Not Even Wrong

_{Cornelius Hunter
July 2, 2009

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

The great physicist Wolfgang Pauli once criticized a scientific paper as so bad that it was “not even wrong.” It was so sloppy and ill conceived, thought Pauli, that to call it merely wrong would be to give it too much credit–it wasn’t even wrong. Today such a condemnation applies well to the theory of evolution which relies on religious convictions to prop up bad science. It seems that every argument for evolution wilts under scrutiny. Here is a classic example.

Continue reading here.

Comments

Mr Joseph, I, for one, would love the opportunity to tell evos exactly what I think of them to their faces. When is it convenient for you to meet? I have always been interested in meeting someone from UD face to face.Nakashima_{July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

There is just wishful thinking that humans are related to chimps. Hoki:
Yeah, right.
The fact that you can't support the claim with scientific data demonstrates I am right. It is also very telling that you can't even muster a testable hypothesis (based on the proposed mechanisms) for the premise. And it is a fact that no one even knows if the changes required are even possible. IOW you are proving my point.
In any case, a lot of people believe all humans are related simply because it says so in the bible.
It says that in the Bible? Can you provide a chapter and verse? And you can call people whatever you want as long as you do it to their face. I, for one, would love the opportunity to tell evos exactly what I think of them to their faces. But anyways I would say the people who believe in the Bible are less stupid than the poeple who believe in unguided evolution.Joseph_{July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT}

Joseph:
There is just wishful thinking that humans are related to chimps.
Yeah, right. In any case, a lot of people believe all humans are related simply because it says so in the bible. Is it OK to call these people idiots? Or coons? Or Hitler?Hoki_{July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

As for the flagellum, it isn't just the number of different proteins required. Those proteins also have to come in different and specific quantities. Many of those proteins will cross-react with other proteins and therefor need to be shuttled to the correct position. And on top of that the anti-ID position cannot even muster a yesyable hypothesis for the premise that the flagellum "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents.Joseph_{July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT}

dbthomas:
If so, please explain why DNA is acceptable to use in demonstrating relationships within humanity but cannot be used to demonstrate relationships with non-humans.
Because there isn't any scientific data which demonstrates non-humans can "evolve" into humans. DNA works fine in the same species. If you want to expand that then just demonstrate that it is valid. IOW what is YOUR hypothesis that demonstrates chimps and humans share a common ancestor via an accumulation of genetic accidents? As I said the similarities can be readily explained via common design. And there isn't any scientific data which demonstrates that the changes required are even possible.Joseph_{July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT}

Joseph @ 116:
There is scientifically verifiable data that demonstrates humans can be related to other humans.
Does that include DNA, Joseph? If so, please explain why DNA is acceptable to use in demonstrating relationships within humanity but cannot be used to demonstrate relationships with non-humans. Preferably, in the form of a testable hypothesis. Flat assertions that are the equivalent of "It just doesn't" are to be avoided. Thanks in advance.dbthomas_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT}

Bourne
The now infamous example of the E. coli flagellum is made of about 42 parts. It has to be assembled in the correct order to function. Out of order = doesn’t work.
How many parts again? You say "about" 42. About 42? If it's "about" 42 then how do you know what order it needs to be assembled in? You do know that right? Otherwise how would you know assembling it in a different order would not function? And if you know the order, the one and only order the parts would work in then logically you must also know the number of parts? Otherwise how could you say that they only work, well you get the idea with that.
So the probability of getting the exact combination is about 1/10^50 (~1/42!). I’m being optimistic for you here!
Which presumes all the parts came together at once and in a specific configuration. Much like the stuff that KariosFocus uses to explain how unlikely the cell is to form randomly. What you don't seem to get is that nobody but you thinks that way. I've posted these links several times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle%27s_fallacy http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Hoyle%27s_fallacy Although it might seem that climbing Mount Improbable is impossible in one step, it is possible if you take it one step at a time. You know that I'm sure, hence your resorting to misrepresentations of probabilities.
So the probability of getting the exact combination is about 1/10^50 (~1/42!). I’m being optimistic for you here!
The probability of getting the exact combination if you do what exactly? What is it that you are "doing" at this point that might result in that many trials before a hit? Also, which specific type of flagellum were you think of that has "about" 42 parts? Flagellar type H8 is associated with many strains of pathogenic Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC), such as O8, O22, O111, O174, and O179 strains. H8 was it? Or something else? Please do tell me.
According to Ian Musgrave in Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations: These people, including Fred Hoyle, have committed one or more of the following errors. 1. They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all. 2. They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life. 3. They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials. 4. They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation. 5. They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences
Echidna-Levy_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT}

Lenoxus:
All organisms descend from parents with genetic and reproductive continuity, plus a roughly constant rate of mutation, with the exception of human genetic fiddling.
But there isn't any data which demonstrates the transformations required are even possible via any amount of mutational accumulation. Sexual reproduction squashes universal common descent in that 1/2 of each mate's genomes gets tossed out and sexual selection pretty much maintains and even keel.
Nearly all fossil fragments have a straightforward place in the tree of life, and all complete ones do.
The tree of life doesn't exist. Also the vast majority of the fossil record is of marine inverts (>95%) and UCD is absent from that vast majority.
Nearly all bacterial colonies will develop antibiotic resistance when given the chance.
Bacteria "evolving" into bacteria doesn't help you. Is Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics an Appropriate Example of Evolutionary Change? No.Joseph_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

My apologies it was a typo- I meant “chimps” seeing that they so want to be related and such. Hoki:
Let’s run with that. These people “want” to be related to chimps in the same way people “want” to be related to other people.
There is scientifically verifiable data that demonstrates humans can be related to other humans. There is just wishful thinking that humans are related to chimps. That sounds acceptable to me and it also follows observation and experimentation.Joseph_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

Joseph:
My apologies it was a typo- I meant “chimps” seeing that they so want to be related and such.
Let's run with that. These people "want" to be related to chimps in the same way people "want" to be related to other people. (if you don't think that you are related to all other humans, then the following will not apply to you). Some people are idiots. You people want to be related to idiots. Therefore, it is OK for me to call you people idiots. Does this sound acceptable? To anyone?Hoki_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

jerry:
Lamarckism was so obviously wrong. The black smith could have a weak son; if one lost an arm, that person’s child had two etc. There was not passing on of acquired characteristics. No grand theory either. Darwin came up with something that was just the opposite. It was obviously true. We all can understand the survival of the fittest. It is easy and true.
THANK YOU. :) If I had read one more UD comment along the lines that Darwinism is complete doo-doo from beginning to end (when what they really mean is that it's inadequate to explain certain biological features, a position I disagree with very respectfully), I might have thrown up. You've saved me. Joseph:
How did they come to that understanding seeing they don’t even have a testable hypothesis? It is as I said the complete refusal to allow design as an explanation. That is all your position amounts to.
The tests would be occurring in plain sight at all times even if there weren't hundreds of them happening in bio labs all over the world. The results of said tests are in: All organisms descend from parents with genetic and reproductive continuity, plus a roughly constant rate of mutation, with the exception of human genetic fiddling. Nearly all fossil fragments have a straightforward place in the tree of life, and all complete ones do. Nearly all bacterial colonies will develop antibiotic resistance when given the chance. No complex feature has been seen to arise saltationally. Acquired characteristics are not inherited unless the genome or gestating organism is directly affected. Etc. But no, apparently (to paraphrase what I've seen written time and time again here) the scientific theory of biological evolution by means of natural selection actually only consists of the rejection of God, full stop. God? If you really do intervene so very obviously in biological nature on a regular basis, you can resolve this debate any time. Just give one generation of bacteria their flagella before the eyes of the observing grad students. Or do something else, it doesn't matter, you have a big imagination. Then the naturalistic scientists would look as silly as drowning people denying water. Right now, the IDers are the ones who appear to insist that only water (a disembodied mind) can cause a building to burn down (physical genetic manipulation). Again, much love to all & no hard feelings meant!Lenoxus_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

mereologist:
Biologists understand that their intuitive sense of design is incorrect, but they can never fully root out that intuition.
How did they come to that understanding seeing they don't even have a testable hypothesis? It is as I said the complete refusal to allow design as an explanation. That is all your position amounts to. And you have proven that with each of your posts. Thank you.Joseph_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

"if all Western science wanted was the rejection of God in the origin of life? Lamarckism certainly would have fit the bill much better, assuming that life really is so-obviously-designed and so-obviously-not-evolved." Because Lamarckism was so obviously wrong. The black smith could have a weak son; if one lost an arm, that person's child had two etc. There was not passing on of acquired characteristics. No grand theory either. Darwin came up with something that was just the opposite. It was obviously true. We all can understand the survival of the fittest. It is easy and true. Today the survival of the fittest has sound science behind it, namely micro evolution. But Darwin was not happy with that. He wanted a world view so he had to extrapolate and for this there was no evidence and there still isn't any evidence. That is what the dance is all about, the lack of evidence for the grand extrapolation necessary for the grand theory. And the main thing to justify the grand theory of science is to use religious arguments against objections to it. Darwin used these types of arguments, people on this site use them and in debates against ID, it is often the first thing people bring up.jerry_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

Lenoxus, So to answer your question as to what holds appeal to the naturalistic biologists? I think it stems from this shift in thinking that was going on when the church was loosing its grip on power. World-views are powerful. One can hold a naturalistic world-view and completely miss the basis for it - that a god would not design the world as it is. So science has worked for so many years within a framework of methodollogical naturalism, not because it works best for science, but because it stems from a world-view that is difficult to escape from, because nobody notices the false premise. If you make the prior assumption that there is no God, and you form your whole world-view on that assumption, and it sticks for hundreds of years in a culture, it's not easy to unravel. I personally believe that if we turned to a completely neutral methodology in science, that allowed the exploration of design, or other views that scientists currently reject, rather than the dogmatic insistance on naturalism, science might work even better for us. It's an experiment that we haven't tried.CannuckianYankee_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT}

Lenoxus, Thanks for the reply. As a theist, I've noticed a certain phenomenon, that I don't see is being noticed by non-theists - perhaps because they haven't lived within a theistic world-view. That is that many theists - not all, do not believe their faith to be religious, per se. They see it more as a rigorously thought-out paradigm of truth. It's not an individually thought out truth, but a collectively thought-out truth, which started with the Apostles, and was transfered to the early church fathers, through the creeds, the councils - and for us Protestants, right up through the Reformation. Within this paradigm, or "world-view" is a particular understanding about the world. It's not a religious view - the doctrines and all that come with it are separate - but are part of the forming of that view. Part of it is that the supernatural is really illusory. God is as naturally a part of reality as everything else. This is why the arguments for the existence of God were formed - and many of them (not all) were originally Christian - the cosmological arguments, the moral arguments, etc. So that with Christian culture in the later years of the church - say the 1500s-1800s, the paradigm worked immensely. Few people lived outside the framework of the Church - not even politics was immune. Of course there were some obvious problems with this mixture of social-construct/political-construct with the church; because if you read scripture - Jesus and the Apostles never intended to mandate the mixture of Christianity with politics or with culture. Christianity was intended to transform culture, not follow its mores. So out of this - lets call it what it is - false Christianity of "Christendom" we allowed the atheistic world-view to take route. But there are still theists who reject the Christianity of the late middle ages, and who have a problem with Darwinism because for one (among other reasons), it comes out of that particular influence. The church allowed the rise of atheistic thinking precisely because they failed to be faithful to a true view of nature - that God is not "supernatural," but transendent. Christianity is not "religion," but truth. There was something unique about the Christianity of the 1st to the 3rd Centuries. It was revolutionary and totally different from any belief system that came before it or after it. Some might say that it was almost utopian - but that would't be an adequate description. But what we see in this modern era is an attempt to return to the Christianity of the early church - with a trend towards separating church from politics. I know in my church our pastors never talk about politics, because they don't believe that politics is a proper Christian "solution" to any of the world's problems, and neither is it an appropriate vehicls for the spreading of the gospel. So the focus is not simply on evangelizing, but on brigning the gospel to the ends of the earth - so many Evangelical churches now are huge supporters of world missions. And another part of that is being the salt of the earth - providing needed services to communities - helping with hurricane relief, etc.... Darwinism didn't reject that kind of "religion" if that's what you want to call it - it rejected the Christendom kind of Christianity, where the Church was often synonymous with the government - and where to be a Christian meant to belong to the church, rather than to make a profession of faith in Jesus - and so since the church itself was no different than the world order - who cared? It was time for a new paradigm, because the old one was collapsing - well we know that not to be true now - because in reality, the church survived and reformed, and continues to reform to this day. So another result of this Church of the middle ages - the removal of God from the center of life. So much so that now - without some Christian upbringing, the non-believer has no idea what we mean when we talk about God. Part of the problem is that we have a tendancy to portray God in the same language as the medieval view, rather than in the language of the early church. So when we as theists talk to non-believers about God, it behooves us to shed all preconseptions of what we mean - to not talk about the "supernatural' and such otherworldly concepts, but rather to portray God as so natural [and I don't mean material, but transcendent], that He could fit within the "scientism" construct of the naturalists. Sorry for leaving you with such a long post, but I've been studying this subject for years, and it takes some time to explain.CannuckianYankee_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee:
… it was the Church that gave us this faulty view of the separation between heavenly things and earthly things - that what is heavenly cannot affect what is earthly. … So Forrest’s views of religion come out of that faulty theology.
You know, what always surprises me about these things is that it's up to theology and philosophy to resolve supernatural questions. Why not science, if the supernatural really is interacting with and affecting nature all the time? Supernatural beings must be choosing not to resolve the debates for us. If we observed an angel creating life, biology wouldn't deny that but try to reconcile that with what it already knows.
Now Darwin of course took a different approach. He didn’t deal with the whole issue of miracles and and the heavenly realms. He went directly to the assertion that the world that could be seen, could not have been designed by a god. And based on that, he formed his theory.
I've been confused about this notion from the moment I first saw it repeated on these boards. What confuses me is this: Why did Darwin's non-design theory, and not someone else's, gain currency in biology, if all Western science wanted was the rejection of God in the origin of life? Lamarckism certainly would have fit the bill much better, assuming that life really is so-obviously-designed and so-obviously-not-evolved. (For example, in an alternate universe, today's Lamarckians might tell Behe that bacteria really wanted to propel themselves better, so they developed flagella. It's a non-God-based, nice, clean-cut "explanation". But no, biologists insist that the mechanism must have been evolutionary. Why evolutionary? Did they pick that out of a hat?) What was it about evolution specifically that holds appeal for the religious materialist biologists? Could it be its explanatory power? (No, no, that couldn't be it.) Then what?Lenoxus_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT}

mere, "Likewise with biology. Biologists understand that their intuitive sense of design is incorrect, but they can never fully root out that intuition. Like our erroneous notions of space and time, it is built into us. Thus biologists, as Crick says, must remind themselves that they are dealing with the products of evolution, not design." That's a persuasive argument. Still it has problems. If you've been reading Dr. Hunter's posts, he posits that Darwin started with an assertion against design: that a god would not have designed the world as it is. Dr. Hunter argues that this is an example of a religious basis for Darwinism. Now, even if you don't agree that it is "religious" per se, do you not understand the problem? Let me frame it another way - In an earlier post by Dr. Hunter from June 16th - Questions for Barbara Forrest - I think it was titled - Dr. Hunter quotes Forrest in the linked article in his blog - saying that essentially science can only look into natural phenomenon as opposed to supernatural phenomenon. This too is an assertion, because Forrest does not offer a definition of what she means by "supernatural." I think she assumes that religion has to do with the supernatural, while science has to do with the natural. Now there's a problem with this - and that problem goes back several centuries in philosophy of religion - and I think that problem originated from heretical ideas about God. I can't go into the details, because it's rather complex, but in summary, it was the Church that gave us this faulty view of the separation between heavenly things and earthly things - that what is heavenly cannot affect what is earthly. If you look for example at religious artwork from the middle ages, you see such things as halos over the heads of religious figures, or moons behind their heads, etc. They were often dwelling in otherworldly realms with arches and columns of gold, and pools of water behind them. Quite often there were glimpses of nature in these paintings, but only in the backgrounds. The implication was that these religious figures were somehow more than simply human. Or that the separation between nature and the divine was explicit such that what is pure cannot be combined with what is impure. The images decried the whole notion that God would incarnate himself as a human and live among humans. And so there developed this separation between "the divine" and "the worldly." What's heretical about this is that the scriptures teach God not as "supernatural," but as transcendent - and there is a difference. Transceendence is as natural as nature - while different in the sence that it is apart from the material. It flows within the material realm, and without. So God can be both in nature and outside of nature - interacting in nature, while sustaining nature at the same time. The religion of the middle ages was vastly different than the religion of the Jews. The Jews had a testament of God working with them, not totally separate from them. So what happened is that this led to faulty ideas about religion in general, and opened the doorway for philosophers and thinkers who were not grounded in the church, to question a straw man. Hume and others were wrong, because the miraculous they rejected was not the same as the miraculous that is depicted in scripture. They rejected miracles because of the faulty theology of the separation between the divine and the earthly. They assumed that the miraculous was outside of nature, and completely separate. So we've come to the point in modern times that we don't really know what is meant by "supernatural," and so we reject it. But it really is a straw man. Scripture never says that God is completely separate from nature, but that God is everywhere in nature. So what became highly "religious" among Christians with high order sacraments and otherworldly domains - was completely devoid of what was in scripture itself. So Forrest's views of religion come out of that faulty theology. And so did Darwin's. Now Darwin of course took a different approach. He didn't deal with the whole issue of miracles and and the heavenly realms. He went directly to the assertion that the world that could be seen, could not have been designed by a god. And based on that, he formed his theory. The reason why the ID argument is scientific, is because it makes no assertions about the nature of God. It's a separate issue altogether. I think the mistake the opposing side is making is this: They're seeing IDists as religious - which is a valid observation, but where they go wrong is in assuming that because of this religious outlook, they can't be objective with the evidence. The problem with this is that many of the ID supporters in their philosophical understandings have rejected also the strawman "supernatural" separation that occured in the middle ages. So they are highly motivated in allowing the evidence for ID to speak for itself. Because if we posit something that is not true, there are consequences from the God they believe in. Now I haven't given you the full story, so if some of this doesn't drift with you, please understand that there are huge gaps in my understanding. But the basic ideas are there. So I have to ask you - given what you have stated - don't you think it would behoove Darwinists to take another look at this issue of design? I realize that the appearance of design does not mean that there is design. You are right about the counterintuitive nature of some phenomenon. But the issue does not stem from overlooking that aspect, but in the faulty philosophy of religion that developed prior to Darwinism, which influenced his thinking.CannuckianYankee_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
12:02 AM
12
12
02
AM
PDT}

William, Crick is talking about the same thing as Dawkins was when he wrote:
Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.
Dawkins went on to explain:
The purpose of this book is to resolve this paradox to the satisfaction of the reader, and the purpose of this chapter is further to impress the reader with the power of the illusion of design.
The problem is similar to one we have when teaching the theory of relativity. All of us grow up thinking intuitively that time and space are absolute and non-interchangeable. Learning relativity is largely a matter of convincing ourselves that they are not. Our incorrect intuitions are never fully eradicated; even experts have to keep reminding themselves of the counterintuitive truths of relativity. Likewise with biology. Biologists understand that their intuitive sense of design is incorrect, but they can never fully root out that intuition. Like our erroneous notions of space and time, it is built into us. Thus biologists, as Crick says, must remind themselves that they are dealing with the products of evolution, not design. Just as time and space appear absolute when viewed intuitively, but not when they are viewed scientifically, so life appears designed when it is viewed intuitively but not when viewed through the lens of science.mereologist_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PDT}

#89: Mereologist states: "unless the designer chose to design in a way that makes undirected evolution appear to be true." Let's remember, Francis Crick said: "biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” If the designer chose to design in a way that is indistinguishagble from undirected chance and law, why must biologists keep reminding themselves that the apparent design is just an illusion? What apparent design are they talking about, if what they see is indistinguishable from undirected evolution?William J. Murray_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT}

90 degrees, Mr. Hunter has done a superb job of doing just that; showing ND is as faith-based if not more so than ID. As Joseph is untiringly asked all of you, show us the money? Give us a testable hypothesis. 'Show' us natural selection acting on genetic variation creating new life forms? (BTW, anti-biotic resistance has not created a new life-form but simply an adapted bacterium). Moreso, anti-biotic resistance of bacteria clearly favors ID, since it 'show's the range of bacteria's adaptive landscape. It 'proves' that each organism has a different range, and it is ID that will be able to map and analyse the range date for each organism and make predictions as to what each organism can and cannot adapt to. This is in stark constrast to ND that say evolution is invincible and can do anything given time, chance, and necessity.
Cornelious knows that ID is based on religious underpinnings, and he wants to make it seem like evolution is also based on faith. That way they are at least equal in that respect . . . unfortunately mereologist has insisted that Cornelious cite a specific example of the above claim. None has appeared.
Oramus_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT}

90DegreeAngel, "Cornelious knows that ID is based on religious underpinnings, and he wants to make it seem like evolution is also based on faith. That way they are at least equal in that respect . . . unfortunately mereologist has insisted that Cornelious cite a specific example of the above claim. None has appeared." First of all, I'm not certain if you understand what Dr. Hunter is saying - or perhaps you haven't been paying attention. Dr. Hunter began a sustained dialogue on this issue a couple of weeks ago, which begins here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-question-for-barbara-forrest/ You can look at the progression of these posts, and see that he has addressed what you are asking for. The next post here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/two-questions-for-judge-jones/ Then here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/answers-for-judge-jones/ Then here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evolutions-religion-revealed/ Here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evolutions-repeat-performances/ Here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/sober-rebukes-evolutions-religion-sometimes/ Here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/we-can-now-obtain-erroneous-results-faster/ And of course where we currently are in this thread - and I'm sure it will be continued..... Dr. Hunter has layed out the framework for the Darwinian religion starting with Barbara Forrest - She seems to be one of the great practitioners of the Darwin religion with her notion that the scienctific method must must contain "natural" in its definition in order to prevent crossing over into the "supernatural." Forrest: "The sciences are unified by their naturalistic methodology and empiricist epistemology, a unity ... that can take us to the outer reaches of natural phenomena, but never beyond them. When we move beyond the epistemic boundaries that these faculties and rules set for us and the correspondingly limited metaphysical boundaries they enable us to define, we move from the relative epistemological safety of knowledge to the unmapped, supernatural territory of faith." In a later post: Evolution's Religion Revealed, Dr. Hunter points out that Darwin began with a metaphysical assertion about the nature of biology; that "a God would not have designed the world as it is." This assertion is where methodological naturalism (Forrest's Scientific method) begins. Dr. Hunter has provided ample examples of this assertion throughout these posts and in the works he cited. Furthermore, I would like to point out that these posts over the last several weeks have been extremely insightful. Darwinism does not begin with evidence, but with a religious view of what a God would and would not do. It is essentially question-begging. If this is foundation upon which the whole Darwinian paradigm is based, then we are well justified in re-examining the entire Darwinian paradigm. Furthermore, ID is not based on any religious assertions. We don't assert that God exists necessarily. We are asking the question: can complexity in nature be explained best by design, or by Darwinian processes. It's a perfectly legitimate scientific question that does not assert or presume anything. So when Dr. Hunter examines Darwinism, He's not doing it out of any religious agenda, but merely discovering - given the new evidence that we currently see in complex biological organisms - that design appears to be the best, more parsimonious explanation, and one can't help wondering where Darwinism went wrong these 150 years.CannuckianYankee_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT}

90DegreeAngel, You can't even muster a testable hypothesis for your position. Your position is based on faith- faith in mother nature, father time and magical mystery mutations. You guys do realize that if you could just substantiate your clainms ID would go away. I take it that is why you are so angry- you can't substantiate anything.Joseph_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT}

mereologist:
See this comment for an explanation of why IC and CSI are useless in defending ID.
Again your ignorance and strawman arguments are not refutations. And your position relies heavily on ignorance. The fact that you can't provide a testable hypothesis based on the proposed mechanisms is very telling.Joseph_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT}

mereologist, There isn't any evidence for undirected evolution. YOU cannot even provide a testable hypothesis. And you obviously don't understand what common design means. IOW your ignorance is not a refutation of anything. The ONLY "evidence" your position has is the refusal to accept design as an explanation.Joseph_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT}

Lamark, OK. For a long time scientists collected morphological data and drew up a tree of life based on this information. When technology made it easier to use molecular data to show the relatedness scientists said, "cool, lets see if these two different way of showing relatedness correlate." They collected the data and it fit almost perfectly. This supports evolution. It is just one of the many observations collected that support evolution. If there is evidence for evolution it weakens ID (the current paradigm). ID has been getting wasted since Darwin manhandled Paley. Next, there is no evidence for design, if there were we would be able to see and measure this evidence. We would be able to construct tests of theory of intelligent design, these would be published in intelligent design journals. ISCID is a joke. There is no evidence, no tests, no theory. Mr. Hunter seems to do semantic contortions in order to avoid dealing with this. Cornelious knows that ID is based on religious underpinnings, and he wants to make it seem like evolution is also based on faith. That way they are at least equal in that respect . . . unfortunately mereologist has insisted that Cornelious cite a specific example of the above claim. None has appeared.90DegreeAngel_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT}

Joseph, See this comment for an explanation of why IC and CSI are useless in defending ID.mereologist_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT}

Joseph:
Common design explains the same data that universal common descent explains- similarities.
No it doesn't. See this comment. Common design cannot explain the evidence, unless you assume that the designer specifically singled out a method, out of the trillions possible, that makes undirected common descent appear to be true. As I explained above, such a hypothesis can never be scientific because it asserts design in spite of the evidence, not because of it. It's totally faith-based.mereologist_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT}

Common design explains the same data that universal common descent explains- similarities. Nested Hierarchies were once used as evidence for that common design. As for a DESIGN hypothesis:
The conclusion that something was designed can be made quite independently of knowledge of the designer. As a matter of procedure, the design must first be apprehended before there can be any further question about the designer. The inference to design can be held with all firmness that is possible in this world, without knowing anything about the designer.—Dr Behe

As a scientific research program, intelligent design investigates the effects of intelligence and not intelligence as such.- Wm. Dembski page 33 of The Design Revolution
Observation: (What's there?) The Universe Question(s) How did the universe come to be (the way it is)? (Is the universe the result of intentional design or purpose-less stochastic processes?) Prediction: 1) If the universe was the product of a common design then I would expect it to be governed by one (common) set of parameters. 2) If the universe were designed for scientific discovery then I would expect a strong correlation between habitability and measurability. Test: 1) Try to determine if the same laws that apply every place on Earth also apply throughout the universe. 2) Try to determine the correlation between habitability and measurability. Potential falsification: 1) Observe that the universe is chaotic. 2) A- Find a place that is not habitable but offers at least as good of a platform to make scientific discoveries as Earth or B- Find a place that is inhabited (indiginous) but offers a poor platform from which to make scientific discoveries. Confirmation: 1) Tests conducted all over the globe, on the Moon and in space confirm that the same laws that apply here also apply throughout the universe. 2) All scientific data gathered to date confirm that habitability correlates with measurability. Observation: Living organisms Question(s) How did living organisms come to be (on this planet)? (Are living organisms the result of intentional design, purpose-less stochastic processes or perhaps even alien colonization?) Prediction: If living organisms were the result of intentional design then I would expect to see that living organisms are (and contain subsystems that are) irreducibly complex and/ or contain complex specified information. IOW I would expect to see an intricacy that is more than just a sum of chemical reactions (endothermic or exothermic). Further I would expect to see command & control- a hierarchy of command & control would be likely. Test: Try to deduce the minimal functionality that a living organism requires. Try to determine if that minimal functionality is irreducibly complex and/or contains complex specified information. Also check to see if any subsystems are irreducibly complex and/ or contain complex specified information. Potential falsification: Observe that living organisms arise from non-living matter via a mixture of commonly-found-in-nature chemicals. Observe that while some systems “appear” to be irreducibly complex it can be demonstrated that they can indeed arise via purely stochastic processes such as culled genetic accidents. Also demonstrate that the apparent command & control can also be explained by endothermic and/or exothermic reactions. Confirmation: Living organisms are irreducibly complex and contain irreducibly complex subsystems. The information required to build and maintain a single-celled organism is both complex and specified. Command & control is observed in single-celled organisms- the bacterial flagellum not only has to be configured correctly, indicating command & control over the assembly process, but it also has to function, indicating command & control over functionality. Conclusion (scientific inference) Both the universe and living organisms are the result of intention design. Any future research can either confirm or refute this premise, which, for the biological side, was summed up in Darwinism, Design and Public Education page 92: 1. High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design. 2. Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity. 3. Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity. 4. Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems. (see also Science asks 3 basic questions)Joseph_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT}

Mereologist, You fail to answer my three questions on information. Waiting on that. Also I see where you get your talking points from. The phrasing is the same. Listen, understand I've CORRECTED cdk, extantdodo etc. on their videos. Like "lights out! Who turned the lights out!" type correction. I'm unwilling to discuss this with you if you don't understand information.lamarck_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT}

mereologist:
1. The evidence fits staggeringly well with the idea of undirected evolution.
What evidence? Heck you can't even provide a testable hypothesis for undirected processes.Joseph_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply