RE: IC does not support ID

RE: IC does not support ID (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

drj11 -> RE: IC does not support ID (6/9/2008 3:46:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud So, let me get this straight: We don’t know any natural means by which irreducibly complex structures can be developed, therefore we should not consider ID. We don’t know how self-replicating organic molecules formed, so we should not consider ID. We have plenty of plausible explanations as to how irreducibly complex structures can form by natural processes. More knowledge will come with continued study, and experimentation. Those explanations may prove to be insufficient, or not. There is nothing in evolution that I know of that would prohibit them. We'll consider ID when there is some evidence. Till that time, there's really not much to discuss anymore and there is no compelling reason to consider it. Finally after how many years, they are just now starting to put out some actual research? The question is why do you support it when its obvious they've barely begun to do their homework? quote: Assuming we will never actually know how such things occurred (only how they might have occurred) at which point will we have sufficient information to consider alternatives to naturalism? Well, if you take ID in the context its presented to the scientific community it doesn't really venture away from naturalism. If its just a method for detecting intelligence, it wouldn't be outside of naturalism in the slightest. There just isn't any objective evidence that can ultimately point to intelligence without having to venture away from science, into something like teleology.

gluadys -> RE: IC does not support ID (6/9/2008 4:40:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: capellaslight quote: No, atheistic evolution is not the enemy. Atheism is the enemy. There is no difference between the evolution accepted by atheists and the evolution accepted by theists. The theory of evolution is the same no matter what one's religious viewpoint. There are not two different theories of evolution. That is why it is an error to lambaste evolution when what you really want to lambaste is atheism. Interesting. I am under the impression that theistic evolution is evolution guided by the hand of God. Atheistic evolution is evolution that happened by random chance. Did I miss something? Do you see them differently? If so how? Please just I'm tiring to get to know your view point better. Whether evolution is in the hand of God or whether it is solely natural is a religious position, not a scientific position. Evolution is the same fact, the same theory, supported by the same evidence and with the same history no matter what the personal beliefs of the scientist doing the research. Neither the theory nor the evidence will tell you which religious position to espouse. All they do is describe natural phenomena. In this respect, evolution is no different from gravity. Science can tell you how to calculate the force of gravity between two objects and describe the effects of gravity. Science cannot tell you whether gravity is God's plan or just the way nature works all on its own. In short, science tells us only about nature as we observe it. Science does not tell us about anything beyond nature such as God, or even IF there is anything beyond nature. Some people believe nature is all there is. There is nothing beyond nature. They will interpret everything in nature in light of that belief--including evolution. But they are not treating evolution as a special case. They see atomic theory, relativity, electricity, anything science studies as "purely natural". Other people believe there is more to reality than observable nature. They believe there is a metaphysical or supernatural source from which nature comes and by which it is governed. They will interpret everything in nature in light of that belief--including evolution. But again, they are not treating evolution as a special case. They also see atomic theory, relativity, electricity, anything science studies as part of a nature created and governed by God. Despite their religious difference, when atheists and theists put those differences to one side and concentrate on studying nature without speculating what, if anything, is beyond nature, they come to agreement in the arena of science. The theory of evolution that seems "purely natural" to an atheist and the theory of evolution that seems a work of God to a theist is one and the same theory of evolution. Just as the "wholly natural" forces of gravity experienced by an atheist are identical to the "God-given" forces of gravity experienced by a theist.

Jhud -> RE: IC does not support ID (6/9/2008 4:44:13 PM)
quote: We have plenty of plausible explanations as to how irreducibly complex structures can form by natural processes. More knowledge will come with continued study, and experimentation. Those explanations may prove to be insufficient, or not. There is nothing in evolution that I know of that would prohibit them. Well, we have plenty of assertions and speculations concerning such things, we have yet to see any demonstrations. But none of this prohibits us from considering ID. quote: We'll consider ID when there is some evidence. Till that time, there's really not much to discuss anymore and there is no compelling reason to consider it. Finally after how many years, they are just now starting to put out some actual research? The question is why do you support it when its obvious they've barely begun to do their homework? I think I have pointed out (repeatedly now) that there is indeed an ID research facility (Biologic) and it’s publishing papers. But this still isn’t sufficient reason to reject ID as an option. quote: Well, if you take ID in the context its presented to the scientific community it doesn't really venture away from naturalism. If its just a method for detecting intelligence, it wouldn't be outside of naturalism in the slightest. There just isn't any objective evidence that can ultimately point to intelligence without having to venture away from science, into something like teleology. I think you are confusing a natural phenomena with ‘naturalism’. Intelligence is certainly natural – ID doesn’t presume naturalism.

capellaslight -> RE: IC does not support ID (6/10/2008 4:49:27 AM)
quote: If we must..... google has the info as well. http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html Swan42: This is the same article BZV introduced. [sm=hammerhead.gif] If Miller did not prove that the flagellum can evolve the first time I read it what makes you think he will do it after a second reading?

capellaslight -> RE: IC does not support ID (6/10/2008 4:54:24 AM)
quote: Whether evolution is in the hand of God or whether it is solely natural is a religious position, not a scientific position. Evolution is the same fact, the same theory, supported by the same evidence and with the same history no matter what the personal beliefs of the scientist doing the research. Neither the theory nor the evidence will tell you which religious position to espouse. All they do is describe natural phenomena. In this respect, evolution is no different from gravity. Science can tell you how to calculate the force of gravity between two objects and describe the effects of gravity. Science cannot tell you whether gravity is God's plan or just the way nature works all on its own. In short, science tells us only about nature as we observe it. Science does not tell us about anything beyond nature such as God, or even IF there is anything beyond nature. Some people believe nature is all there is. There is nothing beyond nature. They will interpret everything in nature in light of that belief--including evolution. But they are not treating evolution as a special case. They see atomic theory, relativity, electricity, anything science studies as "purely natural". Other people believe there is more to reality than observable nature. They believe there is a metaphysical or supernatural source from which nature comes and by which it is governed. They will interpret everything in nature in light of that belief--including evolution. But again, they are not treating evolution as a special case. They also see atomic theory, relativity, electricity, anything science studies as part of a nature created and governed by God. Despite their religious difference, when atheists and theists put those differences to one side and concentrate on studying nature without speculating what, if anything, is beyond nature, they come to agreement in the arena of science. The theory of evolution that seems "purely natural" to an atheist and the theory of evolution that seems a work of God to a theist is one and the same theory of evolution. Just as the "wholly natural" forces of gravity experienced by an atheist are identical to the "God-given" forces of gravity experienced by a theist. Thank you for your view point. While I do not agree with everthing you said, I will try my best to respect it in the future, I hope will do the same for me.

Method -> RE: IC does not support ID (6/11/2008 7:21:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: capellaslight If Miller did not prove that the flagellum can evolve the first time I read it what makes you think he will do it after a second reading? Where has any ID proponent proven that the mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection can not produce IC structures? The whole ID argument hinges on this claim and yet no one has shown this to be true. The problem for ID and the IC argument is that it is based solely on a universal negative, that nature can not produce these structures. This is due to the obvious fact that no researcher has witnessed a supernatural deity producing mutations in the lab or in the wild.

no1nose -> RE: IC does not support ID (6/12/2008 4:29:01 PM)
My suspicions about evolution began when I was studying relativity and quantum mechanics. Both relativy and quantum desirbe the physical world with great precision but they are contra intuitive and seemingly implausible. The reason why it is so hard to get our heads around quantum mechanics or relativity is that our thinking process takes place in a different “space” than the actions in the world around us. Crudely put, it is like trying to stuff a three dimensional object into a two dimensional space. Information from the world around us comes into the brain from our senses where “who knows what” happens to convert a four dimensional world into a mind’s image of that world. Because our minds are working with images and not the real thing we will never fully grasp the natural world in our minds. And for this reason any real descriptions of the world around will always seem contra intuitive to our reasoning process. The problem I have with the Theory of Evolution is that it is not at all contra intuitive. It is too plausible, too logical to be an accurate description of the natural world. It is something that exists only as images in our mind. It is a nothing more than a world view. And like some sociopath among Theories it has a sullied history associated with it. Mankind has a history of adopting world views that seem laughable in retrospect and I believe that this is just another episode of that scenario. As knowledge increases the Theory of Evolution will seem less and less relevant.

hellohellohi -> RE: IC does not support ID (6/12/2008 4:32:28 PM)
Please let it be summed up by the notions that 1) ID is not a scientific idea in that it is hard to say what experiment one would do in order to test it (also, thou ought not put thy Lord God to the test, eh?) But, if a scientific test is in someone's mind about it, let's hear it! However, ID is a valid and COMMON METAPHOR used even by atheistic Darwinists when they say "natural selection designed this organism to..." so and so. 2) Having infinite holes in science and understanding is not a flaw of science qua science (unless when it is ideology cloaked in science). A scientist should be thoroughly thrilled at the "holes" which must be reinterpreted as lines of inquiry -- "suggestions for further study!" Therefore, to the extent that a scientist is satisfied with what has been discovered or can be hypothesized so far, s/he is not being a scientist but a lazy journalist (or bookseller if you prefer) or prattler. On the other hand, it is very important to TEACH science, but not to present it dogmatically. While science is peer review, if one fails to make a peer out of a non-scientist, one must accept with humility that either one is a poor teacher OR the peers have been chosen with a bias favoring certain lines of perception, defeating the purpose of peer review. In other words, to the extent that you have found "Evolution" to be a convenient soapbox, you are not a scientist, indeed, but an ideologue -- UNLESS, you are just earnestly trying to instruct people. Evolution, indeed, is a powerful mode of inquiry, a powerful set of concepts from which productive scientific questions can be asked. (Can we understand evolution simply as the umbrella term for the mechanisms of natural selection, sexual selection, genetric drift, and [have I forgotten anything?]). However, can evolution even explain protein folding? No, I hope anyone would agree, since protein folding may very well be prior to the action of natural selection. I simply mean to say, there are surely many more questions to ask, even within biology but without evolutionary biology.

gluadys -> RE: IC does not support ID (6/12/2008 4:36:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: no1nose The problem I have with the Theory of Evolution is that it is not at all contra intuitive. It is too plausible, too logical to be an accurate description of the natural world. Then why do so many people find it do hard to "get"? The nested hierarchy is a beautifully simple concept, yet very few anti-evolutionists I have come across seem able to grasp it. And, what about the evidence? QM and relativity, in spite of being counter-intuitive, hold their place in science, because they work. They give physicists a framework within which to generate testable and reliable predictions about how the world works. Evolution offers the same benefits to biologists. It is is nothing more than a world view with no basis in reality, why does it work?

hellohellohi -> RE: IC does not support ID (6/12/2008 4:44:13 PM)
quote: My suspicions about evolution began when I was studying relativity and quantum mechanics. Both relativy and quantum desirbe the physical world with great precision but they are contra intuitive and seemingly implausible. The reason why it is so hard to get our heads around quantum mechanics or relativity is that our thinking process takes place in a different “space” than the actions in the world around us. Crudely put, it is like trying to stuff a three dimensional object into a two dimensional space. Information from the world around us comes into the brain from our senses where “who knows what” happens to convert a four dimensional world into a mind’s image of that world. Because our minds are working with images and not the real thing we will never fully grasp the natural world in our minds. And for this reason any real descriptions of the world around will always seem contra intuitive to our reasoning process. The problem I have with the Theory of Evolution is that it is not at all contra intuitive. It is too plausible, too logical to be an accurate description of the natural world. It is something that exists only as images in our mind. It is a nothing more than a world view. And like some sociopath among Theories it has a sullied history associated with it. Mankind has a history of adopting world views that seem laughable in retrospect and I believe that this is just another episode of that scenario. As knowledge increases the Theory of Evolution will seem less and less relevant. I think you are saying that science will have to acknowledge that metaphor has taken it as far as it can. Mathematics is the only "language" suitable for quantum mechanics and therefore the only type of understanding we will get. It's NOT to say that we "we will never fully grasp the natural world in our minds." Metaphor NEVER represented a "full grasp" anyway, just a poetic one, or, alternatively, one that can sell books. If you (and I don't know if you do) are tempted in suggesting things that we MIGHT be believe simply because "ergo we don't know anything!" then please don't call yourself a scientist therefore. You see, L. Ron Hubbard would have to be a scientist too, if the only requirement is to read a few textbooks. If a scientist finds himself EXCITED by the notion that "one can never know" then he has found himself in an existential quandary as a scientist. The only solution to this challenge to his identity is to usurp science by writing a popular book explaining the "tao" of quantum mechanics or something such, since, it seems, s/he is at a loss of how to ask further questions. I don't know if you fall into that camp, but I tend to read a lot into people's words.

drmark -> RE: IC does not support ID (6/12/2008 5:41:06 PM)
quote: The nested hierarchy is a beautifully simple concept, yet very few anti-evolutionists I have come across seem able to grasp it. The nested hierarchy is a beautifully simple concept which supports intelligent design, yet very few anti-creationists I have come across seem able to grasp it.

gluadys -> RE: IC does not support ID (6/12/2008 6:56:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: The nested hierarchy is a beautifully simple concept, yet very few anti-evolutionists I have come across seem able to grasp it. The nested hierarchy is a beautifully simple concept which supports intelligent design, yet very few anti-creationists I have come across seem able to grasp it. Are you confusing ID and creationism? I don't think they are the same thing. Perhaps you mean that the nested hierarchy support common design. That's the phrase I usually hear from creationists. It doesn't. And if you want to explore that, it's ok by me. But if you really mean intelligent design, then I am unfamiliar with arguments that link the nested hierarchy to intelligent design. Do they differ from the arguments for common design? If so, how?

drmark -> RE: IC does not support ID (6/12/2008 10:41:12 PM)
quote: Are you confusing ID and creationism? I don't think they are the same thing. Never said they were. Creationism is a subset of ID. Of course, the nested hierarchy supports common design. The fact that you arbitrarily dismiss this idea makes exploration worthless. Now, since not all ID includes common design, I stand corrected regarding support for all ID. Thanks for your attention to detail.

Method -> RE: IC does not support ID (6/12/2008 10:53:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark Of course, the nested hierarchy supports common design. Common design can produce any and every pattern of homology. In order to claim evidence you need a falsifiable hypothesis. You don't have that. quote: The fact that you arbitrarily dismiss this idea makes exploration worthless. The exploration is already worthless if every possible pattern of homology is possible.

hellohellohi -> RE: IC does not support ID (6/12/2008 11:28:10 PM)
Why doesn't ID give up its claim to science and why doesn't science stop pretending (if it does) that it knows even a bit more than it does (even if it knows a lot -- the extent of unknowns and further questions should always be greater than the ground covered for a scientist, otherwise one is not a scientist but a retired scientist writing his/her memoirs.) Tell me how ID is science. (I.e.: describe an experiment that could test it, or a line of inquiry that a scientist could pursue suggested by it.) There is no shame in admitting that while science is wildly popular these days and getting to be more-so all the time, Christianity is simply not it (unless you say, like I do, that science is simply the process of naming things and refining the names or taxonomy of the Universe as it were, which cold be viewed as the first commission to man in the Garden of Eden.)

gluadys -> RE: IC does not support ID (6/12/2008 11:44:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: Are you confusing ID and creationism? I don't think they are the same thing. Never said they were. Creationism is a subset of ID. Of course, the nested hierarchy supports common design. The fact that you arbitrarily dismiss this idea makes exploration worthless. Now, since not all ID includes common design, I stand corrected regarding support for all ID. Thanks for your attention to detail. I suppose one could say that evolutionary creationism is also a subset of ID. We also subscribe to the existence of a designer, at least. However, the nested hierarchy cannot be predicted from common design, whereas it necessarily follows from common descent.

drmark -> RE: IC does not support ID (6/13/2008 10:48:58 AM)
quote: I suppose one could say that evolutionary creationism is also a subset of ID. Do you have even an inkling of how gross an oxymoron the term "evolutionary creationism" is?! On another thread you've waxed eloquent regarding the two millenia of Christian doctrine underlying creation ex nihilo and now you have the audacity to conflate evolution with creationism? Surely you must realize both Method and I shake our heads in disbelief at such a schizoid concept!

Method -> RE: IC does not support ID (6/13/2008 10:58:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark The nested hierarchy is a beautifully simple concept which supports intelligent design, yet very few anti-creationists I have come across seem able to grasp it. How does the nested hierarchy support ID? When humans design organisms they regularly violate the nested hierarchy. I have personally designed organisms that violate the twin nested hierarchies. Right now I am working with an E. coli clone that produces human intermediate filaments.

drmark -> RE: IC does not support ID (6/13/2008 3:11:18 PM)
But it's still an E coli! [;)]

Method -> RE: IC does not support ID (6/13/2008 3:57:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark But it's still an E coli! [;)] But it's an E. coli like no other that has ever existed. Humans are still apes, still primates, still vertebrates, and are still eukaryotes. So I guess you have no problem with humans sharing common ancestry with the rest of the apes, primates, vertebrates, and eukaryotes?

gluadys -> RE: IC does not support ID (6/13/2008 4:18:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: I suppose one could say that evolutionary creationism is also a subset of ID. Do you have even an inkling of how gross an oxymoron the term "evolutionary creationism" is?! On another thread you've waxed eloquent regarding the two millenia of Christian doctrine underlying creation ex nihilo and now you have the audacity to conflate evolution with creationism? Surely you must realize both Method and I shake our heads in disbelief at such a schizoid concept! Actually the term is gaining support among Christians who accept the validity of evolutionary theory as much preferable to "theistic evolution". Here are a couple of arguments in favour of this change in terminology. 1. All Christians are creationists in the sense that we all believe that the universe was created (from nothing) by God. No Christian "believes" in evolution as an article of faith. Since "ist/ism" endings imply belief, it is more appropriate to place that ending on what the Christian actually believes in: namely creation. The adjective "evolutionary" then describes the particular category of creationist: namely one who accepts that evolution (by God's plan and purpose) was the primary means of generating new and diverse species. 2. "Theistic evolution" misleadingly suggests that there are two forms of the science of evolution: one compatible with theism and one wedded to atheism. This is not the case. There is one theory of evolution in biology and it is the same theory for everyone regardless of theological position.

drmark -> RE: IC does not support ID (6/13/2008 7:48:41 PM)
quote: So I guess you have no problem with humans sharing common ancestry with the rest of the apes, primates, vertebrates, and eukaryotes? No problem at all Method, since God created all life (including us) in a four day span. He is the ultimate Ancestor of all of us who claim to be living! [:)] quote: There is one theory of evolution in biology and it is the same theory for everyone regardless of theological position. I positively guarantee you, gluadys, that you will find not a single naturalist to buy into this preposterous notion! The same theory? I'm speechless...

essentialsaltes -> RE: IC does not support ID (6/13/2008 8:17:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: There is one theory of evolution in biology and it is the same theory for everyone regardless of theological position. I positively guarantee you, gluadys, that you will find not a single naturalist to buy into this preposterous notion! The same theory? I'm speechless... drmark is wrong again! General Relativity is the same in Boston as Botswana. Similarly for evolution. Certainly scientists squabble about mechanisms and interpretations, but the amount of general agreement is large, while the disagreement is unrelated to theology.

gluadys -> RE: IC does not support ID (6/13/2008 9:58:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: There is one theory of evolution in biology and it is the same theory for everyone regardless of theological position. I positively guarantee you, gluadys, that you will find not a single naturalist to buy into this preposterous notion! The same theory? I'm speechless... I have not found a naturalist yet who disagrees with this notion. Can you cite one who does?

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 5 [6]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI