Robert F. Smith Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 ID is not "false" anymore than evolution is false. Like Freudian psychology, they both give us useful constructs, and actual truths until something better comes along. They put us on the right path.I see some interesting ideas in panspermia and even chaos theory that may eventually bring us to that better theory. But it won't happen as long as evolution and ID are locked in a wrestling match over religion.ID can't even explain the mechanism of creation (poof is the unspoken method, of course), while evolution is completely inadequate to explain certain observable phenomena -- the fact that humans have both male and female counterparts that cannot reproduce without the other presents enormous difficulties. Ask about the first man, the first woman, and the evolutionists go into apoplexy. They have "faith" that evolution will eventually resolved those sorts of questions.The LDS creation is rather dark and mirky but is the only theoretical basis that has any hope of resolving those issues. The only one which can answer that age-old question, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg."The fact that the Creator has a body like our body has enormous implications for the creation process.O.K., cdowis,We'll put aside for the moment the view of the late genius and atheist Fred Hoyle and his colleague Chandra Wickramasinghe that science and probability alone dictate that there must have been a designer -- some sentient being somewhere (Hoyle termed him a "super-calculating intellect") who designed the universe and life, just as someone must have designed my watch.However, their notion of panspermia is interesting primarily because it jibes with LDS theology -- which does not include creation theory -- which opts for transmission of life from elsewhere. A number of scientists hold that view only because it seems far more likely than spontaneous archebiosis here on Earth.
shalamabobbi Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 Does this video, in your mind, actually refute Dembski's work? Have you read Dembski, or, for that matter, Michael Behe?Probabilistic arguments have been shown to hold no weight against the evolutionary process.The fact is that the process can be and has been modeled on computers and it works. It has been verified.If the randomness and probability were an issue the programs would fail, but they don't.Why would God(s) embarking upon creation of life upon a planet ignore such a useful principal and law as evolution?
Log Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 Probabilistic arguments have been shown to hold no weight against the evolutionary process.The fact is that the process can be and has been modeled on computers and it works. It has been verified.If the randomness and probability were an issue the programs would fail, but they don't.Why would God(s) embarking upon creation of life upon a planet ignore such a useful principal and law as evolution?By this, I can now know you have NOT read Dembski, and probably not Behe either. One major aspect of Dembski's work is showing that, in each and every case, evolutionary computer models do not replicate the Darwinian process they purport to model. That was the upshot of No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased Without Intelligence.Again, why is it you go to enemies for an account of something, when you castigate people on this board for doing likewise to us?
shalamabobbi Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 By this, I can now know you have NOT read Dembski, and probably not Behe either. One major aspect of Dembski's work is showing that, in each and every case, evolutionary computer models do not replicate the Darwinian process they purport to model. That was the upshot of No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased Without Intelligence.Again, why is it you go to enemies for an account of something, when you castigate people on this board for doing likewise to us?I'm sorry. I don't consider scientists to be the enemies of anybody. And I don't consider the existence of God to be within the reach of science or to be addressable by science.I wasn't aware that computer's were capable of modeling the complexity found within living organisms as yet. I know it is estimated that we are a decade or two out from being able to model the brain sufficiently well to test whether consciousness will spontaneously arise.Maybe you could explain how Dembski's work answers this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
cdowis Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 (edited) Just curious, why did they not show the bovine and the whale for an example, in the first video?Perhaps you can explain the relationship between these two organisms. Did the whale crawl on the land, or vise versa. Specifically, give us the evolution of the whale, and show what role the cow played in that evolutionary process.In the second video, the ID advocates could have asked the evolutionists several questions which are unanswered in evolution. I have explored many of those questions in this forum. So his argument here, "unanswered questions prove my position" is interesting as an example of flawed logic. Edited July 6, 2011 by cdowis
shalamabobbi Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 (edited) Just curious, why did they not show the bovine and the whale for an example, in the first video?Perhaps you can explain the relationship between these two organisms. Did the whale crawl on the land, or vise versa. Specifically, give us the evolution of the whale, and show what role the cow played in that evolutionary process.In the second video, the ID advocates could have asked the evolutionists several questions which are unanswered in evolution. I have explored many of those questions in this forum. So his argument here, "unanswered questions prove my position" is interesting as an example of flawed logic.I am not a biologist myself but work in nuclear physics so I don't know that I could carry a thread that consisted of anything more than cut and paste posting. I have spent a lot of time though delving into the arguments from both sides of this debate and have been disappointed in the reliability of evidence provided from sources such as ICR etc. Just simply googling on what you mention brings up significant arguments that to me are very convincing though:http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/ervs whales:Others have done the same using different elements including ERVs, LINEs and SINEs for whales, fish, rodents, mammals in general and several other organisms. Norihiro Okada has directed many of these studies and you can find examples of his papers at his website (http://www.evolution.bio.titech.ac.jp/r … 010_e.html)http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/answers/viewtopic.php?id=3914So at first search I am not finding the problems that you seem to indicate exist. Edited July 6, 2011 by shalamabobbi
Log Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 (edited) Maybe you could explain how Dembski's work answers this:Maybe you could read Dembski, or is there not a public library where you live? Do you have access to the internet, maybe? If so, try reading a little bit: http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.06.Specification.pdfAgain, why do you adopt an approach to ID which you condemn when used with us? Edited July 6, 2011 by Log
thesometimesaint Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 (edited) http://ncse.com/rncse/27/3-4/has-natural-selection-been-refuted-arguments-william-dembskihttp://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024 Edited July 6, 2011 by thesometimesaint
Log Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 (edited) http://ncse.com/rncse/27/3-4/has-natural-selection-been-refuted-arguments-william-dembskihttp://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024You are doing exactly what you would condemn anti-Mormons for doing if it were about, say, Joseph Smith. There's a word for someone who does things like that... Edited July 6, 2011 by Log
Stargazer Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 (edited) Probabilistic arguments have been shown to hold no weight against the evolutionary process.The fact is that the process can be and has been modeled on computers and it works. It has been verified.If the randomness and probability were an issue the programs would fail, but they don't.Why would God(s) embarking upon creation of life upon a planet ignore such a useful principal and law as evolution?Indeed. Given that God created the physical laws that make this universe tick, there is no need to try to explain it all away.I see the Intelligent Design Conjecture as something rather like the Theory of Evolution in the earliest days. At the time On The Origin of Species was published in 1869 there was no known mechanism of inheritance or mutation. The discovery of DNA in 1889, for instance, was still to come, and the association of DNA with heredity not until 1928. What I suspect may happen in the coming century, if the anti-ID fanatics don't manage to completely destroy all credible research on the subject, is that models may be developed that place ID into a better position to be able to be treated as a theory rather than a conjecture, which is where I see it at this time.edit to fix the syntax Edited July 6, 2011 by Stargazer
Fig-bearing Thistle Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 (edited) Why would God(s) embarking upon creation of life upon a planet ignore such a useful principal and law as evolution?I would like to see the evolutionary ancestral line for the woodpecker. I would like to know all of the species theory holds that came in between the woodpecker and the crocodile (or whatever the sea-faring ancestor would have been), for example. Edited July 6, 2011 by Fig-bearing Thistle
Log Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 (edited) I would like to see the evolutionary ancestral line for the woodpecker. I would like to know all of the species theory holds that came in between the woodpecker and the crocodile (or whatever the sea-faring ancestor would have been), for example.What you have asked here for is excellent, but is only half what you should ask for. You should also ask what precise environmental conditions necessitated the preservation of each mutation, as well as the probabilities of their occurring in the first place as well as that of getting passed on.Don't hold your breath, though. Edited July 6, 2011 by Log
cdowis Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 (edited) Just simply googling on what you mention brings up significant arguments that to me are very convincing though:http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/ervs whales:http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/answers/viewtopic.php?id=3914So at first search I am not finding the problems that you seem to indicate exist.It is a matter of common courtesy in the forum that if you are going to respond to some point and merely give a link to an article, you need to give a summary or a cogent citation from that article. You then need to be prepared to defend it.If you are too lazy to do this, I certainly am not going to spend my time reading the article which may or may not be pertinent to our discussion. That is your task. And, since the author is not in this forum, he will need someone.... yourself... to speak for him.You might be interested that an entire thread has been devoted to this question, so there are those who would be eager to take this up with you. Just open up a thread and let's see what you got. Edited July 6, 2011 by cdowis
Fig-bearing Thistle Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 (edited) What you have asked here for is excellent, but is only half what you should ask for. You should also ask what precise environmental conditions necessitated the preservation of each mutation, as well as the probabilities of their occurring in the first place as well as that of getting passed on.All that, too. When y'all are talking about ID, are you referring to individuality of personalities within a species? Individual IDentity? The fact that each creature within any species has a unique ID that sets them apart (particularly in humans), indicates to me that ID did not "begin" at birth--but rather that it has always been. Edited July 6, 2011 by Fig-bearing Thistle
Log Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 All that, too. When y'all are talking about ID, are you referring to individuality of personalities within a species? Individual IDentity? The fact that each creature within any species has a unique ID that sets them apart (particularly in humans), indicates to me that ID did not "begin" at birth--but rather that it has always been.Uhm, no. ID refers to "intelligent design theory", or the scientific method of distinguishing between chance and intelligent action as causes for events.
Log Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 (edited) You then need to be prepared to defend it.It is actually a board rule to answer CFRs. You have not answered one, and there's a whole thread dedicated to giving you the opportunity to answer it. Ironically, you restated this rule in Ares's thread and yet don't obey it. Edited July 6, 2011 by Log
mfbukowski Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 (edited) duplicate Edited July 6, 2011 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 Indeed. Given that God created the physical laws that make this universe tick, there is no need to try to explain it all away.I see the Intelligent Design Conjecture as something rather like the Theory of Evolution in the earliest days. At the time On The Origin of Species was published in 1869 there was no known mechanism of inheritance or mutation. The discovery of DNA in 1889, for instance, was still to come, and the association of DNA with heredity not until 1928. What I suspect may happen in the coming century, if the anti-ID fanatics don't manage to completely destroy all credible research on the subject, is that models may be developed that place ID into a better position to be able to be treated as a theory rather than a conjecture, which is where I see it at this time.edit to fix the syntaxI think eventually there will be discovered some kind of DNA analog in either information theory or physics which shows some kind of "programming" in the universe, so that it unfolds almost like a flower or grows like a tree- and there is already discussion along those lines.The problem as I see it is that even if such a "programming" could be discovered, one could always argue that it was not "intelligent" in any sense which is useful.It will always take faith to believe in God- it is the very nature of science to find explanations which are objective and hence Godless.
thesometimesaint Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 mfbukowski:Agreed.Science by definition is Agnostic.
cdowis Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 I think eventually there will be discovered some kind of DNA analog in either information theory or physics which shows some kind of "programming" in the universe, so that it unfolds almost like a flower or grows like a tree- and there is already discussion along those lines.Chaos theory falls into that category. It was discovered, for example, that you can see the same pattern in an individual tree, and in the forest from which you cut that tree.
mfbukowski Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 Chaos theory falls into that category. It was discovered, for example, that you can see the same pattern in an individual tree, and in the forest from which you cut that tree.Yes, fractals.But you can always play devil's advocate. Are such patterns there because that is the way nature works, or is it God, or is it just wired into our brains to make order out of the chaos of perceptions we receive? When we look into nature, is it just our own minds we see looking back?I vote for God of course, but you will never be able to "prove" that any intelligence but our own, orders nature. The mere fact that nature appears to be mathematical could be interpreted as showing a "pattern of intelligence" but instead science has chosen to see mathematics in nature, not in our own minds, nor as a blueprint from God.That is why science will never acknowledge ID, because as has been mentioned, it is prejudiced by its methods of inquiry into not even seeing the possibility of a "design" because it already ignores the mathematical regularities it has already invented/"discovered".
Recommended Posts