No, no, no - we are told that the design inference can produce reliable results, so we set off to explore that hypothesis. If it's testable, it quite nicely falls within the range of the scientific method. And if it proves to be untestable for one reason for another, then Dembski and ID theorists must withdraw it from the realm of science. But in either case, it was not I who proposed the design inference as science - it was ID theory. So let's find out if they're right.
In effect, what the General seems to be saying is that, if something cannot be demonstrated by means of the scientific method, then that something cannot be real.
Nope. I am testing the claims of ID theory - that design is real, and can be discovered via the design inference. Now, if you want to say that design is undetectable, that's fine, but you're parting company with Dembski and ID theorists...
Lots of luminaries chime in: Paul Gross, Jason Rosenhouse, Matt Young, George C. Williams and others pace Berlinski; Behe, Dembski, Wells, Oakes and others in conditional support.
Berlinski is my hero. This guy is the most urbane, unflappable, erudite, witty and good-natured son of a gun writing in science today, and boy can he write. Check out his skewering of Gross --- it is priceless!
The questions surrounding evolution are serious ones, and the jig is not up. Berlinski grasps the complexity of the problem in ways that many evolutionary biologists don't. He is not a cheerleader for Dembski, and in fact has concluded that Dembski's approach will not be very fruitful because it depends on probabilities, and, as he says, high improbability is not that interesting after something has already happened. In other words, a highly improbably event will occur just as often as one would expect it to occur, not more and not less. But after it's happened, one cannot argue that it could never have happened. Berlinski believes Dembski has painted himself into just such a corner.
Anyway, read these letters. Really good stuff.
Over several months of research I arrived at what I believe is an objective hypothesis: algorithm at inception is proof of intelligent design.
I anticipate that current research in information theory and molecular biology (Rocha, etc.) will determine that algorithm, expressed perhaps as a finite state mechanism, must lie at any abiogenesis theory – thus showing that biological life is the result of intelligent design. Likewise, I anticipate the research concerning m-theory and dark energy, especially as it concerns the toggling of balance to explain the age of the universe (rate of expansion), will eventually show that algorithm must logically precede this (or any/all) universes.
That is my attempt to answer the most hardened metaphysical naturalists. However, there are other evidences which many of the less prejudiced may consider adequate proof of intelligent design, or more specially, an intelligent Designer! These include:
a. Sound waves in the cosmic background microwave radiation.
b. The size and stability of galaxies derive from Planck’s constant
c. Instructions (operating, repair, reproduction) encoded in DNA
d. Also, the Shroud of Turin may be redated due to errors found in the previous methodology
Wave Phenomenon:
a. Geometry of all that there is (space and time do not pre-exist but are qualities of the extension of field)
b. Membrane theory and the search for the Higgs boson/field to explain mass
c. Bell’s inequalities (spooky interaction at distance, non-locality)
Consciousness, the existence of a realm beyond the physical:
a. Persistent inability to synthesize such things as pain, love, honor, integrity
b. Out of body and near death experiences
c. Testimonies of changed lives
d. Precognition and other such phenomenon
Realized prophecy:
a. Biblical prophecies concerning Jesus
b. Biblical prophesy v. Current Events
c. Hidden texts – pseudapigrapha and Bible Code
d. Archeological evidence
...a "proper scientific proof" of an issue that is not properly a matter that falls within the range of the scientific method.
If there is such a thing as historical science, and I think there is, it seeks to answer questions of the form, "What happened?", or " What cause this event, etc. to arise?". The answer to these types of questions involves the use of abductive inferences.
On the other hand, nomological or inductive sciences involve questions of a different sort relating to how nature normally operates or functions.
I think both methods are legitimate avenues of scientific inquiry. What do you think?
Cordially,
The "principle" is not only too far up the ladder to be a first principle, but it is ignored when inconvenient. Lots of evo stuff can't be demonstrated by the scientific method:
|
A FEW of the MATERIALIST'S MIRACLES |
When the process was observed/ repeated |
|---|---|
|
Matter has always existed/ matter is eternal. |
|
|
Matter existed before (!) time began. Matter takes up space, space is impossible w/o time. |
|
|
All the matter was compressed into the size of a point (some say "infinitely small"). |
|
|
The point exploded (The universe created itself). |
|
|
Time began. |
|
|
The universe was 100 trillion degrees celsius (some say "infinitely high"). |
|
|
Only quarks and photons existed which gave rise to hydrogen. |
|
|
Hydrogen gave rise to all the other elements. |
|
|
Some particles accelerated beyond the speed of light. (requires infinite energy) |
|
|
Particles departing from each other at the speed of light formed planets and stars |
|
|
Rain on rocks gave rise to life (spontaneous generation) |
|
|
Rocks gave rise to intelligence. |
|
|
1-celled structures invented their own genetic info. |
|
|
Frogs gave rise to princes. |
|