Intelligent Design explains many follies

I believe RAZD was quoting the term 'irreducibly complex' to indicate that he was refering to the negative of the term. In other words the so called irreducibly complex systems, not actual irreducibly complex systems.

Wow! We are getting into some interesting stuff here. To pursue it would probably take us off-topic, but a new thread could be opened if people want to discuss it further.Adaptation, imperfection, competition - these are the underpinnings of traditional neo-Darwinism. They are what Dawkins emphasizes. They are also what Gould and Eldredge thought they were criticizing in their "Punctuated equilibria" paper, and what Gould and Lewontin were criticizing in their "spandrels" paper.If ToE were a slam dunk - if it were completely obvious that the neo-Darwinist theory accounted for biological diversity - we wouldn't be having this evo vs. creo debate. Most conservative Christians would simply accept some alternative understanding of the Genesis story. Sure, there might still be a few die-hard creationists, but not enough to be a cause for concern.It is pretty easy to say that the debate is due to a small group of unrepresentative extremist fundamentalists. But that's a serious misunderstanding of the problem. The fact is, that those fundamentalists manage to get the ears of politicians, and those politicians see enough support for the idea that they believe it will help them in their election bids. That could not happen if the case for evolution were a slam dunk.Many people find the adaptation, imperfection, competition account to be implausible. Many mathematician find it implausible. Fred Hoyle went into details on why he found it implausible in his "Mathematics of Evolution". I find it implausible.I don't doubt that evolution occurred, and is occurring. If you look at the details of the biology, there is plenty there to explain it. But the biology is complex, so most people settle for the traditional neo-Darwinist account, and that is what the critics of evolution find implausible.Maybe I should try to find time to write up my alternative theory. However, my sense is that most evolutionists don't welcome this kind of discussion. They are satisfied with the status quo, and resist change.

I too do not deny that the universe has evolved since the beginning point in time. In believing this, I believe there was a beginning to our universe. I do not believe in multiple beginnings or that the universe has always existed. Most scientists now believe there was a beginning to our universe.The main point of ID is this:How did we get from the beginning of the universe to where we are now?Those who want to look at very small pieces of the big picture and draw conclusions that these very small pieces give confirming proof to their theories is truly implausible.I have no objection whatsoever to evolution being taught in science classrooms as "theory," but I strongly object to evolution being taught as "fact" in science classrooms, which is now the case in most science classrooms.ID is the most plausible reason how we got from the beginning of the universe to where we are now.If evolution was taught as "theory only" in science classrooms, ID would not be asking for equal time to present an alternate reason how we came to exist.

---

The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10

John 10:10 I am sure now that you missed my post to you back a ways but since you made this statement I felt it necessary to bring back the post that you may have a chance to respond to the critique therein. This message has been edited by sidelined, Mon, 2006-03-20 12:37 PM

You say that 'I.D.' is the most pausbile explaination.How do we test this (an assertion is not enough)What is the evidenc for it (Saying things are too complex for it to be otherwise is not evidence for it)What testable statement, if proven true, falsifies I.D.

We need to distinguish between "the universe has evolved" and biological evolution. These are two different meanings of evolve, the first the natural language meaning of change over time and the second the technical meaning from the biological theory. That's not a point, it is a question.The principle objection to ID is that it is not science, and thus does not belong in the science class. Many also object that the proponents of ID are mostly creationists who are trying to do a sneaky end-run around the establishment clause of the U.S. constitution. Evolution is both theory and fact. However what is meant by "evolution" when speaking of it as theory is different from what is meant by that word when speaking of it as fact. Evolution, as theory, is a scientific framework and a system of empirical principles for studying biological systems (including speciation). Evolution as fact is what has actually been observed or inferred from evidence, on biological change. To a scientist, it is no reason at all. People used to say things such as "nature abhors a vacuum" and "what goes up must come down". Science has long since rejected these as false reasoning, because they do not get at the mechanisms. ID as reason is just like the anger of the gods as reason for a volcano (or a hurricane). It has no scientific merit. The trouble is that you are probably thinking of "theory" as "unproven guess". But that is not what the word means at all when talking about scientific theories.

I think the seeming implausibility lies not so much in the principles of evolution themselves, as it does in people’s understanding of it. The mathematics of evolution, especially the mathematics of the probabilities involved, are often misunderstood. Likewise, the wide-ranging biological aspects of evolution, such as biochemical, biophysical, physiological and ecological aspects, are all difficult to grasp sometimes, especially for those who are not very well versed in the sciences.Not wishing to blow my own horn, I must say I find nothing more plausible than the fact that, if hereditary information randomly changes, which is a fact, and if the environment can only sustain the better adapted, which is also a fact, then the adaptive changes are preserved at the expense of the less well adapted. A long cumulation of these changes naturally leads to extremely well adapted, very complex structures. Being science-minded, they will certainly not resist your theory if it stands up to rigorous scientific tests and explains things better than the theory of evolution does. But those are very tough demands and no competing theory has yet surpassed the theory of evolution on both counts. I somehow doubt that your theory will do the trick. But you’re welcome to try.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Could you explain what you mean? On the contrary, that is very much the issue. Didn’t you say before: and London is an “intricately complex man-made thing”. Yet it was not “designed by man’s creativity, then put together by man's ability to build what he has designed.” You asked for an example and I gave you one.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Wouldn’t you agree that “the filtering part” is included in the notion of ”adaptation’? After all, adaptation presupposes an external pressure to which it is a reaction. Perhaps I shouldn’t have repeated the exact terms John 10:10 used, but should have opted for the more usual combination of ”random mutation’ and ”selective pressure’. These two terms may better convey John’s notions of ”imperfection’ and ”adaptation’, and they are perhaps more acceptable as a description of the general principles of evolution. Anyway, I think that’s what John was hinting at. I think that is indeed the crucial point here. I’ve mentioned it before in these forums that I think you could say that there is ”design’ in nature, but only if you take ”design’ to mean functional form, not something planned in advance. The eye clearly has a function, namely to enable it possessor to see things. I don’t think there’s any way around the notion that the eye has a very sophisticated design to that end. But that doesn’t mean I think the eye was planned in advance by an intelligent designer. We need a definition of ”design’ that doesn’t presuppose a designer, and we need to get rid of the notion that design necessarily implies an intelligent designer. I don’t think you can compare stone arches with forms of biological design, because there is a huge difference between the way either of them comes to be. Stone arches don’t procreate and do not compete with one another. The word ”gravity’ does not explain gravity, it describes it. Newton’s and Einstein’s theories explain it. Likewise, the word ”design’ describes the relation between form and function in biology, the theory of evolution explains it. So I think design - as functional form - is comparable to gravity in that both are phenomena we see in nature, and both find an explanation in the form of the respective theories we have for them. The definition I would like to see of ”design’ in biology is one that defines design as an effect rather than a cause. Like gravity is an effect of space-time curvature in the presence of mass, biological design is an effect of the process of evolution. Design doesn’t do something, design arises.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

I think we are but wandering around common words and explanations.If he is including all of the things that lead to what results are seen in his notion of imperfections and adaptations, then I don't have much of a problem. It was not, and from his other messages is still not clear to me that he in including all those factors.And on gravity, I did not say the word explains gravity, but rather it is a word we coined to explain things we see, like things falling. The explanation of gravity itself is still one of the unanswered question TTBOMK.On the rest, I guess we wil have to wait and see what the definition of design turns out to be once it's designed.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

According to the definition of the term, by Michael Behe in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box,
Irreducible complexity - Wikipedia According to this definition a number of biological systems are "irreducibly complex" and can be demonstrated as such by the removal of one part. The question is whether or not this rules out evolution as a possible answer to how the system came to be used.It doesn't, and evidence of this is that at least one such system has been observed to evolve:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/AcidTest.html This of course means that the concept of "irreducible complexity" has been totally falsified as evidence of a system that cannot evolve (and therefore {somebody\something\oh-god-I-hope-it's-GOD} did it).A point actually recognized and conceded by Behe:
Irreducible complexity - Wikipedia All "irreducible complexity" ever amounted to was incredulity (how did that happen!) coupled with lack of imagination (can't imagine how that happened!), and now it has been shown to be falsified incredulity, now that the lack of imagination has been taken care of by actual experience.Enjoy.{fixed typo}This message has been edited by RAZD, 04*24*2006 09:52 PM

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

And a beehive is just another complex nest for another species to gather in.One could argue that trees participate in the process of building a house, does that make trees intelligent designers?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I am sure he did. Fred Hoyle was not a biologiest though. We also know a lot more about biochemistry than in his day.So, why should I worry about how an astrophysist from the 1950's tried to explain the 'mathematics' of biology? Plus, the 'mathematics' of evoution' wasn't published by him, but was a compliation of a number of notes he took.

(1) Sidelined wrote,"We need to invoke the ID hypothesis to explain where that intelligent designer came from since we cannot say that such complexity simply happened."On this point I disagree completely. Reality tells us that intracately complex matter exists, both organic and inorganic. If one looks at why intracately complex matter exists from a non-ID viewpoint, then one still has to stop at where the matter came from in the first place that somehow deterministically changes/evolves over time into all manner of intracately complex structures.The same is true for those of us who believe ID is the most plausible explanation behind all that exists. We stop at where the matter came from because the Intelligent Designer declares He has eternally existed.(2) Ramoss wrote,"You say that ID is the most plausible explanation. How do we test this?"We can't test ID as the most plausible explanation of why intracately complex design exists any more than others can "completely test" that it does not. Complete proof testing works both ways, not just for those who believe in ID.(3) Parasomnium wrote,"John 10:10 writes:
There is a difference between matter evolving deterministically, and matter that exists evolving over time and space.Could you explain what you mean?"What I mean by matter evolving deterministically is this: How did all the smallest parts of organic and inorganic matter determine how they would be built into intracately complex atoms, compounds, and living structures?Matter that exists evolves over time due to wind, rain, floods, volcanic erruptions, decay, pressure, heat, earthquakes, etc.Man's creative involvement with matter can build things, albeit imperfectly, for man's good or for man's evil.For those who do not believe in ID, cities simply declare man was/is here.For those who believe in ID, intracately complex structures that man uses declare that ID is here.

---

The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10

That does not answer the question.Rather, that avoids the questions all togather.Give me an experiment. Show me how 'I.D' will make a prediction about how that experiment will fall out.