Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 166 (8189 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-20-2014 5:15 PM
88 online now:
Astrophile, Coyote, DrJones*, dwise1, jar, Malcolm, PaulK, Percy (Admin), xongsmith (9 members, 79 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Golffly
Post Volume:
Total: 744,250 Year: 30,091/28,606 Month: 1,820/3,328 Week: 596/674 Day: 42/92 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56
...
12Next
Author Topic:   abiogenesis
greyseal
Member (Idle past 385 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 46 of 177 (543848)
01-21-2010 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Blue Jay
01-21-2010 8:31 AM


Re: close but still no banana
ack! you are correct! I shall edit my post appropriately. I even noticed that when I went to reply, but read through the post first and missed it on the way back
This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Blue Jay, posted 01-21-2010 8:31 AM Blue Jay has acknowledged this reply

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 473 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 47 of 177 (543852)
01-21-2010 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by marc9000
01-20-2010 9:28 AM


The futile search for design
Hi marc9000

Glad to see you have returned to the thread and weren't just one of those single-post anomalies.

I think greyseal and others have more than adequately addressed the points you've raised in this post.

I simply want to add one crucial point. The notion of "design" has been discussed in depths in other threads, and I would encourage you to search the forums for more on this matter. You seem to imply that ID deserves equal footing with scientific matters, when it makes two tremendous, unsupported assumptions by its very definition: 1) life was designed, 2) the designer was intelligent.

There are many many examples of natural processes that result in the illusion of design. Virtually anything you look at in nature, from an organism to a solar system to a galaxy... has an illusion of design. These things are "designed" only in the sense that they have achieved levels of complexity through natural processes that are greater than their initial state. These resulting higher levels of complexity were not decided in advance

The important distinction is that the term "design" implies an overarching plan with a purpose and a target goal. The design we see in living organisms clearly demonstrates that they were built bottom-up, not top-down. There was no master plan for "goldfish" that results in a goldfish... instead there is the geneticly coded instruction for a goldfish embryo, a coded instruction that has a long history of gradual change in small steps that only seem dramatic when viewed over the vast expanse of geological time.

There is a tremendous difference between this illusion of design, and design in the sense of a plan with a predetermined goal/purpose.

When you add the word "intelligent" before design, you are in a whole new arena, and there simply is no evidence of such in nature. Literally everything that you could point to as "evidence of intelligent design" has been shown to be a result of natural processes. Does that mean I am biased against "intelligent design" ? No. It simply means that there is no evidence of intelligent design.

If you think that my comments imply that we shouldn't be looking for evidence of intelligent design... I've said it before and I'll say it again. EVERY scientist who studies living organisms and astrophysics is CONSTANTLY looking for evidence... ANY EVIDENCE... that will point them towards a deeper understanding of the processes they observe. If they came across evidence of intelligent design, they'd be as excited as they are now when they don't. The fact is, they don't.

Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2010 9:28 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Blue Jay, posted 01-21-2010 1:54 PM Briterican has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member
Posts: 2615
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 48 of 177 (543878)
01-21-2010 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Briterican
01-21-2010 9:51 AM


Re: The futile search for design
Hi, Briterican.

Briterican writes:

You seem to imply that ID deserves equal footing with scientific matters, when it makes two tremendous, unsupported assumptions by its very definition: 1) life was designed, 2) the designer was intelligent.

In my mind, I don't view these as the assumptions of the model. But, then, I have a tendency to ignore the theological underpinnings of the ID movement and simply engage it as if it were science (that's what they want, after all, isn't it?).

There are logical reasons why IDists often think life had to be designed and whay the designer had to be intelligent. "Logical" here meaning that they can be derived from logical reasoning, given certain premises. Here are some examples:

In coded information in DNA, WordBeLogos argued that intelligence is required to make a code, because all known codes are the product of intelligence.

And, in Biogenesis, AlphaOmegakid suggested that the first life must have come from pre-existing life because the Biogenetic Law has been proven by repeated observation of life giving birth to new life.

The common thread of practically all ID arguments about origins is the concept of abiogenesis contradicting some “known law of science.” So, I would say that the basic assumptions of ID are that (1) the origin of life contradicts the laws of science; and (2) we have to introduce a supernatural entity (such as God) to compensate for the contradiction(s).

In my mind, the primary failure of ID arguments about origins is an inordinate obsession with the wording of broad theories, and a general aversion to engagement of the context and principles of the theory. They never get beyond the conceptual stage to the experimental stage, because they think the conceptual argument is strong enough on its own.

Edited by Bluejay, : Added "all" in the line about WordBeLogos


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Briterican, posted 01-21-2010 9:51 AM Briterican has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Briterican, posted 01-21-2010 4:23 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

Briterican
Member (Idle past 473 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 49 of 177 (543896)
01-21-2010 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Blue Jay
01-21-2010 1:54 PM


Re: The futile search for design
Hi Bluejay

Bluejay writes:

... I have a tendency to ignore the theological underpinnings of the ID movement and simply engage it as if it were science (that's what they want, after all, isn't it?).

A reasonable approach. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any real science coming from their camp.

Bluejay writes:

So, I would say that the basic assumptions of ID are that (1) the origin of life contradicts the laws of science; and (2) we have to introduce a supernatural entity (such as God) to compensate for the contradiction(s).

This is an interesting way to look at it, and I see nothing wrong with the way you reach that conclusion. If that is, in fact, the way ID proponents see it, then here's how I would respond to them...

(1) the origin of life contradicts the laws of science;

... I don't agree with that statement to begin with, but if I did, I would simply say "well then our laws of science are incomplete".

(2) we have to introduce a supernatural entity (such as God) to compensate for the contradiction(s).

... As mentioned above, I don't see any contradictions to begin with, but even if I did, introducing a supernatural entity as an answer is the ultimate cop-out which has no explanatory value.

Bluejay writes:

They never get beyond the conceptual stage to the experimental stage, because they think the conceptual argument is strong enough on its own.

What would the experimental stage consist of? Given the ways in which nature, unguided by a choreographer, manages to "whip up" great complexity, what possible experiment would provide evidence for a designer? (Its a legitimate question, not rhetorical, one that has probably been asked and answered elsewhere, but I've missed it).

I'd like to quickly return to the two examples you gave of logical reasons why IDists think life had to be designed by an intelligent designer:

  • "WordBeLogos argued that intelligence is required to make a code, because all known codes are the product of intelligence."

    --- I'm afraid I don't see this as logical.

    a) not all known codes are the product of intelligence - take the genetic code for example (circular, I know)

    b) even if all known codes were the product of intelligence, that does not automatically mean that intelligence is required to make a code.

  • "AlphaOmegakid suggested that the first life must have come from pre-existing life because the Biogenetic Law has been proven by repeated observation of life giving birth to new life"

    --- again, I don't really see this as logical.

    Biogenesis is well-understood, and there is no doubt that life, as we know it today, is created only by other life. However, that does not automatically preclude the possibility that the very first life emerged from non-living matter/processes.

    (note: I appreciate that you may not share the views expressed in the examples you presented)

    Bluejay writes:

    ...they think the conceptual argument is strong enough on its own.

    A good point. I have had people say to me "Look around you man... all this stuff, these trees, these plants, these people - it is ALL evidence of God." NO, no no no no. Our existence alone is not evidence of God. Our existence (viewed against the backdrop of our understanding of the universe) is evidence that "something happened" which led to us. Why is it easier to imagine that "something" as an all powerful entity, rather than as some underlying property or process that we don't yet understand?

    Thanks for your reply.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 48 by Blue Jay, posted 01-21-2010 1:54 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 52 by greyseal, posted 01-22-2010 1:45 AM Briterican has acknowledged this reply

      
  • slevesque
    Member (Idle past 1164 days)
    Posts: 1456
    Joined: 05-14-2009


    Message 50 of 177 (543899)
    01-21-2010 4:50 PM
    Reply to: Message 32 by Dr Adequate
    01-20-2010 4:28 AM


    I think this issue has been discussed long enough already, so this will probably be my last comment on it.

    Only the phrase "special creation" means so much more than that. It would not, for example, incorporate the case where God created the first primitive life and then sat back and let evolution roll.

    As soon as a supernatural being would come in and create something (without using the natural laws) then this should be included into 'special creation'.

    My experience of creationists is that, like 9/11 conspiracy theorists, they tend to shout "strawman!" whenever they watch someone debunk some aspect of the great tangled ball of creationism / conspiracism that they themselves do not happen to believe in.

    I try to be careful with the use of the word 'strawman'.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 32 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-20-2010 4:28 AM Dr Adequate has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 51 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-21-2010 6:36 PM slevesque has not yet responded

    Dr Adequate
    Member
    Posts: 13104
    Joined: 07-20-2006
    Member Rating: 2.1


    Message 51 of 177 (543906)
    01-21-2010 6:36 PM
    Reply to: Message 50 by slevesque
    01-21-2010 4:50 PM


    As soon as a supernatural being would come in and create something (without using the natural laws) then this should be included into 'special creation'.

    So the man who wrote this about the theory of evolution:

    There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

    ... should be described as a "special creationist"?

    ---

    I have always understood special creationism to be that strong version of creationism in which God creates not in general but in particular, individually creating giraffes, crocodiles, spiders, oak trees, and so forth, rather than simply creating the conditions that would produce such things. This is what makes special creationism "special", and distinct from the sort of notion of a creator that might be held by, for example, a deist.

    Now, if I am wrong, please tell me in what way the adjective "special" does qualify the noun "creationism". It must after all be there to distinguish one particular kind of creationism from creationism in general.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 50 by slevesque, posted 01-21-2010 4:50 PM slevesque has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 53 by Blue Jay, posted 01-22-2010 10:24 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    greyseal
    Member (Idle past 385 days)
    Posts: 464
    Joined: 08-11-2009


    Message 52 of 177 (543929)
    01-22-2010 1:45 AM
    Reply to: Message 49 by Briterican
    01-21-2010 4:23 PM


    Re: The futile search for design
    Bluejay writes:

    They never get beyond the conceptual stage to the experimental stage, because they think the conceptual argument is strong enough on its own.

    What would the experimental stage consist of? Given the ways in which nature, unguided by a choreographer, manages to "whip up" great complexity, what possible experiment would provide evidence for a designer? (Its a legitimate question, not rhetorical, one that has probably been asked and answered elsewhere, but I've missed it).

    that's part of the problem - ID is nothing but a "what if" conjecture at this point, and years and years of trying has taken it no further.

    I expect that their burning desire to destroy "materialism" and put the bible and yahweh up on an untouchable pedastal (rather than, you know, actually do any hard work) is a large part of the problem. It would only be arrogance for me to say that the rest of the problem is because there is nothing for them to find (since I cannot be sure) - but until they actually knuckle down and do some frigging work and produce something of scientific value, there is zero point in teaching what they don't have.

    ID makes no predictions that can be falsified - it only ever amounts to "I don't understand how this works, so it must be designed!" or "if I pull out this part it all falls down, so it must be designed!"

    ID is creationism, plain and simple, and christian apologetics at best - intelligent design mandates a designer, the designer they posit is always the christian god.

    muslims are quite happy in many arab states to expouse the same sort of words - my friend went to Saudi Arabia and came back with a very highly made glossy book telling him how wonderful allah was and how scientific a book the koran is. It's surprisingly identical to fundy american stuff. scarily so.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 49 by Briterican, posted 01-21-2010 4:23 PM Briterican has acknowledged this reply

      
    Blue Jay
    Member
    Posts: 2615
    From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
    Joined: 02-04-2008


    Message 53 of 177 (543954)
    01-22-2010 10:24 AM
    Reply to: Message 51 by Dr Adequate
    01-21-2010 6:36 PM


    Hi, Dr Adequate.

    Dr Adequate writes:

    Now, if I am wrong, please tell me in what way the adjective "special" does qualify the noun "creationism".

    This is probably my fault: I was the first one to use "special creation" in this thread. I intended it to refer to any sort of creationism that included a supernatural component; and, I think Slevesque started using it to standardize vocabulary with me.

    In retrospect, I probably should have been more explicit about what I meant.


    -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

    Darwin loves you.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 51 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-21-2010 6:36 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    marc9000
    Member
    Posts: 646
    From: Ky U.S.
    Joined: 12-25-2009


    Message 54 of 177 (544016)
    01-22-2010 8:44 PM


    quote:
    Huntard writes

    Hello Marc, thanks for your reply.

    I agree with most of what you say however this bit:

    marc9000 writes:

    The scientific community wants the term abiogenesis to take on new vagueness, so it can be claimed as a “fact”.

    Is just plain worng. I don't know of any scietist who will say that how abiogenesis happened (IE: what processes were involved and how it happened) is a fact.


    Talkorigins, in a vague, general way, did just that – a website that is supposed to be made up of many scientists. A large part of the scientific community heartily endorses talkorigins as being a scientific website, a scientific reference.

    quote:
    The reason we don't have a clear picture yet of how it happened is not a reason for you to go claim scientists want to keep it vague. They wouldn't be researching it if they wanted to do that.

    Sure they would, they would just research it in a less vague (naturalistic) way. If it’s specifically defined as only naturalistic, the religious community can legitimately question if it’s criteria for study is an exercise in atheist philosophy, rather than legitimate science. If its definition is vague, then the same atheist philosophy can be claimed to be pursuit of greater understanding of a “fact”.

    quote:
    "They know that if it remains defined as it is, natural causes only, it is only speculation, ON THE SAME LEVEL AS INTELLIGENT DESIGN."

    Then why are they researching the subject?


    Because most of the scientific community is made up of atheists, and no one is completely neutral and perfect.

    quote:
    Also, it's nowhere near the same level as intelligent design. We have, for instance, up until now found that all natural phenomena we have investigated are due to natural causes (IE: Lightning, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions etc....), while we haven't observed a single instance of something just poofing into existence.

    Not everything can be studied scientifically. Human behavior, love, lots of things. Origin of life may fall into that category. At a certain point, the scientific community leaves science and enters philosophy in the public establishment. (education/university grants, etc.) AND I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT, unless they point accusing fingers and haul into court others who seek to do it in a way that differs from a godless position.

    quote:
    PaulK writes;

    quote by marc9000:
    "I think it is of great importance, because I’m always told the science is safe from an atheist bias, because the scientific community always “polices” itself. That statement “abiogenesis is a fact” has been at talkorigins for some time. No one has policed it, and it is obviously a very questionable statement."

    talk.origins - for all it's virtues - is primarily a popular level site. And one that is currently receiving little to no maintenance. We're not talking about a peer-reviewed paper, just a short response to a creationist claim. We're not even talking about a clear factual error, just a poor argument.


    Its endorsement page shows that it's endorsed and recommended by Scientific American Magazine, The American Association for Advancement of Science, The Smithsonian Institution, The Geological society of America, the Leakey Foundation, and is used as a reference in countless biology textbooks. If it’s established in public education to this very thorough extent, it shouldn’t be winked and nodded at, for engaging in philosophy that inspires howls of outrage if something comparable comes from the intelligent design community.

    Even if it contains just a short response to a creationist claim, it can be claimed as a scientific statement, and referenced in public education.

    quote:
    quote:
    The scientific community wants the term abiogenesis to take on new vagueness, so it can be claimed as a “fact”. They know that if it remains defined as it is, natural causes only, it is only speculation, ON THE SAME LEVEL AS INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

    You've produced no evidence to support either assertion. The first is just a conspiracy theory. The second is a failure to understand what is going on in science and what is going on in ID.

    The big difference between abiogenesis research and ID is that abiogenesis is the subject of active scientific research. There's virtually no ID research, and what is being produced isn't much use.

    But there are plenty of other differences. Abiogenesis researchers don't start their research by writing school textbooks or soliciting for funds to support their strategy to influence society. They don't make films, making dubious charges of persecution. They don't try to link scientific opponents to the Nazis. They don't spend more time on the road preaching to the public than they do on research.


    They don’t have to, because they’re in the drivers seat. They are publicly established, and they also have authors like Richard Dawkins, Victor Stenger, and many others cranking out the atheist books that gain attention and interest from a general public that reads them for their social claims far more than for their scientific content. Each side can accuse the other of “conspiracy theories”. No one shouts about conspiracy theories louder than scientific opponents of ID.

    quote:
    That's dead wrong too. "Darwinism" doesn't have a gap that is filled by abiogenesis at all.

    I agree, the gap isn’t filled, but it still has its gap, and that’s its problem. It starts at step two. If it had naturalistic life from non-life, primordial soup, step by step chemical changes over long periods of time, with no guidance, no purpose, you know –abiogenesis as it is actually defined and understood, then Darwinism would be a complete package. Then we could close down churches, and put science in charge of all moral decisions concerning embryonic stem cell research, abortion, and many other similar things.

    quote:
    You might fairly say that science has a gap. You are also completely wrong to say that Darwinism was politically established (it won on scientific merit).

    Here is why I don’t think it won solely on scientific merit – “Origin of Species” was released in 1859 without scientific peer review, without much approval, or even notice, from the scientific community at that time, at all. Yet it sold out on the very first day. That logically tells me that it wasn’t purchased by those with a scientific interest, it was purchased by those with an atheist interest.

    quote:
    And it is the ID paradigm that seems to conflict more with open inquiry.

    My claim that Darwinism conflicts with open inquiry isn’t because of its content, it’s because of its establishment. If ID were accepted as science, it wouldn’t replace Darwinism, it would compete with/supplement Darwinism. The two views together, in scientific study, would be the most complete form of biological open inquiry.

    Hello Bluejay;

    quote:
    First, there is nothing new about the vagueness of the term. It has always encompassed every idea that refers to life coming from non-life, and, even in the restricted sense you want to give it, it still encompasses perhaps a dozen or so distinct hypotheses. When it was first coined, I suppose it was probably thought to be a much simpler issue than we view it as being today.

    Thomas Huxley (Darwin’s Bulldog) coined it, and it’s quite a stretch to suppose he intended it to include Biblical creation, or that it has been used that way until only recently. Supernatural creation has always been referred to as “creation”, and a naturalistic origin of life without the supernatural needed a term as Darwinism was growing in popularity by 1870, and Huxley provided it. The distinction between the two terms (creation=supernatural origin of life, vs abiogenesis=natural, unguided origin of life) made perfect sense. To take one of the two terms, and have it vaguely represent both ideas, and leave one idea (naturalistic, unguided origins) without its own reference term simply makes no sense. Unless of course, there is a tricky motive for doing so.

    quote:
    Second, you're missing the point here, just like Slevesque. No scientific paper that I have ever read compares naturalistic Abiogenesis to supernatural Creation, or even infers such a comparison! Rather, they all compare naturalistic Abiogenesis to naturalistic Biogenesis. The only axis of comparison used is “life-from-life” vs “life-from-nonlife.”
    What you are doing is introducing a new axis of comparison: natural vs supernatural. It’s like scientists are comparing a big square to a small square, and you’re bringing in your big circle under a different name, and insisting that it’s not fair for me to say your circle is still big.

    I don’t see biogenesis (life from life) as an issue here.

    quote:
    It certainly is predominantly speculation at this point, and I will agree that some of it is largely untestable and unfalsifiable at present; but it’s not “on the same level” as ID. All current hypotheses are based on known laws of physics, and there is a set of empirical evidence (an admittedly meager one) on the topic from which to make inferences. These are, and have always been, the only requirements for calling something “science”!

    I believe ID has those, in a comparable way as does abiogenesis. Meager? Maybe so. Promisory notes? Very comparable in both cases.

    quote:
    Science is not just well-supported theories: theories have to start somewhere, and the way you start developing a theory is just as scientific as the way you complete it.
    -----
    marc9000 writes:
    The reason the scientific community treats them so differently is because one compliments Darwinism, (Darwinism actually has a huge gap without it) and the other challenges Darwinism.

    Intelligent Design is also fully compatible with Darwinian evolution. Look at these two scenarios:

    [dembski quote]
    Life arose naturally; then it evolved over time.
    Life was created by God; then it evolved over time.

    This is what TalkOrigins meant when it said, “Thus, even if evolution needs abiogenesis, it has it.” I have since agreed not to use the word “abiogenesis” in this way, but the principle is still there: even life that was originally created by God can evolve in the Darwinian fashion.


    No further contest at this time, except to say that "evolution" is a slippery word, and I believe talkorigins authors to be slippery people.

    quote:
    marc9000 writes:
    ID proponents are no more hasty to posit an intelligent designer, than abiogenesis proponents are to posit their claim that “there is no God”.

    As a proponent of abiogenesis, I have never made the claim that there is no God. I believe in God.


    What do you think of Victor Stenger’s book; “How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist”? Or Dawkins; “The God Delusion”? I know you wouldn’t agree with their titles, but would you agree with much of their content? Or what their effect is on science and society?

    quote:
    I prefer not to be too specific online, because I’m not keen on being found and killed by any random stalker types that might be reading in on us.

    I understand!
    ________________________________________


    Replies to this message:
     Message 55 by Coyote, posted 01-22-2010 9:25 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
     Message 57 by Apothecus, posted 01-22-2010 10:23 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
     Message 64 by Blue Jay, posted 01-23-2010 12:19 AM marc9000 has responded
     Message 69 by PaulK, posted 01-23-2010 5:35 AM marc9000 has not yet responded
     Message 71 by Larni, posted 01-23-2010 7:49 AM marc9000 has not yet responded
     Message 89 by Huntard, posted 01-25-2010 4:28 AM marc9000 has responded

    Coyote
    Member
    Posts: 4855
    Joined: 01-12-2008
    Member Rating: 1.7


    Message 55 of 177 (544019)
    01-22-2010 9:25 PM
    Reply to: Message 54 by marc9000
    01-22-2010 8:44 PM


    Varia
    Your post is far to long to reply to, so I'll address only a point or two:

    If it’s specifically defined as only naturalistic, the religious community can legitimately question if it’s criteria for study is an exercise in atheist philosophy, rather than legitimate science.

    Science does not deal with the non-material. The religious community can study whatever subjects they want, in whatever way they want, but perhaps they should just leave science alone.

    We all know what the real issue is here -- science contradicts a lot of religious beliefs. The solution, on the part of the religious community, seems to be to either discredit science or change it until it is no longer science. (See Behe's comments on the witness stand at Dover.)

    I have a better idea. Why don't you just leave science alone? If your methods of investigation are superior, stick with them. Knock yourself out! Follow them to wherever they lead, and wherever you want. But just leave science alone.

    My claim that Darwinism conflicts with open inquiry isn’t because of its content, it’s because of its establishment. If ID were accepted as science, it wouldn’t replace Darwinism, it would compete with/supplement Darwinism. The two views together, in scientific study, would be the most complete form of biological open inquiry.

    How are you going to have ID accepted as science when it doesn't follow the scientific method?

    It is, in fact, the exact opposite of science. It starts with a conclusion (creationism) and seeks to cherry-pick any data that might be stretched or manipulated to support that conclusion. Further, it operates in the political arena, not as a scientific discipline. The Discovery Institute is a prime example of this. Check out their staff and their funding. They have far more lawyers and PR flacks than anything else, and any science "fellows" are creationists first and scientists second; they are window dressing to a massive PR effort. Also, check the wiki article on their funding and note the biblical literalist who provided a huge amount of money a few years back -- the one who wants this country run according to strict biblical principles. Not a whole lot of science there either, eh?


    Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 54 by marc9000, posted 01-22-2010 8:44 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

    marc9000
    Member
    Posts: 646
    From: Ky U.S.
    Joined: 12-25-2009


    Message 56 of 177 (544023)
    01-22-2010 10:04 PM


    quote:
    greyseal writes; "actually we were wondering if you'd come back..."

    This ain’t my first rodeo. Of course I know I’ll never get the last word, I don’t really seek it. But there’s more fun to be had! I’ll announce it when I’m finished posting in this thread. But I’m self employed, quite busy, and I won’t be rushed, especially with multiple challengers/opponents.

    quote:
    I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean your refusal to acknowledge you're wrong about what "abiogenesis" means then sure...but don't blame us when the evidence YOU'VE been showing also proves you wrong

    Your guess about what I meant was incorrect. I meant we reached an impasse on it because it looked like the two positions had a comparable number of posters in this thread on each side, and it didn’t appear that anyones mind was going to be changed. Some people acknowledge that word meanings are subjective, not subjected to dictates by the scientific community, and discussions on some things can come to a mature end. Others hammer their fist on the table and claim they’re always right and those who don’t agree with them are wrong. Such is often the characteristic of those in the almighty scientific community. As I said, not my first rodeo.

    quote:
    Once again, with feeling,
    quote:
    ________________________________________
    Abiogenesis has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

    Feeling (emotion) often goes along with insecurity. Talkorigins doesn't even attempt to put fourth that whopper.

    quote:
    talkorigins; ....However, many have thought that the theory of evolution logically requires a beginning of life, which is true.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/...ob/spontaneous-generation.html

    Hence, it really does have something to do with it.

    quote:
    the Theory of Evolution is a perfectly complete and correct scientific theory of the change we see in animal populations over time whether god made the world or not
    ________________________________________
    I said it last time. I didn't expect you to bring up the same canard YET AGAIN in the very next message you posted here.

    That’s because I’ve seen it stated many times, and never seen any more detail to go along with it to back it up. If you’d say “Abiogenesis has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, just like ID has nothing to do with religion", it could be more believable. Or if you had given examples of other subjects that start with step two and see no need for a first step.

    quote:
    In the immortal words of one of my best friends:
    quote:
    ________________________________________
    This horse is dead. Fuck it, or walk away, but stop flogging it

    Science textbook material in a few years?

    quote:
    ID has provided nothing, nothing, of the sort of quality demanded by serious scientific researchers. It is hidebound to one book in anything it's proponents attempt - you may think it difficult to overturn current opinion on certain facts and theories when it comes to science, but it is IMPOSSIBLE to overturn opinion on anything to do with ID. FLATLY IMPOSSIBLE because they all demand that any ID work be in accordance with the bible, and anything not in accordance is deemed automatically to be wrong.

    This is a clear indicator of the double standard that we have – the shouting down that is going on. It’s forceful enough throughout the scientific community that it seldom gets the discussion that it deserves.

    The subject of ID has nothing to do with creation or the Bible. It is a study for evidence of design. If one or more religious people involved with it tie it into the religion in any way, that is only their personal opinion and nothing more. When Dawkins writes a book called “The God Delusion”, I’m told that’s his personal opinion and nothing more. When Victor Stenger writes a book called “How Science Shows that God Does Not Exist”, I’m told that’s his personal opinion and nothing more. If Phillip Johnson, or the late Henry Morris say/said anything that ties ID to their personal beliefs, it’s no more representative of ID than is Dawkins or Stengers opinions on evolution.

    quote:
    We do not have, to my knowledge, a complete understanding of abiogenesis through natural means, however the simple fact is that both groups agree with that simple fact that at one time on the planet Earth, there was no life, and after some point, there was. THIS is the core of abiogenesis - it happened and we can all happily disagree with the how, but do not pretend that your one-liner explains anything, nor that because this one (however important) piece of the jigsaw is missing that we must give up everything else (however UNCONNECTED) because of it, and instead go back to a theory which boils down to "godidit". That is absurd. Explain rationally why it isn't, please.

    Your “give up everything else” claim is false. It’s only part of the emotional shouting down process. The study of ID can be done alongside other things, compared to other things, compete with other philosophies that dominate todays scientific community. An addition doesn’t necessarily have to be a replacement.

    This is what I wish someone would rationally explain to me. Why is it always claimed that a scientific acceptance of ID somehow causes some naturalistic aspect of science to be removed? Where does the "give up everything else" claim come from?

    quote:
    Now, why have I highlighted Britericans words?

    To save the suspense, I'll tell you - it is because Briterican has made it clear that we do not have a complete understanding of how to turn non-living chemicals into life-forms.

    Then you come along and state that your unnamed webpages say that "unscientific assumptions" are made - if your webpages reference other webpages from the populist press that states outlandish things like "boffins create life in the lab!!!" then you'd be right, but still, that would have no bearing whatsoever on the work being done to complete a theory still in it's infancy.


    But what if my now named webpage didn’t have to reference anything else, what if they just clearly showed that “the whole notion of abiogenesis rests upon an exceedingly weak foundation which is actually contrary to much of the scientific knowledge which we actually have obtained through extensive experimentation. Abiogenesis, in fact, violates several basic principles of chemistry and biochemistry which are so universally held as to be axiomatic. To get around these difficulties, evolutionary scientists have turned to various means of modifying their basic abiogenetic theory so as to resolve one or another of the problems presented. Yet, while pointing to directing clays, undersea thermal vents, interstellar amino acid generation, or several of the other more esoteric and generally dismissed theories, evolutionists manage to resolve (or often, just give the illusion of resolving, in the popular image framed by the media) one problem, while yet failing to address the other difficulties. Thus, abiogenesis, as far as can be seen from the actual experimental work and knowledge (apart from any concern for philosophical arguments or pure theory), is not supportable from true science."

    quote:
    We can't create life in the lab yet. We don't know how abiogenesis happened yet. We can't prove it did happen naturally yet.
    BIG DEAL.

    If it's speculated on in science textbooks, it really is a big deal, if the ACLU isn't suing.

    quote:
    http://www.nwcreation.net/abiogenesis.html

    Abiogenesis is a theory that attempts to explain the origin of life through random natural processes, and is taught as a regular component of evolutionary biology. The evidence to support a spontaneous origin of life is nonexistent, but like evolution itself is taught as absolute fact in biology classes.


    It seems that evolution textbook disclaimer stickers in a southern state causes a much different legal reaction than do textbook speculation/instruction of abiogenesis. (the naturalistic kind)

    quote:
    If you don't understand why it's not a problem then ask again.

    I’ll have to ask again, because I asked in my previous post, and you didn’t address it. Promisory notes are no problem for studies of naturalistic abiogensis, and are unacceptable for ID. Why?

    quote:
    Briterican answered your question rather succinctly. The ID crowd does NOT meet scientific standards with their work. If they did, they'd have a wealth of papers out on their own merit, not pushed through by biased editors (and later withdrawn).

    If you don't like that, tough, that's the way it is.


    So a sheer volume of “papers” gives studies of naturalistic abiogenesis a position in science superior to that of ID? If one has an establishment in public study, (all the associated time and money) and the other doesn’t, wouldn’t it make sense why one outdid the other in volume?

    quote:
    The reason that Briterican (and anyone else seriously interested in the scientific field of abiogenesis) is not interested in creationist views is because creationist views are fulfilled by the statement "godidit". They offer nothing, teach nothing, explain nothing. they are, as I and others have said, anti-knowledge as they do nothing but stop research and learning.

    I’ve said nothing about creationist views. I’ve been referring to ID. If you claim such a vast separation between atheism and science, why do you not allow ID proponents to claim an equal separation between religion and ID?

    quote:
    quote marc9000; ID proponents are no more hasty to posit an intelligent designer, than abiogenesis proponents are to posit their claim that “there is no God”.

    say wha? Intelligent Design proponents don't posit an intelligent designer?
    I'll have WTF for $200 please Bob.


    ID looks for design, not the designer. When you say that abiogenesis lovers don’t seek to rule out God completely, then I have to ask for the same WTF that you do. You honestly can’t see that they’re comparable?

    quote:
    When talking about abiogenesis, we know it is a fact. Your stubborn refusal to understand the word notwithstanding, when a teacher teaches about abiogenesis in a science classroom (not a religious classroom, or a philosophical classroom) he or she can only speak about facts, and cannot favour any particular religious viewpoints. This is the establishment clause and I would hope you would understand it. Even without such a clause, religious tracts contain no such facts and as such do not fit with scientific learning, not because they are wrong or right but because they are NOT SCIENTIFIC.

    You WOULD NOT BELIEVE how well I understand the establishment clause of the first amendment, and the intent of the framers. Maybe if you'll come down off of your haughty platform of scientific knowledge sometime, we can discuss it as two regular, common peasants in a future thread.

    quote:
    There are no technical details proving ID. None. There has been no meaningful irrefutable proof of ID in it's entire existence. Please produce this proof if you wish to prove your point.

    As there are no technical details proving naturalistic abiogenesis.

    quote:
    Books arguing from incredulity DO NOT COUNT because saying "I do not understand this" does not mean "it cannot be understood".

    And if you refuse to understand ID, it does not mean it cannot be understood.

    quote:
    Scientists don't say that there is no god, unless you're asking their opinion (and then they may be telling you there is!) - there is no "atheist bias". when over 70% of the population of the USA is christian (and an ever higher percentage theist) then you can't complain about being oppressed.

    A large part of the Christian population is unaware of what’s going on. When the movie "Expelled" came out, a small percentage were awakend. I wasn't, I, like several others, asked, "what took so long?"

    quote:
    Maybe you could - and should - be asking why many scientists who have actually done their homework don't believe, but that's an entirely different question.

    I have done that many times. The answer seems to be that they enter scientific study as teenagers, and are indoctrinated/brainwashed into atheism by their public education. A couple of the noted ID haters in "Expelled" (Provine/Crick) admitted that it happened to them, and it happens easily. A worldview reprogramming - the tossing out of a purpose in life, and its associated morals goes along perfectly with allowing the raging hormones all the freedom they need. A perfect time to become smarter than their parents.

    quote:
    I'm personally glad about the onward march of science you're so pessimistic about - but when you come up with a better system for investigating and cataloguing real facts let me know. It's Standard Creationist Retort #159 is that statement, and it's as pointless now as it's ever been.

    It has a number? Atheists in universities have so much time on their hands that they can number the general public’s questions about an atheist establishment in government? Does the numbering/ridiculing process automatically make them false?

    Does that list appear somewhere on the net? I’d like to see it.

    quote:
    you don't want any single special interest group's personal opinions to be a foundation for education?

    Not when lots of money, and lots of philosophy are involved.

    quote:
    Says the man who wants his own special interest group (ID) to be a foundation for education!

    I never said that. ID’s entrance into public science does not automatically mean its dominance in public science. There is no conspiracy theory, other than to reasonably reign in publicly established atheism.

    quote:
    YOU want the courts to FORCE the teaching of YOUR religious book in a scientific classroom, and only your book.

    You’re not alone in building these amazing straw men, and it’s this kind of shrieking that causes people to wonder what’s going on in the scientific community, to wonder what they’re afraid of, to wonder what ID proponents actually have to say. You know that I’ve mentioned nothing except ID, a study for evidence of design in nature.

    quote:
    I don't think you want to hear about the cosmic egg, do you? You don't want to hear about the egyptian book of breathing, or the book of the dead, in a scientifc classroom, do you? What about the Bhagavad Vita? The mahabharata? the koran? Are all of these scientific enough for you?

    As scientific as the book “How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist”, by Victor Stenger.


    Replies to this message:
     Message 61 by Coyote, posted 01-22-2010 11:50 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
     Message 70 by PaulK, posted 01-23-2010 5:58 AM marc9000 has not yet responded
     Message 72 by greyseal, posted 01-23-2010 8:59 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

    Apothecus
    Member (Idle past 349 days)
    Posts: 275
    From: CA USA
    Joined: 01-05-2010


    Message 57 of 177 (544027)
    01-22-2010 10:23 PM
    Reply to: Message 54 by marc9000
    01-22-2010 8:44 PM


    Hey marc9000.

    No one shouts about conspiracy theories louder than scientific opponents of ID.

    No offense, but please, you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a creationist jawing on about the "worldwide conspiracy" of evolutionism. You know, that conspiracy of immense proportions that not one of the millions of geologists, paleontologists, biologists, physicists, anthropologists, etc over the years has ever inadvertently let slip? Ever? Amazing, no?

    Let's set aside, for the moment, the fact that as yet, ID has brought nothing to the table to advance the study of science specifically, or in general. Let's, for argument's sake, assume that someday ID may finally prove itself in "some" way as to be taught (or at least, addressed) in schools as mainstream science is today. I think the scientific community, for better or worse, would be reluctant to allow ID equal (or any) footing because they would see it as a bit of a slippery slope. What's to stop the YEC, geocentrist, flat earth or other crazy snake-oil type crowds from crying foul the minute science concedes even a minute portion of the playing field to ID? Therein lies the rub. To science, anything involving magic is just that: magic. It's. Just. Not. Science.

    They don’t have to, because they’re in the drivers seat.

    Yes, science is in the "driver's seat", but not because of any athiest bias, marc9000, but because of one thing: CREDIBILITY. What's accepted scientifically is not based on Dawkins or any other athiest's popular literature, but on years and years of evidence, repeatable, verifiable, falsifiable evidence. Whether you, marc9000, accept that evidence is your own decision, but harping on about how you're so upset that magic isn't equally accepted as such, advances your case not at all.

    Stereotyping science as you do, as some club where the motto might be: "Athiests only need apply", is disingenuous at best. I can think of more than a few religious scientists, some who post on this forum, who would love nothing more than to see actual, verifiable evidence of a creator. Don't you understand that good scientific study looks for all evidence, and even if you don't believe it, would include magic if it was unequivocal? To be fair, I would concede the point that there are also some unethical folk who would deny or otherwise conceal said evidence. Lucky for science, we won't need to worry about that, eh?

    That logically tells me that it wasn’t purchased by those with a scientific interest, it was purchased by those with an atheist interest.

    Or logically, I can conclude that it was purchased by creationists of that time looking to disprove, discredit and otherwise debunk this fledgeling theory. I can play the conspiracy theory game, too. (BTW, they've largely failed in their efforts...)

    Have a good one.

    Edited by Apothecus, : No reason given.

    Edited by Apothecus, : grammar


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 54 by marc9000, posted 01-22-2010 8:44 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

      
    marc9000
    Member
    Posts: 646
    From: Ky U.S.
    Joined: 12-25-2009


    Message 58 of 177 (544029)
    01-22-2010 10:26 PM


    quote:
    Your post is far to long to reply to, so I'll address only a point or two:

    So you can sympathize with me as I try to reply to 4 or 5 long posts?

    quote:
    Science does not deal with the non-material. The religious community can study whatever subjects they want, in whatever way they want, but perhaps they should just leave science alone.

    If people like Stenger and Dawkins would leave science alone, it could possibly work.

    quote:
    We all know what the real issue is here -- science contradicts a lot of religious beliefs.

    Science doesn't, but a lot of scientists do. Their opinions vary. In religion, opinions can vary according to different faith beliefs. In science, there are supposedly no faith beliefs. Why is it that not all scientists are as militant as Dawkins and Stenger? Aren't they all referring to the same science? If atheists are running wild with it, why can't others participate?

    quote:
    The solution, on the part of the religious community, seems to be to either discredit science or change it until it is no longer science. (See Behe's comments on the witness stand at Dover.)

    Not discredit science, just question those who control it.

    quote:
    I have a better idea. Why don't you just leave science alone? If your methods of investigation are superior, stick with them. Knock yourself out! Follow them to wherever they lead, and wherever you want. But just leave science alone.

    Science won't leave us alone! It needs our funding, then tells us to get lost, while it promotes atheism to our children.

    quote:
    How are you going to have ID accepted as science when it doesn't follow the scientific method?

    It can and does, at least to the equivalent of how abiogenesis follows the scientific method.

    quote:
    It is, in fact, the exact opposite of science. It starts with a conclusion (creationism) and seeks to cherry-pick any data that might be stretched or manipulated to support that conclusion.

    As those who control it today start with atheism.

    quote:
    Further, it operates in the political arena, not as a scientific discipline. The Discovery Institute is a prime example of this. Check out their staff and their funding. They have far more lawyers and PR flacks than anything else, and any science "fellows" are creationists first and scientists second; they are window dressing to a massive PR effort. Also, check the wiki article on their funding and note the biblical literalist who provided a huge amount of money a few years back -- the one who wants this country run according to strict biblical principles. Not a whole lot of science there either, eh?

    This is microscopic compared to the scientific communities' relationship with liberal universities, the Democratic party, etc.


    Replies to this message:
     Message 59 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2010 11:08 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
     Message 62 by Coyote, posted 01-22-2010 11:54 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
     Message 66 by Blue Jay, posted 01-23-2010 12:57 AM marc9000 has not yet responded
     Message 68 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-23-2010 3:11 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

    RAZD
    Member
    Posts: 16229
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004
    Member Rating: 2.3


    (1)
    Message 59 of 177 (544032)
    01-22-2010 11:08 PM
    Reply to: Message 58 by marc9000
    01-22-2010 10:26 PM


    Just Curous marc9000 -- what's your topic about??
    Hi again marc9000, just a brief question:

    Are we talking about the topic of abiogenesis, or are you using this as a soapbox to unload various pent up issues? It seems your topic is more about whether abiogenesis is science than about the actual origins of life issue. Is that accurate?

    Message 1

    It seems to me that in the scientific community’s haste to set criteria just higher than the concept of intelligent design can attain, they have also made it impossible for abiogenesis to be considered science.

    Are you really talking about abiogenesis or the fact that ID is not treated as science because it doesn't meet the specifications of science?

    Why don't we run down how each measures up to the specifications of science?

    Message 11

    quote:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

    quote:
    Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is, in its broadest sense, any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique or practice.[1]

    In its more restricted contemporary sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, and to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.[2][3] This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word. Science as discussed in this article is sometimes called experimental science to differentiate it from applied science, which is the application of scientific research to specific human needs—although the two are commonly interconnected.

    Science is a continuing effort to discover and increase human knowledge and understanding through disciplined research. Using controlled methods, scientists collect observable evidence of natural or social phenomena, record measurable data relating to the observations, and analyze this information to construct theoretical explanations of how things work. The methods of scientific research include the generation of hypotheses about how phenomena work, and experimentation that tests these hypotheses under controlled conditions. Scientists are also expected to publish their information so other scientists can do similar experiments to double-check their conclusions. The results of this process enable better understanding of past events, and better ability to predict future events of the same kind as those that have been tested.



    The study of abiogenesis fits this more restrictive usage of the term science. It is possible for any concept to fit this restrictive definition, as all that is required is that it be done by a systematic process of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, and the organization of the body of knowledge gained through such research.

    In other words, to be considered science one needs to do science.


    Can you show how ID fits that restrictive description of science as well as ("natural") abiogenesis does?

    We can start with the scientific method and you can describe how ID meets those criteria:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

    quote:
    Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]

    Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently-derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

    Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective to reduce biased interpretations of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.


    Let's focus on a topic rather than have a series of roundabouts eh?

    You've been to a "few rodeos", however in this forum we like specific topics and we like to stick to them. It doesn't appear that any of your subsequent posts have added clarification to the original post for what specific point you would like to discuss.

    So you can sympathize with me as I try to reply to 4 or 5 long posts?

    The problem is focus rather than responding to every little reply.

    And yes, the more you sling around and throw off replies to each and every response you get, the more the topic (whatever it is) will be buried by additional comments that drift further from any specific topic. Do you want a discussion or a shouting match?

    Enjoy.


    ps
    ... as you are new here, some posting tips:

    type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

    quotes are easy

    or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

    quote:
    quotes are easy

    also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.

    For other formatting tips see Posting Tips

    If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):


    ... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it.

    Please use the reply button on the message you are replying to for this link to work.

    Edited by RAZD, : ps

    Edited by RAZD, : .


    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    Rebel American Zen Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.


    • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 58 by marc9000, posted 01-22-2010 10:26 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

    marc9000
    Member
    Posts: 646
    From: Ky U.S.
    Joined: 12-25-2009


    Message 60 of 177 (544034)
    01-22-2010 11:16 PM


    quote:
    Hi marc9000

    Glad to see you have returned to the thread and weren't just one of those single-post anomalies.


    I appreciate it - you seem like an okay guy.

    quote:
    I think greyseal and others have more than adequately addressed the points you've raised in this post.

    Uh oh, my opinion of you just went down a notch.

    quote:
    I simply want to add one crucial point. The notion of "design" has been discussed in depths in other threads, and I would encourage you to search the forums for more on this matter.

    At your suggestion, I’ve done that, though only briefly – one can’t really learn much of anything about ID, what it is or what it seeks to do, by reading on forums such as these. (unless I’ve been posting there : p) The biggest talking points against ID by far is to misrepresent what it is. The “Wedge Document” does not represent it, anymore than Dawkins or Stenger represent all of science. Fortunately, there is one source for learning about what ID is and does – it does have one well known representative who is not an emotional wreck, (unlike the scientific community, it seems) and that is William Dembski.

    quote:
    You seem to imply that ID deserves equal footing with scientific matters, when it makes two tremendous, unsupported assumptions by its very definition: 1) life was designed, 2) the designer was intelligent.

    Like the tremendous, unsupported assumptions of abiogenesis; “life originated from non-life”, and “it did it by natural, unguided process”?

    quote:
    There are many many examples of natural processes that result in the illusion of design. Virtually anything you look at in nature, from an organism to a solar system to a galaxy... has an illusion of design. These things are "designed" only in the sense that they have achieved levels of complexity through natural processes that are greater than their initial state. These resulting higher levels of complexity were not decided in advance

    The important distinction is that the term "design" implies an overarching plan with a purpose and a target goal. The design we see in living organisms clearly demonstrates that they were built bottom-up, not top-down. There was no master plan for "goldfish" that results in a goldfish... instead there is the geneticly coded instruction for a goldfish embryo, a coded instruction that has a long history of gradual change in small steps that only seem dramatic when viewed over the vast expanse of geological time.

    There is a tremendous difference between this illusion of design, and design in the sense of a plan with a predetermined goal/purpose.

    When you add the word "intelligent" before design, you are in a whole new arena, and there simply is no evidence of such in nature. Literally everything that you could point to as "evidence of intelligent design" has been shown to be a result of natural processes. Does that mean I am biased against "intelligent design" ? No. It simply means that there is no evidence of intelligent design.

    If you think that my comments imply that we shouldn't be looking for evidence of intelligent design... I've said it before and I'll say it again. EVERY scientist who studies living organisms and astrophysics is CONSTANTLY looking for evidence... ANY EVIDENCE... that will point them towards a deeper understanding of the processes they observe. If they came across evidence of intelligent design, they'd be as excited as they are now when they don't. The fact is, they don't.


    Oh no, the Darwinist/ atheist stranglehold on science will have to be reigned in, and no one but an outraged general public will ever be able to do it. Until then, no challenges to Darwinsim will ever see the light of day. Ask Michael Behe. His work was not fairly judged, it was emotionally shouted down. Darwinism is a financial/social empire, many lifelong careers are dependent on it. It is far more socially entrenched today than religion was in 1859.


    Replies to this message:
     Message 63 by Coyote, posted 01-23-2010 12:03 AM marc9000 has not yet responded
     Message 77 by Briterican, posted 01-24-2010 11:59 AM marc9000 has responded

    Prev123
    4
    56
    ...
    12Next
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014