Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 4:48 PM
26 online now:
AZPaul3, edge, jar, JonF, PaulK, ringo (6 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,834 Year: 9,870/19,786 Month: 2,292/2,119 Week: 328/724 Day: 53/114 Hour: 4/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
121314
15
1617Next
Author Topic:   Creationism/ID as Science
CACTUSJACKmankin
Member (Idle past 4446 days)
Posts: 48
Joined: 04-22-2006


Message 211 of 249 (345736)
09-01-2006 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Hughes
09-01-2006 12:56 PM


Re: What about creationism/ID?
quote:
What I’ve said is that ID doesn’t need relatedness, or use it as evidence. As a contrast, Evolution makes vast connections without a factual basis. For example, Ford, Chevy, Toyota, and Honda all make a car that is similar in size and shape. Yet, we don’t conclude from similarity that they are even remotely related.

The use of technological evolution in comparisson to biological evolution is a false analogy. New cars are made from scratch, not from previous cars giving birth to them. Organisms are related because they share genetic material, something cars don't have. While it is true that appearance is not enough to establish relatedness, after all dolphins and sharks are similar in overall size and shape yet one's a mammal and the other is a cartillagenous fish, we may use specific characteristics of appearance to give clues to relatedness that can later be confirmed by genetics such as bone structures in the skull.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Hughes, posted 09-01-2006 12:56 PM Hughes has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18498
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 212 of 249 (345742)
09-01-2006 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Hughes
09-01-2006 12:56 PM


Re: What about creationism/ID?
Hi Hughes,

You say much that I'd love to address, but I'm going to resist temptation and stay on topic. But I will comment on this:

Percy, thanks. This is true, I don't have lots of time. I appreciate your thoughtful comments. Since I’m new to this board, and have only read through both threads I’ve posted in, and haven’t had time to peruse all the others, I’m unaware of what the other threads may contain. Many things interest me, so I anticipate that I’ll be getting over there.

I'm not trying to force you to spread yourself even more thinly than you are already. I was only pointing out that here at EvC Forum we do try to keep discussion focused on the topic. I'm convinced that if it weren't for my persistent efforts at steering you back to the topic of ID that this thread would now be deep into discussions of the many defects of evolutionary theory. I think that that's what you really want to discuss, and if I'm correct in this then you should stop posting here in this thread and seek a more appropriate thread for the topic that seems to interest you the most. Or you can propose a new thread tailored to what you'd like to discuss.

Here is where I think you're going adrift:

There’s nothing new that ID has “discovered” that wasn’t already know. It’s simply a new model. One that I am arguing is equally scientific as ToE.

The topic isn't whether ID is as scientific as the ToE, and even if that were the topic then you're going about pursuing your point in the wrong way. If you're right and evolution is actually philosophy and not science, then if your goal is to show that ID qualifies as science why would you want to argue that ID is as scientific as the ToE?

The topic is whether ID meets the requirements of legitimate science. That doesn't mean references to evolution are off-limits. It just means that the focus of discussion should be on ID's scientific qualifications and not on the problems of evolutionary theory.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Hughes, posted 09-01-2006 12:56 PM Hughes has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 342 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 213 of 249 (345785)
09-01-2006 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Hughes
09-01-2006 12:56 PM


Re: What about creationism/ID?

Nonsensse.

Of course scientific biological theories are falsifiable.

For example, if the morphological tree of life that had been constructed had been completely contradicted once the discovery of DNA and genetics came along, that would have been a major falsofication for the Biological Evolutionary concept of descent with modification.

The prediction of the ToE was that the morphological and genetic trees of life would pretty much match. They didn't HAVe to match, but they did. Thus, the ToE survived another potential falsification.

There are dozens of such survived potential falsifications.

Now, if you would like to discuss ID as science, I'd like to hear what predictions ID has made about the natural world, and what the results of the tests of those predictions were.

If you are saying, however, that ID makes no testable predictions, then it is uselss, and hardly scientific.

It is simply then a belief, or a philosopy, but it certainly shouldn't be considered a tool to further our understanding of nature.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Hughes, posted 09-01-2006 12:56 PM Hughes has not yet responded

    
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6649
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 214 of 249 (345786)
09-01-2006 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Hughes
09-01-2006 12:56 PM


Re: What about creationism/ID?
quote:
You start with a universe that was nothing 15 billions years ago, then was something shortly after that....

You start with an Earth that was not designed, but formed somehow, by the natural forces, containing an unlimited natural ability to create life.


Actually, we don't. We start with data and then try to figure out what the data is telling us.

-

quote:
I start with a universe that was started by a great designer....

I start with an Earth that was designed, once again, by a great designer.


Which is why what you are doing is not science.


"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw
This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Hughes, posted 09-01-2006 12:56 PM Hughes has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19890
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 215 of 249 (345837)
09-01-2006 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Hughes
08-31-2006 11:23 PM


Re: IC is falsified -- Still.
Behe disagrees. Selected quotes below refute the idea that IC has been falsified by this particular test.

Miller has responded to all those points and refutes them as well. I'll leave you to decide if you have the integrity to find and read them -- as pointed out by Percy we don't debate websites here.

Of course Behe disagrees. He makes money selling a book that is based on the concept to 'marks' too gullible to understand what it means to have the concept falsified or even that it is.

The fact remains logically simple:

(1) An "Irreducible complex" system is defined as one composed of multiple parts, the removal of any one of which renders the system unable to do it's function.

(2) The system that evolved in Hall's experiment is composed of 3 parts, the removal of any one of which renders the system unable to do it's function.

(3) The evolved system meets the criteria of an "Irreducible complex" system.

Therefore the concept that NO "Irreducible complex" system can evolve has been refuted.

Note when Behe complains that "a multipart system was not "wiped out"--only one component of a multipart system was deleted" he is either equivocating on his original definition, or he is complaining that a common way for evolution to achieve ANY supposedly "Irreducible complex" system has been demonstrated. I find that rather humorous.

He does NOT say that the sytem is NOT an IC system and he does NOT say that it did not evolve.

Demonstrating two things. One, that ID is science if it's true as claimed by the opponents here, that IC was falsified. And two, that such an experiment as was discussed above, has an outcome, as predicted from ID theory.

Nope.

Tell me how the falsification of IC then falsifies ID.

Tell me what was predicted by ID that occurred in the experiment.

Oh, and while you are at it, tell me what the "ID theory" is eh?

What this demonstrates to me is

(1) that the concept of IC was falsified as a marker of NOT{evolution} -- but it has NOT demonstrated that ID was (or can be) falsified. Different kettle of fishyness.

(2) that an great PR opportunity was missed by the whole ID camp to accept that IC was falsified, and then to advertise that as an example of how "scientific" they are -- they could have easily convinced the gullible 'marks' with such nonesense -- but instead they deny that it was falsified, thus demonstrating that they are not the slightest interested in doing actual science, but are only interested in pushing their anti-science agenda.

(3) that many people, you included it appears, don't {understand\comrehend\realize} the important differences between idea, concept, hypothesis, and theory (in the scientific sense only) and thus are clueless when it comes to falsification and what it means and needs to mean.

A scientific theory is based on reviewing the known evidence, and making a hypothesis of how it happened. The hypothesis is then tested (validated) against the known evidence to make sure that it does indeed explain the known evidence. The hypothesis is then used to make a prediction -- if (X) is true then (Y) will happen, but if (X) is false then (Y) will not happen. We then test to see if (Y) happens or not -- if not then (X) is falsified and discarded, but if it does happen then (Y) gets added to the evidence and another prediction is made.

A theory starts as a hypothesis founded on evidence, it is honed by testing, and is falsifyable by a contradictory result of a test.

In comparison the idea of "Irreducible complexity" is a facile concept empty of foundation. It is not based on a review of all the evidence, it does not provide a mechanism for how {design} is achieved, and it is not compared against the available evidence to check it's ability to explain it.

The fact that an idea can be falsified does not de facto make the idea scientific (and certainly any falsified idea is neutered as a valid scientific concept), because it doesn't have the scientific foundation.

This is where the whole {concept} if "Intelligent Design" fails: it has no mechanism to explain today's evidence that supports evolution.

Example: How did species {A} arise from species {B}?

Evolution: {B} accumulates mutations, variations in alleles, that are then selected by natural processes, eliminating some {death before reproduction} in favor of others {reproduce, pass on genes}; over time the differences add up enough to end up with {A} (observed)

"Intelligent Design" : either (1) I don't know OR (2) {B} was {magically designed} to evolve into {A} by natural processes associated with evolution.

If (2), then How did species {B} arise from species {C}?

Evolution: {C} accumulates mutations, variations in alleles, that are then selected by natural processes, eliminating some {death before reproduction} in favor of others {reproduce, pass on genes}; over time the differences add up enough to end up with {B} (observed)

"Intelligent Design" : either (1) I don't know OR (2) {C} was {magically designed} to evolve into {B} by natural processes associated with evolution.

If (2), then How did species {C} arise from species {D}?

Evolution: {D} accumulates mutations, variations in alleles, that are then selected by natural processes, eliminating some {death before reproduction} in favor of others {reproduce, pass on genes}; over time the differences add up enough to end up with {C} (observed)

"Intelligent Design" : either (1) I don't know OR (2) {D} was {magically designed} to evolve into {C} by natural processes associated with evolution.

etc ad infinitum ... ad nauseum ... back to the origin of life on this planet ...

As such ID is incapable of making a prediction that would differentiate it from evolution.

ID actually relies on mutation and natural selection to produce the diversity of life we see.

Facile concepts are like the Dumbo Scenario:

Hey, what if elephants could fly? (= facile concept)

answer: they are too heavy for the surface area to support flight other than to simulate a falling rock (= concept falsified)

BUT HEY, what if ONE had BIG EARS -- could it fly? (= silly facile concept)

Nobody believes that flying elephants is a scientific concept just because it is falsifiable.

Anybody can make up whatever "what-if" ideas they want - they aren't scientific.

At best they are science fiction.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Hughes, posted 08-31-2006 11:23 PM Hughes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-01-2006 10:25 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 216 of 249 (345880)
09-01-2006 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by RAZD
09-01-2006 8:35 PM


Re: IC is falsified -- Still.
Another good example is the mammalian ear. Remove the incus, and it stops working. Yet the fossil record shows a series of functional intermediate forms.

Fans of the Dover Pandas Trial will remember Behe refusing to answer any questions about the human hand on the grounds that he was a microbiologist and didn't know anything about it. I suspect that the lawyer had some similar argument in mind.

The notion that IC can't evolve is therefore falsifiable and known to be false.

ID remains a rather vacuous concept.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by RAZD, posted 09-01-2006 8:35 PM RAZD has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by obvious Child, posted 09-02-2006 9:59 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2288 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 217 of 249 (345902)
09-01-2006 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by inkorrekt
08-31-2006 9:28 PM


Re: please explain
So all of the new products and services ranging from huge bombs to tiny drugs that came from science, came from a science that no longer uses verifable or observable facts?

So better living through chemistry was actually just a big speculation that didn't led to the modern world?

Trying to make sense of inkorrekt's claim is like trying to make a lego castle out of melting swiss cheese.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by inkorrekt, posted 08-31-2006 9:28 PM inkorrekt has not yet responded

  
Hughes
Inactive Member


Message 218 of 249 (346130)
09-02-2006 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by fallacycop
08-31-2006 1:34 AM


Can ID explain the complexity we observe today? this is potentially a serious problem for ID because all known itelligent designers (Human beings, that is) have time and skill limitations.

This is true. However, if it can be claimed that based on such small scale changes that limitless changes can be extrapolated, then how much more when considering designed things.
We observe structures that are designed, and can account for their complexity based on our observation. Limited designs, and a limited product admittedly. However, using even less extrapolation than is used with ToE, grand designs can logically been seen as coming from a designer.

The theory of evolution doesn't face simmilar problem because the process can keep working over extremely long periods of time and lead to apparently arbitrarily complex extructures. I would argue that the more complex something is, the harder it becomes to believe that it may have been designed and the bigger gets the likelyhood that it is a result of some natural process like evolution

Hmmm...more likely that it came from a chance driven process? Hmmm...wonder if we could work out the "likelyhoods". I wonder if there's a way to establish "odds" in this particular bet? Not that it's a bet, but the debate can certainly be framed that way. Too bad computers don't just write themselves their own programs from the silicone itself, else you might have something there.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by fallacycop, posted 08-31-2006 1:34 AM fallacycop has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-02-2006 9:29 PM Hughes has not yet responded
 Message 224 by fallacycop, posted 09-03-2006 2:21 AM Hughes has not yet responded
 Message 230 by Percy, posted 09-03-2006 10:00 AM Hughes has not yet responded

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 1770 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 219 of 249 (346133)
09-02-2006 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Hughes
09-02-2006 9:12 PM


momentary correction: natural process
Hughes wrote:

Hmmm...more likely that it came from a chance driven process?

This repeats a common misunderstanding of the ToE. Evolution is a natural process in which chance plays a role. Creationists, in their desire to make ToE sound haphazard and willy-nilly, tend to overlook this.

Chance plays its role at the outset. New mutations occur by chance. Once this happens, though, mutations are passed on or not according to processes that are natural, not random.

An analogous situation can be seen in waterfalls. Chance comes into play countless times as drops go one way or the other, as water flows around the left side of a rock or the right side of a rock or over the top. But it's no big dice roll about which way the water will flow. All the water that comes over the falls will obey natural laws.

That's why someone can show you multiple pictures of Niagara Falls and you always recognize it--even though you are looking at a completely different body of water in each photo.

Natural processes are important, and they are not random. Do not overlook this.

--

Just a correcting a common misunderstanding. Back to the discussion of ID.

Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo.


Archer

All species are transitional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Hughes, posted 09-02-2006 9:12 PM Hughes has not yet responded

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2288 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 220 of 249 (346135)
09-02-2006 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Dr Adequate
09-01-2006 10:25 PM


Re: IC is falsified -- Still.
Dr A, why it is that ID never acknowlege the issue of gene interaction leading to secondary affects and more then one function for a specific gene?

I posted a reply aganist Hughes dealing with just that, specifically that Behe's claim of 3 seqential mutations before a functional organ is impossible is illogical because of multiple traits arising from gene interaction, he never replied.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-01-2006 10:25 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Hughes
Inactive Member


Message 221 of 249 (346146)
09-02-2006 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by RAZD
08-31-2006 7:48 AM


This is addressed on Message 1 (Thread Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part III)

How does the concept of ID contribute to calibrations? What does it show the calibrations should be?

Thanks, I posted in that thread.
ID as in all science endeavors doesn't displace the scientific method and principles of calibration.

How does ID explain the changes in complexity seen today - the one's happening now? What is the mechanism that it operates by?

You mean variation as seen now? Simple. It's called genetics, based on an original design scheme that has a built-in variation system. They two key differences with evolution are that the variation isn't unlimited, and that the designs didn't arrive via decent with modification (ToE). The designs preceded the variations.

How is the design transmitted? What is the process? Can we predict the next change? Shouldn't there be a trend if it is a design process?

How is the design transmitted? You mean originally, (as in the beginning), or today?
I think we are being misunderstood here, if you thought ID means that designing is still going on.

Surely if ID can be used in science then it should be able to contribute to making even better medicines by understanding the design process and working with it -- such as finding a cure for AIDS\HIV yes?

Exactly. Just as many developments (flight, radar are two examples) occurred as a result of close study of nature (what ID proposes was designed by an intelligence).

Edited by Hughes, : fixed quote commands


This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by RAZD, posted 08-31-2006 7:48 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by RAZD, posted 09-03-2006 9:30 AM Hughes has not yet responded

  
Hughes
Inactive Member


Message 222 of 249 (346157)
09-03-2006 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by Percy
08-31-2006 4:30 PM


You mean communications as in radio, television and journalism communications? Or communications as in Shannon Information? I don't see how you could have studied the latter and make statements like, "Information can only come from intelligent sources." Right near the beginning of his paper Shannon states that meaning is irrelevant to the engineering problem of communicating information. Intelligence has nothing to do with creating information.

And I agree, that they are separate issues. I wouldn't conclude from this that intelligence is therefore absent, simply because they are separate problems. One being strictly physical (engineering), the other information/abstract based.

I studied cross-cultural communications specifically.

I agree that communicating information within the cell fits within the formalism of information theory, but this has nothing to do with intelligence. You seem to sort of be nibbling around the edges of the faux information theories promoted by Gitt and Dembski.


Click to enlarge

I think that the strongest argument for design is the abstract nature of communication in cells.

When I say, "The grass is green" and you read those letters, you only understand the message if you can decode them. The letters "GREEN" have absolutely no direct or indirect correlation to "greeness" or "grass", unless both the originator of the message, and the receiver have agreed to an abstract set of rules governing said communication.

Edited by Admin, : Shrink image.

Edited by Admin, : Shrink image more.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Percy, posted 08-31-2006 4:30 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Percy, posted 09-03-2006 8:26 AM Hughes has not yet responded

  
Hughes
Inactive Member


Message 223 of 249 (346161)
09-03-2006 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by fallacycop
08-31-2006 5:34 PM


Re: ROFL!!
Bridges and buildings are not very complex things. they have some complex aspects that's true. For instance, questions like what are the more efficient shapes for a bridge, or what is the most aerodynamical shape for the wing of an airplane are not easy to answer. That's why engeneers build wind tunels to test their ideas. They build wings, test them, drop the ones that don't work well, keep the ones that do, add new features to the latter, test again...
hum... They use a process that is basically equivalent to evolution in order to be able to design the more complex features of their projects. Often times a combination of random changes (mutation) plus some selection rule is the most efficient way to design a complex structure. look up evolutionary algorithms.

Computers are largely desined by other computers. The principles behind the design are quite simple.

Politics is not designed. it is an emergent behaviour. It is the sum of the individual actions taken by people. Just as weather is an emergent phenomenon. It is the sum of the behaviour of every single molecule in the atmosphere.

I grant you that many complex things have been designed by human beings, but nothing that comes even close to the complexity of life. There is a huge gap here that must be bridged by ID before we can start to consider whether ID is a scientific theory or not. As I see it, lifes complexity is a clean score for evolution in the evolution vs ID debate.

Life's complexity would be a clean score if evolution worked as you described. Unfortunately you are using intelligence to further "evolution" in each of your analogies. Bridges that work or don't, wings, and computers all incorporate intelligence to make and select those changes, that will effect a positive direction in movement in the design.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by fallacycop, posted 08-31-2006 5:34 PM fallacycop has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by fallacycop, posted 09-03-2006 2:36 AM Hughes has not yet responded

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 3693 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 224 of 249 (346165)
09-03-2006 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Hughes
09-02-2006 9:12 PM


Hughes writes:

Too bad computers don't just write themselves their own programs from the silicone itself, else you might have something there.

Meaning Please?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Hughes, posted 09-02-2006 9:12 PM Hughes has not yet responded

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 3693 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 225 of 249 (346168)
09-03-2006 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by Hughes
09-03-2006 1:56 AM


Hughes writes:

Life's complexity would be a clean score if evolution worked as you described.

What makes you say it doesn't?

Unfortunately you are using intelligence to further "evolution" in each of your analogies. Bridges that work or don't, wings, and computers all incorporate intelligence to make and select those changes, that will effect a positive direction in movement in the design.
The selection of a better building or bridge or airplane is made by the human beings that build them. That is why nobody argues that these things are not the result of intelligent design. Life forms, on the other hand, are not built (They reproduce themselves) and they are sellected by the natural processes that will determine how successfull they eventually become in reproducing themselves (known as natural selection for short).

In other words, If the selection is known to be performed by intelligent beings, You have intelligent design, but if the selection is performed by natural processes, You have natural selection, and the theory of evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Hughes, posted 09-03-2006 1:56 AM Hughes has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
121314
15
1617Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019