Dowis Refutes Dawkins

[danielwoods]

Would the so callled ID/Creationist arguments have much weight to a non Deist such as a Buddhist?

Some living cells are complex like a city. OTOH A virus is very much alive, but fundimentally not complex at all.

Not sure how to answer for a Buddhist, not being one nor have I been one.

The lack of complexity for many viruses doesn't take away from the point, because viruses interact with complex hosts, using a complex communication system.

[ERayR]

Would the so callled ID/Creationist arguments have much weight to a non Deist such as a Buddhist?

Irrelevant unless one is dialoging with Buddhist. Young earth creationists don't carry much weight with me nor does evolutionist arguments for macro-evolution.

Tongue-In-Cheek - Use the little green men argument. It seems to be a favorite of yours. Don't know how you will make it fit but that doesn't stop you in other places.

Edited July 30, 2013 by ERayR

[cdowis]

Bottom line:

Dawkins talks about the inability to explain certain issues in evolution ("How did this evolve") as "Lack of imagination." Translated: "We don't know and are still trying to figure it out."

Dawkins explains that creationists raise issues are based on a false "jackpot" probability. His answer is that evolution is based on dribbling, or step by step. Each "dribble" has a higher probability than a jackpot.

So far, so good. But I argue that some characteristics are inherently "jackpot". I call them quantum leaps, similar to the states of electrons which can slowly change state but then make a sudden jump to a new level. A simple example is water that is beginning to boil.

Among several examples, I gave a specific example of the bombardier beetle, which has a complex defense system which appears to show quantum leap or a conscious design, rather than the dribbling of evolution. I feel this indicates a designer is involved. We then took attempts to describe the dribbling steps, but at least one participant admitted it was simply not possible to give the necessary steps. Many of the steps involved a "magic wand", and the final conclusion was that faith/belief in evolution was necessary.

Dawkins admitted this with his "failure of imagination" explanation -- "We don't know but we'll eventually figure it out."

Edited July 30, 2013 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

There is much debate on whether viruses are alive. And a virus can't exist without a much more complex host, right?

They exist and are alive(Some are very long lived). What they can not do is reproduce without a host cell. Their simple biology won't allow it.

[thesometimesaint]

Bottom line:

Dawkins talks about the inability to explain certain issues in evolution ("How did this evolve") as "Lack of imagination." Translated: "We don't know and are still trying to figure it out."

Dawkins explains that creationists raise issues are based on a false "jackpot" probability. His answer is that evolution is based on dribbling, or step by step. Each "dribble" has a higher probability than a jackpot.

So far, so good. But I argue that some characteristics are inherently "jackpot". I call them quantum leaps, similar to the states of electrons which can slowly change state but then make a sudden jump to a new level. A simple example is water that is beginning to boil.

Among several examples, I gave a specific example of the bombardier beetle, which has a complex defense system which appears to show quantum leap or a conscious design, rather than the dribbling of evolution. I feel this indicates a designer is involved. We then took attempts to describe the dribbling steps, but at least one participant admitted it was simply not possible to give the necessary steps. Many of the steps involved a "magic wand", and the final conclusion was that faith/belief in evolution was necessary.

Dawkins admitted this with his "failure of imagination" explanation -- "We don't know but we'll eventually figure it out."

While I strongly disagree with Dawkins on matters of my religion. His biology is impeccable.

We have living examples of beetles with the necessary precursers to be Bombardier Beetles but are not.

It would be the height of hubris to claim that we know everything there is to know about evolution, and no scientist that I know believes that we do. That being said it is folly to inject intelligent design into science.

The intelligent design movement is exceptionally good at creating false controversies and misconceptions. Yet their basic claims are easily debunked.

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/what_you_can_do/why-intelligent-design-is-not.html

• 
  There is scientific controversy over evolution: There is no debate about evolution among the vast majority of scientists, and no credible alternative scientific theory exists. Debates within the community are about specific mechanisms within evolution, not whether evolution occurred.
  

• 
  Structures found in nature are too complex to have evolved step-by-step through natural selection [the concept of "irreducible complexity"¹]: Natural selection does not require that all structures have the same function or even need to be functional at each step in the development of an organism.
  

• 
  Intelligent design is a scientific theory²: A scientific theory is supported by extensive research and repeated experimentation and observation in the natural world. Unlike a true scientific theory, the existence of an “intelligent” agent can not be tested, nor is it falsifiable.
  

• 
  Intelligent design is based on the scientific method³: Intelligent design might base its ideas on observations in the natural world, but it does not test them in the natural world, or attempt to develop mechanisms (such as natural selection) to explain their observations⁴.
  

• 
  Most scientists are atheists⁵ and believe only in the material world: Such accusations are neither fair nor true. The scientific method is limited to using evidence from the natural world to explain phenomena. It does not preclude the existence of God or other spiritual beliefs and only states that they are not part of science. Belief in a higher being is a personal, not a scientific, question.
  

[cdowis]

While I strongly disagree with Dawkins on matters of my religion. His biology is impeccable.

We have living examples of beetles with the necessary precursers to be Bombardier Beetles but are not.

This goes to the quantum jump. We have water that becomes gradually warmer, but it takes a quantum jump for it to boil.

It would be the height of hubris to claim that we know everything there is to know about evolution, and no scientist that I know believes that we do.

Unfortunately that does not prevent Dawkins from criticizing ID precisely with the same argument.

That being said it is folly to inject intelligent design into science.

OK, perhaps we agree. Tell me, does chaos theory fit into science? Does it fit into your definition of "scientific". While it may add insight into our understanding of science (we see fractiles in organisms), it probably is not science.

Taking away design from the biological sciences, it removes a possible tool to help understand how it works, such as quantum leaps in evolution.

The intelligent design movement is exceptionally good at creating false controversies and misconceptions. Yet their basic claims are easily debunked.

Is this post directed to me? Or are you just blathering away.

snip

Structures found in nature are too complex to have evolved step-by-step through natural selection [the concept of "irreducible complexity"¹]: Natural selection does not require that all structures have the same function or even need to be functional at each step in the development of an organism.

That is an unproven assertion, wishful thinking. We have already demonstrated its failure in this thread. Are you going to address it, or just use the "appeal to authority".

Go back to our discussion on the bombardier beetle and add your wisdom and knowledge. It is true that in many cases dribbling is used by evolution but there are cases where quantum leaps exist where that is not explained by evolution.

Give it your best and let's see what you got.

• Most scientists are atheists⁵ and believe only in the material world: Such accusations are neither fair nor true. The scientific method is limited to using evidence from the natural world to explain phenomena. It does not preclude the existence of God or other spiritual beliefs and only states that they are not part of science. Belief in a higher being is a personal, not a scientific, question.
  

Neil deGrasse cites a study where 40% of scientists in general, and 15% world renown scientists believe in a higher intelligence that answers prayer.

Edited July 30, 2013 by cdowis

[ERayR]

The intelligent design movement is exceptionally good at creating false controversies and misconceptions. Yet their basic claims are easily debunked.

The intelligent design movement's basic claims are :

1) evolution is the method of creation. That is a basic tenet of evolution.

2) a superior intelligence tinkered with it. While being rejected by evolutionary purists it has not been debunked.

As to the "creating false controversies and misconceptions" I think the little green men construct is right up there in the "creating false controversies and misconceptions" categories. . Insert something about pots and kettles here.

Edited July 30, 2013 by ERayR

[cdowis]

Concerning the video:

"A structure cannot have evolved thru gradual steps since it would not have gained its function without all of the pieces perfectly in place." This is the strawman argument they are attempting to refute. I am not talking about "pieces and parts" but a system where they interoperate in a way where the individual parts could not otherwise operate.

For example, in the case of the integration of the cardio, respiratory, and endocrinological systems, they communicate with each other and have a "software program" or control functionality over and above the physical plumbing. This software is indicative of Design. The pieces and parts can develop step by step, but the control function is a quantum jump. If we are looking at an organism with a fully functional system, if the heart misses a few beats, the organism dies. Step by step does not work with quantum jumping.

Only a Designer can make quantum jumping work. Or we can simply dismiss the whole issue by the "absence of imagination" argument, ala Dawkins.

Edited July 30, 2013 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

Cdowis:

I don't know what you mean by quantum jump in terms of evolution of the Bombardie Beetle. We have living examples of beetles with the intermediate, but necesary components, to be the Bombardier Beetle, while not being a Bombardier Beetle.

Intelligent Design is not science. It is simply Creationism by another name.

Here is what the National Adacemy of Science says on ID/Creationism.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11876&page=37

Here is what the American Academy for the Advancement of Science says on ID/Creationism

http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolutions.php?doc_id=432

Chaos Theory: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future. A good example of that is a waterfall.

Fractals are interesting, but independent of evolution. In the psychology profession the human mind always goes to completion. Fractals are just the perception of form.

No scientist says there isn't design in nature. What science can not do is posit a designer outside of nature itself.

All of science is an appeal to authority. One of the first things any scientist does is reveiw the literature. While there is plenty of reasons to keep refining the theory of evolution there is no reason to throw it out. IE; Tell me; if a water quality expert, after doing the appopriate tests, told you that your water was contaminated. Would you dismiss his statement as an appeal to authority? Would you keep drinking the water based on that dimissal?

Science is independent of faith. Scientists are free to believe or not believe as is their choice. You can believe in one or more Gods, or no Gods at all, and that wouldn't change the science. IE; Students in science classes have been burning hydrogen in the presents of oxygen literally millions of times over many generations. So far not one miniature flying pink elephant has popped out. But on the off chance that one did. Which is more likely. That the student did someting different than what the experiment called for, or that an intelligent designer made it happen?

[thesometimesaint]

The intelligent design movement's basic claims are :

1) evolution is the method of creation. That is a basic tenet of evolution.

2) a superior intelligence tinkered with it. While being rejected by evolutionary purists it has not been debunked.

As to the "creating false controversies and misconceptions" I think the little green men construct is right up there in the "creating false controversies and misconceptions" categories. . Insert something about pots and kettles here.

1) Agreed.

2). That is a religious concept. There is no scientifically based superior intelligence. That doesn't mean that there still isn't plenty learn however.

Little green men is any theory that by its very definition can not be disproven. Science by its very definition is any theory that can be disproven. IE; I can claim to believe that superiorly intelligent men live on the moon and sun. There is no way to disprove that claim, all I have to do is claim that they are so superiorly intelligent that we will never find any evidence for them while we are alive.

Edited July 30, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[ERayR]

1) Agreed.

2). That is a religious concept. There is no scientifically based superior inteligence. That dooesn't mean that there still isn't plenty learn however.

Little green men is any theory that by its very definition can not be disproven. Science by its very definition is any theory that can be disproven. IE; I can claim to belive that superiorly intelligent men live on the moon and sun. There is no way to disprove that claim, all I have to do is claim that they are so superiorly intelligent that we will never find any evidence for them while we are alive.

So we can agree the first basic tenet of ID has not been debunked?

As for ID being a religious concept ancient aliens is not a religious concept except in the same sense that evolution is. Disclaimer - I do NOT espouse the ancient alien theory. This is just to point out that all ID claims are not religious.

"Little Green Men" is also a pejorative used to quickly dismiss and silence opponents of evolution.

[cdowis]

OK, I guess there's nothing left for us to discuss.