Here's my understanding of it. Tell me if it's wrong or incomplete.
Some of the things that happen in the development of life are so unlikely that it's unreasonable to think they did happen, even over geologic time scales, without an intelligent designer making them happen. For example, the development of RNA.
Once life developed, there were features of organisms that were useless at intermediate stages. For example, half an eye, or half a wing, is useless. Therefore it's unreasonable to think that these things developed gradually, unless there was an intelligent designer making them happen.
I'll likely argue! but I want to be sure what I'm arguing about, first.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Half an eye is useful, ditto half a wing. Even less than half of each is useful, and I can provide examples for each from among organisms alive today.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
I don't think ID people are using the eye as an example. I read Darwin's Black Box a while ago and I remember blood clotting was one of the examples given.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I've seen some pretty convincing arguments that a useful eye could develop in stages, each stage being slightly more useful than the stage before.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
That was an interesting conversation on the topic, but LOTS of things seem too complex at first galce for teh explinations we have to fit, but upon deeper examination those explinations fit very well.
Occham's razor isn't the best tool for scientific study, although it has it's uses. [Big Grin] Just because we don't know now doesn't mean we won't ever know, and most of the things we find support our theories...or at least support them better than the other theories do. [Big Grin]
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
I don't think that the half-an-eye argument is useful or even makes any sense. An eye could evolve from simple light-receptive cells to something more complicated, being useful at any stage.
Intelligent Design as a simple theory has very few problems, but those who adopt it seem to have conflicting views about what it actually means. As well as that, it's treated as an addition to a belief system rather than a scientific theory.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
What is Intelligent Design? Or what are its arguments?
Intelligent Design is a calculated political movement to undermine the teaching of scientifically accredited evolution in US schools, to weaken the power of liberal, humanist, and atheistic/agnostic segments of society.
Its proponents tend to come from a fundamentalist, conservative, Protestant background. The Christian right in the US has always deplored the teaching of evolution as it directly contradicts literal interpretation of Biblical time scales, the origin of man and other species as distinct creations of God, and many other beliefs important to these denominations.
Other proponents have latched onto the movement who do not overtly share those religious convictions; but who either have other agendas (fame, power, notoreity) or are are simply confused and ill-educated. Michael Behe is in the former category.
Efforts to introduce 'creationism' into public school biology curricula over the past few decades have generally run afoul of the 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment. Which account of divine creation should be taught? Genesis 1? Genesis 2:6-25? The Islamic? The Druidic? The Buddhist? The Hindu? Far safer to leave science to the scientists, and refer the rest to courses on comparative religion.
The new tactic (ID) is to attempt to cast academic doubt on evolution itself. The watchword of ID's efforts to change public school curricula is 'Teach the Controversy.' The Discovery Institute was founded with the direct objective of building a facade of academic credibility (i.e., unconnected to any mention of God or religion) so as to magnify the impression that there is a controversy.
Despite ID's claims to the contrary, and dozens of publications by apparently credentialed scientists, which have undergone no conventional peer review, there is no controversy. The scientific establishment, at every level, in biology, life sciences, neurology, microbiology, biochemistry, geology, paleontology, etc., is united in its acceptance of the fundamental operative correctness of the body of the theory of evolution.
Any references you may see to disputation within the scientific community is about any of the countless detailed areas -- some small, some large, but none fundamental -- where differences of emphasis, cause, proof, rigor, philosophy, and preference divide scientific schools of thought. One of ID's tactics is to point out this disputation as a weakness of evolutionary theory -- when in fact, it is its strength.
ID proponents point to supposed 'gaps' and 'flaws' and claim that the scientific 'establishment' is reluctant to face those flaws because they fear the belief structure of evolution cannot bear scrutiny and will collapse. But this argument is utter baloney: science, by definition, thrives on interesting questions. There is nothing a young Ph.D. candidate wants more than to find a 'gap' or 'flaw' and be the first to answer the questions within it.
You can be quite sure, of all the pseduo-scientific challenges that ID may throw up to evolution, the answer to 99% of them is, "sorry, we got that covered, it is answered in the literature, nobody is avoiding the question, and you just have not done sufficient homework." The answer to the other 1% (and I am being generous here) is, "Ah! Good question! Let's study it!"
In no case would the answer be, "Ack! Shhhhhh! That would disprove Darwin!" In fact, in 150 years many details of Darwin have been gleefully 'disproven' and/or improved upon, including the concepts of macroevolution, new theories of extinction, punctuated equilibrium, DNA-based evolutionary reasearch, chaos theory and mutation, etc., and continue to be developed on all fronts.
But the ID movement doesn't really care that its arguments are distortions at best, lies at worst. They are taking the battle directly to communities -- school boards, curriculum committees, parents, church groups. To this audience, the pat phrase 'even the scientists don't agree' leads quite easily to 'teach the controversy.'
On to the arguments:
quote: Some of the things that happen in the development of life are so unlikely that it's unreasonable to think they did happen, even over geologic time scales, without an intelligent designer making them happen. For example, the development of RNA.
This type of statement is characteristic of ID's arguments. The simple fact is, it is an utterly unscientific statement. What do we mean by 'unlikely'? What do we mean by 'unreasonable'? And do most people have even a trace of comprehension what 'geologic time scales' are? And even if you assign rational values to all those loaded terms -- that is not how science proceeds! One does not test the rightness of a hypothesis by merely eye-balling its 'reasonableness.' Uncounted scientific breakthroughs have defied the 'reasonableness' of their day.
But again, ID does not care that humans are notoriously unreliable at estimating probabilities, reasonabless, and time scales, especially when Very Large Numbers are involved. In fact, they count on it. They need only make inroads with a credulous few, who now are armed with the 'fact' that nature is apparently only capable of producing unsurprising things, and that anything surprising must have been the product of a different, purposeful force, outside nature.
What a narrow world view ID prefers. Science operates very differently. It embraces anything observable, no matter how surprising it may seem at first. It then asks every question it can in an effort to understand it.
Do scientists ever ask, when facing a particularly nettlesome problem, 'gosh, maybe some external force or being just made it this way!'? I suppose they may be tempted to do so at times. But to stop there is a denial of everything scientific, a denial of the fundamental drive and power of the human mind to figure the world out. Will we EVER get to the point where science will look at some ineffable paradox and finally acknowledge, 'okay, that's it. God's fingerprint. There is no other conceivable explanation for the way this works or for its origin, than a supernatural force'?
Perhaps -- but guess what: at that moment, it would by definition cease to be supernatural.
quote: Once life developed, there were features of organisms that were useless at intermediate stages. For example, half an eye, or half a wing, is useless. Therefore it's unreasonable to think that these things developed gradually, unless there was an intelligent designer making them happen.
Your statement of this particular argument is a little muddy, but yes, this one is another of ID's ploys. Unreasonable according to whom? It's possible the human mind is particularly ill-equipped to assess what is reasonable or not, in these contexts.
In addition, this argument is pathetically easy to destroy. Useless? Who says? Half an eye may be no good for seeing; half a wing may be no good for flying. This is NOT a case where evolutionary biologists say, "oops! you got me there!" The known mechanisms of evolution fully account for development of complex organs. Proto-organs and their parts, according to evolution, either:
served the same purpose less well (but well enough to bestow a comepetitive advantage -- for example, light-sensitive cells)
served a quite different purpose
served no purpose, but bestowed no harm (for example, some mutations)
Can the evolution of every complex organ of every creature be accounted for, step by step? Of course not. There are an estimated 10 million-plus insect species that haven't even been discovered yet. Soft tissues are practically absent in the fossil record. But known, proven evolutionary mechanisms are fully up to explaining these phenomena in principle.
And where there are particularly tricky unknowns? -- well, it's just more work for a biologist one day.
If we ever graduate another from a public high school.
(Edit: typos.)
[ August 15, 2005, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: John Van Pelt ]
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Lots of heat in that last post, to be sure.
I was sort of hoping for an explication by a proponent. Of course, the day is young.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
He is a proponant...
of the scientific method. You know, the one science is intended to be built upon?
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
I thought I kept the heat to a dull murmur. I hope it didn't distract you from noting the factual info I responded with.
I too would be interested in a response from a proponent, especially if they could say anything different from what I said.
ID is at least two things: a body of ideas, that has to stand up to scientific scrutiny; and a smokescreen for a religio-political agenda. Naturally, given the latter, the former becomes automatically suspect.
One of the reasons the scientific community has been so ineffective at arguing against ID is that as science it is hard to take seriously. One hardly knows where to begin when assumptions, method, dialectic, and conclusions are ALL wrong.
But again, the specific arguments and their correctness (or lack thereof) are irrelevant to ID's ultimate purpose. If you intend to debate this topic, you need to know this.
quote:Someone who knows this perspective, please post!
I hope you don't believe that only a proponent can 'know' what it is.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
*applauds* That was a great post (the big one). And I thought you kept the heat to a dull murmur. Very clearly written.
Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
quote:Originally posted by John Van Pelt: Intelligent Design is a calculated political movement to undermine the teaching of scientifically accredited evolution in US schools, to weaken the power of liberal, humanist, and atheistic/agnostic segments of society.
I'm going to try to show you just how ridiculous that sentence is.
Evolution is a calculated political movement to undermine Biblical teaching, to weaken the power and credibility of conservative and Chrisian segments of society, and ultimately remove morals from society entirely.
I do not believe that. There are people who fit what I wrote perfectly, and there are people who fit what JVP wrote perfectly. But to generalize an entire belief as a conspiracy against atheism is ridiculous.
FYI, I believe in ID. However, I think that evolution should absolutely be taught in schools, because it's such a popular and active subject matter. Like many people have pointed out, it is an excellent way to demonstrate and teach scientific theory, and there are discoveries and break-throughs every day that can help define or help change the theory that we have.
With that in mind, I think it should also be made clear that it's impossible to know, through science, whether creation was random chance or ID. I'm not saying that teachers need to have a unit on faith or philosophy or anything, but I think they need to make it clear what exactly we learn through science.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
If you believe in the same kind of ID as Tresopax and rivka -- that is to say, evolution started and/or guided by a deity in ways that are undiscernible to humans -- then you aren't disagreeing with JVP. The ID movement, irreducible complexity and all, is as he describes it, which is why people like me find it very upsetting that there's even a debate about this anywhere in the First World.
The fact that god isn't mentioned in science classes doesn't imply that god does not exist, after all.
Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: The fact that god isn't mentioned in science classes doesn't imply that god does not exist, after all.
Unfortunately, that is exactly what is heavily implied, if not explicitely declared in many science classes.
The reason the ID movement has turned into such a monster is because it's all a matter of bad blood. People - on both sides of the debate - get all hyped up over it that they don't stop to think. And when that happens, the only way to get heard is to be the loudest, most extreme voice out there, and that's the voice that gets the headlines.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
You might want to take a look at the Wedge Strategy, which proposes just the kind of undermining JVP is talking about.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Luckily for you evolutionary theory doesn't say creation was random at all; in fact, evolutionary theory is completely compatible (as noted) with the belief that God causes it all (just as gravitational theory is).
The problem is when you start saying that there's proof a superior being exists due to how evolution has worked, which is a completely unscientific notion (unless you have an independently repeatable test which, if run, will either increase or decrease the experimenter's confidence in the existence of said superior being?)
Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
That's exactly what I mean by most extreme voice.
This may be a shock to you, but 19 out of 20 "religious experts" you see on the History Channel or on Larry King or on Dateline are pretty much as extreme as you can get. There are a few good, quality leaders whose names are out there (Chuck Swindol, anyone related to Billy Graham, Bill Hybels, to name a few), but most of them are pretty much off the map.
If you want an example, google the Jesus Seminar. These "experts" got together and voted on what they think Jesus really said. So instead of a red-letter New Testament, they've got more of a color-coded NT, based on whether Jesus really said it, said something like it, or whether it was completely made up by the authors.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Unfortunately, that is exactly what is heavily implied, if not explicitely declared in many science classes.
Is it? I disagree; that was certainly not my experience. Additionally, if it were true, wouldn't far fewer people believe in god?
Unless one of the other of us has unbiased data on the subject, I think both of us should refrain from making claims about whether or not many or most science classes imply or state that god does not exist. I don't have that data. Do you?
Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: The problem is when you start saying that there's proof a superior being exists due to how evolution has worked, which is a completely unscientific notion
I agree completely. Teachers need to make it clear that the scientific method can't tell us whether or not God created everything.
Edit: took out a comment for the sake of not being confusing. See next post Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Is it? I disagree; that was certainly not my experience. Additionally, if it were true, wouldn't far fewer people believe in god?
Unless one of the other of us has unbiased data on the subject, I think both of us should refrain from making claims about whether or not many or most science classes imply or state that god does not exist. I don't have that data. Do you?
A very good point. I have no data, just my own experiences and the experiences of my friends. I'll refrain from making comments like that from now on Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Okay. I will too.
quote:That's exactly what I mean by most extreme voice.
Regardless of whether the ID movement is extreme, ID as they see it is what's being debated in places like Kansas. That -- and not what you describe as the mainstream view -- is what people are currently trying to get into science classrooms, and it's what has people like JVP and myself so riled up.
Additionally, the only distinction between your view of ID and my view of evolutionary theory is the presence or absence of god. Why do you think god should be mentioned in a science classroom, given that god's existence is not subject to testing by science? I'm genuinely curious about this, I'm not trying to be a jerk. It seems to me that god falls completely outside the domain of science.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
In that case, you do not believe in ID as put forward by any of its major proponents, or the people arguing for its inclusion in schools.
You are a believer in theistic evolution, which is a separate notion that does not assert the presence of a "superior being" can be scientifically established.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
twinky: there is no real "diffference" between his view and mainstream evolutionary theory, as mainstream evolutionary theory leaves completely open the question of "ultimate cause".
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I'm genuinely curious about this...It seems to me that god falls completely outside the domain of science.
Since you asked... God, as decribed in the Hebrew scriptures, apparently seems to be able to alter/manipulate the laws of physics at his whim. If God were to perhaps rent out this unique service to us humans, it would be very useful to science. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
"Theistic evolution." That's a good term. I like it.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:If God were to perhaps rent out this unique service to us humans, it would be very useful to science.
Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Why do you think god should be mentioned in a science classroom, given that god's existence is not subject to testing by science? I'm genuinely curious about this, I'm not trying to be a jerk. It seems to me that god falls completely outside the domain of science.
I understand what you're saying completely, and I agree that science class doesn't need to have religion forced into it.
But one thing that riles up all the Kansas ID folk is that they've got the same impression that we were just talking about, and having teachers just give sort of a disclaimer at the beginning of the unit on evolution, IMO, would help calm the waters. Obviously, not everybody is going to be happy, but I think that could do some good.
(Sorry about the delay on the post... I'm at work and duty called)
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes; theistic evolution is not a term for a scientific theory, but a term for the whole belief a person has which encompasses support they have of evolutionary theory as well as their belief a God or Gods is intimately involved in the process of evolutionary theory.
Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: mainstream evolutionary theory leaves completely open the question of "ultimate cause".
As crazy as it sounds, I've never had anyone say that straight out. Just having science teachers say that when they start their unit on evolution would do a LOT of good when it comes to pissed-off parents and students.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:But one thing that riles up all the Kansas ID folk is that they've got the same impression that we were just talking about, and having teachers just give sort of a disclaimer at the beginning of the unit on evolution, IMO, would help calm the waters. Obviously, not everybody is going to be happy, but I think that could do some good.
Ah, I see. Sort of like "Just so we're clear, for those of you who believe in god, this here theory does not contradict that belief." Yeah, that'd be fine by me.
Also, no need to apologize. My work day is thankfully over, but soon I'll be doing other stuff like making dinner. Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Also, no need to apologize. My work day is thankfully over, but soon I'll be doing other stuff like making dinner.
I just think it's funny when there are 2 or 3 different conversations going in the post, and they kind of all tie in together, and then I get caught up with work and I get behind. Good times.
Mmm... dinner. I just had a hot pocket.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, you've been mislead: take a look at the testimony
Their asserted argument was not for the inclusion of ID, though it certainly sounded like it as they made it; the primary thrust of their witnesses was not to allege problems with the teaching of evolution, but to allege problems with evolutionary theory. Clearly these people do not agree with you on the whole.
CURRENT STANDARDS: The "descent with modification of different lineages of organisms from common ancestors... [is] documented in the fossil record."
ADDED IN PROPOSED STANDARDS: 'The view that living things... are modified descendants of a common ancestor (described in the pattern of a branching tree) has been challenged in recent years by .. (a) discrepancies in the molecular evidence previously thought to support that view; (b) a fossil record that shows sudden bursts of increased complexity (the Cambrian Explosion), long periods of stasis and the absence of transitional forms rather than steady gradual increases in complexity, and (c) studies that show animals follow different rather than identical early stages of embryological development."
I say amusing because all of those "objections" have been soundly dealt with by evolutionary theorists, in at least the last case many years ago.
That's not an acknowledgement of problems with evolutionary theory, that's spouting random bits of nonsense that aren't problems with evolutionary theory.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think my problem with those that are attacking Darwin in favor of God, is that they refuse to accept that if science can't answer something now, it might be able to in the future.
My cousin is a hard core Christian who doesn't believe in Evolution, and she teaches at a private Christian high school. She's also homeschooling her kids because public schools are the devil. Last Thanksgiving, we committed the ultimate sin and argued about not only politics, but religion as well.
Evolution came up. Her basic argument was "I refuse to believe we came from monkeys" but pressed on when she realized that wasn't really a rational argument. She said that carbon dating doesn't work at all, and that scientists keep changing their minds all the time. Also that sudden jumps in species variation has no explanation. She also believes the earth is only 5,000 years old.
Much of our argument centered around the fact that I was saying "sure from fossil records it appears to be an explosion, but that's because they haven't found the evidence that links them yet, it's a work in process." Whereas she claimed it hasn't been found because obviously God did it, and it doesn't exist.
Personally, I believe in God, and think he might have gotten the ball rolling a few billion years ago, but that science and reason has taken over since then, and God has since taken up a Terra Laissez-Faire attitude (Hands off Earth).
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
Vid:
Please note, I did not say: "Proponents of Intelligent Design are bent on undermining...," etc.
I stated the goal of the movement. I stand corrected in that there are certainly many, including apparently yourself, who 'believe in ID' but who may not share those objectives.
quote:Evolution is a calculated political movement to undermine Biblical teaching, to weaken the power and credibility of conservative and Chrisian segments of society, and ultimately remove morals from society entirely.
I appreciate what you did here -- and I think most would agree the parallel (if pursued) collapses as soon as you consider that ID is indeed a 'movement', and evolution is not.
But here is what I find really interesting, and very much worthy of discussion: from many perspectives evolution does do exactly what you wrote. Much has been written asserting this. And nothing else explains the zeal with which many devout Christians fight it.
On the one hand are sincere, God-fearing, devout, good-hearted, church-going families, teaching their children to pray and to believe and to be good according to a particular set of teachings and a particular interpretation of a particular scripture.
On the other hand, these same children arrive in a classroom and are taught -- TESTED against -- directly opposing ideas, heretical, destructive, ungodly ideas: that they were not created by God, or ANY God, and that their magnificence as human beings is not a special gift of an inspired deity but rather the chance outcome of trillions upon trillions of interactions among and between living things and their environments.
And furthermore, to add insult to injury, the scientists who made all this up refuse to even consider whether deity had a place in it! These famously open-minded 'scientific method' professors dismiss the idea out of hand!
I think I can empathize with both sides here, and I feel deeply the essential rift that divides those on both sides.
quote: FYI, I believe in ID. However, I think that evolution should absolutely be taught in schools, because it's such a popular and active subject matter.
FWIW, when I read 'I believe in ID,' I interpret it as 'I believe in God.' To a first approximation, I tend to understand that the person is saying "according to some pattern or other, which may or may not incorporate geologic time scales -- as opposed to literal Biblical time scales -- and may or may not accord with the specific teachings of any particular religion or sect, an entity that I recognize as a/the supreme being had or has some role in creating and/or guiding the development of corporeal life forms on earth..."
Is that fair?
Furthermore, in the context of this debate, I understand them to mean, usually, "... and no matter how internally consistent, or responsive to proof, or faithful to observation, evolutionary theory becomes, without acknowledging the influence of this supreme being, it will only ever be at best incomplete, and at worst an affront to my beliefs."
You apparently are a bit more liberal than this second part, since you will allow evolution to be taught for certain utilitarian benefits.
quote:...I think it should also be made clear that it's impossible to know, through science, whether creation was random chance or ID.
I would hope that students would be told, early and often, exactly what it is that is impossible to know, in any field. Then they would not waste time trying to know it, or asking questions about it, and devote themselves to more constructive pursuits.
That was tongue-in-cheek.
Actually, I don't know whether ID proponents would agree that it is impossible to know by any empirical means whatever (that is, outside of personal revelation, blind conviction, adherence to dogma, or some combination) whether creation was influenced by a master intellect supernaturally. I think they hope, and it sounds unfalsifiable to me, that one day it could be proven 'scientifically' that ID occurred.
But there is an infinity of such unfalsifiable conjectures, ranging from creation by a cosmic tortoise, to flying spaghetti monsters, to the idea that God created the universe just 7 seconds ago, including my post that you are reading and all our memories and all the fossils and everything.
What is science to do? Well, simple. Continue to study known, measurable, empirical, physical agencies, until they are all exhausted. Many times in history science has come to a point and said, "okay, we understand x, y, and z, but there is some other force at work here and we don't know what it is, some effect we are observing that has a cause that has not been identified." With sufficient study and sometimes advances in instruments or other developments, the cause is eventually understood.
My point here is not that science bestows any special 'knowability' on the great questions of life and the universe. It is that science embraces the unknown. That is why it is unclear to me what is different -- what is gained -- from acknowledging the inability of science to accept or reject ID as a factor in creation or evolution. So what? We go on just as before, taking each new unknown and and chipping away at it with conjecture, observation, and experiment.
I really can't think of a clearer statement of why ID doesn't belong in the science classroom. ID is not a conjecture proposed by scientists, nor would it or does it lead to any useful science, but rather, potentially forestalls useful science.
See my follow-on post in a new thread tomorrow on possible ID 'disclaimers' in public school science curricula.
Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
I am going to try to explain why people are so adamant about ID. It’s because they see how evolution has permeated our thinking, our points of view. Because whether or not the science of evolution says there is no God, it does imply it. It does say we are no different from the animals, we just happened to develop brains which allow us to solve problems and use speech. In short evolution takes away the soul.
Instead of a being who has an eternal soul we are the culmination of a whole bunch of random, yet productive, acts of chance. Laws aren’t decreed from God, they are simply the best system we have for keeping order in society. Instead of being held accountable for their actions, the only real reason anyone has to obey the law is fear of getting caught. Evolution has indirectly invaded every aspect of our culture and has changed our collective thinking. Most people don't notice this, they just accept Evolution as fact and keep going, but once you start looking for ways evolution has changed your point of view it becomes very hard to escape.
This is why people are fighting so hard to have some alternative taught to their children, or at least to be able to point to some holes in the theory. They want a way to raise their children with the point of view: there is a God, he created you and he has a plan for your life. I know many of you will say people can still raise their children with this point of view while having evolution taught and there are lots of people out there doing their best to do just this. But it is very hard to do when all of their children’s teachers and the scientific experts are telling them something, that while it does not directly contradict them, it does tend to lead to other conclusions.
Hopefully this makes some sort of sense.
All of this being said I don’t know what’s right ID or Evolution. I would have to agree most of ID’s arguments are rather vague and unscientific, but I can understand why people want to believe them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I want to believe lots of things that aren't true, myself.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
How strange, then, that there are all sorts of people who think evolution is correct who believe in souls, and God, and many other such things.
Not to mention you perpetuate the already pointed-out misconception of evolution, that it says things happen because of randomness.
Perhaps people wouldn't feel such a need to oppose evolution if such misconceptions weren't continuously perpetuated.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Who's to say random mutations and everything that happens with evolution isn't directed by God? Evolution never states it is, or isn't. But it can't be proven or quantified, therefore it can't be scientifically considered.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Furthermore, the atheistic viewpoint isn't nearly as depressing as you make it out to be. From evolution comes consciousness, and then self-awareness, and finally art? I think that's pretty incredible.
Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
I typed out a big, long post about how the natural end of atheism is suicide, but I decided not to expand on it and just leave it at that.
I agree; a lot of misconceptions are definitely perpetuated. But it's ok... God loves us all anyway (Unless you're a Calvinist, then He doesn't love us all. But I won't get into that)
Edit: This is a post, not an email. I'm silly.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Giving as many atheists lead full, happy lives, I think your notion is soundly defeated Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
Well, I haven't ever been told the difference between a nihilist and an atheist other than "a nihilist is like an atheist on steroids," or something to that affect; that and a whole bunch of nihilists in Russia in the 20's killed themselves.
Not-being-a-smart-alec question: can you explain the difference?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That one does not believe in a God or Gods does not mean one believes life is without purpose.
Coincidentally, though, there are nihilists who live full, happy lives.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vid: Well, I haven't ever been told the difference between a nihilist and an atheist other than "a nihilist is like an atheist on steroids," or something to that affect; that and a whole bunch of nihilists in Russia in the 20's killed themselves.
Not-being-a-smart-alec question: can you explain the difference?
So, you don't really know what a nihilist is, but some of them did kill themselves once, so therefore atheists must naturally commit suicide because you think there's some connection between the two? And if nobody's ever "told" you the difference between them, how about trying a dictionary?
It doesn't seem surprising at all that you got a smart-alec answer to your (rather ridiculous) assertation.
--Enigmatic
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Well, I haven't ever been told the difference between a nihilist and an atheist other than "a nihilist is like an atheist on steroids," or something to that affect; that and a whole bunch of nihilists in Russia in the 20's killed themselves.
There is a reason that the two words are pronounced and spelled completely differently. Nihilism is not atheism, although certainly all nihilists are also atheists. (Applying similar logic, one might erroneously claim that all Christians are Klansmen, on the grounds that all Klansmen are Christian.)
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Atheism is a prerequisite of nihilism -- all nihilists are atheists, but the reverse is not true. In any case, suicide is not the natural end of atheism or nihilism.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think that had more to do with the social/political situation in Russia, rather than the fact that they were nihilists.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Actually, if you believed in an evil god, Gnostic-style, you might be a theist and still be a nihilist.
However, the reason atheism does not naturally imply suicide can be summed up in one word : Orgasm.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm not sure that's true, KoM. Because nihilism is a denial and/or rejection of everything, including evil and the possibility of evil.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, let me rephrase to an uncaring god, then. Let me also add that the natural end of theism, at least some kinds of it, is suicide : If you are in a state of grace, but might later fall from it through yielding to temptation, obviously you should kill yourself now and go to Heaven. (Hamlet's monologue where he debates whether to kill his uncle at prayer comes to mind.) Now, Christianity cops out of that one by forbidding suicide, but just the fact that it needs to be forbidden is a dead give-away.
Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Giving as many atheists lead full, happy lives, I think your notion is soundly defeated
I wasn't trying to say there aren't happy atheist, or people who believe in both God and evolution. I am sure there are plenty of both.
I was just trying to explain why some people are fighting so hard for ID. I wish I had some more specific examples. There are lots, but I have not really thought about it much in a couple of years. When I was looking into it I remember being constantly hit with things evolution had changed in our collective thinking, most of which were contrary to the Christian view point. I don't think it was usually a direct thing as much as it was the conclusions people drew on their own from evolution.
Any way just trying to represent a view point I hadn't seen here. Apparently I didn't do a very good job.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Evolution is the great game of Chutes and Ladders. And with the first breath of life, God gave this planet the dice.
I do believe in something like intelligent design, but not necessarily the teaching of it in public schools. Let science teachers teach science. To ask them to teach religion as well could be, well, disastrous.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
SC, I think the fugu13 post you're quoting is referring to Vid's atheism=suicide post, not yours. I could be wrong, but the response makes much more sense that way.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I think some of you ID believers should be upset, not at the evolutionary teachers, but at the closed minded literalists who are abusing you.
Your arguments here make sense. ID as the force behind evolution, or stating at the begining of science class that evolution does not and perhaps should not be seen as denying God, is a reasonable and justifiable request.
(It seems that many of you had the worst kind of science teacher, bigotted and self-important)
However it is the Biblical Literist Fringe associates who are trying to take over the ID movement that should be getting you upset.
You say that ID is behind the ancient animals we find in the fossil records.
They say that fossils are all fakes.
You say that the Scientific Method is great, but ID is needed understand what science never can.
They say that the Scientific Method is useless, and the ID is the only science needed.
You say that we need faith beyond science. They say that we need faith not science.
You wonder at a God creating the univers billions of years ago. They wonder how we can believe in anything older than 6000 years.
You are willing to discuss ID. They are wanting to preach ID.
You sound sincere and intelligent. They sound dangerous and fascistically fanatical. And they are the ones grabbing the microphone.
They are using your support for ID, and twisting it into a medieval theocratic antithises of what you believe. And they are doing it loudly, over every microphone they can find, and they are claiming that you support them.
Yes, if I were you folks, I'd get really upset with these Fanatics abusing your ID name. I would do everything in my power to insure that your beliefs are not swept away as surely as any liberal Christian's or aethiests or Buddhists when these bad people try to enforce their idea of biblical literalism on you.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Amen.
But some of the things you've named are the more extreme groups, that don't even believe in ID, as it still incorporates too much science into what they see as a wholly Creationist event.
Still, nice post.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I still feel like I'm groping in the dark, but I looked some things up.
I'll give my take on it. Discussing ID can only benefit understanding of science -- although I doubt ID will survive the discussion.
The argument of irreducible complexity (half an eye or a wing not being useful) seems quite refutable, as others in this thread have already shown.
The argument of probability (which I couldn't find, but I am sure it is part of the issue) seems based on guesstimates of probabilities that are so small and so poorly known we could be off by many, many orders of magnitude. It's like the Drake Equation, for calculating the number of intelligent races in the universe. Plug in a bunch of numbers that are guesswork, and reach a conclusion -- but it's still a guess, which could be very wildly off.
These pages on ID (Wikipedia) discuss specified complexity. Complexity is quantifiable; in computer science it can be the number of bits to represent an answer, for example. I don't know what "specified" means, quantitatively.
I don't know if ID people discuss it, but there is also the issue of the anthropic principle: noting that the universe must have certain characteristics in order to have us in it, observing it. If we define life to require stars, there is a very narrow range of ratios between the fundamental forces that can support life -- these forces differ by hundreds of orders of magnitude, but if they were off by (I forget) something like 10^-150 in either direction, stars wouldn't be possible. Tweak them some other trivial amount, and molecules can't form. I understand this better, since I know more about physics than biology.
There's a fun novel, Calculating God, by Robert Sawyer, that explores this. Atheists take comfort: if he isn't one of you, he fakes it well. The only really nasty people in the story are conservative Christians, who quite naturally (!) wish to murder extraterrestrials and academics.
I can't draw much conclusion even from the anthropic principle. If we were to randomly pick the strengths of the fundamental forces, the likelihood we'd find a combination that allows for life is vanishingly small. Yet here we are. This could be because
* Sometimes wildly improbable things happen. I find this explanation wildly improbable! * It's wildly improbable, but there are so many universes that the likelihood of it happening at least once is high, and look, it did. * It's wildly improbable, if it were random, but it isn't: somebody made it happen this way. * It looks wildly improbable, if it were random, but it isn't: some natural process we don't know about made it happen this way.
Trouble is, it isn't even theoretically possible to find evidence to disprove any of these explanations, so we aren't talking science.
And now, on to politics:
This also isn't religion, unless religion becomes so broadly defined that it can mean anything offensive to atheists! It's philosophy. It isn't wrong for schools to discuss philosophy.
Anyway, opponents of ID should be happy to have it discussed publicly. Exposing it will puncture it a lot better than censoring it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: It isn't wrong for schools to discuss philosophy.
If people want to teach ID in philosophy class, I'm all for it.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:If you are in a state of grace, but might later fall from it through yielding to temptation, obviously you should kill yourself now and go to Heaven.
Big if. Baptists don't believe it's possible to fall from a state of grace and be damned; they call this doctrine "once saved, always saved"; Presbyterians call it "perseverance of the saints." Other Christians can read Hebrews and get the same doctrine they do, whether they name it or not.
I can't swear no Catholics believe the doctrine you propose, although I certainly don't. We do have the concept of a state of grace, which is the way we should be when we receive communion.
Jews usually don't believe in an afterlife.
It's not reasonable to call this a "natural end," since it either never happens or almost never happens, and is based on a premise we don't believe. Perhaps there's some other reason for forbidding suicide, such as its negative health consequences!
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
"You say that we need faith beyond science. They say that we need faith not science."
Awesome post. Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Philosophy class might be a good place for ID. However, it's not reasonable to ban all non-science from science classes. Scientific method itself is not scientifically verifiable. Neither is mathematics. And we have to have them.
Where should the philosophy of science be taught, in high school? It needs to be taught somewhere.
So: what about creationism? A totally different animal. As Dan points out.
Thing is, creationism doesn't discuss probabilities; it ignores them. It doesn't have quantifiable concepts, like complexity, or probability; it ignores them. I'm not even sure I'd discuss it in a philosophy class, except to note that it can't be verified except by examining the character of God (whether he's the sort who would plant fake fossils, etc.).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:However, it's not reasonable to ban all non-science from science classes. Scientific method itself is not scientifically verifiable. Neither is mathematics. And we have to have them.
They are, however, axiomatic. Which is why we have to have them.
ID is not axiomatic; there's no compelling reason to call it science. No scientific theory depends upon it for its own existence. Basically, it is at best a sort of useless speculation.
I would not mind teaching the philosophy of science in a science classroom. I wouldn't even mind discussing how ID is not a scientific theory in a science classroom. But I suspect that the people who're pushing to get ID into science classrooms would like it discussed in a different context.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
I'd be all for it if schools made philosophy a prerequisite for HS graduation with or without the addition of Intelligent Design. Unfortunately, the chances of a State Legislature doing this is low because they don't want to fund education any more than possible.
This is sad to me, because if it comes down to writing a new Science curriculum that includes ID or at least includes some general disclaimers about evolution, or producing the funds to hire new teachers and write a new curriculum for Philosohpy, legislatures are likely to settle for the former. In addition, the avid proponents of ID are likely to oppose Philosophy as a Gen-Ed because Philosophy classes usually include sections on aethist thinkers (like Sartre) and also the existance or non-existance of God.
In short, I would love to see Philosophy classes become the outlet for this proposed ID reformation of education, it is unlikely to happen.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I think fugu's distinction between intelligent design and theistic evolution is crucial and seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
It's important, all right; but I don't think it's lost in the shuffle. At least, I hope not.
Yes, ID is not axiomatic. So it's not as crucial to have as scientific method itself! It's more like the T-test, or the minimum R needed to call a correlation "statistically significant" -- other stuff we won't see much of in high school science classes. Unfortunately.
I'm also aware that I may be too optimistic. My college seniors very rarely what scientific method is, after a required year of college lab science. What's the chance they'll remember anything from an ID discussion?
Still, silencing its proponents will only give it strength. Let it out, in an environment where it can be understood, rather than promoted with bad rhetoric: sci or philosophy class. I'd love to discuss this in class -- with a group that understands why falsifiability is a good idea.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
quote:Thing is, creationism doesn't discuss probabilities; it ignores them. It doesn't have quantifiable concepts, like complexity, or probability; it ignores them.
I think you are making the point that ID does 'have' these concepts?
Not in the same way that mathematics 'has' subtraction and multiplication.
Kalikh, in ancient Egypt, is having an argument about how large his farmed lands are. His friend interjects, "use math! it has multiplication!"
It's nature that has complexity and probability. ID merely mentions these concepts -- and as far as I can tell only in the most hazy, unscientific way.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: If you believe in the same kind of ID as Tresopax and rivka -- that is to say, evolution started and/or guided by a deity in ways that are undiscernible to humans -- then you aren't disagreeing with JVP.
*fweet* Hold da phone! Point of clarification: I do not believe that God's hand is "undiscernible to humans." I believe that His methods (deliberately) defy scientific evidence. That's not the same thing.
(And I couldn't tell you whether I do or do not agree with Tres -- his posts on this subject make my head spin.)
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
quote:Will wrote: It's more like the T-test, or the minimum R needed to call a correlation "statistically significant" -- other stuff we won't see much of in high school science classes. Unfortunately.
You beat me to it -- yes, the point of my previous post was that ID would not be a prerequisite to interjecting statistics, complexity, and probability into science.
I can only think that a high-school unit on, say, "the history of science and the search for the origin of all life," could (and should) include a mention of ID, as a fringe non-science that applies the concepts of complexity and probability in faulty ways with a particular end in mind.
And I agree, the accompanying exercises in complexity, probability, and statistics would be very useful and instructive. I wish they had been taught to all congresspersons, state legislators, and schoolboard members.
edit, fix markup Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:*fweet* Hold da phone! Point of clarification: I do not believe that God's hand is "undiscernible to humans." I believe that His methods (deliberately) defy scientific evidence. That's not the same thing.
(And I couldn't tell you whether I do or do not agree with Tres -- his posts on this subject make my head spin.)
Excellent post, Rivka. I might say "by their nature" instead of "deliberately," but then again, I might not. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Surely your god could, if it so chose, use methods amenable to observation? Hence, if they are not, in fact, observable, it's deliberate.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Which is why I didn't say I would definitely say that. Nor would I ever say they are not deliberate. The word choice would emphasize a different character of those methods.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: *fweet* Hold da phone! Point of clarification: I do not believe that God's hand is "undiscernible to humans." I believe that His methods (deliberately) defy scientific evidence. That's not the same thing.
God's hand in evolution certainly seems to be "undescernible to humans," though. I didn't say god's hand in the world writ large (I believe that because I don't believe in god, but I wouldn't expect you to).
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:I think you are making the point that ID does 'have' these concepts?
Not in the same way that mathematics 'has' subtraction and multiplication.
Kalikh, in ancient Egypt, is having an argument about how large his farmed lands are. His friend interjects, "use math! it has multiplication!"
It's nature that has complexity and probability. ID merely mentions these concepts -- and as far as I can tell only in the most hazy, unscientific way.
No, not the way mathematics has them, and not the way this proverbial Egyptian used them. I think ID is wrong, but it isn't nonsense to ask whether an explanation is too improbable to accept.
THis reminds me of a discussion at my church of what activities were too risky for outings w/o some sort of (utterly useless) legal disclaimer of responsibility. One of my engineer friends looked up riskiness of activities on the web. It seemed the only things that were riskier than the drive itself (to whatever we did) were skiing and reverse bungee jumping! Small probabilities, inaccurately estimated.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
I haven't read either of the intelligent design threads yet, but I wanted to share this article from Chicago Tribune columnist Charles Madigan that appears in today's paper:
quote:God's hand in evolution certainly seems to be "undescernible to humans," though. I didn't say god's hand in the world writ large (I believe that because I don't believe in god, but I wouldn't expect you to).
In the scientific theory of evolution? No.
In the end results and in the process itself? I think yes. Again, in a manner that defies scientific evidence.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*nod nod*
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: In the scientific theory of evolution? No.
In the end results and in the process itself? I think yes. Again, in a manner that defies scientific evidence.
Ah, I see the distinction you're getting at. Of course, I don't see it at all, but then you wouldn't exactly expect me to.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Will: I would greatly enjoy if you could point me at a single such calculation I can't poke full of holes in seconds Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:If people want to teach ID in philosophy class, I'm all for it.
All classes in school should be philosophy classes - and I think they already ARE taught as such, more or less. By this I mean, teachers (or at least my teachers) do not really limit their dicussion to any given topic. They have a focus, but not limits. Science teachers do focus on science, but if science is related to another discipline, they do not shy away on discussing how science and that other discipline interact. For instance, we definitely discussed matters of history in science class, despite the fact they are claims not justified scientificly - macroevolution is an example of that, but so is the origin of civilization, and the history of great scientists, among other things We studied math as well - pure math sometimes, if it will later impact our study of science. And we definitely studied philosophy and anthropology, as we discussed how ancient and modern theories impacted the development of science as we know it.
I think this is how science class SHOULD be. We should be able to discuss the historical biography of Isaac Newton, even though that isn't a matter of science or falsifiable by science - simply for the reason that it relates to science. Similarly, we should discuss Intelligent Design in science class, because it is a very significant current philosophical debate that is deeply connected to evolution. It's in the interest of creating students who can see how one discipline is related to another.
This doesn't mean we should say that ID is scientificly proven, but nor should we say or imply that all of evolution is proven either. Instead we should say which parts of those leading theories have been backed by what evidence, and then explain the contraversy surrounding how those results are to be interpretted into a complete scientific-historical-philosophical theory. This teaches how science ought to operate - in an undogmatic, open-minded fashion that distinguishes what its experiments actually show from what can be legitimately extrapolated from those experiments.
Our students should be as much young philosophers as young scientists, because understanding the the latter really entails a certain understanding of the former. The danger in not also including the philosophy of science in science class is that students will fail to really understand the limits and advantages of the scientific method. It is a problem if they think science is a set of proven beliefs, or if they come to think science contradicts intelligent design - and I suspect that not mentioning the intelligent design contraversy at all would push students in that direction.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:w/o some sort of (utterly useless) legal disclaimer of responsibility
Small aside: As a general rule, people signing them need to be careful. Pre-injury releases are more enforceable than most people think, although many are so badly drafted they are not. But if you can't tell that it's badly drafted and don't have access to legal advice, I would operate as if such a release is binding when deciding to sign or not.
Of course, once injured, see an attorney to figure out if it is binding. Do not fail to investigate a claim because you signed a release.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Similarly, we should discuss Intelligent Design in science class, because it is a very significant current philosophical debate that is deeply connected to evolution.
Intelligent design or theistic evolution?
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Will: I would greatly enjoy if you could point me at a single such calculation I can't poke full of holes in seconds
What is this in reference to?
If it's ID's use of probability -- I haven't been able to find a calculation, period. But all I can find so far is debunkers, satire, and a proponent site that talks about ID in education, rather than ID. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Strangely enough, ID doesn't even register on the radar as a debate among scientists.
Theistic evolution has a much larger mindshare, but there's no real debate over it, its just that some scientists believe it and others don't.
I'd be fine with ID being (briefly) used as an example of a bad attempt at science in science class, but it should not be presented as science, as it is not. As this would offend many people I'll settle for just not mentioning it at all Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I was referring to any mathematical calculations you might find wrt ID. I realize you're not a supporter at all, but for the notion to be that ID is at all mathematically tied, the mathematics should at least seem moderately reasonable -- one can state one's notion is justified using math all one wants, but it ultimately comes down to a demonstration, hopefully at least semi-rigorous.
Until there's an ID calculation I can't poke full of holes with no particular effort, those calculations don't deserve any serious place in the teaching of science, just like all the other crackpot notions.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I'd poke holes in it by saying, "where do you get these numbers?" Like I do with the Drake equation.
Did you know that 98.62% of statistics are made up on the spot?
Posted by RoyHobbs (Member # 7594) on :
QUOTE: "Basically, ID is at best a sort of useless speculation..."
Unless its true... Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Finally -- a supporter! Or at least, a covert opponent.
Could it be true? How could we know?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
ID can only be true if not only there's a superior being guiding evolution (which is perfectly acceptable as far as evolutionary theory is concerned), but the action of that superior being may be discerned through a scientific analysis.
Its that second part that's particularly problematic, and which ID demonstrably fails at.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Dan, while your rhetoric is wonderful as always, it's still very much a hug, hug, "I like you folks, but not those idiots who are somewhat like you."
It's a lot like when visitors to my hometown in the Appalachians would sidle up to me and say what a nice fellow I was, nothing like the "poor inbred hillbillies" that lived "up there."
You're a great guy, but man, that was so patronizing.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
quote:I think ID is wrong, but it isn't nonsense to ask whether an explanation is too improbable to accept.
I agree.
For this to qualify as scientific thinking, however, let's just make sure of three things: - that we are very specific about what we mean by 'improbable' and 'too improbable' - that we are very clear about the 'explanation' that we are thus critiquing - that we do not blindly substitute a different explanation (especially one for which there is no evidence) simply because it agrees with our general belief system.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Intelligent design or theistic evolution?
I'm not sure you could effectively cover one without covering the other. After all, the original question is whether or not God influences the evolution of species. However, that has led to the question of whether or not this is a matter of science. Both are issues students should think about - and to write one or both off as inherently bad science or contradictory to science would both be inaccurate and give students the wrong idea about what science is.
I think the fundamental problem behind the contraversy is that people (particularly religious conservatives) think that science acts as a set of dogma - and it really is often treated as such by scientists, as far as I can see. The message recieved by many is that scientific dogma states that God does not exist or needs not exist. This is not how science should be viewed, I think - and students should be taught not to view it as such. Instead, we should spend time to illustrate how science looks at theories like ID and either accepts them, falsifies them, or finds them untestable - and given that there is considerable disagreement on which of these categories ID fits in, it would probably be good to let them decide where to classify it, once taught what makes something a valid scientific theory. I'd also think it'd be good to have students question just how much of evolution theory is really scientific, and how much is speculative.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I remember one phrase from science texts that I abhor: "Scientists say ..." It makes them sound like gurus handing down truth from on high. Sure, "scientists say" that T. rex was a big muthah, but it's better to point out that T. rex skeletons are big muthahs.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
quote: I'd also think it'd be good to have students question just how much of evolution theory is really scientific, and how much is speculative.
This is either lazy language or insidious nonsense. Speculation IS scientific.
Speculation in its most general sense is an absolutely core part of all science -- and especially science education. Combine chemical x and chemical y, and get a bad smell. "Why do you suppose that is?" Drop a rock and a feather in a vacuum, they take the same time to fall. "Why do you suppose that is?" Count bald eagle populations after banning DDT, they are on the upswing. "Why do you suppose that is?" X% of people who smoked heavily for Y years see onset of Z diseases at a rate N% greater than seen for P and Q other populations. "Why do you suppose that is?"
Students should be taught to speculate with an open mind, as scientists often must.
Then there is the 'speculation' that is embedded in the theory of evolution, which is a much more narrow subset of all possible wild-ass guesses, an intricately interconnected tree of assertions, with tomes of supporting evidence.
Much of this speculation is akin to the 'speculation' one makes that a deer crossed one's yard, upon seeing deer tracks in the dirt. We say without hesitation, "a deer!" But maybe it was a rolling stone making an odd pattern. Maybe it was a neighbor playing a trick. Maybe it was a rabbit wearing deer-boots. Maybe we are hallucinating. Maybe it was a benevolent spirit, placing deer tracks there to make us pause, resulting in us not getting run over by a runaway freight car.
But the conventional 'speculation' is accepted without question as literal fact by the vast majority (of people who have shared this experience and know about deer and animal tracks). Kind of like evolution.
Note, I'm not saying that makes it fact. Just that calling something speculation doesn't automatically open it up to blanket dismissal, and isn't an antonym for 'science.'
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I'd also think it'd be good to have students question just how much of evolution theory is really scientific, and how much is speculative.
See, I'd like for schools to tach philosophy starting at grade 1 all the way up to 12, with the philosophy of science being a clear concern, but I find the idea of doing this with evolution, especially in a context that puts ID on an equal footing as it's natural opposite, to be either pretty dumb or pretty dishonest.
The lessons you're talking about are accessible from pretty much any scientific concept, most of which illustrate these lessons clearer and without the religious (idiotic and otherwise) baggage that goes alogn with it. The only reason that I could see to prefer evolution as compared to ID is as a way to sneakily backdoor ID in there.
But I could be wrong. Why do you think that this should be done with evolution?
[ August 17, 2005, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
John, your posts are really the best summation of the whole ID frenzy I've read.
*** SC Carver:
quote:I was just trying to explain why some people are fighting so hard for ID. I wish I had some more specific examples. There are lots, but I have not really thought about it much in a couple of years. When I was looking into it I remember being constantly hit with things evolution had changed in our collective thinking, most of which were contrary to the Christian view point. I don't think it was usually a direct thing as much as it was the conclusions people drew on their own from evolution.
The problem here is not with evolution or even science in general. The problem is a phenomenon that will always be associated with static institutions and philosophies. I do see that scientific discovery is a very real threat to some brands of religion. Those are the brands that have a vested interesting in claiming to already have, if not all knowledge, then at least all the knowledge God wants us to have.
It is a fact of life that things change. Stasis is death. Large institutions or adherents to static philosophies are doomed to become anacronisms as the world moves on without them. If you feel that new knowledge is changing your world view in a way that is contrary to your current philosophy, perhaps it is a healthy time to review your philosophy. This is not to say that theism (or even Christianity) is wrong. It is to say that perhaps the philosophy you have culled from your religion is inadequate to deal with the world in which you live. This is evidenced when you use phrases such as "the Christian viewpoint". This, and the other ID thread, should be ample evidence that not all Christians are threatened by the ideas of evolution. They are able to take new knowledge and, if not alter their religion, at least view their religion in a new light. Sure some reject their religion in that new light. Others feel they understand it better and are uplifted by the new implications.
***
VID:
quote:I typed out a big, long post about how the natural end of atheism is suicide, but I decided not to expand on it and just leave it at that.
Thank God you took the wiser course. My own experience is totally contrary to that. I believe I came fairly close to suicide once. It was my understanding of my religion and the disjunction that it created with my knowledge of myself and the world at large that nearly took me there. It was the same thinking that saved me from that experience that eventually led me to atheism. I have never come close to such a dark dispair since. I know from first hand experience that you have no idea what you are talking about on this subject.
There is meaning in my life that does not come from God. Perhaps it is meaning I give it myself, but it is meaning nonetheless. I see value in life, honesty, happiness, integrity, altruism, faith, hope, charity and love all for their own sakes. I do not need to be told they are good by some theoretical supreme being. I can see it for myself. If anything, atheism makes my life more valuable to me than theism ever did.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Karl, I thought you were agnostic? Have you "converted," or was I wrong?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I'm not sure I like the standard definitions of either term.
I believe that there is no "God". I do not dismiss the possibility of a vastly more intelligent being or beings, but I do pretty much dismiss what most theists mean when they use the word "God". I do not completely dismiss the possibility that this universe was created as opposed to "just happened". If by "God" you mean "creator" and nothing else, then I am agnostic. If you add almost anything else I can think of off the top of my head when you say "God", then I am an atheist.
Does that make sense? Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Yup. Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
Thanks, Karl. Posted by Clarifier (Member # 8167) on :
Intelligent Design for me is that as far from "reasonable" the notion of an intelligent being being responsible for the universe and it's creation, order maintenance is...
The sheer numbers involved in the scientific "what are the chances of" when you look at a simple fruit tree, it's possiblity to produce a fruit that I may eat and be sustained by, and/or animals that also provide that sustenance, is SOOOOO astronomically HIGH (a computer may be able to someday take a full calculation of the chance of every "created/existing" item in the universe being there by CHANCE and simple evolution) that the CHANCE that there is a "Supreme Being" becomes very, very plausible.
EDIT: I assume this based on the scientific premise that man did not create the tree, seed or animals, and that vice-versa but that completely RANDOM (it has to be random because if you start talking LAWS and RULES you are talking about ORDER and ORGANIZATION and genesis of those laws, rules, orders and organizations) events in completely RANDOM, ORDERLESS form through billions/trillions of years (not nearly enough time to go from Random nothing to scientific order even on a one to one basis let alone every single item and element of the universe).
So intelligent design is the controversial scientific theory based on mathematical probability only as it's evidence(until you add GOD or RELIGION to the mix it's not THEOLOGY, which is where people oppose the Intelligent Design because the jump to the next step is not that big) as an explanation for the birth, growth, maintenance and order of the universe to it's current state.
At least, that's how I see it.
[ August 17, 2005, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Your misunderstanding of probability theory is cute Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Weak anthropic principle. If those things hadn't happened, we wouldn't be here to eat the fruit.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You don't even need the weak anthropic principle, at least not as the primary explanatory force. Fruit did not come about from just a roll of dice, there were many, simple, perfectly understandable dice rolls, and simple selection pressures happened to lead to fruit trees.
I can explain all the steps along the way without resorting to superior beings.
Oh, and to illustrate a basic problem with your attempt at logic:
Spin a number wheel -- the probability of the arrow pointing at any given number is precisely zero . . . yet it always points at a number when its done spinning!
It must be magic.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Why not? Are we PART of the Tree or is the Tree part of us? Did we come from the Tree or did the Tree come from us?
Are you saying that the probability is infinately SMALL that one single type of tree evolved separately, survived, spread (through the use of OTHER lifeforms at times I might add, complicating things even further) and happened to make fruit at some stage that just happened to be a stage in the human evolutionary cycle where we needed it to survive and comprehended that we could eat it and made the concious decision to do so? And that is just ONE type of tree and just us. No other animals included, etc. No other elements such as WATER or OXYGEN or MITOSIS or any other element existing.
You do realize that if the plants didn't make the oxygen, that there wouldn't be enough of it to make clouds, or to make water, or for us to live.
The "circle of life" on this planet is far, far, far, far, far, far, far to complex and intertwined to be RANDOM.
Otherwise, there's no reason why every planet in the solar systemm shouldn't have at least ONE form of complex life let alone the millions and millions exiting here....co-dependent by the way, on a planet that just happens to be in the "right place at the right time with the right elements to form the current earth.
To me, that's a far stretch and much less believable than Intelligent Design.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Intelligent Design for me is that as far from "reasonable" the notion of an intelligent being being responsible for the universe and it's creation, order maintenance is...
This part I can't parse at ALL.
As for the rest, "what are the chances" is a question no one can really answer. First you have to know how favorable conditions are across the universe for the formation of life, then divide that by the number of places where life actually arose. Since we don't really know the answer to either of those questions, it is just as irrational to assume the number is astronomically high as it is to assume it is relatively low.
We do know that there is life on this Earth. Science pretty well answers why life arose here as opposed to, say, Venus (which isn't to say it didn't arise there, but we can be relatively sure it hasn't survived there. The variety of life and the interactions between them, such as the food chain which you point out are very well explained by evolutionary theory. That there is life here and that it has evolved since it's introduction to the planet is also pretty well established scientifically.
The thing is, even if we discover life of some sort in trapped water on Mars, or on Europa, or Titan, or any planet we have the capability to explore, that won't change the Theistic Evolution/Atheistic Evolution debate at all. I'm not entirely sure that if we could produce life in a beaker in a laboratory that would end the debate. God will always hide in the margins of science for many people. That's what most of us mean by ID not being falsifiable, and therefore not science.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:Spin a number wheel -- the probability of the arrow pointing at any given number is precisely zero . . . yet it always points at a number when its done spinning!
It must be magic.
I understand your thinking, but for all your explanation, can you tell me the absolute genesis of the rules that make it point to any thing at all?
Why does the smallest particle of the smallest piece of matter, obey a "law" or "rule" and where does that rule come from?
It just is?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Otherwise, there's no reason why every planet in the solar systemm shouldn't have at least ONE form of complex life let alone the millions and millions exiting here....co-dependent by the way, on a planet that just happens to be in the "right place at the right time with the right elements to form the current earth.
I point you again to the weak anthropic principle.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Where the rules came from is a question for philosophy, one which is perfectly reasonable to answer with "God".
Science, however, just leaves such questions open. Intelligent Design supporters assert that the presence of a superior being is scientifically arguable, which is much stronger than saying that you think the rules come from a superior being (that is, God).
You haven't made any argument at all in support of ID, really, nothing you've stated has been a scientific argument, and thus can't be in support of ID, which is asserted to be a scientific theory.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
My point is that science also fails the "why" test when you go deep enough because the answer inevitably turns to "I/We don't know" whether to our own limits (why are there limits instead of limitless?) as humanthat poses.
Science is the theory of "why" that conficts itself and sometimes has "I/We don't know" as the answers, and those are acceptable, but unending.
And the funniest part of the debate is that it's human "logic" that is the "science". We use human "intelligence", rules, processes and thinking to the whole process.
Without humans, there is no science.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Science is the theory of "why"
Science is the theory of how. Philosophy is the theory of why.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Otherwise, there's no reason why every planet in the solar systemm shouldn't have at least ONE form of complex life let alone the millions and millions exiting here....co-dependent by the way, on a planet that just happens to be in the "right place at the right time with the right elements to form the current earth.
To me, that's a far stretch and much less believable than Intelligent Design.
As I said above, science can account easily for why there is life on this planet and none (so far) discovered on any other in this solar system.
To me, that fact alone doesn't tip the debate one way or the other.
quote:Why does the smallest particle of the smallest piece of matter, obey a "law" or "rule" and where does that rule come from?
It just is?
Well, it's clear that those things do obey those laws. (Note here that by "law" we mean "description of the way things behave" not "law" like this is a rule you must obey. The difference may seem subtle, but it is important.
It is no more logical to believe God makes atoms obey his will than it is to believe they do what they do because that is the way the universe works all on its own.
quote:I understand your thinking, but for all your explanation, can you tell me the absolute genesis of the rules that make it point to any thing at all?
Can you? Seriously? If you say "God", then what makes him the absolute genesis? Where did God come from? Most Christians will answer "He just is". Why is it remotely more logical to believe a supreme being just popped into existence, but difficult to believe something far less complex came about by chance?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yeah, you're grossly misunderstanding science. Science only answers why in a naive sense -- that is, how. It doesn't try to answer any "ultimate questions" or metaphysical whys (like, "why do people cause other people pain?").
This doesn't make it useless, it merely makes its use restricted. In this case, the set of things science is useful for happen to be things usually directly relevant to the further development of technology and more science -- evolutionary science regularly leads to new developments in biotechnology and other fields of science.
Whether or not there's a God may be philosophically and personally relevant, but its not terribly relevant for the production of tools, to the development of complex thought about the basic operation of the universe, et cetera, so its not surprising it falls outside the purview of science.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
I think our limited scope of the universe makes it pretty hard to understand probabilities. If there are billions of stars, then there are probably billions of planets. Then add the possibility of multiple universes, each possibly with different properties of physics. Why does this universe have the properties that we observe? It's possible that it could be entirely random. Every universe that pops up could have random laws of physics. This one just happens to have ones that are conducive to life. The fact is, it's impossible to know what's out there beyone our limited view of the universe, thus, it's impossible to know what's probable and improbable. For all we know, God could be a scientist in a laboratory that orchestrated this universe that we live in by creating his own personal black hole or something like that. So the chances of life having evolved from absolutely nothing is somewhere between very unlikely and very likely. There's really no way for us to know.
With that said, I believe in God. I'm happy with my belief, and I don't need some movement, or whatever people want to call it, to tell me what I believe. There are many people here that through their personal experiences have come to certain beliefs that contrast greatly with my own. Regardless, I'm still happy with my beliefs and my life. I don't expect others to change on account of me, and I don't have any expectation to change on account of them. I've been called irrational for believing in God, but at this point, I don't even care about that anymore.
It seems like these discussions never accomplish anything or change anyone's views anyway, so why even have them? It just seems to give a reason to disagree with someone else. Anyway, back to the debate. (which I can't seem to pull myself away from as much as I don't like how little it accomplishes)
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
And who makes the human "rules" of science?
quote:Science, however, just leaves such questions open.
According to what universal bible of science? YOURS? Other limited humans?
Because Intelligent Design proposes a theory as an answer to those questions, what "greater than human" universal rules say that and WHERE did those rules come from? Man? A supreme being?
Again, Science is the HUMAN quest for the answer to WHY. Until science can answer every single why question, there is no absolute answer and therefore Intelligent Design is an alternative answer. Note the ALTERNATIVE.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:It is no more logical to believe God makes atoms obey his will than it is to believe they do what they do because that is the way the universe works all on its own.
I would put forth that it is no more illogical to believe Intelligent Design makes atoms obey laws created, ordered, maintained by it, whatever it is.
Absolutely in no way is the scientific absolute answer to "what is the beginning of it all" one thing as there is NO ANSWER in current science other than "We don't know". To the subsequent question of "Are there Theories" the answer is yes, multiple and Intelligent Design should not be excluded as an answer.
This is not the "Scientific Inquisition" or did we not learn anything from that type of intollerance? Or is Science as "ABSOLUTE" and not diverse or open as history teaches some other timetables to be?
Intelligent Design is a valid theory and it doesn't need to be discriminated against.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Uh, yeah. Of course they do. Science is a human endeavor, so humans make the rules for it, and the set of rules chosen are ones that tend to work, if only for a limited (but well-understood) domain . . . which is why the rules were chosen as they were.
ID doesn't propose an answer to why, it proposes that God (in the form of a "superior being") be moved from the domain of why to "hows that we can test scientifically, at least indirectly".
Science doesn't try to answer even one big why question, much less all of the why questions, and doesn't even have a concept of an absolute answer. That's right, in science there are no absolute answers, because science is based on independent observations of the world, which are necessarily inexact.
ID as argued by its major supporters is not some alternative to science, it is argued that it is science.
To quote the "Intelligent Design Network"
quote:he theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.
Amusingly enough, their characterization of evolutionary theory is laughably incorrect. Note the "ID is thus a scientific disagreement . . ." They clearly intend for ID to be considered a part of science, not an alternative to it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It may (emphasis on may) be valid in the colloquial sense of "theory", but its hardly valid in the sense of a scientific theory.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Anywas, I appreciate your answers. Gotta go home for now. I may post back later (or I may lurk).
Have a good night all.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:Amusingly enough, their characterization of evolutionary theory is laughably incorrect. Note the "ID is thus a scientific disagreement . . ." They clearly intend for ID to be considered a part of science, not an alternative to it.
It's alternative to it because the shakiness of it's theory judged by what UNIVERSAL standards of science? (which don't exist because science is a HUMAN endeavor limited by HUMAN LOGIC and ABILITY)
Your using the "Gays can't be married because they don't fit the definition of married" argument as if it's absolute.
Science is NOT absolute but you are attempting to make it so by exlcusion. Or are you arguening that Science does not allow for ID because it has the absolute answer to the infinte WHY? It has THEORIES and EVIDENCE that's it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Its not that the theory's shaky or not, its that the theory's not scientific, which requires it meet certain standards.
Specifically, it would require there to be tests we can run that would increase or decrease confidence in the existence of a superior being as described by the theory. Would you care to propose such a test? I've never seen one proposed by ID proponents.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Thanks for showing up, CStroman. (And, everyone, let's treat our lone representative of the other side nicely. It doesn't hurt.)
I hope you'll back away from this, CStroman: Until science can answer every single why question, there is no absolute answer and therefore Intelligent Design is an alternative answer.
The argument from ignorance. But I think your standard is way too high. I could say, "Until science can answer every single why question" -- that is, forever, since science will never be able to do this -- "my theory that everything I see is because the CIA is sending thought waves into my head, is an alternative answer." And it will be. It just won't be a good one. I would need to establish that the CIA theory is reasonable; you'd need to establish that ID is reasonable.
Now, I get the thing about astronomically low probabilities of a particular event (such as, say, the formation of life on Earth). But if there are enough instances, it doesn't mean that the likelihood of life on earth is very low. I'll pull these numbers out of the air (I was hoping an ID advocate would have them; I don't):
Suppose P(life forming in a given instance) = 10^-100,000 Suppose # instances on earth= 10^1,000,000
Then the expected value of the number of times it will form on Earth is 10. The probability in one case was astronomically small, but we still should expect it to happen eventually.
We'd need some real numbers to determine if this is the case. I don't think we've got any.
Recommended reading (for all): Rare Earth. The authors argue that macroscopic life will be rare in the universe, because the stability of Earth's climate will be too hard to come by. (Microbes, they think, will be much more common, because they don't require a stable climate; they can exist in rock.) I'm not sure they convinced me, but it was interesting.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Hmmm...philosophy, and science.
Brings back a fond memory of my college days, lo these many years ago (really--about 25 years ago!)
I took a course in the "Philosophy of Religion." I was the only one on the class who was not coming in from a "Liberal Arts" background. In case you're new here (or in case I'm just not as important as I think I am), I'm an engineer.
It was like shooting ducks in a barrel. All the famous syllogisms, assumptions, claims, etc., were so full of holes as not to be funny.
Anselm's "Perfect Island." Pascal's wager. Any number of "Blind Watchmaker" claims. Basic assumptions were unsupportable, logical connections, well, weren't.
"If "A" and if "B", then "C""
Well, "A" wasn't true, and "B" doesn't matter, and even if they were both true, then the connection that was claimed would be non-causal.
Here's my point:
Teach philosophy as philosophy, first. Then teach logic. And then teach I_D in your philosophy class. Only be prepared to have it ripped apart.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Well, "A" wasn't true, and "B" doesn't matter, and even if they were both true, then the connection that was claimed would be non-causal.
It is truly astonishing to me how many "great thinkers," particularly in theological philosophy, left enormous holes through which pretty much any three-year-old could drive a logic truck.
My favorite is this one:
"God must exist because we can imagine something perfect. And in order for something to be really perfect, it can't be only imaginary; it would have to actually exist in order to be perfect. So God exists, because He wouldn't be perfect if He didn't."
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:It is truly astonishing to me how many "great thinkers," particularly in theological philosophy, left enormous holes through which pretty much any three-year-old could drive a logic truck.
Interestingly, ID theorists find the same thing astonishing about the theory of evolution, while evolution proponents feel the same way about ID.
What I find interesting is how often critics of various theories claim there are obvious giant holes in these theories, yet can't seem to prove it to everyone else. It is always interesting in any philosophy class how many people, from every viewpoint, believe that they have blown holes through every opposing argument, only to find they haven't really convinced anyone.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Simple solution, Treso: let's have a think-off.
We should present one or two leading statements from both the ID camp and the evolution camp, and tear 'em apart.
If nothing else, it should be a lot of fun.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: It is always interesting in any philosophy class how many people, from every viewpoint, believe that they have blown holes through every opposing argument, only to find they haven't really convinced anyone.
Are you saying that you see no flaws in the "God exists because perfect things must exist" theory, Tres? Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Strangely enough, so long as supporters of ID routinely misquote evolutionary theorists and talk about it being possible to calculate the likelihood of life evolving from the probability of particular combinations of base pairs coming together if randomly sequenced, I have little problem recalling why I tend to agree with which side's arguments, even leaving aside my own understandings thereof.
Posted by Vasslia Cora (Member # 7981) on :
When I think about evolution, I have to say to myself.
Could all of this be the result of a random explosion and macro-evolution? Could everything be made perfect for human life on this plant just be luck or survival of the fittest? Would want there not God and just be evolved monkey? My answer to these has to be, no. The chances that we would be here and would have evolved this way have to be astronomical. Why would earth be so perfect for us if not created by God. And life would be pointless without God, there would be no reason to live.
Now I am not a genius so I know that there are holes in what I just said but from what I know there is more evidence that God is really then the hypothesis of evolution.
My two cents.
Edit: I'm sorry I have bad spelling, English is my first language but I was tired and didn't think through what I was typing down. Its quite clear that I don't have the knowledge to debate this subject with all of you.
[ August 18, 2005, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: Vasslia Cora ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
First, I don't even know what an "explonse" is. Second, if you think this planet's perfect for humans, I think a few humans living in inhospitable climes have some words for you. Third, evolutionary theory doesn't deny God at all.
I mean, your whole dichotomy is completely false: its perfectly possible for there to be God and evolution, and huge numbers of Christians, Jews, Muslims, and members of other religions accept that.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I get the feeling that English isn't Vasslia's first language, so maybe ease up on that.
Vasslia, you've got evolution backwards. According to the theory, humans evolved to fit conditions on Earth. We didn't exist before the Earth and then come along and find it perfectly suited for us. Mutations resulted in species that worked well in the environment, thus resulting in a whole mess of species that fit really well into the conditions on Earth. We are one of those species. Acting surprised that the Earth fits us so well is sort of like being amazed that a Jello mold fits the Jello you took out of it so well.
Also, to the many people who don't believe in anything like the God you do, statements like this:
quote:And life would be pointless without God, there would be no reason to live.
betray your moral and spiritual immaturity. It makes me sad for the potential you throw away by looking at the world and meaning that way. That's not something I could picture a non-evil deity wanting it's followers to believe.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Fun thread.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Vasslia, you've got evolution backwards. According to the theory, humans evolved to fit conditions on Earth. We didn't exist before the Earth and then come along and find it perfectly suited for us. Mutations resulted in species that worked well in the environment, thus resulting in a whole mess of species that fit really well into the conditions on Earth. We are one of those species. Acting surprised that the Earth fits us so well is sort of like being amazed that a Jello mold fits the Jello you took out of it so well.
Science fiction writers, for example Larry Niven, have suggested that we did NOT evolve on Earth, and present as evidence the fact that humans are unable to live in most environments on Earth without minimal technology, therefore that the Earth is certainly not perfectly suited to humans.
We freeze in the cold climates, or at least quickly die of exposure, without clothing, shelter, and fire.
In hotter climes, we (at least caucasians) cannot take the UV exposure in ordinary sunlight, and must have clothes and hats, and hopefully sunscreen and mosquito nets. Plus dehydration and sunstroke, without clothes or water bottles.
In all climates, without weapons or helpers we are easy prey to the dominant predators.
And et cetera.
So, Terrans are actually extra-Terrestrial in origin. This has become something of a sci-fi cliche.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: Science fiction writers, for example Larry Niven, have suggested that we did NOT evolve on Earth, and present as evidence the fact that humans are unable to live in most environments on Earth without minimal technology, therefore that the Earth is certainly not perfectly suited to humans.
Of course, the obvious retort to this is that as humans began to supplement fur and claws with clothes and weapons the former became evolutionarily unnecessary. Over time those characteristics were bred out. This could have been excelerated as humans began to take note of their own sentience and began seeing all other animals as something intrinsically different from themselves. Humans might then have developed concepts of beauty and desirability that included those budding human traits that were most un-animal-like (i.e. less body hair or less claw-like nails, etc). Those humans who displayed more "human" characteristics would have been selected as mates over those who didn't until we arrived at the techno-dependant species we are today.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Karl, I know there are evolutionary arguments to the ET origin theory. You state them well.
Maybe I find the idea has a pull for the same reasons some kids like to believe they're orphans, and really adopted princes or princesses. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Now I am not a genius so I know that there are holes in what I just said but from what I know there is more evidence that God is really then the hypothis of evolution.
And from what I know, Eskimos do not exist -- because I've never met one.
Sure, some people claim to have encountered them, but why should I trust those people?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Not only that, but there's no reason humans should be well-adapted to all of the earth, just that we be sufficiently adapted to one region of the earth, where the population of humans developed. That we've happened to adapt to other places with tools is a coincidental bonus.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Additionally, there are places on Earth (like parts of Brazil) where one could live with zero technology, provided you were willing to subsist on raw wild plants and raw insects and small animals. However, one of the peculiar facets of being human is that we prefer to avoid the discomforts of animalistic subsistence living. Since we had the intelligence to do so, most of it was put towards ameliorating those discomforts and using tools to increase our likelihood of survival. This allowed us to move into regions of the Earth where survival would be much more difficult if not impossible without the aids of technology.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
My point is that the Earth does NOT fit us particularly well, unless you include our technology. And our technology, before the 20th century, only very gradually improved.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Interestingly, ID theorists find the same thing astonishing about the theory of evolution, while evolution proponents feel the same way about ID.
Tres, your incessant pseudo-impartiality is really starting to grate. All theories are not created equal and do not deserve equal consideration. Furthermore, that a bunch of people happen to believe something does not make that something worthy of scientific consideration. Engineers should not consider alien tractor beams when they design bridges, either, as you ludicrously insinuated on the other thread.
I also note you never answered my question on that thread: If alien tractor beams are as valid a principle of bridge design as the principles of civil engineering, why does nobody build functional bridges based on alien tractor beam theory? Why do bridges constructed using civil engineering principles tend to stand and bear load in accordance with their design? Civil engineering principles get results; alien tractor beam theory does not. Alien tractor beam theory, compared to civil engineering principles, has no value. Engineers and scientists shouldn't even give it the time of day, and they don't.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:My point is that the Earth does NOT fit us particularly well, unless you include our technology. And our technology, before the 20th century, only very gradually improved.
I agree with you. However, I believe that is so largely because we humans have made ourselves this way. I'm only responding to point this out, not because I disagree with you, but because this is an ID discussion thread and as such I want to provide counterpoint to what some might point to as "evidence" of another "hole" in evolutionary theory. (Not that you are one of those people.)
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Twinky,
Case in point: the Tacoma Narrows bridge (the first one: Galloping Gerty) was built with alien tractor beam technology. At the same time, it was noted as having a definite Bridginess defecit. You can see the results:
quote:At the same time, it was noted as having a definite Bridginess defecit.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: All theories are not created equal and do not deserve equal consideration. Furthermore, that a bunch of people happen to believe something does not make that something worthy of scientific consideration.
Your arguement sounds soo, soo much like the arguements against introducing science in the classroom back in the day. Really any arguement going against "the norm".
Really, there is no "bible" of science, and there is no God or supreme science rule maker.
Should we discriminate against scientists who look at the same set of data and have a different theory as to it's origin?
Regardless of your scientific "beliefs" there is very much evidence of ID and it is in the basic ORDER of the universe from the most miniscule to the grandest scheme. You may dismiss it in favor of YOUR scientific beliefs, and that's fine, but who says ONE particular scientists BELIEFS are the LAW and another's are invalid when NEITHER can be proved as absolute.
This thread is starting to stink more and more of Religiophobe intollerance of varying scientific theory.
It's funny how "dismissive" the ANTI-Intelligent Design folks are simply due to their own formed beliefs on science. Since they believe in certain theories and they accept certain evidence of those theories, that opposing theories are invalid or can't be true or don't deserve scientific research. That or their own fear and antagonism of religion are clouding their logic and causing them to be closed minded.
And to calm those fears you have the Supreme Court and the wall they erected between church and state to protect you and the fact that Intelligent Design (not divine design) is in fact not Religion.
But "Oh Nos! It may lead someone to investigate religion" which holds as much water as "Sex Ed may lead kids to have sex" just so long as the Religion doesn't come into play in the classroom.
Just because there exits one theory in science that the majority of scientists hold to be true in their beliefs, doesn't mean it's the only one or that it makes others invalid (Man that sounds so much like the birth of Protestantism from Catholicism only with Science).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Your arguement sounds soo, soo much like the arguements against introducing science in the classroom back in the day.
Wow. I didn't realize you grew up in Alabama. Or do you in fact predate science?
quote: Should we discriminate against scientists who look at the same set of data and have a different theory as to it's origin?
No. But we should make sure they're scientists. I don't understand why you're having a problem getting this concept, Chad. Do you not understand why Intelligent Design is not in fact a scientific theory and should not be taught as science? That's been the point of the thread; it's been explained several times.
I know you're late to the thread, so I'll ask quite bluntly whether you've actually read it or not.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Weak anthropic principle. If those things hadn't happened, we wouldn't be here to eat the fruit.
The anthropic principles are meaningless tautology.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Regardless of your scientific "beliefs" there is very much evidence of ID...
No, there isn't.
quote:The anthropic principles are meaningless tautology.
Hardly.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
quote:cstroman wrote: And the funniest part of the debate is that it's human "logic" that is the "science". We use human "intelligence", rules, processes and thinking to the whole process.
I agree. And the funniest aspect of this by far is that it is Intelligent Design that carves out what is understandable and believable, and the rest -- anything that to a few limited human minds seems just too mind-boggling unlikely -- MUST have been created or influenced by an intentional supernatural force.
ID proponents do not seem to consider that their understanding could be at all limited -- and that it could, therefore, be improved.
"This phenomenon could not have arisen from any known process that I can perceive, therefore it must have been God."
This reasoning tells me that the speaker considers that they are indeed capable of perceiving and understanding everything up to the point where God takes over.
This is either a grotesquely arrogant point of view, or seriously demeans God.
Science, at least, recognizes just how weak and ignorant we humans are, and says, "This phenomenon could not have arisen from any known process that I can perceive; I better polish my spectacles, put on my thinking cap, and see if I can advance knowledge by figuring some little bit of it out."
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote:Hardly
Back it up then.
The anthropic principles state that since we are here, no matter how improbable the emergence of life may be, we are here so it must have happened.
This is often used to support things like incredibly improbable abiogenesis scenarios and so on. yet it does nothing of the sort. To argue from results for a specific cause which cannot be demonstrated is the worst sort of fallacy.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: To argue from results for a specific cause which cannot be demonstrated is the worst sort of fallacy.
Which is, of course, the major flaw in ID.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Which is, of course, the major flaw in ID.
Exactly! And that goes doubly for anyone trying to debunk ID with the anthropic principle.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:The anthropic principles state that since we are here, no matter how improbable the emergence of life may be, we are here so it must have happened.
This is often used to support things like incredibly improbable abiogenesis scenarios and so on. yet it does nothing of the sort. To argue from results for a specific cause which cannot be demonstrated is the worst sort of fallacy.
Now hold on. The anthropic argument you're talking about would be a good argument if one had independent reason to reject the possibility of God.
I think you're misinterpreting what the anthropic principle is going for, here. I suspect it's something like this: for independent philosophical reasons, there is no God. Human life exists. Since there's no God, only one sort of event (abiogenesis) could have produced human life. Thus, however unlikely it might've been that abiogenesis would happen, it must have happened.
If you reject one of those premises (as I know you do), then that's your problem with the argument.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
One of Galloping Gerty's twins is still standing in New Hampshire, and I have driven over it several times, not without a little prayer to the deity of Tractor Beams.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I responded to a snippy one-liner with another. You made the first assertion; you could easily have added the text of your second post to the first to actually make your position clear.
Creationists constantly point to the "improbability" of the universe existing and proceeding in a manner that allowed for humans to come about. The anthropic priniciples say that even if it is "improbable," the mere fact of our existence is not evidence of a creator. The principles themselves are not used as evidence for one scenario over another. Furthermore, I'd love to know how you can be confident of the "incredible improbability" of abiogenesis scenario X, Y, or Z.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Now hold on. The anthropic argument you're talking about would be a good argument if one had independent reason to reject the possibility of God.
I think you're misinterpreting what the anthropic principle is going for, here. I suspect it's something like this: for independent philosophical reasons, there is no God. Human life exists. Since there's no God, only one sort of event (abiogenesis) could have produced human life. Thus, however unlikely it might've been that abiogenesis would happen, it must have happened.
If you reject one of those premises (as I know you do), then that's your problem with the argument.
The anthropic principle requires us to also accept the current views of cosmology- eg finite universe. But if one accepts the premises in the first place(no creator, finite universe) then one automatically accepts abiogenesis and so the anthropic principle is just a bit of preaching to the choir. It doesn't actually mean anything.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Furthermore, I'd love to know how you can be confident of the "improbability" of abiogenesis scenary X, Y, or Z.
Like Twain said- there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics. Creationists who argue as you said are attempting to invoke statistics (whish is already the worst sort of lie) on a non-existent data set. Doesn't seem very scientific to me.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
You know, statistics can be useful sometimes.
(I agree, though, that this is definitely not one of those times.)
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: You know, statistics can be useful sometimes.
True enough. But the usefulness is in things like process control where one has solid data before and after changes etc. Using statistics like a gambling tool for philosophical or behavioral questions ("What are the chances that Kant was gay?") is ridiculous.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:No. But we should make sure they're scientists.
As defined by WHOM? What "law"? And keep in mind you have to defend the exclusion of ID without automatically excluding other theories that are similarly unproven such as Big Band and TONS of others.
quote:I don't understand why you're having a problem getting this concept, Chad.
I for one don't understand how why you are struggling with an open canon of science. It baffles me that you could be so close minded on something that claims to be so open. What fear is driving your opposition?
quote:Do you not understand why Intelligent Design is not in fact a scientific theory and should not be taught as science? That's been the point of the thread; it's been explained several times.
And Big Bang is science? Why is it science and ID not? Your Opinion? Some people who call themselves "scientists" opinion? Are you in reality simply struggling with the fact that there are SCIENTISTS and that they do in fact have THEORIES and EVIDENCE to support ID? Yes the majority are also religious, but are you discriminating against them because of that? Sounds like a Knee Jerk reaction.
Are you aware that there are some NON-Religious Scientists who support the theory of ID?
quote:I know you're late to the thread, so I'll ask quite bluntly whether you've actually read it or not.
In all honesty I've skimmed the thread, my intent was to answer the question of what is ID.
ID Theory is a science as much as the "BIG BANG" theory is. Neither are provable, both have evidence (although it appears the Religiophobes dismiss anything other than their own Scientific Beliefs)
Tell me WHY the "Big Bang" theory as completely unproven as it is, but as evidenced as it is, qualifies as science and the ID theory with it's basic Organizational evidences and chance Randomness evidences does not?
Or is it just I that finds humourous one side's close minded attempt to discredit the other using only their or the "majorities" belief in a theory or string of theories?
I smell a bit of intollerance with no logic behind it but quite a bit of Religiophobic feelings.
I propose someone PROVE to me that Big Bang is solid science and ID is not. Or are you all such Hardline "One Science View" only that if the science doesn't mesh with your scientific beliefs, it's not science?
It seems people are having a hard time with looking at scientific evidence from multiple view points. Your assuming if there is a guy with a bloody knife near a dead body with stab wounds that there is only ONE explanation for what happened. Yes, 9 times out of 10, that person is guilty, but I'm not willing to close my mind to the possibility of other explanations existing for what happened.
I've heard and seen religious Zealots, but the "one science only intollerant Zealot" is a new one for me.
Also, for the record. I do not endorse Religion being taught in a Science Class or "God" being the author of the universe as that crosses over into religion and dogma.
But ID whether it's a being, alien, entity, conscious dust cloud or whatever.
I'm willing to keep my mind open to wherever the science may lead.
Unfortunately alot of people appear to be approaching SCIENCE as if it was a DOGMATIC RELIGION and with the same zealous nature and intollerance and "judging by their own shared beliefs" what counts and what doesn't.
It's the Gay Marriage debate all over again with many of you taking stances you oppose in that issue.
So, define "science". Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
The "Big Band" theory?
So...Glenn Miller is God!
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Also, by "debunking" ID, wouldn't you also "debunk" Big Bang? Or not? It's an honest question since we're all debating "what is science and what is not".
I think alot of the science zealots may need to check themselves before they take the majority of unproven science and theories and make them no longer science.
I think we're about to see a scientist debunk ID and at the same time remove Big Bang from the realm of science and place it intooo...I dunno...philosphy? theology? The all powerful God "Big Bang"!
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Oh, and re. "Keeping one's mind open."
Sure, it's a good thing. But one shouldn't keep one's mind so open that one's brains fall out, eh?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
No it's U2.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
One difference that I can see off the top of my head is that the Big Bang theory can make predictions that can later be observed and verified. ID is not able to make predictions, thus making it hard to test.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:True enough. But the usefulness is in things like process control where one has solid data before and after changes etc.
<----- specialized in process control in undergrad
Indeed.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: <----- specialized in process control in undergrad
I am truly, deeply sorry. I've heard that in most Western countries process control is reserved for repeat felony offenders. It says something about your pain threshold that you willingly chose it for yourself.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:Sure, it's a good thing. But one shouldn't keep one's mind so open that one's brains fall out, eh?
I agree. I'm not talking about mixing theology and science. I'm talking about alternate forms of science (ID or whatever else other than the claimed Dogmatic beliefs of current science)
So, Einstein? Scientist or Creationist or Evolutionist or Pantheist? Part scientist or all scientist?
quote: But if one accepts the premises in the first place(no creator, finite universe) then one automatically accepts abiogenesis and so the anthropic principle is just a bit of preaching to the choir.
No, see, you don't have to automatically accept abiogenesis if one accepts those premises. That abiogenesis is the natural conclusion to a theory built on those premises is largely due to the application of the anthropic principle.
--------
quote: ID Theory is a science as much as the "BIG BANG" theory is. Neither are provable, both have evidence (although it appears the Religiophobes dismiss anything other than their own Scientific Beliefs)
What evidence do you have for ID, Chad? (And I draw the distinction here between evidence for ID and evidence against evolution; it's not the same thing, so merely poking holes in our current understanding of evolutionary theory doesn't count.)
And the reason the Big Bang theory is science, whereas ID is not, is that it's built on observed physical principles and makes falsifiable predictions.
quote: I'm talking about alternate forms of science (ID or whatever else other than the claimed Dogmatic beliefs of current science)
Chad, dude, you're missing the point. Science is about the process, not the conclusion. If ID followed a scientific process, it would be science. That ID is not science has nothing to do with what its dogmatic beliefs are, but rather the way those beliefs are reached.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:One difference that I can see off the top of my head is that the Big Bang theory can make predictions that can later be observed and verified. ID is not able to make predictions, thus making it hard to test.
You're confusing the EVIDENCES of the Big Bang theory being able to make predictions with the actual Big Bang theory itself. It's the evidences themselves which can make preditictions that can later be observed and verified and INTERPRETED by some to be evidence of Big Bang.
You can do the same with ID. You can take the stance that the universe is the result of an intelligent design through every element and infinite space, and find organization that is absolutely logical as evidence of this. You may look at the logic from the standpoint of "It just is" which is the answer science has for the unknown. With ID you can pull in mathematical data to support it. Chance algorithms (which can't scratch the surface of covering and compounding the actual chances yet).
And also one huge thing to point out. Science conflicts science. Does that make it invalid? Because one unproven scientific belief or many contradicts another unproven scientific belief, does that make one valid and one not.
Yes, if you're close-minded and intollerant. (which we all are in one area or another)
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: No, see, you don't have to automatically accept abiogenesis if one accepts those premises. That abiogenesis is the natural conclusion to a theory built on those premises is largely due to the application of the anthropic principle.
Hmmm... I see it the other way round. If one begins with the assumptions stated then abiogenesis is a necessary conclusion. The anthropic principle is just a silly bit of sophistry meant to counter the silly bit of sophistry from the other side about the chance of life appearing being one in a trillion trillion or whatever.
The worst of it is, the anthropic principle is exactly as mind numbing as the arguments and ascience that the other side is always accused of. Opponents of ID say that it evades the question by saying that anything complicated was done by a creator, but doesn't the anthropic principle do exactly the same thing? It argues from results that "It doesn't matter how improbable abiogenesis is; we are here so it must have happened." Two sides of the same coin, in my opinion.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
[quote]Chad, dude, you're missing the point. Science is about the process, not the conclusion. If ID followed a scientific process, it would be science. That ID is not science has nothing to do with what its dogmatic beliefs are, but rather the way those beliefs are reached. [quote]
You're confusing Religion and ID. If you can't distinguish between the two, then you misundersand ID entirely. The trail of Logic for ID is the same as it is for Science and it undoubtedly arrives at the same point, but with a different answer.
Science you're espousing says the universe is a naturally randomly occuring result of infinite subsequent and continuing random events structured around infinite subsequent and continuing physical laws that govern every infinite to grand aspect all existing and predicated indefinately on "It just is".
ID removes the randomness and says the laws have an intelligent source whatever that may be. That somewhere there was a beginning, but that it wasn't random, it was caused. Who, what, how, why, etc. is all "unknown" as it is with.
Multi-dimensional theories. Multiple Timeline theories. E=mc2. Time Travel. Quantum Physics.
Science? Science Fiction or what?
I'm recommending we don't "close the book" on scientific evidences based on biased beliefs.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:Opponents of ID say that it evades the question by saying that anything complicated was done by a creator, but doesn't the anthropic principle do exactly the same thing? It argues from results that "It doesn't matter how improbable abiogenesis is; we are here so it must have happened." Two sides of the same coin, in my opinion.
ID doesn't say it was created. It's theories say that it may be the result of a principle designed creation. A conciousness instead of an unconcious random infinite event (or finite, the scientific community can't decide if it ever started or is infinite, although they look at the same evidence. Maybe their both wrong, that's a question I'm leaving open, other's not.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: You can take the stance that the universe is the result of an intelligent design through every element and infinite space, and find organization that is absolutely logical as evidence of this.
*blink* Do you think the universe is "absolutely logical?"
-----
Actually, Jacare, ID is a form of the anthropic principle; it's basically a restatement of the Strong version. The Weak version -- which says that we must have beaten the odds, since we plainly exist -- is still not quite tautological. Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Science you're espousing says the universe is a naturally randomly occuring result of infinite subsequent and continuing random events structured around infinite subsequent and continuing physical laws that govern every infinite to grand aspect all existing and predicated indefinately on "It just is".
I don't know where you're getting this, but I've never read about nor heard of a mainstream scientific theory that makes any of these claims. Certainly not evolution.
There are theories of quantum cosmology, at this point highly speculative and untested, that make claims like this. But even the people who've proposed these theories don't put much stock in them.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:But he was also struck by the radiant beauty, the harmony, the structure of the universe as it was accessible to reason and science. In describing these factors he sometimes uses the word God, and sometimes refers to a divine reason, spirit or intelligence. - Einstein
So Einstein is OUT of the classroom. He's not a scientist and the ACLU should sue any school district/college that mentions his name since he didn't rule out ID.
Forget that mentallity.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:So Einstein is OUT of the classroom. He's not a scientist and the ACLU should sue any school district/college that mentions his name since he didn't rule out ID.
Einstein did rule out the "theory" that is now being called Intelligent Design, which includes among its tenets that the universe is only a few thousand years old. This is contradicted by both of the cosmological theories that Einstein accepted: the static universe (early in his life) and the Big Bang (which he later came to accept).
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Serious threads should have periodic quizzes that you have to answer before you're allowed to post or continue posting in order to show that you've read and understood what has already been written.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:ID removes the randomness and says the laws have an intelligent source whatever that may be. That somewhere there was a beginning, but that it wasn't random, it was caused. Who, what, how, why, etc. is all "unknown" as it is with.
I think most of the people that have posted here have agreed that ID is a 'why' question and theories like evolution is a 'how' question. They don't necessarily have to contradict each other since they are explaining different things (why versus how). Because they are addressing different questions, they should be viewed as different fields of study. No one is trying to say that there wasn't some type of initial cause, just that the cause should not be confused with the process.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
CStroman, although I'd agree that there is strong intolerance of religion, I was hoping for something in the way of sci evidence for ID.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:Do you think the universe is "absolutely logical?"
Do you believe you can take one hydrogen atom and attach 2 oxygen atoms to it and get something other than water?
Why not?
quote:Einstein did rule out the "theory" that is now being called Intelligent Design, which includes among its tenets that the universe is only a few thousand years old.
That's absolutely false. You need to learn the difference between RELIGION and INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Religious Dogma attaches dates.
Learn the difference between RELIGION and INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
quote:I think most of the people that have posted here have agreed that ID is a 'why' question and theories like evolution is a 'how' question.
Most people who are ANTI-ID and don't understand it say that. ID is absolutely HOW.
Again, you need to learn the difference between ID and Religious Dogma.
Until you understand the basic differences you're making alot of false claims.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: So Einstein is OUT of the classroom. He's not a scientist and the ACLU should sue any school district/college that mentions his name since he didn't rule out ID.
Wait a sec. Your argument is that Einstein isn't a scientist because he thought the world was beautiful?
quote: That's absolutely false. You need to learn the difference between RELIGION and INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Religious Dogma attaches dates.
*giggle* If this forum had .sig files, I would use this quote.
quote: Most people who are ANTI-ID and don't understand it say that. ID is absolutely HOW.
Really? Perhaps I misunderstand ID, then. How does ID say the Creator -- who or whatever that Creator is -- made mankind? It may be that I've just completely missed that part of the "theory."
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:ID is absolutely HOW.
Again, you need to learn the difference between ID and Religious Dogma.
I am a pretty religious person, so that may be why my perspective of ID may be a little skewed. There haven't been many people supporting ID on this thread, so many of us may be thinking of different things than you are. I had just assumed that ID was saying that the Why caused the How, and that was it. I apologize if I've missed or didn't understand your explanation of ID.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Whoa, hold on. Do you take the theory of ID to be compatible with the Big Bang?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:CStroman, although I'd agree that there is strong intolerance of religion, I was hoping for something in the way of sci evidence for ID.
How hard of evidence are you looking? Are you willing to use the same standard for every theory considered science today? Seriously?
Something tells me you are looking for "proof" (which is rare in alot of science) and will dismiss evidences that you don't agree with.
I mean come on people. The basic theory of ID is that the universe is the result of Intelligent Design. That's it. Simple. All you have to do is look at the billions of proven laws and order and organization that exists in the universe (that we know about thus far) from grand to small and that is HUGE evidence for it (unless you have already made up your mind against it and accepted into your heart "accepted science" as your personal savior and closed your mind to anything that differs) the possiblilites are endless. Divine Design is just one of many theories, all unproven, and it seems to me that it's the Religiophobes that are against it because they can't make the distinction between established Religion (which the vehemently oppose) and Intelligent Design.
I happen to believe that what Einstein saw in the law and order of the universe being NOT random but intelligently designed as being perfectly suitable for science classes.
He may be wrong, he may be right. We really don't know and I'm not willing to rule it out due to intollerance.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Whoa, hold on. Do you take the theory of ID to be compatible with the Big Bang?
I don't see why they can't be compatible. Some force caused the Big Bang and directed certain laws to be the way they are. I don't recall the Big Bang theory implying that the laws of the universe had to have been completely random. But I do admit that my knowledge of both ideas is limited.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: The basic theory of ID is that the universe is the result of Intelligent Design. That's it. Simple. All you have to do is look at the billions of proven laws and order and organization that exists in the universe (that we know about thus far) from grand to small and that is HUGE evidence for it....
Um....Why? What are you comparing this universe against as a control, Chad?
quote: We really don't know and I'm not willing to rule it out due to intollerance.
What you appear to have missed, Chad, is that the theory of evolution does not in fact rule out the possibility of Intelligent Design. In fact, if ID is true, it will almost certainly become part of evolutionary theory.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by CStroman:
quote:But he was also struck by the radiant beauty, the harmony, the structure of the universe as it was accessible to reason and science. In describing these factors he sometimes uses the word God, and sometimes refers to a divine reason, spirit or intelligence. - Einstein
So Einstein is OUT of the classroom. He's not a scientist and the ACLU should sue any school district/college that mentions his name since he didn't rule out ID.
Forget that mentallity.
Who are you quoting here? The format implies that you are quoting Einsein, but the quote is clearly speaking about someone other than the person being quoted. I'm not aware that Einstein was accustomed to speak of himself in the third person.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I mean come on people. The basic theory of ID is that the universe is the result of Intelligent Design. That's it. Simple.
In that case, I don't see how this conflicts with any theory that kids are being taught in school. It's certainly compatible with evolution. Why, if this is all there is to ID theory, do its advocates get upset about evolution being taught?
quote:I happen to believe that what Einstein saw in the law and order of the universe being NOT random but intelligently designed as being perfectly suitable for science classes.
I don't think Einstein would use the word "science" to describe this facet of his thought. He would probably have called it philosophy.
I'm not sure where you're getting this randomness stuff. Is it supposed to be part of the scientific world view? At no point in all my years of studying physics has anyone, teacher or professor, said "The universe is random."
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
He uses "randomness" because if you took out the strawmen, self-victimization, and hurling of epithets from his posts he'd have almost nothing left to say. Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
My guess is that he's encountered some people that very strongly (and mistakenly) believe that Evolution proves that there was no cause. I think he's arguing against those people, not us.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
And no, I don't think teaching these spiritual views of Einstein is appropriate in a science class. No more appropriate than Dawkins's opinion that evolution shows the universe is godless and uncaring. These sorts of opinions aren't science.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:In that case, I don't see how this conflicts with any theory that kids are being taught in school.
It doesn't conflict, but people don't want it taught due to the "it opens the door" arguement. (that has been used against Homosexuality in School, Sex Ed in school, Fire arm safety classes in school, etc. etc. ad naseum)
quote:It's certainly compatible with evolution. Why, if this is all there is to ID theory, do its advocates get upset about evolution being taught?
I dunno, one has really nothing to conflict with the other. I do have a problem where someone starts attaching religious dogma to ID in the classroom due to the Supreme Courts wall dividing Church and State (a different discussion). That's where I think the discussion should end. The minute you start to reference religion, it's then out of the realm of science and now part of religion. There could be science used within religion, but not the other way around.
If some student asks how Einstein viewed the universe, I don't think the teacher should NOT be honest and say that he, as a scientist, looked at it all (that he could fathom) and logically arrived at a conclusion that the theory of intelligent design had at least some merit.
quote:What you appear to have missed, Chad, is that the theory of evolution does not in fact rule out the possibility of Intelligent Design. In fact, if ID is true, it will almost certainly become part of evolutionary theory.
It very well may. I don't see why not. ID and Evolution are completely compatible. Evolution and Religious Dogma on the other hand....
I think that alot of Religious people are mis-interpretting ID as more than just the suggestion of intelligent design, but actually THEIR intelligent design. That is their "belief" and may or may not be supported by science (more often NOT).
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:Originally posted by CStroman: How hard of evidence are you looking? Are you willing to use the same standard for every theory considered science today? Seriously?
Something tells me you are looking for "proof" (which is rare in alot of science) and will dismiss evidences that you don't agree with.
Try me. Maybe you'll be pleasantly surprised!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm amused people are still debating with chad, for a few reasons:
1) he's completely mischaracterized science education. That Einstein was religious, or thought his theories illustrated the existence of God philosophically does not mean any of his scientific theories should be tossed out of a science classroom.
2) he's not even bothering to try to show ID is somehow scientific. He just says things like
quote:If some student asks how Einstein viewed the universe, I don't think the teacher should NOT be honest and say that he, as a scientist, looked at it all (that he could fathom) and logically arrived at a conclusion that the theory of intelligent design had at least some merit.
Which is misconceived on several levels. First, because Einstein was a scientist does not mean all his personal beliefs were reached scientifically. Just because Einstein believed it doesn't make it science. Second, I don't know of anyone who's taken a decent high school physics class that hasn't heard the famous quotation "God does not play dice with the universe" -- relating to Einstein's philosophical problems with the fundamental uncertainty suggested by quantum mechanics, which severely undermines chad's implication a teacher would mislead a student about Einstein's religious beliefs and how they influenced what he thought was true in science.
3) he's clearly repeatedly missed what other people have painstakingly pointed out in their posts about the nature of science vs the nature of philosophy, and his inability to distinguish the two makes arguing with him about what has a place in the science classroom of little value.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
<points up>
I said essentially the same thing above in fewer words (But of course yours was a lot more polite )
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: It doesn't conflict, but people don't want it taught due to the "it opens the door" arguement.
Hm. That's not why I don't want Intelligent Design taught as a scientific theory. In fact, it's not why any of the people who've expressed that opinion on this thread have said they hold that opinion.
Tell you what. Why don't you try telling me why we said we didn't want ID taught as science? I'd like to see if you understood what we were saying.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
In this discussion, I'd still just be happy with quantitative evidence for ID.
==
Some other things I want discussed in science classrooms, besides ID: phrenology, Lamarckian evolution, phlogiston (great theory, but also very simply disproved), and the scientific consensus things of eugenics, anthropogenic global warming, and the 1800's rejection of sanitary practices in hospitals.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
To Chad, I, for one, welcome your views here.
I agree that arguing with you seems rather fruitless, so instead of arguing, I would like to ask some questions. (Anyone versed in ID can answer these, not just Chad. I think if even some of these were answered it would really help Will in his quest.)
quote: The basic theory of ID is that the universe is the result of Intelligent Design. That's it. Simple.
What is Intelligent Design?
The word 'Intelligent' implies intelligence to me. I am only aware of intelligence as an attribute of mind. Is there a mind (or Mind) involved here? If so, does it have any other qualities other than intelligence? Is it aware? Is it alive? Does it have senses? Does it have a body? Is it part of our time-space continuum or outside it? Is it present? Does it communicate? Does it err? Is it a 'spirit' of some sort?
The word 'Design' implies to me some sense of purpose, or 'fitness.' If the universe is the result of Intelligent Design (or any 'design' whatsoever) does that mean it has a purpose? What is the universe for? Or what do you think the Intelligent Designer thinks it is for?
Is Intelligent Design an event? A process? Did it just happen once, and now we are living with the results? Or is it ongoing?
Does Intelligent Design operate by a force of some sort? Is it a measurable force? Is it detectable? Is it 'powerful'? Is it fallible? Will it ever run out? Could the Intelligent Designer have, if it so chose, picked different values, say for the atomic weight of the various elements, or different laws of probability to rule chance, or a different value for pi? If so, is there any indication, or any statement in the ID theory, as to why the values we are familiar with were chosen?
Is it part of the Design for us to discover the hand of the designer? Or were we not supposed to discover it? Or does the Designer not care? Does the theory say anything about this? How would one go about finding out?
quote:All you have to do is look at the billions of proven laws and order and organization that exists in the universe (that we know about thus far) from grand to small and that is HUGE evidence for it ...
What type of proven law? Can you give two or three examples (out of billions)? (Do you mean, like gravity? The laws of thermodynamics?...)
Can I point to any proven law, and say, look there, obviously Intelligent Design occurred? Is there a kind of proven law I might point to (for example, the tendency of kidnap victims held for a long time to identify with their captors, the so-called Stockholm Syndrome) where you (or perhaps an expert in ID) would say, "no, that particular law is not evidence of ID."
Is really only ONE strong enough piece of evidence enough? It would seem so. If even ONE instance of Intelligent Design could be demonstrated, that would be sufficient, right?
Sufficient for what, though? I would wonder about things that didn't seem to be the result of an Intelligent Designer. Things that seemed like mistakes, or disasters, bad ideas and stupid things, bad people, extinctions, accidents, genocide, etc. Does Intelligent Design extend to every facet of every part of the universe, from the macro the micro, across all time? Or is it only responsible for certain parts?
Beyond 'proven laws', what sort of 'order and organization' is evidence of Intelligent Design? Can you give an example?
What if something didn't at first seem to be ordered or organized, but then later (perhaps by looking at it with different instruments or different analytical tools or whatever) it turns out it does have some really impressive order or organization. Would it not be evidence for ID beforehand, but would then become evidence for it after?
If I wanted to become a proponent of Intelligent Design, and convince other people too, I'd like to know what sorts of order and organization I should be citing as evidence. Not 'organized crime' of course, that's too silly. Not synchronized swimming, probably, even though that has order, though not when my nieces do it. How about a honeycomb? Bees make this wonderful ordered structure, it's very efficient and marvelous. Is that an example? How about music? There is an order and organization to tonal harmonies, wavelengths of sound, etc. Is this from Intelligent Design?
I have gotten the impression from various things that you have said that accepting ID would imply accepting some kind of 'new' definition for science and scientific thinking. Is this about right? If so, can you give an example of how science might be different, or done differently, or taught differently, if it adopted concepts from ID?
For example, in science now, if I want to test a hypothesis that A causes B in C, I might do various experiments, such as:
Add A to C, and see if B occurs
Remove A from C, and see if B disappears
Add things similar to A to C, and see if effects similar to B occur
Formulate theories as to HOW A has this effect; and do similar experiments, focusing on just certain vectors or pathways
...and so forth.
In let's call it ID-science, would this type of approach be different? For example, let's say 'B' is some sort of proven 'law' or 'order' or 'organization' of 'C'. Let's say 'A' is some physical effect or influence. If I propose the theory 'A causes B in C' in an ID-science lab, would I be dismissed, because obviously the effect B is caused by Intelligent Design?
It sounds like the new type of science you are proposing is much easier, but also a little confusing. It sounds like ID-scientists would be able to just say "you can investigate THIS using conventional experimental methods, but you don't need to investigate THIS OTHER THING because clearly it is from Intelligent Design."
Would there be any distinguishing pattern between the two types of things or approaches? Would ID-scientists go to some kind of ID-university in order to learn how to make those distinctions?
Or would EVERYTHING be studied using conventional methods, but the results would then be submitted to some ID-authority?
Or would scientists just KNOW that they had found a new evidence for Intelligent Design, by when they got to a dead end in their research? "I don't know how this works, it must be more ID." How would you know they weren't just a lazy scientist?
Or perhaps the opposite: maybe ID-science is not analytical. Maybe ID-scientists aren't even supposed to be interested in solving problems or answering questions or building knowledge. Maybe you can be an ID-scientist just by using belief rather than reason?
quote:...unless you have already made up your mind against it and accepted into your heart "accepted science" as your personal savior and closed your mind to anything that differs) the possiblilites are endless.
I am curious about the endless possibilities. Are they really truly endless? Does this mean that we'll never comprehend the ultimate complete truth? (That's true of conventional science, too.) Or does it mean the types of evidence that prove the existence of Intelligent Design are endless?
quote:Divine Design is just one of many theories, all unproven, and it seems to me that it's the Religiophobes that are against it because they can't make the distinction between established Religion (which the vehemently oppose) and Intelligent Design.
Now I am quite confused again. Are you saying there are several 'flavors' of ID theory? One of which is that the Intelligent Designer has a 'divine' nature? And that there are others?
I very much want to understand the distinctions among these. What other theories are there besides 'divine' and 'non-divine'? What makes something divine? How do the ID-scientists plan to ever determine which theory is correct? Do they even have a hunch? Or are there a bunch of squabbling factions? (Believe me, this happens in conventional science, too.)
Surely with all this endless evidence, there must be some idea. Here's a thought: if some of the evidence for ID is found to be something bad (e.g., killed innocent people) -- like, let's say the Black Plague was part of Intelligent Design because it was part of a 'proven law' of population regulation -- then that might be evidence against a 'divine' version. What do you think? I don't mean the theory, but the general approach -- is that a sort of investigation that might be undertaken?
I'm a little afraid your answers to almost all of this will be something like "Could be anything! We'll never know! Things aren't provable in conventional science either, so why look for things to be provable with ID!"
That's ok. But you ARE making assertions... I'm just trying get a better handle on what the assertions are, how detailed are they. Are there things you are quite sure of? Are there things that are just suspected? Things that are just noted as a possibility, but without any strong indication one way or the other? Which is which? And is there any kind of a system or approach by which two people might independently arrive at the same answers?
Or is the primary distinguishing feature of the 'new' kind of science that accepts Intelligent Design, that it accepts all 'theories' as equally plausible, and as welcome additions to the marvelous panorama of human knowledge, irrespective of whether they can be defined, observed, tested, improved, taught, debated, compared, deduced from, practically applied, predicted, or understood?
Thanks in advance for your time.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Wow, and we thought our discussions were heated.
quote:Editor attacked over ‘intelligent design’ article Smithsonian scientists smeared colleague who published paper, report finds.
Evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg made a fateful decision a year ago.
As editor of the hitherto obscure Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Sternberg decided to publish a paper making the case for "intelligent design," a controversial theory that holds that the machinery of life is so complex as to require the hand — subtle or not — of an intelligent creator.
Within hours of publication, senior scientists at the Smithsonian Institution — which has helped fund and run the journal — lashed out at Sternberg as a shoddy scientist and a closet Bible thumper.
---
Sternberg is an unlikely revolutionary. He holds two PhDs in evolutionary biology, his graduate work draws praise from his former professors, and in 2000 he gained a coveted research associate appointment at the Smithsonian Institution.
---
A senior Smithsonian scientist wrote in an e-mail: "We are evolutionary biologists and I am sorry to see us made into the laughing stock of the world, even if this kind of rubbish sells well in backwoods USA."
An e-mail stated, falsely, that Steinberg had "training as an orthodox priest." Another labeled him a "Young Earth Creationist," meaning a person who believes God created the world in the past 10,000 years.
This latter accusation is a reference to Sternberg's service on the board of the Baraminology Study Group, a "young Earth" group. Sternberg insists he does not believe in creationism. "I was rather strong in my criticism of them," he said. "But I agreed to work as a friendly but critical outsider."
Despite the justly-deserved negative impression of a few scientists this shows, I think this should more than adequately demonstrate that not only are scientistific journals willing to publish controversial papers, but peer reviewers are willing to approve them. So we have total number of peer reviewed creationist or ID papers I'm aware of in a science journal being one, versus thousands and thousands explicitly supporting evolutionary theory.
Its worth pointing out that while I have not read the paper, the impression I got from the article was that it was more a philosophy of science piece than a nuts and bolts science paper.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And it was published as such, I believe.
An important point I think both sides need to take away: the way the scientists treated Steinberg is how many religious people see "Science" as treating "Religion".
ID and creationists are trying to get non-science taught as science. This is bad.
People rightfully attack this idea. However, Many, many, many of the attacks in ID and creationism (many not from scienctists) I read are not attacks on the science. They include much "invisible man in the sky" crap, references to "superstition." They imply that evolution proves God doesn't exist or dispels the myth of our special place in the universe. These attacks go well beyond a mere defense of what science is or pointing out the flaws in ID as a scientific theory.
This brings in not only ID and creationism proponents, but also other religious people, wo proceed to misidentify their critics as the scientific establishment and launch their counterattacks accordingly. You've seen some of the counter-rhetoric here - mistatements about what science is, many of them informed by their misunderstanding that the attacks launched on their beliefs were launched by "science."
And it keeps going 'round and 'round.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
Well put, Dag.
Has me thinking, too... as has most of this conversation... where do I fall? What am I taking on faith? What am I attacking? Defending? Is there a fatal inflexibility or paradox in me, that I am blind to?
I am a non-scientist. But I think one of the things I believe in most fiercely is keeping an open mind.
The universe is a big place. Science is a long way from defining 'consciousness.' There's certainly plenty of evidence, in human affairs, that matters of the heart and soul carry extraordinary weight, and yet Science cannot touch or weigh them.
But it also seems to me that however spiritual traits and values propagate and interact, and whatever their source, it is unlikely to be capricious, arbitrary or random.
This is a big faith, that the universe is not random. But to me, it is a big enough faith to include all that might ever be discovered, even if it included something that today I would consider 'supernatural' or 'spiritual.'
My belief system fully accepts that, if there is a God, it is a lawful God. Here's one way of looking at it: the universe, made in Her image, obeys laws.
It is one thing science and religion have very much in common: Law. Scientists try to determine laws. If they're lucky, they get a Law named after them. In Judaism, the very notions of 'law' and 'scripture' are intertwined; the pinnacle (no pun intended) act of God (after Creation and the Fall) is giving the ten commandments. Law.
Where does this my faith in order, combined with open-mindedness, leave me?
It leaves me, first of all, curious. Certainly the universe is a vast wonderful place, of course I am curious. But on top of that: I have this conviction that it's worth being curious about. That it will make sense. That it won't pull a wild prank.
(You know how card-game rules change, sometimes wildly and with great hilarity, during the game, while holed up with cousins in some cottage for a holiday? If the changes go on too long -- it gets boring. Nobody wants to play.)
Open-mindedness. Curiosity. And the conviction that the universe operates according to laws, if only we can discern them. This is the 'soul' of the scientist.
Perhaps the scientist's 'body' is the types of thinking, methods, approaches, and systems (including math and so forth) that have grown up to support those qualities.
The concept of Intelligent Design has run into this 'body and soul' of open-mindedness and keen tools honed against everything from Piltdown Man to Cold Fusion to Chromatic Detonation, and hasn't even passed the blush test.
Nobody can give the remotest explanation of how to include any notion of Intelligent Design in a scientific investigation of the universe. So scientists' reluctance to agree to do so is not based on blind rejection -- it is based on simply not having the first idea where to begin.
Now ARE there unknown approaches, that may be developed, that may enable ID to be 'figured out,' one day, scientifically? Maybe. I'll grant that. But until then, it isn't science -- it is the antithesis of science.
Unless you were to counter by saying science's failing is due to the fact that ID isn't ordered. That it doesn't obey any kind of consistent law. Then I'd say, like Westley in the Fire Swamp, "I don't think it exists."
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Will B,
Don't forget the direct, inverse, causal relationship between pirates and global warming. Don't ever forget that.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
BTW, JVP, I loved your response (your series of questions) on page 4. Especially looking for evidence of UID.
In all seriousness, you're such a fair-minded individual...how do you do it!?!
I await the response.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I second that John. Your posts on this topic have been among the best thought out and most eloquent I've read.
I've been really hoping Chad would respond to your post at the end of page 4.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I've read his questions and they are good, but I need to point out, they are questions that can't all be answered. And that there exist theories existing now, within science that can't answer those questions, and are yet science.
For one, Theories of Multi-Dimensions fits well into this. Science or Science Fiction? Does a 4th dimension exist? Use your questions in application to that theory. Does not being able to answer them invalidate it as "science".
I would also like to make an analogy to illustrate ID that may be wrong, faulty, whatever.
Let say that I create using scientific laws a new single cell life form or I create multiple brand new multi cell life forms. Completely different than what exists and entirely probably and possible and a "when" not "if" question. I take that lifegorm to another planet that I made by manipulating the laws of physics and the universe and creating my own universal big bang again we know it's possible, just not yet. I use genetics and other existing laws of physics and I create my own seeds, plants, etc. etc. etc. and put them on that world and then I leave it to run on it's own. Maybe I visit from time to time and make changes and maybe at times I even interact with with the life forms or by manipulating the laws or the universe I effect change on that world. Lets say a thousand years go by maybe even millions or billions and the lifeforms evolve and birth science using their logic.
Are they created or not? Is there evidence they were ever created by me? Let say all I created was a rock made of a few elements? What caused that rock to evolve into life? What is the source of all life? There are items that are dead and there items that are living. Let's say we trace all life back to one single celled organism through evolution. What basic dead elements when combined, make life? What is the difference between a rock and a single celled organism and what does evolution tell us will happen to the rock or from whence the life came? A rock or elements don't have DNA. How did the rock come to have dna? How from dead simple elements did life begin? What is the beginning of life? What is the catalyst and made it?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Use your questions in application to that theory. Does not being able to answer them invalidate it as "science".
Actually, Chad, most of his questions can be answered by multi-dimensional theories.
quote: I would also like to make an analogy to illustrate ID that may be wrong, faulty, whatever.
It's worth noting that your example is an excellent proof of the fact that ID is a "why" and not a "how" argument. The "how" is what you did to make life; the "why" is whether that happened with or without you. ID is all about the second question.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
No ID is HOW life came into being. I can't believe you are actually argueing that.
Or is the big bang theory why?
ID is "how" life came into being. Why is philosophical and I'll explicitly ask you to differentiate big bang as a "how" and not "why" life exists.
You claim there is "evidence" of a 4th dimension. Please elaborate on what evidences and effects we can see that point to there being one. What products of it do we have? Who has seen it? There is absolutely ZERO evidence that a 4th dimension exists.
It's the HEAVEN of science.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I will ask again.
Where did life begin in science that is supported by evidence?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
We don't have experimental evidence of multiple dimensions.
We do have vast amounts of experimental evidence of theories consistent with the existence of multiple dimensions.
We also have several proposed experiments that test predictions made by M-Theory, which includes as part of the theory at least 10 dimensions.
In other words, no scientist would claim that science has "proven" multiple dimensions exist. However, they have a good idea of experiments that will provide some evidence they do if the results come out one way and some evidence they don't if the results come out another way.
Simply propose one experiment on ID that would do the same. Just one.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Science doesn't try to answer that question, at least not with more than a very low confidence (that is, the general region we've discovered the earliest know signs of life in gets pegged as being, well, likely for being near where life originated).
As for evidence of a 4th dimension, I certainly hope you experience temporal causality. Not to mention that high energy physics have been used to find considerable evidence for a few higher dimensions, through things like otherwise unexpected energy resonances at frequencies compatible with expected sizes of tightly rolled dimensions, as predicted by theories.
edit: Dag, its reasonable to call what has been seen evidence for more dimensions, just because it doesn't involve direct use of the human senses doesn't mean it isn't evidence. If some theory comes along which explains the results in a manner other than higher dimensions (which, given higher dimensions, much as with the first 3 as far as high energy physics is concerned, are largely a mathematical abstraction, isn't too likely), then what it is evidence for will change, but for now, it is evidence for higher dimensions.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Discover had a recent article on experiments that might provide evidence in favor of M-theory, which requires more than 4 dimensions.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:Simply propose one experiment on ID that would do the same. Just one.
1. Follow the source of all life to it's source (if there is one)
2. Follow the source of all predicated natural law to it's source (if there is one) as every single law is predicated on a law is predicated on a law, etc. etc.
I'll translate your evidence for 4th dimensional theories: ZERO.
Your evidence boils down to the religious argument of "We exist and so there's a 4th dimension" and the equivalent of "Ghost Stories" as proof there is a supernatural.
So I assume your willing to believe people who have seen the Virgin Mary as evidence that she exists as it's harder evidence than 4th dimension evidence or even the hint that there's a barrier or end to the 3rd.
quote:We also have several proposed experiments that test predictions made by M-Theory, which includes as part of the theory at least 10 dimensions.
You have a proposal that there's ID with the same prediction that there is a Intelligent Source to life and that we can see evidences of it in our own logical ability to manipulate life to a greater more powerful extent than evolution can.
quote:As for evidence of a 4th dimension, I certainly hope you experience temporal causality. Not to mention that high energy physics have been used to find considerable evidence for a few higher dimensions, through things like otherwise unexpected energy resonances at frequencies compatible with expected sizes of tightly rolled dimensions, as predicted by theories
You sound like a religious person who has physically died and then been resucitated claiming that the unnexpected white light and tunnel is evidence of God.
Your Theories of 4th Dimension are based on "beliefs" with about as much water as the belief in a "spirit" within a human body and expiriments that equate to ASSUMING it exists and running tests on it, that can't be performed until you prove it exists.
That or it could be we're all part of the MATRIX and your sensing the robots touching our computer generated dream world.
How about experiments based on the THEORY of ID that proved true?
ANY controlled experiment is evidence of ID because the theory if ID is that it quite possibly is much like a controlled experiment so if you are going to accept 4th dimensional theories based on theories that are unprovable but have expiriments based on similar theories that can be tested, then a simple Controlled Expiriment can be used as EVIDENCE of ID.
You can CREATE a water molecule TODAY, place it with other water molecules, and guess what, those water MOLECULES will have no evidence between them that ONE of them was created. But the FACT is, it was created regardless of the evidence.
Also the ability to consciously begin and stop evolution.
With all the powers we as humans have, ID is an absolute possibility. Leverage with it science of Probability and it's even more likely scenario.
Unless you're a scientist who believes that only HUMANS could have possibly evolved to the point of manipulating natural law a controlling nature.
Then you always have Chaos Theory to contradict that as well. Of course, "hard science" all of it. Like "multi-dimensional theorizing". Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:Science doesn't try to answer that question
So you are claiming "Big Bang" is Philosophy and not Science?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Oh wait I forgot the "Universe in a Universe" theory as well. Oh and the "Infinite Branching Timeline" Theory as well. All of it "science" and worthy to be called so.
Ahhh...the "Scientific Inquisition". Isn't it grand?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I have attempted to answer all your attacks against ID, but I'm still waiting for answers on ALOT of my questions about source of life, and others.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:1. Follow the source of all life to it's source (if there is one)
2. Follow the source of all predicated natural law to it's source (if there is one) as every single law is predicated on a law is predicated on a law, etc. etc.
DESCRIBE THE EXPERIMENT. All you've done is mention the conclusions you think this non-specific experiment will support. Describe the hypothesis, the control, the variables, the procedures, and, most importantly, the measurable data that will be derived and how it will be analyzed.
quote:I'll translate your evidence for 4th dimensional theories: ZERO.
And I don't know one scientist who claims that there are definitely more than three spacial dimensions. So what's your point? Assuming the existence of multiple spatial dimensions makes mathematical sense when coupled with elements of THE most verified scientific theory to date. If the already proposed experiments find evidence of additional spatial dimensions, this already successful theory will be modified to account for the new experimental data.
quote:Your evidence boils down to the religious argument of "We exist and so there's a 4th dimension" and the equivalent of "Ghost Stories" as proof there is a supernatural.
Um, I already said that scientists don't consider it proven that more than three spatial dimensions exist. Do you read our posts before you respond?
quote:So I assume your willing to believe people who have seen the Virgin Mary as evidence that she exists as it's harder evidence than 4th dimension evidence or even the hint that there's a barrier or end to the 3rd.
I don't believe that more than three spatial dimensions exist. I believe it's possible, even very likely, given both my understanding of the science involved and the evidence supporting the underlying theories. If an experiment comes out that contradicts some of the predictions associated with multiple spatial dimensions, then I'll change my belief in the likelihood of their existence.
quote:With all the powers we as humans have, ID is an absolute possibility. Leverage with it science of Probability and it's even more likely scenario.
Unless you're a scientist who believes that only HUMANS could have possibly evolved to the point of manipulating natural law a controlling nature.
Well, you're proven wrong already. I am neither a scientist nor one who believes that only HUMANS could have possibly evolved to the point of manipulating natural law a controlling nature. And, yet, I do believe that life was designed by an intelligent Creator.
quote:You have a proposal that there's ID with the same prediction that there is a Intelligent Source to life and that we can see evidences of it in our own logical ability to manipulate life to a greater more powerful extent than evolution can.
Yes, I see the "prediction." What I don't see is an experiment to verify it.
I fully expect to have it verified in the positive when I die. But that's not exactly an experiment.
quote:How about experiments based on the THEORY of ID that proved true?
I await with bated breath your linking even one such experiment.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I'll explicitly ask you to differentiate big bang as a "how" and not "why" life exists.
If God (or some other consciousness) started the Big Bang, God is the reason why it happened, and the Big Bang is how he did it. God is the reason why the laws of physics are the way they are. Scientific theories explain how those laws interact. I don't think it's any more complicated than that.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:And I don't know one scientist who claims that there are definitely more than three spacial dimensions. So what's your point?
Cool down. I never said it's an established FACT that ID is true. It's a theory jack. That's the whole point of ID. The problem is when you claim 4th Dimension theory should be classified as science and ID not.
quote: I don't believe that more than three spatial dimensions exist. I believe it's possible, even very likely, given both my understanding of the science involved and the evidence supporting the underlying theories. If an experiment comes out that contradicts some of the predictions associated with multiple spatial dimensions, then I'll change my belief in the likelihood of their existence.
I'm not a scientist either. Neither was I claiming that you are one, just scientists in general.
INTELLIGENT CONTROLLED DESIGN even if it covers only the very fist microbial life form ever created or the very first universal law or rule and then let evolution and time take over...is a valid theory.
It's as plausible as 4D theory. You could even make the arguement that 4D could be EVIDENCE that we do exist in a ID dimension.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
For it to be a valid scientific theory it has to be possible to describe an experiment which would alter one's confidence in the existence of a designer. I've never seen one, and you certainly haven't described one.
And I don't even know what an "ID dimension" would be, it sounds like pseudo-scientific gibberish to me.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Camus, I'll have to disagree. It's both. ID is a HOW, but it doesn't address why. ID doesn't know why at all.
Big Bang and ID are both HOW.
How on the earth you could claim it's a WHY is beyond me because nothing in WHY fits the Theory.
The question is HOW does the universe exist. The answer is ID or Big Bang. Well at least to me. I'm open to the possibilities.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Beren I thought I should have said that your article made my eyes bulge. :Wow:
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
Chad,
quote:Where did life begin in science that is supported by evidence?
This paper seems to be a fair review (a year old, so some things may have changed) of the state of those theories and explanations. As you know, science does not yet make any definitive assertion about where or how life began; only approximately when. But this article covers the leading ideas with their supporting evidence.
If you just read the first column on page 4 ("The Primitive Earth") you'll get a quick flavor of how every assertion is carefully qualified with specific evidence, and then the nature of that evidence is likewise qualified, so you are always clear whether he is talking about something we KNOW, something that seems very likely, something that depends on another thing, whose certainty is less than one, or something that simply 'could' be or "may have been".
The great thing about this is that, like most good science, it allows the reader to form their own view of the conclusions, and get a reasonable feel for how close to a supported answer the theory may be today.
It also provides a nice layperson's 'map' of the variables involved, so if you hear some new research developments in isolation, you can think about whether it strengthens one theory or another, or raises more questions, or whatever.
This is a fascinating area of speculation, that brings together so many different disciplines of chemistry, biology, geology, and more, and a great area for a generalist to dabble, or for specialists to collaborate.
Of particular interest may be this quote from page 9:
quote:"Because of the huge number of possible random combinations of nucleotides from sugars, phosphate and nucleobases, it is unlikely that a RNA molecule capable of catalyzing its own self-replication arose spontaneously [2]. In addition, the ribose component of RNA is very unstable making its presence in the prebiotic milieu unlikely. Rather than RNA, some type of simpler self-replicator must have come first and several possible contenders have been suggested."
The following page summarizes the pros and cons of these contenders. This illustrates that science does not simply ignore difficulties; it continually proposes alternatives that may match the evidence.
Could Intelligent Design be a contender? Maybe, if the conditions were conducive to that process. Were they? I don't recall what conditions lend themselves to Intelligent Design....
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Camus, I'll have to disagree. It's both. ID is a HOW, but it doesn't address why. ID doesn't know why at all.
Big Bang and ID are both HOW.
How on the earth you could claim it's a WHY is beyond me because nothing in WHY fits the Theory.
The question is HOW does the universe exist. The answer is ID or Big Bang. Well at least to me. I'm open to the possibilities.
Based on my limited knowledge of ID, my interpretation is that ID explains why the principles of the universe are conducive to life - basically because something made it that way. Scientific theories like evolution and the Big Bang just show those principles in action.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
One experiment, Chad. Just link to one.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:Could Intelligent Design be a contender? Maybe, if the conditions were conducive to that process. Were they? I don't recall what conditions lend themselves to Intelligent Design....
That's all I'm saying. Not THE theory, but A theory. But one I have to say leaves out another scientific theory which is there is no "beginning" which contradicts the theory that life began at all.
So if we take the stance that life began, I don't see how anyone could logically exclude ID as a possibility because pretty much all science we have points to the impossiblity for Carbon to become life on it's own even when acted upon.
It blows my mind that "it just is" is a completely satisfactory answer in science.
It also blows my mind that the order and organization of the universe is "logical" (and science that says there's a "logical" reason that everything occurs) and to me "logic" denotes intelligence itself. Or Reasoning or Reasonable.
Maybe I should google something on VANILLA ID up? I haven't yet and I cringe at what religious ideas people may have attached to it.
Great post BTW.
I still want to know where the theory of Evolution goes backwards to once you get the the single microbial lifeform all life we know sprang from. Or is that the flaw in the Evolutionary theory that it can't predict a beginning or an end?
I appreciate all the posts. But I'll leave my canon of science open.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
You haven't answered Dag's question yet, Chad. Believe me, if you can you will have succuessfully blown my mind, and quite like the minds of many others on this board.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Its my question, too
I've been asking it since Tres was the one in the discussion.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
Camus:
quote:" ID explains why the principles of the universe are conducive to life - basically because something made it that way.
Yes, that is close to my interpretation as well, although why/how is a rather academic distinction when there is no substance to the answer.
It would be interesting to hear an ID Theorist give the keynote address at a scientific conference.
"Ladies and Gentlemen... Intelligent Design EXPLAINS why the principles of the universe are conducive to life! One of the central questions in the life-origins canon -- 'How did it come to be that conditions were suitable for life to form?' -- has finally been answered in this theory! And here it is, my theory.... My theory, which is this, is that, basically, something made it that way.... The end."
{Thunderous applause for the remaining 86 minutes of his timeslot.}
quote:Scientific theories like evolution and the Big Bang just show those principles in action.
Except for one problem: the 'principles' cannot be defined, explained, improved, tested, taught or understood.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
cstro, good buddy... I am THIS close to giving up on you. PLEASE try to READ.
quote:
quote:(I wrote:) Could Intelligent Design be a contender? Maybe, if the conditions were conducive to that process. Were they? I don't recall what conditions lend themselves to Intelligent Design....
That's all I'm saying. Not THE theory, but A theory. But one I have to say leaves out another scientific theory which is there is no "beginning" which contradicts the theory that life began at all.
You COMPLETELY miss my point. ID may not be considered even A scientific theory (let alone THE theory) unless it can be stated what the theory is, and what circumstances or conditions point to that happening (whatever 'that' is). You have made no attempt to answer any of my questions on page 4, nor have you provided a link to any experimental data or even experimental speculation, so it is NOT a theory.
quote:So if we take the stance that life began, I don't see how anyone could logically exclude ID as a possibility...
No, you are right, it is impossible to logically exclude something as a possibility when no logical statement has ever been asserted describing how and when and where and under what circumstances it took place.
quote:... because pretty much all science we have points to the impossiblity for Carbon to become life on it's own even when acted upon.
There are many pages of the article I linked to that explain exactly the opposite. The current state of science accepts that possibility under a number of carefully enumerated scenarios.
You asked for a link, rather rudely, and when I give you one you either do not read it, or deliberately state the opposite of its contents. And you wonder why ID has a hard time getting a hearing in conventional science circles, when it has to resort to outright lies. Is my 'open canon of science' supposed to now include the practice of just making stuff up, whenever I feel like it, and ignoring anything I don't like?
quote:It blows my mind that "it just is" is a completely satisfactory answer in science.
Where did you read "it just is"? Nowhere in the article I linked to was there any expression that came even close to "it just is." "It just is" is the absolute antithesis of science.
I'll tell you where you read "it just is." Let me refer you to:
quote:You wrote: The basic theory of ID is that the universe is the result of Intelligent Design. That's it. Simple.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
As I said, I'm no scientist. It appears like you are expecting me to PROVE to you ID.
But I've taken a gander at the scientific "process" which btw, alot of science would be excluded if you adhere to it.
Observation = The Universe although active conforms and is governed from the most miniscule to the most elaborate mass a set pre-existing set of rules and laws that are predicated and compounded one upon the other.
Hypothesis in current science = "They Just Are" (science speak for "I/We don't know") Alternate Hypothesis = That order was laid out intelligently or that those laws are the result of an intelligent design. That or we create them the moment we force that reaction to form a result (another theory but that can't be science can it??)
Experiments (and I'm going to use the 4D method since no DIRECT evidence exists for either) - Use Intelligent Logic to create a set of rules and then make items conform to them and test the results to see if they do. OR Use existing laws to create a controlled environment and then enact activities in it and verify that the results are conforming to the rules you set.
Conclusion - Since we can either A. Create new laws and rules, or B. Use existing laws of your choosing to create an environment, then introduce actions/reactions and catalysts whose results conform with those laws and rules. Your design created the environment and laws/rules, introduced the "catalyst" and the results conformed to your creation. You created the end result. You designed the outcome.
Conclusion - Intelligent Design can produce on a small scale the same results found in the universe. That doesn't PROVE anything other than the theory applies to OTHER intelligent designs and can be tested as TRUE. It of course doesn't prove that it ID is true, just that Intelligent Design works on a small scale, and that it could very well apply to the big enchilada. There is NOTHING that says it couldn't be possible. The theory is sound on a small scale in both CREATING an new environment with laws or CONTROLLING the laws and creating a new environment with it. ID is more the former. An "Intelligent Catalyst" theory would be more of the later, which I won't rule out either (that would be that the intelligent designer (whatever it is) didn't create from scratch what we have but used the laws that already existed to create the universe environment (or DIMENSION EVEN...Whoa!)
Or we can be "satisfied" with "it just is".
Now maybe the hardcore pro-scientist may not like the "smaller scale tested theory" but if you dismiss not being able to test it directly as automatic excluding it from the realm of science, then you dismiss about 90% of existing scientific theory. If you exclude it but accept as science even shakier, less tested theories, then your a scientific...you know what.
Now one thing I need to make clear now, is I'm not speaking of someone directly when I say YOU. I'm speaking of YOU as in the masses of mankind.
And I'll ask a very simple question.
Is or Is not a completely controlled experiment Intelligent Design on a small scale?
Or are people really arguing that A+B = C without absolutely ANY catalyst or change is now going to be A+B = 1. Or are you arguing that my words have always existed and that I didn't just intelligently (that's debatable ) form them? Are my words created or are they "just are"?
Intelligent Design or Concious Catalyst (new thread?)
I would ask our Inquisitors to take current theories classified as "science" but totaly unprovable currently (should be easy since that's the majority of it) and use their experimenting methods and apply it to ID with an open mind to see where it may go. If that's possible.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*sigh*
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'll translate your evidence for 4th dimensional theories: ZERO.
Chad, I'll make you an offer: if you send me your snail mail address, I'll get you a gift subscription to Discover magazine. You might find it useful.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
Chad, your ignorance of the scientific method astounds and depresses me. The above experiment, if turned in for ascience project in any elementary school I attended, would've gotten a solid "F."
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Sorry Jon, I did read your link and I laughed (and am still lauging at your "serious scientific theories that are much more plausible than ID), and you may want to read why:
quote:(a) The prebiotic soup theory: Organic compounds in the primordial oceans, derived from a variety of possible sources, underwent polymerization producing increasingly complex macromolecules, some of which by chance were capable of catalyzing their own self-replication. These simple self-replication entities evolved into increasingly complex ones and eventually into organisms with modern biochemistry. (b) The metabolist theory: A primitive type of bmetabolic lifeQ characterized by a series of selfsustaining reactions based on monomeric organic compounds made directly from simple constituents (CO2, CO) arose in the vicinity of mineralrich hydrothermal systems. According to this theory, at first, blifeQ did not have any requirement for informational molecules. As the system of self-sustaining reactions evolved in complexity, genetic molecules were somehow incorporated in order for metabolic-based life to develop into biochemistry as we know it. Besides these two dominant theories, there have also been numerous suggestions that life began elsewhere and was transported to Earth
And you have the gaul to call that science and frown on ID. Aliens....transporting us here...called scientific theory...and ID is not.
and your two theories in English:
A. Dead molucules through non-concious randomization didn't decide because they can't because their dead, but of their own non-living volition and non-deciding, broke the rules of molecular structure (as they always do in and of themselves), joined to create macromolecules that again through dead decision making decided to replicate themselves...and then the HUGE HOLE....(drumroll please) OF EVOLVING into life. And yes it's the resurrection folks. A livin' miracle right here in our science. It's the miracle rock. The little rock that could.
Basically a rock decided to become a living organism. Or even better, Carbon decided to become the base element of life and LIVED. (damn carbon's always trying to do that. I hate rebel elements. Non-conformists ALL of 'em. Yes especially YOU Iodine)
B. Same thing except this time it's carbon combined with other elements, THEN deciding to become life by having molecular sex and creating heat. (carbon Universal sinning led to human beings. So which one is Adam and which one is Eve? Let's see the Carbon has 2 parts, does that make if female? Or is it a menage et trois? It IS! Dirty elements!)
IT'S THE MIDICLORIANS FAULT!!! They started it all.
MY FAVORITE (and remember this is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY whereas of course ID is not....giggle):
quote: life began elsewhere and was transported to Earth.
You know...I always felt that I didn't belong...that I came from somewhere else....one particular star...yea that one right there...there's something special between me and that star...like we knew each other before.
And I always feel like shouting papa whenever I see a meteor shower or comet.
I'm sorry, if THAT's science then people with ID problems need to do some serious internal reflection.
I'm amazed that anyone would call those theories SCIENCE and ID as not.
Wow....that's all I can say so I'll say it again...
WOW.
EDIT: I do have a new pickup line for hot scientist chicks (although I married so I'm giving it out for free): Hey baby, hows about you/me and a couple of carbon molecules pick up an oxygen on the way home and let's RUB 'EM together and create some life!
I apologize for being sarcastic, but you actually criticized my "test" which is fine, but your claiming that a rock (or a dead molecule) magically turning from dead to living organism with the explanation of "somehow". And there is absolutely NOTHING in the world to back it up anywhere. Nada. There is no experiment where a dead molecule undergoes CELLULAR MITOSIS of it's own volition.
You're talking freakin' ANTI-SCIENCE MIRACLES here. You're TALKING as bad or worse than ID and not even realizing it.
Magical Molecules. Let's not beat around the bush.
Thanks.
[ August 19, 2005, 07:45 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Perhaps Chad does not understand the difference between a suggestion and a theory. Either that or he was unable to parse the sentence enough to decipher which word was being applied to which things.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Basically a rock decided to become a living organism.
*blink* Chad, do you really think that everything undergoing a chemical change does so willfully? Why would an organic compound need to decide to polymerize? Even on a larger scale, do you believe that viruses decide to infect cells, despite the fact that they not only have no brains but are often smaller than individual neurons?
You seem to think that -- in your own words -- there is some "magical" barrier between something that is alive and something that is not. A basic understanding of microbial biology would make it clear to you that this is not the case. Consider viruses again. Are they alive? What standards do you apply to "life?"
----
quote: I'm sorry, if THAT's science then people with ID problems need to do some serious internal reflection.
What's most ironic about this, Chad, is that the possibility you find most ludicrous -- that life began elsewhere and was transported here -- is actually a possibility that fits quite nicely within Intelligent Design. Seriously. In fact, it's the one serious possibility for Intelligent Design that does not directly involve a God, and is therefore the one most commonly advanced by ID advocates.
And what's funny is that it IS scientific, to some extent, in a way that most ID itself is not. Because if life evolved somewhere else, or if we were created somewhere else, it should be possible to come up with experiments to test that theory.
In other words, the one thing you find most laughable about the previous post is actually the most scientific part of Intelligent Design "theory."
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
So fugu, A and B are not theories?
I just want to hear you say it is all.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
A and B are both theories. Actually, C is almost a theory, even, but isn't quite there yet (and, again, is basically Intelligent Design.)
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Wow, its amazing, it really is that he isn't able to parse the sentences.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:*blink* Chad, do you really think that everything undergoing a chemical change does so willfully?
Your claiming that a carbon atom without ANY catalyst suspended in nothingness will automatically change. In and of itself. Are you claiming that a single carbon atom without ANY catalyst whatsoever with eveolve. Are you actually claiming that molecules are living organisms?
quote:What's most ironic about this, Chad, is that the possibility you find most ludicrous -- that life began elsewhere and was transported here -- is actually a possibility that fits quite nicely within Intelligent Design.
And I have no problem with that being a possibility. That one suggestion is ok for scientific consideration and the other isn't. Is more than rediculous. In all honesty that suggestion is based on the assumption that life exists outside this planet, which again, has no basis at all in any evidence and pretty much all factual evidence is exactly contrary to it.
quote:And what's funny is that it IS scientific, to some extent, in a way that most ID itself is not. Because if life evolved somewhere else, or if we were created somewhere else, it should be possible to come up with experiments to test that theory.
Please tell me what they are and how they are so much superior to ID experiments?
quote:In other words, the one thing you find most laughable about the previous post is actually the most scientific part of Intelligent Design "theory."
Then you don't understand Intelligent Design because no offense, but your solid "scientific theories" are the equal of a "Flat Earth theory" and "the earth has an edge" theory. See the theories outlined are based on the FALSE assumption that dead molecules self replicate and reproduce. Basically MATTER creating itself from nothing. Which is against science.
I'll say it again since it's sooo important: Dead Molecules Self Replicate. In and of themselves and without ANY catalyst of which NO evidence exists except for "parallel" in living organisms.
Also your suggestion of "other planet" doesn't address where life began, it only addresses how it came to earth. Oh such a cop out.
But hey, whatever. If that's your scientific belief, then hey, more power to you and self replicating molecules that morph into organisms magically.
I think I'm done with this thread. I have a....star...to stare at.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Come on Fugu, say it. A and B are not scientific theories.
I promise the aliens won't shoot you with a deathray for disobeying them...
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
Chad,
Please redo your work.
Your 'observation' is really a 'hypothesis.'
Your hypothesis is much too broad, and untestable. I suggest you break it down into a number of smaller competing hypotheses, and devise a test for each one.
Your experiment bears no relationship to the hypothesis.
You plan to use your own human intelligent logic to construct a set of rules in an environment? This could only conceivably produce relevant results if it is an explicit part of your hypothesis that the agent of Intelligent Design utilized (or utilizes) a type of intelligence and logic similar to that of humans -- which seems unlikely, since it has presumably 'designed' human logic itself, from the ground up.
Please explain how you plan to overcome this limitation in your experimental framework, or explain why you disagree with my statement and show your evidence.
What kind of rules would be written into this test environment, to resemble the rules that might have come from an Intelligent Designer? (E.g., the value of pi, the number of atoms in the universe, the boiling point of water at sea level, the number of base pairs in DNA, etc.)
It will not be sufficient to write a rule for an environment that says 'if a small circle is added, and two medium circles are already found there, arrange them into a snowman.'
In fact this experiment, if carried out, would tend to disprove ID, by illustrating that systems invented merely by human logic can produce expected results, and thus diminishing the need for an Intelligent Designer.
Please devise an experiment that fails to produce the expected catalyst result when populated with merely human logical rules, but which does produce the desired result if and only if the rules are endowed with characteristics like those endowed by an Intelligent Designer. Show your work.
Lastly, you omitted a discussion of several obvious shortcomings in the theory; you fail to state whether ALL the rules are established at once, or whether some develop later, and if so, under continued guidance from ID.
You fail to address the problem of 'intentionality' -- you seem rather conveniently to assume that the universe has indeed turned out the way the Intelligent Designer intended it to. This assumption should at least be recorded, and if possible tested for.
You fail to address the inherent problem of meta-Intelligent Designers: how did the agent of ID get so smart? Perhaps it was designed by an Intelligent Designer Designer.
And I hate to nitpick, but would the Intelligent Designer have had to establish, say, the 'rule' for 2+2=4, as well as the rule for 4-2=2? Or was one good enough, and the rest of math followed? And if it had to conceive of every detail, could it have made 2+2=4 and 4-2=1 if it desired?
Please stay after.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Uh, no Chad, because they are scientific theories.
That you are unable to comprehend this does not make it not so.
For instance, your notion of a single carbon atom doing anything being required by those theories. Neither says anything like that.
We have done experiments with carbon atoms. Carbon atoms, along with other atoms do form molecules when mixed up and subjected to heat and other conditions we think likely found on the early earth.
Heck, I caused molecules to combine to form more complex molecules in high school chemistry class!
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Darn.
*puts away ray gun*
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:We have done experiments with carbon atoms. Carbon atoms, along with other atoms do form molecules when mixed up and subjected to heat and other conditions we think likely found on the early earth.
Heck, I caused molecules to combine to form more complex molecules in high school chemistry class!
Read what you wrote again you Intelligent Designer you. Read and think about it very, very carefully.
I don't think you realize what you just said:
quote:Heck, I caused molecules to combine to form more complex molecules in high school chemistry class!
Now compare that to the theory of them doing it on their OWN. And ask yourself how many lifeforms you created by simply creating combining carbon atoms.
How many and why?
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:Conclusion: Intelligent Design can produce on a small scale the same results found in the universe.
Fine and good -- but this is the opposite of what science does. Science tries to disprove things. I think anyone can concede that intelligent design can produce a regular system. But we need some method which could determine that intelligent design couldn't produce a regular system like our universe. Is there one? If there is, we can try it, and if it fails, ID gets a boost. So far, we don't have any tests that could disprove ID. Do we?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I really need to go home so I'll bid you all adieu! But keep paying your taxes so we can figure out hot to make carbon molecules come alive by themselves (no living catalyst allowed).
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:Fine and good -- but this is the opposite of what science does. Science tries to disprove things. I think anyone can concede that intelligent design can produce a regular system. But we need some method which could determine that intelligent design couldn't produce a regular system like our universe. Is there one? If there is, we can try it, and if it fails, ID gets a boost. So far, we don't have any tests that could disprove ID. Do we?
I think someone posted a link to an article giving you just that....somewhere above.
Ah yes, the one claiming carbon atoms came alive through a kind of mitosis.
Oh and Fugu proved it. None of his Carbon Atom combinations created life.
Dammit!!!!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
CStroman: putting a bunch of molecules together, adding heat, and stirring do not constitute ID, as they are conditions known to exist repeatedly in nature.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And I didn't say they created life, I was dismissing your bizarre notion that atoms and molecules do not combine to form more complex molecules in nature.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Your claiming that a carbon atom without ANY catalyst suspended in nothingness will automatically change. In and of itself.
I don't see where anyone has claimed this, Chad. Neither of the two theories for abiogenesis you mentioned above -- A nor B -- say "a lump of carbon was sitting all by itself when suddenly it changed." In fact, the difference between A and B lies only in what the theory suggests may have happened to the carbon; in the first theory, for example, it encountered a unique mix of other chemicals and an electrical stimulus.
quote: In all honesty that suggestion is based on the assumption that life exists outside this planet, which again, has no basis at all in any evidence and pretty much all factual evidence is exactly contrary to it.
Right. Perfect. You're almost there. That particular form of ID, that specific "how," relies on the claim that there is life on other planets and that it is more likely that this life was somehow created and then created us than it is that abiogenesis occurred.
As you've pointed out, this is a silly claim; it's easier to believe that we evolved than to believe that a more advanced race evolved, made us, and then left no traces of its existence.
But this is one of two prevaling forms of ID. The other one, of course, is that an invisible man in the sky created us in His own image. Which is more scientific?
quote: Please tell me what they are and how they are so much superior to ID experiments?
Leaving aside for a moment the fact that you have not yet been able to come up with a single ID experiment (which isn't too shameful, by the way, because ID proponents haven't, either), I can give you one that I know has been performed:
1) Lump together some chemicals likely to have existed on prehistoric earth, run some electricity through 'em, and see if amino acids form.
But you're talking here of an experiment designed to recreate the conditions that may have produced life. That's not, in general, the type of experimental evidence we've been talking about when we explain that evolution is a predictive theory.
quote: See the theories outlined are based on the FALSE assumption that dead molecules self replicate and reproduce. Basically MATTER creating itself from nothing. Which is against science.
I don't understand what you're saying here, Chad. Molecules change all the time. This change -- this reaction to other molecules -- doesn't make them alive in any way. And when one molecule of something is changed into another molecule (or a more sophisticated compound) by running into a different molecule, or through the expenditure of energy, or both, certainly a new form of matter has been created.
It seems to me like you fundamentally misunderstand enormous chunks of science; apparently at some point you have heard sound bites -- like "matter cannot be created" -- and failed to understand what was meant.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
One last post in this thread before I get burned at the proverbial stake for heresy here.
Tom
quote:I don't see where anyone has claimed this, Chad. Neither of the two theories for abiogenesis you mentioned above -- A nor B -- say "a lump of carbon was sitting all by itself when suddenly it changed." In fact, the difference between A and B lies only in what the theory suggests may have happened to the carbon; in the first theory, for example, it encountered a unique mix of other chemicals and an electrical stimulus.
The article states THUS with emphasis added:
quote:some by chance acquired functions,
This assertion is proven false by current PROVEN science. Proven science being there exist NO Macromolecules on this life filled earth that have acquired functions. EVER. But there are an almost infinte amout that have not.
quote: such as the ability to catalyze other reactions.
Again, everything in science proves this to be false. It doesn't exist but everything contradicting it does.
quote:With the rise of catalytic molecules, increasingly complex macromolecules were produced and eventually by chance molecules with the ability to catalyze their own imperfect REPLICATION appeared.
Again, scientifically they don't exist.
quote:these first replicators at first probably represented only a tiny fraction of the large array of macromolecules, with the ability to catalyze their own replication, they would have soon become increasingly more abundant.
To the point that they don't exist. De-evolution from a replicating molecule after life was created to one that isn't? (I'm trying to throw you a bone here) But that would mean we could replicate it now. All scientific experiments result in the exact opposite.
quote:This would have marked the transition from purely abiotic chemistry to primitive biochemistry.
A claim of evolution from Dead matter to living, replicating matter.
It's making the jump from 1+1=2 to 1+1=3 and then never being able to replicate it again and all the base elements returning to their 1+1=2 state forever after that.
Each and every one of those claims has been refuted by actual provable science in test after test after test.
Dead molecules when lumped together, zapped with electricity, broken appart, shot around a superconductor, polarized, etc.
NEVER REPLICATE and always remain dead. Their matter and the properties of matter apply to them always, unless you don't believe in science.
You go ahead and put your "faith" (because that's what it is if you believe in those theories by the very definition) in the Life from Dead matter theory.
I'll stick with the proven fact that Life comes from Life. I'll say it again as it is a fact that bears repeating: LIFE comes from LIFE.
I'm such a heretic.
Thanks for your opinions.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
quote:This assertion is proven false by current PROVEN science. Proven science being there exist NO Macromolecules on this life filled earth that have acquired functions. EVER. But there are an almost infinte amout that have not.
That's an awfully loaded statement. I think it's pretty clear that life could have developed spontaneously. While there aren't experiments that demonstrate a potential "how it happened", there are many that illustrate that it's certainly possibility that it did.
quote:Again, everything in science proves this to be false. It doesn't exist but everything contradicting it does.
I'm having trouble parsing this. Is this stemming back to the catalyst that allowed life to begin? People keep bringing up catalysts, but I suspect they don't mean what they think they mean. Nonetheless, given the context I think you’re wanting, and assuming our current models are true, the driving force behind the first formations of life is unquestionably water. Which would seem to make sense, the current driving force behind all life is water.
quote:
quote:With the rise of catalytic molecules, increasingly complex macromolecules were produced and eventually by chance molecules with the ability to catalyze their own imperfect REPLICATION appeared.
Again, scientifically they don't exist.
You're wrong, Chad. Polymerization reactions are very, very common. Replication is, in a sense, polymerization, and polymers don't only form in cells.
quote:
quote:these first replicators at first probably represented only a tiny fraction of the large array of macromolecules, with the ability to catalyze their own replication, they would have soon become increasingly more abundant.
To the point that they don't exist. De-evolution from a replicating molecule after life was created to one that isn't? (I'm trying to throw you a bone here) But that would mean we could replicate it now. All scientific experiments result in the exact opposite.
It's no surprise that the initial polymers wouldn't be around today. Conditions would have changed an awful lot over a couple of billion years. And no, that doesn't mean we should be able to replicate it now. But it does mean we should be able to replicate this in the future. As it stands, there are no reasons to assume it's impossible and a good deal of reasons to assume it is, ergo all the study on the subject.
Chad, you're taking a current lack of success and assuming it's proof positive of ultimate failure. But there's no reason to believe that. Biochemistry is the study of chemical process that occur in, but are not restricted to the body. Many very simple and absolutely critical reactions occur outside Life all the time. Consider the formation of fat vesicles. It's what gives cells and organelles their integrity, and it happens whenever you put fat in water. It's the first thing you learn in any biochemistry class; the single most important process in biochemistry is the hydrophobic effect. In fact, most biochemistry is entirely focused on water. What is soluble, what isn't, and what are the concentrations within the solvent.
The processes of life are not magical. They are, by and large, pretty well understood when taken on their own. It's the sum of all those many, many parts that is daunting and, for now, elusive. It may be that pulling all those things together impossible, but there's currently no reason to believe this is the case.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: some by chance acquired functions
Ah. You misunderstood the quote, then. The scientists are not saying that this lump of carbon was sitting off to the side, ruminating on its lonely fate, when suddenly and for no reason -- BAM! -- it acquired some functions.
Rather, they are saying that it was floating in a soup of unusual chemical compounds and being exposed to electricity when, in a very rare conjunction of events, it polymerized. This may have happened hundreds of thousands of times over millions of years, and only a handful of those times produced anything like self-replicating carbon compounds.
Does that help you understand?
It occurs to me that you have probably taken very few -- if any -- organic chemistry courses. I would be happy to send you my old o-chem textbook if you would be willing to read it.
----------
quote: I'll say it again as it is a fact that bears repeating: LIFE comes from LIFE.
It's not a fact, Chad. It's a sound bite. And it's inherently untrue.
Why? Because if life can only come from life, at some point you're left with the FIRST life. And if it could only come from life, it could never have existed. All the "life comes from life" crap does is push the required event back farther in time.
(And, besides, I'm still not sure you understand what life is, or what even makes it life. I'd really like you to say, for example, whether you consider viruses alive or not.)
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Chad, You truly are a champion of the ID cause and do much to show that you are among their best proponents. I especially love how you cling desperately to the most narrow definition of what you read so that you have something to ridicule.
You read:
quote:there have also been numerous suggestions that life began elsewhere and was transported to Earth
and then you laugh and point fingers at the scientists claiming "aliens brought us here". The claim above can also mean many other things that have the potential of scientific verifiability(not that alien trasportation is completely without scientific verifiability, see below).
For instance, life might have arisen on Mars and through some cataclysmic event been transported to Earth on meteors heaved up from the Martian surface. We could potentially verify this by going to Mars. If we find evidence of ancient life there, especially if it could be dated and appeared older than any evidence of life on Earth, this would be strong evidence for that theory. If we could study some of its DNA (if it had DNA) this could provide further evidence of the theory.
Another theory of "transportation" could be that life arose in the cataclysmic explosions of a supernova, drifted in the proto-solar-system dust clouds, coalesced into the icy bodies that form our current Oort Cloud and rode to a primordial Earth on a comet. This could be supported if we found any evidence of primitive life, or even the basic components of life, in cometary dust, especially any we could retrieve it directly from a comet itself.
Then, of course, there is the alien transportation possibility. This could be supported if we found evidence of early alien visitation, or if the aliens returned themselves and told us what they did. (I'm not really holding my breath for either of those events, but I won't discount them out of hand.)
I, personally, won't claim that my three ideas are the only possible interpretations of "transported to Earth", but they do show that one doesn't have to jump straight to aliens as a way life might have been transported here.
Chad, Every one of these guys has given your posts far more respect that they deserve, and far more respect than you have shown to them in turn. There is ample evidence that they have at least read what you have written and taken the time to form a coherent and grammatically understandable reply. You, for your part, show evidence that you only skim posts enough to find a few words with which you can form straw men, assume a victim attitude, or hurl epithets of close-mindedness and dogmatic adherence to bigoted ideas, none of which has been shown toward you in this thread.
Dude, your arguments are sloppy at best, and dishonest at worst. If you hope to go through life screaming blindly into the abyss and patting yourself on the back for your debating prowess, you're well on your way. If you want to be taken seriously, though, you really need to learn to return respectful consideration to respectful and considered dialog from people like JVP, BtL, fugu, TomD et. al.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
quote:science being there exist NO Macromolecules on this life filled earth that have acquired functions. EVER
Help me out here, bio-guys. Arent viruses (virii) non-living macromolecules that reprocuce themselves (that's a function, right?)? I know that at least two out of the three are true, but they may be more complicated than one might typically want to be able to refer to them as "macromolecules."
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
You wouldn't be able to get away with calling them macromolecules, considering they're made up of multiple macromolecules, among other things.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
Aside to Chad:
Your continued inability and/or unwillingness to even attempt to speculate on answers to the questions in my post on page 4 is sufficient proof that, at least from your standpoint, ID is not scientific. To you, 'it just is,' with further inquiry neither possible nor justified.
It is not the possible answers that interested me so much -- of course I didn't expect definitive let alone proven answers, since few exist in science, especially on the speculative fringes of what is knowable (e.g., Big Bang, origin of life) -- but rather I was interested in your ability to engage in a scientific discussion. You responded that not all of my questions were answerable -- but did not deign to identify nor answer those that were.
I will henceforth address my comments in this thread to others who may be interested in having a sensible exchange of views.
-John Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I see two possibilities:
1) ID is Evolutionary theory with "God" inserted in the mix somewhere in the past and from then on taking a hands-off approach, or,
2) ID is a theory that says the creator is active today and part of what the creator does is subtly mask any actions to make it look like it was all natural.
In the first case, you make God basically irrelevant from a scientific standpoint. In the second case, you make God out to be a trickster and all of Nature to be a fraud not worthy of study.
ID is a useless theory from the get-go because it doesn't actually say anything from a scientific point of view. It's creationism dressed up for use by religious people with educated friends.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:ID is Evolutionary theory with "God" inserted in the mix somewhere in the past and from then on taking a hands-off approach
quote:In the first case, you make God basically irrelevant from a scientific standpoint. In the second case, you make God out to be a trickster and all of Nature to be a fraud not worthy of study.
Not quite. If we can identify a point in the chain of molecule formation to life that couldn't happen naturally, it would certainly be worth knowing.
I don't see how we would do that, though. Even if we verified that 999,999 possibilities didn't make it from molecule to life, we couldn't be sure we tried them all.
However, we did find a scientific theory that nothing can travel faster than light. Conceivably, we could find a similar barrier between life and non-life that can be explained scientifically. And if we did find such a barrier, we would have a clear candidate for divine intervention.
But ID as it stands doesn't come close to what would be necessary to do that.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
But Dag, every time throughout history where God has been inserted as the "cause" of observable phenomenon, sometime later a plausible mechanism has been figured out. That's why I said it's useless from a scientific standpoint. Even if I believe it to be true, there's no science there. It's just moving God around until we find a safe haven for God's influence on the physical world. Sooner or later, if science can study it, science will figure out a means by which it could've happened without the influence of an intelligent designer. Things are only unexplained, not unexplainable if they are questions that science can be used to answer. Eventually, God'll just get kicked out...again.
It's all a bunch of hopeful nonsense, IMHO.
The sooner people just agree with the separate magesteria argument, the better off we'll all be.
There are irreducible things, sure, but they are at the level of "why are we here?" not "how did it happen"
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
But the creation of life wouldn't be observable. Conceivably, it could be a onetime event, akin to the Resurection.
I guess what I really meant is that it is entirely possible the origins of life are not explainable by science, not matter how far we advance in our capabilities and understanding.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
(oops, I edited to address that). Yes, and that's what separate magesteria is all about.
Stuff that can't be observed or explained by science -- fine, it's not science.
Stuff that can be explained by science...that doesn't mean God didn't have a hand in it. It just means that we have a proximal explanation that works for the "how" of it, so we don't NEED to insert "God" as an active participant.
Whether God did it or not.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
There are physicists who seriously discuss creating a universe under laboratory conditions but at best, that would be semi-intelligent design.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Stuff that can't be observed or explained by science -- fine, it's not science.
The designation of which group any particular piece of "stuff" goes into is not something we can know in advance. Science certainly has not proven that the origins of life belong in the category "stuff that can be explained by science."
To step into physics for a moment, the base constants of the standard model are all determined experimentally - the math works with a lot of different values, although it doesn't match observed results.
One of the things speculated by M-Theory is that the constants will be able to be predicted mathematically. That is, an electron has the charge it does because it must. Of course, there may very well be another set of constants that are set as arbitrarily as the charge of an electron is in the standard model. But, in theory, there should be fewer of these constants.
If this is indeed true, M-Theory will have taken us a good deal deeper into the causal chain than the standard model.
The question is, can this process continue indefinitely, or is there a place where we can stop and say there is no deeper we can go?
I don't think we're close to answering that question.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Separate magesteria (as outlined by Pope whats his face) didn't say that origins of life was a God thing. He was saying that the spiritual realm (the soul) was the magesteria that was the exclusive province of religion (or he said "the Church" I think).
It's true that we can't know what "stuff" could eventually be explained by science. But it would seem to me that we don't need to worry about that if we deal with separate magesteria.
There's always going to be some point where there was nothing just before there was something. If that's the origin, so be it. Surely there's more important parts to worry about in the province of both religion and science?
And at that point, it's pretty meaningless in the realm of science. Testability of hypotheses, or at least testable predictions, would be the important thing for science. It doesn't mean that some scientist somewhere can't entertain a non-religious notion about it. It just means we've left science behind and gone into the realm of philosophy.
Scientists aren't immune (or barred) from being unscientific in such areas either.
Just because a scientist said it doesn't make it science either.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But it would seem to me that we don't need to worry about that if we deal with separate magesteria.
I'm not quite clear how I was "worrying about it," to be honest.
You seemed to respond pretty strongly ("hopeful nonsense") to what was essentially a corallary to what you're saying here. I'm not sure what your objection is to anything I said in the post that spawned this exchange.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Hmm...I didn't think we were disagreeing either, but you seemed to keep correcting what I was saying?
LOL.
Oh well.
I wasn't feeling as strongly as I must've come off.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I almost said "we're all on the same page here" but I thought that'd be wrong in some way
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: If this is indeed true, M-Theory will have taken us a good deal deeper into the causal chain than the standard model.
The question is, can this process continue indefinitely, or is there a place where we can stop and say there is no deeper we can go?
I don't think we're close to answering that question.
Certainly no smaller than the Planck Length. Although there is plenty of room for structure between that and the Standard Model experimentation at such scales may well be impossible. Thus M-Theory isn't really a theory yet at all. Especially in the context of a discussion about ID which has the same flaw but for very different reasons.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Certainly no smaller than the Planck Length. Although there is plenty of room for structure between that and the Standard Model experimentation at such scales may well be impossible. Thus M-Theory isn't really a theory yet at all.
This is where "The Elegant Universe" lost me. It seemed to me to be saying that it would be possible to meaningfully explore the structure of strings smaller than the Planck length.
But I couldn't understand how that would be possible.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
Strings are magnitudes larger than the Planck Length. An electron is not made of strings, it IS a string in the theory, which again is more like an explanation or interpetation than a theory, as of yet.
The explanation does reach down to Planck Legnth but there can be no structure beyond that. You need to be at least Planck Length to pop into dimensionality.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I worded that badly - I didn't mean the strings were smaller than the Plack length, but that their structure (or maybe their vibrations???) could be studied at smaller than the Plack length.
It's been a while since I read it. Something about the wavelength of the vibrations being smaller than the Plack length, maybe?
My recollection was that in some ways it would move beyond the Plack length and that this was possibly a big deal.
If, of course, this experimentally unverified system with some equations we can't even solve aproximately pans out. Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
quote:Originally posted by orlox: You need to be at least Planck Length to pop into dimensionality.
That's why no one who actually understands this stuff posts in these discussions. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
With all due respect to my esteemed theoretical colleagues, string theorists don't understand this stuff. It's one thing to have an equation you can't solve, but to have an equation you don't know what is - well, that's why the technical term "waving your hands" was invented.
I wonder if comrade CStroman is misunderstanding what is meant by 'replicate'? I get the impression from his posts that he thinks self-replicating molecules create copies of themselves out of the pure vacuum.
Incidentally, there is an excellent example of a self-replicating molecule in the world today; namely, DNA. And RNA in some cases. And, rather simpler, any crystal in a solution of its constituents. Ordinary sugar is a self-replicating molecule if the chemical conditions are right, which admittedly isn't often unless someone is making fudge.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Since no ID proponent has shown up and been willing to give any way to falsify ID, I'll assume ID is not falsifiable. Certainly there's been plenty of time for such a proponent to show up, if any exists on Hatrack.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Silence equals assent.
Posted by Kaylee (Member # 8362) on :
Sorry, y’all, for coming to the discussion so late, and having such a long post because of it!
Fugu said:
quote:Yes; theistic evolution is not a term for a scientific theory, but a term for the whole belief a person has which encompasses support they have of evolutionary theory as well as their belief a God or Gods is intimately involved in the process of evolutionary theory.
I agree. Nice explanation! Intelligent Design says that we can demonstrate a creator of some kind by looking at life. Theistic evolutionists are people who think that life shows us that organisms descended from a common ancestor, and that the diversity of the species comes about through descent with modification. Now, I believe in a creator God for reasons largely unrelated to science. Since I believe in God, and I accept evolutionary theory, I label myself a theistic evolutionist--I believe God uses evolution to create. But the God part, that isn't science. It's faith.
Vid said:
quote: With that in mind, I think it should also be made clear that it's impossible to know, through science, whether creation was random chance or ID. I'm not saying that teachers need to have a unit on faith or philosophy or anything, but I think they need to make it clear what exactly we learn through science.
If I’m ever in the position of teaching high school biology (or any science), I’ll probably start off by discussing the philosophy of science, and the limitations of the scientific method. I haven’t run into hostile biology teachers, but I’m willing to believe that they exist. Fundamentalist atheists are almost as annoying to me as fundamentalist Christians.
SC Carver said:
quote: I am going to try to explain why people are so adamant about ID. It’s because they see how evolution has permeated our thinking, our points of view. Because whether or not the science of evolution says there is no God, it does imply it. It does say we are no different from the animals, we just happened to develop brains which allow us to solve problems and use speech. In short evolution takes away the soul.
… Most people don't notice this, they just accept Evolution as fact and keep going, but once you start looking for ways evolution has changed your point of view it becomes very hard to escape.
Yes, becoming a Theistic Evolutionist did change my point of view! Instead of creation being a remote act 6,000 years ago, it is a process that goes on around us every day. Things aren’t static. Without evolution, life couldn’t adapt to changes in the environment. I think it’s a pretty shiny mechanism that generates diversity and causes adaptation all by itself. God must have been quite intelligent to design that
Evolution doesn’t require a God. So theists lost the ability to “prove” to atheists that there must be a God. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a God, just that there doesn’t have to be one. Big deal. Science has also explained that little organisms, not God, make people sick. How dare they challenge the power of the Almighty! How dare the germ theorists say there is no God!
Also, if you have a problem with humans being animals, you ought to take it up with Carl Linnaeus, who classified humans in this manner before Charles Darwin was even born. By the way, Linnaeus was a Christian. And the origin of our bodies has nothing to do with our souls. If I wanted to, I could believe that after millions of years, lifeless molecules developed into the diverse life-forms we see today. And maybe God noticed that some naked apes had developed a remarkable amount of self-awareness and decided to breathe a soul into them. Or maybe not. I find enough self-worth by looking at myself and saying, “Holy crap! I’m a collection of atoms, made of the same stuff as everything around me, but I’m a sentient being!” The Bible doesn't seem to be all that specific on what this "soul" thing is, anyway.
Accepting evolution has done nothing to diminish my regard for other humans, has led me to believe in treating other animals with a bit more kindness, and has actually increased the respect I have for God. Also, as I mentioned on the other thread, the theory is useful! So please don’t try to tell me that I can’t have faith in God and be an evolutionist, or that it’s done harm to my morals. That’s just not true.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Kaylee...wonderful post.
I think you define well (if not precisely where) the science leaves off and religion takes over. It also means, I assume, that your belief in God as THE intelligent designer working unseen, but not unseeable, through the mechanism of evolution means that you view science as a way to study God.
If so, I'd have to say my views align quiet nicely with what you've expressed here.
I don't think this relegates God to a role as trickster or as the hands-off deity who merely set it all in motion millennia ago.
And, most importantly, you don't seem to be claiming that we have to instruct others in classes on science that God did anything at all.
Sadly, I don't believe that ours is the dominant position within the group promoting ID in the schools.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Silence equals assent
For the record, were I to read an opening post like the one in this thread about a belief I held, I wouldn't have posted at all.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
Hmmm... Will's opening seems like a staightforward request for information to me. And the hearing given to both ID and Chad seems more than fair, Hatrack is a fairly sympathetic audience.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The hearing given chad was more than fair.
A request for information that closes with a warning that one will be argued with indicates that the poster is not merely seeking information.
If one wants to start a debate, one should at least stake out a position first.
If one wants to understand the other side, then one should be seeking to be informed. Not of "the truth" but of what the other side believes.
Look how the character of the thread changed after JVP posted. He staked out a position, and several people responded. As a corallary, there are many threads started by agnostics or atheists asking for explanations about a particular doctrine or event. Some of these (see KarlEd's for good examples) are clearly seeking to understand another worldview. They usually lead to very good discussions. And the most successful ones don't include a statement that the responders will be argued with.
It's the same as those "could someone who supports politician X please explain Y?" threads. They smack of calling someone on the carpet, not genuine exchange.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
In response to both the scientific based as well as numerous philosophical questions that attempted to call themselves all "scientific questions" (get rid of the "why" gentleman and ladies) that require me to be either:
A. A scientist B. A philosophist
Of an order higher than I can claim, I can however point to the article mentioned above which caused such a great stir about ID at the Smithsonian and does give some better data on ID as an alternative or explanation to the "brink wall" (being the SWITCH from dead matter to living matter) that exists at the end of the Darwin approach.
I'm not saying it's a basis for the theory, but it addresses a perceived flaw in the evolutionary theory of life beginning and basically says that TIME requires that for the Evolutionary theory to be true, an almost instantaneous (in evolutionary time called the "short fuse") "next replicte cycle evolution" from one simple form of cambrian life to a another has to be true. It questions that genetic changes and/or amplification and/or "evolution" and the forming of a complex form (blueprint) from a simple one.
It mentions "Self-Organization" theories and some evidence where "top down" organization occurs (where the complex form is available from the very first and the simple form evolves to fill it's plan it already contains. Reaching it's potential and fulfilling it's "design"). He questions the "Long Jump" mutation theory (as I would) I think because it requires the mutation to amost sequentially Predict instead of React and to actually "plan" or amplify itself for no reason. To jump from having A,B and C to A through Z and to have it happen to random mutation.
He touches on Punctualists using fossil record gaps to suggest evolutionary JUMPS followed by evolutionary STASIS, points out the small pool of lifeforms that natural selection to choose from, as a flaw.
He then touches on Structuralism which has been touched upon in the most rudimentary forms by myself above (I didn't even know what structuralism was until this article). This is the piece of the article that I think opens the door to ID theory (assuming that it's not science now) as a possible conclusion to the road it leads. I like how it creates a parallel between existing physical laws and questions the origin of biological law being a result of biologic evolution (at least to some degree).
Baraminology is my new favorite word of the day.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Chad, that's an excellent article (although there are one or two major problems with using it as a foundational argument; I'll get to those later). It points out a major flaw in evolutionary theory -- one which many evolutionists (though by no means all) admit -- and argues that for this reason more research into the possibility of "intelligent design" might be warranted.
It does not, however, actually make an argument for intelligent design. In its entirety, it says "here's a major flaw in evolution that I consider to be fatal. ID is currently the most prominent alternative theory, and we should look at it more seriously." (The author realizes how flimsy this sounds towards the end, in fact, and throws in references to Darwin and Gould in a somewhat desperate-sounding attempt to remind people that he, too, is a scientist. But I think he IS, and his desperation is unwarranted.)
The difficulty here -- for your purposes -- is that there's still no argument for ID. The whole article is an argument for the development of arguments for ID.
-------
The problems, by the way, are these:
ID advocates make much out of this article because it was actually published in a peer-reviewed journal, making it one of the very few reputable scientific articles on ID. Unfortunately, the article was not submitted to any of the associate editors for review, and moreover published what is essentially a thought piece on evolutionary microbiology in a taxonomy journal run by a board member of a quasi-creationist institute. In other words, it wasn't as peer-reviewed as it should be, and it was reviewed by the wrong peers (a fact essentially conceded when the senior editor of the journal resigned shortly after the article's publication.)
[ August 21, 2005, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Actually, saying I might argue implies these things: * I'm honest * I consider this a fair topic for debate.
It isn't calling anyone on the carpet to argue a philosophical or scientific position. Of course.
--
Thanks to Chad for providing a link. It'll take me a while to digest it.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
The question I have about the barrier between "life" and "non-life" being such a huge problem for evolutionary theory is this:
Did it have to happen more than once? It's one of those weird things that science can postulate about, or you can throw up your hands. Either way, we don't know what happened. What we do know is that we have a pretty decent explanation for how things worked since then, and how they work today.
In which case, the only point under contention is a one-shot event that we don't know much (if anything) about. If that's where someone wants to insert an intelligent designer, I'm fine with that, as long as they don't claim that somehow they are being scientific when they do so.
Just as I don't particularly think people are being scientific when they postulate some sort of "just right" conditions to get that molecule to start building copies of itself.
Really, it's just a bunch of speculation. Again, just because a scientist does it, doesn't mean it's "science."
Everyone's allowed to speculate. And if all we had to teach in biology classes was the possible explanations of the origin of life, hey, I'd be happy to give EVERY flippin' theory equal time.
Instead, we have a theory that explains everything pretty well from that point on. And another theory that uses the same mechanisms and adds another (unnecessary) dimension of explanation.
While I might even agree with that addition, I have to say, this is really not science, whereas eveolutionary theory is. It generates useful, testable predictions. It postulates an underlying mechanism over which we can exert control and it works in the predicted fashion.
The problem with ID AFTER the point of that initial spark is that it is irrelevant. We already have a simpler theory that works as well.
IF A=C and A+B=C, either B is zero or A, B, and C are zero. Either way, the value of B is zero.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
If it comes to that, why is everybody accepting the sharp distinction between life and non-life? It is not so obvious as all that. I would love to see comrade CStroman give a good operational definition of life. For example, is a virus alive?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Silence equals assent.
For the record, were I to read an opening post like the one in this thread about a belief I held, I wouldn't have posted at all.
There are a number of topics that I will not discuss on this forum anymore, but the fact that I don't comment in threads involving those topics does not imply in the slightest that I accept the arguments of people whose views I do not share.
Silence does not equal assent.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I've often wondered (non-scientifically, of course) what the ultimate difference is between biology and mechanics. For instance, as we peer into biology, looking at ever smaller parts of the whole, learning the mechanisms of the cell and single-cell creatures, and even smaller than single-cell creatures (like virii) and at the same time we research nano-technology, creating ever smaller machines -- maybe even some that can replicate themselves -- at what point, if any, do the two subjects become indistiguishable? If we are someday able to create nano-techs out of individual atoms so that the finished machine is basically just a string of individual molecles or atoms that does what we want it to, how is this fundamentally different from a virus in structure, and how might we tell one from the other?
Could better understanding the structure and functionality of virii lead to breakthroughs in nanotechnology? If we were able to replicate aspects of a particular virus and create a <something> that could patrol the blood-stream and scrub out unwanted cholesterol deposits, have we created something biological or mechanical? Did we create a nanobot or a virus? Is one more "alive" than the other? And if not, at what point in complexity does one cease (or begin) to be alive and the other not?
[edit to correct brain-cramp]
[ August 22, 2005, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
basd on Karl's post... It does seem like at some point in the near future we will need to redefine our definition of life. It doesn't seem like we're far off from creating software that is programmed to learn and adapt. Add that to a self-replicating mechanism and we're eerily close to replicating the fundamental definition of life. Other implications would be with the marriage of humans and technology. Is there a point where a person is more machine than man?
Recently scientists talked about uploading the contents of a human brain into a computer. What if we are able to in 50 years be able to create a computer clone of a person's brain? Suppose Bill is brain dead, so they create a computer clone of his brain, replace his organic brain with the computer, and Bill wakes up. Is Bill alive? Since the real Bill is brain dead, does new Bill have legal rights?
This probably isn't the thread to post these thoughts, but it seemed like an interesting idea based on the context.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Most scientists are pretty open with a relatively expansive definition of life, simply because that seems most useful for purposes of things like evolutionary theory.
Also, the definition of life isn't agreed upon among scientists, because every definition seems to have philosophical flaws, and several are equally useful.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
Even something as apparently digital as male/female turns out to be a continuum. About 1 in 200 humans are born ambiguously, sometimes to be resloved at puberty, sometimes the ambiguity is never resolved.
Sometimes we lose sight that male and female are categories that we use to understand phenomenon, not the phenomenon itself. Similarly, life and death are not so digital as the words might seem. I was dead for a short time myself, yet here I am typing away.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
interesting thought...It does seem like we generally view things digitally, yes/no, left/right, etc. Is there really a distinct line that separates the living and non-living? Perhaps we're nothing more than a mathematical formula or function nested within increasingly larger mathematical formulas, and consciousness is nothing more than a variable.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
Perhaps we will never be completely captured by any system of categorization. Perhaps we are historical creatures. Perhaps the universe itself is historical and open ended, being determined by real events rather than objective forces.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:Instead, we have a theory that explains everything pretty well from that point on. And another theory that uses the same mechanisms and adds another (unnecessary) dimension of explanation.
While I might even agree with that addition, I have to say, this is really not science, whereas eveolutionary theory is. It generates useful, testable predictions. It postulates an underlying mechanism over which we can exert control and it works in the predicted fashion.
I agree. Evolutionary Theory is a valid scientific theory on how life came from that "first" life until today. It's not a valid theory on how life "began". (that's if it did begin at all, leaving the door open to the "life was transferred here" theory.) As the article points out, Darwin's theory requires the potential exist for mutation to fulfill. In the case of life, it's not there in Macromolecules.
I also find it interesting that the "primordial soup" theories that are counted as science, have an element that is contradicted by basic scientific reasoning. And that is the 1+1=2 but we doubt it and keep hoping that it will eventually lead to 1+1=3. I can't remember what the scientific term is for this, but it boils down to replicating the same experiment and hoping for a different result. Molecular scientists have attempted to "breathe" life into macromolecules not a few times, and what have the results been?
I imagine they've been about as successful as people using various specrometers when monitoring people's death to prove there's a "spirit". I really don't know.
As for Virii, there basically an unplugged computer that get plugged in with the introduction of a living cell. They have alot of pre-programmed potential, but it's pointless without juice.
My main concern is that there is an equality on what we judge as science and what we don't. That the rules of what is considered as "scientific theory" apply. It may be only my perception, but there are alot of "quasi-science" theories out there (The Life from another planet source one is one of those) that have NO direct evidence in the positive to support it, but in fact have negative evidence against it. Mountains of it, but that are still considered "scientific".
We need to be equal and say that if one theory isn't scientific and another is, but they both have an equally absent basis, then they are BOTH unscientific or both scientific.
KarlEd brings up a good point which answer could redefine what is life (as well as the morals/ethics that govern laws regarding life).
Unless we define life as having specific genetic code AND the ability to self replicate.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Since evolutionary theory doesn't try to explain how life began, this is not surprising.
And we've achieved plenty of positive results in creating macromolecules in labs. We've never created life, but we've created many of the building blocks (we've also seen a number of them in nature, such as natural protein bubbles forming which could function as primitive cell walls). As there were millions of years during which all the conditions for life had a chance to come together, that we haven't managed in a few short decades (all the time we've really had the expertise to even give a try) is hardly a condemnation of the notion, particularly since our partial results are so positive.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: there are alot of "quasi-science" theories out there (The Life from another planet source one is one of those) that have NO direct evidence in the positive to support it, but in fact have negative evidence against it.
To clarify, Chad, you find it more scientific to believe that we were created by an invisible sky panda than to believe that we were created by aliens?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:To clarify, Chad, you find it more scientific to believe that we were created by an invisible sky panda than to believe that we were created by aliens?
Thanks for telling me what I believe Tom as I wasn't sure.
I believe it's entirely possible through Cloning for man to create another man. Maybe you disagree.
So you tell me Tom, is it more "scientific" to believe that Aliens more advanced than us, who we have no evidence exist whatsoever, in any form. Created us and then sent us here.
Or is it more believable let's say that a Human like unto ourselves created us in his image? Keeping in mind that Human cloning is a "when" and not an "if" statement (at least for your benefit I hope you think so) and that WE can already travel to other planets as a fact (again I hope you believe this as well) while no other life can that we are aware of, but WE can. And that WE can create and engineer plants already and effect/initiate change ON evolution. That's right WE can Tom.
Oh and one last thing Tom. The "invisible man in the sky"? Well it's MEN and their not Invisible, and it's actually called SPACE Tom and the Men are called Astronauts and they exist and LIVE in a Space Station and actually survive AND grow food. All in an environment that can't support life, they're living.
As far as Panda's being able to "create" life or clone other species or travel through space...You may be alone with that belief.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I believe he was referring to that you think ID, which leaves the description of the "superior being" so vague as to include both the Christian God and (very intelligent and powerful) invisible sky pandas, to be a scientific theory.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Ah, well since we know pandas can be invisible as human's are and live in the sky as human's do and are more intelligent than SOME humans...
EDIT: He should have said "Pigs in Space" because I think there was a Muppet Skit called that.
Posted by mytwocents (Member # 8518) on :
Some Questions for I.D. proponents.
I just skimmed through this thread and was wondering if there's any scientific evidence of intelligent design. I'm also confused about the intelligent design theory. Where does the intelligent designer come from? Is there always an intelligent designer? Or did it just create life on Earth and leave? Or it just comes once in a while? If it still here, how does it escape detection beyond human observation? Is there even an intelligent designer? Or just a natural law guided with intelligence? What kind of proof would it take to disprove intelligent design? Does the intelligent designer work outside the laws that we are familiar with?
Thank you for reply.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:Where does the intelligent designer come from? Is there always an intelligent designer? Or did it just create life on Earth and leave? Or it just comes once in a while? If it still here, how does it escape detection beyond human observation? Is there even an intelligent designer? Or just a natural law guided with intelligence? What kind of proof would it take to disprove intelligent design? Does the intelligent designer work outside the laws that we are familiar with?
Alot of those are are PHILOSOPHY questions and alot of those are based on the assumption that it is proven. It's not. It's a theory only. I would work on the HOW before I worked on the WHY. Also alot of those questions can't be answered by MANY, MANY a scientific theory, but they are still considered scientific theory. Many of the theories outlined above these posts (in the PAPER linked as well) can't answer those questions.
It may sound like I'm making excuses, and maybe I am because I'm not a scientist and my view isn't to answer all the philosophical but to keep my mind open to the possibility that there is "intelligent design" to our universal order, physical laws, etc. or that it appears more "logical" than a product of "randomness". ESPECIALLY with how much we are beginning to understand as well as what WE can intelligently design (is there a limit to what man can do Universally? If so, what does science say it is?)
I would read through the posts for alot of the discussion. I did the same and then went back and read them later.
quote:What kind of proof would it take to disprove intelligent design?
I don't know about "proof" but evidence very much could point to it being false. Proof would require you to be able to see the formation of life on the planet. OR to be able to have all the power to BE an "intelligent designer" and for you to fail, repeatedly, which doesn't look like it's going to happen to humans at least. What we can accomplish at both the supermicroscopic as well as the grander scale currently is very successful intelligent design limted only by time and understanding and facility.
Parallel Experimentation (my term. It's probably called something else in real science) is currently the only mehtod I'm aware to test "Intelligent Design". Think of it as similar to why we run tests on MICE and the results are considered evidence of how it may affect Humans. Mice aren't Humans but they share some of the same "qualities" and are affected the same way as humans are relevant to certain circumstances.
I don't see why that can't be done with ID. mytwocents your Philosophical questions, some of them at least are what indeed LEAD to experimentation if someone has an open mind, and greater facilities than my own.
I think that the "primordial soup" theory has alot of other plausible theories backing it up that scientists have formed recently due to improved scientific methods. But I also believe that whether intentionally or not, alot of POWERS that science has granted to man has also made the "improbabilities" of ID more "probable" (cloning, fusion, genetic engineering, molecular biology, etc. etc.)
Either way the future looks bright.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Or is it more believable let's say that a Human like unto ourselves created us in his image?
If it's a human like ourselves, Chad, where did he come from? And if it's credible that a human like ourselves evolved, why isn't it credible for us to evolve?
Your suggestion requires that the creation of life still happen randomly, but just pushes it back a few million years.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
On randomness:
quote:... rarity by itself shouldn't necessarily be evidence of anything. When one is dealt a bridge hand of thirteen cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand is less than one in 600 billion. Still, it would be absurd for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully, calculate that the probability of getting it is less than one in 600 billion, and then conclude that he must not have been dealt that very hand because it is so very improbable. --John Allen Paulos, Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences
quote:. . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in. It fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well. It must have been made to have me in it!' --Douglas Adams
These are both quoted by way of introduction in this excellent article by Robert Todd Carroll. I'd be interested in discussing any rebuttals to this article.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Tangentially: I liked Lewis's thought (Perelandra) that the center of the universe, that is, the reason God made it, is . . . everything.
It makes sense. If I write a story, it may have several things in it that I liked so much I wanted to put them in a story. If I had much greater intelligence, I might be able to make a story so perfect that everything in it deserved to be in a story, in and of itself.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
quote:Proof would require you ... to be able to have all the power to BE an "intelligent designer" and for you to fail, repeatedly
No, that would not be sufficient proof to discount ID.
Well, actually, your statement makes no sense.
If you had "all the power to BE an intelligent designer", then you would be one, and you couldn't fail. Or esle, how would you know? If you failed, then you wouldn't have "all the power to be an intelligent designer"
Besides, if a geneticist could sculpt a particular bacteria (making him an intelligent designer of bacteria), that doesn't prove that bacteria were intelligently designed. And if he failed the next year at making a different bacteria, it would not prove that bacteria "could not be" intelligently designed--just that he wasn't able to do it.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Karl-
quote:... rarity by itself shouldn't necessarily be evidence of anything. When one is dealt a bridge hand of thirteen cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand is less than one in 600 billion. Still, it would be absurd for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully, calculate that the probability of getting it is less than one in 600 billion, and then conclude that he must not have been dealt that very hand because it is so very improbable. --John Allen Paulos, Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences
This arguement is inherently flawed for a few reasons. Whose the "dealer" granting the cards. Are the cards random? Or is it possible to take 13 cards I want and deal them to you? Also that those 13 cards aren't like any other cards. They are exactly the 13 cards needed to get the super-duper full house where all other combinations of 13 (including the 13 in any other order than one specific order) are meaningless.
Now, I think your odds are a Vegas Longshot, but please feel free to "bet it all" on number 600 Billion.
quote: imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in. It fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well. It must have been made to have me in it!' --Douglas Adams
The arguement is flawed because a puddle doesn't "wake up" or "think". It also is not restricted by the pothole as it can actually CRACK it and enlarge it, weaken it, and evaporate completely from within it. It also is contradicted by the simple "water bottle" which WAS created to hold the water in it. And BOTH are true.
I skimmed the article and I liked the "eye" analogy. And I even wondered why we have sight at all or hearing for that matter when there are organisms that are blind (jellyfish) and have no vertabrae, etc. why we don't have sonar (yet) or why we don't produce our own light (ET and other organisms).
Maybe science has an answer, but what in Evolution said "humans and other animals need sight and this is how sight works, and this is how I'm going to evolve sight from non-sight.
The article then abandons the scientific and starts whining on the current religious nature of the country, that has nothing to do with the debate of ID as science but pretty much reveals his antagonism of anything that smells "religious". He also objects to students being told that Evolution is a "theory" and not a "fact" when speaking of the birth of life on the planet.
It's sad.
ssywak, I think it was a little confusing. Basically if you had all the components to create life from dead elements, and failed, it could be evidence against ID. If however you were to create the individual items and environment theorized to exist naturally at the birth of life and they naturally turn into life, then that would be huge evidence that Evolution cannot only guide already existing life, but create it as well. Just as all current experiments have done, but have failed so far.
Unfortunately even though that is in fact evidence contrary to the theories of dead molecules eventually evolving into life, some reject is with the claim "Just because we fail at it doesn't make it not possible" which is funny when used by scientists AND religious creationists.
Similary, the ability to create life and command and control it's evolution through new physical laws is also evidence that ID is very possible. But people still reject it for ID while accepting it as evidence for other theories.
I think that ID needs to leave religion out of it and focus strictly on studying the possibility of purposed design in the universe, it's laws and in life. Religionists are just hijacking ID in hopes to be able to teach religion in school classes.
Sorry, aint gonna happen except in Theology and Philosophy classes.
There may be evidence of ID, but unless it's a sticker on a new born baby that says "Made by Jesus Christ", entertwining religion with it doesn't help ID, it just gives Religiophobes fuel for their antagonism.
But that's not why I posted.
I wanted to post to see if anyone saw "Boston Legal" last night. It had as one of it's plotlines a TRIAL on Intelligent Design. It rehashed alot of the arguements here very rudimentary. (One of the other plotlines being getting a guy off for murder that had killed his mother and neighbor because he was lonely, which is why I have never liked the Practice or Boston Legal) and the ending was suprising for me.
Posted by Kaylee (Member # 8362) on :
A particular set of cards may have meaning to you, but they don't to the universe. All hands are equally likely.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Also that those 13 cards aren't like any other cards.
Except that in this case, they are. For the purposes of this analogy, the hand you are dealt is the type of life that appears here on Earth. Were Earth different, other types of life would appear.
This is also the point of the puddle analogy. Leaving aside the whole "do puddles think" bizarreness, the reason the puddle joke works is that water conforms its shape to the container in which it finds itself. If water could "think," and "thought" that the container was obviously created because the WATER was that shape, it would have gotten the whole thing completely backwards. In the same way, saying "Gee, we're awfully good at existing on this planet; conditions must have been tweaked to create life so perfectly adjusted" is likely to be getting it exactly wrong.
-----
quote: Basically if you had all the components to create life from dead elements, and failed, it could be evidence against ID.
Why? I don't understand why you would suggest that.
What's even stranger is that were we to recreate the conditions of prehistoric Earth and successfully create life, that would in fact be proof of a certain sort of ID -- although not proof that ID created life on this planet initially.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:A particular set of cards may have meaning to you, but they don't to the universe. All hands are equally likely.
But who or what deals them, sets the rules for what makes a full house, etc.
All philosophy I know, but it's assuming alot as "given".
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
When we talk about probability in the abstract, Chad, as we've been doing throughout this thread, we assume a fair dealer and true randomness. Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:When we talk about probability in the abstract, Chad, as we've been doing throughout this thread, we assume a fair dealer and true randomness
Fair Dealer? as in "morality/ethics" fair? Or in Human logical "fair"? or is there a universal "fair" dictated by?
True Randomness was great and all until Humans went and controlled it and still exert control over it and I assume will continue to try to control it and bend it and take "randomness" out of the equation as much as possible.
EDIT: No one say Boston Legal? Maybe someone could find a transcript of it. I don't follow the show so I wouldn't know what to reference in searching for it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I have no idea what your little riff on randomness is supposed to do besides underscore your lack of understanding of probability theory.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
quote:True Randomness was great and all until Humans went and controlled it and still exert control over it and I assume will continue to try to control it and bend it and take "randomness" out of the equation as much as possible.
WTF?
I thought the complaint was that "scientists" were trying to keep the randomness in, and that theologists (proponents of ID) were trying to take it out and replace it with intent.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
A fair dealer is one that orders the deck at random.
Posted by Kaylee (Member # 8362) on :
quote:I even wondered why we have sight at all or hearing for that matter when there are organisms that are blind (jellyfish) and have no vertabrae, etc. why we don't have sonar (yet) or why we don't produce our own light (ET and other organisms).
You're assuming an intelligent designer. Natural selection works with what it's given. If the dinosaurs hadn't developed skin flaps for cooling which could later become wings, we might not have birds. Evolution cannot "decide" that an organism needs a particular trait. Also, there may be no good reason for an organism to be able to fly, or see, or have a backbone. Even if there is, many traits come with a cost. Sometimes the benefits of the trait outweight the cost, sometime they don't. Since humans are mostly diurnal, have reasonably good eyesight, and have artificial light, sonar wouldn't be all that useful. It's not useless, but the energy cost of having this system might well outweight the benefits.
quote:Maybe science has an answer, but what in Evolution said "humans and other animals need sight and this is how sight works, and this is how I'm going to evolve sight from non-sight
No! Evolution does not have a specific goal. The environment may create the need for a particular trait, but evolution never "decided" that humans needed sight. It could possibly be said that evolution "decided" that light-sensitive spots in an ancient human ancestor were more beneficial than not having them. Evolution also does not have a specific way of meeting the environment's requirements.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
CStroman,
You also forgot to ask, "If we evolved from monkeys, then how come there are still monkeys?"
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
(Don't get me started on innumeracy!)
I really liked Bob's post a bit ago in which he wrote:
quote:Really, it's just a bunch of speculation. Again, just because a scientist does it, doesn't mean it's "science."
Everyone's allowed to speculate. And if all we had to teach in biology classes was the possible explanations of the origin of life, hey, I'd be happy to give EVERY flippin' theory equal time.
Instead, we have a theory that explains everything pretty well from that point on. And another theory that uses the same mechanisms and adds another (unnecessary) dimension of explanation.
I think we were getting close to something.
Chad has asserted several times that living matter comes only from living matter, not dead matter. He also acknowledged that it was unlikely ever to be proven or disproven, but let's accept for the moment (for those of you capable of maintaining an abstract train of thought that doesn't suddenly derail into a concrete abutment) that it is true.
Taken as a given, then: No physical process or catalyst that could ever be conceived or contrived could possibly have been responsible for the emergence of life (however you want to define it) from non-life (however you want to define it).
Observed fact: Life exists.
Conclusion: Either (1) life always existed; or (2) a process or catalyst different from "physical processes and catalysts that can be conceived or contrived" was responsible for it (which also includes 'it just happened' explanations).
Discussion:
(1) To assert that life always existed is possible, but seems to necessitate changing the definition of 'life' from the first part of the syllogism, so I won't pursue that here.
(2) Let's assume it's 'other.' Okay, what can we surmise about this?
The cause is physical, but not conceivable or contrivable
This first suggestion seems to lead to a dead-end. In effect, it is where science is today, except that science rejects the first principle. Science presupposes a physical explanation, and digs deeper into theory and experiment in its effort to define life and understand those primal moments. We may never satisfactorily understand it in physical terms, and until we do it remains 'inconceivable.'
If you accept this first suggestion fully, you stop doing science. Why dig deeper, if the answer is unknowable?
Does ID accept this first suggestion? Several of us have asked repeatedly, what ID is, and nobody has provided an answer, other than to assert that our asking is evidence of close-mindedness.
ID is a label for an explanation of the universe, not an explanation in and of itself. In the case of the origin of life, what explanation falls within ID? Is it this first one, 'physical but unknowable'?
If so, one (especially a scientist) may be excused for asking: I realize this is supposedly unknowable, but what kind of physicality are we talking about here? Looking at what is known about the earliest life-sustaining earth environments, where and how might this physical influence or catalyst have made its mark? What type of physical entity or force are we talking about? Where did it come from? Was it alive?
Well, golly. Looks like we'd be doing science again... only this time, we are investigating ID! Maybe it is scientific, after all. Except for one thing: nobody I know of has proposed any answers to those questions. Making them awfully hard to investigate. Scientifically.
Instead, in an anti-intellectual shell game, we are told: Stop worrying me with all those narrow-minded specifics! Why can't you just accept that it might be?
Which leads us to the alternative...
The cause is not physical
Is this perhaps what ID asserts? It's uncertain. ID opponents use inflammatory language like 'man-in-the-sky' and 'panda-in-the-sky', hoping to draw out ID proponents into a discussion of what, let's face it, might as well be god. Or God.
But ID proponents are not so easily manipulated. The force behind ID is not god, it's not a panda, it's not spaghetti monsters, it's not dreams or hope or feathers or string. It's not a snark, or a boojum, or angels, or a city of lost children. It's not little green men, virii from Mars, an echo from a parallel dimension, or a cosmic accident.
All we know is: it's intelligent. And it's responsible for the entire universe, particularly the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the cleverness of evolution.
It's not physical, and it doesn't operate according to any laws or processes that can ever be conceived of humanly.
This theory is not just an alternative to evolution. It is an alternative to science.
The ID disclaimer at the start of biology classes might just as well say: Some people believe that this class is a complete waste of time, and that learning to question and discover things about the physical world around you will never get you closer to the grand answers of existence, which lie in a realm beyond any scientific enquiry.
That's a fine disclaimer -- and I actually support it, in the context of including some history of science, some science philosophy -- it's all important, at various levels of schooling.
But ID as science? Nuh-uh.
(edit: punctuation, formatting)
[ August 25, 2005, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: John Van Pelt ]
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I think you articulated your position (and mine!) very, very well.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Hell, give credit where credit is due. He not only articulated his position well, but he actually articulated several possible stances for the other side. It's tough when you gotta do the work for both sides, huh John?
quote:Maybe science has an answer, but what in Evolution said "humans and other animals need sight and this is how sight works, and this is how I'm going to evolve sight from non-sight.
This made me chuckle. Do you realize that if Evolution said such a thing it would be ID?
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
quote:Taken as a given, then: No physical process or catalyst that could ever be conceived or contrived could possibly have been responsible for the emergence of life (however you want to define it) from non-life (however you want to define it).
I'm not sure if JVP supports that statement himself, or just presents it so that it might be discussed.
Of course, if those 1960's experiments creating basic amino acids from labratory-made primordial soup-mix were to continue, and eventually create even the slightest hint of...something alive, then the above premise would fail.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
ssywak: Just to be clear, then, I neither support it nor deny it.
I do support the idea that it is worth investigating, and that human children, wherever possible, and where they have the capacity, and where it does not overtly conflict with cultural norms (i.e., not against their will), should be taught how to do so.
Such mental tools -- the ability to form disciplined questions about interesting subjects, speculate creatively on answers, observe relevant (and irrelevant) evidence closely, and apply quantitative thinking with some rigor in determining which evidence supports or contradicts which answer -- are much needed in the world.
As I think much of this thread has demonstrated.
I presented the statement as the start of a syllogism, for looking into what ID might mean in a universe where ID was actually needed (and, as Karl pointed out, lacking much in the way of inputs on the matter).
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Sometimes I have to present my opponents' arguments, as well. It's interesting, but frustrating!
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)