Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   abiogenesis
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 11 of 177 (543392)
01-17-2010 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by marc9000
01-17-2010 1:25 PM


Hi marc9000, welcome to the fray.
The term abiogenesis has been around for hundreds of years, ...
And in that sense it has simply meant life from non-life, as it would pre-date the scientific usage.
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia
quote:
In the natural sciences, abiogenesis is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of living things change over time.
This does not say what causes the process to occur. It could arise by purely natural means, or those natural means could be guided by supernatural entities, giving the appearance of arising by natural means.
It is a term that refers to natural processes, a spontaneous generation of life from non-life by random, unguided processes. It is a conflictive view to any kind of purposive, supernatural creation.
Unless that view includes the supernatural creation via the guided use of what appears to be natural means.
Since the Miller-Urey experiment, combined with an ever increasing scientific knowledge about the simplest forms of life and conditions on an early earth, the likelihood of life beginning on earth by purely naturalistic processes is scientifically diminishing, not increasing.
Actually, the study of self-replicating molecules has progressed tremendously since 1952 when this particular experiment was done.
See Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II) for some updated information on this research.
Yet we see this at talkorigins;
...
CB090: Evolution without abiogenesis
I don't think that anyone disagrees that there once was no life on earth and now there is.
Good, so you would agree that any study, scientific or otherwise, that focuses on how that life varies and adapts through time is independent of whether that life originated by natural means or by supernatural means.
But in my view, the rest of that paragraph is completely false.
Curiously, reality is completely non-dependent on your opinion. Anyone is free to be 100% wrong about any number of topics and it will not affect reality in the slightest.
Abiogenesis is not just ANY origin of life as talkorigins asserts, it is only about a NATURAL origin of life. Evolution does not automatically have it.
And yet you just said "I don't think that anyone disagrees that there once was no life on earth and now there is" -- so you have agreed that life exists where before there was none. Thus any study, scientific or otherwise, that focuses on how existing life varies and adapts through time is independent of whether that life originated by natural means or by supernatural means.
Evolution is the study of how life changes over time, how the process of evolution - the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation - can explain the diversity of life as we know it. All that is required to make such a study is life existing -- by any means.
Creation is NOT a theory of abiogenesis.
Agreed, as it is an assertion and not a theory, certainly not a theory in the scientific sense as would be used in science to study the possible emergence of life from non-life.
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.
Interestingly, those criteria have been in effect much longer than the ID concept, put together by a consortium of creationists in 1987 in response to losing a US Supreme Court case.
Those criteria have also not changed significantly during the rise of ID and it's adaptation into religious thought in the intervening time.
The question for you to answer is whether the "concept of intelligent design can attain" has ever met the criteria of science, for if it never has, then there has been no raising of standards to exclude ID, rather ID has always been excluded due to it being inadequately pursued as science.
Science - Wikipedia
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 needsalthough 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.
The criteria has to be evenly applied, or there is a serious problem with non-scientific bias.
Agreed. One needs to do science for the work to be considered science. One needs to form hypothesis from evidence, make predictions, and test the hypothesis against the predictions and revise as necessary to explain all the evidence.
Since there is evidence that abiogenesis is referred to and noted in most, if not all, science textbooks at the high school and college level, ...
Interestingly, mentioning abiogenesis in these textbooks does not necessarily mean that they are advocating that abiogenesis by natural means is fact. You need to provide more context for what is actually said about abiogenesis than this.
Textbooks in general, and science textbooks in particular, are ideally required to present the best information known on the topic/s they cover, no matter what that topic involves.
... it appears to me that it’s a fact that we have a serious problem with atheist bias in the scientific community in the U.S.
Who can rationally and reasonably explain why I’m wrong about that?
Where does atheism come into this picture?
As noted above it is possible to have a religious view which includes the supernatural creation of life via the guided use of what appears to be natural means. It is also possible to have a religious (deist) view that the natural laws are part of the original creation, so the natural development of life from the available building blocks permeating the universe (also as a result of the original creation) is just part of the creation process.
Therefore your assignment\equation of views not based on your personal beliefs as being "atheist" is false, and what you really mean is (to paraphrase your statement):
" ... it appears to me that it’s a fact that we have a serious problem with {not my personal belief\opinion} bias in the scientific community in the U.S."
Which I would agree with, and additionally would have no problem with such biases against personal beliefs and opinions being universally applied.
Now, I expect that you would not want just any one single person's personal belief to be a foundation for education, so you should agree that your personal opinions and beliefs are also not a valid basis on their own for education, whether scientific or not.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : clrty

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 1 by marc9000, posted 01-17-2010 1:25 PM marc9000 has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(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:
Science - Wikipedia
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 needsalthough 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:
Scientific method - Wikipedia
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 replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 73 of 177 (544091)
01-23-2010 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by marc9000
01-23-2010 12:24 AM


please use reply button
Thanks for the reply marc9000.
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?
I'm an ID proponent, so naturally I'm facing a barrage. ...
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). The software in this forum lets you know when you have a reply when this button is used.
You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it.
I'm an ID proponent, so naturally I'm facing a barrage. ...
Being an ID proponent has little to do with it. I'm a Deist, and that means being an "old school" design proponent. Making erroneous statements about science in general and abiogenesis in particular will open you up to a barrage of replies, while one well considered focused post can answer many questions.
I'm trying to thoroughly respond to issues and condescension that weren't originated by me.
But the less I throw off replies, the more taunts, and more repeated comments I get.
You can waste your reply time on anything you want to. I have never found tit-for-tat responding to "condescension" etc to be effective, especially when one can be called on exhibiting the same behavior as a result.
Yes it is, but it's also about the motivation that declares abiogenesis to be science, while claiming evidence for design is not.
Evidence alone is not science, hypothesis alone is not science. Do you agree with the wikipedia definition of science posted in Message 11?
quote:
Science - Wikipedia
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 needsalthough 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.

Do you want to start with the broader sense and see how they apply to ID and abiogenesis?
Science (general): any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome.
Is that a good starting point?
For instance, the scientific approach to abiogenesis would hypothesize that if this occurred through natural chemical reaction, that then we should be able to form self-replicating molecules, and if we can't form self-replicating molecules that then abiogenesis could be falsified.
Abiogenesis fits the broader definition of science: do you have a similar testable prediction based on ID?
I'll work on that, it may take a week, or it may take a month.
I'll be baaaaaack.
No sweat, take your time.
Should we consider Astrology as a science? It can be a systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a predictions, yes?
I think it has - the comparison of scientific qualifications for abiogenesis vs ID.
Funny, I missed that. Could you point to the message/s where you gave that information?
Note: typing [msg=-11] results in Message 11, so you can provide a link directly to the message.
For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
In other news:
Message 35:
quote:
RAZD writes; And in that sense it has simply meant life from non-life, as it would pre-date the scientific usage.
Predate scientific usage? From Aristotle onward, it has always been about science.
Aristotle was not a scientist, he was a philosopher, and we don't need to conflate science with philosophy (particularly if we are going to use the definition above).
Message 54: 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.
So it did not start with Aristotle? It appears you have contradicted yourself on where and when the term originated and what it means. Be that as it may, let's not equivocate on meanings, and use chemical abiogenesis to mean the formation of life from chemicals.
I don’t see biogenesis (life from life) as an issue here.
Good, for then we can run down a number of scenarios to see how abiogenesis (life from chemicals) is linked (or not) to evolution (life from life):
  1. God/s come to the primordial earth and create a single living cell from clay and dust. From that single life form, all life as we know it has evolved and diversified.
  2. Alien/s come to the primordial earth, and innoculate it with a single living cell they have designed. From that single life form, all life as we know it has evolved and diversified.
  3. Alien/s discard their trash on the primordial earth, and one of their bacterial organisms survives in this new environment. From that single life form, all life as we know it has evolved and diversified.
  4. Meteors fall on the primordial earth, bringing pre-biological chemicals, and from these chemicals protocellular lipids and replicating molecules form, and at one point come together into a single living cell. From that single life form, all life as we know it has evolved and diversified.
  5. God/s designed the universe so that meteors would fall on the primordial earth, bringing pre-biological chemicals, and from these chemicals protocellular lipids and replicating molecules form, and at one point come together into a single living cell. From that single life form, all life as we know it has evolved and diversified.
Can you tell me which ones of these origin scenarios cannot involve evolution as the explanation for how all life as we know it has evolved and diversified from the original source? If you cannot differentiate them, then evolution does not depend on abiogenesis, all it depends on is having life as the starting point, and how that life began is irrelevant to understanding how all life as we know it has evolved and diversified.
I don’t want any one single special interest group’s personal opinions to be a foundation for education. I don’t want arrogant tenured college professors personal opinions to be foundations for education.
And I don't want non-science taught as science, nor do I want the personal opinions of arrogant fundamentalists that are not affiliated in any way with science to dictate the foundations of science. Science is not done by popular vote.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : added

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 65 by marc9000, posted 01-23-2010 12:24 AM marc9000 has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 78 of 177 (544166)
01-24-2010 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Briterican
01-24-2010 11:59 AM


correction?
Hi Briterican, small correction?
... The modified PHAs become far more soluble in water and are amphiphilic (possessing both hydrophilic and lipophilic properties). ...
in PAH world hypothesis - Wikipedia it says:
quote:
These modified PAHs are amphiphilic, which means that they have parts that are both hydrophilic and hydrophobic. Thus when in solution, like lipids, they tend to self organise themselves in stacks, with the hydrophobic parts protected.
The end result is the same.
Lipids, btw, can also form proto-cell like vesicles that can contain and concentrate the amino acids.
Obcells as proto-organisms: membrane heredity, lithophosphorylation, and the origins of the genetic code, the first cells, and photosynthesis - PubMed
Exploring Life's Origins: Protocells
There is also an animation on youtube that shows a lipid protocell forming and concentrating amino acids.
Then the next stage is to look at self-replicating molecules.
Enjoy.

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 77 by Briterican, posted 01-24-2010 11:59 AM Briterican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Briterican, posted 01-24-2010 12:50 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 80 of 177 (544174)
01-24-2010 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Briterican
01-24-2010 12:50 PM


Re: The power of explanation
No problem Briterican
Thanks for the correction, and the links.
And see that we are not concerned just with mistakes made by creationist\IDers.
Personally, I find the PAH hypothesis particularly compelling, as this helps form a bridge between my two building block threads:
RAZD - Building Blocks of Life (posted 3DEC05) and
Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II) (posted 24JUN09)
The second also has a link to the animation on lipid protocells mentioned above.
I hope that marc9000 also appreciates that I am not implying that PAH is specifically "how it happened"; it is simply a good example of the explanatory power of such a hypothesis as opposed to the non-explanatory nature of statements such as "best explained by an intelligent cause".
And it is also an explanation of how life could form on other planets in other systems. Of course, I also end up with my conclusion from the first thread above:
quote:
... it seems to me that the building blocks needed for beginning the creation of life were plentiful, not just on Earth but in space in general and from the earliest of times. ... These "seeds of life" no doubt extend through the far reaches of the universe as well as the depths of time ...
... We end with a scenario that has a random combination of plentiful and multitudinous organic molecules forming amino acids all over the earth, with a membranous system to contain and concentrate those molecules and their interactions within a protocell type capsule. We also see that random combination of plentiful and multitudinous amino acids into peptides and proteins is feasible, and that concentration and recombination within the membranous protocells enhances the probability that random combinations of them into the first "replicators" (the predecessors to RNA and DNA) is not as far fetched as it seemed at first. A simple building block process where the probability of a successful combination is almost inevitable: it is no longer a matter of "if" but of "when" it will occur under these conditions ...
A universe primed for life to develop and evolve.
Enjoy.

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 79 by Briterican, posted 01-24-2010 12:50 PM Briterican has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 84 of 177 (544205)
01-24-2010 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by marc9000
01-24-2010 5:06 PM


Re: Explanatory power
Hi marc9000, welcome back.
Did you notice the link I provided in my message 56?
http://www.studytoanswer.net/origins/abiogenesis.html
My question would be (and it’s not a challenge, just a question from myself, a non-scientist) does what you put forward above solve the reducing atmosphere problem as described in this link?
Once you answer that one, we’ll move along on the abiogenesis part. Do you consider that a credible link? If not, why not?
No I don't consider it a credible link, because it portrays a false impression of evolution at the very start:
quote:
your creationist website:
Evolution, as it is strictly intepreted in technical terms, deals with the suggested mechanisms for the progressive development of more complex lifeforms from simpler ones.
Evolution, as it is "strictly interpreted in technical terms" within science is the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding population from generation to generation. This process can (and has been observed to) result in speciation, nested hierarchies of common descent, and the increase in diversity of life. The theory of evolution (toe) is that these processes are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from history, prehistory, archeology, paleontology, geology and the fossil record, chemistry and the genetic record, and the rich diversity of life in the world today.
quote:
Berkeley University Biology Dept Definition
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.
quote:
University of Michigan Biology Dept Definition
Definition 1:
Changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation
Definition 2:
The gradual change of living things from one form into another over the course of time, the origin of species and lineages by descent of living forms from ancestral forms, and the generation of diversity.
You will notice that neither of these definitions used by these universities to teach university level biology to biology majors mentions anything about progression from simple forms to more complex forms. The reason is simple: evolution does not require that complexity (of any kind) result, or that there is any necessary progression from one form of life to another. Evolution is opportunistic, and sometimes that opportunity is realized by a reduction in the complexity of an organism (eg - parasites).
This is false thinking common to creationist poor interpretations of the science, or due to intentional misrepresentation (sometimes it is hard to differentiate). If the very second sentence in an article is patently false or misleading, then what value can the rest of the article have, being predicated on a false premise?
quote:
your creationist website:
... However, because it is part and parcel with the whole naturalistic scheme of evolutionary science, abiogenesis can rightly be said to fall under the broader rubric of "evolution" as the term is commonly understood in lay discourse, ...
This, sadly, is just an assertion that the claim is true, not any real demonstration of the link between them. Conversely, Message 73 shows why this link in fact fails to materialize:
quote:
Good, for then we can run down a number of scenarios to see how abiogenesis (life from chemicals) is linked (or not) to evolution (life from life):
  1. God/s come to the primordial earth and create a single living cell from clay and dust. From that single life form, all life as we know it has evolved and diversified.
  2. Alien/s come to the primordial earth, and innoculate it with a single living cell they have designed. From that single life form, all life as we know it has evolved and diversified.
  3. Alien/s discard their trash on the primordial earth, and one of their bacterial organisms survives in this new environment. From that single life form, all life as we know it has evolved and diversified.
  4. Meteors fall on the primordial earth, bringing pre-biological chemicals, and from these chemicals protocellular lipids and replicating molecules form, and at one point come together into a single living cell. From that single life form, all life as we know it has evolved and diversified.
  5. God/s designed the universe so that meteors would fall on the primordial earth, bringing pre-biological chemicals, and from these chemicals protocellular lipids and replicating molecules form, and at one point come together into a single living cell. From that single life form, all life as we know it has evolved and diversified.
Can you tell me which ones of these origin scenarios cannot involve evolution as the explanation for how all life as we know it has evolved and diversified from the original source? If you cannot differentiate them, then evolution does not depend on abiogenesis, all it depends on is having life as the starting point, and how that life began is irrelevant to understanding how all life as we know it has evolved and diversified.
Personally, I think this a battle that you don't need to fight (eg beat your head against). We can agree that the term 'abiogenesis' refers to the development from chemicals, and that evolution -- the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding population from generation to generation -- is rooted in the present day, and applying what we see in life around us to the fossil record to see if it explains the diversity of life as we know it, in the fossil record, in the genetic record, in history, and in the world around us.
Abiogenesis is rooted in the past, a past so distant that there are no surviving fossils or records of how life began on earth. The first known fossils, some 3.5 billion years old, show life already fully developed in the form of cyanobacteria. We just don't know what preceded those organisms. It could have been any one of the five hypothetical scenarios quoted above, or it could have been something entirely different.
quote:
search for "abiogenesis" on Berkeley website
Your search - abiogenesis - did not match any documents.
quote:
search for "abiogenesis" on UMich website
Your search - abiogenesis site:GC1-Science of Sustainability - did not match any documents.
quote:
Berkeley on a common Misconception: Evolution is a theory about the origin of life.
Evolutionary theory deals mainly with how life changed after its origin. Science does try to investigate how life started (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but these considerations are not the central focus of evolutionary theory. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes.
Whatever caused the first life to form is irrelevant to the study of life since then, evolution is the study of life since then.
Note that within the field of biology, the study of origins (abiogenesis) is pursued, but it is not seen as critical to the study of evolution.
So that is two false or misleading claims for two claims -- not a very productive beginning eh?
quote:
your creationist website:
Probably anyone who has ever taken a biology course from a public university has encountered the orthodox abiogenetic theory in their textbooks. ...
Those who have taken biology courses are probably familiar with the Miller-Urey experiment. This was an experiment carried out in 1953 ...
Starting with 50 year old research that was done at the beginning of a new field is hardly presenting the up-to-date thinking on the subject, and the attempts to portray new thoughts is as factual as the portrayal of evolution at the beginning. Most of the argument against them is just the argument from incredulity and ignorance.
Curiously, I wrote an article over 4 years ago that is more up-to-date than the information in your website:
RAZD - Building Blocks of Life (posted 3DEC05)
This is what Berkeley says about Miller-Urey experiment:
quote:
The 1953 Miller-Urey experiment, for example, simulated early Earth's atmosphere with nothing more than water, hydrogen, ammonia, and methane and an electrical charge standing in for lightning, and produced complex organic compounds like amino acids. Now, scientists have learned more about the environmental and atmospheric conditions on early Earth and no longer think that the conditions used by Miller and Urey were quite right. However, since Miller and Urey, many scientists have performed experiments using more accurate environmental conditions and exploring alternate scenarios for these reactions. These experiments yielded similar results - complex molecules could have formed in the conditions on early Earth.
This experimental approach can also help scientists study the functioning of the RNA world itself. For example, origins biochemist, Andy Ellington, hypothesizes that in the early RNA world, RNA copied itself, not by matching individual units of the molecules (as in modern DNA), but by matching short strings of units it's a bit like assembling a house from prefabricated walls instead of brick by brick. He is studying this hypothesis by performing experiments to search for molecules that copy themselves like this and to study how they evolve.
They then proceed to discuss more up-to-date information than your site presents.
  • Scientists have made self-replicating molecules
  • Scientists have formed protocellular vesicles from the materials available
  • Scientists have shown that such vesicles can concentrate the amiino acids used to make self-replicating molecules
Denial of these facts will not make them go away.
My question would be (and it’s not a challenge, just a question from myself, a non-scientist) does what you put forward above solve the reducing atmosphere problem as described in this link?
Yes.
But for now, I'll just put forward a few general, overall thoughts. ...
Arguments from incredulity, aside from being totally irrelevant. Let's get to the real issue: evidence that ID can be viewd as science.
I would have to go back and glance through a dusty old book or two I have, to check into some claims by prominent people on the subject. I'll need time - I do have a busy life.
We will be waiting for specific answers and examples of why you consider ID to be scientific in a general sense, and at or above the level of abiogenesis in a specific sense.
Edited by RAZD, : clrty
Edited by RAZD, : mre clrty
Edited by RAZD, : link

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 83 by marc9000, posted 01-24-2010 5:06 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by marc9000, posted 01-26-2010 9:45 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 91 of 177 (544377)
01-25-2010 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Briterican
01-25-2010 2:48 PM


small comment
Hi Briterican, another small point (sorry).
marc9000 writes:
And if I ask; when you point the hubble telescope to such and such area in the sky on such and such date, do you have any revisions in the number of galaxies you see — I know what answer I’ll get — nope, no revisions today.
Eh? Would you expect to see revisions? Would you expect there to suddenly be a galaxy where there wasn't one before?
My brother can confirm if necessary, but I believe that the Hubble has already found a number of galaxies that were not known previously, due to their extreme distance, due to the resolution power of the Hubble, and due to it's ability to pierce dust clouds.
Actually, a quick google gets
Hubble Finds Farthest, Oldest Galaxies Ever Seen
And yes, I would expect any new and more powerful telescope to find even more, until you reach the point where the light traveling to the telescope had to start before the beginning of the universe. Curiously, this would not mean that there are not more galaxies, just that we are unable to see them.
Thanks for your other comments.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : thanks

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 90 by Briterican, posted 01-25-2010 2:48 PM Briterican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Briterican, posted 01-25-2010 8:33 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 110 of 177 (544670)
01-27-2010 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by marc9000
01-26-2010 9:45 PM


Re: Explanatory power
Hi marc9000, glad to see you back making some responses.
IMO what you’ve done is taken statements that were made to appeal to laypersons in an abbreviated way, and applied more detailed scientific jargon that actually largely parallels them, and tried to discredit an entire webpage because of it. That webpage’s opening summary used far fewer words than you did, to explain a general, layman’s understanding of how the word evolution is thought of, and used in society.
Sorry, but it is not that simple. The definition given by the website is not just a rewording to make it easy to understand, it is wrong. To repeat:
Message 84: No I don't consider it a credible link, because it portrays a false impression of evolution at the very start:
quote:
your creationist website:
Evolution, as it is strictly intepreted in technical terms, deals with the suggested mechanisms for the progressive development of more complex lifeforms from simpler ones.
Evolution, as it is "strictly interpreted in technical terms" within science is the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding population from generation to generation.
It looks to me like my version is maybe a couple of letters shorter than your website version, so no it has not "abbreviated" a valid explanation. Nor is my version difficult to understand, so it does not need to be interpreted, especially by someone not part of the scientific community studying evolution. We don't ask mechanics to define law or banking or physics or science to make it "appeal to laypersons in an abbreviated way" ... we ask the people involved to explain it.
The problem is not only is this "explanation" not a shorter easier to understand version, it is false, and it gives an entirely false impression of what evolution is about.
For you to go into technical terms to claim that evolution does not require progression from simple to complex, well, isn’t that what it is supposed to have done?
See? You fell for it.
IMO what you’ve done is taken statements that were made to appeal to laypersons in an abbreviated way, and applied more detailed scientific jargon that actually largely parallels them ...
I gave you a brief synopsis of why your website version was wrong, but apparently you fail to see the error involved.
Let's call your website definition by a more appropriate name: "creolution" (the creationist misinterpretation of evolution)
Creolution: - is the progressive development of more complex lifeforms from simpler ones by various suggested mechanisms.
Evolution: - is the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding population from generation to generation.
... and see how "creolution" compares with evolution in their ability to explain the diversity of life around us and what biologists study:
Comparison by ability to explain:CreolutionEvolution
Peppered mothsnoyes
Galapagos finch beaksnoyes
Wing/wingless/wing/wingless walkingsticksnoyes
Pelycodus speciationnoyes
Asian greenish warbler ring speciesnoyes
Therapsids with two jaw jointsnoyes
Whalesnoyes
Parasitesnoyes
Why apes are still livingnoyes
Why cyanobacteria are still livingnoyes
Human eye versus octopus versus combinationnoyesThe human appendix & vestigial organsnoyes
Convergent evolutionnoyes
Hominid bipedality before brainnoyes
Chronological stratigraphic layers of foraminiferanoyesCommon descentnoyes
Nested hierarchies of descentnoyes
Neutral driftnoyes
Coelacanthsnoyes
.........
Direction to evolutionyesno
Purpose for lifeyesno
Abiogenesisyesno

I could go on, and I expect many people here can provide many additional examples where creolution fails to explain what evolution explains, but I think that should be sufficient to demonstrate the absolute failure of creolution as a viable alternate formulation of evolution.
Now if you think creolution can explain any one of those items where a "no" is in the creo column, then proceed to do so ... without using the change in hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation. If you have any doubts about evolutions ability to explain any of the items where there is a "yes" in the evo column, then ask.
If you think that evolution should explain items where there is a "no" in the evo column, then ask. Note that the actual lack of direction and purpose in biological systems shows that, not only is a system that explain direction and purpose unnecessary, it gives the wrong impression.
Any explanation of the diversity of life as we know it, from the life around us, to history, prehistory, the fossil record and the genetic record that fails these simple tests to the extent that your website definition does, does not qualify as "statements that were made to appeal to laypersons in an abbreviated way," but either evidence of a poor grasp of reality, intentional falsehoods, delusional distortions of reality, or profound ignorance. Your choice.
Please note the irony involved with the inclusion of abiogenesis in the list. Not only is this telling on why creos keep insisting that abiogenesis is necessary for evolution, it also keeps us on topic.
When you get around to posting information on why you think ID is as scientific as abiogenesis, we can do a similar comparison between them.
In other news:
Message 96: Yes, I agree, but as we can easily see, those who take an interest in evolution have an equal enthusiasm for naturalistic abiogenesis. And abiogenesis may fall under a more 'loose', or more "exploratory" definition of what is science. One that I believe I can fit ID into.
People who have an enthusiasm for science and expanding their horizons of knowledge, have an enthusiasm for science and expanding their horizons of knowledge.
When you ever get to providing the evidence for ID we can then discuss whether it fits or not, and then we can raise the bar until one or the other fails.
Bluejay Message 104: To fit the definition of "science," an idea must contain (1) valid logical reasoning, (2) evidence that supports the possibility that it is accurate, and (3) a lack of evidence contradicting the possibility that it is accurate.
This is a good relatively low bar level to start with, would you not agree?
Message 97: The subject of ID is not religious. If it’s used as a weapon against atheism, it’s no different than science used as a weapon against religion.
Abiogenesis proponents are to a man atheist. The atheist leanings of the current scientific community are comparable to the religious leanings of the ID community. An uninvolved God is right next to a non-existent God. We'll get into the theistic evolutionist thing later - either in this thread or another.
Correction: science proponents in general, and both evolution and abiogenesis proponents in specific, come from a mixture of backgrounds, from atheist to deist, to theist.
ID is a religion to the same extent that deism is a religion.
Personally, I am a deist, and I find absolutely no problem with abiogenesis occurring according to the laws of the designed universe and with the materials so plentifully provided. One can be religious and do science, what we cannot do is make science do religion.
Message 100: This obviously isn’t first level, primary science, but in the ‘frequently asked questions’ section, we find the following;
quote:
What is the connection between astrobiology and evolution?
Astrobiology is an interdisciplinary science investigating life in the universe. Where did life come from? What is its future? Are we alone in the universe? These are the major questions driving astrobiology research. The origin and evolution of life on a planet follows stellar and planetary evolution. Scientists study cosmic evolution, planetary evolution, the origin of life and evolution of life on Earth, in order to understand life here and to consider how to find life beyond Earth. The basic scientific premise is that life evolved on Earth, and may have evolved on other planets in a similar way.
Why can’t intelligent design be an interdisciplinary science for both evolution and abiogenesis, that adds to exploration and searches for function and complexity that are currently only searched for by naturalistic forces that consist of only randomness/clumsiness/incompetence?
Curiously, all I see in your quote is that scientists (generally) study .... various branches of science. Some scientists combine their study into combinations of several disciplines to explore the interdisciplinary synergy that can develop. Astrobiology is one such study.
For intelligent design to be interdisciplinary, it first needs to show what the science of ID is -- and we are still waiting for your input on that question.
Personally, as a deist, I find that ID is more of a philosophical approach than a scientific one, where all the tools of science are used to investigate the philosophical question/s.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : more

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 93 by marc9000, posted 01-26-2010 9:45 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by marc9000, posted 02-03-2010 7:20 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 120 of 177 (545479)
02-03-2010 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by marc9000
02-03-2010 7:51 PM


Re: Explanatory power
hidden per moderator request to stay on topic.
marc9000, this is your topic, and it behooves you to remain focused on the specific topic and start other threads to talk about your side issues.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : topic

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 117 by marc9000, posted 02-03-2010 7:51 PM marc9000 has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 121 of 177 (545496)
02-03-2010 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by marc9000
02-03-2010 7:20 PM


Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
Hi again marc9000,
Notice that admin has requested strict focus on the topic. In Message 59 I asked for clarification on the topic and you replied in Message 65, but didn't really clarify the issue:
quote:
It seems your topic is more about whether abiogenesis is science than about the actual origins of life issue. Is that accurate?
Yes it is, but it's also about the motivation that declares abiogenesis to be science, while claiming evidence for design is not.
...
quote:
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.
I think it has - the comparison of scientific qualifications for abiogenesis vs ID.
From these messages and your OP I glean the basic topic to be:
  1. whether abiogenesis can properly be considered science,
  2. whether ID can properly be considered science, and
  3. whether abiogenesis is more scientific than ID or vice versa
We can leave the other issues aside for now (or move them to new\alternate threads).
The basic starting point for this discussion must be an agreed on definition of science.
RAZD writes:
Bluejay writes:
Message 104: To fit the definition of "science," an idea must contain (1) valid logical reasoning, (2) evidence that supports the possibility that it is accurate, and (3) a lack of evidence contradicting the possibility that it is accurate.
This is a good relatively low bar level to start with, would you not agree?
I don’t know, there have been so many in this thread so far, yet none of them have clearly specified what I’ve seen required of ID more than any other before I came here, the testable, repeatable, observable, falsifiable, useful requirements. Let’s review all of the variety that this thread has had so far; ...
Can’t all of this be condensed into something concise, something brief and easily referable as we apply them to abiogenesis and ID? Could you do that for me, to the satisfaction of everyone posting in this thread? Do you agree that the words falsifiable, and useful are important words? How falsifiable was all that detail in Message 107?
Again, I hope you'll now average all of the above requirements of something to be "scientific" into something concise, and I'll then move forward in applying ID and abiogenesis to it. If I don't agree with what you come up with, I'll make a reasonable argument against it, based on the content of all of the above.
Many of those other definitions would fall under the category of the more restrictive definition in the wiki article, while I had suggested that we start with the broader version and compare notes on abiogenesis and intelligent design, and then work up to more restrictive definitions when both pass a given bar.
As you noted:
Message 93 So the study of abiogenesis that I'm seeing so far here falls under your one-sentence description in your message 73;
quote:
Science (general): any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome.
The question now is whether ID can fit this definition.
RAZD writes:
For intelligent design to be interdisciplinary, it first needs to show what the science of ID is -- and we are still waiting for your input on that question.
I touched on it briefly in my post #100 — it was ignored.To repeat;
Again, I don't always respond to replies to other posters. Message 100 was a reply to Briterican, so I would normally let him reply to it, so thanks for repeating it.
There’s more to ID than goddidit — in Dembski’s words; ... A non teleological approach to evolution has consistently led biologists to underestimate organisms. Is, for instance, junk DNA really junk? Work by John Bodnar and his associates suggests that some of it is not.
Curiously, I don't find this an example of ID doing science, but rather another tired attack on the science of evolution (rather than abiogenesis).
  • Is there a systematic knowledge-base involved?
  • Is there a prescriptive practice involved?
  • Are they capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome?
quote:
Prescriptive Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
pre⋅scrip⋅tive  /prɪˈskrɪptɪv/ —adjective
1. that prescribes; giving directions or injunctions: a prescriptive letter from an anxious father.
2. depending on or arising from effective legal prescription, as a right or title established by a long unchallenged tenure.
So a prescriptive practice would involve a set of directions or rules to follow in doing research on the subject at hand. One such system, as an example, would be the scientific process.
To go further with the junk DNA thing, we find this link, including this paragraph;
quote:
Even if some rogue biologists suspected function for "junk" DNA, ... It appears that junk-DNA is truly going the way of the dodo, in more way than one.
First off, I find this somewhat disingenuous, as I know that not all scientists said that all "junk DNA" would not have a use. Rather this is taking a few scientists, quoting snippets from them and then applying a broad brush to apply this to all.
Second, I cannot find the ID hypothesis that this "prediction" is based on.
Can you cite the original prediction and show how it follows directly from an hypothesis on the function of DNA derived strictly from ID paradigms -- ie IF hypothesis {AID} is true, THEN some "junk DNA" will have some use.
Intelligent design really can sometimes correct mistakes of the Neo-Darwinian mindset.
Did IDologists show that some "junk DNA" sections had use?
Or did scientists responding to IDologist pressure re-evaluate their results?
Or did scientists following standard scientific proceedures within the biological sciences determine that some "junk DNA" sections had use?
If the latter, then the work was not done in response to any IDologist "prediction" nor is the correction done as a result of ID rather than due to the normal process of science.
quote:
Science (general): any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome.
This is the initial stage for comparison of ID to abiogenesis, which you already admit passes this criteria.
To continue to answer your question of what the science of ID is, here is a list of criteria that Dembski puts forward. As he admits, the nuts and bolts science of Intelligent Design is not as advanced as its cultural and political activity. His ideas to correct that;
1)To catalog fundamental facts
2)To catalog correcting misinformation
3)To network researchers and resources
4) To build a design curriculum
5)To objectively measure progress
I'll admit this is mainly a promissory note.
So this is not done yet.
I'm looking for what is DONE not what is PROMISED.
  • Is there a systematic knowledge-base involved?
  • Is there a prescriptive practice involved?
  • Are they capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome?
Once this is answered, then we can move up a notch by using Bluejay's definition:
RAZD writes:
Bluejay writes:
Message 104: To fit the definition of "science," an idea must contain (1) valid logical reasoning, (2) evidence that supports the possibility that it is accurate, and (3) a lack of evidence contradicting the possibility that it is accurate.
This is a good relatively low bar level to start with, would you not agree?
And compare abiogenesis and ID on that basis.
Agreed?
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : added quote

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 111 by marc9000, posted 02-03-2010 7:20 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by marc9000, posted 02-06-2010 10:25 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 125 of 177 (546040)
02-07-2010 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by marc9000
02-06-2010 10:25 AM


Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID no
Hi marc9000,
RAZD writes:
quote:Science (general): any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome.
The question now is whether ID can fit this definition.
So do we have any evidence that ID can fit this definition?
Looking at what is done, not what is promised isn't fair concerning the historical, actual applications of science, because it requires far more of ID than was ever required for abiogenesis. ...
When we require ID to be published in scientific journals, fully engaged in research and testing, and fully accepted by the scientific community before it is accepted as science, ...
At this point I'll take that as a "no" - so ID does not meet that very general definition of science.
Let me recap:
For (natural) abiogenesis: the hypothesis is that life can begin from chemicals by natural processes. From this hypothesis several predictions can be, and were, made:
  1. amino acids should be able to form naturally from a prebiotic "soup"
  2. self-replicating molecules should be able to form naturally from a prebiotic "soup" that includes amino acids,
  3. proto-cells should be able to form naturally from a prebiotic "soup" ...
... if the conditions of the original earth could be replicated.
We see that these predictions have been validated by many scientific experiments and studies, starting with the Miller-Urey experiment and continuing to today, including refinements of what we believe the original conditions of the early earth were. See Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II) for some modern research results.
For ID: the hypothesis is that a designer could be the cause behind life on earth. From this hypothesis the following predictions can be made:
  1. oops sorry, not done yet, may next week, stay tuned ... don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain ...
So far it is no contest, with abiogenesis exceeding the requirements of the given definition and ID not meeting it.
... what I’d like to find out about studies of abiogenesis. Just brief starting points; do they exist COMPLETELY separately from evolution studies?
Yes. Look up the references in Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II) and read them.
We now need to apply the CURRENT, most common, most aggressive challenges that are directed at ID and apply them to abiogenesis. A good start would be to simply look at some of the basics of the Dover trial, and apply them to abiogeneis. We need to redirect the focus off of ID for now, and take a detailed look at abiogenesis.
Go ahead. The above link would be a good starting point to show that actual science has been done based on predictions from the hypothesis of (natural) abiogenesis.
When we require ID to be published in scientific journals, fully engaged in research and testing, and fully accepted by the scientific community before it is accepted as science, ...? How can the scientific community accept ID if they refuse to evaluate it because it’s not science?
The average high school science fairs are filled with experiments that students have done by the scientific method without needing any approval of the scientific journals.
You don't need approval of scientific journals to actually do scientific experiments and studies, make predictions and test them.
When we evaluate the definitions of science, we need to include questions about why the details in qualifications for what is science have been changed over the past 50 or 100 years, and why they’ve changed, and why older subjects don’t have to adapt to new requirements.
Curiously, I've seen no evidence that the definition of science has changed at all since the ID movement formally began in 1998 (per wedge document history).
Here is what I found for an old definition of science (my bold for emphasis):
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=sc...
quote:
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)
Sci"ence (?), n. [F., fr. L. scientia, fr. sciens, -entis, p.pr. of scire to know. Cf. Conscience, Conscious, Nice.]
1. Knowledge; knowledge of principles and causes; ascertained truth of facts.
If we conceive God's or science, before the creation, to be extended to all and every part of the world, seeing everything as it is, . . . his science or sight from all eternity lays no necessity on anything to come to pass. Hammond.
Shakespeare's deep and accurate science in mental philosophy. Coleridge.
2. Accumulated and established knowledge, which has been systematized and formulated with reference to the discovery of general truths or the operation of general laws; knowledge classified and made available in work, life, or the search for truth; comprehensive, profound, or philosophical knowledge.
All this new science that men lere [teach]. Chaucer.
Science is . . . a complement of cognitions, having, in point of form, the character of logical perfection, and in point of matter, the character of real truth. Sir W. Hamilton.
3. Especially, such knowledge when it relates to the physical world and its phenomena, the nature, constitution, and forces of matter, the qualities and function of living tissues, etc.; -- called also natural science, and physical science.
Voltaire hardly left a single corner of the field entirely unexplored in science, poetry, history, philosophy. J. Morley.
4. Any branch or department of systematized knowledge considered as a distinct field of investigation or object of study; as, the science of astronomy, of chemistry, or of mind. &hand; The ancients reckoned seven sciences, namely, grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, music, geometry, and astronomy; -- the first three being included in the Trivium, the remaining four in the Quadrivium.
Good sense, which only is the gift of Heaven, And though no science, fairly worth the seven. Pope.
5. Art, skill, or expertness, regarded as the result of knowledge of laws and principles.
His science, coolness, and great strength. G. A. Lawrence.
We put (2) and (3) together and we get:
science: Accumulated and established knowledge, which has been systematized and formulated with reference to the discovery of general truths or the operation of general laws; such knowledge when it relates to the physical world and its phenomena, the nature, constitution, and forces of matter, the qualities and function of living tissues, etc.; -- called also natural science, and physical science.
Curiously, I do not find that significantly different from Message 73:
quote:
Science - Wikipedia
quote:
Science ... in its broadest sense, any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome. ...

The above site also provides the 1828 definition of science (my bold for emphasis):
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=sc...
quote:
SCI''ENCE, n. [L. scientia, from scio, to know.]
1. In a general sense, knowledge, or certain knowledge; the comprehension or understanding of truth or facts by the mind. The science of God must be perfect.
2. In philosophy, a collection of the general principles or leading truths relating to any subject. Pure science, as the mathematics, is built on self-evident truths; but the term science is also applied to other subjects founded ongenerally acknowledged truths, as metaphysics; or on experiment and observation, as chimistry and natural philosophy; or even to an assemblage of the general principles of an art, as the science of agriculture; the science of navigation. Arts relate to practice, as painting and sculpture.
A principle in science is a rule in art.
3. Art derived from precepts or built on principles.
Science perfects genius.
4. Any art or species of knowledge.
No science doth make known the first principles on which it buildeth.
5. One of the seven liberal branches of knowledge, viz grammar, logic, rhetoric, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music.
[Note - Authors have not always been careful to use the terms art and science with due discrimination and precision. Music is an art as well as a science. In general, an art is that which depends on practice or performance, and science that which depends on abstract or speculative principles. The theory of music is a science; the practice of it an art.]
Here we see that the term science is applied to subjects founded on experiment and observation, as chimistry and natural philosophy. Natural philosophy at this time meaning the study of the natural world.
So far we haven't found an old definition that would fit the current status of ID, so the claim that the definition has been changed to keep ID out is spurious assertion without merit.
When we look at the modern Webster definition we see (bold mine again for emphasis):
Science Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
quote:
science
Pronunciation: \ˈsī-ən(t)s\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; perhaps akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split more at shed
Date: 14th century
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws
5 capitalized : christian science
The only real difference between this and the 1828 definition above is the substitution of the scientific method for experiment and observation, and the replacement of natural philosophy with natural science.
You will note that the 1828 definition pre-dates Darwin, so we could legitimately claim that the definition of science has been changed to make it more difficult for evolution to meet the requirements. What we do see is that the definition of science has changed, but there is no evidence that this change is not applied across the board to all existing sciences: there is no evidence that a single science has been "grandfathered" in any way.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : naturally
Edited by RAZD, : ...
Edited by RAZD, : philosophy\science

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 123 by marc9000, posted 02-06-2010 10:25 AM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by marc9000, posted 02-21-2010 7:51 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 136 of 177 (547718)
02-21-2010 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by marc9000
02-21-2010 7:51 PM


Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID still no (prediction=faked)
Hi marc9000, hope the snow wasn't too much trouble. We only had a couple of inches and it was gone the next day, no time to enjoy it.
So do we have any evidence that ID can fit this definition?
It depends on the worldview of who is asked.
No, it depends on whether it fits the definition or not. That is the purpose behind starting with an established definition and applying it equally to each area of investigation.
Abiogenesis passed this first test because it meets the parameters of the first level definition.
If you can show that ID meets the parameters of the first level definition, then we can move on to the next level.
At this point I'll take that as a "no" - so ID does not meet that very general definition of science.
I would expect one with your worldview to do that, while (without saying at this point) holding abiogenesis to a lesser standard.
But I'm not holding abiogenesis to a lesser standard, I'm using the standard that you agreed to:
Message 93: So the study of abiogenesis that I'm seeing so far here falls under your one-sentence description in your Message 73;
quote:
Science (general): any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome.
I noted several predictions that not only had been made, but had been validated in regards to abiogenesis:
Message 125: Let me recap:
For (natural) abiogenesis: the hypothesis is that life can begin from chemicals by natural processes. From this hypothesis several predictions can be, and were, made:
  1. amino acids should be able to form naturally from a prebiotic "soup"
  2. self-replicating molecules should be able to form naturally from a prebiotic "soup" that includes amino acids,
  3. proto-cells should be able to form naturally from a prebiotic "soup" ...
... if the conditions of the original earth could be replicated.
We see that these predictions have been validated by many scientific experiments and studies, starting with the Miller-Urey experiment and continuing to today, including refinements of what we believe the original conditions of the early earth were. See Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II) for some modern research results.
So Abiogenesis meets the first level definition criteria. Its a systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that makes a series of predictions that can be (and have been) tested to validate the concept.
But since we can’t go back in time billions of years to check on the conditions of the early earth, that validation is very weak — JUST AS WEAK as ID proponents being unable to make specific discoveries about a supernatural intelligent being.
No, because the hypothetical early earth can be tested to see what evidence it should leave behind. We know a lot about the early earth, and learn more every day. The modern experiments that replace the first approximation used in the Miller-Urey experiment carry that information forward. This too is part of the definition of science that we are considering at this level of comparison: it's a "systematic knowledge-base that is capable of resulting in a prediction" as each correction to what we know brings us closer to the truth by eliminating what is known to be wrong.
Thus it doesn't matter that we cannot know precisely what it was like, so long as we can apply a systematic knowledge based approach to what we do know, and eliminate what we know to be wrong, it fits the definition of science being used.
And don’t pay any attention to my previous Message 111, where I showed that ID predicted that junk DNA may not be as junky as the godless scientific community wants it to be.
One, you did not show that this "prediction" was based on ID in any way shape or form. The parameters of the definition are that the prediction be derived from the systematic body on knowledge and not based on guesswork.
Two, there was no prediction to what the actual use of the DNA would be, so the "prediction" amounts to "well I think you are wrong" -- which is not a testable prediction that meets the requirements of the definition: ie "capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome."
Three, for a prediction to validate a hypothesis it must only support the hypothesis and not the contrary. In other words it must not support evolution of DNA to have other uses for non-coding sections, it must relate to ID to the exclusion of evolution, and this has not been achieved.
Four, I've done a little investigating of the background on your "prediction" ...
From your link:
quote:
As far back as 1994, pro-ID scientist and Discovery Institute fellow Forrest Mims had warned in a letter to Science[1] against assuming that 'junk' DNA was 'useless.'" Science wouldn't print Mims' letter, but soon thereafter, in 1998, leading ID theorist William Dembski repeated this sentiment in First Things:
[Intelligent] design is not a science stopper. Indeed, design can foster inquiry where traditional evolutionary approaches obstruct it. Consider the term "junk DNA." Implicit in this term is the view that because the genome of an organism has been cobbled together through a long, undirected evolutionary process, the genome is a patchwork of which only limited portions are essential to the organism. Thus on an evolutionary view we expect a lot of useless DNA. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function. And indeed, the most recent findings suggest that designating DNA as "junk" merely cloaks our current lack of knowledge about function. For instance, in a recent issue of the Journal of Theoretical Biology, John Bodnar describes how "non-coding DNA in eukaryotic genomes encodes a language which programs organismal growth and development." Design encourages scientists to look for function where evolution discourages it.
(William Dembski, "Intelligent Science and Design," First Things, Vol. 86:21-27 (October 1998))

Now let's review that "prediction" by Dembski again ...
quote:
... If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function. ...
So that "prediction" has still not been fulfilled, unless you consider the small amount of all DNA having a known use today meeting the criteria of "as much as possible, to exhibit function." So what is predicted for the remaining DNA today? If we are still less than 50% known use then that prediction has not been met. What is the use? What is the function? Without that essential little detail there is no prediction of the use of such DNA. When I design something it is 100% functional parts.
Then there is this choice little tell-tale tid-bit:
quote:
... And indeed, the most recent findings suggest that designating DNA as "junk" merely cloaks our current lack of knowledge about function. For instance, in a recent issue of the Journal of Theoretical Biology, John Bodnar describes how "non-coding DNA in eukaryotic genomes encodes a language which programs organismal growth and development." Design encourages scientists to look for function where evolution discourages it.
In other words, Dembski is NOT making a prediction at all. In 1998 he already knew that science (the real science) was finding some use for it. It gets worse.
Organic or GMO? - psrast.org
quote:
However it has been found that the sequence of the syllables is not random at all and has a striking resemblance with the structure of human language (ref. Flam, F. "Hints of a language in junk DNA", Science 266:1320, 1994, see quote below). Therefore, scientists now generally believe that this DNA must contain some kind of coded information. But the code and its function is yet completely unknown.
By Jaan Suurkula M.D. Published at this website in May 1997.
The Science article reports on a paper suggesting that the non-coding 97% of the DNA, commonly referred to as junk DNA, might have a function. The authors of the paper employed linguistic tests to analyze junk DNA and discovered striking similarities to ordinary language. The scientists interpret those similarities as suggestions that there might be messages in the junk sequences, although its anyone s guess as to how the language might work. * F. Flam, Hints of a language in junk DNA, Science 266:1320, 1994.
In other words, real scientists in published journals were predicting use for this DNA in 1994 ... just about the time Mims got on the bandwagon ... now let's look at Mims' "prediction" ...
http://www.forrestmims.org/publications.html
quote:
1 December 1994
Letters
Science
1333 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
To the Editor:
Finally, Science reports "Hints of a Language in Junk DNA" (25 November, p. 1320). Those supposedly meaningless strands of filler DNA that molecular biologists refer to as "junk" don't necessarily appear so useless to those of us who have designed and written code for digital controllers. They have always reminded me of strings of NOP (No OPeration) instructions. A do-nothing string of NOPs might appear as "junk code" to the uninitiated, but, when inserted in a program loop, a string of NOPs can be used to achieve a precise time delay. Perhaps the "junk DNA" puzzle would be solved more rapidly if a few more computer scientists would make the switch to molecular biology.
Forrest M. Mims III
Geronimo Creek Observatory
Gosh, there is that very same paper by non-ID scientists being cited as the basis for his "prediction" -- can you say BOGUS? Can you say FOWNIE? How about PHAQUE?
We see that that prediction was validated. Not thorough enough for you?
No it isn't enough, predictions made after the fact are not predictions. Repeat someone else's prediction is not a prediction. Additionally we still have no known use for most of DNA. As your link so eloquently puts it, " If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function." To put it mildly, I would expect nearly 100% of the DNA to be necessary for function for a designed organism.
Non-coding DNA - Wikipedia
quote:
About 95% of the human genome has at one time been designated as "junk",[3] ...
Broadly, the science of functional genomics has developed widely accepted techniques to characterize protein-coding genes, RNA genes, and regulatory regions. In the genomes of most plants and animals, however, these together constitute only a small percentage of genomic DNA. The function, if any, of the remainder remains under investigation. Most of it can be identified as repetitive elements that have no known biological function for their host (although they are useful to geneticists for analyzing lineage and phylogeny). Still, a large amount of sequence in these genomes falls under no existing classification other than "junk".
What we see is that the known use of junk DNA is in the development of the organisms, controlling gene sequences and other rather critical elements of evolution.
AND we still have mostly "junk DNA" today (albeit with the name changed to "non-coding"), so this "prediction" has yet to be fulfilled.
Bogus prediction. Failed prediction. Typical IDologist website misrepresentation (falsehood/s).
Sorry, but that's as much as I can deal with tonight. I'll get back with more tomorrow on the definitions of science through the ages, and the fact that there has been no change in requirements for ID that do not apply equally to Abiogenesis.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : restructured
Edited by RAZD, : subtitle

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 133 by marc9000, posted 02-21-2010 7:51 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by marc9000, posted 02-27-2010 7:50 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 149 of 177 (548586)
02-28-2010 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by marc9000
02-27-2010 7:50 PM


Entrance Requirements - and (epic) Failed ID
Hi Marc9000,
Established definitions aren’t that simple, you should have noticed that in your thread about definitions of evolution. It’s at 174 posts and continuing to grow.
The difference here is that we had an agreed definition to work by, you noted that abiogenesis fit that definition as science, but have failed to demonstrate that ID can fit it.
I've also showed that this definition was used prior to Darwin and his theory of descent with modification, and that the definition has not changed to make ID unacceptable. ID doesn't meet the 1828 definition of science as noted in Message 125:
The above site also provides the 1828 definition of science (my bold for emphasis):
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=sc...
quote:
SCI''ENCE, n. [L. scientia, from scio, to know.]
...
2. In philosophy, a collection of the general principles or leading truths relating to any subject. Pure science, as the mathematics, is built on self-evident truths; but the term science is also applied to other subjects founded on generally acknowledged truths, as metaphysics; or on experiment and observation, as chimistry and natural philosophy; or even to an assemblage of the general principles of an art, as the science of agriculture; the science of navigation. Arts relate to practice, as painting and sculpture.
...
Here we see that the term science is applied to subjects founded on experiment and observation, as chimistry and natural philosophy. Natural philosophy at this time meaning the study of the natural world.
Abiogenesis would fit that definition, ID would not.
The definition of science has not changed to exclude ID.
You largely disregarded an entire link I provided earlier about the gaps and faith in abiogenesis simply because the author didn’t define evolution in an exact way that you agreed with. Why would you blame me, or any creationist/ID proponent for disregarding most of what you (or any evolutionist/naturalist) say concerning science if you refuse to concede proven points about double standards in entrance requirements in the scientific community?
I disregarded it because it was full of misinformation, beginning at the start. My experience has been that starting with misinformation does not lead to valid conclusions. It's a logic thing. If your point was really valid, you would not need a website with misinformation to demonstrate it. If you think it has something relevant to say then pick out the point you think is relevant and present it.
.......Bogus prediction. Failed prediction. Typical IDologist website misrepresentation (falsehood/s).
Have you studied any of the detail in post 107 to this degree? Could it be that since abiogenesis is public science, and ID is not, that not only does the lopsided public establishment get one studied more than the other, it gets one attacked much more than the other?
This is the response to my research into your single prediction that you put up to demonstrate that ID was actually capable of doing science?
Don't you find it rather dishonest for ID to claim this as a prediction when it is based on repeating what was published in a scientific journal by actual scientists doing actual science?
I have to keep hammering this point home because it’s an important fact - those all happened after abiogenesis became science, with all the funding, all the attention, all the exposure to education curriculums, all the support from militant atheism, etc. ID doesn't have that luxury.
Curious how abiogenesis became a science by doing science, but ID has failed to do so.
As for funding, try this little piece of news:
Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker
quote:
The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research.
"They never came in," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned.
"From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said.
There's your funding, available and ready to be used ... nobody applied to use it to actually do something scientific with it.
Opportunity not taken, so it's not the fault of secular science that ID has not done any real science yet, it is the failure of the ID people to do science.
There are a lot of evangelical colleges and places that could also provide funding, but it seems ID can't convince religious schools either (from the same article):
quote:
The only university where intelligent design has gained a major institutional foothold is a seminary. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., created a Center for Science and Theology for William A. Dembski, a leading proponent of intelligent design, after he left Baylor, a Baptist university in Texas, amid protests by faculty members opposed to teaching it.
Intelligent design and Mr. Dembski, a philosopher and mathematician, should have been a good fit for Baylor, which says its mission is "advancing the frontiers of knowledge while cultivating a Christian world view." But Baylor, like many evangelical universities, has many scholars who see no contradiction in believing in God and evolution.
This was discussed on ID Failing--at Christian Institutions. If ID can't convince religious schools that it's science, how can you expect secular universities to do so?
The change that is required of ID is an entrance requirement, that other branches of science have never had required of them.
The entrance requirement is to do science: make predictions and do scientific studies. So far we have one (1) bogus "prediction" and the absolute failure to use funding that was available.
For a supposedly scientific movement that is a pretty sad paltry poor showing.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : xx

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 139 by marc9000, posted 02-27-2010 7:50 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-28-2010 4:21 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 165 by marc9000, posted 03-10-2010 9:57 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 151 of 177 (548620)
02-28-2010 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Dr Adequate
02-28-2010 4:21 PM


Re: Entrance Requirements - and (epic) Failed ID
Hey, Dr A.
Yes, I remember reading this at the time. It seems to me the most damning thing of all.
Yes. I also remember reading about the Discovery Institute creating a research branch, but it was all hush-hush top-secret have-to-shoot-you about what they were actually doing.
Then there's the Rate Group conclusion that radioactive ages cannot be dismissed without some unknown god-did-it explanation. (Coyote has the links I believe). They tried a scientific approach and could not reach any conclusion but the one already reached by scientists.
So far the evidence is that ID is not science becaue ID doesn't do science that supports ID.
Enjoy.

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 150 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-28-2010 4:21 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 152 of 177 (548628)
02-28-2010 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Dr Adequate
02-28-2010 4:21 PM


The Discovery Institute's pet "Biologic Institute" ...
Found it, thanks to google site and Theodoric
Biologic Institute - Wikipedia
quote:
The Biologic Institute is a tax-exempt organization with offices in Redmond, Washington and laboratories in the Fremont neighborhood of Seattle, Washington.[1] It is funded by the Discovery Institute[2][3] with the stated purpose of doing biological research. The main goal of the Biologic Institute is to produce experimental evidence of intelligent design.
The original Discovery Institute plan laid out in the Wedge Document, leaked in 1999, called for Douglas Axe, the current Biologic Institute director, senior researcher and spokesman, to head up a research effort in support of intelligent design. However, the Discovery Institute did not begin executing this part of the Wedge Strategy plan until 2005.[4]
The Biologic Institute was announced in mid-2005, and incorporated in Washington in October 2005 as a charitable organization working on research on birth defects and genetic diseases.[2][3][5] Axe told New Scientist magazine that the purpose of the Biologic Institute "is to show that the design perspective can lead to better science", and stated that the Biologic Institute will "contribute substantially to the scientific case for intelligent design".[4] In spite of the Discovery Institute funding, Axe and Discovery spokesperson Rob Crowther are adamant that the Biologic Institute is a "separate entity".[4]
New Scientist magazine sent a reporter to the Biologic Institute facilities in late 2006 to investigate. The reporter, Celeste Biever, was given a fairly chilly reception and found few willing to speak to her about their research.[4] Although the New Scientist article was somewhat negative, the Discovery Institute touted it as unequivocal evidence that the Biologic Institute is engaging in scientific research.[16]
The only one of the four Biologic Institute directors willing to speak to New Scientist reporter Biever was George Weber, a retired member of the business faculty at Whitworth University, a private Christian college associated with the Presbyterian Church (USA) in Spokane, Washington. Weber belongs to the Spokane chapter of Reasons to Believe, a fundamentalist evangelical Christian creationist organization.[17] Weber stated that, "We are the first ones doing what we might call lab science in intelligent design" and "The objective is to challenge the scientific community on naturalism."[4] After speaking to New Scientist, Weber left the board of the Biologic Institute. Axe explained in an email to Biever that this was because Weber "was found to have seriously misunderstood the purpose of Biologic and to have misrepresented it."[4]
The Discovery Institute stated in October 2006 that intelligent design research is being conducted by the institute in secret to avoid the scrutiny of the scientific community.[18][19] Nevertheless, Biever was able to discover that The Biologic Institute is working on "examining the origin of metabolic pathways in bacteria, the evolution of gene order in bacteria, and the evolution of protein folds" and computational biology.[4]
So there ya go, research underway, but it appears they have no results to publish yet.
Contrast this with the number of papers that the same authors have put out about abiogenesis in the same time ...
I predict that, like the RATE Group, any conclusions they reach will not be any kind of challenge to prevailing science: they will either discard science in favor of a priori beliefs or reach similar conclusions already reached in science.
Enjoy.
ps - I know Bill Gates supports the DI with substantial cash, and wonder if maybe he asked them to do some science ...?
Institute Hails $9.3 Million Grant from Gates Foundation | Discovery Institute
quote:
Institute Hails $9.3 Million Grant from Gates Foundation
The grant will fund research, development, promotion and implementation of a long-term transportation plan for the Puget Sound region.
The Discovery Institute is a national and regional research center for varied public policy issues, including transportation, science and culture, technology, law, economics and the environment. Its mission is to make a positive vision of the future practical.
Curiously, it has nothing at all to do with ID ...
Edited by RAZD, : ps

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 150 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-28-2010 4:21 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Theodoric, posted 03-01-2010 10:13 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 166 by marc9000, posted 03-10-2010 10:00 PM RAZD has seen this message but 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