Abiogenesis (not to be confused with evolution) is the production of living organisms from non-living matter. One of the foundations of modern biology is that abiogenesis does not occur and no one has ever observed an exception to this law. However, since life does now exist on earth and based on fossil evidence it has not always existed on earth; either life has some extraterrestrial source or abiogenesis must have happened at some point in earth's distant history. Even if life has some extraterrestrial origin, abiogenesis must have happened somewhere in the Universe.
The problem is that the simplest self reproducing systems on earth are truly bogglingly complex. The more we learn the details, the more complex they become. The idea that the simplest living cells could have arisen fully formed spontaneously, like venus from the sea, is only remotely plausible if you know almost no biochemistry.
Without going to a full biochemistry lesson, let me summarize the problem. DNA and RNA are not (as is commonly stated) self reproducing molecules. To reproduce they require enzymes. The recipe for these enzymes is contained in the DNA and RNA (the genetic code). The genetic code is truly a code. A nano-scale machine, known as a ribosom, is required to translate the code. Sequences of three nucleic acids (codons) are used to represent an amino acid in a protein. There is no natural relationship between the amino acids and its codon. Complex translator molecules (t-RNAs) are required to make the association between the codon and an amino acid. (Scientists have been able to rewrite the genetic code by adding or changing t-RNAs). Linking amino acids together to form a protein is not thermodynamically favored, so an entire metabolic system is needed before the process can even get started. Its estimated that the simplest possible living cell of this kind requires a minimum of around ~150 genes and all their products. This is the equivalent of a chicken vs the egg scenario to the 150 power.
When I look at this, Occum's Razor simply screams intelligent design.
We have yet to find any simpler self reproducing systems on this planet nor any evidence that any have ever existed. Several possibilities, most notably iron sulfur world and RNA world have been suggested but there is no evidence that these actually happened and little if any evidence that they could actually happen. Furthermore, I have yet to see any clear mechanism explaining how an RNA world (for example) might have evolved into DNA/RNA/protein life forms we find on earth.
So my question for all the rationalists here, why shouldn't intelligent design be seriously considered as theory for how abiogenesis occurred? What makes it more improbable than the other alternatives that are currently under scientific investigation?
**Note: In case you missed it above, abiogenesis is not to be confused with evolution. I find evolutionary theory to be sound and am not proposing Intelligent design as a part or alternative to that theory. I am talking solely about abiogenesis.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
There's the obvious problem of where you get the designer from.
As for the lack of simpler self-reproducing systems, you seem to have missed crystals, which will happily self-reproduce in the right chemical environment; and also that anything simpler than a modern life-form would basically be nutrition for a wandering bacterium, so we cannot expect to find any such thing, whether or not they once existed.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Edit: As for my own input, whenever Ockham's Razor results in your "simplest" explanation depending on an omnipotent being that is impossibly complex, it seems to me you are doing it wrong.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
RNA can act as an enzyme.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:There's the obvious problem of where you get the designer from.
And why is the problem so much more obvious and unresolvable than the myriad problems with the other theories of abiogenesis.
quote:As for the lack of simpler self-reproducing systems, you seem to have missed crystals, which will happily self-reproduce in the right chemical environment.
I didn't miss them, I didn't consider them particularly worthy of mention for two important reasons. First, crystals are so much simpler than self reproducing cells that there existence makes no impact on the overall problem. Second, crystals only grow under conditions in which they are thermodynamically favored. Living cells are able to manipulate the flow of energy so that they grow under conditions in which they are not thermodynamically favored.
quote:lso that anything simpler than a modern life-form would basically be nutrition for a wandering bacterium, so we cannot expect to find any such thing, whether or not they once existed.
This is possible, but not as self evident as you claim. Very simple living organism persist on this planet even though much more complex organisms have evolved. Procaryotes were not wiped out by the evolution of eukaryotes. Single celled organisms were not utterly wiped out by the evolution of multicellular organisms.
What you are claiming is that every single organism more primitive than a modern procaryotes was so much less efficient that it was utterly wiped out by the rise of procaryotes. Its possible, but its a stretch. If anaerobic organisms survived the evolution of photosynthesis, I would expect that somewhere on this planet we should be able to find proto-bacteria still surviving.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You're rather overstating the case, and ignoring modern models of abiogenesis. A simple perusal of existing literature will show you several models (with probability guesstimations that give reasonable numbers) showing how proto-cells could have formed.
For instance, take a look at the following, which dismantles several of your claims: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html (note: the document is from 1998! there have been a number of breakthroughs since then that give even more evidence for possible avenues of abiogenesis).
Also, I think you'll find that most non-"intelligent design" proponents are more than willing to consider the possibility of some part of the origins having happened elsewhere and being deposited on earth later by meteor.
And, as KoM has pointed out, anyone to whom it screams "intelligent design" might want to revisit the old "turtles all the way down" stumper.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I'm not sure if this is a "Welcome back KoM!" thread or not, but great topic.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:So my question for all the rationalists here, why shouldn't intelligent design be seriously considered as theory for how abiogenesis occurred? What makes it more improbable than the other alternatives that are currently under scientific investigation?
How seriously? It's not a falsifiable hypothesis, so why not spend our energy on other possibilities while reserving this in the "maybe, but there's no way to prove it" category?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote: There's the obvious problem of where you get the designer from.
This. Occam's Razor doesn't scream anything here because there is no simple solution - yet. Intelligent Design is certainly not a simple solution - or "likely" for that matter. To compare it's likeliness to scientific theories still under investigation just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. But abiogenesis isn't exactly a subject I'm strong in, so I probably won't get too involved in this discussion.
Having said that, though, I'd have a lot more respect for intelligent design proponents if this were the argument they got behind instead of trying to trump evolution.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:There's the obvious problem of where you get the designer from.
And why is the problem so much more obvious and unresolvable than the myriad problems with the other theories of abiogenesis.
This intelligent designer may have sparked life. I cannot rule it out. But the world I see everyday shows NO sign of this designer. She/He/It has left no trace, leaves no evidence, not a single hint of existence. I could speculate as to the nature of this designer, or I could say "This idea seems silly. There is no evidence. I'll go with the spontaneous abiogenesis theory instead. At least I can see that happening in the world I live in. Even if no one understands it, is seems possible."
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: This intelligent designer may have sparked life. I cannot rule it out. But the world I see everyday shows NO sign of this designer. She/He/It has left no trace, leaves no evidence, not a single hint of existence.
quote:First, crystals are so much simpler than self reproducing cells that there existence makes no impact on the overall problem.
So, you ask for a self-reproducing system simpler than a bacterium, and when one is supplied you say it's too simple? Do you see the problem with this line of argument?
quote: Second, crystals only grow under conditions in which they are thermodynamically favored. Living cells are able to manipulate the flow of energy so that they grow under conditions in which they are not thermodynamically favored.
Heh, no. By construction, living beings grow under conditions in which they are thermodynamically favoured. That's what "thermodynamically favoured" means. What you're actually saying is that this is a much wider range of conditions than is the case for crystals; which is fair enough, but has the same problem as above. In a sense you're reinventing the old "no intermediate fossils" argument. You see nothing intermediate in complexity between life and non-replicating matter; then someone points out crystals, and you respond that they are too simple. If I find something intermediate between crystals and prokaryotes, won't you just say that now there are two complexity gaps?
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Lisa, a bunch of stories sounds great and all. Some of them are actually pretty good. But they are not evidence.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
More accurately, when presented with them as evidence for a designer, an honest appraisal would:
Notice the human fingerprints all over the thing.
Observe that the stories also support the claims of a particular ethnic group to a special right to lands in dispute.
Point out that nowhere is any actual design mentioned, only poofing into existence; and the poofing somehow fails to account for a lot of intermediate stages we know once existed, at that.
Ask why all the other, very similar stories, which do not support the aforementioned ethnic group's claims, are to be taken only as stories and not as truth; what is the difference?
...and, having done all that, would not increase the probability-estimate for a designer.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Abiogenesis is complex. Intelligent Design is simple--God did it. Everyone can understand simple so its very attractive as a theory. That doesn't make it correct.
Nor does it make all the rest of modern scientific theory and understanding wrong. You can not, of course, say Abiogenesis is impossible so my brand of Christianity must be 100% correct.
I'm not saying you are arguing that, but there are folks who do.
Back to my main thought--given a choice between the simple and the complex, it is human nature to hold onto what is simple--and in science that is usually wrong.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: So my question for all the rationalists here, why shouldn't intelligent design be seriously considered as theory for how abiogenesis occurred? What makes it more improbable than the other alternatives that are currently under scientific investigation?
Seriously? This is weird coming from you, I thought you were a scientist. ID is not science. It's not helpful in doing science. It tells you nothing useful about anything. It is religion. Fine, believe it, think about it, whatever. It doesn't constitute any kind of science, even if it turned out to be true.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:There's the obvious problem of where you get the designer from.
And why is the problem so much more obvious and unresolvable than the myriad problems with the other theories of abiogenesis.
Again, I thought you were a scientist. Omnipotent beings, ie: "God" or the FSM, are concepts impenetrable to our methodological examination of the universe because they are held to be outside of the laws of the universe. If there is no law, there is no method. Science proceeds from the essential assumption that anything observable adheres to a common fundamental law. Science seeks to define that law and understand how it affects things we can see. If you throw the law out the window, we are not doing science.
Think of it like a computer game: you sit down and you start to play. Slowly you start to understand the rules of the game. Then the rules appear to change as you become more advanced. You start to understand *how* the rules are changing, and you begin to see that in fact there is an underlying system at play which is changing the surface rules as you play. You become master of that underlying system, and the game begins to change in new ways you haven't accounted for. You discover a further refinement to the rules and begin to understand even more deeply how they are working. But then something happens. You can't seem to win- the rules keep changing just enough to stop you from winning. Now you can't see the underlying logic- you're stuck, you don't understand.
Now which is the appropriate assumption here, given a goal of beating the game: "I am not yet experienced enough in this game to understand how to win," or "this game is being controlled by someone who will always beat me- it is unbeatable."
The fact that you have run up against a wall should not be a shock. You've done it before. You always got past the others, but this one is harder. Should you assume, given that these changes are increasingly difficult, that therefore the game has no end? Should you stop playing?
ID says yes: stop playing. Full stop. It offers no other useful solutions. You cannot play the game if you believe it is not winnable, or that you will never again be able to advance. Essentially, what I'm saying to you is that ID is for quitters.
[ June 22, 2010, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: So my question for all the rationalists here, why shouldn't intelligent design be seriously considered as theory for how abiogenesis occurred?
There is no robust, testable theory of intelligent design. If there were, perhaps it might be tested. As it is, looking for evidence of intelligent design is like attempting to prove a negative -- you're attempting to show that a given system is irreducably complex. But as we have studied systems once deemed irreducably complex, we have discovered mechanisms by which they may have arisen and precursors to the current state. Given this progress, there is no reason why we should throw up our hands at a given threshold and say "this far and no further! These systems are too complex to have arisen by any conceivable independent mechanism!"
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Abiogenesis is complex. Intelligent Design is simple--God did it. Everyone can understand simple so its very attractive as a theory. That doesn't make it correct.
Nor does it make all the rest of modern scientific theory and understanding wrong. You can not, of course, say Abiogenesis is impossible so my brand of Christianity must be 100% correct.
I'm not saying you are arguing that, but there are folks who do.
Back to my main thought--given a choice between the simple and the complex, it is human nature to hold onto what is simple--and in science that is usually wrong.
An intelligent designer isn't simple at all; it just hides the complexity by making it a kind we see all the time, namely intelligent direction. The process of designing something is, in fact, some extremely complex movements of atoms and electrochemical potentials; but we just see "one thing", namely someone sitting and thinking hard, so it looks simple. This is illusion! Just because we dont have introspective access to the complexity of our own processes doesn't mean that they are actually simple!
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:When I look at this, Occum's Razor simply screams intelligent design.
Count me amongst those surprised that you are taking this position, Rabbit. This seems to be a classic invocation of God of the Gaps.
I have no idea where life originated, though I find the research in that area fascinating, but it seems irrational to point at an area of scientific ignorance and assume supernatural causation. Science has a pretty good track record of embarrassing those who take such a stand.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Back to my main thought--given a choice between the simple and the complex, it is human nature to hold onto what is simple--and in science that is usually wrong.
I think yeah, you and KoM are having the same thought expressed in opposite ways. Science looks for the simplest possible terms in highly complex systems. So that which is "simple" forms a complex thing, all of which can be understood. People, on the other hand, like to wrap up very complex things, personhood, say, in simple terms. The result is that these simple terms stand for very complex things which are themselves not penetrable.
If you had to lay the two types of thinking against each other, I might try it like this:
Science: 2+2 = 4, because 1 = 1 and 1+1 = 2, (1+1) + (1+1) = 4.
ID: 4 = 4
That's about as scientific as Popeye.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I'm also curious as to why someone would accept that God let a scientifically explainable process to turn bacteria into humans over the course of billions of years (evolution), but that he would leave the initial step only explainable by a miracle (abiogenesis).
Even if there is a God, seems rational to me he'd do the initial creation by a natural process as well.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:When I look at this, Occum's Razor simply screams intelligent design.
When we're redefining it, accidentally or not, to be the simplest assertions, whether or not they are scientific (and lest you still be confused about that, ID is not science), then you might as well go with 'the bible said so.' Fits that criteria. Simpler than ID.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Singular criterion, plural criteria.
And while I'm at it:
Tenet, a statement or assertion; tenant, one who rents something. Principle, a guiding morality, an axiom. Principal, the first, the most important; in economics, the part of an investment that existed from its beginning and did not arise from interest. Evidence, that which causes you to believe something more firmly. Proof, a concept in mathematics and logic.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I thought "Tenet" was they guy who played the doctor.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: An intelligent designer isn't simple at all; it just hides the complexity by making it a kind we see all the time, namely intelligent direction. The process of designing something is, in fact, some extremely complex movements of atoms and electrochemical potentials; but we just see "one thing", namely someone sitting and thinking hard, so it looks simple. This is illusion! Just because we dont have introspective access to the complexity of our own processes doesn't mean that they are actually simple!
I'm behind you 100% on this KoM. Just saying "God did it" doesn't explain how God would have done it, how God gained the knowledge to do it, or how God became God.
That may sound strange coming from me. I'm not one that thinks God exists outside the laws of the universe, but that He has such a great knowledge of the laws of the universe that he can accomplish pretty much anything he wants.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote: Procaryotes were not wiped out by the evolution of eukaryotes. Single celled organisms were not utterly wiped out by the evolution of multicellular organisms.
I think it's fair to say that the prokaryotes that existed at the time of the first eukaryote were, in fact, wiped out. And I doubt you'll find many single-celled organisms of the kind that were around when the first sponges appeared, not that single-celled versus multi-celled is necessarily a dichotomy of complexity anyway. (The single-celled organism may well have more information per cell; if so, the total complexity could be the same, just distributed differently.)
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Again, I thought you were a scientist. Omnipotent beings, ie: "God" or the FSM, are concepts impenetrable to our methodological examination of the universe because they are held to be outside of the laws of the universe. If there is no law, there is no method. Science proceeds from the essential assumption that anything observable adheres to a common fundamental law. Science seeks to define that law and understand how it affects things we can see. If you throw the law out the window, we are not doing science.
I don't get why God has to be outside the laws of the universe. Why can't God be God precisely because he abides by the laws of the universe--way better than we do, in fact? You are taking it as a foregone conclusion that God and science are at odds with each other.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
A God who is identical to nature is a God who offers no particular benefit to scientific inquiry. She may very well exist, but if everything she does is accomplished through natural processes then we wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Also, Orin's post was responding to Rabbit's. Rabbit's argument was "natural law is unable to explain abiogenesis, ergo a God who does NOT merely work through completely natural processes should considered a plausible hypothesis." So your statement is a bit of a non sequitur.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Advice- You don't get it, like, you don't understand the reason why a supernatural mythos has nothing to do with science, or you don't get it, like, you don't see why I don't believe in God?
I'm actually leaning towards the former in your case. You don't understand the argument, as far as I can see. Science is about studying the observable universe and make useful predictions about how it will act and useful theories about why it acts that way. The "laws" of the universe we're talking about are not moral laws. They are not things to be abided by or dismissed. We don't violate them. If we could, they wouldn't be laws- and in fact, we have disproved myriad theoretical laws by violating them, only to discover that they were not laws at all, but assumptions or conclusions we had proved incorrect or incomplete. And the tragic misunderstanding is perpetuated: "see?" you will say, "science has been proven wrong yet again!" No, science has been proven effective, yet again. The scientific method is not designed to defend anything- it's not a bulwark, it doesn't protect your assumptions or your beliefs. It may often appear that way to the uninformed, when they find science "defending against" as they see it, new and exciting and fatally flawed theories that are attractive to them. That is not what's happening. Good science takes no prisoners- it has no holy land.
You want to have a moral discussion? You want to talk about a God who "abides by" the laws of the universe "better" than we do? I don't rightly know what you're trying to say here. You're not talking about science at all. You're talking about your religion. What do you hope to gain from that? A better understanding of science? Sorry, not likely.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
This is mostly what I was responding to:
""God" or the FSM, are concepts impenetrable to our methodological examination of the universe because they are held to be outside of the laws of the universe."
That statement wasn't conditional to the discussion; I wasn't taking it out of context. I'm also not saying God is identical to nature.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Advice- You don't get it, like, you don't understand the reason why a supernatural mythos has nothing to do with science, or you don't get it, like, you don't see why I don't believe in God?
I'm actually leaning towards the former in your case. You don't understand the argument, as far as I can see. Science is about studying the observable universe and make useful predictions about how it will act and useful theories about why it acts that way. The "laws" of the universe we're talking about are not moral laws. They are not things to be abided by or dismissed. We don't violate them. If we could, they wouldn't be laws- and in fact, we have disproved myriad theoretical laws by violating them, only to discover that they were not laws at all, but assumptions or conclusions we had proved incorrect or incomplete. And the tragic misunderstanding is perpetuated: "see?" you will say, "science has been proven wrong yet again!" No, science has been proven effective, yet again. The scientific method is not designed to defend anything- it's not a bulwark, it doesn't protect your assumptions or your beliefs. It may often appear that way to the uninformed, when they find science "defending against" as they see it, new and exciting and fatally flawed theories that are attractive to them. That is not what's happening. Good science takes no prisoners- it has no holy land.
You want to have a moral discussion? You want to talk about a God who "abides by" the laws of the universe "better" than we do? I don't rightly know what you're trying to say here. You're not talking about science at all. You're talking about your religion. What do you hope to gain from that? A better understanding of science? Sorry, not likely.
You obviously have a solid grasp on science. There's no disputing that. You are, however, arguing against quite a strangely constructed straw man when it comes to religion. You make any statement you want about what God must be, but heaven help the person who tries to bring religion and morals into a scientific discussion. Gimme a break. I wasn't talking about moral laws or trying to bring them into the discussion. I was talking about a God who isn't disconnected from the observable universal laws (the "sciencey" ones) at all. I was wondering why you said he necessarily had to be.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
avr, I think he was more saying God (or an intelligent designer, as Rabbit might prefer for this discussion) isn't really a useful hypothesis for scientific inquiry. This doesn't mean God and the physical laws of the universe are incompatible. It means that there's really no way for mere humans to test the hypothesis, so it's a pretty useless one for scientific study.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Slowly you start to understand the rules of the game. Then the rules appear to change as you become more advanced. You start to understand *how* the rules are changing, and you begin to see that in fact there is an underlying system at play which is changing the surface rules as you play. You become master of that underlying system, and the game begins to change in new ways you haven't accounted for. You discover a further refinement to the rules and begin to understand even more deeply how they are working. But then something happens. You can't seem to win- the rules keep changing just enough to stop you from winning. Now you can't see the underlying logic- you're stuck, you don't understand.
Hey King of Men! This is *exactly* how playing any Paradox game is like Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Heh. K. Here we go-
"You are, however, arguing against quite a strangely constructed straw man when it comes to religion."
No, I'm not. Show me where you think I am, please. Because I've said little about religion in this thread. I've said a lot about "god" as a concept. Not much about religion. I used the word: "religion" once. And that was not even to characterize religion in any way at all.
"but heaven help the person who tries to bring religion and morals into a scientific discussion"
Indeed, that person is in the wrong discussion.
" I wasn't talking about moral laws or trying to bring them into the discussion."
Yes you were. You were following the first line of the Catechism, however it may have been taught to you: "Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy Him forever." It's your job as a Christian to entangle god in such discussions. It's your job not to understand why that isn't appropriate.
"I was talking about a God who isn't disconnected from the observable universal laws (the "sciencey" ones) at all. I was wondering why you said he necessarily had to be."
I beg your pardon, but you were not. I understand that you thought you were. You were mistaken. You were indeed talking about moral laws, you admitted it one sentence ago. This has been a mistake, but it's alright. You're arguing from the standpoint of your religion- that is a mistake. I feel that if you re-read what I say with an eye towards what science *is* and what science *does* you will better understand. In fact, if you just re-read the thread you would better understand. I think you haven't read the thread.
I will restate this only once, because I have been encircled many times in the past by the great gaping maw of "I don't get it, and that's your fault." I do not believe in god. I do not believe that god is disconnected with the observable laws of the universe, because god does not exist. I believe that god is an inherently self-contradictory concept. If the laws of the universe are ultimately fungible, and do not adhere to an internal logic that could be understood by a sentient being, then the universe is irrational. If there were a god, but that god were ruled by the internal logic of the universe it was in, then it would not be omnipotent, and would perforce, *not be* a god. So to me, the question boils down to whether I think the universe is rational or not. Since everything I have observed of the universe tests as rational, I am assuming it is rational until that theory is disproved. Either way, no god.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: avr, I think he was more saying God (or an intelligent designer, as Rabbit might prefer for this discussion) isn't really a useful hypothesis for scientific inquiry. This doesn't mean God and the physical laws of the universe are incompatible. It means that there's really no way for mere humans to test the hypothesis, so it's a pretty useless one for scientific study.
Yes, that is what I was saying. I have no elaborated on my own beliefs, just to be clear about what I personally believe and what I was arguing against. God is not a useful scientific concept. Full stop. If you don't understand that, Afr, at this point in your hatrack sojourn, I'm not hopeful you ever will. I am not the faithful.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote: If there were a god, but that god were ruled by the internal logic of the universe it was in, then it would not be omnipotent, and would perforce, *not be* a god.
This is perhaps where you are going astray in you conversation with AFR. I'm assuming he is objecting to this because he is LDS, who believe in a "not-quite-but-pretty-close-to-omnipotent" god that is indeed bound by the laws of the universe.
As The Rabbit is also LDS (IIRC), this would apply to her as well.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Depending on how you define "omnipotent", LDS believe in either a God that's omnipotent or one that's quite distant from it.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
That's an interesting way to put it Porter.
I'd say that by Orincoro's definition, the LDS concept of God is clearly not omnipotent.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Ok, Orin, I believe you. I know you don't believe in god. I wasn't trying to change that. I was objecting to the way you defined him, however. I thought I would jump in and ask you to clarify your statement you'll have to believe me when I say I wasn't referring to moral laws or trying to do any of what you accuse me of doing in this discussion. Read into it what you want. I haven't had the time to respond more fully. I'll try to jump on later.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: Lisa, a bunch of stories sounds great and all. Some of them are actually pretty good. But they are not evidence.
They aren't good enough evidence for you, but that doesn't mean they aren't evidence. I'd say they certainly aren't proof, but they are definitely evidence.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:When I look at this, Occum's Razor simply screams intelligent design.
Count me amongst those surprised that you are taking this position, Rabbit. This seems to be a classic invocation of God of the Gaps.
I have no idea where life originated, though I find the research in that area fascinating, but it seems irrational to point at an area of scientific ignorance and assume supernatural causation. Science has a pretty good track record of embarrassing those who take such a stand.
I don't think WW said a single thing about supernatural anything. An intelligent designer could simply be an advanced alien. Maybe on that alien's planet, the way life originated (spontaneously, if you like) is clear and obvious. There's absolutely no need to appeal to the supernatural in order to support intelligent design. And the fact that intelligent design is scorned the way it is stems solely from theophobia. If you didn't have to worry that someone might sneak God in there, logic would absolutely lead you to the conclusion that someone, somewhere, designed us.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: That's an interesting way to put it Porter.
I'd say that by Orincoro's definition, the LDS concept of God is clearly not omnipotent.
I'd say that by any non-LDS definition of omnipotence, the LDS concept of God is clearly not omnipotent.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Lisa, if I never heard of religion or God or the Bible, let's say I've been in an underground bomb shelter for my entire life, and I ask someone why they believe in God, or Adam and Eve, or intelligent design, and they hand me (or post) the Bible, why should I give it any more credence than any other book out there?
What authority does the Bible have a claim to besides the authority that it defines for itself?
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:If you didn't have to worry that someone might sneak God in there, logic would absolutely lead you to the conclusion that someone, somewhere, designed us.
Not even remotely true.
Someone who never heard of God (e.g. the bomb shelter guy mentioned above), could look at the world, fossils, and a little bit of scientific knowledge and think:
1) We are pretty complex 2) It looks like things get simpler as you move backwards through time 3) There must have been a point where this complexity started 4) Hmm...I wonder what that was?
The concept of and intelligent designer might appear as a possible explanation, but it would hold no more weight than anything else. And it would get stuck there, because (short of finding this intelligent designer), there would be no further thinking or testing. Other, testable alternatives practically beg for testing and further investigation.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I think with questions like these (abiogenesis and the cause of the big bang), I just have to say, "I don't know or it just was". Sure, an Intelligent Designer is a possibility, but like others have said it just pushes the "I don't know or it just was" statement back one step and thus doesn't seem very satisfactory.
While I find the subject fascinating and love that it's being researched further, I am comfortable accepting the limits of knowledge that we currently have. I don't need to reach for an explanation that I know is currently unavailable.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:So my question for all the rationalists here, why shouldn't intelligent design be seriously considered as theory for how abiogenesis occurred? What makes it more improbable than the other alternatives that are currently under scientific investigation?
How seriously? It's not a falsifiable hypothesis, so why not spend our energy on other possibilities while reserving this in the "maybe, but there's no way to prove it" category?
RNA world is also not a falsifiable hypothesis. At least no has yet come up with an experiment that could falsify it.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: They aren't good enough evidence for you, but that doesn't mean they aren't evidence. I'd say they certainly aren't proof, but they are definitely evidence.
You are quite right, they are evidence.
However, as they are significantly worse evidence than first-person testimony of people claiming to have been abducted by aliens, saying that it isn't evidence is not that much of a hyperbole.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I don't think WW said a single thing about supernatural anything. An intelligent designer could simply be an advanced alien.
That doesn't really change my point, which is that when science reaches a point where the scientific answer is "we don't know" then the answer is "we don't know." Not, "we can't figure out how this happened, therefore it must be <insert concept that we find appealing>."
A designer hypothesis can certainly be explored, and I'm happy to hear about ideas for experiments that might test the hypothesis, but so far that well seems to be dry. There are credentialed scientists, few though that number may be, who advocate heavily for ID in popular books and lecture circuits, who have funding available, yet don't seem all that interested in performing any actual science relevant to the supposedly scientific concept of ID.
Granted, *I* can't conceive of how one would test for a designer, but them I'm not an advocate for ID.
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:When I look at this, Occum's Razor simply screams intelligent design.
Count me amongst those surprised that you are taking this position, Rabbit. This seems to be a classic invocation of God of the Gaps.
I have no idea where life originated, though I find the research in that area fascinating, but it seems irrational to point at an area of scientific ignorance and assume supernatural causation. Science has a pretty good track record of embarrassing those who take such a stand.
I don't think WW said a single thing about supernatural anything. An intelligent designer could simply be an advanced alien. Maybe on that alien's planet, the way life originated (spontaneously, if you like) is clear and obvious. There's absolutely no need to appeal to the supernatural in order to support intelligent design. And the fact that intelligent design is scorned the way it is stems solely from theophobia. If you didn't have to worry that someone might sneak God in there, logic would absolutely lead you to the conclusion that someone, somewhere, designed us.
I was with you for most of that. I was about to ask why a theoretical intelligent designer had to be an omnipotent, omniscient invisible being. I disagree, however, that the scorn for intelligent design stems from theophobia. As far as I can tell (keeping in mind that I'm 22 and not exactly well-travelled), intelligent design was first proposed precisely because it WAS a way to hide the concept of god in amongst science. My personal views on religion aside, I'm perfectly okay with the idea of intelligent design as a theory when the designer is proposed as something we might actually be able to study--life from another planet, for example. I don't think we can study it at the moment, because we simply don't have the resources or technology to go planet jumping and asking every lifeform we come across where we came from (is anyone else reminded of Le Petit Prince?) But I think it could be posible, many years in the future, to explore the possibility of some other entirely physical being designing or artificially creating life on Earth... for whatever reason. If that made any sense.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote: Procaryotes were not wiped out by the evolution of eukaryotes. Single celled organisms were not utterly wiped out by the evolution of multicellular organisms.
I think it's fair to say that the prokaryotes that existed at the time of the first eukaryote were, in fact, wiped out. And I doubt you'll find many single-celled organisms of the kind that were around when the first sponges appeared,
Actually, it would be pretty shocking If there weren't a few bacteria left around that are incredibly close to their pre eukaryotic ancestors. But if there aren't, its still pretty much a moot point. Evolution rarely occurs in a straight line. Mass extinctions (with one exception, the advent of photosynthesis) have not been the result of evolutionary events and even in that key exception, some anaerobic organisms survived. Its certainly possible that the first procaryotes were so much more efficient than earlier life forms that they completely obliterated every remnant of their forebears, I'm just saying its far from a given.
quote: not that single-celled versus multi-celled is necessarily a dichotomy of complexity anyway. (The single-celled organism may well have more information per cell; if so, the total complexity could be the same, just distributed differently.)
No. This is factually incorrect. In multicellular organisms, every cell contains all the genetic information to make every protein in the organism. Every multicellular organism that has been studied is more complex in terms of its genome and its protiome than every single cellular organism that has been studied.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
When you see a volcano occam's razor screams that there's some guy with bad legs beating on an anvil. Doesn't mean its true.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
In opposition to the Intelligent Design Occam's Razor, I would like to put forth the "Won the Universal Lottery" method of creation.
Some insanely unlikely chain of events, which is so statistically unlikely that we have no hope of ever recreating it, came about by entirely natural processes, and that allowed the highly complex and self-replicating structures that we call "life" to begin.
That seems so much more likely to me than any designer, which would either have to have also come about by some method itself, or we have to imagine some supernatural element, which also does not need a complex designer, since we could just say that supernatural but unintelligent laws of nature let life come about.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Orincoro: Nope, you're right. I was reading the thread, BTW, but your post rubbed me the wrong way. And I was getting up to go home and was in a hurry and didn't go back and read what you said more carefully. I did in fact take it out of context. But I maintain I wasn't trying to bring moral law into the discussion. There was not a catechism involved at any point. Thanks for the impromptu lecture on science. It's true that I'm not a scientist, but I have never had the urge to rebel against the scientific method and burn down a physics lab. I have never felt at odds with the scientific way of looking at things. If my brain was geared that way, I might very well have gone down the science track and would be happily banging hadrons together or looking for dark matter.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Heh, no. By construction, living beings grow under conditions in which they are thermodynamically favoured. That's what "thermodynamically favoured" means. What you're actually saying is that this is a much wider range of conditions than is the case for crystals; which is fair enough, but has the same problem as above.
Without getting into semantic arguments about what constitutes "thermodynamically favored", crystals form under conditions that minimize Gibbs free energy of a system. Cells do not. Cell growth doesn't even achieve a local thermodynamic minimum. The chemical reactions required to go from simple organic molecules to basic cellular components (like proteins) are thermodynamically unfavorable even in the cellular microenvironment. They only occur because cellular enzymes are able to couple these reactions to oxidation reactions that are thermodynamically favorable. This route is favored over complete oxidation of the simple organic molecules (which is the thermodynamic equilibrium point) for kinetic rather than thermodynamic reasons. Cell growth is the kinetically favored process even though it is not the thermodynamically favored process. Life is the only thing we know of that is able to sustain this kind of process.
In fact, the ability to maintain a system far from any thermodynamic equilibrium is considered one of the hallmarks of life. Atmospheres that are far from any chemical equilibrium point are one of the key things we look for when scanning the universe for potential signs of life.
Of course this can only happen in a system that has a continual input of energy. On earth that energy comes from 2 sources, fusion energy from the sun and fission energy from elements in the earths core. In a very real sense, life on earth is nuclear powered.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:RNA world is also not a falsifiable hypothesis. At least no has yet come up with an experiment that could falsify it.
Discover evidence of a really early organism that works with just DNA (no RNA). Repeat that result enough time and RNA world would be falsified. Note: I don't consider it likely that such evidence exists, both because I think RNA world is plausible, and because even if it wasn't, very little survives from back then. But, we keep finding interesting old things all the time, so I could be mistaken. It doesn't matter, though; RNA world is still definitely falsifiable.
quote:Every multicellular organism that has been studied is more complex in terms of its genome and its protiome than every single cellular organism that has been studied.
How're you defining more complex, here? Because we've studied plenty of single-celled organisms with more in their genome than multi-celled organisms. Take a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sequenced_eukaryotic_genomes . Lots of single-celled eurkaryotes have more genes (sometimes a lot more genes) than fungi, and some even have more than certain insects or nematodes! Since you're the one making the assertion, and I've provided pretty strong evidence you were at best grossly mistaken, please provide some citations to your statement.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: [QB]
quote:RNA world is also not a falsifiable hypothesis. At least no has yet come up with an experiment that could falsify it.
Discover evidence of a really early organism that works with just DNA (no RNA). Repeat that result enough time and RNA world would be falsified.
Discovery of a DNA only organism would not falsify the RNA world hypothesis. RNA organisms could reasonably be either a precursor to the DNA only organisms or a parallel development which eventually merged to create modern life.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: [QB]
quote:RNA world is also not a falsifiable hypothesis. At least no has yet come up with an experiment that could falsify it.
Discover evidence of a really early organism that works with just DNA (no RNA). Repeat that result enough time and RNA world would be falsified.
Discovery of a DNA only organism would not falsify the RNA world hypothesis. RNA organisms could reasonably be either a precursor to the DNA only organisms or a parallel development which eventually merged to create modern life.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Repeated discoveries would falsify it in every scientific sense of the word falsify. The "what if" construction can be used to come up with alternate explanations for every scientific falsification study, ever. Yet we keep doing the things. The reason is, falsify in science does not mean "eliminate every other possibility as a logical impossibility". You know this.
(As a side note, if it was parallel development, then it wasn't RNA world).
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Repeated discoveries would falsify it in every scientific sense of the word falsify. The "what if" construction can be used to come up with alternate explanations for every scientific falsification study, ever. Yet we keep doing the things. The reason is, falsify in science does not mean "eliminate every other possibility as a logical impossibility". You know this.
(As a side note, if it was parallel development, then it wasn't RNA world).
I disagree. DNA life and RNA life are not mutually exclusive hypotheses. Discovery of DNA only life, even repeated discoveries would not demonstrate that RNA life did not exist and was not an important component of abiogenesis.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Now you're moving the goalposts, or weren't precise in what you were saying in the first place.
The RNA World hypothesis isn't just "RNA-based life existed". Indeed, if it were, we'd have pretty persuasive evidence (while viruses may not be life, they manage to operate with just RNA) for it. The RNA World hypothesis (in simple form) is that RNA-based organisms were the origin of life. If we discovered large numbers of extremely primitive DNA-only organisms, the possibility of RNA World would be undermined such that, absent any change in evidence, the theory is untenable vs the simpler theory that DNA-only organisms were the origin of life. That is the definition of scientific falsifiability.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: They aren't good enough evidence for you, but that doesn't mean they aren't evidence. I'd say they certainly aren't proof, but they are definitely evidence.
You are quite right, they are evidence.
However, as they are significantly worse evidence than first-person testimony of people claiming to have been abducted by aliens, saying that it isn't evidence is not that much of a hyperbole.
Significantly better, you mean.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale:
quote:If you didn't have to worry that someone might sneak God in there, logic would absolutely lead you to the conclusion that someone, somewhere, designed us.
Not even remotely true.
Someone who never heard of God (e.g. the bomb shelter guy mentioned above), could look at the world, fossils, and a little bit of scientific knowledge and think:
1) We are pretty complex 2) It looks like things get simpler as you move backwards through time 3) There must have been a point where this complexity started 4) Hmm...I wonder what that was?
The concept of and intelligent designer might appear as a possible explanation, but it would hold no more weight than anything else. And it would get stuck there, because (short of finding this intelligent designer), there would be no further thinking or testing. Other, testable alternatives practically beg for testing and further investigation.
Yeah... I don't think so. It's no different than the pocketwatch thing. You see a pocketwatch laying in the sand, pick it up, examine it, if your very first thought isn't, "Someone designed this with intent," you probably need to seek professional help.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And then you discover a bunch of pocketwatches reproducing in a colony by the sea, and fossils of much more primitive gear mechanisms, and you prove that there exists a wholly natural mechanism by which the previous gear mechanisms could have changed into the pocketwatches, and then you throw out the design hypothesis (at least, as a supernatural explanation; some would argue that the universe as a whole is the "pocketwatch", but that's a philosophical statement, not a scientific one).
(edit: plus, it is rather more plausible that we're likely to conclude someone seeing a pocketwatch would reach a conclusion of 'designed' because we know for certain a pocketwatch is designed. Or is your assertion that you can so far dissociate yourself from your knowledge about pocketwatches that you are able to make such judgements accurately? That reminds me, I think I saw some studies that showed people crystals that occur completely naturally, and most concluded they were designed; such mistakes certainly occur frequently, such as with those circular sinkholes in cities recently that are entirely natural. Humans beings thinking something is designed just isn't a very good indicator for whether or not something is designed).
[ June 23, 2010, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I'm not moving the goal post, you are.
Your "definition" of falsifiability is way to general to at all useful. Strictly speaking, a theory is only falsifiable if it can (at least in the abstract) be proven false. For example, the theory of conservation of energy is falsifiable because reproducible observation of a system in which energy was either created or destroyed would prove the theory false. To be falsifiable, a theory must be predictive there must be some imaginable experiment which would demonstrate that prediction to be false. In practice, we generally accept "highly improbable to be true" rather than absolute proof.
Furthermore, the RNA World hypothesis is not that RNA-based organisms were the "origin of life". The RNA World hypothesis is that organisms, based on RNA only predate living organisms based on DNA, RNA and proteins and that these RNA based organisms evolved into currently existing living organisms.
The RNA World hypothesis does not presume that the RNA world was the only step in this process, in fact it really is only remotely plausible if a number of other processes that gave rise to cellular metabolism were going on in parallel. Nothing in the RNA world hypothesis predicts that DNA only organisms did not also predate modern life or suggest that they could not have been (or were even highly unlikely to have been) part of the processes which gave rise to modern life.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Rabbit, I'm interested to hear you address the objection several people brought up about how you used Occam's Razor. Is a designer really the simplest, most straightforward explanation for anything? What about accounting for the origin of the designer?
We can't rule out a designer, but it seems more reasonable to me to assume that despite our difficulty imagining spontaneous abiogenesis, it could definitely have happened.
quote:We have yet to find any simpler self reproducing systems on this planet nor any evidence that any have ever existed.
Early evolution into more recognizable systems could have been isolated to one location we haven't yet examined (or that was obliterated).
Abiogenesis of systems that can replicate and evolve into the more complex systems we have evidence of could be so incredibly unlikely and rare that you might see it happen only on one in a billion planets. On those planets, the series of events might be so unlikely that you might see it only once or twice in billions of years, in one place. The anthropic principle means such extreme unlikeliness can't rule out that such events did in fact happen - although the odds against them could certainly explain why we aren't seeing evidence of it in the mere decades we've had the tools to look, and the tiny fraction of one planet that we've examined.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You should read some (more?) philosophy of science. What I described is pretty much the mainstream synthesis of Popperian and Kuhnian falsifiability. Please show me how the following scientific theories are falsifiable by your definition:
Humans and Chimpanzees share a common ancestor.
Mesohippus ate grass.
Or do you reject these as scientific theories?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Human chimpanzee relations could have been falsified by discovering that their DNA was nothing similar. Given the array of data we have at this point that DOES support the human/chimpanzee relationship, I can't think of anything other than a discovery that fundamentally changes our understanding of DNA that could falsify it. But we're looking at the end result of the scientific process, when the tests have already been mostly done.
I don't know enough about abiogenesis and moleculary biology to really contest the validity of any given hypothesis. I'm fine with high school biology teachers saying "Here's the evidence we have for evolution, which at this point is an established scientific fact barring some major, groundbreaking discovery. And here's some hypotheses for how life may have originated, but we don't really know." And then include "extraterrestrial origin" as one of those hypothesis, acknowledging that that explanation (which essentially includes ID as a subcategory) isn't really an explanation.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Raymond: how would that falsify it by Rabbit's definition? It could have occurred further back in the past, leading to greater differences. That just makes it dramatically less likely compared to competing theories -- meaning your definition seems more in line with mine than Rabbit's.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Yeah... I don't think so. It's no different than the pocketwatch thing. You see a pocketwatch laying in the sand, pick it up, examine it, if your very first thought isn't, "Someone designed this with intent," you probably need to seek professional help.
It's all well and good to reference it, but do you consider the watchmaker analogy to lend credence to creationist theories at all?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Javert: You are quite right, they are evidence.
However, as they are significantly worse evidence than first-person testimony of people claiming to have been abducted by aliens, saying that it isn't evidence is not that much of a hyperbole.
Significantly better, you mean.
No. I meant what I wrote.
First hand eye-witness testimony from living people is infinitely better than we-don't-know-hand testimony from ancient writings. All anecdotal evidence is horrible evidence, but modern anecdotes are better.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Raymond: how would that falsify it by Rabbit's definition? It could have occurred further back in the past, leading to greater differences. That just makes it dramatically less likely compared to competing theories -- meaning your definition seems more in line with mine than Rabbit's.
Rabbit's been talking about RNA and DNA and things that I have little knowledge and therefore little capability to extrapolate what she thinks about other things.
Sharing DNA a lot of DNA is strong evidence that two groups of creatures are related. The fact that several essential cell functions use the same DNA across all (most?) creatures is evidence that all creatures share a common ancestor, which along with other types of evidence suggests that Chimpanzees and Humans would be related no matter what. The question of exactly how related they are depends on what specific genes they share as compared with other similar creatures.
I'm not inherently opposed to "a designer of some sort made the initial cells" being a proposed hypothesis until a test is formulated to prove/disprove some of the other ones. BUT if we're doing that, we need to give students the other associated info, which is that all the evidence suggests that this designer, if they existed, never interfered afterwards and have produced a lot of very ineffective (in fact dangerous) biology, in both humans and other creatures.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
How do we make "a designer of some sort made the initial cells" a scientific hypothesis, though?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I don't know, but the point being made (that Rabbit is currently arguing, and again, I don't have the requisite knowledge to evaluate the argument) is that right now there isn't a clear cut test for the competing hypotheses either. As soon as there are, we can start eliminating the ideas from the list. And until we do can do that, eliminating any ideas based on untestability is silly.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
No idea can be eliminated. None ever. You could propose that Xenu made the first cells by accident when he spilled a Betelgeuseian slushie onto earth. It's an idea! Whether the ideas can rise to the challenge of being a valid scientific proposal is a different matter entirely.
Asking about something's validity as an 'idea' is much different from asking about its scientific, empirical, and rational validity. Everyone can propose any idea. That you can doesn't answer questions like "why shouldn't intelligent design be seriously considered as theory for how abiogenesis occurred."
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"And until we do can do that, eliminating any ideas based on untestability is silly."
I don't think we should eliminate untestable ideas just for being untestable. But neither should we bother taking them seriously, in the absence of a plausible justification.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Raymond: My assertion is that the standard of proof she's demanding for falsifiability is not met by statements such as that, despite general acceptance that hypotheses like that are part of science. She's demanding that it be possible to come up with a counterexample. The standard you're talking about is like the one I'm talking about, and is met both by the theories I describe and RNA World (when sufficiently specified).
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: eliminating any ideas based on untestability is silly.
No, refusing to eliminate ideas because they are fundamentally untestable is silly. ID is not a scientific theory, because it does not make useful predictions and is untestable. It is not untestable *just right now* it is fundamentally untestable. It is not science. The idea that life was begun by an invisible and yet all powerful flying spaghetti monster's noodly appendage is precisely as testable as the idea that the Abrahamic God did it. And make no bones, "ID" is Christian Creationism. And even if it were not, "ID" absent any whiff of Christianity is still not at all a scientific theory. It is a philosophical framework, and a shabby one at that.
At no time will humanity every develop some scientific process to prove that God created the universe. Can't be done. Why? Because if the laws of the universe are self-consistent, there is no way a force from outside the universe can change anything, and thus no way we can observe anything outside of it. If the laws of the universe are *not* self-consistent, then our observations of the universe are also not to be trusted. Ever heard of the Heisenberg Principle? It works in that direction too- you can't observe "god" without god affecting the universe you are in, which makes the universe non-self-consistent, which makes science ultimately valueless. If you believe that god *does* follow and is bound by natural laws, then discovering god simply reproduces the same problem of discovering how a self-consistent universe creates a god or life... only now you have to explain both.
And before you attempt an answer at that, do us a favor. Attempt to dismiss from your mind the universe existing as a spherical boundaried ball floating in nothingness, with a god outside of it. That isn't the way it works. Even if there's a bubble, even if there's a god, if both are bound by the same laws, that's one universe, not a universe plus a god.
Other theories are not as silly. The ET origin theory is testable. The test involves technology and knowledge we don't have, but it's testable. It could be answered tomorrow, if aliens showed up, or it could take longer than humanity has for the search. It is logistically impractical, yet it is not fundamentally untestable.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Intelligent Design theories are not inherently non-falsifiable or non-testible. They are only non-falsifiable if they are poorly framed.
Here for example is an intelligent design hypothesis that is both falsifiable and testable.
Hypothesis: Intelligence Design is the only process capable of producing an abstract map with the complexity of the genetic code. (Add something about reasonable probability given the age or the earth and/or the Universe)
This could be falsified by finding a an abstract map with the complexity of the genetic code that was not produced by Intelligent Design.
Test: Create a genetic algorithm involving random mutations and selection and run it until it produces a sufficiently complex abstract map.
Of course there would need to be added tests to insure that the genetic algorithm wasn't some how biased by its intelligent designer. And this would likely need to be repeated with a few different types of genetic algorithms to verify that "intelligence" had not biased the outcome. Nonetheless, this is a test which would falsify my hypothesis and which can be implemented with existing technology, although I'd have to do a lot more work on it to determine whether or not it could be reasonably completed in reasonable length of time (say my lifetime).
Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
There were a series of experiments conducted by Stanley Miller which took compounds thought to be around during the early Earth, specifically water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen, put them in a sealed glass container, and added an energy source in the form of heat and "lightning". It eventually produced organic compounds including amino acids. Further experiments have produced more complex compounds. That was over a few years.
I always took abiogenesis as a fact.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: You should read some (more?) philosophy of science. What I described is pretty much the mainstream synthesis of Popperian and Kuhnian falsifiability. Please show me how the following scientific theories are falsifiable by your definition:
Humans and Chimpanzees share a common ancestor.
Mesohippus ate grass.
Or do you reject these as scientific theories?
I've read a vey great deal of philosophy of science. Thank you very much.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Really? It surely doesn't sound as if you have, or as if you understood it. Again, this is all very weird, since you've never talked this irrationally before, or really irrationally at all about this subject.
quote: Hypothesis: Intelligence Design is the only process capable of producing an abstract map with the complexity of the genetic code. (Add something about reasonable probability given the age or the earth and/or the Universe)
This could be falsified by finding a an abstract map with the complexity of the genetic code that was not produced by Intelligent Design.
No, this hypothesis requires that you prove a negative, so while it is falsifiable, it is not testable.
quote: Test: Create a genetic algorithm involving random mutations and selection and run it until it produces a sufficiently complex abstract map.
And ignore any aspect of the process you don't yet understand- including any natural influences on the process that you have not programmed in because you don't know about them. And run the experiment for 1 billion years. And while you're at it, run the experiment in about a million different locations during that time. With shifting weather conditions, and meteors hitting the beakers, and lightning, and about a million other random factors you haven't thought about. And ignore ET origin, and ignore pretty much *every* *single* remote possibility other than God. Of what use to us is this line of thinking? Even if you established that the chances of life arising by chance even once in the entire universe of 10^22 plus stars is one in a trillion, you cannot prove that we are that one in a trillion chance. You cannot prove a negative.
It's like: "hypothesis: the bible was written by God. Test: place all the letters of the alphabet in a box and shake it until the letters arrange themselves into the Bible." That's a test designed by you to get you the results you need. To prove a negative. Never mind that it would take the box experiment a gajillion years to actually produce the result that falsifies the hypothesis, but that it *could* do so.
[ June 24, 2010, 09:37 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:No, this hypothesis requires that you prove a negative, so while it is falsifiable, it is not testable.
Um, A hypothesis is considered falsifiable if it could be shown false by an observation or experiment. It is considered testable if it can be shown false by an experiment. I have proposed an experiment which could prove my hypothesis false, therefore it is testable.
BTW, I have not responded to your posts thus far because you persist in insulting me rather than presenting rational arguments. In the future, I would appreciate it if you would avoid making personal attacks and stick to refuting the arguments presented.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Rabbit, there is a possibility that your proposed experiment would immediately falsify your hypothesis. However, your hypothesis, tested in that way, cannot be supported by any test.
You're acting as if it's enough just to frame your hypothesis in a general enough way, so that it can't be dismissed. That's not good enough. The hypothesis is too general, for one. The absence of results could, following your thinking, prove not that ID is the only source of life, but that life *has* no source. A conclusion which is false- as long as we say: "My hypothesis is that it is impossible to produce life randomly," and then run that experiment. Congratulations, you've proven to your own satisfaction that you personally are not up to the challenge of creating condition in which life can occur. Your conclusion that it is therefore reasonable, therefore scientific to ascribe magical causes is jarring. And do make no mistake- you cannot have your cake and eat it too- ID is magical, not natural. You don't get to skate in between the two things- either you accept the universe as defined by a set of laws, known to us or not, or you don't. If you don't, you can throw logic out the window and believe whatever pops into your head- but that's not science.
quote:BTW, I have not responded to your posts thus far because you persist in insulting me rather than presenting rational arguments.
Whine until the cows come home. I'm surprised at you and I have every right to let you know that. Don't give me some whiny nonsense about me not presenting rational arguments. I've presented plenty. More than you, to be sure.
[ June 24, 2010, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
"We don't know how this happened exactly yet, therefore God."
quote: One of the foundations of modern biology is that abiogenesis does not occur and no one has ever observed an exception to this law.
I have never heard this. One of the "foundations" of biology might be, 'we don't understand this yet," but I've never heard a biologist say "abiogenesis doesn't occur."
Wikipedia on abiogensis. Nowhere does it say, "this doesn't occur."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: You should read some (more?) philosophy of science. What I described is pretty much the mainstream synthesis of Popperian and Kuhnian falsifiability. Please show me how the following scientific theories are falsifiable by your definition:
Humans and Chimpanzees share a common ancestor.
Mesohippus ate grass.
Or do you reject these as scientific theories?
I've read a vey great deal of philosophy of science. Thank you very much.
Then answer his questions. It should be easy for you, after all.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I have never heard this. One of the "foundations" of biology might be, 'we don't understand this yet," but I've never heard a biologist say "abiogenesis doesn't occur."
Teshi, Read the section in the Wikipedia article on spontaneous generation.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
So because spontaneous generation of fully developed animals was disproved 4 centuries ago, and the spontaneous generation of bacteria was disproved a century and a half ago, that naturally leads to the conclusion that abiogenesis could not have ever occurred? You're not in the same ballpark as spontaneous generation.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I don't understand, Rabbit. The Spontaenous Generation section is discussing pre-Darwinian theory. The rest of the article goes into detail about possibilities for abiogenesis. I don't see anywhere it says that abiogenesis is ruled out by modern biology.
Clearly, nobody can yet show exactly how it occurred, but that is hardly an argument that it didn't occcur.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Indeed. Abiogenesis is an area with extensive research that has come up with several probabilistically plausible avenues for the origins of life. That's very much the opposite of rejecting the possibility.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:When I look at this, Occum's Razor simply screams intelligent design.
Count me amongst those surprised that you are taking this position, Rabbit. This seems to be a classic invocation of God of the Gaps.
+= 1
Also, so much for stuff like
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Bah. By the time the term "God of the Gaps" was coined, it was already a strawman argument.
quote:Please show me how the following scientific theories are falsifiable by your definition:
Humans and Chimpanzees share a common ancestor.
Mesohippus ate grass.
Well in the Popperian sense which demands that theories be falsifiable, neither one of these constitutes a scientific theory.
The first statement "Human's and Chimpanzees share a common ancestor", isn't a scientific theory and in fact its pretty useless as stated. Presuming evolutionary theory is valid, all living things share a common ancestor. Conversely, if we could demonstrate that Human's and Chimpanzees (or Humans and e-coli) did not share a common ancestor that would falsify evolution.
There are ways that we can rephrase the hypothesis to make it scientific. For example, we could say "Humans are more closely related to Chimpanzees than to e-coli." This is a falsifiable hypothesis. If we compared the human genome to the chimpanzee genome and the e-coli genome and found greater similarity between the human genes and the e-coli genes, it would falsify that theory. Part of the art of science is in framing hypotheses so that they are falsifiable.
One of the really cool things about evolutionary theory is that there are a number of points where molecular biology could have falsified it. If for example we had found that there were different genetic codes for different species, that would have falsified major part of evolutionary theory. But that didn't happen, to a first approximation all living organisms share the same genetic code. There are lots of other points in the history of science where evolutionary theory could have been falsified.
Furthermore, the original classification of species was based on macroscopic features. Hawks look more like eagles than they do like chickens so they must be more closely related. Lizards have more in common with alligators than they do with turtles so they must be more closely related. Evolutionary theory predicts that those species should be at least as similar on the molecular level as they are on the macroscopic level. That has been tested many times and so far has proven correct.
The reason evolutionary theory is so valuable in biology is that it is predictive and that the predictions it makes have lead to really cool discoveries.
[ June 24, 2010, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:If we compared the human genome to the chimpanzee genome and the e-coli genome and found greater similarity between the human genes and the e-coli genes, it would falsify that theory.
Not at the standard you've requested before. There's the obvious possibility that genetic change occurred at different rates on different branches, among others. Your example would merely add significant evidence the theory was false (especially assuming some general evidence about genetic rates of change), just like discovering organisms whose existence would be extremely unlikely if RNA world were true would add significant evidence RNA world was false.
edit: and Popperian falsification hasn't been the mainstream of philosophy of science for a long time. It has, however, had a very large influence on the current mainstream synthesis, as have Kuhn's ideas, with a lot of current thought ending up focused more on falsification as a result of positive validation of theories leading to the rejection of other theories.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
fugu and Rabbit, may I pop in and ask for any good books/papers on the development and current state of philosophy of science? I've read some things, but feel like I need to understand it much more thoroughly.
Thanks.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
I’ve been studying this topic for years. And suffice it to say, I have my own opinions informed by that study. But far more important to me are the fundamental paradigms underlying this debate. I think I have a handle on both and I think that there can be mutual respect on both sides without the unnecessary name-calling (‘I thought you were a scientist!’), moral assumptions (‘Atheists don’t believe in a god because they don’t want to be accountable to anyone or want to be able to do whatever they want’), or implications of delusion (everything KoM says on the subject). I’m not saying this has degenerated into anything that bad, but still...
Ultimately, I think it comes down to where we draw the line.
Everyone can look at Stonehenge or the Nazca lines and see intelligence behind the specified complexity in those structures/depictions. And everyone can see the debris pattern of an explosion and see the complete lack of structure or specified complexity. So we all have both ends of the spectrum by which we categorize the source of patterns we see in the world. Scratchings on a wall exhibiting uniformity and repetition in some kind of pattern suggest some sort of informational content, despite our inability to decipher it. SETI receives a pulse from space with temporal regularity (specificity) but little complexity which suggests a rotating pulsar.
Again, 2 ends of the spectrum, intelligence required at one end, none at the other. Everything we discover that we did not create (or didn’t not vicariously observe being created, like my computer or TV) goes on the spectrum according to our own criteria, experiences, beliefs, assumptions or whatever. We all do this. We all draw the line somewhere, for everything not personally known to have been created.
Those who insist on completely materialistic explanations, even when the explanation is tentative or rough at best, are not stupid for refusing to believe in a creator. They just refuse to plug God (or the FSM or whatever) into the gap of everything they can’t give a materialistic explanation to. Scientific progress didn’t really begin until mankind stopped doing that and came up with a way to, step by step, query nature as to how it worked: the Scientific Method (which is arguably the single greatest reason why our modern world is the way it is now). It’s most powerful ability is getting a “yes” or “no” (or sometimes “sort of”) answer from the physical universe about whether a particular hypothesis (or explanation) was true or not. Which is why falsifiability is so important. The physical world has to be able to say “no, sorry, that’s not correct. It doesn’t work/didn’t happen that way” to an idea. (Which is why ID, at this point in time, is not falsifiable and should not be taught as a scientific theory. a point Hugh Ross and Fuz Rana over at www.reasons.org make clear. They are working on a falsifiable theory of ID. And I’m not going to get into that debate, except to say that I appreciate the intellectual and scientific honesty they exhibit.)
Abiogenesis? Development of multicellular organisms? We have a few ideas (Though I find the clay theory to be the weakest). They are kind of rough. But just because it can’t be explained yet fully doesn’t mean that a designer did. A designer invokes an unknown complexity into the equation, making Occam’s Razor useless. How much more complex/likely is a designer than an astronomically highly improbably event, like the formation of RNA? Ultimately, it comes down to this unknown is greater than that unknown. So no, a materialist isn’t bothered by what we don’t know yet. They are excited and see them as ripe fields for study and discovery. There is no need to throw our hands up into the air and say God did it. After all, the scientific method hasn’t failed yet.
On the other hand, those who believe in ID don’t just want to wave their hands over everything they don’t understand and say God did it. Lightning? Zeus is angry. Earthquake? Poseidon is pissed. Crops growing? The gods saw the big sympathetic magic orgy we had in the spring to remind them to make the earth fecund. They appreciate science and what it has revealed. They appreciate the scientific method. And they (or at least most- there are the few, the proud, the willfully ignorant) want to learn more about science and how the world works. For them, it teaches them about the brilliant mind they perceive behind everything.
And they do see a mind. Not because they are stupid or need to (at least most who’ve thought deeply about it don’t.) Going back to that spectrum illustration, they see the scratches on the wall. There is uniformity. There is repetition. There is perceived (semantic) meaning. There is no question that it was created by someone. That informs their experience. If information is specific and complex (from all angles, rather than, for example, the equivalent of the Martian “face”) then, as per all our experiences, it must have a mind behind it. And life- specifically, the information contained in DNA, information that is transcripted into RNA and then translated into proteins than make up literal nano-machines that operate just like human made machines, but on a whole other level of scale and complexity- well, that bespeaks a mind behind the process.
Underlying this paradigm is the question of how likely specified complexity can occur through natural processes. Those who go further and want to quantify this, ask this question. Is there a way to look at some kind of information- by itself- and determine how likely it is that such information came about through natural processes or through an intelligent designer (regardless of who or what that is). Again, go back to a SETI signal- on one end, a repetitious single signal at specific intervals in time, and at the other end, a la Contact, of the first hundred primes. We have information. It appears to have a specified complexity. Is there a way to quantify that so that we can make a reasonable assertion as to the derivation of the information (conscious process or natural one.) Could it be the result of the newly discovered (or conjectured) relationship between quantum shells and the Zeta Function? Or, let’s take a string of coin flips, heads or tails. Is there a way to tell if the coin flips have been rigged (given specific complexity in their context) just by looking them? Obviously a string of “HHHHHHHHHHHHH” has too high a level of specificity. But “HTHHTHTTHTTHHHTHTTHTH” not so much. But what about “HTTHTHHHTHHHTHTTHHH”? 12 H’s to 7 T’s? When coin tosses are used to determine which political party presides over redistricting each year (or something like that) and one party gets it disproportionately more than another, it becomes important to be able to figure something like that out.
Whether formally (the minority using some sort of scientific/mathematical framework) or informally (the majority using “common sense” and “experience”) most of those who believe in ID do so for that reason. The complexity we see in the natural world and it’s uniqueness (the fine-tuning) can only be the product of mind in the same way that a house in the desert, a watch in the sand, or a cell phone in the ocean must be the result of mind. Complexity, ingenuity, adaptability, and intricacy are all the hallmarks of a marvelously designed object. The complexity, the ingenuity, the adaptability, and the intricacy they observe in the natural world tell them the world was designed. And science’s inability to explicate the origin those most fundamental things (abiogenesis, transcription, translation, protein shape-and their requisite conformational change as they interact with their environment, store information, all in a similar way to circuitry- and so on) only serves to highlight, for them this fundamental truth.
On both sides, none are evil. Some are misinformed. Some are myopically stupid. Some are pigheaded and arrogant. And some are genuinely interested in the truth. I think dialog is good and healthy. We can agree to at least be civil and recognize the paradigms by which both sides are viewing the data and yet come to differing conclusions.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The most interesting thing about the philosophy of science, is that most of it is bunk, in the sense that science is rarely ever done the way philosophers describe it being done.
The Popperian idea of falsifiability is a very powerful idea, but fugu is correct when he points out the most of science isn't really done that way.
Unfortunately, I simply don't have the time to respond to everything I'd like to in this thread. I'm afraid that too much biochemistry/molecular biology is required to really understand my reasoning and I just don't have the time to explain it all.
Many of the objections people have voiced seem to stem from an association of Intelligent Design with "God the Creator" and a strong (and justified) bias against creationism. What people seem to be missing is that "Intelligent Designer" in this case could have been any intelligent being with no greater intelligence than we can observe in human beings, access to powerful computers and a really good synthetic organic chemistry lab. Omnipotence and omniscience are not required for this job, we are very close to being able to do this with current human technology (not quite there but very close). We are close enough that we know that the simplest life forms could have been designed by a being with human level intelligence. We don't know of anything besides human intelligence which is definitely capable of producing simple life forms from non living matter. People have proposed a number of alternatives, but at this point we still aren't sure whether any of those alternatives could have worked. So far research on RNA world theory has focused on demonstrating that a few of the key steps necessary for RNA world are possible. There are still many essential steps which may not be possible. Even if every step is proved possible under controlled laboratory conditions, there is still a huge leap to demonstrating that they did occur in nature and that these steps lead to modern life. Right now there is no evidence for this. As many people have pointed out, there are any number of reasons why evidence might not exist even if its true. Its also true that the tools needed to even look for such evidence are relatively new and that we really haven't looked extensively. Its entirely possible that evidence for RNA could be uncovered. We might even find RNA life forms that still persist in the modern world. It's entirely possible that evidence for the RNA world will be discovered, but right now, there is no evidence for it. (And yes, I'm defining evidence the same as I defined evidence in my argument with Paul Goldner.)
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
"If not God then Aliens" is to me an even weaker cop out, as regardless of who you imagine may or may not have did it doesn't change that there's no evidence for it.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Technically, the Ancients weren't aliens. Merely the first evolution of our form. Just sayin'
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I'm posting from Germany which creates a rather unnatural rhythm in the discussion. I'm sorry about that. I'm also sorry I don't have the time to respond to every question.
Those of you who think this is ridiculous and irrational answer me the follow questions.
1. Do you find the idea that there are intelligent beings other than humans in the Universe generally ridiculous? If so, please explain why?
2. If not, do you find it plausible that there were intelligent beings somewhere in the Universe before the first micro-organisms appeared on earth?
3. If you were an archeologist on a deep space science mission tasked with looking for signs of ancient intelligent beings, what would you look for? What type of things would you consider highly suggestive of intelligent action?
4. Does the fundamental core of life on earth (the genetic code and the machinery that translates it) have features that would in other circumstance be highly suggestive of intelligent action?
5. If its plausible that intelligent life existed in the Universe hundreds of billions of years ago, shouldn't we be investigating any thing that might reasonably be evidence of that early intelligence?
6. Is there a reason, beyond prejudice against anything that might be construed as religion, why this hypothesis does not deserve further investigation?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
If you want a good introduction to thought on philosophy of science (in particular the demarcation problem), start here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/ . Note that they give quite a few names, all of which are very searchable on the same site (that's the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
Rabbit: as I pointed out, many scientists are amenable to the idea of extraterrestrial origins for life. Indeed, the idea that it arrived from elsewhere (where it arose naturally, perhaps) is much more plausible, prima facie, than some sort of design process. Much more likely a left behind cell sample when exploring than a dedicated production program.
It is clear you haven't been taking serious looks at links given, though. For instance, we know of self-replicating biological molecules & complexes that are remarkably simple, and can calculate quite high odds of them occurring spontaneously. That's just one step along the way, but it is arguably the most important step. We've also observed naturally occurring lipid membranes that act like primitive cell walls. In fact, we've catalogued a huge number of steps that would be important for the initial formation of life -- a phenomenal number, when you consider that many of them have been observed directly in nature, and we've only been looking for a tiny slice of time at a tiny slice of nature.
quote: We don't know of anything besides human intelligence which is definitely capable of producing simple life forms from non living matter.
This is hand-waving. There are lots of things we don't know are "definitely" capable. But we have calculated approximate odds given educated estimates on numerous avenues to the formation of life, and many of them seem quite plausible (by which I mean, the odds are non-infinitesimal of them occurring on one earth-like planet -- and there are probably lots and lots of earth-like planets in the galaxy, much less the universe).
And you've been dodging problems since well before this thread started to get particularly busy. I don't think I've seen a reply on your "every multicellular is more complicated than every single-celled" mistake.
You're just not very up on the state of abiogenesis research (you've stated numerous things as true I can disprove -- for instance, that ribosomes would be required; take a look at the first link I sent -- and I'm hardly an expert), and you've decided this makes intelligent design likely. Honestly, its quite remarkable how much we know about possible avenues of abiogenesis, given how far in the past it would have had to occur.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
The Rabbit: I would quickly note, you used the loaded term "intelligent design" three times in your OP.
As you should well know, the term is basically synonymous with supernatural creation, for example:
quote:Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.
That probably goes to the root of why the quite vocal objections. If you had started with panspermia, it would be, well, among other things a much shorter and less heated thread.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Btw, note that I haven't called the idea that somebody intelligently designed ridiculous or irrational.
I've just pointed out there are far, far more plausible alternatives (even if one prefers extraterrestrial origin).
As for some of your questions:
quote:4. Does the fundamental core of life on earth (the genetic code and the machinery that translates it) have features that would in other circumstance be highly suggestive of intelligent action?
No. To someone who hadn't seen how there can spontaneously arise simple reproducing molecules that can add new features, or who hadn't known that the ribosome is actually an evolved structure which we have information on the descent of (including a few examples of more primitive ribosome-like mechanisms), maybe. Early life quite possibly involved a spontaneously arising (as we know is possible) self-replicating molecule, that became more and more complex as it added bits. Eventually, it probably became possible for it to create molecules that "described" different molecules it could make. From there, we're off to the races. Of course, to be sure how someone would react to the question in a least-biased fashion, we'll have to raise a group of children having no knowledge of genetics (or creation stories?), educate them heavily on science (without touching on genetics), then provide them when they are excellent scientists with the bulk of evidence we have on the matter.
A minor aside:
quote:2. If not, do you find it plausible that there were intelligent beings somewhere in the Universe before the first micro-organisms appeared on earth?
While the calculations are all guesswork, last I heard was people were thinking "not very likely". The first self-reproducing organic molecules appeared on earth a very, very long time ago -- a substantial chunk of the life of the universe. And they were almost certainly a very improbable occurrence and took a long time to happen; there's little disputing that. But once you multiply anything times billions of years and billions of planets, even long odds become much, much more possible. Heck, we know on earth it took something like 4.5 billion years to get from prokaryotes to humans (not even taking into account what were possibly several billion years with pre-prokaryotes). Since you're assuming intelligent design, we'd need to subtract another 4.5 billion years, meaning life would need to form on that planet when the universe was less than five billion years old -- that's a lot less time for a bubbling broth to work, whereas working with life arising on earth, that's nearly ten billion years of seething to produce something.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Btw, what do you mean by further investigation? What's a single positive prediction of the theory as you've described it? Without a positive prediction, how can it be investigated?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:even if one prefers extraterrestrial origin
As I noted before, extraterrestrial orgin is not really an alternative. Even if life originated somewhere besides earth, it had to form from non-liviing chemicals somehow. Extra-terrestrial origin would explain why we haven't found any evidence for the RNA world on this planet, but frankly I find the alternative explanations more plausible. Extra-terrestrial origin also increases the amount of time available for abiogenesis and provides a wider range of possible environments but ultimately, that just makes it impossible to estimate the probability.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
We're in the same time zone, so it doesn't bother me personally.
quote: 1. Do you find the idea that there are intelligent beings other than humans in the Universe generally ridiculous? If so, please explain why?
No.
quote: 2. If not, do you find it plausible that there were intelligent beings somewhere in the Universe before the first micro-organisms appeared on earth?
Plausible yes. Likely? Difficult to say. I subscribe to the weak anthropic principle- we do have only very pale knowledge of the exact conditions of the rest of the universe at that time, and we don't know enough about how long life normally takes to develop into intelligent life, or how long it takes to occur in the first place. It seems plausible given what we know now, but given new evidence that strongly suggested abiogenesis was extremely rare, or was not even the proximate cause of life on Earth, that might change. Certainly it is possible.
quote: 3. If you were an archeologist on a deep space science mission tasked with looking for signs of ancient intelligent beings, what would you look for? What type of things would you consider highly suggestive of intelligent action?
Do you mean this in terms of an extinct race, or a living race? I would look for things which we associate with our own existence, and which we project will be possible for us to accomplish in the future. Things supportive of intelligent action are things that have been built or preserved artificially, and attempts to communicate.
quote: 4. Does the fundamental core of life on earth (the genetic code and the machinery that translates it) have features that would in other circumstance be highly suggestive of intelligent action?
Of course, if you had reason to believe that someone built it- for instance if you encountered a civilization that had the technology to design biological life. We are better aware of the likelihood of a book writing itself, than we are of the likelihood of abiogenesis. We can say with certainty- a planet does not spawn obviously intelligent ruins. We *cannot* say that a planet does not spawn life. We are unsure of how that might happen, whereas we know where books come from.
quote: 5. If its plausible that intelligent life existed in the Universe hundreds of billions of years ago, shouldn't we be investigating any thing that might reasonably be evidence of that early intelligence?
It is not plausible that intelligent life existed then because the Universe did not exist then. The universe as far as we can tell is about 13.75 billion years old. That severely limits the time frame in which anything intelligent may have come to be before us.
And as far as I know, attempting to investigate the origin of life *is* attempting to investigate the possibility of an early intelligence, inasfar as it is connected with the origin of life on Earth. If we discover that life can definitely happen without intelligent help, then we haven't disproved the possibility of another intelligence, but we will *never* be able to prove that that intelligence was there, at least not that way. It will either be- "we don't know how it happened" or "It happened naturally, and this is how:" Until we range among the stars and collect a lot more knowledge about life than we have, the idea of an intelligent designer is moot to us. It does not matter.
quote: 6. Is there a reason, beyond prejudice against anything that might be construed as religion, why this hypothesis does not deserve further investigation?
The hypothesis *does* deserve further investigation. Further investigation is, as far as I am aware, still going on all the time. I'm confident that eventually the hypothesis will simply be falsified, and the religious zealots will have to pick some other gap to fill with their deity. Maybe they will pick up on the irreducible complexity of the hydrogen atom, the electron, the quark, who cares?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:As I noted before, extraterrestrial orgin is not really an alternative. Even if life originated somewhere besides earth, it had to form from non-liviing chemicals somehow.
What?
It is other people who noted the extra-terrestrial origin problem, and you responded that you didn't mean God. So you meant some other sort of intelligent life that was never created and has always existed?
And extra-terrestrial origin (on another planet) hardly increases the time for abiogenesis. See my math before (though I did forget to take the age of the earth into account). Now, extra-terrestrial origin in deep space does significantly increase the time . . . but it also significantly decreases how nice the conditions are.
I don't suppose you could copy and paste your definition of "evidence" from before? I'm finding it hard to see how "we haven't found any evidence for the RNA world on this planet" bears out with any reasonable definition of evidence. We certainly haven't provided it or anywhere close, but that's not the standard we're talking about.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Rabbit, I'm interested to hear you address the objection several people brought up about how you used Occam's Razor. Is a designer really the simplest, most straightforward explanation for anything? What about accounting for the origin of the designer?
We can't rule out a designer, but it seems more reasonable to me to assume that despite our difficulty imagining spontaneous abiogenesis, it could definitely have happened.
quote:We have yet to find any simpler self reproducing systems on this planet nor any evidence that any have ever existed.
Early evolution into more recognizable systems could have been isolated to one location we haven't yet examined (or that was obliterated).
Abiogenesis of systems that can replicate and evolve into the more complex systems we have evidence of could be so incredibly unlikely and rare that you might see it happen only on one in a billion planets. On those planets, the series of events might be so unlikely that you might see it only once or twice in billions of years, in one place. The anthropic principle means such extreme unlikeliness can't rule out that such events did in fact happen - although the odds against them could certainly explain why we aren't seeing evidence of it in the mere decades we've had the tools to look, and the tiny fraction of one planet that we've examined.
Quoting this as I don't think it was responded to.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote: What people seem to be missing is that "Intelligent Designer" in this case could have been any intelligent being with no greater intelligence than we can observe in human beings, access to powerful computers and a really good synthetic organic chemistry lab.
If that intelligent being is a living organism, you've simply moved the question back a step. If that intelligent being is not a living organism, what is it then?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Crickets chirp a number of times per minute in direct relationship to the air temperature. Bees make hexagonal hives (accidentally), animals like snails and nautillus make complex shells that follow mathematical formula.
Someone who looked at these "messages", or "construction" might see evidence for intelligence, but those are all remarkably unintelligent animals.
Perhaps our search for an intelligent designer is just ego and anthropomorphism. WE make complex designs, so we want other complex designs to require a creator even more intelligent.
If we admit that things might just exist such that complexity and uniformity can arise naturally, without intelligence, then we have to confront the fact that we are just overly complex snails with a few more tricks.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
It all depends on the view you want to take. There are certainly more than a number of religions that would see the natural complexity in the world to be the basis of a religion.
However, I certainly have to agree with Mightycow. Simply stated: anthropomorphism = bad. At least in my book. I would say that your take on the idea of an "intelligent" designer simply being from ego might be a little short sighted. For one, you completely remove humanity from the natural processes around it. Human beings are just as much a part of the world as bees and snails.
Not only this, but I don't think an intelligent designer would have to be more intelligent than human beings, simply have different capabilities. That designer did not have to plan out the shell of the snail, simply set the basic natural processes into place to have the snail eventually pop up in the first place.
Just to make things clear, I do not ascribe to the idea that there is some all powerful man up in the sky with white hair that functions in the same manner that we do. That simply meaning that this "force" does not have to ascribe to qualities held by people. Such as good and evil or having certain "purposes."
Did something ( force, entity, etc.) have to occur or exist to make things as they are now, certainly. If you want to call that god, an intelligent designer, etc. go ahead. Just don't push that thought into areas it may not belong.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:That designer did not have to plan out the shell of the snail, simply set the basic natural processes into place to have the snail eventually pop up in the first place.
That would take more brainpower than just designing the shell in the first place! Besides which, the ID hypothesis is, precisely, that the shell cannot arise from simple natural processes, but requires intelligent intervention. A deistic creator which only sets up the initial conditions is not an intelligent designer in the sense intended here.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
quote:Crickets chirp a number of times per minute in direct relationship to the air temperature. Bees make hexagonal hives (accidentally), animals like snails and nautillus make complex shells that follow mathematical formula.
It can be (IMO successfully argued) there is a profound difference between patterns and specifically complex patterns.
I'm paraphrasing from Paul Davies' The Fifth Miracle. (FYI, Davies, both in that book and Cosmic Jackpot argues that despite the apparent complexity and fine-tuning, there is still a natural materialistic explanation for our universe.)
Davies describes specified complexity in terms of "Kolmogorov complexity" or algorithmic information theory and the idea of “compressability”.
"aaaaaaaa" is a specified information, but the algorithm to generate the pattern is simple (‘write “a”-repeat’). Moreover, it contains no semantic meaning, external to itself. This string has low information content.
"xydghswiwehdskghas" is a specified information pattern, but the algorithm to generate it is as complex as the information it describes (i.e: the string generated has to be explicitly defined in the algorithm. That is, there is no known algorithm that would generate that pattern that is simpler than simply saying 'write "xydghswiwehdskghas"’ In other words, algorithmically, it is not compressible.) This has high informational complexity, but it cannot be seen whether its content has any semantic meaning. (I will tell you it most likely does not since I wrote it by throwing my fingers down in a random sequence.)
"I have a cat named fluffy" is specified information. It has a high level complexity because algorithmically there is no way to generate this string of characters more simply than saying 'write "I have a cat named fluffy"’. And it conforms to written English- its syntax, its structure, and its meaning. This information is specified complexity with semantic meaning. It is incompressible and has meaning.
Patterns, then, like crickets chirping in response to temperature changes or hexagonal hives, while highly specific, aren't complex because the algorithm to create them are described rather simply (and usually conform to the underlying mathematical atomic structures, as we see in the case of hexagonal snow-flakes, for example, being fractally complex, but based on a simple pattern. I believe this can be studied further using automata, if I remember correctly in Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science")
(good article on what specified complexity means here)
The question then comes down to this (and this is where the lines are drawn in different cases): Where does the underlying information content we see in biological systems (their actual physical structure- akin to an actual car engine, for example), and even more important, the actual, literal language instructions (because DNA conforms to every definition of ‘language’) for those objects (the exact specifications and blueprints of that engine and all its parts) come from?
Moreover, as software engineering and information theory have grown, the entire mechanism of DNA encoding, transcription, and translation can literally be viewed through that paradigm. There is the apparent parity checking enabled by the usage of the 4 specific nitrogenous bases in DNA. The regulatory nature of “junk-dna” (here,here and here., the role of histones in epigenetic coding (here), and the ability for DNA to code for multiple proteins, depending on how the mRNA is spliced together after it leaves the nucleus (here and here- which would be the equivalent of taking the sequence “splendid” and extracting “spend”, “lend”, “did”, “lid”, “pen”, “led” and so on.
Can information and information regulation be injected into systems through natural processes (like natural selection) or does it take a conscious designer or mind?
It is this question, and the paradigms I mentioned in my previous post through which one wants to (or subconsciously needs to) views it that can lead to two entirely different ideas on the origin of life. “Blindingly obvious engineering” or “unexplained (as of yet) natural process to be discovered using the profoundly successful scientific method”?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You should be aware that the proponents of specified complexity are, to put it mildly, full of bunk. Every promulgated definition of special complexity has been found to be entirely compatible with evolutionary theory (and abiogenesis, for that matter). Whenever someone points that out, proponents just say "well, that isn't the real definition!" and start using a different one.
Taking identity with kolmogorov complexity as the definition, let some salt water evaporate. Vastly increased complexity, instantaneously (edit: on geological timescales)! No intelligence to speak of.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
This is not my area, but wouldn't the algorithmic compressibility (if that's a term) indicate low information content? The equivalent of "ABCDE-EDCBA-ABCDE....". Looks complex, algorithmically easy to express? That's how I understood it.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
To put it another way, how would one take a string representing coin tosses, or scratches on a cave wall or a binary message received by SETI and determine the likelihood of it's being generated through natural processes? Keep in mind that with the SETI message, one cannot query back and forth to determine sentience. How could one determine the ultimate source? Could one even do that?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Ian0, it is unlikely that when and if we receive a powerful and intelligible ET message, we will spent much time debating about whether it was formed "naturally" (keeping in mind, life being natural, any message of any sort is also natural). The likelihood of a strong clear and apparently intelligent message with real content being generated randomly is low enough to dismiss out of hand. We are theorizing about the universe in total, where almost anything can probably happen- but we don't actually have to deal with all of that personally. Most of what happens to us can reasonably be assumed to be ordinary, even if the fact of our existence may or may not be.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
If you allow for that sort of "algorithm", the life on earth is algorithmically very easy to express: take a few billion planets with rich soupy oceans, stir, and wait a few billion years.
Or, to put it another way, I can make the genome of a bacteria much more complex in a short period of time (months, maybe years or a few decades, and most of that will be due to the difficulty of spotting the situation) with a reasonable supply of nutrient, adverse conditions, and a bit or radiation. Simple algorithm, but the results can look incredibly complex -- you'll see before your very eyes as new, useful genes appear, that did not exist before in the bacterium, and help it survive.
In other words, you're looking at the end product and ignoring that we know a lot about the process.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
Why not? Or rather, why shouldn't we? We receive a string of prime numbers, just like in Contact. We also have done further work on the Stability of electron orbital shells (here and more and more they appear to be described using a model based on the Zeta Function, which has to do with the number of Prime Numbers below a number n (don't even ask me to explain the model Mabye KoM can do it.) Thus, we have the mathematically abstract concept of prime numbers (which would qualify as an semantic expression in a language) show up in a (potentially) physically natural process (you know what I meant). Why WOULDN'T we try to check and see if the signal was a result of that? And in the end, would there be a way to know?
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
I presume the use of the term algorithm is to express the informational content of the data string (messages, DNA code, coin flips, whatever), not as a recipe to make an end product.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Now you're getting circular. Or are you defining informational content in any way other than kolmogorov complexity? If you are, please provide the definition.
And you're the one who promulgated the definition for the incredibly complicated and hard to accurately describe salt crystals. Was I misunderstanding? If so, how were you proposing to algorithmically describe them?
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
As I said, this isn't my field. I was merely explaining an idea presented by Davies (a proponent of the materialistic origin of the universe and life). He specifically mentioned the patterns of bubbles emanating from the bottom of a pot of boiling water, as well as that of crystals. He used those as examples of complexity who's algorithms of describing their geometric structure are relatively simple. His point was to contrast that with the specified complexity he saw in DNA, stating that explaining the derivation of such informational content (or the injection of such content) into the system had to be explain. As I said, I was paraphrasing and don't have the book with me now, so don't judge the idea based on what I remember of it. I had hoped you had heard those ideas before and knew where I was going with it.
That being said, I think that there is a difference between repetitive geometric complexity based on simple rules (automata) and those encoding much more complex information (like this sentence.) Maybe that's simply a difference of scale, but I don't think so. The spherical shape of a bubble of soap is specified and has a level of complexity, but the equation describing that shape (and it's physical formation- most likely derived from that of the unit sphere, taking into account molecular density, surface tenstion, etc...not sure how it would look) would appear to be much less complex than to describe that of one of the structures in complex 1 of the mitochondrial pump, and the code to create it.
At least, that's how I understood the argument of specified complexity he was making, FWIW.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:That being said, I think that there is a difference between repetitive geometric complexity based on simple rules (automata) and those encoding much more complex information (like this sentence.)
But a pattern of salt crystals is more complex than a given sentence. Sentences carry meaning, but that's subjective; the complexity is in the subjective interpretation of the symbols. What the sentence "encodes" can be reduced to a few bytes.
There is a difference between a pattern that encodes meaning and one that isn't meaningful, but it's not one of complexity.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
Ok, I can see how you can argue that. Need to think about it more...
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
As far as I can tell, Davies' thoughts on the matter at best rise to the level of vague philosophical ruminations.
Note that my algorithm for making life, while it could use a bit of additional specification, isn't actually very complex, and is just as much an algorithm as the ones for making crystals. You'd need reasonable descriptions of how to make solar systems (not that bad). In fact, it can all be boiled down to "release at extremely high energy a large quantity of matter/energy outward from a single point, then wait many billions of years". Except a few calculations to assume the distribution of matter is reasonable, natural laws take over from there.
If you want to argue as a philosophical idea that those natural laws working to do all that we see is the work of something you call God, feel free. That's a reasonable philosophical position, I think. But it isn't science.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
and you will note that I never claimed it was. From the beginning, my posts on the subject were designed to show the paradigms thru which both sides acheived the world view- something many don't usually see. The result is the demonization of those who don't see what we see as obvious.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
The "cell phone on the beach" argument for ID is simply begging the question. If you saw a spider web or bird's nest or termite mound, you might think an intelligent creature made those, but they were made by fairly unintelligent animals. A trap door spider makes a fairly complex home. A beaver's dam is a substantial construction. Clearly, unintelligent things can make complex structures.
We are simply more complex animals with larger brains, so we are able toco strux more complex beaver dams and spider webs.
So to use our constructions (a cell phone) as an example of something that only an intelligent being can make is just ego saying that our constructions are better than a bird's nest by some arbitrary value.
Several types of animals, leafcutter ants for example, construct ecosystems for their own survival, which can be viewed as a macro version of a cell. It's just different complexities of programming.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
I have to agree with you then Mighty Cow, an intelligent designer that in detail designed every aspect of the world seems extremely unlikely. For one this designer is really bad at his job.
That and King of Men it wouldn't really take more brainpower to set a series of events into motion. Unless of course you were supposed to know exactly what would occur at the end or at any one point of those same events put into motion. To put it in layman's terms, any idiot can press a button.
Mighty Cow: Aren't you being a bit subjective by saying that a trapdoor spider or a beaver are unintelligent beings, or even fairly unintelligent? That and is there not a difference between the constructs that we build and those that a trapdoor spider make? That being the fact that we proactively come up with new ways to build complex structures as well as entirely new classes of complex structures. If we say that only an intelligent,in so much to have intelligence of some kind, being could build a bird's nest is it really egoistic to say that only an intelligent being of some kind could make a cell phone? Stating that the birds we are in contact with today are incapable of making cellphones also does not come across as arbitrary or egoistic, simply more of a good observation.
Of course you could always simply make the argument that in many ways we are not really "intelligent" in the manner you are suggesting. We are constrained by the information collected by our senses and the relationships that we observe in the world. Human knowledge is really no more than a extrapolation of data from the real world and applying it for survival. In the end all we are doing is reacting in the manner afforded us by our construction.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Rabit have you ever heard of the Fermi paradox?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:That and King of Men it wouldn't really take more brainpower to set a series of events into motion. Unless of course you were supposed to know exactly what would occur at the end or at any one point of those same events put into motion. To put it in layman's terms, any idiot can press a button.
Well, in that case I don't see how you can call it intelligent design. "Idiot design"? Unless the designer knows that the snail's shell will be the endpoint, it just isn't meaningful to say that it did any 'design', whether it pushed a button or not. Can you articulate how this theory is any different from "it happened by blind natural forces", apart from your assertion that something pushed a button at some point? If this is really your opinion, it looks to me like you're an atheist and haven't realised it yet. Congratulations, you can sleep in this Sunday.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
I really was not trying to prove or argue for intelligent design. I certainly am not a fan, if you read what I wrote above I believe it is clear enough.
That and I am not an atheist. I just tend to see a great deal of ambiguity within language. You say god, he says natural forces, some other guy says it is the great soul force, and some person calls it a Allah. From my standpoint what is important about religion is to humble yourself with the fact that you are not all important and neither is our species.
I had a professor once that described the problem that many people have with scientific explanations. You are standing by a river and look across and notice a woman on the other side. You glance to the left and then back and all of a sudden the woman is right in front of you. You turn to your friend and ask how on earth that woman seemingly teleported across the river. He says no problem, she got out of her car, walked down along the riverbed, and then she was on the other side.
Of course this description really doesn't go into the depth that you want. You ask for a detailed description. So he tells you that she woke up this morning at 5:40 AM, ate oatmeal for breakfast, etc. and then was on the other side of the river. I think you see the trend. Science does an amazing job at explaining all the details about creation, except how something could simply just be. In the end it all takes a certain amount of faith in things, some have a colorful faith while some have theirs grounded in reason.
That and I have problems even believing that if, and it is a realllly big if, there is an all powerful god creator I don't see how he could be intelligent. Not in the sense that people are "intelligent," which would be a big reason to not use the term to describe an all powerful creator. Technically speaking this all powerful entity should have access to all knowledge, period. You name the time, the event, this thing has the answer. This being would have an understanding of causality that is staggering, to the point that it would not need to attempt and comprehend things, to problem solve, be creative etc. Many of the attributes that we have a habit of attributing to intelligence. It would simply "know" things to a point that would be silly, and classify it more as a machine to us than a living entity. Perhaps a telling adjective would be wise.
Anyhow, even the machine creator of insane knowledge has the same problem that science has, how did it come to be from nothing. In the end you come to same point, the world simply exists.
That and I have to work Sunday so no sleeping in, but don't worry on my typical Sunday mornings I tend to read. Next time I get that opportunity I will think of you Kom : )
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
quote:Unfortunately, I simply don't have the time to respond to everything I'd like to in this thread. I'm afraid that too much biochemistry/molecular biology is required to really understand my reasoning and I just don't have the time to explain it all.
Gosh. If only someone here had ever studied biochemistry. Or worked as a biochemist. Or regularly designed and performed experiments that would fall under the umbrella of "biochemistry". Maybe such a person could follow your reasoning.
If only such a person were real.
If only.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Unfortunately, I simply don't have the time to respond to everything I'd like to in this thread. I'm afraid that too much biochemistry/molecular biology is required to really understand my reasoning and I just don't have the time to explain it all.
I accept your concession. Now that you have admitted you have no interest in defending your argument, can you tell us, is it because you have so little respect for us, or because you have such little respect for science?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
She hasn't admitted she has no interest in defending her argument, she's saying she doesn't think she has the time.
While I think she's completely wrong about abiogenesis in this thread (to a level I find surprising and disappointing for someone educated in her fields, nor am I pleased to see her utilizing the tactics she has) this doesn't comment towards her having 'such little respect' for us or science or whatever.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: The "cell phone on the beach" argument for ID is simply begging the question.
I know that it was used as a lame hit-and-run but I am sure most everyone here understands how worthless the watchmaker argument is in the creationism debate at this juncture.
I will also reiterate for everyone in bold.
INTELLIGENT DESIGN = NOT SCIENCE Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm not annoyed by not having time, but I am annoyed about the "mysterious hidden arguments I do not choose to bring out, that I haven't brought up before, and rely on too much knowledge in a field I've made numerous mistakes about in this thread" approach.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
No yeah no argument here, that's pretty bogus! And also something I am disappointed to see from her! I'm just commenting to orincoro's ... um, take on it.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
quote:I accept your concession. Now that you have admitted you have no interest in defending your argument, can you tell us, is it because you have so little respect for us, or because you have such little respect for science?
You know, there's no reason to sound like a tool about it.
Samprimary and fugu made the same points without doing so.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Sorry I simply haven't had time for this discussion for several days. I am planning a response, when I have time for more than a one liner.
For now, Samprimary, shouting and insulting people are not part of the rationality. The question I raised was whether or not there was or could be a scientific approach to studying whether the genetic code was intelligently designed. I don't care how many time you type it in bold letters, shouting doesn't make it true.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:For now, Samprimary, shouting and insulting people are not part of the rationality.
Then it is a pretty good thing that I am not shouting you down or insulting you (Unless you count my noting disapproval and disappointment with how you are making very clear and basic mistakes in this subject and resorting to some rather fallacious arguments; if, by your standard, that counts as insulting you, then yes, I am insulting you with good reason).
If you want to pare down my contribution to this discussion to that, then you need to learn how to be a lot less fragile in response to valid criticisms.
quote:I don't care how many time you type it in bold letters, shouting doesn't make it true.
Also an illusory proposal. Typing it in bold letters doesn't make it true. Typing it in bold letters helps make sure I put a prominent emphasis on one of the crux points of this discussion. "Shouting" that ID is not science does not make it true. Things like this do:
quote:The terms used in design theory are not defined. "Design", in design theory, has nothing to do with "design" as it is normally understood. Design is defined in terms of an agent purposely arranging something, but such a concept appears nowhere in the process of distinguishing design in the sense of "intelligent design." Dembski defined design in terms of what it is not (known regularity and chance), making intelligent design an argument from incredulity; he never said what design is.
A solution to a problem must address the parameters of the problem, or it is just irrelevant hand waving. Any theory about design must somehow address the agent and purpose, or it is not really about design. No intelligent design theorist has ever included agent or purpose in any attempt at a scientific theory of design, and some explicitly say they cannot be included (Dembski 2002, 313). Thus, even if intelligent design theory were able to prove design, it would mean practically nothing; it would certainly say nothing whatsoever about design in the usual sense.
Irreducible complexity also fails as science because it, too, is an argument from incredulity that has nothing to do with design.
Intelligent design is subjective. Even in Dembski's mathematically intricate formulation, the specification of his specified complexity can be determined after the fact, making "specification" a subjective concept. Dembski now talks of "apparent specified complexity" versus "actual specified complexity," of which only the latter indicates design. However, it is impossible to distinguish between the two in principle (Elsberry n.d.).
Intelligent design implies results that are contrary to common sense. Spider webs apparently meet the standards of specified complexity, which implies that spiders are intelligent. One could instead claim that the complexity was designed into the spider and its abilities. But if that claim is made, one might just as well claim that the spider's designer was not intelligent but was intelligently designed, or maybe it was the spider's designer's designer that was intelligent. Thus, either spiders are intelligent, or intelligent design theory reduces to a weak Deism where all design might have entered into the universe only once at the beginning, or terms like "specified complexity" have no useful definition.
The intelligent design movement is not intended to be about science. Phillip Johnson, who spearheaded and led the movement, said in so many words that it is about religion and philosophy, not science (Belz 1996). References:
quote:Merely accounting for facts does not make a theory scientific. Saying "it's magic" can account for any fact anywhere but is as far from science as you can get. A theory has explanatory power if facts can be deduced from it. No facts have ever been deduced from ID theory. The theory is equivalent to saying, "it's magic."
Dembski's explanatory filter requires the examination of an infinite number of other hypotheses -- even unknown ones -- to accept the design hypothesis. Thus it is impossible to apply. Intelligent design remains untestable and impossible to use in practice. Dembski himself has never rigorously applied his filter (Elsberry 2002).
"Intelligent" and "design" remain effectively undefined. A theory cannot have explanatory power if it is uncertain what the theory says in the first place. References:
quote:According to the definition of design, we must determine something about the design process in order to infer design. We do this by observing the design in process or by comparing with the results of known designs. The only example of known intelligent design we have is human design. Life does not look man-made.
Nobody argues that life is not complicated. However, complexity is not the same as design. There are simple things that are designed and complex things that originate naturally. Complexity does not imply design; in fact, simplicity is a design goal in most designs.
In most cases, the inference of design is made because people cannot envision an alternative. This is simply the argument from incredulity. Historically, supernatural design has been attributed to lots of things that we now know form naturally, such as lightning, rainbows, and seasons.
Life as a whole looks very undesigned by human standards, for several reasons:
In known design, innovations that occur in one product quickly get incorporated into other, often very different, products. In eukaryotic life, innovations generally stay confined in one lineage. When the same sort of innovation occurs in different lineages (such as webs of spiders, caterpillars, and web spinners), the details of their implementation differ in the different lineages. When one traces lineages, one sees a great difference between life and design. (Eldredge has done this, comparing trilobites and cornets; Walker 2003.)
In design, form typically follows function. Some creationists expect this (Morris 1974). Yet life shows many examples of different forms with the same function (e.g., different structures making up the wings of birds, bats, insects, and pterodactyls; different organs for making webs in spiders, caterpillars, and web spinners; and at least eleven different types of insect ears), the same basic form with different functions (e.g., the same pattern of bones in a human hand, whale flipper, dog paw, and bat wing) and some structures and even entire organisms without apparent function (e.g., some vestigial organs, creatures living isolated in inaccessible caves and deep underground).
As noted above, life is complex. Design aims for simplicity.
For almost all designed objects, the manufacture of the object is separate from any function of the object itself. All living objects reproduce themselves.
Life lacks plan. There are no specifications of living structures and processes. Genes do not fully describe the phenotype of an organism. Sometimes in the absence of genes, structure results anyway. Organisms, unlike designed systems, are self-constructing in an environmental context.
Life is wasteful. Most organisms do not reproduce, and most fertilized zygotes die before growing much. A designed process would be expected to minimize this waste.
Life includes many examples of systems that are jury-rigged out of parts that were used for another purpose. These are what we would expect from evolution, not from an intelligent designer. For example: Vertebrate eyes have a blind spot because the retinal nerves are in front of the photoreceptors. On orchids that provide a platform for pollinating insects to land on, the stem of the flower has a half twist to move the platform to the lower side of the flower.
Life is highly variable. In almost every species, there is a spread of values for anything you care to measure. The "information" that specifies life is of very low tolerance in engineering terms. There are few standards.
Life is nasty. If life is designed, then death, disease, and decay also must be designed since they are integral parts of life. This is a standard problem of apologetics. Of course, many designed things are also nasty (think of certain weapons), but if the designer is supposed to have moral standards, then it is added support against the design hypothesis.
The process of evolution can be considered a design process, and the complexity and arrangement we see in life are much closer to what we would expect from evolution than from known examples of intelligent design. Indeed, engineers now use essentially the same processes as evolution to find solutions to problems that would be intractably complex otherwise.
Does evolution itself look designed? When you consider that some sort of adaptive mechanism would be necessary on the changing earth if life were to survive, then if life were designed, evolution or something like it would have to be designed into it.
Claiming to be able to recognize design in life implies that nonlife is different, that is, not designed. To claim that life is recognizably designed is to claim that an intelligent designer did not create the rest of the universe.
As it stands, the design claim makes no predictions, so it is unscientific and useless. It has generated no research at all. References:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pg. 70. Walker, Gabrielle, 2003. The collector. New Scientist 179(2405) (26 July): 38-41. Further Reading:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: For now, Samprimary, shouting and insulting people are not part of the rationality. The question I raised was whether or not there was or could be a scientific approach to studying whether the genetic code was intelligently designed. I don't care how many time you type it in bold letters, shouting doesn't make it true.
Rabbit: "Hay guyz, I think ID is science."
Samp, Fugu, Me: "Here are a buttload of reasons why Intelligent Design is not science Rabbit."
Rabbit: "I think it is... I don't want to explain my reasons."
Everyone: "..."
Samp: "Intelligent Design Is Not Science"
The Rabbit: "There's no need to shout, I am simply suggesting that Intelligent Design may be science."
Yelling may not be helping, but I wager it's making him feel better, and it's making me feel better too.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Oh aren't we so evolved and above it all while we propound our religious beliefs under the thin and ugly veil of pseudo-science, and then play martyr when we are laughed out on our asses for the very temerity with which we attempt to poison children against reason with our insidious "theories."
Please, you can take your eyerolls and reduce them to an irreducible complexity, and snort them.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
oh my god stop
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Too soon?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
And don't get me started on you Samp, you're still wrong about Ebert, and yes, I am dragging that into this thread.
I also have a confession to make. *I* created the universe, and designed it. But I'm not very intelligent, so the truth is that the Universe is stupidly designed. That's right, the Universe is just another piece of good old Czechnology.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I don't care what you're dragging into whatever thread about me. stop it, go take a break, come back on a day where you haven't had your puppies kicked so hard or something.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
You might want to go back and reread all my posts...you might see that I espoused no theories at all, esp ID. More than that, you might see that I claimed ID wasn't a scientific theory because it wasn't falsifiable. Finally, you will note that my biggest point was that of mutual respect and avoidance of demonization of the other side- which is what always kills these dialogs- dialogs that I think should be had.
Because all that does is kill discussion. It makes a person tired just contemplating the issue because of all the crap that will be dragged into the issue.
Your posts are a case in point.
Lest people forget, Rabbit and her thread on climate change have been an example of scientific integrity of gcc the scientists doing the work. Yet you immediately condescendingly mischaracterize her posts as a joke ("Hay guyz, I Think ID is science!!!") when it suits you, when she brought up what to her were some valid points.
No she deserves no free pass and her points deserve being scrutinized or shot down as the case may be.
But your immediate and inaccurate smug dismissal (which I did not see in fugu or samp) bothers me. Moreover,after she's made clear she will continue this discussion but was in the middle of something at the moment, you portray her as running away.
I just want see a good discussion of all the issues. Believe it or not, people read these objectively and critically and are evaluating the arguments and points made.
(edit to fix typos because typing on a phone is error prone)
[ June 28, 2010, 09:48 PM: Message edited by: IanO ]
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Because all that does is kill discussion. It makes a person tired just contemplating the issue because of all the crap that will be dragged into the issue.
This is a good thing. Too much time and money have been wasted on this "controversy." If hurt feelings are what it takes to end a useless, resource-draining discussion, then I'm a-ok with that.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
My thought as well. Not particularly concerned that it's unpopular. If it were more popular, it might not seem worth doing.
quote: But your immediate and inaccurate smug dismissal (which I did not see in fugu or samp) bothers me.
Smug yes, immediate yes. I am immediately smug and condescendingly to anyone foolish enough to make a mistake of such breathtaking gravity. I do not want to foster the controversy. There is no controversy. These people are wrong. These people cannot be right- and this is not from the point of view of "scientism" or whatever other cockeyed approach to reason the religious choose to take. It wrong. It is not just materially wrong, in the sense that it is an outdated idea. It is a fundamentally flawed assumption. It is calling black white, and expecting to be allowed to work within the realm of house painting. It's walking up to a dog and insisting it's a fire hydrant.
And the only defense we've seen of it here is that of passive aggression: "I won't answer because you're mean!" "I won't answer because you wouldn't understand" "Because I don't have time," "You're not being fair." It's madness.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
Ad hominem attacks are never a good practice.
That and I have always felt that the argument over ID in general is not really a scientific debate, but a political one. That is as many creationists wanted a way to bring an alternative to evolution into the classroom. I can understand why certain people would want to do that, however teaching it in a science classroom is a completely different proposition.
Many people simply feel that a "materialist" view of the universe is somehow lacking. Generally those people feel that science espouses a starkly material view of the world. Personally I feel it is simply due to limitations in language and that science by the nature of its enterprise and our historical background tends to come across as very machine like to some people. The question simply ends up becoming that in a purely material world the foundations for many beliefs and practices simply fade away and many people do not want to lose that foundation.
That and conversation and discussion in good spirit is generally always a good thing. Hurt feelings rarely change peoples minds, certainly not in favor of your own view point. You may earn kudos from certain individuals from your own viewpoint, but you certainly will not bring anyone over to your own way of thinking. I personally think there are a lot of ideas that a majority of humanity hold that are dead wrong and have no basis to be called knowledge or even true belief, but I don't go around holding up a sign preaching doom downtown.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:This is a good thing. Too much time and money have been wasted on this "controversy." If hurt feelings are what it takes to end a useless, resource-draining discussion, then I'm a-ok with that.
Heh, and do you really imagine that's what happens? Outside of an Internet discussion board, that is. What actually happens out in the real world when you sneer and scorn and condescend and loathe someone's point of view is that they get angry, usually.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
You see why that standard of behavior doesn't hold *on* an internet discussion board? Much as we see the "living room" analogy around here, that's a dead horse. Actually burned and buried.
But I'll drop it from here.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
What exactly is your argument here? That Rabbit should decide we're a bunch of obnoxious jerks, then continue believing what she believes and go off to persuade other people who don't have your background knowledge? Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
Interestingly enough I don't see why that standard of behavior does not hold on an internet discussion board. Although, I don't find it acceptable when people honk their horns at one another when they are driving or flick each other off. That and I think you would be amazed how many people can get truly angry from a discussion on a forum board.
However, I also know that I am generally a bit too polite at times. Regardless, I would say that one of the things missing from our society is actual rational discourse that focuses on the argument and its premises rather than fallacious argument forms, such as the personality of the person(s) that you are arguing with.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I think it's been made pretty clear that arguing the points with her doesn't work, restating the facts doesn't work, yelling doesn't work, so yeah, having it just be dropped would at least make it go away from here, which might be nice.
It's religion. You know what you get when you discuss science from a religious perspective? Nothing of value. Ever.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
What benefit does being obnoxious bring that simply ignoring wouldn't?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It's religion. You know what you get when you discuss science from a religious perspective? Nothing of value. Ever.
Nothing quite like an absolute statement to say more about the speaker than the subject being spoken of.
quote:What exactly is your argument here? That Rabbit should decide we're a bunch of obnoxious jerks, then continue believing what she believes and go off to persuade other people who don't have your background knowledge?
What I'm saying, at least, is that if in one's perspective another person is being ridiculous and irrational, and one objects to that on grounds of rationality and science...perhaps the reasonable, consistent course of action wouldn't be to turn things into an emotional insult-exchange.
What is it about a scientific, rational outlook that says, "I'll be calm, polite, rational, and reasonable. But if someone comes along and is silly, superstitious, and insistently utterly wrong-headed and ignorant, then to hell with that, I'ma call `em idiots because that's what they are, I'm right and they're stupid." I don't understand that. Well, actually, I do understand that: a failure to practice what is preached, which is a very human failing.
It's just strange and kind of funny to see it from folks who claim to eschew that sort of thing.
ETA: That was to what you said, not to you personally, Raymond, if you get what I mean.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
Just a quick tangent, if you don't mind.
If ID is a scientific theory that makes sense regardless of religious beliefs, are there any atheist scientists that accept it?
I know there are plenty of atheist biochemists that would be able to understand these mysterious arguments that are over our heads. If someone could post a link to one of them explaining why s/he believes in ID without believing in God, it might make the argument a little more clear and/or persuasive.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
On that case I think you would actually be surprised, especially when you consider the breadth of what is a "religious perspective." That and I think part of the problem is what we all consider "facts." You certainly find the premises true, but she might have some reason, rational or not, for not agreeing with you on those specific points.
That and science is often brought forward as almost a type of religion, especially by those that have little practical experience with actual science. Most people simply spend their lives with the general causal knowledge that pushing a button produces effect X. Faith is found in more places than we want to admit. By virtue of our lives and history we simply tend to distort the meaning and implications of certain parts of language as well as concepts that are connected with it all.
Example being Intelligent Design. There is a feeling that because ID attempts to describe complex (yeah we can argue if it is complex or not) material systems that is therefore science. Even though it is really attempting to address a material "reality" with an article of faith, which is most certainly not empirical inquiry or science.
Part of the issue that many rational thinkers have with those that are heavy on the faith side is the notion that no evidence is great enough to shake that persons faith. Simply stated, there is always some excuse for why God or some force exists contrary to what the evidence states. Example: We found evidence that evolution exists through examining the fossil record etc. Riposte: God could have simply inserted a false fossil record to challenge our faith. Obviously not every religious person is this way, however it happens and tends to simply cause rational thinkers to do something resembling Vesuvius. Intellectual magma spews forth and all the bystanders get covered in ash to be uncovered by another group of intellectuals centuries later.
Trying to bury religion with science or vice versa is a futile pursuit that simply emboldens the other party. Ending the argument on the note of "you're stupid" or anything resembling that statement also does little to enamor your points to any audience.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: What benefit does being obnoxious bring that simply ignoring wouldn't?
Lots and lots of attention.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Baron Samedi, the only example of a non-Christian IDer I can think of is David Berlinski, and he's nothing but a contrarian, with all of the Christopher Hitchens foolishness that implies, with none of the rakish charm.
quote:What exactly is your argument here? That Rabbit should decide we're a bunch of obnoxious jerks, then continue believing what she believes and go off to persuade other people who don't have your background knowledge?
Actually, I'm cool with this too.
Here's the thing. The ID/Evolution debate is not actually as important as everyone seems to think it is. Sure, it is scientifically important, but beyond that? Let's say the Texas School Board people succeed beyond their wildest dreams, and ID appears in high school textbooks across the nation.
The consequences:
1) Intelligent teachers get into fights with their principles and boards. Ok, that's bad.
2) University profs waste a few hours in first year courses correcting various incorrect ideas.
3) Incorrigible students drop out.
The first consequence is truly unfortunate. The second is an inconvenience. The third is the chickens coming home to roost.
Scientific research will continue apace, because IDers will continue to produce and publish what they've always produced and published: nothing. Science hardly has anything to fear from nothing.
So do I care if someone stomps off in a huff? No. ID has lost, and everything is over but the crying.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
Finding a simple Atheist, Buddhist, Animist, etc. to support a theory of any sort that comes from an opposie viewpoint does not make it true or more likely. Ideas should be judged on their own merit, not based on where the idea came from.
That and I believe the entire problem with ID is that it ends up being conjecture that things are so complex they had to designed by someone/something intelligent. However, how do you test for that? For that reason it can't be science. Using information derived from scientific inquiry does not make your product science, hence why we have the field of engineering ( I love engineers by the way). Using some science does not make you science.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
The ID argument for science education is a bit like the Bigfoot agument for Calculus education.
I fing Calculus to be too complex to have been invented by the human mind, so only a purely mathematical mind, like that of the Bigfootcould ha e invented it.
I suggest we teach this controversy, including, for historical perspective of course, all the other things that I believe about Bigfoot as well.
You're all OK with that, right? You don't want to stifle discussion, do you?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Scientific research will continue apace, because IDers will continue to produce and publish what they've always produced and published: nothing. Science hardly has anything to fear from nothing.
So do I care if someone stomps off in a huff? No. ID has lost, and everything is over but the crying.
So, if there is nothing to fear, Raymond Arnold's question becomes even more interesting. Is the reason to be obnoxious just...what, gloating? To be be a bad winner?
quote:I suggest we teach this controversy, including, for historical perspective of course, all the other things that I believe about Bigfoot as well.
And so, after calling you an ignorant twit for believing something so absurdly stupid...what have I gained? I haven't persuaded you. I haven't changed my own mind about how silly it is. If I changed someone else's mind with such a colorful insult-filled rant, chances are they could be easily persuaded one way or another. So what's been gained, aside from chest-thumping?
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
Mighty Cow, I always laugh at the things that you write ( in a good way, not that upper tier haughty British laughter, however the whole bigfoot and calculus analogy is really argument by false analogy. That and if you ever read what Plato thought about mathematics you might really flip your whig ( not that I'm with Plato on that, just so you don't verbally stab me in the face here).
The difference of course is that millions, really billions, of people have deep religious convictions. Something that they don't have about bigfoot, at least that I am aware of. The reason for the conversation and debate is that many people hold the ideas and we all live in the same world. For that reason rational and civilized discourse over the matter is preferrable to slinging mud.
That and I have always felt that we should teach things beyond simply math, science, and english in the K-12 levels. That is an argument for another day. Just to clarify, I do not think that teaching intelligent design in a science class is acceptable for many of the reasons listed here. However, I think you are missing the fact that if enough people believe anything that alone makes it a topic of importance. This goes far beyond religios beliefs.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:So, if there is nothing to fear, Raymond Arnold's question becomes even more interesting. Is the reason to be obnoxious just...what, gloating? To be be a bad winner?
It's not a competition, though. That's what is missed here. You're still thinking of this in terms of democratic debate. On one side stands knowledge, and on the other, willful ignorance. Democracy and debate have nothing to do with it.
I grew up surrounded by young Earth creationists; I was one myself until I was 19. We endlessly debated the role of will in belief; do people just believe what they want to believe? To a certain extent, yes. I always pointed out a very specific difference between them and I, however. One of their favourite Biblical story was that of the rich man and Lazarus; I assume you know it? Anyways, when the rich man is in hell, he asks Abraham to resurrect someone from the dead to warn his brothers about hell. Abraham responds that if they don't believe Moses and the prophets, than they won't believe a resurrected human.
Maybe, I always said. Maybe. But I've never seen a resurrected human. For their part, however, every single night of their lives they looked into the night sky and gazed at star light that had taken considerably longer than 6000 years to travel to Earth.
In the end, my attitude is the same as Abraham's. If the mountains of evidence won't convince them, if they literally refuse to believe their own eyes, why should we care? They can't stop scientific research, and the data will always be there for them to re-consider. They can always find salvation, but if they refuse, well, Jesus had a term for continued discussions with them: throwing pearls before swine.
If IDers could have some practical ill effect on scientific research, I would feel differently. But they can't; all they can do is waste the time of a professor trying to teach first year biology, physics or geology classes.
Posted by Jenos (Member # 12168) on :
I am dubious about the claim saying ID has no effect on science. Ultimately science requires some sort of funding and money and backing to develop. Isn't the fear that teaching ID as a viable alternative to science will create a society of individuals who don't value science and instead believe in ideas that are false, which in turn will have a detrimental effect on science?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It's not a competition, though. That's what is missed here. You're still thinking of this in terms of democratic debate. On one side stands knowledge, and on the other, willful ignorance. Democracy and debate have nothing to do with it.
I'm not missing it, I'm thinking about it differently. See, if you're coming at the matter from a purely abstract perspective, then you're right, it's not a competition. But it's not abstract. I'm coming at it from, "What is the goal? Why are people saying these things?" Slinging mud is really not consistent with any goal besides chest thumping, and has no other excuse than frustration and self-righteousness. Which is very understandable in this situation, but let's label things accurately: calling names and sneering does not actually move one's side even an inch closer to proving its point to the other side. Quite the opposite sometimes, in fact.
quote: In the end, my attitude is the same as Abraham's. If the mountains of evidence won't convince them, if they literally refuse to believe their own eyes, why should we care? They can't stop scientific research, and the data will always be there for them to re-consider. They can always find salvation, but if they refuse, well, Jesus had a term for continued discussions with them: throwing pearls before swine.
If IDers could have some practical ill effect on scientific research, I would feel differently. But they can't; all they can do is waste the time of a professor trying to teach first year biology, physics or geology classes.
Well, I suppose if you think that the way our public schools educate our children is insubstantial and essentially meaningless, then I suppose you're right. It is meaningless. That's a pretty smug, silly thing to think, though. It would be one thing if it led one to think, "OK, they're too deluded and stupid to persuade, so I'll ignore them." That's a rational, reasonable stance to take. What's being said here, though, is, "They're too stupid and deluded to persuade, so let's call them names and sneer at them, and drive them away. Anyone who disagrees with that approach, remember, they're asking for it."
C'mon, Foust. Why should you care? Because they can throw up a speed-bump in the way of scientific progress. How many years did you waste growing up believing in YEC? What could you have instead been learning in that time? How would your life have been different if you hadn't been taught such things? That's why you should care, that's why it matters. Your life personally would have been improved, however slightly, and the lives of those around you would have been as well. You live in the world with them.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
quote:If ID is a scientific theory that makes sense regardless of religious beliefs, are there any atheist scientists that accept it?
FWIW, I haven't read this (Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design), but the title stuck with me. Took a second to track it down. (I have too many books to read right now for me to add it to the list.)
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
Interesting. But if it's defending an atheistic view of ID, why is it called "Seeking God in Science?"
I haven't read it either, but based on the title it seems like another example of ID being religion-dependent, and the opposite of what the original post was trying to demonstrate.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jenos: I am dubious about the claim saying ID has no effect on science. Ultimately science requires some sort of funding and money and backing to develop. Isn't the fear that teaching ID as a viable alternative to science will create a society of individuals who don't value science and instead believe in ideas that are false, which in turn will have a detrimental effect on science?
That is the aim of the "teach the debate" movement. It's an insidious attempt to disrupt and weaken children's understanding of science. I don't think even most people who support or promote that particular cause understand that this is what they are doing. I'm not even clear on whether anyone involved in it really understands that aim, because if they were rational about what they were doing, they would also understand that it was wrong and dishonest. This is something different from an expressed aim, and it's something a little different from simple dishonesty and trickery. It's really worse than that- it's the collective paroxysm of the religious (some of them) against reason, because reason threatens their view of the universe. Those that don't fall headlong into the fight on that side are only those who are too smart, or have been indoctrinated too imperfectly to commit to such madness.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Black Fox: Is Argumentum ad populum any better?
I wouldn't say that it's false analogy anyway, by your post. You just seem to be talking a matter of numbers. If thousands of people believe in Bigfoot, how many more need to believe before we take them seriously and teach their bad math?
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
The matter of Bigfoot being a source of knowledge due to so many people believing it to be true would certainly be a bad argument. However, when so many people believe that Bigfoot is a source of knowledge you have to respect that fact to a certain degree. You certainly do not and should not teach bad math because of it. I am saying that ID is a matter of faith, not a matter of science. However, people who believe in ID will believe that it is science and that is where it can be morally and conversationally difficult. Does that make sense?
ID should be taught in theology or history courses, not in a chemistry or biology. Does that make sense? That and even if you believe/know that ID is a bunk scientific theory ( in so far that it really is not a scientific theory ) does not mean that you somehow have a moral high ground to sling mud. You simply have knowledge, depending on your concept of what knowledge is.
Posted by Jenos (Member # 12168) on :
The problem is, as I see it, that rational and calm discussion never changes the perception of those who hold the ID position that it is science. Slinging mud may not do so either, but what other options are there to stop people from teaching something that is not science and potentially detrimental to the future of scientific development in America?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Black Fox: I am OK with comparitive religion creations stories taught in the appropriate classes, so long as a real cross section are taught, and done so as equals. If a particular religion wants to do more, that is what church is for.
Under no circumstances should a Biblical creationism be taught in school under the false name ID. I don't think junk science deserves even a moment of our time except to debunk it, no matter how many people believe it.
Should faith healing be taught in Medical School? Should the Great Flood be taught in geology? Should human sacrifice theory of crop growth be taught, or the angry gods theory of thunder?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
MightyCow, are you even reading Black Fox's responses? The guy just said ID should not be taught as science, because it is not science. If I'm not mistaken, that isn't a change of position for him, either.
quote:The problem is, as I see it, that rational and calm discussion never changes the perception of those who hold the ID position that it is science. Slinging mud may not do so either, but what other options are there to stop people from teaching something that is not science and potentially detrimental to the future of scientific development in America?
The problem here is twofold. One, you think that your experience on the subject is either comprehensive or representative. Why is that? How many different people have you seen someone attempt to convince that ID is not science? Second, you also appear sure that you have a firm handle on what rational and calm discussion is. I can't dispute the calm part, but the rational is called into question pretty clearly by your first assumption.
Anyway, to answer your question, I don't grant your premise. I wasn't aware science required mud-slinging to defend it.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Rakeesh: Did you even read my response? I'm agreeing with him in one regard, and then going a few steps further.
He's on the right track, but I think it's a mistake to even consider ID as an honest course of study in any field, because it isn't a real topic, it's simply a clever smear campaign against evolution.
As I said, teach comparative religion, but ID is just a sneaky attempt to give Christian Creationism undue time.
The last paragraph was aimed at ID proponents, so if there was any confusion there, it was unintentional, and not because I think Black Fox would support those ideas.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:The problem is, as I see it, that rational and calm discussion never changes the perception of those who hold the ID position that it is science. Slinging mud may not do so either, but what other options are there to stop people from teaching something that is not science and potentially detrimental to the future of scientific development in America?
Exactly. We're at the point where all we can hope to do is get them to say "screw you guys, I'm taking my ball and going home."
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Fortunately, getting ID proponents to go home is a win.
Good science will win out over ignorance, but it has an uphill battle against indoctrination.
Many people want to know the answers to life's questions, but given an imaginary answer that is easy to digest, some will stop there, without caring if the easy answer is the right one.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by IanO:
quote:If ID is a scientific theory that makes sense regardless of religious beliefs, are there any atheist scientists that accept it?
Brad Morton's blog (author of "Seeking God in Science"). I haven't read the book, and only came across the blog as a result of IanO's post. I'm also not particularly invested in the topic, and am very limited in my understanding of any of the arguments (pro or con).
Merton's basic claim is not that ID is "true," but (in his words) "that it’s legitimate to think of intelligent design as a science and that arguments for intelligent design are more plausible than they’re typically given credit for. I also argue that there are ways in which it’s a good idea for intelligent design to be taught in public school." To the final claim, his point is that many students will have already been taught ID concepts at home or at church, and that these then need to be addressed in the science classroom.
Also, in reading his archived blog posts, he references the works of Steve Fuller and David Berlinski, both of whom are also atheists (or, at least, agnostics) and who agree that ID should be treated with more respect as a scientific discipline than it currently receives.
*Caveat: to the original question, "are there any atheist scientists that accept [ID]," it may be useful to point out that 1) depending on your definitions, it could be argued that none of these three are "scientists" (rather they're philosophers studying the philosophy of science) and 2) none are wholly endorsing ID, but generally making weaker claims like "the arguments against ID are insufficient to dismiss it."
<edit>The question also seems somewhat impossible to satisfy, in that the creator of life is usually synonymous with "God." I suppose an atheist IDer could believe some non-human entity designed life, but that this designer is so far removed from what is traditionally considered "God" that they refuse the label.</edit>
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Good science will win out over ignorance, but it has an uphill battle against indoctrination.
Many people want to know the answers to life's questions, but given an imaginary answer that is easy to digest, some will stop there, without caring if the easy answer is the right one.
I've been pondering this a lot recently. Does more precise knowledge translate into a better understanding? And better decision-making?
A decision is based off of two things:
Data
Values
All the data in the world will not alter a decision if the values are independent of the data.
This is true for many points of contention today. Climate Change, oil dependence, habitat loss, ID vs. evolution, etc. In many places, good science is not defeating ignorance. More data, or better data, or more explicitly defined data do not penetrate through to values.
Ideally:
1) Someone has a preconception 2) New data are discovered 3) The preconception is verified or disproved, and the new data are incorporated
In reality, new data are ignored, devalued, and twisted. Preconceptions are rarely tested and changed. The problem isn't with the data, it's with peoples' unwillingness to challenge their preconceptions. Often changing one's mind is perceived as a weakness. That is the biggest problem I can see, and I don't know how to make it better.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Originally posted by IanO:
quote:If ID is a scientific theory that makes sense regardless of religious beliefs, are there any atheist scientists that accept it?
Bradley Monton isn't a scientist, he's a philosopher of science. But whatever you can get, I suppose.
SenojRetep, Steve Fuller is a sociologist. As for Berlinski, he was prominently featured in Expelled. Ok, he has scientific credentials, but his engagement with ID seems more to be about contrarianism rather than any positive position.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
quote:But whatever you can get, I suppose.
I wasn't trying to get anything. Someone asked a question, it tickled the back of my mind and reminded me of a title I had seen a while ago, and I tracked it down. That's the whole point of "FWIW". End of story- without the implication of desperation.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
quote:He's on the right track, but I think it's a mistake to even consider ID as an honest course of study in any field, because it isn't a real topic, it's simply a clever smear campaign against evolution.
What, it shouldn't even be taught in a history or philosophy class? That doesn't fit with your claims that religion can be taught, so long as it is given equality across the board with its own competitors.
So, yeah, I read your response. Black Fox essentially agreed with you, and then you moved the goalposts even further.
-------
quote:Exactly. We're at the point where all we can hope to do is get them to say "screw you guys, I'm taking my ball and going home."
quote:Fortunately, getting ID proponents to go home is a win.
Good science will win out over ignorance, but it has an uphill battle against indoctrination.
Heh, so just to be clear, you guys - Foust and MightyCow - actually don't think science can win out over religious thinking without slinging mud in this case? Well, that certainly explains your posting style, MightyCow.
Know what they do when they take their ball and go home? Preach it harder at church and to their families. Slinging mud makes this kind of thinking harder to defeat, not easier. You might as well see someone building up to an angry explosion and try to calm them down by slapping them in the face.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
ID gets to discussed in science (or philosophy) class when it proposes actual ideas about the designer that can be discussed and questioned.
Otherwise, simply saying "too complex" isn't proposing intelligent design, it's merely proposing "too-complex-ianism," which is really kinda just part of the testing process for normal science. Except without admitting when the "too complex" counter-hypothesis is proved wrong.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I agree.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Heh, so just to be clear, you guys - Foust and MightyCow - actually don't think science can win out over religious thinking without slinging mud in this case?
In the context of public opinion, no, it probably can't - religion is nigh invincible. As I said in a previous posts, people who stare at the ancient light of stars every night of the lives are still somehow young earth creationists.
The fact that IDers never publish anything is more than just a blight on their credibility. It also means they have no hope of interfering with the larger realm of scientific research. The people that face the biggest threat from them are, as I've said, the poor professors who have to deal with students indoctrinated in this stuff.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I agree.
Me, too.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust:
quote:Originally posted by IanO:
quote:If ID is a scientific theory that makes sense regardless of religious beliefs, are there any atheist scientists that accept it?
Bradley Monton isn't a scientist, he's a philosopher of science. But whatever you can get, I suppose.
SenojRetep, Steve Fuller is a sociologist. As for Berlinski, he was prominently featured in Expelled. Ok, he has scientific credentials, but his engagement with ID seems more to be about contrarianism rather than any positive position.
I did mention in my caveat that all three were more philosophically engaged with the material than scientifically engaged. Steve Fuller seems to be a sociologist in the same way that Merton is a scientist (i.e. both seem to focus more on the philosophy behind the subjects rather than the subjects themselves).
I haven't seen Expelled and know only a little about it, but dismissing someone because they were featured in it seems a little odd. But, as I said in my initial post, I'm not particularly invested; if you feel they can be easily cast aside feel free to do so.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: ID gets to discussed in science (or philosophy) class when it proposes actual ideas about the designer that can be discussed and questioned.
Otherwise, simply saying "too complex" isn't proposing intelligent design, it's merely proposing "too-complex-ianism," which is really kinda just part of the testing process for normal science. Except without admitting when the "too complex" counter-hypothesis is proved wrong.
Yep.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:In the context of public opinion, no, it probably can't - religion is nigh invincible. As I said in a previous posts, people who stare at the ancient light of stars every night of the lives are still somehow young earth creationists.
The fact that IDers never publish anything is more than just a blight on their credibility. It also means they have no hope of interfering with the larger realm of scientific research. The people that face the biggest threat from them are, as I've said, the poor professors who have to deal with students indoctrinated in this stuff.
If in the context of public opinion religion is invincible...why are things like church attendance and individual religious belief not either growing or remaining static, Foust? Both of them, particularly when looked at over generations, have been in decline for quite some time now. The facts of reality simply do not match your argument, which more and more sounds like an excuse not to have to deal with them.
Which is fine, but let's not pretty it up by saying it's the only possible effective tactic. It's clearly not the only possible effective tactic, and I dispute that it's very effective at all.
As for who faces the biggest threat...what about children who are brought up in that kind of mentality, Foust? What about kids who are taught to twist or even outright sneer at science and all the many benefits it can bring, as though science and religion were by definition mutually exclusive? We all know what sort of harm that kind of thinking can do.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust:
quote:The problem is, as I see it, that rational and calm discussion never changes the perception of those who hold the ID position that it is science. Slinging mud may not do so either, but what other options are there to stop people from teaching something that is not science and potentially detrimental to the future of scientific development in America?
Exactly. We're at the point where all we can hope to do is get them to say "screw you guys, I'm taking my ball and going home."
Are they leaving a science classroom to go hem and hew about how they are so right and this is so unfair outside of secular education and/or the strenuous debate of credible theory?
If so, then, win!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Are they leaving a science classroom to go hem and hew about how they are so right and this is so unfair outside of secular education and/or the strenuous debate of credible theory?
If so, then, win!
What also happens is that the leave the science classroom or the PTA meeting and go run for the local school board.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:In the context of public opinion, no, it probably can't - religion is nigh invincible. As I said in a previous posts, people who stare at the ancient light of stars every night of the lives are still somehow young earth creationists.
Heh. The Czech Republic is 60% non-believing, with 19% of the population espousing belief in god, meaning 80% of the country is non-deist, never mind non-Christian. The size of the catholic population in this country has decreased by 50% in ten years. "Well-nigh invincible" indeed.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: What also happens is that the leave the science classroom or the PTA meeting and go run for the local school board.
that's less win, but then it results in Dover-esque precedent generating conflict with the law, which is more net win overall! hoorrraaayyy!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Go on and mock me samprimary, but it wasn't Rakeesh who was laughing at me.... it was GOD!
:dies IRAE!:
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
In my defense, I took Rakeesh to be speaking about a select group of believers - those actively involved as either YECers or IDers. When I called religion invincible, I really did just mean to refer to the specific demographics relevant to this discussion.
Frankly, I think that should have been obvious to all of you considering the context. Orincoro.
quote:What about kids who are taught to twist or even outright sneer at science and all the many benefits it can bring, as though science and religion were by definition mutually exclusive? We all know what sort of harm that kind of thinking can do.
Yeah, we do. Less competition for physics programs and wasted time in first year biology classes.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
OK, let's narrow the scope then, Foust.
You claim that YECers or IDers are 'well nigh invincible' in their belief against any contradiction. You claim this is based on your own experience. Well, how much experience do you have, exactly? Experience of people challenging their beliefs, that is. Of that experience, how much of it was calm, rational, and insistent as opposed to mud-slinging? How sure are you that when you saw these attempts, you were able to accurately gauge the difference? And finally, most importantly, what is your experience in proportion to the entire amount of times someone has attempted to contradict such people?
quote:Yeah, we do. Less competition for physics programs and wasted time in first year biology classes.
Certainly not at the public school pre-college level, where classes where biology is a big topic are frequently mandatory. You're really holding on rather...dogmatically to this point of yours, Foust.
--------
quote:that's less win, but then it results in Dover-esque precedent generating conflict with the law, which is more net win overall! hoorrraaayyy!
How long did that take, exactly? What impact do you think this decision has had on the people who will be teaching their kids YEC/ID anyway?
But, again, I ask the question: since when does science need mud-slinging and insults to defend itself against superstition and nonsense? You know what needs that sort of thing to defend itself? Not science. Angry people are who need that sort of thing, or at least think they do. "Raaagh, you refuse to acknowledge my rational, scientific outlook! You stupid sheep-headed moron, just go away! Raagh!"
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I suppose ID can have one paragraph, immediately following LeMark, in the "things that sound good but are completely wrong when you learn a little more" category.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)