posted
Wow, and we thought our discussions were heated.
quote:Editor attacked over ‘intelligent design’ article Smithsonian scientists smeared colleague who published paper, report finds.
Evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg made a fateful decision a year ago.
As editor of the hitherto obscure Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Sternberg decided to publish a paper making the case for "intelligent design," a controversial theory that holds that the machinery of life is so complex as to require the hand — subtle or not — of an intelligent creator.
Within hours of publication, senior scientists at the Smithsonian Institution — which has helped fund and run the journal — lashed out at Sternberg as a shoddy scientist and a closet Bible thumper.
---
Sternberg is an unlikely revolutionary. He holds two PhDs in evolutionary biology, his graduate work draws praise from his former professors, and in 2000 he gained a coveted research associate appointment at the Smithsonian Institution.
---
A senior Smithsonian scientist wrote in an e-mail: "We are evolutionary biologists and I am sorry to see us made into the laughing stock of the world, even if this kind of rubbish sells well in backwoods USA."
An e-mail stated, falsely, that Steinberg had "training as an orthodox priest." Another labeled him a "Young Earth Creationist," meaning a person who believes God created the world in the past 10,000 years.
This latter accusation is a reference to Sternberg's service on the board of the Baraminology Study Group, a "young Earth" group. Sternberg insists he does not believe in creationism. "I was rather strong in my criticism of them," he said. "But I agreed to work as a friendly but critical outsider."
posted
Despite the justly-deserved negative impression of a few scientists this shows, I think this should more than adequately demonstrate that not only are scientistific journals willing to publish controversial papers, but peer reviewers are willing to approve them. So we have total number of peer reviewed creationist or ID papers I'm aware of in a science journal being one, versus thousands and thousands explicitly supporting evolutionary theory.
Its worth pointing out that while I have not read the paper, the impression I got from the article was that it was more a philosophy of science piece than a nuts and bolts science paper.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
An important point I think both sides need to take away: the way the scientists treated Steinberg is how many religious people see "Science" as treating "Religion".
ID and creationists are trying to get non-science taught as science. This is bad.
People rightfully attack this idea. However, Many, many, many of the attacks in ID and creationism (many not from scienctists) I read are not attacks on the science. They include much "invisible man in the sky" crap, references to "superstition." They imply that evolution proves God doesn't exist or dispels the myth of our special place in the universe. These attacks go well beyond a mere defense of what science is or pointing out the flaws in ID as a scientific theory.
This brings in not only ID and creationism proponents, but also other religious people, wo proceed to misidentify their critics as the scientific establishment and launch their counterattacks accordingly. You've seen some of the counter-rhetoric here - mistatements about what science is, many of them informed by their misunderstanding that the attacks launched on their beliefs were launched by "science."
And it keeps going 'round and 'round.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Has me thinking, too... as has most of this conversation... where do I fall? What am I taking on faith? What am I attacking? Defending? Is there a fatal inflexibility or paradox in me, that I am blind to?
I am a non-scientist. But I think one of the things I believe in most fiercely is keeping an open mind.
The universe is a big place. Science is a long way from defining 'consciousness.' There's certainly plenty of evidence, in human affairs, that matters of the heart and soul carry extraordinary weight, and yet Science cannot touch or weigh them.
But it also seems to me that however spiritual traits and values propagate and interact, and whatever their source, it is unlikely to be capricious, arbitrary or random.
This is a big faith, that the universe is not random. But to me, it is a big enough faith to include all that might ever be discovered, even if it included something that today I would consider 'supernatural' or 'spiritual.'
My belief system fully accepts that, if there is a God, it is a lawful God. Here's one way of looking at it: the universe, made in Her image, obeys laws.
It is one thing science and religion have very much in common: Law. Scientists try to determine laws. If they're lucky, they get a Law named after them. In Judaism, the very notions of 'law' and 'scripture' are intertwined; the pinnacle (no pun intended) act of God (after Creation and the Fall) is giving the ten commandments. Law.
Where does this my faith in order, combined with open-mindedness, leave me?
It leaves me, first of all, curious. Certainly the universe is a vast wonderful place, of course I am curious. But on top of that: I have this conviction that it's worth being curious about. That it will make sense. That it won't pull a wild prank.
(You know how card-game rules change, sometimes wildly and with great hilarity, during the game, while holed up with cousins in some cottage for a holiday? If the changes go on too long -- it gets boring. Nobody wants to play.)
Open-mindedness. Curiosity. And the conviction that the universe operates according to laws, if only we can discern them. This is the 'soul' of the scientist.
Perhaps the scientist's 'body' is the types of thinking, methods, approaches, and systems (including math and so forth) that have grown up to support those qualities.
The concept of Intelligent Design has run into this 'body and soul' of open-mindedness and keen tools honed against everything from Piltdown Man to Cold Fusion to Chromatic Detonation, and hasn't even passed the blush test.
Nobody can give the remotest explanation of how to include any notion of Intelligent Design in a scientific investigation of the universe. So scientists' reluctance to agree to do so is not based on blind rejection -- it is based on simply not having the first idea where to begin.
Now ARE there unknown approaches, that may be developed, that may enable ID to be 'figured out,' one day, scientifically? Maybe. I'll grant that. But until then, it isn't science -- it is the antithesis of science.
Unless you were to counter by saying science's failing is due to the fact that ID isn't ordered. That it doesn't obey any kind of consistent law. Then I'd say, like Westley in the Fire Swamp, "I don't think it exists."
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've read his questions and they are good, but I need to point out, they are questions that can't all be answered. And that there exist theories existing now, within science that can't answer those questions, and are yet science.
For one, Theories of Multi-Dimensions fits well into this. Science or Science Fiction? Does a 4th dimension exist? Use your questions in application to that theory. Does not being able to answer them invalidate it as "science".
I would also like to make an analogy to illustrate ID that may be wrong, faulty, whatever.
Let say that I create using scientific laws a new single cell life form or I create multiple brand new multi cell life forms. Completely different than what exists and entirely probably and possible and a "when" not "if" question. I take that lifegorm to another planet that I made by manipulating the laws of physics and the universe and creating my own universal big bang again we know it's possible, just not yet. I use genetics and other existing laws of physics and I create my own seeds, plants, etc. etc. etc. and put them on that world and then I leave it to run on it's own. Maybe I visit from time to time and make changes and maybe at times I even interact with with the life forms or by manipulating the laws or the universe I effect change on that world. Lets say a thousand years go by maybe even millions or billions and the lifeforms evolve and birth science using their logic.
Are they created or not? Is there evidence they were ever created by me? Let say all I created was a rock made of a few elements? What caused that rock to evolve into life? What is the source of all life? There are items that are dead and there items that are living. Let's say we trace all life back to one single celled organism through evolution. What basic dead elements when combined, make life? What is the difference between a rock and a single celled organism and what does evolution tell us will happen to the rock or from whence the life came? A rock or elements don't have DNA. How did the rock come to have dna? How from dead simple elements did life begin? What is the beginning of life? What is the catalyst and made it?
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Use your questions in application to that theory. Does not being able to answer them invalidate it as "science".
Actually, Chad, most of his questions can be answered by multi-dimensional theories.
quote: I would also like to make an analogy to illustrate ID that may be wrong, faulty, whatever.
It's worth noting that your example is an excellent proof of the fact that ID is a "why" and not a "how" argument. The "how" is what you did to make life; the "why" is whether that happened with or without you. ID is all about the second question.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No ID is HOW life came into being. I can't believe you are actually argueing that.
Or is the big bang theory why?
ID is "how" life came into being. Why is philosophical and I'll explicitly ask you to differentiate big bang as a "how" and not "why" life exists.
You claim there is "evidence" of a 4th dimension. Please elaborate on what evidences and effects we can see that point to there being one. What products of it do we have? Who has seen it? There is absolutely ZERO evidence that a 4th dimension exists.
It's the HEAVEN of science.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We don't have experimental evidence of multiple dimensions.
We do have vast amounts of experimental evidence of theories consistent with the existence of multiple dimensions.
We also have several proposed experiments that test predictions made by M-Theory, which includes as part of the theory at least 10 dimensions.
In other words, no scientist would claim that science has "proven" multiple dimensions exist. However, they have a good idea of experiments that will provide some evidence they do if the results come out one way and some evidence they don't if the results come out another way.
Simply propose one experiment on ID that would do the same. Just one.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Science doesn't try to answer that question, at least not with more than a very low confidence (that is, the general region we've discovered the earliest know signs of life in gets pegged as being, well, likely for being near where life originated).
As for evidence of a 4th dimension, I certainly hope you experience temporal causality. Not to mention that high energy physics have been used to find considerable evidence for a few higher dimensions, through things like otherwise unexpected energy resonances at frequencies compatible with expected sizes of tightly rolled dimensions, as predicted by theories.
edit: Dag, its reasonable to call what has been seen evidence for more dimensions, just because it doesn't involve direct use of the human senses doesn't mean it isn't evidence. If some theory comes along which explains the results in a manner other than higher dimensions (which, given higher dimensions, much as with the first 3 as far as high energy physics is concerned, are largely a mathematical abstraction, isn't too likely), then what it is evidence for will change, but for now, it is evidence for higher dimensions.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Discover had a recent article on experiments that might provide evidence in favor of M-theory, which requires more than 4 dimensions.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Simply propose one experiment on ID that would do the same. Just one.
1. Follow the source of all life to it's source (if there is one)
2. Follow the source of all predicated natural law to it's source (if there is one) as every single law is predicated on a law is predicated on a law, etc. etc.
I'll translate your evidence for 4th dimensional theories: ZERO.
Your evidence boils down to the religious argument of "We exist and so there's a 4th dimension" and the equivalent of "Ghost Stories" as proof there is a supernatural.
So I assume your willing to believe people who have seen the Virgin Mary as evidence that she exists as it's harder evidence than 4th dimension evidence or even the hint that there's a barrier or end to the 3rd.
quote:We also have several proposed experiments that test predictions made by M-Theory, which includes as part of the theory at least 10 dimensions.
You have a proposal that there's ID with the same prediction that there is a Intelligent Source to life and that we can see evidences of it in our own logical ability to manipulate life to a greater more powerful extent than evolution can.
quote:As for evidence of a 4th dimension, I certainly hope you experience temporal causality. Not to mention that high energy physics have been used to find considerable evidence for a few higher dimensions, through things like otherwise unexpected energy resonances at frequencies compatible with expected sizes of tightly rolled dimensions, as predicted by theories
You sound like a religious person who has physically died and then been resucitated claiming that the unnexpected white light and tunnel is evidence of God.
Your Theories of 4th Dimension are based on "beliefs" with about as much water as the belief in a "spirit" within a human body and expiriments that equate to ASSUMING it exists and running tests on it, that can't be performed until you prove it exists.
That or it could be we're all part of the MATRIX and your sensing the robots touching our computer generated dream world.
How about experiments based on the THEORY of ID that proved true?
ANY controlled experiment is evidence of ID because the theory if ID is that it quite possibly is much like a controlled experiment so if you are going to accept 4th dimensional theories based on theories that are unprovable but have expiriments based on similar theories that can be tested, then a simple Controlled Expiriment can be used as EVIDENCE of ID.
You can CREATE a water molecule TODAY, place it with other water molecules, and guess what, those water MOLECULES will have no evidence between them that ONE of them was created. But the FACT is, it was created regardless of the evidence.
Also the ability to consciously begin and stop evolution.
With all the powers we as humans have, ID is an absolute possibility. Leverage with it science of Probability and it's even more likely scenario.
Unless you're a scientist who believes that only HUMANS could have possibly evolved to the point of manipulating natural law a controlling nature.
Then you always have Chaos Theory to contradict that as well. Of course, "hard science" all of it. Like "multi-dimensional theorizing". Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh wait I forgot the "Universe in a Universe" theory as well. Oh and the "Infinite Branching Timeline" Theory as well. All of it "science" and worthy to be called so.
posted
I have attempted to answer all your attacks against ID, but I'm still waiting for answers on ALOT of my questions about source of life, and others.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:1. Follow the source of all life to it's source (if there is one)
2. Follow the source of all predicated natural law to it's source (if there is one) as every single law is predicated on a law is predicated on a law, etc. etc.
DESCRIBE THE EXPERIMENT. All you've done is mention the conclusions you think this non-specific experiment will support. Describe the hypothesis, the control, the variables, the procedures, and, most importantly, the measurable data that will be derived and how it will be analyzed.
quote:I'll translate your evidence for 4th dimensional theories: ZERO.
And I don't know one scientist who claims that there are definitely more than three spacial dimensions. So what's your point? Assuming the existence of multiple spatial dimensions makes mathematical sense when coupled with elements of THE most verified scientific theory to date. If the already proposed experiments find evidence of additional spatial dimensions, this already successful theory will be modified to account for the new experimental data.
quote:Your evidence boils down to the religious argument of "We exist and so there's a 4th dimension" and the equivalent of "Ghost Stories" as proof there is a supernatural.
Um, I already said that scientists don't consider it proven that more than three spatial dimensions exist. Do you read our posts before you respond?
quote:So I assume your willing to believe people who have seen the Virgin Mary as evidence that she exists as it's harder evidence than 4th dimension evidence or even the hint that there's a barrier or end to the 3rd.
I don't believe that more than three spatial dimensions exist. I believe it's possible, even very likely, given both my understanding of the science involved and the evidence supporting the underlying theories. If an experiment comes out that contradicts some of the predictions associated with multiple spatial dimensions, then I'll change my belief in the likelihood of their existence.
quote:With all the powers we as humans have, ID is an absolute possibility. Leverage with it science of Probability and it's even more likely scenario.
Unless you're a scientist who believes that only HUMANS could have possibly evolved to the point of manipulating natural law a controlling nature.
Well, you're proven wrong already. I am neither a scientist nor one who believes that only HUMANS could have possibly evolved to the point of manipulating natural law a controlling nature. And, yet, I do believe that life was designed by an intelligent Creator.
quote:You have a proposal that there's ID with the same prediction that there is a Intelligent Source to life and that we can see evidences of it in our own logical ability to manipulate life to a greater more powerful extent than evolution can.
Yes, I see the "prediction." What I don't see is an experiment to verify it.
I fully expect to have it verified in the positive when I die. But that's not exactly an experiment.
quote:How about experiments based on the THEORY of ID that proved true?
I await with bated breath your linking even one such experiment.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'll explicitly ask you to differentiate big bang as a "how" and not "why" life exists.
If God (or some other consciousness) started the Big Bang, God is the reason why it happened, and the Big Bang is how he did it. God is the reason why the laws of physics are the way they are. Scientific theories explain how those laws interact. I don't think it's any more complicated than that.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I don't know one scientist who claims that there are definitely more than three spacial dimensions. So what's your point?
Cool down. I never said it's an established FACT that ID is true. It's a theory jack. That's the whole point of ID. The problem is when you claim 4th Dimension theory should be classified as science and ID not.
quote: I don't believe that more than three spatial dimensions exist. I believe it's possible, even very likely, given both my understanding of the science involved and the evidence supporting the underlying theories. If an experiment comes out that contradicts some of the predictions associated with multiple spatial dimensions, then I'll change my belief in the likelihood of their existence.
I'm not a scientist either. Neither was I claiming that you are one, just scientists in general.
INTELLIGENT CONTROLLED DESIGN even if it covers only the very fist microbial life form ever created or the very first universal law or rule and then let evolution and time take over...is a valid theory.
It's as plausible as 4D theory. You could even make the arguement that 4D could be EVIDENCE that we do exist in a ID dimension.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
For it to be a valid scientific theory it has to be possible to describe an experiment which would alter one's confidence in the existence of a designer. I've never seen one, and you certainly haven't described one.
And I don't even know what an "ID dimension" would be, it sounds like pseudo-scientific gibberish to me.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Camus, I'll have to disagree. It's both. ID is a HOW, but it doesn't address why. ID doesn't know why at all.
Big Bang and ID are both HOW.
How on the earth you could claim it's a WHY is beyond me because nothing in WHY fits the Theory.
The question is HOW does the universe exist. The answer is ID or Big Bang. Well at least to me. I'm open to the possibilities.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Where did life begin in science that is supported by evidence?
This paper seems to be a fair review (a year old, so some things may have changed) of the state of those theories and explanations. As you know, science does not yet make any definitive assertion about where or how life began; only approximately when. But this article covers the leading ideas with their supporting evidence.
If you just read the first column on page 4 ("The Primitive Earth") you'll get a quick flavor of how every assertion is carefully qualified with specific evidence, and then the nature of that evidence is likewise qualified, so you are always clear whether he is talking about something we KNOW, something that seems very likely, something that depends on another thing, whose certainty is less than one, or something that simply 'could' be or "may have been".
The great thing about this is that, like most good science, it allows the reader to form their own view of the conclusions, and get a reasonable feel for how close to a supported answer the theory may be today.
It also provides a nice layperson's 'map' of the variables involved, so if you hear some new research developments in isolation, you can think about whether it strengthens one theory or another, or raises more questions, or whatever.
This is a fascinating area of speculation, that brings together so many different disciplines of chemistry, biology, geology, and more, and a great area for a generalist to dabble, or for specialists to collaborate.
Of particular interest may be this quote from page 9:
quote:"Because of the huge number of possible random combinations of nucleotides from sugars, phosphate and nucleobases, it is unlikely that a RNA molecule capable of catalyzing its own self-replication arose spontaneously [2]. In addition, the ribose component of RNA is very unstable making its presence in the prebiotic milieu unlikely. Rather than RNA, some type of simpler self-replicator must have come first and several possible contenders have been suggested."
The following page summarizes the pros and cons of these contenders. This illustrates that science does not simply ignore difficulties; it continually proposes alternatives that may match the evidence.
Could Intelligent Design be a contender? Maybe, if the conditions were conducive to that process. Were they? I don't recall what conditions lend themselves to Intelligent Design....
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Camus, I'll have to disagree. It's both. ID is a HOW, but it doesn't address why. ID doesn't know why at all.
Big Bang and ID are both HOW.
How on the earth you could claim it's a WHY is beyond me because nothing in WHY fits the Theory.
The question is HOW does the universe exist. The answer is ID or Big Bang. Well at least to me. I'm open to the possibilities.
Based on my limited knowledge of ID, my interpretation is that ID explains why the principles of the universe are conducive to life - basically because something made it that way. Scientific theories like evolution and the Big Bang just show those principles in action.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Could Intelligent Design be a contender? Maybe, if the conditions were conducive to that process. Were they? I don't recall what conditions lend themselves to Intelligent Design....
That's all I'm saying. Not THE theory, but A theory. But one I have to say leaves out another scientific theory which is there is no "beginning" which contradicts the theory that life began at all.
So if we take the stance that life began, I don't see how anyone could logically exclude ID as a possibility because pretty much all science we have points to the impossiblity for Carbon to become life on it's own even when acted upon.
It blows my mind that "it just is" is a completely satisfactory answer in science.
It also blows my mind that the order and organization of the universe is "logical" (and science that says there's a "logical" reason that everything occurs) and to me "logic" denotes intelligence itself. Or Reasoning or Reasonable.
Maybe I should google something on VANILLA ID up? I haven't yet and I cringe at what religious ideas people may have attached to it.
Great post BTW.
I still want to know where the theory of Evolution goes backwards to once you get the the single microbial lifeform all life we know sprang from. Or is that the flaw in the Evolutionary theory that it can't predict a beginning or an end?
I appreciate all the posts. But I'll leave my canon of science open.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You haven't answered Dag's question yet, Chad. Believe me, if you can you will have succuessfully blown my mind, and quite like the minds of many others on this board.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:" ID explains why the principles of the universe are conducive to life - basically because something made it that way.
Yes, that is close to my interpretation as well, although why/how is a rather academic distinction when there is no substance to the answer.
It would be interesting to hear an ID Theorist give the keynote address at a scientific conference.
"Ladies and Gentlemen... Intelligent Design EXPLAINS why the principles of the universe are conducive to life! One of the central questions in the life-origins canon -- 'How did it come to be that conditions were suitable for life to form?' -- has finally been answered in this theory! And here it is, my theory.... My theory, which is this, is that, basically, something made it that way.... The end."
{Thunderous applause for the remaining 86 minutes of his timeslot.}
quote:Scientific theories like evolution and the Big Bang just show those principles in action.
Except for one problem: the 'principles' cannot be defined, explained, improved, tested, taught or understood.
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
cstro, good buddy... I am THIS close to giving up on you. PLEASE try to READ.
quote:
quote:(I wrote:) Could Intelligent Design be a contender? Maybe, if the conditions were conducive to that process. Were they? I don't recall what conditions lend themselves to Intelligent Design....
That's all I'm saying. Not THE theory, but A theory. But one I have to say leaves out another scientific theory which is there is no "beginning" which contradicts the theory that life began at all.
You COMPLETELY miss my point. ID may not be considered even A scientific theory (let alone THE theory) unless it can be stated what the theory is, and what circumstances or conditions point to that happening (whatever 'that' is). You have made no attempt to answer any of my questions on page 4, nor have you provided a link to any experimental data or even experimental speculation, so it is NOT a theory.
quote:So if we take the stance that life began, I don't see how anyone could logically exclude ID as a possibility...
No, you are right, it is impossible to logically exclude something as a possibility when no logical statement has ever been asserted describing how and when and where and under what circumstances it took place.
quote:... because pretty much all science we have points to the impossiblity for Carbon to become life on it's own even when acted upon.
There are many pages of the article I linked to that explain exactly the opposite. The current state of science accepts that possibility under a number of carefully enumerated scenarios.
You asked for a link, rather rudely, and when I give you one you either do not read it, or deliberately state the opposite of its contents. And you wonder why ID has a hard time getting a hearing in conventional science circles, when it has to resort to outright lies. Is my 'open canon of science' supposed to now include the practice of just making stuff up, whenever I feel like it, and ignoring anything I don't like?
quote:It blows my mind that "it just is" is a completely satisfactory answer in science.
Where did you read "it just is"? Nowhere in the article I linked to was there any expression that came even close to "it just is." "It just is" is the absolute antithesis of science.
I'll tell you where you read "it just is." Let me refer you to:
quote:You wrote: The basic theory of ID is that the universe is the result of Intelligent Design. That's it. Simple.
Observation = The Universe although active conforms and is governed from the most miniscule to the most elaborate mass a set pre-existing set of rules and laws that are predicated and compounded one upon the other.
Hypothesis in current science = "They Just Are" (science speak for "I/We don't know") Alternate Hypothesis = That order was laid out intelligently or that those laws are the result of an intelligent design. That or we create them the moment we force that reaction to form a result (another theory but that can't be science can it??)
Experiments (and I'm going to use the 4D method since no DIRECT evidence exists for either) - Use Intelligent Logic to create a set of rules and then make items conform to them and test the results to see if they do. OR Use existing laws to create a controlled environment and then enact activities in it and verify that the results are conforming to the rules you set.
Conclusion - Since we can either A. Create new laws and rules, or B. Use existing laws of your choosing to create an environment, then introduce actions/reactions and catalysts whose results conform with those laws and rules. Your design created the environment and laws/rules, introduced the "catalyst" and the results conformed to your creation. You created the end result. You designed the outcome.
Conclusion - Intelligent Design can produce on a small scale the same results found in the universe. That doesn't PROVE anything other than the theory applies to OTHER intelligent designs and can be tested as TRUE. It of course doesn't prove that it ID is true, just that Intelligent Design works on a small scale, and that it could very well apply to the big enchilada. There is NOTHING that says it couldn't be possible. The theory is sound on a small scale in both CREATING an new environment with laws or CONTROLLING the laws and creating a new environment with it. ID is more the former. An "Intelligent Catalyst" theory would be more of the later, which I won't rule out either (that would be that the intelligent designer (whatever it is) didn't create from scratch what we have but used the laws that already existed to create the universe environment (or DIMENSION EVEN...Whoa!)
Or we can be "satisfied" with "it just is".
Now maybe the hardcore pro-scientist may not like the "smaller scale tested theory" but if you dismiss not being able to test it directly as automatic excluding it from the realm of science, then you dismiss about 90% of existing scientific theory. If you exclude it but accept as science even shakier, less tested theories, then your a scientific...you know what.
Now one thing I need to make clear now, is I'm not speaking of someone directly when I say YOU. I'm speaking of YOU as in the masses of mankind.
And I'll ask a very simple question.
Is or Is not a completely controlled experiment Intelligent Design on a small scale?
Or are people really arguing that A+B = C without absolutely ANY catalyst or change is now going to be A+B = 1. Or are you arguing that my words have always existed and that I didn't just intelligently (that's debatable ) form them? Are my words created or are they "just are"?
Intelligent Design or Concious Catalyst (new thread?)
I would ask our Inquisitors to take current theories classified as "science" but totaly unprovable currently (should be easy since that's the majority of it) and use their experimenting methods and apply it to ID with an open mind to see where it may go. If that's possible.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'll translate your evidence for 4th dimensional theories: ZERO.
Chad, I'll make you an offer: if you send me your snail mail address, I'll get you a gift subscription to Discover magazine. You might find it useful.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chad, your ignorance of the scientific method astounds and depresses me. The above experiment, if turned in for ascience project in any elementary school I attended, would've gotten a solid "F."
Posts: 1357 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry Jon, I did read your link and I laughed (and am still lauging at your "serious scientific theories that are much more plausible than ID), and you may want to read why:
quote:(a) The prebiotic soup theory: Organic compounds in the primordial oceans, derived from a variety of possible sources, underwent polymerization producing increasingly complex macromolecules, some of which by chance were capable of catalyzing their own self-replication. These simple self-replication entities evolved into increasingly complex ones and eventually into organisms with modern biochemistry. (b) The metabolist theory: A primitive type of bmetabolic lifeQ characterized by a series of selfsustaining reactions based on monomeric organic compounds made directly from simple constituents (CO2, CO) arose in the vicinity of mineralrich hydrothermal systems. According to this theory, at first, blifeQ did not have any requirement for informational molecules. As the system of self-sustaining reactions evolved in complexity, genetic molecules were somehow incorporated in order for metabolic-based life to develop into biochemistry as we know it. Besides these two dominant theories, there have also been numerous suggestions that life began elsewhere and was transported to Earth
And you have the gaul to call that science and frown on ID. Aliens....transporting us here...called scientific theory...and ID is not.
and your two theories in English:
A. Dead molucules through non-concious randomization didn't decide because they can't because their dead, but of their own non-living volition and non-deciding, broke the rules of molecular structure (as they always do in and of themselves), joined to create macromolecules that again through dead decision making decided to replicate themselves...and then the HUGE HOLE....(drumroll please) OF EVOLVING into life. And yes it's the resurrection folks. A livin' miracle right here in our science. It's the miracle rock. The little rock that could.
Basically a rock decided to become a living organism. Or even better, Carbon decided to become the base element of life and LIVED. (damn carbon's always trying to do that. I hate rebel elements. Non-conformists ALL of 'em. Yes especially YOU Iodine)
B. Same thing except this time it's carbon combined with other elements, THEN deciding to become life by having molecular sex and creating heat. (carbon Universal sinning led to human beings. So which one is Adam and which one is Eve? Let's see the Carbon has 2 parts, does that make if female? Or is it a menage et trois? It IS! Dirty elements!)
IT'S THE MIDICLORIANS FAULT!!! They started it all.
MY FAVORITE (and remember this is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY whereas of course ID is not....giggle):
quote: life began elsewhere and was transported to Earth.
You know...I always felt that I didn't belong...that I came from somewhere else....one particular star...yea that one right there...there's something special between me and that star...like we knew each other before.
And I always feel like shouting papa whenever I see a meteor shower or comet.
I'm sorry, if THAT's science then people with ID problems need to do some serious internal reflection.
I'm amazed that anyone would call those theories SCIENCE and ID as not.
Wow....that's all I can say so I'll say it again...
WOW.
EDIT: I do have a new pickup line for hot scientist chicks (although I married so I'm giving it out for free): Hey baby, hows about you/me and a couple of carbon molecules pick up an oxygen on the way home and let's RUB 'EM together and create some life!
I apologize for being sarcastic, but you actually criticized my "test" which is fine, but your claiming that a rock (or a dead molecule) magically turning from dead to living organism with the explanation of "somehow". And there is absolutely NOTHING in the world to back it up anywhere. Nada. There is no experiment where a dead molecule undergoes CELLULAR MITOSIS of it's own volition.
You're talking freakin' ANTI-SCIENCE MIRACLES here. You're TALKING as bad or worse than ID and not even realizing it.
Magical Molecules. Let's not beat around the bush.
posted
Perhaps Chad does not understand the difference between a suggestion and a theory. Either that or he was unable to parse the sentence enough to decipher which word was being applied to which things.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Basically a rock decided to become a living organism.
*blink* Chad, do you really think that everything undergoing a chemical change does so willfully? Why would an organic compound need to decide to polymerize? Even on a larger scale, do you believe that viruses decide to infect cells, despite the fact that they not only have no brains but are often smaller than individual neurons?
You seem to think that -- in your own words -- there is some "magical" barrier between something that is alive and something that is not. A basic understanding of microbial biology would make it clear to you that this is not the case. Consider viruses again. Are they alive? What standards do you apply to "life?"
----
quote: I'm sorry, if THAT's science then people with ID problems need to do some serious internal reflection.
What's most ironic about this, Chad, is that the possibility you find most ludicrous -- that life began elsewhere and was transported here -- is actually a possibility that fits quite nicely within Intelligent Design. Seriously. In fact, it's the one serious possibility for Intelligent Design that does not directly involve a God, and is therefore the one most commonly advanced by ID advocates.
And what's funny is that it IS scientific, to some extent, in a way that most ID itself is not. Because if life evolved somewhere else, or if we were created somewhere else, it should be possible to come up with experiments to test that theory.
In other words, the one thing you find most laughable about the previous post is actually the most scientific part of Intelligent Design "theory."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
A and B are both theories. Actually, C is almost a theory, even, but isn't quite there yet (and, again, is basically Intelligent Design.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:*blink* Chad, do you really think that everything undergoing a chemical change does so willfully?
Your claiming that a carbon atom without ANY catalyst suspended in nothingness will automatically change. In and of itself. Are you claiming that a single carbon atom without ANY catalyst whatsoever with eveolve. Are you actually claiming that molecules are living organisms?
quote:What's most ironic about this, Chad, is that the possibility you find most ludicrous -- that life began elsewhere and was transported here -- is actually a possibility that fits quite nicely within Intelligent Design.
And I have no problem with that being a possibility. That one suggestion is ok for scientific consideration and the other isn't. Is more than rediculous. In all honesty that suggestion is based on the assumption that life exists outside this planet, which again, has no basis at all in any evidence and pretty much all factual evidence is exactly contrary to it.
quote:And what's funny is that it IS scientific, to some extent, in a way that most ID itself is not. Because if life evolved somewhere else, or if we were created somewhere else, it should be possible to come up with experiments to test that theory.
Please tell me what they are and how they are so much superior to ID experiments?
quote:In other words, the one thing you find most laughable about the previous post is actually the most scientific part of Intelligent Design "theory."
Then you don't understand Intelligent Design because no offense, but your solid "scientific theories" are the equal of a "Flat Earth theory" and "the earth has an edge" theory. See the theories outlined are based on the FALSE assumption that dead molecules self replicate and reproduce. Basically MATTER creating itself from nothing. Which is against science.
I'll say it again since it's sooo important: Dead Molecules Self Replicate. In and of themselves and without ANY catalyst of which NO evidence exists except for "parallel" in living organisms.
Also your suggestion of "other planet" doesn't address where life began, it only addresses how it came to earth. Oh such a cop out.
But hey, whatever. If that's your scientific belief, then hey, more power to you and self replicating molecules that morph into organisms magically.
I think I'm done with this thread. I have a....star...to stare at.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Your hypothesis is much too broad, and untestable. I suggest you break it down into a number of smaller competing hypotheses, and devise a test for each one.
Your experiment bears no relationship to the hypothesis.
You plan to use your own human intelligent logic to construct a set of rules in an environment? This could only conceivably produce relevant results if it is an explicit part of your hypothesis that the agent of Intelligent Design utilized (or utilizes) a type of intelligence and logic similar to that of humans -- which seems unlikely, since it has presumably 'designed' human logic itself, from the ground up.
Please explain how you plan to overcome this limitation in your experimental framework, or explain why you disagree with my statement and show your evidence.
What kind of rules would be written into this test environment, to resemble the rules that might have come from an Intelligent Designer? (E.g., the value of pi, the number of atoms in the universe, the boiling point of water at sea level, the number of base pairs in DNA, etc.)
It will not be sufficient to write a rule for an environment that says 'if a small circle is added, and two medium circles are already found there, arrange them into a snowman.'
In fact this experiment, if carried out, would tend to disprove ID, by illustrating that systems invented merely by human logic can produce expected results, and thus diminishing the need for an Intelligent Designer.
Please devise an experiment that fails to produce the expected catalyst result when populated with merely human logical rules, but which does produce the desired result if and only if the rules are endowed with characteristics like those endowed by an Intelligent Designer. Show your work.
Lastly, you omitted a discussion of several obvious shortcomings in the theory; you fail to state whether ALL the rules are established at once, or whether some develop later, and if so, under continued guidance from ID.
You fail to address the problem of 'intentionality' -- you seem rather conveniently to assume that the universe has indeed turned out the way the Intelligent Designer intended it to. This assumption should at least be recorded, and if possible tested for.
You fail to address the inherent problem of meta-Intelligent Designers: how did the agent of ID get so smart? Perhaps it was designed by an Intelligent Designer Designer.
And I hate to nitpick, but would the Intelligent Designer have had to establish, say, the 'rule' for 2+2=4, as well as the rule for 4-2=2? Or was one good enough, and the rest of math followed? And if it had to conceive of every detail, could it have made 2+2=4 and 4-2=1 if it desired?
posted
Uh, no Chad, because they are scientific theories.
That you are unable to comprehend this does not make it not so.
For instance, your notion of a single carbon atom doing anything being required by those theories. Neither says anything like that.
We have done experiments with carbon atoms. Carbon atoms, along with other atoms do form molecules when mixed up and subjected to heat and other conditions we think likely found on the early earth.
Heck, I caused molecules to combine to form more complex molecules in high school chemistry class!
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:We have done experiments with carbon atoms. Carbon atoms, along with other atoms do form molecules when mixed up and subjected to heat and other conditions we think likely found on the early earth.
Heck, I caused molecules to combine to form more complex molecules in high school chemistry class!
Read what you wrote again you Intelligent Designer you. Read and think about it very, very carefully.
I don't think you realize what you just said:
quote:Heck, I caused molecules to combine to form more complex molecules in high school chemistry class!
Now compare that to the theory of them doing it on their OWN. And ask yourself how many lifeforms you created by simply creating combining carbon atoms.
quote:Conclusion: Intelligent Design can produce on a small scale the same results found in the universe.
Fine and good -- but this is the opposite of what science does. Science tries to disprove things. I think anyone can concede that intelligent design can produce a regular system. But we need some method which could determine that intelligent design couldn't produce a regular system like our universe. Is there one? If there is, we can try it, and if it fails, ID gets a boost. So far, we don't have any tests that could disprove ID. Do we?
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really need to go home so I'll bid you all adieu! But keep paying your taxes so we can figure out hot to make carbon molecules come alive by themselves (no living catalyst allowed).
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
