A Study of Intelligent Design Debate

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
Fair enough. They are going to have to be very, very careful on what methods they use to classify, or they are just going to be accused of bias, or worse, fitting the classification to the bible.

​

This is not an attack on your position, just an observation.

​

Regardless of what method(s) they use, they are still going to have to explain why genetic/protein information can be indicative of common descent, & then why it isn't indicative at genus level & above.

​

Mark

​

---

Truthfully Mark, you bring up very valid points. No bout adoubt it. When I first responded "Me too" to you, I meant it. Their task is indeed daunting. Further 'bias' is definetly involved. The problem is knowing which bias is the correct bias to be biased with. And unfortunately, such is the life of historical sciences.------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
SLP:
Shall I assume that you abandoned all of the other topics that have been mentioned?

​

John Paul:
Assume whatever you want. All you do is twist and misrepresent whatever any IDer and/ or Creationist posts anyway so what is the difference if you want to assume something your little mind conjured up?

​

I would like to have an intelligent debate but with you that is impossible.

​

(for those of that don't know this, SLP, aka huxter, once wanted to have sex with my dead mother. He is a sick puppy in need of treatment.)

​

---

Speaking of twisting things...1. You are unable to have an intelligent discussion with anyone on any topic on any board, as has been made clear by your banning on the OCW and multiple bannings on the No Answers in Genesis Board.2. I tried to have one here, but you simply dove back into your old ways. Shame.3. It is true that you replied to fewer and fewer issues with each response. Do you deny it?4. I could not possibly have known that your mother was dead.
Of course, you always leave out the fact that I was responding to an over-the-top insult of me that you had posted. Remember? "You are what you eat" was the post topic, and the subject? "Then you must be a big d***"? Remember that?5. And at least I have the common decency not to look up and post the addresses of people that I don't like on the internet in a thinly veiled and laughable attempt at imntimidation (whihc got your thread removed on at least 2 boards that I know of).So, how about trying again?First, tell me EXACTLY where I twisted or misrepresented anything you have written in this thread.If you cannot, then I suggest you retract that accusation.I cannot help it that you get steamed when your errors are pointed out and your limitations met.I can, of course, support any of the claims I have made.Can you?

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
Fair enough. They are going to have to be very, very careful on what methods they use to classify, or they are just going to be accused of bias, or worse, fitting the classification to the bible.

​

This is not an attack on your position, just an observation.

​

Regardless of what method(s) they use, they are still going to have to explain why genetic/protein information can be indicative of common descent, & then why it isn't indicative at genus level & above.

​

Mark

---

I have in my possession several of the seminal 'baraminology' papers as published in CRSQ. As I mention elsewhere, 'their' methods are the same as the methods employed by evolutionary systematists. The difference is that they place arbitrary lines of demarcation between 'baramina'.They use genetic data when the results conform to or can be accommodated by their over-riding Scriptural considerations (there is actually a section in the papers called "Scriptural considerations", in which they justify their actions via the uber-authority of the bible). When the results conflict with it, they discard the results in favor of results that they can use.
One example of this is in a paper on the baraminology of Primates. Genetic analyses supported a grouping of humans with the other apes - a bible no-no.A Quantitative Approach to Baraminology With Examples from the Catarrhine Primates. D.A. Robinson and D.P. Cavanaugh. CRSQ 34:4, pp.196-208From the introduction:valid baraminic methodology must be capable of distinguishing between biologically similar yet phylogenetically distinct species such as humans and nonhuman primates.So, from the beginning it is presumed that humans and nonhuman primates are not phylogenetically related (see below). Yet, from the abstract of the same paper, we see:We have found that baraminic distances based on hemoglobin amino acid sequences, 12S-rRNA sequences, and chromosomal data were largely ineffective for identifying the Human holobaramin. Baraminic distances based on ecological and morphological characters, however, were quite reliable for distinguishing humans from nonhuman primates.Most interesting in this paper is that humans are actually used as the outgroup in one of their analyses and they STILL grouped with chimps. This, of course, was discarded....

SLP,
Thanks for the info, is there anything on the web about these papers? I would DEARLY like to see them.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

SLP, John Paul,My experience in these discussions, and I'm sure your own isn't that different, is:

• Few, if any, participants actually have insincere motives.
  ​
• Accusations, even when accurate (not that any among us has ever issued an inaccurate accusation ), do nothing to move discussion forward, and often impede it.

Please turn the other cheek and follow the Forum Guidelines. Thanks!

--Percy
EvC Forum Administrator

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
Truthfully Mark, you bring up very valid points. No bout adoubt it. When I first responded "Me too" to you, I meant it. Their task is indeed daunting. Further 'bias' is definetly involved. The problem is knowing which bias is the correct bias to be biased with. And unfortunately, such is the life of historical sciences.

​

---

But there should be no bias. If humans group with chimps, tough. Science is about the objective gaining of knowledge. If you believe you start with that knowledge in the first place, then any conclusion will be tainted by your potential misinterpretation of the results. This is not science.I honestly believe this is going to be the worst thing creationists ever did. They are leaving themselves WIDE open to all sorts of things, from unscientific methodology, to simply discarding evidences that don't fit. This is tantamount to lying. Sadly, it WILL fool people.I predict that any protein/genetic methods for determining relations between species, will be the ones that show the largest difference between humans & apes, others will simply be excluded from the final published results. The people conducting these bariminic studies have something to show, not find out.------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-03-2002]

mark24:
But there should be no bias. If humans group with chimps, tough. Science is about the objective gaining of knowledge. If you believe you start with that knowledge in the first place, then any conclusion will be tainted by your potential misinterpretation of the results. This is not science.John Paul:
Biases exist- get over it. It is bias that won't allow a Divine foot in the door. It is not objective to eliminate valid, viable possibilities just because they don't fit in with the 'materialistic naturalism' framework.
Also if humans are not grouped with chimps so be it. Find yourself another theory.mark24:
I honestly believe this is going to be the worst thing creationists ever did. They are leaving themselves WIDE open to all sorts of things, from unscientific methodology, to simply discarding evidences that don't fit. This is tantamount to lying. Sadly, it WILL fool people.John Paul:
Funny, that is how I already feel about today's ToE.------------------
John Paul

​

[This message has been edited by John Paul, 01-03-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
mark24:
But there should be no bias. If humans group with chimps, tough. Science is about the objective gaining of knowledge. If you believe you start with that knowledge in the first place, then any conclusion will be tainted by your potential misinterpretation of the results. This is not science.

​

John Paul:
Biases exist- get over it. It is bias that won't allow a Divine foot in the door. It is not objective to eliminate valid, viable possibilities just because they don't fit in with the 'materialistic naturalism' framework.

​

---

There's no excuse for bias in the face of evidence. It exists, we both agree there, but I do not accept it as part of a rational method. If you believe that bias is acceptable in gaining & interpreting evidence, I maintain, it ain't science.It's lack of any evidence that doesn't allow a divine foot in the door. This is reasonable. This is the same as keeping proponents of the "Galactic-Goat-pissing-brine-to-make-our-oceans" theory outside. When evidence of a divine event becomes available, I'll be the first to consider it. & I don't mean, "hey, there's erosion, thats CONCLUSIVE proof of a flood of biblical proportion". I mean evidence that concludes nothing else. I will be VERY HAPPY when this happens. No ones keeping them out for any sinister reason. If creation "science" wants to be considered science, then it has to act scientifically. This means not ignoring evidence to the contrary. Or still selling books that contain stuff years out of date, & long since falsified, just so as they can get more young minds with false information.It may surprise you to know, I would love there to be an ID, for there to be purpose, to be an afterlife. Who wouldn't? Rather than just life & death, I'll take an ID any day!But....... I consider there to be a lot more natural mechanistic knowledge we don't know, than do. So, given that natural mechanistic science is observed (empirically) to occur, & an ID hasn't, I infer a natural mechanistic solution. Not to do so, would be to deny a possible natural solution in favour of something conveniently NEVER observed. Ever.This, methinks, is where we differ, JP.------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

mark24:
There's no excuse for bias in the face of evidence. It exists, we both agree there, but I do not accept it as part of a rational method. If you believe that bias is acceptable in gaining & interpreting evidence, I maintain, it ain't science.John Paul:
I agree, bias should not be part of any scientific equation but the sad reality is that it is.mark24:
It may surprise you to know, I would love there to be an ID, for there to be purpose, to be an afterlife. Who wouldn't? Rather than just life & death, I'll take an ID any day!John Paul:
And I would rather go through life believing there is a God and to die only to find out there is not, than to go through life not believing there is a God and to die finding out there Is.mark24:
This means not ignoring evidence to the contrary.John Paul:
Oh, like the way evolutionists ignore irreducible complexity & minimal functionality?mark24:
It's lack of any evidence that doesn't allow a divine foot in the door. This is reasonable.John Paul:
In my case it is the lack of evidence that drove me away from believing the ToE is indicative of reality. That includes the lack of evidence that life could form from non-life via purely natural processes.mark24:
But....... I consider there to be a lot more natural mechanistic knowledge we don't know, than do. So, given that natural mechanistic science is observed (empirically) to occur, & an ID hasn't, I infer a natural mechanistic solution. Not to do so, would be to deny a possible natural solution in favour of something conveniently NEVER observed. Ever.John Paul:
When the evidence turns up that substantiates the grand claims made by the ToE and abiogenesis, I will embrace it. If it never turns up, then it is just another belief system - ie a religion.------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:

​

John Paul:
Oh, like the way evolutionists ignore irreducible complexity & minimal functionality?

---

Nobody is ignoring it. It is just that others see such 'arguments' for what they really are - post hoc gibberish.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
SLP,
Thanks for the info, is there anything on the web about these papers? I would DEARLY like to see them.

​

Mark

---

You can see abstracts for all of them (I think) via the CRSQ web site. I don't have the url handy, but a search should turn it up. I have hard copies if you'd like one.

Hi PhiGuy!That was a really well-written post. Sorry it's taken me a couple days to get back to you.I not only understand the point you're making, it may surprise you to learn I even accept God as our creator. Like you I see evidence of God's work all around us, but unlike you I reach no conclusions about how God designed. While I believe it is within God's power to yank inert matter about and imbue it with the qualities of life, indeed, within his power to do anything he pleases, I see no evidence of God's direct circumvention of physical laws.Since everywhere I look all I see is matter and energy obeying physical laws, I believe God must be extremely subtle. Though responsible for everything, he has somehow managed to avoid leaving detectable fingerprints.The argument from design is the answer to nothing because it is the answer to everything. Thousands of years ago the questions were how does the sun go across the sky, who made the mountains and who made the stars, and the answer was God. Today the questions have changed, but the answer is the same.My view of an all-powerful yet subtle God is that he created a universe where abiogenesis and evolution were possible, which is perhaps a better trick then just breathing life into clay.--Percy

Percy:
While I believe it is within God's power to yank inert matter about and imbue it with the qualities of life, indeed, within his power to do anything he pleases, I see no evidence of God's direct circumvention of physical laws.John Paul:
What physical law states that life can arise from non-life? Or is that one of the 'as yet unknown physical laws'? Percy:
Since everywhere I look all I see is matter and energy obeying physical laws, I believe God must be extremely subtle.John Paul:
Seeing that we can only look so far and that you observations are being done now, we have no way of knowing how all we observe came to be in the first place.Percy:
The argument from design is the answer to nothing because it is the answer to everything.John Paul:
How do you figure? It does NOT answer how things function. It does not answer how do we maintain it. Well hey, there's 2 questions it doesn't answer just off the top of my head.Percy:
Thousands of years ago the questions were how does the sun go across the sky, who made the mountains and who made the stars, and the answer was God. Today the questions have changed, but the answer is the same.John Paul:
That would be assuming that Adam (& Eve) did not have knowledge of such things. Is that a safe assumption?Percy:
My view of an all-powerful yet subtle God is that he created a universe where abiogenesis and evolution were possible, which is perhaps a better trick then just breathing life into clay.John Paul:
That seems to be a roud-about way of getting the desired results.------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:

​

I not only understand the point you're making, it may surprise you to learn I even accept God as our creator. Like you I see evidence of God's work all around us, but unlike you I reach no conclusions about how God designed. While I believe it is within God's power to yank inert matter about and imbue it with the qualities of life, indeed, within his power to do anything he pleases, I see no evidence of God's direct circumvention of physical laws.

​

Since everywhere I look all I see is matter and energy obeying physical laws, I believe God must be extremely subtle. Though responsible for everything, he has somehow managed to avoid leaving detectable fingerprints.

​

The argument from design is the answer to nothing because it is the answer to everything. Thousands of years ago the questions were how does the sun go across the sky, who made the mountains and who made the stars, and the answer was God. Today the questions have changed, but the answer is the same.

​

My view of an all-powerful yet subtle God is that he created a universe where abiogenesis and evolution were possible, which is perhaps a better trick then just breathing life into clay.

​

--Percy

---

Hi Percy,
I’d like to explore your position, if I may.Is this a Christian God you believe in? From previous posts, most likely not. The point I’m getting at is, did God create the universe & exist outside it? If so, to do anything inside the universe would break the 1st law of thermodynamics, in that he would have to add energy to the universe to effect a change. His own laws preclude this hopping back & forth.So, given God hasn’t circumvented physical laws & stayed away. The ONLY thing God did, was create the universe, because anything else would violate the laws that came into being when He did it?I’m kind of going somewhere with this, but I need clarification of your actual take.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

I don't you to waste your time - I don't think I could even pin myself down on this one. The only thing I can say I believe with certainty is that none of the world's religions, either organized or personal and including my own, know God or anything about him. Anyone that becomes specific about God must be wrong. I'm wrong right now --Percy