|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Study of Intelligent Design Debate | ||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
I'm new to this discussion, but have read with
some interest the previous postings. It appears to me (and please explain if I have missed something)that your assertion that Intelligent Design MUST be the case is an inference based upon absence of evidence to the contrary. I'm not convinced that the absence of evidence is a sound foundationfor infering anything in any subject area. Is there something very specific that you could put forward thatevolutionary theory cannot be used to explain ? I have seen many references to drifting off into fantasy inrelation to evolutionary explanations, but no reasoned arguments against the possible explanations put forward.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: We also have no substantiated evidence that life originated viaintelligent design. The arguments I have seen concerning intelligent design (and I'llleave abiogenesis out of the equation for now so that I can focus on the question at hand) seem to be saying little more than : "I can't believe that something so complex could have come aboutnaturally, so there must be a designer." Arguments also run to saying things like "Show me any complexform which was not designed." The former is simply an opinion (to which everyone is entitled), andceratinly not scientific or logical in any sense. The latter results in a cyclic argument whereby anything quoted ascomplex and NOT designed is claimed as the design of this IDer. Explanation and demonstrating a match with reality ARE differentI agree. There are many aspects of evolutionary theory which have not be refuted by eveidence, however. (In an aside I noticed another post in which you refer to not proving negatives ... as far as I am aware scientific method is NOT concerned with proving anything only in refuting current theories. The inference is that anything that cannot be refuted must be considered a reasonable explanation. Evolutionary theory has been around for some time, and seems to hold up pretty well). I would also like to understand HOW design is detected in bilogicalsystems (apart from the complexity == design thing).
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: What does Jesus have to do with creation ? If the Bible represents truth, then the events containedwithin it should have left observable evidence, which can be found. It hasn't.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: This attitude is common across the whole of this forum, andit's not stopped any of us yet Question though, if you interpret sections of the bible differentlyto other people, how is it that you can assume (maybe you don't but some christian fundamentalists do) that ALL of the translators of the bible interpreted it in exactly the same way ? That SOME of them may have been touched by God is not reallyworth going into since we wil just disagree, but if there is evidence that not evryone inteprets the bible in the same way, and that we can assume that some translators of the bible did so for other than noble intent (King James bible as an example) then how can the bible be claimed as inerrant ? TC has said that different people interpret it differently. This is an inherent problem with ALL understanding of texts,nto just the bible. Each 'interpreter' brings their own context, history, etc. to the interpretive act. Look at how much disagreement there is on the 'meaning' that can be inferred from the fossil record!!
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
This forum is about intelligent design.
What (apart from Dembski's filter .. which is viewed assuspect by many who have looked at it, and which Dembski himself has not suggested can cast light on the debate) in an OBJECT is an indicator of intelligent design ? If I find a watch in a field I assume it was made by someone.Not due to anything inherent in the watch, but because I know about watches, and in my experience all watches I have known were designed and manufactured. If I land an aircraft in a previously unvisited part of theworld, and introduce this technological marvel to the incredulous natives, they are likely, at first (as has happened in the past) to think of it as some great, silver creature of the air (assuming sufficient lack of sophistication in the culture). This opinion is only changed once they have been TAUGHT theorigins of the thing. Without prior knowledge of watches and of technologies for themanufacture of them, is there anything that would indicate design ? You will note (I hope) that this question is NOT about whetheror not there is a creator ... the answer to the above question could lead to both outcomes:: 1) When applied to life, we just don't know the design technologies yet. 2) We cannot detect any design, because there is none. NOTE:: I do not ascribe the origin of life to CHANCE, but tonaturalistic processes. This is NOT the same thing. Chance implies one-off out of the ordinary origin. Natural processes, once understood can be replicated. |
||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: I don't like the use of chance in the above, and the suddenemergence of man kinds would just be am emergence event. Now if ALL kinds appeared at the same time, we might have asuggestion of arrival that would indicate creation.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: No, mutations all. quote: No this is selection. quote: OK ... now that's a modern definition of evolution. I stillprefer 'trait frequency', but I'm in a minority I think quote: The problem with extrapolation being ...? quote: The fossil record isn't evolution ... it is as evolutionwould expect to find it. ie. it supports the evolutionary theory. Microbe to man is a reasonable extrapolation given thedevelopmental trends seen in fossil data. quote: What like radiation, chemical mutagens, viral agents, and thatsort of thing? You say that microbe->man evo. has never been seen ... butthen tell us what was in the first genome(s). You have much less evidence for your case than evo. does for its. quote: I still do not understand why this is of relevence tothe design argument. There are segments of DNA within genomes which, if removeddo not effect the viability of the organism. This has been shown. RNA interference can even produce such an effect either temporarily (as in experiments with mice with glowy liver cells) or permanently (as with attempts to make violets more violet by genetic engineering). If we can accept that nucleotide bases can be added to DNAsequences by copy errors even without gene duplication, then what more do we need? If evolution is to occur at all there must be some functionwhich is not required for life, but that may provide an advantage to life in some situations ... ooh we do ... we have GR's!!! quote: Why should they? Selective pressure? What about selection of another gene on the same chromosome?I keep asking that and you keep ignoring it. quote: Which evolutionary predictions? quote: They are required for evolution to work, and thus say nothingabout the design Vs. development argument.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
The objection to Gr as design evidence still stands.
If you have two genes which do they same job, one canget altered without causing a dead critter. That is a requirement for evolution, surely?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024