Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biological Evidence Against Intelligent Design
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 16 of 264 (543993)
01-22-2010 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Blue Jay
01-22-2010 4:08 PM


Re: Unintellegent design
Cephalopod eyes aren'treally any better than human eyes. There are a couple of things that cephalopod eyes do better than mammal eyes, but there are also a couple of things that mammal eyes do better than cephalopod eyes (e.g. cephalopod vision is monochromatic).
True, but in the millions of years between the first cephalopod eye & the human eye , one would think, an intelligent designer would have been able to incorporate the better parts of the cephalopod eye with the human eye.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Blue Jay, posted 01-22-2010 4:08 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 17 of 264 (543995)
01-22-2010 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Blue Jay
01-22-2010 4:08 PM


Re: Unintellegent design
Cephalopod eyes aren'treally any better than human eyes. There are a couple of things that cephalopod eyes do better than mammal eyes, but there are also a couple of things that mammal eyes do better than cephalopod eyes (e.g. cephalopod vision is monochromatic).
That adds even more problems. The designer knew of a better way of getting light to the photoreceptors without needing to go through the "wires" that feed the photoreceptors. Afterall, who would build a digital camera with the wires for the CCD sensor passing in front of the light path?
At the same time, this same designer (presumably, although we could hypothesize multiple designers) knew of a way for life to differentiate between different bandwidths of light instead of relying just on the amplitude of the signal. So why don't we see both designs in the same eye? What was stopping the designer? What was stopping the designer from taking the best attributes from both designs and combining them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Blue Jay, posted 01-22-2010 4:08 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 2410 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 18 of 264 (544000)
01-22-2010 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by RAZD
01-22-2010 4:12 PM


Why assume that humans are the intended result?
Most ID proponents I know would trot out Genesis 1:27 if I brought this up. It's a good point IMO, but assumption of literal bible truth trumps all, apparently.
What I'd like to know is, if a designer exists, why are there so many alleged "leftovers" from our evolutionary ancestors? For instance, if we didn't evolve from an ape-like precursor, why do humans possess:
*erector pili: "goose bump muscles" used to puff out hair in most mammals, including hominids
*body hair: seems to serve no function in humans vs. other mammals
*little toe: used by apes for grasping limbs, yet another useless holdover in humans
*coccyx: all that's left of a once ambidextrous tail
I could go on and on...
These anatomical "non sequiturs", to me, would seem to require that ID proponents at least admit the possibility that the designer is either 1. a good chain-yanker or 2. so incredibly advanced and mysterious that we, as lowly humans, could never begin to ascertain his intent.
Pretty weak choices, if you ask me. I wonder which of the two the Intelligent Design Movement would pick.
Have a good one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2010 4:12 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 19 of 264 (544031)
01-22-2010 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by deerbreh
01-22-2010 11:45 AM


IC -- a gut feeling
Consider the humble tapeworm. Perhaps the best example of irreducible complexity at the organism level, it's little more than a motile digestive system with reproductive capabilities. It's one of the most efficient creatures in existence, and could not lose any aspect of its simple structure without going extinct. If anything was designed for a single purpose, it is this guy.
And what is that purpose? To make us miserable, to shorten our lives, to prey on our weak, to cause the poor to starve even in times of plenty. Thanks a lot, Intelligent Designer.
If God made all the "blessings" like standing upright and making babies and having a big head, who produced all the curses like tapeworm, Ebola, and chiggers? And why are they so much better designed?
* credit JBS Haldane for the base argument

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by deerbreh, posted 01-22-2010 11:45 AM deerbreh has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 20 of 264 (544064)
01-23-2010 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by RAZD
01-22-2010 4:12 PM


well that's just the issue...
RAZD writes:
We, as a model of intelligent designers, are increasingly using an evolutionary paradigm to find optimum designs for things, designs that would not be developed by normal "blueprints-and-clay-model" procedures.
These new designs outperform the "blueprints-and-clay-model" design process AND their design products.
Thus it makes sense to assume that this process could be used by an intelligent designer in order to reach an optimum design, and without having to put as much time into "blueprints-and-clay-models" or spend as much time refining and revising the output.
Oh, I agree it's possible that a god or gods could use evolution to design life-forms, but that's not what the bible thumpers who came up with ID believe.
That's the question I put to you all - do we draw the line under ID to mean "yahweh designed humans from a top-down approach and literally poofed us into existence a'la genesis", because in my opinion, the alternative is:
Of course this results in a process that is indistinguishable from non-design using the same process
something indistinguishable from non-design. Whilst your personal thoughts on the matter may be unknown at this point, I think it pointless to posit a designer that can design things as they are now such as to make design non-evident, as you then make ID untestable, unfalsifiable and altogether self-servingly circular and pointless.
Why assume that humans are the intended result?
ID proponents do. they believe that everything is made as it is, "evolution" is impossible, thus everything is static in an essentially unchanging world (microevolution notwithstanding). As humans are the smartest thing in the world, we must be the apex of creation and they know for a fact that everything was made for us. We are the best there is, because the designer was a perfect, supremely powerful being who doesn't make mistakes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2010 4:12 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2010 11:07 AM greyseal has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 21 of 264 (544076)
01-23-2010 7:53 AM


Let's Argue Against a Real Theory of Intelligent Design
The Dover Board of Education that added intelligent design to their school district's curriculum were typical IDists. That is to say, they were creationists who latched onto ID as the only practical way to oppose evolution but who had no real understanding of ID. If you read the books about the Dover trial (I've read four), what stands out about the board members advocating ID is that none could define it. When asked to define it, Bill Buckingham (the board member most prominently advocating for ID) gave a pretty fair definition of evolution.
In other words, at least in the United States your typical IDist is actually a creationist who thinks that "intelligent design" is just a politically correct way to say "creation." He thinks the intelligent designer created man and all other life around 6000 years ago, that he flooded the planet around 4500 years ago, that he sacrificed his only son about 2000 years ago. In other words, your typical IDist is a creationist who thinks the intelligent designer is God, and who probably within his own mind is thinking "creation" whenever he says "intelligent design."
There's no need to argue against this poverty stricken conception of ID. The people who think this way aren't going to understand the arguments, and it makes no sense to argue this way against IDists who have a more sophisticated perspective.
A truly scientific IDist, one who excluded the supernatural, would be one who believed that conditions on the earth were insufficient to produce the diversity and complexity of life's history over the last 4 billions years. That wouldn't mean he's advocating an infinite regression. He would recognize that there would be planets in the universe where conditions were conducive not only to life but to complex and very intelligent life. He would simply be arguing that Earth is not one of those planets, and he would be looking for evidence of intelligent intervention in life's history.
Arguments about the knee and the eye and the appendix are irrelevant against this more scientifically genuine theory of intelligent design. Whether the octopus got a better eye than mammals would be a function of who happened to be on that design team, whether it was adequately staffed, how much time pressure they faced, what were the budgetary restrictions at the time, resource availability, what stage of technological innovation they were at at the time, and so forth.
Too occasionally we do present this enriched form of ID to IDists in an attempt to illustrate the poverty of their own view. We do it to try to help them see how they're using ID as an excuse to stop thinking, instead of as an impetus for exploring new avenues of inquiry and research.
I think this thread has already touched on one of the valid arguments against this more sophisticated form of ID, the argument of the nested hierarchy of life. Another might be our inability to identify any mechanism by which an intelligence might have intervened. Yet another might be that the continual intervention required to produce the evidence we find in the fossil record is preposterous on its face.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by PaulK, posted 01-23-2010 8:16 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 23 by Iblis, posted 01-23-2010 8:53 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 64 by xongsmith, posted 01-27-2010 12:16 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 22 of 264 (544081)
01-23-2010 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Percy
01-23-2010 7:53 AM


Re: Let's Argue Against a Real Theory of Intelligent Design
The problem here is that what you are proposing is far from anything proposed by anyone in the ID movement. The only thing resembling it I have seen was put forward by the pseudonymous Mike Gene who - so far as anyone seems to know - has no standing within the ID movement (and that was before I came here). I don't think that even Behe has gone so far, and he is probably the least unscientific of the ID leadership, but still deeply enmired in an apologetic mode of thought.
I don't think that there is any point in arguing against a view that has no support in the ID community. Especially as the ID movement itself identifies ID as being against materialism (e.g. the Wedge Document) and thus cannot accept a fully naturalistic account. And if we consider the actual ID supporters here, we see that they have trouble understanding the more subtle material that ID does produce (e.g. traderdrew's confusion over the concept of CSI). I don't see how arguing against something that the ID movement doesn't even propose is going to convince them of anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Percy, posted 01-23-2010 7:53 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by traderdrew, posted 02-09-2010 10:47 AM PaulK has replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 23 of 264 (544083)
01-23-2010 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Percy
01-23-2010 7:53 AM


Re: Let's Argue Against a Real Theory of Intelligent Design
Who would you recommend as representing such a theory? I've been reading Hoyle and Crick pretty heavily since last night when I discovered some wild quotes from them in a tabloid review, they both seem to have arrived at a view of the data that might seem disturbed, like something out of Lovecraft. Hoyle is worse, here's an example
An early paper of Hoyle's made an interesting use of the anthropic principle. In trying to work out the routes of stellar nucleosynthesis, he observed that one particular nuclear reaction, the triple-alpha process, which generates carbon, would require the carbon nucleus to have a very specific energy for it to work. The large amount of carbon in the universe, which makes it possible for carbon-based life-forms (e.g. humans) to exist, demonstrated that this nuclear reaction must work. Based on this notion, he made a prediction of the energy levels in the carbon nucleus that was later borne out by experiment.
However, those energy levels, while needed in order to produce carbon in large quantities, were statistically very unlikely. Hoyle later wrote:
Would you not say to yourself, "Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule." Of course you would . . . A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.
Hoyle, an atheist until that time, said that this suggestion of a guiding hand left him "greatly shaken." Consequently, he began to believe in a god and panspermia.
Fred Hoyle - Wikipedia
Crick went pretty hard toward directed panspermia as well.
At that time, everyone thought of proteins as the only kind of enzymes and ribozymes had not yet been found. Many molecular biologists were puzzled by the problem of the origin of a protein replicating system that is as complex as that which exists in organisms currently inhabiting Earth. In the early 1970s, Crick and Orgel further speculated about the possibility that the production of living systems from molecules may have been a very rare event in the universe, but once it had developed it could be spread by intelligent life forms using space travel technology, a process they called Directed Panspermia
Francis Crick - Wikipedia
But it's Hoyle who really makes for interesting reading I think
In his later years, Hoyle became a staunch critic of theories of chemical evolution used to explain the naturalistic origin of life. With Chandra Wickramasinghe, Hoyle promoted the theory that life evolved in space, spreading through the universe via panspermia, and that evolution on earth is driven by a steady influx of viruses arriving via comets. In 1982, Hoyle presented Evolution from Space for the Royal Institution's Omni Lecture. After considering the very remote probability of evolution he concluded:
If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of...
Fred Hoyle - Wikipedia
These guys are gone though. Who is working now who talks like this, instead of the way people like Dembski scurry around between the lines in Genesis?
Sadly, the metaphysical status of ghosts, spirits, gods and other supernatural beings means that these will always be compelled to hover just beyond the explanatory grasp of human science.
On the other hand, researchers still can’t produce any evidence for the existence of (presumably physical and biological) extraterrestrial entities despite over 50 years of investigation — so until they do, the only way we can even hope to learn whether panspermia (and thus ID) might explain our own existence is by attempting to replicate the experiment ourselves.
To wit: if human scientists ever succeed (either deliberately or accidentally) in infecting another planet with terrestrial bacteria or viruses, or in genetically engineering an entirely new species and introducing it to the wild, then ID will stand validated and our own role and history on this planet will suddenly come into sharp focus.
Page not found – New Dawn: The World's Most Unusual Magazine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Percy, posted 01-23-2010 7:53 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by greyseal, posted 01-25-2010 2:09 AM Iblis has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 24 of 264 (544089)
01-23-2010 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by greyseal
01-23-2010 4:41 AM


perhaps missing the point?
Hi greyseal, it's a little more complicated than that.
... I think it pointless to posit a designer that can design things as they are now such as to make design non-evident, ...
The point is that an intelligent designer would use a effective means to accomplish their ends. We see that increasingly the use of evolutionary paradigms in design software allow a very effective means to accomplish our ends.
The advantage is two-fold: you end up with a good design, and you already have the design implemented in the process.
The designer would use this method because it is effective, not to deceive.
Of course you end up with something that is indistinguishable from non-design as we know it -- however we cannot be sure that what we know is really non-design: there is only a sample of one.
... as you then make ID untestable, unfalsifiable and altogether self-servingly circular and pointless.
And ignoring the issue is special pleading and begging the question, in order to arrive at the conclusion you want to reach. You end up with a straw man that you knock down, proving nothing.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by greyseal, posted 01-23-2010 4:41 AM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Blue Jay, posted 01-23-2010 12:30 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 29 by greyseal, posted 01-24-2010 4:20 AM RAZD has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 25 of 264 (544090)
01-23-2010 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by RAZD
01-23-2010 11:07 AM


Re: perhaps missing the point?
Hi, RAZD.
RAZD writes:
We see that increasingly the use of evolutionary paradigms in design software allow a very effective means to accomplish our ends...
...Of course you end up with something that is indistinguishable from non-design as we know it...
Just to clarify, are you saying that the evidence for this type of design would be indistinguishable from the evidence for Darwinian evolution? Or that this design process would actually be Darwinian evolution?
I don't understand how Darwinian evolution could be a means to accomplish any specifiable goal: perhaps you could walk me through this?

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2010 11:07 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2010 8:59 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 26 of 264 (544113)
01-23-2010 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Blue Jay
01-23-2010 12:30 PM


evolving design
Hi Bluejay,
Just to clarify, are you saying that the evidence for this type of design would be indistinguishable from the evidence for Darwinian evolution? Or that this design process would actually be Darwinian evolution?
It hardly would seem fair to restrict intelligent designers from using a method that we use for improved designs, does it?
Intelligent Systems Division | NASA
quote:
The spectrum of antenna designs for applications in communication, radar, and remote sensing systems is vast, and there is an increasing need for high-performance, customized antennas. Current methods of designing and optimizing antennas by hand are time and labor intensive, limit complexity, increase the time and cost expended, and require that antenna engineers have significant knowledge of the universe of antenna designs.
The use of evolutionary programming techniques to automate the design of antennas has recently garnered much attention. Considerable research has been focused on determining whether evolutionary techniques can be used to automatically design and optimize antennas so that they outperform those designed by expert antenna designers, and even whether evolutionary techniques can be used to design antennas in cases where humans are simply unable to.
In the Evolvable Systems Group, we have been conducting research on automated antenna design. Our approach has been to encode antenna structure into a genome and use a GA to evolve an antenna that best meets the desired antenna performance as defined in a fitness function. Antenna evaluations are performed by first converting a genotype into an antenna structure, and then simulating this antenna using the Numerical Electromagnetic Code (NEC) antenna simulation software.
ST5 Antenna
The two best antennas found, one (ST5-3-10) from a GA that allowed branching and one (ST5-4W-03) from a GA that did not, were fabricated and tested. Antenna ST5-3-10 is a requirements-compliant antenna that was built and tested on an antenna test range.
Perhaps the best argument for ID (properly pursued) is that it uses a highly evolved design system ....
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Blue Jay, posted 01-23-2010 12:30 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Blue Jay, posted 01-23-2010 9:29 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 61 by Iblis, posted 01-26-2010 6:27 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 27 of 264 (544115)
01-23-2010 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by RAZD
01-23-2010 8:59 PM


Re: evolving design
Hi, RAZD.
This sounds like a simulation of evolution, the output of which serves as the blueprint for the manufacturer/builder.
If this were the case, would we actually see intermediates in the fossil record? Wouldn't all of those only exist in the simulation?
Does that mean that we are the simulation? Wouldn't we then expect to see some fiddling with the simulation's parameters?
Also, the only goal that I could see Darwinian evolution achieving is the goal of designing things that survive and reproduce successfully.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2010 8:59 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Trae
Member (Idle past 4306 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 28 of 264 (544126)
01-23-2010 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by deerbreh
01-22-2010 11:45 AM


Without definitions you're simply chasing your tail with ID. Like so many other questions about religion the amount of circular reasoning in Christianity's creation myths permit pretty much any conclusion.
Any design IDers find impressive is evidence of God. While, any perceived lacking is due to the Fall or our inability to understand God's purpose. You simply cannot argue against a position when any evidence fits the claim.
ID is going to remain simply a political opposition to ToE as long as there are believers. ID is simply the political stance of, "I believe in God over you." There are less entrenched IDers, but until there's a definition of ID which can be falsified there's no mechanism to actually show it to be false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by deerbreh, posted 01-22-2010 11:45 AM deerbreh has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 29 of 264 (544151)
01-24-2010 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by RAZD
01-23-2010 11:07 AM


Re: perhaps missing the point?
The designer would use this method because it is effective, not to deceive.
Of course you end up with something that is indistinguishable from non-design as we know it
Then how can we tell the difference?
If there is no difference between "evolution" and "evolution+1", why not save a step until you come up with a reason to doubt it?
And ignoring the issue is special pleading and begging the question, in order to arrive at the conclusion you want to reach.
RAZD, I usually agree with most of what you say, but this time I do not, because what you are positing is a process that gives us identical results to non-design.
It's not that I want to ignore the issue, it's just that your version of ID is impossible to test. You say that it's results are identical to what we would see should evolution (as we know it) occur naturally.
What's to test, in that case? the process itself is rendered invisible.
I don't disagree with it's possibility, but once more we've gone from material to immaterial evidence, that makes it pointless.
It's not that I want to build up ID to be some strawman argument, it's that your version of ID is Last Thursdayism - if it's not, please come up with a way that we could actually measure, test and investigate your version of ID, otherwise this entire thread is pointless.
It's not ignoring the issue, special pleading or begging the question, I'm just mystified as to the point of basically supposing that there is a deity behind everything when there is no apparent need to (as the results, as you say, are identical). It's not that there can't be, it's that Occam's Razor comes into play until such time as your "evolution+1" idea can be tested.
Is it faith alone that tells you you're right? It may as well be...
I think we both agree that ID is creationism, deeply flawed and relatively easy to refute (by it's presuppositions alone, given the facts of the history of this planet) - I think your idea of ID is interesting and deserves a thread of it's own, but unless you can find a way to refute it, it's use as a theory, a teaching aid or an avenue of investigation is pointless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2010 11:07 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 01-24-2010 11:46 AM greyseal has replied
 Message 31 by Blue Jay, posted 01-24-2010 12:02 PM greyseal has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 30 of 264 (544160)
01-24-2010 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by greyseal
01-24-2010 4:20 AM


Re: perhaps still missing the point?
Hi greyseal, sorry to be a wet blanket (devil's advocate) here, but the topic of this thread is:
Message 1: I propose a discussion on the question,
"What biological evidence is there against Intelligent Design?"
To answer this question properly one would need to know:
  • What biology looks like without design, and
  • What biology looks like with design.
Otherwise we are just making stuff up and pretending that our straw men are reality.
This is difficult with only a sample size of 1 to work with. This leaves us with making assumptions based on what we would do as designers, and this means using all the methods of design as we know it. It also involves assumptions of how involved the designer is in perfecting the design, versus allowing it to run it's course, and where we are in the process (see Bluejay's questions in Message 27). Consider taking a single E.coli. cell and inoculating a plate of agar+x in an experiment: do we fiddle with the DNA to make it mutate, or do we allow the experiment to run undisturbed?
If there is no difference between "evolution" and "evolution+1", ...
It's not ignoring the issue, special pleading or begging the question, I'm just mystified as to the point of basically supposing that there is a deity behind everything when there is no apparent need to (as the results, as you say, are identical). ...
We don't know if we are actually operating in "evolution" or "evolution+1" for starters.
But this is still missing the point -- the difference in biological evidence is between evolution and evolution, whether the universe was designed for evolution or not.
... why not save a step until you come up with a reason to doubt it?
... It's not that there can't be, it's that Occam's Razor comes into play until such time as your "evolution+1" idea can be tested.
In other words make an unfounded assumption and then base our straw man argument on that?
To me the fact that an intelligent designer could use evolution, that the evolutionary paradigms are proving extremely useful to human design that the assumption that they would not be used by a designer is an impractical assumption, is reason enough to be skeptical, to doubt, to ask questions.
Why rule out a possibility a priori if you are approaching a topic with an open mind?
RAZD, I usually agree with most of what you say, but this time I do not, because what you are positing is a process that gives us identical results to non-design.
Ah, so you disagree because you don't like the results? Cognitive dissonance is like that (sorry, I had to throw that in for the monthly installment).
It's not that I want to ignore the issue, it's just that your version of ID is impossible to test. You say that it's results are identical to what we would see should evolution (as we know it) occur naturally.
When you consider all the possibilities of an issue and find that there is no immediate conclusion to be derived from the available evidence, do you just throw out possibilities until you can reach a conclusion, or do you conclude that the available evidence is insufficient to reach a proper conclusion?
What's to test, in that case? the process itself is rendered invisible.
Well that is your problem is it not? If you want to really discuss biological evidence against design, then you need to be able to distinguish design from non-design. If you cannot make that distinction, then the answer is clear: that there can be no clear, unambiguous, empirical evidence that design is not involved.
It's not that I want to build up ID to be some strawman argument, it's that your version of ID is Last Thursdayism - if it's not, please come up with a way that we could actually measure, test and investigate your version of ID, otherwise this entire thread is pointless.
That is the problem isn't it?
Is it faith alone that tells you you're right? It may as well be...
No, it is the simple fact that the evidence pro and con are comparably incapable of showing whether god/s (etc) exist or not, the fact that the logical position is agnostic on the possibilities, regardless of what one believes or what their opinion on the matter is or involves.
I think we both agree that ID is creationism, deeply flawed and relatively easy to refute ...
ID as used by creationists is deeply flawed and relatively easy to refute, because at their core they are creationists and use creationist arguments that are deeply flawed and relatively easy to refute. This has no bearing on what the logical position of ID is (or would be) without being tied to creationism.
... I think your idea of ID is interesting and deserves a thread of it's own, but unless you can find a way to refute it, it's use as a theory, a teaching aid or an avenue of investigation is pointless.
See Is ID properly pursued?, one of my first topics on this forum (posted by my AbbyLeever alias almost 6 years ago).
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by greyseal, posted 01-24-2010 4:20 AM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by greyseal, posted 01-25-2010 1:51 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 42 by Taq, posted 01-25-2010 7:01 PM RAZD has seen this message but 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