Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biased accounts of intelligent design
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 87 of 150 (861481)
08-22-2019 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Jedothek
08-18-2019 1:18 PM


Geting back to the question of ID
JonF, your trust in the scientific community is touching; but it might prod your intellectual growth more if you were to examine the arguments for yourself.
And in reply one could say your trust in the ID is touching; but it might prod your intellectual growth more if you were to examine the arguments for yourself.
However many people have a hard time examining their own arguments, because they are partial to them. The open-minded skeptic will consider any argument as potentially possible, but also be skeptical that it is potentially wrong.
In your first post you said (Message 1):
... An encyclopedia that cannot distinguish design from creation (who designed the Saturn V rocket? Was it the same set of persons who built it?) has no business offering any remarks concerning these subtle questions.
So do you have any information on how Intelligent design is actually accomplished/activated? By what process is it implemented?
How do you define "information" and how do you measure "complexity" ... for discussing quantities without a measuring system is simply just expressing an opinion, and not science.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... 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 33 by Jedothek, posted 08-18-2019 1:18 PM Jedothek has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by FLRW, posted 08-22-2019 10:54 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 90 by Jedothek, posted 08-22-2019 12:41 PM RAZD has replied

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


(1)
Message 89 of 150 (861494)
08-22-2019 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by FLRW
08-22-2019 10:54 AM


Re: Geting back to the question of ID -- a philosophy
I believe in non compassionate intelligent design. ...
This seems logical to me -- at least non compassionate in terms of what was created by the design. My personal taste is god/s as artists rather than engineers (a common take, especially among engineer IDologists).
... The proof of intelligent design is the creation of the strings in String Theory and their quantity. The creation of 200 sextillion stars would give the probability that one planet of these stars would create life. ...
Now I wouldn't say "proof" as seems to be an incomplete logic construction. Again my take is that the universe was created by god/s primed for the development of life -- hence all the precursors to organic chemicals throughout space/time. See Panspermic Pre-Biotic Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part I), an old (2004) thread of mine. More pre-biotic chemicals have been found in space since then.
... The question is why? A philosopher today would ...
Glad to see you say philosopher, as I think of ID/Deism as more of a philosophical pursuit than scientific, Just as I consider religion more of a philosophical pursuit than scientific (and one that confines itself to certain precepts regardless of their relationship to reality).
... need a background in Quantum Mechanics and String Theory.
As I say in Is ID properly pursued? (another old thread of mine):
quote:
The search for the evidence of design must be done by those with the most capable trained "eyes" free of constrained perspectives - the most open and complete knowledge of the physical workings of the universe and all it contains ... matter, energy, life. Anything less will likely lead to mistakes or a lack of understanding to see the actual fingerprints of design.
Without as complete a base of knowledge as possible we could be looking at a watch with the mind of a frog, or we could be like a child, bemused by a kaleidoscope of pattern when there is none ... we could be unable to properly observe and evaluate the evidence before us.
An open-minded skeptic, if you will, willing to consider concepts but reserving skepticism while there is no supporting evidence and no contrary evidence: such concepts are possibilities, but more evidence is needed before forming an opinion.
So tell me, what about string theory in particular that impresses you?
... The creation of 200 sextillion stars would give the probability that one planet of these stars would create life. ...
The Drake equation ...
But string theory isn't necessary for this aspect, is it?
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... 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 88 by FLRW, posted 08-22-2019 10:54 AM FLRW has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by FLRW, posted 08-22-2019 1:41 PM RAZD has replied

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


(2)
Message 91 of 150 (861510)
08-22-2019 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Jedothek
08-22-2019 12:41 PM


Re: Geting back to the question of ID
RAZD refers to my trust in the ID; but I have not exhibited such. I have pointed out the biased and illogical character of some opposition to ID.
Curiously, I was pointing out how your post to JonF also applied to you.
I cannot give an account of how, e.g., the genetic code is implemented once it has been intelligently designed. ...
So at this point it is hypothetical, design on paper maybe. As a designer myself I have several of these types of design in various stages of completion. As a professional designer, I also included how the design was to be implemented, what tools and materials were needed, what different work stations would accomplish.
Such lack of knowledge would appear to an open-minded investigator not as disproof of the hypothesis, however, but as an opportunity for further research.
Indeed, but to the open-minded skeptic it would also not be sufficient to entice one to engage in further research that could be a wild goose chase. They would leave it to those proposing this concept to pursue.
Now one could envisage mosquitoes as vectors carrying viral agents that insert DNA segments into targets, but the problem here is that, while this is a readily available delivery system, it doesn't appear to be used for this purpose: the viral inserts are random -- essentially environment induced mutations -- and don't lead to speciation or any visible change in survival or reproduction of target species other than death and reduced health/ability. That's a negative result.
Are there other delivery systems possible?
... Some who read Newton’s Principia correctly inquired how gravity worked; but the scientific community would have been wrong if it had said, we don’t know how this works, so we’re going to ignore it ( or even assume it’s false).
But the question was not how ID "works" but how it was implemented. Newton's gravity was implemented by the mass of the objects having attraction to other masses proportional to their size and the inverse square of their separation distance.
So far you have proposed that
Message 13 ... the world (e.g., the genetic code or the values of physical constants) exhibits signs of having been designed ...
Now, as a Deist, my belief is that the universe was created by god/s (or their equivalent) and then had no further interaction with it, maybe parting with the comment "now surprise us" ... and in this creation they would of course have set the values of all the physical constants. That would be evidence for how they designed the universe, but how would you test that, how could you tell that this was done in this particular case -- there are no other universes we are capable of comparing to this one. That leaves it a matter of faith/belief, not science.
The genetic code example seems to be an argument from incredulity more than anything else at this point (you have certainly not developed it beyond a cursory example at this point).
Got anything else?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... 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 90 by Jedothek, posted 08-22-2019 12:41 PM Jedothek has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by FLRW, posted 08-22-2019 1:48 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 101 by Tangle, posted 08-22-2019 5:09 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 115 by Jedothek, posted 08-23-2019 11:37 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 99 of 150 (861519)
08-22-2019 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by JonF
08-22-2019 2:17 PM


Re: Geting back to the question of ID -- a philosophy
Strings are not theorized to be the basic components of atoms. They are theorized to be the basic components of quarks and other fundamental particles. Nobody has established that they exist, and nobody knows how to establish whether or not they exist with current technology or reasonably expected extensions of current technology
So the open-minded skeptic would say they are possible, but also the information available is not necessarily sufficient to entice one to engage in further research that could be a wild goose chase (sorry Sheldon). They would leave it to those proposing this concept to pursue.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... 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 95 by JonF, posted 08-22-2019 2:17 PM JonF has not replied

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


Message 100 of 150 (861521)
08-22-2019 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by FLRW
08-22-2019 1:41 PM


Re: Geting back to the question of ID -- a philosophy
We know already that aspartate, glutamate, glycine, alanine, serine, leucine, and valine - the most common amino acids - can be found in volcanic lava and other abiotic substrates. Amino acids are what RNAs interact with, so their natural presence hints that they could have acted as an "enabler" for the evolution of the very first genes, which would have been molecules that reacted with them for some benefit.
Fast forward a bit and these gene-molecules combined together into a chain, RNA, which uses the amino acids for energy, using that energy to trigger catalysising their own reproduction.
Put these wayward RNAs into a self-built bilipid membrane (lipids join together naturally) where amino acids can be concentrated, and you have yourself the very first protocell/"true organism".
Indeed. Again I have an old thread on this: Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II)
quote:
one of the questions for abiogenesis in how to get from pre-biotic molcules to a self-replicating cells. One of the element critical to that path is the formation of self-replicating molecules.
There are many known self-replicating molecules, and a brief listing of some of them is provided below. There is also a large variety of molecules that can self-replicate. Some of the more exciting research (see ref (1) below) confirmed my prediction that self-replicating molecules would compete for resources, and showing how they can dominate the population - chemical evolution: random formation plus selection of the fastest.
We can also see a hint of how DNA came to be the dominant replication system in ref (6) below:
quote:
Template-free production of RNA was completely suppressed by addition of DNA to the incubation mixture. When both DNA and RNA templates were present, transcription and replication competed, but T7 RNA polymerase preferred DNA as a template.
The DNA outcompetes the RNA production.
This does not explain all the questions of how life developed on earth over 3.5 billion years ago, but it goes a long way in showing how possible it was for life to develop from existing chemicals in the conditions that existed in the pre-biotic earth. The sheer number of possibilities also can hint that such processes were quite active, with many variations vying for resources, and that the replication system that life developed from was likely the best at self-replication - the fastest, most stable and aggressive replicators outcompeting their competitors. The likelihood is that, even if they had not existed, that another replication system would have been able to develop into life. Some initial elements of evolution - random variation and feedback selection - were evident in this pre-biotic world.
For those who want to visualize how the building blocks from the first thread and the self-replicating molecules mentioned here come together into a pre-biotic self-replicating proto-cell, see this video summary of work from Dr. Szostak:
NOTE: this starts with a review of creationist claims, and the actual science starts at about 2:40 into the video. You can move the button ahead to the 2:40 mark and not miss any of the science. You can also turn off the sound, unless you are very fond of Beethoven's 9th Symphony, as there is no narration.
Sounds like we are on the same page.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... 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 92 by FLRW, posted 08-22-2019 1:41 PM FLRW has not replied

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


Message 106 of 150 (861552)
08-23-2019 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Tangle
08-22-2019 5:09 PM


Re: Geting back to the question of ID
I'm glad you used the word 'belief' there. I find deists really weird, they go rational, rational, rational, rational, whoops irrational.
Thanks. I like to think that Deism is the only rational belief when all is said and done.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... 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 101 by Tangle, posted 08-22-2019 5:09 PM Tangle has not replied

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


Message 118 of 150 (861577)
08-23-2019 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Jedothek
08-23-2019 11:37 AM


Re: Geting back to the question of ID
RAZD writes:
Curiously, I was pointing out how your post to JonF also applied to you.
My point was that my post to JonF does not apply to me , since he has expressed trust in the scientific community ( see e.g., his post of 8-18-2019, 1:05 PM) whereas I have expressed no trust in the ID people, merely disdain for bad characterizations and evaluations of ID.
Fine, so you are either ambivalent or don't trust ID ... so why the outrage at the Wiki coverage?
Meanwhile you have yet to answer questions:
Message 36: So do you have any information on how Intelligent design is accomplished? By what process is it implemented?
How do you define "information" and how do you measure "complexity" ... for discussing quantities without a measuring system is simply just expressing an opinion, and not science.
Message 87: So do you have any information on how Intelligent design is actually accomplished/activated? By what process is it implemented?
How do you define "information" and how do you measure "complexity" ... for discussing quantities without a measuring system is simply just expressing an opinion, and not science.
Message 91: Now one could envisage mosquitoes as vectors carrying viral agents that insert DNA segments into targets, but the problem here is that, while this is a readily available delivery system, it doesn't appear to be used for this purpose: the viral inserts are random -- essentially environment induced mutations -- and don't lead to speciation or any visible change in survival or reproduction of target species other than death and reduced health/ability. That's a negative result.
Are there other delivery systems possible?
The genetic code example seems to be an argument from incredulity more than anything else at this point (you have certainly not developed it beyond a cursory example at this point).
Got anything else?
Curiously, I am more interested in answers to these questions (this is a debate thread), than I am about your level of trust in ID.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... 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 115 by Jedothek, posted 08-23-2019 11:37 AM Jedothek has not replied

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


Message 122 of 150 (861598)
08-23-2019 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by AZPaul3
08-23-2019 12:47 PM


Re: Geting back to the question of ID
ID is the poster child for pseudoscience. And all your religious butt hurt cannot change that.
You think it is worse than astrology?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... 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 121 by AZPaul3, posted 08-23-2019 12:47 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by AZPaul3, posted 08-23-2019 2:53 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 124 by AZPaul3, posted 08-23-2019 3:04 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 132 by AZPaul3, posted 08-24-2019 9:33 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 126 of 150 (861608)
08-23-2019 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Jedothek
08-23-2019 12:12 PM


Re: Geting back to the question of ID
That's what I began by doing. See the post that started the thread. My point was not that the evidence for ID was overwhelming but that Wikipedia's beginning its article on ID with the term "pseudoscientific' was biased and juvenile. The discussion of whether ID is science should have appeared ( as it did , in addition , to an inadequate degree ) in a separate section such as "Reaction form the scientific community."
Here's the first paragraph:
quote:
Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".[1][2][3][4][5] Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[6] ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, so it is not science.[7][8][9] The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a fundamentalist Christian and politically conservative think tank based in the United States.[n 1]
Note that evolution is not just natural selection, but it involves mutations as well. It is typical of anti-evolutionists to neglect to mention one or the other of this two-part system.
Here is how I might edit this paragraph:
Intelligent design (ID) is an argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".[1][2][3][4][5] Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[6] ID was developed from creationism and to date it lacks empirical support and has offered no testable or tenable hypotheses. The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a fundamentalist Christian and politically conservative think tank based in the United States.[n 1]
How would you edit the first paragraph to remove your objection?
Note that further down the article it says:
quote:
Reaction from the scientific community
The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science and has no place in a science curriculum.[8] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."[98] The U.S. National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.[74] Others in the scientific community have denounced its tactics, accusing the ID movement of manufacturing false attacks against evolution, of engaging in misinformation and misrepresentation about science, and marginalizing those who teach it.[99] More recently, in September 2012, Bill Nye warned that creationist views threaten science education and innovations in the United States.[100][101]
For another take on the presumed bias against ID see Another IDology challenge -- complete with complaints of harsh treatments ..., ... along with a couple of examples of what they have so badly gone wrong while pretending to be "experts" and knowledgeable science type peoples.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... 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 119 by Jedothek, posted 08-23-2019 12:12 PM Jedothek has not replied

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


Message 131 of 150 (861622)
08-23-2019 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by jar
08-23-2019 8:26 PM


Variations on a theme
... The possibility of an Inept Designer or Incompetent Designer or Ignorant Designer or Inelegant Designer is certainly supported by all the evidence
Or a Silly Designer ...
... certainly not an engineer/architect designing with empathy for people. Perhaps an artist who sometimes likes to shock?
If we work backwards from purported design to what the designer is like ...
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... 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 130 by jar, posted 08-23-2019 8:26 PM jar has not replied

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


(1)
Message 133 of 150 (861633)
08-24-2019 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by AZPaul3
08-24-2019 9:33 AM


Re: Geting back to the question of ID
quote:
AUG 24, 2019 - You've been so absorbed by your own life lately that some of your friends may be wondering whether something is wrong with you. There's no law against having your head in the clouds once in a while, but be sure not to leave the people you care about in the lurch. Make sure you follow through on an upcoming social commitmentit will give you a chance to show them that you're doing fine and you're just as eager to hang out with them as ever.
Hmm ... can't leave you in the lurch, I do have the social commitment to answer, yeah this is good. I can answer today.
Yikes, how do they know? ... Works for me (fellow Piscian traveler). Been hard a work on new back porch, and we have guests for dinner tonight ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... 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 132 by AZPaul3, posted 08-24-2019 9:33 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but 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