Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8781 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-21-2017 2:31 AM
352 online now:
DrJones*, GDR, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (4 members, 348 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,587 Year: 21,193/21,208 Month: 1,626/2,326 Week: 81/881 Day: 3/78 Hour: 0/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
34567Next
Author Topic:   Is ID properly pursued?
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 94 (93282)
03-19-2004 4:45 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Loudmouth
03-16-2004 3:49 PM


Loudmouth,

The question of intelligence and design in interesting. We see the appearence of intelligence in a river running the path of least resistance, matched by the real intelligence of highway engineers, building their "smartest" road right along side of that river, at least through a mountainous region. Design, on the other hand, implies an artistic touch might be used, something frivolous or interesting, that makes the road scenic, say.

In terms of biologic diversity, the argument for natural selection, always finding the fastest route to the most fit phenotype, appearing intelligent when it is only an appearence, is thus sound. To find the appearence of design, we have to find the taken path deviating from what seems simple "intelligence" and showing some creative touch, that still preserves functionality.

The "bad" evolutionists will take ID, will deduce the same prediction made by the ID scientist, and will then force their theory of evolution to predict the same thing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Could you cite an example of this. I am not saying it hasn't happened, but an example might help clarify this a bit.

This is hypothetical, but it might help explain what I think I see. Suppose a scientist takes the theory of creation as presented in the bible, and considers rates of suicide in human sub-populations. The argument goes roughly like this: The bible exists, and claims to be a deposition from a supernatural creator Person, named Jehovah, setting forth His claim to have created everything in our universe. He asserts in this deposition that He owns everything, and has certain rights to our or anyone's use of any part of that creation. He also describes there existing conflicts with that claim, and how He rightfully deals with those conflicts. Part of this "conflict history" identifies "spiritual pathogens" that left to act freely, cause human "problems" including suicide. The scientist then predicts that those who "believe" in a Creator, as best that they understand the term "believe," because they meet one of the Creator's requirements for just use of the creation, will have lower rates of the spiritual pathogen attacks that lead to suicide. (Will have, as it is promised, long life.) Those who do not believe, atheists for example, will have higher rates.

So, our hypothetical scientist sends out a letter to several dozen evolutionary scientists, asking them what they might predict would be the pattern of atheism and suicide rates, given that there is no creator, but only evolution by natural selection, behind human existence, form, and behavior. Some evolutionists, bad scientists, might want to negate this as a valid test, just in case it turns out to be true that the atheist group has a higher suicide rate. They may have an inkling of the way the data will turn out, and try to ad hoc argue that this is what we expect if evolution is true. The good guys, using proper proceedure, will look into what evolutionary theory has discovered about suicide in nature, the adaptive value of it, and will make a balanced effort to predict which group might have the higher rate, deluded creation believers, or enlightened to the truth evolutionists. Given, of course, that evolution is true.

In the healthy discussion, much might be generated in terms of predictions about age patterns of suicide in the two groups, about associated psychological manifestations, illnesses, economic status, reproductive status, etc. All given that one or the other of the theories were true.

But, my claim, and that of Kuhn, is that there would be a lot of unhealthy discussion, as well, as both sides tried to "explain away" logical connections between the hypothetical truth of the ideas, and the consequences manifested in this social measurable.

"That ID depends on the existence and involvement of some intelligent designer does not make it a priori a "faith" or unscientific hypothesis." ...This argument for ID fails at every level.

I juxtaposed these two statements from your post, the first my argument, the second your reply. Note that I was not arguing "for" ID, only for the right to study the ID idea scientifically. Your arguments are valid to another point, namely that a watch must be created because it cannot reproduce. But that does not mean that something that can reproduce cannot have been created. Witness our many patented breeds of animals. Second, the many people that have prayed and believed that their prayers were answered, when their prayer concerned something that evolutionists would count as a measure of fitness, have, to their eyes, observed a creator creating the very life that they prayed for. Perhaps their witness is not persuasive to all or even most scientists. But, the case for obstrusness in the minds of the scientists is more easily made than that for delusion in the minds of those praying.

It is a pseudoscience that will never be tested, only used for political gain.

I tend to agree. It will be the good scientists who will test it by validating prophesy, bible codes, prayer studies, and such things, who will confirm it, if it is true.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Loudmouth, posted 03-16-2004 3:49 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 94 (93286)
03-19-2004 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by RAZD
03-16-2004 4:27 PM


Abbyleever,

You comment,

but I would say it needs to provide predictions that differ from predictions based on evolution.

Yes.

"it is Darwin's notion of science that it explains everything" - where does Darwin (the man) enter into the science of genetics? Sub-atomic physics? Darwin is not the definer of science anymore than he is the definer of the science of evolution (which would exist today without his book and theories).

Just giving credit to the earlist expression I know of of this mis-conception of science.

"Evolution, of course, predicts that it's results will have the appearance of intelligence" - where does evolution predict the appearance of intelligence? It predicts that change will happen, but makes no prediction about the direction of the changes.

Evolution drives form and function "uphill" on the fitness landscape, in that variants that are more fit take over each species over time, until one gets to the ESS, the evolutionary stable strategy, the most intelligent way for that species to deal with the environment, at least on a micro-level.

"A bad evolutionist, for example, would take every prediction from a well-meaning ID theorist ..." - would be corrected by "good" evolutionists when the papers were peer reviewed.

We would hope. But, at this level, the studies are not usually published. The one scientist asks the other what they would predict from the theory that they hold as most plausible. See the discussion of creation theories versus evolutionary theories, predicting patterns in human suicide rates. In the post 16 above to Loudmouth.

This is a straw man argument btw, requiring a bad evolutionist to make it work.

Not exactly. More of an warning, based on Thomas Kuhn's analysis of the history of scientific studies, that there are a lot of "scientists" out there who explain away new discoveries. So, theorist A, a creation scientist, predicts X from creo, and Y from evo. They ask theorist B, a evolutionary scientist, what he might predict. If X and Y are the result, we have a good test. But, A could be setting up a false test, and B could be falsifying a good test. Really need an outside judge to determine when arguments are forced.

Re faith and supernatural or deistic arguments, the only point I was trying to make was that Gods get to decide what we can or cannot do with them. We cannot say that, just because a hypothesis contains a god of some sort, it is not scientific. That's up to the god. Some gods might stay aloof, others might subject themselves to scientific scrutiny. The God, Jehovah, for example, within certain bounds of decency, allows Himself to be "tested."

The lawyer/scientist comparison allows us to better see who is a "good" and who is a "bad" scientist. The lawyer wants to win his point, even when the evidence goes against it. He objects, and tries to get evidence thrown out as "inadmissable." The scientist would rather lose his case, than have the truth suppressed.

Sorry to be so slow with this reply.

Cheers,

Stephen

[This message has been edited by Stephen ben Yeshua, 03-19-2004]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 03-16-2004 4:27 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 03-19-2004 9:53 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 94 (93295)
03-19-2004 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Brad McFall
03-17-2004 11:13 AM


Brad,

Have you been following the PEAR research at Princeton, where there is accumulationg evidence that consciousness affects the "random" sub-atomic breakdown of nucleii, transcends both space and time, and coupled with free-will has all sorts of potential influences over "fleshly" changes? Remember Lack's "ultimate and proximate" causes arguments? The egg came first, but without chicken-feed, would never have lasted.

Stephen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Brad McFall, posted 03-17-2004 11:13 AM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Brad McFall, posted 03-19-2004 11:00 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 2531 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 19 of 94 (93352)
03-19-2004 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Stephen ben Yeshua
03-19-2004 5:52 AM


Thanks much.
No, I was not aware of that at Priceton. I live in Collegetown and do not get INTO Cornell day time much. When you mentioned "Lack" it made me think of Bateson and my idea innerthat that Gould didnt read him correctly. I had thought that it was MAYR that "philosophized" proximate and ulitmate"" into a growth for biology but since you said so I guess then that it may/must have been the issue Provine left off discussing about whether the Finches were adaptive or nonadaptive traits as per whole specimens and NOT DISECTIONS. Knowing that you are likely correct that is indeed very interesting for it shows me that there if futher proof that Provine illegally did something in my case. I had thought it was just bad judgement on his part. For I had come back from Africa with a very sophisticated notion of "phenotype" that he has no organismic notion of so if it was David? Lack and not Ernst Mayr who put up that idea not only does it allow me to re-read Pasteur but I can now "deconstrct" Provine's autobiography of Wright without having to rely totally on the mathematical differences. Thanks for the info. This is the real stuff for without proximate and ultimate as CONCEPTS(which is what I thought evolutionarily the first time I heard of them)it is much harder to but up RESISTANCE to ID.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 03-19-2004 5:52 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has not yet responded

    
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 2531 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 20 of 94 (93353)
03-19-2004 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by RAZD
03-17-2004 5:15 PM


Re: xenobology
I'll edit in a reply later- I do not have a browser at home. You'll just have to wait. The issue of parsimony and Occams razor was not lost on Croizat who tried to situate Catholicism and Panbiogeography to around the 1960s you seem to be only dealing with post 70s issues. I will need more time to verify of alter my response. Thanks again.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by RAZD, posted 03-17-2004 5:15 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 03-19-2004 6:58 PM Brad McFall has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18861
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 21 of 94 (93416)
03-19-2004 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Brad McFall
03-19-2004 11:05 AM


Re: xenobology \ browser
I can wait, a little while ...

no browser? have your tried downloading netscape browser (freee for the asking) I like it cause you can (1) set it to block pop-ups (IE doesn't) and (2) set it to only allow activeX to cycle once - you get the animations but they don't repeat (all IE does is block it and then tells you the page won't load completely ... turkeys)

http://channels.netscape.com/ns/browsers/default.jsp

I have 7.1 on this machine.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Brad McFall, posted 03-19-2004 11:05 AM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Brad McFall, posted 03-23-2004 9:57 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18861
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 22 of 94 (93445)
03-19-2004 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Stephen ben Yeshua
03-19-2004 5:10 AM


your point
"Just giving credit to the earlist expression I know of of this mis-conception of science."

still not clear - what misconception about what science? Science is built on the foundations of the validated science that has gone before regardless of who the author was ... as noted if Darwin had not published Wallace and others were on the same trail, it was only a matter of time once the blocks of evidence became visible from travelling the world.

AND if


"Evolution drives form and function "uphill" on the fitness landscape "

then how do you explain mutations that appear, are selected for and then disappear only to evolve again --- which one is on the peak and which in the valley? How do you explain those pesky moths that change from white to dark to white with the flip of a smokestack?

This is mistaking the appearance of a pattern for a design. Like a kaleidoscope looked at through one end makes the beads appear in a pretty pattern but looked at from the other end are just a random jumble, and the jumble is the actual state of the beads.

Your


"We would hope. But, at this level, the studies are not usually published "

would be more to the point if the studies were made and submitted. To my knowledge that has not happened.

I also would be more impressed with your good-cop-bad-cop argument if it weren't for the fact that a lot of ID people have been badboys: Wells goes before the Ohio state board and gives the same old argument that has been refuted before as if it is new and fresh and untested. Same with the examples of "irreducable complexity" given by Meyer - he didn't even have any new ones. --- the work has not been done to base a scientific judgement on to put in a paper, and they want to rush it into schools as the latest gospel: that's not just bad science, it is bad education about wrong science.

And funny you should mention scientists and lawyers ... one of the Discovery Institute ID people is a lawyer.

Finally, your


" We cannot say that, just because a hypothesis contains a god of some sort, it is not scientific. That's up to the god."

is a false application of logic: god has nothing to do with how we do science (good, bad or indifferent). The idea of science is that things occur due to natural laws that are subject to rational determination in a repeatable and consistent manner. Introducing supernatural whim into the function is like using dice half way through the weather report to see if it is going to rain on saturday. It may have results but it is not scientific because it is not based on the application of knowledge of the natural process. And it will never lead to an improved model for future predictions.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 03-19-2004 5:10 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 03-23-2004 5:25 PM RAZD has responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 2531 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 23 of 94 (94107)
03-23-2004 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by RAZD
03-19-2004 6:58 PM


Re: xowser?
quote:

First paragraph pretty hopeless imho, your conclusion "Instead you think the terminator with RNA is a old alien from california or you sought to polarize or you simply didnt need similarly to rail on "c"ism." does not follow from the paragraph or any preceding information. C'ism is earth centric, adamantly so

Please dont get confused between me being or representing Cist or Croizatist they may be the same for you for me they are likely not because track width is still undefined and the optical solution Bridgman found is NOT available for the Panbiogeography short of a complete change in evolution studies but Gould in the context of Bridgman only went so far as to update evolutionary theory (to my and yours? generation) ONLY in terms of physical manipulation OR re-physical description (hence strong vs weak pe). I insist as to creationism that the mathmatical angles be available too. It might be that bilateral and other kinds of biological symmetry are SPOOFED one-way velocities in PW's lingo hence my "vield" reference to local simultaneity of ribosomes or not as to a DEFINTION ONLLLLY.

quote:
You have not shown otherwise. I suggest you try that again: show how C'ism can account for life on other planets.
my guess is that you have a difference of C'ism and E'ism as to life but I was talking about a difference as to Death. In life we still can not decide if biologically we are theoretically only dealing with two rods and a Russel strech (for any opening or Gould center of twisted shell)an acutal infinte with a single clock or lots of time divisions. That does not mean that one can not reason and think with "biblical glasses". I can not download my "canned" response on this computer.

If you and not me were talking of LIFE and not death you should be able to say WHAT the creature looked Like (aka "phenotype") while I was saying THAT THERE will be A WHERE such IS (by death). I assume you are aware of the concept of an "open habitat"?

quote:
probably mistaken hypothesis? Let it put forth some science and I will look at it.

I spent much of my first series of posts in showing that cism IS science. Now I see what you want. Well my personal posts to evc are about showing not the science outside of my own suggestions but rather to indicate that eists PREVENT people like me who WANT to DO the science from getting the opp to do it. YEs I can do a limted amount on line but that alas is not what you wanted. It seems highly likely to me that medicine will fail and not just for the cists reasons and once this happens perhaps then you will find the evidence bubbling to you from the backgound of this my work wich indeed will becone foreground even if I pass today let us say.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 03-19-2004 6:58 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 03-23-2004 12:02 PM Brad McFall has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18861
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 24 of 94 (94123)
03-23-2004 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Brad McFall
03-23-2004 9:57 AM


Re: xowser?
Please dont get confused between me being or representing Cist or Croizatist

I apologize for any misunderstanding caused by not understanding. You will have to explain "Croizatist" to me as I am not familiar with the term and can find no reference to it.

my guess is that you have a difference of C'ism and E'ism as to life but I was talking about a difference as to Death.

To me the standard literalist Cist position is that life is created on earth, period. Thus life on another planet would need to be explained by some mechanism that occurs since then. There are some wiggles on the issue ("other tribes") but they open up more cans than they worm out off. Eism on the other hand would posit that, wherever the conditions are right to create life, that evolution of that life would then occur in a similar manner to what we observe on earth.

I spent much of my first series of posts in showing that cism IS science. Now I see what you want. Well my personal posts to evc are about showing not the science outside of my own suggestions but rather to indicate that eists PREVENT people like me who WANT to DO the science from getting the opp to do it.

If you want to show that Cism is science then I would think you could find support from the Discovery Institute or it's brethren to let you do the work. The requirements to work for ICR may be tough to swallow for some but not for others and it may give you a forum. I would think that they have a grant program ....

What are the Cist predictions for the failure of medicine?


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

Rebel American Zen Deist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Brad McFall, posted 03-23-2004 9:57 AM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Brad McFall, posted 03-23-2004 12:53 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 2531 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 25 of 94 (94130)
03-23-2004 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by RAZD
03-23-2004 12:02 PM


Re: xowser?
I called Ken Ham but he was more interested in big models than bigger technical answers. That is OK some day I will have the day for tonite but cant go to ICR because EVOS kept me from obtaining the undergraduate degree and I am not "rich". as for how much MORE "proper" I can bring ID, that will be seamless with c/e discussions everywhere on the net so there is just as much hope I have convincing evos than with creos who already agree. If I can succeed with the few for real here there is no doubt it will work any where else that the difference of ICRID and questionableID are NOT or are asked. Thanks again.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 03-23-2004 12:02 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 94 (94190)
03-23-2004 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by RAZD
03-19-2004 9:53 PM


A.

Your quest,

what misconception about what science?

It can be proved philosophically that explanations that explain everything are infinite, if enough complexity is allowed. The error of rationalization thus occurs, and haunts our efforts to effectively describe ontologically how the universe really is. That is, an explanation that explains "everything" may still be far from the truth. But, by a process associated with the logic behind Bayes theorem, and both intuitively and historically validated, prediction power is generally very closely associated with truth content.

This distinction is very often lost, or hidden. Kuhn observed that most scientists aren't really after the truth content of ideas, but rather are working to defend and soldify a conventional paragidm. They slide into the social role of authoritative keeper of deep mysteries, instead of the courageous and mis-understood pioneer of intellectual frontiers. The phoney scientists like to define science so their efforts look real, i.e. by extolling the explanatory power of their ideas, or worse, by excluding methodologies that would allow the discovery of ontological situations that would prove the conventional paradigms wrong. The best example of this is in evolution, where the competing theory hypothesizes the existence of a creator which relates to us more or less as we relate to our livestock, or to worms that we raise. Although such a relationship between two such beings clearly can exist, as exemplified by the way we relate to these "lower" creatures, which we in many cases have largely created, some evolutionists argue that our science cannot discover truths about them. This is patently silly. If we want worms to know about us, we have ways of letting the worms know, with the senses and mentalities that they have (with the limits of worm epistemology) that we are part of their lives. If we don't want the worms to know about us, we can keep them in ignorance. It's up to us.

In our case, the being (God) who supposedly created us, makes it perfectly clear that our epistemology, including our scientific method, is adequate to "know" Him. He says so point blank. "Test me now in this." But, ingenuous evolutionists insist that their understanding of epistemology has to be greater than that of this hypothetical God, and that science to confirm this God is not science at all. This in the face of thousands of scientific studies, and scientific anecdotes, that confirm the predictions of the "Jehovah is the Creator of life on earth" hypothesis.

how do you explain mutations that appear, are selected for and then disappear only to evolve again --- which one is on the peak and which in the valley? How do you explain those pesky moths that change from white to dark to white with the flip of a smokestack?

The adaptive landscape actually flucuates, as environments change, sometimes drastically enough that knolls turn into valleys, and back again. More interesting, in my opinion, is the effect of population size on fitness, so-called frequency or density dependent selection. When an adaptive peak is reached, the phenotype achieves the ESS, and the population grows at its fastest rate. Until crowding brings the fitness back down to zero or worse. Now the knoll has been leveled, and any nearby peaks that before were separated by a valley, might be reachable.

As I have said elsewhere in these forums, creationists of all stripes are substantially worse (less intellectual integrity) than evolutionists. Creationists are hardly worth correcting, and I actually blame the creationists for most of the bad epistemological habits of the evolutionists. Check it out! You'll find many, maybe most evolutionists have gotten their understanding of the bible from creationists, and so had hidden from them (the evolutionists) all the epistemological treasures to be found in that wisdom-filled book.

Stephen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 03-19-2004 9:53 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2004 1:02 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18861
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 27 of 94 (94311)
03-24-2004 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Stephen ben Yeshua
03-23-2004 5:25 PM


... by excluding methodologies that would allow the discovery of ontological situations that would prove the conventional paradigms wrong. The best example of this is in evolution, where the competing theory hypothesizes the existence of a creator which relates to us more or less as we relate to our livestock, or to worms that we raise.

Your "the competing theory" is wrong on three counts (1) evolution is not just one theory, it is many theories based on many facts, combined into a science, (2) there is no one possible version of "god did it" and (3) creationism is not a scientific theory as it offers no testable prediction that I am aware of. Feel free to provide one. This may sound like a semantic quibble, but it is just asking that Cism meet the criteria of science to be admitted to science. The scientific method is a way to demonstrate cause and effect without bias to the conclusions reached except cause and effect.

your original line
"Evolution drives form and function "uphill" on the fitness landscape "
my response
how do you explain mutations that appear, are selected for and then disappear only to evolve again --- which one is on the peak and which in the valley?
your response
The adaptive landscape actually flucuates, as environments change, sometimes drastically enough that knolls turn into valleys, and back again. More interesting, in my opinion, is the effect of population size on fitness, so-called frequency or density dependent selection. When an adaptive peak is reached, the phenotype achieves the ESS, and the population grows at its fastest rate. Until crowding brings the fitness back down to zero or worse. Now the knoll has been leveled, and any nearby peaks that before were separated by a valley, might be reachable.
In other words you define the peak to be whereever the surviving population happens to be so that your {drives form and function "uphill"} is self fulfilling.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 03-23-2004 5:25 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 03-29-2004 11:17 PM RAZD has responded

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 94 (95793)
03-29-2004 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by RAZD
03-24-2004 1:02 AM


Abby,

Let me address this comment first,

In other words you define the peak to be whereever the surviving population happens to be so that your {drives form and function "uphill"} is self fulfilling.

Close, but not quite. The peak exists as a goal, often unreached by the surviving population, which depends on the slow but sure process of evolution or evolition, to get there. (In evolition, we have the scriptural, "he who endures to the end will be saved") The peak is what the optimal phenotype actually is at any given moment, whatever the actual phenotype.

You also ask,

Feel free to provide one.

speaking of testable predictions from the theory of creation. There are actually many. The most frequently tested, that I am aware of, involves prayers to the Creator to modify the measures of fitness. Here, creation includes artificial selection, willful modification of the measures of fitness to produce by artificial selection phenotypes willfully, not naturally chosen. Thus, God creates species in a manner similar to our production of breeds of dogs. To test this, scientists pray to this putative Creator to change the survival, etc, of bacteria in the face of an adaptive challenge. Successfully. Spindrift studies, and others cited by Dossey describe such experimentation. If all is created, then there is a Creator, whose involvement can be demonstrated by responses to prayer. At least, this is the case if the Creator is the one described biblically. That potential creator describes how to influence their involvement through prayer, so we can study the creative process. Other experiments involve tithing, and prophecy, both of which are supposed, if all is created, to produce predictable (i.e. scientific) results.

My point stands. To define science so that it cannot reject evolution for creation, is ingenuous.

Stephen.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2004 1:02 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by RAZD, posted 03-30-2004 1:38 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 03-30-2004 1:49 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18861
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 29 of 94 (95825)
03-30-2004 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Stephen ben Yeshua
03-29-2004 11:17 PM


silly squared
The peak is what the optimal phenotype actually is at any given moment, whatever the actual phenotype.

This is a tautology.

The most frequently tested, that I am aware of, involves prayers to the Creator to modify the measures of fitness.

If I understand the rest of your rambling, scientists doing experiments are actually praying for the results that they then discover. A different kind of silliness that would not even qualify as a tautology.
Insulting too, but I doubt you would understand that.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 03-29-2004 11:17 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 03-30-2004 2:09 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18861
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 30 of 94 (95829)
03-30-2004 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Stephen ben Yeshua
03-29-2004 11:17 PM


testable predictions
just so you know "testable predictions" means that the tests can be repeated by anyone and get the same results. none of the things in your list qualify.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 03-29-2004 11:17 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
34567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017