Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 57 (9054 total)
340 online now:
jar, nwr (2 members, 338 visitors)
Newest Member: EWolf
Post Volume: Total: 888,271 Year: 5,917/14,102 Month: 65/438 Week: 109/83 Day: 11/21 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nature belongs to ID
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 116 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 19 of 146 (661554)
05-07-2012 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Vanessa
05-07-2012 6:48 PM


My first argument is against the title of 'Naturalism' to explain a process that has little of anything to do with Nature. Nature does not develop life through accident - an egg is fertilised by a sperm and implants itself in the wall of the uterus where a complex process kicks in to develop the baby.

And nature also incorporates phenomena such as mutation, recombination, natural selection, sexual selection, lateral gene transfer, etc. These are natural. Supernatural things are not natural. God doing magic is not natural, natural selection is. Hence the name.

Now, in the scientific method, when one has a theory based on known mechanisms that explains the phenomena, and the only alternate hypothesis is magical, then you (provisionally) conclude that the theory is correct. When you're reduced to saying: "Either the patient has measles, or invisible fairies are painting spots on his skin with tiny invisible brushes, ahahahaha", this is as much to say --- the patient has measles.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Vanessa, posted 05-07-2012 6:48 PM Vanessa has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 116 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(7)
Message 22 of 146 (661557)
05-07-2012 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Vanessa
05-06-2012 12:38 PM


ID proponents call their opposition Naturalism and this is their first mistake.

No, nor is it their biggest.

If ID is to succeeds it must lay claim Nature.

The failure of ID is not down to its lack of spin, but to its lack of substance. When I'm reading their worthless arguments, I don't think: "They may have compounded gross factual errors with gormless errors of reasoning, but if only they hadn't described evolutionary biology as Naturalism I'd find their argument perfectly convincing."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Vanessa, posted 05-06-2012 12:38 PM Vanessa has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 116 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 41 of 146 (661673)
05-09-2012 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Rahvin
05-08-2012 12:14 PM


I agree with Percy and NoNukes. Vanessa would have to be a whole lot more wrong than she appears to be about what she means when she calls mutations "unguided" before your statement would be less misleading.

In normal English, one would not even say that raindrops were "guided" downwards, even though they are obeying the law of gravity. That would imply an intelligent agency.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Rahvin, posted 05-08-2012 12:14 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 116 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 53 of 146 (661738)
05-09-2012 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Vanessa
05-09-2012 10:52 AM


Re: Thank you
I did not say the universe is completely deterministic. Does anyone? Man has the gift of self determination. Everyone knows that. The argument against a designed intelligent universe, but definition, must claim that it arose by fortuitous accident.

And yet no-one ever does claim that, which should tell you something.

By accident I mean no intention, no plan ...

But as that is not what everyone else means by "accident", perhaps you should choose your words more carefully.

An accident is only possible when there is an intention and a plan, and events turn out contrary to the intention and the plan. If I fall off a cliff, that's an accident, because I had the intention not to do so. If scree falls off a cliff as a result of mass wasting, that isn't an accident, because there was no intention on the part of the scree, or the cliff, or the force of gravity, that it should stay up.

Really, do you say (for example) that raindrops fall down rather than up "by fortuitous accident", just because no-one is guiding them down?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Vanessa, posted 05-09-2012 10:52 AM Vanessa has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 116 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 67 of 146 (661894)
05-10-2012 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Vanessa
05-10-2012 1:17 PM


Both sides attempt to explain Nature.

One side does so in terms of natural processes that we can observe, and the other does so in terms of supernatural miraculous processes that we have never seen.

You are not going to change the significance of this fact by playing about with the meaning of the word "naturalism" or by playing about with the occasions on which you and your creationist pals wish to apply it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Vanessa, posted 05-10-2012 1:17 PM Vanessa has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Vanessa, posted 05-11-2012 3:08 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 116 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 72 of 146 (661949)
05-11-2012 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Vanessa
05-11-2012 3:08 AM


No, we have never seen life evolve from simple organisms to complex ones through mutation.

You seem not to have grasped my point.

Obviously, scientists do not claim to have observed the evolution of (for example) a giraffe from some more basal chordate such as (for example) Pikaia.

However, they do claim that they have observed the processes by which this evolution occurred: they attribute this evolution to well-known natural processes such as reproduction, mutation, and natural selection --- natural processes that they can see happening.

Meanwhile, creationists ascribe the existence of giraffes to a supernatural process that no-one has ever seen.

Scientists attribute the diversity of life to natural processes that they have seen. Creationists attribute the diversity of life to a supernatural process that no-one has seen. Scientists are sticking to nature and the observable facts; creationists are appealing to the supernatural and to processes that no-one has witnessed.

So if you wanted to use the ambiguous and misleading term "naturalistic" to describe one of these two views, then it would much better describe the scientists than the creationists. A less ambiguous way of putting it would be that the scientists are being scientific and the creationists are not.

Nature develops life through systems - in which the organism transforms in it's life cycle - egg to chick, foetus to baby, caterpillar to butterfly. This is how Nature works. This is what our fossil record looks like.

What exactly are you advocating, then? Front-loaded evolution, perhaps?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Vanessa, posted 05-11-2012 3:08 AM Vanessa has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 116 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 75 of 146 (661955)
05-11-2012 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Vanessa
05-10-2012 12:48 PM


One last thing - our fossil evidence better supports the theory of Punctuated Equilibria which states that biology was static over large periods of time (Equilibria) and then something happens (punctuation) and biology takes a great leap forward in complexity and diversity.

But that is absolutely not what the P.E. people are saying.

What they claim is that speciation is rapid (mere tens of thousands of years) when compared with the periods of stasis. If you told them that they were talking about "a great leap forwards in complexity and diversity" they would call you a liar and throw rocks at you.

I don't know how to say this nicely, so I'll just say it. You're a sucker. Instead of reading what the advocates of P.E. actually think, in their own words, you've swallowed the lies of creationist propagandists about what the P.E. advocates think. And then you've come here to discuss that, instead. Rather than quoting what Stephen Gould says or what Niles Eldredge says, you're talking about what a bunch of creationist liars and halfwits say that they say.

Please refer to the Cambrian Explosion as one example.

Dear Lord, give me the strength to carry on.

OK, I'm done praying, I'll go back to sarcasm. You have such an enormous knowledge of the Cambrian Explosion that you can use your immense knowledge of this subject to prove that biologists are all wrong about biology, the subject that they know about and you don't. So please tell us, in your own words, what the C.E. actually was.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Vanessa, posted 05-10-2012 12:48 PM Vanessa has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Percy, posted 05-11-2012 12:58 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 116 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 99 of 146 (662146)
05-12-2012 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by shadow71
05-12-2012 3:08 PM


While there are random adapative changes resulting from natural selection ...

You appear to have composed your post by taking an introduction to evolution, cutting it into separate words with scissors, and then drawing them blindfold out of a hat. The consequence is that while the words may sound very science-y, the sentences themselves are meaningless.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by shadow71, posted 05-12-2012 3:08 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by shadow71, posted 05-13-2012 3:33 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 116 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 104 of 146 (662225)
05-13-2012 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by shadow71
05-13-2012 3:33 PM


I was not trying to give a definitive definition of evolution.

Good. I hope you weren't trying to say anything remotely accurate either.

I think Vanessa got my meaning.

Wishful thinking is a wonderful thing, isn't it?

Sorry my post went over your head.

What a curious fantasy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by shadow71, posted 05-13-2012 3:33 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by shadow71, posted 05-13-2012 6:56 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 116 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 108 of 146 (662234)
05-13-2012 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by shadow71
05-13-2012 6:56 PM


After seeing your posts over the years, I don't think humility is one of your virtues.

If humility involved agreeing with sentences beginning with the words: "While there are random adapative changes resulting from natural selection ..." it would not be a virtue.

But it does not. Myself, I think that humility, amongst other things, involves finding out what you're talking about before you talk about it, and that arrogance is betrayed by the assumption of knowledge which you have not in fact labored to achieve. If you think it's the other way round, then I suppose we are two very different people.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by shadow71, posted 05-13-2012 6:56 PM shadow71 has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 116 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 110 of 146 (662261)
05-14-2012 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Vanessa
05-14-2012 3:40 AM


The approach preferred on this site is what I call 'auto-naturalism', meaning Nature evolves itself. This explanation could perhaps be adequate when evolution is viewed as a very simple process, in which life can spontaneously arise with few chemicals bumping into each other in a heated Petrie dish.

Yes, well, anyone who views evolution as simple process involving (a) the origin of life (b) a few chemicals in a Petri dish clearly needs their head examining, and their dictionary, since that is not what the word "evolution" means.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Vanessa, posted 05-14-2012 3:40 AM Vanessa has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 116 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 130 of 146 (663260)
05-22-2012 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Vanessa
05-22-2012 11:45 AM


Re: work in progress
Current theory (which you fail to properly identify in your post) states that random mutation is the method by which new information is introduced in the genome. Like saying new computer programs are developed by random mutation in the computer code of existing programs - like saying my media player will one day evolve into publishing program simply by me using it.

Current theory (which you fail to properly identify in your post) states that reproduction is the method by which new organisms are produced. Like saying new computer programs are produced by existing programs having sex - like saying my media player will one day give birth to a media player.

This comparison shows how silly it is to say that organisms reproduce --- because if the immaculate intellectual structure that is creation science has taught us anything, it's that analogies are always perfect, and that consequently everything is exactly like everything else.

My issue is the assumption that any argument to this theory is religiously driven and unscientific.

That's not an assumption, that's calling it how we see it.

We should not be content to accept a collection of theories to explain the evolution of the solar system, another for the beginnings of life on Earth and yet another for evolution of life.

And another for the evolution of jazz from ragtime. This will not stand!

Different things do have different reasons.

I take the position of Galileo and Einstein, who both believed and spent the last years of their lives looking for - a unified theory of all things.

Well, no. No they didn't. Your allusion to Galileo I do not understand at all; as for Einstein, he wished to (and failed to) unify various physical fields; but he did not try to unify all things, giving one single explanation for gravity, aardvarks, and spaghetti.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Vanessa, posted 05-22-2012 11:45 AM Vanessa has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 116 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(8)
Message 133 of 146 (663266)
05-22-2012 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Vanessa
05-22-2012 6:45 PM


Re: work in progress
I refute the current explanation ...

No, you reject it. Refuting it would take actual work.

I did not intend to explain the theory I heard ...

So you know of a better idea, but you won't tell us what it is?

I came here because I was dismayed that the current theory of arbitrary events is purported to be the only possible scientific explanation.

Well, it's the only one we know.

This is arrogant ...

No it isn't.

We have a theory that works perfectly. We don't know of any alternative that works at all. We say so. This is not arrogant, it is merely factual. Now, I would not go so far as to say that it is the only possible explanation, but it is certainly the only extant explanation. (Note that an explanation that exists only in your head which you won't tell anyone about doesn't really count, because no-one else knows what it is.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Vanessa, posted 05-22-2012 6:45 PM Vanessa has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021