Is atheism a scientific perspective?

[Cyberman]

Real peer review: a paper is submitted for publication in a reputable journal and immediately torn apart, atom by atom, by rival scientists looking for the slightest flaw so as to correct them and add to their scientific reputation.

IDiotic / cretinist peer review: a sermon is printed in a journal set up specifically to publish cretinist sermons. This leads to a group of wannabe ministers and preachers giving each other handjobs in a desperate bid to con the sheep into believing they have some scientific credibility. The closest the process might ever get to real peer review is making sure that the sermons are as close to the predetermined conclusion (that the bible/kerrang is revealed truth) as possible.

It's cargo cult science, by people who have a vested interest in making you think they actually have merit. Don't feed them your time, and especially not your money.

[Mudhammam]

Unless one believes ID to be a legitimate scientific theory, that ID "evidence" is peer-reviewed by the "correct" publications is irrelevant; the crux of the leap that IDers take from observation to inference is in principle unverifiable, and depends solely upon the cogency of their reasons for associating natural processes with a super intelligence that has, by an act of volition, played an essential role in constructing physical reality.

It's not necessarily a knock that this theory lacks scientifically peer-reviewed research, since it is not a scientific theory. It's an ill-conceived theological hypothesis that embraces scientific ideas to the extent that a respectable edifice can appear to support some extravagant dogmas; a set of antiscientific doctrines hidden behind the vague language of a superintelligence whose identity is restricted to the abstraction and negation of our most primitive psychological features.

ID doesn't belong in science journals. But this is no cause for concern, nor can it be a criticism ---unless one is under the misguided assumption that it purports to represent a scientific perspective.

[Astonished]

Atheism is simply the rejection of one or more deities' alleged existence. It doesn't have to be for scientific reasons. It implies nothing else.

Basically look at it like having opened the door of a cage, but you haven't decided to step outside of it yet entirely, or in which direction to walk after you exit it. It's simply emancipation from one or more delusions (depending on if you were a monotheist or polytheist). The reason could be scientific, philosophical or perhaps due to having some mental defect corrected.

[Chas]

The algorithm of imperfect replication and differential reproduction leads inexorably to evolution; it can go nowhere else.
Small changes accumulate and there is no limit to change that accumulation.


So you cannot claim that there hasn't been sufficient opportunity.

The problem with these algorithms is that the desired sequences (the ones that represent functionality and therefore evolution) are input beforehand by the people writing the algorithm. Without putting the desired sequences first, the simulation will not no what sequences to select for. If you do put them first, then you are no longer accurately simulating evolution, because it does not have that type of forward looking memory. 

You misunderstand. I am not talking about simulations, I am referring to the algorithm that underlies evolution: imperfect replication and differential reproductive success.

And I don't think I claimed that there hasn't been sufficient time, but I did claim that we do not know enough to assume that there was.

You claimed that we can't know if there was - I am merely pointing out that you therefor can't claim there wasn't.

[robvalue]

OK. Let's review the evidence for "design theory":

[AAA]

The first part of your argument seems really shallow. I think you know that we are not saying that "it looks designed therefore it was". It is "despite thorough search for another cause, only intelligence is a known cause that can produce what we see in designed systems". It is not that we are just appealing to our initial intuitions. These conclusions come after careful studying of the systems and proposed explanations.

(emphasis mine)

But intelligence isn't a known cause for the type of complexity we see in the cell, so your argument can't be valid.  No human on earth has the intelligence to create something like the cell.  So you're just jerking off by saying that intelligence is an adequate cause for what we see in the cell.  (And I'll note that what you've stated isn't an argument for your conclusion.)  Even if properly stated, it's also still an argument from ignorance and fails on that count.

Your argument seems to be "because in the past we have seen apparent design turn out to be illusory, all apparent designs are illusory". 

No, my point is that if your procedure produces false positives, then it can't be reliably used to infer design.

And the functionality of the wing is the result of elaborate informational output by the cell.  Obviously the wing itself is not information, but I think it is impossible to argue that its functionality is not the result of information. And you say "For if it is even possible that specified information can arise natrually, it's no longer a flag for design." You seem to be suggesting that if it's possible that something arose without design, then it was not designed. This is illogical for several reasons.

No, I'm pointing out that if a particular property, specification, isn't exclusive to designed things, then it can't be used to determine whether the item was designed or not.  It provides no probative value for the inquiry under consideration.  If it being specified simply means that it was either designed or natural, if you can't rule out it being a possibility that the property has a natural cause, then it cannot be used to make an inference of design.

 Also, we have no good reason to assume that it can arise without the help of a designing intelligence. If you have a reason that you think it was can you provide it?

Doubling down on the mere possibility that feathered wings evolved will not save your argument.  But whatever.  It's telling that you have to deny established science to make your inferences work at all.

You say that abiogenesis is a significant possibility, but I think that's just wishful thinking. We don't have to assign probability to design either, because we know based on repeated experience that intelligence is adequate.

Adequate for what?  What exactly are you suggesting we are "seeing" that justifies this claim.  That's why I went through the laborious exercise that I did, to point out the need to be specific about what properties indicate design.  If you can't specify the properties which indicate design, then you've got nothing.  As pointed out, specified information, even with your vague definitions, simply doesn't work.

Intelligence is the only known cause of the information. The complexity of the cell is a product of information. Therefore intelligence is the only known cause that is capable of leading to cells. You can't just assert that something is an argument from ignorance and conclude that it is false. You are implying that there is a different explanation which we are currently ignorant of. That may be true, but we have no biochemical reason to think so. The only reason to think so is your own ideological bias.

And does it really produce false positives?  I might have missed it, but can you give examples of non-designed systems that have sequential information that leads to function? Otherwise, I think that the only way to state that it produces false positives would be to assert that living systems themselves were not designed and use that assertion to justify your rejection of the ID technique.

And I resent you telling me that I am denying established science for my inferences to work. I think you are confused on the empirical sciences and the speculative sciences. I disagree with the speculations of scientists often, but I don't think I've denied anything empirical.

And adequate for information. Sequential information that gives rise to function is this feature. When I said they were too vague, I meant too vague to assign probability to the likelihood of design. I do think, however, that the central tenant of the theory holds true from a qualitative and common sense perspective. There is  NO current theory capable of assigning probability to the likelihood of design or undirected development of a system. ID is actually closer to quantifying probability than any other origin of life theory that I am aware of. Until we have a theory that can do so, we must appeal to what makes the most sense in a qualitative fashion. We know that living systems contain information (Is this the part you disagree with?). We know of only one process capable of leading to information.

---

The problem with these algorithms is that the desired sequences (the ones that represent functionality and therefore evolution) are input beforehand by the people writing the algorithm. Without putting the desired sequences first, the simulation will not no what sequences to select for. If you do put them first, then you are no longer accurately simulating evolution, because it does not have that type of forward looking memory. 

You misunderstand.  I am not talking about simulations, I am referring to the algorithm that underlies evolution: imperfect replication and differential reproductive success.  

And I don't think I claimed that there hasn't been sufficient time, but I did claim that we do not know enough to assume that there was.

You claimed that we can't know if there was - I am merely pointing out that you therefor can't claim there wasn't.

I think you're right, I'm not understanding the point you are making. Do you think that imperfect replication and differential reproductive success can lead to essentially infinite complexity? Can it use forward looking memory to select for a sequence that will only lead to functionality 20 base changes down the road? You assume that there is a gradient of functionality going from none to extremely high with no major jumps.

---

Real peer review: a paper is submitted for publication in a reputable journal and immediately torn apart, atom by atom, by rival scientists looking for the slightest flaw so as to correct them and add to their scientific reputation.

IDiotic / cretinist peer review: a sermon is printed in a journal set up specifically to publish cretinist sermons. This leads to a group of wannabe ministers and preachers giving each other handjobs in a desperate bid to con the sheep into believing they have some scientific credibility. The closest the process might ever get to real peer review is making sure that the sermons are as close to the predetermined conclusion (that the bible/kerrang is revealed truth) as possible.

It's cargo cult science, by people who have a vested interest in making you think they actually have merit. Don't feed them your time, and especially not your money.

That's actually sort of sad that you have that view of science. In my biological literature class, my professor selected published articles that had actually been through the real peer-review process that had serious flaws slip through. It was our job to find the flaws. Yes the goal is to find flaws, but it is more difficult than you think to detect them considering that the peer-reviewer does not know the study nearly as well the authors. Also, as a reviewer, it is impossible to ensure that the numbers reported by the authors are accurate. They did not collect the data, and we rely on the desire of all scientists not to corrupt the process.

[Chas]

I think you're right, I'm not understanding the point you are making.

My point is that you are trying to sneak "intention" into the discussion. Evolution is a mindless algorithm.

Do you think that imperfect replication and differential reproductive success can lead to essentially infinite complexity?

There is no limit to the accumulation of changes. Complexity is unbounded.

Can it use forward looking memory to select for a sequence that will only lead to functionality 20 base changes down the road?

No, because that is not how it works. Evolution is a blind, purposeless process.

You assume that there is a gradient of functionality going from none to extremely high with no major jumps.

I have not actually made that claim. Please define what you mean by functionality.
Overall, evolution is gradual. If you zoom in on the time scale, there will be 'jumps' - just not often large ones.

[AAA]

People are doing it. Read some of the peer-reviewed books by the ID community.

I am referring to peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals, not books or articles that are reviewed by fellow ID proponents in ID journals and not submitted to mainstream scientific publications.  If they're submitting to traditional peer-review then it doesn't matter if they are religious fanatics or if I ignore them-- their work would be part of the record and they would be making progress in re-shaping or overturning the theory of evolution.  If they're shielding their work from legitimate peer-review, why shouldn't I ignore them?

You act as though all ideas are treated the same by scientific journals. Like everything else, they put money first. Ideas (and even empirical findings) with implications that the society likes will be more likely to receive publication than an idea or empirical finding that the society does not like. ID doesn't get published often (they do have some published articles) largely because the scientific community is largely biased toward materialism. I think it is foolish to think that all results (let's assume results with the same p value) are treated equally by the scientific journals.

Do you ignore everything that isn't peer reviewed?

[robvalue]

Science is "biased towards materialism", huh? What exactly is non-material, and how is it detectable?

Science deals with the things that can be detected. How could it do anything else?

As has been pointed out endlessly, ID is not science because it's not testable or falsifiable. If you could tell me how to identify a non-designed life form, that would be a good start. Please avoid extremely vague, unscientific terms like "simple" or "little crap thing".

[Cyberman]

@TripA

The point is that the ID preachers do none of this. By creating their own journals so they can claim peer reviewed publication, they are rubberstamping with a fake label. It's the cheap foreign knock-off consumer goods of popular scientific verisimilitude. They know full well that their ideas can never withstand real scrutiny, so they need to sell the audience on an evolutionary conspiracy to silence the truth, all while demanding academic respect they have not earned. Now that's sad.