Skeptical

Vander,

I understand you have others to respond to, but I would appreciate it if when you have a moment you address just this single question of mine from my last post:

I said "No one has ever been able to articulate what a non-empirical toolset looks like. I have stated repeatedly, and you have not disagreed, that all non-empirically verifiable explanations are equally unprovable, and therefore equally worthless. If you disagree with this statement, show me how I'm wrong."

No matter how I look at it, I cannot see a way to tell whether any of the following explanations are correct or not without simply assuming the answer:

For any data event, one can say:

1) God did it
2) Satan did it
3) Aliens that you cannot see/hear/touch/feel/smell did it

If one seriously wanted to consider that one of these entities _must_ have been responsible for something and assume that no natural explanation is sufficient, how would you choose between them?

Thanks,
Skeptical

Albion

What's supernatural about motive? (I mean, apart from the "the devil made me do it" sort of stuff)

Skeptical

Actually, if Vander, or anyone else, could articulate how one would use a non-empirical toolset for distinguishing what is correct and what is not, I would consider it. As far as I can tell, a non-empirical toolset might be using prayer, meditation, thought experiments, etc. to get an "answer". The only problem is that I don't see how, once one comes to an answer this way, one can tell whether its true or not without using empirical methods. Without the empirical data, it seems we are still just standing there saying, "this is how I think it is" with no foundation.

It also seems that even when very bright people have tried using non-empirical toolsets, it has failed them. Aristotle, unarguably one of the greatest thinkers in all recorded history, believed that all the laws of nature could be discovered through rational thought. Unfortunately, as was shown by the disproof of his belief that the planets move in perfectly circular orbits, he was wrong. This doesn't give me much confidence that anyone else will ever be able to develop non-empirical methods for discovering what is true about the universe.

Albion

Why would a non-natural cause of an irreducibly complex system be beneficial to the scientist as a person?

Starboy

Greetings Vanderzyden,

At last we debate. Whatever the outcome I hope we can both benefit. There are two things that you are asking of the scientist that he/she is likely to cause them to (hopefully) politely change the subject.

1) Science does not deal with the non-natural.
2) Presenting an idea by itself is usually dismissed unless there is something very compelling scientifically about the theory or someone with a big reputation presents it.

I have seen you post repeatedly on the idea that science can address the non-natural. There have also been several posters here that agree with you. IMO you and they have got it wrong. The simple reason is the implicit scientific definition of natural:

Anything that can be determined or inferred by experiment IS natural.

If you couple this with the requirement that all theories must be confirmed by experiment in order to be considered acceptable it becomes obvious that there are only two kinds of scientific knowledge, natural phenomena we know about and natural phenomena we have yet to learn about, it all is natural.

It is very common for people to come up with some sort of idea that they are convinced is full of meaning and power but really doesn’t predict much of anything. I see it constantly. That is the case with irreducible complexity. My experience has been that such ideas are usually a waste of time. One good example can be found on this forum:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=57&t=000497" target="_blank">Moire Universe</a>

If you look you on this forum and the www you can find more of the same. The people who usually present these brain bombs don’t realize that it is up to them to supply a compelling scientific reason as to why it should be considered scientifically. If they do not present some way to experimentally verify it then it will get no attention at all. Science has a culture and this is way it is done.

As much as you appear to be enamored by irreducible complexity, unless you can suggest a scientific experiment that would generate a lot of new science, it is going to generate a big yawn. All the great theorists were great because that is exactly what they did, and as a result started huge areas of scientific enquiry such as evolution. The folks on this site and myself included have no interest in it. I suggest you go to a forum for Christian scientists. It is up to the supporters of IC to propose the experiments.

Starboy

Doubting Didymus

I still hold that non-natural hypotheses could theoretically be confirmed by empirical evidence.

I hold that if the fossil record demonstrated a small number of single moment events in time where a whole group of organisms spontaneously come into being, and we can verify by watching that angels come down from the sky and create a bunch of creatures while we watch, then there would be no problems with confirming the progressive creation hypothesis.

Certainly, it could be the vorlons, but the vorlons could just as easily falsify all that evidence for evolution, couldn't they? Vanderzyden is under the impression that journals will not accept irreducible complexity papers because they imply a non-natural cause. I don't think this is true one bit. Irreducible complexity papers are rejected because they claim evidence that does not exist.

When a reveiwer checks an ID paper for publication, they do not say 'oh look, non-natural speculations, goodbye'. They look, as others have pointed out, at suggestions that flagella are irreducibly complex and their eyes bug out of their heads. On the day that real evidence for irreducible complexity is produced, that day will be when irreducible complexity papers are published.

Also, this thread could easily turn into a thread on irreducible complexity evidence, which would be nice but off topic. I will start an evidence for irreducible complexity thread, in the hope that we might see some actual proposals from vanderzyden. (however, he seems to be ignoring me at the moment, which is almost blissful, so we may never see him there).

bluefugue

Could there be any organism types that are irreconcilable with common descent and cousinship? For instance, a centaur, a gryphon, or any animal with widely disparate "parts" grafted together? Could a centaur have evolved, or would the existence of one indicate some sort of design?

Doubting Didymus

It has been pointed out a few times in history that the evolutionary theory would have great difficulties explaining irreducible complexity. Darwin himself wrote this in Origins.

So far: nothing. But if there were, that itself would not prove ID. There must be more than just disproving evolution. It must stand alone as the theory which best fits the evidence.

I think it's really up to ID advicates to propose what a specifically designed organism might look like.

Vanderzyden

Skeptical,

First, I don't accept your definition of non-empirically verifiable explanations. Your concept of non-empirical is far too narrow and your concept of empirical is far too far broad.

Second, you insist on absolute proof. Well, I can't give you that kind of proof. I would rather speak in terms of demonstration and persuasion.

Third, I don't agree that non-empirical thoughts or discourse are "worthless". To say this is to say that your thoughts are worthless.

Fourth, you keep making comparisons of God, Satan, Aliens, and leprechauns, etc. I have referred you to the established traditions which describe God and Satan. Arguments have been made by millions upon millions that these accounts contain the ring of truth. So there is no comparison between God and Aliens. Furthermore, I keep asking you "Why is there something..." to which you reply "that's just the way it is", to which, in turn, I reply that you aren't considering all of the evidence. There must be an explanation of why it is as it is.

The reason I wrote that we had reached a milestone is that I thought we should both pause to think how we might be more persuasive or articulate in making our case. I'm willing to continue, but I don't want to replay the same ol' stuff.


Vanderzyden

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Starboy

DD, what is natural?