Describing ourselves by HOW rather than WHAT we think.

[ncooty]

If something like the universe is infinite, then how and why is it infinite, what caused it to be infinite? Did non-existent nature create nature? How does material of any kind form from nothing? The problem you seem to be having is that God had to be created, but we are told He wasn't in the Bible, also scripture says "do not lean on your own understanding". Yes that is easy to use to write tons of stuff off, but not for the science gurus. I'm sure you have heard this before, but seriously, how far do you have to go back for things to start to exist, like life exists, where did it come from?; then where did the earth come from?; where did the universe and everything in it come from?; if aliens created humans, where did they come from?; if the universe has alway existed, what initially jump started it to exist infinitely?; what then made that happen?; and that?; and that?; and that?; it would keep going forever. At some point, we need to know what the source was for creating such things which is unseen.

My point was precisely that if time is infinite, there was no beginning, so it's meaningless to talk about creation at the beginning of time. The question: How is the universe infinite? doesn't make sense to me. The question: Why is the universe infinite? makes a teleological assumption and I've already explained that purpose is a perception rather than a percept. Thus, the "why" assumes a purpose and is unanswerable through the application of the scientific method, and we are talking about science here, right? Regarding the "non-existent nature creating nature" comment, read my previous post. Alternate theories do not propose that something came from nothing.

All I'm doing is comparing the ID theory to alternate theories. That's it. I haven't made any attacks. I have asked questions. I wrote at the outset that I was trying to learn about this, but that I wanted substantive reasons to believe this theory instead of other theories. So far, the most basic, simple questions that I've asked have gone repeatedly unanswered.

I am not attacking anyone's beliefs. I am consulting with the ID experts and advocates to explain their case. I think others may have similar interests and questions. However, you can't expect others to believe a theory without the slightest bit of skepticism or without pitting it against others. I mean, you all didn't just accept ID as soon as you heard about it did you? You didn't just believe in it because someone else told you you should, did you? No. You researched it. You looked into it and compared it to other, more widely accepted theories like any responsible adult would. I mean, we're talking about what we teach our kids here. We want good reasons for what we teach our kids. Don't act like I'm being unreasonable, because I'm looking for those good reasons and really checking to be sure this is a sound theory.

I don't mean to insult anyone's faith. You all seem quite adamant about separating ID and the Christian faith, but when I am skeptical of ID, people become defensive about Christianity. If they are not the same, I hope people will not take my comments or questions personally. I'm here precisely because I'm open to being convinced. I'm not here to attack, but skepticism is a necessary component of responsible consumption of information. If I didn't respect your opinions, I wouldn't be here.

Again, here are the seemingly simple questions I've had:

What kind of evidence would it take to change the mind of someone who believes in intelligent design?

How complex is too complex for evolution to explain? Is there anything that is not too complex for evolution to explain?

Thanks for the continued willingness to humor me and answer my questions.

[sandy_mcd]

Then, it doesn't matter how small the odds are that complex systems would form, if time is infinite, it becomes a logical, mathematical necessity that complex systems would form.

[I'm not so sure that this statement is true but don't want to get sidetracked.]
Let us assume that it is, for the sake of logical argument. Scientists estimate the universe to be less than 15 billion years old. Does it follow that if some event will occur in an infinite amount of time, that it will also occur in 15 billion years ? Or do you believe the earth to be infinitely old ? [And no, I did not claim scientists think the earth is 15 billion years old.]

[ncooty]

Even the Big Bang theory doesn't suggest that something came from nothing. The conjecture is that the physical elements of the universe (again, I'll include energy and mass in that broad term) were confined to a small space. We know these dense masses exist. That's what a black hole is.

[You might want to stick with one topic at a time or open a new thread if you want to discuss the Big Bang.]
So are you saying above that the universe has always existed as a black hole and that at some point it expanded ? And that there are included in this expanded universe a number of black holes which by your preceeding statements may at some point expand into their own universes ? This sounds like an exciting new cosmology I am not familiar with. Do you have any published references ?

You're right about sticking to a single topic. The Big Bang reference was unintentionally tangential. I was merely stating an alternate theory to point out that Thinker was posing a straw man argument. I won't keep talking about it here.

In response to your statements, I think I may have been unclear. What you wrote is not at all a representation of the position advocated by proponents of the big bang theory.

I'm here to learn, not teach. If you or others would like to learn about black holes, you may visit this site:

http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html

or many others you may find through a rudimentary search of the Internet.

I won't present references for positions I wasn't advocating.

I apologize if I got us off-topic for a minute.

[ncooty]

Then, it doesn't matter how small the odds are that complex systems would form, if time is infinite, it becomes a logical, mathematical necessity that complex systems would form.

[I'm not so sure that this statement is true but don't want to get sidetracked.]
Let us assume that it is, for the sake of logical argument. Scientists estimate the universe to be less than 15 billion years old. Does it follow that if some event will occur in an infinite amount of time, that it will also occur in 15 billion years ? Or do you believe the earth to be infinitely old ? [And no, I did not claim scientists think the earth is 15 billion years old.]

Not everything I write evidences what I currently believe. I am undecided about ID, so I am comparing it to other theories. Proponents of many other theories (e.g., the Big Bang theory, which I've already said I won't talk more about), would say that the Universe is infinitely old, not that Earth is infinitely old. The probably that something would occur in 15 billion years is a function of the number of iterations (i.e., chances for occurrence) and the size of the probability on any given occasion. Of course, you have to consider that every time a cell reproduces, there's a chance for mutation. That's a lot of iterations over the course of 15 billion years.

I'm beginning to see, though, that many of these arguments center on a false dichotomy: either science can currently explain everything or ID is correct. I'm disinclined to buy into that logic.

My fundamental questions remain unanswered.

[ncooty]

Ncooty I won't argue with you about this. With all honesty I can't. You would not beleive what I have to say. Creation is still going on, there are pictures on the net to prove it. One picture is of a new universe forming.

You might not need a creator explaination but your asking those like me to dismiss what they KNOW to be truth. If we did this we would not be truthfull. I can't explain why I know, I only know that I can not longer wonder if there is a G-d.

Why is it people like myself can come half way but people like you can't ?
You can dismiss the mere possability, and shrug it off as cockypop, that is your right. But you don't have the right to condem others for their beliefs.
many of us reconise we are now better people than we use to be. Not perfect but better.

Deborah,

I really apologize if I offended you. I didn't mean any of this to be taken personally. I don't dismiss the possibility that ID is correct. I don't shrug it off; that's why I'm here. I'm not condemning anyone for their beliefs. I respect other people's beliefs. That's why I'm here: to learn about other people's beliefs and compare the alternatives to determine what I should believe. If we end up believing different things, that's fine; I won't say you're wrong or dumb. At most, I just won't understand it, but that doesn't mean I think it's bad.

I think something that might be problematic is if, as you say, you can't explain why you believe what you believe. If that's the case, then I guess I'll have to wait for my own epiphany (via the grace of God or whoever the intelligent designer is). Until then, I'm trying to understand. I'm skeptical, but I'm giving this a fair chance to compete with other people who want me to believe them.

In any case, I don't mean to belittle anyone or their beliefs. At worst, I simply don't understand them. I sincerely apologize if you were offended.

[sandy_mcd]

All I'm doing is comparing the ID theory to alternate theories. ... I am consulting with the ID experts and advocates to explain their case. ... You didn't just believe in it because someone else told you you should, did you?

This is sort of a tangential chicken-and-egg question but we don't get many bona fide philosophers here, so I would like to ask you this. If you don't know much about ID, how do you learn ? By asking ID experts ? But how can you properly evaluate whether someone is an expert on ID if you don't know much about ID ? You can't just take their word for it, can you ?

Thanks for the continued willingness to humor me and answer my questions.

We're trying our best.

[ncooty]

I'm sorry, but I cannot see how the argument I quoted does not fit the template of denial of the antecedent, which is a logically unsound form of argument, also called a logical fallacy. I wrote it out as plainly as I could, so please explain how the argument is different from: If A, then B. Not A, therefore not B. (If you are unfamiliar with formal logic, there are any number of references available online. I don't mean that pedantically or patronizingly.)

Hey don't worry about being thought pedantic or patronizing; I am not smart enough to pick up on that.
I didn't quote the first part because it is irrelevant. In your effort to write things simply, you misstated the argument for ID. In your argument above [If A, then B. Not A, therefore not B. ] the second statement indeed does not follow logically from the first. But I did not claim that it did. The argument for ID would be that the random changes produced by evolution are highly unlikely to result in irreducibly complex objects. Since evolution does not have a purpose or goal, then it is more likely to conclude that there must be a designer.

The thing is, there are unquantifiable numbers of genotypic mutations that have not persisted or resulted in phenotypic manifestations. The probability doesn't need to be large at all. ... We don't need a supernatural explanation for something that has a low probability.

Perhaps you believe in this law, F=ma (force, mass, acceleration). You can't deny that there is an exceedingly low probability that this law does not hold but that instead there is some random relationship and it is just sheer coincidence that every time someone has checked it, that is the relationship. Why are you so quick to dismiss random chance in this case but not in another ?

What kind of evidence would it take to change the mind of someone who believes in intelligent design?

I imagine that would depend to some extent on the particular person.

How complex is too complex for evolution to explain? Is there anything that is not too complex for evolution to explain?

Why do you insist on a specific boundary ? Where in the continuum from green to blue in the rainbow does the color change from green to blue ? Yet almost surely you won't argue that green and blue are the same color ?

I'm running out of time for tonight.

I think the first point has been addressed in subsequent posts (regarding the probability of outcomes and the seemingly false dichotomy of ID).

The second point is the same seemingly false dichotomy addressed elsewhere. Moreover, Newtonian physics don't require belief in the supernatural and don't make purposeful (i.e., teleological) ascriptions. That's very important in a scientific theory.

If ID is a science, the criterion for disproof must be consistent. It can't change from person to person. However, I'd even be interested to know what individuals on this site consider their personal criteria of disproof for ID.

Lastly, this is known as operationalization of a variable. You must define the boundaries if you are going to classify things as too complex or not too complex. That way, we can all agree. In your example, even the colors have operational definitions that proscribe the boundaries of given colors within the light spectrum. In your example, green ranges from 470 to 590 nanometers in wavelength. Blue ranges from 420 to 490 nm. Note that the two are operationalized, measureable constructs that do not overlap. Operationalization is necessary in a scientific study. Therefore, I'd still like to know the operationalization of "too complex" for the scientific theory of ID.

I'm still open-minded, but I don't yet see why so many people believe in this.

Are there non-Christian groups that promote the Intelligent Design theory? I think it may be conflated with religion here more than it might be on other sites. Thoughts?

[sandy_mcd]

The conjecture is that the physical elements of the universe ... were confined to a small space. We know these dense masses exist. That's what a black hole is.

So are you saying above that the universe has always existed as a black hole and that at some point it expanded ? And that there are included in this expanded universe a number of black holes which by your preceeding statements may at some point expand into their own universes ?

In response to your statements, I think I may have been unclear.

Perhaps we really don't disagree as much as you might think. Perhaps some light could be shed on what appear to be communication difficulties. I'm sure I could understand your arguments much better if you could explain to me why my statements aren't a paraphrase of yours. Care to give it a go for the sake of understanding one another ?

[ncooty]

All I'm doing is comparing the ID theory to alternate theories. ... I am consulting with the ID experts and advocates to explain their case. ... You didn't just believe in it because someone else told you you should, did you?

This is sort of a tangential chicken-and-egg question but we don't get many bona fide philosophers here, so I would like to ask you this. If you don't know much about ID, how do you learn ? By asking ID experts ? But how can you properly evaluate whether someone is an expert on ID if you don't know much about ID ? You can't just take their word for it, can you ?

Thanks for the continued willingness to humor me and answer my questions.

We're trying our best.

That question is exactly the reason I started this thread. I tend to think that people have reasons for believing what they believe and I think we're all pretty smart. Therefore, if we disagree, it probably has to do with the fact that either we have different ways of thinking about things or we have different information.

I came here to see what kinds of information the advocates of ID have and to see if maybe people who advocate ID just arrive at their beliefs differently than I arrive at mine, which is fine. I just want to understand ID and why there are some who support it and others who denounce it.

Personally, I try to use formal logic and the scientific method (or empirical findings from the scientific method) to determine what I believe. I must admit that I also use the principle of parsimony (or Occam's razor), because if there are two, equally descriptive theories, I pick the one that is less complex or requires fewer changes to my overall understanding of the world. For me, so far, resorting to the proposition of a supernatural, omnipotent, omniscient, invisible, infinite being just isn't parsimonious.

I think for some other people, that is parsimonious. Of course, other people have probably had personal experiences that lead them to believe what they do. I'd be interested in hearing that. The only thing is that if ID is a scientific theory, it has to be able to meet the requirements of scientific rigor. I'm not saying science is "right". There are a lot of questions that the scientific method can't answer. I think that's where religion is strongest, in answering those questions that science can't. So far, though, I just don't see that ID is a scientific theory. It's certainly a theory, but it doesn't seem scientifically testable.

I'm still trying to learn, though, and I appreciate the continued interest.

How did everyone else come to believe in this theory? Was it all through religious belief or are there some people who believe in ID who don't subscribe to a particular religion?

Thanks.

[sandy_mcd]

Proponents of many other theories (e.g., the Big Bang theory, ...), would say that the Universe is infinitely old, ...

I realize that you are a philosopher and not a scientist, but what proponents of the Big Bang theory would say the universe is infinitely old ? Since you referenced Cal before, here is a link to UCLA http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html.

All I'm doing is comparing the ID theory to alternate theories.

I trust I am not offending you, but how can you hope to compare ID to alternate theories when you seem to have a number of misconceptions about scientific theories ?

[ncooty]

What kind of evidence would it take to change the mind of someone who believes in intelligent design?
This is the fundamental pre-requisite of a scientific theory.

Could you give us non-philosophers an example ? What kind of evidence would it take to change the mind of someone who believes in evolution?

That's a great question. Testing evolutionary theory is hard, because evolution occurs over many many generations. Therefore, in order to test evolutionary theories, we need to use animals that reproduce quickly. The hypothesis would be that genetic mutations that benefit a species (i.e., result in greater reproductive success) are more likely than are other mutations to be passed on to offspring, resulting in a long-term, phenotypic change in the species. The null hypothesis would be that genetic mutations that benefit the species are not more likely than are other mutations to be passed on to offspring, and, therefore, do not result in a long-term, phenotypic change in the species. There are any number of empirical tests of these hypotheses. Some have involved viruses. In fact, a great example is the fact that the influenza virus mutates constantly. That's why you need a new (and different) flu vaccine each year. Some people wonder why we don't store last year's vaccines for this year, or stock up ahead of time. Well, that's why. We have to see how the virus will mutate this year (in order for it to survive) so that we can create the inoculation.

My favorite example involved the unintended development of a new sub-species of snail thanks to the development of a new parking lot on the campus of Texas A&M University. (One colony of snails became isolated by the parking lot and developed new traits that the non-isolated colonies did not.)

Results that support the null hypotheses in these experiments would undermine, and eventually disprove evolutionary theory.

Of course, there is circumstantial fossil evidence to suggest that species evolve over time to fit into new niches or to better survive in current niches. Unfortunately, fossil evidence isn't falsifiable. That's why we conduct empirical research that, to date, has supported evolutionary theory.

I think it would be neat to test ID. How should I go about it?

[sandy_mcd]

Blue ranges from 420 to 490 nm green ranges from 470 to 590 nanometers in wavelength. ... Operationalization is necessary in a scientific study. Therefore, I'd still like to know the operationalization of "too complex" for the scientific theory of ID.

I don't see the connection. The definition of color is arbitrary and with some 20 nm of overlap and has undoubtedly changed with time (there is some bird with the word "red" in its name which we would now classify as "pink" in color). "Too complex" has an obvious and non-arbitrary meaning; too complex to have evolved. Experimentally determining where borderline cases fit would be expected to be extremely difficult. For example, suppose you are buying a colt to race - either it will or it will not win the Kentucky Derby. You can't make up some operational definition of "winner" based on bloodlines and physical characteristics which will tell you in advance whether the horse will win. Nonetheless, either it will win or it won't.

[ncooty]

Proponents of many other theories (e.g., the Big Bang theory, ...), would say that the Universe is infinitely old, ...

I realize that you are a philosopher and not a scientist, but what proponents of the Big Bang theory would say the universe is infinitely old ? Since you referenced Cal before, here is a link to UCLA http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html.

All I'm doing is comparing the ID theory to alternate theories.

I trust I am not offending you, but how can you hope to compare ID to alternate theories when you seem to have a number of misconceptions about scientific theories ?

I'm sorry, which scientific theories do I misconceive?

The site you reference regards the post-Big Bang universe. Science has no way of testing hypotheses about things that happened prior to the Big Bang. A fundamental precept of Newtonian physics (that still survives) is that energy is neither created nor destroyed. (This is the reason that I've been careful to include matter and energy in my definition of physical elements of the universe.) Thus, even the Big Bang theory does not posit that something came from nothing. Rather, all elements of the Universe were compacted into a single location that became unstable. At that density, elements change, such that we can't radio-carbon date beyond that. It's like a reconstruction of the elements. We make inferences about how elements would behave at that density (largely by knowing how elements change due to the density of the sun; the nuclear fusion at the sun's core turns hydrogen to helium and then iron, which, by the Bessemer process, becomes steel). We can even recreate miniature "big bangs" (maybe those are "little bangs") via atomic spallation in particle accelerators to understand what the universe was like in the first few nanoseconds after the big bang (if there was such a thing). However, right now, we don't have a way to know about anything prior to the big bang (if there was one).

If you'd like to learn more about that topic, visit this site for a good start:

http://nobelprize.org/physics/education ... index.html

Perhaps I should also note that I have other degrees (three of them in sciences) besides my degree in philosophy. I am also a university teaching fellow in the scientific method and statistics (among some other classes). I'm not sure how that helps you understand my position, but you seemed misinformed about my background.

In any case, your last question is a great one. Luckily, the scientific method prescribes a means to assess a scientific theory, even if I completely misunderstand every other theory.

That's why I keep asking for the hypotheses of ID. I'm trying to approach it purely scientifically. I don't even need to compare it to anything else, but nobody will tell me what I need to know in order to assess it with the scientific method.

As I've written before:

What kind of evidence would it take to change the mind of someone who believes in intelligent design?

How complex is too complex for evolution to explain? Is there anything that is not too complex for evolution to explain?

I'm beginning to see why some people are averse to putting this in a science class. It seems like a terrific topic for a philosophy class, but I don't yet see how it's a scientific theory.

[ncooty]

Blue ranges from 420 to 490 nm green ranges from 470 to 590 nanometers in wavelength. ... Operationalization is necessary in a scientific study. Therefore, I'd still like to know the operationalization of "too complex" for the scientific theory of ID.

I don't see the connection. The definition of color is arbitrary and with some 20 nm of overlap and has undoubtedly changed with time (there is some bird with the word "red" in its name which we would now classify as "pink" in color). "Too complex" has an obvious and non-arbitrary meaning; too complex to have evolved. Experimentally determining where borderline cases fit would be expected to be extremely difficult. For example, suppose you are buying a colt to race - either it will or it will not win the Kentucky Derby. You can't make up some operational definition of "winner" based on bloodlines and physical characteristics which will tell you in advance whether the horse will win. Nonetheless, either it will win or it won't.

Sorry about the original mix-up. Green is from 490-570 nm. There is no overlap. The point is that now the colors have been defined in an objective way. Anyone who wants to talk about green or blue can get out an instrument to measure those wavelengths. We don't have to worry about individual differences in perception, because we have an objective way to define both concepts. It's a fundamental component of a scientific experiment.

"Too complex" begs the question: too complex for what?

If the answer is that it's too complex for science to explain, that doesn't seem valid. (First, because ID is supposed to be a scientific theory, so if science can't explain it, neither can ID.) There are other scientific theories that do offer explanations... and they can be tested with operationalized, objective concepts.

"Too complex" is not obvious to me. I can't tell whether or not it is arbitrary; it hasn't been objectively defined yet. To use your example, your estimate of which horse will win a race is different from someone else's estimate. That's entirely subjective. ID proponents who use the "too complex" argument need to define what that means in objective terms so that we can all agree. Does "too complex" mean that I probably couldn't do it in the course of a weekend? Does it mean that I don't understand it? What are the bounds of nature such that we can objectively define what is outside the bounds of nature? (Supernatural, by definition, is outside the bounds of nature.)

OK, maybe we just aren't going to get past this point. I'm sure it makes sense and I just don't understand because it's getting late.

What about the other question?

What kind of evidence would it take to change the mind of someone who believes in intelligent design?

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

ncooty, once you're finished copying and pasting logical fallacies that have nothing to do with what we're talking to, and thinking that because I assume something I'm wrong (everyone assumes several things), and not listening to a word I say....I'll be ready.