Letter to the Editor

[Darth Wong]

Fine. Here's a third example. Take the second example I made (the one with the factory animals), and let it evolve for a few million years. The specific factory traits have been evolved away. Now it looks basically like the first example I made. We can no longer discern the creator's purpose, yet there was a perfectly reasonable purpose. It is, for all purposes, now inscrutable.

You are saying that a scientific hypothesis is reasonable by giving an example where the evidence for it has been obliterated. How is this any different from the scientific hypothesis of the flying spaghetti monster?

Do you honestly not understand that a scientific theory must be capable of generating predictions, which in turn require terms that make sense?

[Lord Zentei]

So, was astronomy not science before we had explained nuclear fusion, because we had this totally inscrutable mechanism for the stars to burn? Eventually, it was worked out; but for a really long time we weren't even close.

Invalid analogy: it was definately seen that stars burm.

By contrast, there is nothing that suggests that life is designed. If the ID guys are not claiming that the reason and method for the designer are intrinsically incomprehensible, they are searching for a reason and method for something they have not demonstrated that exists. I might start arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin without demonstrating that angels are real; it's the same damn bullshit.

The ID analogue would be trying to figure out what the designer was up to.

WHAT designer? WHY infer that he exists?

In my third example, they could search for archaeological evidence of the microchips or metal sheets, they could look through gene drift to reconstruct the original non-broken versions of the various factory animals, reconstruct them, etc. In the first example, or in real life, they could look for such things, and not find them. All that would prove is that they left a long enough time ago not to make their purpose clear.

They'd still have enough evidence to throw out evolution, and what would be left but design?

You are describing something akin to archaeology. They are aware in that case that a mecanism exists, even if they cannot describe it. They can make inferences and predictions. But if they cannot even demonstrate a need for postulating the design mechanism they are morons.

Why do you think I'm harping on the point that the mechanism needs to be inscrutable for ID to work, and that therefore they are throwing in the towel with regards to describing it? How can you describe a mechanism even in principle if you cannot show that there is a mechanism of the kind you are referring to (design)? And if you insist that there is one despite the inability to demonstrate such a need, what other recourse do you have except to ASSUME that you cannot in principle describe it, but have to take its existance on .... wait for it ... faith?

And where did the aliens come from? Hello, parsimony.

Presumably, they evolved. Note that ID does not need to say that evolution cannot produce intelligent life (and the more careful proponents maintain this); all it needs to say is that evolution could not produce some organism or other which actually exists.
So, the aliens who did the constructing in my counterfactual examples would have all the precise features in their home biosphere that would indicate that they evolved, because they did. Like we do. But not like the creatures in my counterfactual examples.

Bulshit. ID is meant to be an alternative to evolution. If the designer needs to have evolved, ID is a bullshit alternative. Hell, you might claim that ID is vindicated because we have discovered remains of domesticated animals in archaeological sites.

[drachefly]

You are saying that a scientific hypothesis is reasonable by giving an example where the evidence for it has been obliterated. How is this any different from the scientific hypothesis of the flying spaghetti monster?

But in my examples, the evidence of Not-Evolution has not been obliterated, and is indeed very strong. Got any other better ideas than ID, if it couldn't be evolution?

Also, there seems to be a bit of confusion between mechanism and motivation going on on your side. Which are you more concerned with, how, or why?

By contrast, there is nothing that suggests that life is designed.

In my counterfactual examples, there is plenty.

But if they cannot even demonstrate a need for postulating the design mechanism they are morons.

ID suffers from too many conceivable mechanisms, not too few.

Why do you think I'm harping on the point that the mechanism needs to be inscrutable for ID to work, and that therefore they are throwing in the towel with regards to describing it?

Because you love the taste of straw? I don't know.

Seriously, if we suddenly discovered the mechanism by which some alien race had been manipulating our genome for the past 3 billion years, do you think that the ID argument would be disproved? e.g. example 2. it is transparently obvious that there is a designer; mechanism and motivation are clear. So no, obviously not. So, ID does not rely on inscrutability in principle. There is something it cannot explain; but due to various factors it is quite reasonable that this is something that it would not be able to explain.

See below for a further clarification.

Bulshit. ID is meant to be an alternative to evolution.

Ah, here we get to the heart of it. ID, as it is intended to be used is as an alternative to evolution. However, the content of the... I hesitate to call it theory, or even hypothesis... idea? In any case, the content of ID itself is merely that certain structures here on Earth could not have been produced by evolution, therefore these structures here on Earth were designed.

A minimal ID position (as opposed to a more specific ID position like creationism) holds that, period. An extended ID position holds that no structures that could be alive could arise by chance; but I do not often hear that argument. Keep in mind, even the 'mindboggling improbability' argument only applies to how improbable our kind of life is, and does not touch on other kinds of life with a simpler basis. The more careful ID proponents admit this, in order to bring in the UFO set.

So, whether lots of people actually believe a minimal ID position doesn't matter, because you attack the argument, not the person; and the minimal argument is a commonly presented one.

Now, the next more involved ID variant is the claim that it must have been god. This one DOES actively rely on inscrutability, while the 'long-ago-abandoned alien factory' hypothesis does not.

If you only wish to argue against that form, then go ahead and talk about reliance on inscrutability; but this argument will not address the more general form.[/i]

[Darth Wong]

You are saying that a scientific hypothesis is reasonable by giving an example where the evidence for it has been obliterated. How is this any different from the scientific hypothesis of the flying spaghetti monster?

But in my examples, the evidence of Not-Evolution has not been obliterated, and is indeed very strong. Got any other better ideas than ID, if it couldn't be evolution?

Your first example involved a comprehensible mechanism, ie- species which appeared to fit what you might expect from rational design decisions. Your second example involved a biosystem which had supposedly once looked like this, but from which there had been so much evolution that the evidence for it was now lost. How does that change the point?

Also, there seems to be a bit of confusion between mechanism and motivation going on on your side. Which are you more concerned with, how, or why?

There's no difference. If you can discern rational motives for something, then you have a comprehensible mechanism. A person can be a mechanism once you can discern his motives; look at any criminal investigation.

[Lord Zentei]

By contrast, there is nothing that suggests that life is designed.

In my counterfactual examples, there is plenty.

So in a hypothetical alternate universe where it is clear that life is designed, then it is an acceptable hypothesis that life is designed. Well, golly gosh.

But if they cannot even demonstrate a need for postulating the design mechanism they are morons.

ID suffers from too many conceivable mechanisms, not too few.

The point escapes you: you need to demonstrate a need for a mechanism before you postulate it. How is your response a rebuttal of that?

Why do you think I'm harping on the point that the mechanism needs to be inscrutable for ID to work, and that therefore they are throwing in the towel with regards to describing it?

Because you love the taste of straw? I don't know.

Seriously, if we suddenly discovered the mechanism by which some alien race had been manipulating our genome for the past 3 billion years, do you think that the ID argument would be disproved? e.g. example 2.

Are you on crack? Where am I insinuating that evidence for design implies that ID is disproven?

it is transparently obvious that there is a designer; mechanism and motivation are clear. So no, obviously not. So, ID does not rely on inscrutability in principle. There is something it cannot explain; but due to various factors it is quite reasonable that this is something that it would not be able to explain.

Jesus fucking Christ, YOUR EXAMPLE IS IRRELEVANT. By your own admission here, mechanism and motivation are clear in your hypothetical scenario. If you want to insist upon postulating a design mechanism and motivation WITHOUT it being transparently obvious that a design mechanism and motivation exists, then you can ONLY do so if you start from the assumption that it IS inscrutable.

Bulshit. ID is meant to be an alternative to evolution.

Ah, here we get to the heart of it. ID, as it is intended to be used is as an alternative to evolution. However, the content of the... I hesitate to call it theory, or even hypothesis... idea? In any case, the content of ID itself is merely that certain structures here on Earth could not have been produced by evolution, therefore these structures here on Earth were designed.

A minimal ID position (as opposed to a more specific ID position like creationism) holds that, period. An extended ID position holds that no structures that could be alive could arise by chance; but I do not often hear that argument. Keep in mind, even the 'mindboggling improbability' argument only applies to how improbable our kind of life is, and does not touch on other kinds of life with a simpler basis. The more careful ID proponents admit this, in order to bring in the UFO set.

Again, parsimony. Fuck's sake. It is still a matter of assuming a mechanism without having demonstrated the need for postulating such a mechanism.

So, whether lots of people actually believe a minimal ID position doesn't matter, because you attack the argument, not the person; and the minimal argument is a commonly presented one.

Now, the next more involved ID variant is the claim that it must have been god. This one DOES actively rely on inscrutability, while the 'long-ago-abandoned alien factory' hypothesis does not.

If you only wish to argue against that form, then go ahead and talk about reliance on inscrutability; but this argument will not address the more general form.[/i]

No, since they have not shown that life was designed. They hold to this position not because the evidence leads them there, but despite the fact that it does not. And when they attempt to describe the mecnanism, they fail, because none has been shown to exist. This remains the reason why any mechanism must be inscrutable, regardless of whether it is the altar of Jehova or Apophis they bow down to. As long as you have not identified the mechanism and demonstrated the need for postulating it, it will be inscrutable, regardless of whether it might or might not be so in principle IF your unsupported postulate of its existance were true.

[drachefly]

You are saying that a scientific hypothesis is reasonable by giving an example where the evidence for it has been obliterated. How is this any different from the scientific hypothesis of the flying spaghetti monster?

But in my examples, the evidence of Not-Evolution has not been obliterated, and is indeed very strong. Got any other better ideas than ID, if it couldn't be evolution?

Your first example involved a comprehensible mechanism, ie- species which appeared to fit what you might expect from rational design decisions. Your second example involved a biosystem which had supposedly once looked like this, but from which there had been so much evolution that the evidence for it was now lost. How does that change the point?

Actually, those are my second and third examples, respectively.

In the first example, all they had was just a bunch of evidence which pointed away from evolution, e.g. really discrete fossil records, movement of complex organs across phyla, a genetic drift signature which indicates penguins passing genetic material to elephants, and such. This was all that was apparent in the third example as well.

All of this comprises evidence against evolution, and all of it can be found in all of my examples. In the second example, with the factory animals, it is really abundantly clear that someone was mucking around with evolution, and why. In the other two cases, it is fairly clear that evolution was not an adequate explanation for what was going on, but it wasn't clear what was up. A leading alternate explanation would be design.

Why would a designer create these creatures? Head-scratching time. There are lines of research they could look into. With sufficient diligence, the scientists in the third example could find out what the designers had been doing.
Even if they didn't find that obvious reason (e.g. 1st case), it could be true; or there could be less clear reasons. Just because they wouldn't be able to tell one from another doesn't mean that there wasn't one.
1) experiment, gaining experience with eco-engineering
2) Several designers competing for cash and prizes. This one would even explain why some features don't cross over, like our backward eyes.
2) art. Very modern art. You'd hate it, but the critics in tin-can habitats orbiting Procyon love it. And once we contact the aliens, it's self-criticizing art.

Also, there seems to be a bit of confusion between mechanism and motivation going on on your side. Which are you more concerned with, how, or why?

There's no difference. If you can discern rational motives for something, then you have a comprehensible mechanism. A person can be a mechanism once you can discern his motives; look at any criminal investigation.

Not quite. If the scientists in the factory animals example didn't know what DNA was, they would have no mechanism, but the motive would remain obvious. And in the other two examples, if they understood genetics and evolution, but had concluded that evolution could not explain their ecosystems, then they would have an overabundance of mechanisms (gene splicing of various sorts), but no clear motive.

[drachefly]

By contrast, there is nothing that suggests that life is designed.

In my counterfactual examples, there is plenty.

So in a hypothetical alternate universe where it is clear that life is designed, then it is an acceptable hypothesis that life is designed. Well, golly gosh.

If it's so obvious, why did you complain when I said so?

Fuckwit.

[Lord Zentei]

Also, there seems to be a bit of confusion between mechanism and motivation going on on your side. Which are you more concerned with, how, or why?

There's no difference. If you can discern rational motives for something, then you have a comprehensible mechanism. A person can be a mechanism once you can discern his motives; look at any criminal investigation.

Not quite. If the scientists in the factory animals example didn't know what DNA was, they would have no mechanism, but the motive would remain obvious. And in the other two examples, if they understood genetics and evolution, but had concluded that evolution could not explain their ecosystems, then they would have an overabundance of mechanisms (gene splicing of various sorts), but no clear motive.

You are confusing the mechanic with his tools. DW means that you can describe the actions of the mechanic, even if you don't know how his tools work. The "mechanism" is the behaviour of the mechanic, not the tools he uses to acheive his objectives.

[Darth Wong]

In the first example, all they had was just a bunch of evidence which pointed away from evolution, e.g. really discrete fossil records, movement of complex organs across phyla, a genetic drift signature which indicates penguins passing genetic material to elephants, and such. This was all that was apparent in the third example as well.

That would require that formulation of an alternate hypothesis with a new comprehensible mechanism. Saying "oh well, we can't figure it out, it must have been an inscrutable designer" is not science.

All of this comprises evidence against evolution, and all of it can be found in all of my examples. In the second example, with the factory animals, it is really abundantly clear that someone was mucking around with evolution, and why. In the other two cases, it is fairly clear that evolution was not an adequate explanation for what was going on, but it wasn't clear what was up. A leading alternate explanation would be design.

Not unless you can explain this "design" hypothesis in such a manner that it can actually make predictions. Do you know what the word "explanation" means?

Why would a designer create these creatures? Head-scratching time. There are lines of research they could look into. With sufficient diligence, the scientists in the third example could find out what the designers had been doing.

In which case there would be a scientific hypothesis, because it would not be using inscrutable terms.

Even if they didn't find that obvious reason (e.g. 1st case), it could be true; or there could be less clear reasons. Just because they wouldn't be able to tell one from another doesn't mean that there wasn't one.
1) experiment, gaining experience with eco-engineering
2) Several designers competing for cash and prizes. This one would even explain why some features don't cross over, like our backward eyes.
2) art. Very modern art. You'd hate it, but the critics in tin-can habitats orbiting Procyon love it. And once we contact the aliens, it's self-criticizing art.

All of this completely sidesteps the point that an inscrutable term has no place in a scientific theory. You're simply saying that explanations might exist. That is true and it is the scientist's job to look for them. But when faced with a situation we do not understand, the correct scientific conclusion is to say "we do not yet know" rather than saying "it must have been an inscrutable Designer". I can't believe you actually don't understand this. Do you honestly not recognize that it is a perfectly acceptable scientific statement to say "we don't know"? You figure you have to invent a pseudo-explanation for everything even if it's not really an explanation at all? Thanks for advocating a medieval approach to science.

Not quite. If the scientists in the factory animals example didn't know what DNA was, they would have no mechanism, but the motive would remain obvious.

See above.

And in the other two examples, if they understood genetics and evolution, but had concluded that evolution could not explain their ecosystems, then they would have an overabundance of mechanisms (gene splicing of various sorts), but no clear motive.

See above.

[Lord Zentei]

In my counterfactual examples, there is plenty.

So in a hypothetical alternate universe where it is clear that life is designed, then it is an acceptable hypothesis that life is designed. Well, golly gosh.

If it's so obvious, why did you complain when I said so?

Fuckwit.

Because it is irrelevant, moron.

[drachefly]

Okay, i guess the rest of that still deserves a response.

But if they cannot even demonstrate a need for postulating the design mechanism they are morons.

ID suffers from too many conceivable mechanisms, not too few.

The point escapes you: you need to demonstrate a need for a mechanism before you postulate it. How is your response a rebuttal of that?

Formation of the planets from an accretion disk. We have like four plausible explanations of it happening. Can't say which is the case.

Following your reasoning, how DARE we suppose that the planets formed from an accretion disk?

Why do you think I'm harping on the point that the mechanism needs to be inscrutable for ID to work, and that therefore they are throwing in the towel with regards to describing it?

Because you love the taste of straw? I don't know.

Seriously, if we suddenly discovered the mechanism by which some alien race had been manipulating our genome for the past 3 billion years, do you think that the ID argument would be disproved? e.g. example 2.

:wtf: Are you on crack? Where am I insinuating that evidence for design implies that ID is disproven?

A literal reading of your nested quote has that denotative meaning.

Jesus fucking Christ, YOUR EXAMPLE IS IRRELEVANT.

I was only complaining about your obviously false statement, not trying to say this is the case in reality.

Again, parsimony. Fuck's sake. It is still a matter of assuming a mechanism without having demonstrated the need for postulating such a mechanism.

They are concluding the existence of a mechanism, while being unable to determine which one. This is exactly the same as the two astrophysical examples I gave. Except, of course, that their reasons for so concluding are idiotic.

So, whether lots of people actually believe a minimal ID position doesn't matter, because you attack the argument, not the person; and the minimal argument is a commonly presented one.

Now, the next more involved ID variant is the claim that it must have been god. This one DOES actively rely on inscrutability, while the 'long-ago-abandoned alien factory' hypothesis does not.

If you only wish to argue against that form, then go ahead and talk about reliance on inscrutability; but this argument will not address the more general form.[/i]

No, since they have not shown that life was designed. They hold to this position not because the evidence leads them there, but despite the fact that it does not.

Well, that's your counterargument, then, isn't it? USE THAT ARGUMENT. IT'S GREAT! IT'S WONDERFUL. WE ALL AGREE ON THIS.

And when they attempt to describe the mecnanism, they fail, because none has been shown to exist. This remains the reason why any mechanism must be inscrutable, regardless of whether it is the altar of Jehova or Apophis they bow down to.

Assuming you mean by 'mechanism', 'motive', then I gave several examples of motives a few posts back. Any of the three would be consistent with the evidence even in real life (especially the very modern art one).

Gods being the touted explanation face the inscrutability problem, sure. I said as much.

As long as you have not identified the mechanism and demonstrated the need for postulating it, it will be inscrutable, regardless of whether it might or might not be so in principle IF your unsupported postulate of its existance were true.

If you haven't demonstrated a need for postulating it, your argument is already worthless due to other factors, so it's redundant to complain about anything past that point.

[Darth Wong]

If you haven't demonstrated a need for postulating it, your argument is already worthless due to other factors, so it's redundant to complain about anything past that point.

You're a fucking moron. If you don't have a comprehensible mechanism, you don't have a scientific theory. Period. If you cannot come up with a comprehensible mechanism, the correct scientific approach is to say "We don't know" rather than making up a bullshit non-explanation. Your entire argument is based on the idiotic notion that a scientist should never simply say "we don't know".

[Lord Zentei]

Formation of the planets from an accretion disk. We have like four plausible explanations of it happening. Can't say which is the case.

Following your reasoning, how DARE we suppose that the planets formed from an accretion disk?

That is a needed mechanism goddamn it. It does not violate parsimony. Now if you assume that it was created by a planet builder, you have a pointless mechanism. Otherwise there is a literally unlimited number of retarded mechanisms you might want to invoke - and when you fail to use them to make predictions or even show evidence for their existance, you rely on their inscrutability.

Because you love the taste of straw? I don't know.

Seriously, if we suddenly discovered the mechanism by which some alien race had been manipulating our genome for the past 3 billion years, do you think that the ID argument would be disproved? e.g. example 2.

Are you on crack? Where am I insinuating that evidence for design implies that ID is disproven?

A literal reading of your nested quote has that denotative meaning.

No, idiot. It means that you need to suppose that the mechanism is inscrutable while you still have no evidence for its existance.

Jesus fucking Christ, YOUR EXAMPLE IS IRRELEVANT.

I was only complaining about your obviously false statement, not trying to say this is the case in reality.

My statement is not false. An irrelevant argument does not demonstrate that it is so.

Again, parsimony. Fuck's sake. It is still a matter of assuming a mechanism without having demonstrated the need for postulating such a mechanism.

They are concluding the existence of a mechanism, while being unable to determine which one. This is exactly the same as the two astrophysical examples I gave. Except, of course, that their reasons for so concluding are idiotic.

And they are idiotic because they have no evidence for that particular mechanism. Yet, they persist in maintaining it. In the deafening silence of the absence of evidence for that mechanism (as opposed to others) they are forced to descend into pseudomysticism. As long as no evidence for that mechanism (as opposed to other mechanisms) is forthcoming, they will inevitably remain there. That is the case for ID regardless of its incarnation. It is a pseudo-religious non-science. IF evidence for design were to arise, then that is an entirely different matter. But as long as no such evidence exists, there is de facto no ID mechanism to describe.

No, since they have not shown that life was designed. They hold to this position not because the evidence leads them there, but despite the fact that it does not.

Well, that's your counterargument, then, isn't it? USE THAT ARGUMENT. IT'S GREAT! IT'S WONDERFUL. WE ALL AGREE ON THIS.

And a mighty DUH arises. The mechanism they postulate has no evidence. Therefore they cannot model worth shit. Therefore in practice they have no mechanism they can use to describe jack shit with in a scientific manner.

And when they attempt to describe the mecnanism, they fail, because none has been shown to exist. This remains the reason why any mechanism must be inscrutable, regardless of whether it is the altar of Jehova or Apophis they bow down to.

Assuming you mean by 'mechanism', 'motive', then I gave several examples of motives a few posts back. Any of the three would be consistent with the evidence even in real life (especially the very modern art one).

Again, irrelevant. You have evidence for surmising a motive and/or mechanism in that case. Even if it is incredibly arcane, you can in principle attempt to understand it. If no evidence exists you don't have any mechanism to describe (as long as you cling to your non-theory), and you are forced to remain in the assumption that it is inscrutable.

Gods being the touted explanation face the inscrutability problem, sure. I said as much.

No shit.

As long as you have not identified the mechanism and demonstrated the need for postulating it, it will be inscrutable, regardless of whether it might or might not be so in principle IF your unsupported postulate of its existance were true.

If you haven't demonstrated a need for postulating it, your argument is already worthless due to other factors, so it's redundant to complain about anything past that point.

Unless of course the ID retards do so anyway: no evidece at all for a designer. No need to postulate a designer. Yet this is done anyway. Result: a mechanism that cannot be described in any way because no evidence exists for it.

There is a reason why we don't allow unfounded postulates in science, and this is a crucual one. To point out the implications of having involved a redundant term is just as justifiable as rejecting it out of hand.

[drachefly]

In the first example, all they had was just a bunch of evidence which pointed away from evolution, e.g. really discrete fossil records, movement of complex organs across phyla, a genetic drift signature which indicates penguins passing genetic material to elephants, and such. This was all that was apparent in the third example as well.

That would require that formulation of an alternate hypothesis with a new comprehensible mechanism. Saying "oh well, we can't figure it out, it must have been an inscrutable designer" is not science.

That's not what they're saying. They're saying, "Wow, looks like there was a designer, let's try (editorial note: they will fail) to figure out the designer's motives!"
IIRC, even Behe is looking at consequences of design theory. He's having a hard time, because it's rubbish, but even so, it's not the end of inquiry. It's only the end of useful inquiry because it's wrong. If it were right, it would likely be fruitful.

If that doesn't answer your complaint, then you're not complaining about the end of inquiry, you're complaining about their reason to believe that the life in question was designed.

And if that's the problem, then as I said above, the reasons for disbelieving design are extraneous to this argument.

Not unless you can explain this "design" hypothesis in such a manner that it can actually make predictions. Do you know what the word "explanation" means?

Well, for one, ID predicts the existence of irreducibly complex structures.
;)

That's just to get going. You'd also expect to see some of the features I mentioned.

That none of these things are actually found is the real evidence against ID. That is to say, ID makes many predictions. All of them are false. Thus the argument that ID is wrong because it makes no predictions is also, however, false.

Even if they didn't find that obvious reason (e.g. 1st case), it could be true; or there could be less clear reasons. Just because they wouldn't be able to tell one from another doesn't mean that there wasn't one.
1) experiment, gaining experience with eco-engineering
2) Several designers competing for cash and prizes. This one would even explain why some features don't cross over, like our backward eyes.
2) art. Very modern art. You'd hate it, but the critics in tin-can habitats orbiting Procyon love it. And once we contact the aliens, it's self-criticizing art.

All of this completely sidesteps the point that an inscrutable term has no place in a scientific theory. You're simply saying that explanations might exist. That is true and it is the scientist's job to look for them. But when faced with a situation we do not understand, the correct scientific conclusion is to say "we do not yet know" rather than saying "it must have been an inscrutable Designer". I can't believe you actually don't understand this. Do you honestly not recognize that it is a perfectly acceptable scientific statement to say "we don't know"? You figure you have to invent a pseudo-explanation for everything even if it's not really an explanation at all? Thanks for advocating a medieval approach to science.

So, you're saying that even if any extension of evolutionary theory, i.e. life acting on itself, would not explain the observations, then you still couldn't scientifically resort to a designer as an explanation, even if you couldn't explain their motives?

Consider the Mmrnmhrm. They are a race of sentient robots which all awoke simultaneously one morning on an airless world. Near where they woke is the 'Mother Ark', which is a Mmrnmhrm factory. After decades or even centuries of inquiry, the Mmrnmhrm have been unable to determine who made them or why. It is one of the main driving questions of their being.

Even though they can't make any real prediction of the behavior of the designer, can they scientifically conclude that someone made them?

So, you see, it boils down to the evidence of the touch of the designer. if there is enough evidence for such influence, we would be forced to conclude there was a designer, even if we could not determine what the motivations were.

We would just have to answer "We don't know." to the question of "why would the designer act?", rather than to the question of "Is there a Designer?"

So, all that we are left with in this regard in real life is the allegation that we won't ever be able to prove that evolution didn't produce our life.

This, again, relies on arguments which come before this point logically, so we should use those and stop there. This is what I've been saying all along.

[drachefly]

If you haven't demonstrated a need for postulating it, your argument is already worthless due to other factors, so it's redundant to complain about anything past that point.

You're a fucking moron.

No, you're totally misreading me and assuming the worst.

If you don't have a comprehensible mechanism, you don't have a scientific theory. Period.

What I've been saying is, before you bother introducing mechanism, you need to motivate the introduction. They haven't gotten THAT far, so let's forget about the whole mechanism question.

[drachefly]

ANALOGY:

Alice says, "Hey, I've got an idea to explain why pianos fall at 1 meter per second per second."
Bob says, "They don't."

End of argument. The detail that Alice's explanation of pianos falling behavior is really bad doesn't need to enter into it.

[Darth Wong]

That's not what they're saying. They're saying, "Wow, looks like there was a designer, let's try (editorial note: they will fail) to figure out the designer's motives!"

Until they can figure that out, they do not have a theory. Do you know why Darwin did not publish his idea of evolution as soon as he realized that the species seemed to be related? Because he didn't have a mechanism to explain what was going on yet. He had a pattern, but no mechanism. That's why he WAITED until he had the mechanism of natural selection.

That is how science is done. And that's NOT what IDers are doing. They want to call something a scientific theory when it cannot explain or predict anything. Like it or not, this IS a showstopper for any attempt to call ID a scientific theory.

[Lord Zentei]

ANALOGY:

Alice says, "Hey, I've got an idea to explain why pianos fall at 1 meter per second per second."
Bob says, "They don't."

End of argument. The detail that Alice's explanation of pianos falling behavior is really bad doesn't need to enter into it.

Unless she persists in insisting that they really do fall at 1 m/s, and presumes that there is just some mysterious force that befuddles our senses into beleiving that they don't. In that case Bob says, "you don't have a mechanism that can be described scientifically, because you don't have evidence that pianos fall at 1 m/s".

[drachefly]

DW: So the Mmrnmhrm cannot scientifically conclude that they were designed?

Unless she persists in insisting that they really do fall at 1 m/s, and presumes that there is just some mysterious force that befuddles our senses into beleiving that they don't.

Fortunately, the ID-ers are not taking this position either. They are claiming the analog of the position that it can be scientifically determined that pianos fall at 1 m/s/s. It is their laughable attempts to do this which are the most fertile field for counterargument

[Lord Zentei]

DW: So the Mmrnmhrm cannot scientifically conclude that they were designed?

Unless she persists in insisting that they really do fall at 1 m/s, and presumes that there is just some mysterious force that befuddles our senses into beleiving that they don't.

Fortunately, the ID-ers are not taking this position either. They are claiming the analog of the position that it can be scientifically determined that pianos fall at 1 m/s/s. It is their laughable attempts to do this which are the most fertile field for counterargument

I have yet to see any ID attempts at so doing that did not involve pseudo-mystical handwaving at some point or other in order to explain away their failures.

[drachefly]

Well, great. Use that, then; but that has nothing to do with lack of mechanism.

[Darth Wong]

DW: So the Mmrnmhrm cannot scientifically conclude that they were designed?

Holy Christ are you ever stupid. They have a fucking factory right next to them. There's your comprehensible mechanism right there.

You are still completely missing the point that an inscrutable term has no place in a scientific theory. In the case of your imaginary group, any theories about the makers of the factory are unscientific until some kind of evidence arises. They can, however, theorize about the factory itself, because there is evidence for that, and its behaviour can be analyzed.

Your argument still fundamentally relies on the notion that science should not restrict itself to what it can analyze, which is completely false and a massive violation of the entire scientific philosophy.

[Lord Zentei]

Well, great. Use that, then; but that has nothing to do with lack of mechanism.

Yes it is. I require that a scientific mechanism be describable with observable data. Otherwise, any harebrained idea could be classified as a "scientific mechanism". You seem to be confusing "describable with obervable data" with "in principle describable with observable data IF we existed in a universe where such data were observed".

If the countryside were full of unicorns, we could postulate scientific mechanisms for how their biology works. Since there are not, we are living in a fantasy land if we were to try to do so.

[Darth Wong]

ANALOGY:

Alice says, "Hey, I've got an idea to explain why pianos fall at 1 meter per second per second."
Bob says, "They don't."

End of argument. The detail that Alice's explanation of pianos falling behavior is really bad doesn't need to enter into it.

And the fact that Alice's explanation cannot produce this 1 m/s^2 prediction (or any other rate of acceleration) would not also serve as a valid rebuttal? You're still missing the point.

[drachefly]

ANALOGY:

Alice says, "Hey, I've got an idea to explain why pianos fall at 1 meter per second per second."
Bob says, "They don't."

End of argument. The detail that Alice's explanation of pianos falling behavior is really bad doesn't need to enter into it.

And the fact that Alice's explanation cannot produce this 1 m/s^2 prediction (or any other rate of acceleration) would not also serve as a valid rebuttal? You're still missing the point.

Okay, let's look at the life cycle of a scientific theory:

1) Observation. Find something which is not explained by present theories.

2) Devise a theory to explain it.

3) Determine other consequences of this theory

4) Test them. If contradictions are found, this is part 1 for the next theory.

Now, you're saying that since ID has nothing or very nearly so in category #3, it isn't a scientific theory. Okay.

I'm saying, why did you even let them get to step #3? They're screwed to hell on step #1! You are effectively giving them ground by even raising the question implied by #3.