|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 4/3/2008 7:04:35 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1430
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real_Solitude
I don't mean to be rude, but the paragraph that housed the quote was a bit unnecessary, considering that the paragraph it responded to had the following quote. "Like I said, this doesn't invalidate the science, it simply makes it suspect in my mind."
Then why did you bring up the subject to begin with? The point I was making is that your arguments do not diminish ID for two reasons
A: You are in no position to tell us the motivation of the ID founders.
B: Even if you're right about their motivations, it doesn't diminish ID.
You brought up the subject and I merely responded.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 4/3/2008 7:11:45 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1430
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
All these 'complex information systems' and 'codes' existed long before humans were around to attempt to witness and understand them. So your point #2 doesnt follow... these 'complex information systems' were around before any conscious mind existed to observe or design them.
Computers were around before humans?
quote:
All codes that exist in nature predate any designed complex information system of human origin. There goes the whole argument for evidence for ID.
Even if true, that's not to say some other conscious mind didn't create them.
quote:
I think chemistry is the answer you are looking for.
I have never seen chemistry produce abiogenesis and ID predicts that if it ever does, it will be the result of design.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 4/3/2008 11:48:53 AM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 849
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL:essentialsaltesquote:
quote:
Rejecting evidence because of its implications is anti-science.
Which evidence is this again?
Is your memory that bad, or are you just providing us with a reminder that you are one who rejects evidence because of its implications?
Here is some more evidence for you to reject.
I don't see any evidence; I just see an invalid logical argument.
"(2) All codes we know the origin of are created by a conscious mind. (3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind"
This is like saying:
All volcanoes I've ever seen are taller than sea-level. Therefore all volcanoes, including Loihi, are taller than sea-level.
Although it may have some persuasive power via induction, it's an invalid argument and happens to be wrong. We could just as easily say, all codes we know the origin of were made by man, therefore DNA was made by man. This is untrue, but it uses the same invalid logic you're promoting.
Where is the evidence that life was intelligently designed?
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 4/3/2008 12:00:57 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6961
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
quote:
I don't see any evidence; I just see an invalid logical argument.
"(2) All codes we know the origin of are created by a conscious mind. (3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind"
This is like saying:
All volcanoes I've ever seen are taller than sea-level. Therefore all volcanoes, including Loihi, are taller than sea-level.
Although it may have some persuasive power via induction, it's an invalid argument and happens to be wrong. We could just as easily say, all codes we know the origin of were made by man, therefore DNA was made by man. This is untrue, but it uses the same invalid logic you're promoting.
Where is the evidence that life was intelligently designed?
Actually, you just demonstrated why ID has validity and is falsifiable, and thus a scientific hypothesis.
If there was a hypothesis based on observation that “All volcanoes are taller than sea level”, and a volcano was discovered that was otherwise, than the hypothesis would be falsified.
This is how good scientific hypothesis should be structured via Popper.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 4/3/2008 12:18:38 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 849
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
This is how good scientific hypothesis should be structured via Popper.
Just hypothetically, if a Miller-like experiment were run that produced some sort of auto-catylizing chemical reactions to emerge that exhibited both 'reproduction' and 'mutation'...
or if that's not exciting enough, if it produced 'living cells'...
Would this be an example of non-intelligent design, falsifying ID, or would the input from the researcher count as 'adding intelligence'?
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 4/3/2008 12:43:03 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6961
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
quote:
Just hypothetically, if a Miller-like experiment were run that produced some sort of auto-catylizing chemical reactions to emerge that exhibited both 'reproduction' and 'mutation'...
or if that's not exciting enough, if it produced 'living cells'...
Would this be an example of non-intelligent design, falsifying ID, or would the input from the researcher count as 'adding intelligence'?
As I have said before, if such an experiment generalized the conditions enough, and was a reasonable emulation of possible natural conditions (much as the Miller experiment was), and such an experiment produced a living cell, it would resoundingly falsify ID.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 4/3/2008 1:36:45 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 1367
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:drj11quote:
these 'complex information systems' were around before any conscious mind existed to observe or design them.
That statement of faith contradicts the evidence.
quote:
All codes that exist in nature predate any designed complex information system of human origin. There goes the whole argument for evidence for ID.
That only rules out humans as the original source of complex information systems. To claim it defeats the whole argument for evidence for ID one must arbitrarily exclude the supernatural. Arbitrary exclusion of the supernatural is anti-science. There goes your whole argument against ID.
quote:
I think chemistry is the answer you are looking for.
Then you should be able to cite the experiment in which random chemical processes produce a complex information system. If not your argument is based solely on blind faith. I.e. your argument has absolutely nothing to do with science.
_____________________________
Visit my home church.
Also consider Life's Most Important Queston
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 4/3/2008 2:03:09 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 1367
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
In an attempt to get this thread back on track I remind everyone that the validity of ID is NOT the topic of this thread.
The topic of this thread is if it is right to consider ID as an alternative to evolution.
I think it is obvious that ID should NOT be considered as an alternative to evolution because all ID says about evolution is that if evolution is true it requires ID to produce the complex systems evolution supposedly produced.
_____________________________
Visit my home church.
Also consider Life's Most Important Queston
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 4/3/2008 8:58:00 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 609
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
In an attempt to get this thread back on track I remind everyone that the validity of ID is NOT the topic of this thread.
The topic of this thread is if it is right to consider ID as an alternative to evolution.
I think it is obvious that ID should NOT be considered as an alternative to evolution because all ID says about evolution is that if evolution is true it requires ID to produce the complex systems evolution supposedly produced.
No, its not an alternative to evolution. Evolution would remain and natural selection as well as all the subsets as would be supplanted by ID as the big mechanism for speciation. In some cases. At least, thats what Behe says. But, until Behe and his DI super-friends can successfully trick a school board into thinking he has a 'theory' that actually has evidence to back it up, its not going to be an alternative to anything.
The whole 'evolution is faith' is a mischaracterization. I have no personal attachment nor concern for the theory. It seems to be the best approximation of reality we have come with so far. If evolution were proven wrong tomorrow, I would stop considering it a good idea. If the literal interpretation of genesis was proven wrong (which it has been by practically every branch of science), a literalist will not discard their belief. Instead, they will behave much like they do now.. decrying those evil atheist naturalist materialist scientists for conspiracies against religion. Its not that their ideas are totally wrong... its a conspiracy! You can call evolution 'faith' if you want to... but its a very different kind.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 4/3/2008 10:32:53 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 1367
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:drj11quote:
The whole 'evolution is faith' is a mischaracterization.
It would only be a mischaracterization if evolution actually had any empirical support, which it doesn’t. As it stands belief in evolution is a faith based belief.
quote:
If evolution were proven wrong tomorrow, I would stop considering it a good idea.
Interestingly Darwin himself listed some ways his theory could be falsified. As it was successfully falsified in each case the theory was adapted until it is no longer falsifiable.
quote:
If the literal interpretation of genesis was proven wrong (which it has been by practically every branch of science),
There is your problem. You think that man’s reasoning ability is more reliable than God’s word.
quote:
You can call evolution 'faith' if you want to... but its a very different kind.
Yup. It’s blind faith, not a scientific theory.
_____________________________
Visit my home church.
Also consider Life's Most Important Queston
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 4/3/2008 10:41:00 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 609
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
It would only be a mischaracterization if evolution actually had any empirical support, which it doesn’t. As it stands belief in evolution is a faith based belief.
Interestingly Darwin himself listed some ways his theory could be falsified. As it was successfully falsified in each case the theory was adapted until it is no longer falsifiable.
One of those ideas was irreducible complexity, oddly enough.. which has never been demonstrated. You can falsify many components of TTOE... but unless those falsifications are major enough, they will just accommodate the theory to the new observations. If the falsifications are major enough, the theory would have to be scrapped. Given all the empirical evidence that has been gathered for evolution over 150+ years, its not likely to be falsified unless there is a major major discovery. Theories adapting over time as evidence is discovered is a given, and shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. That quite honestly proves that it is not faith, at least in the sense you use the word.
The fact that people seem to think it is a drawback, or a negative for science, that theories are changed to accommodate new evidence is a real sign that the populace isnt being educated properly.
quote:
There is your problem. You think that man’s reasoning ability is more reliable than God’s word.
Yup. It’s blind faith, not a scientific theory.
No, I think God probably assumed we would be clever enough to realize Genesis is allegory.
Creationism will never adapt to new evidence. It is 'blind faith'.
< Message edited by drj11 -- 4/3/2008 11:34:05 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 4/4/2008 10:19:01 AM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 1367
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:drj11quote:
One of those ideas was irreducible complexity, oddly enough.. which has never been demonstrated.
Yes it has. DNA is a good example. It is routinely replicated in laboratories using ID.
In nature the ONLY place DNA has ever been observed being replicated is in a living cell. DNA is required for the production of a living cell. Naturalism is on the horns of a dilemma because without a living cell nature cannot produce DNA and nature cannot produce a living cell without DNA.
quote:
You can falsify many components of TTOE...
Name one other than IC. The FACT that DNA production outside of a living cell has NEVER been observed in nature and no experiment has ever been designed that can produce DNA by naturalistic process while it is routinely done in controlled laboratory conditions is good enough for me. We know that IC systems like DNA can be produced utilizing ID, so what would it take to prove to you that naturalistic processes cannot produce an IC system like DNA?
quote:
The fact that people seem to think it is a drawback, or a negative for science, that theories are changed to accommodate new evidence is a real sign that the populace isnt being educated properly.
That is a misrepresentation. We understand that it is proper to modify a theory to accommodate new evidence. However the modifications made to evolution have made it unfalsifiable. How do you falsify a theory that claims to predict both constant change and stases?
quote:
No, I think God probably assumed we would be clever enough to realize Genesis is allegory.
Can you cite a Biblical reference to support that claim? I can cite several that contradict it.
_____________________________
Visit my home church.
Also consider Life's Most Important Queston
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 4/9/2008 7:33:06 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 647
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
I now see ID as a scientific endeavor to provide empirical evidence that intelligence is required for life to exist. It is entirely compatible with evolution so it cannot be an "alternative" to evolution".
Any comments?
Well, for starters ID is not “entirely compatible” with evolution, otherwise it could be taught as a component of the greater theory. Instead, it has failed peer review, failed to make falsifiable predictions, failed to increase our understanding of biological mechanisms, failed to make new discoveries or research ventures; in other words, it has failed to prove that it is a science at all.
Also, if it cannot be an “alternative” to evolution, then why is it touted as such by the Discovery Institute?
I’d like to take a moment to present a facetious analogy:
Would you agree to Spanish being taught along side of English as an alternative because the two are compatible? They are, you know. They both use the same alphabet, the same Latin base, and many, many English-speakers are growing to accept Spanish as a viable alternative to English.
After all, English alone fails to account for all of the evolution of spoken language worldwide.
It’s a wonder that we have put up with the dictatorial stronghold English has held over the school systems in our country for so long. It’s time for us to break free of the tax-subsidized, linguistic blind alley that brainwashes our children in grammar class, and opens the door to English’s ultimate heresies such as Ebonics, grammatical correctness, or the ridiculous babblings of Shakespeare . . .
Catch my drift?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 4/9/2008 10:23:33 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1430
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
failed to make falsifiable predictions
This is not true. ID does make falsifiable predictions (you seem to be confusing ID with UCD).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 4/10/2008 5:00:09 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 647
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
This is not true. ID does make falsifiable predictions (you seem to be confusing ID with UCD).
Perhaps you could clear this up for me, e.g. some examples?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 4/11/2008 2:23:59 AM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 609
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL:drj11quote:
One of those ideas was irreducible complexity, oddly enough.. which has never been demonstrated.
Yes it has. DNA is a good example. It is routinely replicated in laboratories using ID.
In nature the ONLY place DNA has ever been observed being replicated is in a living cell. DNA is required for the production of a living cell. Naturalism is on the horns of a dilemma because without a living cell nature cannot produce DNA and nature cannot produce a living cell without DNA.
You should look at the RNA world hypothesis.
Perfect example of why ID nothing more than an elaborate god of the gaps fallacy. We don't know how DNA or some other system formed, so we can rule out every known and unknown natural cause in the universe. Further more, anytime anything is complex enough, we should just go ahead and infer that it was designed by default. And since the designs don't conform to anything known, we cant imply a designer, or infer anything about him. Doesn't really make much sense, or provide any useful framework for learning about our universe or anything else, now does it?
quote:
quote:
You can falsify many components of TTOE...
Name one other than IC. The FACT that DNA production outside of a living cell has NEVER been observed in nature and no experiment has ever been designed that can produce DNA by naturalistic process while it is routinely done in controlled laboratory conditions is good enough for me. We know that IC systems like DNA can be produced utilizing ID, so what would it take to prove to you that naturalistic processes cannot produce an IC system like DNA?
It would take perfectly complete knowledge of every single natural process or event that could possibly lead to the formation of life to prove something is IC. Darwin may have thought it was feasible in his time, but we know it isn't now.
quote:
quote:
The fact that people seem to think it is a drawback, or a negative for science, that theories are changed to accommodate new evidence is a real sign that the populace isnt being educated properly.
That is a misrepresentation. We understand that it is proper to modify a theory to accommodate new evidence. However the modifications made to evolution have made it unfalsifiable. How do you falsify a theory that claims to predict both constant change and stases?
Stasis in evolution is not really stasis. Rates of change differ. Gradulaism still exists, and possibly punctuated equilibrium exist. They arent mutally exclusive.
quote:
quote:
No, I think God probably assumed we would be clever enough to realize Genesis is allegory.
Can you cite a Biblical reference to support that claim? I can cite several that contradict it.
You don't need the Bible... it just takes common sense.
Perhaps you should look at what Popes have been saying for years.
"5. The church's magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution, for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches us that he was created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gn 1:27-29). The conciliar constitution "Gaudium et Spes" has magnificently explained this doctrine, which is pivotal to Christian thought. It recalled that man is "the only creature on earth that God has wanted for its own sake" (No. 24). In other terms, the human individual cannot be subordinated as a pure means or a pure instrument, either to the species or to society; he has value per se. He is a person. With his intellect and his will, he is capable of forming a relationship of communion, solidarity and self-giving with his peers. St. Thomas observes that man's likeness to God resides especially in his speculative intellect, for his relationship with the object of his knowledge resembles God's relationship with what he has created (Summa Theologica I-II:3:5, ad 1). But even more, man is called to enter into a relationship of knowledge and love with God himself, a relationship which will find its complete fulfillment beyond time, in eternity. All the depth and grandeur of this vocation are revealed to us in the mystery of the risen Christ (cf. "Gaudium et Spes," 22). It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God ("animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubei"; "Humani Generis," 36). Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.
6. With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, one could say. However, does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry? Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection, while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 4/11/2008 2:33:11 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6961
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
quote:
Perfect example of why ID nothing more than an elaborate god of the gaps fallacy. We don't know how DNA or some other system formed, so we can rule out every known and unknown natural cause in the universe. Further more, anytime anything is complex enough, we should just go ahead and infer that it was designed by default. And since the designs don't conform to anything known, we cant imply a designer, or infer anything about him. Doesn't really make much sense, or provide any useful framework for learning about our universe or anything else, now does it?
That's a poor caricature of what ID says, and thus a strawman.
ID says for all complex information systems whose origins are known, they are the product of an intelligent cause, using a variety of mechanisms. Thus, when encountering a complex information system it can be inferred that it is the product of an intelligent cause. This notion is completely falsifiable, and thus a sound scientific premise.
Deal with what ID actually says please, not you disingenuous definition of it.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 4/11/2008 7:02:06 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 647
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Thus, when encountering a complex information system it can be inferred that it is the product of an intelligent cause. This notion is completely falsifiable, and thus a sound scientific premise.
How do you falsify an inference, especially this one?
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
