Re: The Topic shadow, do you have anything related?
quote: The reason for my post was to show that scientists demand a different burden of proof for design theories than for naturalists theories.
Of course that isn't true. If it was true then you would be showing us the reasons why scientists accept the existence of natural selection and then showing us that there were similar reasons for accepting design.
And you're not doing that. You're not even TRYING to do that.
quote: I argue that "natural selection" is not something you can prove, it is assumed that the changes in species are the result of natural slection, ie. by naturalists mechanisms.
You assert it, but the argument seems to be lacking. Even if you are only talking about past changes in evolutionary history and not changes observed in the present day (something which you would need to make clear if it were the case) you still have to deal with the present day evidence that natural selection exists and works - and explain why we should expect your "divine guidance" to produce results which appear to be so close to our expectations for natural evolutionary processes. Until you do that you have literally no case at all - just baseless accusations.
quote: So Scientists assume that the changes in species are natural and try to prove them by saying here we see the changes, they are natural, so design is wrong.
Of course they don't say that at all. It seems that all you want to do is make accusations without providing any real evidence.
Re: The Topic shadow, do you have anything related?
quote: But the evidence does not support evolution, it supports natural selection. Darwin merely suggested that evolution could have used this mechanism. Natural selection does not support evolution, in that species today tend to adapt into their changing environments, rather than evolve.
Of course this is untrue, there is plenty of evidence for evolution. For instance the many intermediate fossils that have been discovered.
quote: If you are basing your faith on natural processes simply because divine ones are difficult to understand, then you are not basing your opinions on anything scientific, which makes you no less a believer than I.
Then it's a good job that I'm not doing that then. All I'm doing is pointing out the fact that evolution better explains the evidence than "divine processes".
quote: Also assuming that you are right, simply because I am wrong is a fallacy in itself. A baseless arguement.
And I'm not doing that either.
quote: And you too need to be clear on what you mean by 'evolutionary processes'. It's difficult to respond when you generalize.
The whole array of processes covered by evolutionary theory - selection, mutation, drift etc. in all their variations. I don't see why you would find that hard to understand.
BIO-complexity is effectively their SECOND Journal, after the defunct ISCID. Which lasted something like 4 or 5 issues, even after lowering their already low standards.
I've got to say that accusing scientists of engaging in a double standard just because a leader of the ID movement claims that ID is scientific (a clear case of "he would say that, wouldn't he ?") is jumping to conclusions - and to specifically single out natural selection seems even worse.
quote: I have to establish groundrules to determine if design advocates meet the standards of scientists.
How about you start by presenting the evidence for your "divine guidance" and showing that it is equivalent to that fro natural selection ? Because obviously you already have that all worked out to back up the accusation of double standards in the OP. Really I'm amazed that it wasn't in the OP, because it should have been.
Since your "divine guidance" deals with the development of life over time, cosmology is even more distant from your point than the origin of life. I very much doubt that Davies even agrees with the idea expressed in the OP.
So your "starting point" is a controversial opinion which doesn't even directly address your claims. That is not a good start.
quote: Davies states, inter alia, "through my scientific work I have come to believe... This leads me to belive that his scientific work has formed the opinions he expressed. If you read his book you will see that he does provide references to his opinons.
That does not change the fact that it is only a controversial opinion - or the fact that it does not directly address the issue. That you should choose to start with such a weak point - and you have produced nothing more - simply demonstrates that you lack a sound basis for your accusation in the OP.
quote: In re evolution and God and his opinions, It is impossible to genuinely study and express opinions on evolution unless you address the Origin of Life, . It has been my experience in my readings that biological scientists refuse to address the origin of life as if it is immaterial.
As others have pointed out the scientists are correct. We do not try to work out the processes occurring today by speculating on origins - instead we rely on present-day observations.
quote: That is why I have trouble understanding why biological science refuses to entertain the thought that a supernatural being began all that we know of nature and the universe, ie. that it was designed.
THe reason seems obvious - it's a piece of completely unnecessary speculation with no use for biological science at all. BUt let me remind you that the origin f the universe is not the topic - it is your claim that scientists are engaging in a double standard in preferring natural selection to your idea of divine guidance.
quote: Scientists presume that natural selection is the prime moving cause of evolution. How can you prove that if you do not prove how life originated
Why would we need to know the origin of life ? What we need to know is how life developed over time, and as with any other scientific investigation of history we look at the processes occurring now and compare them with the data we have relating to the past. If we discover no incompatibilities we conclude that the known processes are responsible for past events. Where is the need for us to know the origins to do that ?
quote: Instead science, according to Eugenia Scott, precludes involving any nonnaturalistic or non material causes to explain the features of the natural world.
And let us note that she does not propose that as specific to biological science but to all science. And it cannot be denied that science has been successful. (And I must also point out that there is nothing that rules out saying that there is no scientific explanation).
quote: ID, in my reading, states that when you try to prove the orgin of life, ie. for ex. information in the cell and how it could have evolved by natural slection, you have reached an impasse.
I may say that but there is no doubt that a good deal of information ha appeared since the beginning of life and no reason to doubt that naturalistic processes are responsible for much of it. We have yet to discover an insuperable barrier that would force us to accept ID as a default - and so while ID has no valid theory to propose as an alternative (and I mean a theory in the full scientific sense of the word, not a mere hypothesis) ID must still lose, even if the supernatural were admitted into science. That is the nature of science - we do not abandon a working theory for mere unknowns - it will only be abandoned if it becomes hopelessly unworkable or if a better theory is proposed.
quote: Then ID uses probabilities to reach the conclusion that design is the only valid answer. That being a supernatural being.
No, it does not. ID does not deal with real, relevant probabilities.
quote: I just read a debate by Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins. I am wondering if any of you hold the opinion that Collins is a Creationist?
No, I think he's some form of theistic evolutionist. Probably even further from creationism than the former creationist Michael Behe's current position.
I'll let others handle the science, although it seems that you fail to understand even the most basic points (Behe primarily is arguing against the adequacy of known mechanisms of mutation, rather than natural selection).
quote: 5. Publication. Behe states in an interview that no journal will touch ID with a ten foot pole.
I believe I read an article where an ID article was accepted by a peer reviewed journal and there was such an uproar, it was pulled and possibly the editor was fired.
But anyway he believes the peer reviewed journal will not publish ID submissions regardless of their merit.
Firstly if Behe says that, he's lying. His own theoretical paper with Snoke WAS published (although it must be said that the results did not in fact provide any significant support for ID).
And you did not hear about any such case as you describe. You are referring to Richard Sternberg. His resignation as editor was planned and occurred BEFORE the paper was actually published (he had kept it secret from the other editors so they didn't know about it). Some significant facts to note:
1) Sternberg is a member of the ID movement 2) Sternberg violated the procedures of the Journal (a very suspicious thing to do when there is a clear conflict of interest) 3) The paper was a rewrite of one that had already been published elsewhere (although not in a peer-reviewed journal) I understand this to be unusual practice. 4) The journal in question was not a natural home for the paper, if Meyer were simply looking for publication it should have been submitted elsewhere..
While there is only limited evidence available it looks very much as if Sternberg abused his position as editor and conspired with Meyer to get the paper published regardless of its merit (or rather, lack of merit).
As with the case of ID's own journals it is significant to note how little the ID movement has to offer here - one rehashed review paper is not a great showing.
quote: believe this is where my original post has "evolved."
I have read back & forths betheen Michael Behe, Sean B. Carroll Jerry Coyne and others in re "the edge of evolution."
My impression as a non scientists is that Behe has answered all of their criticisms by what he states is "scientific" evidence. I do not know the science, so here is where I am left.
In fact your posts display a pattern of evasion and avoidance. You have utterly refused to back up your original accusation of a double standard, showing that it was completely baseless. And that illustrates the lack of moral and intellectual honesty typical of the ID movement - which all too clearly illustrates it's devotion to apologetics and dogma over true Christianity.