Biological Evidence Against Intelligent Design

Not really. Not unless I missed it. The part I want to know what you think about is the random mutation part.Are you saying that we don't know it is random? Are you saying that when we teach biology we are teaching philosophically biased information and excluding perfectly valid possibilities? Unjustifiably removing any supernatural role on philosophical grounds rather than evidential ones? I still don't see what role there is in biology for a designer if evolution is, as taught, based upon random mutations and natural selection?What role in biology might a designer fill if we accept those two things as facts?

Except that you have also asserted that there is an absence of evidence and that this is the only evidence against a designer. My point is that this is not the case. I have specifically said evolution by means of random mutation and natural selection. How can this be anything but mutually exclusive to evolution by supernatural non-random design?And I have then asked you if you think that teaching evolution by means of random mutation and natural selection whilst failing to mention the supernatural possibilities is evidentially justifiable or philosophically biased?But you haven't answered that because you keep ignoring the random and natural part. The generic argument that one doesn't need to disprove the disprovable to consider it very unlikely if there is overwhelming evidence for a mutually exclusive alternative. That generic argument. Not the extrapolation of evidence you seem to think I mean.Is that clearer now?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

No. No. Nor am I accusing you of that. Whatever you may think. I think you are missing an inconsistency in your argument and I am trying to get you to confront that inconsistency. I am asking you if you think teaching evolution by means of random mutation and natural selection is evidentially justified rather than philsophically biased.If you do think it is evidentially justified (as I suspect you do) then you agree with me that the evidence suggests a conclusion that is mutually exclusive to evolution by means of non-random purposeful design.And that is contradictory to your assertions that there is an "absence of evidence" against a designer or that we need to disprove a disprovable designer to consider such a claim effectively refuted. I know you are not an IDist. What I don't understand is how you can consider evolution by means of natural selection and random mutation to be the evidenced conclusion whilst simultaneously saying that the evidence does not effectively refute the mutually exclusive conclusion that there is an inteliigent designer behind non-random evolution. No. You are ignoring the random and natural parts of my argument. That is what we teach in biology is it not? That all life shares a common ancestor and that all life has evolved by means of natural selection and random mutation. Are you saying that when we teach this in school that it is evidentially unjustifiable to do so? Disprove? No. But evidence against a supernatural designers role in biology to the point of being effectively refuted to all practical intents and purposes? Yes.You are finally getting the point of my questions. Is the scientific conclusion (the one that we teach) that all life on Earth is the result of natural selection and random mutations from a common ancestor evidentially justifiable or not? You yourself said that you "doubt" that there will be evidence of a guided process. On what do you base that doubt? Evidence? Or not?I want to know whether you think this conclusion is evidentially valid or philosophically biased. Because at the moment I think you are arguing that there is no evidence against a designer whilst implicily accepting conclusions and evidence (taught as facts) that are mutually exclusive to that argument. You are misinterpreting what I am "doing".Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Fair point. We do have evolution that is guided. Guided by us. But is the ability to consciously intend, design and create in this way not itself an evolved attribute? One that fits in perfectly with our highly evidenced paradigm of conscious intent as something that arises as a result of mindless physical processes? Not something that just exists in some vague and meaningless "supernatural" sense. And aerodynamics sufficiently explains why planes stay in the air. But it doesn't disprove or preclude the existence of fairies helping things along. How far do we want to take this?Why are fairies holding up planes in a manner consistent with aerodynamics any more ridiculous than a designer designing biological organisms in a manner consistent with mindless physical processes of random mutation and natural selection?Seriously why do you consider one ridiculous and one not? Are they not evidentially identical? It isn't just parsimony. ALL of the evidence we have suggests that nature progresses quite happily on the basis of mindless physical processes devoid of conscious intent or design. ALL of the relevant evidence also tells us that we humans just cannot resist mistaking the appearance of design as evidence in favour of a designer on whom we project our own ability to consciously act out design intentions. This is no different in principle to my son thinking that the wind is caused by air wanting to get from place to place. How many gap filling claims of the supernatural have we abandoned? Do you see a trend at all? Is this very clear and one way trend encompassing the entirety of human history and knowledge not evidence enough upon which to say that the supernatural answer to any further gap will be very unlikley? I am not denying the possibility. I am not denying any possibility.I am asking you if what we are teaching is evidentially justifiable? Is evolution by means of random mutation and natural selection the evidenced conclusion? How many times do I have to point out that non-random guided evolution by means of purposeful design is mutually exclusive to evolution by means of natural selection and random mutation. I am NOT claiming that ID is mutually exclusive to the conclusion that things evolve in general.I am asking you if teaching evolution as a product of random mutation and natural selection, which is mutually exclusive to non-random designed evolution, is evidentially justified.What do you think? I am not using the ToE as evidence against all designers. I am saying that accepting evolution by means of natural selection and random mutation as a fact precludes a attributing a designer any design role in biology specifically. I am asking you if it is evidentially justifiable to consider evolution by means of random mutation and natural selection as an evidenced fact?Will you answer that question?I am further saying that the entirety of human history and knowledge all tell us that invoking supernatural designers or explanations of any sort to anything should be rationally treated with deep skepticism. Whether it is fairies holding up planes or unspecified designers with vague design roles in biology.The track record of the supernatural explanation is appalling. Only the foolish or misguided would ignore that or claim that there is an "absence of evidence" with regard to such matters.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

And what does the evidence available suggest about the possibility of such aliens? That they sprang forth fully formed from the ground? That they were created in the image of some immaterial being? Or that as a complex and intelligent lifeform it is almost certain that they evolved? Yes. By us. By complex creatures that evolved. Why would it be? If the designing entity itself (i.e. human beings or your aliens) evolved intelligence and the ability to design? What about to the point that intelligence and the ability to design are themselves products of evolution? Does the evidence suggest that?But you are playing games to avoid the question. I will rephrase the question to try and stop you avoiding answering it.I am asking you if teaching evolution as a product of random mutation and natural selection up to and including the evolution of man, which is mutually exclusive to non-random designed evolution up to that point, is evidentially justified.What do you think?

You think I am missing your point. I think you are missing mine. We are both getting exasperated. I don't know what to do about that other than attempt to clarify further. I understand what you are saying but you are not listening to the specifics of what I am saying. I believe your position here is contradictory.You cannot both accept the facts as taught (i.e. that ALL species evolved from a common ancestor by means of natural selection and random mutations) whilst also claiming that some unspecified species may well have evolved with the guided non-random intent of an intelligent designer.It cannot be both as taught AND as you are advocating here. I didn't say there was. I am talking about evidence and likelihood. Not proof and certainty. And I don't disagree with that general statement. It is you who is not listening to the specifics of what I am saying. Please read this carefully as this is crucial to my point.Do you accept the origin of species by means of natural selection and random mutation to be an evidenced fact? Do you consider the teaching of evolution as the origin of species by means of natural selection and random mutation to be teaching the facts?If your answer to both these questions is "Yes" (as I suspect it is) then how can you consider the possibility of non-random guided evolution as anything but contravening the facts and almost certainly false? And I am not saying that you do. I am trying to show you that what you are suggesting here contravenes the facts as they are taught.Either what we are teaching is evidentially unjustified and philosophically biased. Or your claim that the evidence is insufficiant to refute the role of a designer in biological design is false.Which do you think it is?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Because it was designed by evolved beings. But which first required the evolution of a being capable of design which was my point. The deeply evidenced paradigm of mindless natural processes being the root cause remains intact.And nobody is saying that genetically modified bananas (or whatever) are the product of natural selection and random mutation are they? But this is what is taught as fact about the origins of man and every other species on Earth that we haven't intelligently designed ourselves. So if we teach students that the origin of species on Earth is the result of natural selection and random mutations from a common ancestor we are, according to you, teaching something that is evidentially unjustifiable.That is quite a position you have taken. It puts you only a few steps away from the "It's only a theory" ID mob who would have us say that "we don't know" and give mention to some of the "alternatives"............Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Well if they are entirely the product of natural selection and random mutation (as taught) they cannot be the product of non-random intelligent design can they?

If you consider it highly probable that evolution has occurred by means of natural processes alone (i.e. random mutation and natural selection) then you must conversely consider it highly improbable that a designer has had any role in evolution (whether designing in whole or in part).That is what I am saying. Which part of that do you actually disagree with? I think you are splitting hairs in your use of the term "fact". All scientific "facts" are tentative and unproven.We teach as a scientifically evidenced fact that the species on Earth are the product of natural selection and random mutation from a common ancestor.We do NOT teach that the species on Earth are the product of evolution that includes maybe a bit of intelligent design thrown in here and there along the way.I keep asking you whether or not you think that our teaching of evolution is evidentially justifiable. But instead of actually answering that question you keep trying to second guess what it is that I mean or what it is that I am accusing you of. I don’t mean anything and I am not accusing you of anything. I am asking you a question and trying to get a straight answer.I just want to know whether you think that the origin of species by means of natural selection and random mutation alone (as taught) is enough of a scientifically evidenced fact to be taught as such? And if you agree with me that it is evidenced enough to be taught as fact then how can you also argue that it is anything less than highly improbable that a designer is involved in this process? Of course it is POSSIBLE.But what is the evidence based conclusion? That all life on Earth almost certainly shares a common ancestor. Right? I never disagreed with that. You are arguing against a position I have never held. Yes it is inferential but NO it is not just "attrition". It is not a case of "absence of evidence". It is not two equally valid propositions. It is entirely evidentially one sided.We can infer that mindless natural processes almost certainly underpin the appearance of design in nature based on evidence. We can infer that it is almost certainly true that evolution from a common ancestor has occurred by means of natural selection and random mutation based on the evidence.And if these things are "almost certainly true" based on the evidence (as I think we both accept that they are) then conversely any claim that there is a supernatural intelligent designer behind any of this must be considered almost certainly false.You cannot consider one proposition as highly probable without considering a mutually exclusive alternative to be anything less than highly improbable.

And yet even you have had to accept that there never is and never can be a complete absence of all objective evidence.That alone made it all worthwhile.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

It seems that my use of the phrase "mutually exclusive" has caused no end of confusion here. This is doubtless my fault as I suspect I am carrying a great deal of baggage from prior debates with RAZD on similar topics using similar terminology in different contexts. What I mean by mutually exclusive is that if one considers a wholly naturalistic or scientific conclusion to be all but certainly true then one cannot claim to be agnostic about a supernatural conclusion that is in direct opposition.For example there are those here who would strongly advocate that it is a scientific fact in which they have great confidence that the Earth is billions of years old whilst simultaneously claiming to be agnostic with regard to omphalism (AKA Last Thursdayism) on the basis that there is an "absence of evidence". But how can one claim to be all but certain that the Earth is greater than 10,000 years old whilst also claiming to be entirely uncertain as to whether or not the Earth is less than a week old? The two things are mutually exclusive.Likewise if we take a gap in biology relevant to this thread, the common ancestry between apes and humans for example - If we infer that it is almost certain that chimps and humans share a common ancestor we cannot also say that we are agnostic about the possibility that God sparked into existence humans and our physically evidenced ancestors (Lucy et al) as a lineage that is completely seperate to the rest of the tree of life. If one conclusion is deemed highly probable the other must be deemed highly improbable.In this thread - If one accepts that species on Earth have originated wholly as a result of natural selection and random mutation from a common ancestor as an evidenced fact then one cannot be anything but deeply skeptical about supernatural involvement. It isn't logical to conclude that the wholly naturalistic answer is very likley to be true whilst claiming that there is an "absence of evidence" and no option but complete uncertainty regarding a mutually exclusive alternative. It is a balance of probabilities.Which is why I keep coming back to education. If a student asked you what mechanism underpins the diverstity of life on Earth what would you say? Would you talk about natural selection and expound upon things like Genetic Drift? Would you feel the need to mention the possibility of divine intervention at all?I suspect not. Which brings me to my main point. If in the context of your role as an educator you are happy to promote the naturalistic answer at the expense of the intelligent designer answer how can you argue here that the role of ID in biological design processes has not been refuted to all practical intents and purposes? If the possibility of an intelligent designer isn't even worth mentioning in an educational context how is it anything other than a logically possible but evidential irrelevance?So to answer the OP - What is the biological evidence against ID? I would say that evolution by means of natural selection and random mutation has refuted any role for a designer in biological design. Not refuted in the sense of disproven. But refuted in the sense of having marginalised it to the point of being highly improbable and evidentially irrelevant.Now which part of that do you actually disagree with? Fine. So how likely to be true do you consider the evolutionary answer to these design gaps to be? How probable do you consider the role of a designer to be? Of course. Like I said I think we have been talking at cross purposes about what I mean by "mutually exclusive" and I have not made my reasons for bashing on about education clear. I accept that this has resulted in exasperation and bad feeling and I accept that this is my fault.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Spelling

How probable do you think it is that RM+NS is the answer to the gaps you have in mind?How probable do you think it is that an intelligent designer was involved?How certain of the naturalistic answer do we have to be before we are defacto-atheist with regard to the non-naturalistic alternative?

Really? How can you have a high degree of confidence that something is billions of years old whilst also being completely uncertain as to whether it is less than a week old? That is ridiculous. Or Tuesdayism. Or Wednesdayism. Or a minute ago. Or a second ago. Or any one of the other infinite possibilities ago. Which means that the chance of it being last Thursday is as remote as ever. Thus even if we accept omphalsim of some sort as a meaningful possibility "extremely unlikely" still remains the rational conclusion with regard to any specific "ism".But that is aslightly different argument. All the evidence indicates that it is true that the Earth is billions of years old. All of the more general evidence suggests that the very notion of last Thursdayism is in all likelihood a human construct. Like the IPU and such. Who is realistically proposing alternative rules of inference?

Hello RAZ. You old faith based agnostic you.You can blather on about mushrooms to your hearts content. This won't change the fact that all human claims are made in the objectively evidenced context of human history, culture and psychology. This is indisputable. You have never yet shown that this objective evidence does anything other than support the conclusion that supernatural entities are more likley human inventions than genuine aspects of reality.If you are utterly determined to kick off again you can start by tackling some of the posts you have selectively ignored in favour of talking about mushrooms. Maybe have a look at - This Message 499; this Message 436 and this from way way back when Message 175I still want to know whether you are an agnostic with regard to the Easter Bunny? And if not why not given your position on unfalsfiable entities. And you have still never tackled the fact that your whole "subjective evidence" position falls flat on it's face with regard to Immaterial "Evidence"Maybe this thread isn't the place. But if you wanna kick off again then start a thread and go for it.

It also makes the claim that the universe has physically existed for less than a week. Albeit fully formed and with the appearance of age. The empirical evidence suggests that the universe and indeed the Earth are billions of years old. I agree. Nope. If the empirical evidence strongly indicates that the unverifiable, unfalsifiable, unknowable "metaphysical truth" in question is a product of human invention then we should follow the first part of your sentence and treat it as such. Otherwise we are back in the realm of agnosticism towards Immaterial Pink Unicorns, undetectable pixies and the Easter Bunny. Etc.Are you proposing agnosticism towards all such concepts? Or just some? Or is it rational to say that such things are more than likely the product of human invention and thus dismiss them to all practical intents and purposes? De facto atheism in effect. If omphalism claims that the universe is physically one week old and the empirical evidence says that the universe is billions of years old there is a mutually exclusive discrepancy. Phrase it how you like. Those two conclusions are mutually exclusive.AbE - For those who don't know what omphalism is: OmphalismWe seem to be straying from the subject of biological evience and a designer.........Edited by Straggler, : Add link