Exploring the Claim for "Intelligent Design"

[POI]

I can't expect unbelievers to follow the data that leads to intelligent design.

irreducible complexity is associated with the concept of ID...and ID is a concept/movement that I'm standing 10 toes down, and two feet in.

(Kitzmiller v. Dover) ruled that it is unconstitutional to teach intelligent design, or I.D., in a "science" class. Okay, I think even Since_1985 might agree here in that I.D. has no place in a 'science' class.

However, while following the data in this trial, the claim to "irreducible complexity" was also challenged. Emphasis/focus was placed upon "bacterial flagellum" by creationists. By using logic, and not the "scientific method", skeptics to I.D., while 'following the data', placed forth a case which basically debunks the notion of "irreducible complexity", while addressing the "bacterial flagellum". In a nutshell, after testimony was placed forth to refute 'irreducible complexity', again sighting the "bacterial flagellum", the I.D. side of the isle had no further pushback or rebuttal. For anyone who is interested in all the specifics, a 2-hour documentary can be found here, as I do not wish to write a text-wall:



For debate: While following the data, "irreducible complexity' may not be a grounded rationale to remain in the I.D. camp. Thus, why still continue, two feet in, on the position of I.D. anyways? Faith, other reason(s)?

[POI]

I remain in I.D. position, because I think the design is intelligent. If we take for example an orange. Very nice that it is sliced ready inside the peel and therefore nice to eat.

Is "bacterial flagellum" a good example or not?

[SiNcE_1985]

Then you are not addressing the thread, until you first acknowledge whether or not "bacterial flagellum" is applicable. If you want to explore the 'design' of the human body, we can explore after, as the debate question suggests.

You stated -> "I dont know, as I haven't looked into it"

If that's what I said in response to your question, then that is in fact addressing the thread, which is what you've been erroneously accusing me of not doing.

Well, the thread is based upon (whether or not) "bacterial flagellum" is a good example to argue for irreducible complexity? I say it is not. What say you?

I said I don't know.

The case failed because it was deemed to be religious, and no religion has a place in any science class.

But that's not the way you presented it.

You made it seem as if the case failed because the advocates of intelligent design failed to present a viable/persuasive case for the position.

So you basically misrepresented the ruling of the case, which I knew seemed fishy so I looked it up myself and behold, I was correct.

My point is that ID-ers also tried to follow the data regarding the claim that "bacterial flagellum" supports irreducible complexity. They were destroyed.

Opinions.

Again, whether or not bacterial flagellum supports irreducible complexity has no bearing on whether intelligent design should be considered science, or whether or not it is in violation of the first amendment.

Those are three entirely separate issues and you've put yourself in a messy situation by conflating one with the others.

Do you also agree that "bacterial flagellum" should never again be used as an example to support irreducible complexity? The video explains....

Alternatively, one of your favorite allies wants to continue using it (i.e.):

https://answersingenesis.org/intelligen ... -movement/

Why are they still pushing hot steamy doo doo?

Again (third time), I haven't looked into it...as Id rather focus on more interesting things such as the design/formulation of the human body.

Bacteria flagella is puppy chow to me, when the human body is the real meat and potatoes.

[SiNcE_1985]

[quote=SiNcE_1985 post_id=1160910
Both you and readers know this is baloney. The only thing we want to keep out of classrooms is things that aren't based on reality.

And what do most scientists (who are majority naturalists/materialists) believe?

They believe that intelligent design (God concepts) are things not based on reality.

1. Scientists (who are majority naturalists/materialists) want to keep things that aren't based on reality out of classrooms.

2. Intelligent Design (God concepts) are not based on reality (according to scientists).

3. Therefore, scientists want to keep intelligent design (God concepts) out of classrooms.

It is just as simple as that, so I don't know why you felt the need to go on such a tirade, unless you can kindly tell me which one of those premises is false.

I'll wait.

[Difflugia]

We see..

1. Order.
2. Function.
3. Complexity.

[...]

They are willing to ride the taxi to all the stops that they know require intelligent design, but once the taxi begins to head towards the stop of a Cosmic Creator Agent for the universe, they want to get out of the cab, because they don't like where it's going all of a sudden?

Taxicab fallacy.

I always wondered how you thought the taxicab fallacy applied to so many non-fallacious arguments, but now I get it. Since you personally see agency everywhere you look, you assume everyone else does, too. Order, function, and complexity emerge in various forms from a number of natural systems without requiring an intelligent agent. It would be a taxicab fallacy if scientists claimed that certain natural processes foundational to evolution did require an intelligent agent, but then argued that evolution itself didn't. One might be able to argue that arguments behind theistic evolution are guilty of the taxicab fallacy, for example.

Since scientists posit no intelligent agency at all anywhere in the process, it's not a taxicab fallacy. The theory of evolution is built on (and indeed has proven) mechanisms for creating order, function, and complexity that are built on natural laws alone and require no intelligent agent. You may think their conclusions are wrong, but they're not fallacious.

Claiming that the theory of evolution is built on a taxicab fallacy is like arguing that adding two marbles and two marbles gives us four marbles every single time only because there's a leprechaun that makes sure that there are four marbles. From there, though, you want to claim that the rest of mathematics must necessarily arise from non-leprechaun principles, because leprechauns are silly.

Even if you think that leprechauns are responsible for basic addition and emergent evolutionary complexity, however, scientists and mathematicians aren't arguing that.

[benchwarmer]

[quote=SiNcE_1985 post_id=1160910
Both you and readers know this is baloney. The only thing we want to keep out of classrooms is things that aren't based on reality.

And what do most scientists (who are majority naturalists/materialists) believe?

They believe that intelligent design (God concepts) are things not based on reality.

1. Scientists (who are majority naturalists/materialists) want to keep things that aren't based on reality out of classrooms.

2. Intelligent Design (God concepts) are not based on reality (according to scientists).

3. Therefore, scientists want to keep intelligent design (God concepts) out of classrooms.

It is just as simple as that, so I don't know why you felt the need to go on such a tirade, unless you can kindly tell me which one of those premises is false.

I'll wait.

I note you snipped the quote I responded to. I wonder why that is.... Perhaps you said more than just ID. Sorry that you felt it was a 'tirade'. I'm perfectly fine mentioning 'the G word' (which by the way was part of the quote you conveniently left out) as long as it is in the context of learning about the worlds religions.

[SiNcE_1985]

I note you snipped the quote I responded to.

Have you also been taking note of all the times my posts were snipped (what I call selective-quoting)?

I wonder why that is....

I respond to relevancy, no offense.

Perhaps you said more than just ID. Sorry that you felt it was a 'tirade'. I'm perfectly fine mentioning 'the G word' (which by the way was part of the quote you conveniently left out) as long as it is in the context of learning about the worlds religions.

I am aware of what you said.

The problem is, it is irrelevant because we're not talking about classes of which students learn about "worlds religions".

We are talking about intelligent design (and concepts of God) within the context of science and the teaching of it to children in the classroom.

So, your post was/is in the "straw man" territory, which makes it also in fallacious territory.

[SiNcE_1985]

I always wondered how you thought the taxicab fallacy applied to so many non-fallacious arguments, but now I get it.

Props

Since you personally see agency everywhere you look, you assume everyone else does, too.

Ehhh. Everyone else "should".

If a defendant is in court and pleads not guilty, and the prosecution plays a recording that is clear as day of the defendant committing the crime, then the jury should find the defendant guilty.

Now, whether or not they will is a different story, but they definitely should.

Order, function, and complexity emerge in various forms from a number of natural systems without requiring an intelligent agent.

See, that's where you are wrong.

Going back to Penrose's 10^10^123 equation/number.

That is a number which describes the precision needed for even any chemistry to exist, much less life.

So, the order and precision had to be there from the very beginning of the big bang, which means that those low entropy conditions had to be there from the moment the big bang.

But we know that this isn't how entropy works, because if you start off with a big bang you are supposed to have high entropy...and this is proven by virtually any experiment that you conduct.

If you throw a deck of cards in the air, you expect to see the chaos of random cards floating in no specified order, thus, high entropy.

What you don't expect to see is the floating cards beginning to land in specified order in the formulation of a card house.

Same thing with letters; if you had 24 tiny pieces of paper and you wrote dedicated every letter of the alphabet to every piece of paper...and you scrambled all the letters and tossed the letters in the air, you do not expect the papers to fall to the ground, formulating words and/or sentences.

But that is precisely what we have with the fine tuning of our universe..we are talking mathematical precision, from the initial conditions, to the precision of the constants and parameters.

This is cosmic engineering, amigo.

It would be a taxicab fallacy if scientists claimed that certain natural processes foundational to evolution did require an intelligent agent, but then argued that evolution itself didn't. One might be able to argue that arguments behind theistic evolution are guilty of the taxicab fallacy, for example.

Ok, so let's see how my logic works..but let's set the framework first.

Tell me if you agree with this premise..

A physical entity with sentience, is more complex than a thinking entity without sentience.

Do you agree with that premise?

Since scientists posit no intelligent agency at all anywhere in the process, it's not a taxicab fallacy.

I understand your assertion, and we are about to test those logical waters with the question above.

The theory of evolution is built on (and indeed has proven) mechanisms for creating order, function, and complexity that are built on natural laws alone and require no intelligent agent.

Unproven assertion that isn't backed by observation, experiment, or prediction.

You may think their conclusions are wrong, but they're not fallacious.

We will see about that as the discussion moves forward.

Claiming that the theory of evolution is built on a taxicab fallacy is like arguing that adding two marbles and two marbles gives us four marbles every single time only because there's a leprechaun that makes sure that there are four marbles. From there, though, you want to claim that the rest of mathematics must necessarily arise from non-leprechaun principles, because leprechauns are silly.

Even if you think that leprechauns are responsible for basic addition and emergent evolutionary complexity, however, scientists and mathematicians aren't arguing that.

I wasn't necessarily talking about evolution, but since you mentioned it we can add that to the fallacious junkpile as well.

[POI]

If that's what I said in response to your question, then that is in fact addressing the thread, which is what you've been erroneously accusing me of not doing.

No, you are not yet actually 'addressing' it. Why? You did not see what the video represents about the argument, via bacterial flagellum. You skipped it. Which means you did not address it. Hence, you have no worldly clue if these creationist's argument(s) were good or bad in the trial. Before I address your given follow-up "human analogy", I'm first asking you to see if bacterial flagellum is, or is not, a viable argument for irreducible complexity. If you agree it's a crappy argument, in which AIG is also still adhering to, then we can certainly move on to your follow-up. If you instead think bacterial flagellum IS still a viable argument, then we can discuss. Please see my OP debate request:

For debate: While following the data, "irreducible complexity' may not be a grounded rationale to remain in the I.D. camp. Thus, why still continue, two feet in, on the position of I.D. anyways? Faith, other reason(s)? We can address the other reasons as soon as you tell me if the reason given in the court case is actually good or bad. But for you to know, you first need to know what the argument even is....

But that's not the way you presented it. You made it seem as if the case failed because the advocates of intelligent design failed to present a viable/persuasive case for the position. So you basically misrepresented the ruling of the case, which I knew seemed fishy so I looked it up myself and behold, I was correct.

As you would state, "reading comprehension"....

Here is what I stated in the OP:

"(Kitzmiller v. Dover) ruled that it is unconstitutional to teach intelligent design, or I.D., in a "science" class. Okay, I think even Since_1985 might agree here in that I.D. has no place in a 'science' class."

However, while following the data in this trial, the claim to "irreducible complexity" was also challenged. Emphasis/focus was placed upon "bacterial flagellum" by creationists. By using logic, and not the "scientific method", skeptics to I.D., while 'following the data', placed forth a case which basically debunks the notion of "irreducible complexity", while addressing the "bacterial flagellum".

In a nutshell, the bacterial flagellum argument was also a fail. I bring up this court case because this particular argument for irreducible complexity was refuted with logic, and not science. And yet, ID-ers are still using it. Should they stop?

[1213]

I remain in I.D. position, because I think the design is intelligent. If we take for example an orange. Very nice that it is sliced ready inside the peel and therefore nice to eat.

Is "bacterial flagellum" a good example or not?

Does it work as designed?

[POI]

I remain in I.D. position, because I think the design is intelligent. If we take for example an orange. Very nice that it is sliced ready inside the peel and therefore nice to eat.

Is "bacterial flagellum" a good example or not?

Does it work as designed?

Please answer the question this time. Is "bacterial flagellum" a good example for irreducible complexity, or not?