So someone tell me, how would you do an experiment to test for intelligent design?
By someone, would anyone do? Or must it be GGG?
If your ANOVA or MANOVA experiment requires a dependent variable labeled "deus ex machina" to work you probably are in the right neighborhood.
Do you consider that nothing can be verified as accurate and true unless it can be reduced to a scientific experiment?
Why on earth do you need to experiment to test for something that is so patently obvious to the casual observer and even Dawkins admits that the universe and life give the appearance (illusion) of design?
How ridiculous is that? It appears to be designed but we're going to assume that it's not unless we puny humans can conduct an experiment on it to *prove* it. On what basis would you conclude that something so complex as to give the appearance of design, isn't designed after all?
“So someone tell me, how would you do an experiment to test for intelligent design?”
I suggest you ask the SETI folks. How do they “do an experiment” to determine if a signal from space is “intelligently designed”? Or do you believe that the entire SETI project is “unscientific”?
Let me ask you another question. Why are so many so-called “scientists” today so hostile to the idea of ID? Great scientists of the past certainly expressed no such hostility. Quite the opposite:
“This most elegant system of the sun, planets, and comets could not have arisen without the design and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.” —Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), The Principia
“Overwhelmingly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us. ...the atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words.” —Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
“The more I study nature, the more I am amazed at the work of the Creator.” —Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)
“One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all. ... The better we understand the universe and all it harbors, the more reason we have found to marvel at the inherent design upon which it is based. ... I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life, and man in the science classroom.” —Wernher von Braun, father of the American space program
“I have said for years that speculations about the origin of life lead to no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable that happened billions of years ago. God cannot be explained away by such naive thoughts.” —Ernst Chain, Nobel-laureate biochemist
“So if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design. ... The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.” —Sir Fred Hoyle, British astonomer (and self-professed atheist), from a lecture in 1982
“A superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology.” —Sir Fred Hoyle
“The Darwinian theory has become an all-purpose obstacle to thought rather than an enabler of scientific advance.” —Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel-laureate physicist
“Much of present-day biological knowledge is ideological. A key symptom of ideological thinking is the explanation that has no implications and cannot be tested. I call such logical dead ends antitheories because they have exactly the opposite effect of real theories: they stop thinking rather than stimulate it. Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong. Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can emulate? Evolution is the cause!” —Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel-laureate physicist
Sure.
Today's experiment is divided into two parts and is designed to answer the following question:
Is Intelligent Design required as a proximate cause for transmission of productive information?
PREMISE: Computers such as one uses for purposes which include making communicative postings to FreeRepublic, store information, process information, and may be used to transmit information.
Preliminary question to Students:
Is the premise as stated above a truthful statement? (Yes, or No). Please be prepared to defend your answer.
DEFINITIONS: all definitions provided per (ref.: wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn ) except “substantially disassembled” which is contextually defined.
1. Intelligence: the ability to comprehend; to understand and profit from experience
2. Intelligent: having the capacity for thought and reason especially to a high
degree; "is there intelligent life in the universe?"; "an intelligent question"
3. Design: plan: make or work out a plan for; devise
4. Proximate: situated nearest to point of attachment or origin
5. Cause: events that provide the generative force that is the origin of something
6. Transmission: the act of sending a message; causing a message to be transmitted
7. Productive: producing or capable of producing (especially abundantly)
8. Information: a message received and understood
9. Substantially disassembled: a state of being for a computer which at minimum requires the motherboard to be separated from other computer components
MATERIALS:
1. Two (2) working computers, both, hopefully, your own. One or both may already be disassembled or may never have been used or assembled, but in this case must not be assembled, to wit, must be substantially disassembled (see definition #9). If never assembled, all unassembled parts must be tested and certified as performing in satisfactory fashion and to specification.
2. Tools which may be used to disassemble your computers. If already disassembled, no disassembling tools are required. Continue to "PROCEDURE"
PROCEDURE, EXPERIMENT 1:
1. Completely and substantially disassemble one computer in its ambient environment. Record a description of the environment. If computer is already disassembled, skip step 1 and move on directly to step 2.
2. Place components of disassembled or unassembled computer in two positions (feel free to try others, but position chosen may not include the analyst’s act of formal re-assembly to starting position)
a. All disassembled or not yet assembled parts placed in proximity to each other.
b. No disassembled or not yet assembled parts placed in proximity to one another.
c. Observe and record the degree to which the computer’s materials reassemble or de novo assembly under these conditions occurs.
3. Repeat steps 2(a.) and 2(b.) in sunlight and out of sunlight. Observe and record the degree to which the computer’s materials reassemble or de novo assembly under these conditions occurs.
4. Repeat steps 2(a.) and 2(b.) in a chemically influenced environment of your choosing. While composition of the environment may or may not necessarily be important feel free to repeat the current step in a variety of chemical environments. For instance, feel free to alter temperature, the atmosphere, duration of light exposure, mechanical agitation, duration and intensity of assorted energy exposures (e.g., a plugged in power source with two bare wires placed into contact with any or all parts; x-ray, gamma-ray, radioactive emitting materials NB: USE PROPER DEGREE OF CAUTION WHEN STUDYING THESE CONDITIONS).
Observe and record the degree of computer reassembly under conditions tested. To degree that it assembles, test the computer’s capability of storing information, processing information, and transmitting productive information. Make a special note of which chemical compositions and/or energy exposure most favored the computer’s materials to re-assemble or de novo assembly and subsequent information processing.
CONCLUSIONS:
Report the findings of Experiment #1 with respect to the computer’s observed MATERIAL success (i.e., absent the influence of any process which may be classified as designed to achieve information transmission outside the native abilities of the individual components themselves), or lack thereof, to re-establish its ability to store, process, and transmit information.
PROCEDURE, EXPERIMENT #2:
1. Completely and substantially disassemble a second computer in its ambient environment.
a. Prior to accomplishing step 1, create an environmental workspace suitable for disassembly of the computer. Environmental workspace would optimally include such things as a clean, adequately lit workspace, and other necessary environmental attributes which promote an adequately isolated and well-controlled disassembly area. Record a complete description of the environment and workspace.
b. While accomplishing step 1, record the step by step sequence employed to disassemble the computer.
c. While accomplishing step 1, take an inventory of each individual part as it appears separated from another component part. Make certain that the inventory of parts is complete.
NB: Only Steps 1a and 1c apply to computers which are already disassembled. Computer manufacturer’s assembly instructions however legally obtained may be consulted.
2. While consulting the sequence recorded in Step 1b or with the help of consulting the computer manufacturer’s instructions, and the inventory of parts listing which appears in Step 1c, utilizing the analyst’s cognitive reasoning skills, their innate intelligence, and their sentient abilities to be able to follow directions accurately, design a step by step plan for assembling the components of the computer in such a fashion as will allow the computer to store, process and transmit productive information when the assembly process is completed.
3. Once assembled turn the power switch to the “on” position. Record whether or not the computer becomes powered and “boots up.” If it does not, identify a suitable source of power to connect to the computer which will allow for the “boot up” process to proceed.
4. Test the computer’s ability to store, process, and transmit productive information, by connecting to the internet and by signing on to FR web site and by responding to the following study questions:
Study questions part 1:
1 Must something that is designed be designed by something or someone that is intelligent?
2 Is design ever accomplished without intelligence?
3 Is design purposeful?
4 Does the designer determine the purpose of that which is designed? For instance, does the screw determine the purpose for which the screw serves, or does the one who designed the screw determine its purpose?
Study Questions part 2: On the basis of what you observed when viewing the individual components, answer the following:
1. Do the motherboard, and ancillary boards manifest any evidence of design?
2. If so, from what you already know, did they design themselves for the functions they have?
3. Do the screws that hold to boards and components in place manifest design?
4. Do the tools you used to disassemble or to assemble your computer manifest any evidence of design?
5. Is there any evidence of dependent complexity between/among boards, power sources, switches, diodes, capacitors, fans, cables whereby if one or more components were lacking, or present but lacking in operative ability, the ability of the computer to store, process, and transmit productive information would not be possible?
CONCLUSIONS:
Report the success or lack thereof of the computer in Experiment #2 to be able to store, process and transmit productive information.
DISCUSSION: Compare the outcome of Experiment #1 to Experiment #2 on the basis of the respective computers’ resultant abilities to store, process, and transmit productive information.
Be prepared to comment upon the rationale for the observations made in the context of whether Intelligent design is the proximate cause for the computer’s ability to store, process, and transmit productive information, or whether the material ability of the components themselves acted upon by external forces is sufficient for the computer to re-establish its former capability to store, process, and transmit productive information.
FOLLOW-ON STUDY
1. Obtain a copy of the latest textbook edition of Principles of Biochemistry (Lehninger), or Biochemistry (Stryer)
2. Read the text book cover to cover. Pay close attention to narratives discussing regulation of cellular processes which manifest demonstrated abilities of cellular constituents to store, to process, and to transmit information intra-cellularly and inter-cellularly.
3. Compare these processes to those processes modeled in the two foregoing experiments.
a. EXPERIMENT 1: MATERIALISTIC methodology employed and the resultant success or lack thereof of computer’s subsequent ability to store, process, and transmit productive information
b. EXPERIMENT 2: INTELLIGENT DESIGN methodology employed and the resultant success, or lack thereof,* of computer’s subsequent ability to store, process, and transmit productive information.
*NB: While “lack thereof” is stated here to maintain the parallelism, and since Experiment #2 is completed and one has subsequently posted answers to the study questions after completing Experiment#2, the demonstrated success of the Intelligent Design model experiment is axiomatic to the point of its being moot for all but the most stubborn of simpletons.
Sadly, readers and aspiring analysts will confirm that there are still a few Darwin Central retreads and “previously-banned-imbeciles-posting-under-a-new-name” stubborn simpletons that continue to post to FR. I won’t say they are all necessarily beyond hope of intellectual redemption of some sort eventually, but until then I must admit that they do make for some amusing play toys.
4. Noteworthy evolutionists, Richard Dawkins among them, familiar with their own textbooks on biochemistry if not the actual standard texts to which I refer above have already as much as admitted that “Intelligent Design” is the preferred model to explain the complexities, the regulatory elegance, and the operational inter-relationships which are routinely and readily observed in nature and as such are capable of scientific study:
“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. ... We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully ‘designed’ to have come into existence by chance.” Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, pp. 1, 43.
Dawkins being busted by his own admissions on Ben Stein’s film, “Expelled,” in a way reminds me of the recent exposures of ACORN by James O'Keefe, Hannah Giles, and Breitbart.com.
So, what do you say there, donmeaker.
Shall we step right up and take the materialist’s challenge and get your computer ready for Experiment #1?
Or are Dawkins’ own words sufficient enough at this point to inform you?
It would help to have the original plans.
Subject the components of any structure to the same forces that structure would normally be subject to, and see if those components form the original structure, or reach equalibrium somewhere short of that structure.