Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Building life in a lab - Synthetic Biologists
AnEmpiricalAgnostic
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 152 (238298)
08-29-2005 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by iano
08-29-2005 10:37 AM


Re: Science revealing God...
AEA writes:
It’s really the creationists that can’t be objective since their philosophy is diametrically opposed to certain sciences and overlaps in ways that can not be reconciled without reevaluating their philosophy.
What creationists do is precisely the same as Scientism does. What's the difference between God of the Gaps and Scientism-of-the-Gaps?
Thus far every natural phenomenon has a natural explanation. No god needed. Evidence and experience tells us that as our scientific knowledge advances, the gaps always have scientific explanations. Creationists, on the other hand, have a long and illustrious history of positing a god as the explanation for inexplicable natural phenomena. As science advances the gaps disappear and their god takes refuge in the next gap. This trend should be sufficient justification to the reasonable person.
Not every scientist who doesn't believe in God believes in Scientism (the agnostic scientist). But many do. (athiestic scientists)
I’ve found that each person’s philosophical belief is as unique as the individual. This, I maintain, is telling in and of itself.
The God-of-the-gaps is a fallacy. Science can only explain the natural which would by definition be a product of God - not God.
The only problem is there is no evidence of this being the case. If there is a god then why aren’t there any scientifically measurable miracles as evidence? At the end of the day there is nothing compelling to believe that the concept of god has any merit whatsoever.
There is no gap for science to fill. There is only a yawning ravine between the product and a God (if he exists) who made the product.
Then why are creationists so quick to label that ravine as caused by god. Positing god as the explanation for the unknown has always been, and may always be, premature. Science has proven time and again that there are scientific explanations for what we see around us. Until there are no more evidences to find or experiments to be done then the idea of some omnipotent, omniscient, omni benevolent, supernatural cause is not necessary and only served to stagnate acquisition of knowledge.
To believe that science can eventually explain it all is Scientism. To think that science can go on forever explaining and discovering the yet-to-be-discovered is Scienctism too.
We don’t even know if forever is actual. To give up the pursuit of knowledge because we think we have philosophically reasoned first cause is insane. Thus far I think I am very justified in believing natural phenomena have natural explanations that science will be able to ascertain. It has always been thusly.
No God-disbelieving scientist can say he know or can prove what is to be found or where the limits will lie. A theist may know but he to cannot prove it either.
Nobody can claim to know. Theists may know, but then again so may FSMists. Without the burden of needing actual evidence any wild assertion may be correct. I think it’s prudent to follow the evidence, as science does, rather than positing fairies, leprechauns, or a god.
In the meantime science should be let stick to what it can do - not what it cannot. Neither side should comment.
But there's not much hope of that
And science can follow the evidence, conduct experiments and work to solve the mysteries that the theist can only philosophize about. If science comes to a contrary conclusion than the theistic philosopher in matters of the physical universe then the philosopher should stand down and reevaluate their philosophy in the matter.
The problem is that creationists aren’t this reasonable. Their cognitive dissonance causes them to speculate that there is a worldwide conspiracy amongst the scientific community just to oppose their personal belief system. I have no problem with anyone philosophical flights of fancy. Only when they try to dress it up as science, call it Intelligent Design Theory, and try and force it on the public do I draw the line. If creationists could keep their philosophy away from the domain of science then there wouldn’t be a problem and there wouldn’t be this debate. How the theistic philosopher’s persecution complex can affect them so considerably that they actually believe that it is science that is stepping out of it’s domain to oppose their personal philosophy is beyond me. I understand that theistic philosophy was the first one to posit an answer to many of the natural wonders we see around us. Ultimately this is the domain of science though. As such, it is time to give science the credit it deserves and reevaluate theistic beliefs. If that means simply moving your god to a different gap then so be it. The debate is because of those who would deny reality and still claim special creation is true in light of all the scientific evidence to the contrary. The OP is merely one example as to why.
This message has been edited by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, 08-29-2005 01:27 PM

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by iano, posted 08-29-2005 10:37 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by iano, posted 08-29-2005 2:45 PM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

  
AnEmpiricalAgnostic
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 152 (238353)
08-29-2005 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by iano
08-29-2005 2:45 PM


Re: Science revealing God...
AEA writes:
Thus far every natural phenomenon has a natural explanation. No god needed.
Are the Laws of Nature are a natural phenomenon? Science can observe them operating, can notice they are predictable and immutable but cannot say the first thing about where they come from or why they exist. And given that EVERYTHING happens as a consequence of matter and energy conformity to those laws, talk about a handful of gaps into which Creationists retreat is somewhat premature.
And the silence from science in this area is....deafening
Why is it that lack of scientific knowledge is commonly used as support of theistic philosophy? Once upon a time we lacked the scientific knowledge that the earth was spherical and people wondered how the sun moved across the sky every day. Our ignorance emboldened the theistic philosophers to posit wild assertions about gods in golden chariots. When science was ignorant of volcanology theistic philosophers prayed to the god(s) so that they might be spared an eruption. If you want to take our current scientific ignorance and use it to support your beliefs then you will be committing the same fallacy as your ancestors. To assume that science will always remain silent in these matters is premature.
If there is a god then why aren’t there any scientifically measurable miracles as evidence? At the end of the day there is nothing compelling to believe that the concept of god has any merit whatsoever.
All that the miraculous has to be in order to prevent science being able to measure it is unpredictable and unsignalled.
This assumes that your god wants to keep miracles, as well as his very existence, a secret. That makes no sense. The only entity benefiting from that rationale is the church.
If it is, then science can't set up an experiment to measure it. Trying to force an attribute of the natural world; ordered, predictable and onto all possiblities is unwarranted.
I believe it is the forcing of god into all possibilities that is unwarranted. The fact is that if god really existed then it would be infinitely simple for him/her to definitively prove his/her existence beyond a shadow of a doubt and any given moment. Why hide in the mysterious unknown? What purpose does this serve other than to keep rival religions quarreling and the churches rich?
You say 'nothing compelling' but that should read, 'nothing scientifically, empirically compelling'. To demand that everything conform to scientific study is Scientism - as you have no basis for stating that objective/empirical is the only way to know anything - other than to say much has been explained this way (but by no means the majority of what we see around us)
If there existed anything else why isn’t there evidence of it? Why is it that all we are given are blind assertions and philosophical reasoning to go on? Why should I feel compelled to believe some ancient philosophy based on nothing but faith when much more could be offered up by your god, if he/she existed, at any given moment.
Until there are no more evidences to find or experiments to be done then the idea of some omnipotent, omniscient, omni benevolent, supernatural cause is not necessary and only served to stagnate acquisition of knowledge.
I've said before that the natural is the product and there is no reason not to investigate it. Apply Occams Razor by all means but when Occams Razor won't work, the unwillingness to add more complexity which may lead to "there could be God" is a fudge.
I don’t see how it’s valid to leap directly from needing more complexity to goddidit. Occams Razor doesn’t prohibit complexity but it does prohibit making excessive assumptions. I maintain that positing god will always be an excessive assumption.
Laws of Nature? Where did the Singularity come from? How did life start? Answer "We don't know yet?" Fine, but lets not say there's anymore compelling evidence for a Natural as opposed to a Natural (sic) explaination. Not without some foundation for it anyway (and remember that like the stock market, past performance is no indicator of the future market)
You can’t compare this instance to the stock market just to conveniently remove one of the most compelling arguments for why it’s reasonable to seek natural explanations. If natural, scientific explanations are not sought after then mankind’s knowledge will stagnate. Positing god as the universal answer for our ignorance answers nothing. Everything advancement we enjoy today comes from seeking natural explanations. How is it unjustifiable to seek science as the authority to do what it is designed for? If I want answers about the natural universe then I will turn to the tool that was designed for that purpose and has the best track record in answering the questions accurately?
Only when they try to dress it up as science, call it Intelligent Design Theory, and try and force it on the public do I draw the line
In going public and bypassing the orthodox elements of the scientific community, ID can hope to balance a somewhat uneven fight. TV programmers, keen to make programmes that sell (as opposed to programmes that are true) will change public perception - as will education in the schools. Funds may be released by, for example, believers who see that the battle can now be fought in the body science - instead of in the second class (according to atheistic scienctist) area of faith. Scientists have got to eat so will work in areas where funds exists. Who knows what may occur.
A hellishly (or heavenly) cunning plan. You have to admire it for it's elegance..
I think I will reserve admiration for institutions more deserving. The separation of church and state is too important to let the likes of ID erode it’s virtues. ID’s thinly veiled creationist motivation can not be allowed to be given support by the state. This would open the door down the slippery slope that allows our own brand of Taliban political power. If private schools want to support ID then so be it. Just keep it far away from the real science taught in public school lest America fall farther away from the scientific and technological dominance it once enjoyed in the world community.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by iano, posted 08-29-2005 2:45 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Brad McFall, posted 08-29-2005 7:31 PM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has not replied
 Message 77 by iano, posted 08-30-2005 6:50 AM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

  
AnEmpiricalAgnostic
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 152 (238551)
08-30-2005 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by iano
08-30-2005 6:50 AM


Re: Science revealing God...
AEA writes:
Why is it that lack of scientific knowledge is commonly used as support of theistic philosophy?
I don't use this as a support for anything of the sort. I use the fact the science is completely silent on an explaination for the Laws of Nature to dismantle the Scientism argument which posits God of the Gaps. Science is humble and I admire Science. Scientism is vocal but as we can see in relation to Laws of Nature - the stance is more bluff and bluster than it is one of substance. Scientism, which sits piggy-back style on science and does it such a disservice, is what I am countering.
I repeat. Sciences silence on explaining the reason for the Laws of Nature means ravine-like abysses exist - not little gaps
I’m not disagreeing that our scientific knowledge is still infantile. I am disagreeing about labeling the gaps with godidit. You seem to like to claim that since science can’t deal with the supernatural it can’t make any statements about supernatural entities. This is true. You then take it a step too far when you argue that your supernatural entity can affect the physical universe. If this is to be the case then there should be evidence of this interaction. (Getting a little back on topic) The OP spoke about what will appear to be man’s ability to create new kinds of life. This relates to the argument at hand because a common theistic argument against evolution is that your god created all the kinds of animals via special creation and not evolution (one of the fundamental EvC debates). If this is true then man creating a new kind of life form flies in the face of special creation and definitively fills another gap. It has to be apparent that this is how it will always be if gaps are to be filled with goddidit instead of We don’t know — yet. I maintain that the later is far more reasonable and is supported, not only historically, but by every advancement science makes every day. To deny this is denying reality at this point.
Miracles not obviously accessible to science) This assumes that your god wants to keep miracles, as well as his very existence, a secret. That makes no sense.
Now your making assumptions about what Gods motivation would be. You wouldn't be the first to demand x,y,z of God in order that he prove his existance. Which if you think about it - is a little ridiculous. Man demanding something from God....
This is a valid observation. Obviously your god, if he/she exists, can affect the physical universe. If this is the case then leaving definitive evidence should be child’s play. The conspicuous absence of such definitive evidence means that you god’s silence is deafening in the matter of his/her own existence. All we are offered to go on is blind faith and gaps. Since science is taking away gaps all the time (as illustrated in the OP) science and theistic philosophy remain in friction. The poster child is evolution right now, but there are many sciences that contradict creation, not just one theory.
Why hide in the mysterious unknown?
Who said he did? There are millions of people in the world who are more certain of Gods existance that they are the sun will rise tomorrow. This is hardly blind faith. Where did they get this sure knowledge? They didn't lick it off a stone. (the standard response here is to say misguided, deluded, indoctrinated etc so maybe you could think of something fresh )
Hmmm how about inculcation? You may want to consider that there are standard responses because they are true.
I can think of one reason why God may not make it obvious to everyone that he exists. If he did that then everyone would have no choice to believe he exists. It's safe to say that one characteristic of humans is that they have free will. They may be influenced by external stuff but at the end of the day, free will and self choice rules. If God then this facility was God given - so why not up to the point of choosing whether to believe in him or not
Or maybe is was part of a deal with the devil himself laying down the rules in the fight for our souls! The point is that without evidence then all this is only more speculation. It also illustrates how people can still make choices no matter how much evidence, or lack thereof, there is about something.
If there existed anything else why isn’t there evidence of it. Why is it that all we are given are blind assertions and philosophical reasoning to go on?
By evidence you no doubt mean "objective, measurable, empirical evidence" That this is the only evidence that qualifies as evidence and that this is the only way to know anything, is a philosophical position, not an emprically evidenced one. Blind assertion. Scientism in full flight
While objective, measurable, empirical evidence is not the only way to know anything. I will maintain that it is the best, most reasonable way. This is why it should be given more weight over philosophy in the matters of the physical universe and should be exhausted as an option before positing some supernatural explanation.
I don’t see how it’s valid to leap directly from needing more complexity to goddidit. Occams Razor doesn’t prohibit complexity but it does prohibit making excessive assumptions. I maintain that positing god will always be an excessive assumption
But the extra layers of complexity don't bring a solution. Take the Laws of Nature. They are observable phenomenon that science needs to explain. Now start adding layers of complexity as Occams Razor says we must. None suffice. So add more and more and more until they do. You'll end up at God - or else stop adding layers at a point which provides no answers and kick the ball into touch with "we don't know yet" Silence. They're the option: God or Silence. Not Scientism
How is this reasonable? Science advances every day. With each passing day our knowledge grows, new tools are invented to seek more information, more questions are answered. You have to realize this and at least acknowledge the reality that science is constantly advancing and filling the gaps. In choosing your god or silence we would be throwing in the towel. This can only serve to stagnate our advancement and keep us ignorant.
If natural, scientific explanations are not sought after then mankind’s knowledge will stagnate.
I never said science should stop. I said Scientism should stop presuming that which it cannot. When it hits areas where it can't go further then science will be stopped automatically. There's plenty of other areas to investigate and presumably it will be stopped by mystery there too. But to say Science can or will explain it all is something it patently can't do - so lets not pretend it can.
You are talking about what science can’t do yet and asserting that we should stop there and either posit goddidit or remain silent. This isn’t how it works in reality. It is the purpose of science to keep advancing and chisel away at those mysteries. Positing a god or remaining silent is to give up.
Questions will still remain at the end of all the spokes that science gets to. Why avoid dealing with them now? They exist already and they aren't going to go away.
Or consider the possibility that it is only you that believes they will not go away. Many have held this position. Many have already been proven wrong.
If I want answers about the natural universe then I will turn to the tool that was designed for that purpose and has the best track record in answering the questions accurately?
The best thing to do. But what about the areas where no answers exist and there is no reason to expect there to be. Belief that natural is all there is thus science is all that is required is a philsopical position - not a scientific one. Scientism.
Thus far this position has not been proven wrong whereas positing goddidit has on many occasions.
I think I will reserve admiration for institutions more deserving. The separation of church and state is too important to let the likes of ID erode it’s virtues. ID’s thinly veiled creationist motivation can not be allowed to be given support by the state. This would open the door down the slippery slope that allows our own brand of Taliban political power. If private schools want to support ID then so be it. Just keep it far away from the real science taught in public school lest America fall farther away from the scientific and technological dominance it once enjoyed in the world community.
More philosophy - to which you are entitled. And to which I am sure you permit others to be entitled. ID going public - it's still a cunning plan you'd have to agree
I can think of many more adjectives and cunning isn’t high on the list. ;-)
This message has been edited by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, 08-30-2005 09:46 AM
This message has been edited by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, 08-30-2005 09:47 AM

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by iano, posted 08-30-2005 6:50 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by iano, posted 08-30-2005 3:58 PM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

  
AnEmpiricalAgnostic
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 152 (238643)
08-30-2005 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by iano
08-30-2005 3:58 PM


Re: Science revealing God...
AEA writes:
I’m not disagreeing that our scientific knowledge is still infantile. I am disagreeing about labeling the gaps with godidit.
I don't say label the gap goddidit. I say don't label the gap before you have a label to put on it. Scientism labels the gap before the science has got there.
Aren’t you? Apparently, if you have reasoned yourself a gap that you believe science isn’t going to be able to answer then you are arguing that it is equally valid to posit goddidit instead of we don’t know — yet. The problem is that you are not qualified to know what science can and can’t answer. If it lies in the realm of the natural universe then it is fair game for science.
Ancient man could not fathom that we would one day start to actually figure out how man came to be. Here we are thousands of years later debating that very issue. Like the heliocentric solar system, it’s only a matter of time before the evidence for evolution and common ancestry is accepted as fact by even the theistic philosopher.
You seem to like to claim that since science can’t deal with the supernatural it can’t make any statements about supernatural entities. This is true. You then take it a step too far when you argue that your supernatural entity can affect the physical universe. If this is to be the case then there should be evidence of this interaction.
Hmmm. Any evidence put up would be met with the "we dont know" "Occams Razor" "The tentitive theory explains it sufficiently for now" stance. These are philosophical positions which are all aimed to support the other unfounded unverifiable/unfalsifiable position: "nature/objectivity is all there is"
Your god could produce an unlimited number of miracles that we could scientifically measure. It should be child’s play to such a big and powerful entity right? Like falling off a log? Then why are they so conspicuously absent? Move a mountain, move stars to display a blimp-like message across the night sky I DID IT ALL!, LOVE GOD. There could be evidence offered up at any given time that would support the idea of the supernatural. One has to start to question why we have none. Nothing but assertions of faith, promises of heaven, and threats of hell. Why?
The OP spoke about what will appear to be man’s ability to create new kinds of life. This relates to the argument at hand because a common theistic argument against evolution is that your god created all the kinds of animals via special creation and not evolution (one of the fundamental EvC debates). If this is true then man creating a new kind of life form flies in the face of special creation and definitively fills another gap.
You wish When God created life he created the building blocks of it then set about configuring them in different ways. Analysing an existing design to understand what the building blocks are then rearranging them to form other life forms is, relatively speaking, like falling off a log. Nope to fill in that this gap, a genuinely new form of life which doesn't just manipulate pre-existing design elements would be needed.
One couldn't even applaud the obvious intelligence and sheer effort that would go into achieving a half decent copy - given that a blind, random process is supposed to have done it all in the first place
I must look at some of the other gaps you say are filled if this is your idea of 'filled'
You miss the point. Although I don’t know what your particular beliefs are, many creationists believe that your god created each kind of life separately and distinctly. They assert that evolution is not true because it can’t make a new kind or produce macroevolution. The OP illustrated that new kinds can be made just by varying genes and without the intervention of your god. This shows that enough genetic variance will produce a new kind of life. Therefore it takes away the gap of we don’t know that new ‘kinds’ can be created just by mutations, etc. This shows that god is not necessary to create a new kind and evolution can indeed create new kinds. These scientists are making stuff that certainly weren’t on the ark.
It has to be apparent that this is how it will always be if gaps are to be filled with goddidit instead of We don’t know — yet. I maintain that the later is far more reasonable and is supported, not only historically, but by every advancement science makes every day. To deny this is denying reality at this point.
Think for just a few moments. Really stop and think for a second or two. If God did do it all. Would he be so big that science-is-to-God what ant-is-to-ocean-liner.
In trying to pull God down to sciences size your forgetting just what God would be like. If he existed he would be way too big for you to get your head around unaided - so you shouldn't expect to know either way with the relatively puny tool called science.
They why hasn’t your god produced such elementary evidence of his/her existence so that this so called puny tool can detect it. It should be infinitely easy for an omni-x entity right?
If you wanted to know evidence, other tools, suitable for measuring would have to be developed. But of course, if one doesn't want or doesn't see the need for it then fine.
What’s wrong with the tools your god allegedly gave us? Why can’t he/she furnish a little positive evidence we can measure? What’s with the secrecy? Who does that benefit?
"Seek and you will find" can be rewritten "don't seek and you won't". This applies to God as well as science (which would only be investigating how God did it, not God himself, nor why he did it)
I see plenty of seekers. Just no evidence to be found.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by iano, posted 08-30-2005 3:58 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by iano, posted 08-31-2005 6:04 AM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

  
AnEmpiricalAgnostic
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 152 (238921)
08-31-2005 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by iano
08-31-2005 6:04 AM


Re: Science revealing God...
AEA writes:
The problem is that you are not qualified to know what science can and can’t answer. If it lies in the realm of the natural universe then it is fair game for science.
This one can be put to bed if you want. If I post quotes with references from acknowledged non-theist scientists who talk about what they feel science can't discover about the natural world, would that be enough for you to agree that there are natural limits past which science itself doesn't think it is qualified to go.
I think we are having difficulty here because we are debating different points. Let me try to be clear. I understand that there are areas of thought where science can not go. I understand that if the BB is true then any information prior to the BB event is inaccessible to science. I understand that my belief that this may be figured out analogously, one day, is a belief. At this point I understand that this is where philosophers are free to posit their best guess. Although I may not agree with their guess, as I think personifying first cause is a ridiculous start, I fully support their right to their belief.
The problem lies with creationists that push their philosophical belief as fact and not only try and fill every gap with their god but try and create more gaps where there should be none. Evolution is the example du jour. There is enough scientific evidence to support the Theory of Evolution beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet there are theistic philosophers trying to keep this area of knowledge a gap because it doesn’t happen to agree with their philosophical beliefs. In cases such as this, I believe their philosophy has overstepped it’s bounds and should be reevaluated in light of new scientific knowledge.
I’m new here and I’m not sure what your beliefs are, but if you are a theistic evolutionist I have no quarrel with you on this issue. If you refuse to acknowledge the Theory of Evolution as truth because it doesn’t coincide with your creationist beliefs then the issue lies there and all of my arguments will make more sense.
it’s only a matter of time before the evidence for evolution and common ancestry is accepted as fact by even the theistic philosopher.
This is scientism again not science. Saying it "will be discovered" because it "has been discovered" is extrapolating a line into the future without knowing what can be discovered that will alter the path of the line. That you drive around 5000 blind bends and don't meet an oncoming car on your side of the road says nothing about the next bend. This is faith, not science.
Here is where I will definitely disagree. The Theory of Evolution (ToE) requires no future evidence to be supported beyond a reasonable doubt. If you have not accepted the ToE based on current evidence then it is only because your cognitive dissonance is causing you to hold on to your philosophical beliefs past their utility. Philosophy is not the authority in this matter, science is.
Your god could produce an unlimited number of miracles that we could scientifically measure. It should be child’s play to such a big and powerful entity right? Like falling off a log? Then why are they so conspicuously absent?
You have a why and a presumption as to the answer: NO GOD. Your presumption is based on what YOU think God should or shouldn't do. Your demand is that he provides evidence on YOUR terms. But again, if you consider what he would be you would no doubt agree that his way of revealing himself (presuming again that he indeed wanted to) might well be done on HIS terms not yours. I asked before if you would consider what God would be like - if he existed. If you carried out this one minute exercise you may have noticed your jaw dropping onto the keyboard. The word 'humility' may have flashed across your skull.
Stop trying to reduce God to your size for a moment and consider that if he was able to make a logical, ordered and predictable world he was able to do other things as well which you may not be as privy to. Especially if you don't want to be.
I understand that if there is a god and if he/she created the universe it brings into play matters that are difficult, if not impossible to wrap our minds around. Like the dog that has no chance of learning higher math, we may not posses the cognitive ability to understand the nature of atemporality and omni-x. In the end, however, it is a purely philosophical exercise.
In evaluating specific claims about a theistic philosophical system I have seen assertions that your god can and has performed miracles to demonstrate his power (Moving mountains, creating floods, etc.). He has even showed up in person to handle business and kill and wrestle with men. At this point it begs the question as to why none of this happens today? Apparently your god is willing and able to definitively prove his existence in the past. Why not now? As an unbeliever, there are questions that need to be answered by more than Have faith, here’s the collection plate.
You miss the point. Although I don’t know what your particular beliefs are, many creationists believe that your god created each kind of life separately and distinctly.
If you were to finish the creationist sentence then we may be able to close this issue. "...separately and distinctly out of material he created: atoms, proteins, amino acids, DNA etc"
That's Creation. The designer Created materials then fashioned them into everything. That I can take a tree and turn it into a table doesn't mean I've closed a gap. Creating vs "creating". Your comparing apples and pears here.
Not really. A new kind of life has been created. What you are doing is simply moving the goalposts.
The most complex electron microscope in the world is powerless to remove the spark plug from my motorcycle engine. It's a question of applying the appropriate tool. Science is not a tool for investigating everything. God can be investigated - and by using core elements of the scientific style method too. First you clear out all preconceptions about God that you may have picked up (sterilising the equipment). Then you form a hypothesis of God that fits the obeservations that you can make. Based on that you deduce some tools you will need and go excavating. After you get some evidence you can possibly check the various Gods to see which one (if any) fit your theory. If you find one that fits the theory well then you go do some further investigation etc
I think you are being purposefully vague here. Please explain exactly how you use a scientific style method (whatever that is) and what evidence you used to conclude that your god exists.
If you were to decided to form a theory and go looking the one thing that should strike you early on is what it is you are looking for. Should you find it, you can expect to be humbled. If your traveling towards a destination it would seem sensible that the clothes you use to travel in are suitable for the journey. Humility would seem like sensible clothes to wear - both for the journey and the destination (should you get there). It's not like you would be influncing the data by being humble - it is good scientific practive afterall....
Invoking the words science and method, and practice does not make your evidence for belief in your god any stronger or science like. I’ve already been humbled by science and the vast unknown that science seeks to explain. I don’t need to have a philosophical belief in a personified supernatural entity to tie loose ends for me.
I see plenty of seekers. Just no evidence to be found.
If they look in the wrong place and don't use the correct tools then it is no surprise. There are millions who have satisfied themselves. And they ain't all stupid, ignorant, indoctrinated people either.
I know they aren’t all inculcated. In my journeys I have only met a few in the sea of theistic philosophy that have come to their beliefs by thinking for themselves. If 99% of people believe via inculcation, crisis, promise, and threat then I will reserve the right to generalize from time to time.
Take this from Lord Hailsham, a former Lord Chancellor of England (it's the very highest level judicial role - people who hold it are highly qualified in what constitutes evidence.)
"You do not get out of your philosophical troubles arising out of the fact of evil by rejecting God, For, as I have tried to point out before, the real problem is not the problem of evil, but the problem of good, not the problem of cruelty and selfishness, but the problem of kindness and generosity, not the problem of ugliness but the problem of beauty.
If the world is really the hopeless and meaningless jumble which one has to believe it to be once we reject our value judgements as nothing more that emotional noises, with nothing more in the way of objective truth than a certain biological survival value for the species rather than the individual, evil then presents no difficulty because it does not exist. We must expect to be knocked around a bit in the world which consists only of atoms, moleculs and strange particles. But how then, does it come about that we go through life on assumptions which are perfectly contrary to the facts, that we love our wives and our families, thrill with pleasure at the sight of a little bird dressed in green and black and white, that we rage at injustice inflicted on innocent victims, honour our martyrs, reward our heros, and even occasionally, with difficulty, forgive our enemies and do good to those who persecute us and despitefully use us?. No. Light is the problem, not darkness. It is seeing, not blindness...It is love not callousness. The thing we have to explain in the world is the positive, not the negative. It is this which led me to God in the first place
(From his book 'The door wherein I went' Collins P41-42)
I see this line of reasoning a lot. Believing that god is necessary for these qualities to exist or that atheists lack these qualities is fallacious reasoning no matter who you are. It’s just another gap filled with goddidit. I’ve seen enough examples of bad people who wear crosses and go to church every Sunday and enough good people that are atheists to know this argument holds no weight.
This message has been edited by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, 08-31-2005 09:55 AM
This message has been edited by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, 08-31-2005 03:51 PM

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by iano, posted 08-31-2005 6:04 AM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by LauraG, posted 08-31-2005 4:34 PM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has not replied

  
AnEmpiricalAgnostic
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 152 (239904)
09-02-2005 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Brad McFall
09-02-2005 8:42 AM


quote:
The question is what would change for the creationists given the existence of synthetic biology. Yes, it is indeed true that the two model approach c/e or e/c etc leads to "seperate and distinct tools" given our currently original science and thus "these scientists know" as you said, but as Henery Morris was reporting there has been a change IN THE SCIENCE from a tendency to look into waters to looking into rocks. You may feel free to think that this reporting is just playing into ICR rated hands and feel free to so comment. I also assume that this is the STATE of origin/synthetic biology research as I have not found Dr. Morris to misreport BUT one must also understand that the consensus science that appears in front of creationist speakers IS science that matters first and mostly only for different positions being taken by creationists themselves, scientists, as you said.
I think we are suffering from debating separate points also. I understand that abiogenesis is a fledgling theory and as such will be subject to many revisions and corrections in it’s refinement. I also hold out for the possibility that abiogenesis may be completely wrong in it’s current incarnation. It still may be possible that life (on this planet at least) could have been seeded by a comet impact or some yet unknown event.
I am talking about the Theory of Evolution (ToE). Regardless of how the first life started on this planet, it is obvious at this point that biological evolution is the explanation for the current state of all life on this planet (including man). Yet there are still theistic philosophers that would deny the validity of the ToE simply due to their cognitive dissonance. I understand it is hard to reevaluate a belief (especially when the potential stakes are so high) but at this point to do so would be to deny reality.
quote:
It is true that they "are" seperable to the extent that ICR can START GENE
quote:
The GENE project has been given the highest priority because recent advances in the field of genetics (genomics) appear to offer a stunning opportunity to advance the concept of a recent, supernatural creation. Sequencing of the human genome and the genome of many other species has recently been completed and these data are available in the public domain to all researchers for interpretation. New equipment and software are available for research in this field at costs which are affordable by even the smallest laboratory.

I see creationists make fantastical assertions like this all the time. The strange thing is that when pressed for details all I get is hand waving. I see claims that recent advances in the field of genetics (genomics) appear to offer a stunning opportunity to advance the concept of a recent, supernatural creation. (emphasis added) but no clarification on how that can even theoretically happen.
All I see is the classic modus operandi of the creationist to seek evidence to fit their philosophical conclusions. This, I will maintain, is not how it should be done and is why science is the authority in these matters. Scientific hypotheses are based on evidence and are only as strong as the evidence that supports them. In cases like the ToE, the evidence supports the theory beyond a reasonable doubt. In cases like abiogenesis, the jury is still out while evidence is collected. It is important to note that, in the case of the hypothesis that are not well supported yet, the fact that they are not well supported yet is not positive evidence in support of theistic philosophy.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Brad McFall, posted 09-02-2005 8:42 AM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Brad McFall, posted 09-02-2005 5:23 PM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

  
AnEmpiricalAgnostic
Inactive Member


Message 120 of 152 (239982)
09-02-2005 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by iano
09-02-2005 11:37 AM


Re: The tentative wheel
quote:
That the theory will always remain a theory never an answer. ToE suffers from this too.
Excuse me for barging in on your conversation with Ooook but I think it’s important to correct you on this point.
You are confusing a layman’s theory with a scientific theory. You are using theory in this case to mean:
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition writes:
An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory:
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition writes:
a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena
The ToE is a scientific theory and can not be promoted to anything higher. This does not mean it is not a fact.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html writes:
Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.
- Theodosius Dobzhansky

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by iano, posted 09-02-2005 11:37 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by iano, posted 09-02-2005 2:49 PM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

  
AnEmpiricalAgnostic
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 152 (240025)
09-02-2005 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by iano
09-02-2005 2:49 PM


Re: The tentative wheel
"Limited" and "well-substantiated". What defines well-substantiated here?
The ToE has been substantiated by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and unable to be falsified. I understand the reasonable is subjective and that the cognitive dissonance of some theistic philosophers cause reasonable to be far beyond those who are science minded. The ToE has enough substantiation to convince the neutral observer upon review of the evidence.
The idea of well-substantiated is only a convention. There has been no theory which has come to be proved yet.
Proof is for math and alcohol. Science never proves anything. Scientific theories are as strong as the evidence that substantiates them.
Nobody has seen one species change into another.
Observed Instances of Speciation (Observed Instances of Speciation)
Error | Christian Forums (Observed Speciation)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html (Some More Observed Speciation Events)
(Peer-reviewed examples of beneficial mutations and macroevolution/speciation)
This message has been edited by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, 09-02-2005 03:40 PM
This message has been edited by AdminJar, 09-05-2005 01:06 PM

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by iano, posted 09-02-2005 2:49 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by iano, posted 09-05-2005 1:31 PM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

  
AnEmpiricalAgnostic
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 152 (240816)
09-06-2005 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Brad McFall
09-02-2005 5:23 PM


Re: the tailor or the cook, you decide
Brad McFall writes:
As long as there is some original mystery it is not possible to seperate origin from rates of change since any supposed starting point preCISEly due to the size derivable from Weyl's
I’m getting the impression that English is not your mother tongue. I apologize but it’s making it very hard to follow your lines of thought.
Are you suggesting that the ToE depends on some mathematical distribution based on the origin of man to be valid? I really don’t see how this line of reasoning is valid much less useful to our current discussion but maybe I’m dealing with a language barrier. Please explain.
Brad McFall writes:
quote:
Here we have attempted to develop the formal scheme of genetics in such general form as to comprise all more or less irregular occurrences. Nowhere in this scheme was it necessary so far to speak of sex; but of course the fact cannot be ignored forever that syngamy between two gametes takes place only if one is a sperm, the other an egg. This is a polarity (gamete sexuality) that has nothing to do with genes.^(Denote by --- an organism arising from ...)On the other hand...
Thus while we can be in basic data agreement, as I do believe you and I are, unless you are, inaddition to be a seperatist of the Gouldian variatey etc, you are a FISHERIST or an HALDANIST (IE NOT A CROIZATIST etc) there is no way to CHOOSE a graphical seperation of TOE and ABIOG(enisis) as is discussed NOT ingernal IN THIS THREAD but remands in the blue-print or whatever color scheme is used in reconstuction of any proposed dissection. The dissection is not the section of seperation even if metadata be stored methodically. The gene point and the point physics are not textually seperated anymore in this discussion, hypothetically. I personally think that evergreen seeds fall to the sun and angiosperm seeds fall to the earth but hey, that is just me.
To take a quote from one of my favorite movies: “Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.” - Westley (The Princess Bride)
It’s rather easy actually. The ToE is separated from Abio due to the fact that the ToE requires DNA to already be present to evolve. When it comes down to it, some watered down version of ID would be compatible with the ToE since the ToE does not hold an opinion on where the first organism came from. Abio, OTOH, is completely at odds with ID (unless ID retreats to simply stating your god created the universe and set into play the forces that would bring about Abio and the ToE).
By now you should be able to discern a pattern though. ID is making claims about the physical universe (only in the realm of biological origins). In doing so theistic philosophers risk using the same logic that brought us the geocentric universe. Although there is not overwhelming evidence for Abio yet, to believe that there never will be any is ignoring the fact that science is advancing every day. Do you really think we’ve hit the limits of our scientific knowledge enough that it’s safe to assume that “goddidit”? You are making the same mistake as your philosophical ancestors.
Cognitive dissonace is irrelavant. It is how you think of deceptive evolution individually (Fire flies out blinking other fire flies, do plants really have neuroendocrinological valences etc).
The cognitive dissonance is at the very core of why the ToE isn’t accepted by theistic philosophers. They cling unnecessarily to their past belief that man was created just as he is in a “poof” like fashion from magic words uttered by an invisible man. It is cognitive dissonance that causes the theistic philosopher to posit some deceptive worldwide conspiracy rather than accept the truth that man evolved into his current form.
The theory of evolution deals with synthetic biology in so far as there are or we can delimit the limits of natural selection BY artifical selection. If you are a Fisherist you will not think necessarily that fitness and the second law of thermo are more than kissing cousins, otherwise you might make sure you are not within kissing distance of this idea. This is not a matter of belief, in so far as I have analyzed it properly but only about the d-sep tests that distiguish cases of acyclic and cyclic representations so pre-printed before the tests contra morality ensue or were already violated.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at here. Are you positing a problem with 2LoT or morality? I don’t see how these are connected at all.
The more viscous nature of the science in creationism is less likely to cause this violation prima facie as relevant inter thread alia. But as for the degree of incredulity one might sense at first, and sometimes with first hand experience, moving OFF the topic in this particular thread,"recent, supernatural creation" has to be taken as the three words that it WAS not as is 'read' readability included.
Again, I’m not sure what you’re driving at here but in my experience there is no “science” in creationism. If you start with an ad hoc conclusion, seek only evidence to support your ad hoc conclusion, and deny evidence that would falsify your ad hoc conclusion then you are not doing science.
Ruse for instance refused to admit that there was a difference of terms "creation science " and "scientific creationism". There just is. Thus his more general sympathy, say with DS WILSON etc , towards the social nature of creationism IS LOST MENTALLY in such writings of e/c simply by failure to locate the group involved. I admit I am not a dillitant of creationism and am likely to step on some creationistic mice now and then but I am ready to be corrected on that. What you say here does not seem to indicate what you think will change if a cloned human population were made on Mars. Instead you seem be thinking that "no change" from creationism (as they aready said it was "supernatural") as iano said and yet there is so much writing between the two of yous such that I cant see how what both of you say has anything to do with the time when the "recent" becomes "now". Is that too thick or can that be thought by you?
I have no disjunct between what HAS HAPPENED and correlating it with what IS HAPPENING and understanding what the FUTURE IMPLICATIONS are. Apparently iano and I (and possibly you) can’t even agree that if science and theistic philosophy are to be separated then where that separation lies. The physical world is science’s domain. It is what science is made for. If science has evidence that contradicts a philosophical belief then the philosopher must reevaluate his/her belief since science is the authority in the matter. In contrast, science can not (nor does it) make claims about the supernatural. When a person refuses to accept a scientific theory because it does not coincide with their ad hoc philosophical conclusions then they are being unreasonable.
Agains you say "philosophy" but it would be "Scientific Creationism" rather than "creation science" on my reading if ICR's GENEs dominate the genomic influence(the origin of genetic information) of baraminologists on general directions within research stratgies to be engineered, hopefully with proper controls, both inside and outside secular research universities.
Again, any derivative of the words “science” and “creationism” will be an oxymoron. When these “scientists” start with an ad hoc conclusion and shoehorn evidence to support it then they are not conducting science at all. Pages like this one put it all in perspective: Statement of Faith

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Brad McFall, posted 09-02-2005 5:23 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Brad McFall, posted 09-07-2005 3:57 PM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

  
AnEmpiricalAgnostic
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 152 (240818)
09-06-2005 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by iano
09-05-2005 1:31 PM


How do you eant an elephant?
AEA writes:
The ToE has enough substantiation to convince the neutral observer upon review of the evidence.
It has enough substantiation to convince - within the boundaries set for theories. I'm not arguing well substantiated. I'm asking how does one calibrate theory at all - given that there is no objective standard to compare a 'well-substantiated' theory with to find out whether it offers a 2% explanation or a 92% explanation of what happened.
One bite at a time iano. Even if a current valid theory only explains .001 of the universe then we can build on it and/or use it to develop other theories to get to .002. At least it’s moving in the right direction. Positing a supernatural explanation and stopping yields a big fat 0 in the advancement of mankind.
Scientific theories are as strong as the evidence that substantiates them.
Same question here as above
I read the first of these links and as suspected equivocation is the norm. "What is a species" being first up. Seems like it is not really clear. And when all is said and done the experiements with flies and worms and plants produced.... flies and worms and plants. Surmising that evolution occurs because an obeservation agrees with it doesn't mean it occurs. In order to be sure it occurs you would need to objective evidence not circumstantial evidence. That's what I meant about mystery. Know one will know this because of the time scales that are supposed to be necessary for it.
This is what I mean by moving goalposts. You said speciation has not been observed. Well I showed you that it has. Now you are claiming that this observed speciation is not good enough for whatever reason. Flies and worms are made of the same stuff we are iano. We are animals. The same things that are observed to happen in flies and worms happen in Humans. Speciation has been observed.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by iano, posted 09-05-2005 1:31 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by iano, posted 09-07-2005 7:46 AM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

  
AnEmpiricalAgnostic
Inactive Member


Message 133 of 152 (240984)
09-07-2005 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by iano
09-07-2005 7:46 AM


Re: How do you eant an elephant?
AEA writes:
One bite at a time iano. Even if a current valid theory only explains .001 of the universe then we can build on it and/or use it to develop other theories to get to .002. At least it’s moving in the right direction. Positing a supernatural explanation and stopping yields a big fat 0 in the advancement of mankind.
'Right direction' suffers the same problems as 'well-substantiated'. Against what is this direction being calibrated in order to know it is the right one. You posit advancement of mankind as the datum against which to measure. That is a completely subjective datum to chose: both in terms of advancement at all being the the correct datum and 'advancement' as you experience it being in fact advancement. Many would think man is going backwards. And they ain't all creationists
Okay, now I think you are just arguing for argument’s sake. Do you NOT think acquiring knowledge about the universe we live in the “right direction”?
This is what I mean by moving goalposts. You said speciation has not been observed.
No I didn't. I couldn't have given that I had never heard the word speciation before I said you can't see one species turn into another. One worm turning into another worm is not a species changing into another. It is a species changing period. Thats micro-evolution not macro-evolution. Speciation is observational evidence that fits macro-evolution but it fits micro-evolution more completely. It's not moving goalposts, its defining what they are
Actually, one species turning into another IS speciation.
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia writes:
Speciation refers to the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise. There are three main ideas concerning the creation of new species (Speciation mechanisms), each based on the degree to which populations undergoing this process are geographically isolated from one another. Speciation mechanisms include allopatric speciation, sympatric speciation, and parapatric speciation.
Ernst Mayr proposed a speciation mechanism referred to as allopatric speciation. In allopatric speciation, a population splits into two geographically isolated allopatric populations (for example, by habitat fragmentation or emigration). The isolated populations then undergo genotypic and/or phenotypic divergence as they a) become subjected to dissimilar selective pressures and b) they independently undergo genetic drift. When the populations come back into contact, they have evolved such that they are reproductively isolated and are no longer capable of exchanging genes. (emphasis added)
From: Wikipedia: Speciation
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia writes:
Microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level.
From: Wikipedia: Microevolution

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by iano, posted 09-07-2005 7:46 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by iano, posted 09-07-2005 11:22 AM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

  
AnEmpiricalAgnostic
Inactive Member


Message 136 of 152 (241049)
09-07-2005 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by iano
09-07-2005 11:22 AM


Re: How do you eant an elephant?
AEA writes:
Okay, now I think you are just arguing for argument’s sake. Do you NOT think acquiring knowledge about the universe we live in the “right direction”?
I am not arguing for arguings sake - although that is a trap to be avoided. Acquiring knowledge about the universe is no bad thing in itself. But it is open to debate as to whether the OUR acquisition of knowledge has been a good thing or a bad thing. You call it advancement and it has, no doubt, led to improvement for mankind. However there is an undoubted and very significant downside - as a result of this self-same knowledge. There are as many grounds to say the glass is half full as it is the glass is half empty. Every bit of knowledge gets used for both 'good' and 'bad'. As 'right directions' go I don't think the case for 'acquiring knowledge is the right direction' is a clear cut as you say.
(I work in the food industry and in 12 years I have yet (in all the many meeting I have been at) to hear the word 'nutrition' mentioned (yield increase, drip loss, binding fats within meats, how to disguise useful but undesirable ingredients in labelling etc etc do form the area of interest - money) . I could talk abit about the appliance of science in this field - but I don't want to put you off your dinner )
You can’t put a “good” or “evil” label on knowledge. Knowledge is impartial in and of itself. It is how we use the knowledge that can be judged. Labeling knowledge itself is as ridiculous as positing that fire is evil because it has destroyed buildings and taken lives.
Actually, one species turning into another IS speciation.
http://www.biology.duke.edu/rausher/lec18_05.html.
The following is from an interesting article (linked above) on experiments to see if speciation could occur (the text includes statements in the context that presumes evolution is occuring so it is, I take it, not a creationist website)
I. Experimental evidence for allopatric speciation.
A. Speciation in laboratory populations
1. Speciation as a process in nature is very difficult to study because one is never sure exactly where it is occurring; it can also take a long time.
2. For these reasons, some investigators have attempted to try to bring speciation into the laboratory. In effect, they have set up experiments in which they have tried to cause speciation to occur, and observed what happens. The first example I wish to discuss today is an experiment of this type.
Okay iano, here’s one that scientists have observed outside of a lab:
London Times writes:
From: GENTECH archive NEW species of mosquito is evolving on the London Underground in a development that has astonished scientists.
You now officially have no reason to deny that speciation has and is occurring (unless you move the goalposts again).
Which brings us back nicely to the issue of abiogenesis. I posed that manipulating elements to create life says nothing about whether abiogenesis occurred. No experiment could produce life in an undirected and unintelligent way. Scientists applying the full force of intelligence, time and money can do it but that is a quite different thing altogether. One could say the space shuttle could appear out of a pile of nuts and bolts because the application of intelligence time and money showed it could be done. In fact, the appearance of a space shuttle from junk must be considered more likely given that the application of intelligence, time and money has produced a result - whereas abiogenesists haven't. (If you think I'm arguing for arguing sakes by producting such a patently absurd comparison then by all means indicate where it is patently absurd).
I have seen this argument before. It’s a variation of the “tornado in a junkyard” argument (machine ”x’ resulting as a product of a random shuffling of junk parts etc.)
TalkDesign writes:
From: TalkDesign It does not take into account any non-random effects. Most significantly, it ignores natural selection, the central principle of evolution theory. The hypothesis of purely random combination is already universally rejected by biologists (it is the old creationist "tornado in a junkyard" straw man), so Dembski's consideration of this hypothesis serves no useful function, and the probability calculation which he uses to reject the hypothesis is irrelevant.
The argument doesn’t hold weight.
The same appears to be true of speciation. In reading the above section I would ask you to note the following:
In nature (where evolution has supposedly happened a) one is never sure if it occuring b) it takes a very long time for it to happen (which makes it unlikely that anyone will ever know). Yet the (evolutionary) author says it is going on. Why? Classic evolutionary thinking. Evolution is assumed from the outset therefore speciation must be going on. Now a scientist in a lab who starts out with a theory that speciation happens and sets up an experiment to cause it to happen can expect, quite often, to be rewarded with the result he has caused to happen. I design machinery from time to time to fit a specific purpose. Although I enjoy doing it and am taxed in dealing with all the constraints which push in on my initally simplistic Occams Razor style design, I am not surprised (although I am pleased) when eventually the final product does what I am trying to make it do.
But so what? Concluding that something happens in nature from a completely artificial (and massively simplistic lab experiment, the conditions of which don't happen in nature, says nothing about the thing actually happening in nature. It's another could be - not another is. Science has brought it's full might to bear to design a space shuttle.
This all fits the theory but I can't help wondering what couldn't fit the theory if enough effort is employed in order to cause it to fit. Don't you see even a touch of science-of-the-gaps here? Is this knowledge not in fact pseudo-knowledge? An experiment whose conclusions (man can design a situation whereby flies undergo 'speciation') are extrapolated to say speciation is occurring (without mans directed intervention) in nature. The word speciation appears to describe the lab result. Is there a reason to transpose it into the natural world?
See above.
Before we move on I think you’ll have to admit that speciation occurs no matter what the implications are to your philosophical views. I also think you are going to have to start looking a little more crucially at these arguments that other creationists have circulated. I know that, because they coincide with your belief, they are tempting to accept without critical analysis but they are ultimately deceitful. Here is a creationist site with an archive of arguments that have been thoroughly refuted and should not be used. Arguments we think creationists should NOT use You may want to check it out and see if there’s any other arguments that you’ve accepted as truth without critical examination.
This message has been edited by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, 09-07-2005 01:03 PM

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by iano, posted 09-07-2005 11:22 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by iano, posted 09-07-2005 4:31 PM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

  
AnEmpiricalAgnostic
Inactive Member


Message 143 of 152 (241386)
09-08-2005 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Brad McFall
09-07-2005 3:57 PM


Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
Brad McFall writes:
You referred to "our current discussion" I dont know what that is.
To be perfectly honest, in reviewing our posts, I’m not quite sure I know any more either. I try to reply to each and every post that is directed toward me as I think it is only polite to take the time to reply to someone that takes the time to direct a post toward me but since your first post .
quote:
It is completely cognizable that if ID ushers in a differen event for the synthetic biologist that ID contains a social environment LARGER than the current lab paradigm that drives, let one say, nanotech onwards.
It is going towards this area whether ID is true or if non-believers create a collopased ecological web in the future.
I hope you sense and realize that it takes LONGER than the areas'daily work week to pursue the consequences of positing God(if) and calling THAT a day, while it only takes a day's worth of work to work for the same day. Good day. This time is not indeterminate even if the thought IS.
. I have sincerely struggled to understand what you are trying to say. You say it’s not a language barrier but even when the typos are fixed I can not discern anything meaningful to me. I can see that you are a well read individual and that I could probably glean some good information from your posts if I only had the decoder ring. Unless we can communicate in plain English then I’m afraid any further communication will be an ongoing exercise in futility.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Brad McFall, posted 09-07-2005 3:57 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Brad McFall, posted 09-08-2005 10:53 PM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

  
AnEmpiricalAgnostic
Inactive Member


Message 144 of 152 (241407)
09-08-2005 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by iano
09-07-2005 4:31 PM


Re: How do you eant an elephant?
AEA writes:
You can’t put a “good” or “evil” label on knowledge. Knowledge is impartial in and of itself. It is how we use the knowledge that can be judged. Labeling knowledge itself is as ridiculous as positing that fire is evil because it has destroyed buildings and taken lives.
Hmmm. Pursuit of knowledge was the "right track". Why?
Without knowledge we will never advance.
Okay iano, here’s one that scientists have observed outside of a lab. You now officially have no reason to deny that speciation has and is occurring (unless you move the goalposts again)
I think a request to read something something with a bit more punch to it than what is written in newspapers about "The insects are believed to be the descendants of...". is not moving the goalposts. Like would you accept a newspaper report about a moving statue of the virgin mary seriously? I know I wouldn't.
I would go straight to the part in the scientific paper which deals with the reasons why if "This usually happens only when species are isolated for thousands rather than tens of years.", how it can be explained to happen so quickly. Given that such an explaination would not be forthcoming I would have the time to surmise that this statment about timescales was derived from artifical lab experiments which were aimed to cause the speciation and which were then transferred (without any scientific justification) to describe what happens in nature. A bit of extrapolation and hey presto!! "(nature) usually takes...."
I don't know if I'm being too flippant here, maybe speciation does occur in nature - but I can't see a way of setting up and experiment to test for it
Just reasonably examine the evidence iano. Where did the mosquitoes come from if not speciation? Did your god just think it’d be cool to make a new “kind” of mosquito in the subway tube? Is it some evil atheist conspiracy to make a new mosquito in the lab then set it free in the tubes? There is no more reasonable explanation. Just look at animals like the Kodiak Bear. Don’t you wonder why they only inhabit Kodiak Island? If geographic isolation and speciation isn’t the answer then what is? Did your god just decide to make a new “kind” of bear on an island?
The (tornado in a junkyard) argument doesn’t hold weight."It does not take into account any non-random effects. Most significantly, it ignores natural selection, the central principle of evolution theory".
I don't see how natural selection is applicable to building blocks of life. What 'advantage' can a non-living (and thus non-replicating) piece of material have in order to pass it's advantage on to successors it can't make. Abiogenesis has to assemble all the parts (either in stages (a series of random accidents) or all at once (a single random accident). Either way, it is all random.
I wasn’t talking about Abiogenesis. I’m not well educated enough in that field to defend it properly. The “tornado in a junkyard” argument is used against evolution and that’s where I know that natural selection negates it as a valid argument.
'Creationist' is often employed as a dirty word. But it is not a magic wand that will somehow make the issues go away. If you think you can argue that speciation occurs in nature (where folk seem to assume it does) or that abiogenesis is other than a tornado in a junkyard, then I'll discuss them with you. But it will have to be discussion based on reason - not smear
I don’t mean to use creationist as a dirty word. My experience with creationists has taught me that most are all too quick to regurgitate these dishonest arguments like the “tornado in a junkyard”. Use of such tactics has worn my patience thin. I will attempt to keep my fervent disdain for most creationist in check as you are one of the most reasonable ones I have ever had the pleasure of discussing EvC with.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by iano, posted 09-07-2005 4:31 PM iano has not replied

  
AnEmpiricalAgnostic
Inactive Member


Message 151 of 152 (242423)
09-12-2005 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Brad McFall
09-08-2005 10:53 PM


Brad McFall writes:
The question was, unless I need to reread it, what is a creationistic response to the domain of synthetic biology?
The quote you cited from me here, was in the cases where an IDist's ideas might govern the direction of synthetic biology itself.
I admit that economically, at present, this is an unlikely supply but the demand for it IS high, in my opinion.
I dont know if you are struggling to comprehend the cases were ID might so govern ( I fully realize that this is the place in the conversation that many people will raise at LEAST an eyebrow) or if it is rather due to a general lack of having yourself and the world at large supplied with information that had led me to exclaim that even just thinking the whole thing through takes more than 7 days in the week??
I understand now. It’s a bit strange to me but I’ll have to admit that ID (in it’s most basic form) is not so offensive to me. Simply positing that life on Earth was seeded intelligently in some way seems like a reasonable guess at first blush. My first fear is that ID itself was Intelligently designed to be as non-offensive to the scientific community as possible (wedge strategy). I can see how life on this planet may have been sparked by a comet. I can fantasize that this comet may have been synthesized by a superior race and sent out for the purpose of seeding the cosmos with life. The first problem is that the ID concept has been hijacked by the religious zealots and is used as a marketing campaign to spread religious propaganda. The second problem is that no matter what “designer” an IDist posits, you will always be faced with the “What designed the designer?” question. The religious zealots have no problem with this since their god is exempt from the rules whenever convenient but I see this as a major problem with positing a designer.
Given that you are still responding to me. I must commend you indeed. Thanks for the effort.
Thank you for making an extra effort (or possibly an extra lack of effort) so that I may understand you better. I realize that I may be able to glean a lot of information from you and that you will at least invoke a lot more thought from me than most of the other participants I’ve encountered on other forums.
I am somewhat dismayed if your lack of apprehension (which could be as much my fault as yours) is of the latter variety for it would indicate that my posts over the past 1/2 year have been to no avail, but then again I doubt you have been lurking here for that long (sans what Ben recently asked me). The recent article in Science on the Kansas situation is a case in this point, which I will probably bring up elsewhere on EvC.
No, I am very new here. I have been a participant on another forum for awhile but found the debate there to be a bit too mind numbing at times. I was turned onto this forum by another participant there.
You see because I do not feel that there is a seperation of magesteria I full DO expect that creation scienists will contribute to changes that synthetic biology affords evolutionary theory. You dont want to call what they do or might do science. OK I understand that position. I think however the CBS article is a little over dramatic and not really expressive of what will actually happen to the discipline of biology even if it seems like "pockets" of biological research are following that somewhat blue perspective.
I think every article is over dramatic. I think to be a journalist you must first master the art of sensationalism before they even allow you to practice in the field. I know there are good scientists that are also creationists. I think that they know how to properly separate the two. There are others that I have seen that call themselves “creation scientists” and make statements of faith before they even start their “scientific” work. This, I will maintain, can not be called science. Reading a Statement of Faith really helped put that into perspective for me. No person starting out with that kind of slant can perform science IMHO.
There is an extra level of control necessary to actually DO synthetic biology. I do not know that this is fully realized. It was not even thought to be an issue in 1992 when I was doing monoclonal antibodies and in vitro fertilization. I had found 1 out of 30 cells SQUASHED by me to be symmetrical. This could be telling me something about how cell development works OR it could be due to the shear forces I applied to the cell during the preparation to view it with tagged antibodies etc. The applied profs at Cornell were not even aware that this added extra data seperation was necessary to make determinative statements. I think this kind of engineering issue applies just about any time any ETHICAL feeling arises in this topic in this thread even if it is not completely justified.
It is smarter to let the ethics determine policy until the procedures are all under control and for this reason alone (no matter what the economics are) I am personally interested in the angle of creationists first. That is not what is happening as the link suggests. I am only saying I think it should be. I know you can keep things"" seperate and be "just" as ethical and if the controls were being controled for in the 'brave new world' of synthetic biology I would not protest from which side one leans tentatively but seeing that there is not even a widespread understanding of how ID *might* open the social possiblilites of synthetic biology I pray we come to some understanding sooner than later . You me and iano are not going to solve the world's problems trying to be the three musketeers.
I have to admit that I take a bit of offense that you feel you have to seek a creationist to glean an ethical viewpoint on any issue. Just because I don’t believe in a god doesn’t automatically mean I have no (or a lesser) concept of ethics. This is a false dichotomy that I see portrayed too often.
I hope this style of posting was better for you.
Much better. Thank you again.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Brad McFall, posted 09-08-2005 10:53 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024