Progress in Kansas

_{William Dembski

November 9, 2005

Evolution, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Evolution suffers Kansas setback
The US state of Kansas has approved science standards for public schools that cast doubt on evolution.

The Board of Education’s vote, expected for months, approved the new language criticising evolution by 6-4. Proponents of the change argue they are trying to expose students to legitimate scientific questions about evolution. The Kansas decision came as voters in Pennsylvania replaced all eight school board members who approved a similar policy in some of the state’s schools.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4419796.stm

Comments

Rick, Re: #26 (last 2 paragraphs) Interesting. Ok. If we were all privy to plausible proof of a Creator, then we would give little credence to Darwinist cosmologies. ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s sensible. Shoot, itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s almost self-evident. Then you opine that (in the absence of such plausible proof) people deny a Creator not because Ã¢â‚¬Å“evidence for design is wantingÃ¢â‚¬Â but because they want to Ã¢â‚¬Å“avoidÃ¢â‚¬Â questions raised by acknowledgement of the Creator. So you suggest that the evidence is, in fact, not wanting, perhaps even obvious. ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s interesting. Tell me more. You also suggest that Creator-avoidance is some sort of psychological ailment. Do you have opinions as to: 1) When the ailment set in, historically 2) What might have caused it 3) What might cure itpmob1_{November 24, 2005
November
11
Nov
24
24
2005
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT}

Short time?!! It took approximately 3.4 billion years for multicellular life to emerge. That is one of the problems in concieving evolution. The immense spans of time involved are very difficult to wrap our minds around. We have no way to concieve of 100,000 years let alone 10 million or 1 billion. Human civilization has only existed for a bit over 10,000 years. It takes 10,000 periods of 10,000 years to get to 100 million years, and 100 million years represents less then 1/30th the amount of time that multicellular life had to evolve. That is a problem that science in general is running into. As we delve into ever more complex areas the processes we uncover will be farther and farther from the realm of common sense.jmcd_{November 15, 2005
November
11
Nov
15
15
2005
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT}

jcmd "That said I repeat there is not an iota of evidence to support such a claim." Actually there's lots of circumstantial evidence. The main bits revolve around the short time from when the earth formed to when the first bacterial life appeared and the absence of any plausible biochemical environment where abiogenesis could occur on the early earth. Further reading for you: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=panspermia&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=enDaveScot_{November 15, 2005
November
11
Nov
15
15
2005
02:54 AM
2
02
54
AM
PDT}

Dave Scott I do not know anyone who would suggest that aliens seeding Earth with life is an impossibility. It is certainly a possibility that must be considered. That said I repeat there is not an iota of evidence to support such a claim. The fact that it is possible does not alone provide evidence. Any such claim at this juncture is pure speculation. As jboze is so fond of repeating ID does not attempt to address the creator. I recognize this. It does however necessitate one. My point is that the creator is either a supernatural or a natural being. Science cannot address supernatural creation. There is no reason to believe in a natural creator as of yet. ID largely relies on what science cannot not yet explain. Science however has a lot that it has been able to explain thus far. So you are asking me to stray from a worldview with a proven track record because it cannot yet explain some things. The alternative that is offerred does not explain anything persay, but it does rely on events that there is either no evidence for or events for which there can be no evidence. I cannot yet imagine why I should believe in ID other then it is comfortable and conforms to the worldview I was raised with and honestly would like to believe in.jmcd_{November 14, 2005
November
11
Nov
14
14
2005
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT}

The word supernatural is being abused by chance apologists. Everywhere "supernatural" is used to refer to intelligent agency one should substitute "artificial" instead. Of course chance worshippers can't do that because an honest admission of the facts about ID destroys their arguments against it.DaveScot_{November 14, 2005
November
11
Nov
14
14
2005
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT}

jcmd "a natural event for which there is not an iota of evidence" Piffle! Intelligent agency capable of artificial manipulation of genomes is a proven quantity in the universe. There's exactly one proven instance of it. The only question is how many times intelligent agency has appeared in nature, when, what forms it took, and what evidence there is of it.DaveScot_{November 14, 2005
November
11
Nov
14
14
2005
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT}

this is what jmcd says of ID:
The point is that ID relies on either the supernatural or a natural event for which there is not an iota of evidence. There has to be a designer for design to exist. Moreover ID does not simply stop at saying that you can infer design in nature. That I would agree with. It goes as far as to say that natural laws cannot account for our universe or at least life on Earth. That is also something that there is not a shred of proof for.
id suggest talking to him/her is like talking to a brick wall. he/she refuses to actually read what ID is before making these neverending bogus claims. ive replied at least 10 times telling this person that ID doesnt posit a supernatural force for the theory, and it doesnt say that natural laws cannot account for life on earth! yet, we keep hearing the same claim over and over and over again. and the arrogant claim that there isnt an iota of evidence that anything besides natural laws (aka, laws he says are responsible for life on earth...everything else is considered supernatural to him) is just absurd. of course theres evidence to suggest the laws we know of now cannot get us to where we are now. no one has obsereved NS do much of anythign novel, let alone turn one life form into another or build from scratch a new body part, body type, etc. scientists cannot even create life in labs...they can create purely synthetic viruses (which arent alive) and the materials used come straight from nature (as opposed to building it from scratch). a purely naturalistic arrival of life then should be considered a near impossible task, especially if it was unguided and no one created it and the materials it was made of. thus, we have large amounts of evidence to suggest unguided natural laws from nothing could not account for all life on earth.jboze3131_{November 11, 2005
November
11
Nov
11
11
2005
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT}

jmcd, "What is your definition of unguided?" Whenever I say "unguided", I always mean unguided by intelligent agency unless otherwise specified. "Science nor Darwinism rules out purpose." I presume you mean ultimate purpose. Investigation into ultimate purpose lies outside the realm of science; I've never disputed that. However, investigation into whether or not some phenomenon can reasonably be attributed to intelligent causation is fair game for science and can be legitimately applied to natural phenomena. Throughout most of your response, you assert that the evidence speaks in favor of life being caused by unguided natural processes. I'm inclined to disagree; but, still you seem to concede that ID provides at least one necessary counterargument which makes neo-Darwinian evolution a scientific theory since you do not rebut that point of mine. In my view, what is necessary to refute each and every case of irreducible or specified complexity is to show that unguided natural causes can plausibly account for its origin. (This is how ID is testable.) I simply think it is erroneous to presume that some phenomenon can be accounted for in terms of unintelligent causes if no model incorporating only those causes can plausibly account for it. Far be it from me to say that unintellligent causes will *never* account for it. I only say that there are testable methods for inferring design in anything - including nature - and consideration of those methods is warranted when considering the origin of any phenomenon. "it is almost certain that we will be able to create artificial life forms in the not too distant future. Once that happenns will your opinion change?" To show that life can be artificially created will only serve to demonstrate that an embodied intelligent agent can create life by scientific means; that is no threat to ID. The challenge, as I said before, is to show that it can originate sans intelligent causation. Davidcrandaddy_{November 10, 2005
November
11
Nov
10
10
2005
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT}

jmcd- you said that science can not deal with the realm of the supernatural...and that it couldnt prove the supernatural doesnt exist. at the same time you say that science has debunked the supernatural and has found that everything we know of the universe is natural. well, since the universe itself is considered nature- of course everything would be, to some, considered natural...yet somethings cannot be explained (the origin of the first living being for example). so clearly natural laws havent covered everything or anywhere close to everything. there are hundreds of things science cant explain in the universe... you cant say that the supernatural is out of bounds for science but that science has also debunked it. when you automatically deny one option from the start (supernatural), no matter what evidence exists, youll ALWAYS proclaim the second option (natural) is the right one. science will claim it cant handle the supernatural...but when something occurs that cant be explained, science will usually proclaim that the phenomenon is natural, but all the answers arent available. with this way of thinking- as i said in other posts, even if god came down to chat with a scientist and proved he was god, the scientist would have no choice but to proclaim god natural because he couldnt possibly deal with the supernatural- those limits of science are in place (arbitrary limits in my opinion.) if the scientist were to say- the supernatural exists, ive proven it becuse god had lunch with me and made the earth stop spinning...hed be, under current definitions, unable to proclaim god being supernatural and would have to say he was natural, because science only deals with the natural. then again- if he were honest, he wouldnt arbitrarily change god into a natural being as opposed to supernatural, hed just say that it was outside the realm of science. again, with this mindset- no matter what evidence exists, scientists in general will always call EVERY thing natural. these terms, themselves, are fuzzy to begin with. for example...would a miracle of christ be considered supernatural? would turning water into wine be considered supernatural? how do you define if something is supernatural? what would be supernatural about turning water into wine? science proclaims all is natural (well, most in science)...then it takes everything and labels it natural, even if some would consider the events supernatural. is the mind natural? weve no idea...again, how exactly do we define supernatural? does supernatural truly exist as a term at all? if all is inside nature- wouldnt all events be natural? even miracles and such?jboze3131_{November 10, 2005
November
11
Nov
10
10
2005
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT}

"We cannot study in any scientific manner that which does not conform to natural laws." Agreed. Observability, testability, repeatability. Our observation tells us uniformly that design requires a designer, that information only comes from intelligence. This observation has been proven over and over in our everyday experience. What experience do we have with phenomena that look designed and that we would think designed if we had not actually observed them to originate through unintelligent processes? "The point is that ID relies on either the supernatural or a natural event for which there is not an iota of evidence. There has to be a designer for design to exist." Yes, of course there has to be a designer for design to exist. However, we know what design looks like and can recognize it even when we don't know who the designer is. Since this is the case, the fact that a designer capable of encoding DNA or designing the universe is beyond our common experience is irrelevant to the reality of the design. To claim that the design must be an illusion because there is no evidence for a designer seems rather backward. The design itself is the evidence. "[ID] goes as far as to say that natural laws cannot account for our universe or at least life on Earth. That is also something that there is not a shred of proof for." This brings to mind Occam's Razor. In this case, when we already know, by much experience, that information and design are products of intelligence, why should we require that they be explained in terms of unintelligent processes? "Very few people in the science community will see divine or alien intervention as the most likely explanation for life on Earth. That is primarily because there is no evidence that would cause us to believe in either account." I am inclined to believe this. Not because there is no evidence for a designer, but because, if one is trained to view the world as the product of unintelligent processes and to regard the appearance of design as an illusion, what, then, could constitute evidence for a designer for such a person?Rick Toews_{November 10, 2005
November
11
Nov
10
10
2005
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT}

Also, an IC system is claimed to be not capable of evolving through a DIRECT Darwinian pathway. An indirect pathway is still a live possibility though highly improbable.Gumpngreen_{November 10, 2005
November
11
Nov
10
10
2005
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT}

Uh, isn't that an ID proponent's challenge to you? Anyway, if you've read so much of Dembski's work I suggest you reread his explanation of how an unembodied designer can influence the natural world by co-opting random processes (indeterministic quantum states) and inducing them to produce specified complexity.Gumpngreen_{November 10, 2005
November
11
Nov
10
10
2005
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

Show me how an irreducibly complex system can occur naturally and you'll be close to winning me over.jmcd_{November 10, 2005
November
11
Nov
10
10
2005
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

I'm not sure anyone can show you anything.dodgingcars_{November 10, 2005
November
11
Nov
10
10
2005
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

Gumpngreen I have read a good bit of Behe and Dembski. Apparently you do not understand the ideas any better then I since you are unable to demonstrate where I am mistaken with Behe's IC.jmcd_{November 10, 2005
November
11
Nov
10
10
2005
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

jboze No they do not. Historically we have ascribed supernatural explanations to what we could not explain. Science gives us tools for explanation debunking the former supernatural explanantion. That does not mean that supernatural phenomena cannot exist just that there are none that we are aware of. Since every phenomenom that can be studied has proven to be the result of natural occurences it would not be unreasonable to believe that supernatural phenomena don't exist, but you can never prove such a thing.jmcd_{November 10, 2005
November
11
Nov
10
10
2005
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

David "Why is it necessary for science to presume that all natural phenomena are reducible to unguided causes when this is neither empirically validated nor logically exclusive?" What is your definition of unguided? Science nor Darwinism rules out purpose. It just says that there is no reason to believe that we are part of a directed process. The data suggests that we are a byproduct of a very large process and have no reason to think that we were THE intended product of this process. That does not mean that we are not intentional, but that we cannot look for confirmation of special status in science because as yet we do not see that. "Causes ungided by intelligence hitherto cannot account for life on Earth, and intelligent causation currently stands as the most plausible explanation." Very few people in the science community will see divine or alien intervention as the most likely explanation for life on Earth. That is primarily because there is no evidence that would cause us to believe in either account. What we do know about life does suggest that it arose naturally here on Earth. That cannot be proven, but it is almost certain that we will be able to create artificial life forms in the not too distant future. Once that happenns will your opinion change? That is one of the main problems of ID. It cannot tackle issues that evolution has already tackled so it must rely on what we have not discovered. Unless the trend of human discovery is sverely altered, ID will continually have to come up with new unanswered questions as the old issues are answered by science. It is only a matter of time until these questions are answered. That is unless we have stumbled upon something that does not have a natural process behind it for the first time in the history of science.jmcd_{November 10, 2005
November
11
Nov
10
10
2005
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

jmcd- "Someone said science makes supernatural events natural events. That is just bougus. Science debunks supernatural myths with natural explanations. Science cannot deny the possibility of the supernatural, and I certainly would not deny the possibility of the supernatural. I am just saying that such occurences, should they exist, are beyond the realm of scientific inquiry." ---------------- dont those statements directly contradict each other?jboze3131_{November 10, 2005
November
11
Nov
10
10
2005
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT}

jmcd, "Correct me where I screw up" What you are asserting is covered in chapters 21 and 23 through 27 of the Design Revolution, which is $15 on Amazon.Gumpngreen_{November 10, 2005
November
11
Nov
10
10
2005
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

jmcd, "I am sorry to break it to you all but science is methodological naturalism by necessity." Why is it necessary for science to presume that all natural phenomena are reducible to unguided causes when this is neither empirically validated nor logically exclusive? "It [ID] goes as far as to say that natural laws cannot account for our universe or at least life on Earth." Not quite. Causes ungided by intelligence hitherto cannot account for life on Earth, and intelligent causation currently stands as the most plausible explanation. Davidcrandaddy_{November 10, 2005
November
11
Nov
10
10
2005
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

dodging cars The point is that ID relies on either the supernatural or a natural event for which there is not an iota of evidence. There has to be a designer for design to exist. Moreover ID does not simply stop at saying that you can infer design in nature. That I would agree with. It goes as far as to say that natural laws cannot account for our universe or at least life on Earth. That is also something that there is not a shred of proof for.jmcd_{November 10, 2005
November
11
Nov
10
10
2005
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

"So I suppose if you want to blame it on an alien a supernatural event is not necessary. " Ummm... exactly. ID doesn't address who the designer is. How many times does this have to be said to you? In fact, Behe has said that ID allows for the designer to be anything, including ET.dodgingcars_{November 10, 2005
November
11
Nov
10
10
2005
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

Gumpngreen Corect me where I screw up Irreducible Complexity posits that some systems could not exist without each of the system's parts in place. That means that a system has to be created in its current form and is not capable of evolving from other parts or systems. There is no natural law capable of spontaneously producing a complex system. Therefore that system must either have a supernatural origin or it must have been planted by an intelligent and natural entity that would have the same origin issues that we do. So I suppose if you want to blame it on an alien a supernatural event is not necessary.jmcd_{November 10, 2005
November
11
Nov
10
10
2005
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

jmcd, "The problem is that ID insists or at least relies on non-natural/supernatural mechanisms to explain life." Try reading the literature. Dembski explicitly takes on that baseless assertion in The Design Revolution and several other books.Gumpngreen_{November 10, 2005
November
11
Nov
10
10
2005
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

Dave Scott I would not say that it was impossible that we were seeded by an alien intelligence. I would say that there is no evidence to support such a notion as of yet. If that were the case then we would be designed but we would have absolutely no purpose in the theological sense because we would not be God's creation. I see three likely explanations for our existence. 1.We are supernatural creations of God most likely with some purpose. 2.We are a product of natural laws that may or may not have been engineered by God with the intent of producing us. 3. Earth was seeded by a race of ultra intelligent aliens who have the same 3 possibilities for creation themselves. Out of those possibilities there is one constant. Scientific inquiry into purpose is impossible. Out of those three possibilities there is one for which evidence is impossible. One for which we have a good deal of evidence. And finally one that we may discover someday but for which there is currently no evidence.jmcd_{November 10, 2005
November
11
Nov
10
10
2005
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

As far as inferring design in the universe goes.... This is something I do all the time. There is nothing unscientific about that. There is nothing scientific about it either regardless of whether I use scientific reasoning to make such an inference. Furthermore the existence of design in no way changes science. The only way design would but heads with Darwinism is if you thought you knew the purpose of the design. Speculations on such matters surely are not scientific.jmcd_{November 10, 2005
November
11
Nov
10
10
2005
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT}

I am sorry to break it to you all but science is methodological naturalism by necessity. We cannot study in any scientific manner that which does not conform to natural laws. Someone said science makes supernatural events natural events. That is just bougus. Science debunks supernatural myths with natural explanations. Science cannot deny the possibility of the supernatural, and I certainly would not deny the possibility of the supernatural. I am just saying that such occurences, should they exist, are beyond the realm of scientific inquiry. A natural world view does not necessarily lead someone to Atheism. That is just nonsense. It simply allows us to understand how our world works, but it cannot touch what will forever be the unknown. Finally, I find this site to be a mildy amusing journey into irony. For a site titled Uncommon Dissent there is a remarkable lack of dissent allowed. I have now twice had my registration removed. I have never been obscene, profane, or even insulting. I would seriously question the honesty of someone's ideas if they will not allow them to be critically examined. I think the debate is a good thing. Obviously some do not.jmcd_{November 10, 2005
November
11
Nov
10
10
2005
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT}

youre still left with the problem that is science says that the supernatural is out of the realm of science...you automatically go into the process of investigation denying one possibility. if youve already denied the possibility, even if the evidence exists to support the one option, it will be denied and the scientist will say it must be the other option that wasnt denied from the start. would god be supernatural or not. if god created nature, is he beyond it or part of it. or both. if he is solely supernatural in the minds of most, science wouldnt be able to study him, because naturalistic science demands that all evidence be of a natural origin. tho, how do we define nature? nature in the sense that everything around us is natural...then what could there possibly be that is outside of nature? if god exists, he certainly has to be part of nature in some manner... the whole natural/supernatural question is rather meaningless in the end. how do you define each term. how do you study one if its already denied from the outset...how can one option be out of the realm of science yet still studied? if god showed himself to richard dawkins and he had no way of denying it was truly god- dawkins would be, under the current definition of science, be precluded from studying god. either that, or hed be pressed to define god as natural, which might make sense to some and might not make sense to others. the supernatural, by definition, couldnt be explained as natural or by science at all. if the supernatural exists, youre already denying it as a possibility- so no matter what the evidence is, youll ALWAYS define it as natural and "explained" away. counter intuitive if you ask me. were still left the small dilemma- if the supernatural were in existance (depending on how you define supernatural), how would science prove it? ive little doubt that even if a mountain of evidence supported a supernatural event, most in science would shrug their shoulders and claim it was a natural event that they just cant explain (yet). science hasnt explained everything, so maybe part of what hasnt been explained can never be explained. maybe part of what can never be explained is, indeed, supernatural in some sense.jboze3131_{November 10, 2005
November
11
Nov
10
10
2005
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

The supernatural, once observed and explained, becomes the natural. Science doesn't avoid the supernatural, it explains it, and in so doing reduces the supernatural to the natural.DaveScot_{November 10, 2005
November
11
Nov
10
10
2005
02:32 AM
2
02
32
AM
PDT}

Rick Toews Well said.DaveScot_{November 10, 2005
November
11
Nov
10
10
2005
02:24 AM
2
02
24
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply