RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities

RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/16/2008 10:42:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02 But does a line of computers patterned after a specific design ever mysteriously turn out random, gross aberrations from their initial design? No. So why do humans? What do the proponents of ID propose as the scientific answer to this dilemma? Uhm... if a computer has been around for thousands of years, it would eventually break down and decay away. Wouldn't that be considered a "gross aberration?" Your computer will likely be non - functional a thousand years from now. A computer is far newer than humans. From an ID perspective, humans have gone through thousands of years of breaking down, a computer has not. If you think you can do better, let me see you create a computer that can withstand thousands of years of degeneration. Furthermore, how do you know what their initial design was? Thirdly, perhaps life was designed to be flexible/adaptable. It maybe designed to be able to change as needed. Over time, as life breaks down, it may lose some of its adaptability and diversity.

1dblthnk02 -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/17/2008 7:37:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize Uhm... if a computer has been around for thousands of years, it would eventually break down and decay away. . . . As does everything. This is normal, not an aberration. quote: Wouldn't that be considered a "gross aberration?" Only if we consider death and decay as being variations from the norm. quote: From an ID perspective, humans have gone through thousands of years of breaking down, a computer has not. This makes no difference. The fact that some humans not only break down, but become transmogrifications before they are even born says something about their supposed design. What does it say from an ID perspective? quote: If you think you can do better, let me see you create a computer that can withstand thousands of years of degeneration. I think that I have clarified this by now. Degeneration, death, and decay are all parts of the normal function of the universe. And this is not about what I can design; this is about what ID claims about the supposed design of the universe. How do they scientifically account for a design that incorporates degeneration, death, decay, and gross aberrations? quote: Furthermore, how do you know what their initial design was? Good question. You should ask an IDer. Ask Jhud. I don't support the design theory. quote: Thirdly, perhaps life was designed to be flexible/adaptable. It maybe designed to be able to change as needed. Over time, as life breaks down, it may lose some of its adaptability and diversity. Is this ID's explanation, or your own conjecture? Again, given what you say, what does this suggest about the design and the designer?

1dblthnk02 -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/17/2008 7:40:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud Actually, corrupt programs are often "gross aberrations from their initial design". Corrupt programs are not aberrations of the initial design of the computer itself. Look at human beings: we can catch viruses that corrupt our normal function, even to the point of "crashing" us altogether, i.e. death. People can also develop neuroses, or become brainwashed into committing heinous acts of all descriptions, but this is not due to some innate corruption of initial human function and design. Makes you want to respond with biblical theology, doesn't it? Now, look at that girl in the article again and give me ID's scientific explanation for this. Is a design that allows for such profound, fundamental aberrations to occur, along with millions of other fundamental aberrations, itself flawed? Or do we optimistically view it as a normal sideline of the design as it was intended to function? Finally, no matter what your answer, what does this say about the designer?

Jhud -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/17/2008 11:29:34 PM)
quote: Corrupt programs are not aberrations of the initial design of the computer itself. Look at human beings: we can catch viruses that corrupt our normal function, even to the point of "crashing" us altogether, i.e. death. People can also develop neuroses, or become brainwashed into committing heinous acts of all descriptions, but this is not due to some innate corruption of initial human function and design. Makes you want to respond with biblical theology, doesn't it? Well computers often do crash because the of the intial design, or incompatability with a program. Programs can have problems because of corruption, or incompatability, or being used improperly. Lots of things can cause a good design to go bad, or a bad design to become evident; none of this negates the design of a computer - nor does the corruption of human genetics mean that genetics aren't designed. quote: Now, look at that girl in the article again and give me ID's scientific explanation for this. Is a design that allows for such profound, fundamental aberrations to occur, along with millions of other fundamental aberrations, itself flawed? Or do we optimistically view it as a normal sideline of the design as it was intended to function? Finally, no matter what your answer, what does this say about the designer? Well, it says the design is corruptible, either by the environment around it or an error in it's reproduction. It also indicates as humans we we are designed to recognize an aberration from a standard, because we understand that the baby in question isn't as it should be. If we were merely natural creatures and the product of such mutations, then we would see it as just another of many possible variations. So I guess what that says about the designer is that an ideal design exists, and that we were designed to recognize it despite it's currently corrupt state. Of course, now we are diverging into philosophy.

1dblthnk02 -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/18/2008 4:15:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud none of this negates the design of a computer - nor does the corruption of human genetics mean that genetics aren't designed. What it does mean is that genetics were designed with corruptibility as a factor. This was either an accident, in which case the designer is flawed, or else it was deliberate, in which case the designer is dispassionately capricious. In the long run, this scenario does not necessarily defy science, but its religious implications are far more cold and hopeless than evolution could ever be. quote: So I guess what that says about the designer is that an ideal design exists, and that we were designed to recognize it despite it's currently corrupt state. No, you have only made a statement about design itself, not the designer. And how do you conclude from the empirical evidence that an ideal design exists?

Jhud -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/18/2008 4:48:30 PM)
quote: What it does mean is that genetics were designed with corruptibility as a factor. This was either an accident, in which case the designer is flawed, or else it was deliberate, in which case the designer is dispassionately capricious. In the long run, this scenario does not necessarily defy science, but its religious implications are far more cold and hopeless than evolution could ever be. Well we know this isn’t the case in our own designs; everything ever produced to date by humans, has degraded in some fashion over time – this is no indicator of a desire to be capricious or deliberately attempt to do so. Rather, it is perhaps an indication that nothing can exist in this universe as it is without being subject to degradation. quote: No, you have only made a statement about design itself, not the designer. And how do you conclude from the empirical evidence that an ideal design exists? Well, as I said, this is by necessity a philosophical conversation, but it seems to me our recognition as a species that a ‘two-faced’ baby is not as humans are intended to be indicates we have a sense of what is the intended order of things, or ‘ideal’. I wouldn’t think this would be the case if we were ourselves the product of incidental forces which inevitably produce such accidents. Indeed, it shouldn’t even be seen as a ‘bad design’ from an evolutionary perspective, merely a a variant of the human species.

unclemonkey -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/18/2008 5:50:07 PM)
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02 quote: Makes you want to respond with biblical theology, doesn't it?… Finally, no matter what your answer, what does this say about the designer? You have just demonstrated the real problem ID faces. The anti-religious opposition keeps dragging religion into the issue. ID is only concerned with the concept that intelligent design is required. It is your ilk that won’t leave the out religious implications, which are irrelevant to the scientific validity of the concept. Your ilk is so afraid of the possibility that a Creator God actually does exist that you would rather stick your head in the sand (and try to force everyone to join you) than face the fact that empirical evidence of His existence actually exists. I.e. your opposition is rooted in fear, not science. This is no different than those who reject evolution simply because they refuse to accept the implication that we share a common ancestor with monkeys.

1dblthnk02 -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/19/2008 11:32:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud Well we know this isn’t the case in our own designs; everything ever produced to date by humans, has degraded in some fashion over time – this is no indicator of a desire to be capricious or deliberately attempt to do so. Rather, it is perhaps an indication that nothing can exist in this universe as it is without being subject to degradation. Yes, we have already established this. But you still are not addressing the fact that this is an integral part of the supposed design either by accident, or by deliberate calculation. Judging from your first sentence, I guess you tend toward it being accidental. Again, according to the science of ID, what does this tell us about the supposed designer? quote: So I guess what that says about the designer is that an ideal design exists, and that we were designed to recognize it despite it's currently corrupt state. Well, as I said, this is by necessity a philosophical conversation And this is exactly the problem: this is where ID leads us. quote: it seems to me our recognition as a species that a ‘two-faced’ baby is not as humans are intended to be indicates we have a sense of what is the intended order of things, or ‘ideal’. No, it has nothing to do with the concept of "ideal". It simply indicates that we recognize an extreme variation from the norm. If this sort of thing were more common, it wouldn't make headlines. quote: I wouldn’t think this would be the case if we were ourselves the product of incidental forces which inevitably produce such accidents. Indeed, it shouldn’t even be seen as a ‘bad design’ from an evolutionary perspective, merely a a variant of the human species. Exactly. In straight evolution, we don't need to deal in terms of ideals. But if we enter a proposed designer in to the mix, it opens the door to too many scientific unanswerables that require philosophical or theological address.

1dblthnk02 -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/19/2008 11:35:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: unclemonkey You have just demonstrated the real problem ID faces. The anti-religious opposition keeps dragging religion into the issue. No, ID itself opens the door to theology, and thus religious doctrines such as the Fall, otherwise it cannot adequately answer the very questions that it raises. quote: Your ilk is so afraid of the possibility that a Creator God actually does exist that you would rather stick your head in the sand (and try to force everyone to join you) than face the fact that empirical evidence of His existence actually exists. I.e. your opposition is rooted in fear, not science. Whether or not I fear that a personal creator exists has nothing to do with the fact that ID cannot fully delve into its own premise without crossing out of the boundaries of science and into theology, or metaphysical philosophy at the very least. This is my whole point which you have not yet refuted, but have merely resorted to taking non sequitur potshots. quote: This is no different than those who reject evolution simply because they refuse to accept the implication that we share a common ancestor with monkeys. Not at all. Like I said, ID is not purely scientific, nor can it be. Unless you can actually demonstrate otherwise, it is game, set, and match.

unclemonkey -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/19/2008 4:38:57 PM)
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02 quote: No, ID itself opens the door to theology, So what if it does? Rejecting ID on that basis is NOT a scientific argument. Is denying evolution based on Richard Dawkins statement that evolution makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist a scientific argument? It is materialist dogma, not science, which denies evidence on the basis that it implies the existence of a Creator God. quote: otherwise it cannot adequately answer the very questions that it raises. Microbe to man evolution begs the question of where the first microbe came from, yet when challenged evolutionists simply dismiss the challenge by claiming that evolution doesn’t address that question. Can you say “double standard”? quote: Whether or not I fear that a personal creator exists has nothing to do with the fact that ID cannot fully delve into its own premise without crossing out of the boundaries of science and into theology, or metaphysical philosophy at the very least. That is a gross misrepresentation. The premise of ID is simply that intelligence is required. Considering the source of the intelligence is beyond the premises of ID. quote: This is my whole point which you have not yet refuted, but have merely resorted to taking non sequitur potshots. Deny all you want. My ”non sequitur potshots” HAVE refuted your point. quote: Like I said, ID is not purely scientific, nor can it be. Unless you can actually demonstrate otherwise, It HAS been demonstrated over and over. Just read some of Jhud’s posts. quote: it is game, set, and match. Yup. As they say, “you got skunked”. You strengthen my contention that your objection to ID is based in fear rather than science.

1dblthnk02 -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/19/2008 6:40:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: unclmonkey So what if it does? Rejecting ID on that basis is NOT a scientific argument. I am not rejecting ID itself; I am rejecting your argument that ID is strictly scientific, and can present itself free of religious connotation. quote: Is denying evolution based on Richard Dawkins statement that evolution makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist a scientific argument? Again, I don't reject evolution; I reject the notion that evolution should or even can make any kind of theistic statement. quote: It is materialist dogma, not science, which denies evidence on the basis that it implies the existence of a Creator God. There is difference between the theory of evolution being silent about the existence of a personal creator, and the ID dissemblance which is to cover up the theological beliefs tied up in it. quote: Microbe to man evolution begs the question of where the first microbe came from, yet when challenged evolutionists simply dismiss the challenge by claiming that evolution doesn’t address that question. Can you say “double standard”? Again, there is a huge difference between not having an answer (evolution), and being deliberately evasive as to what the answer is (ID). quote: That is a gross misrepresentation. The premise of ID is simply that intelligence is required. Considering the source of the intelligence is beyond the premises of ID. This would be like a police detective working to solve a big crime, and then announcing to the press that the case has been solved, but they still don't know the identity of the perpetrator. And this is ID's Big Lie. Once a theory points to an intelligent agent at work, it becomes incumbent to identify said intelligence as clearly as possible, otherwise it amounts to nothing but inconclusive conjecture, i.e. "maybe it was this, and maybe it was that." We can "maybe" ad infinitum. On the other hand, evolution does not ask "Whodunnit?" therefore, it need not find the answer. quote: Deny all you want. My ”non sequitur potshots” HAVE refuted your point. Blustering out accusations that I am afraid of a personal creator does absolutely nothing to demonstrate the scientific, non-religious veracity of ID. quote: It HAS been demonstrated over and over. Just read some of Jhud’s posts. We've been over this, uncle. Jack agreed with my comment that his arguments were not purely scientific; he replied, "Nor yours. Nor anyone's around here, come to think of it." quote: You strengthen my contention that your objection to ID is based in fear rather than science. Even if this were true, it wouldn't make a bit of difference in our argument about ID. You have refuted nothing, uncle.

unclemonkey -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/19/2008 7:43:39 PM)
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02 quote: I am rejecting your argument that ID is strictly scientific, and can present itself free of religious connotation. That is a strawman argument. I have NEVER made such a claim. My claim is that ID is scientific even though it does present theistic implications. quote: I reject the notion that evolution should or even can make any kind of theistic statement. That is just sticking your head in the sand. Unguided evolution, which is what schools teach, is loaded with atheistic implication. quote: We've been over this, uncle. Jack agreed with my comment that his arguments were not purely scientific; he replied, "Nor yours. Nor anyone's around here, come to think of it." So you need to reject your argument also because, as Jack said and you agreed to, YOURS IS NOT PURELY SCIENTIFIC EITHER. You agree that it is wrong to reject evolution simply because of its implications, yet your entire argument for rejecting ID is because of its implications. Again I ask; “Can you say double standard?”

1dblthnk02 -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/20/2008 11:05:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: unclemonkey That is a strawman argument. I have NEVER made such a claim. Then why did you refute the OP's comment, "I don't think I've ever heard a non-religious challenge to the science behind evolutionary theory?" quote: My claim is that ID is scientific even though it does present theistic implications. Again, this is not what you indicated in your response to the OP. When challenged that there is a lack of non-religious arguments against evolution, you stated that "No such lack exists." quote: Unguided evolution, which is what schools teach, is loaded with atheistic implication. Evolution does not claim to be "unguided." It claims to be guided by natural laws. Whether or not those laws are designed is questionable. quote: So you need to reject your argument also because, as Jack said and you agreed to, YOURS IS NOT PURELY SCIENTIFIC EITHER. No, I only need to reject your notion that there are non-religious arguments against evolution that are scientifically correct. quote: You agree that it is wrong to reject evolution simply because of its implications No, I said nothing about evolution's "implications." quote: yet your entire argument for rejecting ID is because of its implications. No, I reject it because it is not purely scientific, and it masquerades under the disingenuous guise that it is not theological in any way.

DanJames -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/20/2008 11:58:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02 quote: ORIGINAL: unclemonkey That is a strawman argument. I have NEVER made such a claim. Then why did you refute the OP's comment, "I don't think I've ever heard a non-religious challenge to the science behind evolutionary theory?" quote: My claim is that ID is scientific even though it does present theistic implications. Again, this is not what you indicated in your response to the OP. When challenged that there is a lack of non-religious arguments against evolution, you stated that "No such lack exists." Why does it seem like the two of you are having two completely different conversations? There are strictly secular criticisms of evolution. They have been named in this thread. As for Intelligent Design, it is a secular theory, though any theist could draw a conclusion from it that their god did it. If the ability to draw a religious conclusion from a scientific theory makes it religious, then you'd never have a secular theory because you could always say, "That's how my god did it."

1dblthnk02 -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/20/2008 5:24:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DanJames As for Intelligent Design, it is a secular theory, though any theist could draw a conclusion from it that their god did it. I disagree. ID could be applied as a secular theory, but in reality it would most likely collapse if it lost its religious supporters' attention. quote: If the ability to draw a religious conclusion from a scientific theory makes it religious, then you'd never have a secular theory because you could always say, "That's how my god did it." No, there is a difference between how one interprets a theory ex post facto, and what is intrinsic within the theory itself. I will ask you Dan: why does ID get so much support from religious people rather than from scientists? What's in it for religious supporters if ID is strictly a secular theory?

Jhud -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/20/2008 11:50:12 PM)
quote: Yes, we have already established this. But you still are not addressing the fact that this is an integral part of the supposed design either by accident, or by deliberate calculation. Judging from your first sentence, I guess you tend toward it being accidental. Again, according to the science of ID, what does this tell us about the supposed designer? I made it clear that it seems in this universe, no design is impervious to decay. That has nothing to do with accident or calculation, but is reality. quote: And this is exactly the problem: this is where ID leads us. That is where all considerations or truth lead us. quote: No, it has nothing to do with the concept of "ideal". It simply indicates that we recognize an extreme variation from the norm. If this sort of thing were more common, it wouldn't make headlines. There is no ‘norm’ in evolution. quote: Exactly. In straight evolution, we don't need to deal in terms of ideals. But if we enter a proposed designer in to the mix, it opens the door to too many scientific unanswerables that require philosophical or theological address. Only if we assume either that a designer desires perfection, or that this universe allows it.

mcp -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/21/2008 9:16:20 AM)
quote: quote: Unclemonkey: That is a gross misrepresentation. The premise of ID is simply that intelligence is required. Considering the source of the intelligence is beyond the premises of ID. 1dblthnk02: This would be like a police detective working to solve a big crime, and then announcing to the press that the case has been solved, but they still don't know the identity of the perpetrator. And this is ID's Big Lie. Once a theory points to an intelligent agent at work, it becomes incumbent to identify said intelligence as clearly as possible, otherwise it amounts to nothing but inconclusive conjecture, i.e. "maybe it was this, and maybe it was that." We can "maybe" ad infinitum. On the other hand, evolution does not ask "Whodunnit?" therefore, it need not find the answer. Interesting analogy.. So since evolution never considers whodunnit (or more correct to the analogy, someone did it), then the "crime" could just be considered an accident of fate; maybe lightning or a bacteria colony, or maybe it was self-inflicted. Afterall, science is indeed investigating a "crime" scene.... a cold case, at that. quote: There is difference between the theory of evolution being silent about the existence of a personal creator, and the ID dissemblance which is to cover up the theological beliefs tied up in it. "if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice" - Rush I understand the way you are seeing it. But the point of many here is that you can not be neutral on creators/causality arguments because your whole model could [note could] be off. You indeed have a right to reject such concepts as ID, but that is interpretation of the natural on your part and others may disagree in the approach to science and any findings interpreted. Evolution is suspect to me because it builds a model and doesn't even address if there was a 'whodunnit' to consider and therefore builds a case without a perpetrator, cause in many's mind the evidence doesn't seem to provide clues of such (coincidental accident?). This may sound philosophical or theological, but science has to start with assumptions to build a model that deals with the knowledge gaps and to determine where time/resources will be spent on predictions/follow ups. IDers see the existing clues differently and bringing in these assumptions does add complexity to the neat little scientific model we currently have. But is a neat and tidy model worth being potentially led astray scientifically speaking? Well if it keeps the great unwashed in their place, then we can all be pragmatic about it and get rid of this pesky religious fervor for a happier/agreeable world.... [this is a hypothesis which needs to be experimented with[8\|]].

unclemonkey -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/21/2008 10:16:30 AM)
ORIGINAL:DanJames quote: Why does it seem like the two of you are having two completely different conversations? Because 1dblthnk02 insists on keeping his head in the sand. He has been shown numerous purely secular criticisms of evolution yet chooses to ignore them. He has chosen to completely ignore the OP of this thread and continue with his inane argument that because ID implies the supernatural it can’t be scientific even though his argument has been thoroughly refuted. quote: There are strictly secular criticisms of evolution. They have been named in this thread. You are exactly right. However, 1dblthnk02 is so afraid of the possibility that a Creator God actually exists that he refuses to allow clear thinking to enter his mind. It is really sad.

ianz -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/21/2008 10:57:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: unclemonkey ORIGINAL:DanJames quote: Why does it seem like the two of you are having two completely different conversations? Because 1dblthnk02 insists on keeping his head in the sand. He has been shown numerous purely secular criticisms of evolution yet chooses to ignore them. Assuming I'd just landed from Mars, reading this thread, I'd apply the same comment to you. (That's not meant as an insult - take a look at what you've written, you appear just as buried as your adversary.) It takes two, after all. Regards, Ian

1dblthnk02 -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/21/2008 11:14:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud I made it clear that it seems in this universe, no design is impervious to decay. That has nothing to do with accident or calculation, but is reality. If there is a designer, then it has everything to do with accident or calculation. quote: That is where all considerations or truth lead us. Science is not simply a consideration of truth; it is a method of arriving at usable conclusions. With ID we seem to arrive at a philosophical quagmire. quote: There is no ‘norm’ in evolution. Ah, semantics . . . okay, how about trends? Evolution does not happen in a completely haphazard fashion, but it's inconsistencies are sometimes too extreme to be design, imo. quote: Only if we assume either that a designer desires perfection If the designer does not desire perfection, then this brings us back to dispassionate capriciousness wherein the designer has implemented a design that has resulted throughout the eons with innumerable individuals randomly suffering genetic defect for no apparent reason. As a purely natural phenomenon, it would simply be unfortunate; but as a designed phenomenon, it would be insidious. quote: or that this universe allows it. The universe obviously "allows" it, although I highly doubt that this is a conscious decision on its part.

1dblthnk02 -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/21/2008 11:28:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mcp Interesting analogy Thank you. quote: Afterall, science is indeed investigating a "crime" scene.... a cold case, at that. . . . Not necessarily that cold of a case. We have learned a lot from the evidence at hand, and we continue to learn more all the while. quote: But the point of many here is that you can not be neutral on creators/causality arguments because your whole model could [note could] be off. On the contrary, the point of many here is that ID is, in fact, completely neutral and objective. I disagree. quote: You indeed have a right to reject such concepts as ID, but that is interpretation of the natural on your part and others may disagree in the approach to science and any findings interpreted. I disagree that ID qualifies as a science at this point. I also disagree that the arguments against evolution are scientifically sound or untinged by religious conviction. quote: This may sound philosophical or theological, but science has to start with assumptions to build a model that deals with the knowledge gaps and to determine where time/resources will be spent on predictions/follow ups. ID should start with DNA right here and now, and follow the evidence outward from that point. Evolution does much the same thing, except it starts with the atom. quote: IDers see the existing clues differently and bringing in these assumptions does add complexity to the neat little scientific model we currently have. But is a neat and tidy model worth being potentially led astray scientifically speaking? So far, evolution has done anything but lead science astray. The vast advances that have been made in the fields of medicine, genetic r&d, etc. were all made under the assumption of the veracity of evolution. If evolution is wrong, it's rather inexplicable how we keep advancing so far in the sciences with it, don't you think?

Jhud -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/21/2008 11:44:44 AM)
quote: If there is a designer, then it has everything to do with accident or calculation. Well, no, as I pointed out, there is no design in existence of known origin that is perfect or permanent; therefore, whatever the intent of a designer, within the constraints of this universe as it is, we can expect flaws. This doesn’t in anyway negate our ability to understand that something is designed; in fact, in many ways, it may inform it. quote: Science is not simply a consideration of truth; it is a method of arriving at usable conclusions. With ID we seem to arrive at a philosophical quagmire. Science frequently leads to philosophical considerations that science itself cannot answer; that fact simply delineates the limits of science, not ID. quote: Ah, semantics . . . okay, how about trends? Evolution does not happen in a completely haphazard fashion, but it's inconsistencies are sometimes too extreme to be design, imo. ID doesn’t claim the ‘inconsistencies’ are necessarily a product of design; indeed, they most likely are not. quote: If the designer does not desire perfection, then this brings us back to dispassionate capriciousness wherein the designer has implemented a design that has resulted throughout the eons with innumerable individuals randomly suffering genetic defect for no apparent reason. As a purely natural phenomenon, it would simply be unfortunate; but as a designed phenomenon, it would be insidious. Again, this assumes certain things. First it assumes the designer desires perfection. Secondly, it assumes imperfection is inevitably or invariably ‘capricious’. Thirdly, even if the designer itself were flawed or capricious, that fact itself wouldn’t negate design. So while all of these factors may cause us to philosophically consider the nature of the designer, none of them in any way negates evidence for design. quote: The universe obviously "allows" it, although I highly doubt that this is a conscious decision on its part. The universe allows perfection?

1dblthnk02 -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/21/2008 12:26:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud Well, no, as I pointed out, there is no design in existence of known origin that is perfect or permanent; therefore, whatever the intent of a designer, within the constraints of this universe as it is, we can expect flaws. Then the designer was constrained to the laws of the universe? quote: Science frequently leads to philosophical considerations that science itself cannot answer; that fact simply delineates the limits of science, not ID. Did you mean to separate ID from science with that statement? quote: ID doesn’t claim the ‘inconsistencies’ are necessarily a product of design; indeed, they most likely are not. They are at the every least byproducts of the design, either by accident or by deliberation. quote: First it assumes the designer desires perfection. I addressed this already. quote: Secondly, it assumes imperfection is inevitably or invariably ‘capricious’. As it applies to observed phenomenon, I can't think of a better term. quote: Thirdly, even if the designer itself were flawed or capricious, that fact itself wouldn’t negate design. I agree that it does not negate the principle, but it should cause religious people to shun it more than evolution. The theological implications are far worse, imo. quote: The universe allows perfection? Oops-- I thought you said imperfection. My mistake.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/21/2008 12:37:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02 Then the designer was constrained to the laws of the universe? A designer doesn't have to be constrained to the laws of this universe in order to work within its constraints. It can work within its constraints (ie: if it chooses to) and not be constrained by them. quote: Did you mean to separate ID from science with that statement? ID may have some (non - scientific) philosophical implications, but that's not to say ID is not science. Evolution itself has (non - scientific) philosophical implications (Darwins version implies God is not needed which indirectly implies there is no god, something we can't scientifically verify). Science works independently of implications. quote: I addressed this already. With a philosophical argument, not a scientific one.

mcp -> RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities (4/21/2008 1:04:50 PM)
quote: quote: But the point of many here is that you can not be neutral on creators/causality arguments because your whole model could [note could] be off. On the contrary, the point of many here is that ID is, in fact, completely neutral and objective. I disagree. You indeed have a right to reject such concepts as ID, but that is interpretation of the natural on your part and others may disagree in the approach to science and any findings interpreted. I disagree that ID qualifies as a science at this point. I also disagree that the arguments against evolution are scientifically sound or untinged by religious conviction. Never inferred this myself; however, your views stop short of considering evolution overstepping the bounds of science by assuming all causality to nature has to be modeled within nature; this is an assumption on faith as well. Science starts with assumptions, some testable, some not. Truth comes in properly weighting the evidence/predictions to what value it provides to your model/paradigm. Even when some predictions are validated, was it indeed an evolutionary or origins concept or some non-evolutionary concept promoted as potentially a validation of evolution by the scientists involved. This may sound philosophical or theological, but science has to start with assumptions to build a model that deals with the knowledge gaps and to determine where time/resources will be spent on predictions/follow ups. ID should start with DNA right here and now, and follow the evidence outward from that point. Evolution does much the same thing, except it starts with the atom. my point is that you contend to look at the crime scene and find enough answers to incontrovertably extrapolate a model which can validate the results; but the "evidences" found/studied today are assuming a model already in existence (no consequential perpetrator per your analogy) and bounce understanding of the evidence against that model (Creationists also bounce off of long-standing biblical record, but they started with evidence here/now). The evol. model for many rejects a perpetrator which insists all of evidence/causality of the crime is contained within. No perp, no crime (no design). Darwin didn't promote Origins or Decent of Man (long existing concepts) on the basis of DNA structure or current atomic evidence either; yet a version of his model has been fine-tuned by resolving findings with the model without starting over. Fine. But my contention is that all approaches to models of the natural past has an element of faith/assumption in origins (and design input). [Wasn't the concept of many,many years from our origins to now assumed based on the approach needed to create a cooled-off, spread out universe and the events that led to the complex human mind? Or did they start with K-Ar dating?] quote: So far, evolution has done anything but lead science astray. The vast advances that have been made in the fields of medicine, genetic r&d, etc. were all made under the assumption of the veracity of evolution. If evolution is wrong, it's rather inexplicable how we keep advancing so far in the sciences with it, don't you think? Again, this sort of addresses my pragmatist comments. I believe science moves forward despite evolutionary theory; but where efforts lie could vary slightly with other variants of scientific/philosophical views. Afterall, how we apply science is still considered science even though significant value judgements are used. Also, I may not disagree with many "evolutionary" concepts. This is more about being honest as to how evolution came to be hypothecized/theorized; and the validity of extrapolating out from evidences in view. And then our responsibilities of applying our knowledge (crime scene analogy in mind).

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI