A Study of Intelligent Design Debate

I can't wait for the work on baramins to be completed.I wonder what baramin the Giraffe will be under?Soooooooo. How did those arterial valves evolve? The Onyx doesn't have them? Or perhaps, how did the Onyx lose its valves in a mere 4,500 years. Since genetic materiel is going to be used to classify, its going to be interesting to see how they squirm out of this one. The Onyx is genetically close to the Giraffe, so, how do we rationalise putting them in different baromins, whilst using the same data to put other organisms in the same baromin?They're going to screw up somewhere & we're going to say, hey, those creationists can't explain how such & such evolved/adapted, God/ID must therefore be false. Sound familiar? Would you accept that rationale?Life on this planet is EXTREMELY varied, if one example of a baramin has some particular adaption that they never thought of, then evolution MUST be true, because the adaption evolved from a kind that never had the adaption.They should have left classification well alone, they're going to get crucified.Like I say, I can't wait.------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-02-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-02-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-02-2002]

lol, my mistake, Okapi.......it was early

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:

Did you know that Linnaeus was a Creationist? Did you also know that many organisms have been classified without the use of genetics?

​

---

Linnaeus was a creationist? Well, kudos to him for not letting a religious document affect his conclusions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:

OK, for the record, Creationists do not have a problem with evolution or adaptation. The debate arises when we start discussing the from what did life's diversity evolve, what is the extent of evolution and what is its apparent direction.

---

Creationists DO have a problem with evolution. Abiogenesis & evolution are different. If there’s no problem, why bother with kinds at all? Since we all accept common descent from a single ancestor.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:

If Creationists get 'crucified' doing valid scientific research then so be it. That would mean that other 'origins' scientists will most likely get 'crucified' too. Or are they excused because they are working under the materialistic naturalism framework?

​

---

My main point was, how would the classifiers of baramins be able to exclude genetic information (since its going to be used), when they use it elsewhere? If the Giraffe is genetically close to the OKAPI, & other organisms have been classified with this data, how will the classifiers be able to put them in separate baramins? They will need to, or they will have to explain Giraffe arterial valves, or the Okapis lack of them. The classifiers will pick & choose what information they like & ignore other criteria THEY have chosen to apply elsewhere. I would happily suggest that Linnaeus’ classification be put to the genetic test, for consistencies sake.Secondly, how will they be able to use genetic info to imply descent in say, felines, & then ignore the same methods that point to felines & canines sharing ancestors?Is this what you describe as valid scientific work? These are classifications of biblical convenience, nothing more.------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Regarding religious scientists, so what? They have the ability to not allow faith to get in the way of science. I doubt the application of evidential criteria in barominic classification will be applied so scientifically.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
quote:

​

mark24:
My main point was, how would the classifiers of baramins be able to exclude genetic information (since its going to be used), when they use it elsewhere?

​

John Paul:
They don't exclude it. It is part of the equation from what I have read on Baraminology, it's just not the only part.

---

What criteria will allow them to include it in one classification & not others? If its important enough to be used once, why won’t it consistently be used? So, to not use it, when it’s been used before, actually DOES mean they exclude it, just when it’s convenient, that’s all.Regarding extinct animals, if no genetic information is available, fall back on more conventional means of classification, but don’t ignore genetic information, where available.Genetics provides confirmation of common descent or it doesn’t. No ifs or buts. Creation scientists are interpreting it to mean indication of common descent on the Baraminology site, or they wouldn’t be considering it.I want to know when it doesn’t indicate common descent, but did elsewhere.

quote:

---

:
quote:

​

mark24:
Secondly, how will they be able to use genetic info to imply descent in say, felines, & then ignore the same methods that point to felines & canines sharing ancestors?

​

John Paul:
Because there is more than genetic info in the equation. Felines and canines sharing a common ancestor is just an evolutionist imagination gone awry. Nothing more.

---

Then why bother including genetic information in the first place? It seems its just evidence of convenience, to be discarded when it gets a bit too tough.Do you agree the genetic similarities in felines point to common descent within felines?

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
quote:
Did you also know that many organisms have been classified without the use of genetics?

​

---

I do wish you would read my posts! (you’re not the only one that can be insufferable). If you did, you would have seen, I would happily suggest that Linnaeus’ classification be put to the genetic test, for consistencies sake. , implying that I did know many organisms haven’t been classified genetically.------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
quote:

​

"Real good mark24. Too bad my statement came before yours. So it was NOT in response to-I would happily suggest that Linnaeus’ classification be put to the genetic test, for consistencies sake.

​

---

Then why did you quote yourself AFTER I made my statement in message 49? In message 50 ;

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:

​

"Did you also know that many organisms have been classified without the use of genetics?"

---

It was not necessary to quote this again if your point was to add names of scientists that were creationists. However you DID quote after my statement.Too bad, as you say.I would be more impressed if you argued my points, & not just revelling in the "Onyx" mistake.------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Fair enough. They are going to have to be very, very careful on what methods they use to classify, or they are just going to be accused of bias, or worse, fitting the classification to the bible.This is not an attack on your position, just an observation.Regardless of what method(s) they use, they are still going to have to explain why genetic/protein information can be indicative of common descent, & then why it isn't indicative at genus level & above.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

SLP,
Thanks for the info, is there anything on the web about these papers? I would DEARLY like to see them.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
Truthfully Mark, you bring up very valid points. No bout adoubt it. When I first responded "Me too" to you, I meant it. Their task is indeed daunting. Further 'bias' is definetly involved. The problem is knowing which bias is the correct bias to be biased with. And unfortunately, such is the life of historical sciences.

​

---

But there should be no bias. If humans group with chimps, tough. Science is about the objective gaining of knowledge. If you believe you start with that knowledge in the first place, then any conclusion will be tainted by your potential misinterpretation of the results. This is not science.I honestly believe this is going to be the worst thing creationists ever did. They are leaving themselves WIDE open to all sorts of things, from unscientific methodology, to simply discarding evidences that don't fit. This is tantamount to lying. Sadly, it WILL fool people.I predict that any protein/genetic methods for determining relations between species, will be the ones that show the largest difference between humans & apes, others will simply be excluded from the final published results. The people conducting these bariminic studies have something to show, not find out.------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-03-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
mark24:
But there should be no bias. If humans group with chimps, tough. Science is about the objective gaining of knowledge. If you believe you start with that knowledge in the first place, then any conclusion will be tainted by your potential misinterpretation of the results. This is not science.

​

John Paul:
Biases exist- get over it. It is bias that won't allow a Divine foot in the door. It is not objective to eliminate valid, viable possibilities just because they don't fit in with the 'materialistic naturalism' framework.

​

---

There's no excuse for bias in the face of evidence. It exists, we both agree there, but I do not accept it as part of a rational method. If you believe that bias is acceptable in gaining & interpreting evidence, I maintain, it ain't science.It's lack of any evidence that doesn't allow a divine foot in the door. This is reasonable. This is the same as keeping proponents of the "Galactic-Goat-pissing-brine-to-make-our-oceans" theory outside. When evidence of a divine event becomes available, I'll be the first to consider it. & I don't mean, "hey, there's erosion, thats CONCLUSIVE proof of a flood of biblical proportion". I mean evidence that concludes nothing else. I will be VERY HAPPY when this happens. No ones keeping them out for any sinister reason. If creation "science" wants to be considered science, then it has to act scientifically. This means not ignoring evidence to the contrary. Or still selling books that contain stuff years out of date, & long since falsified, just so as they can get more young minds with false information.It may surprise you to know, I would love there to be an ID, for there to be purpose, to be an afterlife. Who wouldn't? Rather than just life & death, I'll take an ID any day!But....... I consider there to be a lot more natural mechanistic knowledge we don't know, than do. So, given that natural mechanistic science is observed (empirically) to occur, & an ID hasn't, I infer a natural mechanistic solution. Not to do so, would be to deny a possible natural solution in favour of something conveniently NEVER observed. Ever.This, methinks, is where we differ, JP.------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:

​

I not only understand the point you're making, it may surprise you to learn I even accept God as our creator. Like you I see evidence of God's work all around us, but unlike you I reach no conclusions about how God designed. While I believe it is within God's power to yank inert matter about and imbue it with the qualities of life, indeed, within his power to do anything he pleases, I see no evidence of God's direct circumvention of physical laws.

​

Since everywhere I look all I see is matter and energy obeying physical laws, I believe God must be extremely subtle. Though responsible for everything, he has somehow managed to avoid leaving detectable fingerprints.

​

The argument from design is the answer to nothing because it is the answer to everything. Thousands of years ago the questions were how does the sun go across the sky, who made the mountains and who made the stars, and the answer was God. Today the questions have changed, but the answer is the same.

​

My view of an all-powerful yet subtle God is that he created a universe where abiogenesis and evolution were possible, which is perhaps a better trick then just breathing life into clay.

​

--Percy

---

Hi Percy,
I’d like to explore your position, if I may.Is this a Christian God you believe in? From previous posts, most likely not. The point I’m getting at is, did God create the universe & exist outside it? If so, to do anything inside the universe would break the 1st law of thermodynamics, in that he would have to add energy to the universe to effect a change. His own laws preclude this hopping back & forth.So, given God hasn’t circumvented physical laws & stayed away. The ONLY thing God did, was create the universe, because anything else would violate the laws that came into being when He did it?I’m kind of going somewhere with this, but I need clarification of your actual take.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

JP,
I think what Joz & Moose are getting at, is that if the ID that created life on earth isn't supernatural, then what created the IDer?Could you present a scenario that would show the non-supernatural abiogenesis of any ID, please.------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:

​

mark24:
JP,
I think what Joz & Moose are getting at, is that if the ID that created life on earth isn't supernatural, then what created the IDer?

​

John Paul:
That is irrelevant as to how (or why) life appeared here on Earth and then diversified. First things first. And first we should determine our own realm before venturing outside of it. Why? Because doing so may help us answer your question.

​

mark24:
Could you present a scenario that would show the non-supernatural abiogenesis of any ID, please.

​

John Paul:
I am focused on life on Earth. Once that is answered then I will move on. Did you see the movie "Mission to Mars"? Life on Earth could be the result of alien seeding, alien colonization, super intelligent 4th dimensional design for the 3rd dimension. The problem is the word 'supernatural' is a reletive word. Maybe what we deem 'supernatural' to another entity is perfectly natural. And maybe we attach that word to God just because of our ignorance. Just a thought.

​

ID is NOT synonomous with supernatural forces (ie God).

​

---

People are only exploring your position on ID. That your meaning of ID doesn’t infer God, is understood. However, in further exploring your position; If there is a natural ID, then the question who designed the IDer IS relevant. If you’re not going to get into an infinite sequence of aliens begat aliens, that is.Films like Mission To Mars explain origins of life, much as Panspermia does, it shifts the focus elsewhere, & ultimately fail to explain anything. The main question remains unanswered, how did life originate? (In this case to create more life). If life were created in a lab tomorrow, the origin of the creating intelligence, us, would not be explained. What’s the point of postulating ID if it doesn’t ultimately explain origins?OK, back to the plot; ID IS POSTULATED AS AN EXPLANATION OF LIFE ON EARTH. The position I wish to explore is the claim that ID doesn’t infer God. Dress God up as a 4th dimensional being if you wish, at the end of the day, life is IC, so life can’t be the ultimate origin of life. So it comes down to a God, that has no origin, & has existed forever, & to which IC doesn’t apply.So, I ask again, & clarify, for you to present a hypothetical scenario in which God is removed from an ID scenario, & solves the origins of all life, by abiogenesis. This is what not having God as part of ID ultimately means.YOU have found it relevant to deny that God is part of any ID scenario, but can you show it when describing ultimate origins of life with ID?Last (small) point, you clearly are NOT focussed on life on earth, you have mentioned Klingons, alien seeding, alien colonization, super intelligent 4th dimensional design for the 3rd dimension, most of which is in the same paragraph that you claim to be focussed on life on earth.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:

John Paul:
Wow. How many times do you have to be told that this is a reletively recent research venture, that the research is ongoing and no conclusions have been reached yet?

​

---

Conclusions have been reached, reptiles & mammals won't be in the same baramin, fish & amphibians won't be in the same baramin, & Homo sapiens won't be in the same baramin as other primates. All this was concluded before they lit the bunsen burner.It is according to scripture. The nuber ONE consideration.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
quote:
John Paul:
First, when taken in context. I was referring to specific conclusions that schraf appears to want. As for reptiles & mammals not being in the same baramin- it's that way in the classification system we use now. The same goes for fish & amphibians. Humans and other primates hasn't been finished yet

​

Mark:
It is according to scripture. The number ONE consideration.

​

John Paul:
Yup, it's called conducting research under a Biblical framework

​

---

1/ Reptiles & Mammals are in the same holobaramin.2/ "conducting research under a Biblical framework" presupposes scripture validity, & isn't science.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SLP:
Especially when any results that contradict Scripture are tossed out on the basis of this 'biblical framework'.

​

Just read Robinson and Cavanaugh's primate paper in CRSQ.

​

---

I've searched, but can't find the paper. Do you have a link?Much appreciated,Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.