A proof against ID and Creationism

Hi bkelly, Okay. That is easy. Really? You mean we should test theories by seeing how they hold up when applied to subjects they were not formulated to explain? Interesting. I see a third possibility: misapplication of a good theory can lead to wrong conclusions.-- JasonThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 09-24-2005 11:22 PM

Hi bkelly, Your last sentence is confusing. Does it mean "We can no longer allow people to blithely ignore facts that contradict their positions?" Or does it mean "We can no longer allow people to blithely propose positions they cannot support?"Either way, I presume you are living in a democratic society. It sounds like you'd rather live in a dictatorship or something.{tongue in cheek}
It is just horrible to allow people to say or believe whatever they want to, I guess.
{/tongue in cheek}By the way, just how did life come into being? What is your position on that subject? And what empirical evidence do you use to support your position?I have in my possession a high school biology text that was published in 1990 -- Heath's Biological Science: A Molecular Approach. That book spends all of Chapter 4 -- The Origin of Life -- detailing several speculations as to how life may have first began from nonlife. Buried deep in the appendixes (appendix 16A, Spontaneous Generation, pp. 747-8 ), the book declares that Pasteur's experiments help biologists unite "in accepting the idea that 'all organisms arise only from others of their kind.'" The book calls this principle biogenesis.I wish the tax-payer-funded system wouldn't make abiogenesis (an idea against the beliefs of many who pay taxes) appear to be some empirical-evidenced-based reality to very impressionable young minds (the children of those who do not believe in abiogenesis and who pay the taxes).But I guess we all got our rants.--Jason

ID is a theory about how the complexities of physical life came into existence, isn't it? (Based upon things like how DNA works right?) If ID was an attempt to explain the existence of spiritual beings, I was not aware of this aspect of the theory.--Jason

Hi Crash, I don't think so.The theory is based on the study of physically complex systems (such as the processes involved in DNA replication). I think it is fair to assume that it is intended to be a theory about the origin of physical beings and phenomena associated with physical beings -- possibly physical beings limited to this planet -- since those are the only ones we've studied so far.It makes no presuppositions about WHO the designer or designers are or HOW the designer or designers came into being. IIRC, it only states that there is a designer or designers and that the designer or designers are intelligent. I don't think the theory equates intelligence with complexity.--JasonThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 09-25-2005 12:46 AM

Hi nwr,I think I am missing your point somehow.The point of my Message 25 was that a highschool biology text book admits (deep in the appendices) that experimental evidence indicates that living organisms arise only from others of their kind...the principle of biogenesis.Why the book wishes to spend an entire chapter speculating about how life could arise in a manner contrary to experimental evidence is beyond me. I am particualarly puzzled as to why the experimental evidence is contained on a page and half in appendix 16A while an early and nearly entire chapter (Chapter 4, which is sure to be gone over in class, unlike chapter 26, which may never be read) is devoted to the speculations that are contrary to the experiments of Pasteur.Pasteur's experiments demonstrated that as long as there are no living organisms in an environment, there will be no living organisms in that environment.That has not been disproven. And why should we think it would be? And, particularly, why should those speculations (about how the experimentally-supported idea of biogenesis could be circumvented) be treated as some kind of fundamental biological truth (i.e., by devoting an entire, early chapter to the speculations) in a high school biology text book?--Jason

Crash, I haven't studied indepth. You may be right. It's certainly not my theory. I believe the bible to be revealed truth...not a theory. So, no, I'm not hanging my hat on it. But I'll ride the train a bit longer. Maybe I'll make a complete fool of myself, but I might learn a bit in the process. Is it really? Does the theory define intelligence in anyway? Does it define complexity? How is intelligence complex? If it is, is it complex in the same way as the physically complex structures or processes that the theory proposes are the result of of intelligence is complex?I still think that the theory can be justly described as proposing that physical complex systems are a result of intelligent activity without confusing physical complexity with intelligence. Does the theory purport to explain non-physical complexities?--JasonThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 09-25-2005 02:02 AM

To a bacterium, broth can be an environment. Sounds like broth to me. --Jason(I was trying to include something serious, but I'm too tired...don't take this post too seriously)This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 09-25-2005 02:41 AM

Hi bkelly, Hey. That's fine. While I might like to see creationism taught in school...I'm not so sure I would. One question that immediately pops into my mind is: whose version of creationism will be taught?But when I asked: You responded with: I appreciate your honesty in your answer. So, instead of the "ah-ha" attitude I began with (which I should probably apologize for)...let me ask why should abiogenesis be treated as anything other than the interesting speculations of scientists. Put THAT deep in the appendices.I had NO problem with most of the chapter detailing how DNA works...or the chapter explaining what ATP is and how it works. Sprinkled everywhere in these chapters are, of course, evolutionary speculations about how this or that process may have come about...yet NONE of those speculations increases understanding of the actual processes which can be understood WITHOUT having evolutionary speculations mixed in.Children of all religions and non-religions are forced to attend highschool. Why not leave ALL the speculations out of highschool science textbooks?--JasonThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 09-27-2005 04:22 PM

Hi Crash, Does the theory directly state or even imply that intelligence is the same as information? (AbE: this is an actual question...I've not actually read any official ID literature..I just have a general impression of what it is stating).I can see information being the result of intelligence, and I can see intelligence using information, but I'm not so sure that intelligence can be said to be information.Or, am I barking up the wrong tree?--JasonThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 09-27-2005 06:37 PM

Hi bkelly,I wanted to come at your opening post from a different angle, too. I know a lot of groups now use ID as a support for biblical beliefs. But ID theory purposely doesn't identify the designer. According to the theory the designer could be advanced aliens or God or Zeus or the CIA (okay, not the CIA).The Bible is clear that life was created (designed), but ID theory is not the Bible. A theory is an attempt to explain observed phenomena...theories can be and usually are adjusted. A theory is the result of men applying their minds to a subject. A theory is NOT the truth...but is an attempt to approximate the truth based on current knowledge.The Bible, OTOH, claims to be the word of God. The Bible claims to BE the truth -- not a theory of any kind. The Bible also makes it clear that God is the Designer...and not anything or anybody else.I really think you are confusing ID theory with the Bible itself.--Jason