The Problem with Christians

[AAA]

I think that there definitely is positive evidence for design based on what the ID proponents propose. You should read the book "Signature in the Cell". It is a very good book even if you want to read it for the purpose of picking out ID's shortcomings.

I may just. I mean, it'll have to wait until after I've finished Anansi Boys, but I'll definitely put it next in the line.

Steven Meyer describes his search for an adequate explanation to the origin of life. The point where intelligence starts to become a possibility is when looking at the information bearing properties of the genetic code. He points out (and as most scientists agree) that chance alone is not sufficient to produce an information containing sequence of even 150 characters throughout the whole duration of the universe. He then points out how scientists recognized this problem and theorized that there were some chemical properties in DNA that led to favoring of information rich sequences. Unfortunately nucleotide bases are not directly linked to each other on DNA. They are linked to the deoxyribose by N-glycosidic bonds which all 4 nucleotides have equal preference for. He then points out that if there was chemical determination for certain sequences, the capacity for DNA to store information would be lost because the same sequence would eventually recur too frequently.

And there we go. You can't even go a single argument without relying on negative evidence. "Chance alone is not sufficient," is just poking a hole. It doesn't support the design inference, it just seeks to reduce the potency of the opposition. The first thing you said as an example of this book's argumentation has precisely the problem I pointed out with ID arguments in general.

He then describes how there is only one known cause that is sufficient. That cause is intelligence.

I apologize, but I'm going to have to do this next bit sentence by sentence, because there's literally something wrong in every individual line. To start with, sufficiency is not, if you'll pardon the pun, sufficient. It never has been, because necessity is what we search for in science. Tons of things are sufficient to bring about information: magic, naturally occurring information, information pixies, data porpoises, and even Splinchy the Information Man-in-a-Weasel-Mascot-Costume.

Now, I know a number of those are ridiculous on their face, but the fact is, they are sufficient causes, because I've manufactured them with the ability to create information. The simple fact that I am able to make up an infinite number of sufficient causes should speak volumes about how important sufficiency on its own is to this question.

Therefore it is the best explanation out of the competing hypothesis, because it is a cause that is presently observed to produce the feature in question (information).

But I've already established multiple times in this thread that, at best, information is not necessarily produced by intelligent minds, but also formatted by intelligent minds from naturally occurring sources. A rock contains information, in terms of positional data, composition and its effects on the local environment, but at least a part of that information can come about through non-intelligent sources (say, a landslide caused the rock to move, imbuing it with new positional information). This is enough to demonstrate that there are more than one cause for the creation of information, and in fact, the idea that it's simply naturally occurring data being formatted by minds after the fact is far, far more parsimonious than the design alternative, in that it asks us to accept less unjustified assertions.

It is not an argument from ignorance.

Yeah it is: "I know of only one sufficient cause for information, therefore that cause is automatically the best explanation," is the premiere example of the argument from ignorance. It's asserting that because you can only provide one cause, that cause is the one: the entire argument relies on your ignorance of alternative causes to function at all.

Also, who are you to say which worldview has the gap being filled by the opposition? Why can't I say that you are just poking wholes in intelligent design when you say that God just poofed everything into existence?

If that were all I was doing, you might have a point there. But I've already shown multiple arguments that positively indicate my position, in addition to ones that demonstrate the fallacies in yours. The issue isn't negative evidence in general, since it has its uses; the issue is the exclusive use of negative evidence that characterizes the ID community. Exclusively negative evidence turns your every argument into an argument from ignorance. Exclusively positive evidence turns your every argument into an increasingly well supported scientific theory. Some mixture of the two is perfectly acceptable, but if you're aiming for just one or the other, well, it's obvious which one is science and which isn't.

You are just arguing from ignorance on how it was done. Do you see why I don't like the phrase arguing from ignorance? The side accusing the other of doing it (you) must first assume that their (your) view is correct and that there is an unknown answer that fits into their (your) view for the other side (mine) to be ignorant of. I'd be impressed if you could follow my train of though their, I sort of rambled.

Not at all: the argument from ignorance is a failure of argument formation, not content. It is, actually, content agnostic: the argument from ignorance exists in the form "we don't know X," or "the only solution we can think of is Y," not in the specific variations of what X and Y are. It's eminently possible to make an argument from design that is not an argument from ignorance, it's just that this would require specific justification for design, and not just that you can't think of an alternative cause for the observations you're using.

Hell, if you want a positive argument for design, you could use predictions, like the Tiktaalik example I used for evolution earlier: in that case, the prediction was that, if evolution were true, going to a given location and digging to a given place in the fossil record will yield a fossil with X, Y, and Z specific characteristics, and that turned out to be an accurate prediction. Now, nobody knew about Tiktaalik before that prediction was made, this wasn't like a biblical prophecy thing, where the intent is to take already known information to twist it to fit your desired conclusion, it was a legitimate prediction made in ignorance, but that would be true of the world were a specific theory to be correct. So you could avoid the argument from ignorance for design by saying "if design is true, then there should be X marker of it," where X isn't something already known, but something that would be consistent with and positively indicating design, and then going out to find that.

That would do it. Dismissing something as an argument from ignorance in no way requires a presupposition of the opposing position, and I think I've aptly demonstrated that by now.

You say that there is no positive evidence being claimed, then the next thing you quote is the claimed positive evidence. Yes it is accompanied by negative evidence, but the only known cause for sequential information is at least a claim that would be positive evidence if it were true (which I think it is). 

The reason intelligence is sufficient to produce information is because we see it in action every day. We see no other origin to sequential information besides intelligence. We don't see information pixies in action, therefore they are not a reasonable explanation. You can make up information bearing causes all day long, but the fact is that only one has been observed to be capable of producing sequential information. 

Don't say "I can't think of a reasonable alternative" then say I'm ignorant. Say " nobody who has ever lived despite centuries of restlessly searching can think of a reasonable alternative". You are right because there are no reasonable alternatives, there is no reason that intelligent design should be laughed at. The answer "i don't know" is perfectly fine, but don't tell me that I have to say "I don't know, but it's stupid to think that the only working answer so far may be right". 

Don't equate the information found in DNA to the information found in the position of rocks. I think we can all agree that that is fallacy. Information found in rocks is to information found in computers; as information found in computers is to information in DNA. They are just not equal and saying that the same cause that produced rocks is automatically sufficient to explain the other is biologically dishonest. 

And you say that there is a way to argue for design without arguing from ignorance? I don't think so according to how you are defining it. What would be positive evidence of design? Literally everything that we have ever designed has been outdone by the cell. Do you think it was surprising when biologists looked into the cells and found motors working exponentially more efficient than any motor we have ever created? Do you think they were surprised to find the elaborate control mechanisms that make our circuit boards look infantile? But to claim that it is reasonable to say that they were designed is just ignorant. "You can't say design is a reasonable hypothesis, just give us time to find ANY other working explanation." 

And ID has made predictions, the most famous was fully functional genome. It was originally thought that like  98% of the genome was evolutionary left overs. Then it was thought that the 50% composed of repeating units were leftovers. All are now being shown to have some regulatory function. Also, Ketone bodies were once thought to be a sign of a failing metabolism, but we now know that they are essential forms of energy in times of starvation. Similarly I am told in my Biochemistry class that photorespiration is a wastefull side reaction catalyzed by rubisco. I'll predict now that because it generates CO2, it is an important mechanism to establish higher carbon dioxide concentrations in the cell, leading to increased photosynthesis.