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:   A Study of Intelligent Design Debate
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 133 of 210 (3453)
02-05-2002 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by John Paul
02-04-2002 7:03 PM


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 foundation
for infering anything in any subject area.
Is there something very specific that you could put forward that
evolutionary theory cannot be used to explain ?
I have seen many references to drifting off into fantasy in
relation to evolutionary explanations, but no reasoned arguments
against the possible explanations put forward.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by John Paul, posted 02-04-2002 7:03 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by John Paul, posted 02-05-2002 5:14 PM Peter has replied

Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 158 of 210 (3630)
02-07-2002 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by John Paul
02-05-2002 5:14 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:
Actually Peter there is more to ID than just lack of evidence to the contrary. Design is detected in biology pretty much like archeologists, forensics, arson detectives et al. detect design.
Also explaining something and demonstrating that explanation to be indicative of reality are two different worlds.
If we have absolutely no substantiated evidence that something, like life, could originate via purely natural processes, is it OK to infer purely natural processes are responsible for its origin?

We also have no substantiated evidence that life originated via
intelligent design.
The arguments I have seen concerning intelligent design (and I'll
leave 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 about
naturally, so there must be a designer."
Arguments also run to saying things like "Show me any complex
form which was not designed."
The former is simply an opinion (to which everyone is entitled), and
ceratinly not scientific or logical in any sense.
The latter results in a cyclic argument whereby anything quoted as
complex and NOT designed is claimed as the design of this IDer.
Explanation and demonstrating a match with reality ARE different
I 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 bilogical
systems (apart from the complexity == design thing).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by John Paul, posted 02-05-2002 5:14 PM John Paul has not replied

Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 185 of 210 (6532)
03-11-2002 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by KingPenguin
03-09-2002 5:16 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
you will never get rock solid evidence on anything epescially anything relating to Jesus or the bible.

What does Jesus have to do with creation ?
If the Bible represents truth, then the events contained
within it should have left observable evidence, which
can be found.
It hasn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by KingPenguin, posted 03-09-2002 5:16 PM KingPenguin has not replied

Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 195 of 210 (6799)
03-14-2002 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by TrueCreation
03-13-2002 9:20 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:

--I guess that when it comes to this, were going to have different views arent we? Meaning that such context is interperetable in this degree (in my opinion, as you have stated, you seem to be pulling it to an extreme), so it is not a valid argument either way is it and should therefor be irrelevant?

This attitude is common across the whole of this forum, and
it's not stopped any of us yet
Question though, if you interpret sections of the bible differently
to 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 really
worth 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!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by TrueCreation, posted 03-13-2002 9:20 PM TrueCreation has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by doctrbill, posted 03-16-2002 10:14 AM Peter has not replied

Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 196 of 210 (6812)
03-14-2002 10:45 AM


This forum is about intelligent design.
What (apart from Dembski's filter .. which is viewed as
suspect 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 the
world, 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 the
origins of the thing.
Without prior knowledge of watches and of technologies for the
manufacture of them, is there anything that would indicate
design ?
You will note (I hope) that this question is NOT about whether
or 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 to
naturalistic 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: 02-05-2002


Message 201 of 210 (13552)
07-15-2002 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Syamsu
06-23-2002 8:58 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
If we could pinpoint an event where the likelyhood of many of the different kinds of organisms coming to be would dramatically increase from close to zero to close to 100 percent then that would be a design or creation event IMO.
But then I guess most everything would look designed to some degree by such a theory.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I don't like the use of chance in the above, and the sudden
emergence of man kinds would just be am emergence event.
Now if ALL kinds appeared at the same time, we might have a
suggestion of arrival that would indicate creation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Syamsu, posted 06-23-2002 8:58 AM Syamsu has not replied

Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 205 of 210 (32095)
02-13-2003 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by peter borger
02-08-2003 3:01 PM


quote:
The problem with evolutionists is that they only have one term for several unequal phenomena: evolution.
Change of a nucleotide: evolution.
Deletion of DNA region: evolution.
Duplication of a region: evolution.
No, mutations all.
quote:
Selection against mutation carriers: evolution.
Selection of antibiotic resistant micro-organism during permanent constraint: evolution.
No this is selection.
quote:
Changing gene frequencies in populations: evolution.
OK ... now that's a modern definition of evolution. I still
prefer 'trait frequency', but I'm in a minority I think
quote:
And then they start to extrapolate.
The problem with extrapolation being ...?
quote:
If this than also microbe to man: evolution.
The fossil record: evolution.
The fossil record isn't evolution ... it is as evolution
would expect to find it. ie. it supports the evolutionary
theory.
Microbe to man is a reasonable extrapolation given the
developmental trends seen in fossil data.
quote:
If evolutionism was a science they would have discriminated between the two mechanisms. They don't since it is convenient to point at the one mechanism as proof for the other.
However, microbe to man evolution is a never observed inference --not even a good one-- from the
fossil record, it is not backed up by what we now know about genomes, since all the mechanisms
that induce variation are already pre-existent in the genome.
What like radiation, chemical mutagens, viral agents, and that
sort of thing?
You say that microbe->man evo. has never been seen ... but
then tell us what was in the first genome(s). You have much
less evidence for your case than evo. does for its.
quote:
The most compelling evidence for design ARE genetic (molecular) redundancies (GR). Since you are new here:
GR are not associated with gene duplications
I still do not understand why this is of relevence to
the design argument.
There are segments of DNA within genomes which, if removed
do 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 DNA
sequences by copy errors even without gene duplication, then
what more do we need?
If evolution is to occur at all there must be some function
which is not required for life, but that may provide an
advantage to life in some situations ... ooh we do ... we
have GR's!!!
quote:
and are not mutating with an increased rate compared to essential genes.
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:
Thus, evolutionary predictions are clearly not true,
Which evolutionary predictions?
quote:
and GR stand as clearcut evidence for design.
They are required for evolution to work, and thus say nothing
about the design Vs. development argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by peter borger, posted 02-08-2003 3:01 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by peter borger, posted 02-13-2003 8:06 PM Peter has replied

Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 207 of 210 (32641)
02-19-2003 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by peter borger
02-13-2003 8:06 PM


The objection to Gr as design evidence still stands.
If you have two genes which do they same job, one can
get altered without causing a dead critter.
That is a requirement for evolution, surely?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by peter borger, posted 02-13-2003 8:06 PM peter borger 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