Community

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veritas
Just because we have no natural explanation at the present time does not mean that ID gets to fill the gap. Argument from ignorance isn't scientific.

quote:

You don't have any proposed guided methods or mechanisms. Just because we have no natural explanation at the present time does not mean that ID gets to fill the gap. Argument from ignorance isn't scientific.

quote:

I've really tried hard in my arguments to avoid using any reference to this classical logical fallacy.
The words "Argument from Ignorance" are ripe for certain folk to take offence.
But really, the whole ID argument falls down for this reason.

Life happened.
I don't think it could have happened by itself based upon what we know right now.
Therefore someone intelligent did it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

You don't have any proposed guided methods or mechanisms. Just because we have no natural explanation at the present time does not mean that ID gets to fill the gap. Argument from ignorance isn't scientific.

I think I have made mention numerous times about what such mechanisms could be; they could be the same as the methods currently used to construct DNA and introduce it into cellular systems. We know intelligence can do this, we have no reason to believe it can happen in an unguided way (in short, all evidence is against it) so we have positive evidence for intelligent design, we have the weight of evidence against unguided mechanisms - that isn't a gap argument, though interestingly you are attempting to make a gap argument for materialism (i.e. assume materialistic processes even if no materialistic mechanism is known to work).

quote:

We've gone round and round on this before. You have claimed on several occasions that you have suggested methods and mechanisms. Yet you have never provided any evidence that any of your methods or mechanisms were actually used by the Designer.

quote:

If the Designer used any of the mechanisms that humans used, there should be ample evidence of His methods and His mechanisms. There is no such evidence.

quote:

It is not a gap argument to say we have no explanation at the present time. The gap argument is to suggest that without any evidence some non-material supernatural Intelligence must be the answer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

I've really tried hard in my arguments to avoid using any reference to this classical logical fallacy.
The words "Argument from Ignorance" are ripe for certain folk to take offence.
But really, the whole ID argument falls down for this reason.

Life happened.
I don't think it could have happened by itself based upon what we know right now.
Therefore someone intelligent did it.

If you knew anything about logical fallacies, you would know you had constructed a strawman.

Contrary to your badly worded statement, ID instead follows this logic:

- Complex machines and information systems are only known to originate through intelligent agency.

- Cellular structures are made up of such machinery and information systems.
- We can infer as a result that living cells originated as a result of the activity of an intelligence.

- Such a conclusion can be falsified by a single demonstration of the origination of a cell from unguided mechanisms.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

We've gone round and round on this before. You have claimed on several occasions that you have suggested methods and mechanisms. Yet you have never provided any evidence that any of your methods or mechanisms were actually used by the Designer.

Well I just did again above; covering your eyes does not consititute a lack on my part.

quote:

quote:

If the Designer used any of the mechanisms that humans used, there should be ample evidence of His methods and His mechanisms. There is no such evidence.

Why would there be ample evidence of such methods? What would constitute such evidence? If anything, I would think the opposite would be true - an intelligent agent capable of producing life would leave much less evidence than presumed natural conditions which would produce life; but of course, no such natural conditions exist, and we know that intelligence is able to do the thing neccesary to produce life, so as far as what we actually know, and what can actually occur, there is no natural means by which life can originate. None. Zilch.

quote:



Only through the faith of a materialistic atheist such as yourself, blindly grasping at the slightest hope that somehow, somewhere, could a lifeform appear as the result of unknown, unknowable, and uprovable mechanisms. You are the one pushing a metaphysical belief on others, I am simply following the evidence; if you have evidence to support your faith, please present it, otherwise accept the most rational conslusion.

quote:

quote:

It is not a gap argument to say we have no explanation at the present time. The gap argument is to suggest that without any evidence some non-material supernatural Intelligence must be the answer.

NO, you are the one posing a faith based rational. You have no evidence for your contention, you are the one basing you belief on a default to materialism and assuming a gap means no intelligence; my position is rational and scientific, and falsifiable, yours, pure, unadulterated, irrational faith, of the sort no evangelist could hope to muster.

quote:


Evolution has a horrible track record of prediction.

quote:

Claiming you've provided evidence is not the same as actually providing evidence.

quote:

What would constitute such evidence? I dunno; you tell me. If you think the supposed Intelligent Agent would not leave evidence, why do you claim there is evidence?

quote:

I never claimed to have evidence. I have said several times that we do not have evidence.

quote:

OTOH, you have claimed positive evidence. When can we expect to see this alleged evidence?

quote:

My contention is and always has been that we do not know how life originated. What evidence could I possibly present to demonstrate my claim that we don't have evidence? It does not take any faith to say I do not know.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Claiming you've provided evidence is not the same as actually providing evidence.

I keep providing the evidence and you keep ignoring it. Here is a good example of a mechanism for an intelligently designed genome.

quote:

quote:

What would constitute such evidence? I dunno; you tell me. If you think the supposed Intelligent Agent would not leave evidence, why do you claim there is evidence?

Well a passing familiarity with the English lnguage would allow one to understand their is some room between 'ample' amd 'none'. For example sufficient comes to mind. And as the existence of machinery and information systems (like living cells) are invariably the product of intelligent agency, their presence constitutes sufficient, if not ample, evidence of the actions of an intelligence.

quote:

quote:

I never claimed to have evidence. I have said several times that we do not have evidence.

Well, I am glad you are at least willing to admit there is no evidence for the materilistic orgin of life, which makes your belief that it happened a product of faith.

quote:

OTOH, you have claimed positive evidence. When can we expect to see this alleged evidence?

I just (again) detailed that evidence. The existence of machinery and information systems in cells are positive evidence for design. If you want to see the evidence, look at your hand.

quote:

quote:

My contention is and always has been that we do not know how life originated. What evidence could I possibly present to demonstrate my claim that we don't have evidence? It does not take any faith to say I do not know.

It does take faith to contend it was a materilistic process when there is no evidence that it is so - unless you are now admitting that it may not have been a wholly materilistic process, and that it could have been the product of intention.

quote:

That is evidence that humans with an elaborate laboratory can assemble a synthetic genome, not evidence that a non-human intelligent Agent ever performed a similar experiment. If a similar experiment had been performed by some non-human intelligent Agent, we should find evidence of the necessary elaborate laboratory.

quote:

No need to get snippy. I am familiar enough with English to realize that you misused the word sufficient. The presence of an intelligent agent is sufficient to produce certain kinds of machinery and information systems. The presence of an intelligent agent is sufficient to make a bridge. If I come upon a tree that fell across a river that I can use as a bridge, that does not constitute "sufficient, if not ample evidence of the actions of an intelligence."

quote:

In the same way that it would have taken faith to say there might have been a natural explanation of thunder to those who thought it was the result of Thor and his hammer.

quote:

I'm convinced you believe the Designer to be God and His methods to be supernatural intervention. But if you want to pretend that the Designer used the methods suggested in your link, I'll play along. If you think the Designer used the method suggested in your link, there He would have needed an elaborate lab. Where is the lab? Where is your Mjolnir, Jack?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Scumbo

I'm pleased to see there's at least one person here who's intelligent, rational and willing to accept the scientific revolution known as Intelligent Design.

quote:

ORIGINAL: schtumpy
Because those examples can be proven to have come from design, like other similar man made structures.
In the natural world you have no such supernatural design with which to compare.

quote:

Plenty of belief but no proof.

quote:

Unless you're willing to hold up the bible as a scientific document.

quote:

ORIGINAL: schtumpy

It's interesting that this argument has become more about the beginning of life on earth and whether or not this was the work of an intelligent agent or not (with a mild sub-plot as to whether this intelligent agent is God or not) rather than about whether ID is science or not.
And, therefore, whether or not Judge Jones was correct in, once again, barring ID from the science classroom.

quote:

Has Jack given up on the argument as to whether or not ID has a predictive facet?

quote:

Will Jack continue to deny that Natural Selection is falsifiable?

quote:

It's interesting that this argument has become more about the beginning of life on earth and whether or not this was the work of an intelligent agent or not (with a mild sub-plot as to whether this intelligent agent is God or not) rather than about whether ID is science or not.
And, therefore, whether or not Judge Jones was correct in, once again, barring ID from the science classroom.

Has Jack given up on the argument as to whether or not ID has a predictive facet?
And if so, does that mean that "science" no longer has to be predictive?

Will Jack continue to deny that Natural Selection is falsifiable?

Who knows?
But it promises to be a bumpy, if somewhat irrational and, to quote Veritas, "snippy" ride.......

quote:

ORIGINAL: GHitch

quote:

ORIGINAL: schtumpy
Because those examples can be proven to have come from design, like other similar man made structures.
In the natural world you have no such supernatural design with which to compare.

who said anything about supernatural? Aliens did it. Just read Crick and Hoyle - Evolution from space. Listen to Dawkins who admits that aliens made have designed brought primitive DNA based organisms to earth.

quote:

That's quite a cheer squad you've got there Jack.
And backed up by aliens.

quote:

ORIGINAL: schtumpy

That's quite a cheer squad you've got there Jack.
And backed up by aliens.

quote:

ORIGINAL: schtumpy

Well, the battleground appears to be getting set in Louisiana.

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/01/louisiana-creat.html

We'll have to see if the scientific community responds through the courts (again). I'd be surprised if they didn't.
They've had this on their radar for some time.
And the arguments look to be pretty similar to Dover.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veritas
The Edwards in the landmark Supreme case Edwards v Aguillard is the former governor of Louisiana. There have been other cases involving creationism in Louisiana.

In 2000, the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal by the Tangipahoa Parish. The Tangipahoa Parish School Board had required the reading of a disclaimer before teaching or reading about evolution. Needless to say, creationists lost again.

It's not surprising that creationism is rearing its ugly head just to be shot down once again in Louisiana. More wasting of the taxpayers' money to fight for a lost cause. More wasting of students time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GHitch

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veritas
The Edwards in the landmark Supreme case Edwards v Aguillard is the former governor of Louisiana. There have been other cases involving creationism in Louisiana.

In 2000, the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal by the Tangipahoa Parish. The Tangipahoa Parish School Board had required the reading of a disclaimer before teaching or reading about evolution. Needless to say, creationists lost again.

It's not surprising that creationism is rearing its ugly head just to be shot down once again in Louisiana. More wasting of the taxpayers' money to fight for a lost cause. More wasting of students time.

Ah yes, the creationists. Those evil conspiring people who have no education.

Your obligatory and politically correct conflation of "presenting weaknesses of evo along with strengths" as creationism is old, boring and mostly just plain false. Get over it.

quote:

From The Latest Face of Creationism by Glenn Branch & Eugenie C. Scott - Scientific American Jan 2009

So what is the law's true intent? That only a handful of scientific topics -- "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning" -- are explicitly mentioned is a hint. So is the fact that the bill was introduced a the behest of the Louisiana Family Forum, which seeks to "persuasively present biblical principles in the centers of influence on issues affecting the family through research, communication and networking." And so is the fact the the group's executive director was vocally dismayed when those topics were temporarily deleted from the bill.

quote:

From the same article:

A statement by a membr of the Livingston Parish School Board who supported the Louisiana bill in instructive. After saying "both sides -- the creationism side and the evolution side -- should be presented," he explained that the bill was needed because " teachers are scared to talk about creation. How plausible is it, then, that the law's provision that is is not to be "construed to promote any religious doctrine" will be honored in practice? As concervative colummnist John Derbyshire comented, "the Act will encourage Louisiana local school baords to unconstitutinoal behavior" That's what it's meant to do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veritas

It's old, yes; it's boring, yes. But the connection is obvious to proponents and to opponents.

quote:

Opponents see the connection: From The Latest Face of Creationism by Glenn Branch & Eugenie C. Scott - Scientific American Jan 2009

quote:

The first argument basically says this: Don't listen to any of these guys because they're creationists. Creationists. Creationists. Creationists.
Creationists. Did I mention that they're just creationists?
The logical fallacies and falsehoods in this short sound-byte argument are legion. They include: motive-mongering, false premise, the genetic fallacy, and perhaps most of all hypocrisy. ... But Steve Meyer had more integrity and better arguments to say than to stand up and say "Don't listen to Eugenie Scott because she's a Secular Humanist, Secular Humanist, Secular Humanist." In fact, Meyer's exact words in his written testimony for such persons was, “if some scientists make the theory of evolution into a religion or worldview, I have no problem with that. That is their right.”

Instead of motive-mongering, Dr. Meyer annihilated Eugenie’s and the TFN's other main argument, which could, if it were true, actually hold rhetorical validity: It’s their facade that neo-Darwinian evolution has no scientific weaknesses. It's a pretty easy argument to demolish. Dr. Meyer presented the Texas State Board of Education with four thick binders full of over 100 mainstream scientific articles that express scientific challenges to key aspects of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory, especially challenging the arguments used to support it in biology textbooks.

You can always tell the strength of a person's position based upon the kinds of arguments they make. If the NCSE and TFN's obsession with the "creationists" and their predictable bluff that neo-Darwinism has no weaknesses has one purpose: to distract people from the scientific evidence. That's what they want the board to do, so the board will adopt standards that will not inform students about scientific weaknesses in evolution."

quote:

The connection is not lost on creationists either:
From the same article: As concervative colummnist John Derbyshire comented, "the Act will encourage Louisiana local school baords to unconstitutinoal behavior" That's what it's meant to do.

quote:

Proponents and opponents alike see the connection. Please don't pretend this is anything but creationism's latest political ploy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GHitch

the only other viable options are either panspermia, some form of ID or biblical creationism. ID is not biblical creationism, no matter how many times you repeat the mantra to the Darwin god each night before you go to bed.