Specified complexity

[Seeker]

If it is a matter of mere philosophy, nothing has to be proven.

Wrong. Philosophy is proven and driven by logic. And LOGIC dictates that ''no one is obliged to prove a non-existence of anything''.

[tabibito]

Wrong. Philosophy is proven and driven by logic. And LOGIC dictates that ''no one is obliged to prove a non-existence of anything''.

Perhaps you are right. I will therefore rephrase:

eliminate

But no less subject to falsification than the non-existence of an intelligent designer.

substitute: no less subject to falsification than the concept of the development of a universe, and of life, by wholly natural processes.

[Roy]

Thanks, but what I am asking is if this notion of ''specificity'' is a falsifable hypothesis -- i. e. has it been proven false?

I don't understand what you mean - you can't falsify a definition.

The "specified" in specified complexity refers to matching an independent pattern or sequence, as in a sequence of letters, nucleotides, amino-acids, binary digits, etc.

A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A long sentence of random letters is complex without being specified. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified.

This is not related to the specificity of an enzyme. Carl Weiland appears to be confused.

[shunyadragon]

Perhaps you are right. I will therefore rephrase:

eliminate


substitute: no less subject to falsification than the concept of the development of a universe, and of life, by wholly natural processes.

The problem is the falsification of the claims of the Discovery Institute Intelligent Design. The existence of the 'Intelligent Designer' nor nonexistence of the Intelligent Designer is not falsifiable by scientific methods. You note 'wholly by natural processes' this does not address the issue, and it hints at an attempt to falsify the negative which cannot be done. The only objective verifiable evidence supports and demonstrates natural processes and the laws of nature.

The bold above represents the fallacy of 'arguing from ignorance.'

The elephant in the room is there the possibility that a falsifiable hypothesis to support ID, and the only way is to falsify the hypothesis in part or wholly the laws of nature and natural process cannot potentially explain the nature of our physical existence including life. So far all the proposals of specified complexity, and irreducible complexity have scientific viable explanations, which explain the examples provided by the Discovery Institute.

[tabibito]

The problem is the falsification of the claims of the Discovery Institute Intelligent Design. The existence of the 'Intelligent Designer' nor nonexistence of the Intelligent Designer is not falsifiable by scientific methods. You note 'wholly by natural processes' this does not address the issue, and it hints at an attempt to falsify the negative which cannot be done. The only objective verifiable evidence supports and demonstrates natural processes and the laws of nature.

The bold above represents the fallacy of 'arguing from ignorance.'

The elephant in the room is there the possibility that a falsifiable hypothesis to support ID, and the only way is to falsify the hypothesis in part or wholly the laws of nature and natural process cannot potentially explain the nature of our physical existence including life. So far all the proposals of specified complexity, and irreducible complexity have scientific viable explanations, which explain the examples provided by the Discovery Institute.

Eh? The argument propounded by atheists is that the universe and life arose by wholly natural processes, or if you prefer, spontaneously. That IS a positive claim - even a bare assertion - and one that is not "falsifiable."

[shunyadragon]

Eh? The argument propounded by atheists is that the universe and life arose by wholly natural processes, or if you prefer, spontaneously. That IS a positive claim - even a bare assertion - and one that is not "falsifiable."

This is the assumption of Ontological Naturalism of atheists and not Methodological Naturalism, which cannot falsify anything beyond the nature of our physical existence. You need to read my posts carefully. I said science CANNOT falsify either the existence nor non-existence of an 'Intelligent Designer' some call God.

This is not an atheism versus theism issue.

Read again . . .

The problem is the falsification of the claims of the Discovery Institute Intelligent Design. The existence of the 'Intelligent Designer' nor nonexistence of the Intelligent Designer is not falsifiable by scientific methods. You note 'wholly by natural processes' this does not address the issue, and it hints at an attempt to falsify the negative which cannot be done. The only objective verifiable evidence supports and demonstrates natural processes and the laws of nature.

The bold above represents the fallacy of 'arguing from ignorance.'

The elephant in the room is there the possibility that a falsifiable hypothesis to support ID, and the only way is to falsify the hypothesis in part or wholly the laws of nature and natural process cannot potentially explain the nature of our physical existence including life. So far all the proposals of specified complexity, and irreducible complexity have scientific viable explanations, which explain the examples provided by the Discovery Institute.

[Roy]

Eh? The argument propounded by atheists is that the universe and life arose by wholly natural processes, or if you prefer, spontaneously. That IS a positive claim - even a bare assertion - and one that is not "falsifiable."

It is falsifiable The Cre/ID ideas about irreducible complexity and information increase are attempts to falsify evolution. There are many other things that could falsify evolution, including a very young earth, an inability to arrange lifeforms into a tree of descent, a genetic structure that didn't mutate, or discovering a bunch of gnomes in an underground network who manufacture eggs then sneak out at night and implant them in nests and ovaries.

That the universe and life arising by wholly natural processes hasn't been falsified doesn't mean that it couldn't be falsified.

[Seeker]

This is not related to the specificity of an enzyme. Carl Weiland appears to be confused.

So you're saying one does have nothing to do with the other?

[Seeker]

It is falsifiable The Cre/ID ideas about irreducible complexity and information increase are attempts to falsify evolution. There are many other things that could falsify evolution, including a very young earth, an inability to arrange lifeforms into a tree of descent, a genetic structure that didn't mutate, or discovering a bunch of gnomes in an underground network who manufacture eggs then sneak out at night and implant them in nests and ovaries.

That the universe and life arising by wholly natural processes hasn't been falsified doesn't mean that it couldn't be falsified.

Exactly. But ''information increase'' does not directly refer to specificity of enzymes? According to the creationists, of course.

[shunyadragon]

If it is a matter of mere philosophy, nothing has to be proven.

Fortunately it is about the falsification of theories and hypothesis by Methodological Naturalism scientific methods and nothing to do with what is philosophically proven (?). Are you referring to logic or what? Nothing to do with science.

[tabibito]

This is the assumption of Ontological Naturalism of atheists and not Methodological Naturalism, which cannot falsify anything beyond the nature of our physical existence. You need to read my posts carefully. I said science CANNOT falsify either the existence nor non-existence of an 'Intelligent Designer' some call God.

That is what I said. Scientific method can't give the answer to whether the universe and life arose through Intelligent Design or spontaneously. It is a philosophical issue.

[shunyadragon]

That is what I said. Scientific method can't give the answer to whether the universe and life arose through Intelligent Design or spontaneously. It is a philosophical issue.

Than Discovery Institute totally failed to demonstrate any scientific basis for Intelligent Design relying only on assumptions in philosophy, which Discovery Institute depends on theistic assumptions concerning the existence of an 'Intelligent Designer,' and not science.

Case closed!!!

[tabibito]

Than Discovery Institute totally failed to demonstrate any scientific basis for Intelligent Design relying only on assumptions in philosophy, which Discovery Institute depends on theistic assumptions concerning the existence of an 'Intelligent Designer,' and not science.

Case closed!!!

Using a specific case to establish a general principle? And the Discovery Institute as the specific case? Decent philosophical consideration doesn't ignore established fact. (and I make no apology for using words as they are generally understood and accepted in ordinary usage).

[shunyadragon]

That is what I said. Scientific method can't give the answer to whether the universe and life arose through Intelligent Design or spontaneously. It is a philosophical issue.

Philosophy? I consider the Discovery Institute is a theological argument with foundation in Christian apologetics.

Again . . . that negates the claim of the Discovery Institutes claim that there is scientific basis for Intelligent Design.

[shunyadragon]

Using a specific case to establish a general principle? And the Discovery Institute as the specific case? Decent philosophical consideration doesn't ignore established fact. (and I make no apology for using words as they are generally understood and accepted in ordinary usage).

The Discovery Institute case is not a specific case(?), what ever that is. It is the case and claim that there is a scientific argument that falsifies Intelligent Design. A number of Christian scientists outside the Discovery Institute that also hold this belief.