Intelligent Design is a self evident truth

SuperFrog
reply to post by GargIndia

 

And what makes you think that those who study spirituality can explain you purpose of human life?

It is very unnatural that priest who talk about spirituality and purpose of human life are forbidden to 'have' a life.

Yes, today you can get PhD in many things, including 'alternative' history. If you don't trust me, just check man behind Bosnian Pyramid - Dr. Samir Osmanagic, who talks about 'high Mayan civilization', very spiritual, who would kill hundreds of people per day in ceremonies... Also sacrifice of young boys for many different reasons...

Now, that is not spirituality you are talking about, is it?

edit on 31-12-2013 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)

.

The intellect is not the only way to understanding. In spiritual life understanding comes directly to the mind. Knowledge of God can settle in the mind invisibly. It appears spontaneously in the mind and is from God. Atheists will not understand this and will call it delusion, but it is true.

GargIndia

What you said is not true.

The spirituality has to be developed just like scientific knowledge. It takes years of study to acquire a PHD. However people want to gain spirituality by just a visit to a church. This is why they fail.

The purpose of human life is a fact that every human needs to understand.

Not only is it true, it is - unlike the claim in the thread name - actually self-evident. If science doesn't have the tools to study something, it can't study it. If you're claiming that we have the tools to apply the scientific method to the spiritual then kindly answer the questions that have so far been ignored: What is the hypothesis? What testable predictions can you derive from it? How would you test them?

If you can't apply the scientific method to your claims, it ain't science. It really is as simple as that.

EnPassant
The intellect is not the only way to understanding. In spiritual life understanding comes directly to the mind. Knowledge of God can settle in the mind invisibly. It appears spontaneously in the mind and is from God. Atheists will not understand this and will call it delusion, but it is true.

This is fine, as long as it's understood that these are your religious beliefs. The problem is that you keep making jabs at science and then retreat into your safe zone of faith where science can't go. I'm sure that's very convenient but it doesn't make for a coherent argument. If you make a scientific claim, you need to back it up with actual science. It's called the burden of proof and it's considered a basic tenet of human discourse (not to mention intellectual consistency).

It's been said before but how come it's ok for 'insert your version of supreme being here' to just be/will themselves into existence so they can create our universe but the universe cannot just be/ have willed itself into existence.

Seems to be an inconsistent line of thinking to me - a completely unsubstantiated being created itself and then created a universe to inhabit and has so far left not a single shred of evidence to it's existence but has somehow managed to confuse its major creation 'humanity - according to religious texts' into believing in many versions of itself usually at odds with the other versions.

Also this 'deity' of yours designed all the parasitic species on the planet which cause untold suffering to many other life forms on the planet although probably not as much as we do as a species.

So my questions to those of a supreme deity persuasion which have never been rationally answered are as follows:

1. Where did your deity come from?
2. Why create such a vast and almost infinite universe then only populate 1 tiny planet on the edge of 1 galaxy within it - now that is ultimately wasteful - (actually maybe ID is right then would explain humans propensity for wasteful practices lol)
3. How can it be possible for each religion to have its own set of miracles which 'prove' its divinity?
4. If the holy books are the inerrant word of your 'deity' how can they be revised and rewritten over time?
5. How old do you think this planet is as we have multiple proof's it is a lot older than a few 1000 years?

Oh and when answering the above please look at your answer and ask yourself would the logic of your reply be accepted reasoning in ANY other subject - remember everybody used to swear blind the earth was flat and this was held to be self evident!!

radix

EnPassant
The intellect is not the only way to understanding. In spiritual life understanding comes directly to the mind. Knowledge of God can settle in the mind invisibly. It appears spontaneously in the mind and is from God. Atheists will not understand this and will call it delusion, but it is true.

This is fine, as long as it's understood that these are your religious beliefs. The problem is that you keep making jabs at science and then retreat into your safe zone of faith where science can't go. I'm sure that's very convenient but it doesn't make for a coherent argument. If you make a scientific claim, you need to back it up with actual science. It's called the burden of proof and it's considered a basic tenet of human discourse (not to mention intellectual consistency).

I am not making jabs at science. I am telling the difference between what science has shown to be true and what it falsely claims to have shown. I believe in science and if science demonstrates a truth, I would be the first to acknowledge it. I am exposing the bias and mediocrity in science that misleads the public. You said it yourself-

If you make a scientific claim, you need to back it up with actual science. It's called the burden of proof and it's considered a basic tenet of human discourse (not to mention intellectual consistency)

I have not made any scientific claims. What I have said is this-

Some issues raised by heritability studies
Perhaps the most fundamental confusion in the literature on heritability arises from the universal, unquestioned, and indeed unthinking assumption that “heritable” automatically equates to “genetic”. Statements like the following occur with numbing regularity and with the assumed obviousness of “2 + 2 = 4”:

Heritability is a measure of genetic influence. If a trait has high heritability, its varying from individual to individual in a population can be explained genetically (Downes 2009*).
Estimates of heritability quantify how much of the variation in disease liability in a population can be attributed to genetic variation (Tenesa and Haley 2013*).

However many thousands of times such statements are repeated, they are remarkably baseless. One scarcely finds any attempt to ground them in evidence, so that unexamined and unspoken assumption rules the day. It’s not only that no one has a clue how to explain or attribute all the heritability of traits to genes. More importantly, the very idea of such explanation or attribution conflicts with what we do know.Nothing less than a living organism — a zygote, in the case of sexual reproduction — is the inherited material of evolutionary importance. The organism’s living powers, and all its traits, are rooted in the integral unity of its directed activities, not in any particular set of molecules subject to those activities. (Again, see the main article.)
The chief virtue of the debate over missing heritability may be that it has forced at least some biologists to stop and consider the basic terms of the discussion, to question whether these terms are being employed in a reasonable way, and even at times to doubt whether they have any useful meaning at all. This kind of concern has long been in evidence here and there, even though it has yet to constrain the language and assumptions dominating discussions of inheritance.
In a standard primer on population genetics, published in 1988, Daniel Hartl acknowledged that “heritability says virtually nothing about the actual mode of inheritance of a quantitative trait”. Noting that the concept generally ignores interactions between genes (epistasis) as well as gene-environment interactions, he concluded that heritability “lends itself to no easy interpretation in simple genetic terms3”.

Here is the link it is taken from. And here is some more.

Many people are being mislead about what science has shown and it would be wise for them to look at the argument from the other side. You would be wise to carefully read the articles I provided so you can see the way bias and subjectivity have entered and distorted things.

EnPassant
The intellect is not the only way to understanding. In spiritual life understanding comes directly to the mind. Knowledge of God can settle in the mind invisibly. It appears spontaneously in the mind and is from God. Atheists will not understand this and will call it delusion, but it is true.

No, those 'voices' in minds 'planted by God' that for example Abraham heard and that told him to kill his son Isaac we don't call delusion only but schizophrenic. They all had hard time to tell what is real and what is not.

So, is it my fault that I don't believe in 'voices'?

EnPassant
Natural selection is a statistical drift in many things eg the fittest businesses will survive, but this does not mean that natural selection is a DRIVING force in evolution. See my above quotes re. Genetic variation: genes make proteins, it has not been shown that they drive evolution, this is an article of faith. Mutations don't explain growth and form - see Rupert Sheldrake's writing on this.

Sheldrake is not evolutionary biologist. If you wonder about evolution, read more of Dawkins, but I am more under impression that you read more Deepak Chopra on subject, who now claims that “Quantum” physics is proof that matter has consciences. Isn't that something that Sheldrake believes as well? Do you know what was Chopra last comment on his recent debate with Dawkins, after debate? (click here to find out)

EnPassant

I am not making jabs at science.

Of course you are. You're making claims of insufficience of current theories without offering any justification. That's a jab.

I have not made any scientific claims.

Again, I would have to disagree. You say:

genes don't explain growth and form

That's a scientific claim right there - and one you haven't even begun to substantiate. What exactly does this mean and how do you know? If genes can't explain it, what can? I'm still waiting for you to address the questions you've studiously avoided so far:

What's the hypothesis? What testable predictions can you derive from it? How would you test them?

radix

EnPassant

I am not making jabs at science.

Of course you are. You're making claims of insufficience of current theories without offering any justification. That's a jab.

I have not made any scientific claims.

Again, I would have to disagree. You say:

genes don't explain growth and form

That's a scientific claim right there - and one you haven't even begun to substantiate. What exactly does this mean and how do you know? If genes can't explain it, what can? I'm still waiting for you to address the questions you've studiously avoided so far:

What's the hypothesis? What testable predictions can you derive from it? How would you test them?

Yes, I have provided justification for what I said, in the links I provided. Those links tell about the current state of science. People like Richard Dawkins paint a nice neat picture of the state of science, as if only the details need to be sorted out. It is not like this at all. As you can see from the links I provided, there is dissent from people who know what they are talking about.

"Genes don't explain growth and form" is not a scientific statement. It is a statement about the current state of scientific knowledge. Current evolutionary theory has run into a dead end when it comes to explaining growth and form. It is not possible to substantiate a negative convincingly (the negative being "genes don't"). What I am saying is that science has not explained how genes determine growth and form. Scientists will pretend that genes do everything and if the scientist happens to be Richard Dawkins he will pretend that there is a huge amount of evidence for the current formulation of the theory of evolution. There is not. The evidence is that things evolve - but how they evolve is very very unclear. Again, I would advise you to read the opposition so you will get a clear picture of what the situation really is (but I would avoid evolution deniers)

You ask "What's the hypothesis? What testable predictions can you derive from it? How would you test them?". You are asking me to provide a scientific answer as if only science matters. The fact is that nobody knows how evolution works. I will admit I don't, but many scientists pretend they do and this is not honest. I believe there is intelligence behind evolution but I cannot predict what that intelligence will do nor do I know how to test this intelligence. But what tests can scientists do to show genes determine growth and form? The reality is that a theory is being dishonestly fed to the public and they are being mislead into thinking that the clever scientists have worked it out - except for some details that need to be ironed out. If you do your research you will see that this is a false picture.

reply to post by SuperFrog


Not everyone who hears voices is schizophrenic. God does speak to people. Jesus said that He only says what His Father in heaven tells Him to say. Jesus does not seem to me like a schizophrenic. It is far too easy to call people mad or 'deluded' (Dawkins' favourite) if they don't agree with your world view. You can dismiss almost any argument with "They are all mad". This is just mud slinging.

I only quote Sheldrake because he gives an honest account of the state of evolutionary biology. He says it like it is. And who knows if quantum reality has anything to do with consciousness? Maybe it has. Chopra might get a bit colorful at times but what of it? Many of his ideas are solid enough 'though I don't follow him. I don't know, or claim to know, how consciousness works but the idea that it is quantum does not sound absurd to me. Maybe Chopra is wrong but quantum reality is wonderfully efficient at transmitting information which is why there is so much talk nowadays about quantum computing. I would not commit myself to what Chopra says but it does not sound mad either!

EnPassant

Yes, I have provided justification for what I said, in the links I provided.

I don't have time to read the entire linked articles now but I've given them a brief look. The papers don't seem to refer to any active research on the author's (Stephen L Talbott) part, they're more philosophical in nature and certainly don't present any experimental data. It's obvious that Talbott thinks there's something wrong with modern biology in general and the theory of evolution in particular and that he wants to see some kind of radical paradigm shift but it's not clear to me what he's actually suggesting.

Scientific theories are work tools - scientists keep them around because they work: they help them make sense of the observed evidence, provides a framework to fit all the pieces into and makes testable predictions that can be verified. In short, they get results - if they don't, they're discarded or amended. If Talbott wants to replace the theory of evolution with a new one he'd better make sure that it works, i.e. it has to explain all the observed evidence (preferably in a better way that the ToE or there wouldn't be much point) and should make testable and accurate predictions. The thing is that I can't find any real indication of what exactly it is Talbott wants to put in the place of the ToE.

"Genes don't explain growth and form" is not a scientific statement. It is a statement about the current state of scientific knowledge.

This doesn't make any sense. A statement about the current state of scientific knowledge *is* a scientific statement.

Current evolutionary theory has run into a dead end when it comes to explaining growth and form.

If you're talking about evo-devo, I see no signs of it running into a dead end.

It is not possible to substantiate a negative convincingly (the negative being "genes don't").

Indeed, which is probably a good reason not to make such statements. If you think there are other factors that are involved I refer you right back to the questions about hypothesis and testability. Positive evidence is the only thing that will get you anywhere - unprovable claims certainly won't.

What I am saying is that science has not explained how genes determine growth and form. Scientists will pretend that genes do everything and if the scientist happens to be Richard Dawkins he will pretend that there is a huge amount of evidence for the current formulation of the theory of evolution. There is not.

Well, since neither you nor Talbott have been able to come up with a new theory, I guess we're stuck with the one we have - and as far as I can see, it's doing fine. What's with this fixation with Dawkins, anyway? He's not even an active scientist these days and hardly speaks for all of science.

You ask "What's the hypothesis? What testable predictions can you derive from it? How would you test them?". You are asking me to provide a scientific answer as if only science matters.

I'm asking you to take intellectual responsibility for your claims. If the problem is scientific, the solution will be scientific - or do you have any example of a scientific problem that was solved without doing any science? You claim there's a problem but when I ask you what your solution is, you cut and run. In fact, the only constructive thing I can find in your posts is "don't claim to know stuff you don't know". I'm sure the scientists will appreciate the advice but, other than that, what are you expecting them to do that they're not already doing? Without even a working hypothesis, there's nothing for them to go on.

But what tests can scientists do to show genes determine growth and form?

Just google Hox genes and you'll get millions of hits - pretty impressive for a stagnant field of research.

The reality is that a theory is being dishonestly fed to the public and they are being mislead into thinking that the clever scientists have worked it out - except for some details that need to be ironed out.

Now there's a whopper of an unsubstantiated claim, care to back this up with some evidence of this dishonesty?

In the end, this is about how to gain new knowledge about living organisms and how they develop. If you believe science is a way to gain such knowledge, you have to accept that your ideas will have to stand up to scientific scrutiny before they're accepted. If you don't believe science is a way to gain this knowledge, then maybe you should leave science to people who do?

reply to post by radix


The solution is self evident, scientists should stop making claims they cannot substantiate. Criticizing TOE does not oblige one to come up with a replacement. If something is wrong it should be pointed out. The hox gene has been pointed out to me before - all I can find is evidence that if the hox is damaged there is a resultant deformity but arguing that damaged genes disrupt growth and form is not equivalent to showing genes determine growth and form.

You are looking for evidence that there is dissent...See this

Here is a damning article...

"The numbers of scientists who question Darwinism is a minority, but it is growing fast," said Stephen Meyer, a Cambridge-educated philosopher of science who directs the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture at Discovery Institute. "This is happening in the face of fierce attempts to intimidate and suppress legitimate dissent. Young scientists are threatened with deprivation of tenure. Others have seen a consistent pattern of answering scientific arguments with ad hominem attacks. In particular, the series' attempt to stigmatize all critics--including scientists--as religious 'creationists' is an excellent example of viewpoint discrimination."

What is being said is that anyone who begs to disagree is attacked and intimidated. This is the state of things in the scientific community, something Dawkins will not tell you about...

Full article

reply to post by radix


Two quotes from the Wistar Symposium-

""The immediate cause of this conference is a pretty widespread sense of dissatisfaction about what has come to be thought as the accepted evolutionary theory in the English-speaking world, the so-called neo-Darwinian theory . . These objections to current neo-Darwinian theory are very widely held among biologists generally; and we must on no account, I think, make light of them."—*Peter Medawar, remarks by the chairman, *Paul Moorhead and *Martin Kaplan (ed.), Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, Wistar Institute Monograph No. 5."

""An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials."—*Michael Ruse, "Darwin's Theory: An Exercise in Science," in New Scientist, June 25, 1981, p. 828."

Full article

I am not arguing that evolution does not happen, it does, but there is clearly dissent among scientists.

EnPassant

The solution is self evident, scientists should stop making claims they cannot substantiate.

Still waiting for your evidence for these alleged wrongdoings. What I've got so far is that you really don't like Richard Dawkins. Is that it?

Criticizing TOE does not oblige one to come up with a replacement. If something is wrong it should be pointed out.

The thing is, not only have you been unable to provide an alternative theory, you haven't even been able to demonstrate that there's actually something wrong with the currently proposed one. A charitable way of putting it is that your argument is somewhat lacking.

The hox gene has been pointed out to me before - all I can find is evidence that if the hox is damaged there is a resultant deformity but arguing that damaged genes disrupt growth and form is not equivalent to showing genes determine growth and form.

It's certainly consistent with the theory that embryonal development and body plans are controlled by genes. Where's your evidence that they're controlled by non-genetic factors?

You are looking for evidence that there is dissent...See this

Wow. As if any more evidence of the vacuousness of your argument were needed, you trot out the Discovery Institute's list of dissenters. Have you read the text these dissenters sign on to?

WE ARE SKEPTICAL OF CLAIMS FOR THE ABILITY OF RANDOM MUTATION AND NATURAL SELECTION TO ACCOUNT FOR THE COMPLEXITY OF LIFE. CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE FOR DARWINIAN THEORY SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED.

Not exactly a ringing denounciation of the ToE, is it? Skepticism is at the heart of scientific inquiry so, in principle, any scientist could sign this. The reason most haven't is of course their suspicion that their signature would be spun into anti-evolutionary propaganda. I guess they were right.

As a rather tongue-in-cheek response to this list, the NCSE launched their Project Steve. It's a longer list of names than the DI list, they have far more PhD:s within a relevant biological field - and they're all named Steve. There's nothing wishy-washy about the text they've signed on to, either:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

To replace a scientific theory, you need to do the science. What the Discovery Institute and Stephen L Talbott are offering is words, not data. It may sound harsh but if you can't substantiate your claims, they can be summarily dismissed. If you put nothing on the table that can be studied and verified, you're not part of the process.

EnPassant
What is being said is that anyone who begs to disagree is attacked and intimidated. This is the state of things in the scientific community, something Dawkins will not tell you about...

Did Dr Meyer provide any evidence of these attacks and intimidations? I notice the article is from 2001, any links to legal proceedings brought about by these allegations?

EnPassant
reply to post by radix

 

Two quotes from the Wistar Symposium-

""The immediate cause of this conference is a pretty widespread sense of dissatisfaction about what has come to be thought as the accepted evolutionary theory in the English-speaking world, the so-called neo-Darwinian theory . . These objections to current neo-Darwinian theory are very widely held among biologists generally; and we must on no account, I think, make light of them."—*Peter Medawar, remarks by the chairman, *Paul Moorhead and *Martin Kaplan (ed.), Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, Wistar Institute Monograph No. 5."

""An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials."—*Michael Ruse, "Darwin's Theory: An Exercise in Science," in New Scientist, June 25, 1981, p. 828."

Full article

I am not arguing that evolution does not happen, it does, but there is clearly dissent among scientists.

edit on 1-1-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)

Let's just cut to the chase, shall we? Can you demonstrate that evolution (including speciation) cannot be explained by mutation, natural selection and genetic drift? If you can't (and we all know you can't) you need to provide positive evidence for the existence of other factors that drive evolution. Got any?

You can scream about dissent until you're blue in the face but if these dissenters can offer nothing to investigate, they're irrelevant.

reply to post by radix


Growth and form are central to evolution and science cannot show that genes determine growth and form. If someone says the Tooth Fairy is responsible for evolution it is not for me to prove them wrong or offer an alternative theory, it is for them to provide the evidence. Likewise science cannot provide evidence that genes determine, or even play a part in growth and form, among other things. I am waiting for the evidence. I am waiting for scientists to "substantiate" their claims. The onus is on them, not me. Saying the theory is consistent is neither here nor there. Ptolemy's epicycles were consistent but turned out to be wrong. So was the idea of philogiston.

Natural Selection is a statistical drift. Even if there is intelligence behind evolution Natural Selection would still play a part so evidence for natural selection does not support the random mutation bit. Natural selection happens in many areas of life; for example, fit businesses will tend to flourish, unfit ones won't. Evidence for natural selection can be used to support evolution per se but not random mutations. There are three items here-

1. Evolution - the fact that things evolve.

2. Natural Selection - that's going to happen anyway, however evolution really works.

3. Mutations.

These three items need to be separated out and evidence for one (the fact of evolution) IS NOT evidence for the other (the primacy of mutations or the gene myth).

This is the gripe I have with Dawkins. He pretends that evidence for evolution per se is evidence for the whole package: Evolution by Natural Selection via Random Mutations. This is very deceitful and unscientific. The evidence is for the fact of evolution and the unavoidable natural selection that follows, but that does not mean that the entire selection process is dependent on natural selection; if there is intelligence driving evolution then that intelligence selects the new creatures and species that will go forward. So the selection can be intelligent with natural selection weeding out weaker species. Evidence for natural selection does not support the whole theory. Dawkins, by means of sly rhetorical gymnastics and omissions, pretends that evidence for any of the above 3 items is evidence for all three. He is a very slippery talker.

Let's just cut to the chase, shall we? Can you demonstrate that evolution (including speciation) cannot be explained by mutation, natural selection and genetic drift? If you can't (and we all know you can't) you need to provide positive evidence for the existence of other factors that drive evolution. Got any?

You can scream about dissent until you're blue in the face but if these dissenters can offer nothing to investigate, they're irrelevant.

To say that ToE can explain these things is an article of faith (that is, they believe the genes do it) because ToE has not explained them. To explain evolution we need the following-

1. Explain how genes code for the construction of cells
2. How they differentiate the different types of cells in the developing embryo
3. How they tell cells how to construct organs
4. How they integrate organs into a full human being
5. How they provide physical consciousness in the human mind (assuming consciousness IS physical)

Science has not shown how genes do these things. All they do is make proteins.

My purpose in this thread is not to provide an alternative explanation of evolution, it is to tell people how much the public understanding of science differs from the real situation and how the rhetoric is misleading people. Popular science books will paint a very neat picture with statements like "Through successive mutations, ant colonies have evolved a sophisticated chemical language." but popular science will not provide the evidence.

The default is "genes done it" even when that statement cannot be shown to be true. Everything is said to be in the genes. You have a person on a talk show "I must have got my horse riding abilities from my grandmother - she must have gave me the horse riding genes". The gene myth is everywhere.

Even scientists default to the gene myth as I pointed out in the Stephen L Talbott link. All I am really saying is that there is a huge disconnect between what the public believes from popular science and what the real situation is. It is not for me to explain evolution as I am only trying to make people aware of this disconnect.

EnPassant
If someone says the Tooth Fairy is responsible for evolution it is not for me to prove them wrong or offer an alternative theory, it is for them to provide the evidence. Likewise science cannot provide evidence that genes determine, or even play a part in growth and form, among other things. I am waiting for the evidence. I am waiting for scientists to "substantiate" their claims. The onus is on them, not me. Saying the theory is consistent is neither here nor there. Ptolemy's epicycles were consistent but turned out to be wrong. So was the idea of philogiston.

This is a rather pathetic attempt to reverse the burden of proof. Mutation, natural selection and genetic drift are all observable, verifiable processes. If you're suggesting another cause for evolution without presenting any evidence for its existence then it is you who are introducing a Tooth Fairy. It's your job to demonstrate that this cause exists and so far, you're doing a rather pitiful job of it.

Natural Selection is a statistical drift. Even if there is intelligence behind evolution Natural Selection would still play a part so evidence for natural selection does not support the random mutation bit. Natural selection happens in many areas of life; for example, fit businesses will tend to flourish, unfit ones won't. Evidence for natural selection can be used to support evolution per se but not random mutations

This is nonsensical as mutations are readily demonstrable. They're a simple result of the fact that DNA is not a perfect replicator.

To say that ToE can explain these things is an article of faith (that is, they believe the genes do it) because ToE has not explained them.

Since the theory is supported by observable evidence, this statement is obviously false.

Science has not shown how genes do these things. All they do is make proteins.

What evidence can you present that they need to do anything more?


In summary:

You haven't demonstrated that intelligence is needed to explain evolution.

You haven't presented any evidence that such an intelligence is involved in the process or even exists at all.

You haven't suggested any hypothesis concerning the properties and effects of this proposed intelligence or any means of finding any information about it.

In short, you haven't offered anything relevant to the question and are certainly in no position to call anyone unscientific.

This is a rather pathetic attempt to reverse the burden of proof.

There is no burden of proof on me because my main point, in this thread, is the way science is being dishonestly presented. I never meant my first post to this thread to lead into a debate on evolution - my concern is the rhetoric being used.

You haven't demonstrated that intelligence is needed to explain evolution.

The appearance of design is evidence enough. OK, materialists will argue that intelligence is not necessary to explain the appearance of design but for me the appearance of design is a strong point in my argument and, for me, constitutes evidence (evidence, on both sides of the argument is, of course, subjective)

You haven't presented any evidence that such an intelligence is involved in the process or even exists at all.

My evidence would be the usual arguments from spirituality - you would have heard these already? But belief in God is not just a way of explaining physical things or answering scientific questions, it is far more than this and it is for these more diverse reasons that I would argue for the existence of a creator. But it is big subject...

You haven't suggested any hypothesis concerning the properties and effects of this proposed intelligence or any means of finding any information about it.

No scientific hypothesis but a thesis concerning consciousness and awareness of God - you wouldn't like to hear it though.

In short, you haven't offered anything relevant to the question and are certainly in no position to call anyone unscientific.

I am. It is wrong to pretend that a theory is a theorem and this is what Dawkins does. I am quite entitled to criticize him (a theorem is a proved theory).

EnPassant

The appearance of design is evidence enough. OK, materialists will argue that intelligence is not necessary to explain the appearance of design but for me the appearance of design is a strong point in my argument and, for me, constitutes evidence (evidence, on both sides of the argument is, of course, subjective)

And 500 years ago it was self evident that the earth was the center of the universe. I think as a species we need to move beyond anachronistic interpretations as "self evident" is based on personal interpretation not necessarily facts. This is evidenced in your post by the qualifiers that are littered through it such as "but for me", "and, for me", "in my argument" etc... You're certainly entitled to your opinion but opinions are not evidence.

I am. It is wrong to pretend that a theory is a theorem and this is what Dawkins does. I am quite entitled to criticize him (a theorem is a proved theory).

edit on 1-1-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-1-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)

Is it not equally wrong to use a mathematical term(theorem) in regards to science(theory). They are seperate entitiesfrom seperate disciplines. In math -

a theorem is a statement that has been proven on the basis of previously established statements, such as other theorems—and generally accepted statements, such as axioms. The proof of a mathematical theorem is a logical argument for the theorem statement given in accord with the rules of a deductive system. The proof of a theorem is often interpreted as justification of the truth of the theorem statement. In light of the requirement that theorems be proved, the concept of a theorem is fundamentally deductive, in contrast to the notion of a scientific theory, which is empirical.

Additionally, when did Dawkins become the national spokesman for all of science? He doesn't really engage in science anymore and has relegated himself to vociferous mouth piece for militant atheism, we shouldn't confuse that with actual science.