138 replies to this topic

[DJS]

The burden on ID'ers is to match that degree of precision along with tangible evidience of divine intervention not a disproof of any elements of Darwinism.

To repost a quote from the atheism vs christianity thread:

Stephen Jay Gould: The entire creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to falsify evolution by presenting supposed contradictions among its supporters. Their brand of creationism, they claim, is "scientific" because it follows the Popperian model in trying to demolish evolution. Yet Popper's argument must apply in both directions. One does not become a scientist by the simple act of trying to falsify a rival and truly scientific system; one has to present an alternative system that also meets Popper's criterion — it too must be falsifiable in principle.

[Anthony_Loera]

I have read all these posts so far.

and I have to tell you all that it simply strikes me that ID folks simply have a problem and this problem encourages creative efforts to meet the need or solve the problem. The problem being evolution of course. That said, the only intelligence offered is through the necessity to 'solve' the problem, and no real evidence at all.

"Necessity is the mother of invention", and at the very foundation of this sentence we will find the ID folks, inventing and creating a dialog to force their way into the spotlight of science without any real evidence.

I am sorry folks, but ID people need to start letting me know why things in religion should be taken as fact before I am convinced to allow them a consideration into scientific dialog.

Why do we have the Eucharist, and isn't taking that an invocation of a higher being to cleanse your soul? --- See how strange that last question appears in this forum? When I wrote it, I knew it simply did not belong here... but yet here it is, in a science forum. The question in my mind, is similar to asking why Barney is purple, and not orange in a forum dedicated to science... it just doesn't make sense.

Sorry, ID should not remotely be associated with science. Just because you can't understand how something works, doesn't mean 'God' did it.

Which reminds me of a story that happened to me when my wife and I were still dating... one day we simply ran out of bread during breakfast, she was upset, and I said, don't worry we can probably make bread if she really wanted some. Well, she said... "Bread?! You make bread? we dont have anything to do that, if you can make bread your probably God..." (she is Latin so, it came out a bit broken... but the message was loud and clear. If I made bread, I was God...

Folks, I broke out the bizquick, and proved I was God.

Will ID folks call me God now?
Probably not... They probably need an equivalent of 'magical bisquick' or some guy from the future with new technological toys stating he is God.

this ID discussion should be closed, it's really worthless except for the humor of course...


Anthony Loera

[Live Forever]

That is the sense I get as well, Anthony. They take whatever they believe, and then try to use science (or at least science sounding stuff) to back up their claims, which is the opposite of the way discovery should be made.

You should start with science and use it to form what you believe, not start with a belief and use it to form a worldview you backup with science.

In any event, are there any IDers out there that would like to post some arguments? I can throw out some of the more common ones for us to all obliterate if needbe, but I would rather have arguments coming from someone who actually believes them to be true.

[Aegist]

The Ken Miller film I posted really does say everything.

[Live Forever]

The Ken Miller film I posted really does say everything.

Yeah, that was good. I didn't watch the whole long one, but I watched some of the shorter ones (both that you posted and that I saw linked to on the side bar in YouTube). He seems like a smart guy.

[Aegist]

Hhmm, essentially my point was that it is important how we define our terms.



So then what counts as "intelligence"?  I am making the same point again, only with a different term.

There are terms which we use continuously, and it is obvious that they have some sort of meaning.  When we "get under the hood" and evaluate them critically our conceptualizations might be a let down for some, but this doesn't imply that we should suddenly become eliminativist.

To state the obvious, the terms *creation* and *intelligence* exist.  Am I to understand that you are suggesting that the information content of these terms is effectively zero.  Should we "eliminate" them from our formal vocabulary and chalk their continued presence in our lexicon of terms up to the unavoidability of folk psychology?

This is a good question, but probably starting to get off topic if we do follow it through. As a quick reply though, I would say that the most obvious difference between intelligence of human design and the un-intelligence of Evolution comes down to two major points:
1. Human design is goal orientated. We have sophisticated computers because each step of the way we strove to create a more sophisticated computer
2. Intelligence has a memory. When something doesn't work, we don't try it again (well, not too much anyway).

[Aegist]

I actually watched the whole thing yesterday for the second time. He highlights the true danger of the ID movement (which is no longer ID). The true danger is the Wedge strategy being undertaken by the Discovery institute.

ID was destroyed, competely, by the Dover trial. It is dead (even if the public don't fully realise this yet, just as many of the public don't fully realise that Creationism was destroyed in 1987). The most recent threat is 'Critical Analysis' of evolution. That is, they aren't even trying to propose a new theory, they are just trying to draw negative attention to Evolution specifically. Of course 'Critical analysis' sounds perfect...that is what every scientist wants, and what Science is all about, but that is what makes this push so sinister. They aren't apparently doing anything wrong...but what they are in fact doing is trying to undermine how science works by putting firmly into the minds of kids that Evolution requires special scrutiny above and beyond all other science.

Sorry, more than that, what this does is says "Scrutinise evolution specifically. No other part of science requires critical analysis, just evolution"

The discovery institute, and religious fundamentalists which support any of this stuff are systematically trying to destroy Science and the scientific process.

http://en.wikipedia..../Wedge_strategy

[basho]

ID proponents could just as well just state that God created the Universe 30 seconds ago with all things fully formed in that instant. Its not so much of a leap from the theory of irreducible complexity.

[chubtoad]

Recent polls on evolution show an even split between evolution believers and nonbelievers...

http://www.galluppoll.com/

[biknut]

One of the main problems with evolution is a lack of transitional fossils.

[DukeNukem]

>>> One of the main problems with evolution is a lack of transitional fossils.

Not really. Though the ID'ist love to use this argument. There are still people who believe we didn't go to the moon, too. These people just weren't paying attention.

[Aegist]

One of the main problems with evolution is a lack of transitional fossils.

Did you watch the Ken Miller film I posted?
I recommend you do.

He talks about how Paleontologists have conferences where they get together and debate whether to call new fossil X a Mammal like Reptile, or a Reptile like Mammal. We don't have a one transitional fossil, we have thousands of transitional fossils.

What creationists also like to do, is ask for a transitional fossil between say, humans and apes. So paleontologists find one. They then insist that we need transitional fossils between apes and that fossil, and that fossil and humans. So our need for transitional fossils has doubled!

It's a stupid game.

Transitional fossils have been found, continue to be found, and present no problem whatsoever.

[JohnDoe1234]

Does anyone have the addresses/names of the fossil storehouses that we see Paleontologists digging through in documentaries? I recently had a good friend of mine ask me were the transitional fossils where and "in museums" wasn't good enough for him... that is always my troubled area in person to person debates on the subject because no matter how many times I say it they say that those findings were falsified and I have no way to counter it, and if I could splurt out a few addresses I think that would make an interesting twist to the conversation.

I could probably find them with enough searching but I am lazy and if someone already has a few names/locations off the top of their head, that would be fantastic...

btw, I'm not sure that I have seen the video you posted Shane, but I think when I have time I'll watch it.

[Aegist]

I don't think there is some global, or even national, or even state depository for fossils. You will find that those storehouses you see are just storerooms found in any museum, university, or paleo lab around the world.

The trick is to find out where specific bone sets are held. So if we are talking about human evolution, we might want to know where "Lucy" is being stored (AL 288-1, "Lucy", Australopithecus afarensis), so we search Google and find:
http://en.wikipedia....stralopithecus)
which says that :
"Lucy is preserved at the National Museum of Ethiopia in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. A plaster replica is displayed instead of the original skeleton. A cast of the original skeleton in its reconstructed form remains on display at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History"

[JohnDoe1234]

Ahh, ok.. that seems logical, I'll check it out.

[struct]

One of the main problems with evolution is a lack of transitional fossils.

The problem with evolution is that it has not yet produced a species with majority of individuals able to understand it. I think that presenting more transitional species, dead or alive, will not do, to convince this majority; ironically they themselves are a good example of a transitional variety and god forbid I hope they don't become transitional fossils.

[pSimonKey]

"And then a miracle occured.." is not science. ID relies on this one tenet. ID is therefore not science.

"big bang" sounds much the same, doesn't it!?

[pSimonKey]

One of the main problems with evolution is a lack of transitional fossils.

The problem with evolution is that it has not yet produced a species with majority of individuals able to understand it. I think that presenting more transitional species, dead or alive, will not do, to convince this majority; ironically they themselves are a good example of a transitional variety and god forbid I hope they don't become transitional fossils.

Could it that transitional fossils have not been found due to massive global trauma/s. Maybe transition happens because of traumas.
I am just speculating, I have no axe to grind with science or faith (both do seem to share similarities at some points).

[biknut]

Evolution for many is religion. Not proven but accepted as gospel. If anyone even in the slightest implies there may be a problem with it, people get their panties all in a wad, like you just dissed their god. No one wants to face the problems.

Religion has problems too. Like the fact that God hasn't spoken to anyone in over 2000 years.

[struct]

One of the main problems with evolution is a lack of transitional fossils.

The problem with evolution is that it has not yet produced a species with majority of individuals able to understand it. I think that presenting more transitional species, dead or alive, will not do, to convince this majority; ironically they themselves are a good example of a transitional variety and god forbid I hope they don't become transitional fossils.

Could it that transitional fossils have not been found due to massive global trauma/s. Maybe transition happens because of traumas.
I am just speculating, I have no axe to grind with science or faith (both do seem to share similarities at some points).

Yea!
Traumas.
Very massive ones.
Worldwide traumatized and systematically indoctrinated masses. Religion has done a god damn job in instilling fear in them. No wonder there is a lack of understanding of the evolutionary processes.

[struct]

"And then a miracle occured.." is not science. ID relies on this one tenet. ID is therefore not science.

"big bang" sounds much the same, doesn't it!?

No, it doesn't. You may be misled by the wording 'big bang and here we are'. Big bang is a lengthy evolutionary process itself made up of numerous stages (and transitional stages [for those who want more stages in between]). There are solid reasons and indications in favor of that model. One can not comprehend the big bang if they don't have basic understanding of some math, physics and chemistry.

[Cyberbrain]

This, among 143,234,908 other pieces of evidence that support Evolution, is my favorite.

Light years ahead of creationism

[pSimonKey]

"And then a miracle occured.." is not science. ID relies on this one tenet. ID is therefore not science.

"big bang" sounds much the same, doesn't it!?

No, it doesn't. You may be misled by the wording 'big bang and here we are'. Big bang is a lengthy evolutionary process itself made up of numerous stages (and transitional stages [for those who want more stages in between]). There are solid reasons and indications in favor of that model. One can not comprehend the big bang if they don't have basic understanding of some math, physics and chemistry.

first there is absolutely nothing a (big fat none zero) then there is comparatively lots of something (1+lots more) how's that for maths/religion...

[pSimonKey]

One of the main problems with evolution is a lack of transitional fossils.

The problem with evolution is that it has not yet produced a species with majority of individuals able to understand it. I think that presenting more transitional species, dead or alive, will not do, to convince this majority; ironically they themselves are a good example of a transitional variety and god forbid I hope they don't become transitional fossils.

Could it that transitional fossils have not been found due to massive global trauma/s. Maybe transition happens because of traumas.
I am just speculating, I have no axe to grind with science or faith (both do seem to share similarities at some points).

Yea!
Traumas.
Very massive ones.
Worldwide traumatized and systematically indoctrinated masses. Religion has done a god damn job in instilling fear in them. No wonder there is a lack of understanding of the evolutionary processes.

and an equal lack of understanding regarding the basis of religions. Maybe religion is/was/will be a necessary part of evolution to create the next mutation.
Fundamentalism of any theory/practice/ideology tends to be equally dogmatic and so confrontational to any other form fundamentalism.

[struct]

Maybe religion is/was/will be a necessary part of evolution to create the next mutation.

to create next mutation!?[8)]
Mutations occur every nanosecond. What do you mean by next mutation!?
Why would there be a need to have this giant obsolete establishment (religion) just to create the next mutation!? Few photons can do a more efficient job in causing mutations.

[Aegist]

Evolution for many is religion. Not proven but accepted as gospel. If anyone even in the slightest implies there may be a problem with it, people get their panties all in a wad, like you just dissed their god. No one wants to face the problems.

Wrong.

People "get their panties all in a wad" because you are being moronic when you deny the patently obvious.

Simple really.

[pSimonKey]

"Worldwide traumatized and systematically indoctrinated masses."
Maybe one of the many different variables that initialises a mutation.

"Mutations occur every nanosecond."
Mutations happen at many scales surely.

"Why would there be a need to have this giant obsolete establishment (religion) just to create the next mutation!? Few photons can do a more efficient job in causing mutations."
Why would there "need" to be a meteor, an ice age, a cerebral mutation or indeed a photon.

I have no idea what the next mutation will be or even if there will be a next one. One would presume that from a darwinian perspective mutation will occur and the better adaption will triumph. I would presume that as the major mutation of humans is the brain so somewhere within that there would be a better adaption, an evolution perhaps.
I do hope we get smarter as a species.
I don't know but I merely speculate.
I also think that damning religion is as bad as the various religions damining each other for there beliefs, theories and "facts".

[lucid]

The weakest part of the evolution theory is the making of the first protocell. There is debate as to whether cells developed metabolism first or genes first. While lots of the organic molecules in cells have been able to be manufactured under simulated primordial soup conditions, more complex molecules like protiens I don't believe have been manufactured in primordial soup conditions.

While I think evolution is a hugely more likely theory than god going 'click', It is not proven to have created the first cell. But then again we have neither the time nor the space (entire earth over billions of years) to have a protocell randomly form.

Evolution of species is pretty well proven though. The human lineage is a little murky but I buy it. I like a part of a carl sagan clip where he says just look at the artificial selection that we have imposed over our crop and livestock populations over a few thousand years, then imagine what could happen over billions of years.

I would say since the creation of the first cell has not been proven to have been able to occur via evolution, there is room for both theories so long as ID people only say god designed the first cells (which I don't think any of them do).

*Edit* I got to watching some more of Sagan's videos, and while he definitely simplifies somethings and states them as a law, I enjoyed watching the evolutionary path from the first eukaryote to humans.
Sagan's 4 billion years.

Edited by lucid, 13 June 2007 - 08:25 PM.

[austix]

There is not room for both theories in science. ID's are kooks or manipulators. They choose to be either ignorant or they seek to profit off the ignorance of others. That one dime of public money or an inch of public space is invested in this crackpot stuff is ridiculous. And that includes being able to write off donations to ID projects.

Belief in science excludes the supernatural. If you want to be a poet have at the universe with all your imagination. If you preach science then there can be no debate. ID's is hokum, right up there with the seven elephants that hold up the earth.

[Aegist]

I have no idea what the next mutation will be or even if there will be a next one. One would presume that from a darwinian perspective mutation will occur and the better adaption will triumph. I would presume that as the major mutation of humans is the brain so somewhere within that there would be a better adaption, an evolution perhaps.

I get an ever so strong impression that you have no idea what a mutation is.

When we talk about mutations, we aren't talking about this:


we're talking about this:


Understand the difference?