Univ. of Kansas Takes Up Creation Debate

I wasn't meaning that Darwin based it entirely on Galapagos, but rather, that his scientific theory began with observations, not a testable hypothesis. The observations on the Beagle, at Galapagos and wherever else served as a starting point.

 

My problem with "ID scientists" inferring that there is intelligence in the design of some aspect of the physical world around us is that intellgence is far to vague to be measured in any way.

Testing intelligence isn't something you can do empirically, and if we start down the path of discussing what is intelligent and what is not, well... that's again not science... more along the lines of philosophy.

Someone might look at something and say "well the only way that could have been is if some God stepped in and made it" while I would respond "you're not looking hard enough... look harder, and don't cop out with that end-all explanation"

ID just seems like a cop out to me...

Moreover, theories in science are meant to spur further investigation. Scientific theories are meant to be frameworks for further scientific work. Newtonian physics served us well for centuries, for example. Evolution is the same way... it's not a theory to stand by itself, but a framework that allows more work to be done in the field.

I fail to see what kind of framework ID would provide if it were a real scientific theory except to give legitimacy to religion.

 

So concievably, ID "scientists" have a set of observations that they have as a starting point then...

My problem is that ID seems to skip the step of making a hypothesis and jumps to the conclusion that God, or some other supernatural force did it

why don't these ID scientists instead try out different hypotheses that help make sense of the observation without relying on the supernatural?

"Intelligent Design" is a conclusion that has yet to be proven... so calling scientists "ID Scientists" is a misnomer.

 

It is interesting, how the different arguments have come around. Airport kid (I th ink) says that the eye is too complex for a designer and now DNA is too simple for it to be an intelligent designer.

EDIT: I don't think that many people look at the process of DNA replication as simple. There are many sites with information on this process, so people can look for yourself.

One that I describes the basic principle is here from OSU. It has a simple animation, but starts off with the sentence "This animation gives you a hint of the complexity of the enzymatic machinery necessary for DNA replication to occur."

Another site that shows the wonder of the complexity of the process from science teachers. Responses to a question about the simpleness of diagrams versus the process of replication inolved "DNA replication is a family of
chemical reactions which involves many steps that take place simultaneously
up and down the DNA strand at lightening speeds" and ......"this process must occur and be done faithfully every 20 minutes, it is a wonder."

The last one that is rather thorough is from Oregon State. I doubt anyone will see all the various parts of replication, how quickly it is done, with very few errors, and done at 1,000 parts of a strand at once and call it simple.

I can agree to disagree about this, I would just hate to see what you called complex!

 

Actaully, there are those that say that evolution IS an intelligent designer, just not a very efficient one. Evolutionary algorithms are used in everything from stock market prediction to jet engine design are have proven remarkably successful. They basically harness the intelligence of evolution while vastly speeding up the pace.

 

The general discussion forgets that Darwin was an ordained Anglican Priest. He struggled with his observations for a long time (not just the Galapagos), knowing there would be controversy. He published his findings, "Origin of the Species" and another book. Darwin never used the term "evolution." Darwin used the term "natural selection."

What ID folks, the general public and the media forget is that science has left Darwin far behind. The rediscovery of Mendel's groundbreaking work in genetics in 1900 CE propelled a whole new understanding of biology that we continue to build upon. Current work on the human and other species genomes is propelling our understanding further.

Evolution is a process, not an end point. Evolution does not explain the origin of life, but the process of life. The other problem even many scientists do not clearly understand is, "When did life begin?" Life began once (point, time and place unknown). Life does not stop and start, but rather is a continuum.

 

drum roll, please ..

We should first agree that humanity is an abomination. The fact that we kill for pleasure should make that fairly obvious.

The alien (yes, there has to be an alien. Just think logicaly) therefore who made humans (or the building blocks that turned into humans) was clearly incompetent. Moronic. Plain stupid. Or insane

Behold, then: Desgin by Insanity. The creationists /almost/ got it right, they just swiched the letters. That is not such a gross error that we should not give them the praise and respect deserving to them. Just do not take seriously what is obviously a bad joke, told by people who have not yet figured out they are the butt of the story.

 

Actually, you are the one skipping to the conclusion that some supernatural force or God did it. Directly from the ARN FAQ: Mathematician and philosopher of science William Dembski puts it this way: "Whether an intelligent cause is located within or outside nature (i.e., is respectively natural or supernatural) is a separate question from whether an intelligent cause has operated. Human actions are a case in point: "Just as humans do not perform miracles every time they act as intelligent agents, so there is no reason to assume that for a designer to act as an intelligent agent requires a violation of natural laws."

Or from IDEA Center FAQ "Intelligent design theory makes no claim as to "how" the design occurred, whether it was by natural, or even supernatural causes."

And calling ID Scientists is not a misnomer because the way I understand, a person is a scientist if they follow the scientific method, not because of the specific conclusions they get (assuming they are not just makign up conclusions). If a biologist is working on the use of vitamin E to cure cancer, but hasn't proven that it does, is he/she no longer a scientist?

According to IDEA Center the overaching hypothesis that scientists are testing are: "(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found. (2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors. (3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms. (4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".

 

Yet psychologists and others have been empirically studying intelligence for around 80 years or so. Some have made very distinguished careers out of just studying intelligence. There are many things, including human behavior which is very vague and hard to define, i.e. ask 10 psychologists what is intelligence and you will get 10 different answers.

Now if you are only talking about intelligence only in terms of design then my analogy is unintelligent (or is it? I'm not sure ).

Simply because you dont' see the framework that ID would provide besides for religion doesn't mean it doesn't provide a framework for others. For instance, many people don't see the usefulness of the psychoanalytic framework, yet there are still individuals who are out there who are practicing psychoanalysts.

I'll mention again, it doesn't matter what the ID scientists conlusion are, isn't about utilizing the scientific method and it being supported by the data?

Do you really think that all of the voters who voted out the school board in Kansas were scientists or even understand evolution? I would agree that it isn't about science to many of those in the media, it is about a culture war. A war that they feel like they are losing to the "atheistic, morally relativistic" evolution. (I used in quotations as how it may be seen by many).


In terms of the ID scientists, I think they are more concerned about getting the evidence out there than any of this requiring in schools. The Discovery Institute (the place that puts out the Dissent from Darwin List) interestingly enough, says "Instead of mandating intelligent design, Discovery Institute recommends that states and school districts focus on teaching students more about evolutionary theory, including telling them about some of the theory's problems that have been discussed in peer-reviewed science journals. In other words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned. We believe this is a common-sense approach that will benefit students, teachers, and parents."

I can't help but laugh about this debate, as I seem to have found myself as playing the advocate for a theory in which I am fairly uneducated in (in terms of the scientific evidence and their specific methodology) and really don't care if it is taught in schools or not.

 

This is close to what Brit zoologist/Darwinist Richard Dawkins says.

 

This is not just a poor analogy. It is what the Greeks contemptuously called sophistry.

 

Even if such a person utilized a scientific line of inquiry, WHY DO YOU THINK HE/SHE IS CALLED "AN ID SCIENTIST?

Good grief.

 

This mirrors exactly what all evolutionary zoologists think and would say. But not because it was contained in an otherwise camel's-nose-under-the-tent screed.

Those who devoted LIFETIMES to investigating evolution acknowledged that their own work was open to critical scrutiny. NONE of them regarded his or her particular strand of investigation, or the conclusion(s) to which it seemed to lead, as "sacred dogma".

You will not gain in this argument if you persist in mouthing inflammatory political rhetoric such as "sacred" and "dogma". Almost every fragile thread in the tapestry that is now "evolutionary knowledge" is the result of years of hard work, usually by more than one researcher.

 

I continue to have a problem with the statement above because instead of saying that all science classes should put more emphasis on showing ALL scientific theory's gaps, and show how many theories have been discussed in peer-reviewed science journals, they only single out evolution.

Why? What's the distinction? If the true purpose is to open the minds of kids in the area of science, then why only single out one hot button theory above them all?

 

Good point, LM. Maybe we can annihilate (please, good Lord, NOT on this thread!) E = mC2, wave theory, thermodynamics, gravity and most of astronomy, too.

After all, have you ever WALKED and MEASURED a trillion light-years?

 

I have a problem with the following words in the above thesis.

"Irreducibly" : scientists once believed atoms to be irreducible, but that judgment that some structure is irreducible is almost always false... need I go on?

"without any precursors" : shouldn't that be without any *understood* precursors?

"unrelated" : unrelated or not yet understood to be related? This is precisely what I am talking about jumping to conclusions. If an ID "scientist" sees the re-use of genes between two different organisms, this hypothesis would seem to suggest that they would see it as evidence that leads toward the theory that there exists a designer with intelligence, as this is part of the hypothesis that you posted. But instead of judging the "unrelatedness" as design, why not further investigate the *hidden* relation that two organisms would share a gene? How do you truly know if two organisms are "unrelated?"

I continue to argue that the reason why ID, no matter how fancy you try to spin it, is shot down is not because of an arrogant scientific community, but because it's not a very good hypothesis, and not very good evidence.

 

That's not exactly my point. I would agree if they wanted to improve all science education by encouraging more critical thought through the scientific method... but the approach in the above quote only singles out evolution because it is the hot topic.

One simply can't get past the fact that the vast majority of the ID proponents, even from the sites that michael has linked to, have an agenda that goes beyond improving science... the fact that they are essentially sniping evolution out of all of the scientific theories shows this much.

 

I'm not saying that DNA is too simple for an intelligent designer.

You said it amazed you how something so complex as DNA could have come about randomly. I told you how it's really not that complex. I never once said it was 'too simple' to be an intelligent design, you came up with that yourself. It is simple enough to have come about through evolution, since your argument is that anything complex can't have been a product of evolution.

Airport Kid (if that was indeed the person) said that the eye was designed way too back-nice person-wardsly to be 'designed' by anyone 'intelligent.'

You want complex, try understanding the brain. Try understanding how different neurotransmitter signalling pathways interact and why a cholinergic input activates a dopaminergic channel. Then, try to apply a drug to that system of systems to modify that signalling to correct a disease state.

Now let's talk other stuff here. Resistant bacteria as applied to ID. [sarcasm] So are we now saying that bacteria were meant to take over the world, since God is pointing at Staph infections left and right and saying "be resistant to all antibiotics!" Sounds like that's entirely possible as God's plan then... since it's obviously happening for a reason. Could this be the end of mankind? [/sarcasm] Yeah, sounds ridiculous to me too.

 

Excellent example. (I haven't even read all the posts in some of the earlier pages, so don't know if it may even have been mentioned before.)

What "drives" those little buggers to adapt/change?

They're only trying to survive, as all life does. The most resistant ones will. Then we've got another AIDS-like virus, or ebola, or whatever. Now it's us against THEM. And so it goes.

God's plan? You'd have to have a sense of humor---or punishment---like de Sade.

 

Excellent example. (I haven't even read all the posts in some of the earlier pages, so don't know if it may even have been mentioned before.)

What "drives" those little buggers to adapt/change?

They're only trying to survive, as all life does. The most resistant ones will. Then we've got another AIDS-like virus, or ebola, or whatever. Now it's us against THEM. And so it goes.

God's plan? You'd have to have a sense of humor---or punishment---like de Sade.