Replies

Magnificient post, betty boop!

The test of a scientific argument -- falsifiability -- depends on observations of phenomena that reside within the 4D block of "ordinary" space-time. However, neither mathematics nor information appears to be the product of the 4D block, although we readily recognize that both are in evidence within the 4D block. Similarly, we can readily observe evidence of design in nature. But design presumably is also "extra" to the 4D block, similarly as mathematics and information. So how can we directly test it? How does science test a universal that does not have its origin in ordinary space-time?

And yet the evidence or by-products of design are there in nature, and can be observed.

Evolutionary theory likewise is not a phenomenal object in the sense that it is not a direct production of nature. It is a conceptualization; that is, it is an immaterial entity that purports to be a universal rule of nature. In this regard, I do not perceive any real difference in its status as compared with design theory:

Well said. Excellent argument - all theories ought to be weighed on the same scales.

"The test of a scientific argument -- falsifiability -- depends on observations of phenomena that reside within the 4D block of "ordinary" space-time. However, neither mathematics nor information appears to be the product of the 4D block, although we readily recognize that both are in evidence within the 4D block. . . ."

You have made what I consider to be a mistake in grouping "mathematics" and "information" together in this comment. Mathematics may or may not reflect an objective reality -- I'll skip a re-introduction of the realist-nominalist debate here -- as it is essentially "of the mind." In other words, you cannot stare into a microscope or look at the readout of a spectrometer and see numbers. But "biological information" -- I'll go beyond simply using "information" by itself -- does reflect an objective reality because the range of choices available to an autonomous biological entity in selecting a genetic message can be viewed in terms of the hard reality of the DNA/RNA sequences which can be included in the transposed "message." You can look into a microscope and see DNA. You can look at the readout of a spectrometer that reveals the C-G-A-T sequences. Our use of the term "information" may represent an application of mathematics to make sense of the range of choices available, since they are numerous, but, in spite of the fact that the information is "stateful" and requires viewing a series of snapshots of the sequences in each stage of the process of biological communication to compute information as a value, the information itself is a hard reality grounded in the observation of phenomena occurring in the physical world. So mathematics -- yes; information -- no when it comes to relating the two to objective reality.

". . . Similarly, we can readily observe evidence of design in nature. But design presumably is also "extra" to the 4D block, similarly as mathematics and information. . . ."

As OhioAttorney pointed out in his post #108, when used in the science of Biophysics [and I would add microbiology, evolutionary biology, and more] "design" is a modeling construct. "Design" is made evident by the fact that there are complexities to a biological system that require science to develop a modeling construct to understand it. In this respect it is like biological information in that any of the individual parts -- I think Doyle, Kurata, et al. would use the term "modules" -- are observable and it therefore is of the 4D world. Mathematics still falls outside of it.

"So how can we directly test it? How does science test a universal that does not have its origin in ordinary space-time? . . ."

Well; first you correct the premise that design "does not have its origin in ordinary space-time" because it does. And to test it, you do precisely what Doyle, Csete, Kurata, and the other researchers referenced in the initial article that began this thread do. You apply Dynamic Systems Analysis to observations of phenomenological behavior under a variety of known constraints and, from that analysis, you draw conclusions based upon the evidence recorded.

". . . Evolutionary theory likewise is not a phenomenal object in the sense that it is not a direct production of nature. It is a conceptualization; that is, it is an immaterial entity that purports to be a universal rule of nature. In this regard, I do not perceive any real difference in its status as compared with design theory . . ."

If by "design theory" you mean "Intelligent Design," the difference is huge because the Theory of Evolution is disprovable while Intelligent Design is not. But if by "design theory" you mean the scientific application of Dynamic Systems Analysis to biological machines in order to determine the proper modeling construct that explains design, then there would be no difference.

No matter how much the proponents of Intelligent Design may argue to the contrary, the basis of its argument is that because science has not yet developed a satisfactory answer that explains the origins of biological complexity, no such explanation can be developed from an examination of the uniform and naturally-occurring processes of nature and we therefore must postulate the intervention of an outside designer to produce that satisfactory explanation. The "postulate" of the "intervention of an outside designer" is not disprovable by scientific method and this makes Intelligent Design both non-scientific and dramatically distinct from the Theory of Evolution.