Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   abiogenesis
rockondon
Member (Idle past 4925 days)
Posts: 40
Joined: 03-29-2010


(1)
Message 241 of 297 (555277)
04-12-2010 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by marc9000
04-12-2010 9:15 PM


Re: Entrance Requirements - and (epic) Failed ID
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?
Naturalists don't avoid that word, they simply ask what it means and are ignored when they do so. If you find a definition somewhere, please share it with us. I've never seen a creationist define what they mean by "information," and this is surely done intentionally to avoid being refuted.
Its kind of like this:
Creationist: I don't think cars exists because car manufacturers are incapable of producing frammerbubble.
Evolutionist: What's frammerbubble?
Creationist: I'm not telling. But until you prove to me that car manufacturers can make it, then that proves that cars don't exist.
We can observe new genes, new genotypes, new phenotypes, new traits, additional genetic variety, novel genetic material, novel genetically-regulated abilities, and additional genetic material being formed so however you wish to define it, 'new information' is definitely being formed.
I’m sure you can practically close your eyes and copy/paste scientific refutations of what I said above from thousands of atheist sites... PR campaigns by atheist organizations... Pushed by atheist groups, and their frenzy of activism directed at school boards and state legislatures...Darwinists/atheists...It’s no different than self-proclaimed atheists...Atheists seem like the ones who feel the need to convince themselves that atheism and...It’s not a bit different from atheists claims that...Their claim is that their atheism is personal...
My goodness...whine about atheists much?
Your arguments against evolution read like this: evolution is wrong because....uh...well...I hate atheists waaaahhhhh!!!
Its amusing to see your attempts to connect evolution with atheism, considering that the Catholic church implicitly accepts evolution. Do you feel that Catholics are atheists? The guy you like to quote, Michael Behe, accepts common descent and agrees that humans descended from other primates - do you feel that Behe is an atheist?
Those were rhetorical questions btw.
Lets have a thought experiment. Here's a picture from an anti-evolution website:

Even they admit the order shown in the fossil record reveals a trend of increasing complexity from simple creatures to complex mammals.
The Geological Column
So our thought experiment is this: we are acknowledging the increasing complexity in the fossil record and we are assuming that 'information' does NOT increase.
Now when we look at the fossil record, we see that the earliest life were prokaryotic cells (very simple cells) and these were followed by eukaryotic cells (more complex cells) and although no new information was gained, this still somehow led to multicellular animals, followed by shell-bearing animals, then vertebrates, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals.
What we have now determined is, after assuming that 'information' is not gained by mutations, life still changes over time regardless, as shown by a trend of increasing complexity through the fossil record. In other words, evolution does occur regardless of whether or not information/frammerbubble is increased.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by marc9000, posted 04-12-2010 9:15 PM marc9000 has not replied

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


(2)
Message 242 of 297 (555301)
04-13-2010 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by marc9000
04-12-2010 9:15 PM


Re: Entrance Requirements - and (epic) Failed ID
quote:
It’s about my claim that IF naturalistic abiogenesis is science, then ID is science.
And so far you seem unable to back up that claim. At present abiogenesis has a large body of ongoing research. ID has virtually nothing. It doesn't even seem to be up to the level of Oparin's work.
quote:
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.
And it is somewhat fatal to your case that this has not yet been done. And there is no sign that it ever will be done.
quote:
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.
If you mean Behe's idea of front-loading, genes that serve no function will be disabled by neutral drift (as the human gene for synthesising vitamin C has been). This work has already been done by evolutionary scientists.
quote:
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?
So the fact that a Christian group encourages Christians on a school board to support ID on religious grounds somehow "shows" that ID is scientific ? Surely it shows that ID is in fact primarily a religious apologetic which pretends to be science to get around the Constitutional barriers. A pretence that was exposed in the court.
quote:
Why then, do there seem to be so many qualified biologists at message boards such as these who are so agitated by it?
Because they object to the dishonesty and the hate flowing from the ID side ? Because they want the children of their nation to receive a good scientific education, not one manipulated to serve religious groups ?
There are a lot more errors in your post (for instance your gross misrepresentation of the blood clotting dispute) but this is enough.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by marc9000, posted 04-12-2010 9:15 PM marc9000 has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 243 of 297 (555306)
04-13-2010 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by marc9000
04-12-2010 9:28 PM


Re: Theistic science?
marc9000 writes:
Uh, no. Written history, particularly corroborated with other writers, lives on indefinitely beyond the lives of its writers.
Ok. Just wanted to clear that up. So, you agree that we don't need witnesses alive or actually having witnessed something to know it has occurred, thank you.
That works, if you WORSHIP science, if you believe it's the only source of knowledge.
I don't worship science. Science however is the only thing I've seen that produces reliable results.
My worldview tells me that written history is far more accurate than those who try to discredit it by looking through microscopes.
So, if someone had written "the flu is caused by demons, and it's cure is an excorsism", and this is then accepted as fact, and is corroboratred by more writings, men looking through microscopes to find out that it's actually a virus are completely wrong? You have a strange worldview.
Then why did I see it in a mid-sixties SCIENCE TEXTBOOK?
1) Because, apparently, you are old.
2) See dwise1's Message 239

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

anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 244 of 297 (555310)
04-13-2010 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by marc9000
04-12-2010 9:28 PM


Personal Accounts don't Trump Direct Evidence
marc9000 writes:
Uh, no. Written history, particularly corroborated with other writers, lives on indefinitely beyond the lives of its writers.
Yeah sure, unless religious nuts burn it. Does the Library at Alexandria after four such pillages, still have all the extant works of Aeschylus, Sophocles, or Euripides? Complete works of any pre-Socratic Greek philosopher like Parminides or Heraclitus. What of the history of Suetonius? Indeed what of the Roman Chronicles? Do we have all but six of the Mayan Codex's?
Yet we know of their works, as in way too many others, through a casual and vastly incomplete mention in other sources.
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.
History as more accurate than observation? Not only is it at least 90% incomplete, but what little was allowed to last is also horribly inaccurate. But don't take my word for it, just show us the gold hoarding ants, the flying snakes, and the Sun driven by chariots of Herodotus. Or perhaps a post Christian version of people turning into bears and owls at night as in Froissart.
Don't forget the witchcraft.
Yes please go ahead and impress all scientists with the infallibility of all historic accounts.
Then why did I see it in a mid-sixties SCIENCE TEXTBOOK?
Most likely it was the Time-Life chart of evolution first published in 1966 (?) and republished in 1972.
Have you considered a more recent version of the straw man? Oh, that's right, history is absolute even with leeches and Zeus, while science is always wrong, despite moon landings and nuclear power.
You are lucky I did not show this post to my daughter, a direct descendant of Freyr, according to history, as she would call for Thor, Freyr's brother, to strike you down with lightning for your heresy - that is if she wasn't too busy studying chemistry, biology, English and anthropology as truly befits a student of truth.
Edited by anglagard, : last line after dash.

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman Rushdie
This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

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

Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 245 of 297 (555357)
04-13-2010 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by marc9000
04-12-2010 8:09 PM


Re: Level ONE comparison: abiogenesis yes, ID unknown
Hi Marc9000!
As rebuttal to my claim that in the general population of scientists more believe in God than not, you cited a study of top scientists. To rebut my claim you need a study of the general population of scientists.
What you said back in Message 188 was, "90+ percent of [scientists] oppose religion or 'fundamentalist Christianity'"? Your "90+" figure is wrong, and not "not believing in a personal God" is not synonymous with "opposing religion or fundamentalist Christianity."
Rejection by science of supernatural theories of abiogenesis is because science only considers natural solutions. Less than 1% of scientists are creationists, and so this means that the 50% (or thereabouts) of scientists who are religious also reject supernatural solutions in science.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by marc9000, posted 04-12-2010 8:09 PM marc9000 has not replied

Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


(2)
Message 246 of 297 (555552)
04-14-2010 6:54 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by marc9000
04-12-2010 9:15 PM


Re: Entrance Requirements - and (epic) Failed ID
marc9000 writes:
... It’s about my claim that IF naturalistic abiogenesis is science, then ID is science...
Ah, okay. This means you are backing off from your previous claim ("ID ... can experiment and observe a subsequent ~design~ ..."), because you can't support it. As for this "fallback" claim, you're still going to have trouble backing that up, because there are no experiments (predictions followed by observation) that can support ID assertions, whereas there are experiments that can support hypotheses about the mechanics of abiogenesis -- it's just a matter of time.
... 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... Information is the key biological word. Do naturalists purposely avoid that word?
That's easy. To start with, "purpose" has nothing to do with the matter, "blind" simply reflects the absence of a predetermined objective, and "happenstance" (i.e. random) processes amount to "causes too varied and complex for us to understand at present". The point of sincere scientific inquiry is to reduce the range of phenomena that fall under the label of "happenstance", and to understand the causes in ever increasing detail. That doesn't happen unless you do a thorough (and sustained) job of research, in whatever field. And that is what ID is intended to avoid.
As for "INFORMATION contained in DNA", I'm not a biologist either, but it seems to me that this is a large part of what qualified biologists talk about; the difference between them and ID proponents is that the biologists actually define what they mean when they use the term -- indeed, if you think biologists shun the word "information", it's because they prefer to use other terms instead, which don't suffer from the ambiguity that ID proponents exploit (or trip over) so persistently when they try to talk about "information" in DNA.
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...
Quite the contrary. Scientific books are not "atheist" books -- they are about science, not about religion -- and the vast majority of them simply never mention ID, because ID is irrelevant to their content. As for the competing PR campaigns, let's not forget who started the competition: first, ID was asserted and marketed (as a result of "creation science" being barred from public science education in the U.S.), then the effort against ID was required, because ID was deliberately pursuing the same trajectory as "creation science", with the same religiously-based goals.
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.
Ah, okay. So you really were not trying to convince yourself when you said "ID has nothing to do with creation or the Bible" -- rest assured, you weren't convincing anyone else, either.
One is personal, and one is (should be) public.
Um... which is which? I wonder, because you make religion such a central part of your "public" persona.
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.
Well, in the case of evolution and atheism, the former is amenable to objective observation that can confirm or falsify the predictions and hypotheses that derive from the theory, whereas this is generally not the case for atheism (except to the extent that atheism is a conclusion based on the evidence that religious beliefs are demonstrably in error). Meanwhile, in the case of ID and religion, neither is amenable to support from objective observation. So there is that difference.
Edited by Otto Tellick, : grammar repair in 3rd paragraph

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by marc9000, posted 04-12-2010 9:15 PM marc9000 has not replied

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 247 of 297 (555864)
04-15-2010 7:21 PM


From my message 56;
I’ll announce it when I’m finished posting in this thread.
The time has come. All closing insults are welcome.

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Iblis, posted 04-15-2010 8:02 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 249 by RAZD, posted 04-15-2010 9:59 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 250 by Admin, posted 04-16-2010 6:06 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 251 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-16-2010 7:31 AM marc9000 has not replied

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


(1)
Message 248 of 297 (555868)
04-15-2010 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by marc9000
04-15-2010 7:21 PM


not science
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.
I was glad to see that you did sort of get the point of that post. Prior to this the best you had come up with is "unfalsifiable", which was a bit silly because I had summed up two conflicting base theories, one of which must eat the others, and also an example which is most likely already falsified, along with what falsified it. I will come right back to this.
But yes, you do get it, for ID to climb out of the hole dug for it at Dover it will need to be able to produce some real studies, genuine experiments, results that support some views and results that refute some views. That's right, in order to actually be science it will have to be wrong about things, to argue with itself, to represent a genuine determination to find the truth rather than a group of odd factoids thrown together to support a metaphysical view.
You were moving in the right direction when you started touching on junk DNA. Oh, you got stomped, don't get me wrong, but my point is that that's the sort of thing that needs some work, and that work might be productive to your world view. Or, the results might totally refute your worldview! Those are the breaks, with science you punch your ride and take your chances.
And that's why ID proponentsists can't actually do any science, it is MUCH too risky. Imagine the hell a fellow might get sent to for being the one to prove that all that unused DNA is actually our fur, tails, gills, front legs, antennae, stem, and flowers. WOOPS!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by marc9000, posted 04-15-2010 7:21 PM marc9000 has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 249 of 297 (555877)
04-15-2010 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by marc9000
04-15-2010 7:21 PM


Summary
Hi Marc,
From my message 56;
I’ll announce it when I’m finished posting in this thread.
The time has come. All closing insults are welcome.
It is normal to close threads with summaries from the various parties. This allows people to go to the end of closed threads to see how they turned out (helps prevent going down old rabbit holes time and again).
The protocol is that no replies are made to summaries, as anything you have to say (a) should already have been said, and (b) should be in your summary.
In that regard the following is my summary:
marc9000 started this thread (see Message 1) with a number of assertions, and added some in following posts, these included:
  1. abiogenesis does not qualify as science, at least not compared to other sciences and the modern usage of the term science,
  2. ID qualifies as science just as much as abiogenesis does, but
  3. the definition of science has been changed to keep ID out, and
  4. this was done after abiogenesis was accepted as science.
  5. ID can't get a foot in the door because of lack of funding and academic support.
There were others, but these are the mains ones that I have focused on in my replies.
To establish the validity of these claims, I started with a definition of science from wikipedia, and suggested that we start by using the broadest most generous definition of science provided, see if both abiogenesis and ID meet this criteria, and then move to more restricted technical definitions to see where the first one failed to meet a criteria that the other passed.
Thus I started with a broad simple general definition of science:
Message 73: Do you want to start with the broader sense and see how they apply to ID and abiogenesis?
Science (general): any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome.
Is that a good starting point?
For instance, the scientific approach to abiogenesis would hypothesize that if this occurred through natural chemical reaction, that then we should be able to form self-replicating molecules, and if we can't form self-replicating molecules that then abiogenesis could be falsified.
Abiogenesis fits the broader definition of science: do you have a similar testable prediction based on ID?
This was acknowledged in Message 93:
So the study of abiogenesis that I'm seeing so far here falls under your one-sentence description in your message 73;
quote:
Science (general): any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome.
So far claim (1) has not been validated, but we still need to work up the scale of definitions to be applied.
Unfortunately, no such evidence for ID meeting this basic level of science was provided. The closest was a claim that ID made a prediction that came true. This ID prediction can be found on this site:
Intelligent Design and the Death of the "Junk-DNA" Neo-Darwinian Paradigm
Sadly, researching this claim (see Message 136) showed that it was not a prediction made by an ID proponent, but one borrowed by one from existing literature, and propped up to appear to be a prediction based on an ID concept.
In other words, Dembski is NOT making a prediction at all. In 1998 he already knew that science (the real science) was finding some use for it. It gets worse.
In other words, real scientists in published journals were predicting use for this DNA in 1994 ... just about the time Mims got on the bandwagon ... now let's look at Mims' "prediction" ...
Gosh, there is that very same paper by non-ID scientists being cited as the basis for his "prediction" -- can you say BOGUS? Can you say FOWNIE? How about PHAQUE?
And this was the only prediction put on the table, none others seem to qualify.
Thus abiogenesis passed the first level definition and ID did not.
Claim (2) that ID qualifies as science as much as abiogenesis does, is therefore falsified.
Then we turn to early definitions of science to see if they would have allowed ID to be classified as science and to show that the definition had changed to keep ID out.
Message 125: Here is what I found for an old definition of science (my bold for emphasis):
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=sc...
quote:
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)
Sci"ence (?), n. [F., fr. L. scientia, fr. sciens, -entis, p.pr. of scire to know. Cf. Conscience, Conscious, Nice.] ...
We put (2) and (3) together and we get:
science: Accumulated and established knowledge, which has been systematized and formulated with reference to the discovery of general truths or the operation of general laws; such knowledge when it relates to the physical world and its phenomena, the nature, constitution, and forces of matter, the qualities and function of living tissues, etc.; -- called also natural science, and physical science.
Curiously, I do not find that significantly different from Message 73 ...
The above site also provides the 1828 definition of science ...
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=sc...
quote:
SCI''ENCE, n. [L. scientia, from scio, to know.] ...
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.
When we look at the modern Webster definition we see:
Science Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
quote:
science ...
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
The only real difference between this and the 1828 definition above is the substitution of the scientific method for experiment and observation, and the replacement of natural philosophy with natural science.
You will note that the 1828 definition pre-dates Darwin, so we could legitimately claim that the definition of science has been changed to make it more difficult for evolution to meet the requirements. What we do see is that the definition of science has changed, but there is no evidence that this change is not applied across the board to all existing sciences: there is no evidence that a single science has been "grandfathered" in any way.
ID never met any definition of science, and the changes that have been incorporated apply to all science being conducted today. There is no evidence that any change was made to the definition of science in order to keep ID out.
Claim (3) has therefore been falsified.
The time frame when abiogenesis "became" a science is set by the Miller-Urey experiments as the earliest documented science in this field.
Message 233: 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.
Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia
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. ...
The experiment used water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), and hydrogen (H2). ...
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. ...
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.
This falls well after the 1913 date for the first definition given above, that is slightly more restrictive than the broad definition from wikipedia that we started with. If anything it is a little more technical than the broad definition with the inclusion of the scientific method. This compares to the "more restrictive" definition from wikipedia:
Those criteria have also not changed significantly during the rise of ID and it's adaptation into religious thought in the intervening time.
...
Science - Wikipedia
quote:
Message 11: In its more restricted contemporary sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, and to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.[2][3] ...
The study of abiogenesis fits this more restrictive usage of the term science. It is possible for any concept to fit this restrictive definition, as all that is required is that it be done by a systematic process of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, and the organization of the body of knowledge gained through such research.
So abiogenesis met the criteria from 1913 that predates the formal beginning of scientific study of abiogenesis, and the criteria has not changed significantly between 1913 and modern times.
Claim (4) is therefore invalidated.
Finally we looked at the availability of funding and support for ID research.
Message 149: As for funding, try this little piece of news:
Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker
quote:
The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research.
"They never came in," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned.
"From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said.
There's your funding, available and ready to be used ... nobody applied to use it to actually do something scientific with it.
Opportunity not taken, so it's not the fault of secular science that ID has not done any real science yet, it is the failure of the ID people to do science.
There are a lot of evangelical colleges and places that could also provide funding, but it seems ID can't convince religious schools either (from the same article):
quote:
The only university where intelligent design has gained a major institutional foothold is a seminary. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., created a Center for Science and Theology for William A. Dembski, a leading proponent of intelligent design, after he left Baylor, a Baptist university in Texas, amid protests by faculty members opposed to teaching it.
Intelligent design and Mr. Dembski, a philosopher and mathematician, should have been a good fit for Baylor, which says its mission is "advancing the frontiers of knowledge while cultivating a Christian world view." But Baylor, like many evangelical universities, has many scholars who see no contradiction in believing in God and evolution.
This was discussed on ID Failing--at Christian Institutions. If ID can't convince religious schools that it's science, how can you expect secular universities to do so?
Grant money available from ID friendly institutions not used. Not one proposal was submitted for evaluation.
Claim (5) is thereby invalidated.
It's not a matter of ID not being allowed to do science, it is about ID's epic failure to do science even though opportunities have been provided.
That pretty well covers the basic issues raised and refuted.
With no new evidence that would alter any of these assertions being invalidated, then I agree with marc9000 that it is time to close this thread.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : add
Edited by RAZD, : ...

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 247 by marc9000, posted 04-15-2010 7:21 PM marc9000 has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 250 of 297 (555910)
04-16-2010 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by marc9000
04-15-2010 7:21 PM


Thread Remaining Open
marc9000 writes:
From my message 56;
I’ll announce it when I’m finished posting in this thread.
The time has come. All closing insults are welcome.
You're not a moderator, you do not make these decisions. If you do not wish to participate in this thread any more then that's fine.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by marc9000, posted 04-15-2010 7:21 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by marc9000, posted 04-16-2010 5:36 PM Admin has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 251 of 297 (555919)
04-16-2010 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by marc9000
04-15-2010 7:21 PM


The time has come. All closing insults are welcome.
Why would I bother? You're being wrong on other threads. I'll mock you there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by marc9000, posted 04-15-2010 7:21 PM marc9000 has not replied

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 252 of 297 (556012)
04-16-2010 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Admin
04-16-2010 6:06 AM


Re: Thread Remaining Open
You're not a moderator, you do not make these decisions. If you do not wish to participate in this thread any more then that's fine.
That’s all I was saying — since there were often spaces of several days, or even a couple of weeks between my posts, In keeping with my announcement in message 56 I just felt that it’s respectful to my opponents to not keep them guessing for long periods of time whether or not I’d continue in the thread.
I can do a summary (as RAZD described at the beginning of his message 249) if it would be best. Or I can just let it go. You make the call.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Admin, posted 04-16-2010 6:06 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Admin, posted 04-17-2010 8:55 AM marc9000 has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 253 of 297 (556097)
04-17-2010 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by marc9000
04-16-2010 5:36 PM


Re: Thread Remaining Open
The only constraints on what you post in this thread are expressed in the Forum Guidelines. If you'd like to post a summary and withdraw that's fine. If you later change your mind and come back that's also fine. You can also request that moderators begin the thread closure process, but for this thread that feels premature to me. The disconnect in views on the scientific nature of abiogenesis seem reconcilable to me.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by marc9000, posted 04-16-2010 5:36 PM marc9000 has not replied

marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 254 of 297 (556293)
04-18-2010 8:24 PM


RAZD writes:
It is normal to close threads with summaries from the various parties.
admin writes:
If you'd like to post a summary and withdraw that's fine.
That’s what I’ll do.
I started this thread with one assertion, that if abiogenesis is science, then ID (Intelligent Design) is science. (abiogenesis being the study of naturalistic origin of life from non-life by chemical processes over long periods of time, and Intelligent Design being the study of signs of design in biological structures) In the current scientific realm, abiogenesis has been studied as science for over a century, dating back to the beginning time of evolution (Darwinism) It’s thought of by many as a precursor to evolution, since evolution starts with a basic form of life.
One of the most thorough and consistent of my 24 opponents (RAZD) put forward the following broad definition of what science is;
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.
It couldn’t be kept in such a brief paragraph however, the words testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable kept coming up by posters other than myself, and there is always the very reasonable open inquiry assertion that science should have.
My messages 236 & 238 culminated my previous unanswered points in this thread about how ID has been the only subject to be politically held to defined entrance requirements unlike any other recent studies that have been proposed as science, like SETI, or abiogenesis as it practiced today, and has been for the past century or so. Only 100/150 years ago, the cell was thought to be a simple lump of protoplasm. Message 236 (with its reference to the 3 billion precise sequences) shows how much things can change in science.
It was at that point in the thread that the responses to me indicated that there’s little point in my continuation. A few of the highlights;
*RAZD, one of my more consistent opponents, claimed that he lost interest, not because of what I said in messages 236/238, but because of his assessment of my "paranoia", and lack of "understanding".
*Then a first-time poster in the thread, (message 241) did not know what the word information means, and indicated that it was all my fault, and all my responsibility to correct his problem.
*Then in message 246, we find this;
you make religion such a central part of your "public" persona.
This isn’t a statement about the subject we’re discussing, it’s about my personal faith being a foundation of my assertions. False of course, anyone familiar with this thread knows that it’s not central for me to make assertions based only on a personal faith. None of my other opponents will correct him of course — it’s more important for them to be silent about it because they’re on his 'side'. As we now see more and more new posters to this thread, they’re quite likely to see his false statement, and attack me for it. The gang-style shouting down process does tend to get ridiculous after a while, that’s why this summary will be my last post in this thread.
Science can and should make changes or additions as it makes new discoveries. In keeping with open inquiry, it shouldn’t be too hasty to close old doors, but it should be quick to open new ones. Recent scientific discoveries [Human Genome Project and Celera Genomics]about the simplest forms of life shouldn’t necessarily close the abiogenesis door, but have IMO shown today’s speculation of chemical abiogenesis to be as obsolete as yesterday’s ‘spontaneous’ abiogenesis was shown to be obsolete by Louis Pasteur. It’s a whole new scientific ballgame today considering recent discoveries of the simplest forms of life. But compared to 100/150 years ago when abiogenesis got its free entrance into public scientific study, it’s a whole new political ballgame today also. Todays scientific community is a milti-million dollar special interest political machine. It will continue to claim an association/lack of conflict with religion, while simultaneously marching forward to destroy it. It’s been going on for decades and nothing’s going to change anytime soon. Some scientific facts being kept hidden, and other areas of exploration going unexplored, is part of that unfortunate process. That’s what I did my best to get at throughout the thread, and it’s the reason I started it.
I have no opinion on whether or not this thread should be closed.

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Huntard, posted 04-19-2010 7:44 AM marc9000 has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


(1)
Message 255 of 297 (556324)
04-19-2010 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by marc9000
04-18-2010 8:24 PM


marc9000 writes:
*Then in message 246, we find this;
you make religion such a central part of your "public" persona.
This isn’t a statement about the subject we’re discussing, it’s about my personal faith being a foundation of my assertions. False of course, anyone familiar with this thread knows that it’s not central for me to make assertions based only on a personal faith.
Actually, it is central. All you've said so far about ID and abiogenesis shows this to be the case. More on this later.
None of my other opponents will correct him of course — it’s more important for them to be silent about it because they’re on his 'side'.
The reason I don't "correct" him is because I agree with him. If he were wrong in my oppinion, I would point it out.
Science can and should make changes or additions as it makes new discoveries. In keeping with open inquiry, it shouldn’t be too hasty to close old doors, but it should be quick to open new ones.
I completely agree.
Recent scientific discoveries [Human Genome Project and Celera Genomics]about the simplest forms of life...
Did you just say the human genome project was about "the simples forms of life"? Guess you did.
...shouldn’t necessarily close the abiogenesis door, but have IMO shown today’s speculation of chemical abiogenesis to be as obsolete as yesterday’s ‘spontaneous’ abiogenesis was shown to be obsolete by Louis Pasteur.
You've made a couple of mistakes here that were pointed out to you upthread were wrong, yet you still use them. First of all, nobody is saying the first life was anywhere near as complex as what we see today, and second, Pasteur didn't investigate "spontaneous abiogenesis", but spontaneous generation of modern lifeforms (maggots from rotting meat, for example). This has nothing to do with abiogenesis.
It’s a whole new scientific ballgame today considering recent discoveries of the simplest forms of life.
The discovery of regarding the simplest forms of life have no impact on abiogenesis whasoever, they're there for evolution to explain, which it idoes.
Todays scientific community is a milti-million dollar special interest political machine.
That's simply not true. The scientific community deals with science, not with politics. Individual scientists might deal with politics, but that's on their personal behalf, and not on behalf of the "scientific community" of whom a majority are religious.
It will continue to claim an association/lack of conflict with religion, while simultaneously marching forward to destroy it.
It's not science's fault a litteral interpretation of the bible is not supported by the real world. It does not "destroy religion" it destroys narrow views of some "holy" texts. It's statements like these last few that clearly show how central your religious views are to your worldview.
t’s been going on for decades and nothing’s going to change anytime soon. Some scientific facts being kept hidden...
No facts remain hidden, even if someone were to attampt to hide them, they would soon be found out.
...and other areas of exploration going unexplored, is part of that unfortunate process.
There are only limited funds available, you know.
hat’s what I did my best to get at throughout the thread, and it’s the reason I started it.
And yet you were unable to do just that. Ah well, thanks for trying anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by marc9000, posted 04-18-2010 8:24 PM marc9000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 09-16-2011 1:16 AM Huntard 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