Could bio-design and rapid geo-column be introduced in science courses?

You began this thread with the argument that your views deserved representation in science class because "the data calls for this", but now you issue a religious appeal:

Tranquility Base writes:

---

I generally agree with you but this is a somewhat special case. Whether you like it or not these areas of science are related to religion via the origin of life issue. Hence we strongly believe, and can argue it, that mainstream science is atheistically biased so that even the most obvious arguements for either design or the flood are treated as automatically naive.

---

You're proposing that we present religious views in science class, views not even shared by your fellow Creationists and not represented in the primary literature. You need to stay focused on views that are supported by evidence.Instead of stating over and over and over again that (sic) "a small group of PhD scientists see a global flood in the data," you should ask yourself why everyone thinks your evidence does not support your conclusions, including your fellow Creationists. If you can't even sway them, how can you expect to persuade us?By the way, about the "atheistically biased" statement, you couldn't be more wrong. Many of us so-called evolutionists believe in God.--Percy

My 'religious appeal' was nothing of the sort. I explained why something that sounds religious needs to have some representation in science, not to take away from the call of the data.We're talking about the orign of life here, not cloud formation! You think that can be neatly sepaated into sceince and religion. That is utterly ridiculous becasue that assumes outright that God doesn't exist.I'm saying that an alternative scientific interpretation of the geological column could be presented as I did above. And similarly for design. I don't want to sway anyone. I simply suggest it be rasied as an alternative to be mowed down if you wish.Can you deny that(i) Many publishing scientists would say that molecular, cellular and/or organismal data, whether completely conclusive or not, suggests design
(ii) That view is not represented in contemporary mainstream literatureWhether it is proof, a hint, circumstantial evidence or a hypothesis it is not in the mainstream literature. This is utter proof of mainstream bias whether professional or atheistic.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-01-2002]

Tranquility Base writes:

---

My 'religious appeal' was nothing of the sort.

---

Really? I don't see too many scientific appeals saying things like "these areas of science are related to religion" and "mainstream science is atheistically biased."

---

We're talking about the orign of life here, not cloud formation!

---

Actually, you mentioned the GC and a biological argument from design, but even if we add the origin of life to your list you still need evidence to qualify as science.

---

Many publishing scientists would say that molecular, cellular and/or organismal data, whether completely conclusive or not, suggests design

---

Many publishing scientists believe in God, double-entry bookkeeping and that a good defense will always beat a good offense, but we don't teach these in science class.You seem to want your views to be held to a lower standard than the rest of science. Why is that? Don't you think the handiwork of God himself is deserving of the most glorious and unambiguous evidence man has ever seen? If there was really a world wide flood a few thousand years ago then you'll find evidence for it.--Percy

I simply tried to explain to you that something you think has to be devoid of any link to religion may have a crucial link if God created life! The folly of explaining it naturalistically if God did it! In my definition of science I would distinguish science from forced naturalism. IMO, you guys are studying forced naturalism.Substitue origin of life for origin of life/lifeforms in my earlier post.Can you deny my two points in the previous post?Science is not as cut and dry as you think Percy - and I think you know this. The scientific literature is full of hypotheses and hints from circumstantial evidence. Design is very evident from the data in many professional scientists opinions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Can you deny that

​

(i) Many publishing scientists would say that molecular, cellular and/or organismal data, whether completely conclusive or not, suggests design
(ii) That view is not represented in contemporary mainstream literature

---

It is a straightforward matter to confirm the first and deny the second.Evolutionary biologists from Darwin to Dawkins and all stops in between would confirm that organisms "suggest design." It is to explain this suggestion that Darwin applied his observational powers and Dawkins directs his somewhat discomfiting analyses. Most all biiologists would concur that organisms "suggest design."As a result of this driving interest in explaining how the appearance of design was reified many biology textbooks, articles and courses start from this very point.Of course, they don't reach the conclusion you would like them to reach - but the suggestion of design remains the single most fascinating aspect of evolution.

^ OK - modify design in (i) and (ii) to design by a higher intelligence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ OK - modify design in (i) and (ii) to design by a higher intelligence.

---

And this, of course TB, is where your special pleading falls completely flat. Changing the wording in your original post on this to reflect your new caveat:

quote:

---

i) Many publishing scientists would say that molecular, cellular and/or organismal data, whether completely conclusive or not, suggests intelligent design

---

This assertion is utterly unsupported. Outside of a very limited circle of devoted creationists who also happen to have PhDs in one or the other discipline (being educated doesn't imply being right), there are few if any "publishing scientists" who hold with your views concerning ID. And I'd be willing to bet that the ones that DO publish never mention their Design hypothesis - not because they couldn't get it published, but rather because there's no science involved. This is pure argument from authority with no validity in science. Haven't the creationists been beaten up enough in the courts on this?

quote:

---

(ii) That view is not represented in contemporary mainstream literature

---

No kidding. But I submit that it isn't from any bias - except against bad science. I have asked a million times for actual physical evidence - with concrete examples from nature - for ANY evidence in favor of design. All I've ever gotten in reply is argument from incredulity (a la Paley's watchmaker) or god-of-the-gaps. You personally have been offered the opportunity by Joe Meert on this very board to submit a solid article to a peer-reviewed journal. Okay, you can't be bothered. Fine - but this renders your insistence that Design can't be published because of bias moot.Your fundamental problem is that you are asking for special consideration. You are missing the point that no hypothesis that purports to be scientific should be subjected to any less scrutiny than any other scientific hypothesis. Especially, as is the case with ID for example, where the hypothesis seeks to provide a radically "new" paradigm that would appear to overthrow the accepted, rigorously peer-reviewed results of multiply converging lines of research from multiple disciplines. In other words, there should be no "special pleading" from anyone who wishes their hypothesis to be taken seriously by the scientific community. Even sciences with significant historical components such as paleontology or evolutionary biology base their inferences on demonstrable, replicatable observations and testable predictions. The sole criteria is that provisional acceptance of a hypothesis should be based on evidence - not philosophy or metaphysics, but actual evidence.Until ID can come up with evidence, it remains simply another perpetual-motion machine idea. Except as an interesting aside, it has no place in science class.

QuetzalI think you'd be surprised at the number of scientists who think the data argues or strongly hints at an intelligent origin of life. ID/IC is a valid arguement and has far, far more support than YEC.You seem to be saying that unless a proposal is utterly proved beyond doubt it cannot be presented scientifically. You would have to reject 9 out of 10 research papers ever published if that was the case.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-02-2002]

Here's my high school introduction to bio-designThe cell is comprised of blah blah. . .Many scientists admit that the complexity of the cell argues for some sort of design in Nature. A significant proportion expect that some intelligent agent was responsible and an equally significant proportion suspect that future research will uncover general principles that explain the origin of cellualr complexity.In particular, scientists who believe the data argues for 'Intelligent Design' (ID) have noted that most of life's systems are 'Irreducibly Complex' meaning that these systems require a minimum set of the subsytems to function and that evidence for a gradual step by step evoltuion hasn't been discovered or hypotheised and isn't even conceivable. Sytems such as the human immune system, blood clotting, the human eye or the early cell do not have corresponding molecular explanations of their gradual origin. Similarly, the genomes of organisms appear to be distinct and characerizable by distinct families of genes which are unrelated to other gnees in that organisms DNA. Mainstream science assumes that these gaps will be filled in by future mechanisms and in the remainder of this course this will be assumed.Again this is of 'the top of my head'.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-02-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Quetzal

​

I think you'd be surprised at the number of scientists who think the data argues or strongly hints at an intelligent origin of life. ID/IC is a valid arguement and has far, far more support than YEC.

---

You're probably right - I would be surprised if there was any large number of scientists who think this. However, given tens of thousands of active scientists working on some aspect of biology, botany, genetics, paleontology, geology or other discipline or sub-discipline of natural history, I would be even more surprised if you couldn't find some that hold to just about any belief you'd care to name. The evidence suggests that scientists are as human - and as fallible - as any other person. Throw in the occasional spurious degree, and you can use "argument from authority" to prove anything you want to prove. Which is why it's an invalid approach. The neat thing about scientific enquiry is its built-in error-correction methodology. Science is designed to weed out really untenable ideas.

quote:

---

You seem to be saying that unless a proposal is utterly proved beyond doubt it cannot be presented scientifically. You would have to reject 9 out of 10 research papers ever published if that was the case.

---

Nope. Never said that. Never even implied that. I have never said - nor would I ever - that provisional acceptance of a hypothesis must be based on 100% proof, or that the hypothesis must somehow be proven 100% true in all cases immediately. Science is continually evolving (pardon the term). As I’m sure you’re aware, hypotheses, theories, and even scientific laws are subject to revision based on refinements in measurement or new observations. This is even more apparent in brand-new or leading-edge sciences that are pushing the frontiers of scientific knowledge. However, there remains the requirement that there be at least some empirical support for any hypothesis — no matter how wild and speculative it might seem at first glance — before it can even be considered a reasonable first approximation at an explanation. Further research will either provide new supporting evidence, or turn up evidence that will falsify or cause modification of the original hypothesis.So: what is the evidence from nature that ID is a valid hypothesis? Try putting it in the form of: species A shows evidence of design because x, y, z. Or, the codependency of organisms B and C is evidence of design because of q, r, s. See what I mean? Evidence.

Tranquility Base writes:

---

Science is not as cut and dry as you think Percy - and I think you know this.

---

I never said science was cut and dried. What's cut and dried is that your conclusions are unsupported by evidence. This is not forced naturalism but just the expected difficulty from trying to shove the square peg of religion into the round hole of science.Science is focused on that for which we have evidence. Where you go wrong is to believe there must be scientific evidence for that which you accept on faith. If faith-based approaches to science had any validity then they would lead Creationists to similar conclusions instead of 4.5 billion year discrepancies. You should set a goal of convincing your own before trying to convince others.

---

Many scientists admit that the complexity of the cell argues for some sort of design in Nature. A significant proportion expect that some intelligent agent was responsible...etc...

---

Just addressing this paragraph, if the context were scientist's religious beliefs then I think you're right that a fair number might go along with this. Though I wouldn't phrase it this way, it's certainly compatible with my own religious stance. But the context is science, and the vast proportion of scientists would reject this as blatantly unscientific because it's unsupported by any evidence.

---

In particular, scientists who believe the data argues for 'Intelligent Design' (ID) have noted that most of life's systems are 'Irreducibly Complex'...

---

The only place Behe has been able to make his ID/IC designs fly is in religious circles. At heart this is an argument from lack of evidence, simply an updated "God of the gaps" approach.--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ OK - modify design in (i) and (ii) to design by a higher intelligence.

---

Ah now we're getting somewhere, but not quite. Time to ponder "intelligence" methinks ...Even a cursory glance at Artificial Intelligence research will show that systems of rules can generate results that appear to the observer much like intelligence.So the question is now ... By "a higher intelligence" do you mean just that, which could include a system of rules whose results appear to the observer as intelligent design, or do you mean "a being of higher intelligence."If the latter, where is the evidence that distinguishes this from the former?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
ID/IC is a valid arguement and has far, far more support than YEC.

---

And the form of this valid argument is what?

QuetzalMany scientists undoubtedly see evidence of God in creation. I can't prove it to you with a poll but my guess would be something around 30-50% of scientists would say yes to a question like this. Just because their not YECs is not the point.Ireducible complexity is the empirical evidence. Behe outlines examples of IC in multiple cellualr systems including the immune system and blood clotting.Science aside I think you're trying to argue that there is no evidence at all that their might be a higher intelligence is proof of the extent of your bias. I can agree that there is evidence of evoluiton but you can never agree that there is evidence of God!

PercyWe all agree that 'design' of some sort is evident in Nature. Obviously one possibility for that is God and that should be stateable in the literature! As simple as that. Can you imagine how bizaree your POV is if God really did create? Have you ever thought of it that way?