Angel Diaz: Christopher H. I find it ironic how science considers ID pseudoscience and yet, call multiverse a scientific theory when it is actually pseudoscientific for 2 reasons: 1) It is not falsifiable 2) It is untested. Unlike the gibberish multiverse theory, ID does in fact stand the golden rules of science. 1) ID is falsifiable by demonstrating Neo-Darwinian mechanisms capable of creating complexity. The same way Miller supposedly debunked irreducible complexity by his mouse trap example; he failed to demonstrate any empirical evidence of evolution capable of creating one novel function to the other. Rather he presumed it must be rather than demonstrating. 2) It is testable by constructing a series of predictions that can be inferred by empirical facts. Christopher H: Ive never considered the multiverse a viable theory. Its got some substantiation, such as quantum fluctuation in which the quantity of energy in a given space can change temporarily. 1: Thats not how falsification works. Falsification has to work within the model itself, not by saying another model need be shown right. 2: Its not testable. There is no model or set of mechanisms for ID. There are nothing but inferences and analogies which have thus far all been invalid. Angel Diaz: Then I suppose you dont follow every thing science tells you? I like your skeptical attitude. 1) Neo-Darwinism & Intelligent design both hypothetically explain the origin of complexity. The only difference between them is how it happens. The former assumes natural selection & random mutations while the latter invokes an intelligent agent. So yes, both of them are homologous models that can explain the origin of complexity. If you can demonstrate a more correct model of the two by the evidence, you falsified the other. The same way Newtons model of gravity depicted it as a pulling force while General Relativity conceived it as a space-time bend. GR had more weight so it was accepted and falsified Netwons model. 2) There are no mechanisms for how quantum entanglement works, how an atom can be in two or more places at the same time or how it knows when its being observed, yet its all inferences and speculation like Copenhagen. Might as well reject the interpretations of QM since they are clearly not empirically testable but inferred with speculation. Christopher H: 1: Evolution explains biological complexity with actual testable mechanisms. ID is an ad ho rationalization based on invalid analogies. ID has no mechanisms and no model. Just A designer did it, somehow 2: Wrong, theres parametric down-conversion and fiber coupling. Even if there werent, its still not a license to say A designer did it, somehow Youve created a strawman. Rejecting that something happens and rejecting *how* it happens are two completely different things. Angel Diaz: 1) Yes, actual testable mechanisms that failed to live up the evolution hype. Until you can demonstrate evolution capable of doing what ID says it cannot do, Id continue to remain skeptical from favoring ND over ID. 2) If you were left with an event where it couldnt be done by a natural cause, would you continue to shove your head in the sand and still insist a materialistic explanation? There is no strawman. Both Newtons and Einsteins theory of gravity explain how it happens. ID & ND are both theories that explain the origin of complexity, not the complexity itself. Theres no strawman. Christopher H: 1: No, they dont. I can go into great detail on a number of observed examples of increases in complexity via evolution. Lenskis E. coli for instance, showed the evolution of what could only be considered an irreducibly complex system. 2: The absence of X is not positive evidence for Y. The only thing not knowing how it happens tells us is that we dont know how it happens. Otherwise youre literally saying We dont know how it happens, therefore we do know how it happens. A designer did it, somehow. Angel Diaz: 1) Lenskis E. coli is an excellent demonstration of cellular genetic engineering in action. The E. coli didnt mutate a new gene and enable it to exploit citrate. Its cell genetically engineered a variety of enzymes where one of them was capable of helping the E. Coli metabolize citrate. The E. coli didnt evolve new genetic information; it was a special enzyme that helped the bacteria to consume it. 2) I agree and thats what ID says. If there is no evidence for complexity origin by natural causes, then the best explanation is an intelligent agent. I dont understand why you refuse to accept ID when ND cant even do what ID says cannot do. Christopher H: .....
Posted on: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 21:59:30 +0000