Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9057 total)
237 online now:
Aussie, PaulK, Percy (Admin) (3 members, 234 visitors)
Newest Member: drlove
Post Volume: Total: 889,866 Year: 978/6,534 Month: 978/682 Week: 31/182 Day: 5/26 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biased accounts of intelligent design
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 26 of 146 (861200)
08-18-2019 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Jedothek
08-18-2019 10:07 AM


The first two are compatible with mainstream science. The third is falsified; genes and functional parts are not shared between unrelated organisms. The fourth has not been established, and requires an assumption about the motives of the designer. Why should a being that powerful care about efficiency?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Jedothek, posted 08-18-2019 10:07 AM Jedothek has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 27 of 146 (861201)
08-18-2019 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Jedothek
08-18-2019 11:47 AM


The ID proponents I have read say rather that the God of the Bible is not part of the hypothesis they are proposing.

In public, at least. Nudge, nudge, wink wink. But there's few honest ones.

quote:
"We are taking an intuition most people have [the belief in God] and making it a scientific and academic enterprise. We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator.".

Phillip Johnson quoted, Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator, The LA Times, 3/25/2001.

quote:
“The world is a mirror representing the divine life…Intelligent design readily embraces the sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.”

- William A. Dembski, Touchstone Magazine, July/August 1999

Lots more at http://web.archive.org/...xtr/download/HorsesMouth-BP007.pdf

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Jedothek, posted 08-18-2019 11:47 AM Jedothek has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 30 of 146 (861207)
08-18-2019 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Jedothek
08-18-2019 1:05 PM


A sufficient number of the scientific community has examined ID and found it wanting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Jedothek, posted 08-18-2019 1:05 PM Jedothek has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 31 of 146 (861208)
08-18-2019 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Jedothek
08-18-2019 1:05 PM


A sufficient number of the scientific community has examined ID and found it wanting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Jedothek, posted 08-18-2019 1:05 PM Jedothek has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Jedothek, posted 08-18-2019 1:18 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 34 of 146 (861212)
08-18-2019 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Jedothek
08-18-2019 1:18 PM


I have examined ID. I've read Behe and Dembski and others . I even thought Dembski might be on to something when he first popped up.

ID is creationism in a cheap tuxedo.

I note you skipped addressing Message 26.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Jedothek, posted 08-18-2019 1:18 PM Jedothek has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 37 of 146 (861215)
08-18-2019 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by PaulK
08-18-2019 1:33 PM


They haven't done much of anything in the last five years or so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 08-18-2019 1:33 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 43 of 146 (861228)
08-18-2019 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Faith
08-18-2019 2:49 PM


Re: ID and creationism
I see you skipped over Message 27

Yes, they don't consider the how or the who important. They're wrong, partly for reasons given above and all over the Web. I think the biggest problem is that without those elements it's vapid and sterile. OK, everything is designed. Now what? The answer to all questions is "the Designer dunnit, we cannot have any idea how or by whom".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 08-18-2019 2:49 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Faith, posted 08-18-2019 4:55 PM JonF has not yet responded
 Message 53 by RAZD, posted 08-19-2019 6:42 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 47 of 146 (861240)
08-18-2019 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by dwise1
08-18-2019 4:49 PM


Faith has no problem posting young Earth claims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by dwise1, posted 08-18-2019 4:49 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 51 of 146 (861246)
08-18-2019 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Faith
08-18-2019 5:32 PM


the questions YEC addresses are not "religious" and the methods used have to do with the actual phenomena, not religious principles, so it's not quite fair to accuse them of trying to "fool" anyone by "pretending" something. If they address the stuff of science without reference to the biblical text, it's not establishment science we know that, but it isn't religion either.

Edwards v. Aguillard established that as false. As did you. Remember just recently trying to discuss those English drawings and repeatedly making it clear that your only reason for believing the Fludde was your religion? And the many times you claimed you had real-world evidence but all you had was unsupported assertions and the Bible?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Faith, posted 08-18-2019 5:32 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 78 of 146 (861367)
08-20-2019 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by AlexCaledin
08-20-2019 1:58 PM


Could you please translate that from gobbledygook to English?

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by AlexCaledin, posted 08-20-2019 1:58 PM AlexCaledin has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 94 of 146 (861514)
08-22-2019 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Jedothek
08-22-2019 12:41 PM


Re: Geting back to the question of ID
We know how the genetic code works.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Jedothek, posted 08-22-2019 12:41 PM Jedothek has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 95 of 146 (861515)
08-22-2019 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by FLRW
08-22-2019 1:41 PM


Re: Geting back to the question of ID -- a philosophy
Strings are not theorized to be the basic components of atoms. They are theorized to be the basic components of quarks and other fundamental particles. Nobody has established that they exist, and nobody knows how to establish whether or not they exist with current technology or reasonably expected extensions of current technology

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by FLRW, posted 08-22-2019 1:41 PM FLRW has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by RAZD, posted 08-22-2019 3:24 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 104 of 146 (861544)
08-23-2019 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Faith
08-23-2019 9:28 AM


Re: Geting back to the question of ID
Those calculations are there to impress people like you. They are meaningless, because they require making assumptions know to be untrue or are misapplied theorems or both. As it says early in the article,

quote:
The concept of specified complexity is widely regarded as mathematically unsound and has not been the basis for further independent work in information theory, in the theory of complex systems, or in biology.[2][3][4] A study by Wesley Elsberry and Jeffrey Shallit states: "Dembski's work is riddled with inconsistencies, equivocation, flawed use of mathematics, poor scholarship, and misrepresentation of others' results."[5] Another objection concerns Dembski's calculation of probabilities. According to Martin Nowak, a Harvard professor of mathematics and evolutionary biology, "We cannot calculate the probability that an eye came about. We don't have the information to make the calculation."[6]

Critics also reject applying specified complexity to infer design, characterizing this approach as an argument from ignorance.[citation needed]


The process we envisage is one in which most or all of the steps are functional and confer a selective advantage. Neutral or slightly disadvantageous steps are possible (and observed) steps don't necessarily halt the process because unlikely things happen all the time.

Pallen and Matzke wrote a well-known paper on how the flagellum could have arisen from existing functional elements.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Faith, posted 08-23-2019 9:28 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Faith, posted 08-23-2019 9:59 AM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 107 of 146 (861554)
08-23-2019 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Faith
08-23-2019 9:59 AM


Re: Geting back to the question of ID
You have no clue what steps we envisage and your "assessment" of their possibilities is meaningless.

Perhaps some kind of calculations could demonstrate something, but nobody knows the numbers needed to do the calculations. So IDists make unjustified and/or obviously false assumptions to feed into the calculations. It's BS.

Nothing in the various proposed possible evolutionary sequences is arbitrary. There are logical and scientific reasons for each proposed step.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Faith, posted 08-23-2019 9:59 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Faith, posted 08-23-2019 10:38 AM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 114 of 146 (861565)
08-23-2019 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Faith
08-23-2019 10:38 AM


Re: Geting back to the question of ID
Yes, they involve mutations. You've made it abundantly clear over the years that you are incapable of understanding what kinds of effects mutations can have. Nobody can enlighten you.

You can suspect whatever you want. That doesn't change the fact that the proposed stages are not arbitrary. I don't know if anyone has published a graph of a path for the flagellum mutation by mutation, but there's one for chloroquine resistance in mosquitoes (which Behe claims is not possible for evolution). Here's two proposed pathways (click to make the image much bigger}:

Full paper at Diverse mutational pathways converge on saturable chloroquine transport via the malaria parasite’s chloroquine resistance transporter

Let us know when you've identified arbitrary elements. Until then, don't make any claims about arbitraryness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Faith, posted 08-23-2019 10:38 AM Faith 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 © 2022