Indelligent Design vs. Naturalistic Evolution Debate!
Our Topics Tonight:
“"Why Intelligent Design is a scientific theory.” and "Known evolutionary mechanisms are sufficient to explain the diversity of Earth's biota".
Mr. Bodine, please present your first point for the first proposition and against the latter.
Mr. Star, please do the reverse.
posted by Mark Moore (Moderator) at Friday, August 25, 2006
87 Comments:
Rob Star and Deathrow Bodine, are you online?
Foundational to this debate is the definition of “science”. “What is science?” “What is science not?”, which is a different question from: “What is not science?”
In answering that question, it should pointed out that science relies on logic/reason. Science is inseparable from logic and reason because they are foundational to performing “the scientific method.” Any attempt to build a scientific explanation that ignores or is contrary to that which is logically necessary undermines one’s ability cognetively classify, evaluate, and manipulate data collected from phenomena.
Knowledge based on reason, such as mathematical truths (e.g. 2+2=4) can be said to be absolutely true. They are true by definition or by epistemological necessity. Philosophers refer to these truths as rational or a priori truths, meaning that they are true prior to experience.
Again, knowledge based upon correct reasoning is absolutely true and cannot be otherwise. It is significant that we could not say this of something we empirically observe in the world.
We can know rational truths without having to experience or empirically verify them in the world, then by definition, they give us a foundational structure to deal with the world as we experience it.
The source of rational knowledge is independent of experience and these truths remain equally true whether an individual is aware of them or not. However, we can learn by experience, and as such experience is another source of knowledge. However, experience is a less reliable teacher because there is always the possibility for statements from experience to be false. Philosophers call these statements empirical or a posteriori truths, meaning true after experience. Plato called them a "true belief" and did not even ascribe them the level of truth.
Science, based upon the scientific method (not methodological naturalism), is a method …a technique… for evaluating phenomena and manipulating it logically. Therefore for a theory or hypothesis to true and correct it must be externally consistent. It must be formed upon a foundation of a priori truth.
Because Intelligent Design meets this criteria and Darwinism does not, both points of the debate are thereby, at least foundationally, addressed.
Please distinguish between the "scientific method" and "methodological naturalism".
As to the first proposition of whether or not id is or is not a scientific theory the answer is simple: NO it is not.
id is a hypothesis until it can meet the scientific method's criteria for a true theory, which are as follows:
•Consistent (internally and externally)
•Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
•Useful (describes, explains and predicts observable phenomena)
•Empirically testable & falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
•Based upon multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
•Correctable & dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered)
•Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
•Provisional or tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)
For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer criteria that are met, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a couple or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word. intelligent design is NOT a theory because it lacks consistency, violates the principle of parsimony, is not falsifiable, is not empirically testable, and is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive.
As for the concept of known evolutionary mechanisms being able to explain the diversity of Earth's biota you might be surprised to find that my answer is that it cannot explain everything.
That being said, I know that some will say: that in and of itself proves me wrong and that is where the layperson would be wrong in his logic. There are no known scientific theories that are fully proven, save basic math principles. That is part of science though and actually one of the basic tenets of science. For a theory to exist it must allow for the possibility that it is wrong and that the converse may be true.
ID and evolution are not mutually exclusive. It is possible that they are both correct but only one of these lines of thought is actually scientific theory and the other is junk science meant to bring creationism back into public schools.
Methodological naturalism “requires that scientists limit themselves to materialistic explanations when they seek to explain the nature and/or origin of natural phenomenon, objects, or processes. On this understanding… explanations that invoke intelligent causes or the actions of intelligent agents do not qualify as scientific.” In other words, contrary to the practice of all natural science until recently, the proponents of methodological naturalism have stacked the deck if you will. They have RE-defined science to mean something that absolutely precludes that anything super or supra natural MIGHT be a solution to a scientific problem. This is ultimately a self defeating position that I am sure will come out later.
Methodological naturalism is not to be confused with “empirical natural science.” Empirical natural science seeks to provide the best theoretical account of observable natural phenomena, but it does not follow that this account must only include undirected natural causes. Viewed objectively, natural science does not imply methodological naturalism, since the best scientific account of at least some natural events might invoke intelligent causes. If scientists are allowed to follow the evidence wherever it leads, they may conclude that some of the apparent design in nature is actual design, rather than merely an illusion to be explained away.
Rob, we already know what you think: "..intelligent design is NOT a theory because it lacks consistency, violates the principle of parsimony, is not falsifiable, is not empirically testable, and is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive." How about showing why you think ID fails these seven tests.
Could you explain what "science meant to bring creationism back into public schools."
One of the best examples of how to easily debunk ID and put it fully into the junk science category is as follows:
Take the entire ID manifesto and take out the words intelligent designer where they are found and insert the words "magic crystals", "pixie dust", or "monkey mist" and the entire hypothesis still holds its already shaky reasoning.
Rob Star,
Your list is very thorough. "is not falsifiable, is not empirically testable" makes everyone's list. What about it Deathrow? Do you have any comments about Mr. Start's assertion that ID is not falsifiable or testable, or any of the other things on that list?
Rob Star,
I am concerned that your answer to the second question is so, well, unfalsifiable and unverifiable. I am not asking that you deny that evolution might be true, I am asking you for the best evidence that it's known mechanisms explain what we see in the world. All of the diversity we see. The case needs to be made in order to justify its position as the sole idea taught in the puplic schools.
Just asserting it is true without offering any evidence is akin to a statement of faith. Isn't that your exact complaint about ID?
I would like to comment that Mr. Star's comments are unresponsive to my opening comments. As per the structure of the debate laid out and apparently agreed to by Mr. Star since he is here, were mine to initiate.
Responsive answers would be to undermine specific assertions I have made or to concede the foundation outlined and then move to dispute the final assertions. That being: Intelligent Design is not logically consistent and/or Darwinistic Evolution is logically consistent.
Nonetheless, it appears that Mr. Star would like to make an opening statement of his own. I am fine with that. The question now before us is do we launch this debate in two different directions or do we table one for later?
The Bible says so...so that is all most people need to hear. Can you say "sheep mentality"?
Deathrow,
OK, I think we get it now. You are saying that science as been redefined to consider only naturalistic explanations rather than where ever the evidence leads.
But Rob Star says that ID is not testible. Can you think of any tests or experiments or predictive observations that could be used to test the idea that living organisms were designed by an Intelligent Entity?
On a personal note, Bodine, you seem like an intelligent person yourself. I cannot believe that you have bought into this layperson's theory of all that is.
Another way to debunk this id hypothesis is to use what you already know from your philosophy classes, Deathrow. Everytime id comes to a hurdle it cannot cross it uses the God of the Gaps argument which, as you should already know, is the logical fallacy of an argument from ignorance. For those of you that don't know that means that when presented with outstanding questions to the hypothesis the questions are answered with supernatural explanations (not science).
The better question would be what, if any, examples can be given to show that ID is scientific in any way. Evolutionary mechanisms can not explain all the diversity in the universe...nothing can.
For the record, I was starting with the first item of Mr. Star's list. "Consistent (internally and externally" -- specifically externally consistent -- Can Mr. Star show that Darwinism is externally consistent? Can I should that ID is externally consistent?
OK,
Let's start the debate on whether ID can be considered a scientific theory. Bodine says it is because it is logically consistent. Star comes back with a series of tests that an idea has to meet to be considered science. Key among them seem to be that an idea must be testable. I think that is his response. So Mr. Bodine, can you show that his list DOES apply to ID or that it also does NOT apply to evolution?
Mr. Star is demanding evidence... which I can and will provide... without first telling us what he would accept as evidence. Give me a target or at least define it so that I am not Charlie Brown kicking a football pulled away at the last minute.
Example of the application of intelligent design: Archeology
The two easiest examples for the readers to follow as to how evolution exists and is provable are:
1. Micro organisms mutate and adapt to the environment they are given, you can actually see this in real time with the appropriate equipment.
2. Evolution on a secluded island over time will produce the same results every time, dwarf mammals and supersize reptiles. See: Galapagos islands and the more recent finds of the hobbit and his prey, the tiny elephant.
Ok Rob, both you and Crazylegs basically say that known evolutionary mechanisms cannot explain everything, so I don't understand why only Bodine has a "god of the gaps" problem. Aren't both sides appealing to a force they cannot explain?
Care to elaborate on that bodine?
no one has any answers about the universe.
Darwinism is not externally consistent because it does not provide a logical basis for assuming that what we know is true. The "mind" or our cognitive ability, if it is presumed to have evolved, give no reason to believe that what is percieved and processed is logical at all, it provides that it is merely capable of helping us survive and multiply.
Could you please be more specific as to how archeology is an example of the application of intelligent design, I'm not following your logic.
Second, Darwinism, by assuming and requiring that all that there is - is mechanistic systems then the brains that are at work here are only doing what they are biochemically predestined to do and no volition or "free-will" is involved in the process. We cannot do other. If on the other hand, Mr Star says that we are capable of operating outside of the mechanistic systems he is defending, then he is accepting that the supernatural CAN indeed act upon the universe outside of mechanistic laws.
quoting Rob Star:
"Take the entire ID manifesto and take out the words intelligent designer where they are found and insert the words "magic crystals", "pixie dust", or "monkey mist" and the entire hypothesis still holds its already shaky reasoning."
What if we insert the words "billions of years", or "random chance". Does that make it sound more reasonable?
I don't have to prove the evolutionary side of the argument since it has been made for me by the scientific community. It is your assertion that ID is a theory and should be taught as an alternative to Darwinian evolution in schools.
If ID has the credibility and the consistency that you claim then why has it not been peer reviewed by the scientific journals? That is the only hurdle that must be crossed so why hasn't it been accomplished since the inception of the so-called theory under its original name: The watchmaker theory, originally from William Paley? I have already explained why. It cannot hold up under peer review because it is a philisophical thread and not scientific in any way, shape, or form.
crazylegs,
Socratic Question:
How do we know that an artifact is the product of a human in the past and not the product of random natural processes?
How do crime scene investigators determine if a person found dead was murdered or killed due the product of random natural processes?
It is true, Mark, that both sides are appealing to forces that, at this time, can not be fully explained. The difference would be, I think, that those who are attempting to use credible science as a mechanism for understanding the "nature of things" are appealing to forces that can be, in most cases, measured, observed, tested, etc.
So what I see here is that Rob Star needs to give a reason that he thinks mechanistic evolution alone will produce minds that can reason accurately, that we can count on,
Bodine needs to show how ID CAN meet Star's list, or that molecules to man evolution can't either, or that the list is flawed.
Rob Star,
You said that you do not have to prove the evolutionary side of the argument. You appeal to authority by saying that the scientific community did it. That is a logical fallacy.
Of course there is the possibility that the supernatural can act outside the mechanics of known evolutionary systems but they cannot be proven at all. Faith is not science no matter how logical it seems to you or anyone else. There are still folks in this world that believe the sun revolves around the earth (they are called geocentrists) but we don't teach that in science class do we?
So many questions out there on the board right now that I do not have time to address them all. Moderator, please direct. Or Rob, what question do you desire to be immediately addressed?
I don't mind intelligent design, just don't label it God, Allah, Buddha, Chewbacca, etc...
Rob, without providing a logical foundation for science, then science IS faith. Why are you avoiding this so?
Crazy legs,
I guess I risk getting into a side debate with you instead of reffing.
Has it ever been demonstrated that known evolutionary mechanisms can produce the massive amount of diverstity we see in Earth's history? What if it is a unsound extrapolation of data?
What is the biggest example of evolution that you can think of since we have been paying attention in modern times (last 5 k years)?
I am not appealing to authority, I am merely trying to avoid typing out the entire works of Darwin and the last 100 years of scientific research. We all know the basics of evolutionary mechanics which have been well visited by everyone in the scientific community as well as by its detractors.
Bodine,
Because tools and weapons do not occur randomly in nature.
REDIRECT
So what I see here is that Rob Star needs to give a reason that he thinks mechanistic evolution alone will produce minds that can reason accurately, that we can count on,
Bodine needs to show how ID CAN meet Star's list, or that molecules to man evolution can't either, or that the list is flawed.
Are saying that you want me to prove a logical foundation for science in general? Don't tell me you believe the earth is only 6,000 years old.
Science=Proof, not stories and a how to act list from a book.
Religion=faith...see the difference.
Evolution has holes, but not as many as ID.
To 4:52
Maybe it would help them from talking past each other if it WAS a specific deity with a specific creation account. At least the more specific an explanation the easier it is to test. I hope both sides come to respect each other from tonight.
There is no timetable in evolution, it may take millions of years for a subtle genetic mutation.
Rob: No, the age of the Earth is not a topic tonight. His point seems to be that you expect mechanistic forces to produce a system that can produce the logical foundation for science. Is that "faith" in evolution? What REASON do you have to expect mechanistic unguided forces to produce a sense of reason that we can trust. He has made the point repeatedly. Do you have anything to say about it?
Mark,
Not trying to get into a debate with you.
No it has not been proven, at least to my knowledge, that known mechanisms can account for the massive amount of diversity.
As to your second question, evolution is not something that can be observed over a five or ten year period.
Crash,
Man I am trying to moderate a debate here, not start one. Lemme just say that "millions of years for a subtle genetic mutation" does not add up to the vast diversity of life we see on Earth, even given naturalistic assumptions about the age of the earth. YOu have a real rate of change problem comparing the time available to the amount of change seen to the rate of all known evo mechanisms.
I GOTTA go ref now.
Intelligent design says that if something is irreducibly complex and contains specified information, then it is the product of intelligence. There are countless examples of how this has been confirmed in nature. In fact, scientist ALWAYS believe this to be the case except for the origin of the universe and the development of biological organisms. ID is internally consistent on this fact. Darwinism is not.
The reason behind it is that biological entities that mutate or evolve poorly, die out whereas the mutations that do work for a specific environment go on to procreate and thrive in said environment. It is not mere chance that we have evolved into the creatures that we are today, it is the work of millions of years of evolution that have placed us at this point and in a few million more years (save rapture) we will not look or act the same as we do now.
OK, Deathrow, while Rob is chewing on your challenge to him about the foundations of the mind, how about you give an example of what ID says? In other words, give a test of the hypothesis from the natural world. If you can say "ID would expect to find this" and you find it, it seems to me that you would, at last, be addressing Rob's point - the list of what makes a theory scientific to include testablilty.
Bodine,
When you speak of ID are you saying that the universe as a whole is simply too complex to have occured randomly or are you saying that God created the universe.
Mark
Millions of years, compared to the estimated age of the universe at 15 billion years, not really a long time! I'm sure there have been evolutionary changes in the last 5000 yrs...i.e...Neanderthals turning into Republicans. The really bad kind that hate everyone who do not conform to their beliefs.
I knew you would eventually get around to the irreducibly complex argument so I have a prepared retort for you. Lack of imagination on the part of Behe have led him to overlook the possibility of different kinds of life than our own carbon based forms as well as the one legged stool of an argument called: irreducibly complexity
In his book Darwin's Black Box (The Free Press, 1996), biochemist Michael Behe claims that many biological systems are "irreducibly complex", that in order to evolve, multiple systems would have to arise simultaneously. He claims that such systems exist in biology and that the existence of "irreducible complexity" argues for an intelligent designer. Behe describes in detail several biochemial systems and alludes to others, claiming that they are "irreducibly complex."
Most science books for popular audiences focus on the frontiers of knowledge: what do we know, what does it suggest, and where is it likely to take us. In contrast, I would characterize Behe's book as an exposition of the Frontiers of Ignorance: what do we not know, and how can we blind ourselves with that lack of knowledge.
Indeed, that is the whole thesis of Behe's book. A system is labeled "irreducibly complex" if he cannot postulate a workable simpler form for the system. There is no way to prove such a claim. All we can do is look at the facts and logic presented, and judge whether it makes sense. Whether the logic is correct is another matter entirely. Indeed, this series of postings is intended to illuminate specific examples of where such reasoning is wrong. And it is often wrong because Behe has failed to present the full picture; we are not shown crucial facts which point out the failings in the logic.
Behe starts with the example of a mousetrap; he claims that a standard mousetrap is "irreducibly complex". Such a mousetrap consists of (p.42):
(1) a flat wooden platform to act as a base
(2) a metal hammer, which does the actual job of crushing the little mouse
(3) a spring with extended ends to press against the platform and the hammer when the trap is charged
(4) a sensitive catch that releases when slight pressure is applied
(5) a metal bar that connects to the catch and holds the hammer back when the trap is charged (there are also assorted staples to hold the system together)
Behe then continues with his logic as to why this system is "irreducibly complex":
Which part could be missing and still allow you to catch a mouse? If the wooden base were gone, there would be no platform for attaching the other components. If the hammer were gone, the mouse could dance all night on the platform without becoming pinned to the wooden base. If there were no spring, the hammer and platform would jangle loosely, and again the rodent would be unimpeded. If there were no catch or metal holding bar, then the spring would snap the hammer shut as soon as you let go of it...
Suppose you challenge me to show that a standard mousetrap is not irreducibly complex. You hand me all of the parts listed above. I am to set up a functional mousetrap which at least mostly resembles the standard one, except I hand you back one piece. Can it be done?
Yep. The wooden base can be discarded. Where do you put a mousetrap? On the floor. What if I assemble the mousetrap by pounding the staples into the floor? Would I have a fully functional mousetrap?
Of course I would. Would it be just as useful? Nope -- there is actually a selective advantage to having a typical mousetrap, rather than a kit. Not only do I have to assemble the mousetrap, but I can't put it on a stone or concrete floor, or a very irregular floor or a very soft one (such as soil). It's a nuisance to put behind or under appliances & furniture. I can kiss my security deposit goodbye.
Clearly it is inferior. But just as clearly, it is functional!
Correct myself...the last 30,000 years.
So Rob would it be fair to say that evolution itself- survival of the fittest at living in the real world- is alone capable of producing a mind that can observe the world well enough to test evolution fairly?
Rob, the idea that biological evolution works contrary to known entropic laws of the universe is not acceptable. To accept that something moves from a state of lower order to higher order via undirected random processes violates a foundational law of science. Again, internally inconsistent.
How does that violate a foundational law of science?
Rob,
Your mousetrap rebuttal fails miserably. Why?
You said:
"What if I assemble the mousetrap by pounding the staples into the floor?"
The "I" in that is instrumental. You are an intelligent designer.
Try putting those parts in a box and shaking it randomly until is forms a working mousetrap.
I was merely pointing out the fact that Behe's argument that taking one of the parts out renders the device useless which is not the case.
Rob,
The second law of thermodynamics. Order & Energy always moves from a higher state to a lower state. (not a very precise answer, but conveys the thought)
crash said,"I'm sure there have been evolutionary changes in the last 5000 yrs...i.e...Neanderthals turning into Republicans. "
Now that's not nice! Anyway wouldn't you consider that an example of DEevolution?
I am going to go REF now.
Rob, Your critique of Behe evidences that you took someone elses caricature account rather than reading him for yourself. This is why appealing to authority is so dangerous. A small part of his presentation designed to be presented to non-scientifically informed audiences has been distorted. Understanding his position fully, then criticizing what he really means is far more important if you are seeking the truth. Otherwise you are just trying to defeat an idea by force.
OK guys, you are going back in forth on an ANALOGY that either of you can stretch in their direction. How about a real-life example of Irreducible Complexity? Preferably something we know a lot about so it won't just be an example of our ignorance, but rather something that would be vanishingly difficult for unguided forces to throw together.
I would like to take credit for this passage but alas it is Dr. Ken Miller:
The fact of the matter is, the answer can be found in almost any genetics textbook. There are two major mechanisms for producing such duplications in biology, and both have been demonstrated experimentally.
Behe is apparently completely ignorant of the enormous amount of literature on tandem duplication, in which one copy of a gene spawns multiple copies. A common mechanism is unequal crossing over, due to the recombinational machinery misaligning two chromosomes. These can be shown to occur in the lab.
For example, in the fruit fly Drosophila, mutants exist called Bar and Ultrabar. In flies mutant for the Bar gene, the normally spheroid eye is much smaller and pronouncedly oblong (hence the name); in flies mutant for Ultrabar, this narrowing is even greater. If you keep pure-breeding stocks of either mutant around, examples of the other mutant will emerge at low frequency. In other words, pure-bred Bar stocks will occasionally turn up an Ultrabar fly, and pure Ultrabar stocks will occassionally turn up a Bar mutant. In Bar mutants, one section of a chromosome repeats itself, a tandem duplication. In Ultrabar flies, even more copies of the repeat are present. The generation of tandem duplications (Bar mutating to Ultrabar) and their reduction into fewer repeats (Ultrabar mutating to Bar) is an inevitable consequence of the recombinational machinery of the cell.
The second mechanism is reverse transcription + integration. In this case, the mRNA for a gene is reverse transcribed into a DNA segment, which then integrates into the genome. Reverse transcriptase is readily available, due to the many retrotransposons and defective retroviruses in our cells. The integration step can occur by homologous recombination or by other random processes. DNA segments injected into cells will integrate at a low frequency; many genetic engineering techniques rely on this. Many pseudogenes, and some functional ones, show the hallmarks of being produced in this manner -- they lack the introns of the inferred parent genes and show long runs of the nucleotide A after the gene (eukaryotic mRNAs end in long runs of A).
Hence we see that the available body of biological knowledge predicts that pseudogenes are an inevitable phenomenon -- given enough time. The complex machinery that Behe claims is necessary for pseudogene formation not only exists, but it exists for completely different purposes, in all living systems.
Evolution predicts that pseudogenes will be born, will decay or be deleted, and that common ancestors will often share common pseudogenes. Evolution also provides a means for distinguishing pseudogenes from real genes (by counting synonymous vs non-synonymous mutations).
No,
I read his crap. It was tedious and boring but I felt that I should at least bring a semi-working knowledge of the hypothesis that only a handful of pseudoscientists have lauded as the anti-evolutionary "theory"
So far, I think that I have addressed several times where Darwinism is not "Consistent". I have not seen a critique that ID specifically is not logically consistent or logically valid. There may be questions about the validity of the premises, but not the logical contruction itself.
I furthermore have addressed how ID can be tested empirically.
I still have more critiques of consistency of Darwinism. That of causality. Which moves more to Cosmological ID than Biological, but nonetheless, shows external consistency of ID, and shows glaring inconsistency in Darwinism
Bodine,
What about quantum mechanics? The laws of physics as we know them do not apply in the quantum world..
This was scheduled for 6PM to 7:30. There is about a dozen minutes left. Perhaps I should have scheduled more time. Getting close to time for closing statements (though if anyone wants to carry on unmoderated it is OK by me.)
As I have stated before, if you have the answer as to how id is consistent and more importantly useful and falsifiable, then why don't you publish it for peer review? If what you say is true, then it will only be a matter of time before the rest of the scientific community falls in line behind you.
Your assertions about micro-evolutionary processes do not achieve. I would think that a designer that did not design for "robustness" would not have been a very good designer. Engineers very often even "design-in" "flaws" in that the mechanism itself is not "optimum" in order to make it more "robust". Example the AK-47
Deathrow,
Cosmological evidence is admissible on the grounds that if the Universe was Intelligently Designed then it is logical to assume the creatures in it are as well- the other side of that story is that leaves a door open for a special kind of evolution: Theistic or God-directed Evolution- in fact it would be the only kind rational.
Mark,
Exactly, a step backward.
Ah, quantum mechnics... the "Escape from Reason" very interesting.... very interesting
OK, Rob Star has made a point about quantum mechanincs. There might be a loophole to the idea that mechanistic processes in themselves are inadequate to explain reason.
It seems a valid point, but is that not just pushing the idea of a Creator off on Quantum Mechanics? I mean, we don't know how Quantum Mechanics could produce the mind, nor how God might. They are both inexplicable in known science. Matters of faith as it were.
I would like to close by saying that I appreciate the stimulating debate from a formidable challenger, however false his premise may be. Mark, I appreciate the thread and I wish more Republicans were up for debate and discouse instead of name calling, flag waving, and slogan chanting. I wish we could debate this topic in a less cumbersome fashion but I have enjoyed it nonetheless. I can see that many topics have been broached and neither side has given way but I would like to reiterate that I don't feel that the theory of evolution and hypothesis of id are mutally exclusive and I wish that others could wrap their brains around this fact. I must leave you with that as my date has arrived and she is not in the mood to watch me type anymore.
Quoting Rob Star:
"if you have the answer as to how id is consistent and more importantly useful and falsifiable, then why don't you publish it for peer review?"
I've wondered how the theory of evolution is 'falsifiable', especially the 'common ancestor' copout.
I very much would like to back way up and hope that Rob and I could actually resolve some foundational agreement. I believe that it is rather pointless to debate second order topics when we do not agree on first order truths. Frustration is all that results, we never will be able to understand and appreciate each other otherwise.
Quantum mechanics are not an escape from reason. QM are, however, more than most can wrap their minds around due to years of being force-fed the same ideas about what is real and what is not. The idea that particles on a sub-atomic level may operate outside of the boundaries of our laws of physics does not sit well with many.
ID is falsifiable by presenting a single proven instance where irreducable AND specified complexity comes about by undirected random processes.
Mr. Star and Mr. Bodine, I believe, presented there topics and opinions well. Thank you for the stimulating discussion. Peace. Out.
crazylegs, I personally have few problems with QM and recognize that it presents a place where the supernatural (our own free will) may act upon matter. A good thing. On the other hand, it has elements that are illogical and irrational. Those parts I categorically reject.
It is close to time for me to bug out, at least for a while. I am going to leave with my impressions, which when teamed with a dollar bill might get you a small soda at McDonalds.
1) I did not schedule enough time
2) I think both sides have good points, and both sides have left points up by the other side uncountered.
For example, Deathrow never really took on Rob's list. Rob took on Deathrow's point about reason, but never really showed why evolution should have sole shelf space in science class. He did not demostrate that it had known mechanisms that could explain what we have observed, only that it has some mechanisms that can explain some change.
I will shut-up for now. I hope to address alot of the questions I did not get to in posts on my blog. Please come by and tell me how I missed the bar. I love to explore these topics.
Rob, nice job man. I can tell you did a prepared.
I was not here for the debate, but what I do see is that Rob, being his typical liberal arrogant self, thinks his ideas are superior to anyone else's and doesn't want to consider any other viewpoint. That being said.....
Trying to explain the creation of the world in scientific terms always comes back to the question of How? and that always leads to the answer that there has to be a force greater than any of us (God, as much as atheist evolutionists hate to see that) that created the universe and keeps it going. Think about this: Does it take more faith to believe that there is a God, or more faith to believe that there isn't? The fact is evolution has never been proven and each and every time someone has tried to prove it is true, the theory always ends up being disproven.
"ID and evolution are not mutually exclusive. It is possible that they are both correct but only one of these lines of thought is actually scientific theory and the other is junk science meant to bring creationism back into public schools."
Other than the fact that liberals cringe at the thought of God anywhere in the public arena, how is ID "junk science"? It is true that evolution is JUST theory because it has never been proven. If you try to explain ID in scientific terms and other scientific theories, why then could ID not be presented in those same terms in public schools? In Ann Coulter's new book "The Church of Liberalism: Godless", she makes some extraordinary points backed up with fact and documented examples that just blows evolutionary theory out of the water. Very good book. She talks about this in I think 3 chapters.
"1. Micro organisms mutate and adapt to the environment they are given, you can actually see this in real time with the appropriate equipment."
So how would you explain their ability to adapt to their environment? Surely you think that there is some intelligent outside force that governs them. Or is this just some happenstance thing that happens with no explanation as to why?
""1. Micro organisms mutate and adapt to the environment they are given, you can actually see this in real time with the appropriate equipment.""
We (humans) can adapt as well, within limits. We can adapt to eat different food sources, and survive in different climates, but we remain humans, and micro organisms remain micro organisms. This too, is observable, but in no way proves any sort of macro evolution, the change of one major species to another.
You spelled intelligent wrong.
Post a Comment
<< Home