Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biological Evidence Against Intelligent Design
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 136 of 264 (545513)
02-04-2010 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by RAZD
02-03-2010 7:20 PM



Welcome to Straggler-World, where all issues are black and white and overloaded with preconditions that beg the question ... been there.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2010 7:20 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by RAZD, posted 02-04-2010 7:48 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 137 of 264 (545514)
02-04-2010 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Blue Jay
02-03-2010 4:05 PM


Mutually Exclusive and Seeking Common ground
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?
I advocate the teaching of evolution alone, because it is the only explanation for which there is evidence, not because there is evidence that it is the only explanation. There is a very important difference there.
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?
Surely you should expect me to raise these objections in place of answering your question, right?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Blue Jay, posted 02-03-2010 4:05 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by nwr, posted 02-04-2010 2:49 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 146 by Blue Jay, posted 02-04-2010 10:58 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 138 of 264 (545516)
02-04-2010 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by New Cat's Eye
02-02-2010 8:32 PM


Re: Clarification
The slight difference, because of the result of induction, is one of the reasons that it is evidentially unjustified to claim that design has been refuted.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-02-2010 8:32 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 139 of 264 (545521)
02-04-2010 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Straggler
02-04-2010 1:26 AM


Re: Mutually Exclusive and Seeking Common ground
Straggler writes:
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".
I am not seeing any problem at all with that.
Everything we say about the past is an inference from current evidence. Last Thursdayism does not alter the current evidence. Therefore one makes the same inferences. The reason people say thay are agnostic is that Last Thursdayism is totally irrelevant since it does not change any of the current evidence.
You could, of course, propose that we change the rules of inference so that we never infer an age older than the time since last Thursday. But that would be opposed as having no basis. This gets back to science being a pragmatic enterprise rather than a truth seeking enterprise. The current rules of inference are far more useful than would be the proposed alternative rules of inference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Straggler, posted 02-04-2010 1:26 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Straggler, posted 02-04-2010 5:53 AM nwr has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 140 of 264 (545532)
02-04-2010 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by nwr
02-04-2010 2:49 AM


Re: Mutually Exclusive and Seeking Common ground
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".
I am not seeing any problem at all with that.
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.
You could, of course, propose that we change the rules of inference so that we never infer an age older than the time since last Thursday.
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.
This gets back to science being a pragmatic enterprise rather than a truth seeking enterprise.
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.
The current rules of inference are far more useful than would be the proposed alternative rules of inference.
Who is realistically proposing alternative rules of inference?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by nwr, posted 02-04-2010 2:49 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by nwr, posted 02-04-2010 9:26 AM Straggler has replied

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


Message 141 of 264 (545548)
02-04-2010 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Straggler
02-04-2010 1:24 AM


reality is not Straggler-World, Straggler-World is not reality
Hi Straggler-World
And yet even you have had to accept that there never is and never can be a complete absence of all objective evidence.
Except I never said that, in fact I have said this is a misrepresentation before, this is your made up version of events.
Mushrooms grow in the woods at night under a new moon during a storm is objective evidence, it can be independently verified, cataloged and documented.
In that sense, and that sense alone, there is never a "complete absence of evidence," however this hardly relates to having evidence for an argument that does not involve mushrooms. Even in situations that involve mushrooms it is not conclusive evidence as mushrooms can be shown to be growing in other conditions, places and times.
In other words it is only true in the most tautological useless sense. Like a lot of your conclusions.
Can there be a complete absence of all objective evidence that {X} is true? yes.
Can there be a complete absence of all objective evidence that {X} is false? yes.
Therefore, on any one topic it is entirely possible to have a complete absence of all objective evidence that {X} is true or false.
Curiously, that is the only objective evidence that matters concerning the reality of {X}.
That alone made it all worthwhile.
That's Straggler-World for you. You only read what you want to read, reject what other people say that you disagree with, and make up things to fit your perceptions.
It's fascinating to watch. The dancing around, the pretense, the posing.
Bluejay has had your lunch for some time now, yet you seem incapable of comprehending that simple fact. Why does that not surprise me in the slightest?
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 136 by Straggler, posted 02-04-2010 1:24 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Straggler, posted 02-04-2010 8:28 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 142 of 264 (545554)
02-04-2010 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by RAZD
02-04-2010 7:48 AM


Here We Go Again?
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 175
I 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by RAZD, posted 02-04-2010 7:48 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 143 of 264 (545559)
02-04-2010 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Straggler
02-04-2010 5:53 AM


Re: Mutually Exclusive and Seeking Common ground
Let's put it this way.
Last Thursdayism makes a claim about metaphysical truth.
Statements on the age of the earth make claims about empirical truth.
Metaphysical truth seems to be completely unknowable. And even it it were known, there does not appear to be any use for it.
Empirical truth is knowable in principle (given sufficient evidence), and is knowable often enough in practice. Moreover, it is relevant to our lives.
Thus:
(1) we should stick to using empirical truth, and be agnostic about all claims regarding metaphysical truth;
(2) there is no mutual exclusion between a claim of metaphysical truth and a claim of empirical truth, for those claims are made relative to completely different truth systems.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Straggler, posted 02-04-2010 5:53 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Straggler, posted 02-04-2010 10:32 AM nwr has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 144 of 264 (545565)
02-04-2010 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by nwr
02-04-2010 9:26 AM


Re: Mutually Exclusive and Seeking Common ground
Last Thursdayism makes a claim about metaphysical truth.
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.
Statements on the age of the earth make claims about empirical truth.
The empirical evidence suggests that the universe and indeed the Earth are billions of years old.
(1) we should stick to using empirical truth
I agree.
and be agnostic about all claims regarding metaphysical truth
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.
(2) there is no mutual exclusion between a claim of metaphysical truth and a claim of empirical truth, for those claims are made relative to completely different truth systems.
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: Omphalism
We seem to be straying from the subject of biological evience and a designer.........
Edited by Straggler, : Add link

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by nwr, posted 02-04-2010 9:26 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-04-2010 10:56 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 151 by nwr, posted 02-04-2010 1:00 PM Straggler has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 145 of 264 (545572)
02-04-2010 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Straggler
02-04-2010 10:32 AM


Re: Mutually Exclusive and Seeking Common ground
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.
No, the whole point of omphalism is that the empirical evidence is not mutually exclusive to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Straggler, posted 02-04-2010 10:32 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Straggler, posted 02-04-2010 12:56 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 146 of 264 (545573)
02-04-2010 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Straggler
02-04-2010 1:26 AM


Re: Mutually Exclusive and Seeking Common ground
Hi, Straggler.
I can’t allow you to take ALL the blame. SOME of it is your fault, for sure, but not ALL of it.
Straggler writes:
Now which part of that do you actually disagree with?
I don’t really disagree with any of it, because you didn’t really address the stuff I’m trying to get at. This is where you missed it here:
Straggler writes:
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 separate to the rest of the tree of life.
But, we can be agnostic about the possibility that SOME of the differences between humans and apes were directed or mediated by intelligent design.
-----
Straggler writes:
If a student asked you what mechanism underpins the diversity 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 would only feel the need to mention things that are evidenced.
The struggle I would have is in explaining random mutations. Randomness is not something that can really be evidenced, per se: we use it to describe a pattern of occurrence of things, not the causation. For instance, if some mutations were caused by God, some by Satan, some by aliens from Alpha Centauri, some by aliens from Betelgeuse, and some by various unguided processes, the pattern we would see would still be considered random overall. So, these could still technically be called random mutations.
I don’t think I would try to address that in a classroom setting, though, unless it was a class dedicated to such theoretical or philosophical analysis.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Straggler, posted 02-04-2010 1:26 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Straggler, posted 02-04-2010 11:46 AM Blue Jay has replied
 Message 148 by Taq, posted 02-04-2010 12:25 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 147 of 264 (545579)
02-04-2010 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Blue Jay
02-04-2010 10:58 AM


Re: Mutually Exclusive and Seeking Common ground
Phew! I am glad we sorted out that misunderstanding.
But, we can be agnostic about the possibility that SOME of the differences between humans and apes were directed or mediated by intelligent design.
When you say "agnostic" what do you mean? Are you saying that it is equally probable that this occurred by means of wholly natural processes as it is that it occured with some ID thrown in?
If a student asked you what mechanism underpins the diversity 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 would only feel the need to mention things that are evidenced.
So you would talk only about naturalistic answers. At the expense of any intelligent design possibilities. Pre-Darwin this is unlikely to have been the case. Thus I maintain that the evidence in favour of the ToE has refuted intelligent design to all practical intents and purposes.
But what if the student in question asked you to hypothesise on an area of biological uncertainty? Would your less evidenced musings also restrict themselves to naturalistic answers? Or would you feel any need to mention intelligent design even as a possibility?
You must see where I am going with this. If in the practical context of education (as opposed to bickering about logical possibilities on a debate forum) the ID possibilities do not even get a look in at the hypothesis level when considering gaps in biological knowledge how can one say that ID has been anything other than refuted to all practical intents and purposes? In effect a form of de facto atheism regarding ID prevails.
The struggle I would have is in explaining random mutations. Randomness is not something that can really be evidenced, per se: we use it to describe a pattern of occurrence of things, not the causation.
Fair point.
For instance, if some mutations were caused by God, some by Satan, some by aliens from Alpha Centauri, some by aliens from Betelgeuse, and some by various unguided processes, the pattern we would see would still be considered random overall. So, these could still technically be called random mutations.
Yes. Good point. But how likely to be true do you consider the naturalistic answer (i.e. mindless physical processes) to be? How probable do you consider the role of conflicting designers to be? Is it so unlikely as to be irrelevant to all practical intents and purposes?
I don’t think I would try to address that in a classroom setting, though, unless it was a class dedicated to such theoretical or philosophical analysis.
But you must face that question indirectly every single time a student asks you about any gap in our knowledge. If at that point you restrict yourself to the naturalistic possibilities that are consistent with biological science and completely ignore any ID possibilities then in effect you are being a de facto atheist with regard to ID.
Edited by Straggler, : Fix quotes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Blue Jay, posted 02-04-2010 10:58 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Blue Jay, posted 02-04-2010 1:48 PM Straggler has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 148 of 264 (545585)
02-04-2010 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Blue Jay
02-04-2010 10:58 AM


Re: Mutually Exclusive and Seeking Common ground
The struggle I would have is in explaining random mutations. Randomness is not something that can really be evidenced, per se: we use it to describe a pattern of occurrence of things, not the causation.
But in the case of mutations we can determine the causation. We know how carcinogens and mutagens work. We know how poymerases work, and why they sometimes insert the wrong base. We know how DNA recombination works. We know the causation for mutations.
But of course we can't rule out the irrefutable and unfalsifiable. So what can we say about random mutation? We can say that the appearance of mutations is consistent with randomness (with respect to fitness). We can say that the differences between genomes is consistent with random mutation. IOW, the same argument we use for nose jewelry. A designer is not necessary to explain the appearance, production, and distribution of mutations.
As a side note: If I were a high school science teacher I would have the students perform the plate replica experiment or the Luria-Delbruck fluctuation experiment. Both are excellent examples of both random mutations and how the scientific method is applied to the problem.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Blue Jay, posted 02-04-2010 10:58 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Straggler, posted 02-04-2010 12:43 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 161 by Blue Jay, posted 02-05-2010 9:53 AM Taq has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 149 of 264 (545589)
02-04-2010 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Taq
02-04-2010 12:25 PM


Re: Mutually Exclusive and Seeking Common ground
As a side note: If I were a high school science teacher I would have the students perform the plate replica experiment or the Luria-Delbruck fluctuation experiment. Both are excellent examples of both random mutations and how the scientific method is applied to the problem.
I used to be a school physics teacher who dreaded having to teach any biology at all. But I had to do it a few times. I don't know these experiments so I have looked thus up - Wiki on the Luria-Delbruck experiment

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Taq, posted 02-04-2010 12:25 PM Taq has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 150 of 264 (545590)
02-04-2010 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by New Cat's Eye
02-04-2010 10:56 AM


Re: Mutually Exclusive and Seeking Common ground
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.
No, the whole point of omphalism is that the empirical evidence is not mutually exclusive to it.
The conclusion that the universe is actually one week old is mutually exclusive to the conclusion that the universe is actually billions of years old. It cannot be both.
The fact that omphalism is designed to be unfalsifiable does not change that discrepancy. Nor does it change the fact that the historical evidence strongly suggests that omphalism is the product of human invention.
Wiki writes:
The Omphalos hypothesis was named after the title of an 1857 book, Omphalos by Philip Henry Gosse, in which Gosse argued that in order for the world to be "functional", God must have created the Earth with mountains and canyons, trees with growth rings, Adam and Eve with hair, fingernails, and navels (omphalos is Greek for "navel"), and that therefore no evidence that we can see of the presumed age of the earth and universe can be taken as reliable. The idea has seen some revival in the twentieth century by some modern creationists, who have extended the argument to light that appears to originate in far-off stars and galaxies (although other creationists reject this explanation. Omphalism
Like most human claims of the inherently unfalsifiable and unknowable all the evidence we have suggests that the entire concept of omphalism is a human invention.
Don't tell me you too are now agnostic regarding omphalism?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-04-2010 10:56 AM New Cat's Eye has 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