Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
76 online now:
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,176 Year: 4,288/6,534 Month: 502/900 Week: 26/182 Day: 14/12 Hour: 1/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Meyer's Hopeless Monster
Inactive Member

Message 9 of 207 (139246)
09-02-2004 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Brad McFall
09-02-2004 12:56 PM

as arising from constraints that limit the possible arrangements of matter. Specifically, organismal form arises (both in phylogeny and ontogeny) as possible arrangements of material parts are constrained to establish a specific or particular arrangement with an identifiable three dimensional topography

The problem with the above statement is that the constraints are only evident in Meyer's essay. No such constraints are seen in nature. In the rebuttal posted above (through the IIDB debate site) it states that protein SEQUENCES can differ by 80% while still holding the same conformational shape and the same enzymatic properties. This is in stark contrast to Meyer's analogy of written language as an equivalent complex specified construct. If you take any english sentence and change 80% of the letters and spacing you lose all meaning. This is not so with proteins. Meyer's falls into the pit of supporting his ideas with analogies instead of illustrating his points with them.

Also, Meyer depends heavily on Dembski's CSI (complex spec. info.). However, each construct to which this filter is applied also has to be tested for construction through natural means. Meyer skips this point, as does Dembski in his wild jump from CSI to Design. CSI has never been applied to a biological system, even though that is the reason Dembski invented CSI to begin with. It is very dishonest for Meyer to simple assume the application without considering the implications of ignoring the obvious.

As the refutation also states, Meyer's argument is not supported by positive evidence, only a lack of evidence into which he dishonestly fits his own prejudices into. Instead of talking about how to detect design or test for design he assumes it due to a lack of knowledge. Stealing from the refutation, ID is still a theory about what something did at sometime in the past in a way that no one knows. It would seem that ID proponents try to keep their theories as nebulous as possible to keep from being pinned down by actual research. It is my opinion that bringing their ideas to biologists is a great first step, but they will soon find out that they are stepping into a chasm that they will not be able to climb out of.

This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 09-02-2004 03:16 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Brad McFall, posted 09-02-2004 12:56 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Brad McFall, posted 09-03-2004 9:38 AM Loudmouth has taken no action

Inactive Member

Message 60 of 207 (142155)
09-13-2004 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by ID man
09-13-2004 10:50 AM

The assertions are supported. They are supported by our current level of knowledge. Every time we see something with a high information content, specified complexity or is IC it is always due to an intelligent agency.

Your statement is too general, given the observations. It should be "Every time we see something with a high information content, specified complexity or is IC it is always due to an intelligent agent THAT IS PART OF THE NATURAL REALM." Therefore, life had to originate naturally somewhere, and this rules out the possibility that life can only arise through an intelligent agent. This rules out God as the designer which is something the ID movement is against because they are creationists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by ID man, posted 09-13-2004 10:50 AM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by ID man, posted 09-14-2004 9:55 AM Loudmouth has replied

Inactive Member

Message 72 of 207 (142339)
09-14-2004 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by ID man
09-14-2004 9:55 AM

True, but we know that nature acting alone didn't do it.

For the moment, let's assume that life on earth was designed. The best you could infer is that life on Earth came about through design, but you can not infer that life everywhere in the universe had to arise through design. The inference doesn't stretch that far. There are no observations of other life besides that on Earth to base your conclusions on.

And it does not rule out a supernatural entity becoming part of the natural world and then designing life.

The ID inference can not move into this realm. It no more rules it out than rule it in. However, since the supernatural is untestable it is not a choice for ID theory (since you claim it is a science). We would first have to observe a supernatural deity descending to earth to take the form of a designer, and this observation would have to be testable. Without this, there is no way that you can even bring forth the idea of a supernatural deity as a reliable agent, although it can be considered.

It depends on what you call "naturally".

Through repeatable, testable phenomena found in nature. These mechanisms should not rely on previous religious indoctrination or cultural indoctrination. They should be demonstratable through methodological naturalism and lend themselves to testing through the scientific method.

Also you have yet to provide any evidence that life could arise from non-life by natyre acting alone.

That life COULD arise through chemistry is very possible. Whether or not life DID arise through chemistry is another question, a question that ID creationists want to be answered by appealing to the supernatural. The answer is that we may never know. Two thousand years ago I could have asked you where lightning came from. If you were unable to answer could I then claim that it had to come from Zeus? This is the argument you are using towards many here.

In fact the more we know the less likely it becomes.

Actually, it's the other way around. Abiogenesis research over the last 50 years has made huge strides. They have still not reached to goal, but our understanding of biochemistry and early earth environments has steadily increased and the possibility of life arising in these conditions becomes more likely everyday. For instance, the discover of catalytic RNA has been a boon to abiogenesis research. Catalytic RNA is capable of building nucleotides and replicating small segments of RNA. It can act both as the source of nucleotide sequence and as an enzyme to replicate it. This makes it a very strong candidate for the first replicator.

{Fixed one quote box. Also, this is getting remote to the theme of the topic. There are better places for this discussion - Adminnemooseus}

This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 09-14-2004 11:49 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by ID man, posted 09-14-2004 9:55 AM ID man has taken no action

Inactive Member

Message 81 of 207 (142395)
09-14-2004 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by derwood
09-14-2004 4:45 PM

That in and of itself was not the issue, the issue, as has been raised, is that he used his position to get a creationist paper published.

And that really is the point. The scientific merits of the paper did not lend themselves to be published in that journal. This would also apply to an evolutionist writing a paper with dubious or misleading work. Meyer's paper was published not because it was a good paper, but because the editor used his position to get it included. I have seen administrators of granting institutions lose their job for similar practices, giving grant money to people because of personal realationships instead of scientific merit. I don't see why this shouldn't apply to everyone wanting to do science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by derwood, posted 09-14-2004 4:45 PM derwood has taken no action

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022