|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 3/29/2008 12:44:39 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1204
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Agahnim
All right, so you want to use Dembski’s version of ID. That’s fine, but it’s important to remember that for Dembski (and everyone else in the Discovery Institute), the goal of studying these things is not to uncover more of the truth about the world; it’s to provide support for a political and religious cause. Even if you think the theory itself and the reason for the theory’s existence are two different things, the two are very closely intertwined. Here’s how:
This is like me arguing that the goal of the secular community is not to uncover more of the truth about the world, it's to provide support for a political and religious cause (atheism/materialism).
quote:
Until this week I worked at the National Center for Science Education, where we oppose the ID/creationists and develop a finely-tuned sense of the sorts of things they will pluck from the literature and desperately portray as evidence that they aren't completely nuts.
http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/21/comments
Basically, they oppose anything that is inconsistent with materialism.
Not only that, but science supports open inquiry and academic freedom because that's the best way to uncover truth. Yet, the secular community funds their naturalistic presuppositions with tax dollars and they censor any opposing viewpoints and arguments suggesting that they are not interested in truth, but they are interested in promoting their political cause.
quote:
Several of the specific structures originally touted by ID proponents as un-evolvable, such as the bacterial flagellum, have now been explained by evolution using mechanisms like this—Kenneth Miller explains this in the case of the bacterial flagellum in this video.
They have not been explained, you are confusing speculation with explanation. No one has ever observed any such structure form independently of already existing IC and/or SC structures (or design) and ID predicts they won't. If such structures are ever to form, ID predicts they would form as a result of design.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 3/29/2008 1:05:07 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 3/29/2008 1:26:02 PM
|
|
|
Agahnim
Posts: 205
Joined: 2/27/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
This is like me arguing that the goal of the secular community is not to uncover more of the truth about the world, it's to provide support for a political and religious cause (atheism/materialism).
Have you read any of my previous posts in this thread? The main Intelligent Design organization has stated that this is their goal. Whether it is or not is not something that’s subject to debate.
quote:
They have not been explained, you are confusing speculation with explanation. No one has ever observed any such structure form independently of already existing IC and/or SC structures (or design) and ID predicts they won't. If such structures are ever to form, ID predicts they would form as a result of design.
No, what ID claims is that these structures cannot evolve. The reason why a designer is posited is because of the idea that evolution would have been incapable of producing them. So if it can be shown that there is a completely plausible mechanism by which a structure could have evolved, that refutes the reason given by ID proponents for why it must have been directly designed.
_____________________________
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." --Mahatma Gandhi
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 3/29/2008 1:39:26 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1204
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Agahnim
Have you read any of my previous posts in this thread? The main Intelligent Design organization has stated that this is their goal. Whether it is or not is not something that’s subject to debate.
Again, "This is like me arguing that the goal of the secular community is not to uncover more of the truth about the world, it's to provide support for a political and religious cause (atheism/materialism)." Perhaps Intelligent Design is true and the DI are uncovering that truth.
quote:
No, what ID claims is that these structures cannot evolve. The reason why a designer is posited is because of the idea that evolution would have been incapable of producing them.
ID predicts that they will not evolve. This is falsifiable.
quote:
So if it can be shown that there is a completely plausible mechanism by which a structure could have evolved, that refutes the reason given by ID proponents for why it must have been directly designed.
No one has ever shown/demonstrated that there is a completely plausible mechanism by which IC and SC structures could have evolved. I think you are confusing speculation with demonstration. It has been "speculated" that there there is a completely plausible mechanism, but it has not been shown.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 3/29/2008 2:47:36 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 434
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Agahnim
No, what ID claims is that these structures cannot evolve. The reason why a designer is posited is because of the idea that evolution would have been incapable of producing them. So if it can be shown that there is a completely plausible mechanism by which a structure could have evolved, that refutes the reason given by ID proponents for why it must have been directly designed.
There are more steps in putting forth a hypothesis than just stating a way that something could have happened. The next step is showing that the process described is how it did happen. A problem has been put forth. The next step in the scientific method is forming a hypothesis, which has been done. The next step is to try to disprove or support the hypothesis, which has not been done. I don't think that this is taken as seriously as it should be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 3/29/2008 4:09:24 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 1497
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:DanJamesquote:
The next step is showing that the process described is how it did happen.
Actually the next step would be to demonstrate that it could happen. All they have done is speculate on what they consider plausible.
However, for those with a strong religious devotion to materialism that’s good enough. It doesn’t matter to them that the speculations contradict the empirical evidence.
To get back to the topic of this thread though, it is not “evolution” but atheism that rejects intelligent design. Would evidence that intelligence is required for the development of new features refute evolution? Not at all. The ONLY thing it would refute is the atheist dogma that evolution MUST be unguided.
quote:
The next step is to try to disprove or support the hypothesis, which has not been done. I don't think that this is taken as seriously as it should be.
It’s worse than that. Materialists flat won’t allow it.
_____________________________
Visit my home church.
Also consider Life's Most Important Queston
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 3/29/2008 10:28:36 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 470
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL:DanJamesquote:
The next step is showing that the process described is how it did happen.
Actually the next step would be to demonstrate that it could happen. All they have done is speculate on what they consider plausible.
However, for those with a strong religious devotion to materialism that’s good enough. It doesn’t matter to them that the speculations contradict the empirical evidence.
To get back to the topic of this thread though, it is not “evolution” but atheism that rejects intelligent design. Would evidence that intelligence is required for the development of new features refute evolution? Not at all. The ONLY thing it would refute is the atheist dogma that evolution MUST be unguided.
quote:
The next step is to try to disprove or support the hypothesis, which has not been done. I don't think that this is taken as seriously as it should be.
It’s worse than that. Materialists flat won’t allow it.
1st post here, for me, I ran across this discussion and felt like chiming in..
The problem with ID is that it cannot be tested. It hinges upon coming up with some sort of arbitrary complexity level in an organism and just saying "hey thats designed!". Great.. than what?
All natural sciences presuppose natural causation... because frankly that is all science has the capability to actually study and quantify.
ID tries to disambiguate God from the equation, by saying that the designer could be anything, including alien life forms... but then it ends up with the recursive designer problem because the designer would obviously meet or exceed the arbitrary complexity level that is "evidence" for design... at the end of the day, you just have to sit back and say "God did it.".
You can never disprove ID, because even if we find that all organisms could have evolved by natural causes it in no way rules out that life was designed. The IDers have done a wonderful job with using jargon and science lingo to masquerade their idea as science... but you wont find many other better examples of pseudoscience.
The whole irreducibly complex argument is actually a possible falsification for natural selection... but finding irreducibly complex systems wouldn't provide evidence for or against ID.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 3/29/2008 10:46:32 PM
|
|
|
Agahnim
Posts: 205
Joined: 2/27/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Again, "This is like me arguing that the goal of the secular community is not to uncover more of the truth about the world, it's to provide support for a political and religious cause (atheism/materialism)." Perhaps Intelligent Design is true and the DI are uncovering that truth.
As Jhud has pointed out, not all (or even most) supporters of evolution are trying to support atheism. Some (like Richard Dawkins) definitely are, and some (like Kenneth Miller) definitely aren’t. According to the Discovery Institute, on the other hand, their own goal is to support theism.
So what’s your point? How is what I’m saying like you arguing that this is the goal of the secular community? Jhud has acknowledged that supporting atheism is not the secular community’s goal, while according to the main ID community, supporting theism is their goal. This is not a matter of speculation, so I don’t see what problem you have with me saying this.
quote:
No one has ever shown/demonstrated that there is a completely plausible mechanism by which IC and SC structures could have evolved. I think you are confusing speculation with demonstration. It has been "speculated" that there there is a completely plausible mechanism, but it has not been shown.
Why do the examples in the article I linked to not qualify as a plausible mechanism? Observing it actually happening is not a requirement for it to be plausible. In order for it to not be plausible, there needs to be a specific reason why it cannot happen, not just that it hasn’t yet been observed.
Can you provide an example of a specific problem with one of these mechanisms that would prevent it from happening, rather than just a complaint that so far they haven’t been observed? If you can’t, then they’re plausible.
quote:
There are more steps in putting forth a hypothesis than just stating a way that something could have happened. The next step is showing that the process described is how it did happen. A problem has been put forth. The next step in the scientific method is forming a hypothesis, which has been done. The next step is to try to disprove or support the hypothesis, which has not been done. I don't think that this is taken as seriously as it should be.
What would qualify as a good “test” for the hypothesis, in your opinion? The article I linked to mentions several animals that appear to be examples of these principles, although we haven’t had the opportunity to observe their evolution directly. If you’re willing to accept examples documented by fossils, the evolution of feathers and wings in birds is definitely an example. Until the 1990s, these were considered irreducibly complex, but the 1990s saw not only a new series of theories about the stages their evolution could have gone through, but the discovery of fossils representing several of these stages.
If the only thing you would consider an adequate test of this hypothesis is to observe an irreducibly complex structure evolving from start to finish in the present, I hope you realize your standard of proof will be impossible to meet regardless of whether this hypothesis is true. In just about any case, the evolution of one of these structures will have to involve at least a dozen separate mutations. If we get lucky and see one of these mutations every ten generations, in an organism that reproduces once per year, an irreducibly complex structure would take a minimum of 120 years to evolve. Genetics (and what constitutes a mutation) have been known for less than half that long.
You and Unclemonkey also still aren’t addressing the point I’m making about what ID claims. According to ID, these structures must have been designed because there is no evolutionary process that could have produced them. Even though identifying a mechanism by which they could have evolved is not enough to prove that they did, it is enough to refute the argument used by ID proponents for why they must have been designed.
_____________________________
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." --Mahatma Gandhi
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 3/29/2008 11:03:09 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 470
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Agahnim
quote:
Again, "This is like me arguing that the goal of the secular community is not to uncover more of the truth about the world, it's to provide support for a political and religious cause (atheism/materialism)." Perhaps Intelligent Design is true and the DI are uncovering that truth.
As Jhud has pointed out, not all (or even most) supporters of evolution are trying to support atheism. Some (like Richard Dawkins) definitely are, and some (like Kenneth Miller) definitely aren’t. According to the Discovery Institute, on the other hand, their own goal is to support theism.
So what’s your point? How is what I’m saying like you arguing that this is the goal of the secular community? Jhud has acknowledged that supporting atheism is not the secular community’s goal, while according to the main ID community, supporting theism is their goal. This is not a matter of speculation, so I don’t see what problem you have with me saying this.
quote:
No one has ever shown/demonstrated that there is a completely plausible mechanism by which IC and SC structures could have evolved. I think you are confusing speculation with demonstration. It has been "speculated" that there there is a completely plausible mechanism, but it has not been shown.
Why do the examples in the article I linked to not qualify as a plausible mechanism? Observing it actually happening is not a requirement for it to be plausible. In order for it to not be plausible, there needs to be a specific reason why it cannot happen, not just that it hasn’t yet been observed.
Can you provide an example of a specific problem with one of these mechanisms that would prevent it from happening, rather than just a complaint that so far they haven’t been observed? If you can’t, then they’re plausible.
quote:
There are more steps in putting forth a hypothesis than just stating a way that something could have happened. The next step is showing that the process described is how it did happen. A problem has been put forth. The next step in the scientific method is forming a hypothesis, which has been done. The next step is to try to disprove or support the hypothesis, which has not been done. I don't think that this is taken as seriously as it should be.
What would qualify as a good “test” for the hypothesis, in your opinion? The article I linked to mentions several animals that appear to be examples of these principles, although we haven’t had the opportunity to observe their evolution directly. If you’re willing to accept examples documented by fossils, the evolution of feathers and wings in birds is definitely an example. Until the 1990s, these were considered irreducibly complex, but the 1990s saw not only a new series of theories about the stages their evolution could have gone through, but the discovery of fossils representing several of these stages.
If the only thing you would consider an adequate test of this hypothesis is to observe an irreducibly complex structure evolving from start to finish in the present, I hope you realize your standard of proof will be impossible to meet regardless of whether this hypothesis is true. In just about any case, the evolution of one of these structures will have to involve at least a dozen separate mutations. If we get lucky and see one of these mutations every ten generations, in an organism that reproduces once per year, an irreducibly complex structure would take a minimum of 120 years to evolve. Genetics (and what constitutes a mutation) have been known for less than half that long.
You and Unclemonkey also still aren’t addressing the point I’m making about what ID claims. According to ID, these structures must have been designed because there is no evolutionary process that could have produced them. Even though identifying a mechanism by which they could have evolved is not enough to prove that they did, it is enough to refute the argument used by ID proponents for why they must have been designed.
quote:
opinion? The article I linked to mentions several animals that appear to be examples of these principles, although we haven’t had the opportunity to observe their evolution directly. If you’re willing to accept examples documented by fossils, the evolution of feathers and wings in birds is definitely an example. Until the 1990s, these were considered irreducibly complex, but the 1990s saw not only a new series of theories about the stages their evolution could have gone through, but the discovery of fossils representing several of these stages.
Its really funny to see how irreducible complexity has been hijacked and somehow morphed into a negative/positive test for ID.
Darwin himself actually first described the idea in "On the Origin of Species". He just didn't give the idea the nice name it has today. He talked about it as a way to falsify his theory, and said that any organ that could be shown unable to evolve in small, gradual increments would be proof that his theory is wrong. What it cant do, however, is provide any evidence for or even against ID, at all.
It is literally impossible to disprove ID by any test we have available today, nor is there a theoretical way to disprove it. That plants it squarely in the realm of pseudoscience.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 3/29/2008 11:22:07 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1204
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Agahnim
So what’s your point? How is what I’m saying like you arguing that this is the goal of the secular community? Jhud has acknowledged that supporting atheism is not the secular community’s goal,
I have already given evidence supporting the notion that the secular communities goal is to support materialism. My point is that even if the DI's mission is to support theism, this does not diminish ID any more than the fact that Dawkins attempt to support atheism diminishes evolution.
quote:
while according to the main ID community, supporting theism is their goal.
According to some ID proponents maybe. At least they're honest about it, supporting their overall honesty.
quote:
Why do the examples in the article I linked to not qualify as a plausible mechanism?
It's speculation.
quote:
Observing it actually happening is not a requirement for it to be plausible.
Why not?
quote:
In order for it to not be plausible, there needs to be a specific reason why it cannot happen, not just that it hasn’t yet been observed.
What specific reasons are there that God did not create the universe or that he could not have?
quote:
Can you provide an example of a specific problem with one of these mechanisms that would prevent it from happening, rather than just a complaint that so far they haven’t been observed? If you can’t, then they’re plausible.
Can you provide an example of a specific problem with why God could not have created the universe or why an intelligent designer could not have done the same?
quote:
What would qualify as a good “test” for the hypothesis, in your opinion? The article I linked to mentions several animals that appear to be examples of these principles, although we haven’t had the opportunity to observe their evolution directly. If you’re willing to accept examples documented by fossils, the evolution of feathers and wings in birds is definitely an example.
Fossils are subject to interpretation. ID makes specific predictions, falsify it.
quote:
Until the 1990s, these were considered irreducibly complex, but the 1990s saw not only a new series of theories about the stages their evolution could have gone through, but the discovery of fossils representing several of these stages.
New series of speculation. As for the discovery of fossils, we simply find different fossils in different states and we arbitrarily designate them stages. This is a matter of interpretation.
quote:
If the only thing you would consider an adequate test of this hypothesis is to observe an irreducibly complex structure evolving from start to finish in the present, I hope you realize your standard of proof will be impossible to meet regardless of whether this hypothesis is true.
If you want to claim that it did happen, then this is a reasonable standard of proof. If you claim this is impossible, then likewise, UCD is also impossible.
quote:
In just about any case, the evolution of one of these structures will have to involve at least a dozen separate mutations. If we get lucky and see one of these mutations every ten generations, in an organism that reproduces once per year, an irreducibly complex structure would take a minimum of 120 years to evolve. Genetics (and what constitutes a mutation) have been known for less than half that long.
Bacteria reproduce way faster. The notion that a dozen separate mutations will happen and cause the diversity we see in life is speculation.
quote:
According to ID, these structures must have been designed
According to ID they were designed
quote:
because there is no evolutionary process that could have produced them.
because design is a better explanation.
quote:
Even though identifying a mechanism by which they could have evolved is not enough to prove that they did, it is enough to refute the argument used by ID proponents for why they must have been designed.
ID predicts that they won't. You have speculated a mechanism, but you have not falsified ID. Your mechanism has never been observed to produce IC and SC structures so there is no evidence that it ever would. Your mechanism is speculation, no better than me speculating that magic fairy dust created the universe. You ask, "what's stopping the mechanism from working" and I ask, "what's stopping magic fairy dust from creating the universe." The fact is that magic fairy dust has never been observed to create the universe and likewise your speculated mechanism has never been observed to create IC and SC structures. If you want to argue that your mechanism can plausibly create IC and SC structures, the burden of proof is on you. It is for you to show that they can, not for me to show that they can't. You have to prove the positive, I don't have to prove a negative. Now show me.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 3/29/2008 11:46:28 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 3/29/2008 11:23:36 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1204
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
It is literally impossible to disprove ID by any test we have available today, nor is there a theoretical way to disprove it. That plants it squarely in the realm of pseudoscience.
There is evidence for ID and it can be falsified, if you can show that IC and SC structures can arise independently of already existing IC and SC structures and design, then you have falsified ID (or at least the notion that IC and SC structures are evidence for design).
On the other hand, UCD is unfalsifiable. Darwin was wrong about a lot of stuff and it did not falsify UCD.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 3/29/2008 11:43:06 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 470
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
It is literally impossible to disprove ID by any test we have available today, nor is there a theoretical way to disprove it. That plants it squarely in the realm of pseudoscience.
There is evidence for ID and it can be falsified, if you can show that IC and SC structures can arise independently of already existing IC and SC structures and design, then you have falsified ID (or at least the notion that IC and SC structures are evidence for design).
Well, not that I can see... you have falsified the theory that the designer built us from IC and SC structures, or that they cant happen naturally.. but you still havnt falsified the idea of a designer, because there is no possible way to determine if he would build life with IC systems. Make sense?
quote:
On the other hand, UCD is unfalsifiable. Darwin was wrong about a lot of stuff and it did not falsify UCD.
Finding a human fossil that dated back a billion years or two would do the trick.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 3/29/2008 11:45:42 PM
|
|
|
Agahnim
Posts: 205
Joined: 2/27/2008
Status: offline
|
drj11, I don’t recommend taking the time to reply to Bettawrekonize’s posts. I tried debating with him in this thread, and he replied to each of my points with a one-sentence question or demand that did not even attempt to address what I was saying. Each of my explanations of what he was asking for took me at least an hour, while each of his new batches of questions took him less than 20 minutes. All of his posts in threads like this one use a tactic that I call “argument from endurance”, in which the person attempts to win the debate not through evidence or reason, but by briefly demanding so many explanations that the opponent will be exhausted by their attempt to provide them all.
A PRATT list is the most famous example of this tactic. It’s especially effective at a forum like this one, which doesn’t have very many supporters of evolution, since this way it’ll have to be just one or two of us who address all of his points. And if we do, he won’t read our responses carefully; he’ll just take 10 or 20 minutes to whip out another batch of them. Remember, I’ve tried this once already.
At CF, there’s a handy feature called the “ignore list” that you can add a user to, so that you don’t have to look at any of his posts anymore. If this forum had the same feature, I’d have Bettawrekonize on mine.
_____________________________
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." --Mahatma Gandhi
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 3/29/2008 11:47:42 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1204
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
Well, not that I can see... you have falsified the theory that the designer built us from IC and SC structures,
ID makes no claims about the properties of the designer and how He made us.
quote:
or that they cant happen naturally..
I am saying that they IC and SC systems won't emerge as a result of unguided naturalistic processes independently of already IC and SC structures.
quote:
but you still havnt falsified the idea of a designer, because there is no possible way to determine if he would build life with IC systems. Make sense?
I have not falsified the idea of a designer, ID claims to have positive evidence for a designer. This can be falsified.
quote:
Finding a human fossil that dated back a billion years or two would do the trick.
It would falsify our current understanding of UCD, but it wouldn't falsify UCD any more than the fact that Darwin appears to be wrong about gradualism (and a lot of other stuff) would falsify UCD. Darwin predicted that organisms would have many useless organs (ie: the appendix, tonsils, etc...) and he mostly turned out to be wrong (we found uses for many of these organs despite Darwin's prediction). This didn't falsify UCD and neither would finding a human that allegedly dates that old. Where does Darwins book propose that we should never find a human fossil that (allegedly) dates that old and that if we do, this would falsify UCD? Or is this just a just new alleged prediction after many of the old ones were falsified? So basically, old predictions get falsified so UCD proponents move the goal posts and claim that UCD predicts something else.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 3/29/2008 11:56:43 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 3/30/2008 1:15:42 AM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 470
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
ID makes no claims about the properties of the designer and how He made us.
That just begs the question then.. what good is it?
quote:
I am saying that they IC and SC systems won't emerge as a result of unguided naturalistic processes independently of already IC and SC structures.
If we were to observe those systems evolving, they would just say that we misidentified existing IC/SC systems when they really weren't. They'd look for something else to label as IC/SC.
quote:
I have not falsified the idea of a designer, ID claims to have positive evidence for a designer. This can be falsified.
Than what is the evidence? So far there is none that I have seen, except completely subjective assertions.
quote:
It would falsify our current understanding of UCD, but it wouldn't falsify UCD any more than the fact that Darwin appears to be wrong about gradualism (and a lot of other stuff) would falsify UCD. Darwin predicted that organisms would have many useless organs (ie: the appendix, tonsils, etc...) and he mostly turned out to be wrong (we found uses for many of these organs despite Darwin's prediction). This didn't falsify UCD and neither would finding a human that allegedly dates that old. Where does Darwins book propose that we should never find a human fossil that (allegedly) dates that old and that if we do, this would falsify UCD? Or is this just a just new alleged prediction after many of the old ones were falsified? So basically, old predictions get falsified so UCD proponents move the goal posts and claim that UCD predicts something else.
Ok, it was a contrived off the cuff example. But massive discrepancies in the fossil record could eventually unravel UCD. Or simply finding an organism that does not share any genetic similarity to other known organisms etc etc, or maybe isnt even based on DNA/RNA.
The appendix is still considered vestigial, btw, but I'm not familiar with what Darwin's exact words were on the matter. Vestigial organs can still have secondary uses. The oft brought up example is the ostrich and it's wings, which function to help them maintain balance.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 3/30/2008 5:02:18 AM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 1497
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:drj11quote:
If we were to observe those systems evolving, they would just say that we misidentified existing IC/SC systems when they really weren't.
That is a load of natural fertilizer. If such observations were ever made ID would be falsified.
I notice you at least admit that no such observations have ever been made, which BTW is a prediction of ID.
The disagreements of random chance vs ID proves the point I made in the OP. ID is NOT an alternative to evolution, but rather it IS an alternative to atheism.
Why should atheism be force fed to school kids in the guise of science?
< Message edited by unclemonkey -- 3/30/2008 3:16:57 PM >
_____________________________
Visit my home church.
Also consider Life's Most Important Queston
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 3/30/2008 11:34:03 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1204
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
That just begs the question then.. what good is it?
To detect design.
quote:
If we were to observe those systems evolving, they would just say that we misidentified existing IC/SC systems when they really weren't. They'd look for something else to label as IC/SC.
If it can be shown that there are no characteristics that can reliably detect design, this would falsify ID. IC and SC systems are evidence for design, if you show that IC and SC systems can emerge independently of already existing IC and SC systems and design, it would falsify the notion that IC and SC systems a characteristic only found in designed objects. ID attempts to find characteristics that are only seen in designed objects (where the origins are known), look at life and other objects found in nature (where the origins are unknown), determine of those objects contain those characteristics, and then if they do we infer they were designed. This is falsifiable.
quote:
Than what is the evidence? So far there is none that I have seen, except completely subjective assertions.
The evidence is that whenever we see IC and SC systems and the origins are known, they are the result of design. So when we see them in life, where the origins are unknown, we infer they are the result of design
quote:
Ok, it was a contrived off the cuff example. But massive discrepancies in the fossil record could eventually unravel UCD. Or simply finding an organism that does not share any genetic similarity to other known organisms etc etc, or maybe isnt even based on DNA/RNA.
Why would any of this falsify UCD? Where did darwin state that finding an organism that does not share any genetic similarity to other organisms would falsify UCD and why is this so? How different must it be to falsify UCD and why that different? There are "huge" morphological differences among organisms, why should "huge" (how huge and why) genetic differences falsify UCD and not huge morphological differences?
As far as the fossil record is concerned, Darwin predicted gradualism and that was falsified so they come up with punctuated equilibrium, further demonstrating the unfalsifiable nature of UCD.
quote:
The appendix is still considered vestigial, btw, but I'm not familiar with what Darwin's exact words were on the matter. Vestigial organs can still have secondary uses. The oft brought up example is the ostrich and it's wings, which function to help them maintain balance.
It doesn't matter what you label it.
quote:
Rudimentary organs are eminently variable; and
this is partly intelligible, as they are useless, or nearly useless,
and consequently are no longer subjected to natural selection.
...
In the orang this appendage is long and
convoluted: in man it arises from the end of the short caecum, and
is commonly from four to five inches in length, being only about the
third of an inch in diameter. Not only is it useless, but it is
sometimes the cause of death, of which fact I have lately heard two
instances: this is due to small hard bodies, such as seeds, entering
the passage, and causing inflammation.*(3)
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/chapter_01.html
It was once thought the appendix was useless (or so close to useless) such that it is no longer subject to natural selection. Now we found out that the appendix is useful enough to be subject to natural selection under certain conditions. The same is true for many other organs Darwin once thought were vestigial. Darwin was wrong, but it did not falsify UCD.
quote:
The idea "seems by far the most likely" explanation for the function of the appendix, said Brandeis University biochemistry professor Douglas Theobald. "It makes evolutionary sense."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/10/05/appendix.purpose.ap/index.html
What was once thought to make evolutionary sense if it were a useless organ now makes evolutionary sense because of its usefulness. This further demonstrates the unfalsifiable nature of UCD.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 3/30/2008 11:52:26 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 3/30/2008 3:26:17 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 470
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL:drj11quote:
If we were to observe those systems evolving, they would just say that we misidentified existing IC/SC systems when they really weren't.
That is a load of natural fertilizer. If such observations were ever made ID would be falsified.
I notice you at least admit that no such observations have ever been made, which BTW is a prediction of ID.
Well, how bout we consider that idea when someone has actually found a structure that is IC/SC? We cant observe SC/IC systems evolving because we don't know of any.
We most likely never will. Back in Darwin's day it may have seemed plausible to find such systems, but given the amount of knowledge we have now, it will be near impossible to even demonstrate that anything is IC or SC since its tantamount to proving a negative. Its inductive reasoning.
quote:
The disagreements of random chance vs ID proves the point I made in the OP. ID is NOT an alternative to evolution, but rather it IS an alternative to atheism.
Why should atheism be force feed to school kids in the guise of science?
According to ID proponents, atheism and ID arent mutually exclusive. Like they say over and over, "designer doesn't imply god". So which is it... that the designer doesn't imply god, or that is it a religious belief and alternative to atheism (ie theism)?
Atheism shouldn't be force fed to kids in class, and I challenge you to prove that it is. Science remaining silent on the issue of God, is not equivalent to preaching atheism. You dont need ID for an alternative to atheism... you have theism as an alternative to atheism. If you want theism that is actually grounded in reality and science, choose theistic evolution.
< Message edited by drj11 -- 3/30/2008 4:04:43 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
