Darwin's Influence

[3ToedSloth]

I was going to start a new thread but seeing as this one is still going strongly, I'll just provide a link and see how people like this:

Self-proclaimed atheist, Thomas Nagel, professor of Law and Philosophy at New York University, has recently named Michael Meyer's Signature in the Cell one of the top ten books of the year and says that (From evolutionnews).

Nagel suggests that ID is science and based on his expertise in law and philosophy, it has a place in the classroom. He has, according to his recent essay, read ID books like The Edge of Evolution, and bases his opinion on those books (instead of mindless rants masquerading as thoughtful papers from The Panda's Thumb... As a side note, I've been reading The Edge of Evolution, and it's very good so far).

Anyway, it's always good to get an atheist with a couple PhD's under their belt saying what is so obvious to those of us who aren't victims of group-think in favor of Darwinism: ID is scientific and can't accurately or fairly be termed "creationism." The only arguments against ID I've seen, honestly, against ID being science are factually inaccurate in their premises. If people understood ID better, they would know better than to talk about the supernatural or how it is not provable.

Perhaps you'd like to have a discussion with me? We could discuss the Philosophy of Science and if, as you say, ID clearly becomes a science it will become apparent in the thread.

[cdowis]

Thats the nature of all academic departments today.

And that is the strength and weakness of scientific investigation in our modern world of univeristy

tenure, and a peer-review journals. Science has become a world of careers, reputations created and destroyed.

Yes. A simple example of would be Hawking's public and frank admission that he was wrong about Black Holes and Susskind was correct.

Hawking can afford to be frank and honest.... about black holes, the science of astronomy based on direct observation and rigid mathmatics. If he were an evolutionist, he would be more cautious about such admissions, being based on visual observations -- "that human fetus really does look like it has gills, doesn't it", and the consensus of others in the brotherhood.

Do you really think we are so naive and stupid?

It some cases, this is going to happen in every academic , but Evolution isn't propped up by a few, it anchors most of the natural sciences. Geology, Chemistry, Microbiology, Cell Biology, Medicine, Astronomy, etc, etc.

Please post this in my thread of the Allegory of the Coin. The very same evidence for evolution is equally valid for ID. It is the religious followers of X who insist that when the coin falls on the edge, it only shows X.

Depending on he IDer, they are going to have to make a massive case to justify changein a paradigmn that makes the most sense.

The religion of X is indeed powerful. It took a powerful event to expose the deception in climatology -- the peer reviews, the hiding of data, the destruction of careers of those who opposed the establishment.

Again, you must take us for fools.

They have failed in every way. There is no scientific dispute with evolution in the Science world, but the dispute thrives on message boards. This is what the movement is reduced to.

I can do it one post at a time. Others will compare what people like yourself have to say with logic and common sense.

It is the terror of a Divine creator that becomes the boogey man of religion X. ID is simply an unacceptable alternative, regardless of the obvious weaknesses and defects of evolution == evolution is simply incapable of explaining certain features of modern organisms, as I have pointed out on several occasions.

Do you want us to open up another thread, and I will give you an example or two that you can tackle.

[3ToedSloth]

Do you really think we are so naive and stupid?

Wildly naive. I don't think you are stupid.

That primarily drives my intention to get some of you to jump on board with a Philosophy of Science thread , so I can examine each of your ideas about what a "Science" is. I don't think any of the IDers in this thread of a solid foundation in Epistmology or Logic and even less knowledge about the nuances of the Philosophy of Science. Your long winded posts drift between Realism and Instrumentalism, you don't really understand the implications of Falsification or even grasp induction.

I think what would become clear, is that rejection of evolution is done so not out of any kind of intellectual merit, but because it conflicts with some deeply held beliefs.

[Mordecai]

Perhaps you'd like to have a discussion with me? We could discuss the Philosophy of Science and if, as you say, ID clearly becomes a science it will become apparent in the thread.

It already is science and it's already apparent.

[3ToedSloth]

It already is science and it's already apparent.

Is that a Yes or a No?

[Mordecai]

Is that a Yes or a No?

The answer is, whatever. If you present some fallacious arguments, which you will, I will correct them.

[3ToedSloth]

ID is simply an unacceptable alternative, regardless of the obvious weaknesses and defects of evolution == evolution is simply incapable of explaining certain features of modern organisms, as I have pointed out on several occasions.

See? You are already asking the wrong questions. The implicit argument made in this statement is the fallacy of the excluded middle.

Better questions to begin with is, what turns a Hypothesis into a theory? What does it take to disprove a theory? Can a disproven theory still be true? We'd have to establish all these things before you can even begin to judge the merit of Evolution or ID.

[Mordecai]

Better questions to begin with is, what turns a Hypothesis into a theory? What does it take to disprove a theory? Can a disproven theory still be true? We'd have to establish all these things before you can even begin to judge the merit of Evolution or ID.

I will already grant that evolution is a theory, as far as change over time, higher intelligences being created or evolved from lower intelligences, microevolution and selective pressures generally preventing degradation of the genome of a species. What I reject as a theory and accept only as a mere hypothesis is the idea that random mutations are responsible for macroevolution, even with the help of selective pressures. There is extremely weak evidence for this. Look at what Dawkins says:

...contrary to earlier prejudices, there is nothing inherently progressive about evolution

How did they discover it's not progressive? Microbiology. "Earlier prejudices" is a reference to the 1.5 centuries of assuming that microevolution could extrapolate into macroevolution. The last ten years of microbiological studies on DNA and evolution suggest that Darwinian processes are extremely limited.

The reason being, as it turns out, DNA as a code is so complex and interdependent on other parts of the genome, that the path from simple to complex is fraught with statistical improbabilities. You can't just take one gene, pop it out and pop in a new one and expect an improvement in function. It doesn't work. In the past, it was thought that miracles could be produced through genetic engineering, because it was assumed, based on the fact that the genetic code would have to be relatively simple in order for Drawinism to work, that making increases in complexity in a genome wouldn't take a great deal of work. After all, if stupid naturalistic processes can accomplish great things in just several million years, brilliant scientists can work miracles with it.

The real observed results of Darwinian evolution, as I pointed out before, involve not improvements in function per se, but merely "burning a bridge" to keep the enemy out. Sickle cell anemia, for example, does not contribute to human survival, except when it comes to fending off malaria. It, of course, reduces the function of hemoglobin. The same is true of malarial mutations that fight off chloroquine. They do not improve the function of malaria per se. The bacteria that eats nylon is another example. It has decreased functionality and its mutations represent a breakdown of its pre-existing metabolism. That's how it is across the board. NO increases in functional complexity through Darwinian processes.

Furthermore, the numbers simply don't add up as far as what has been observed. Like I said, a relatively simple mutation, like the chloroquine mutation, would take many times the age of the universe for humans to have developed. Since that is the case, how do we explain the complexity of microbiological machines, like ribosomes or flagellum, much less the changes from reptile to mammal to human. So what is a hypothesis? That Darwinism can result in the macroevolution observed in the fossil record. What is a theory? Evolution, minus Darwinian processes producing macroevolution.

[cdowis]

It some cases, this is going to happen in every academic , but Evolution isn't propped up by a few, it anchors most of the natural sciences. Geology, Chemistry, Microbiology, Cell Biology, Medicine, Astronomy, etc, etc.

You agree that, like climatetology, evolution is enbedded throughout most of the scientific establishment. Lots of money, power, influence is betting on evolution. The recent scandle over climateology is just a ripple compared to the potental damage that an exposure of the failure of evolution would cause.

Nicht wahr?

[littlechild]

littlechild, on 03 December 2009 - 07:55 AM, said:

What would be the motives of someone who doesn't answer direct questions (i.e., how many paragraphs of Dembski have you read beside the 3 you so inadequately criticize) ?

I didn't answer it because it's a lame question that you are trying to posture with. I've read NFL and The Design Inference.

Oh, so now questions that YOU consider lame are to be ignored. This is a pertinent question, because we need to assess your familiarity with the book you are attempting to malign, by misreading 3 paragraphs of said book

Quote

What could be the motive of someone who then attempts to redirect the debate to a course taught at a University in an effort to discredit a book written by the professor?

I didn't redierect a thing, what you cannot grasp in that post is that all of Dembski's work in predicated on a rational basis for Fisher's models. That is proposition numeruo uno in his argument, to simply skip it and take it for granted would be lazy. It's the best place to start because if no one can provide a justification for it, his conclusions do not follow. If you will not adress the issue, than it's simply pointless to jump all around argueing about different points.

Your logical weaknesses are stacking up. You skip from your attempt to discredit Dembksi by ridiculing one of his class syllabi to making the erroneous claim that all of Dembksi's work is predicated upon Fisher's. Again I charge you with misdirection and going off on a tangent. The issue was, are we justified in believing that CSI comes from an intelligent source? Overwhelmingly the answer is yes. Is it 500 bits of information? More? Less? You don't address this issue at all, but continue to hammer home your only point, which is weaker than you know.

At issue is this, if the simplest parasite has a complexity of components that exceed the available time in the universe to account for its development, what does that imply about biological theories that have failed to take that into account? Are these theories attempting to get a free lunch? The data is overwhelmingly indicative of intelligence in the design, whether you impugn Fisher or not.

Quote

Why would someone attempt to position the argument as (the entire scientific community) versus (one poor misguided mathematics professor)?

If someone's work is ignored by their peers and is universally panned by everyone, skeptic or conservative Christian, that tends to be a red flag.

Yes but that red flag is in favor of Dembksi, not against him. You and your "science" buddies can vilify and condemn, and isolate, but the merits of the case are at issue, not how popular a given theory may be.

Quote

Why would someone attempt to belittle the opposition rather than engage in a discussion on the merits of the proferred argument?

I'm merely pointing out facts about the reality of Dembski.

Facts? Snort. I'll not give this any more time than it deserves.

Quote

Why would someone not respond to the challenge of coming up with a "more reasonable" set of numbers than the one Dembski uses?

You've missed the forrest for the trees. With so many subjective factors incorporated into Bayesian arguments (or similiar models), you could reject any argument out of hand because you do not believe I gave a high enough value to the backround knowledge variable. Thats what makes this entire argument about what was probable or imporbable on prebiotic earth so silly, and someone's dogmatic insistence on estabilishing a value on it...well.....

You've missed another opportunity to buttress your weak position. Maybe you don't believe it was very strong in the first place either.

Quote

And lastly, why hasn't the pro-Darwin community ever mathematically quantified the biological developmental pathways necessary to produce life

Knowing what I've just told you, what am I to make of this statement? It doesn't matter what calculus you use, some variables are going to be entirely subjective. There is a sweet irony in this, yes?

Knowing what you've just told me, and witnessing your response to this question, is very sweetly ironic indeed. THANK YOU.

Quote

, OR, to produce one species from another

Take this notion to the folks of TalkOrigins. They'd love to have ya!

Well if all I wanted was a pissing contest, I can get that right here with you.

Quote

, OR, even come up with a coherent, credible, Darwinian tree of life? If the theory is robust, accurate, and true, then why are there literally millions of Darwinian trees, and there is no consensus about any one tree? Why are there computer programs, (all of them intelligently designed), which can generate a new Darwinian tree based upon the assumptions input to it by the researcher?

I thought this was a really weird demand. How many different types of "Desingers" would there be if the dark ages were to start again and ID was the popular tune? Just one?

Wow. If you don't see the logic of having one tree, no wonder you believe in the Darwinian Fairytale. No scrutiny required.

Quote

IF this is settled science, superior to Intelligent Design, why can't it be quantified and proven as such?

You keep harping on this, and I have to keep explaining it.

I thought you might be able to see the logic of mathematical necessity in biological development. I guess you are too steeped in Darwin worship.

Quote

Why is there still controversy?

There isn't, outside of the ID poltical movement trying to legislate what they'd failed to advance elsewhere.

I'll let you have the last word on this.

Quote

Why have biologists not come up with a workable, provable, tangible demonstration of their suppositions?

You really gotta go to Talk Origins and have a chat with those folks who work in the fields. But that wouldn't be as easy would it? Better to hawk it on a Mormon board....

That's right, this discussion can only produce truth if its scanned by the Truth Verification Squad at Talk Origins.

I'm not going to deal with the rest of your diatrabe.

Continuing the pattern......

So I'll just once again state that until you show a rational basis for Fisher's models, Dembski's work will largegly be assertions and conjecture. This is the only thing thats matters in the discussion at the present, failure to adress it will simply render Dembski's argument impotent.

"Persistently obscure writers will usually be found to be defective human beings."

On Philosophical Style, Indiana University Press, 1967, pp. 52-53

HAH! This is a scientific stance? Obscure writers are defective human beings?

Stop it, you're killing me here. I never thought to come across poor stand up comedy on this board.

[littlechild]

See? You are already asking the wrong questions. The implicit argument made in this statement is the fallacy of the excluded middle.

Better questions to begin with is, what turns a Hypothesis into a theory? What does it take to disprove a theory? Can a disproven theory still be true? We'd have to establish all these things before you can even begin to judge the merit of Evolution or ID.

I think you are asking the wrong questions. We haven't defined science, the definition has been many and varied for hundreds of years. The question isn't whether ID is science, but whether it is true. It isn't if evolution is science, but how accurate is it as a description of reality. Science and religion have competed in this arena for centuries, this is not a new debate. What is new, is that postmodernism has attempted to claim entire dominion over the material world, to the point of claiming that the metaphysical world is an entirely separate domain. This is a philosophical shift, not a scientific shift. In essence scientific materialism denies truths of the spirit in favor of a strictly materialistic view. Ken Wilber calls this a Flatland philosophy and has a very interesting series of books dealing with exactly this topic and explaining the logical fallacies that adherence to this worldview involves.

But more to the point, Darwinism isn't science either. At least if it IS science it is BAD science. It doesn't even attempt to harmonize with mathematical reality. It hasn't proven a singly developmental pathway - there is no evidence that morphologically advantageous mutations can occur sufficient to account for new species, etc. These are wild rumors with a lot of passion but no physical proof, written by a man who deliberately set out to prove a connection between all living things, whether that was actually the case or not.

Darwinists accuse ID'ers of doing what they themselves do. They accuse them of approaching the subject with a preconceived agenda which they then try to make the facts twist into supporting. The opposite is true. It's the Darwinists who are guilty of interpreting reality according to their materialistic worldview, no God allowed. If an intelligent designer did in fact design the world - Darwinism could never discover this fact.

[Rob Osborn]

If an intelligent designer did in fact design the world - Darwinism could never discover this fact.

This statement is profoundly true. The scientific body has already accepted as "fact" evolution. Anything that doesn't fit within this mechanism or attempts to challenge this mechainism is labled as non-scientific. It would be interesting to see what would happen if they proved darwinian evolution false. Under their standards it would mean that "science" is wrong. Imagine that!

[thesometimesaint]

Rob:

You want to prove evolution wrong using the actual tools of science? I'll tell you how to do it. Just find several individual modern Homo Sapiens Sapiens in the Precambrian layer in several different locations. That should be easy for a dedicated anti-evolutionist like yourself.

[cdowis]

Rob:

You want to prove evolution wrong using the actual tools of science? I'll tell you how to do it. Just find several individual modern Homo Sapiens Sapiens in the Precambrian layer in several different locations. That should be easy for a dedicated anti-evolutionist like yourself.

As I pointed out previously, this would also disprove ID.

[Rob Osborn]

Rob:

You want to prove evolution wrong using the actual tools of science? I'll tell you how to do it. Just find several individual modern Homo Sapiens Sapiens in the Precambrian layer in several different locations. That should be easy for a dedicated anti-evolutionist like yourself.

Actually, evolution isn't true. They haven't brought forth the evidence to show its factuality. So, how do I prove something wrong when it is already self sustained that it isnt true? The evidence speaks for itself- there was no evolution.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob:

More verbiage. Produce the skeletons.

[3ToedSloth]

Oh, so now questions that YOU consider lame are to be ignored.

Yup.

This is a pertinent question, because we need to assess your familiarity with the book you are attempting to malign, by misreading 3 paragraphs of said book

I am familiar with the books, as I am familiar with Philosophy and Science. You are not, thats why you simply cannot respond to a simple request for a justification for a rational model base.

Your logical weaknesses are stacking up.

Please show this. Could symbolize my statements in a propositional manner and show me? I don't think you can or will, you'll just let this statement stand.

You skip from your attempt to discredit Dembksi by ridiculing one of his class syllabi

Which it does. Debating on a message board as part of higher education is sad. Making it part of graduate education is worse. Reading Collin's pop science book for PhD-canidate work is shameful.

to making the erroneous claim that all of Dembksi's work is predicated upon Fisher's.

Give me any probability calculus that was a rational base. Any of them. Because if you can't, you can't tell me how improbable an event was 6 million or 60 billion years ago.

Again I charge you with misdirection and going off on a tangent.

Mostly based of your ignorance of the issues involved, due to your unfamiliarity with the works in question and how they work.

The issue was, are we justified in believing that CSI comes from an intelligent source? Overwhelmingly the answer is yes. Is it 500 bits of information? More? Less? You don't address this issue at all, but continue to hammer home your only point, which is weaker than you know.

Thats the issue I've been on, you just don't know it. You cannot justify any of this until you've settled on a rational base for a probability calculus.

At issue is this, if the simplest parasite has a complexity of components that exceed the available time in the universe to account for its development, what does that imply about biological theories that have failed to take that into account? Are these theories attempting to get a free lunch? The data is overwhelmingly indicative of intelligence in the design, whether you impugn Fisher or not.

You couldn't make my point any clearer, How did you arrive at the improbability of this event? What rational base for your probability calculus did you use? Do you see a pattern here? Do you understand why your argument can not even get off the ground until you justify P1 to begin with?

Yes but that red flag is in favor of Dembksi, not against him. You and your "science" buddies can vilify and condemn, and isolate, but the merits of the case are at issue, not how popular a given theory may be.

I know you guys dig on being little martyred underdogs, but it doesn't help your case.

Facts? Snort. I'll not give this any more time than it deserves.

Is it or is it not a fact, that Dembski assigned internet debating as part of a graduate level coursework?

Wow. If you don't see the logic of having one tree, no wonder you believe in the Darwinian Fairytale. No scrutiny required.

How familiar are you with Academia? You have this really odd notion of reality.

I thought you might be able to see the logic of mathematical necessity in biological development. I guess you are too steeped in Darwin worship.

I'll just point out, again, your refusal to simply offer me a rational base for any probability calculus in which you base everything off of.

I'll even make it more simple for you, since you don't even what these things are; K is variable often used to represent backround knowledge. What method do you use to objectively establish a numerical value on human knowledge at t1?

HAH! This is a scientific stance? Obscure writers are defective human beings?

No, it's not. What lead you to think it was?

[Mordecai]

Rob:

You want to prove evolution wrong using the actual tools of science? I'll tell you how to do it. Just find several individual modern Homo Sapiens Sapiens in the Precambrian layer in several different locations. That should be easy for a dedicated anti-evolutionist like yourself.

Sternberg does it pretty well in the latest debate, which I posted as a new topic. No, no homosapiens are found in the precambrian layer... but basic assumptions of Darwinism are crushed with regard to the evolution of the whale. Scientists who are supposed to champion your side use red herrings only and have nothing else relevant to say in response.

[3ToedSloth]

The question isn't whether ID is science, but whether it is true.

Things can be true apart from the natural sciences and natural sciences cannot be used to prove the "truthness" of every propistion.

That is a terrible question.

What is new, is that postmodernism has attempted to claim entire dominion over the material world

Who are the leading postmodernist in the world right now? What departments are postmodern powerhouses?

, to the point of claiming that the metaphysical world is an entirely separate domain.

The prefix "meta" gives a pretty strong hint that it was intended to be.

In essence scientific materialism denies truths of the spirit

Your "truths of the spirit" do not stand under scrutiny

Ken Wilber calls this a Flatland philosophy and has a very interesting series of books dealing with exactly this topic and explaining the logical fallacies that adherence to this worldview involves.

I doubt Ken Wilber's ability to be a logician.

If an intelligent designer did in fact design the world - Darwinism could never discover this fact.

Your insistence of an Intelligent Designer of this world creates a lot of theological baggage.

[littlechild]

Perhaps you'd like to have a discussion with me? We could discuss the Philosophy of Science and if, as you say, ID clearly becomes a science it will become apparent in the thread.

Yes, you'd like to manipulate the conversation away from uncomfortable questions you have little ability to respond intelligibly to, wouldn't you? LOL.

Your attempt at obfuscation is transparent. And you're barking up the wrong tree. The question of whether there are demarcation lines around science, by which you can fence off ID are solely based upon a desire to silence opinions you don't like. Let's see what a real philosopher of science has to say about it:

It's all right here.

The "scientific" way to deal with ID is to determine whether or not there is sufficient empirical evidence. Labeling, stereotyping, and name-calling are high-school frat boy tactics, not mature scientific tactics.

[littlechild]

Things can be true apart from the natural sciences and natural sciences cannot be used to prove the "truthness" of every propistion.

That is a terrible question.

Who are the leading postmodernist in the world right now? What departments are postmodern powerhouses?

The prefix "meta" gives a pretty strong hint that it was intended to be.

Your "truths of the spirit" do not stand under scrutiny

I doubt Ken Wilber's ability to be a logician.

Your insistence of an Intelligent Designer of this world creates a lot of theological baggage.

I guess we'll just have to take your word for it that your conclusions are true, since you provide nothing to back up your claims. Thanks for the imperial dictums issued from your perch at the top of the authoritarian heap.

[littlechild]

Perhaps you'd like to have a discussion with me? We could discuss the Philosophy of Science and if, as you say, ID clearly becomes a science it will become apparent in the thread.

Here's what Judge Jones ruled in the Dover decision:

We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is

sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID

violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and

permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible

complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived

dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980

[littlechild]

You can find the original text of this in its entirety here.

The definition of science from the prestigious National Academy

of Sciences:

Science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science,

explanations are restricted to those that can be inferred from the

confirmable data

[littlechild]

This statement is profoundly true. The scientific body has already accepted as "fact" evolution. Anything that doesn't fit within this mechanism or attempts to challenge this mechainism is labled as non-scientific. It would be interesting to see what would happen if they proved darwinian evolution false. Under their standards it would mean that "science" is wrong. Imagine that!

It's more than profoundly true. It's fundamental. Darwinists AND scientists waste your time and their own, by asking "Is ID science?"

As we all know, science has never been defined consistently for over 2000 years, and by every standard except today's Darwinists and Judge Jones, to engage in the activities of ID has been "doing science". So its just an absurdity to go down the sideroads when a more fundamental question is in order:

Which is more true, ID or Darwinism?

The answer is Intelligent Design has more credibility than Darwinism - IF you know both. If you only know Darwinism, then of course you believe their propaganda - because they have the form of science, but they twist the evidence thereof.

[Rob Osborn]

It's more than profoundly true. It's fundamental. Darwinists AND scientists waste your time and their own, by asking "Is ID science?"

As we all know, science has never been defined consistently for over 2000 years, and by every standard except today's Darwinists and Judge Jones, to engage in the activities of ID has been "doing science". So its just an absurdity to go down the sideroads when a more fundamental question is in order:

Which is more true, ID or Darwinism?

The answer is Intelligent Design has more credibility than Darwinism - IF you know both. If you only know Darwinism, then of course you believe their propaganda - because they have the form of science, but they twist the evidence thereof.

ID theory shows that complex life only comes from complex life- exactly what we see in nature. Evolutionists state that ID is not science. Therefore, what we see and document in nature isn't science! Evolutionists must be somewhat embarrased by their faulty reasoning.