[Replying to post 28 by Jagella
As I see it, if we do need to deduce, then it's best to deduce based on what we have established through observation and testing
Then we are having trouble finding things to disagree on!
If we are trying to deduce the origin of the Rosetta stone, we have observation and testing that tells us how such things are usually created
Similarly, if we are trying to deduce the origin of a digital parity bit error checking system as used in DNA. Our routine observation gives us an objective precedent for this also.
We really don't need to rely on deduction to know that arrowheads are the product of intelligent design. We can directly observe people creating them, and if we do not see an arrowhead created by a person, then we can apply induction to be confident we know that an arrowhead is intelligent design.
Direct observation of any agent creating a living thing is not available to us. So we cannot rely on induction to establish that living things are intelligently designed.
So I cannot say I agree with your arrowhead analogy.
Likewise, we have direct observation of people creating hierarchical digital information systems, as we see in DNA. We have no direct observation of natural processes achieving the same.
Having said that, the observation of information creation through creative intelligence is just one line of evidence, the information itself is another.
e.g. a sophisticated signal picked up by SETI, in whatever medium, would be compelling evidence of intelligent design, which I believe you said you hoped for one day?
Then what in nature is like the Rosetta Stone? The Rosetta Stone has a symbolic language inscribed on it. As far as I know there is no symbolic language in nature aside from human nature. Are there any letters in the stars, for example?
A C G T
Like I said, we humans intelligently design things all the time. So I agree that in many cases we can distinguish intelligent design from the results of natural processes, but we tell one from the other from direct observation of people creating things and direct observation of natural processes creating things. No such direct observation is available for any god.
So we learn to recognize the fingerprints of each, regardless of observing the creation, so that when a sophisticated signal is picked up by SETI, we know it's not natural, no matter where it came from
Yes, of course I'm interested in what's actually true, and that's why I think peer review is a good idea. Do you fear that intelligent design cannot survive peer review?
Absolutely, and I believe it inevitably will, (if not forbidden by arbitrary limitations on the scientific method like methodical naturalism) just as Big Bang and quantum physics did- eventually
- but peer pressure review inherently tends to lag scientific discovery, often by many decades-
It is far more useful, if a theory survives the scientific method
, than the vagaries of academic consensus, would you disagree?
Scientists sometimes make huge blunders, but in those cases they were honest enough to admit their error and correct it
Hoyle who coined the term Big Bang as a pejorative, never admitted his error till his dying day- after you have mocked and rejected your opponents beliefs as 'religious pseudoscience', it's very difficult to change your mind, no matter the evidence.
"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: What does happen is that the opponents gradually die out. "Max Planck
Thank you for all your thoughtful responses.