|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 4/21/2008 1:31:03 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6776
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
quote:
Then the designer was constrained to the laws of the universe?
The resulting designs obviously would be.
quote:
Did you mean to separate ID from science with that statement?
No, I mean to delineate those questions which no science can answer.
quote:
They are at the every least byproducts of the design, either by accident or by deliberation.
They are indeed a by product of all designs in this universe, and so do not disprove design.
quote:
As it applies to observed phenomenon, I can't think of a better term.
No it doesn’t; there is no scientific or mathematical measure of ‘capriciousness’ by which we can observe its effects..
quote:
I agree that it does not negate the principle, but it should cause religious people to shun it more than evolution.
Why?
If the universe, as all ‘religious’ people would believe, is ultimately the product of the intent of an intelligence, how would evolution cause them to think better of such an intelligence?
_____________________________
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. 1925-200
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 4/21/2008 1:59:37 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 394
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
A designer doesn't have to be constrained to the laws of this universe in order to work within its constraints.
Only if we assume the designer is supernatural or divine. Supposedly, ID doesn't do this.
quote:
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, something we can't scientifically verify). Science works independently of implications.
Well, Jhud will have to answer this one himself. I was questioning his implication.
quote:
With a philosophical argument, not a scientific one.
It is not merely philosophical to draw conclusions about the designer based on the assumption of design. This is called profiling, and it is essential if we are going to assume that there is a design.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 4/21/2008 2:03:44 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1068
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
Only if we assume the designer is supernatural or divine. Supposedly, ID doesn't do this.
ID doesn't assume that he isn't either.
quote:
It is not merely philosophical to draw conclusions about the designer based on the assumption of design. This is called profiling, and it is essential if we are going to assume that there is a design.
It is philosophical and not scientific (in terms of trying to figure out whether or not a designer exists). You are trying to deduce characteristics of a designer if he does exist (ie: personal traits) but none of this scientifically tells us if there is a designer.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 4/21/2008 2:10:49 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 4/21/2008 2:04:15 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6776
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
quote:
It is not merely philosophical to draw conclusions about the designer based on the assumption of design. This is called profiling, and it is essential if we are going to assume that there is a design.
As in the crime investigation method?
_____________________________
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. 1925-200
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 4/21/2008 2:19:31 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 394
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mcp
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).
This is the only responsible way to stay within scientific methodology. We don't assume the conclusions a priori, but wait until the evidence reveals a discovery that causes us to reconsider or revise the theory.
quote:
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
That's because he couldn't. We are no longer functioning under the Darwinian model. That would be like confining ourselves strictly to Newtonian physics and ignoring Einstein.
quote:
But my contention is that all approaches to models of the natural past has an element of faith/assumption in origins (and design input).
Faith-- no, absolutely not. Assumption-- yes, if there is ample evidence to justify it.
quote:
I believe science moves forward despite evolutionary theory
No, this is too much like suggesting that I could drive to a destination and arrive there in spite of the fact that I was following directions.
quote:
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.
I agree, I think. Your syntax is a little unusual.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 4/21/2008 2:29:40 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6776
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
quote:
No, this is too much like suggesting that I could drive to a destination and arrive there in spite of the fact that I was following directions.
NO, it's more like suggesting that one could drive to a destination and and arrive there despite having wrong directions. Happens all the time.
_____________________________
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. 1925-200
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 4/21/2008 2:50:26 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 394
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
The resulting designs obviously would be.
But I keep trying to bring this back to the designer: what does a flawed design tell us about the designer?
quote:
No, I mean to delineate those questions which no science can answer.
But you said that such delineation limits science, not ID. If ID is a science, then it should be limited as well.
quote:
They are indeed a by product of all designs in this universe, and so do not disprove design.
Not disprove design, but definitely call into question the nature of the supposed designer.
quote:
No it doesn’t; there is no scientific or mathematical measure of ‘capriciousness’ by which we can observe its effects..
Gross aberrations such as the two-faced girl tend to be rather unpredictable to any specific degree. It didn't happen as the result of something the parents or the child did to bring it about, therefore it is capricious if it is the proper by product of a deliberate design.
quote:
Why?
If the universe, as all ‘religious’ people would believe, is ultimately the product of the intent of an intelligence, how would evolution cause them to think better of such an intelligence?
It doesn't. But evolution doesn't address the designer, therefore it does little to challenge the character of said designer. On the other hand, ID calls the designer's personna, sentiment, and intent into serious scrutiny and re-evaluation . . . unless one already believes in a dispassionate, capricious designer.
There are mythologies that attribute the design of life and the world to the actions of several imperfect and sometimes downright malicious beings. This kind of religious worldview is not challenged by ID. But Judeo-Christianity does not sit at all comfortably with ID's implications.
quote:
As in the crime investigation method?
As in solving a mystery that asks "Whodunnit?"
quote:
NO, it's more like suggesting that one could drive to a destination and and arrive there despite having wrong directions. Happens all the time.
If you follow the wrong directions and get there anyway, then the directions aren't wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 4/21/2008 3:11:37 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1068
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
But I keep trying to bring this back to the designer: what does a flawed design tell us about the designer?
It tells us that the designer is capable of producing the object in question. It doesn't tell us that he is unable to produce anything superior.
quote:
But you said that such delineation limits science, not ID. If ID is a science, then it should be limited as well.
As a science it is limited. That's not to say it can't have philosophical implications. Evolution has philosophical implications.
quote:
Gross aberrations such as the two-faced girl tend to be rather unpredictable to any specific degree. It didn't happen as the result of something the parents or the child did to bring it about, therefore it is capricious if it is the proper by product of a deliberate design.
Designs break. Cars break and computers crash. That doesn't mean they were designed to break.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 4/21/2008 3:19:40 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 4/21/2008 3:14:41 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6776
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
quote:
But I keep trying to bring this back to the designer: what does a flawed design tell us about the designer?
In a universe where a perfect design cannot exist, it may tell us nothing; though interestingly, in the same universe, as the fundamental design has retained its basic fidelity for presumably over 3 billion years, it may tell us of the sophistication of the same designer.
quote:
But you said that such delineation limits science, not ID. If ID is a science, then it should be limited as well.
Exactly.
quote:
Not disprove design, but definitely call into question the nature of the supposed designer.
Perhaps, but so what?
quote:
Gross aberrations such as the two-faced girl tend to be rather unpredictable to any specific degree. It didn't happen as the result of something the parents or the child did to bring it about, therefore it is capricious if it is the proper by product of a deliberate design.
Well, we all agree that in this universe decay happens, so it simply means that biological designs are subject to the same decay, though surprisingly resilient in light of them.
quote:
It doesn't. But evolution doesn't address the designer, therefore it does little to challenge the character of said designer. On the other hand, ID calls the designer's personna, sentiment, and intent into serious scrutiny and re-evaluation . . . unless one already believes in a dispassionate, capricious designer.
There are mythologies that attribute the design of life and the world to the actions of several imperfect and sometimes downright malicious beings. This kind of religious worldview is not challenged by ID. But Judeo-Christianity does not sit at all comfortably with ID's implications.
Well, you are trying to have it both ways. If we are modifying our science to meet the sensibilities of religious people, than neither ID nor evolution will be wholly satisfactory to them. Indeed, they can reject both; but their rejection of both doesn’t make ID less scientific than evolution, nor evolution preferable to the religious than ID.
quote:
As in solving a mystery that asks "Whodunnit?"
We don’t try to figure out ‘whodunnit’ in the profiling sense until we first agree that a crime has been committed – and that requires schema by which one can discern a natural event from one that is the product of intent, thus ID.
quote:
If you follow the wrong directions and get there anyway, then the directions aren't wrong.
That is assuming the directions are actually being followed. I would argue science does so less and less in the case of evolution.
_____________________________
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. 1925-200
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 4/21/2008 4:03:05 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 394
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
In a universe where a perfect design cannot exist, it may tell us nothing; though interestingly, in the same universe, as the fundamental design has retained its basic fidelity for presumably over 3 billion years, it may tell us of the sophistication of the same designer.
What does the two-faced girl, and millions of other gross aberrations, tell us about the sophistication of the designer?
quote:
Exactly.
So what are you saying? Is ID a science, or isn't it? Is it limited, or isn't it?
quote:
Perhaps, but so what?
So religious people, especially Judeo/Christians should have a greater aversion to ID than to evolution.
quote:
Well, we all agree that in this universe decay happens, so it simply means that biological designs are subject to the same decay, though surprisingly resilient in light of them.
But leaves us wondering why the designer put decay in as a factor at all seeing as how it causes a great deal of suffering. Does the designer not understand or care about our feelings or suffering?
quote:
Well, you are trying to have it both ways. If we are modifying our science to meet the sensibilities of religious people, than neither ID nor evolution will be wholly satisfactory to them.
No, I'm not talking about modifying science to meet religious sensitivity. I'm talking about how ID seems to enjoy Judeo/Christian support in spite of the fact that ID does little to support the Judeo/Christian designer.
quote:
Indeed, they can reject both; but their rejection of both doesn’t make ID less scientific than evolution, nor evolution preferable to the religious than ID.
I would think that a theory that does not open the door to doubting the innate goodness of the designer would be preferable. I could be wrong, I guess.
quote:
We don’t try to figure out ‘whodunnit’ in the profiling sense until we first agree that a crime has been committed – and that requires schema by which one can discern a natural event from one that is the product of intent, thus ID.
But in order to become truly scientific, ID research will first have to distance itself from theistic self-interest and support.
Gee, that's surprisingly close to something Dawkins might say.
quote:
That is assuming the directions are actually being followed. I would argue science does so less and less in the case of evolution.
And to the degree that they do so less and less, they shall see less and less progress in its application.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 4/21/2008 4:11:11 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 394
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
It tells us that the designer is capable of producing the object in question. It doesn't tell us that he is unable to produce anything superior.
It tells us that the designer was either incapable, or else the designer likes things just the way they are. Either way, said designer deserves only limited credit.
quote:
As a science it is limited. That's not to say it can't have philosophical implications. Evolution has philosophical implications.
. . . Not within the theory itself. One must extrapolate well beyond evolution itself to arrive at any sort of philosophical implications involving a designer or creator.
On the other hand, ID beelines straight toward it.
quote:
Designs break. Cars break and computers crash. That doesn't mean they were designed to break.
Then it was a flawed design. The designer was either incapable of a flawless design, or else deliberately put flaw in as a factor.
It's one or the other; no other possibility is reasonable in that scenario.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 4/21/2008 4:19:02 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6776
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
quote:
What does the two-faced girl, and millions of other gross aberrations, tell us about the sophistication of the designer?
Depends; what is the percentage of such things to perfectly viable organisms?
quote:
So what are you saying? Is ID a science, or isn't it? Is it limited, or isn't it?
I’m saying that ID, as a science, faces the same limitations every science does.
quote:
So religious people, especially Judeo/Christians should have a greater aversion to ID than to evolution.
Only if they believe one of two things; the decay of design within this universe was the original intent of the designer, or the results of such decay ultimately defeats the good purposes of the designer (which in the case of Jews and Christians would obviously be God).
quote:
But leaves us wondering why the designer put decay in as a factor at all seeing as how it causes a great deal of suffering. Does the designer not understand or care about our feelings or suffering?
Well, no science can tell us that; we would only know about the desire of such a designer if it was communicated somehow, which obviously many (including myself) believe happened.
quote:
No, I'm not talking about modifying science to meet religious sensitivity. I'm talking about how ID seems to enjoy Judeo/Christian support in spite of the fact that ID does little to support the Judeo/Christian designer.
Perhaps Jews and Christian are simply more bright and open-minded than their counterparts.
quote:
I would think that a theory that does not open the door to doubting the innate goodness of the designer would be preferable. I could be wrong, I guess.
Well, many have argued that pain and suffering itself opens such a door; so the door is open, whatever the science of ID says or doesn’t say about the designer.
Indeed, I think understanding that tells us why it can’t be ultimately a scientific question; how would one formulate a scientific hypothesis to deal with the emotional struggle of the purposes of dealing with pain and suffering?
quote:
But in order to become truly scientific, ID research will first have to distance itself from theistic self-interest and support.
Gee, that's surprisingly close to something Dawkins might say.
Why would Dawkins, who melds his science and religious beliefs, say that?
_____________________________
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. 1925-200
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 4/21/2008 4:20:51 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1068
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
. . . Not within the theory itself. One must extrapolate well beyond evolution itself to arrive at any sort of philosophical implications involving a designer or creator.
On the other hand, ID beelines straight toward it.
The inference that we were designed is a scientific deduction (it is falsifiable). Questions of who the designer is are philosophical.
Darwinism allows that there is no God. From a philosophical standpoint, this indirectly implies there is no God. Since science can't prove that God doesn't exist, such an implication is philosophical.
quote:
Then it was a flawed design. The designer was either incapable of a flawless design, or else deliberately put flaw in as a factor.
It's one or the other; no other possibility is reasonable in that scenario.
Depends on your criteria of "flaw." Perhaps the existence of an imperishable design is impossible. All these are philosophical arguments.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 4/21/2008 4:33:08 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 4/21/2008 4:26:14 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 306
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
. . . Not within the theory itself. One must extrapolate well beyond evolution itself to arrive at any sort of philosophical implications involving a designer or creator.
On the other hand, ID beelines straight toward it.
The inference that we were designed is a scientific deduction (it is falsifiable). Questions of who the designer is are philosophical.
quote:
Then it was a flawed design. The designer was either incapable of a flawless design, or else deliberately put flaw in as a factor.
It's one or the other; no other possibility is reasonable in that scenario.
Depends on your criteria of "flaw." Perhaps the existence of an imperishable design is impossible. All these are philosophical.
Assumption of design would really be adductive reasoning. "All complex information systems of known origin are designed (by humans), so every complex information system in the universe must be designed".
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 4/21/2008 4:30:58 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1068
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
Assumption of design would really be adductive reasoning. "All complex information systems of known origin are designed (by humans), so every complex information system in the universe must be designed".
Not "must" (since science doesn't deal with absolute proof) but that they probably are. It is falsifiable and hence scientific.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 4/21/2008 6:06:28 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6776
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
Adding to what Betta said..
quote:
Assumption of design would really be adductive reasoning. "All complex information systems of known origin are designed (by humans), so every complex information system in the universe must be designed".
Good try; Rather it’s, "All complex information systems of known origin are the product of intelligence so it is reasonable to infer complex information system whose origin is not known are also the product of intelligence".
This is an eminently falsifiable hypothesis, and therefore, completely scientific.
_____________________________
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. 1925-200
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 4/21/2008 10:06:13 PM
|
|
|
mcp
Posts: 109
Joined: 4/23/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
This is the only responsible way to stay within scientific methodology. We don't assume the conclusions a priori, but wait until the evidence reveals a discovery that causes us to reconsider or revise the theory.
Well, you may not assume the conclusions a priori, but assumptions do precede both the quest of scientific inquiries and interpretations of the evidence [not to mention the application of science]. If the scientific method is strictly applied even in historical science, then great. That is a good thing; but just don't leave the crime scene prematurely.
quote:
Faith-- no, absolutely not. Assumption-- yes, if there is ample evidence to justify it.
Well, here is where the two sides differ on the definition of faith and when assumptions are/are not informed.
< Message edited by mcp -- 4/21/2008 10:15:57 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 4/22/2008 6:41:58 AM
|
|
|
BVZ
Posts: 534
Joined: 11/2/2006
Status: offline
|
Assumptions don't have to be informed. But when you make them, you must be ready to abandon them if you are unable to support the assumption with evidence. This is why ID fails. It assumes the existence of a designer, but refuses to abandon the assumption when no evidence is found to support it.
Science makes assumptions all the time. But evidence contradicting the assumptions should force the scientist making the assumption to abandon that assumption.
On the other hand, if a scientific theory based on an assumption creates predictions that turn out to be accurate, the assumptions that spawned the scientific theory gain credibility (even though they might not be intuitive.)
This is how Einstein created his theories. He assumed something, then see where it got him. 95% of the time it led to contradictions (internally), or contradictions with positive evidence.
But the following two assumptions turned out to lead to accurate predictions:
1) Light travels at the speed of light regardless of observer.
2) No position you can observe from can be considered superior to any other.
From these assumptions alone his theories were born.
Another important thing is that assumptions and beliefs are NOT the same thing. It is possible to assume something, while believing it is not true AT THE SAME TIME. This is done routinely in mathematics.
Another big problem with ID is Occam's razor. Assuming a designer is exactly that, an assumption. Occam's razor simply cuts ID away, since evolution ALREADY explains the diversity of life, WITHOUT making that unnecessary assumption.
So it is possible to take the theory of evolution and latch a designer onto that. But why do this? It doesn't matter how you look at it, latching a designer onto ANYTHING, while NOT latching a designer onto it gives you the same results, is not efficient.
Baseless assumptions can only become more credible by generating predictions that turn out to be accurate. This is a basic principle.
Not lets apply this to ID.
We assume that a designer exists.
Now what?
What predictions can we now make, that we could not make without this assumption?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 4/22/2008 9:34:09 AM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 1660
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:BVZquote:
It assumes the existence of a designer, but refuses to abandon the assumption when no evidence is found to support it.
Evidently you haven’t bothered reading Jack’s posts.
quote:
Science makes assumptions all the time. But evidence contradicting the assumptions should force the scientist making the assumption to abandon that assumption.
That is exactly why evolution should be dumped, but it won’t because evolution is not science.
quote:
On the other hand, if a scientific theory based on an assumption creates predictions that turn out to be accurate, the assumptions that spawned the scientific theory gain credibility (even though they might not be intuitive.)
Uh, like the prediction that all information driven nano-machines are designed? That is a prediction that makes ID falsifiable, yet it hasn’t been falsified.
Compare that with evolution’s prediction that all species will change over time unless they don’t, in which case evolution predicts stasis.
quote:
Another big problem with ID is Occam's razor. Assuming a designer is exactly that, an assumption.
What does Occam’s razor say about assumptions that have empirical support?
quote:
Occam's razor simply cuts ID away, since evolution ALREADY explains the diversity of life, WITHOUT making that unnecessary assumption.
This is a laughable abuse of Occam’s razor. Occum’s razor does NOT favor an ASSUMPTION that has absolutely NO empirical support over an assumption that does have empirical support.
quote:
So it is possible to take the theory of evolution and latch a designer onto that.
It is quite possible to believe the fairytale of evolution and merge it with the evidence for ID. That is why it is wrong to consider ID as an “alternate” to evolution.
quote:
We assume that a designer exists.
Actually, rather than assuming a designer exists ID presents evidence supporting the contention that design is required for the origin of information driven nano-machines.
On the other hand mindless undirected evolution ASSUMES that nature is capable of producing information driven nano-machines through random natural processes. This assumption contradicts the evidence.
quote:
Now what?
You could try addressing the OP of this thread even though it has been thoroughly refuted.
_____________________________
Visit my home church.
Also consider Life's Most Important Queston
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 4/22/2008 9:59:13 AM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 550
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
Compare that with evolution’s prediction that all species will change over time unless they don’t, in which case evolution predicts stasis.
No, the fact that species change over time (finches & fossils) is part of the raw data that evolutionary theory seeks to explain. I know you don't accept that data, but that's what motivated the development of the theory. Evolution has made many successful predictions, such as the prediction of the existence of a fishapod critter like Tiktaalik with the correct features and correct age of the actual fossil discovered afterwards.
_____________________________
"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: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 4/22/2008 11:03:14 AM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 306
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Good try; Rather it’s, "All complex information systems of known origin are the product of intelligence so it is reasonable to infer complex information system whose origin is not known are also the product of intelligence".
This is an eminently falsifiable hypothesis, and therefore, completely scientific.
That really isnt falsible the way you frame it above... that's still adductive. So what if we build life by simulating natural causes in the lab? That still doesn't prove life was or was not designed, unless you specifically say that life will not be built from components that can form and evolve naturally.
What complex information systems out there that are products of intelligence, but not human intelligence? Its not entirely falsible until we have a perfect knowledge of every natural process that could have formed/evolved life naturally... the very things evolution sets about trying to understand. ID isn't going to get us there any faster.
Depending on the way you frame ID, it may have some falsibility but it's still a hypothesis with no evidence, or any testability that wouldn't already be present in evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 4/22/2008 12:00:38 PM
|
|
|
Aphobos
Posts: 669
Joined: 8/22/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: atheistinpeace
Couple of things I'm curious about with regards to those who deny evolution... to be clear, this post isn't an attack on that position by any means, simply something I'd like to understand.
Firstly - I don't think I've ever heard a non-religious challenge to the science behind evolutionary theory. Put otherwise, the only grounds anti-evolutionists have for their position is that it contradicts a holy book written long before evolutionary theory started. How do creationists feel about the lack of non-religious challenge to evolution?
Dr. Michael Denton (Evolution: A Theory In Crisis; Nature's Destiny) is both a materialist and an evolutionist. He rejects creationism outright, and his work serves as an example of non-religious critisicm that comes from within the Darwinian paradigm.
Now, before all fundamentalist atheists flock to TalkOrigins for something to cut-and-paste against Denton, no one asked for an airtight challenge -- only a non-religious one. And Denton is but one example.
quote:
Secondly - just to understand exactly what is meant by denying evolution. Speciation has been observed both in the lab and in nature: this the extent to which evolution is regarded as a fact. It's a theory, then, for explaining the origins of the human species. Do creationists here deny that evolution happens at all (in which case, how do you reconcile this to observed speciation?), or do they deny it as an explanation for the existence of humans (which is a position I'm more familiar with)?
Most creationists deny that speciation -- the formation of new biological species through the division of one into two or more genetically distinct species -- occurs. Their underlying presupposition is that God created all species in a relatively short period of time (usu. 6 days). What happens beyond that is a matter of adaptation within the species.
While all creationists are by nature (no pun intended) ID advocates, the reverse is not true. Many ID proponents reject creationist presuppositions like the one above. That is one of the chief differences between the two. Creationism begins with the assumption that the opening chapters of Genesis comprise a literal, infallible, chronological account of how life began. This, in turn, colors the data they examine and greatly influences their conclusions.
ID, on the other hand, begins with observation of the material world. There are no precommitments to sacred scripture (of any religion), no presuppositions about who the designer(s) might be. Instead, it looks at the data and concludes that while Darwinian evolution might explain what happens to life once it's here, it cannot explain how life actually arose in the universe. At its foundation, organic life is based upon complex information, and that information could not possibly have arisen through purely random processes in an inorganic universe -- regardless of the amount of time it is given to do so.
And so, you'll find many Christians for example who believe in (neo)Darwinian evolution. They just recognize its failure as an ultimate explanation of origins. This is something to keep in mind when referring to those who "deny evolution". Do they deny that it ever occured or is still occuring? Or do they accept both, denying only that it can explain how organic life arose from inorganic matter? There are significant intellectual and philosophical differences between the two.
~Aphobos
< Message edited by Aphobos -- 4/22/2008 12:12:03 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 4/22/2008 12:23:03 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6776
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
quote:
That really isnt falsible the way you frame it above... that's still adductive. So what if we build life by simulating natural causes in the lab? That still doesn't prove life was or was not designed, unless you specifically say that life will not be built from components that can form and evolve naturally.
Falsifiable doesn’t mean we prove it right, it means we have a way to prove it wrong. And the very straight forward way you prove the above statement wrong, is to demonstrate a verifiable case where unguided process produced a complex information system. Then the hypothesis is falsified.
quote:
What complex information systems out there that are products of intelligence, but not human intelligence?
The cell, for starters.
quote:
Its not entirely falsiable until we have a perfect knowledge of every natural process that could have formed/evolved life naturally... the very things evolution sets about trying to understand. ID isn't going to get us there any faster.
Actually, this is wrong; it’s impossible to know ‘every natural process’ and science never requires this; it derives hypothesis based on what is known and can be inferred.
quote:
Take germ theory; one of its tenets is that organisms do not arise by way of spontaneous generation. Do we know about ‘every’ organism that exists or ever did exist? Of course not. It may be that somewhere somehow organisms do arise spontaneously; but every observable case we are familiar with indicates otherwise, so it is a pretty sound inference. To falsify the hypothesis, we would simply need to verify a single case where an organism did arise by spontaneous generation, and the hypothesis would be falsified.
Another example is the law of the conservation of energy, which states that energy can never be created or destroyed. Despite the fact that a number of people have claimed to create perpetual motion machines, the claims are always proven wrong – and today generally dismissed, because of our understanding of this law. However, if such a machine ever was produced, it would falsify this fundamental physical law.
quote:
Depending on the way you frame ID, it may have some falsibility but it's still a hypothesis with no evidence, or any testability that wouldn't already be present in evolution.
The reality is that ID is based on every observation to date, and as far as this basic contention is concerned, evolution does not disprove 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. 1925-200
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 4/22/2008 12:36:23 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 393
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aphobos
Most creationists deny that speciation -- the formation of new biological species through the division of one into two or more genetically distinct species -- occurs. T | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
