On 29/12/2011 12:32 PM, Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> 2. Even if I accept that evolution is false, this does not prove that ID
>> is therefore true. DOES. NOT. FOLLOW.
>
>    This is a very typical false dichotomy. It naturally goes like: "Either
> evolution is true, or ID is true. Hence if we prove evolution to the false,
> the only possible conclusion is that ID is true."

This is, of course, utter nonsense. It really annoys me.

>    This argumentative fallacy is really, really common. If someone wants to
> "prove" that ID is true, what is by far the most common tactic? Try to prove
> evolution as false.

Einstein didn't otherthrow Newton by proving that Newton's laws of 
motion are flawed; he did it by offering an alternative, superior 
explanation.

And yet, read any text proving how ID is correct, and you'll hear 
"evolution this" and "evolution that" and "evolution the other"... I'm 
sorry, I thought you were telling me about ID? What does ID claim the 
answer is?

>    Of course the argument is inherently more fallacious than that. Let's
> assume for a second that the universe was indeed created by an intelligent
> being. This raises many obvious questions: What kind of being? Where is this
> being now? Does this being still exist? Where did it come from? Are there
> more than one? Was this being also created by another intelligent being?
> How did this being create the universe? What kind of powers does it have?
> Is this the only universe that it has created?
>
>    The whole premise of ID doesn't actually answer anything at all, much
> less anything useful.

How did we end up with such a vivid range of lifeforms on this planet? 
It's baffling, and it demands explanation. Evolution says "there's this 
specific mechanism by which it can happen". ID says "God did it". That's 
not even an answer, that's an /excuse/.

Evolution makes several testable predictions - for example, that various 
organisms should possess useless organs (because they once did something 
useful, and are no longer needed, and yet their "cost" is not sufficient 
to eliminate them). And all these predictions match the real world, as 
far as we know.

ID predicts that evolution is false. It makes no further predictions. On 
that metric alone, evolution is a superior theory. Even an incorrect 
theory can be superior if it describes the world better. Hell, we still 
teach people Newton's laws of motion, even though they have been 
conclusively proven false.

As you point out, ID says "the Designer did it", and then tells us 
nothing about the Designer. That's only half a theory. If you're saying 
that the Designer designed everything that exists today in one instant 
and then left, that's one theory. If you claim the Designer is invisibly 
at work all around as, constantly, to this day, that's a completely 
different theory, which yields utterly different predictions. So really, 
ID is an incomplete theory. Make up your mind who or what this 
"Designer" is, and then we might be able to have a sane discussion.

For example, WHY DID HE DO THIS? If we knew the design goal for life, we 
might be able to measure various lifeforms and see whether they meet 
this design goal. But noooo, ID does not specify.

Alternatively, HOW DID HE DO THIS? If we knew the design methods, the 
cognative limitations of the Designer, the tools available to Him, we 
might be able to look at life and see if its design is consistent with 
these constraints or not. But again, noooo. ID does not specify.

If you claim that the genome of all modern organisms was encoded into 
the original singular life form on Earth, we can do some math to compute 
whether that's feasible. But nooo, ID doesn't actually say when or where 
the design took place.

In short, if ID were to actually BE SPECIFIC, there's some danger that 
it might become testable. As it is, ID is not a scientific theory. Not 
because it is untrue [it is, but that isn't the reason], but because IT 
DOESN'T PREDICT ANYTHING. Similarly, string theory is not a science, 
because it makes no predictions. In the case of string theory, we can at 
least append "yet". :-P

>    Of course the creationist will then turn to try to explain how the Bible
> allegedly contains things that the people of the time could not have possibly
> known.

Irrelevant. Does it contain the information that ID does not? No? Well 
then you guys still have a problem, don't you? :-P

Of course, all of this is transparently a question of certain people NOT 
LIKING a theory, and wanting to make people stop saying it's true. They 
don't actually care about the truth, only what makes them happy. As if 
truth can be influenced by what you believe.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message