|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The design inference | |||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
schrafinator:
ID is an argument that relies upon the idea that evolution can only happen in a simple, linear fashion. John Paul:That's wrong. From Behe's Darwin's Black Box: [/quote] Might there be an as-yet-undiscovered natural process that would explain biochemical complexity? No one would be foolish enough to categorically deny the possibility. Nontheless, we can say that if there is such a process, no one has a clue how it would work. Further, it would go against all human experience, like postulating that a natural process might explain computers. Concluding that no such process exists is as scientifically sound as concluding mental telepathy is not possible, or that the Loch Ness monster doesn’t exist. In the face of the massive evidence we do have for biochemical design, ignoring that evidence in the name of a phantom process would be to play the role of the detectives who ignore an elephant*.[/quote] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- from the next paragraph:
quote: *the same elephant is mentioned in this article: The Biologist I think you have IC confused with ID. All ID says is the apparent design observed in living organisms is real. ------------------John Paul
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
Mark:
Life on earth MAY be the result of alien design, but who designed them? If it's feasible that aliens evolved, why not us? John Paul:ID says nada about the designer. ID only cares about the design. It'seasier to cross one bridge at a time. Once we fully understand the design in living organisms here, maybe that will tell us something about the designer. ------------------John Paul
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
schrafinator:
First of all, ID isn't a scientific theory. It does not propose any hypothese, it does not provide any positive evidence, and it does not list any potential falsifications. John Paul:I just posted the positive evidence for ID (a couple posts up) and according to its proponents it can be falsified. They are listed in an article by Dembski to Eugenie Scott. Is Intelligent Design Testable?A Response to Eugenie Scott It may not be a theory (yet) but it is in the very least a working hypothesis. ------------------John Paul
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
quote: John Paul:Are you suggesting RNA came first? I thought that idea was abondoned years ago. No one has shown how RNA could have formed before living cells were around to make it. (the same for DNA as pointed out in the article I linked to earlier) I guess it is accepted in some circles that RNA preceded DNA but that some type of living organisms preceded RNA. Life that we have no idea how it functioned. From what we know RNA based life needs DNA based life in order to survive. And we are still left with the FACT that biochemists can mix all the chemicals found in living organisms together and nothing happens. ------------------John Paul
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jeff Inactive Member |
quote: Ok, for sake of argument ( and I don't agree with you on this point ) I'll stipulate that 'nothing happens' when chemists conduct experiments. How is this evidence that aboigenesis is IMPOSSIBLE ? Does this mean we're made by *magic* because we haven't created bacteria in a test tube ? Does this mean Volcanoes are supernatural - or Intellegently designedsince no Geologist has made a volcano on his desktop with his pet-rock and a zippo ? Or does it mean we still have much to learn and much room to explore ? Materialistic Naturalism has uncovered an enormous amount of previously unknown phenomena, mechanisms and explanations in the past 150 years, its absurd to give up on it because its philisophically convenient for your particular religious view. Why have you imposed this 'deadline' on science - that since it hasn't answered all biological questions by March 15, 2002 - then no Naturalistic answers are possible ? Are you sure we can't wait a day or two before we send the scientists home to farm mushrooms ? Add to this the -FACT- that your religious view is quite an unsatisfactory and insufficient explanation to the rest of us. We all aren't blessed with your level of naivete. We need a more convincing reason to abandon science....and ID is just THAT: The abandonment of serious scientific inquiry. Regards, jeff
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
quote: JM: Agreed, but it has no scientific merits and the theological ponderings are what seem to drive the majority of the arguments. John Paul:Wrong again Joe. ID has scientific merits and no theological pondering. This is what Behe said in Darwin's Black Box: quote:
quote: JM: I don't nor do I claim to. I am merely repeating the claims of fundamentalist christians who claim HIS perfection. John Paul:But that has nothing to do with God’s Creation having to be perfect. That is what you are saying in your article- we must reject a perfect God since not all designs are perfect. What kind of logic is that? Who said a perfect Designer had to Create perfect designs that remained perfect? The Bible speaks of a "very good" Creation but not a "perfect" one. quote: JM: I refer you to the most recent case of ID in Ohio. Do a search and you shall see. While ONE ID theorist also claims to be an atheist is of little consequence. The majority are clear on both the nature and the identity of the ID'er. John Paul:It doesn’t matter who or what IDists infer is the intelligent designer. That has no relevance whatsoever to the scientific merits of ID. ID says nothing about the designer and is focused only on the design. To say something other than that would be a misrepresentation. But isn’t that what being an evolutionist is all about? quote: JM: See Ohio's recent battle. John Paul:For what? More blatant misrepresentations and a smear campaign against ID? That’s what I see. Check out the petition they have. It calls ID,ID Creationism and judging from the uneducated comments people are buying the propaganda campaign against it. Check out signature 1413 I sent the author an email- no response yet. Ohio’s propaganda campaign against ID quote: JMf course not. ID is part and parcel of human endeavors. That does not necessarily mean it is part and parcel of everthing. ID is taught all the time. It simply has no relevance to biological systems. John Paul:Scientists with more knowledge about that than you do think otherwise. How do you think this got started? By scientists opening up the black box (thanks to technology). [quote]
Perhaps aliens (who themselves evolved naturally without having IC)are bombarding our planet with invisible and undectable rays of energy that allow Irreducibly Complex Structures to form in living things. This scenario may not seem very likely on a theological level, but that does not matter. The point is that it is possible to infer Intelligent Design without implying God. Any notion to the contrary, I believe, is a result either of ignorance or of wishful thinking. [/B] JM: Sure and pink elephants coulda done it. How does such a conclusion (as yours or mine) aid in the understanding of biology? Evolution explains the historical observations, it is predictive, retrodictive and testable. What does ID offer that is superior to evolution? John Paul:Evolution does NOT explain how life got here. Evolution can’t demonstrate many of its proposals. ID explains the CSI we observe in living organisms. As for predictive power- how can anyone predict what a designer would design? I take it that you don’t agree with Dennett, who stated on the PBS series Evolution that there is no way to predict what would be selected for at any point in time. As someone with a relatively strong background in encryption I understand the importance of differentiating between meaningful information and random nonsense. With the understanding the genetic code is from an intelligent source, I strongly believe it would aid us in deciphering it. What does materialistic naturalism have to offer? ------------------John Paul
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
quote: ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz Yawn shrug, sigh ZZZzzzzzzzzz
------------------John Paul
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cobra_snake Inactive Member |
Thanks Paul for answering some of my critics, I was starting to be a bit overwhelmed.
From: Pamboli"Hey Cobra - you don't normally trip up quite as quickly as that! Campaign in one sentence becomes crusade in another, though he doens't use the word crusade, and then you criticise the word that you introduced! Just how carefully did you read the article?" Sorry, my bad. I guess that's D'oh number two for me! (By the way, I read the article twice) From: Pamboli"Why? How does this follow?" If you think that design cannot be detected without previous knowledge of a designer, then the people at SETI should give up. How exactly would the SETI team infer a designer of a radio signal under Orr's strict rules? From: Pamboli"In what way is this statement false? There is only one statement in the quoted passage - that Behe admits some cellular processes could have evolved. This is completely true - Behe does say this." What is false is what Orr is implying in sentence two. Basically, Orr is criticising Behe for admitting that some relatively simple cellular processes could evolve, and then saying that irreducibly complex structures can't evolve. However, this is the MAIN ARGUMENT advanced by Behe's book. "So, Orr's point is why does Behe think some are irreducibly complex and merely complex? The answer seems to be that where we have shown evolutionary pathways, Behe accepts them and it follows that the process cannot be irreducibly complex, but when we cannot show pathways Behe declares them to be irreducably complex." Actually, Behe gives a clear cut definition of an irreducibly complex system, and his book covers the topic quite thoroughly. It's unfair for you to say that because he excepts some evolutionary pathways, he has to accept them all. Of course, you can claim (as you did) that Behe simply claims that pathways we know aren't irreducibly complex, but that is just hand-waving. From: Joe Meert"I don't nor do I claim to. I am merely repeating the claims of fundamentalist christians who claim HIS perfection." John Paul covered my argument on this one- there is no way for you to know that a perfect God would produce all perfect structures. (By the way, if you think you can design a better system for life than the one present, by all means inform us.) From: Joe Meert"I refer you to the most recent case of ID in Ohio. Do a search and you shall see. While ONE ID theorist also claims to be an atheist is of little consequence. The majority are clear on both the nature and the identity of the ID'er." That's not the point. Dembski shows CLEARLY that it is possible to not believe in God and also believe in ID. The fact that the majority are clear on the identity of the designer does not matter at all. In fact, it is practically religous discrimination, because you are using the religion of the ID scientists to undermine their theory. From: Joe Meert"Of course not. ID is part and parcel of human endeavors. That does not necessarily mean it is part and parcel of everthing. ID is taught all the time. It simply has no relevance to biological systems." Exactly why does it have no relevance to biological systems? Is it because it doesn't fit under a materialistic concept? (Actually, it kind of does, because aliens could have naturally evolved and created us.) "Sure and pink elephants coulda done it. How does such a conclusion (as yours or mine) aid in the understanding of biology? Evolution explains the historical observations, it is predictive, retrodictive and testable. What does ID offer that is superior to evolution?" Neither conclusion aids in the understanding of biology, of course, because both are theological conclusions! My little alien scenario was simply to show you that ID DOESN'T require God. Exactly what is large-scale evolution useful for? Actually, large-scale evolution is only useful for studying large-scale evolution. And in what way does ID have to be superior to evolution? ID is very testable (and quite a bit more falsifiable than evolutionary theory). ID makes the prediction that no natural mechanism can realistically create IC systems. From: Mark"All I ask is that you accept the possibility that nothing is IC down here." I thought that Irreducibly Complex Structures have basically been proven, but it has not been proven that IC structures cannot be explained by natural mechanisms. So, yes, I accept the possibility that the structures claimed by Behe and others could have evolved by natural means. From: Mark"Just to push the idea a little further, if an ID WAS the result of abiogenesis, & subsequent evolution allowed those aliens the intellect to create life on earth, you have argued yourself into the position that God isn't required at all anyway, & the entire argument becomes self defeating from a creationist point of view." I'm arguing from an ID point of view. But there is the possibility that God isn't required I suppose. After all, anything's possible (including pink elephant aliens). From: Mark"So why WOULDN'T aliens demonstrate this sort of IC if they evolved?" For all we know, aliens could be made out of proton matter or something wierd like that. From: Joz"Behe believes that certain structures are IC and must have an origin of design (i.e certain building blocks at least were created). Ergo while not being a ye creationist he is a creationist at some level...." I find it very interesting that all the evolutionists around here get very upset when they believe a Creationist misrepresents someone. I find it interesting because you obviously don't have too much of a problem with Orr making misleading statements. From: Joz"And yet Orr has no problem with Wright and Kimura both of whom proposed non Darwinian theories..." This is an extremely bad analogy. Wright and Kimura offered ADDITIONAL ways in which evolution can take place (therefore, effectively adding into the salad bowl of evolutionist explanations for everything). Behe tried to show that evolution was NOT POSSIBLE. Not a good analogy. From: Joz"Yes pet project, given that it is not adopted by any significant proportion of scientists and he attempts to validate it at every opportunity it is indeed a pet theory..." Joz, you are absolutely correct. Throw out ID! For God's sake, Behe is not only attempting to validate his own theory, but his theory isn't even popular among scientists! What is Behe thinking? From: Joz"What stops some object A that does a job X in parralel with B from adapting to become A` which relies on the presence of B but performs X in a better fashion?" And what stops evolutionists from making up nifty little stories and claim "In billions of years, anything is possible!" Absolutely nothing stops them, of course! From: Shrafinator"It isn't completely wrong, as I have had several discussions about the peppered moth with Creationists over the years." Well, then they are not very informed Creationists. (Were your arguments based on the evidence that the peppered moth story has recently been shown to have been staged?) From: Shrafinator"If you deny that evolution happens, you are, by definition, denying that antibiotic resistance is possible." No informed creationist that I've come across has denied the fact that things change over time. [This message has been edited by Cobra_snake, 03-15-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LudvanB Inactive Member |
quote: Well at least,that explains a lot about your obvious ignorance about everything,the Bible included...do wake up from time to time and make your education easier on us plz...that would be so nice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
The Barbarian Member (Idle past 6266 days) Posts: 31 From: Dallas, TX US Joined: |
For example, in the common bacteria E coli, there are three genes in the B-gal system : a permease (lacY), which allows B-galactosides into the cell; a B-galactosidase (lacZ), which digests the B-galactosides into usable sugars (galactose and glucose, through allo-lactose); and an enhancer (lacI), which increases production of the other two lac proteins about 500 to 1000x in the presense of B-galactosides. This is an 'irreproducbly complex' system - remove any one of the proteins (lacY, lacZ, or lacI), and the cell can't use B-galactosides as a carbon source. "Evolution on a Petri Dish : The evolved B-galactosidase system as a model for studying acquisitive evolution in the lab", Barry G Hall, Evolutionary Biology (1982) #15, pg 85-150. ID said that this was impossible. Yet it demonstrably happens. Let the whining and excuses begin. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5222 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Contradictory statement. Not ONE alleged IC biological structure has been "PROVEN" to be so.
quote: My argument that an anti-evolutionist adherent of IC who is claiming ID doesn’t require God are wrong, because this REQUIRES abiogenesis & evolution, the very concept they argue against. So, from that persons POV, ID means God.
quote: Protons are protons & life requires energy flow. Can’t happen with simply protons. I realise you’re saying that we simply don’t understand the entire universe, but, just the same, anything ISN’T possible. If abiogenesis & evolution occurred, why no ID? Do you expect every vestige of evolution to stick around without atrophying? This bears a selective material cost & is reason enough to see the back of no longer used parts of processes. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
[QUOTE]Uhh... it's not God of the gaps. Intelligent design doesn't require God. If you wish, you can continue to assume that God HAS to be the designer, but I would appreciate it if you could show the basis for this claim.[/B][/QUOTE]
OK, how about calling it the "Intelligent Designer of the Gaps" argument? You are getting hung up on the word "God" in that phrase and missing the point. The important part is the fallacy that a lack of evidence for one theory constitutes positive evidence for another. That just ain't true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: If he had compelling evidence, he probably would. But that's not likely to come along any time soon, I reckon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cobra_snake Inactive Member |
"OK, how about calling it the "Intelligent Designer of the Gaps" argument?"
That would be more appropriate. "The important part is the fallacy that a lack of evidence for one theory constitutes positive evidence for another." If the recognition of design is not evidence for design, then I don't know what is. "Contradictory statement. Not ONE alleged IC biological structure has been "PROVEN" to be so." Ok then. I accept the possibility that there are no IC biological structures. "My argument that an anti-evolutionist adherent of IC who is claiming ID doesn’t require God are wrong, because this REQUIRES abiogenesis & evolution, the very concept they argue against. So, from that persons POV, ID means God." Not all ID scientists reject evolution (Behe himself is perfectly fine with the idea of common descent). However, even if they don't accept evolution on this planet, that does not mean that they have proof that it cannot on a different planet with different characteristics. "Protons are protons & life requires energy flow. Can’t happen with simply protons. I realise you’re saying that we simply don’t understand the entire universe, but, just the same, anything ISN’T possible. If abiogenesis & evolution occurred, why no ID?" Yes, you are right. I'm basically saying we don't understand the entire universe. You must realize, however, that the situations that I am talking about don't seem terribly likely to me. BUT if there is even one tiny bit of a chance that ID doesn't mean God, then it is unfair to call it "God of the Gaps" and it is unfair to portray it as an attempt to mix religion in the schools.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5222 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: I can’t help but intervene here, how have you recognised design?
quote: Cobra, that’s the best I can ask for at this stage. Thank you. Make no mistake, I recognise that sentence as a huge step.
quote: Fair point re. evolution. But Behe does reject abiogenesis, making my point that ID means God stands.
quote: As schraf says, ID Of The Gaps, then. God Of The Gaps is merely a euphemism that describes an argument founded on information we lack, rather than positive evidence supporting an argument. Without any supporting evidence of the ID/God, the argument founders because of this very reason. There is no POSITIVE evidence to support ID. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024