Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Attn IDers, what would it take...?
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 86 (243889)
09-15-2005 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Warren
09-15-2005 4:17 PM


Re: Not a chance to Bash ID
quote:
If the cell is designed, we will find that they look more and more like Paley's watch.
What does it tell you that a cell looks nothing like Paley's watch?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Warren, posted 09-15-2005 4:17 PM Warren has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 86 (243897)
09-15-2005 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Warren
09-15-2005 4:42 PM


Yeah, the choice of language with words like "machines", "assembly lines", and "factory" -- the deliberate use of words that already have connotations of "intelligent design" cannot help but to attach image to the cell due to purely emotional reasons.
However, the point is what evidence is there that these "machines", "assembly lines", and "factories" actually have been intelligently designed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Warren, posted 09-15-2005 4:42 PM Warren has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Warren, posted 09-15-2005 5:15 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 86 (243906)
09-15-2005 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Warren
09-15-2005 5:15 PM


quote:
And what exactly would you count as evidence that they were designed?
It would be nice if there would be a set of criteria that people could agree are indicative of "designed by an intelligence", perferrably quantifiable, and that a cell shows these criteria. Someone just saying, "Gosh, they look like Paley's watch to me" just isn't a very convincing argument.
But that's the problem with your first post in this thread. The question in the OP is: "Exactly what would it take to convince an IDer of ToE?" Or, as Nuggin rephrased it: "What bit of evidence would you assume wouldn't exist if your theory was correct?"
Your answer seems to be, "If the cell doesn't look like Paley's watch." You mean if it isn't gold? It doesn't have have two hands that go around in a clockwise direction? You're not very specific in this, using vague descriptions of "assembly lines" and "machines" without specifying how one quantifies how much like or dislike "Paley's watch" a cell is, how "alike" it must be to be considered "designed", or how we should know that this quantity really is indicative of design as opposed to non-design.
-
quote:
Of course, in the end, you are free to interpret these machines as something that began as simpler, sloppier versions thrown together by chance that were then refined through natural selection. I simply see no evidence for such a belief.
Except that the overwhelming evidence that quite complex organisms arose through natural selection on random variations makes it not so hard to believe that the cell could have arisen through a similar process. This is certainly better evidence than exists for "intelligent design". In fact, if any kind of decent evidence for "design" could be put forward, we might actually see ID discussed in serious scientific circles.
-
quote:
That we don't agree is hardly important.
Indeed. Reality is what it is, and doesn't much care what either you or I believe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Warren, posted 09-15-2005 5:15 PM Warren has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 86 (243920)
09-15-2005 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Warren
09-15-2005 6:30 PM


quote:
I'm responding to the question of what would invalidate my suspicion that cells are the product of design.
Ah, I think this may be the problem. Nuggin may correct me if I am wrong, but I think the question was meant to ask what would be a way to scientifically falsify the notion of intelligent design.
-
quote:
I suspect design because the scientific literature tells me that the inside of a cell is like a factory with an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of nanomachines.
As I stated, the mere use of words like "factory" and "assembly lines" do not constitute evidence of anything, except for the poetic abilities of the author, or maybe that the author is willing to use analogies to explain his points.
-
quote:
If this view turns out to be wrong and science goes back to the earlier view of the cell as a bag of solution, I will no longer suspect the cell was designed.
Since it is quite unlikely that science will make such a reversal, I'm not sure why you bring it up. But I have stated that if it turns out that all of the stars and galaxies are less than 6000 light years from the earth then I will begin to doubt the great age of the earth -- maybe you are making a similar rhetorical point?
-
quote:
My inference that life is designed is made only tentatively and as part of an overall investigative approach.
I see more semantic games than investigation here, like:
quote:
why do they look like machines?
They don't. Unless you come up with some arbitrary meaning of "machine" designed to prove your point.
-
quote:
What's more, let's not forget that what is convincing about the data that points to evolution is simply the fact that these data make things look evolved. Thus, to disparage appearances in one instance, yet cling to them in another, seems quite inconsistent.
You are not being clear here.
-
quote:
I not only think they look like machines, but in fact are machines....
Again, I think the point of Nuggin's questions had to do with scientific notions of evidence and falsifiability, not subjective opinions.
-
quote:
I recognize that in our ambiguous reality, different rational interpretations are possible....
But not equally logical or reasonable.
--
quote:
It is my logical interpretation of the evidence.
Well, if by "logic" you mean the overly literal interpretations of analogies used by certain authors to come to a predetermined conclusion, then you have a point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Warren, posted 09-15-2005 6:30 PM Warren has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 86 (243930)
09-15-2005 8:11 PM


apologies
It seems to me that the tone of my replies to Warren may have been too antagonistic. Perhaps this is because the whole topic of "Intelligent Design" annoys me so much. At any rate, let me apologize for any offense I may have generated.

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 86 (244140)
09-16-2005 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Warren
09-16-2005 11:19 AM


quote:
So, Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences is using an arbitrary meaning of "machine" designed to prove a point?
Yes, I would say so.
-
quote:
I'm simply telling you why I suspect ID and what it would take for me to no longer suspect ID.
Fine. If all you're saying is that they look like machines to you, then I don't think that there is much more to discuss. What I object to are those people who think that I should see that it is obvious that these things have been intelligently designed, and those people who think that we should teach school children that ID is a reasonable, scientific hypothesis. If that isn't you, then I apologize for wasting your time.
-
quote:
Many find the evidence for common ancestry convincing even though it essentially is nothing more than a "looks evolved" argument.
This is false.
-
quote:
In contrast, the ID critics propose everything evolved and unless one can prove this is impossible and come up with powerful, independent evidence of the designer, all design inferences are to be pooh-poohed.
This, too, is false. What ID critics want is that the IDists present a scientific theory that can be evaluated. A proposal of what properties that something "intelligently designed" should posses that things that are not "intelligently designed" do not, a way of testing that these properties are diagnostic of "intelligent design", and a way of measuring the extent that real life objects, including organs, cells, biochemical systems possess these properties.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Warren, posted 09-16-2005 11:19 AM Warren has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Warren, posted 09-16-2005 1:10 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 86 (244151)
09-16-2005 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Warren
09-16-2005 12:13 PM


quote:
What I object to are persons telling me I'm irrational for not accepting that these machines are the product of evolution.
What would you like me to tell you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Warren, posted 09-16-2005 12:13 PM Warren has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 86 (244158)
09-16-2005 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Warren
09-16-2005 1:10 PM


quote:
What experimental support did Darwin provide for natural selection in the Origin of Species? None.
Have you ever read Origin of Species? That and Descent of Man can get pretty boring at times because both of these books are almost nothing but very detailed observations supporting the theory of evolution.
Oh, wait, I see the word "experimental" in the quote. The quote isn't about the difference between "operational" science and "historical" science, is it? I've been trying to be patient, but if that crap is going to be tossed up again then I think I am going to lose my temper again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Warren, posted 09-16-2005 1:10 PM Warren has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Annafan, posted 09-17-2005 4:27 AM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 86 (244196)
09-16-2005 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Warren
09-16-2005 3:13 PM


Re: Reason vs Unreason
Warren, if you look at the end of my post, you will see a button labelled simply "reply". If you use that button, you will generate a reply specifically to this particular message. It will create a link from this message to your reply, and a link from your reply to this message. It will help people who may be interested in following just one particular chain of the conversation. The "general reply" button that you are using should be used when you are posting a message that is not meant as a direct reply to any particular message -- it does not provide links between messages.
quote:
Yeah, all of it based on it looks evolved so it must have evolved.
I have no idea what you mean here. Have you read Origin of Species? There are some pretty detailed observations that support the theory of evolution. In the 150 years since the publication or Origin of Species, much more evidence has been observed. I can only make sense of your statement if I interpret it as meaning that "the observations indicate that life has evolved, so we may conclude that life has evolved" -- which is what every other scientific theory says: things look like they obey this scientific principle, therefore they do obey this scientific principle.
Are your problems with the more subtle epistemic issues in the nature of the scientific method?
At any rate, unlike the theory of evolution, ID has not yet presented anything that can be called a theory; it presents no observations that can be made to distinguish intelligently designed features from non-intelligently designed features. If Darwin had presented such an incomplete theory back in the 1850s, no one would have taken him so seriously. If Behe had taken the time that Darwin had to lay a solid foundation for his ideas, then scientists would have taken him as seriously as they did Darwin. Instead, Behe opted for PR. I suspect that is because there is no foundation that can be laid. But let us see; my prediction is that twenty, thirty, fifty years from now ID will still be a fringe movement supported by cranks, if it is still supported by anyone at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Warren, posted 09-16-2005 3:13 PM Warren has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Warren, posted 09-16-2005 5:59 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 86 (244231)
09-16-2005 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Warren
09-16-2005 5:59 PM


Re: Reason vs Unreason
quote:
Well, I can throw this argument right back in your face.
You could, but then you would just look silly. The theory of evolution is the established theory, and has successfully passed all the tests to which it has been subjected in the past century and a half. ID is the new idea (at least the current version claiming to be scientific is), and so it is the idea that must be investigated.
IDists seem to come in two different types. The first type consists of the Biblical literalists who insist on a special creation of the entire universe only 6000 years ago; they lost the debate over 150 years ago, and they have not come up with anything more intelligent to say since. No more needs to be said about them.
The other type seems to accept common descent, but its adherents claim that there are certain features in life that could not have come about through strictly naturalistic processes. Fine, their ideas are consistent with what we know about the natural world; it may very well be that there are a few biological systems that have been "intelligently designed". But they are the ones who are proposing a new (or at least remodelled) theory. But if they are going to propose a theory, then they are the ones who have to show us how to test their ideas to determine whether they warrant further consideration.
Darwin's theory of evolution has passed the tests it has needed to. Every portion of it has been verified, either in a laboratory, or in the wild, or both. Heredity has been known since the dawn of civilization and earlier; new genetic variations, some beneficial, have been observed; natural selection has been observed (and I don't even think it is under dispute by even the creationists, anyway); "microevolution" is accepted by even creationists, and the long history of the earth has been well verified; we see evolutionary lineages in the fossil record; we see taxonomical and molecular evidence that pretty much proves common descent; and we know that evolution has produced very complicated organs and systems. This is not in dispute. So if IDists now want to claim that there is some complicated organ or biochemical system that could not have been produced by evolution, then they are the ones who have to convince the rest of us. That is how it works in any science.
-
quote:
Now answer this question. Is there a way to differentiate between evolvoid phenomena and real evolution?
Now you are being silly. Is there a way to differentiate between the planets moving according to Newton's law of gravity and gravitoid behavior? Is there a way to differentiate between chemical elements combining according to quantum mechanics and chemoid behavior?
Sure, I suppose that I cannot prove that the planets do not travel through there orbits because angels are pushing them in a way that mimics Newton's inverse square law of gravitation; I cannot prove that little demons don't link and unlink atoms together in a way that mimics the laws of chemisty; and I cannot prove that known species were created by a designer in such a way as to make it look as if they evolved from previous species by natural selection acting on random variations.
But if Newton's Law of Gravity predicts the movement of planets so well that new planets have been discovered based on it, then why should I take anyone seriously who advocates the "intelligent pusher" theory? If the laws of physics explains chemical behavior so well that new chemical compounds can be designed before actually being manufactured, then why should I listen to advocates of the "intelligent linker" theory? And if the theory of evolution explains biology so well that phenomena not even known to Darwin, like the pattern of Endogenouos Retroviral Insertions, can be be predicted, why should I feel that advocates of "intelligent design" theory have anything useful to contribute?
I suppose that it is a matter of Occam's Razor. Seeing how the theory of evolution explains so much, and seeing how there has not yet been found any feature that poses a conceptual problem for the theory (except for a few people, I suppose), why should I unnecessarily add an additional item to my mental universe, a designer which isn't needed because it explains nothing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Warren, posted 09-16-2005 5:59 PM Warren has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Warren, posted 09-17-2005 1:32 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 86 (244414)
09-17-2005 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Warren
09-17-2005 1:32 PM


Re: Reason vs Unreason
quote:
First of all, the ID camp I reside in constrains their ID investigation to the OOL (origin of life). They accept common descent.
Then you accept that evolution can and has resulted in very complicated organs,features and complicated, interlocking systems of organs and biochemical processes. So it is an established fact that very complicated features can be "designed" through evolution. So far, there is no real theory or principle that limits the complexity of the products of evolution.
As I have stated, the theory of evolution is the standard, tested, and accepted theory. So when someone is going to come along and suddenly insist that there are organs, features, or biochemical systems that are too complicated to have resulted from evolution, then they the ones who will have to put it on some sort of scientific foundation, either by showing that some "natural" features of life could not have been produced through the evolutionary process, or by directly showing that some feature definitely has been "intelligently" designed.
This is why your statement surprises me. Your entire argument has been applied to many different features, like the vertebrate eye, avian flight, or the mammalian immune response, that you apparently accept as having evolved; yet you are using this precise argument in regards to features in the cell.
Now we all know that cells do not fossilize well, and their biochemisty certainly doesn't fossilize, so we simply cannot have any fossilized evidence of the precursors of the modern cell even if they did exist; so we will, in all likelihood, never have the evidence that you want to demonstrate that these features of the cell have evolved.
Now the precursors of animals from the pre-Cambrian are a relatively recent discovery; for many, many decades, it was a scientific mystery as to the nature of life before the Cambrian. Pre-Cambrian life were small and soft-bodied and lived unimaginably long ago -- there is no a priori reason to have expected that such fossils would ever been found. If this was still the 1930s, would you be advocating the "intelligent design" of multicellular animals? Many creationists are ignorant of the Ediacaran fauna, and so try to argue that the pre-Cambrian "explosion" represents the creation of life; taking into account their ignorance of the precursor fossils, do you think their position is reasonable?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Warren, posted 09-17-2005 1:32 PM Warren has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 86 (244430)
09-17-2005 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Annafan
09-17-2005 3:35 PM


"Natural" intelligent designers
Hi, Annafan.
quote:
You claim to favour a non-supernatural intelligent designer for the origin of life on earth, because you find it hard to believe that it came about through purely natural causes.
But what is your position on the origin of these "intelligent designers" themselves?
I don't know what Warren himself believes, but it is logically possible for earth life to have been designed by non-supernatural intelligent aliens without going into an infinite regress.
It is entirely possible that some alien intelligence arose naturally some place, but when they, for whatever reason, decided to seed Earth with its artificial creations they made some artificial "improvements" over the natural forms in its designs. The original intelligent's cells may have been simpler (or, perhaps due to haphazard evolution, inefficiently complex) and so more subject to diseases or being less adaptable; their improvements then could have created a "better" form of life.
I think the bioengineering of Earth-life by a naturally occurring life form is logically plausible, which is why I am curious why the creationists would consider the proven existence of any example of "intelligent design" to be a victory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Annafan, posted 09-17-2005 3:35 PM Annafan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Annafan, posted 09-17-2005 6:24 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 86 (244452)
09-17-2005 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Annafan
09-17-2005 6:24 PM


Re: "Natural" intelligent designers
quote:
Well, that really doesn't sound plausible, does it?
Well, the only thing that makes it implausible is that there is no evidence that it has occurred.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Annafan, posted 09-17-2005 6:24 PM Annafan has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024