It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Testing Intelligent Design Theory?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Its saying that metaphysical theology is a valid part of scientific investigation, regardless of what we want to call it, its a dead scientific issue. Dead since paley no?

Well, I suppose that’s true in the mind of some people. However, if it were really a dead issue, we likely would not be having this discussion, there wouldn’t be referendums being passed dictating what should and shouldn’t be taught in public schools, institutes like the CSC wouldn’t exist, ID clubs wouldn’t be popping up on campuses, etc.


ID and CSC are effectively branches of the same organization.


Hence my statement “the Discovery Institute’s CSC”


Then why say that the designer isn't a god?


Not saying that… the point is you IDT can’t reveal information about the designer, not that it’s refusing to, but it cannot. Big difference. Anyway, who’s saying it isn’t God. Behe acknowledges in his personal opinion it’s God, same thing with Dembski, Johnson, Wells, etc. They don’t deny that it’s God, but they do deny being able to generate any proof or scientific evidence that it’s God.


If its postulating something other than naturalism, then its a metaphyics.


If it’s postulating something other than naturalism, it’s non-naturalistic. The definition of metaphysics that I am used to dealing with is something akin to explaining the nature of things beyond reality. Information theory and the concept of IC are not beyond reality. By that very same definiton the theory of abiogenesis could be defined as metaphysics. It completely violates cell theory, has never been observed, there’s no precedent for it, efforts to ‘test’ for it are severely lacking… one could say the same about self-organization theories with respect to biological systems.


Because the rubric that seti proposes to detect design is sensible, whereas the rubric for intelligent design, ie that we 'don't know' the naturalistic steps that resulted in a structure, isn't.


Hmmmm… again, maybe if you’d actually read some IDT you’d understand that IDT isn’t an argument from ignorance. Dembski, in fact, has proposed a rubric to detect design. Dembski wants to approach this problem scientifically with a rubric to test design for design. Why is Dembski’s rubric unscientific but SETI’s isn’t? Behe has a whole series of experiments proposed to test for IC, except he’ll probably never be able to get funding again, at least any sort of peer-reviewed funding. So we have a rubric, and someone with testable hypotheses, my rough sketch of an experiment aside, why is IDT unscientific?


Becuase there is no reason to think that merely because a slective pressure is applied that it will result in the 'right' mutations to create the proteins.


No reason except that bugs have adapted to pretty much every conceivable man-made environment they’ve ever been exposed to, and the Hall experiments, and the nylonase bugs. Hall performed his experiments; given a certain amount of starting material bugs did re-evolve a protein with a complimentary function, not necessarily the same protein.


Sure, because in that instance the id 'hypothesis', that there is irreducible complexity or specifed complexity, insofar as it can be refuted, was refuted. The alternate experiment doesn't refute the hypothesis that natural selection was the mechanism for change.


Actually, whether or not Hall’s experiments refute IC has been done to death, and is not an argument that I wish to rehash here. Whether or not it refutes ID isn’t even germane to my argument. I was merely using this experiment as a basis for hypothesis generation. The purpose of the experiment is not to refute natural selection. Natural selection is an undeniable reality; what is being refuted is the notion that NDT mechanisms are sufficient to account for IC structures and ultimately origins of complex biological information/structures. Natural selection is not being tested or even challenged by IDT. Like it or not, critical nucleotides, portions of genes, and entire genes are knocked out all the time, and secondary or other mutations often compensate. There in fact is a basis in reality for testing IC systems via elimination of genes.


Darwin's theory of natural selection as the mechanism of evolutionary change can be falsified by having organisms that evolve without increasing their fitness, or that change without selection being applied to them, or in a number of such ways.

Darwin notes, as pointed out here


If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.


How can this be proven? You can’t prove this. This is something – just like the other statement about organs etc – that absolutely can’t be proven. Furthermore, this is a test to disprove natural selection as a mechanism for change, which… again… is not in dispute.


There's lots of ways the darwin's hypothesis itself can be falsified. As far as individual hypotheses of phylogeny, they too can be falsified, they're built up as an analysis of the evidence, contradictory evidence can certainly appear.


In fact, especially when one considers molecular phylogenies, contradictory evidence DOES appear… hence the rise of theories such as IDT. Phylogenies can’t be falsified anyway… they’re retrodictions based on accumulated data. They can be supported or not, but certainly not falsified.


It would seem that it would suggest that information is flowing from the environement to the genome, which violates the so-called 'dogma' of biology, but why does this matter, with respect to what we are talking about? It doesn't mean that any organism should allways form a 'needed' protein, no matter what the circumstances.


Why does it matter? It’s hugely significant. As you point out it suggests that information is flowing from the environment to the genome. I’ll take it a step further and state that it suggests the environment induces the cell to alter at least some portions of its genome. Furthermore, it violates a huge tenet of NDT, that evolution is the result of random genetic changes. If genetic change is intentionally induced in cells as a result of environmental cues, it’s time for significant modification of Darwinian theories.

Certainly there is no always in science, but the fact that organisms have adapted so well, and occupied environments thought not possible including radioactive waste suggest that adaptation mechanisms are remarkably efficient. This coupled with the Hall experiments, and the other rescue mutations commonly observed in molecular work, suggest that these are reasonable experiments, irrespective of whether or not you’re skeptical they’ll work.


However, it looks like many are theorizing that the nylonase proteins arise from a frameshift of repetitive DNA


The origin of the nylonase gene is not in dispute. What was being disputed was the time in which the change occurred. Thanks for the link, but as you know I am familiar with TO archive. That ref. you posted - was that the one where the guy describes the time scale for nylon degradation evolution as being somewhat slow for the random processes of evolution, and then doesn’t even have the decency to post a ref. backing that claim up? I got a kick out of that. What other enzyme has been has been observed to evolve de novo in that amount of time?




posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 09:58 AM
link   
I'm not so sure that we can say that because there is a revival in interesting in Paley-like intelligent design that that means that it was never properly laid to rest.


Originally posted by mattison0922
IDT can’t reveal information about the designer, not that it’s refusing to, but it cannot.

I see, the idea on its own informs one some characteristics of the designer, ie that it was intelligent, but not much else. Tho I think a logical conclusion of the whole thing is that the ultimate designer must be supernatural no? Does this not affect the scientific 'status' of the theory, because ultimately it appeals to the supernatural? Or rather, is that a fair judgement? Considering that 'natural selection' might similarly be taken to 'logically conclude' that there is no metaphysical involvment? However I'm not so sure that that 'conclusion' is as strongly implied as it is with intelligent design.

Information theory and the concept of IC are not beyond reality.

Agreed but the application of IC to naturally occuring structures is no? Appealing to non-naturalistic methods by which they've come about is the non-naturalistic complaint.

It completely violates cell theory, has never been observed, there’s no precedent for it, efforts to ‘test’ for it are severely lacking

But these theories do no ultimately appeal to supernatural involvement. Irreducible Complexity is non-naturalistic because of that, and on the other hand is also un-scientific in that it states that because no previous components can be thought of that therefore they must possibly exist.

Why is Dembski’s rubric unscientific but SETI’s isn’t?

Because he 'detects' design by stating that he cannot see how a thing could've arisen via natural selection or reducible stages, whereas radio signals aren't subject to the forces of natural selection.


Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Club
[dembski] presented a new revised version of irreducible complexity:
• 1. Removal of one part destroys original function.
• 2. Removal of multiple parts kills system's original function
• 3. System has numerous complex interacting parts
• 4. System is minimally complex in relation to its minimal function for selective advantage. [...]
Darwin's unpayable debt was thus the fact that natural selection is incapable of producing irreducibly complex structures, as defined above.


Where is the demonstration the natural selection can't produce a thing that, when it has multiple parts removed, looses its function? I don't understand how it can be see as Dembski is ignoring that natural selection can make obejects that are complex, how can we demonstrate that they aren't possessing specified complexity and irreducible complexity? Merely because of the probability of the components forming? The definitions of intelligent design theory, as those above, are meaningless, they aren't testable, they aren't refutable. An object with specified complexity can't be said to be scientifically said to have formed from the exclusive action of an intelligent agent, that 'ontogeny' isn't testable.



except that bugs have adapted to pretty much every conceivable man-made environment they’ve ever been exposed to

That means that we can be surprised perhaps when it doesn't, but it doesn't mean that it must happen each time.


what is being refuted is the notion that NDT mechanisms are sufficient to account for IC structures

This is a definitional immpossibility tho, since IC structures by definition can't have been formed by anything like natural selection. The question is whether or not the proposed structures are Irreducibly Complex, and you can only show that by showing that its immpossible for natural selection to have made them in the first place, not that no one knows if they have been formed by natural selection.


How can this[formed for the exclusive good of another species] be proven?

If natural selection isn't operating by advancing fitness and adaptation then organisms like flowers would have parts that provide them with no benefit but give a benefit to another organism.

Phylogenies can’t be falsified anyway… they’re retrodictions based on accumulated data.

A phylogeny is a hypothesis about relationships, it can be refuted by having evidence that changes the realtionship no?

If genetic change is intentionally induced in cells as a result of environmental cues, it’s time for significant modification of Darwinian theories.

Why? An environmental condition can result in, say, the alteration of the proteins responsible for suppression and correction of mutations, and thus result in more mutation and more chance of hitting upon a 'correct' adaptation. There is no 'intent' here tho. Its not as if the environment is informing, in one way or another, that nylon in particular is present and then the genome computes a way to permit sections of the genome that could be mutated to produce nylonase to now mutate.

The origin of the nylonase gene is not in dispute.

But if its just a frameshift, causing already existant material to be 'read' differently, then how could the environment be informing the genome about anything? The environment would have to know that there are regions in the genome that could potentially produce a nylonase, and then alter the genome to permit a frame shift in that region.

Also, its not like all bugs do this. Its simply a case where this genetic component, pre-frameshift, was, after a frameshift, beneficial, in that environment. Remove that pre-frameshift material, and the bugs undoubtedly wouldn't produce nylonase. Other bugs don't. And these particular bugs wouldn't necessarily produce some other digestive enzyme given some other substrate.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
I'm not so sure that we can say that because there is a revival in interesting in Paley-like intelligent design that that means that it was never properly laid to rest.

Okay… whatever. The temporal ‘spin’ is less important than the issue itself. Irrespective of whether or not the issue was ever properly laid to rest or if it’s revived the issue DOES exist and we’re here discussing it.


I see, the idea on its own informs one some characteristics of the designer, ie that it was intelligent, but not much else.

Hmmm… I don’t see why this is so difficult for people. It’s an origins hypothesis. It assumes only one thing at it’s essence: some aspects of the existing universe are best explained by an intelligent cause. With respect to biological origins: It is an attempt to address some of the major issues surrounding origins biology from an alternative perspective. Science is about hypothesis formation and test, not about one’s metaphysical presuppositions.


Tho I think a logical conclusion of the whole thing is that the ultimate designer must be supernatural no?

Yes, you and I have had this discussion, and I did concede this to you. Irrespective of whether or not ET’s are even capable of designing complex systems is irrelevant. At some point ET’s would have had to have been created by some seemingly supernatural ‘force’ for lack of a better explanation. Now, I don’t care to turn this into a theological discussion, but that ‘force’ wouldn’t necessarily have to be a ‘personal’ God, as would be assumed by most monotheists. There certainly exists the Brahmain (sp?) perspective and probably other similar perspectives. But I digress…

Yes, I concede this: IMO, ID DOES in fact rely on the presence of some ‘supernatural’ force.

But this doesn’t change the fundamental issue of not being able to comment on the nature of the designer. I don’t see why this is an issue. IDT still functions within the realm of methodological naturalism irrespective of its metaphysical presuppositions.


Does this not affect the scientific 'status' of the theory, because ultimately it appeals to the supernatural?

Absolutely not. Please see my above rebuttal involving the distinction between methodological and metaphysical naturalism.


Considering that 'natural selection' might similarly be taken to 'logically conclude' that there is no metaphysical involvment?

Actually, I disagree with statement… I think. If what you’re saying is ID and NDT (NDT, not Natural Selection, IDT has NO issue with NS) are more or less similar because the metaphysical presupposition doesn’t affect the outcome, then I disagree. NDT assumes that there in fact IS a naturalistic explanation for origins. Orgel has stated something along the line of it’s not a question of if there is a naturalistic explanation, it’s a matter of which explanation is correct. That’s a pretty frickin’ big assumption, especially coming from a leader in a field that in the opinion of many, hasn’t produced anything approaching a reasonable hypothesis re: origins.

As I mentioned in an earlier reply in this same thread, I personally think of IDT as a lack of a metaphysical presupposition: Maybe there is a naturalistic explanation, and maybe there isn’t. Many people doubt it. But, NO ONE, including the Creation Scientists think origins biology, or origins science in general should cease… Everyone from the evolutionists to the YEC’s are interested in performing science that might help clarify the answer. Why is this inherently bad ?

If an origins hypothesis is capable of operating within the realm of methodological naturalism, it shouldn’t be excluded and misrepresented simply because people find it distasteful.


Originally posted by mattison0922
Information theory and the concept of IC are not beyond reality.

Originally posted by Nygdan; special emphasis by mattison0922
Agreed but the application of IC to naturally occuring structures is no? Appealing to non-naturalistic methods by which they've come about is the non-naturalistic complaint.

Ahhh yes… now we get into the essence of the argument. Please note the bolded text in your quote from above. IDTist’s have not in fact, “appealed to non-naturalistic methods.” I grant you the non-naturalistic metaphysical presupposition, but definitely not the non-naturalistic methodology. This is an incredibly important distinction.


But these theories do no ultimately appeal to supernatural involvement. Irreducible Complexity is non-naturalistic because of that, and on the other hand is also un-scientific in that it states that because no previous components can be thought of that therefore they must possibly exist.

Untrue. IC doesn’t state that “no previous components can be thought of that therefore they must [not] exist.” Obviously, IC systems can be cobbled together slipshod any old way as www.talkdesign.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> Matzke’s horrifically cobbled together piece of garbage indicates. The point is not that they can’t be thought of, it’s that there is no evidence for them.

Perhaps, you can provide a reasonable explanation involving an NDT-like mechanism that might explain the origins of even one component of photosynthetic apparatus of cyanobacteria. Go ahead and search TO and even PubMed till your heart’s content.

IMO, and I got my Ph.D. at pretty much the most prestigious photosynthesis research center in the entire world, there isn’t one. Perhaps it is time we approached the problem from with a different hypothesis. What’s so horrible about this? And more importantly, how does this some how negatively affect science as some would have us believe?


Originally posted by mattison0922
Why is Dembski’s rubric unscientific but SETI’s isn’t?

Originally posted by Nygdan
Because he 'detects' design by stating that he cannot see how a thing could've arisen via natural selection or reducible stages, whereas radio signals aren't subject to the forces of natural selection.
Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Club
[dembski] presented a new revised version of irreducible complexity:
• 1. Removal of one part destroys original function.
• 2. Removal of multiple parts kills system's original function
• 3. System has numerous complex interacting parts
• 4. System is minimally complex in relation to its minimal function for selective advantage. [...]
Darwin's unpayable debt was thus the fact that natural selection is incapable of producing irreducibly complex structures, as defined above.


Okay… what does Dembski’s definition of IC have to with his Rubric for detecting design… Oh yeah… I see. You’re confused. Dembski does not detect design “by stating that he cannot see how a thing could've arisen via natural selection or reducible stages…” as you suggest.

Sigh… Of course, you’d know that if you’d actually read any of his stuff.


So… one more time: WHY is Dembski’s rubric unscientific, but SETI’s isn’t? My suggestion would be to spend $5 on amazon and actually analyze some of his stuff for yourself. Hell, you can even sell the book back, then you’ll have invested what… $3 and several hours of your time.

Then we won’t have to spend 4 or 5 posts within a thread clarifying definitions and misconceptions.


Where is the demonstration the natural selection can't produce a thing that, when it has multiple parts removed, looses its function?

There isn’t one. In fact, I proposed just such a set of experiments that you’ve been trying to shoot down for a few posts now. In fact, I proposed such demonstrations, and even proposed mechanisms to ensure success. I further pointed out that a test for a naturalistic definition is often a test for IC.
So what gives? I propose more-or-less the exact set of experiments you described, and you describe them as being unrealistic or unscientific. Now a couple of posts later you’re asking ‘Where are these experiments?’ what’s up with that?

I don't understand how it can be see as Dembski is ignoring that natural selection can make obejects that are complex,

Is Dembski ignoring this? I don’t think he is. I am less familiar with his stuff, as it’s a lot more math oriented than I care to regularly indulge in. But Behe certainly isn’t ignoring this. Behe concedes that NS can involve complex things. Behe probably believes that the hemoglobin system is derived from the myoglobin system. Behe and probably Dembski, don’t have a problem with NS creating complex things. The point is IC is not complexity in general.
Let’s turn the tables for a moment: What IC system can be described as absolutely having evolved via NS? What IC system specifically are you referring to that NS has ‘evolved?’ Could we please try to stick to concrete things, not retrodictions involving presuppositions of common ancestry. Behe’s perspective, my perspective and your own personal perspective aside: Which IC (systems involving many cooperative, interacting, and necessary pieces) can be said to have been observed to have come about via natural selection?

how can we demonstrate that they aren't possessing specified complexity and irreducible complexity? Merely because of the probability of the components forming?

Not sure if I understand your point. But I don’t see why basing inferences in part, on probability is a bad thing. Statistics obviously has its place in science, why are Dembski’s probabilistic assumptions somehow inferior to the rest of the mathematics community?

The definitions of intelligent design theory, as those above, are meaningless, they aren't testable, they aren't refutable. An object with specified complexity can't be said to be scientifically said to have formed from the exclusive action of an intelligent agent, that 'ontogeny' isn't testable.

Well, we have discussed the fact that there STILL exists a fair amount of confusion in this thread re: IDT.


Originally posted by mattison0922
except that bugs have adapted to pretty much every conceivable man-made environment they’ve ever been exposed to

Originally posted by Nygdan
That means that we can be surprised perhaps when it doesn't, but it doesn't mean that it must happen each time.

Man… Nygdan, I thought you were some kind of scientist. What scientist believes their experiments will work every time? I know a lot of lab techs that expect this, and they should. Their stuff is worked out, and is not basic research. The norm for experimental science and basic research – especially that involving new theories and ideas, is notoriously filled with failure. A buddy of mine took more than 10 years to get his Ph.D. because it took him more than 6 to crystallize the protein… mind you this was the FIRST membrane protein to be crystallized… he toughed it out because he had faith in his hypothesis. Science would make no real progress if it weren’t for people such as this.
Your experiments don’t work? Welcome to the world of basic research.

This is a definitional immpossibility tho, since IC structures by definition can't have been formed by anything like natural selection. The question is whether or not the proposed structures are Irreducibly Complex, and you can only show that by showing that its immpossible for natural selection to have made them in the first place, not that no one knows if they have been formed by natural selection.

However, again you’ve missed the point. If you can show that components of an allegedly IC system can in fact be replaced by components ‘put in place’ by natural selection, the system is not necessarily IC. People assume the flagella was gradually improved upon over time to its optimal state. Why not push it back to a suboptimal state and see if it can re-evolve analogous components… not necessarily the same protein, which you wouldn’t expect, but a new protein to replace the old. You could carry out thousands of generations in a couple of months using bacteria. Furthermore your sample size would be… well pretty big, so it doesn’t “have to happen each time.” As you suggest.


If natural selection isn't operating by advancing fitness and adaptation then organisms like flowers would have parts that provide them with no benefit but give a benefit to another organism.

Yeah… ummmm, I was not really interested in a specific example. I can visualize what you’re saying. The point is you can’t prove this idea. You can’t say that something has no benefit for an organism. That’s the appeal of Darwinism isn’t it? You can in fact account for pretty much anything… Furthermore, the notion of something providing an organism no benefit is hubris, a huge presupposition, and pretty much what many allege ID to be, specifically, an argument from ignorance. Its like the incredibly unfortunate term 'junk DNA.' Simply because we don't understand the purpose of something doesn't make it functionless.


A phylogeny is a hypothesis about relationships, it can be refuted by having evidence that changes the realtionship no?

No. Why is one phylogeny more appropriate than another. Why is a molecular phylogeny based on the gamma subunit of the ATP synthase more correct than one based on cytochrome c? Why are they inferior to those based on Ribosomal proteins or RNA’s? Phylogenies either support one another, or they don’t, but they’re not falsifiable.


Originally posted by mattison0922
If genetic change is intentionally induced in cells as a result of environmental cues, it’s time for significant modification of Darwinian theories.


Originally posted by Nygdan
Why? An environmental condition can result in, say, the alteration of the proteins responsible for suppression and correction of mutations, and thus result in more mutation and more chance of hitting upon a 'correct' adaptation. There is no 'intent' here tho. Its not as if the environment is informing, in one way or another, that nylon in particular is present and then the genome computes a way to permit sections of the genome that could be mutated to produce nylonase to now mutate.

Okay… in the case of this specific example that you’ve pulled completely out your imagination, yes you are correct.
However, I disagree with about ‘intent.’ No one implied that the environment is ‘informing that nylon is there.’ In REALITY, the environment does however send messages of stress, ie: feast or famine, chemotaxic signals, etc., to the nucleus. The nucleus responds by altering expression patterns. There is considerable evidence besides this example to suggest that in times of starvation and other stress, bacteria and other organisms engage in a highly directed hypermutation of certain regions of the genome. The cell is intending to adapt the population to circumstances. I would like to address this specific statement now:

, its not like allbugs do this

I agree, and this is an incredibly important point. The bug that this happened to in particular has a penchant for this type of activity. P. aeruginosa has demonstrated the ability to degrade a wide variety of xenobiotic compounds. This coupled with the fact that it can evolve its ability from complete naivety to nylon oligomers in as little as nine days, and the fact the organism maintains plasmids that seem to be speicifically associated with this ability suggest that this organism is ‘designed’ if you will, for just such a purpose. Could be a great model organism to test IC hypotheses!!!


But if its just a frameshift, causing already existant material to be 'read' differently, then how could the environment be informing the genome about anything? The environment would have to know that there are regions in the genome that could potentially produce a nylonase, and then alter the genome to permit a frame shift in that region.

That’s absurd; the environment doesn’t have ‘know’ something. Do you have any idea how your immune system functions? Cells engage in hypermutation of particular regions of the genome; they just keep ‘trying’ until they get to a combination that works or you die. The cell doesn’t ‘know’ what its target is. It’s getting signals from the nucleus to engage in hypermutation of specific regions on the genome. Yes, the cell, not the environment, ‘knows’ that there are particular regions that will produce effective antibodies when mutated. This is completely analogous to the situation in the nylonase bug. Furthermore the bug even protects the integrity of its genome by maintaining the genes for adaptation on plasmids. Finally, both instances are examples of environmentally induced mutation events to specific regions of an organisms genome – extrachromosomal or not… hardly the random mutation events described by NDT.


And these particular bugs wouldn't necessarily produce some other digestive enzyme given some other substrate.

Not necessarily, but they’ve done it a bunch of times… it can breakdown numerous alkane species… naptha, of one variety or another, toluene… probably a bunch of others, but I’m not too up on my nylonase stuff now…. that was soooo 2002


[edit on 17-11-2005 by mattison0922]

[edit on 17-11-2005 by mattison0922]

[edit on 17-11-2005 by mattison0922]



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 03:28 PM
link   
*---------------------Hurry this thread is v-fib with no pulse...check the pulse...check the airway...nothing...PADDLES, STAT!....charge 200..CLEAR!....no change in rhythm doctor...charge 300..CLEAR!...nothing...dangit charge 360...CLEAR!


----^----^----^----^-----^----- We have a pulse doctor...fine Normal Saline Drip, Epinephrine 1mg of a 1:10000 solution IV push...oh and nurse get me my bag of "your mama" jokes from the back....we'll get 'em in here one way or the other. *





Well Matt doesn't look like anybody wants to discuss the science with you. Shame really, don't know if they've so convinced themselves there's no real scientific argument to be made (without actually objectively looking at any) that they don't know how to respond..or maybe it's just that the TalkOrigins talking points don't cover it. *shrug*


I was trying to stay out of the way and not muck up the works...but i'll see if i can stoke the fire. She's my baby, i can't just let her die like this.








Originally posted by Nygdan
I'm not so sure that we can say that because there is a revival in interesting in Paley-like intelligent design that that means that it was never properly laid to rest.


I find this position very interesting. Been having a hard time with the pseudoscience, stealth creationism, ignorant etc., etc., label being applied to (modern) design theory. I think i'm starting to understand where so many of the (expert) opponents are coming from. You're not actually debating modern design theory, you're debating Paley's version of design theory....it actually was the "stealth" creationism that the (more dogmatic/paranoid) opponents, unfairly, label modern design theory as.

For those of you who may be reading this and following the, ID -vs- Naturalistic origins, debate but don't know who William Paley is or what "Paley design theory" was let me, briefly, explain. William Paley (1743-1805) was an English theologian who wrote several influential books on philosophy and Christianty. Darwin himself had to study Paley's Evidences of Christianity(1794), Natural Theology(1802) and his The Moral and Political Philosophy(1786) while he attented Christ's College at the University of Cambridge. Although Darwin says (later) of having to study Paleys works; "[it] was of the least use to me in the education of my mind" he does say that it was Paley's Argument from Design that inspired him to consider the origin of species and the mechanisms of adaptation eventually leading to his theory of natural selection (pretty ironic when you think about it in the context of todays debate).

Paley was by all definitions a creationist. While his design argument (the "watchmaker") is very much similiar to modern design theory his philosophical theory is not (there).

Similarities
Paley writes in his book Natural Theology using his watchmaker analogy, that a watch would cease to function; "if its different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, or placed after any other manner or in any other order than that in which they are placed." That watchmaker analogy is still very much the cornerstone of modern day design theory. Paley defines irreducible complexity as well as anyone does today, and i must say his watchmaker analogy is more accurate than Behe's "mousetrap", although neither acurately describe the complexity of biological systems imo. Which is pretty cool considering Paley penned it over 200 years ago. And some say he stole the idea from Ray (1691) and Derham (1711) and Nieuwentyt (1730) so the concept may be even older than Paley's. But it's my understanding that his ideas are considered the culmination and "re-working" of those earlier works.


Differences

Paley was a philosopher. Insightfull -yes, scientific-no. Paley's theory(ies) were philosophical Christian theism, not experimental emperically based scientific observations. Paley's theories argued for a philosophical understanding of the designer and the designer's purpose. Modern day design theorists deny (ad nauseum) that such philosophical statements/beliefs have any part in todays IDT..and in fact you will see no such arguments from any ID theorists. Even his philosophical theories of the nature and identity of the Designer are refuted by modern Christian philosophers and theologians. It's like somebody "debunking" evolution theory by refuting Darwin's Origin of the Species(1859) and completely ignoring modern day evolutionary theory based on new data and knowledge.

FAQ: Isn't intelligent design just a rehash of Paley's design argument?(All of you who are still having problems seperating the philosophical design argument (Paley/creationism) from modern day secular design theory please read this link)

Whether the arguments behind intelligent design are new or old is irrelevant. What is relevant is that there is data supporting it, and the fact that many people--of both religious and non-religious persuasions--have begun to take it seriously only in the past decade, might show that the data is relatively new.



"While I fully grant that the history of design arguments warrants misgivings, they do not apply to the present project. The theory of design I envision is not an atavistic return to the design arguments of William Paley and the Bridgewater Treatises. William Paley was in no position to formulate the conceptual framework for design that I will be developing in this book. This new framework depends on advances in probability theory, computer science, the concept of information, molecular biology, and the philosophy of science-to name but a few. Within this framework design promises to become an effective conceptual tool for investigating and understanding the world.......

.....Persons with theological commitments can co-opt this designer and identify this designer with the object of their worship. But this move is strictly optional as far as the actual science of intelligent design is concerned.
Design theorist William Dembski (Ph.D.'s in mathematics and philosophy, B.A. in psychology, an M.S. in statistics) in his intro to No Free Lunch.

Dembski: Biographical Sketch IOW this guy's not some pseudo-scientific schister who does not know from where of he speaks. A true (rare) multidisciplinary who is a brilliant thinker and deserves more respect than he gets in "mainstream" science imho...and he ain't the only ID advocate (by a long shot) with the credentials to back up his arguments..we're not talking about some whack-job "Dr. Dinos" here. Real scientists doing real science, again that's just my humble opinion.

Ok i've rambled/ranted on long enough, but i just think you guys are missing the point...by a country mile. You guys are debating Paley, and well...he's been dead 200 years! Get in the game, heck you guys ain't even on the right field. Do you really think this debate (ala Mattison and Nygdan's back-n-forth) has no business in a scientific discussion and/or theory? How do you justify that (ie., how's this not a debate about scientific rules and pre-suppositions based on data)? All you've done is refute ..err umm.. Paley-ism not todays Intelligent Design Theory. Or perhaps you could link me to the naturalistc origins theory that trumps IDT..oh yeah that's right, there ain't one...oops forgot about that.

On the side, we've talked quite a bit about molecular machinery (ex. the flagellum) and i'm not sure if everyone knows what exactly that is, so....
[align=center] Photo taken from: veritas-ucsb.org [/align]


"The eukaryotic flagellum is a complex biochemical machine that moves cells or moves materials over the surface of cells, such as in the mammalian esophagus, oviduct or in protozoa. It is composed of over 250 polypeptides that must be assembled into a number of different structures and each structure must be attached with an exact periodicity along the microtubules. Once the flagellum is assembled, each of the components must act in concert and in three dimensions to produce a complex waveform. This review provides an outline of the composition and function of the different structures found in the flagella of Chlamydomonas."
(Susan Dutcher, "Flagellar assembly in two hundred and fifty easy-to-follow steps" Trends in Genetics, Volume 11, Issue 10)

These complicated protein structures are known as molecular machines for a reason. It's not just ID theorists who claim this, it's a widely accepted analogy based on EVIDENCE, and at the heart and soul of Irreducible Complexity. The bacterial flagellum consists of about 40 individual protein parts including a stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, and propeller. The individual parts can be seen when magnified 50,000 times by electron micrographs. These motors run at 100,000 RPM and can make a full stop in a quarter turn! reverse its direction and spin at 100,000 RPM in the other direction!

The flagellar motor has two gears (forward and reverse), is water-cooled, and is hardwired into a signal transduction (sensory mechanism) so that it receives feedback from its environment. ("Unlocking the Mystery of Life," video documentary by Illustra Media, 2002.)

I know most of the people who have posted in this thread are aware of the specifics of the debate, but for those reading who aren't, i would recommend looking at these links. From actual ID theorists on actual ID theories and not the made up politically and ideologically driven rhetoric. You decide for yourselves, that's all i ask. You may still end up in disagreement with IDT, but atleast it will be an informed opinion and not the crap (sorry that's how i see it) filling up the boards lately.


Design Inference Website: The Writings of William A. Dembski

The Evolution of a Skeptic: Dr. Michael Behe

Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories By: Stephen C. Meyer

Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information By: William A. Dembski

If you're not much of a reader i would recommend (if you have TBN on your cable network) looking out for a program on IDT called; Unlocking the Mystery of Life: THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN or visit this link to purchase the DVD. www.illustramedia.com.... A great show with all the major ID theorists and great graphics showing the molecular machinery, how DNA functions, history of abiogenesis theory etc., etc.


Those should get you started.........
But if you guys still insist on debating Paley's design theory, fine *shrug*. But you're gonna need a shovel and a plane ticket...cause the only person advocating it was put in a pine box some 200 years ago.


[edit on 29-11-2005 by Rren]



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 07:41 PM
link   
This is a tough thread to join for several reasons. Primus inter pares is that I haven't formulated a good philosophy to work with, and I love to live my life to a set of principles.

Second is the fact that colleagues for whom I have inordinate respect -- Father Luke Duke, Rren, and Nygdan et. al -- are here and argue convincingly for both sides.

However, being asked to stick my oar in, I suppose I should weigh in.

After over two thousand posts, many of you know me as being an engineer and a hard-headed one at that; looking for evidence and logic, gladly willing to flail at one and all with my razor I borrowed from my friend Mr. Occam.

Many of you also know me as a long-term libertarian, formerly active in the LP of Arizona and always ready to rail at The Gummint for stealing our property and telling us how to live our lives.

And I suppose many of you also know me as a Born-Again Christian who doesn't give a fig about theological arguments but wriggles with puppy-like joy at having been purchased from eternal death by Jesus Christ.

Trying to reconcile these stances has always been a challenge, and when faced with the concept of ID, I have to refine my beliefs and thoughts again and again. Inasmuch as refined gold is better than ore, I suppose I can....

But the big deal is not "which one is right?" I doubt if many care what I consider right as long as I don't offer you Christ or the Sword; and I certainly don't care what you consider right as long as you don't try to interfere with my beliefs.

The big deal is (and you know this is true): should we teach it in the Government schools?

Now I see no problem at all in believing in

a 16+ Gyear-old Universe;
a 4+ Gyear-old world formed when an accretion disk (thank you, Mr. Conservation of Angular Momentum) became a star and its planets;
life forming from amino acids;
plate tectonics;
macro- and micro-evolution ....

.... And the Great Program Manager Who conceived of, planned, and implemented the greatest Project in the Universe (the Universe and Time), Whose time line was flawless, Whose managerial oversight was so profound that not even a sparrow shall fall, and Who had enough management reserve in His budget to provide for me by sending His only begotten Son to die for me.

I feel kind of sorry for people who believe that Salvation requires that you have to believe in This or That without question. Thank God (literally) I don't.

But how does a person who is gung-ho for evidence and proof handle a belief system which is not 'provable' or even 'evidentiary'? I don't know how anyone else does, but I try to keep those two things from spilling over into each others' sphere, just like I like sugar and salt, but try not to mix them.

If you argue something as 'provable fact', you'd better have you act together, because I got my razor and I'm a-cuttin'! You want to play by evidence and proof, I can play too.

But if you believe in something else through faith (as I and so many of us do), then I cannot -- and will not -- argue with you. I have no proof whatsoever for the belief that Christ died, Christ lives, and Christ will come again - but I do. I'm not going to try to prove such to you because I can't.

Can we get back to Intelligent Design now, please?

The easy way out (and here's the libertarian speaking) is to not have the government running your schools. This way, you as a parent can choose whether or not you kid learns the ins and outs of macro-evolution, Intelligent Design, We All Crawled Out from the Big Hole In the Ground, or any combination thereof. Then, buy your kid a broadband connection and send him to ATS to fight it out.

But, of course, you don't want hear that, do you? Should we teach kids what is evidentiary and nothing else? Or should we explain to kids that there are such things as 'belief in things hoped for', and that such belief is as profound as many other evidentiary things?

The answer, of course, is simple. I believe that



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 08:46 PM
link   

This is a tough thread to join for several reasons. Primus inter pares is that I haven't formulated a good philosophy to work with, and I love to live my life to a set of principles.


That's kinda been the whole point here OTS, can we seperate the philosophy and the science in intelligent design theory. Is it possible to distinguish the appearance of design from actual design ie., is design testable. To be honest i don't know that i've formulated a good personal philosophy either. Of course i'm only 30 so i hope i wasn't already supposed to do that.



Second is the fact that colleagues for whom I have inordinate respect -- Father Luke Duke, Rren, and Nygdan et. al -- are here and argue convincingly for both sides.


Well thank you sir, but "I" really don't really have a theory. I can carry on a decent conversation about evolution, ID, cosmology etc....But put me in front of a big telescope i probably wouldn't be able to find the on/off switch, much less operate it and form a theory based on what i observe...Put me in a lab and after a couple hours i might be able to seperate the beakers from the test-tubes but i aint gonna be mapping the genome. I'm a contractor, wanna know how to build a house? I'm your guy. I just don't think people have been looking at ID objectively/fairly instead mocking it as some sort of religous extremism. I'm a born again Christian myself and a follower of old-earth creationism aswell as IDT and i have no problem seperating them...it 'erks me so i speak up.



And I suppose many of you also know me as a Born-Again Christian who doesn't give a fig about theological arguments but wriggles with puppy-like joy at having been purchased from eternal death by Jesus Christ.


At the end of the day that's all that matters anyway. ID and creationism for me have absolutely nothing to do with my/your/our Salvation. It's a hobby for me, profession for others....but i would never bring creationism or ID into a discussion with someone who was seeking salvation. I agree it's irrelevant.




The big deal is (and you know this is true): should we teach it in the Government schools?


I have always said since this "controvercy" began that there is no need to force this on the public schools. I would imagine the large part of the science behind any origins theory is really college level anyway. I agree there needs to be a concensus opinion from the scientific community, hard as that may be, IDists will just have to wait. The problem, imo, is that some have decided to say case closed already when there's no legitimate reason to do so. It's like politics now, and i don't care for politics much.


Now I see no problem at all in believing in

a 16+ Gyear-old Universe;
a 4+ Gyear-old world formed when an accretion disk (thank you, Mr. Conservation of Angular Momentum) became a star and its planets;
life forming from amino acids;
plate tectonics;
macro- and micro-evolution ....


Aside from "life forming from amino acids" nothing you've stated there is in contradiction with IDT. And from my perspective as a creationist i would only further argue against universal common ancestory, but i have no issue with the others. AND i see nothing wrong with being a Christian and holding all those beliefs...i have my issues but they have nothing to do with my Salvation through our Lord.



I feel kind of sorry for people who believe that Salvation requires that you have to believe in This or That without question. Thank God (literally) I don't.


I agree 100% with you there. That's where the fight is not where the debate is. Besides i'm a lover not a fighter.


If you argue something as 'provable fact', you'd better have you act together, because I got my razor and I'm a-cuttin'! You want to play by evidence and proof, I can play too.


Easy, easy BIg felllla. If you're talking naturalistic (your amino acids to life (undirected)) origins versus an ID model...i doubt you'll have much if any provable fact to show. Granted i ain't got much myself, but be easy what you describe as "fact"...at least that's my M.O.



Can we get back to Intelligent Design now, please?


Indeed




But, of course, you don't want hear that, do you? Should we teach kids what is evidentiary and nothing else? Or should we explain to kids that there are such things as 'belief in things hoped for', and that such belief is as profound as many other evidentiary things?


I think that's the rub, eh? You can talk about these things in philosophy class surely, but "belief in things hoped for" isn't science (neither does one claim ownership of the other obviously). I don't think ID belongs in a philosophy class(exclusively) either imo, what do you think? ID: science or philosophy? Or just not enough of either to be good for anything?


The answer, of course, is simple. I believe that


Well you're a better man than me sir, of course we already knew that.
Thanks for contributing OTS your, ever wise, opinion is always welcome.

(edit)Besides OTS as an engineer how can you not be in awe of a motor that spins at 100,00 RPM can come to a dead stop in a quarter turn and back up to 100,000 RPM in reverse just as quick(re: my previous post). We intelligent designers can't come close do that kinda of tech. with all our 'knowledge' regardless of scale(which just makes it that much more awe-some)



[edit on 29-11-2005 by Rren]

[edit on 29-11-2005 by Rren]



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
Well Matt doesn't look like anybody wants to discuss the science with you. Shame really, don't know if they've so convinced themselves there's no real scientific argument to be made (without actually objectively looking at any) that they don't know how to respond..or maybe it's just that the TalkOrigins talking points don't cover it. *shrug*


I know... I feel so lonely and neglected....
maybe ID is wrong
Would a truly intelligent designer leave me to here to languish on this board, with no response to my arguements? Would an intelligent designer plan for me to spend sleepless nights refreshing the MyATS link in the hopes that someone responds to me? If there is an intelligent designer... it's got a mean streak indeed!!!





[edit on 30-11-2005 by mattison0922]



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 02:46 PM
link   
As you've reminded me Mattison, this is a new science. I cannot talk about Intelligent Design because all I got was evolution from a drippy hamster bottle for five years. After running around the labs like a rat looking for cheese, I realized there was no cheese to be found, only electrodes that zapped me for going the wrong way. But I'm not bitter...

I'd like to hear more of this topic and lament not being part of the exciting science that has some mighty fine "cheese" to offer.



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 09:23 PM
link   
You guys are having an interesting and polite conversation. I just wanted to point out - again - that neither ID (euphemism for creationism) nor creationism undisguised, is a theory. Words have definitions and while they may be and are misused constantly the actual definition is not poluted by the word's abuse by those of us who do not know a word's correct definition. A theory has requirements and creationism does not meet any of the requirements of theory.
You may continue to call ID a theory but you can, with the same degree of accuracy, call a grizzly bear a chipmunk.
That's my 2 cents and I'm stickin to it.
skep



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by skep
You guys are having an interesting and polite conversation. I just wanted to point out - again - that neither ID (euphemism for creationism) nor creationism undisguised, is a theory. Words have definitions and while they may be and are misused constantly the actual definition is not poluted by the word's abuse by those of us who do not know a word's correct definition. A theory has requirements and creationism does not meet any of the requirements of theory.
You may continue to call ID a theory but you can, with the same degree of accuracy, call a grizzly bear a chipmunk.
That's my 2 cents and I'm stickin to it.
skep


Thanks Webster I/we much appreciate the vocabulary lesson.


Ok the intelligent design hypothesis..did you have something to add to the discussion?

Also i'm sure you're aware, that based on your criteria, there is no "theory" for the origins of life. Just a bunch of hypotheses, and well atleast the ID model is falsifiable and testable as opposed to other abiogenesis theories...oops hypotheses.

Why do you find it so offensive? What is the origins hypothesis that has you so convinced it's accurate, that ID has to be wrong by default? Or do you have specific, conclusive, data that has already disproven ID. If so please post it so the rest of us can stop wasting our time having this discussion.

[edit on 9-12-2005 by Rren]



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by skep
You guys are having an interesting and polite conversation. I just wanted to point out - again - that neither ID (euphemism for creationism) nor creationism undisguised, is a theory.

Why make a blanket statement? Mattison and Rren have laid out some very intersting ideas here in detail, whats the sense of a blanket statement at this point?



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Two things. If "Intelligent design" had to offer it's assumed name for peer review amongst true believers it would probably pass with flying colors. If it, on the other hand, offered it's name for qualificiation to the world community permission to use "Intelligent" in the title would not be granted as the postulation does not stand to scrutiny.
Secondly, just because someone gains a PhD from some school like a Bob Jones Universityh or Johnson Bible College or several others, lends no credence whatever to any discussion.
You come up with a PhD from a real institute of higher learning who has some support for ID and we will have a discussion.
Consider then: Why not just believe in whatever you wish and avoid trying to make others consider your belief worthwhile. Religion is a man made metaphysic and in my opinion may have been man's first, if failed, atempt at trying to figure things out.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by skep
You come up with a PhD from a real institute of higher learning who has some support for ID and we will have a discussion.

Hi ya doin' Skep, nice to meet you. My name is Dr. mattison0922, Ph.D., Molecular and Cellular Biology, Arizona State University, published in peer reviewed journals, worked for several major universities, worked developing bioterrorist detection technologies for the USDoD and Dept. of Homeland Security, author and co-author of numerous grants and patents.

Your ignorance about this particular topic now comes shining through:

Mike Behe: Ph.D. University of Pennsylvania

William Dembski, Ph.D.'s in Philosophy and Mathematics, Univ. of Chicago

Michael Denton, Ph.D. King's College, London University

Guillermo Gonzalez, Ph.D. University of Washington

Johnathan Wells, 2Ph.D.'s one in Molecular Bio from Berkeley, the other in religious studies from Yale.

You said A Ph.D. from a 'real institute of higher learning,' here's six.

Care to let your ignorance of this topic shine through any further?


Oh yes, and by the way, skep, what are your particular credentials that make you an expert in this particular field, and relative to science in general?

'bout time you posted some actual information in the forum, as opposed to the absolute fluff you've posted thus far, don't you think?

Your move.


[edit on 13-12-2005 by mattison0922]



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by skep
Two things. If "Intelligent design" had to offer it's assumed name for peer review amongst true believers it would probably pass with flying colors.


Try google skep. There are many papers that support the ID hypothesis. But if you're looking for one that specifically speaks to ID here ya go. Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories. Authored by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer and published in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117 (2004): 213-239......yup he has an actual Ph.D.

The only critique of Meyer's paper was an internet response titled "Meyer's Hopeless Monster"(note: NOT peer reviewed) and you can find the response to that here. Not that i would expect someone like you to actually read any ID material, instead you'll probably stick to your ideological rhetoric which is rooted in ignorance....but maybe i'm wrong.


From link ["here"]
Since Nature gave unusual prominence to GME's Internet critique in a news article about the publication of Meyer's article 3, we have decided to provide a detailed response to their critique in a series of installments to be posted here over the next few weeks.






Secondly, just because someone gains a PhD from some school like a Bob Jones Universityh or Johnson Bible College or several others, lends no credence whatever to any discussion.


You're thinking of the young-earth creationist Kent hovind ( aka "Dr. Dino" ). Young-earth creationists, like yourself, are notoriously anti-ID....so you're in good company bud. Of course had you actually done any of your own research on this you'd know that. I'm not suggesting that there isn't any intelligent opposition to ID, but you sir don't fall into that category imo.



You come up with a PhD from a real institute of higher learning who has some support for ID and we will have a discussion.


Mattison already called you out on that ignorant BS, but i'm sure you'll cut&run as that's been your M.O. since you've been here. Again maybe i'm wrong, now that you've been shown that ID has support from actual scientists maybe now "we will have a discussion"...but i doubt it.


Consider then: Why not just believe in whatever you wish and avoid trying to make others consider your belief worthwhile. Religion is a man made metaphysic and in my opinion may have been man's first, if failed, atempt at trying to figure things out.


Does the same apply to your metaphysical pre-suppositions? Again i doubt it.


posted by mattison0922

Oh yes, and by the way, skep, what are your particular credentials that make you an expert in this particular field, and relative to science in general?

'bout time you posted some actual information in the forum, as opposed to the absolute fluff you've posted thus far, don't you think?


I'm fairly sure we're both wasting our time with this poser Matt. I've called him out on several of his "hit and run" posts to no avail, i'm sure this will have the same outcome. I doubt this hack has an original thought of his own on this, he's just parroting the ideological rhetoric of others. When you get them doing the "semantics dance" you know their stumped. *shrug*



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 04:31 PM
link   
I don't see how you can test this.

If the designer is bound by the realms of science and natural laws, sure, it's testable. But, how is creating a man out of dust, and a woman out of the man's rib, all in one day, scientific in nature? It seems to me like the designer would be outside of the realm of the physical universe, so it seems untestable, scientifically speaking.

It would be like proving that unicorns exist. No one has seen one, there is no physical evidence supporting their existence, and they're not a part of the physical universe, so how can you devise a scientific test that will prove unicorns exist?



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
I don't see how you can test this.


There have been several posts so far as to how you can test irreducible complexity(the ID claim), did you want to speak to those? Maybe you need more time to read the whole thread and related links.


But, how is creating a man out of dust, and a woman out of the man's rib, all in one day, scientific in nature?


Who said it was? Who said that has anything at all to do with testing the ID hypothesis? Maybe you need more time to read the whole thread and related links.



It seems to me like the designer would be outside of the realm of the physical universe, so it seems untestable, scientifically speaking.


No ID theorist is suggesting that they can test for the designer. They do, however, claim that the hypothesis that certain biological systems/mechanisms are irreducibly complex can be tested. Would you like to speak to those specific claims? Maybe you need more time to read the whole thread and related links.



It would be like proving that unicorns exist.


What???
(sorry to bite your posting style but i couldn't resist)

Look man your putting philosophical constraints on a scientific hypothesis and they crying psuedoscience when they can't answer your completely irrelevant questions. Sure there are philosophical implications to ID theory, but i could say the same for Big Bang theory, or maybe you can answer what preceded the "bang". It too has implications which could imply the super-natural. In fact that's the reason it took so long to find acceptance. Science is an examination of emperical data, your "feelings" are irrelevant. You want to know GOD i suggest you buy a Bible. *shrug* Worked for me.

[edit on 14-12-2005 by Rren]

[edit on 14-12-2005 by Rren]



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
If the designer is bound by the realms of science and natural laws, sure, it's testable. But, how is creating a man out of dust, and a woman out of the man's rib, all in one day, scientific in nature? It seems to me like the designer would be outside of the realm of the physical universe, so it seems untestable, scientifically speaking.


Rren, Sometimes peoples ignorance about a topic shines through so clearly that you needn't even refute it. It's obvious that everything truthseeka (
still makes me laugh) knows about IDT he learned from People magazine, and maybe TigerBeat... though it's abundantly clear, he hasn't formed any opinions of his own based on actually reading about the theory.



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Thanks for the welcome. I believe you broadcasts your christianity when you couldn't avoid name calling but, no offense taken.
There is good reason why educated people glom on to beliefs that are unsupportable in logic or reality. Those reasons are almost always psychological in nature. I recall a patient (science professor) who was so intelligent that he tested off the scale on the Stanford/Benet but couldn't remember to include his pants when dressing for his lecture at a major California university. No! He wasn't religious but he exibited behavior that was questionable in nature.
Just because we can't explain everything or understand everything is not reason enough to assume we understand who might be responsible for that we do not understand. That seems to be a good example of self delusion.
skep



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by skep
Thanks for the welcome. I believe you broadcasts your christianity when you couldn't avoid name calling but, no offense taken.

Is this sentence in English? I'll attempt a retort in my native language of English: I believe you are attempting to say that I 'broadcast' my Christianity by calling you names, and you are not offended. Based on this, my rebuttal follows.

Sorry to disappoint you, there skip, but I am just as much of a heathen as you are. I am NOT a Christian, not to say there aren't some trying to convert me, but as of this post, no, I am not a Christian. Sorry, nice try... almost as good as your "No real scientist believes ID can be scientific" statements.

In any case, I didn't call you names, I called you ignorant, and it just so happens that it's the truth, at least with respect to IDT. If I am wrong, please correct me. Which Books, articles, or whatever other sources re: IDT have you read... Dembski, Behe, Johnson?

What's that you say... you've not read any of them? Big surprise, yet you prop yourself up like some kind of authority.

I wish you were offended, it might actually light a fire under your &^%, and get you to participate in the ATS Discussion Forum in something that begins to resemble a meaningful way.


There is good reason why educated people glom on to beliefs that are unsupportable in logic or reality. Those reasons are almost always psychological in nature.

Well... I find it pretty hard to believe, but I'll give the you benefit of the doubt; you probably do have some education. Heck, most people in this country manage to graduate high school.

Please enlighten me, Skep, why do you 'glom on to beliefs?' I've always wondered this about people, and perhaps I can obtain a firsthand opinion from you.


I recall a patient (science professor) who was so intelligent that he tested off the scale on the Stanford/Benet but couldn't remember to include his pants when dressing for his lecture at a major California university.

Okay.... and this is relevant to topic at hand how? But just for the sake of arguing 'Skep Style:' I once knew this math teacher that became so obsessed with solving a particular 'unsolvable' equation that he actually lost his job, family, and home, eventually doomed to wander the streets of my home town muttering about tree diagrams and other abstract mathematical concepts. See the relevance? None!


No! He wasn't religious but he exibited behavior that was questionable in nature.

Well, welcome to the modern age, where a larger proportion of people than ever before are on psychiatric meds. This is relevant to ID how?


Just because we can't explain everything or understand everything is not reason enough to assume we understand who might be responsible for that we do not understand.
English? I think you're saying that because the holes left by evolutionary theory are not filled, it doesn't by default mean that God filled in the gaps... roughly translated of course. Well, again, if you knew even a shred about the postulates of IDT, you would never make such a statement. Contrary to what you believe, IDTists aren't throwing up their hands and saying "There's no point in studying this, God must have done it." Of course, you know this due to your vast amount of reading about the topic, right?


I know this might be difficult for you to comprehend, but IDT is a basis for alternate hypothesis formation. You see some in the science community believe that current hypotheses are inadequate to account for certain aspects of biological complexity. In an effort to alleviate the current stagnation with respect to abiogenesis theories, an alternate basis for hypothesis has been proposed.

This is how science progresses, by testing new hypotheses, especially when others are perceived as being false or otherwise inadequate. I'm sorry that this is so troubling for you. Change is part of life... suck it up.


That seems to be a good example of self delusion.
skep


You mean self-delusion in a manner similar to you believing your some kind of authority on origins biology and evolution in general?

We're all still waiting for floodgates on your vast reservoir of knowledge to be released. Please, oh please skep wash away the dust of our ignorance with your flood of knowledge. The way you post, it seems like we might need to be prepared for a Noachian flood like event; but I think we'll all probably die of thirst before your 'flood of knowledge' is revealed.

If you need some help formulating your arguments before posting them, feel free to U2U me... looks like you squeaked through the TOEFL, but might be having some difficulties with the analytical portions of your exams.

Of course, I predict that your response to this post will be the same as your others... NONE!

[edit on 14-12-2005 by mattison0922]



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Ok we've gotten of track...

But i'm drivin' this shaggin waggon... so let us see if we can't get 'er back in the lines... back to Page1, and "Testing Intelligent Design Theory", as it were.

Mattison0922 said(pg.1):

Please explain to me in some detail why the concept of ID without discussing the designer is acceptable for a ‘scientific’ pursuit such as the SETI project, but completely unacceptable for biological origins.


To which Nygdan replied(pg.1):

Because the rubric that seti proposes to detect design is sensible, whereas the rubric for intelligent design, ie that we 'don't know' the naturalistic steps that resulted in a structure, isn't.


Then R"muddy waters"ren replies(live at time of posting)
Nygdan didn't you just say that SETI is scientific because it infers design by ruling out naturalistic explanations and then said that ID is not scientific because it infers design by ruling out naturalistic explanations... in the same sentence? What am i missing?

This is the crux of the matter, yes? Obviously everybody seems to have philosophical objections to ID(everybody wants science to know "why" all of a sudden), but from a honest scientific perspective there's no reason to reject ID... without first refuting the interpretations of the data. My point is that their are some opponents to ID that believe because it goes against the naturalistic presupposition there's no need to discuss it further. Forget the data, forget the evidence it's irrelevant, we decided this 200 years ago(in a philosophy of science debate), before we knew anything about biological complexity. Look at Byrd's posts for example, who's as smart as anybody 'round here imo, she won't accept the ID hypothesis unless it explains/describes GOD to her... how's that fair and/or scientific?

I respect your opinion Nygdan and i realize your no fan of ID, but is it your honest opinion this debate was settled in Paley's day? I'm not asking if you agree with what ID postulates, but would you atleast concede that the issue remains unsettled? Certainly we've come along way since Paley, no? And yet, with all that science has discovered in the last 200 years there's still a strong scientific argument for design to be made, in fact it's much stronger... that should say something imo. The quest for a naturalistic origins model has become tougher, more complicated and further from a reality with the advance of science...

What "line of thought" do you(naturalistic origins advocates) favor as being on the "right track" to a naturalistic origins theory. I know there's no actual theory there yet, but what do you feel holds the most promise. Do you see a functional protein forming from an amino acid without the DNA instructions to build it(& folding etc..)... maybe you see DNA first?
How do you, in your opinion, envision the first, most ancient, cell (life)? I'm just curious as to what the prevailing majority opinion is re: naturalistic origins. I'm not sure where to go for an objective opinion on that ie., not written in "response" to IDT.

Here's a great paper i read about ID, by Stephen Meyer, that i think speaks exactly to what we have been here, only in more detail. I think some of you may appreciate it and i would be interested in any comments/critiques anyone might have. DNA and Other Designs


What do you think about scientists like Dean Kenyon, who co-authored Biochemical Predestination one of the first real attempts to find a naturalistic explanation to the question of origins, who are now ID advocates? Certainly he deserves respect as a long time origins researcher who has based his opinion of ID on years of personal research. I guess my question is are you ruling this out based on metaphysical reasoning, i only ask you 'cause i know your not undecided... you've stated several times that ID is psuedo-scientific, is this why?

What can we agree on here? What do you still disagree with? I hope it's not that ID can't tell you who/what/why GOD is or why you're here. ALL it says it that your creation was no accident, and who beside an atheist(very small % of people worldwide) doesn't already "know" this? What IDT proposes is based in logic, evidence and emperical data... it's not a philosophical statement so far as IDT is concerned. I won't deny the implications, but there's no reason we can't seperate the science and the philosophy of IDT, imho. Is anybody opening up to this at all?

Mattison asked several good questions imo. Questions that i thought the staunch IDT opponents, who almost exclusively also seem to be staunch NDT advocates, would jump all over. I realize you (mods) stay busy around here so i'll put them up again and see if anyone cares to respond. (just a few... he has several points not addressed as of yet) Can we agree on these three? If not what's you're sticking point?


mattison0922
abiogenesis is not removed from NDT, it’s an essential part of the theory of common descent and the naturalistic presupposition. Abiogenesis theory results from the marriage of NDT to the naturalistic presupposition.



mattison0922
DOES NDT have anything concrete to say about the origin of biological complexity and life in general?



mattison0922
Trying to answer questions about a designer unscientific; trying to detect the signature and presence of design is not.


I think that gets us back on the 'testability' track. Does scientific methodology dictate which metaphysical presuppositions are scientific? Or does it say leave your metaphysical presuppositions at the door, they're irrelevant?

Or as Matt said:

ID is in fact the lack of a metaphysical presupposition, ie: maybe everything can be explained via a naturalistic supposition, and maybe it can’t.


Isn't science supposed to be neutral ie., blind to the philosophical implications? Important and real as those things are (to me), it's not something science can explore? Their are no ID advocates that i'm aware of who think that defining irreducible complexity or the anthropic principal (et al) is somehow describing or proving what/who/why GOD is... Does ID logically imply a super-natural creator (uhm., 'god-like' if you will)? Yes i'll concede that it does, and every ID theorist i've read says the same but... So What!. Doesn't something like 90% of the people on the planet believe this anyhow? Who are we all catering to here?

Atleast wait until the NDT crowd has a theory on abiogenesis or how to build an irreducibly complex protein structure, before we go praising naturalism as the "way". Is it "real" science to advocate a naturalistic - origins model or mechanism to build 'cellular machinery' -which is untestable, and apparently the NDT guys won't allow it to be falsified. You're aware that certain "institutes" have already pre-judged any ID paper as unworthy for publication? You get what i'm saying here... without ever having to read, much less refute the paper...it's unworthy of publication? Does that seem like legitimate science at work there or ideologically and/or politically motivated dogma to ya'll?




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join