fifth monarchy man: … would occur ever in the future.

The other problem is that you are making a negative claim, that is, you are predicting what we won't see. How long do we have to wait to validate the claim? Where do we have to look? Everywhere? Everywhen?

fifth monarchy man: Now that we've established that empirical and specific predictions concerning ID are at least possible How about helping me to make one?

Indeed, we haven't shown that. To do that, the hypothesis has to entail (imply) specific and distinguishing empirical predictions.

fifth monarchy man: Suppose I predicted that …

I'm not sure why you are having troubles with this. You predictions don't seem to be empirical consequences of any proposed hypothesis. State your hypothesis, and why you deduce these predictions from the hypothesis. If these predictions are not the consequent of your hypothesis, then the tests are meaningless.

Your prediction concerning no future evolution is specific and distinguishing, but falsified and unentailed.

Thank you. Why was that so hard?

Now that we've established that empirical and specific predictions concerning ID are at least possible How about helping me to make one?

Suppose I predicted that
1. no unguided evolution at all (micro or macro) would occur ever in the future.
2. no unguided evolution requiring more than one neutral mutation will occur in the future.
3. no unguided evolution beyond the order of a Chloroquine-complexety cluster will occur in the future
4. No unguided evolution resulting in a charge change in the membrane of bacterial cells will occur in the future.

Which of these are empirical and specific and which are not? Why? What is the difference between them. Remember I'm not necessarily making any of these predictions and I'm not intrested in debate. I'm just trying to see what will satisfy the critics.

Peace

fifth monarchy man: Suppose my prediction was that no evolution at all (micro or macro) would occur ever in the future. Would you consider this a valid prediction that flows from the hypothesis that unguided evolution has an edge?

Zachriel: Though the purported hypothesis states there is an "edge", it does not predict no evolution in the future.

fifth monarchy man: This exercise was not in formulating a properly worded hypothesis it was in formulating a prediction that was sufficiently specific and empirical to satisfy you.

Your question didn't ask about specificity, but whether the prediction was entailed, i.e. "flows from the hypothesis". I answered the question you asked and have since answered the related questions.

fifth monarchy man: This exercise was not in formulating a properly worded hypothesis it was in formulating a prediction that was sufficiently specific and empirical to satisfy you. I have yet to receive an answer as to what that would require.

I have already answered, but let's try a restatement.

A hypothesis is a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its empirical consequences. The prediction has to follow from the hypothesis, and if there are competing hypotheses, then we need a prediction that distinguishes between them.

So, Einstein's Theory of General Relativity predicts that light will bend around a large gravitational well such that stars beyond the Sun will appear slightly out of position by a quantifiable amount. This distinguishes the theory from Newtonian Physics (but not from an infinitude of other conceivable theories).

fifth monarchy man: With all due respect I have no desire to have yet another prolonged discussion with you on the subtle meanings of common English words.

I am aware of the common meaning. Though there is no "edge" to evolution in the sense you are using it, there are limits. Again, I discussed this above. There is an "edge" to how far a person can travel in a single step, but there is no limit to how far a person can travel in a succession of steps. Even if the person walks randomly.

fifth monarchy man: So I thought I'd offer a prediction that was so outlandish as to remove the possibility of this objection so as to force you to reveal exactly the level of specificity you require.

Your prediction concerning no future evolution is specific and distinguishing, but falsified and unentailed. Your claim concerning polymers even if considered reasonably specific (it's not), isn't distinguishing. The Theory of Evolution doesn't predict that every possible trait is evolvable. Indeed, most conceivable traits will never be explored. Nor is it entailed in the hypothesis.

fifth monarchy man: My original prediction stands I will consider bacterium's inability to defeat the polymers to be confirmation of ID and I will consider your inability to acknowledge this as evidence of the noetic effects of the fall.

My Theory of Intelligent Falling predicts that two somewhat varying weight stones will fall at the same rate. My prediction is very specific (but not distinguishing, nor is the prediction entailed in the premise).

Nor does it clearly define what is meant by an "edge", something I addressed above.

This exercise was not in formulating a properly worded hypothesis it was in formulating a prediction that was sufficiently specific and empirical to satisfy you. I have yet to receive an answer as to what that would require.

With all due respect I have no desire to have yet another prolonged discussion with you on the subtle meanings of common English words. We have already been through this with faith and I am convinced that coming to an understanding about terminology with you is like nailing Jello to a wall. Is your last name Clinton per chance?

When I want to define a word I just use the dictionary for example.

EDGE
1.Border a line or area that is the outermost part or the part farthest away from the center of something
2.Part above drop a line or area that is the outermost part or the part farthest away from the center of something
3.Brink the point or moment just before a marked change or event

Then the hypothesis is falsified every time someone observes evolution, a daily occurence. A valid hypothesis should be at least reasonably consistent with observation

.

Lets see if I understand you.

When I offered the prediction that bacterium will not be able to evolve a way to defeat the random polymers developed by researchers at the University of Wisconsin. I was only looking for ways to firm it up and make it acceptable to critics

However instead of offering helpful suggestions You said:

Evolution can never explore the vast majority of possible options. Never. Evolution is limited by its history and by its mechanisms of change. That's how we can recognize the process.

So I thought I'd offer a prediction that was so outlandish as to remove the possibility of this objection so as to force you to reveal exactly the level of specificity you require. Now instead of answering a simple question you claim my prediction is invalid because it is too outlandish.

I give up. You seem to have no desire to intelligently discuss anything and I have better things to do than beat my head against a wall.

My original prediction stands I will consider bacterium's inability to defeat the polymers to be confirmation of ID and I will consider your inability to acknowledge this as evidence of the noetic effects of the fall.

Peace

fifth monarchy man: Suppose my prediction was that no evolution at all (micro or macro) would occur ever in the future. Would you consider this a valid prediction that flows from the hypothesis that unguided evolution has an edge?

Though the purported hypothesis states there is an "edge", it does not predict no evolution in the future. Nor does it clearly define what is meant by an "edge", something I addressed above.

But let's assume the prediction were entailed in the hypothesis. Then the hypothesis is falsified every time someone observes evolution, a daily occurence. A valid hypothesis should be at least reasonably consistent with observation.

0112358: But now you have shifted our conversation back to evolution.

You made a blanket statement concerning our ability to use the scientific method to discern events of the past. I used well-established examples from life's history.

0112358: Both the spontaneous development of life (if that is truth) and the creation of design (if that is truth) are past history. No one was around to observe either event so we really can't make any distinguishing empirical predictions in either case.

But we can. For instance, life did not always exist on Earth. We know this because the Earth formed by the gravitational collapse of nebular dust. In the beginning, the Earth was far too hot for life to exist. We also can tentatively date the first appearance of life soon after liquid oceans formed. We have evidence from chemistry that simple molecules spontaneously assemble into macromolecules in these environments. We have evidence of the content of the primordial ocean and atmosphere that life would have had to endure. We have evidence that all life since has descended from these primitive beginnings.

0112358: Once again I would maintain that both materialists and proponents of ID are only using their observations (science) to make inferences about things into which science cannot really look.

You repeat your blanket statement. Science can certainly "look" into the past. That includes making predictions concerning observations. The origin of life left very few clues, so there may be practical limitations"”but not inherent ones.

In science, that would be those theories that lead to independent empirical confirmation.

But now you have shifted our conversation back to evolution. My last post was referring only to origins, which is what ID is all about. Once again I would maintain that both materialists and proponents of ID are only using their observations (science) to make inferences about things into which science cannot really look.

The thing is, the more some of us learn about nature the more rational it seems to infer design rather than chance when thinking about origins.

We could take that as our "theological inspiration" for design-theoretic "universals": A design may factor uniquely into irreducibly simple, common, even "naturally given" elements and operations.

Very true.

They all do, don't they?

Ultimately because there is no empirical means of testing first causes there is much room for interpretation of the nature of what followed.