quote:How about you start by presenting the evidence for your "divine guidance" and showing that it is equivalent to that fro natural selection ? Because obviously you already have that all worked out to back up the accusation of double standards in the OP. Really I'm amazed that it wasn't in the OP, because it should have been.
One starting point would be a quote from Paul Davies THE MIND OF GOD, P.16 of Preface.
I belong to the group of scientists who do not subscribe to a conventional religion but nevertheless deny that the universe is a purposeless accident. Through my scientific work I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as a brute fact.There must, it seems to me, be a deeper level of explanation. Whether one wishes to call that deeper level 'God' is a matter of taste and definition.
quote:Theoretical physicists work hand-in-hand with experimental physicists, like surgeons work hand-in hand with ER physicians. They're two different specialties, neither of which could function without the other.
quote:As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jones's opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover, about half way down the page.
You got anything else?
I am not sure what you are saying in this post. Do you belive that Judge Jones is stating that Behe is a creationist? He merely states that in his opinion ID is a religious proposition. This does not make Behe a creationist except in the eyes of those who refuse to recognize the difference between fundamental creationist and people who may belive in religion and ID.
I also assume that you belive the last work on science is in the purview of a Federal District Court judge. I can't accept that assumption, too many of them are wrong.
quote:So you think Davies' beliefs and astonishment about the Universe constitute evidence about biological evolution?
If this was anything other than his argument from incredulity you should expect him to provide references to the actual experiments or observations he made and the conclusions that provide "a deeper level of explanation" that have been published in scientific journals.
A scientist's personal opinions about some hypothetical deeper meaning for the Universe, for which there is no physical evidence, has no more validity than anyone else's.
He is right, the Universe is an amazing thing, but there is not one shred of evidence that it is the result of anything but natural processes.
I do not see how this has anything to do with whether evolution and natural selection are guided by god or not.
Davies states, inter alia, "through my scientific work I have come to believe... This leads me to belive that his scientific work has formed the opinions he expressed. If you read his book you will see that he does provide references to his opinons. In re evolution and God and his opinions, It is impossible to genuinely study and express opinions on evolution unless you address the Origin of Life, . It has been my experience in my readings that biological scientists refuse to address the origin of life as if it is immaterial. The origin of life is where design is illustrated such as in the information in the DNA & how it came to be.
quote: simply asked you what creationist research into the origin of life would look like. I am perfectly capable of deciding on my own if the procedures you describe in answer to this question constitute science.
I would refer you to Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer especially his DNA information work.
quote:As others have pointed out the scientists are correct. We do not try to work out the processes occurring today by speculating on origins - instead we rely on present-day observations.
That is why I have trouble understanding why biological science refuses to entertain the thought that a supernatural being began all that we know of nature and the universe, ie. that it was designed.
Scientists presume that natural selection is the prime moving cause of evolution. How can you prove that if you do not prove how life originated. And if you cannot prove a natural cause for life, then what is left is a designed cause by a supernatural being. God.
Instead science, according to Eugenia Scott, precludes involving any nonnaturalistic or non material causes to explain the features of the natural world.
So science eliminates anything but natural causes, and cannot provide a realistic theory for the origin of life.
ID, in my reading, states that when you try to prove the orgin of life, ie. for ex. information in the cell and how it could have evolved by natural slection, you have reached an impasse. Then ID uses probabilities to reach the conclusion that design is the only valid answer. That being a supernatural being.
I just read a debate by Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins. I am wondering if any of you hold the opinion that Collins is a Creationist?
quote:Are you under the impression that Francis Collins supports Intelligent Design?
Here is a quote from the debate, you tell me.
..."Because I do believe in God's creative power in having brought it all into being in the first place, I find that studying the natural world is an opportunity to observe the majesty, the elegance, the intricacy of God's creation."
From Dawkins-Collins debate by Time in Nov. 2006
Those are my beliefs, and why I am of the opinion that Id is judged by a different standard.
quote:However, I disagree with you here. We already have the ground rules for scientific inquiry. They are well known and easy to find.
1: Observation/Question 2: Hypothesis/Prediction 3: Experiment 4: Conclusion (tentative) 5: Publication/Peer Review 6: Repetition and if that repetition continually provides the same conclusion, 7: Consensus (still tentative, but less so as evidence accumulates).
Now one could spend a lifetime finessing that definition of the scientific method (and indeed, philosophers of science do just that) but those are, more or less, the ground rules. ID fails to meet just about every one of them. Here is how ID functions;
1: Conclusion; Jesus loves you (not tentative). 2: Observation; Gee, lots of stuff is really complex! 3: Conclusion; See 1. 4: Publication; Popular press only. Peer review is such a pest! 5; Conclusion; Still the same as 1.
For ID to be taken seriously, it must adhere to the scientific method. It doesn't so it isn't. It really is that simple. Anyone who disagrees should provide details of those ID experiments and peer reviewed publications that directly address design
I will try to give you all my best understanding of what Michael Behe's theory as set out in EDGE OF EVOLUTION. But please remember I am not a scientist.
1. Observation/ Question Natural slection acting on random mutation cannot account for the molecular underlying resistance to malaria by humans, or resistance to antibiotics by the malarial parasite
The only way to understand what random mutation and natural selection can actually do is to follow changes at the molecular level, knowing as we do that varaition in organisms depends on hidden changes in their DNA.
There is no evidence that the Darwinian processs can take the multiple, coherent steps needed to build new molecular machinery, the kind of machinery that fills the cel
Darwinian processes cannot explain cellular evolution by random mutation.
3. Experiment Research in re Malaria--Eukaryote, HIV--virus, E-Coli--prokaryote, results in findings that the development of 2 new intracellular portein-protein binding sites at the same time is beyond Darwinian reach.
3 or more different proteins binding specifically to each other is beyond Darwinain processes, not just 3 or more copies of the same protein.
eukaryotic cells contain a raft of complex functional systems that the simpler prokaryotes lack. Systems that are enourmously beyond Darwinian processes.
Complex coherent molecular machinery came , at least in part, from natural selection but just as certainly not from random mutation.
If random mutation is inadequate then (since common descent w/modification strongly appears to be true)the answer must be NON RANDOM MUTATION. Design.
5. Publication. Behe states in an interview that no journal will touch ID with a ten foot pole.
I believe I read an article where an ID article was accepted by a peer reviewed journal and there was such an uproar, it was pulled and possibly the editor was fired.
But anyway he believes the peer reviewed journal will not publish ID submissions regardless of their merit.
This is my take on his Hypothesis from reading his book. I took notes from the book and this is where this information comes from. I may even have direct quotes in this presentation, but Idid not note them in my notes so forgive for not quoting exactly material or noting that this was a quote.
That is the best I can do. I do not understand the science of the research into molecular biology.
It appears to me that Behe is qualilfied as a Biologists from his CV.
Let me know what your thoughts are, but be gentle.
It would probably be best for you all to read his book to fully understand his position.
that if someone got sick, it was because that was the will of God. that if lightning struck, it was because that was the will of God. that if there were storms, it was because that was the will of God. that if crops failed, it was because that was the will of God. that if weeds grew in the fields, it was because that was the will of God. that if there was a drought, it was because that was the will of God. We now understand that the actual causes of such things are Natural.
Natural Selection is as well.
forgive me for taking so long to reply to your post. We may understand the nature of the events that caused the above. But we do not know why they occurred. This is where God's Providence comes into play. So it goes back to the question Biologists ignore, the origin of life.
All abiogenesis theories are so speculative as to be ridiculous.
The whole point of my post is that until Science can prove the origin of life, evolution is not proven to be a natural caused event.
At least the ID people attempt to show that this could not happen w/o a Designer.
For example is there a valid scientific theory for information in the cell? How could that information have origininated? How did gravity come to be?
That is the problem I have with Scientist who state, if we can't explain it today we will tomorrow. talk about FAITH!!
quote:Why would we need to know the origin of life ? What we need to know is how life developed over time, and as with any other scientific investigation of history we look at the processes occurring now and compare them with the data we have relating to the past. If we discover no incompatibilities we conclude that the known processes are responsible for past events. Where is the need for us to know the origins to do that ?
I believe this is where my original post has "evolved."
I have read back & forths betheen Michael Behe, Sean B. Carroll Jerry Coyne and others in re "the edge of evolution."
My impression as a non scientists is that Behe has answered all of their criticisms by what he states is "scientific" evidence. I do not know the science, so here is where I am left.
Is Michael Behe a liar. Has he made up the Science. Are Carroll, Coyne et. al liars. Have they made up their science. Have all of them stated correct scientific findings but shaded them in ways that support their view?
Behe has a bias in support of ID, and Carroll, Coyne, et.al. have a bias in supporting Darwin's theory of evolution.
My conclusion. I cannot rule out intelligent design as being a valid discpline that may prove some of Darwin's evolutionary theory false. So for me life goes on.
My faith in God is intact, and doesn't rely on Science validating or invalidating the Theory of Intelligent design as espoused by humans. It is my opinion the LAW has a valid way of finding the truth of the above cited disputed scientific facts. That would be by depostion under oath.
I could take a few weeks preparing the depostions of Behe, Carroll and Coyne and find out who is hedging & who is not. Unfortunately that will never happen.
But for me this post is at a standstill. I enjoyed it very much and look forward to chiming in on other post on this site.
quote:In fact your posts display a pattern of evasion and avoidance. You have utterly refused to back up your original accusation of a double standard, showing that it was completely baseless. And that illustrates the lack of moral and intellectual honesty typical of the ID movement - which all too clearly illustrates it's devotion to apologetics and dogma over true Christianity
What you term "evasion and avoidance", was an attempt to understand the postions of various posts. As far as lacking moral & intellectual honesty I don't think your the one to judge my moral or intellectual honesty.
You are correct I did not back up my original postion that a different standard of proof was being applied to natural scientific theory. Science will not even allow ID to present a theory.
It was admitted on this board that Behe was a qualified scientist. That his scienctific statements in re molecular findings have not been falsfied, but were questionable. Yet he presents a Theoretic opinion that there is based on his findings a Limit to what evolution can do, and he is rejected out of hand because he is not now able to prove his theory.
Einstenin could not prove his theory of relativity when he enuciated it, yet it has been accepted now by science.
Your reply may be that Behe will never be able to prove his theory. I have read scientists who state that the theories of the Origin of life may never be proven. Are these theories nonsense? I believe your posts show your devotion to naturalistic materialist beliefs. That doesn't make your wrong or does it make me wrong.