What Are The Top Five Myths About Intelligent Design?

_{Denyse O'Leary

October 24, 2012

News}

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

My friend Melissa Travis just posted this excellent blog post dissecting five of the top misconceptions about intelligent design. She writes,

There are few things more frustrating than hearing the same tired old myths and misconceptions over and over again, particularly when they directly relate to the subject you’ve devoted your education and career to. Intelligent Design theory suffers this plight, even at the hands of Christians who freely criticize it without doing their homework. In this short post, I would like to list and comment upon the untruths I hear most frequently.

Click here to continue reading!

Comments

p.p.s. I'm not a 'Darwinist' nor a 'materialist,' to repeat what has already been saidGregory_{October 28, 2012
October
10
Oct
28
28
2012
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT}

"Most important, when you say that an organism’s design patters are not as significant as an artifact’s design patterns on the grounds that an organism is different from an artifact, you are indeed, engaging in a non-sequitor. Realizing that problem, an appropriate response would go something like this: “Now that I understand that artifacts and organisms have something in common, namely information, I recognize that the information in a DNA molecule is as much or more of an indicator of design as the information in a designed ancient hunter’s spear or, for that matter, the information in a designed written paragraph. Therefore, I will accept the former as real evidence for design and against random formation just as I accepted the latter as real evidence for design and against random formation. Accordingly, I will stop saying that ID has no evidence on the grounds that organisms are different than artifacts.” Yes, my name is Gregory. I have something in common with Eileen, because she also has ‘e’ in her name. Information alone is not enough. We (meaning people) must gain knowledge, based on that information. The IDT claim is that ‘organic information’ is equal to ‘artefactual information.’ That claim is quite obviously misleading. What makes the premise misleading is that it is entirely un-reflexive, that is, it doesn’t take into account the embodied person who is postulating the meaning (and purpose) of ‘information.’ Instead, IDT tries to operate in a disembodied, dehumanised, objectivistic ‘information-out-there’ approach, which is why it intentionally blurs the line between artefacts into organisms. Iow, IDT is guilty of taking a social scientific premise (intelligence) and trying to turn it into a natural scientific conclusion (design). There is really no defence against this reality due to the prolific use of human analogies by ID leaders. The ‘design’ that we (i.e. most human beings) know and can scientifically work with is what is studied by the non-Big-ID ‘design theories.’ These are demonstrated most recently at the international conference on ‘design’ that I attended along with 1400 others. That number of participants (non-ideologues) is vastly more than *any* IDT conference has ever gathered in the history of the IDM, not because of unjust persecution (cf. ‘Expelled’), but because the topic was ‘design’ that can actually be studied scientifically, i.e. reflexively. IDT otoh, is properly understood as a combination of science, philosophy and theology/worldview, which is why it is promoted mainly by evangelical Christian networks in the USA. Anyone wishing to challenge this fact should have some sociological arguments to back them up. I don’t think those sociological arguments are available and defended a master’s thesis on the topic, later attending the DI’s summer program to verify this fact. Bottom-line, when in dialogue with folks like StephenB, my aim is to try to encourage them to think reflexively. But this, my friends, is obviously a very, very, very difficult task, given that StephenB, and even many people reading this message at UD were born and raised in a society that is anything but reflexive. Objectivity and certainty is what you are trained to seek (along with ‘greatest country on earth’ and ‘most important society for humanity’ status). Yet you have a clear and present deficit of Philosophy of Science in the USA, which makes globally-minded dialogue on this topic especially difficult for you and which shows why the USA scores amongst the lowest nations in the world in its knowledge of evolutionary theories (and why there are so many young earthers in USA). Once reflexivity is openly acknowledged and practiced, the fantastic appeals to scientific neutrality of IDT can be properly abandoned so that deeper and more important insights about how and why ‘we design’ can replace the simple ‘it is designed’ mantra, i.e. the hyper-speculative (dogmatic) pseudo-ontological idea at the heart of IDT. But please don’t misunderstand me; it’s not that I think you need a complete heart transplant, but that your Theory’s heart is not being humanely nourished by reflexive thought, by philosophy and theology/worldview the way it should/could be. “All ID proponents accept guided evolution and reject unguided evolution. Design detection, which is the purpose of the ID paradigms, is independent of questions about when the design was implemented, which is beyond the range of ID methodology. That you would ask such a question suggests that you do not understand the basic principles of design detection.” As most non-IDists are fully aware, ‘ID proponents’ don’t have diddly-squat (i.e. nothing) for natural scientific evidence of ‘guided evolution.’ So they cry ‘show us’ to Theistic Evolution proponents, who actually have the courage to try to unify science, philosophy, theology/worldview dialogue, while ID proponents feign neutralistic ‘just-natural-science’ fairytales. There’s a big difference in these two approaches. Take your problems to BioLogos in an attempt at unity with your fellow evangelicals if you have them. The claim that one can convincingly ‘detect’ something (anything) in a historical vacuum, i.e. without asking ‘when’ the detection is taking place is science fiction, not science. People are always going to ask when, where and how. But that science fiction fantasy pro-ID has already been promoted by about 50% of the ID leaders (Johnson, Dembski, Wells) in public. You folks, are stuck with this leadership if you so choose it (and I've met Wells, Dembski and corresponded with Johnson, and don't so choose it). Real ‘design theory’ is prolific in scholarly thought today. IDT, on the other marginal hand, is in contrast to real 'design theory' a rather distorted (ghost-apologetic) fantasy of the common (artefactual) meaning of ‘design’. Making a new narrow technical meaning of 'design' is obviously part of the IDology. Gregory p.s. awaiting Eric's response to 'different kinds of design theory'Gregory_{October 28, 2012
October
10
Oct
28
28
2012
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT}

Upright Biped: "Materialist ideologues will say literally anything in the defense of their worldview. It’s anti-intellectualism at its finest." Sometimes, I lie awake at night, worrying that one of them might become president of the United States. Oh wait......StephenB_{October 28, 2012
October
10
Oct
28
28
2012
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT}

I need a bit more definition of what guided evolution could be.
I don't believe you. No one who reads ID material could possibly be that clueless.
I don’t think I’m naive at all. But there are other opinions obviously.
Well, yes there is always the option of self deception or worse.
I think I have pointed to the evidence.
OK, let's examine exhibit A of what you call "evidence."
A powerful case for universal common descent with modification from an initial basic replicator via natural cumulative selection and other unguided processes.
Not even one of your fellow Darwinists would accept that statement of belief as an example of empirically-based evidence. Frankly, I am starting to feel guilty for taking advantage of you. Let's check out exhibit B
I think fossils, genomes, morphogies, geographic distributions and breeding records all combine together and form a very powerful case.
Now my conscience is really starting to bother me. It's like shooting a puck into a net where there is no goalie.
I’m one of them? You don’t even know who I am!! Just because I disagree with you you’re making me part of some conspiracy. I’ve never done any of the things you mention. What would it benefit Wikipedia to pick sides in the matter?
If anyone takes you seriously after this exchange, there really is a conspiracy!StephenB_{October 28, 2012
October
10
Oct
28
28
2012
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT}

UBP (100):
Materialist ideologues will say literally anything in the defense of their worldview. It’s anti-intellectualism at its finest.
Just guessing this comment is directed at me. Let me get this straight: you get to decide was is and what is not evidence. If I disagree with you then I'm at the very least stupid or deluded and at worst an ideologue, part of some anti-ID conspiracy? And I'm the one of being accused of being biased? Do you think writing me off as some close-minded anti-ID bigot is a good way to build a dialogue? Do I have to agree with you before you'll extend some Socratic dignity? If you think the ID community is misunderstood and marginalised then why spurn someone who is doing their best to discuss things with no agenda and no influence? I've come to your forum to discuss things important to you. I've tried to conduct myself with grace and respect. I've been completely honest about my views and outlook. I've done my best to answer all questions put to me. And, in the end, I get this message that I should just shut up and go away. Or compromise what I believe to be true. Take your word for things when I see it all completely differently. Should I cowtow and succumb to pressure. Or should I stay steadfast in what I sincerely and honestly believe to be true? I think I'll stay true to myself if it's all the same to you.Jerad_{October 28, 2012
October
10
Oct
28
28
2012
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT}

Materialist ideologues will say literally anything in the defense of their worldview. It's anti-intellectualism at its finest.Upright BiPed_{October 28, 2012
October
10
Oct
28
28
2012
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT}

StephenB (97):
Yes, there is much diversity of opinion among members of the ID community on the question of what kind of guided evolution is in play, or even if macro-evolution occurred at all. On the other hand, there is no diversity of opinion about the point that, if evolution occurred, it would have to have been guided. Unguided evolution cannot be reconciled with Intelligent Design.
To me there's such a huge difference between a one-off front loaded 'guided' evolutionary hypothesis and one involving tweaks of individual mutations that I have a hard time seeing them as being even able to be grouped together!! (Aside from the fact that front-loading may not be guided at all, it could be my example of something having fallen out of some alien's lunch box.) I need a bit more definition of what guided evolution could be. Otherwise I don't really even get what 'designed' means. Does it mean once billions of years ago? Does it mean every so often to create new body plans at the genus/class/phylum/order level? Does it mean constant input? What does 'designed' really mean??
The one thing we should not do, like the Darwinists, is to say that we know what happened when, in fact, we do not. We should only make claims about what we do know: certain features in biology give evidence of having been designed. Since ID’s methodology cannot probe the dates and times of the design event, the question is open.
I appreciate your limiting yourself to what you think you can prove/know. But from the outside, 'designed' and 'guided' are being used in such nebulous and disparate ways as to be almost meaningless. I have tried to get ID proponents to be more specific about what they mean but I am continually told that ID can't go there. Which makes me want to ask: well, where can it go then?
ID provides direction for further research, improves our knowledge of the world, and refutes the extravagant, unsupported claims of Darwinism.
I fully support and encourage ID proponents to do research! What topics would you consider good candidates for the next stage of exploration for ID?
I don’t understand. What does your listening and reading regimen have to do with the persecution of the ID scientists, or for that matter, ID students who pay a price for disclosing their opinions to Darwinist professors? What did Casey Luskin or any of the others say or do to persuade you that ID proponents are not being persecuted? All of the men that you mentioned recognize the problem and have said so publicly. Many who write at this site have had that experience. Professor Carolyn Crocker is one of our authors, and her experiences are well documented. I have personally watched video clips of PZ Myers abusing a young student for daring to ask the wrong question.
I was trying to give you an idea of my exposure to ID topics over the years. I don't just listen to ID proponents regarding the persecution issue. I try and listen to all sides. When possible. The David Coppedge (spelling?) case is frustrating because it's hard to find out what's going on in court and behind the scenes. As I recall there were eye witness accounts of Professor Crocker deriding evolutionary theory to classrooms full of students. She was hired to teach that material not to make fun of it. Dr Meyers can be quite acerbic for sure. What kind of abuse was it? I tell my son he's being stupid all the time when he is.
The people who do these things do not hesitate to say that the victims of their abuse deserve what they get for believing what they believe and knowing what they know. This problem is widespread. So much so, that Wikipedia, the supremely popular resource for billions of internet surfers, has volunteered its services for, and been welcomed into, the ubiquitous, anti-ID network. When this bunch isn’t busy lying about ID luminaries, they use their spare time to delete comments from those who would try to set the record straight. What is the point of trying to deny these facts? What is the point of saying that you have never had a similar experience with the Darwinists when, in fact, you are one of them? Why would they give a hard time to one of their own?
I'm one of them? You don't even know who I am!! Just because I disagree with you you're making me part of some conspiracy. I've never done any of the things you mention. What would it benefit Wikipedia to pick sides in the matter? Perhaps we'd best just stick to discussing the science eh? (98):
I think there is lots and lots of evidence to support universal common descent with modification from an initial basic replicator via only unguided processes.
Well, then, please step up and be the first Darwinist to provide that evidence.
I think fossils, genomes, morphogies, geographic distributions and breeding records all combine together and form a very powerful case.
A powerful case for what, common descent? Are you yet so naive as to believe that making the case for common descent is the same thing as making a case for the claim that naturalistic forces alone can drive that process from beginning to end, taking it through all the taxonomic levels?
A powerful case for universal common descent with modification from an initial basic replicator via natural cumulative selection and other unguided processes. I don't think I'm naive at all. But there are other opinions obviously.
By now, the challenge should be clear. Either provide evidence that unguided naturalistic forces can drive the macro-evolutionary process or concede the point that you know of no such evidence or of any resource by which such evidence could be obtained.
I think I have pointed to the evidence. So I guess I'm not conceding.Jerad_{October 28, 2012
October
10
Oct
28
28
2012
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

Jerad
I think there is lots and lots of evidence to support universal common descent with modification from an initial basic replicator via only unguided processes.
Well, then, please step up and be the first Darwinist to provide that evidence.
I think fossils, genomes, morphogies, geographic distributions and breeding records all combine together and form a very powerful case.
A powerful case for what, common descent? Are you yet so naive as to believe that making the case for common descent is the same thing as making a case for the claim that naturalistic forces alone can drive that process from beginning to end, taking it through all the taxonomic levels?
You ask me to concede something just because you see things differently. All I can do is state my views and why I think the evidence supports them. I’m not asking you to concede or change your mind and I can’t understand why you’re asking me to do that.
By now, the challenge should be clear. Either provide evidence that unguided naturalistic forces can drive the macro-evolutionary process or concede the point that you know of no such evidence or of any resource by which such evidence could be obtained.StephenB_{October 28, 2012
October
10
Oct
28
28
2012
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

Jerad
I hear various members of the ID community proposing different kinds of guided evolution so I’m wondering what your variety says. Joe seems to believe in some kind of front loading situation. I think KF’s version would have more interventionist designers, ones that occasionally make adjustments. I think. Similar to what I think Dr Behe suspects to be the case. I could be wrong but you see what I mean? Everyone uses design detection, it’s where they go from there that I find hard to pin down. I can sort of understand why design detection limits itself to just that. But surely it’s important to use that to explain how design was/is utilised in biology. Otherwise, what’s the point of detecting the design in the first place?
Yes, there is much diversity of opinion among members of the ID community on the question of what kind of guided evolution is in play, or even if macro-evolution occurred at all. On the other hand, there is no diversity of opinion about the point that, if evolution occurred, it would have to have been guided. Unguided evolution cannot be reconciled with Intelligent Design.
I just don’t see how the design inference can support all versions of guided evolution. Surely some can be at least ruled out?
I think each individual scientist accepts one account and rules out all the rest, believing that the clear evidence for design is consistent with his less-than-certain account of how, when, and where it was implemented. It is precisely that kind disagreement that we want. The one thing we should not do, like the Darwinists, is to say that we know what happened when, in fact, we do not. We should only make claims about what we do know: certain features in biology give evidence of having been designed. Since ID's methodology cannot probe the dates and times of the design event, the question is open.
Otherwise, what power does the design inference have?
ID provides direction for further research, improves our knowledge of the world, and refutes the extravagant, unsupported claims of Darwinism.
I have only heard of the three or four big, widely discussed cases. I have been listening to The Discovery Institute’s podcast ID: The Future for five or six years now. I also subscribe to their email list and their RSS feed although I do not read every post there by any means. The podcast I do listen to religiously. Years ago I conversed with Casey Luskin via email for a time. I have also tracked down some interviews Drs Meyer and Behe and Dembski have done for other podcasts, Unbelievable (from Christian Premier radio in the UK for one). And I’ve been reading Uncommon Descent off and on for a number of years. I’m not saying that gives me great knowledge or insite in the persecution issue but I have knowledge of much of what has appeared in those venues.
I don't understand. What does your listening and reading regimen have to do with the persecution of the ID scientists, or for that matter, ID students who pay a price for disclosing their opinions to Darwinist professors? What did Casey Luskin or any of the others say or do to persuade you that ID proponents are not being persecuted? All of the men that you mentioned recognize the problem and have said so publicly. Many who write at this site have had that experience. Professor Carolyn Crocker is one of our authors, and her experiences are well documented. I have personally watched video clips of PZ Myers abusing a young student for daring to ask the wrong question. The people who do these things do not hesitate to say that the victims of their abuse deserve what they get for believing what they believe and knowing what they know. This problem is widespread. So much so, that Wikipedia, the supremely popular resource for billions of internet surfers, has volunteered its services for, and been welcomed into, the ubiquitous, anti-ID network. When this bunch isn't busy lying about ID luminaries, they use their spare time to delete comments from those who would try to set the record straight. What is the point of trying to deny these facts? What is the point of saying that you have never had a similar experience with the Darwinists when, in fact, you are one of them? Why would they give a hard time to one of their own?StephenB_{October 28, 2012
October
10
Oct
28
28
2012
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

StephenB (95):
Inasmuch as I nor any other ID proponent has ever claimed to be able to detect the date of the design implementation, I can’t imagine why you would ask us to defend a claim that we have not made.
I never thought or assumed you could detect the date of design nor that you had made that claim. I would just find it easier to consider you point of view if I know what you think happened. Otherwise it's just down to arguing whether or not something was designed. And even that question must tie in with how often design is implemented. For instance, in a scenario where designers intercede often there will be life forms that appear immediately after a new design has come about and those that are further down the timeline. I would expect to see some degradation in the genomes and morphologies of the life forms further removed from new designs as mutations and copying errors take their toll.
On the other hand, you claim that Darwin’s anti-ID, General Theory of Evolution is the best model, yet neither you or anyone in your camp can provide any evidence to support it. At best, you can produce some evidence for Darwin’s Special Theory, which no one in the ID community disputes. Are you now prepared to concede that fact?
I think there is lots and lots of evidence to support universal common descent with modification from an initial basic replicator via only unguided processes. I think fossils, genomes, morphogies, geographic distributions and breeding records all combine together and form a very powerful case. You ask me to concede something just because you see things differently. All I can do is state my views and why I think the evidence supports them. I'm not asking you to concede or change your mind and I can't understand why you're asking me to do that.Jerad_{October 28, 2012
October
10
Oct
28
28
2012
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

Jerad
I would find it very helpful if you could just be a bit more specific about when, where and how you perceive design to have been implemented so I can better address the implications of what you are asserting.
Inasmuch as I nor any other ID proponent has ever claimed to be able to detect the date of the design implementation, I can't imagine why you would ask us to defend a claim that we have not made. On the other hand, you claim that Darwin's anti-ID, General Theory of Evolution is the best model, yet neither you or anyone in your camp can provide any evidence to support it. At best, you can produce some evidence for Darwin's Special Theory, which no one in the ID community disputes. Are you now prepared to concede that fact? If you are intellectually honest, you will confront and acknowledge both of these indisputable facts.StephenB_{October 28, 2012
October
10
Oct
28
28
2012
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

StephenB (93):
If, as you say, mindless nature cannot produce a spear, what makes you think that it can achieve the much more complex task of producing life, the process of reproduction, or the process of replication?
It’s a bit more complicated than that though. Given the first basic replicator then the rest comes down to universal common descent with modification and cumulative selection.
I asked you a simple question, but you evaded it. I will, however, give you another chance to respond.
I'm not sure what you want me to say . . . I think the process of cumulative selection acting on descent with variation can create great morphological changes. I've already said I'm not capable of explaining how the first basic replicator arose but that, having no evidence for 'designers' and there not having been much time trying to figure out how it happened via unguided processes that I think we need to give the unguided hypothesis more time.
All ID proponents accept guided evolution and reject unguided evolution. Design detection, which is the purpose of the ID paradigms, is independent of questions about when the design was implemented, which is beyond the range of ID methodology. That you would ask such a question suggests that you do not understand the basic principles of design detection. Either way, if you don’t know the difference between guided evolution and unguided evolution, or if you don’t understand why the difference is important, then I don’t think you are ready for dialogue. Or, if you do know the difference and are feigning ignorance, that too, is a problem since it constitutes yet another evasion.
I hear various members of the ID community proposing different kinds of guided evolution so I'm wondering what your variety says. Joe seems to believe in some kind of front loading situation. I think KF's version would have more interventionist designers, ones that occasionally make adjustments. I think. Similar to what I think Dr Behe suspects to be the case. I could be wrong but you see what I mean? Everyone uses design detection, it's where they go from there that I find hard to pin down. I can sort of understand why design detection limits itself to just that. But surely it's important to use that to explain how design was/is utilised in biology. Otherwise, what's the point of detecting the design in the first place? I just don't see how the design inference can support all versions of guided evolution. Surely some can be at least ruled out? Otherwise, what power does the design inference have?
As I pointed out, I and many others have followed this conflict for years and the Darwinian persecution of ID scholars is an institutional phenomenon. It is not simply my opinion, it is a fact. If you choose not to accept the truth of the matter, I have no intention of providing numerous other examples for you to dismiss. I was simply pointing out that I don’t respect people who act that way, and I would also have a problem with anyone who would try to rationalize that kind of behavior.
I have only heard of the three or four big, widely discussed cases. I have been listening to The Discovery Institute's podcast ID: The Future for five or six years now. I also subscribe to their email list and their RSS feed although I do not read every post there by any means. The podcast I do listen to religiously. Years ago I conversed with Casey Luskin via email for a time. I have also tracked down some interviews Drs Meyer and Behe and Dembski have done for other podcasts, Unbelievable (from Christian Premier radio in the UK for one). And I've been reading Uncommon Descent off and on for a number of years. I'm not saying that gives me great knowledge or insite in the persecution issue but I have knowledge of much of what has appeared in those venues.Jerad_{October 28, 2012
October
10
Oct
28
28
2012
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT}

If, as you say, mindless nature cannot produce a spear, what makes you think that it can achieve the much more complex task of producing life, the process of reproduction, or the process of replication? Jerad
It’s a bit more complicated than that though. Given the first basic replicator then the rest comes down to universal common descent with modification and cumulative selection.
I asked you a simple question, but you evaded it. I will, however, give you another chance to respond.
I think you’ll have to be more specific about what version of ID you are talking about. It’s pretty clear that many of the contributors to this forum have different notions of when, where and how design was implemented so could you be more specific about your views on those matters. Otherwise I’m going to find it hard to grasp your full argument. What kind of guiding are you talking about?
All ID proponents accept guided evolution and reject unguided evolution. Design detection, which is the purpose of the ID paradigms, is independent of questions about when the design was implemented, which is beyond the range of ID methodology. That you would ask such a question suggests that you do not understand the basic principles of design detection. Either way, if you don’t know the difference between guided evolution and unguided evolution, or if you don’t understand why the difference is important, then I don’t think you are ready for dialogue. Or, if you do know the difference and are feigning ignorance, that too, is a problem since it constitutes yet another evasion.
Dr Sternberg didn’t lose his ‘job’ at the Smithsonian or his access. The journal he worked for decided he violated their peer review process and let him go but I doubt he was making much money from that. Dr Gonzales has a good teaching job now as far as I remember so the fact that one particular university decided he didn’t fit in hasn’t put him out on the streets exactly. I failed to get tenure once. I got it at the next job though. It happens.
As I pointed out, I and many others have followed this conflict for years and the Darwinian persecution of ID scholars is an institutional phenomenon. It is not simply my opinion, it is a fact. If you choose not to accept the truth of the matter, I have no intention of providing numerous other examples for you to dismiss. I was simply pointing out that I don’t respect people who act that way, and I would also have a problem with anyone who would try to rationalize that kind of behavior.StephenB_{October 28, 2012
October
10
Oct
28
28
2012
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

Joe (89):
Evolutionary theory starts from the advent of the first basic replicator.
No, it starts with living organisms. And guess what? So does baraminology.
I'll start with the first basic replicator I think. What does baraminology have to do with anything?
So tell me, what is the difference between starting with one or more populations of single-celled organisms vs starting with one or more populations of Created Kinds oe designed archetypes?
I've said before that there are many possible sources of the first basic replicator (probably a population of them as you say). I can't rule out that it was designed and dropped onto earth at some point but considering there is absolutely no evidence other than life itself (which is the thing under discussion) for some designers I think it's better to pursue the non-designed approach for the time being. Why hypothesise a cause you might not need?
So you agree that Darwinian processes take millions of years?
No. Natural selection is present on a daily basis.
Great!
No moon no life- 1- our rotation. probably wouldn’t happen without that large impact that created the moon 2- rotation without a moon and you get a wobble so large you wouldn’t have a stable environment for life to form and take hold Either way, no life.
Maybe no life of certain kinds. I gather you are accepting the dating techniques used when coming up with the impact theory then? Are you sure about the wobble without a moon? Does Mars wobble in it's rotation? Earth does have a wobble but it lasts thousands of years. I would agree that without the moon life on Earth might be very different but none at all? I don't see how you can possibly support that view.Jerad_{October 28, 2012
October
10
Oct
28
28
2012
01:58 AM
1
01
58
AM
PDT}

StephenB (88):
If, as you say, mindless nature cannot produce a spear, what makes you think that it can achieve the much more complex task of producing, life, the process of reproduction, or the process of replication.
It's a bit more complicated than that though. Given the first basic replicator then the rest comes down to universal common descent with modification and cumulative selection. I think there will eventually be a plausible way discovered of how the first basic replicator arose through purely natural forces but that does remain to be seen. AND, I think it's far too soon to throw in the towel and hypothesise an undefined cause which has no independent evidence supporting the notion. Independent in that if you and I disagree about whether something was designed or not then we can bolster our opinions with evidence outside of the object in question.
Most important, when you say that an organism’s design patters are not as significant as an artifact’s design patterns on the grounds that an organism is different from an artifact, you are indeed, engaging in a non-sequitor. Realizing that problem, an appropriate response would go something like this: “Now that I understand that artifacts and organisms have something in common, namely information, I recognize that the information in a DNA molecule is as much or more of an indicator of design as the information in a designed ancient hunter’s spear or, for that matter, the information in a designed written paragraph. Therefore, I will accept the former as real evidence for design and against random formation just as I accepted the latter as real evidence for design and against random formation. Accordingly, I will stop saying that ID has no evidence on the grounds that organisms are different than artifacts.”
I could say that, but I won't. I think the information argument is weak which is why (I suspect) that Dr Dembski has ceased to discuss the matter much. I do not see people actually using his metric in practice which leads me to believe it's not useable. If I were a design proponent and I had a measure which could be applied to detect design I'd be using it all the time to show the world how good it was. But nobody actually does that. So I think I'll stick to what I've already said.
You have provided a kind of argument for total morphological change or total evolutionary change, and, to be sure, there is some evidence for that position, though it is not nearly conclusive enough to convince me. But that is not what is at issue. Darwinism (Darwin’s General Theory) goes much farther than that: That model insists not only that evolution is true and total, but also that unguided, naturalistic forces are capable of driving it from beginning to end. It is that claim for which there is no evidence. I thought that you understood that.
From the first basic replicator on is my understanding. I know he hypothesised about how that first basic replicator came about but, let's be honest, that was just a guess.
OK, I appreciate that clarification. This would mean, then, that you do not understand the debate. So far, you have only offered reasons to believe that macro-evolution happened, but you (nor anyone else in your camp) has ever provided any evidence to support the proposition that unguided, naturalistic forces can drive it. ID does not argue against evolution, it argues against unguided evolution. Or, from another perspective, ID does not argue against Darwin’s Special theory, it argues against Darwin’s General Theory.
I think you'll have to be more specific about what version of ID you are talking about. It's pretty clear that many of the contributors to this forum have different notions of when, where and how design was implemented so could you be more specific about your views on those matters. Otherwise I'm going to find it hard to grasp your full argument. What kind of guiding are you talking about?
I know it to be a fact and so does everyone else who follows the history of the conflict. Have you never heard of Richard Sternberg or Guillermo Gonzalez? Have you never heard of the movie, “Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed?” It is an institutional problem that represents widespread corruption, both in the Darwinist cam and in the Theistic Evolution camp.
Dr Sternberg didn't lose his 'job' at the Smithsonian or his access. The journal he worked for decided he violated their peer review process and let him go but I doubt he was making much money from that. Dr Gonzales has a good teaching job now as far as I remember so the fact that one particular university decided he didn't fit in hasn't put him out on the streets exactly. I failed to get tenure once. I got it at the next job though. It happens. I've heard a lot about Expelled and how, at one point, it equated science with Nazi death camps. That was pretty shameful considering that many Jewish scientists lost their lives or family members in those death camps. Interesting that the movie didn't do very well and has pretty much dropped off of everyone's radar at this point. Not exactly considered a classic documentary.
The case for ID has already been brought forward. The evidence for design is inherent in the design patterns, such as complex specified information and irreducible complexity in biology and cosmological fine tuning in cosmology.
I would find it very helpful if you could just be a bit more specific about when, where and how you perceive design to have been implemented so I can better address the implications of what you are asserting.Jerad_{October 28, 2012
October
10
Oct
28
28
2012
01:44 AM
1
01
44
AM
PDT}

#88 :)Upright BiPed_{October 27, 2012
October
10
Oct
27
27
2012
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT}

Jerad:
Evolutionary theory starts from the advent of the first basic replicator.
No, it starts with living organisms. And guess what? So does baraminology. So tell me, what is the difference between starting with one or more populations of single-celled organisms vs starting with one or more populations of Created Kinds oe designed archetypes?
So you agree that Darwinian processes take millions of years?
No. Natural selection is present on a daily basis. No moon no life- 1- our rotation. probably wouldn't happen without that large impact that created the moon 2- rotation without a moon and you get a wobble so large you wouldn't have a stable environment for life to form and take hold Either way, no life.Joe_{October 27, 2012
October
10
Oct
27
27
2012
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT}

Jerad
Ah yes, I admit to making a bit of a non-sequitar. I was worried that if I passed the comment by I would be accused of being non-responsive. So I made sure I put something in. My bad. Sorry.
Well, sometimes I do press a little hard, I suppose. In any case, let's consider what is really happening here. It appears that you do not appreciate the significance of our earlier discussion. I asked you if material forces such as wind, air, and erosion, acting aimlessly, could form the ancient hunter’s spear. You agreed that such a scenario is, for all practical purposes, impossible, given the design indicators in the spear. So we have a problem: If, as you say, mindless nature cannot produce a spear, what makes you think that it can achieve the much more complex task of producing, life, the process of reproduction, or the process of replication. If, as you say, mindless nature cannot achieve the task of rearranging one form of non-life into another form of non-life (spear), what makes you think it can achieve the much more daunting task of rearranging and elevating non-life into life (DNA molecule)? Most important, when you say that an organism's design patters are not as significant as an artifact's design patterns on the grounds that an organism is different from an artifact, you are indeed, engaging in a non-sequitor. Realizing that problem, an appropriate response would go something like this: "Now that I understand that artifacts and organisms have something in common, namely information, I recognize that the information in a DNA molecule is as much or more of an indicator of design as the information in a designed ancient hunter's spear or, for that matter, the information in a designed written paragraph. Therefore, I will accept the former as real evidence for design and against random formation just as I accepted the latter as real evidence for design and against random formation. Accordingly, I will stop saying that ID has no evidence on the grounds that organisms are different than artifacts."
That has not been my only response it should be noted. And I have provided evidence (albeit non-accepted) in the fossil, genetic, geographic, morphological and breeding records. Just like you I consider your counter arguments insufficient. Where do we go from here then?
You have provided a kind of argument for total morphological change or total evolutionary change, and, to be sure, there is some evidence for that position, though it is not nearly conclusive enough to convince me. But that is not what is at issue. Darwinism (Darwin's General Theory) goes much farther than that: That model insists not only that evolution is true and total, but also that unguided, naturalistic forces are capable of driving it from beginning to end. It is that claim for which there is no evidence. I thought that you understood that.
Ah well I would categorise the Darwinian position as being the best model based on the current evidence. I think all science is provisional, open to change. All we can hope to do is to find a better explanation.
Yes, I know that you think that Darwinism (Darwin's General Theory) is the best model, but, as I have pointed out many times, there is no evidence at all to support that model. According to all the evidence that we have, random variation, natural selection, or genetic drift can produce only minor changes in a species (Darwin's Special Theory), which means, again according to the evidence, that if macro evolution occurred, there must be some other explanation, such as guided, purposeful, or programmed evolution (compatible with Intelligent Design).
And no, just to be clear, I am NOT agreeing that there is no evidence to support the proposition that unguided and natural processes are responsible for the biodiversity we observe today. I think it’s prudent to look for more evidence though.
OK, I appreciate that clarification. This would mean, then, that you do not understand the debate. So far, you have only offered reasons to believe that macro-evolution happened, but you (nor anyone else in your camp) has ever provided any evidence to support the proposition that unguided, naturalistic forces can drive it. ID does not argue against evolution, it argues against unguided evolution. Or, from another perspective, ID does not argue against Darwin's Special theory, it argues against Darwin's General Theory. [That’s really very funny. Darwinists do no ask their lapdogs to shut up. They ask their adversaries to shut up—that is, when they are not destroying careers or sullying reputations in the name of institutional orthodoxy].
And you know this from personal experience? Or is it just something you want to believe is true?
I know it to be a fact and so does everyone else who follows the history of the conflict. Have you never heard of Richard Sternberg or Guillermo Gonzalez? Have you never heard of the movie, "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed?" It is an institutional problem that represents widespread corruption, both in the Darwinist cam and in the Theistic Evolution camp.
I try very hard to be cordial and polite but sometimes the implied slurs and castigations are a bit hard to leave lying.
I can understand and respect that feeling. As a general rule, I reserve my slurs for Darwinists in the academy--those who persecute ID scientists, bully students and withhold information from them, and misrepresent both their position and that of their adversaries.
If you’ve got a case then bring it forward in the open.
The case for ID has already been brought forward. The evidence for design is inherent in the design patterns, such as complex specified information and irreducible complexity in biology and cosmological fine tuning in cosmology. The case against Darwinism has also been brought forward. There is no evidence to support the proposition that unguided, naturalistic forces can produce total evolutionary change.StephenB_{October 27, 2012
October
10
Oct
27
27
2012
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT}

Eric (82):
Your sarcasm is noted, thank you. But it isn’t just a list of adjectives and qualifiers. It is a (somewhat abbreviated) description of what has to be explained. One of the main rhetorical ploys of Darwinists is not getting into the details. Just talk broadly at some high level about variations and replication and survival and *poof!* new stuff emerges (just don’t ask us any details, please). As an innoculation against this intellectual laziness I sometimes like to get into the details of what is actually required. It helps focus the discussion and call the bluff of the molecules-to-man materialist creation myth.
I wasn't being sarcastic, I thought it was a good list. A serious question: do you think ID proponents better address the details, the hows and whens? Aside from just saying the designer did it obviously. I'm serious, can you offer a better, detailed explanation?
Well, then you have a very low standard for what evidence you think is clear and strong. Whatever may be the case for universal common descent, so far I have seen zero evidence that it all happened via undirected processes. I’d be curious to see this clear and strong evidence, but remember we aren’t talking just about common descent, we are talking about undirected. So show us those natural causes you are so fond of and we’ll take a look.
The same natural processes you experience in your daily life. For example: Very cold climates/environments will tend to 'favour' life forms with a better ability to survive in that environment. So those 'favoured' life forms will tend to reproduce more. And thereby shift the allele frequency in the overall population gene pool.
As for OOL, I presume you are referring to those as-yet-undiscovered natural processes that you don’t have any idea what they could be but you hope will be found? You know, those processes that haven’t been found after intensive research and decades of effort. Those processes that supposedly operated at one point in the deep past, but which we don’t see operating any more for some strange reason. Sorry, I guess it was my turn now for sarcasm, but whether OOL can come from undirected natural processes is one of the most definitive “No’s” that has ever come from science.
Yes, those are them!! I admit, I wish it had all been settled by now. But i'm not ready to throw in the towel yet. It hasn't been that long since scientists have really known what kind of thing to look for and test. Why are you giving up on the undirected explanation already? Is there a time limit on figuring things out? (83):
I should add that several of the above posts go back and forth on the red herring that because biological systems can replicate that this somehow makes the design inference inapplicable. This is complete nonsense. (Jerad isn’t the only one to use this red herring, as it is sometimes brought up by anti-design critics, so perhaps he is just repeating a talking point.) Here is the logic: (cough, cough):
I didn't say it was inapplicable. I said I didn't think it had been proven. I can see what your're arguing. But I do not think that living systems which can independently descend with modification can be judged with the same criteria as inanimate objects.
The existence of a functionally integrated information-rich complex machine allows us to draw a design inference. But if the machine can replicate itself (i.e., by all engineering and design estimates meaning that it incorporates an even greater level of engineering sophistication), then somehow, magically, the design inference is no longer applicable. Wow, just wow.
It has to do with descent with modification. Inanimate objects cannot self replicate with modification. Living forms can. And the 'offspring' will have differential survival and breeding capacity. So future offspring will have more information which will enable them to better exploit their environment.Jerad_{October 27, 2012
October
10
Oct
27
27
2012
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT}

Joe (81):
Your position cannot explain replication. Therefor you cannot use living organisms for anything to support your position.
Evolutionary theory starts from the advent of the first basic replicator. What are you asking? To explain how replication works? Isn't that also a question for the D camp. If it means explaining the chemistry of replicator. But I don't want to put words in your mouth.
Sure there is . . . have you got a million years to wait? Maybe two. Damn random mutations, they never do what you want them to when you want them to.
Thank you for proving my point.
So you agree that Darwinian processes take millions of years? Whew? I know that's not what you meant but it would be easier to have a dialogue if you were a bit more specific regarding your criticisms. A bit less bitch and run and a bit more explanation. <blockquote<We wouldn’t exist without a large moon. and we wouldn’t be able to amke important scientific discoveries without it being just-so.
We might not exist but some kind of life might.
Nope- no life would exist here.
That is a really astounding and bizarre assertion. Not only am I going to give you a chance to provide some justification for that point of view but I'll let you retract it without further attention from me.
If the universe was designed for us then why is it trying to kill us?
Is it? Rference please- sure the universe is a dangerous place but that just means more to discover so we can keep oursekves safe. And the designer will never be as big of a jerk as evos are…
You have a very odd theology. Why don't you elucidate your hypothesis about the kind of designers you envision so we don't have to guess. That would help matters I think. Fair enough?Jerad_{October 27, 2012
October
10
Oct
27
27
2012
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

StephenB (80):
Originally, you argued that we cannot draw an inference to design for a DNA molecule on the grounds that artifacts are different from organisms. When I point out that we are comparing indicators that both elements have in common, you change the subject rather than acknowledge the refutation. This is very common with Darwinists.
I will just say though: there could have been more than one genetic code just like there is more than one human language and ‘alphabet’. When we see all of life, with some minor exceptions, it’s natural to assume that there was single first replicator. Of, if there were others with different genetic codes, they died out before we learned to read the code. A designed system would not have to follow that rule. A designed system, like human languages, could have multiple different codes. But ours doesn’t.
This is an irrational statement. We are discussing the code that we now know exists and are pointing out its design features.
Ah yes, I admit to making a bit of a non-sequitar. I was worried that if I passed the comment by I would be accused of being non-responsive. So I made sure I put something in. My bad. Sorry.
Much of my confidence is based on the spectacle of Darwinists like yourself who, when confronted with a challenge to provide evidence for their claims, respond as you just did by asking me if I am really sure that they are wrong. Well, yes, I am reasonably certain that you are wrong–given the fact that you refuse to provide any evidence for your position– given that fact that you avoid confronting the evidence for the counter arguments, as you have repeatedly done on this thread.
That has not been my only response it should be noted. And I have provided evidence (albeit non-accepted) in the fossil, genetic, geographic, morphological and breeding records. Just like you I consider your counter arguments insufficient. Where do we go from here then?
Well, at least we both agree that there is no evidence to justify the proposition that unguided, materialistic evolution can produce biodiversity. I give you credit for facing the truth of that matter even though you did not explicitly acknowledge it. Just for fun, though here is a thought: Don’t you think it would be a bit more prudent if Darwinists would wait until they can support their claims before they assert them as fact when, as it turns out, their offerings are nothing more than manifestly failed attempts at a guess.
Ah well I would categorise the Darwinian position as being the best model based on the current evidence. I think all science is provisional, open to change. All we can hope to do is to find a better explanation. And no, just to be clear, I am NOT agreeing that there is no evidence to support the proposition that unguided and natural processes are responsible for the biodiversity we observe today. I think it's prudent to look for more evidence though.
That’s really very funny. Darwinists do no ask their lapdogs to shut up. They ask their adversaries to shut up—that is, when they are not destroying careers or sullying reputations in the name of institutional orthodoxy. And you know this from personal experience? Or is it just something you want to believe is true? I try very hard to be cordial and polite but sometimes the implied slurs and castigations are a bit hard to leave lying. If you've got a case then bring it forward in the open.
Jerad_{October 27, 2012
October
10
Oct
27
27
2012
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

EA: believe it or not, your point antdates Darwin, who dodged it, and I cannot but help noticing that contempuous dismissals of Paley's stumbling over a watch in a field on the disanalogy of self replication consistently do not speak to this fr Ch II of Nat Theol, which sits in the IOSE of course:
Suppose, in the next place, that the person who found the watch should after some time discover that, in addition to all the properties which he had hitherto observed in it, it possessed the unexpected property of producing in the course of its movement another watch like itself -- the thing is conceivable; that it contained within it a mechanism, a system of parts -- a mold, for instance, or a complex adjustment of lathes, baffles, and other tools -- evidently and separately calculated for this purpose . . . . The first effect would be to increase his admiration of the contrivance, and his conviction of the consummate skill of the contriver. Whether he regarded the object of the contrivance, the distinct apparatus, the intricate, yet in many parts intelligible mechanism by which it was carried on, he would perceive in this new observation nothing but an additional reason for doing what he had already done -- for referring the construction of the watch to design and to supreme art . . . . He would reflect, that though the watch before him were, in some sense, the maker of the watch, which, was fabricated in the course of its movements, yet it was in a very different sense from that in which a carpenter, for instance, is the maker of a chair -- the author of its contrivance, the cause of the relation of its parts to their use.
Muy interesante. (That's as close to Italian as I get.) KFkairosfocus_{October 27, 2012
October
10
Oct
27
27
2012
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

Regarding replication: I should add that several of the above posts go back and forth on the red herring that because biological systems can replicate that this somehow makes the design inference inapplicable. This is complete nonsense. (Jerad isn't the only one to use this red herring, as it is sometimes brought up by anti-design critics, so perhaps he is just repeating a talking point.) Here is the logic: (cough, cough): The existence of a functionally integrated information-rich complex machine allows us to draw a design inference. But if the machine can replicate itself (i.e., by all engineering and design estimates meaning that it incorporates an even greater level of engineering sophistication), then somehow, magically, the design inference is no longer applicable. Wow, just wow.Eric Anderson_{October 27, 2012
October
10
Oct
27
27
2012
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

Jerad @79:
That’s a lovely list of adjectives and qualifiers. Well done.
Your sarcasm is noted, thank you. But it isn't just a list of adjectives and qualifiers. It is a (somewhat abbreviated) description of what has to be explained. One of the main rhetorical ploys of Darwinists is not getting into the details. Just talk broadly at some high level about variations and replication and survival and *poof!* new stuff emerges (just don't ask us any details, please). As an innoculation against this intellectual laziness I sometimes like to get into the details of what is actually required. It helps focus the discussion and call the bluff of the molecules-to-man materialist creation myth.
I think the evidence of universal common descent with modification from the first basic replicator via undirected processes is very clear and strong. I happen to believe that it’s probable that the first basic replicator arose via undirected processes as well but I admit the evidence for that is not there yet.
Well, then you have a very low standard for what evidence you think is clear and strong. Whatever may be the case for universal common descent, so far I have seen zero evidence that it all happened via undirected processes. I'd be curious to see this clear and strong evidence, but remember we aren't talking just about common descent, we are talking about undirected. So show us those natural causes you are so fond of and we'll take a look. As for OOL, I presume you are referring to those as-yet-undiscovered natural processes that you don't have any idea what they could be but you hope will be found? You know, those processes that haven't been found after intensive research and decades of effort. Those processes that supposedly operated at one point in the deep past, but which we don't see operating any more for some strange reason. Sorry, I guess it was my turn now for sarcasm, but whether OOL can come from undirected natural processes is one of the most definitive "No's" that has ever come from science.
I reject the design hypothesis because there is no need for invoking design and there is no evidence for a designer as far as I can tell. I don’t believe the design inference for DNA has been proven so I do not take that as evidence.
Well, that is fair enough as far as it goes. If you are open to the possibility of design in life, that is the important thing. If you don't think what I have described (back to the adjectives above) is something that requires design, then we could talk about what kinds of characteristics or artifacts enable the design inference and see if biological systems fall in that category. On the other hand, if you are rejecting design because you (mistakenly) believe natural causes have been shown to be up to the task; or worse, if you are rejecting design because of a philosophical commitment to keeping design out of biology, then those would be personal issues that need to be addressed.Eric Anderson_{October 27, 2012
October
10
Oct
27
27
2012
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT}

Jerad:
Except that cars don’t replicate on their own.
Your position cannot explain replication. Therefor you cannot use living organisms for anything to support your position.
Well, if it so sure I’m surprised a vast majority of working cellular biologist haven’t changed their mind like you have.
It is very telling that not one of thsoe working cellular biologists can support the claims of their position. No way to test to see if a fish can ever evolve into something other than a fish. Never mind doing so via natural selection and/ or genetic drift.
Sure there is . . . have you got a million years to wait? Maybe two. Damn random mutations, they never do what you want them to when you want them to.
Thank you for proving my point.
I’d say so, yes. A coincidence that is going to last for quite a while. Coincidence requires no extra beings or causes or forces. We’ve got no evidence for extra beings or forces or causes so I’ll go with coincidence.
That is not scientific- no way to test the claim. We wouldn’t exist without a large moon. and we wouldn’t be able to amke important scientific discoveries without it being just-so.
We might not exist but some kind of life might.
Nope- no life would exist here.
If the universe was designed for us then why is it trying to kill us?
Is it? Rference please- sure the universe is a dangerous place but that just means more to discover so we can keep oursekves safe. And the designer will never be as big of a jerk as evos are...Joe_{October 27, 2012
October
10
Oct
27
27
2012
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT}

Jerad
Well, if I’m not going to enter into a discussion of how the first basic replicator arose then I guess I can’t discuss how the genetic code arose.
Originally, you argued that we cannot draw an inference to design for a DNA molecule on the grounds that artifacts are different from organisms. When I point out that we are comparing indicators that both elements have in common, you change the subject rather than acknowledge the refutation. This is very common with Darwinists.
I will just say though: there could have been more than one genetic code just like there is more than one human language and ‘alphabet’. When we see all of life, with some minor exceptions, it’s natural to assume that there was single first replicator. Of, if there were others with different genetic codes, they died out before we learned to read the code. A designed system would not have to follow that rule. A designed system, like human languages, could have multiple different codes. But ours doesn’t.
This is an irrational statement. We are discussing the code that we now know exists and are pointing out its design features.
Are you really sure that chance chemical bonding over millions of years couldn’t have led to something like a simple virus which then reproduced with modification?
Much of my confidence is based on the spectacle of Darwinists like yourself who, when confronted with a challenge to provide evidence for their claims, respond as you just did by asking me if I am really sure that they are wrong. Well, yes, I am reasonably certain that you are wrong--given the fact that you refuse to provide any evidence for your position-- given that fact that you avoid confronting the evidence for the counter arguments, as you have repeatedly done on this thread.
Give them a few more years! I think you have made the call WAY too early. It took over 300 years to prove Fermat’s Last Theorem. Things take time.
Well, at least we both agree that there is no evidence to justify the proposition that unguided, materialistic evolution can produce biodiversity. I give you credit for facing the truth of that matter even though you did not explicitly acknowledge it. Just for fun, though here is a thought: Don’t you think it would be a bit more prudent if Darwinists would wait until they can support their claims before they assert them as fact when, as it turns out, their offerings are nothing more than manifestly failed attempts at a guess. .
Every biologist I have ever met really enjoys explaining their work to someone who is really interested in hearing and absorbing what they are saying. They love their work. I’ve never, ever been told to just shut up and believe. Ever. And I’ve asked some pretty dumb questions in my time.
That’s really very funny. Darwinists do no ask their lapdogs to shut up. They ask their adversaries to shut up—that is, when they are not destroying careers or sullying reputations in the name of institutional orthodoxy.StephenB_{October 27, 2012
October
10
Oct
27
27
2012
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT}

Eric (73):
Good. Now we are getting somewhere. So you agree that it is possible in principle to infer the existence of a designer from an artifact, even if we don’t have any other information about the designer beyond what we can ascertain from the artifact itself. Correct?
I've said inasmuch before. I have also said that in all cases I can think of we're talking about inanimate objects and that we can infer or glean information about the 'designers' and their abilities and timing from the designed object and the context in which it was found. (74):
BTW, Jerad, I know you were asking StephenB so I apologize for jumping in, but for whatever it is worth just to offer a second perspective, I don’t have any philosophical issue with the idea of evolution generally. My issue with evolution (that is, big evolution, grand evolution, OOL, blind-watchmaker kind of evolution) is that it is a joke. It is a joke logically, empirically, and experientially.
Well, is it worth responding to you then? :-)
I would be very interested in any evidence that blind natural processes can produce a highly-scalable, massively-parallel system architecture incorporating a super-dense, information-rich, multi-level, multi-directional database structure based on a digital coding system with storage, retrieval and translation mechanisms, utilizing concatenation, file allocation and bit parity algorithms. I would welcome such evidence and would view it as a legitimate contending answer for the origin of life and would also view it as having eliminated the need for a design explanation.
That's a lovely list of adjectives and qualifiers. Well done. I think the evidence of universal common descent with modification from the first basic replicator via undirected processes is very clear and strong. I happen to believe that it's probable that the first basic replicator arose via undirected processes as well but I admit the evidence for that is not there yet. I reject the design hypothesis because there is no need for invoking design and there is no evidence for a designer as far as I can tell. I don't believe the design inference for DNA has been proven so I do not take that as evidence.
But I prefer to go on the best of what we do know, not place my hopes on some promissory note of some as-yet-undiscovered law or future discovery that will overturn much of what we currently understand about cause and effect and our experience with physics and chemistry.
Yet you are fine accepting an undefined, unobserved, unmeasured, unknown designer. Not that I think we need a new discovery or law to justify evolutionary processes, what we got is good enough. That's part of the point. No special pleading, no new forces or causes.
So I would be very interested in such evidence, but I am not holding my breath.
Good idea, you don't want to turn blue and fall over.Jerad_{October 27, 2012
October
10
Oct
27
27
2012
02:46 AM
2
02
46
AM
PDT}

StephenB (72):
My confidence in the validity of a design argument depends on the effect that is being observed. For example, I find no scientific evidence for any claim that moon craters are designed even though, in principle, they could be. On the other hand, I find much scientific evidence that the universe was finely tuned for life.
I think the universe is a cold, deadly and indifferent place with sparks of beauty and joy. I am so very, very glad that I was lucky enough to even have been born let alone survive and live in a reasonably advanced country with few natural disasters that could take me out in a second, few major diseases wiping out chunks of the population and, so far, no rocks falling out of the sky of sufficient size to kill us all.
But to get to your question, yes, I am willing to consider the possibility that a given design inference could be wrong. But, as indicated above, each instance must be considered on its own merits. Let’s consider the bacterial flagellum: ID scientists tell me that it was likely designed because it is irreducibly complex (all parts must be present before it will work), which means that it could not have been the result of a slow, gradual, evolutionary process. On the other hand, Darwinists tell me that it was, indeed, the product of an unguided, materialistic, evolutionary process. I am willing to believe that ID could be wrong and the that the Darwinists could be right, but when I ask Darwinists to show me the evidence for an evolutionary pathway to the bacterial flagellum, or to even render a guess about how such a pathway might even be possible, they have nothing to say.
Give them a few more years! I think you have made the call WAY too early. It took over 300 years to prove Fermat's Last Theorem. Things take time. Remember too, part of the evolutionary argument for why the bacterial flagellum is NOT irreducibly complex is co-option. And that there are systems that perform functions which are comprised of pieces of the bacterial flagellum that can be observed in existence now.
When one side (ID) says “here is what I think and here is the evidence,” and the other side (Darwinism) says, “shut up and just take my word for it,” I have no difficulty in choosing the former over the latter as the most reasonable option.
I don't find that Darwinism says that at all!! You can go look stuff up, do the reading, do your own research. Biologists get frustrated by having to go over the same arguments over and over again when any interested person can go find out for themselves. I find my arguments frequently misrepresented or unheard here and this is just a small forum. Every biologist I have ever met really enjoys explaining their work to someone who is really interested in hearing and absorbing what they are saying. They love their work. I've never, ever been told to just shut up and believe. Ever. And I've asked some pretty dumb questions in my time. Besides, are you sure you want to pick an explanation based on who's doing the explaining?Jerad_{October 27, 2012
October
10
Oct
27
27
2012
02:32 AM
2
02
32
AM
PDT}

Joe (71):
Good for you. What you are saying makes as much sense as saying cars were designed but how everything works is just random gear interactions.
Except that cars don't replicate on their own. So that's not a fair comparison.
Except we have evidence for the opposite. We have sustained replication of RNAs, we have variation, but nothing new, only faster replication. And when AVIDA is given real world parameters it does basically nothing. And I used to accept universal common descent, that is until I looked at the evidence and saw there wasn’t any that explained the transformations required.
Well, if it so sure I'm surprised a vast majority of working cellular biologist haven't changed their mind like you have.
No way to test to see if a fish can ever evolve into something other than a fish. Never mind doing so via natural selection and/ or genetic drift.
Sure there is . . . have you got a million years to wait? Maybe two. Damn random mutations, they never do what you want them to when you want them to.
It just so happens that our moon is 400x closer to us than the sun. and it just so happens that the moon is 400x smaller. The two together give us total eclipses. Take that together with the fact the moon is moving away from us. Is it just a coincidence then that the two are lined up like that, to give us really good and useful scientific information about the universe, just when there are observers around to make sense of it?
I'd say so, yes. A coincidence that is going to last for quite a while. Coincidence requires no extra beings or causes or forces. We've got no evidence for extra beings or forces or causes so I'll go with coincidence.
We wouldn’t exist without a large moon. and we wouldn’t be able to amke important scientific discoveries without it being just-so.
We might not exist but some kind of life might. If the universe was designed for us then why is it trying to kill us? Why is it seemingly mostly empty space? Why is our sun going to turn into a red giant and fry all forms of life on earth in the future? Why is it a distinct possibility that a large meteor could smack into the earth and kill off millions if not billions of people? Heck, just one gamma ray burst pointed right at us could do a big nasty. Plus you got earthquakes, floods, tornados, tsunamis, plagues . . . if Polio and Ebola are part of the plan then the designers must be real jerks.Jerad_{October 27, 2012
October
10
Oct
27
27
2012
02:21 AM
2
02
21
AM
PDT}

StephenB (70):
If the specified arrangement of the letters in a paragraph clearly indicate design, as you have acknowledged, then the specified arrangement of nucleotides in an organism also clearly indicate design for the same reason. The indicators are the indicators. If you can recognize the design in a 40,000 year old without knowing anything about the designer, then you can also recognize the design in a DNA molecule without knowing anything about the designer, unless, of course, your ideology prevents you from facing the facts.
Well, if I'm not going to enter into a discussion of how the first basic replicator arose then I guess I can't discuss how the genetic code arose. I will just say though: there could have been more than one genetic code just like there is more than one human language and 'alphabet'. When we see all of life, with some minor exceptions, it's natural to assume that there was single first replicator. Of, if there were others with different genetic codes, they died out before we learned to read the code. A designed system would not have to follow that rule. A designed system, like human languages, could have multiple different codes. But ours doesn't.
They are disagreeing with me solely for ideological reasons. They know that the evidence is against them. That is why they appeal to methodological naturalism in an desperate attempt to rule out or disqualify the very same evidence that refutes their position. They have nothing. We know it; they know it; you know it.
Which is not true. I know lots of biologists. And I know myself. I'm not arguing from some predetermine philosophical postion. I have no agenda.
IF? Are you denying that the design indicators (information) are present in the DNA molelcule?
I don't think it's been shown that DNA could not have arisen via natural, non-directed processes yet.
On the contrary. We do have clear evidence of design in life forms. On the other hand, we have no evidence to support the proposition that information can arise without design. My argument: I can present millions of examples of design produced information, complete with the evidence. Your argument: You can present no evidence at all for even one case of information being produced without design. You take it all on faith, but your faith is misplaced. Darwinism cannot be defended.
Darwinism begins after the first basic replicator so it's defence rests on the material evidence generated after that: fossils, genomes, morphologies, geographic deposits and breeding records. I can present many cases of design as well. But they all involve inanimate objects. Self-replicating systems which can descend with modification are different. If ID wants to hang it's whole case on the origin of the first basic replicator that's fine by me. But since there is no physical evidence of how it arose then your argument comes down to your notions of information. Are you sure you're right about those? Are you really sure that chance chemical bonding over millions of years couldn't have led to something like a simple virus which then reproduced with modification?Jerad_{October 27, 2012
October
10
Oct
27
27
2012
02:08 AM
2
02
08
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply