How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Intelligent Design vs. Natural Selection   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ]
 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Intelligent Design vs. Natural Selection

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 06-21-2005
Posts 679
Pittsburgh, Pa


100 posted 01-08-2006 02:08 PM       View Profile for JesusChristPose   Email JesusChristPose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JesusChristPose

The first question either argument is based upon is the origination of the belief.

Creation = via God created by the humankind through subjective philosophy.

Evolution = via Science, which is an objective to the humankind, based upon evidence.

Remember, someone from the humankind had to first state, "There is a God who created the universe." The first retort to that would be, "What is your proof?" Which would answered by, "My proof is it is what I believe or what my mind believed God had told me."

"If this grand panaorama before me is what you call God... then God is not dead."

CMGrimm
Senior Member
since 02-14-2000
Posts 700
USA


101 posted 01-08-2006 10:12 PM       View Profile for CMGrimm   Email CMGrimm   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for CMGrimm

I wonder what would happen if our school boards, faculty, parents, legislatures, court systems, churches, media, students, and everyone else involved would put this much effort and passion into teaching our children how to write, read, add, subtract, multiply, divide, SPEAK, and behave?

Never be a carbon copy of anybody...make your own impressions.  - ANON.


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


102 posted 01-08-2006 10:46 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

As a parent of children in public schools Grimm I can fully understand the tone of frustration in that post.  But, is there a possibility that you're shortchanging an awful lot of teachers, ministers, judges, parents, et al who are extremely passionate about doing the things that you say?  In fact, I'd say the vast majority of them are doing the very best they can to that end.  The problems arise in that passionate people often disagree about what the 'best' way to go about doing that is.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


103 posted 01-09-2006 02:56 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi


“Look ye, Starbuck, all visible objects are but as pasteboard masks. Some inscrutable yet reasoning thing puts forth the molding of their features. The white whale tasks me; he heaps me. Yet he is but a mask. 'Tis the thing behind the mask I chiefly hate; the malignant thing that has plagued mankind since time began; the thing that maws and mutilates our race, not killing us outright but letting us live on, with half a heart and half a lung.”

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


104 posted 01-09-2006 09:40 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Brad:
quote:
laughed at Stephen's comment. It seems that most people in the world believe what he believes, not the evolutionary model. But let's take the point seriously as well:

We have a scientific consensus that evolution creates change in animals, we believe that this creates new species over time (In the same way that, say, the Voyager spacecraft will make it to a different star system as long as nothing gets in its way)



You're not noting the very significant distinction between small-scale changes within the species, and large-scale development of organ systems, or new species.  The terms "micro" and "macro" have been used by many biologists to describe this difference.  The problem with your presentation here, is that though there is indeed a consensus about one phenomenon called "evolution", being based upon actual evidence, there is no such evidential consensus for the other kind.  


If there is any consensus about macroevolution, it is not an evidential one.  And where such evidence is given, it is sketchy and threadbare.  Even your own argument for Evolution most often goes as such: . . .  We know that small scale evolutionary change happens ... We know that speciation, and many complexities of life has happened ... Therefore we can be pretty confident that the big questions are answered in the same fashion (without anything near like a complete picture of how it did).


But this is hypothesis (with certain philosophical precommitments) not established scientific fact.


I had to laugh at the Voyager analogy.  The thing is, we understand the "how" of Voyager quite clearly, including velocity, distance, durability, design (did I use that word? excuse me), physics of space travel, etc ...  But when it comes to how an eye is made, or a leg, or a heart, (along an evolutionary scheme), we know next to nothing.  We only know that bird beaks change sizes, and that bacteria become resistant to certain drugs.  We don't know ANYTHING of how a bacteria might become something other than a bacteria.  Or even how a bacterial flagellum (a very small yet complex part of the bacteria) might become something other than a flagellum.  We only understand that if we dismantle complex protein parts (theoretically in our intelligent minds) we can design them into something else (there's that darned word again) with more than a few tweaks here and there which might have occurred over several million years.  


To compare something as well understood as "Voyager" with macroevolution is sophistry.  A better analogy would be that an ant travelling south will make it to Antarctica if nothing gets in it's way .... Oh yeah, and I forgot to mention as long as it crawls up an Argentina-Bound 747 boarding ramp ... and gets blown out of the plane over the South Pacific ... and lands on a Mission boat to the South Pole... etc ...  


The ruling forces of what you might call evolution are not at all established in the scientific mind (other than speculative theory), as anything like a spacecraft's trajectory and destination.


quote:
The onus is not on evolution to prove itself, it is on ID to stop its parasitic life and stand on its own two feet.



Regardless of how much ID has been able to "stand on it's own two feet", according to your opinion, it has a very definite function to show that Neo-Darwinian "science" has never really done so itself.  "Oh Ye of Little Science" is a phrase that loses significance in the mouth of just another priestly type.


quote:
How many times are we going to listen to the argument from incredulity? How many times are we shooting for the God of the gaps as those gaps get ever smaller?



You're right, I guess.  The ant has travelled twenty yards or so.  If God owns the gaps, so does Evolutionary theory, for it must credibly explain how those gaps were traversed.  And this I believe hasn't even begun in earnest, other than dogmatic theorizing, with "examples" of evidence placed (like the captives of Procrustes) on the Neo-Darwinian bed.  


In short, I feel your description of the gaps closing, is a great exaggeration.  And that has been the overwhelming pattern of Neo-Darwinian science, in my opinion.


And as far as the "how" of things goes ... (though I think evolution would still require an omnipotent God) ... Cinderella doesn't have to have the glass slipper, to know that another shoe doesn't fit.  


Reb:
quote:
Most biologists have given up arguing with creationists because it is a waste of time.  The current debate only exists because the IDists haven't given up and have made a few clumsy attempts to inject Pandas and People into some school curriculums.



To say such, makes me think that you haven't really read ID literature on it's own, but perhaps only about it from a critical Neo-Darwinistic perspective.  I haven't read "Pandas and People", but it surely can't be a poorer example of science, than some of the stuff in grade level, high school, and college level texts books, purporting to teach evolution.  I think Jonathan Wells demonstrated this quite well, for critical minds who aren't content with the dogma.  

http://www.iconsofevolution.com/


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0895262002/qid=11           36817170/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-2471449-6551825?n=507846&s=books&v=glance


Stephen.      
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


105 posted 01-09-2006 05:10 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Stephanos,

To help me understand the thrust of the argument for ID could please post a simple list of main points and perhaps a brief summary of each? Also to demonstrate that it is an independently viable alternative theory to evolutionit it would be helpful if you could perhaps avoid any reference to evolutionary theory, Darwinism etc. in your post - I’d like to examine each as independent entities based on their own merits.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


106 posted 01-09-2006 05:36 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

quote:
You're not noting the very significant distinction between small-scale changes within the species, and large-scale development of organ systems, or new species.  The terms "micro" and "macro" have been used by many biologists to describe this difference.


You're right, but that's because I don't consider it a significant distinction.

I don't even know what you mean when you say large scale development of organs in terms of evolutionary theory.

quote:
The problem with your presentation here, is that though there is indeed a consensus about one phenomenon called "evolution", being based upon actual evidence, there is no such evidential consensus for the other kind.
  

Because there is no other kind.

quote:
If there is any consensus about macroevolution, it is not an evidential one.  And where such evidence is given, it is sketchy and threadbare.  Even your own argument for Evolution most often goes as such: . . .  We know that small scale evolutionary change happens ... We know that speciation, and many complexities of life has happened ... Therefore we can be pretty confident that the big questions are answered in the same fashion (without anything near like a complete picture of how it did).


What big questions?

quote:
But this is hypothesis (with certain philosophical precommitments) not established scientific fact.


When you find rabbits in the Cambrian, dolphins in the Cretaceous, and humans in the Jurassic, then we'll talk.

quote:
I had to laugh at the Voyager analogy.  The thing is, we understand the "how" of Voyager quite clearly, including velocity, distance, durability, design (did I use that word? excuse me), physics of space travel, etc ...  But when it comes to how an eye is made, or a leg, or a heart, (along an evolutionary scheme), we know next to nothing.  We only know that bird beaks change sizes, and that bacteria become resistant to certain drugs.  We don't know ANYTHING of how a bacteria might become something other than a bacteria.  Or even how a bacterial flagellum (a very small yet complex part of the bacteria) might become something other than a flagellum.  We only understand that if we dismantle complex protein parts (theoretically in our intelligent minds) we can design them into something else (there's that darned word again) with more than a few tweaks here and there which might have occurred over several million years.


You know when people go after Behe and his flagellum, one of the first questions they ask is, "Which one?" But the Voyager analogy was meant to stress, not our knowledge or its design, but that little things go along way over time.

A comet hits Mars and sends a rock out of the solar system, given time, it will reach the other side of the galaxy provided nothing gets in the way.

Why does this happen?

I have no idea why Newton was right. As I recall he didn't know either.

I have no idea why mutation works the way it does.

quote:
A better analogy would be that an ant travelling south will make it to Antarctica if nothing gets in it's way .... Oh yeah, and I forgot to mention as long as it crawls up an Argentina-Bound 747 boarding ramp ... and gets blown out of the plane over the South Pacific ... and lands on a Mission boat to the South Pole... etc ...


Oh, and I forgot to mention, some of the Martian rocks also landed in Antarctica.  Now, what are the odds of hitting the specific spot in Antarctica given all the other possible trajectories it could have had? Pretty big is we assume no boundary conditions. Given the right conditions, however bizzare for the ant or for the rock, all that was necessary was physics and the right boundary conditions.

I don't know why those exist the way they do. My hunch is that they didn't have to be that way.

quote:
The ruling forces of what you might call evolution are not at all established in the scientific mind (other than speculative theory), as anything like a spacecraft's trajectory and destination.


What do you think those speculative ruling forces are?

I don't have any problems arguing the metaphysical limits of what evolutionary theory can and can't do, but IR and ID are just barking up the wrong tree.  Go to the very limits of philosophy (so far) and science (so far) and you'll get no argument from me.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


107 posted 01-10-2006 10:10 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

"But when it comes to how an eye is made, or a leg, or a heart, (along an evolutionary scheme), we know next to nothing. "


I'm not sure what you mean Stephanos.

We know that the earth under certain conditions and temperatures can afford certain changes.  

That they are changed and the earth is no longer able to afford such changes, does not mean they were not there when they were needed for the creation and evolution of body parts, the same way as the right conditions and temperatures are here to sustain those body parts.

How is that evidence that God wasn't/isn't here, or that it wasn't/isn't creation as well though?  

It isn't.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


108 posted 01-11-2006 02:23 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Grinch,

Here is a summary from Wikipedia:

Intelligent Design

Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


109 posted 01-11-2006 06:48 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Essorant,

Thanks but I read that some time ago, it doesn’t really state the case FOR ID so much as outline some objections to Evolution – and I think that’s one of my biggest problems with ID.

If someone wants to convince me the earth is flat I want to know the basis of their assumption not obscure arguments why it can’t possibly be round. If someone wants to convince me that evolution through natural selection can explain the diversity of life on earth I want to hear the basis of that assumption, not a list of objections to creationism. Yet wherever I look, and trust me I’ve looked, I just see objections to evolution in arguments for ID – I was hoping Stephanos (or anyone else) could give me a simple statement of the arguments for ID without all the anti-evolution baggage.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


110 posted 01-11-2006 07:06 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

And Stephen... from what perspective does Jonathan Wells, Sr. Fellow at the Discovery Institute (of Wedge Strategy fame http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy) Write?

I suppose that an ultimate objective of proving the existence of God is noble.  But, really -- what Christian values are these guys actually exhibiting in their behaviour of obfuscation and deception?
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


111 posted 01-12-2006 04:57 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

LR,

Don't have time yet to post in the detail I want... But I would like to encourage yourself and others to read Jonathan Well's book "Icons of Evolution" rather than merely what opposition says about it.   Deception and obfuscation are exactly what it seems Mr. Wells has uncovered in abundance, in many text-book presentations of Evolution as scientific fact.  


I won't defend any deceptive behavior on the part of Wells, or any other ID scientist.  But neither am I presently aware of any.  But I would encourage you to consider whether or not something like the classic example of the "Peppered Moth" , as an example of natural selection in action, was itself dishonest.  And if not dishonest ... at least never corrected, and set straight by the Neo-Darwinistic community.  A piece of scientifically unsound rhetoric, that can be found still in some evolutionary textbooks today, I'm sure.


The "Peppered Myth" is at least worth looking into.  There are many other examples as well.  Of course this doesn't "disprove" evolution.  But it does show that the touted "detached objective and genuinely scientific" character of the movement ... is itself questionable ... is itself open to the charge of being a "religion" of sorts, as dogma to be loyalistically defended, rather than rigorously proved on the basis of the empirical.  These are the same charges that you level against ID.  

http://www.iconsofevolution.com/embedJonsArticles.php3?id=1263  

http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_significancepm.htm

More later,

Stephen.

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (01-12-2006 06:47 PM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


112 posted 01-12-2006 06:41 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Grinch:
quote:
If someone wants to convince me the earth is flat I want to know the basis of their assumption not obscure arguments why it can’t possibly be round.



Turn that around for a moment.  Imagine yourself as one in the past who believed in a flat earth.  I'm quite sure that many of the arguments for a spherical earth, were exactly as you describe ... not "direct" and irrefutable proof that the earth was round, but increasing difficulties and challenges presented to those who asserted that it was flat.  The overturning of "flat earth" was not all at once.  I have no doubt that many arguments, bringing flat-earth into question, also served as a "wedge" before many people would even consider the possiblity of something else.  


I think something like that is going on with ID.  Of course I don't think that anti-evolutionary arguments are all that ID has to offer ... (I'll try to explain in more detail soon, what it presents as positive evidence for design) ... but, even if that's ALL ID served to do, that would not be a bad thing.  Because if Darwinistic evolution has not really been established, except by "obscure" arguments, dogmatic rhetoric, and dramatically inflated extrapolations, then that would be good to know, regardless of a replacement "theory".


quote:
If someone wants to convince me that evolution through natural selection can explain the diversity of life on earth I want to hear the basis of that assumption



Me too!  I would like to hear something other that this:  ... Since we know some small scale change occurs by genetic mutation and natural selection, it MUST be the explanation behind such things as morphology, complex organ functions, and differing species.


There is no scientifically documented intermediary between reproduction by cell division, and sexual reproduction.  But the Gap is ENORMOUS if evolution occurs by small incremental steps (each providing the organism with a functional advantage), as Darwin proposed.  What good is a half of a genitalia?  There is nothing in this area of consideration presented, in scientific journals, other than grotesque speculation.  (However, I'd be willing to read anything that you could point me to).  


But I really have no problem with all of that.  Just call it what it is ... faith, creative imagination, devotion to an idea or philosophy, a belief in miracles ... a hypothesis even.  But don't call it scientifically established fact.

That's what the "wedge" means to me ... an effort to dislodge the dogmatic status of Evolution, with proper criticism, questions, challenges.  There's nothing wrong or deceptive about this ... only a question of whether the individual arguments hold any weight.  When something claiming to be scientific, becomes a tautology, a self complacent orthodoxy, it's a good thing to attempt to show it as such.  Sometimes such a paradigm has to be challenged in it's own grounds before people can open their minds to other ideas.


And that's a good function of ID, whatever else they might have to say about evidence for design.  Remember how I said that Cinderella should be able to know whether or not the boot fits, regardless of the advent of glass slippers?  And if ID is doing anything, it's at least showing that the boot isn't fitting.
  


Stephen.  
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


113 posted 01-13-2006 05:16 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Stephanos,

“I'll try to explain in more detail soon, what it presents as positive evidence for design”

I look forward to reading it, meaningful debate is easier if opposing viewpoints and the evidence for such are clearly stated - proving your own position is far easier than criticising the opposition. The danger in relying on criticism is that your own premise goes unproved and unnoticed.

I’ll even do you a deal, you state the arguments for ID and present the evidence that supports it without reference to evolution and I’ll post an argument against Darwinian evolution.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


114 posted 01-13-2006 07:27 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

quote:
There is no scientifically documented intermediary between reproduction by cell division, and sexual reproduction.  But the Gap is ENORMOUS if evolution occurs by small incremental steps (each providing the organism with a functional advantage), as Darwin proposed.
  

http://www.biology.iastate.edu/intop/1Australia/04papers/LewisSftCorl.htm

quote:
However, some types of organisms such as worms and corals have acquired the ability to reproduce both sexually and asexually


We also know the single celled creatures can share DNA. This is called lateral something or other.

Time on search engine: approximately a minute and a half.



Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


115 posted 01-13-2006 07:42 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


"This is called lateral something or other."

Lateral DNA Transfer
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


116 posted 01-13-2006 08:03 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Well, that makes sense.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


117 posted 01-16-2006 12:10 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Stephen, can you give me a compelling reason why I should read it?  What is the big biological/medical disaster that reading it will avert?  Are we missing curing disease because of this big 'conspiracy' of text-book publishers?

I did read his introduction, and his argument is fairly convincing.  There must be a conspiracy -- all the books give the same evidence for evolution.  Wow.  There must be a conspiracy on the value of Pi too.  Not to mention every text book on English uses a 26 letter alphabet.  Kind of makes you wonder doesn't it?
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


118 posted 01-16-2006 10:43 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

How does referring to biological disasters, diseases, conspiracies, or the English alphabet, answer any context, specific points, or argument that Stephanos brought up?

That seems more to avoid than address the issues at hand.


Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


119 posted 01-16-2006 01:25 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Did you ever wonder what DNA literally means?

Let's look at the meanings of the
words that make it up:


de - Latin de " of, off, down from"
oxy - from Greek oxus "sharp"
ribo - from the -rab of arab
nucle- - from latin nucleus "kernel"
ic - equivelent to english "-ish"
acid - from Latin acidus "sour"
      

Considering the above, we come to a translation something like this:

Of-sharp-arab-kernelish sour  

(using the word sour substantively)

How is that for sense

[This message has been edited by Essorant (01-16-2006 02:15 PM).]

Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


120 posted 01-16-2006 04:13 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Or it could simply be derived from:

Deoxyribonucleic acid

D........N...... A...


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


121 posted 01-16-2006 05:25 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Because Ess, teaching biology to high school students isn't some polemic philisophical exercise -- it's laying the foundation for the utilitarian application of the knowledge of how our anatomy works for the purpose of supporting medical/health issues.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


122 posted 01-16-2006 05:26 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Essorant,

What points do you want to concentrate on?

The peppered moths thing refers to the fact that the picture of the moth on a tree was fudged.

Doesn't change the fact that moths really did change color (over generations) to more closely resemble soot during the industrial revolution. When the pollution disappeared, they changed color again.

I haven't read the book either (Stephen, I've read Behe, I thought it was your turn to read Dennet? ). but another myth is the time life diagram showing an austrolopithecus gradually turning into modern man. I suspect all of us an any side know that that is a myth as well.

But it makes a nice picture.

What I think we all agree on is that evolution is not taught very well in school.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


123 posted 01-16-2006 05:34 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Grinch:
quote:
I look forward to reading it, meaningful debate is easier if opposing viewpoints and the evidence for such are clearly stated - proving your own position is far easier than criticizing the opposition. The danger in relying on criticism is that your own premise goes unproved and unnoticed.


Before I go on, I would like to clarify my personal position, as perhaps a bit different than mere "ID".  I am certainly not closed to any of the positive arguments of Intelligent Design ... ranging all the way from Michael Denton's doubts about the sufficiency of random mutation and natural selection, to account for the complexities of biological life, to Behe's presentation of Irreducible complexity on a micro-bilogical level, to William Dembski's mathematical "explanatory filter" to detect the high probability of design in nature.  But at the same time, I believe that large inference is strong in the ID view of things.  Their "proofs" also have problems, gaps, and still require an inferential "leap" to believe that design is at work.  When we are studying what happened long ago, we are discussing a distant and highly speculative area ... where "reconstruction" of large segments of biological history must be hazarded, regardless of one's position.  This, by nature, is the business, more of artists than of scientists.  You might call it, scientific art.  But if so, there is also no artist, comparable to the creative flair of the Neo-Darwinist.


To me, there is a great value in ID, for helping to challenge the NeoDarwnistic paradigm, and show that it is a grand inference ... most likely built upon philosophical presuppositions, and held with yeoman-like passions (much like a religious view).  There is an indomitable resilience to Evolution ... an uncanny ability to recover and always smooth it's difficulties (or to ignore them), that is only characteristic of a pietistic belief.  When something cannot be disproved, or even seriously called into question, on the basis that we "may know a purely naturalistic explanation someday", it falls well out of the realm of science ... into the pale of ardent devotion, or at least metaphysical tautology.  And I actually have no problem, with that.  I deeply hold religious faith myself.  But let's call it what it is.  It doesn't bother me that you believe in evolution, only that you and others call it indisputable fact.  Hopefully your devotion does not extend to the priestly level of someone like Richard Dawkins who wrote , "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)".  If anyone is blind to the "design" of his own precommitments to philosophical naturalism, it is Richard Dawkins.    


As far as the positive "proof" claims of ID, I do not doubt that there are some stretches, akin to the kinds heard of in DE.  However, I am not even sure that we (at PIP) can debate the intricacies of microbiology enough to evaluate Michael Behe's ideas ... or that we can meaningfully evaluate whether or not Dembski's "explanatory filter" is valid.  Much of this goes beyond our knowledge of biology, or mathematics.  That doesn't mean I'm unwilling to try.  I can "google", copy, and paste as fast as Brad can.     But I would encourage you to read some the prominent thinkers of ID, for yourself, if you are interested in knowing what their ideas are.  Don't just read the opponents of their books, if you want to give it a fair hearing.  Why doubt the opponents enough to read otherwise, you ask?  I think the historically demonstrated devotion involved with Darwinism, as a totalistic belief system, ought to at least give you pause.  (I actually plan to post a separate thread soon, presenting the case that Evolution has a long presuppositional pedigree of developmentalism in philosophy ... and that it's acceptance, defense, and propagation, has been largely motivated by anti-religious sentiment.)


My aim, has never been just to jump on the ID bandwagon, and say "What they say is irrefutable and absolutely true".  But to protest, "criticizing the opposition" as you do, seems to me another telltale sign of a devotee.  GeoCentrism was surely criticized along with any said evidence of Heliocentrism.  Roman Catholics who were committed to Aristotelian views of astronomy and science, didn't tolerate such "criticism".  Every time there is a paradigm shift in science, there is a "wedge" of doubt that comes in, and is resented by many.  


So, having said that, I would like you to explain / defend your view that "criticism" of a status quo is never a valid part of finding truth.  I don't think that ID has nothing to say, positively ... But I would like to ask, even IF it didn't, would that automatically make it's criticisms of Neo-Darwinism invalid?  


Alvin Plantinga put it this way:  "I think Cardinal X will be the next Pope; you think that is unlikely, but don't have a candidate of your own; there is no one such that you think it is more likely than not that he will be the next pope. Is there something wrong with your procedure? I think not."  (On Rejecting The Theory of Common Ancestry: A Reply to Hasker)


Again,it seems to me that your insistence on the invalidity of criticism, is evidence of something akin to Papal devotion, on your part.  But I could be wrong.  That's a question for you to ponder.


In the meantime here are some links to books by ID authors...


Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, by Michael Denton


Darwin on Trial, by Phillip E. Johnson


Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, by Micheal J. Behe


Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe (Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute)


The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory), by William A. Dembski


No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot be Purchased Without Intelligence, by William A. Dembski


The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design, by William A. Dembski


That’s enough to get you started.  And though criticism of “Evolution” is to be found among these books (more in some authors than others), I think there are positive arguments put forth as well, If you really want to take the time to look.  


Brad:
quote:
We also know the single celled creatures can share DNA. This is called lateral something or other.


Brad, respectfully, your examples only reiterate the problem of incompleteness in the Darwinistic proposal.  Worms or Coral that can “reproduce both sexually and asexually” exhibit both kinds of reproduction, yes.  But I was asking you to give me examples of what may lie between asexual and sexual reproduction.  You only provide me with examples with BOTH already fully intact, and fuctioning in the enterprise of reproducing.  Quite a ladder is required here.  If you provide some more tangible steps, we could discuss the plausibility.  From a design standpoint, I could just as easily infer that such organisms were designed to reproduce both ways.  Just because an organism has both systems doesn’t prove that one system came from the other.  Again, a gross overconfidence in the explanatory power of “Evolution”.  Neither can sharing DNA between organisms, convincingly bridge the gap, as no reproduction of a new organism occurs, only change of an existing one.  


Reb:
quote:
Stephen, can you give me a compelling reason why I should read it?  What is the big biological/medical disaster that reading it will avert?  Are we missing curing disease because of this big 'conspiracy' of text-book publishers?


I’m really glad Darwinistic “Evolution” as a theory came along.  Just think how it has been pragmatically useful in curing diseases, among other things.     And, no, I am aware that mutation and natural selection is a real process, within species, which has given us understanding of drug resistant bacteria, among other helpful things.  But I am referring to the overly ambitious “Macro” metanarrative that Darwin’s humble truth has given way to.  


Your point is a double-edged sword.  Demanding present usefulness out of a theory of developmental processes which span large periods of time, is questionable.  It would seem that any theory of “origins” or even of the “how” of development would be subject to your criticism .... including Macro-evolution.


Truth is not always measured by sheer pragmatism.  In fact I would say, philosophically, that truth is always primary, and the practical aspect secondary.  
    
quote:
I did read his introduction, and his argument is fairly convincing.  There must be a conspiracy -- all the books give the same evidence for evolution.  Wow.  There must be a conspiracy on the value of Pi too.  Not to mention every text book on English uses a 26 letter alphabet.  Kind of makes you wonder doesn't it?


So, majority rules?  End of story?  What about when “flat earth” was in the majority, or Geo-centrism, or spontaneous generation?  I think looking at the issues at hand, is a better approach.  The merits of one thing, such as “Pi”, cannot be used to validate something entirely different.


Stephen.  
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


124 posted 01-16-2006 10:47 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

So, majority rules? End of story? What about when “flat earth” was in the majority, or Geo-centrism, or spontaneous generation? I think looking at the issues at hand, is a better approach. The merits of one thing, such as “Pi”, cannot be used to validate something entirely different.




Not so.  The majority that ruled on a flat Earth did so not on the basis of evidence but upon the basis of dogma.  It isn't, necessarily, ludicrous for uneducated masses to follow the dictates of the powerful.  What would make little sense is to insist that the Earth is flat after Columbus, Magellan, Eric the Viking, et al.  

The scientific community rests on evidence and peer review.  The reason falsification is the measure of science is because scientists always seek to falsify, or prove wrong, a concept rather than attempting to prove it right.  If they can prove it wrong, then it is wrong.  If they can't prove it wrong then it is a conditionally operative explanation of the observed events/phenomenon based on repetition and duplication of results.  

Go ahead.  Try to commit a fraud on the scientific community.  Tell them you've made cold fusion in the laboratory.  Tell them you've cloned human beings.  Your chickens will come home to roost.  

quote:

And, no, I am aware that mutation and natural selection is a real process, within species, which has given us understanding of drug resistant bacteria, among other helpful things. But I am referring to the overly ambitious “Macro” metanarrative that Darwin’s humble truth has given way to.



The micro macro issue has been asked and answered already in this thread.

There is no controversy in the scientific/biological field over whether or not speciation occurs. The only contention is the remaining question of exactly what factors are involved and if it happens in more than one way.

quote:

Just think how it has been pragmatically useful in curing diseases, among other things.



It certainly is... more importantly in preventing and predicting them.  Such as the potential evolution of the bird flu into a human to human pathogen.  Or in the case of the Ebola outbreak in Zaire where Paul Ewald was able to predict that it would fizzle out on its own.  Try to separate evolution from biology.  

quote:

According to idealized principles of scientific discourse, the arousal of dormant issues should reflect fresh data that give renewed life to abandoned notions. Those outside the current debate may therefore be excused for suspecting that creationists have come up with something new, or that evolutionists have generated some serious internal trouble. But nothing has changed; the creationists have presented not a single new fact or argument. Darrow and Bryan were at least more entertaining than we lesser antagonists today. The rise of creationism is politics, pure and simple; it represents one issue (and by no means the major concern) of the resurgent evangelical right. Arguments that seemed kooky just a decade ago have reentered the mainstream.

Steven J Gould   http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gould_fact-and-theory.html




 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Intelligent Design vs. Natural Selection   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors