reply to post by john_bmth
Not creationist sites (lol!), not "About.com" (double lol!), just the abstracts from the scientific papers. That's all you have to do to
completely demolish my position. See, I'm even trying to help you refute my argument here
You're arbitrarily excluding sources - many of which I use are specifically critical of the Intelligent Design argument (at least as far as attempts
to apply it to post-biotic evolution).
I'm not going to arbitrarily restrict your sources of information by choosing what I feel appropriate for you:
That's a list of works from various camps (though not all-inclusive).
There's a specific reason I avoid posting specific work. A lot of it - on both sides - misses the mark. Intelligent Design enthusiasts often drift
way off into challenging post-biotic evolution. Which is an abuse of the ID premise.
Because of this - criticisms of these works are widely available that center around the post-biotic arena - which is not what is in discussion.
In general, there is very little pre-biotic work on either side. Efforts to illustrate the RNA world run into criticisms from geologists who show
their simulated environment to be in error and select non-replicating sequences for artificial replication (which injects intelligence into the
Works to further simplify the cell also run into similar complications and criticisms. Cells with removed functions are placed into environments
filled with compounds that didn't exist, or are sheltered from environmental phenomena (such as thermal factors) that existed and are relevant (IE -
you can't argue that thunder storms or other small-area effects would have posed "species ending" catastrophe for pre-cellular replicating
processes; but unrealistic thermal settings for the experiment or other global factors apply).
The entire arena is a collapse into childish bantering back and forth between both sides. This is largely due to a philosophical schism - individuals
almost violently opposed to anything they perceive as alluding to a deity and other individuals violently opposed to anything they perceive as
challenging their deity (or, more accurately - their understanding
of a deity). Ridicule is abound on both sides, and irrational arguments and
straw-men are set up and set afire in both sides.
Which is why you need to slow down and apply thought to the problem.
If you cannot comply with this simple request and actually substantiate the science you claim supports your argument then at least have the
grace to retract your clearly statements.
You're going to have to specify what you would like me to defend. I've made a lot of statements, some with direct citations and others without.
You'll find that I'm not simply acting as a "copy-paste" entity. I may share a few points of my arguments with others you are familiar with - but
I am not making the same case and often agree only briefly or on a tangent with scientific publications of any nature and topic.
I then take those concepts and process them into my own position. Which is a little more difficult to simply "post abstracts" about or retract. It
begs an analytical criticism of its own - which you are interestingly unwilling to apply.
The problem is that we've come to an impasse.
You've hit a rock and a hard place. The rock is the hurdle of the interdependence of replicating systems, and the hard-place is the requirement for
a system to self-replicate before natural selection can apply.
You can't move the hard place - you've got to move the rock. And it's proving to be a very, very difficult challenge with an increasing amount of
concern that it may not be possible to explain as a 'natural phenomena.'
That displaces the origin of biology to a non-local environment or to an intelligent design (though neither is entirely exclusionary of the other).
From the NCSE, an interesting take on polls of scientists: ncse.com...
Which is why the argument that ID is a "science stopper" is just incorrect. ID ultimately puts a different context on the research being done - it
doesn't change the fact that research will be done. You've essentially a poll that says 40% of scientists believe in some context of ID. Doesn't
stop them from exploring the design.