Science and Freethinking

_{Gil Dodgen

September 23, 2011

Intelligent Design}

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

Everyone has a religion, a raison d’être, and mine was once Dawkins’. I had the same disdain for people of faith that he does, only I could have put him to shame with the power and passion of my argumentation.

But something happened. As a result of my equally passionate love of science, logic, and reason, I realized that I had been conned. The creation story of my atheistic, materialistic religion suddenly made no sense.

This sent a shock wave through both my mind and my soul. Could it be that I’m not just the result of random errors filtered by natural selection? Am I just the product of the mindless, materialistic processes that “only legitimate scientists” all agree produced me? Does my life have any ultimate purpose or meaning? Am I just a meat-machine with no other purpose than to propagate my “selfish genes”?

Ever since I was a child I thought about such things, but I put my blind faith in the “scientists” who taught me that all my concerns were irrelevant, that science had explained, or would eventually explain, everything in purely materialistic terms.

But I’m a freethinker, a legitimate scientist. I follow the evidence wherever it leads. And the evidence suggests that the universe and living systems are the product of an astronomically powerful creative intelligence.

Comments

You could reasonable claim that the same result could be achieved naturally, but the claim that it can be achieved intentionally is more surpassingly demonstrated.
So if Newton studies the behavior of cannonballs and concludes that it is possible to fire one at a velocity that would lead to it orbiting the earth rather than falling to the ground, he has demonstrated that the moon was placed in orbit intentionally, or at least that is the preferred inference?Petrushka_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

Petrushka, You have retreated to safety on this side of the edge of evolution, where people hypothesize and collect data. But here on the reality side the claims become more modest. Bacteria develop resistance, lose it, and regain it. I'm not diminishing it. It's impressive. Did you know that some people can be killed by peanuts while others can't? Some people die from certain viruses while others are immune. Sometimes it's hereditary. You're reading something into it that just isn't there. You talk about grand evolutionary changes and then produce variations within a very specific bacteria. You're supposed to talk softly and carry a big stick, not the opposite.ScottAndrews_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT}

You’re admitting that there’s no experimental evidence to support your position.
Sure there is. the Lenski experiment required three mutations, one of which was slightly detrimental. Malaria has independently evolved multiple mutation resistance to chloroquine several times. Within decades.Petrushka_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

In that sense of the word, Eugene, sure. But it's important not to equivocate between "believe" as in "the balance of the evidence leads me to be confidence that X will not lead to Y" and as in "I believe in one God, father almight, maker of heaven and earth". The second is an act of faith. The first is merely a well-supported working assumption based on good probabilistic evidence. To take a less contentious example: believing that homoepathy works is probably essential for it to work at all. Believing that antibiotics work is to accept that statistics are a decent way of estimating confidence in a prediction.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

Petrushka, You don't even hear yourself. Read yourself. Whatever.
The same is true of evolution. You can’t arbitrarily say that structures requiring multiple mutations can’t occur naturally unless you run the experiment.
You're admitting that there's no experimental evidence to support your position. Which is more astounding, that you see that as problem for my position, or that you don't see it as a problem for yours? Am I actually reading this?ScottAndrews_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

wow, look at this rock formation. Where did this come from? First step – eliminate design.
The problem with this as a first step is that even following Dembski's rules, you first have to eliminate natural causes. You see a ring of flowers or mushrooms. Designed or natural? We know that humans plant things in circles because we have observed them. We know that humans have the capability. But to reach a design inference, we need to eliminate false positives. You can't do this by calculating the odds against seeds or spores falling in a circle. You have to know something about the processes involved. The same is true of evolution. You can't arbitrarily say that structures requiring multiple mutations can't occur naturally unless you run the experiment. I suppose there's some safety in knowing that such experiments take decades. And in the fact that they can't approach the results that take millions of years.Petrushka_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

Petrushka, You're getting a little warmer.
The first step would be to note that it looks like other things known to be built by humans.
First you have to really think through what "looks like" means. If it means that you eyeball something and draw a conclusion, you might be right or not. Perhaps consider similarities rather than a visual inspection. And then start asking what similarities are.
The only designers we have actually observed are living things.
You're absolutely right, and yet here everything is, and we want to explain it. We can use your logic and narrow it down to every known observed cause, but that leaves us with nothing. If that's not good enough for you, which it isn't for me, then we must realize that it's something not yet observed. The trouble is that you apply this filter only when it suits you. That's why I call it a preference. You'll consider something else that no one has observed and cling to every shred of evidence that's not contradictory. In that sense alone both explanations are equal. You object to it in one case but not in the other. It's not rational. Your thinking is compromised. It happens to all of us. I don't like tomatoes.ScottAndrews_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth, You are free to choose how to term it. But I am glad we have essentially agreed that anything that cannot be rationally checked is believed. Belief is immanent to science (hence statistics, theory of probability, belief nets, a view of the world maintaining that it is stochastic/uncertain in nature, to name a few manifestations of it). Our life itself is guided by belief. I believe that the chair I am sitting on will not break under me, I believe that my colleagues are honest and responsible scientists, I believe that what I am doing will be helpful to others &c. Belief is central to our being.Eugene S_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT}

wow, look at this rock formation. Where did this come from? First step – eliminate design.
The first step would be to note that it looks like other things known to be built by humans. The second step is to ask whether it is within the capabilities of humans. These steps seem to be bypassed by biological design advocates. The only designers we have actually observed are living things. We see people building things. We see birds building things, we see termites and bees building things. We haven't seen any non-living designers at work, so we can't apply steps one and two.Petrushka_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth, My charges that objections to ID are ultimately preferential are supported and warranted. You approve when someone infers design in the case of Stonehenge and then goes on to determine who, how, and why. In the next case you expect the opposite - determine who, how, and why and then perhaps you can infer design. It's clearly not rational. But that doesn't make you insane. It just means you like one conclusion more than the other. I like asparagus but I can't eat tomatoes. I could pile up logical-sounding reasons why asparagus is good and tomatoes are bad and I could debate it for hours, but if someone digs deep enough they're going to get to the bottom of it.ScottAndrews_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT}

I give up trying to get the number of zeros right. I screwed up again. :)Petrushka_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth,
In the case of Stonehenge we have a) means, motive and opportunity
Why do we have means, motive, and opportunity? What if someone came across it and said, wow, look at this rock formation. Where did this come from? First step - eliminate design. We'd still be spinning our wheels with materialistic explanations that never quite add up, and we'd never find out how or why someone did it. Sure, there would be some testable hypotheses supported by data touching on possible geological causes (because that's how science works!) but nothing very convincing. Certainly someone would mention arches. Ridicule and expulsion would face anyone who considered or proposed the possibility of design. Rather than working on the who, how, or why, they would spend their time demonstrating mathematically that giant rocks placed in circles and neatly stacked with astronomical significance are more likely to be created by designers. "Real scientists" would ask why design proponents didn't just figure out how DruidsDidIt with their hands tied behind their backs because the very concept is considered religious and unscientific. But rational heads prevailed back then, or perhaps no one was smart enough to be so stupid. So we investigated the who, how, and why. That is what happens when you follow the evidence where it leads rather than narrowing the search on ideological grounds.ScottAndrews_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT}

That would reduce memory requirements from 10^500 to 10^491, using common ID numbers. Is that significant improvement? How about one in a trillion trillion? 10^482.
After coffee that looks like it should have been 10^488 and 10^476. Using American billions, not British billions. I don't see that it changes the argument.Petrushka_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

We can't interview the creators of Stonehenge, but we certainly have demonstrated that there are methods of building Stonehenge that require only technology available to the time. There's a video of a single guy moving and planting a Stonehenge sized block unassisted. we know where the stones were quarried. So we have means and opportunity. As for motive, we are still building monuments.Petrushka_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT}

NS cannot be “simulated”. It must be “implemented”. If you implement true NS, it will bring you nowhere, because a true complex reproductive advantage cannot be achieved in a blind environment by a replicator, not even by a simple computer virus.
Any physical process can be simulated. H-bombs can be simulated. Earthquakes can be simulated. Even weather can be simulated. The environment is not blind. Variation is blind. The environment is both active and passive. It is passive in the sense that biochemical constraints determine what sequences are viable. It is active in that competition determines which viable variants have a reproductive advantage.Petrushka_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

I'm afraid I think in terms of storage capacity because I did most of my professional programming back in the 80s, when a thousand bytes was a lot. I had to account for and justify every byte. Remember the Y2K problem? That was caused by database designers trying to squeeze as much data as possible into the smallest possible space. That was the world I learned to program in. From that I learned that there is always a physical implementation for knowledge, and limits to how much can be stored and how quickly it can be accessed. Nothing has changed except the number of zeros available. When you start talking about hundreds of zeros in the exponent, you are up against the resources of the universe.Petrushka_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

Maybe memory?
That's the problem, isn't it. You argue that functional sequences are a subset of possible sequences. OK. let's follow that. Suppose functional sequences are one in a trillion. That would reduce memory requirements from 10^500 to 10^491, using common ID numbers. Is that significant improvement? How about one in a trillion trillion? 10^482. Where's the storage?
There are certainly intelligent methods to discover it. Both top down and bottom up. They are certainly big shortcuts when compared to a random walk. Or to a random walk + NS.
Examples? Give us a thought experiment demonstrating a shortcut to protein folding, followed by a shortcut to finding which folds lead to greater reproductive success. Followed by a shortcut to knowing in advance which combinations of neutral or nearly neutral variations will be needed in the future.Petrushka_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

In the case of Stonehenge we have a) means, motive and opportunity Really Lizzie? You know what these are? Or is it just that you can imagine what they are? Do you appreciate the difference? It's vital.Chris Doyle_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT}

Petrushka: Explain to me where the designer stores his database of functional sequences, Maybe memory? since everyone seems to agree that the number of possible sequences exceeds the number of particles in the universe. Well, not the number of functional sequences. Those are much less, whatever darwinists like to believe. And everyone, including Douglas Axe, agrees that there are no shortcuts to knowing how a coded sequence will fold when interpreted as a protein. There are certainly intelligent methods to discover it. Both top down and bottom up. They are certainly big shortcuts when compared to a random walk. Or to a random walk + NS. How does the designer know what problem needs to be solved? In real life, complex design has to balance many factors. That's why we call him "intelligent". If a designer is in control, why are variants necessary? Why does evolution appear to be analogous to a marketplace? Because the designer is obviously not "omnipotent" in the context he operates in. He has rules to respect. He cannot do anything he likes. He may face opposing forces or principles.gpuccio_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth: Again you have taken a wrong turn. In evolutionary algorithms (not weasel, but almost every other one), the output of the evolving organisms is assessed against a criterion (just as it is, naturally, in wild species) but the organisms themselves as output is NOT specified. No wrong turn at all. I was speaking of the Weasel. I know that in other algorithms the solution is not known in advance. In other algorithms, information is added to the system in other, indirect ways. But it is intelligent design just the same. Please, read again what I wrote and you will see that I have considered the various possibilities to add information. That, surely, by any calculation, is FCSI – it’s functional, it’s complex, it’s specific, and it’s information, and it did not exist before it evolved within my algorithm. It was certainly not specified in any form by me. Not so. You added a lot of information to the system. You defined who were the patients and who were the volunteers. You designed the algorithm to sdearch for the parameters. You defined the method, and the purpose of the search. If (and I am not sure of that) new dFSCI was created, it was created as a result of your intelligent intervention. Again, we have intelligent purpose, conscious representation, structured algorithms, intepretation of meanings. All that can be done only by an intelligent designer. Yes, that’s possible. But there are other ways in which neutral (i.e. non-advantageous) variants can get into the gene pool, and that is by drift. As discussed many times, drift and neutral variation do not modify the probabilities of random walks. So both components necessary for Darwinian evolution to occur are naturally occurring. No designer is required (except possibly to get the whole thing started, but that’s not an argument about Darwinian evolution, it’s an argument about organic chemistry). No. What is lacking in genetic algorithms is an implementation of NS. NS is absent there. All selection is intelligent selection, because the designer structures the system and decides the rules. In nature, the "evolved" being is supposed to expand because it really has reproductive advantage, in an environment that is completely unaware of it, and of the rules of its reproduction. IOWs, the environment is blind to the replicator. I have suggested to implement genetic algorithms that way, and everybody starts to evade that immediately. Let me see a replicator "evolve" by RV alone in a system not built for that purpose, just by developing reproductive advantage through RV. Let me see a computer virus become a much more complex computer virus, all alone, in normal computers, not in a system which simulates anything. NS cannot be "simulated". It must be "implemented". If you implement true NS, it will bring you nowhere, because a true complex reproductive advantage cannot be achieved in a blind environment by a replicator, not even by a simple computer virus. Well, In didn't want to take again this subject, but you have brought me to it :) Well, apart from the fact that none is required (things that breed better will breed more), how does your postulated bodiless ID affect who breeds and who doesn’t? What are these “many ways”? Not if the breeding is guided by a breeder. One thing is to breed better in a blind environment, another thing to breed better because a breeder helps me. I think i have discussed a little the ways of implementation in the other post to you somewhere else here.gpuccio_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth: d is for "digital". However, the claim that a system in which variance is randomly generated and subject to natural selection i.e. where that genotypic variance results in heritable variance in reproductive success cannot result in dFSCI (or, at least in an adaptive population) certainly is in dispute I certainly dispute it can (I mean, generate dFSCI). and we can see, for example, in evolutionary computer algorithms, that it does indeed. I will not take again here the subject of genetic algorithms. I have done that too many times, and I frankly consider that a very boring subject. I will just sum up my absolute conviction: all genetic algorithms, as afr as I know and can understand, are at best implementations of intelligent design, never of RV + NS. So there is no principled reason for thinking that random heritable variance in reproductive success can’t result in evolving functions that optimise a population for its environment. Random heritable variance in reproductive success can’t result in dFSCI. Or, at any rate, you have not stated one! I have been stating reasons for yeras on this blog, probably also with you. I cannot each time start again from scratch! Yes, indeed it is, but, interestingly, “intelligent” selection is less, not more, likely to produce complex functions. Less than what? I can agree that intelligent selection + RV probably has some limits. I don't think that very complex functions can be generated that way. For that, we probably need guided variation. But one thing is for sure: RV + NS has all the limits (whatever Petrushka can believe). Intelligent selection is a quick way of getting to a specific function, but it’s not the best way of evolving a fit population Well, intelligent selection can well be coupled to direct design and direct planning. You may have a general plan for a complex setting, a program, a software, and then need some specific function that you can develop by intelligent selection. You have taken a wrong turn here, in fact two. First of all, in nature there is no “correct” variation. There is simply differential reproductive success. Organisms with genotypes that tend to produce thriving phenotypes will, by definition, be more likely to pass those genotypes on to descendents. So they are also, by definition, the “correct” genotypes for their environment – ones that work. And your second wrong turn is that no artificial selection system that I am aware of “fixes” “incorrect” variations before continuing. Variants that are undesired are simply not bred from, or given fewer opportunities to breed. This is true of Weasel, and of animal breeding. Nothing is “fixed” (at least not yet – genetic medicine may be on the horizon). I don't understand what you mean. I was not speaking of "nature", but of intelligent selection. In Weasel, you know the phrase you want to obtain. While it would be certainly easier to write it directly, for some reason you choose to obtain it by RV and intelligetn selection. What has "nature" to do with that? Each time a letter changes, it is compared with the right solution, and that conditions what happens after. So, "correct" variation is when a letter corresponds to the solution. If the first letter happens to be "W", that is correct variation. I am not interested in the details of how the algorithm "fixes" the result. Only Dawkins knows (or maybe only God!). But even fixation by negative selction is fixation just the same. And the fact remains that what is fixed is what has been considered "correct" because the algorithm already knew the solution. It is easy to fix a result by negative selection, once we have attained it. The only thing to do is to eliminate any new variation that "throws away" the result. That is intelligent selection just the same, because if you had no way to know that the result is "correct", you could not fix it. The problem with NS is that it can only fix results that give reproductive advantage. Almost all functional results that are in the range of RV will not give any reproductive advantage. And those results that are not in the range of RV will never arise, and cannjot be obtained as the sum of simpler results. It's as simple as that.gpuccio_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth, Thanks for hitting your daily "That's how science works." We've been over this. Yes, they have hypotheses, and they have supported it with data. That's fine. (Is that how science works? Remind me again.) The sum total of all of those experiments do not even make abiogenesis plausible. That's why I'm not impressed, but don't be distracted but that is not the point. You cannot hypothesize that A + B will synthesize Z, confirm it using testable data, and then declare that the outcome can only be reached unintentionally. You could reasonable claim that the same result could be achieved naturally, but the claim that it can be achieved intentionally is more surpassingly demonstrated. I am not disparaging the research. I am claiming it to support my position. It is research to determine how one might deliberately create a living organism. You and many others have insisted that no such research exists, but you are clearly mistaken.ScottAndrews_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT}

I'm really not sure what point you are making here, Scott. Clearly, if you postulate something, you need to couch it as a testable hypothesis, then test it against data. That's how science works. You needn't be impressed, but I am. cheers. LizzieElizabeth Liddle_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT}

Chris, Notice Elizabeth's statement:
Disbelief in ex nihilo creation is somewhat warranted, or, at least, skepticism is well-grounded, because absolutely no mechanism is ever postulated for such an act by any agent, intelligent or otherwise.
You see, all we have to do is postulate a mechanism. And the standards aren't very high at all. They believe anything that someone else can imagine. The answer is to simply postulate everything ever postulated in behalf of chemical abiogensis, except done intentionally rather than accidentally. It's not a stretch because they are deliberately executed experiments, so it's impossible to argue that they can support only accidental outcomes and not intentional ones. I'm not particularly impressed with anything they've found, but what matters is that it impresses them, and we can both match and exceed it.ScottAndrews_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth, Well, for a start, in science we postulate, we do not “believe”. A big-big no. Science rests on belief. The word “belief” is carved in the foundation of it. Scientific method rests on believing that (a) objective reality exists, and (b) we can establish a coherent understanding of the world. This is a belief. It is not possible to prove or refuiute this. Solipsism, e.g. does not believe that such a world picture reflects objective reality.
I accept that science is predicated on these assumptions. I still would not call them "beliefs". As you say, they can be neither refuted nor proven, so the only thing to do is to assume they are true and proceed on that basis. It seems to work very well.
Your postulates come a distant second. These postulates when formulated are also believed to be true. You see, in science that even E = m*c^2 is sometimes doubted :) But what is doubt if not the other side of belief?
Of course postulates are sometimes doubted. In fact they should all be doubted. That is actually my point. Belief has no place in science, merely provisional conclusions.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth, The point is simple. Why would you acknowledge that a carbon-based life form with DNA can build a car made of steel and other components, and then reason that only a carbon-based life form with DNA can build a carbon-based life form with DNA? What logic requires that?
I didn't reason any such thing.
And they do so by looking for traces of that missing particle. What are ID researchers doing to try to find traces of the missing Intelligent Designer?
Try indoctrinating every physicist with the idea that a particle or mass they don’t observe can’t possibly exist, and then see how far the search for it gets.
Ignoring your pejorative word "indoctrinating" simply observe what happened when it occurred to Einstein that the luminiferous ether simply didn't exist. His search got him quite far.
If someone else wrote what you just did I would tell them to go read the FAQ and gain a fundamental understanding of what ID is so they could make informed comments. What is your excuse?
It wasn't a comment, it was a question, based on your own analogy, and my counter-anology. I require no "excuse" for asking it.
Going back to the arson example, since when does a forensics investigator determine arson and then go hunting for the arsonist? He doesn’t. He writes up a report saying that it was arson and then leaves to go look at the next fire. Someone else looks for the arsonist.
And a man is executed on spurious grounds. I'm not making this up.
You see, science doesn’t stop because someone draws a conclusion.
Unless it's ID science apparently, when you are told to look at the FAQ if you ask a further question.
But that doesn’t mean that one series of tests answers everything. One conclusion leads to a new investigation.
Exactly.
By your reasoning, the arsonist would examine the evidence and determine arson. The police would ask him who set the fire. He’d say, “I don’t know,” and then the police would tell him that it couldn’t be arson.
Not at all. If the forensic scientist determined arson, by definition, he concluded that a human being had done it. And unfortunately, sometimes they are wrong.
No one would ever investigate or find arsonists because of their illogical basis for ruling out arson. That would be quite ignorant.
You seem confused.
This is simple. It gets repeated over and over, and then people like you who should know better by now go back to it again.
Also rude, which isn't like you. harrumph. Will go and cool off.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT}

So, do you rule out a “substantiated inference” to the design of Stonehenge, Lizzie? Do you think we should be searching for an accidental, naturalistic explanation for its creation instead? Functional Complex Specified Organisation leaves all the trace we need (if you’re not allowing theological objections to distort your reasoning).
No Chris. In the case of Stonehenge we have a) means, motive and opportunity and b) we have no alternative explanation (Stonehenge doesn't reproduce with heritable variance in reproductive success). In the case of living things we have no means, perhaps a motive, and know nothing about the opportunity. In contrast living things reproduce with heritable variance in reproductive success. Therefore I infer intelligent design and human artisanship in the first case, and Darwinian evolution in the second. Scott: Your charge is unsupported and unwarranted.Elizabeth Liddle_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT}

The designer already has the information he wants to implement. Then he can do two differen things:
Explain to me where the designer stores his database of functional sequences, since everyone seems to agree that the number of possible sequences exceeds the number of particles in the universe. And everyone, including Douglas Axe, agrees that there are no shortcuts to knowing how a coded sequence will fold when interpreted as a protein. Of course the folding problem is just the beginning. The problem is multiplied by the problem of determining fitness in the current environment. Not to mention the problem of foreseeing the future environment. How does the designer know what problem needs to be solved? In real life, complex design has to balance many factors. Natural selection finds a current optimum the same way the marketplace sets prices. The analogy remains as apt as it was 150 years ago. There is no single price. There are clouds of prices centered around a mean. The mean shifts, but there are always variants. If a designer is in control, why are variants necessary? Why does evolution appear to be analogous to a marketplace?Petrushka_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

"Disbelief in creation is warranted." Dear Elizabeth, The wisest people admitted that the only thing they knew was that they knew nothing. What warrant are you talking about? Skepticism, yes, at most. To answer the question about the existence of God in the negative, one has to know everything. As ethical scientists, we have no moral right of making such a negative claim until such times as we know that we know everything, we have looked for God everywhere and we haven't met Him.Eugene S_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

61.1.1.1.1 Elizabeth, Well, for a start, in science we postulate, we do not “believe”. A big-big no. Science rests on belief. The word "belief" is carved in the foundation of it. Scientific method rests on believing that (a) objective reality exists, and (b) we can establish a coherent understanding of the world. This is a belief. It is not possible to prove or refuiute this. Solipsism, e.g. does not believe that such a world picture reflects objective reality. Your postulates come a distant second. These postulates when formulated are also believed to be true. You see, in science that even E = m*c^2 is sometimes doubted :) But what is doubt if not the other side of belief?Eugene S_{October 7, 2011
October
10
Oct
7
07
2011
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 23 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply