Evolution: Natural selection vs. Godly guidance

Add to that the fact that Behe had to admit that to allow ID as science would also allow astrology as science.

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

Hi shadow, welcome to EvC. Emphasis mine.So you think Davies' beliefs and astonishment about the Universe constitute evidence about biological evolution?If this was anything other than his argument from incredulity you should expect him to provide references to the actual experiments or observations he made and the conclusions that provide "a deeper level of explanation" that have been published in scientific journals. A scientist's personal opinions about some hypothetical deeper meaning for the Universe, for which there is no physical evidence, has no more validity than anyone else's.He is right, the Universe is an amazing thing, but there is not one shred of evidence that it is the result of anything but natural processes.I do not see how this has anything to do with whether evolution and natural selection are guided by god or not.

---

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty PythonYou can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

No, you could just answer it anyway. What would creationist research into the origin of life entail? Some of 'em are more like mathematicians, but for the sake of argument, let's call them scientists.Now that I have answered your question, there is nothing standing in the way of you answering mine. Would you care to do so?

Actually, no you don't.I simply asked you what creationist research into the origin of life would look like. I am perfectly capable of deciding on my own if the procedures you describe in answer to this question constitute science.

quote:

---

Theoretical physicists work hand-in-hand with experimental physicists, like surgeons work hand-in hand with ER physicians. They're two different specialties, neither of which could function without the other.

---

So the answer is yes?

subbie wrote,

quote:

---

As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Judge Jones's opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover, about half way down the page.

​

You got anything else?

---

I am not sure what you are saying in this post. Do you belive that Judge Jones is stating that Behe is a creationist? He merely states that in his opinion ID is a religious proposition. This does not make Behe a creationist except in the eyes of those who refuse to recognize the difference between fundamental creationist and people who may belive in religion and ID.I also assume that you belive the last work on science is in the purview of a Federal District Court judge. I can't accept that assumption, too many of them are wrong.So yes I do have more.

tanypteryx writes,

quote:

---

So you think Davies' beliefs and astonishment about the Universe constitute evidence about biological evolution?

​

If this was anything other than his argument from incredulity you should expect him to provide references to the actual experiments or observations he made and the conclusions that provide "a deeper level of explanation" that have been published in scientific journals.

​

A scientist's personal opinions about some hypothetical deeper meaning for the Universe, for which there is no physical evidence, has no more validity than anyone else's.

​

He is right, the Universe is an amazing thing, but there is not one shred of evidence that it is the result of anything but natural processes.

​

I do not see how this has anything to do with whether evolution and natural selection are guided by god or not.

---

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.
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.
The origin of life is where design is illustrated such as in the information in the DNA & how it came to be.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not sure how you missed the point of what Subbie quoted. It isn't that Behe is a 6 day creationist, it's that even ID's proponents frequently acknowledge that their 'science' is predicated on a belief in god. This leads us to ask, where then is the scientific method for detecting design they always claim to have? If it requires a belief in god then what sort of scientific objectivity can it possibly have? And the answer is it doesn't have it and the ID proponents themselves frequently say that for ID to be considered science the very concept of science needs to be radically changed.That wasn't Jones expressing an opinion about Behe, it was just him noting what Behe said. He also quoted a number of other expert witnesses saying that ID required a belief in the supernatural.If you want to claim that the flagrant creationists in the Dover case or who produced 'Of Pandas and People' weren't 'true' IDists, then go ahead and tell us what the actual distinction is. If they are so separate why doesn't Behe have the integrity to say, "This isn't ID it is creationism." and refuse to testify on their behalf?TTFN,WK

Dr. Adequate writes,

quote:

---

simply asked you what creationist research into the origin of life would look like. I am perfectly capable of deciding on my own if the procedures you describe in answer to this question constitute science.

---

I would refer you to Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer especially his DNA information work.

No it isn't, and the endless repetition by IDists and creationists won't make it so. If you want to claim it is necessary to decide if the world is naturalistic then fine, but to use evolution as synonymous with that is just ludicrous. Then you clearly haven't been reading any Origins of Life (OOL) research, perhaps that is why you are under the misapprehension that the ID side has anything even remotely approaching the naturalistic models concerning the OOL. That is quite a claim, now might be a good time to start providing some evidence to back it up. It might also help if you firmed up what your claim actually means, do you believe that god just created an initial self replicating organism with a DNA genome? The he created each individual species? That he is constantly using magic to tinker with the genomes of living organisms to modify them according to a divine plan? What does the origin of life mean to you? I'm taking about early self replicating molecules are you talking about making modern species out of clay and breathing life into them?There is no reason why the known natural mechanisms, mutation and natural selection, can't lead to the accumulation of information in DNA. What mechanisms does ID have?TTFN,WK

Since I do not have a copy of his book handy, perhaps you could give me one or two examples.You're being awfully coy about this.

You might as well say that it is impossible to genuinely study and express opinions on Italian cuisine unless you address the origins of spaghetti.Or that it was impossible for Newton to genuinely study and express opinions on gravity without addressing the origin of matter.But he could.And Darwin (for example) was able to "genuinely study and express opinions on evolution" (do you really mean to deny that he did so?) without forming any definite opinions on the origin of life. As he wrote (using the same analogy as I have just used): But he could genuinely express opinions on evolution like billy-oh. And so can scientists today, even if they are not personally involved in origins of life research.There is a Chinese proverb to the effect that the man who says that a thing is impossible should not interrupt a man who is doing it. Some scientists do investigate the origins of life. But to others it is indeed immaterial. If I want to know about the evolution of birds from archosaurs, how is it in the least bit relevant whether the first life on Earth arose as a result of chemistry; was seeded here by space aliens; or was magicked into existence by God? Such a question is supremely irrelevant to such researches.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

quote:

---

My theory is that evolution has and will occur in life. That this process is designed by God, for me the Roman Catholic God.

---

Shadow 71,You are in good company. One of the most prominent evolutionary biologists, Francisco Ayala, is a former Dominican priest.I assume that you believe God is omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent.Evolution causes a lot of pain and suffering in humans and other animals. Often far more offspring are generated than can survive to reproduce. Many, especially the youngest and oldest, succumb to starvation, disease, and predation. Many of these deaths appear to be slow and excruciating. This was the case for most of human evolution and is still the case to some extent today, especially in developing countries.How do you reconcile the suffering caused by the evolutionary process with your belief in an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent God who designed this process?SteveEdited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.

I'll recap so you can catch up.I said ID is disqualified from science because science requires questioning everything. You said Behe is not a creationist and suggested that creationists and cdesign proponentists should not be lumped together. I showed that Behe acknowledged that the plausibility of ID depends on the belief in a god. Thus, any distinction between creationists and the cdesign proponentist you named is irrelevant for purposes of the point that I was making.No, I didn't quote Judge Jones as the last word on science, but to show what Behe believes, thinking perhaps you were unaware of it.Now, anything else?

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

Yes, theoretical physicists are real scientists because even if they don't do hands-on experiments themselves, their work is tested by experimental physicists.No, IDists are not real scientists because their speculations are not tested by experiment.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi