Evolution's "feet of clay"
The religious doctrine of Evolution has held sway over much of science for almost 200 years, but could this flawed empire be on the verge of collapsing? I personally think so, and suggest that if we choose our targets well we may see the empire of evolution self-destruct within our own lifetimes.
Have you noticed any time you debate the Evolution controversy with one of it’s fundamentalists, they quickly change the subject? They might try to divert you with some new finding that apparently confirms one of Darwin’s theories? Or perhaps it’s because they have been having nightmares that sooner or later, a brave young scientist may have already found the source of those nightmares which foretell of the end of the empire of Evolution.
Despite this and some very minor setbacks we are certainly winning. The ACLU and friends may like to boast about their stolen victory in Dover, but the simple fact is we are already winning in the only court that counts: The American People.
But is that enough? I personally do not think so. There will always be a fundamentalist group who have blinded themselves to the myriad of holes in the argument for Evolution. Intelligent Design may be the only alternative, but these fundamentalists cannot accept ID because their entire belief system makes them biased against it.
To achieve ultimate victory I believe we need to challenge the core beliefs of the neo-Darwinists. Once the foundations of their belief-system is shattered down will come the rest of their crumbling empire. Of course, I am talking about Materialism.
Materialist philosophy states that all that exists is “matter”. They allow for nothing else. Any explanation that suggests the existence of an Intelligent Agent who designed all the life on earth must be dismissed out of hand because their framework cannot account for a creator which cannot be measured by the crude intellectual tools of reductionism and the contrivances of a science lab.
Materialism is a nihilistic argument: It simply asserts what cannot happen but without offering any proof of this assertion. For any observable phenomena a materialist will only posit an explanation that consists exclusively of interactions of mundane stuff.
Why is this so wrong? An intelligent designer might not be made of the same “material” as you and me, and may not be detectable through conventional scientific techniques: A materialist would therefore assume that this designer does not exist without even stopping to think.
And that is the core of the problem. The reason for rejecting non-materialistic explanations of observed phenomena is just a lack of consideration. And since they have assumed the non-existence of anything other than the strictly material then can they truly say they have ruled out the existence of the Intelligent Designer? Of course not.
So when is it appropriate to consider a non-materialistic explaination for observable phenomena? The obvious answer is the case when the orthodox scientific explanation cannot provide a common-sense explanation: For example if the generally accepted theory contains a number of obvious gaps. If a purely materialistic theory fails the common-sense test, then perhaps it is smart to consider a non-materialistic alternative? Dare I even suggest a miraculous alternative? And why shouldnt we - no science has disproved the existence of miracles.
I think it’s time to strike at this materialist assumption: There is growing evidence to show that materialism is the “Feet of Clay” upon which the junk-science of Evolution has been built. All we have to do is highlight the hundreds of experiments that show that a big-picture, common-sense approach to science demands a rejection of materialism.
If we can show that materialism leads to closed-minded science, then we can also show that any theory is built on these feet of clay must also be unsound.
Lj - thanks agan. Public opinion counts because popular support will help eliminate anti science judges like Jones. I do believe that Evolution will fall first in America. Once we destroy evolution here the rest of the world will follow; that is just being realistic.
Littlejon wrote:
"Similarly, the "American people"… can think what they like, it won't change the actual history of life"
And just what is the "actual history of life," Littlejon? Darwinism?
TRoutMac
Intelligent (Graphic) Designer
Darwinism is at it's core not a scientific movement, but a movement driven by activists like Richard Dawkins. The popularity of Evolution was driven by the materialistic, reductionistic fads of Victorian England. Darwin's book was a controversial best-seller, rather than a peer-reviwed scientific paper.
If the American people know enough to reject the nihilist, reductionist approach of darwinian fundamentalists then I do not see a problem with encouraging that. My personal opinion is that sicence can only benefit when it stops denying the existence of the spiritual and miraculous.
I for one would really enjoy it if someone inclined to defend Darwinism (Littlejon, perhaps?) would "step up to the plate" and explain once and for all how the genetic information which formed the first single-celled organism came to be.
Any Darwinist who attempts to do so should keep it in mind that natural selection, by definition, can only preserve that which already exists and is survivable and functional.
I would also be curious to hear how the Universal Genetic Code "evolved." That is, did the first single-celled organism's DNA obey the same Universal Genetic Code that is operating currently? If the Universal Genetic Code (which is essentially a set of rules which establishes which sequences correspond to which amino acids) did not evolve, why?
Inquiring minds want to know.
TRoutMac
Intelligent (Graphic) Designer
HaEris wrote:
"My personal opinion is that sicence can only benefit when it stops denying the existence of the spiritual and miraculous."
My only problem with this statement is that, while Darwinists and naturalists might indeed deny that which is spiritual, they embrace that which is miraculous. Darwinism, quite frankly, is far more "miraculous" than Intelligent Design. That is, it's just flat impossible and to believe it requires immense blind faith.
Seriously, I agree with your sentiment, HaEris… I'm being a little bit flippant. But I think a better way to express this sentiment might be to say that science can only benefit if it rids itself from all pre-suppositions.
More specifically, science cannot get at a suitable, sensible answer to origin of life or origin of the universe until it discards methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism is an albatross around the neck of science when it comes to origins.
TRoutMac
Intelligent (Graphic) Designer
Methodological naturalism works perfectly fine for the mast majority of scientific inquiry. Problem is, it fails under certain conditions. A close cousin called pragmatic naturalism has its own issues but personally I like it better due to its stance on empiricism.
"I for one would really enjoy it if someone inclined to defend Darwinism (Littlejon, perhaps?) would "step up to the plate" and explain once and for all how the genetic information which formed the first single-celled organism came to be"
No idea. Oh I could copy out some stuff about RNA world, or clay crystals, good Dennettian cranes etc, but no, no idea. Isn't that exciting? Something for clever people to work on & find the answer to. Brilliant. I'm unsure what the alternative is - to demand certainty? But we don't have that about anything. To give up as it's all a spooky outside-naturalism mystery? Well it could be, I suppose, but then why bother with anything at all? "What causes cancer?" "We don't know & never will know as it is outside the material world" - not the most productive approach (but yes, conceivably could be correct...) Honestly - what's the alternative to answerinbg these questions with "I don't know so lets do some experiments and abductive inference"?
Littlejon wrote:
"No idea… Isn't that exciting?"
Well, this is what I call "willful ignorance." Pretending that there's not an answer when a perfectly good answer (albeit one you might not like) is staring you right in the face is about as silly as screen doors on a submarine.
We know that intelligence can produce this kind of information… in fact, it's the only entity that's ever been observed to do so.
Littlejon wrote:
"Something for clever people to work on & find the answer to."
Indeed. They're called ID theorists. Bill Dembski, Michael Behe, etc.…
I'd sooner describe your "No idea, isn't that exciting?" retort as "giving up" than to describe ID in those terms. We have a plausible explanation, as ID proponents, as to the origin of genetic information and, indeed, life. In fact, ID appears for all the world to be the only plausible explanation. That doesn't shut down research in any way, shape, matter or form. It just shifts its direction. No one on the ID side wants to call scientific inquiry to a halt… that they do is simply the baseless assertion of those who must preserve the Darwinist dogma at all costs, even if it's false.
TRoutMac
Intelligent (Graphic) Designer
Troutmac, you have a way with words, sir!
Methodological naturalism is really the mother of all pre-suppositions. All of the greatest folly and pathological science that we are trying to dismantle stems from this foolish assumption. Just think of how much orthodox science has got wrong because it explicitly rules-out non-materialistic explainations before the research has even begun!
Methodological naturalism is the statement that the non-material cannot exist and is therefore not worth investigating. Whatever you call it, wether it is spiritual, super-natural or even the divine until these have been ruled out any good science should at least acknowledge that they are possible.
A theory of creation should not explictly rule out anything that has not been explicitly disproven. If orthodox (I would never call it mainstream) theory of evolution has holes in it, then this is proof intelligent design - I cannot think of what else it might be!
I think all we are asking for is a common-sense approach to origins science. In my opinion, only ID passes that common-sense test.
(Apologies to Berkeley Breathed for using the title of his excellent children's Christmas story)
Littlejon wrote:
"No idea… Isn't that exciting?"
It occurs to me that this could be the new standard for successful scientific research…
"I have no idea how this airframe made from lead will ever fly. Isn't that exciting?!"
Is that an acceptible statement? Engineers must use materials that actually can serve the purpose… in this case, materials which are very lightweight and yet extremely strong (given their weight) can yield an flightworthy airframe. They don't make 'em outta lead.
By the same token, intelligence is something which clearly can produce the phenomenon we see in biology… it's the aluminum or carbon fibre that makes a 'flightworthy' airframe. Darwinism is made outta lead. It cannot fly. There's no scientific virtue in building the airframe out of lead despite the fact.
TRoutMac
Intelligent (Graphic) Designer
"a perfectly good answer (albeit one you might not like)"
OK I'll bite. Look, I might be obtuse & dense & willfully whatever - I still don't know what answer you're suggesting, let alone whether its "perfectly good". The single word "intelligence" makes no sense to me. Sorry, it doesn't - please spell it out, what does the one word "intelligence" mean as an answer as to how genetic information got into the first cell (I'm happy enough, btw, that we're all agree now that there was a first cell - common descent & all that jazz)? No really - you are claiming the answer is "perfectly good" - you must understand it then. What is it? Then I'll decide whether I like it or not.
PS & no, I don't want an analogy - "we all recognise intelligence" - no I don't, as in I don't know the neurophysiological / dualist mentalist / spirit-in-the-sky explication of that sense either. The watch was created by "intelligence" is not a perfectly good explanation.
SBWillie:
Thanks for the nice comments!
ID passes the common-sense test with flying colors, alright.
TRoutMac
Intelligent (Graphic) Designer
"intelligence is something which clearly can produce the phenomenon we see in biology… it's the aluminum or carbon fibre that makes a 'flightworthy' airframe"
Confused. But aluminium & carbon fibre aren't in biology. Or is it a metaphor?
clearly can produce? I guess if you mean genetic engineering, then possibly, but I wouldn't say its clear (another topic I know close to nothing about ;-)) It doesn't seem clear to me at all that intelligence can produce the phenomenon we see in biology - I suppose it might be able to, but clear?
Littlejon wrote:
"I still don't know what answer you're suggesting, let alone whether its "perfectly good". The single word "intelligence" makes no sense to me. Sorry, it doesn't - please spell it out, what does the one word "intelligence" mean as an answer as to how genetic information got into the first cell?"
All it means is that someone or some thing which possesses intelligence concieved of and devised these organisms for a purpose… that is, intentionally.
There are many definitions for "intelligence", so I'll add the definition which I intended here:
1. The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge, especially toward a purposeful goal.
or
2. The ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)
TRoutMac
Intelligent (Graphic) Designer
for one would really enjoy it if someone inclined to defend Darwinism (Littlejon, perhaps?) would "step up to the plate" and explain once and for all how the genetic information which formed the first single-celled organism came to be.
Since Patrick has made clear his intention is to make this site a safe haven for high school students to discuss ID and the presence of evolution supporters/ID detractors are not in keeping with that intent, perhaps this isn't the best venue for that to take place.
You would, of course, be wandering into enemy territory, but After the Bar Closes over at antievolution.org is a pretty freewheeling discussion site with a far more liberal moderation policy than even UD.
Thank you. Now we're getting somewhere. Now, to "acquire and apply knowledge" (1) or "apply knowledge" (2): so that knowledge must exist before the intelligence? So we're regressing like mad here, and have chased our tail from "where did the DNA in the cell come from" through your "intelligence" to "where did the knowledge come from"? Oh, and I suppose we need a definition & identification of knowledge but lets not start that.
Littlejon wrote:
"so that knowledge must exist before the intelligence? So we're regressing like mad here, and have chased our tail…"
Well, suffice to say that there must be some sort of pre-existing being which possesses intelligence. And although I've gone over this before in other discussions, I'll say it again here:
Both camps suffer the infinite regress. I accept the eternality of an infinitely-intelligent being, you accept the eternality of matter and energy. "Nature" if you will.
So, the challenge to you is to come up with a "natural" explanation for the existence of nature. But wait… if nature doesn't exist yet, then you can't very well invoke a natural cause for nature, can you? This is why methodological naturalism (materialism, whatever) fails and fails so badly.
Nevermind the fact that the concensus among scientists appears to be that the universe had a beginning… that it is not "infinite" after all. So to the extent that naturalists believe in the eternality of matter and energy, they are at odds with the findings of science.
I'll admit that it certainly stretches anyone's finite mind to imagine a being which exists outside of time and space and who never needed a creator. However, it seems that it stretches our finite mind even more to imagine matter and energy existing eternally even against scientific evidence to the contrary.
TRoutMac
Intelligent (Graphic) Designer
LIttlejon wrote:
"But aluminium & carbon fibre aren't in biology. Or is it a metaphor?"
Bingo.
LIttlejon wrote:
"clearly can produce? I guess if you mean genetic engineering, then possibly, but I wouldn't say its clear"
Yes, of course I do mean "genetic engineering", but in the ultimate sense.
Just think about the term "genetic engineering" for a few minutes. What does that term imply? Does it not imply that intelligence is required to select and sequence genes in certain ways so as to achieve certain goals? Of course, humans' brand of genetic engineering is child's play compared to the "real deal". I don't mean that it's easy, but I mean that human genetic engineers are manipulating existing information within a system which already exists. The Intelligent Designer we're talking about actually engineered the entire information processing system upon which all life is built, even the very atoms and molecules it employs… and also every organism, at least to extent of the major phyla. Beyond that, it's at least concievable that micro-evolution is able to take it from there. But you see what I mean… that's real "genetic engineering." The stuff we humans tinker around with is child's play by comparison.
LIttlejon wrote:
"It doesn't seem clear to me at all that intelligence can produce the phenomenon we see in biology"
Do you deny that languages are and have been devised by beings with intelligence? Did the C+ programming language come about through natural, unintelligent means? Was Morse Code not the product of Intelligent Design (by humans)? Is there any human language that came about without guidance from intelligent beings (humans)? When you look at the source code for a given web site, is it not clear that that entire system, including the creation of the HTML language, the browsers that read HTML, the computers within which all of this is possible, is all the product of Intelligent Design?
DNA is the source code behind a living organism. It's as plain as the nose on your face. Codes and languages do not come into being apart from intelligent authorship. Period.
TRoutMac
Intelligent (Graphic) Designer
To be clear, evolution supporters/ID detractors are allowed on this site but they should be students and they definitely must be contributing to the discussion in a way that will benefit the students who use this site.
To be clear, evolution supporters/ID detractors are allowed on this site but they should be students and they definitely must be contributing to the discussion in a way that will benefit the students who use this site.
Understood, but the challenges that are being directed to supporters of evolution involve a level of expertise best addressed by professional scientists, rather than even the most precocious high school student. And since those types of participants are not consistent with your vision of this site, another forum is probably better suited for addressing such challenges.
If ATBC is too far into hostile territory, perhaps Alan Fox could be prevailed upon to set up a thread at his blog.
Do you deny that languages are and have been devised by beings with intelligence? Did the C+ programming language come about through natural, unintelligent means? Was Morse Code not the product of Intelligent Design (by humans)? Is there any human language that came about without guidance from intelligent beings (humans)? When you look at the source code for a given web site, is it not clear that that entire system, including the creation of the HTML language, the browsers that read HTML, the computers within which all of this is possible, is all the product of Intelligent Design?
This is a brilliant observation; If you do not mind, I shall use it next time I am in an argument with an evolutionist. There is essentially no difference at all between computer languages like C++ and human languages like English. All languages have to be designed, and while they do change they can only change through hybredization.
Any time I speak, I have the choice of which words to say, and what not to say. That means I am designing my own language, and therefore language is more properly something that is intelligently designed rather than something that can evolve.
I suspect that there was some sort of incident in which the original human languages were all invented by the intelligent designer. It seems inconceivable that he could have designed us but not given is a language to speak.
Thank you, hblavatsky, however I certainlly didn't come up with that analogy myself. Bill Gates once said that "DNA is like a software program, but much more complex than anything we've been able to write."
I think the comprarison with software is a bit easier to see (as opposed to spoken or written language) because the computers that "read" the software are not themselves intelligent, just as the proteins, etc. that "read" DNA are also not intelligent.
With spoken or written languages, both the speaker AND the listener possess intelligence and even as the speaker uses his intelligence to choose words to communicate a particular concept, the listener also uses his intelligence to interpret and sometimes even provides error correction. No intent to go political here, but when George Bush pronounces the word "nuclear," it sounds like "nook-ya-lur"… (in his defense, this mispronunciation is quite common) the point is, we hear that and even though it's wrong, we are able to understand it.
There is no such error correction with software. If the syntax is wrong, it's wrong and the computer can't figure out what the programmer "really meant" to do. Obviously, there is error correction in the sense that when files are copied, the copy is compared with the original to ensure that both match, but this feature cannot be compared with my example above.
I agree, BTW, that an initial language was given to humans by the Intelligent Designer. (I believe the Intelligent Designer is God) And I believe that several other languages were somehow instituted at Babel as the Bible describes in Genesis 11. None of that has any direct relevance to the analogy because in each case, languages are the product of Intelligent Design.
If someone cannot see clearly this overwhelming evidence for Intelligent Design, it is only because their impenetrable bias will not allow them to see it.
TRoutMac
Intelligent (Graphic) Designer
explain once and for all how the genetic information which formed the first single-celled organism came to be.
Rather than being forced to visit ATBC, where it's hard to find anything of interest, I'll just point out the latest (if anyone knows of anything more recent, let me know) on this subject myself when it comes to the beginning of OOL:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1621
Solutions with as little as 1% enantiomeric excess (ee) of D- or L-phenylalanine are amplified to 90% ee (a 95/5 ratio) by two successive evaporations to precipitate the racemate [mixture]. Such a process on the prebiotic earth could lead to a mechanism by which meteoritic chiral {alpha}-alkyl amino acids could form solutions with high ee values that were needed for the beginning of biology.
1. A homochiral protein is of no use without a homochiral sugar to match with in the genetic code. Breslow and Levine refer to other researchers who have found possible ways this might have happened, though so far with only 10% success at best, and not under plausible prebiotic conditions.
2. It only worked with the alpha-alkyl amino acids (so far, although they said they are testing other kinds).
3. All the amino acid types would have to be left or right-handed. Consider that there are 20 different amino acids in living organisms (and please don’t start arguing over the definition of “living” :P ).
4. Unlike the protected and sterile environment of a lab, in realistic prebiotic conditions nothing is going to prevent the next natural disaster or even a medium-sized wave from messing it all up.
5. The need for repeated evaporations severely limits the physical space where all required ingredients could form and process their walk through configuration space. Now whether this walk is completely blind or random depends on whether certain chemical laws facilitate such processes.
6. This scenario rules out the deep-sea vent and open-ocean scenarios. Going by previous conferences that focus on abiogenesis, proponents of those views are undoubtedly going to search for any holes in this new scenario.
7. Evaporative environments expose the amino acids to destructive ultraviolet radiation.
8. There is still the problem of getting amino acids to link up into polypeptides which then need to form a functional sequence.
9. One mis-handed amino acid in a growing chain will still render it useless for biology. The chance for this happening, even if amino acids did link up somehow, grows with the length of the chain.
10. Even if a pure polypeptide formed, there still needs to be a genetic code that is also homochiral and capable of replicating.
Can someone please tell me why the fossil record proves that fishes appeared first, amphibians appeared second, reptiles third etc. Isn't that evolution recorded in rock?
Neo wrote:
"Can someone please tell me why the fossil record proves that fishes appeared first, amphibians appeared second, reptiles third etc. Isn't that evolution recorded in rock?"
Neo, I'm going to grant, just for the sake of discussion, that the fossil record does "prove that fishes appeared first, amphibians appeared second, reptiles third etc." I suspect someone else more knowledgable about the fossil record than I am will explain that the fossil record does not prove this, but for the moment I'll pretend that it does.
That fished appeared first, followed by amphibians, followed by reptiles need not be interpreted as "evolution recorded in rock." You certainly could interpret it that way if you were so inclined, but that you choose to interpret it that way does not make it correct.
Here's an example to illustrate my point. Imagine you discover a automobile wrecking yard partially buried in the desert. Let's say you start digging a hole, and you keep on digging until you reach a layer of automobiles that was apparently "the first". You note that the automobile at the bottom of the stack is a 1910 Hupmobile. The next car in the next layer is a 1925 Fiat Mephistopholes. The next car up is a 1934 Hispano-Suiza. Next car is a 1955 MGA, then a 1973 Triumph TR6, then a 1978 Ferrari Mondial, then a 1988 Chevrolet Corvette.
Now, just imagine you have no knowledge of these objects… maybe it's the year 2075 and you're the sole survivor of a nuclear holocaust. Whatever… point is, you don't know anything about the history of these automobiles. Should you conclude that the Chevrolet Corvette "evolved" from the 1910 Hupmobile? Is that the only possible interpretation of that evidence? You seem to think so in the case of the organisms you listed, but I think you can see that this is NOT the only possible interpretation. The Corvette, we know, did not "evolve" from the Hupmobile and the MGA is not an "intermediate". Rather, each car in the stack was designed and manufactured from scratch by beings with intelligence. That intelligent designers designed each car is another possible interpretation.
So, even IF the fossil record contains what you seem to believe it contains, Darwinian evolution is NOT the only possible interpretation. Another interpretation might be that an intelligent designer designed each organism, possibly even at different times, and that this intelligent designer used many of the same materials and design themes (along with many new ones) for each organism.
Now I'll step aside and permit someone else to address the assertion that I was willing to grant you.
TRoutMac
Intelligent (Graphic) Designer
I have been reading this blog and other articles and posts throughout this web site. I have not read one piece of proof for ID. It is all speculation, argumentative, assumptions, philosophical, conjecture and attacks on Evolution. Not one piece of scientific evidence has been presented to support ID. There have been some unsubstantiated claims that ID is being tested. But no mention of details. The Disocvery Institute is all PR. No discussion of data.
When an evolutionists makes their case, they have data and evidence to base it on. Their arguments stand on their own without attacking ID or creationism. Their data is public for you to analyze and criticize. It is out in the open. You may disagree with it but it is there for you to see. So evoltionist give you amunition to attack evolution, but you provide nothing in exchange to science to evaluate and analyze. All you can do is crticiize evolution puting scientist on the defensive. Thus hoping by discrediting evolution ID becomes accepted by default.
This is not scientific inquiry nor intellectually honest. So I ask where is your data? Show me something I can see and analyze myself. BTW Irreducible Complexity is not proof of ID. At best it disproves evolution. But disproving evolution does not prove ID by default. You have to prove ID without attacking evolution and provide its own supporting data. It has to stand on its own.
Since you cannot produce this evidence, you want to change scientific definitions and challange "materialism" as a basis of scientific inquiry. I am sorry, but this appears to me to be a pathetic attempt to retrofit science to support your religious beliefs.
jerseyguy wrote:
"I have not read one piece of proof for ID. It is all speculation, argumentative, assumptions, philosophical, conjecture and attacks on Evolution. Not one piece of scientific evidence has been presented to support ID."
Then it would appear that either of three things is true:
1) you cannot read
2) you did not read what you claimed you have read
3) you are so comitted to Darwinist dogma that you simply refuse to give the matter any serious thought
You're obviously able to type, so I find it hard to believe you can't read. And I'd rather not believe that you're lying and actually haven't read anything. Therefore, I'm concluding #3.
TRoutMac
Intelligent (Graphic) Designer
jerseyguy wrote:
"BTW Irreducible Complexity is not proof of ID. At best it disproves evolution."
Funny that you should say such a thing, because Michael Behe himself wouldn't even claim that irreducible complexity could disprove evolution. Proponents of ID (including Behe) do claim, however, that IC makes Darwinian evolution impossible. What's the difference? ID proponents do not deny natural selection or evolution in the general sense. Species do "evolve" over time within certain limits.
One thing that irreducible complexity demonstrates is simply that functional organisms cannot arise gradually from non-functional matter. Another thing it demonstrates is that natural selection is actually an impediment to macro-evolution. That is, it confines evolution to within a given body plan because new functional features cannot be built in a stepwise, gradual fashion.
Natural selection only acts on that which is functional. Therefore you have to have a functional organism before natural selection can do what it does. A single-celled organism, for example, cannot arise gradually, because the cell itself cannot function unless it has all of its parts in the proper place, doing the proper things to begin with. If doesn't function as a living cell, it cannot reproduce and thus natural selection never gets ahold of it. It's not complicated.
You badmouth any challenge to materialism, but you're obviously incapable of answering the daunting question that faces materialism. And of course, neither can any other materialist. It's a question I've asked in several discussions on this blog… certainly you've seen that question here as you have been reading articles throughout this site.
TRoutMac
Intelligent (Graphic) Designer
Jerseyguy says:
"When an evolutionists makes their case, they have data and evidence to base it on."
Well, in a previous post I said that persons not swayed by authoritative opinion would have some substantial evidence for believing that, for example, feathers evolved from scales. Darwinists say they did, and in absence of direct observational evidence (unfortunately that eludes us) the only evidence would therefore be finding a sequence of intergrading forms leading unambiguously from one form to another - or reconstructing the transition hypothetically by providing a plausible genealogy including all the intermediate forms and a thoroughly convincing explanation of how each stage of the transition came about. So, can you link the "data or evidence" they based this belief on?
Jerseyguy says:
"I am sorry, but this appears to me to be a pathetic attempt to retrofit science to support your religious beliefs."
I am not religious - so whats my motive?
To TroutMac & Ren; Evolution has been around for 150 years. It has been tested, challenged (still being challenged) been subjected to scrutiny, peer reviewed, and massive data has been collected. It has withstood the same level of scientific rigor and been through the same scientific methods of inquiry as all other areas of science.
ID is how old is science? 10 years, 20 years? Yet you want it to be regarded and respected as science on the same scale as evolution. Yet ID has not been through the same standards and scrutiny. It has not had 100 years to develop and grow. You basically want a shortcut to recognition by lowering the standards or change them to include your ID science.
At best, ID is just a hypothesis (not a scientific theory) with the burden of proof on ID advocates. Not for science to disprove. It is not ready for prime time and you need to go back to your lab, stop the PR campaign and test your hypotheses so it can develop into a prime scientific theory. All you have is an idea you cannot prove (or yet to prove) scientifically. You are hurting your own cause.
You (as well as other IDer’s) ask good questions and make interesting observations and have identified some interesting gaps in evolution. But how did you make the leap into ID from this? Why isn’t it just yet unanswered questions to be answered by science at a later time? You have an idea of intelligence design in nature because it appears so, or it is obviously implied or there is a gap in knowledge. But Appearances can be deceiving. This is not proof.
You need to prove it by accepted scientific standards as outlined by the National Academy of Science, not by your own standards. Until you do this, you have nothing scientifically and you are left to mindless bantering on weblogs, or a PR campaign to discredit evolution or an attempt to impose legally what you cannot prove scientifically.
All I am suggesting is to hold ID to the same scientific standards and rigor as evolution and all other areas of scientific inquiry. You need patience, hard work and time to develop a respected and meaningful scientific theory. What is the rush?
Jerseyguy:
You've recycled some very tired arguments against ID and I could respond to them (and I will if you want to have a reasonable discussion about it) but first things first. Please answer the following question:
Do you believe that scientific explanations of the origin of natural phenomena should be restricted to purely natural causes?
Thank you.
TRoutMac
Intelligent (Graphic) Designer
Do you believe that scientific explanations of the origin of natural phenomena should be restricted to purely natural causes?
I think we all know what answer Jerseyguy would give if he had the courage to return to this forum. I just bet he would answer that science should only concern it'self with the purely material explainations for any natural phenomena.
This notion has been debunked so many times on this site, plus by every major Christian scholar since Thomas Aquinas. How many more times will the atheist proponents of evoluion blunder into this obvious fallacy.
When somebody tells me that they do not believe that non-material explainations are valid, I allways ask them how they account for mankind's innate God-knowledge. This perception of God, and our ability to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ is a great example of something that will never be explained by materialism.
Jerseyguy writes:
"You (as well as other IDer’s) ask good questions and make interesting observations and have identified some interesting gaps in evolution."
Well, it is more than just interesting gaps or I for one would be an Darwinist. Lets be candid here, the gaps are enormous and cannot be bridged by a process of gradual evolution. I assume you had some difficulty finding the fossil and/or conceptual 'data' of the evolution of feathers from scales? And of course a feather does not make a bird, you would need a wholesale change in just about every aspect. This is not an interesting gap - it is evidence against Darwinism. One cannot have it both ways, if gradual transitions are evidence in favor of Darwinism, the reverse is evidence against Darwinism.
Jerseyguy writes:
"...But how did you make the leap into ID from this? Why isn’t it just yet unanswered questions to be answered by science at a later time?"
You assume science (by that I think you mean natural mechanisms) will explain how this transition occurred in the future. But it might never explain it from natural mechanisms. Your 'argument to the future' arguing that evidence will someday be discovered which will (then) support your point is fallacious. It is simply incorrect to say that, for instance, irreducibility is an unanswered question - we know it arises from intelligent sources. Therefore I would not conclude it to be a leap at all, rather a logical deduction.
Jerseyguy writes:
"You need to prove it by accepted scientific standards as outlined by the National Academy of Science, not by your own standards."
Specified complexity is actually a standard used by many scientific fields to detect intelligent design. In archeology we can detect intelligent design even without knowledge of the designer. In cases of a person's death we can determine whether it was accidental or deliberate (intelligent causation). The SETI project as you know, uses specified complexity as the method for indentifying a signal from intelligent little-green-men.
Jerseyguy writes:
"All I am suggesting is to hold ID to the same scientific standards and rigor as evolution and all other areas of scientific inquiry. You need patience, hard work and time to develop a respected and meaningful scientific theory. What is the rush?"
I agree. I think we have all those things u mention, my only concern is whether we have the time required (my passion is really climate change, and it is not looking good. But that is for another thread at another time and place!).
jerseyguy wrote:
"But how did you make the leap into ID from this? Why isn’t it just yet unanswered questions to be answered by science at a later time?"
Jerseyguy, have you ever heard the old saying "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush?"
You're making it all too obvious that, on a philisophical level, you just don't like the concept of an Intelligent Designer. Your objection to ID isn't scientific in nature, it's philisophical. You simply don't want to conclude Intelligent Design. It doesn't appeal to you personally. It rubs your world view the wrong way.
So even though Intelligent Design can easily provide an answer to, for example, the origin of complex specified information (ID is the "bird in the hand") and even though intelligence is the only source ever observed to have produced CSI, you want to go after something else that you hope one day will be able to provide an answer. That "something else" is the "two in the bush."
All of this because you're afraid that Intelligent Design might lend scientific support to an idea which you find loathesome and offensive… the idea that maybe, just maybe, God actually exists.
What that amounts to is this: You are the one who is letting your world view dictate how you will interpret scientific evidence. It's not us, it's YOU.
TRoutMac
Intelligent (Graphic) Designer
Rewind. Problem. "languages do not come into being apart from intelligent authorship".
Well hmmm. Are you sure? I'm thinking of the creolization of pidgin languages that if I'm not mistaken developed in infants as they fitted their parent's linguistic input through (purported) universal grammar constraints. Or the development of grammatical sign language in the Nicaraguan deaf study; was this not claimed to follow a "proliferate & prune" variation / select most effective form model?
Even our very own language that we are speaking right now. Where's the intelligent authorship? I speak it (sort of :-)) & don't have the first clue of it's underlying grammar. So how did my own idiolect come into being? Trial & error, surely
Trial & error & intelligence...surely.
When constrained properly by intelligence trial & error mechanisms can produce interesting results. See the GA Chess article.
littlejon wrote:
"Are you sure?"
Yes. And so are you, because the examples you provided both involved intelligence. Unless, of course, you believe that infants and Nicaraguan who can't hear lack intelligence.
You wanna convince me that language can arise from an unintelligent source? See if you can get a box of rocks to invent a language.
littlejon wrote:
"Even our very own language that we are speaking right now. Where's the intelligent authorship? I speak it (sort of :-)) & don't have the first clue of it's underlying grammar."
Obviously if you truly didn't have the "first clue" about English grammar, you wouldn't be able to speak or write coherently. You wouldn't know a verb from a noun, and you wouldn't know how to sequence them or combine with other parts of speech in order to construct a sentence and convey an idea. It's impossible to write a coherent sentence AND not know anything about grammar. Impossible. Now, you may not have to consciously think about grammar as you write or speak… but that's because you've been learned it well enough. It has become a second nature to you… not because it doesn't require thought, but because you have become proficient enough in that procedure that you're not even conscious of it when you do it. Same with walking. You don't think about walking as you're walking (although at one point in your life it took a great deal of concentration to keep from falling over) and yet you cannot walk unless you decide to walk. And deciding to walk requires a thought, even if you're not conscious of that thought when it happens.
TRoutMac
Intelligent (Graphic) Designer
Lets cut a long story short. Emergence. Of course Nicaraguans are "intelligent" but that's by-the-by, the language itself emerged from multiple parallel constraints (including, if you wish, Chomskyan innate parameters), not from anyone applying intelligence to the problem. I would have thought you'd be all for this, seeing as how Chomsky himself sems to blow hot & cold over the extent of NS explanations.
Ant colonies. Operate apparently to a purpose, a grammar almost. But they aren't invented, they emerge from millions of ants. Same with languages; they just are not invented, they emerge from the recursive behaviour of millions of interacting speakers. No really, except for Esperanto, noone has ever "invented" a language. This doesn't count against your main point, it just was a bad example.
Lets put "you cannot walk unless you decide to walk" down to a slip. Walking robot machines walk but don't decide to walk. Massive emergence of behaviour from environmental feedback. So the information kinds of "bubbles up" from below. No need for top down. Is any of this ringing a bell? Hehe...
... & lets be the first to clarify; no, walking robot machines are NOT designed by humans specifically to walk. They "learn" from the feedback, with no human being able to predict or preprogram what form this will take...
littlejon wrote:
"the language itself emerged from multiple parallel constraints (including, if you wish, Chomskyan innate parameters), not from anyone applying intelligence to the problem.'
I can scarcely imagine a more hilarious attempt to avoid the obvious conclusion. It's to be expected, I suppose. Languages have to be devised. Organized. Rules of grammar, syntax have to be established. Did programming languages like BASIC, Pascal and C++ devised by intelligent beings, or did those languages just suddenly work somehow? Does Bill Gates employ programmers with intelligence? If language just spews forth of its own accord, then why should he employ programmers?
littlejon wrote:
"Walking robot machines walk but don't decide to walk…"
Yeah, littlejon, that's because they don't possess intelligence! Anyway, obviously you missed my point completely. Might I suggest that you read our arguments more carefully and not focus so much on fabricating your escape routes? This really isn't that complicated.
littlejon wrote:
"Massive emergence of behaviour from environmental feedback. So the information kinds of "bubbles up" from below."
Oh, so "kind of bubbles up from below" is your scientific explanation for the origin of information?
littlejon wrote:
"…walking robot machines are NOT designed by humans specifically to walk. They "learn" from the feedback, with no human being able to predict or preprogram what form this will take..."
This is just too funny. Walking robots not designed to walk? You've got to be kidding. Of course they were designed to walk. They may be designed to "learn" to walk as you describe (or not, depending upon the robot) but designed to walk they most certainly were. You make some of the best arguments for Intelligent Design.
TRoutMac
Intelligent (Graphic) Designer
Gentleman/Ladies - I am new to this blog so I apologize if i am recycling old arguments.
Too many questions/arguments back to me for me to address them all. But your replies validate my first post in this blog. You have yet to provide any solid scientific evidence for design. You fall back on challanging darwinism, introduce religion and provide philosophical arguments. You want to channel the discussion into your comfort zone.
Troutmac - I do not mean to be evavsive, but your question to me "Do you believe that scientific explanations of the origin of natural phenomena should be restricted to purely natural causes?" - Is philosophical and does not answer my question. Your question proposes a redefinition of science. Your off in a dream world if this going to happen.
But quizzelstick has the answer. If I were only a Christian I would see this more clearly. Your arguments valiate ID is religion not science. (BTW, do realize that there is a materialistic answer to God? Scientists have found the region of the brain related to spirtual and religious experiences).
Ren - you just need to disprove Darwinism so ID will be true by default. Fill the gaps with the supernatural. I will not fall into your trap of discussing evolution. Evolution is irrelevant. I asked for proof for ID.
With all due respect, no serious scientist will take these arguments seriously.
I only asked you a simple question. Where is the scientific proof for ID? You respond with philosophical arguments and challenges to Darwinism. If you cannot convence me then you will never convence the people that really matter. The Scientific community. For that you need proof in the material world. You cannot change science to accomodate your beliefs.
I will not bother you any more with my tired old arguments. I will let you all have the last word. Thank you for your replies.
Jerseyguy writes:
"Ren - you just need to disprove Darwinism so ID will be true by default. Fill the gaps with the supernatural. I will not fall into your trap of discussing evolution."
Nowhere did I say that by disproving Darwinism proves ID. I said the lack of transitions between scales and feathers (for example) is more than just interesting gaps - it is evidence against Darwinism. Do not label me an IDer or religious, I am nether. I am an empiricist who would rather have no theory of origins than one so vacuous as Darwinism. That is the problem with empiricists, we do not care much for speculative theories - would you be prepared to reject a vacuous theory and be content with no all-encompassing explanation of origins?
Jerseyguy writes:
"Evolution is irrelevant. I asked for proof for ID."
Darwinism is not irrelevant, your interesting attempt to shield it under the umbrella of apparent irrelevancy only serves to stop me asking you what you asked me (ie show me proof for Darwinism). Where are the the transitions between scales and feathers? In other words, what are you filling the gaps with, we know its neither evidence or the supernatural?
Jerseyguy writes:
"I only asked you a simple question. Where is the scientific proof for ID?"
I already gave you a response to this - specified complexity / irreducibility in natural systems. Specified complexity is a standard used by many scientific fields, do not claim it is merely an unanswered question to be later explaned by natural mechanisms (a fallacious argument to the future) we know it arrises from intelligence. You may not like it, but it explains the origin of the structure without necessitating the argument to the future. So let me throw this back at you, provide me evidence that Darwinism can produce either specified complexity or irreducibility. Show me the transitions between scales and feathers, this is not ID by default, specified complexity is a standard for detecting design - you must prove that it itself is a fallacious argument.
Jerseyguy writes:
"If you cannot convence me then you will never convence the people that really matter."
I am not in the business of converting anyone to ID. I, like you, worry that if Darwinism were to be replaced by ID that we would simply replace one worldview with another - the another with the potential to be hijacked by fanatical religious persons that hold the Bible as incontrovertible truth. My view is simple, if the theory cannot stand on its own, let it fall. I would far rather science take each adaptation (such as a feather) and apply the best explanation to it (if we have one), rather than have the starting position be simply Darwinism or Intelligent Design.
I already gave you a response to this - specified complexity / irreducibility in natural systems. Specified complexity is a standard used by many scientific fields, do not claim it is merely an unanswered question to be later explaned by natural mechanisms (a fallacious argument to the future) we know it arrises from intelligence. You may not like it, but it explains the origin of the structure without necessitating the argument to the future. So let me throw this back at you, provide me evidence that Darwinism can produce either specified complexity or irreducibility. Show me the transitions between scales and feathers, this is not ID by default, specified complexity is a standard for detecting design - you must prove that it itself is a fallacious argument.
Exactly, there are so many gaps in the fossil record. This absence of evidence is some of the biggest evidence we have for the proof of ID. The only time that evolution will be proven is when every single gap known to science has been closed. That is prrof, and that is REAL science, not this absurd theorizing that proponents of evolution go in for.
By definition irreducable complexity is something that cannot have come about via evolution. If irreducable complex structures exist then by definition evolution does not account for ALL natural structures.
That means proponents of ID only have to identify a SINGLE natural structure that exhibits irreducable complexity and the whole pack of lies that is evolution will colapse.
Irreducable complexity is real science, confirmed by many biologists. Michael Behe alone has found at least three structures each of which is currently believed to be irreducably complex. No independant research has attempted to dispute these facts, and therefore they must stand.
Evolutionists, dont you think it's odd that no "evo-devo" scientists have researched the clotting-cascade, bacterial flagellum or any of the other structures that Behe has found to be IC? There is not a single research paper addressing these issues.
jerseyguy wrote:
"I do not mean to be evavsive, but your question to me "Do you believe that scientific explanations of the origin of natural phenomena should be restricted to purely natural causes?" - Is philosophical and does not answer my question. Your question proposes a redefinition of science. Your off in a dream world if this going to happen."
Yes, in fact you DO mean to be evasive, and in fact you did evade. I asked you a question. My question does not "propose a redefinition of science." It simply asks you where you stand on a particular question.
Perhaps you read some of my other posts in other areas and you know where the question leads.
The fact is, that the naturalist/materialist approach which I suspect you are married to leads you down a dead end. You cannot invoke something material, natural to explain the existence or origin of material or nature. This is simply bogus logic and obviously so.
If you insist that we need to do it anyway, in spite of this obvious circularity, then you're saying one of two things: 1) science shouldn't pursue truth, or 2) matter and energy are eternal and don't need to be explained.
The trouble with number 2 is that it doesn't appear to jive with current scientific thinking. If the universe had a beginning, then matter and energy did, too because matter and energy are part of the universe.
So that leaves you with number one, where science doesn't pursue truth.
Are you comfortable with that?
TRoutMac
Intelligent (Graphic) Designer
"Do you believe that scientific explanations of the origin of natural phenomena should be restricted to purely natural causes?"
Define "natural" and then we might be able to talk intelligently about this issue.
merkur wrote:
"Define "natural" and then we might be able to talk intelligently about this issue."
What I described is the concept of 'methodological naturalism'. "Natural" is, quite properly, a broad term. I take it to mean anything in the observable realm. You can reduce it to "matter, energy and their interaction" if you like, that's fine with me. You could describe it also as that which is "material"… again, tangible or observable.
A "natural phenomenon" is simply any example of matter, energy or their interaction whose origin needs to be explained.
A "natural cause" would simply be an example of matter and energy (and their interaction) within this 'natural' realm which might explain the natural phenomenon.
Methodological naturalim claims that natural phenomena must only be explained by reference to natural causes. So, the question is, given those definitions, do you beileve that this is a necessary limitation of scientific pursuit?
TRoutMac
Intelligent (Graphic) Designer
Since you define "natural" to mean "anything in the observable realm", your question:
"Do you believe that scientific explanations of the origin of natural phenomena should be restricted to purely natural causes?"
becomes
"Do you believe that scientific explanations of the origin of observable phenomena should be restricted to purely observable causes?"
This is the definition of the scientific method, surely? In which case, this is a circular question - essentially, you're asking
"Do you believe that scientific explanations of the origin of natural phenomena should be restricted to scientific method?"
Could you please formulate a non-circular question so that it's actually possible to answer it, please.
Gee...philosophy defined as being Science. No, I'm not surprised. That's the usual Darwinist chicanery. People would benefit from reading up on the philosophy of science.
In any case, some might find this comment by scordova interesting:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/2010
There are two issues:
1. Is there an ultimate uncaused cause? (hence the question who designed the designer)
2. What is the nature of the uncaused cause?
In general the answer to #1 is a qualified "yes". If one is a materialist, the ultimate uncaused cause is matter and energy or some other "material". If one is a theist the answer is God.
Since #1 is for the most part true for every world view that admits causation, what is the answer to #2? The way the materialist answer can be demolished is to use a proof by contradiction, whereby one assumes materialism is true, and then demonstrate that this assumption leads to a contradiction (for the readers benefit, see a classic example of this in mathematics Reductio ad absurdum.)
That's the general gist of Wigner's invocation of non-material causes for the material universe. That part of argument is solid. Whether the non-material entity is intelligent is a matter of reasonable inference. For example, you can't formally prove there are other conscious beings in the universe aside from yourself, you have to make a certain degree of assumption. By way of extension, we infer the non-material cause of the universe is probably intelligent based on the fact that intelligent beings have been shown to be a trigger in laboratory quantum experiments like the double slit delayed choice experiment.
Let me suggest the two following essays:
and
Though I'd add that one could still be a "materialist" in a different sense if you allow for the possible extension of nature beyond the known.
merkur wrote:
"This is the definition of the scientific method, surely? In which case, this is a circular question - essentially, you're asking:
"Do you believe that scientific explanations of the origin of natural phenomena should be restricted to scientific method?""
The question I asked you was not circular. It requires a simple "Yes" or "No" answer, with or without an explanation. In the event that the premise described in the question strikes you as being circular, then your answer would have to be "No, I don't agree with that (or believe it) because the premise is circular."
My question was simply "Do you believe (or agree with) [insert premise here]?" Answer in the affirmative or the negative as you feel appropriate. Nothing circular in the structure of that question whatsoever.
Nonetheless, I will rephrase the question so as to avoid any further misunderstanding:
Barbara Forrest describes methodological naturalism as a "scientific procedural protocol of seeking only natural explanations of natural
phenomena.”
So the question for you is, "Do you agree that [what Forrest describes] is a reasonable and absolute governor for scientific pursuit?"
Again, that's a "Yes" or "No" question, and feel free to explain why, if you like.
TRoutMac
Intelligent (Graphic) Designer
Bit parochial - I'm not
Bit parochial - I'm not convinced that when it comes to accepting scientific theory "the only court that counts: The American People.". Surely in fact scientistsa all over the world are another court that counts. Science is not decided "democratically" - at one point we all had the sun going round the earth but it still didn't. Similarly, the "American people" (again, do please remember the other 200-odd countries) can think what they like, it won't change the actual history of life