design theory defeats itself

[owl]

I have only read to Oct 7, 5:00AM, but here goes.

As a teacher and a physical chemist I have always felt that a science class should include various theories and the experimental evidence that sheds light on the acceptability of one over the other. There should be no attempt of the establishment to impose one or the other theory as acceptable nor to filter the evidence to slant the choice. Let the students come to their own conclusions.

In fact, if a theory is imposed or evidence is slanted, it only leads to disillusionment with the establishment and rejection of the imposed theory and perhaps of others along with it. If the establishments favored theory will stand on its own, let it.

However, NEITHER EVOLUTION NOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN CAN TRULY BE THOUGHT OF AS A SCIENTIFIC THEORY.

A theory is just a hypothesis, or more often a set of hypotheses, for which no incompatible evidence has yet been found, and which has existed long enough that it has come to be accepted as a possible explanation of observations. Science never proves anything true.

To be a scientific hypothesis, the hypothesis has to be falsifiable. Even when a hypothesis has been around so long that it has been elevated to the staus of a law, it is still falsifyable and a single experimental result that contradicts one of the hypotheses of a theory will result it the theory being revised or even rejected. Thus theories are not TRUE. They are just accepted.

To show that evolution was a more acceptable explanation than intelligent design, you can't just assemble natural conditions that lead to the generation of chemicals of life or even to the assembly of those chemicals into complex systems. If you can create these systems in the lab, isn't that what intelligent design says happened on earth though perhaps even more purposefully.

On the otherhand, if you just wait for nature to create a new life form, you will not have proved evolution. Intelligent design advacates will just claim that your previous catalog of extant life forms was incomplete. I doubt we will ever be able to say that every existing species has been observed.

To show that evoution is incorrect and intelligent design is the preferred explanation of creation, it is not sufficient to show any irreducibly complex system is necessary for life to begin. Even if the billions of years and the infinite universe do not provide sufficient time and space for an event of such infinitesimal probability to have been likely to occur, improbable events do occur or otherwise we should just have to had to wait longer.

Thus, neither theory is falsifiable. Therefore, neither theory is scientific.

Thus, if we must choose, we are left to apply Achem's Razor. If two competing explanations both agree with all the evidence, choose the simpler. Which is simpler, intelligence or chance, I leave to the reader.

Meanwhile, perhaps ID should be ruled out of the classroom because it is unscientific and supports religious philosophy, but if so, evolution should also be ruled out because it is unscientific and contradicts religious philosophy.

[ScriptureLover]

Knight:

In other words, they say they really don't know how evolution achieved what it did, they debate various theories under the evolution umbrella,

Kerry:

True the details and processes of evolution are debated, thank goodness, it's the essence of science. But the fact of evolution itself is not being argued. Sure there are LOTS of details that we don't know yet, but our ignorance, is not proof that God did anything! Good heavens that's ludicrous. Our ignorance is not proof of anything Supernatural, except we have to keep learning.

[ScriptureLover]

Owl:

A theory is just a hypothesis,

Kerry:

Like germ theory? Or Relativity theory? Or Quantum theory? These are just guesses? I have my serious theory of doubt concerning that.

[ScriptureLover]

Owl:

Meanwhile, perhaps ID should be ruled out of the classroom because it is unscientific and supports religious philosophy, but if so, evolution should also be ruled out because it is unscientific and contradicts religious philosophy.

Kerry:

Yer confused bub..........evolution is scientific, and HAS BEEN USED (can you say animal husbandry?) And something that simply contradicts religious philosophy is not unscientific. Good heavens I can't believe you believe this.

[ScriptureLover]

Knight:

because I stand by it just as rigidly as athiest scientist stand by evolution.

Kerry:

I am honestly not trying to pick on you Knight, I really am not, however, I take STRONG exception to your assumption that evolutionary science is held only because one is an atheist. I am nowhere near an atheist, and I accept evolution.

[ScriptureLover]

Knight:

By way of opportunity, in my web seaches, I couldn't find any pro evolution sites that refutes the probabilty issue. They take it as a non-issue.

Kerry:

That's because it IS a non-issue. ALL probabilities will EVENTUALLY be played out, by sheer statistics, given enough time. If something hasn't happened, it WILL eventually, regardless of the vast probability that it won't. If it didn't happen in this mere 15 billion years, it could happen in another 15 billion years, or a trillion years, or a trillion to the trillioneth power years, etc. THAT is why it is a non0issue. Given enough time, ALL things will happen. Probability says nothing against evolution.

[ScriptureLover]

cdowis:

The organism we know as Man is not the result of evolutionary process.

Kerry:

Yeah all those various types of human-like skulls and skeletons must be armadillos actually........

[Loki]

Loki asks:

>Are you proposing that the earth is a few million years old at least?

Of course.

>That would directly contradict the bretheren's teaching of our earth, now, wouldn't it?

No it does not. You are confusing the LDS church with historic Christian creationists who reject modern revealed scriptures.

We do not accept "poof" theory of the creationists (creation ex nihlo), nor is it necessary to accept the young earth theory. I would be interested in any specific references to a young earth that you could dig up where "the brethren" said any such thing.

Bruce Mckonkie Mormon Doctorine

"There is no harmony between the truths of revealed religion and the theories of organic evolution." [page 256].

"Evolutionary theories assume that hundreds of millions of years were involved, first in the creation of the earth as a habitable globe, and again in the evolution of spontaneously generated, single celled forms of life into the complex and multitudinous forms of life now found on its face. We have rather specific scriptural indications that the creative period was of relatively short duration." [page 255].

"There were no pre-Adamites. Any assumption to the contrary runs counter to the whole plan and scheme of the Almighty in creating and peopling this earth." [page 254].

"Adam and Eve and all forms of life, both animal and plant, were created in immortality; that is, when first placed on this earth, all forms of life were in a state of immortality. There was no death in the world; death entered after the fall." [page 252].

[ScriptureLover]

Aren't we grateful for the short duration of mortality even of the great church leaders....especially when they lack such fundamental understanding, and act dogmatically as if they speak as God anyways?

[Loki]

Aren't we grateful for the short duration of mortality even of the great church leaders....especially when they lack such fundamental understanding, and act dogmatically as if they speak as God anyways?

Emberassed by bretheren's lack of wisdom and understanding? Don't worry, I guaruntee the current 15 can at least read a spreadsheet and understand profit margins. Other then that, no guaruntees.

[ScriptureLover]

I'm not embarrassed by their ignorance. Crimany they are only human also. I know I know more than they do in some subjects, as they know more than I in other subjects. Their revelation and ministry is concerning the church, not science. That is why I enjoy McConkie, but never take him much as the last and final authority on much. Too much has come to light since he died.

[ScriptureLover]

Knight:

The difference between pure Evolution and Intelligent Design is that the latter fills in the blanks of evolution

Kerry:

I was reading tonight in Isaac Asimov's "The Roving Mind," wherein he noted something similar along this line of Creationist thinking. What he says is profound and ought to be better understood. Pointing out insufficiencies, contradictions and uncertainties in evolution does not automatically establish Creationism. Many, if not all of the insufficiencies in biology, chemistry, etc., are the details of the mechanism, not the concept of evolution itself. And here is Asimov's startling point:

"if a close investigation were to show that our notions of reproductive physiology were not entirely right, that would not, of itself, prove that babies were brought by the stork." (p. 17). And further ne notes, "In order to establish creationism as a rational concept, the creationist must advance scientifically valid evidence FOR their beliefs, not merely poke holes in other views. They cannot simply question whether the universe is really 15 billion years old by casting doubt on the Hubble constant. They must present reasonable evidence that the universe is, in fact, ten thousand years old (or whatever age they choose to maintain). Needless to say, this has never been done."

I would add other than an appeal to the scripture, which surely cannot even begin to be thought of as being scientific!

Just notes for you to ponder.

[E Allusion]

A theory is just a hypothesis, or more often a set of hypotheses, which has existed long enough, and for which no incompatible evidence has yet been found, that it has come to be accepted as a possible explanation of observations.

[cdowis]

>Bruce Mckonkie Mormon Doctorine

Puleezeeeze.

You forgot Joseph Fielding Smith's book.

[asbestosman]

By way of opportunity, in my web seaches, I couldn't find any pro evolution sites that refutes the probabilty issue. They take it as a non-issue.

Let me refute it for you. Take 100 balls and shuffle them in a box. If you don't get them in order, put them back in, mix them up and try again. Eventually you will pull the balls out in order (More on this later).

Now let me explain to you why Mighty Curelom has another point. If you don't know how probably an Intelligent Designer is compared to how probably life spontaneously forming is, you can't speak of things. Here's another probability example:

Let's say that a test is created to find a disease. That disease occurs in 1 out of 100 people. Let's say that the test is 95% accurate so that if you have the disease, it catches it with 95% probability and if you don't it correctly indicates that with 95% probability. You take the test and the test indicates that you have the disease. What is the true probability that you have the disease? You probably think it's pretty high. Something above 80%, right? Wrong! You only have a 16.1% chance of having the disease. That is why you should not rely upon intuition when making a probabilistic argument. Our probability intuition is often wrong. Mighty Curelom is right to demand actual numbers.

Now back to the balls. The one problem with my ball experiment is that I gave you infinite time to try it. The universe has not lasted for an eternity. I prefer not to make arguments on the improbility of life happening within the limited time we have especially if there are many other worlds elsewhere just like our earth. With so many chances it is as though we have had longer to get it right.

We might be able to ask why the universe is such that life can exist: three spatial dimensions, gravity as it is, etc. If some of these things were different we wouldn't have stars, planets, etc. So why don't I argue that? Because I still think that others can say that there are infinite universes (unconnected to ours) that use all possible combinitions.

But even then we can't speak of the probabilities of that happening since we could just as easily speak of the probibility of God being a nice guy instead of a saddistic dictator. I mean what is the probability that God only makes us think He loves us but really wants to harvest our souls for food like we're some kind of cattle? What if the Holy Ghost is lying to us just to make us feel good? How would we even know where to begin calculating the probability? I suggest that some things just can't be known. Some things might just be. If the existence and goodness of God "just being so" is good enough for a believer given what is experienced, why can't you imagine that the existence of the universe "just being so" is good enough for others (including believers)?

Isn't the goodness of God a non-issue? If He's smarter than us and omnipotent, don't you think He could "fool all the people all of the time?" I think it's a non-issue for most people just as the probability arguments are on many levels.

[John Russell]

Let's say that a test is created to find a disease. That disease occurs in 1 out of 100 people. Let's say that the test is 95% accurate so that if you have the disease, it catches it with 95% probability and if you don't it correctly indicates that with 95% probability. You take the test and the test indicates that you have the disease. What is the true probability that you have the disease? You probably think it's pretty high. Something above 80%, right? Wrong! You only have a 16.1% chance of having the disease. That is why you should not rely upon intuition when making a probabilistic argument. Our probability intuition is often wrong. Mighty Curelom is right to demand actual numbers.

I'm having a bit of difficulty in following your math. If there is a probability of 0.95 that the test will correctly identify a positive result, we have an acceptable Type I error (incorrectly rejecting the null hypothesis of a positive diagnosis) level of 0.05, or 1 in 20 times the test will provide a negative result when in fact the disease is present. You also indicated that the test will provide a correct negative result 95% of the time, so that the probability of a Type II error (incorrectly accepting the null hypothesis of a positive diagnosis) is again 0.05, or 1 in 20 times it will yield a false result (negative when it should be positive). Independent of the frequency of the disease in the population (which is really irrelevant to the accuracy of the test itself), if I administer the test, I would inform you that there is a 95% probability that you have the disease, given the probability of 0.05 for a Type I error. Or is there something in your example that I'm missing?

On another note, the fundamental elements of evolutionary theory are indeed falsifiable, as others have noted. We know that mutations occur, and that these can be adaptive, which knowledge took considerable effort and debate. Through considerable experimentation we know that genetic alterations can fix in populations. All of that work was susceptible to falsification. Can common descent be falsified? Of course, given the availability of fossils or other materials in appropriate geological strata. It just hasn't happened as of yet. Intelligent design presents nothing testable in the field or laboratory at the moment. It provides no testable mechanisms, as evolution does. I have no problem with ID being mentioned in schools, but find nothing of scientific merit to the ideas beyond a passing mention. It won't help us better understand the risks of spread of avian flu that may be associated with apparently few genetic shifts.

[asbestosman]

Let's say that a test is created to find a disease. That disease occurs in 1 out of 100 people. Let's say that the test is 95% accurate so that if you have the disease, it catches it with 95% probability and if you don't it correctly indicates that with 95% probability. You take the test and the test indicates that you have the disease. What is the true probability that you have the disease? You probably think it's pretty high. Something above 80%, right? Wrong! You only have a 16.1% chance of having the disease. That is why you should not rely upon intuition when making a probabilistic argument. Our probability intuition is often wrong. Mighty Curelom is right to demand actual numbers.

I'm having a bit of difficulty in following your math. If there is a probability of 0.95 that the test will correctly identify a positive result, we have an acceptable Type I error (incorrectly rejecting the null hypothesis of a positive diagnosis) level of 0.05, or 1 in 20 times the test will provide a negative result when in fact the disease is present. You also indicated that the test will provide a correct negative result 95% of the time, so that the probability of a Type II error (incorrectly accepting the null hypothesis of a positive diagnosis) is again 0.05, or 1 in 20 times it will yield a false result (negative when it should be positive). Independent of the frequency of the disease in the population (which is really irrelevant to the accuracy of the test itself), if I administer the test, I would inform you that there is a 95% probability that you have the disease, given the probability of 0.05 for a Type I error. Or is there something in your example that I'm missing?

Yes, and thank you for pointing out the reason we should avoid our probability intuition.

Let's figure out the probabilities of ways that the test will indicate that I have the disease. I could have it and the test identifies it or I could not have it and the test gives a false alarm.

1. I have it and the test identifies it. Probability of me having it is .01. Probability of the test identifying it when I have it is .95. This scenario has a total probability of 0.01 * 0.95 = .0095.

2. I don't have it and the test gives the false alarm. Probability that I don't have it is .99. Probability that the test gives a false alarm is .05. This scenario has a total probability of 0.99 * 0.05 = .0495

Notice that 2 is the more probable way that the test would indicate I have the disease. Given that the test says I have the disease, it could only have happened from 1 or 2. The chances of 1 happening are scene 1 divided by the sum of scene 1 and scene 2 or .0095 / (.0095 * .0495) = .16101695 which is 16.1%

Just to check the math, let's add scenes 3 and 4.

3. I have it and the test misses it. I have it with probability .01. The test misses it with probability .05. Chances of this happening are .0005

4. I don't have it and the test correctly identifies that. I don't have it with probability .99. The test works with probability .95. Chances of this scene are .9405

.0095 + .0495 + .0005 + .9405 = 1.0

What you are missing is that we are given information to narrow down the scenarios. It can only be between scenario 1 and 2 if the test results are positive.

The chances of a type I and II error are not both .05, but rather .0005 for Type I and .0495 for type II.