Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 2:43 AM
22 online now:
Heathen, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (2 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 853,982 Year: 9,018/19,786 Month: 1,440/2,119 Week: 200/576 Day: 3/98 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
17181920Next
Author Topic:   abiogenesis
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2675 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 226 of 297 (552408)
03-28-2010 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by marc9000
03-28-2010 4:37 PM


Re: Entrance Requirements - and (epic) Failed ID
marc9000 writes:

Science doesn’t know what the nature of consciousness is, or how conscious mental activity arises out of physical brain activity.

Sure they do. Research is going on all the time that further refines our knowledge of how neurological activity relates to various states of consciousness.

marc9000 writes:

It doesn’t know why the universe exists – why there is something rather than nothing.

Nope, nor does this matter much in the end. Science can explain most "why" questions in terms of causality, sure. Why is the sky blue? It's not really. It looks that way because that's how the atmosphere scatters light. Why does ice float? Because the molecular structure of water makes it less dense in its solid state than in its liquid state. Those are the sort of why questions that science deals with, becuase it's so, so terribly atheistic and naturalistic. If, on the other hand, you want to arbitrarily invoke supernatural causes - if you want to explain light-scattering principles by saying that God made the light spectrum such that we'd be reminded of his mercy, as represented by the color blue - then feel free to make up as many stories as you like. They don't add anything to the conversation.

Maybe the universe exists because it's there are lots of ways for something to exist but only one way for nothing to exist, so existence is just more likely.

marc9000 writes:

It doesn’t know why the universe has three spatial dimensions and only one time dimension.

It almost certainly doesn't. The physics and math apparently work out much better for a ten- or eleven-dimensional universe. Just because that's difficult to comprehend doesn't make it not so.

marc9000 writes:

It doesn’t know what the nature of mass is.

Sure it does. Mass is the measure of how much "stuff" there is in a given body, either in terms of its resistance to inertial change or how much potential energy it has. Beyond that, you can start investigating the nature of spacetime and energy and fundamental particles. (My apologies to people who really understand physics.)

marc9000 writes:

It doesn’t know what the universe is made of (most of it seems to be ‘dark matter”, but we don’t know what dark matter is)

True, and isn't that a fascinating area of research?

marc9000 writes:

It doesn’t have a single fundamental theory of physics (the TWO theories it does have, general relativity and quantum theory, are incompatible)

You're about a hundred years out of date. String theory appears to be able to do quite a good job at reconciling the two. Again, just because it's hard to understand (well beyond my primate brain's capacity) or still not fully developed doesn't make it not so.

Essentially, all you have is an argument from ignorance. In any of the above cases, does invoking supernatural phenomena give you better explanations than the naturalistic ones?

Let me ask you that again. How does invoking the supernatural give you better answers than the ones that naturalistic science proposes?

Supernatural explanations are worthless. They can't be tested, verifies, or falsified. By being able to explain anything, supernaturalism explains nothing. I remind you of Laplace's reply to Napoleon when asked why his work on mathematical astronomy didn't mention God:

"I had no need of that hypothesis."

You tell me why we need to bring in Jehovah to make sense of String Theory, and then we'll talk.

IMPORTANT ABE:

quote:
Those are the sort of why questions that science deals with, becuase it's so, so terribly atheistic and naturalistic.

This doesn't make sense. What I actually meant to say was "Those are the sort of "why" questions that science deals with, not because it's so terribly atheistic and godless, but because it deals with verifiable facts. It's that simple."

Edited by ZenMonkey, : Attempted repair of tangle logic.


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by marc9000, posted 03-28-2010 4:37 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Blue Jay, posted 03-28-2010 7:39 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 495 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 227 of 297 (552409)
03-28-2010 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by marc9000
03-28-2010 4:37 PM


Re: Entrance Requirements - and (epic) Failed ID
Hi marc. I noticed that in response to my request (which you quoted) for a description of an experiment that would support a design inference, you did not actually describe any sort of experiment. That request still stands, because you still haven't shown anything to back up your earlier assertion about how "ID ... can experiment and observe a subsequent ~design~ ...".

In case you're not familiar with how to describe an experiment: you begin by stating a particular prediction based on a chosen hypothesis; you then lay out a procedure for gathering specific observations that will provide the information needed to determine whether the prediction is right or wrong. {AbE: Note that this doesn't have to involve direct manipulations in a lab; describing any relevant set of real-world observations would suffice.} Have you ever seen any such procedure described (let alone actually carried out) with regard to a prediction based on ID? I haven't. That request is still open.

Regarding some of the material quoted from Demski:

Demski writes:

If biologists really understood the emergence of biological complexity in purely material terms, intelligent design couldn’t even get off the ground.

So, who (besides Demski) is saying that ID has gotten "off the ground"? Where are the peer-reviewed journal articles citing works by ID proponents as making notable contributions to biology or providing a basis for research? So far, ID proponents have only been publishing polemic books aimed at the general public (and only appreciated by the religious right); they haven't been reporting any research results.

Demski writes:

The fact that they don’t accounts for ID’s quick rise in public consciousness.

On the contrary, the quick rise in public consciousness about ID is attributable to PR campaigns by ID proponents, pushing fundamentalist groups into a frenzy of activism directed at school boards and state legislatures. Another source of publicity for ID, of course, has been the negative impact of the legal decisions that recognize the religious foundations of ID. In any case, the things that qualified biologists do, think, and understand have had nothing at all to do with the "rise and fall" of ID.

This was an interesting snippet:

Demski writes:

Even efforts to overturn the various criteria for detecting design are welcome within the intelligent design research program. (That’s part of keeping the program honest.)

So how soon will an ID proponent be coming out with the book that accurately and honestly reviews the recent research results on blood clotting in the various species that lack certain of the components that made this process "irreducibly complex"? That research has been done, results are in, and the claims made by Behe have been refuted; now it's just a matter of ID authors getting around to the part about "keeping the program honest."

BTW, you didn't didn't say anything (or quote anything from Demski) to address my point about the difference between ID and other kinds of "design detection" -- let me recap: The point is that we need to know the physical properties and behaviors of a purported "designer" in order to establish an objective basis for concluding that something is designed by some entity for some purpose; without this, an IDer asserting a "design inference" is just making up a story about an unknowable "designer", and closing up shop on further investigation.

{AbE: This is also fully understood by every school-age child. Alas, this notion does get in the way when people consider donating a kidney...}

“Every school age child”? We’ll never agree on that – school children are impressionable when they see authorities making statements that favor one worldview over another.

Oh? Well, I guess this has never been tested, because contrary to what you seemed to be asserting earlier, no teacher at any school has ever tried to tell children, "If you remove the lungs from this frog, it won't die, because the creatures that frogs evolved from didn't have lungs" (or something to that effect). Any teacher who tried would be an instant laughing stock for the students. That is what I understood from the portion of your earlier post that I quoted -- shown here again:

marc9000 writes:

When we tell students that Irreducible complexity is falsified, we imply that the removal of one part of a complex system CAN’T cause the entire system to come to a standstill...

Now, if you didn't really mean it the way I took it, I apologize for the misunderstanding -- but you should work on improving your clarity. In particular, the debate is not about "removing a part of a complex system". It's about how a complex system is able to develop from less complex systems, given that we have observed living organisms in which some components of the system are in fact absent, and that we can trace the genetic relatedness between organisms that lack and others that possess the components in question. In the case of the blood clotting cascade, Behe's claims of irreducible complexity have been shown to arise from the fact (established at the Dover trial) that Behe himself is uninformed about -- and seemingly not interested in -- recent research on the topic.

marc9000 writes:

You haven’t misrepresented,

That's good to know. Thanks.

... you’ve just gone down a path that ignores the big picture. An acceptance of ID into science doesn’t mean a takeover of science by ID. The Wedge Document isn’t about force, it’s about voluntary acceptance, through common sense.

You've lost me there. How do the goals of the Wedge Document constitute "common sense"? How does a strategy to promote a specific, sectarian religious view relate to any sort of "big picture" (as opposed to dogmatic tunnel-vision)?

If ID claims it has a last word, a closing of the door on further research, it can’t prevent other people, other scientists in other labs, from doing more research. But an ID claim of a last word can provide a little more of a motive for godless scientists to do something with more time restrained, result oriented research.

The scientific community is, I'm sure, truly grateful for all that (even those scientists who are in fact not "godless"). But they were doing just fine before ID was "invented", and they would continue doing just fine without it.

Science can’t do everything, and maybe it needs something like ID to discourage it from trying to do things that it can’t do.

Religion has been trying to do that for a few hundred years now, and on the whole, the less success religion has in that pursuit, the better off we are as a species. To quote another author on this forum: "we've tried ignorance, and it doesn't work."

Science doesn’t know what the nature of consciousness is, or how conscious mental activity arises out of physical brain activity... why the universe exists... why the universe has three spatial dimensions and only one time dimension... what the nature of mass is...

Religion doesn't score very well on any of those topics either, frankly -- even that part about why the universe exists: all Christians can say is "only God knows", which is no answer at all. And let's face it, science doesn't care "why", and doesn't need to -- it's enough that science be concerned with questions like "how did this come about?", "how does this really work?", and "what is going to happen next?" Those are the questions that matter in any sort of common sense view, and there's no point holding science back from addressing them.

... it’s constantly stated and implied that all gaps in the past have been naturalistically filled in, so future gaps will be naturalistically filled in as well. It’s not logical for open minded people to assume that...

Open minded people are not just assuming that -- they are drawing the conclusion based on experience and observation, and that's quite logical.

marc9000 writes:

The subject of ID has nothing to do with creation or the Bible.


That has been disproven -- in a court of law, no less...

It matters little what the ACLU warchest was able to buy.

The ACLU didn't have to buy Of Pandas and People (the Dover school board bought it) -- that book and its editorial history are just the most obvious linkage between ID and Christian fundamentalism. Virtually every endorsement of ID is religiously based, and the ACLU isn't paying for that either.

You can deny it as much as you like, but you won't be convincing anyone, least of all the fundamentalist Christians who are still trying to cling to ID as if it were actually likely to do them any good (which it won't). Hmm. This leads to an interesting hypothesis:

If you yourself happen to be a fundamentalist Christian, then this implies that you, being also an ID proponent, cannot really convince yourself that ID is completely independent from your religion, which means that your own assertion ("ID has nothing to do with creation or the Bible") would be either duplicity (i.e. lying) or some odd form of self-delusion.

Edited by Otto Tellick, : minor style edit to first paragraph, addition (as noted) in second paragraph.

Edited by Otto Tellick, : fixed typo in what was previously added

Edited by Otto Tellick, : another typo repair


autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by marc9000, posted 03-28-2010 4:37 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by marc9000, posted 04-12-2010 9:15 PM Otto Tellick has responded

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 862 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 228 of 297 (552410)
03-28-2010 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by marc9000
03-28-2010 6:57 PM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
Hi, Marc.

marc9000 writes:

A network of chemical reactions that can incrementally increase in complexity until it is as complex as life falls in the same naturalistic realm as does spontaneous generation...

But they do not both fall under the same realm of "can be tested by comparing the growth of fungi in sealed and unsealed flasks left out for two months."

That is the pivotal point here.

Spontaneous generation was the idea that various abiotic materials are part of the life cycles of living organisms. Thus, there was supposedly a preset transformation of rotting meat into maggots the paralleled the metamorphosis of maggots into adult flies: that it was somehow part of the nature of rotting meat to transform into maggots.

This is categorically not the same idea as incremental increases in chemical complexity. If you want to go the route of Pasteur and Redi having disproven Abiogenesis, then I'm afraid you'll likewise have to acknowledge that Pasteur and Redi have also disproven creation, as they witnessed no new animals being created in their flasks.

-----

Earlier in this thread, you made a big stink about how the word “abiogenesis” shouldn’t be used to include special creation or intelligent design. Now, expect me to make a big stink about how the word “abiogenesis” shouldn’t be used such that it includes spontaneous generation. And, I will repeatedly paste this very paragraph into my responses to each instance in which you equate abiogenesis and spontaneous generation until you agree to my terms the way I agreed to yours earlier in this thread.

Edited by Bluejay, : added "and unsealed"


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by marc9000, posted 03-28-2010 6:57 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 862 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 229 of 297 (552411)
03-28-2010 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by ZenMonkey
03-28-2010 7:11 PM


Re: Entrance Requirements - and (epic) Failed ID
Hi, ZenMonkey.

ZenMonkey writes:

You tell me why we need to bring in Jehovah to make sense of String Theory...

Do you really think anybody else could understand that mess?


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by ZenMonkey, posted 03-28-2010 7:11 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18482
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 230 of 297 (552412)
03-28-2010 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by marc9000
03-28-2010 7:06 PM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
marc9000 writes:

I'm new at EvC, but at another message board I had a lot of trouble finding a theistic evolutionist who was willing to answer basic questions about his/her Christian beliefs.

I believe Francis Collins has done that: The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief

I, too, believe in God, but I don't think my answers would interest you much because I'm not a Christian.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by marc9000, posted 03-28-2010 7:06 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by marc9000, posted 04-12-2010 8:13 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 459 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 231 of 297 (552429)
03-29-2010 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by marc9000
03-28-2010 3:36 PM


Re: Theistic science?
marc9000 writes:

Human witness from the past fits the “sight” sense.


So, once they are all dead, no more evidence for the Holocaust, eh?

Authorized written history counts as fact, because the acceptance of it’s accuracy almost always transcends worldviews.

That also goes for the these facts. The acceptance of their accuracy also almost always transcends worldviews. Evidenced by the fact there are many Christian, buddhist, moslem and so on scientists. The evidence for the holocaust goes against some worldviews as well, you know.

Because atheists don’t have a perfect record in presenting evidence before presenting their godless views.

We present the evidence we have, it's not our fault god is nowhere to be found in the evidence.

Surely you’ve seen the ape-to-man picture (who hasn’t) that shows the progression of 8 or 9 gradual steps as a chimpanzee turns into a caveman.

An artists' rendition is not science.

That illustration actually originated in Darwin’s time before there was any “evidence” for ape-to-man evolution.

Source? And so what? I never claimed that it is science.

It’s clear that religious people aren’t the only ones who start with a pre-existing concept and then try to make “evidence” fit what they want it to fit.

Of course not, you have unscientific shit going on everywhere. This doesn't do anything to the accuracy of the actual science being done though. Which is also done by lots of religious people, who agree with the findings.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by marc9000, posted 03-28-2010 3:36 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by marc9000, posted 04-12-2010 9:28 PM Huntard has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16096
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 232 of 297 (552430)
03-29-2010 4:48 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by marc9000
03-28-2010 7:06 PM


By The Way
Yes, I know I'm off-topic, but I have to say:

The best thing about Obama is still that he's not George W. Bush. Some people may think that he's a bit of a let-down in certain respects, but damn, he's still not George W. Bush.

It still makes me feel happy and warm inside just to have a President who isn't George W. Bush.

Anyway, back to the topic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by marc9000, posted 03-28-2010 7:06 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19869
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 233 of 297 (553728)
04-04-2010 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by marc9000
03-21-2010 5:24 PM


Re: Entrance Requirements - and (epic) Failed ID
Hi again marc9000, hope you had a good eostre weekend, and again apologies for long absence. Spring is here, and I have been spending time in the woods with my new binoculars and the birds.

But this is also due to the feeling that what I have shown you is falling on deaf ears.

... because there are limits to proof and facts about an early earth atmosphere, and many other things about naturalistic life from non-life.

Are you now claiming that in order for abiogenesis to be a valid science that they need to prove precisely how life actually began?

This is moving the goal posts for a number of reasons. One is that nothing is proven in science, the best we can get is tentative validity - concepts that are not invalidated by evidence and that have been rigorously tested to see if they can be invalidated. This is the highest level of validation for science. Abiogenesis has not reached this level of being so rigorously tested yet, however several other sciences have, including evolution.

But no science results in proofs. Not one.

Science is not based on subjective criteria, rather it is an objective evaluation of the proposed concept, and when we start with the basic entry level definition of science:

Message 73;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
quote:
Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is, in its broadest sense, any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique or practice.[1]

We see that the basic entry level criteria for science are:

  • it is based on an organized, systematic knowledge about the topic and
  • it can make testable predictions based on this organized knowledge.

The science of abiogenesis is based on our knowledge of chemistry, how chemicals react, and geology, particularly paleo-geology, our current knowledge of the geology of the past.

Thus we see an organized, systematic knowledge about the topic of abiogenesis that I have yet to see from ID.

I don’t think abiogenesis can get any closer to a prediction or predictable type of outcome than ID can, ...

Curiously, I have already discussed a number of predictions that are made by the hypothesis that life can arise from chemicals by natural processes.

One of these is that we should be able to find self-replicating molecules.

Hundreds have been found (and ignoring them does not make them go away).

That is one validated "prediction or predictable type of outcome" that I have yet to see from ID.

Another reason this is goal post moving is that it seems you are now requiring more for abiogenesis than to meet the criteria already agreed on, while you have yet to establish that ID meets this criteria.

ID can do exactly the same things – it can make suppositions about matter/conditions appearing from nothing by supernatural causation, then experiment and observe a subsequent~design~ in the time and rearrangement realm.

But it hasn't, that is the point. Prove me wrong by listing the predictions and the experiments conducted to test the predictions.

Just being able to make an hypothesis is not enough: you need to show how the hypothesis was derived (the systematic knowledge basis) and then make a prediction that can be tested (untestable hypothesis being useless).

I can easily show that ID meets those definitions. It is a science of design detection, and there are already other sciences of design detection. Anthropology, archeology, forensic sciences, cryptanalysis and SETI, are others. Design detection – detection of purpose in nature is natural philosophy just as much as abiogenesis.

Taking this as true for the sake of argument, we still have the situation of you making up situations that could be done rather than refering to actual work that has been done.

I can, (and have), refer(ed) to actual work that has been done on abiogenesis.

But that’s not what I asked for, and that’s not what you allow ID time to do. You don't allow ID to be "ongoing", you require it to be complete for its scientific entrance.

Not at all, I just ask that it START doing science. It's not a matter of not having sufficient time, it's a matter of actually doing the work.

I've also pointed out that various opportunities to actually do the science have existed and have not been taken.

But that’s not what I asked for, ... I asked for documentation of abiogenesis “STEPPING UP TO THE PLATE”, The opening details and date of it... and no one seems to be able to tell me when or how abiogenesis was AWARDED FIRST BASE.

The fact that it is ongoing makes the original time rather moot, however, if I were going to pin a date for the first actual scientific test of the concept of abiogenesis, then the obvious choice would be the Miller-Urey experiment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

quote:
The Miller–Urey experiment[1] (or Urey–Miller experiment)[2] was an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical evolution. Specifically, the experiment tested Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life, it was conducted in 1952[3] and published in 1953 by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago.[4][5][6]

The experiment used water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), and hydrogen (H2). The chemicals were all sealed inside a sterile array of glass tubes and flasks connected in a loop, with one flask half-full of liquid water and another flask containing a pair of electrodes. The liquid water was heated to induce evaporation, sparks were fired between the electrodes to simulate lightning through the atmosphere and water vapor, and then the atmosphere was cooled again so that the water could condense and trickle back into the first flask in a continuous cycle.

At the end of one week of continuous operation, Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10–15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant. Sugars, lipids, and some of the building blocks for nucleic acids were also formed.


Of course a lot has happened since then, but I do not know of any previous experiment in this field, so that sets the "first base" date at 1952.

The 1920's it appears, with one persons "ideas" and little else. The ID community has plenty of ideas.

Fascinatingly, having ideas does not make it science.

I know – searches for atheism. Time and rearrangement, with everything else ruled out.

Non-sequitur meaningly word salad. I have no idea what you mean.

The 1828 definition doesn’t say anything about testable, repeatable, falsifiable, observable either does it? Why are those things constantly applied to ID?
“Falsified”? That word doesn’t appear in your 1828 definition.

Message 125: The above site also provides the 1828 definition of science (my bold for emphasis):

http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=sc...

quote:
SCI''ENCE, n. [L. scientia, from scio, to know.]

  1. In a general sense, knowledge, or certain knowledge; the comprehension or understanding of truth or facts by the mind. The science of God must be perfect.
  2. In philosophy, a collection of the general principles or leading truths relating to any subject. Pure science, as the mathematics, is built on self-evident truths; but the term science is also applied to other subjects founded on generally acknowledged truths, as metaphysics; or on experiment and observation, as chimistry and natural philosophy; or even to an assemblage of the general principles of an art, as the science of agriculture; the science of navigation. Arts relate to practice, as painting and sculpture.
    A principle in science is a rule in art.
  3. Art derived from precepts or built on principles.
    Science perfects genius.
  4. Any art or species of knowledge.
    No science doth make known the first principles on which it buildeth.
  5. One of the seven liberal branches of knowledge, viz grammar, logic, rhetoric, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music.

[Note - Authors have not always been careful to use the terms art and science with due discrimination and precision. Music is an art as well as a science. In general, an art is that which depends on practice or performance, and science that which depends on abstract or speculative principles. The theory of music is a science; the practice of it an art.]

Here we see that the term science is applied to subjects founded on experiment and observation, as chimistry and natural philosophy. Natural philosophy at this time meaning the study of the natural world.

So far we haven't found an old definition that would fit the current status of ID, so the claim that the definition has been changed to keep ID out is spurious assertion without merit.

Fair enough, in a strict reading it requires observation and experimentation, for fields such as chemistry and natural science. Of course observation means you have acquired a systematic knowledge about the topic, and experimentation means that you have testable predictions based on this organized knowledge that are the basis for the experiments. Having testable predictions means that you have falsification tests, because if the predictions don't pan out, the prediction as derived is falsified.

That’s not one bit different than the evolutionary process explaining something, so that by default no God was involved. Theistic evolutionists will claim that God was sitting there, doing nothing, just that he wasn't involved. Other than that, atheists can answer all their questions for them. It's not convincing.

Curiously, that has nothing to do with what was falsified. What was falsified was the concept that an Irreducibly Complex system could not arise by evolution but only by a supernatural cause.

This is a clear indication of the dangers of only one worldview (godlessness/naturalism/atheism) ruling science. When we tell students that Irreducible complexity is falsified, we imply that the removal of one part of a complex system CAN’T cause the entire system to come to a standstill, and it’s a FACT that it can, and almost always does, in systems that humans have designed, and in biology as well. The remaining parts sit still, and almost always quickly deteriorate / die.

And again, this is not what was falsified. What was falsified was the concept that Irreducibly Complex systems could not arise by evolution but only by a supernatural cause.

Naturalists can launch themselves down complex paths to show that it doesn’t matter and doesn’t affect the evolutionary process that they hold dear, but they can’t conceal their anger, or their desire to discard, and not teach, a fact of nature. Just because it’s provable to be applicable to existing biological systems so far, doesn’t mean it’s not biology.

LOL. Biologists can show that several systems that meet the definitional criteria of Irreducibly Complex systems have in fact evolved. They can also show substantial evidence for the evolutionary derivation of every system so far proposed as and IC system by the ID crowd, sufficient to show that these too could evolve through intermediate steps. Behe conceded this point at Dover.

The word “testable”, or even an abstract reference to it, does not appear in your 1828 definitions above. That’s one of the ways you allow abiognesis in – an early earth atmosphere is not testable. You’re not able to get away from your double standards.

Actually it is very testable, as chemical reactions leave behind signatures of the environment in which they occurred. This is why we know that the early atmosphere had very little oxygen. The atmosphere used for the Miller-Urey experiments was based on the knowledge current at that time. This has since been modified by additional knowledge that refines the previous knowledge.

Abiogenesis is atheistic trash talk. It can be dressed up in the shiny suit of science ...

Once again, I point out that I am not an atheist. Once again I point out that this is consistent with a universe created with the laws of nature in effect, that resulted in the formation of planets, the development of life and the evolution of that life from the first begining to the present day. Just because your world view does not include this form of creation does not mean that it is atheistic, nor does it mean it is atheistic because you happen to disagree with it.

... only because of the atheists who control science.

One of the signs of cognitive dissonance is the use of conspiracy theory/ies to explain evidence that contradicts your world view/s.

I haven’t ignored them, I’ve noted that politics is involved, and considering the emotional treatment that ID proponents like Dembski and Behe have received in the past, I’ve actually explained them. (personal, emotional opposition to these two men in the past are “facts”. )

The question is whether or not you are willing to admit and accept that this means that opportunities were provided and neglected, ignored, by the ID proponents. It doesn't have a single thing to do with the politics, but it has everything to do with the failure of ID to ACTUALLY DO SCIENCE.

These opportunities were provided by ID friendly universities and STILL there was not a single taker, not a single proposal submitted, so it is not a matter of proposals being rejected even.

William Dembski has written several books on Intelligent Design, describing exactly what it is, and what it proposes, and ideas about research for it, the same type of ideas that were good enough for abiogenesis at its beginning.

Yes, I glanced over that thread. Message 16 from administration warned the poor babies about the “personal sniping” against the lone ID proponent. The “persecution complex” often goes through the roof when the subject of ID comes up, doesn’t it?

In that opening post, we had a c/p with some quotes from Derek Davis, of Baylor, a Baptist university, who wants to quit “playing games” about the religious worldview being advanced. I wonder what he thinks about the atheist worldview being advanced? What he thinks about the list of books that I showed in message #171. (the existence of those books is a ”fact”)

Books are not science. You can put anything in a book and get it published.

If ID can't convince religious schools that it's science, how can you expect secular universities to do so?

Even religious schools have to be very careful about what goes on in their science classes. They’re not immune from politics.
and that ID is unable to find funding to do science,

PUBLIC funding to do science. It was offered bait, and it had political reasons for not taking it. It’s a mousetrap thing – ID goes for the cheese, and the ACLU becomes the spring and the bar.

Your paranoid conspiracy world view is showing again.

And I repeat that not one (1) proposal was submitted, so the issue of politics in deciding which proposals to promote does not even arise.

THERE WERE NO PROPOSALS. That is epic failure in my book.

Neither of these posters have challenged my responses so far. Do you have evidence to show that science seeks to prove evolution wrong? If not, why would you think it would seek to prove abiogenesis wrong?

Curiously, the fact that they (in your words) have not responded does not make your claim correct.

Every single new fossil find tests evolution, every single new genome decoded tests evolution, every new field study tests evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

quote:
Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment. The term "testability" is related but more specific; it means that an assertion can be falsified through experimentation alone.

Falsifiability is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science. The concept was made popular by Karl Popper, who, in his philosophical analysis of the scientific method, concluded that a hypothesis, proposition, or theory is "scientific" only if it is falsifiable. Popper asserted that unfalsifiable statements are non-scientific, but not of zero importance. For example, meta-physical or religious propositions have cultural or spiritual meaning, and the ancient metaphysical and unfalsifiable idea of the existence of atoms has led to corresponding falsifiable modern theories. A falsifiable theory that has withstood severe scientific testing is said to be corroborated by past experience, though in Popper's view this is not equivalent with confirmation and does not lead to the conclusion that the theory is true or even partially true.


I have falsified several of your claims, particularly that the definition of science has been changed in order to exclude ID,

With your additions of the words “testable” and “falsifiable” for ID that are not included in your definitions, sorry, you have not.

Sorry, the 1828 definition does not differ significantly from the one we started with, so your claim that it has changed is falsified. You can deny this, however denial does not represent reality. In addition, abiogenesis meets the 1828 criteria and (so far) ID (still) does not.

If you cannot understand such simple facts, then debate with you is like talking to a brick wall.

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 199 by marc9000, posted 03-21-2010 5:24 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by marc9000, posted 04-12-2010 10:23 PM RAZD has responded

marc9000
Member
Posts: 994
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 234 of 297 (555253)
04-12-2010 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Percy
03-28-2010 6:50 PM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
marc9000 writes:

Percy writes:

Your link's higher percentages of atheism are for those who are members of prestigious organizations like the National Academies of Science and Nobel prize winners and so forth, which represents less than 1% of all scientists. If you were talking about just the tiny group of top scientists then say so. In the general population of scientists more scientists believe in a personal God, just like you, than do not. And they do not find the search for natural answers atheistic.

That may be true of all scientific disciplines, but I don't think it's true of biology. I'll see if I can find some statistics on that in a few days.

http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Scientists_and_atheism

Most surveys about the subject are about "leading" scientists, but they're the ones who set the pace. It only makes sense that those who follow them, seek positions closer to them, are educated by them, are going to have the same worldview as them. It seems to be important for many others besides you to portray the general scientific community as being somehow different from leading scientists. It's not always convincing. As the last line in this link says;

quote:
As we compiled our findings, the NAS issued a booklet encouraging the teaching of evolution in public schools, an ongoing source of friction between the scientific community and some conservative Christians in the United States. The booklet assures readers, "Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral"[5]. NAS president Bruce Alberts said: "There are many very outstanding members of this academy who are very religious people, people who believe in evolution, many of them biologists." Our survey suggests otherwise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Percy, posted 03-28-2010 6:50 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Percy, posted 04-13-2010 9:00 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

marc9000
Member
Posts: 994
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 235 of 297 (555255)
04-12-2010 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Percy
03-28-2010 8:25 PM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
Percy writes:

marc9000 writes:

I'm new at EvC, but at another message board I had a lot of trouble finding a theistic evolutionist who was willing to answer basic questions about his/her Christian beliefs.

I believe Francis Collins has done that: The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief

I, too, believe in God, but I don't think my answers would interest you much because I'm not a Christian.

--Percy

I should have been more clear. I meant to say that I had a lot of trouble finding a theistic evolutionist who was willing to debate me on it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Percy, posted 03-28-2010 8:25 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

marc9000
Member
Posts: 994
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 236 of 297 (555259)
04-12-2010 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Otto Tellick
03-28-2010 7:35 PM


Re: Entrance Requirements - and (epic) Failed ID
Otto Tellick writes:

Hi marc. I noticed that in response to my request (which you quoted) for a description of an experiment that would support a design inference, you did not actually describe any sort of experiment. That request still stands, because you still haven't shown anything to back up your earlier assertion about how "ID ... can experiment and observe a subsequent ~design~ ...".

In case you're not familiar with how to describe an experiment: you begin by stating a particular prediction based on a chosen hypothesis; you then lay out a procedure for gathering specific observations that will provide the information needed to determine whether the prediction is right or wrong. {AbE: Note that this doesn't have to involve direct manipulations in a lab; describing any relevant set of real-world observations would suffice.} Have you ever seen any such procedure described (let alone actually carried out) with regard to a prediction based on ID? I haven't. That request is still open.

Keeping in mind that this thread isn’t about my single handedly showing proof that ID is science (not much chance of that since a)ID loses in courts, b) I have dozens of opponents in this thread, and c) I’m not a biologist. It’s about my claim that IF naturalistic abiogenesis is science, then ID is science. It should be possible to compare the two in a general way using basic “real-world observations” without going into a lot of scientific detail that no one but degreed biologists would be able to understand.

If you require a “particular prediction based on a chosen hypothesis”, you can’t really require something big or profound, like “the first life on earth was instantly created by a supernatural process/being that we can’t understand”, because abiogenesis proponents haven’t made any big, profound predictions, like “life on earth first came to be by unguided chemical processes”, because they haven’t come close to acquiring all the information needed to determine if that prediction is right or wrong, even after…..90 years of study in the public realm. So all you can really require of ID to be science is for it to make small (compartmentalized, if you will) studies and determinations comparable to what abiogensis studies have – see message 107 for examples. Real world studies and observations in ID would be to determine whether information in orderly, complex systems could lie dormant for long periods of time, or whether the information would have to be added close to the time when the system became operational. Remember (though obviously most naturalists would rather forget) that only recently, in mid-2001, the Human Genome Project and Celera Genomics jointly presented the true nature and complexity of the digital code inherent in DNA. We now understand that each human DNA molecule is comprised of chemical bases arranged in approximately 3 billion precise sequences. Even the DNA molecule for the single-celled bacterium, E. coli, contains enough information to fill all the books in any of the world's largest libraries. In Behe’s words, “Since the simplest possible design scenario posits a single cell –formed billions of years ago – that already contained all information to produce descendant organisms, studies could test this scenario by attempting to calculate how much DNA would be required to code the information (keeping in mind that much of the information might be implicit) lf DNA alone is insufficient, studies could be initiated to see if information could be stored in the cell in other ways – for example, as positional information. Other work could focus on whether larger, compound systems (containing two or more irreducibly complex systems) could have developed gradually or whether there are compounded irreducibilities.”

Behe has also said that “more and better informed questions will be generated as more and more scientists grow curious about design”. If students in the early stages of their educations aren’t introduced to design, or are introduced to discrimination if they pursue it in spite of that, naturally the thorough predictions and procedures you’re demanding aren’t going to happen overnight. It’s probably safe to say that Oparin (an abiogenesis scientist of the 1920’s) had nothing to do with the detail of abiogenesis as shown in message 107. It all came decades later, time never seems to be an issue with abiogenesis. Again, I’m not a biologist, but in my quick research of this little discussion, I know that biological research takes lots of time, and lots of people. Abiogeneis has had it, has needed it, and as I’ve proven in this thread, has never had any entrance requirements demanded of it. Yet ID has demands made of it RIGHT NOW!

Now I’m sure you can practically close your eyes and copy/paste scientific “refutations” of what I said above from thousands of atheist sites on the net. But in keeping with what I said above about not going into a lot of scientific detail that no one but degreed biologists would be able to understand, I would challenge you to make a convincing case that believers in ONLY blind, purposeless, happenstance processes are going to do as thorough a job of researching the INFORMATION contained in DNA to the extent that those who apply design to it. Those who aren’t politically afraid to acknowledge 21st century biology. “Information” is the key biological word. Do naturalists purposely avoid that word?

So, who (besides Demski) is saying that ID has gotten "off the ground"? Where are the peer-reviewed journal articles citing works by ID proponents as making notable contributions to biology or providing a basis for research? So far, ID proponents have only been publishing polemic books aimed at the general public (and only appreciated by the religious right); they haven't been reporting any research results.

The mere existence of the Dover trial alone and the associated publicity it received clearly shows that it’s off the ground. Whether or not something is off the ground in the real world is not completely dependent on what’s going on in the ivory towers of today’s universities. These forums and many others are loaded with discussions about it. Why would you imply that it's not off the ground?

On the contrary, the quick rise in public consciousness about ID is attributable to PR campaigns by ID proponents, pushing fundamentalist groups into a frenzy of activism directed at school boards and state legislatures.

That’s your opinion. In my opinion, the quick rise in public consciousness about ID is attributable to PR campaigns by atheist organizations on the internet, and the publication of dozens of scientific, atheist books. My opinion makes more sense in light of the documented rise during the 1990’s of atheism in the U.S. particularly among young people. Pushed by atheist groups, and their frenzy of activism directed at school boards and state legislatures.

Another source of publicity for ID, of course, has been the negative impact of the legal decisions that recognize the religious foundations of ID.

I agree, BECAUSE IT SO CLEARLY EXPOSES the atheistic control and foundations of evolution and abiogenesis.

In any case, the things that qualified biologists do, think, and understand have had nothing at all to do with the "rise and fall" of ID.

Why then, do there seem to be so many qualified biologists at message boards such as these who are so agitated by it?

This was an interesting snippet:

Demski writes:


quote:
Even efforts to overturn the various criteria for detecting design are welcome within the intelligent design research program. (That’s part of keeping the program honest.)

So how soon will an ID proponent be coming out with the book that accurately and honestly reviews the recent research results on blood clotting in the various species that lack certain of the components that made this process "irreducibly complex"? That research has been done, results are in, and the claims made by Behe have been refuted; now it's just a matter of ID authors getting around to the part about "keeping the program honest."

That’s an excellent demonstration of the enormity of the problem we have in science today. 21st century biology shows blood clotting to be far more complex than was thought in the 19th century. Someone points it out, and the current establishment, that embraces the simplicity of Darwinian naturalism, of blind, unguided processes, has to do dances to try to make it appear as simple as it was thought to be in earlier times. It exposes the hypocricy of those who claim that ID equals “goddidit, that explains it, stop looking” to the “nature did it, that explains it, stop looking” of Darwinists/atheists.

BTW, you didn't didn't say anything (or quote anything from Demski) to address my point about the difference between ID and other kinds of "design detection" -- let me recap: The point is that we need to know the physical properties and behaviors of a purported "designer" in order to establish an objective basis for concluding that something is designed by some entity for some purpose; without this, an IDer asserting a "design inference" is just making up a story about an unknowable "designer", and closing up shop on further investigation.

If SETI has nothing on the physical properties and behaviors of anyone from space who may send signals, why would ID need them? Some claim that abiogenesis is a process that is guided by the supernatural. Why doesn’t it need any properties? Because its study really is completely godless?

Otto Tellick writes:

marc9000 writes:

... you’ve just gone down a path that ignores the big picture. An acceptance of ID into science doesn’t mean a takeover of science by ID. The Wedge Document isn’t about force, it’s about voluntary acceptance, through common sense.

You've lost me there. How do the goals of the Wedge Document constitute "common sense"?

What I was saying is that they don’t constitute political force. They constitute a voluntary acceptance.

How does a strategy to promote a specific, sectarian religious view relate to any sort of "big picture" (as opposed to dogmatic tunnel-vision)?

ID is not a specific, sectarian religious view. It only seeks to scientifically study design possibilities, paths of biological information. As wide open as it can be - no tunnel-vision involved.

Otto Tellick writes:

marc9000 writes:

If ID claims it has a last word, a closing of the door on further research, it can’t prevent other people, other scientists in other labs, from doing more research. But an ID claim of a last word can provide a little more of a motive for godless scientists to do something with more time restrained, result oriented research.

The scientific community is, I'm sure, truly grateful for all that (even those scientists who are in fact not "godless"). But they were doing just fine before ID was "invented", and they would continue doing just fine without it.

I don’t see gratefulness at all from the scientific community, I see anger, and political action and attacks against ID proponents. It makes sense – they don’t particularly like motivation to produce more results, or alternate results from an agenda set by someone other than themselves, anymore than anyone else in a work force.

And they haven’t been doing just fine with abiogenesis – that one missing link they need to make godless evolution a complete package, and end religion as Harris, Stenger and Dawkins have been encouraging them to do for decades now. It has huge gaps, and, (as I referenced above) the 2001 Human Genome Project and Celera Genomics scientific discoveries have greatly increased those gaps.

Religion has been trying to do that for a few hundred years now, and on the whole, the less success religion has in that pursuit, the better off we are as a species.

That’s your worldview. I prefer the morality, financial stability, and standing in the world that the US had 50, or 100 years ago.

To quote another author on this forum: "we've tried ignorance, and it doesn't work."

Yes, now we have Obama.

If you yourself happen to be a fundamentalist Christian, then this implies that you, being also an ID proponent, cannot really convince yourself that ID is completely independent from your religion,

It’s no different than self-proclaimed atheists telling me that evolution and atheism are completely independent of each other. I don’t try to convince myself that my beliefs (ID and religion) are completely independent of each other, I don’t feel like I have too. One is personal, and one is (should be) public. Atheists seem like the ones who feel the need to convince themselves that atheism and evolution/abiogenesis are completely independent of each other. If ID is religious, then evolution is atheistic. They relate to each other in exactly the same way. ID can be promoted by the non religious (those who think mortals from space, from the past seeded the earth with life. Is that far-fetched? No more far-fetched than Richard-Dawkins-loving theistic evolutionists.

which means that your own assertion ("ID has nothing to do with creation or the Bible") would be either duplicity (i.e. lying) or some odd form of self-delusion.

It’s not a bit different from atheists claims that evolution has nothing to do with atheism. Their claim is that their atheism is personal, and evolution is science. If they can be separated, then ID can be separated from religion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Otto Tellick, posted 03-28-2010 7:35 PM Otto Tellick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by rockondon, posted 04-12-2010 11:15 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 242 by PaulK, posted 04-13-2010 2:46 AM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 246 by Otto Tellick, posted 04-14-2010 6:54 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

marc9000
Member
Posts: 994
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 237 of 297 (555260)
04-12-2010 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Huntard
03-29-2010 4:34 AM


Re: Theistic science?
Huntard writes:

marc9000 writes:

Human witness from the past fits the “sight” sense.

So, once they are all dead, no more evidence for the Holocaust, eh?

Uh, no. Written history, particularly corroborated with other writers, lives on indefinitely beyond the lives of its writers.

We present the evidence we have, it's not our fault god is nowhere to be found in the evidence.

That works, if you WORSHIP science, if you believe it's the only source of knowledge. My worldview tells me that written history is far more accurate than those who try to discredit it by looking through microscopes.

Huntard writes:

marc9000 writes:

Surely you’ve seen the ape-to-man picture (who hasn’t) that shows the progression of 8 or 9 gradual steps as a chimpanzee turns into a caveman.

An artists' rendition is not science.

Then why did I see it in a mid-sixties SCIENCE TEXTBOOK?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Huntard, posted 03-29-2010 4:34 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by dwise1, posted 04-12-2010 10:26 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 243 by Huntard, posted 04-13-2010 3:36 AM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 244 by anglagard, posted 04-13-2010 4:10 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

marc9000
Member
Posts: 994
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 238 of 297 (555269)
04-12-2010 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by RAZD
04-04-2010 9:02 PM


Re: Entrance Requirements - and (epic) Failed ID
Hi RAZD - not much time tonight, this ones going to be hasty - let me know if I missed something.

Are you now claiming that in order for abiogenesis to be a valid science that they need to prove precisely how life actually began?

Yes, because that’s an exact equal to the demands that are required of ID – who the designer is, exact explanations of the how and why of their experiments, etc.

This is moving the goal posts for a number of reasons.

It’s not moving goal posts – it’s holding abiogenesis to the same requirements that are required of ID.

One is that nothing is proven in science, the best we can get is tentative validity - concepts that are not invalidated by evidence and that have been rigorously tested to see if they can be invalidated. This is the highest level of validation for science. Abiogenesis has not reached this level of being so rigorously tested yet, however several other sciences have, including evolution.

But no science results in proofs. Not one.

Yet we often see claims that irreducible complexity has been “falsified”, or that it (or Behe) has been “refuted”. How can science be incapable of proof, yet capable of refutation? Refutation is “proof against” according to its dictionary definition.

Curiously, I have already discussed a number of predictions that are made by the hypothesis that life can arise from chemicals by natural processes.

But do fragmented predictions that are nowhere close to adding up to ONE theory be any more viable than the study of ID? ID can make many fragmented predictions – most of them that non-purposive, random events can’t explain absolutely everything in biology.

One of these is that we should be able to find self-replicating molecules.

Hundreds have been found (and ignoring them does not make them go away).

That is one validated "prediction or predictable type of outcome" that I have yet to see from ID.

There is probably nothing I could repeat from Behe's studies that you wouldn't claim they would have been discovered anyway.

Fascinatingly, having ideas does not make it science.

But it worked perfectly for abiogenesis to be accepted as science from the 1920’s until 1952, didn’t it? And there seems to be a lot of different opinions on just how much Miller/Urey actually accomplished.

RAZD writes:

marc9000 writes:

I know – searches for atheism. Time and rearrangement, with everything else ruled out.

Non-sequitur meaningly word salad. I have no idea what you mean.

It's a jolt, I know, I first introduced it in this thread in my message 211. There hasn't been much response to it by my many opponents.
Time and rearrangement – it’s all we know. Three spatial dimensions and one time dimension – not being able to accomplish, or directly comprehend in any way, our inability to create or destroy anything. Unless we thing we’re perfect little gods, we have to acknowledge that there very well could be other realms of reality.

Curiously, that has nothing to do with what was falsified. What was falsified was the concept that an Irreducibly Complex system could not arise by evolution but only by a supernatural cause.

Maybe some irreducibly complex systems, but not all of them.

RAZD writes:

marc9000 writes:

Naturalists can launch themselves down complex paths to show that it doesn’t matter and doesn’t affect the evolutionary process that they hold dear, but they can’t conceal their anger, or their desire to discard, and not teach, a fact of nature. Just because it’s provable to be applicable to existing biological systems so far, doesn’t mean it’s not biology.

LOL. Biologists can show that several systems that meet the definitional criteria of Irreducibly Complex systems have in fact evolved. They can also show substantial evidence for the evolutionary derivation of every system so far proposed as and IC system by the ID crowd, sufficient to show that these too could evolve through intermediate steps. Behe conceded this point at Dover.

Every one? Behe states that only in the past few decades science has unexpectedly discovered that most proteins in the cell actually work as teams of a half dozen or more. He quotes Bruce Alberts (former president of the NAS);

quote:
Instead of a cell dominated by randomly colliding individual protein molecules, we now know that nearly every major process in a cell is carried out by assemblies of 10 or more protein molecules. And, as it carries out its biological functions, each of these protein assemblies interacts with several other large complexes of proteins. Indeed, the entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines.

Who is more likely to study, repeat, be enthusiastic to their students about these findings, those stuck in the 1859 mentality of random, purposeless processes, or ID proponents?

One of the signs of cognitive dissonance is the use of conspiracy theory/ies to explain evidence that contradicts your world view/s.

That’s one of many things that goes both ways. ID is constantly called a religious conspiracy theory.

The question is whether or not you are willing to admit and accept that this means that opportunities were provided and neglected, ignored, by the ID proponents. It doesn't have a single thing to do with the politics, but it has everything to do with the failure of ID to ACTUALLY DO SCIENCE.

The concept of irreducible complexity, and many other questions/.challenges of Darwinism is doing science. It is part of the testability/falsification process. Behe and others have done that type of science.

RAZD writes:

marc9000 writes:

PUBLIC funding to do science. It was offered bait, and it had political reasons for not taking it. It’s a mousetrap thing – ID goes for the cheese, and the ACLU becomes the spring and the bar.

Your paranoid conspiracy world view is showing again.
And I repeat that not one (1) proposal was submitted, so the issue of politics in deciding which proposals to promote does not even arise.

Why wouldn’t it arise? Behe probably wishes he hadn’t yet introduced irreducible complexity because it could have been more convincing when combined with some type of future study. As it is now, if it’s re-introduced in an updated form, or combined with something else significant, a flurry of emotion from the scientific community (IT HAS ALREDY BEEN REFUTED) will quite likely shout down any new point it could make.

RAZD writes:

marc9000 writes:

Neither of these posters have challenged my responses so far. Do you have evidence to show that science seeks to prove evolution wrong? If not, why would you think it would seek to prove abiogenesis wrong?

Curiously, the fact that they (in your words) have not responded does not make your claim correct.

You are saying one of two things here, and I’d really like to know which one it is. Are you saying that they have responded, and I’m not acknowledging it? Or are you saying that if I make a point that large number of opponents can’t refute, that it still means nothing? If it’s the former, I’d like you to reference where they showed it. If it’s the latter……it’s yet another example of how one worldview dominates science, and refuses to concede valid points.

If you cannot understand such simple facts, then debate with you is like talking to a brick wall.

Well, you have a few important questions to answer from this post, mainly, how can science not be capable of proving, yet be capable of refuting? And, why is it that when I make a point that no one refutes, it still means nothing to you? I've accomplished 90% of what this thread was intended for. No one can show any defined entrance requirements that abiogenesis was required to meet to become science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by RAZD, posted 04-04-2010 9:02 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by RAZD, posted 04-12-2010 10:33 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

dwise1
Member
Posts: 3490
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 239 of 297 (555270)
04-12-2010 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by marc9000
04-12-2010 9:28 PM


Re: Theistic science?
Then why did I see it in a mid-sixties SCIENCE TEXTBOOK?

Science textbooks, especially for the primary and secondary grades, are, with few exceptions, not written by scientists, but rather by professional textbook writers working for textbook publishers. They often don't really know what they're talking about.

I remember a series of articles in the mid/late 80's by William J. Bennetta (later of The Textbook League). The state of California was considering new biology textbooks, so Bennetta recruited a panel of scientists to review the candidates. They found none of the books to be acceptable; they were full of errors, inaccuracies, and misconceptions. They presented a long list of necessary corrections that needed to be applied to the least terrible choice before it could start to come close to being acceptable. The publisher made a few of the corrections and then the board went behind the scientists' backs and approved the still-unacceptable textbook.

Creationist tactics post-AK/LA shifted to pressuring and controlling local school boards and to pressuring textbook publishers, but that's nothing new. After their "monkey laws" victory in the mid-1920's, they did the exact same things in the states where they didn't have those laws. And it was Arkansas' (one of the four "monkey law" states) adoption in the 1960's of a biology textbook actually written by scientists which forced teacher Susan Epperson to file her lawsuit that let to the striking down of the "monkey laws" and set the "creation science" deception into motion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by marc9000, posted 04-12-2010 9:28 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19869
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 240 of 297 (555272)
04-12-2010 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by marc9000
04-12-2010 10:23 PM


Re: Entrance Requirements - and (epic) Failed ID
Hi marc9000, sorry if I am losing interest in what appears to me as paranoid delusions devoid of substantiation.

Maybe some irreducibly complex systems, but not all of them.

One (1) is all it takes. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand science.

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 238 by marc9000, posted 04-12-2010 10:23 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
1415
16
17181920Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019