster strikes your town then don't turn to God! You have thoroughly rejected him"
 :blink:

WTF has God got to do with ID? ID is specifically supposed to have nothing to do with God.

Or have we just caught the IDers out in another underhanded cheap ploy?

[Numsgil]

But let's say some intelligent designer influenced the development of organsisms at key points in our history. Key points that evolution was incapable of doing (in limited time). Then we must reexamine the nature of evolution in general.

OK I have a problem with this logic. What is the proposed nature of this inteligent designer and where did it come from?

If it evolved itself then the same time constraint applies to it.

If not then we are talking about God which makes ID religion.

Let's say that on average abiotic elements take 15 billion years to form into life, with a standard deviation of 3 billion years.

That would be a time constraint that wouldn't prohibit the development of life somewhere, but would mean very little life evolved on its own.

[Numsgil]

Yes, I know most creationists would scoff at that statement.

Who designed the designers? Evolution, on the galactic scale over galactic time could indeed very probably produce intelligence. Simple numbers game.

But lets say it's a 1 in a 10^100 shot. There are some major hurdles to overcome after all. Everytime the designers expanded past their planet, they seeded, wether intentionally or not, that planet with some of their own planet's organisms.

In that sense alone, life developing in one part of the galaxy could expland and grow into other parts.

Granted that this scenario could be possible. It still comes down to evolution eventually though and the universe only has a finite lifetime in which it could have happened.

What you are suggesting is not typical of ID though.

They mouth off about not being specific about who the designer was but when it comes right down to it they always bring God in at some point.

Did you catch that story on the news this morning. In response to a recent decision by a Pensylvanian school board to reject ID from its science classes, some pillock (can't remember his name) declared "If a natural disaster strikes your town then don't turn to God! You have thoroughly rejected him"
 :blink:

WTF has God got to do with ID? ID is specifically supposed to have nothing to do with God.

Or have we just caught the IDers out in another underhanded cheap ploy?

I'll admit alot of poor science from ID people.  Really really poor.  It sickens me.

What gets my goat is that I see much the same behavior from "scientists".  It's sort of like the white-supremicist arguments you occassionally find in science articles from 100 years ago.

At best its quait.  At worst its destructive to science as a whole.

Anyone who doubts that evolution occurs is only kidding themselves.  What we don't know is how successful evolution is, what sort of time it needs to do its thing, etc.

[PurpleYouko]

Let's say that on average abiotic elements take 15 billion years to form into life, with a standard deviation of 3 billion years.

That would be a time constraint that wouldn't prohibit the development of life somewhere, but would mean very little life evolved on its own.

So what you are saying is that our own Earth is a relative new comer to the cosmos at a mere 4.5 billion years of age whereas other parts of the universe are thought to be as old as 14 billion years.

Evolution could have occurred somewhere and then gradually migrated across the universe on the boots of some advanced form of life. They either did it deliberately (ID) or through not being careful enough (AD "Accidental design"  :D )

I don't have a problem with that concept as a hypothesis. Can it be proven though? What predictions would be made based on the hypothesis? Can the hypothesis be tested?

If not then it is just as valid to hypothesize that the entire universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being called "The Great Green Arkelseizure" and we should all live in constant fear of a time known only as "the coming of the great white hand kerchief" HitchHiker's guide to the galaxy
After all we can't disprove that either.

[Numsgil]

I don't have a problem with that concept as a hypothesis. Can it be proven though? What predictions would be made based on the hypothesis? Can the hypothesis be tested?

One would expect to see stochastic evolutionary events.  Not that stochastic events always mean ID, but that's what you'd expect to see.

For instance, the development of eukaryotes was very sudden.  We have little evidence of the steps that occurred from one to another.  It just sort of bang occurs in the fossil record.

That eukaryotes were designed from preexisting microbes by an alien intelligence (perhaps as part of a terraforming project or something along those lines) would explain that better than evolution.  Not that evolution couldn't have done that, just that ID fits the evidence as well or better.

[PurpleYouko]

That eukaryotes were designed from preexisting microbes by an alien intelligence (perhaps as part of a terraforming project or something along those lines) would explain that better than evolution. Not that evolution couldn't have done that, just that ID fits the evidence as well or better.

Let's follow this through logically and scientifically.

Evidence - The development of eukaryotes was very sudden. (note: By sudden we still mean several 10s of millions of years at least but this can be termed sudden by evolutionary standards)

This can be explained by 2 (at least) possible mechanisms.

Hypothesis 1 - Inteligent aliens caused the modifications.
Supporting evidence - None. No direct evidence of this has been found.
Circumstantial evidence - None. We don't know whether any other alien race exists or has ever existed. No evidence of them has ever been found.

Hypothesis 2 - Evolution got a bit lucky and made a breakthrough by pure chance.
Supporting evidence - None. No direct evidence of this has been found in the fossil record.
Circumstantial evidence - Evolution happens. We see it happen all around us every day.

From these two possible scenarios we see that evolution is by far the most probable explanation because we know that it happens to this day. Although we cannot directly test what happened during the cambrian, by extrapolation it is possible to see that it could well have happened this way.
Furthermore, assuming that the aliens were not God (no beginning or end etc. yada yada), then they themselves must have evolved somewhere else. Further evidence that evolution can go from nothing to a sentient being.

In the absence of absolute proof either way, the principle of parsimony (or Occam's razor) states that we should always choose the answer with the least complexity.
In this case, the addition of any kind of inteligence is increasing complexity. It is completely unecessary and must therefore be rejected, pending further evidence.

[Numsgil]

Okay, let's suppose that we make contact with intelligent aliens tomorrow.  Let's suppose that these aliens have terraforming technology.

Then suddenly the ID and evolution theories are on equal footing...

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a scientist that would tell you there are no aliens whatsoever.  I also think you'd be hard pressed to find a scientist that says designing life is impossible.

Within the next 100 years we will probably be technologically advanced enough to be the Intelligence of some form of Intelligent Design.

Occam's Razor has been used far too often IMO to discredit theories.  Occam's Razor does not tell you what theory is right.  It only presents guidelines for picking among competing theories the one you should accept as your primary.  Don't discard your competing theories.  Evidence may change.

Stochastic evolution is simply more difficult to describe using evolution than ID.  Evolution tends to work in steps.  Skipping several intermediary steps in the process isn't something terribly easy for evolution, but is something absolutely hallmark of ID (using our Bots in DB as an example).

I don't know that you can ever say what happened on Earth conclusively.  But we will probably be able to say one day what the evidence on Earth seems to point to, and what is the more common origin of life in the universe.  Probably primarily evolution, but a few leaps and jumps might be accredited to outside tinkering.

And we know not that the process of Eukaryotization took 10 million years or so (or whatever the time frame), just that it occured within that sort of window.  Fossil dating for stuff that old is sketchy, so we end up with a time limit.

[PurpleYouko]

Okay, let's suppose that we make contact with intelligent aliens tomorrow. Let's suppose that these aliens have terraforming technology.

Then suddenly the ID and evolution theories are on equal footing...

Absolutely. In light of new evidence, the prevailing scientific theory is apt to change. That is what differentiates science from religion.

[PurpleYouko]

Within the next 100 years we will probably be technologically advanced enough to be the Intelligence of some form of Intelligent Design.

I agree with this too. It is just that what you are proposing is not what is typically understood to be inteligent design.

[Numsgil]

Within the next 100 years we will probably be technologically advanced enough to be the Intelligence of some form of Intelligent Design.

I agree with this too. It is just that what you are proposing is not what is typically understood to be inteligent design.

Hmm, maybe I should form my own competing theory XD