Professional Documents
Culture Documents
www.DetectingDesign.com
5. If the prediction fails, the hypothesis must be either modified or discarded completely in favor of a new hypothesis
Karl Popper, one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century:
Any hypothesis that does not make falsifiable predictions is simply not science. Such a hypothesis may be useful or valuable, but it cannot be said to be science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
Popper began considering the importance of falsification in science after attending a lecture by Einstein Noticed that Einsteins theories were much different than those of Marx or Freud Einstein Theories were extremely risky while those of Marx and Freud were not in that they explain too much, often with completely opposing explanations for observations that could not be decisively disproved
Non-Scientific Prediction?
Observation: Dinosaurs and Birds share several features Hypothesis: Dinosaurs and Birds have a common ancestor Prediction: A link between dinosaurs and birds will be found sharing additional features like a feathered dinosaur
This prediction is not falsifiable, it is only verifiable If feathered dinosaurs are never found, the hypothesis still isnt falsified It therefore does not meet Poppers criteria as a true scientific prediction however useful it may be
A Scientific Prediction?
While in Las Vegas I observe that I roll double sixes every time after I scratched my nose . . . 3 times so far! Through inductive reasoning, I hypothesize that scratching my nose causes me to roll double sixes I therefore predict that every time I scratch my nose I will roll double sixes If I continue to roll double sixes after scratching my nose, my hypothesis gains predictive value If I end up rolling anything else after scratching my nose, just once, my hypothesis looses predictive value
Designed Things
Do things of known design have any predictable characteristics that can be used to predict design when such characteristic are found in other things?
ID Explains Nothing?
ID does seem to be able to explain everything ID is limited in explanatory power only by the limits of the proposed designer Mindless Nature is used to explain everything as well and therefore nothing? If ID and non-deliberate natural processes are both equally limitless in potential creative ability, how can one tell the difference? One or the other must be limited in the ability to produce certain characteristics over a certain span of time
Non-Deliberate Forces
Which one is more limited, intelligent or non-intelligent activity given access to the same amount of energy, basic building blocks and time? Oh, but given enough time, cant nondeliberate forces do everything that highly intelligent forces can do? Sure, but how much time do you have?
Time is the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years... Given so much time the 'impossible' becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs miracles.
George Wald (1967 Nobel Prize winner in Medicine), "The Origin of Life," Scientific American, vol. 191 1954, p. 46; reprinted on p. 307-320, A Treasury of Science, Fourth Revised Edition, Harlow Shapley et al., eds., Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1958. p 309.
Deliberate or non-deliberate?
Non-deliberate?
Kolmogorov/Chaitin Complexity
"Although randomness can be precisely defined and can even be measured, a given number cannot be proved to be random. This enigma establishes a limit to what is possible in mathematics." Gregory Chaitin, Scientific American, 1975
A non-random process, like ID or Pi, can produce non-random and random-looking looks A truly random process, coin tossing, can also produce non-random and random-looking looks
Given enough time it is possible for a million monkeys typing away at random to produce all the works of Shakespeare
What good are the concepts of random and non-random processes if there is no detectable difference between what one can do vs. what the other can do? Some things just seem so intuitively random while other things seem so non-random Is there a detectable difference?
01010101010101010101 01101100110111100010
01010101010101010101
The first is obviously constructed according to a simple rule; it consists of the number 01 repeated ten times. If one were asked to speculate on how the series might continue, one could predict with considerable confidence that the next two digits would be 0 and 1. Inspection of the second series of digits yields no such comprehensive pattern. There is no obvious rule governing the formation of the number, and there is no rational way to guess the succeeding digits. The arrangement seems haphazard; in other words, the sequence appears to be a random assortment of 0's and 1's.
01101100110111100010
. . . The second series of binary digits was generated by flipping a coin 20 times and writing a 1 if the outcome was heads and a 0 if it was tails. Tossing a coin is a classical procedure for producing a random number, and one might think at first that the provenance of the series alone would certify that it is random. This is not so. Tossing a coin 20 times can produce any one of 220 (or a little more than a million) binary series [potential sequences in sequence space], and each of them has exactly the same probability. Thus it should be no more surprising to obtain the series with an obvious pattern than to obtain the one that seems to be random; each represents an event with a probability of 220.
If origin in a probabilistic event were made the sole criterion of randomness, then both series would have to be considered random, and indeed so would all others, since the same mechanism can generate all the possible series. This conclusion is singularly unhelpful in distinguishing the random from the orderly. A more sensible definition of randomness is required, one that does not contradict the intuitive concept of a patternless number.
Gregory J. Chaitin, Randomness and Mathematical Proof, Scientific American, 232, No. 5 (May 1975), pp. 47-52
A Patternless Pattern
Patternlessness is based on the pattern itself without any regard to its actual origin Patternlessness = Complexity (KCC) KCC = Measure of Compressibility Given the ability to recognize symmetry or repeating patterns, a sequence with greater internal symmetry has greater compressibility (Low KCC)
Patternlessness cannot be absolutely known this side of absolute knowledge An unknown compressor, like Pi, may come along and compress a very long apparently random sequence into a very small expression or formula
Something with apparently high KCC in reality has a low KCC
Even a slight lack of knowledge of the starting parameters results in an appearance of randomness/non-compressibility or high KCC The actual rules governing the starting parameters may have been very simple (low KCC) and very reproducible - if they could be perfectly known Problem: certain apparently simple formulas cannot be known to perfection by us humans
i.e., the current starting points, velocities, and trajectories of all particles involved in next years weather patterns
Such things will therefore predictably produce an apparently random pattern with high KCC
or
Simple?
Complex?
All scientists actually do accept the truth of their hypotheses well shy of 100% certainty . . . even when it comes to the notion of ID - Except if the ID hypothesis has something to do with the origin of life or different kinds of life.
How long does one have to look for a nondeliberate cause of a French-style garden or a similar highly symmetrical pattern drawn in the sands of Mars before one should loose the motivation for such a fruitless pursuit?
Gibson argues: Intelligent design may not be a hypothesis to test, but it may provide a metaphysical research programme in which hypotheses may be generated and tested Is this really true? that ID cannot be based on any testable hypothesis?
If I hypothesize that all known nondeliberate forces have a limit with regard to a certain feature, like symmetry in gardens or granite, beyond which they cannot go this side of a practical eternity of time, what happens to my hypothesis if some non-deliberate apparently random force does happen to cross this line?
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed [that] could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.
Hypothetical: If such a demonstration could be done, what would be left besides ID as the most reasonable scientific explanation for such an organ system? Is the Mindless Nature Can Do It Hypothesis falsifiable this side of a practical eternity? or is it only verifiable?
If natural selection were an adequate mechanism, ID would not be detectable in living things Problem: Random mutation and natural selection only give rise to different systems that are at very low levels of Functional Complexity
Tierra evolution
Starts out with program codes that reproduce themselves Gain reproductive advantages if they reproduce faster Result: paracytic-type programs that are actually smaller than their original programs These smaller programs leach off the functional aspects of larger programs Because of this leaching effect, the population eventually stalls out and usually goes extinct No higher-level systems of function evolve beyond what the population started with
Biosystem Evolution
A higher Level of functional complexity requires a greater minimum sequence size and specificity Antibiotic Resistance (can evolve, basically unlimited)
Most forms require a loss or interference with a preestablished function (antibiotic-target interaction) Much easier to break something than to make it again, because there are so many more ways to break than to fix
Nylonase: Minimum of ~ 300 AA (can evolve, limited) Lactase: Minimum of ~ 400 AA (can evolve, limited) Ratios in language systems:
cat hat bat bad dad did dig dog Try it with longer sequences gets exponentially harder and harder to do because of an exponential decline in the ratio of potentially beneficial vs. potentially non-beneficial Odds that a large book will have the sequence cat preformed somewhere? what about supracalafragalisticexpialedocious?
The fact that I like vanilla ice cream is a truth that cannot be tested I just know it as an internally derived fact Morality, like knowing that it is wrong to steal or to murder, is likewise an internally derived truth as part of the Law apparently written on the heart of all human beings However, the religious notion that God or some higher power exists outside the mind and does stuff to the physical world and to the mind that can be detected as being beyond the natural capabilities of either the physical world or the mind - - is moving into the realm of science and potential falsification (risky ideas)
God, as quoted in the Bible, often use the notion of falsification to support His claims as God and of being more real than false gods made of wood or stone Only I can do this or that and no other like predict the future or raise the dead or burn up alters on Mt. Carmel or guide new mother cows back to Bethel Prove me [through tithes and offerings] and see if I will not open the store houses of Heaven and pour you out a blessing so great that you will not be able to receive it Often God provides physical signs and miracles as proofs of the Divine origin of a promise or warning
Abundant physical testable evidence of both Gods existence and character are available
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: (Romans 1:20 KJV)
God does not expect or desire blind faith Religion can therefore be a science The strongest evidence will be rejected if one does not have a Love of Truth that is greater than everything else
Distinguishing Truth from Error, concerning ideas about the world around the mind requires the same not true filter
Can be used by both science and religion, making both the same thing
Ellen White comments that in Heaven the study of the plan of salvation will be our science and our song
Is Love Testable?
The fact that I love someone or something is not testable it is an internally derived truth
Therefore doesnt need scientific evidence
My notion that someone else, like my wife or God, loves me is testable (tested every day even if only subconsciously) and falsifiable qualifies as a science
A Little Quiz
Designed or Not?
ID Potential
ID Potential ID Potential
Non-Deliberate Potential
ID Potential
ID Potential
ID Potential
www.DetectingDesign.com