|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolving New Information | |||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: There's no real conflict. ID is a "big tent" which happily accepts YECs (such as Paul Nelson and Nancy Pearcey). (This is one reason why there is no theory of ID - ID contains so many conflicting views that no single theory could encompass them all).
quote: I wouldn't consider Behe to be the founder of the ID movement at all. Given that he seems to have been a very early member of the movement I'd accept one of the founders of the ID movement but I don't think he played a sufficiently prominent role in organising it. I'd nominate Philip Johnson (who did take a leading role) or, if intellectual influence is considered, possibly Michael Denton (whose work was a strong influence on both Behe and Johnson - and probably others)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Which is why it is relatively common. Where there is malaria selective pressure maintains the sickle-cell gene at a relatively high frequency. And there are other genetic disease that have similar effects.
quote: Your problem here is that you are thinking in terms of how a designer would do it. A designer might look for a specific change, but evolution doesn't. Thinking in this way leads to the "hindsight" problem I referred to in the probability thread. A better question is what is the probability of hitting on a beneficial mutation.
quote: If you accept that Wounded King's suggestion is correct, then it would mean that a layman using "Darwinian conjecture" got closer to the truth than the ID "experts". That isn't bad going.
quote: That isn't even possible. All the major creationist positions are accepted parts of ID. Including Young Earth Creationism. Creationist thought IS ID.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: That wasn't my point. My point is that looking for a specific change is thinking about it in the wrong way.
quote: Unless you specify how your "natural genetic engineering" works that isn't a question I could answer. And it's probably the wrong question anyway.
quote: I checked the message, and it looks to be right.
quote: So you are saying that the leaders of the ID movement are wrong about what ID is ? That's a pretty odd perspective. They seem happy to include YEC (especially the YECs among them).
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
So far as I can tell the protographs that creationists object to were simply taken for illustrative purposes. It's simply the easiest way to get a good comparison.
If there was a practical way to get an equally good illustration (with the technology of the time) without setting it up in some way, I'd like to know what it is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
The peppered moth is a perfectly fine example of natural selection. Aside from some relatively minor flaws in the experiments - addressed by later work - there's simply nothing wrong with it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
As I said there is no real controversy. And if we switch examples just because of creationist calumnies what's to stop them treating the new example in the same way ?
I say that we should stick with the peppered moth for that reason and because it provides an excellent opportunity to expose the creationist reliance on lies and slander.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: It was also pointed out that the criticisms had been addressed by later work. Did you forget that ?
quote: Then you are uninformed. The "controversy" is almost entirely from creationists (started by Jonathan Wells).
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
As Arphy recognises the best creationists can do is evade discussing the details and rely on pure assertion.
Which shows how worthless the whole argument is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: I don't know exactly what you object to in Mark's post but the problem seems to be that you don't understand how CSI has been defined. The most important issue here is that CSI - as defined by Dembski - requires that you calculate the probability of a feature evolving. Nobody has managed to produce a valid calculation, and there are simply no known examples of that sort of CSI in biology. So I would say that Mark's comment is largely correct. Certainly you haven't offered any valid counter examples - just guesses. On the other hand you claimed that ID had "done better" than publishing the occasional math/informatics paper that sank without trace - but all you offered was a review paper sneaked into a journal by an unethical editor - that also sank without a trace. That doesn't sound a lot better (it sounds worse to me).And how does one paper published years ago show that ID is "on the up" ? (And I have to say that if you consider this site to be hostile territory you haven't been looking at the ID blogs).
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: In other words Mark was right. And uou are making another mistake. Arguments against ID do not have to be arguments for the specifics of modern evolutionary theory (what if another evolutionary theory were the real truth ?). And if you were right a good argument against Darwinism SHOULD be a good argument for ID - but your "negative" isn't even an argument for ID at all.
quote: Since a single example would not be adequate for either your guess is obviously incorrect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: If your original statement was common sense you would not have had to change it - especially not to the extent where it becomes irrelevant to the point you were attempting to make. If you remember you were trying to dismiss a criticism of ID on the grounds that it did not support Darwinism. (Of course, even your modified version - while better - is not true because ID is so amorphous. It is quite possible to argue for major features of evolutionary theory without arguing against every possible form of ID. Behe's view in particular is so close to that of modern evolutionary science that the best arguments for Darwinism would not be expected to be major blows against it).
quote: But the "science" of ID is almost universally directed to criticising evolutionary theory. Behe, in particular, is dedicated to trying to find "gaps" to shove God into.
quote: But that is not what you are doing. You are not weighing the evidence, you are advocating for ID. Instead of weighing the evidence you are just accepting the pronouncements of the ID crowd without looking any deeper. And worse, ignoring criticisms that have already been brought to your attention (which apparently you choose to blame on your opponents). Of course I can't blame you for refusing to really weigh the evidence. Because if you did ID would be shown to be an anti-scientific propaganda movement dedicated to changing the U.S. educational system to favour the religious beliefs of the ID supporters. We have the Wedge Document. We have the lack of real research coming from ID. We have the outright propaganda, unrelated to actual science - the attempts to link evolution to the Nazis or to racism. We have the amorphous nature of ID which embraces almost everything from Young Earth Creationism to almost-theistic-evolution (but not ACTUAL theistic evolution because ID opposes that). We have the attempts to paint support for ID as rising - your own for instance (you didn't weigh the evidence there !).
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Then you need to offer a real explanation for why there is so little published ID research. And why the ID movement couldn't find anyone to take up the offer of a grant from the Templeton Foundation.
quote: We can start with the fact that ID is not distinct from creationism - it includes creationism. I can point out the fact that we have not one demonstrated example of Dembski's CSI in biology - yet you still try to produce "CSI" as evidence for ID.
quote: If so, it must be on the part of the ID movement. It is the ID movement that avoids taking a firm position on what the designer did.
quote: Richard Dawkins is not trying to change science education to make it friendlier to his philosophical views. Nor does he spend large amounts of time, for instance, trying to link his opponents views with the Nazis.
quote: This hardly addresses the point - or the evidence I referred to. Not even the single example you chose to quote. But let us consider how to objectively weigh the evidence: You claimed that there was a rising trend for ID based on a paper published 5 years ago, under dubious circumstances. Objectively, however: 1) One point cannot show a trend. 2) If there were really a rising trend you would not have to go back 5 years to find something. And that's without going into the quality of the paper, the fact that it was not original research or the questionable circumstances surrounding the publication. Think about that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: To write a book, not to do scientific research. And you still haven't addressed the main point - where is the ID research ?
quote: Just because two different concepts are given similar names does not make them the same. It may or may not be an example of Dembski's CSI BUT NOBODY HAS SHOWN THAT IT IS or even given a good reason to think that it is. You ought to know this by now. If you are going to accuse me of willful blindness, just for understanding an ID argument and pointing out it's flaws - which is what you've just done - you throw out any pretence of honestly seeking the truth. You just want to support ID and the truth can go hang. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
You do realise that it's trivially true ?
(Read it carefully and think).
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: So you say. But your post clearly shows that you have not done so and that you are ignoring facts that have been brought to your attention. None of your post addresses Dembski's definition of CSI.
quote: It seems that you're the one acting like a wall. You ignore what I say, and keep repeating your errors. Except for the nastiness of the false accusations. The "complex" part of Dembski's CSI is a probability measurement. NOT complexity as it is usually thought of. Tossing a coin and getting 500 heads in a row would be complex by Dembki's standard even though it is very, very simple.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024