Letter to the Editor

[petesampras]

Dangit, this made me miss my train. One more round.

I'd hazard that they say the designer's motives would be possible to discern because there are so many conceivable motives, many of which would be highly different yet close enough in effect to be indistinguishable. Yet, their mark would be clear.

Well, then they have to precisely define these motives. That would be a pretty good start. If they say you have a being of unlimited power to achieve what he wants with x, y, and z motivations then you are starting down the road of having a mechanism which can generate predictions. Of course once they do this their theory becomes open to very easy attack, hence they don't want to. What motivations would be behind an intelligent designer who makes viruses and bacteria which kill or maim innocent babies and children?

[Darth Wong]

I think that I made my previous post without recognizing at the time what an important point it actually is. A scientific theory can be distinguished not just by what it predicts, but by what it does not predict. But ID theory is so goddamned vague that one cannot say what it would not predict. Can anyone describe an organism that could not be predicted by ID? Darwin laid out several examples of organisms that could not be predicted by evolution, and we have yet to find one that meets his criteria. But if ID is a real theory, why is it so vaguely defined that it can "predict" anything, hence actually predicting nothing?

[drachefly]

Okay, suppose the evidence against an evolutionary origin of life on Earth were somehow made rock-solid. What other theories would you look into before the idea that some intelligent designer created us?

What would our biosystem look like in this hypothetical scenario?

The hypothetical here is not about the appearance of the biosphere this time; it's about the evidence. If they were correct that Irreducible Complexity ruled out evolution.

They aren't correct on that score, of course.

Pursuant to my previous point, show why ID theory does not predict humans made entirely of cream cheese, with laser vision.

I like it. Can I have one?
There are of course several answers. Cream cheese, so far as I can tell, does not have the properties of life. You might as well ask why real life engineers don't make nuclear power plants out of cream cheese.

Aside from that, you quite correctly point out that the predictive power is shit-poor. No quibble there. However, the theory permits our existence, which, if they were right about evolution, evolution would not. Therefore, evolution would necessarily be wrong, and we would be in the market for any theory to explain our existence, even if said theory had to rely on a great degree of accident to come up with the specifics. The details of our makeup would, unfortunately, become akin to the phase relation among the orbits inner planets -- it could have been anything.

If they say you have a being of unlimited power...

great power is needed; unlimited is not. Going on...

... to achieve what he wants with x, y, and z motivations then you are starting down the road of having a mechanism which can generate predictions.

Looking at a car wreck, it may be forever lost to the mists of time why driver X lost control of their car. Yet, one can conclude that driver X did in fact lose control of their car. Scientifically, even.
Looking at a murder-suicide, investigators may never be able to determine the motive. Yet, they can quite conclusively conclude that it was a murder-suicide.
Looking at a genome, scientists could never be able to tell why some entity had mucked around with it some time in the past. Yet, they can quite conclusively determine that it had been mucked around with. *insert standard disclaimer here*

But if ID is a real theory, why is it so vaguely defined that it can "predict" anything, hence actually predicting nothing?

It does have one prediction: life can exist which does not have any way to have evolved. If we observe life to exist which could not have evolved, ID looks like a good explanation for that life.

[Darth Wong]

Aside from that, you quite correctly point out that the predictive power is shit-poor. No quibble there. However, the theory permits our existence, which, if they were right about evolution, evolution would not.

You're still tragicomically missing the point. A theory which can predict anything actually predicts nothing.

It does have one prediction: life can exist which does not have any way to have evolved.

No it doesn't. That is a premise of ID, not a prediction.

[drachefly]

And it's farcical how you can't comprehend the point I'm making, because it's very simple.

Once you have ruled out the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

If evolution were ruled out (i.e. it's impossible, probability of observations given purely evolutionary cause of these observations = 0), then whatever remains, however low a probability of producing our current life it has, must be the case.

[Darth Wong]

And it's farcical how you can't comprehend the point I'm making, because it's very simple.

Once you have ruled out the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

You are a fucking idiot. "Whatever remains" must still be DEFINED, you idiot. Otherwise you can't really say that "it" exists as a concept at all, never mind saying that it's the truth.

If evolution were ruled out (i.e. it's impossible, probability of observations given purely evolutionary cause of these observations = 0), then whatever remains, however low a probability of producing our current life it has, must be the case.

Only if you can define what the fuck it is, moron. You can't say that you have the truth without actually explaining what it is, fucktard.

[Lord Zentei]

And it's farcical how you can't comprehend the point I'm making, because it's very simple.

Once you have ruled out the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

If evolution were ruled out (i.e. it's impossible, probability of observations given purely evolutionary cause of these observations = 0), then whatever remains, however low a probability of producing our current life it has, must be the case.

"Whatever remains" could be anything, since a sufficiently imaginative person can plug out asinine theories all day, if need be. You still need to have a theory that is demanded by evidence and that can model and describe observations.

Moreover, you ignored my points from my most recent post.

[Darth Wong]

Let's examine drachidiot's logic:

1) Assume that theory A does not properly explain phenomenon B.

2) Conclude that theory B must be true, even though theory B has never really been defined and therefore cannot explain anything.

3) When shown that theory B is so vague that it cannot predict anything, point out that theory A does not properly explain phenomenon B. Pretend that this automatically proves theory B even though that is a textbook false dilemma fallacy. Act as if anyone who disagrees with this logic must not be understanding it.

[drachefly]

I'm taking on three of you at once, it's a lot to keep track of, okay?

Okay, suppose the evidence against an evolutionary origin of life on Earth were somehow made rock-solid. What other theories would you look into before the idea that some intelligent designer created us?

What's up with all these "what-ifs"? It has no bearing upon the fact that in reality, ID has no mechanisms that are required by evidence and that model and describe observations.[/quote]

The what-ifs are because I'm trying to separate out three arguments from each other:
1) There is no reason to suspect ID to be true, because evolution is a hell of a lot more specific and the observations work with it.
2) ID does not specify which of the many possible mechanisms that would count as ID is actually the case.
3) ID is so vague rules it out as a theory, even before you compare it to evolution.

Now, 1) is a very good argument on its own and does not need 2. I think that 3 is philosophically wrong; but it's a very good thing that we do not need to rely on such vague theories, because they aren't very useful.

Hey, if ID were not bullshit, it would not be bullshit. Cool.

I am trying to determine what would make any of you say ID was not bullshit.
On one end of the scale, we have the factory animals (how and why are clear), then Mmrnmhrm (how clear, why not), then pre-DNA factory animals (why is clear, how is not), then 'evolution cannot have produced this', then 'evolution is unbelieveably unlikely to have produced this', then 'evolution is actually quite likely to have produced this'.

Real life happens to be at this end of the scale; however, the ID research program, such as it is, is attempting to show that real life is actually two steps earlier.

Now, DW seemed to draw the line after the weaker Factory animals example. I draw the line after 'evolution cannot have produced this'.

Note, the Intelligent Design will always have one prediction: we exist. If no other theory permits this, ID always will.

That's an observation, not a prediction, fool.

"Wow, we exist, therefore, Go - errr an intelligent designer exists". BZZZT! Sorry, no go.

Reread... IF NO OTHER THEORY PERMITS THIS. We exist, therefore conditions must be such that it is possible for us to exist. Any theory which strictly predicts our nonexistence must be false.

If we rule out all the reasonable, nicely-predictive theories, we're left with the shitty bottom of the barrel. Yes, it's a shitty end, yes, it's the bottom of the barrel. But if the evidence forced us down there, there we'd have to go.


Darth Wong:

Go ask an astrophysicist to DEFINE in big letters what happened during at time zero in the big bang. Insist that the big bang is not science unless it can provide a MECHANISM for that zero moment to occur.

Being specific and providing a mechanism are very very nice features for a theory to have. They provide an immense leg up over any theory which does not have them. ID does not have them.
Unlike the big bang, ID lacks the evidence making it necessary.

[Darth Wong]

Reread... IF NO OTHER THEORY PERMITS THIS.

Theories do not "permit", you idiot. They predict. A theory which does not predict anything is garbage.

If we rule out all the reasonable, nicely-predictive theories, we're left with the shitty bottom of the barrel. Yes, it's a shitty end, yes, it's the bottom of the barrel. But if the evidence forced us down there, there we'd have to go.

No we don't, you stupid asshole. "We don't know" is a perfectly acceptable statement.

Darth Wong:

Go ask an astrophysicist to DEFINE in big letters what happened during at time zero in the big bang. Insist that the big bang is not science unless it can provide a MECHANISM for that zero moment to occur.

Hey dipshit, astrophysicsts admit that they don't know precisely what happened at time zero. That's what mature, intelligent, rational people do sometimes; they admit that "we don't know". Calling something a "theory" when it meets none of the requirements of a theory just so you won't have to say "we don't know" is stupid, irrational, and immature.

[drachefly]

Reread... IF NO OTHER THEORY PERMITS THIS.

Theories do not "permit", you idiot. They predict.

"Permit" is the flip side of "predict", numbskull. I predict NOT-X, is the same as not permitting X. Predicting X OR Y OR Z OR... is the same as premitting X, permitting Y, permitting Z, etc.

Many real theories make predictions that are best described as permitting things and not others. Relativity permits material objects to assume velocities less than C. Mechanics permits the angular momentum of a rigid body in a conservative system to get only as high as the total mechanical energy of the system permits.

So, to put this into the box you're holding your head in, if evolution strictly predicts NOT-OBSERVATION, over and over and over again, as you say it should in principle be able to happen -- it is FALSIFIED...

Then we are left scrabbling around for theories and the best remnants I can think of would be some form of ID.

If we rule out all the reasonable, nicely-predictive theories, we're left with the shitty bottom of the barrel. Yes, it's a shitty end, yes, it's the bottom of the barrel. But if the evidence forced us down there, there we'd have to go.

No we don't, you stupid asshole. "We don't know" is a perfectly acceptable statement.

Why are you so willing to say 'we don't know' to ONE question, whether we were built, but not another, WHY we were built?

Hey dipshit, astrophysicsts admit that they don't know precisely what happened at time zero.

Hey, dipshit, ID-ers admit they don't know precisely why the designer acted!

That's what mature, intelligent, rational people do sometimes; they admit that "we don't know". Calling something a "theory" when it meets none of the requirements of a theory just so you won't have to say "we don't know" is stupid, irrational, and immature.

Mirror time.

[Lord Zentei]

What's up with all these "what-ifs"? It has no bearing upon the fact that in reality, ID has no mechanisms that are required by evidence and that model and describe observations.

The what-ifs are because I'm trying to separate out three arguments from each other:
1) There is no reason to suspect ID to be true, because evolution is a hell of a lot more specific and the observations work with it.
2) ID does not specify which of the many possible mechanisms that would count as ID is actually the case.
3) ID is so vague rules it out as a theory, even before you compare it to evolution.

Now, 1) is a very good argument on its own and does not need 2. I think that 3 is philosophically wrong; but it's a very good thing that we do not need to rely on such vague theories, because they aren't very useful.

Number 3 is not philosophically wrong. Such theories are not only vage, they are not scientific at all.

Hey, if ID were not bullshit, it would not be bullshit. Cool.

I am trying to determine what would make any of you say ID was not bullshit.
On one end of the scale, we have the factory animals (how and why are clear), then Mmrnmhrm (how clear, why not), then pre-DNA factory animals (why is clear, how is not), then 'evolution cannot have produced this', then 'evolution is unbelieveably unlikely to have produced this', then 'evolution is actually quite likely to have produced this'.

Your examples are of archaeology. Your placement of your hypothetical aliens on the scale is quite arbitrary. The methods and motivations of your hypothetical primogenetors can be analyzed in principle, whereas any Intelligent Designer for observed nature has to be assumed to be inscrutable because we find no evidence for it.

If we rule out all the reasonable, nicely-predictive theories, we're left with the shitty bottom of the barrel. Yes, it's a shitty end, yes, it's the bottom of the barrel. But if the evidence forced us down there, there we'd have to go.

No. If we were forced to go down there, we would be forced to admit our ignorance; we would NOT adopt a non-theory as though it were a theory.

[Lord Zentei]

Hey dipshit, astrophysicsts admit that they don't know precisely what happened at time zero.

Hey, dipshit, ID-ers admit they don't know precisely why the designer acted!

It is the assumption that there is a Intelligent Designer that makes this a false analogy.

Compare saying "we don't know how the universe began" to "the universe was created by Go-- err-- an Intelligent Creator, but we don't know why or how". Understand the distinction? You are not admitting ignorance in the latter case to the degree that you are doing so in the former case.

[Darth Wong]

"Permit" is the flip side of "predict", numbskull. I predict NOT-X, is the same as not permitting X. Predicting X OR Y OR Z OR... is the same as premitting X, permitting Y, permitting Z, etc.

I see you totally ignored the fact that ID permits anything, hence it is the "flipside" of predicting nothing, precisely as I've been saying.

Many real theories make predictions that are best described as permitting things and not others. Relativity permits material objects to assume velocities less than C. Mechanics permits the angular momentum of a rigid body in a conservative system to get only as high as the total mechanical energy of the system permits.

And if they permitted anything, they would be as useless as ID. Thanks for totally missing the point.

So, to put this into the box you're holding your head in, if evolution strictly predicts NOT-OBSERVATION, over and over and over again, as you say it should in principle be able to happen -- it is FALSIFIED...

Then we are left scrabbling around for theories and the best remnants I can think of would be some form of ID.

For the umpteenth time, theories which "permit" anything predict nothing, and are not real theories at all. And your idiotic false-dilemma fallacy does not justify itself by repetition.

Why are you so willing to say 'we don't know' to ONE question, whether we were built, but not another, WHY we were built?

What the fuck are you talking about, asshole? Are you seriously suggesting that it's OK to pretend that you have a properly defined theory when its central term is unknown, as opposed to simply admitting that we don't know?

Hey, dipshit, ID-ers admit they don't know precisely why the designer acted!

That's what mature, intelligent, rational people do sometimes; they admit that "we don't know". Calling something a "theory" when it meets none of the requirements of a theory just so you won't have to say "we don't know" is stupid, irrational, and immature.

Mirror time.

OK, I've had enough of your bullshit. It is the height of dishonesty to pretend that if someone says it's OK to say "we don't know", it must be OK to call something a scientific theory even if it's really no better than "we don't know". I never said that "we don't know" is a scientific theory, you idiot. It is an admission that we don't have a theory. And this strawman is unacceptable.

[drachefly]

I think that 3 is philosophically wrong; but it's a very good thing that we do not need to rely on such vague theories, because they aren't very useful.

Number 3 is not philosophically wrong. Such theories are not only vage, they are not scientific at all.

Some vagueness is permissible. I do not see a sharp line. Applying Bayes' theorem knocks out the vague theories well enough on its own (i.e. via argument 1); there is no need to specially knock them out before that stage.

The methods and motivations of your hypothetical primogenetors can be analyzed in principle, whereas any Intelligent Designer for observed nature has to be assumed to be inscrutable because we find no evidence for it.

No, it does not have to be assumed to be inscrutable any more than the motive for a murder-suicide needs to be assumed to be inscrutable. A realistic assessment is, though, IF (we were designed), THEN (WTF were they thinking?)
When investigators come to murder-suicides with no clear motive, they do look at other possibilities like double-murder... but if it's clear it was a murder-suicide, they don't say, "Well, we can't tell why he did it, so we don't know whether he did."
They say, "He did it, we have no idea why."

If we rule out all the reasonable, nicely-predictive theories, we're left with the shitty bottom of the barrel. Yes, it's a shitty end, yes, it's the bottom of the barrel. But if the evidence forced us down there, there we'd have to go.

No. If we were forced to go down there, we would be forced to admit our ignorance; we would NOT adopt a non-theory as though it were a theory.

We wouldn't know WHAT happened, yes. We would know that SOMETHING happened.

[Darth Wong]

Dracheidiot's new logic is this:

"Darth Wong says that it's OK to say that we don't know. Therefore, it's OK for a scientific theory to be based on an unknown term, while still claiming to be a valid theory".

I initially assumed he was being dishonest and strawmanning my position, but it occurs to me that he might actually be such a fucking idiot that he thinks this is valid logic.

[drachefly]

Darth Wong mentioned a False Dilemma.

If he can provide one non-evolution, non-ID alternative that is not less plausible than ID, I'll immediately concede.

[Darth Wong]

Darth Wong mentioned a False Dilemma.

If he can provide one non-evolution, non-ID alternative that is not less plausible than ID, I'll immediately concede.

"We don't know". Now concede, asshole. That statement is correct, and contains no imaginary undefined terms. It also "permits" life, even though it doesn't predict anything.

[drachefly]

"I don't know" isn't even TRYING to be a theory. Each element of the class of ID theories does, though in aggregate it's harder to see it.

Try again.

[Lord Zentei]

I think that 3 is philosophically wrong; but it's a very good thing that we do not need to rely on such vague theories, because they aren't very useful.

Number 3 is not philosophically wrong. Such theories are not only vage, they are not scientific at all.

Some vagueness is permissible. I do not see a sharp line. Applying Bayes' theorem knocks out the vague theories well enough on its own (i.e. via argument 1); there is no need to specially knock them out before that stage.

If they are too vague to model / predict observations, particularly when the evidence does not require them, they are not scientific.

The methods and motivations of your hypothetical primogenetors can be analyzed in principle, whereas any Intelligent Designer for observed nature has to be assumed to be inscrutable because we find no evidence for it.

No, it does not have to be assumed to be inscrutable any more than the motive for a murder-suicide needs to be assumed to be inscrutable. A realistic assessment is, though, IF (we were designed), THEN (WTF were they thinking?)

Bullshit. If the evidence does not require a postulate, and that postulate does not lead to a theory that can model, describe or predict anything, it does indeed have to be assumed to be inscrutable if you insist on clinging to it anyway.

When investigators come to murder-suicides with no clear motive, they do look at other possibilities like double-murder... but if it's clear it was a murder-suicide, they don't say, "Well, we can't tell why he did it, so we don't know whether he did."
They say, "He did it, we have no idea why."

Yes. When they have something called EVIDENCE. If they have no evidence for murder and still assume that there was one, they are being ID-type morons.

If we rule out all the reasonable, nicely-predictive theories, we're left with the shitty bottom of the barrel. Yes, it's a shitty end, yes, it's the bottom of the barrel. But if the evidence forced us down there, there we'd have to go.

No. If we were forced to go down there, we would be forced to admit our ignorance; we would NOT adopt a non-theory as though it were a theory.

We wouldn't know WHAT happened, yes. We would know that SOMETHING happened.

And that is no reason to presume an "intelligent designer".

[Lord Zentei]

"I don't know" isn't even TRYING to be a theory. Each element of the class of ID theories does, though in aggregate it's harder to see it.

Try again.

ID is not even trying to be a proper scientific theory either, moron. Dr Behe even admitted under oath that he had to expand science to include Tarot reading and astrology for that to be so.

[drachefly]

If they are too vague to model / predict observations, particularly when the evidence does not require them, they are not scientific.

emphasis added to the relevant part.

BAYES THEORY TAKES CARE OF VAGUENESS. I AM INCLUDING IT IN THE ARGUMENT.

The methods and motivations of your hypothetical primogenetors can be analyzed in principle, whereas any Intelligent Designer for observed nature has to be assumed to be inscrutable because we find no evidence for it.

No, it does not have to be assumed to be inscrutable any more than the motive for a murder-suicide needs to be assumed to be inscrutable. A realistic assessment is, though, IF (we were designed), THEN (WTF were they thinking?)

Bullshit. If the evidence does not require a postulate, and that postulate does not lead to a theory that can model, describe or predict anything, it does indeed have to be assumed to be inscrutable if you insist on clinging to it anyway.

emphasis added. THIS IS WHERE WE SHOULD BE ATTACKING ID.

When investigators come to murder-suicides with no clear motive, they do look at other possibilities like double-murder... but if it's clear it was a murder-suicide, they don't say, "Well, we can't tell why he did it, so we don't know whether he did."
They say, "He did it, we have no idea why."

Yes. When they have something called EVIDENCE. If they have no evidence for murder and still assume that there was one, they are being ID-type morons.

emphasis added. THIS IS WHERE WE SHOULD BE ATTACKING ID.

We wouldn't know WHAT happened, yes. We would know that SOMETHING happened.

And that is no reason to presume an "intelligent designer".

Under such circumstances, ID would not be proven, far from it; so it would not be presuming. But ID would have much less competition, which greatly increases its normalization factor in Bayes' theorem.

[Darth Wong]

"I don't know" isn't even TRYING to be a theory. Each element of the class of ID theories does, though in aggregate it's harder to see it.

Try again.

Neither is ID, you dishonest little shit troll. We already pointed out that ID doesn't meet the requirements of a scientific theory, and you retorted by admitting it has shit predictive power and undefined terms but still insisting that we consider it anyway. You are essentially pretending that Occam's Razor has no applicability to scientific theories.

And you clearly lied by refusing to concede even when I met your requirement letter for letter. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that you are just trolling, and that will not be permitted indefinitely.

[Lord Zentei]

By the way: in this post of drachefly's the quote tags are mangled so as to make it look as though I were spouting some ID apologism. Some Mod please fix.

[Lord Zentei]

If they are too vague to model / predict observations, particularly when the evidence does not require them, they are not scientific.

emphasis added to the relevant part.

BAYES THEORY TAKES CARE OF VAGUENESS. I AM INCLUDING IT IN THE ARGUMENT.

Not to the extent that no modeling can take place with a theory.

Bullshit. If the evidence does not require a postulate, and that postulate does not lead to a theory that can model, describe or predict anything, it does indeed have to be assumed to be inscrutable if you insist on clinging to it anyway.

emphasis added. THIS IS WHERE WE SHOULD BE ATTACKING ID.

Not to exclusion, no. You must also point out that their theory is useless even when they distort the evidence to suit their needs. Much quicker and more logical than having to knock down their lies one after the other - show that any lies that they might come up with are irrelevant.

Yes. When they have something called EVIDENCE. If they have no evidence for murder and still assume that there was one, they are being ID-type morons.

emphasis added. THIS IS WHERE WE SHOULD BE ATTACKING ID.

See above.

We wouldn't know WHAT happened, yes. We would know that SOMETHING happened.

And that is no reason to presume an "intelligent designer".

Under such circumstances, ID would not be proven, far from it; so it would not be presuming. But ID would have much less competition, which greatly increases its normalization factor in Bayes' theorem.

Presumptions do not make a theory scientific, with or without Bayes.