Yes, this thread is about both and you have not addressed ID's inability to be falsified. You've dodged that point for the 10th time. Prediction can be made based on evolution. Fossil records can prove those predictions incorrect, thereby falsifying the theory. There are no predictions that can be made from ID, no possible fossil records, and no possible empirical evidence that can falsify ID.
I think he meant to say, which "One"... the synthesis. The "One" where God is part of the universe, and you can look in a microscope to see strings of proteins being shoved around by invisible hands... while everything else obeys natural laws? Care to define the Hegelian dialectic? A: Science B: Spirituality C: _______
I’m not going to dance around the bush with you on this one. I’ve shown you references (Wikipedia link) that state that the theory is based on empirical evidence. I’m described how it can be falsified by showing that there is a high probability that evolution happened randomly, thus falsifying the non-random basis of ID. And I’ve also shown that key assumptions that evolution relies on are not falsifiable. And this was all done pages ago so perhaps you should go back and re-read the thread.
Strictly speaking I think the full theory behind Hegel’s dialectic is fairly complicated. In simple terms however and they way it is popularly understood it addresses situations where there is a thesis and an opposing antithesis. Hegal says (and darned if this doesn’t seem to work almost all of the time) that there is a higher transcended level of understanding, a broader higher level context lets say, that reconciles the two and places them in their own contexts within the greater context. So it would be like this. http://www.calvertonschool.org/waldspurger/pages/hegelian_dialectic.htm
Here is the article you cited. It uses the words empirical evidence, but lists none. It only says that supporters of ID claim it is based on empirical evidence. The only "empirical evidence" you've ever shown is criticism of evolution. Proving or disproving evolution does not disprove or prove intelligent design. It just proves or disproves evolution. Everything about intelligent design is predicated on evolution. Everything about intelligent design is criticism of evolution. TELL ME SOMETHING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT INTELLIGENT DESIGN! What are the mechanisms of intelligent design that we can look for? What are the predictions that we can make and then test based on intelligent design hypothesis? Since you think evolution and intelligent design coexist, which mechanisms are random and which ones aren't? Where is it too time consuming for random forces to prevail, and where does the designer have to take over? Why did the designer not wait? Why was the designer compelled to design? When did the designer start working, and when did the designer stop working? Is the designer still at work? Did the designer design bacteria? Did the designer design amoebas? Did the designer design flowers? Did the designer only design organs? Did the designer only design cells? First, evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of the universe. Any parallels you are drawing between the two is simply because they are both part of "Creationism" and I thought you stated before that you weren't a Creationist and this wasn't about religion... although you keep confusing the subject further with talk about spirituality as well. The theory of evolution, and the hypothesis of the origin of life are based in the physical world, therefore they can be falsified by physical evidence. Intelligent Design cannot be falsified by evidence because there is no information about the designer, and the designer could be supernatural, or not of the physical universe. Specifically: Spontaneous generation of life: Procedures for producing random RNA molecules in the laboratory can produce "ribozymes", which are able to produce more of themselves under certain specific conditions. Leads one to believe over long periods of time, it is possible. Vertical evolution: You mentioned before that examples of vertical evolution have been reproduced in the laboratory. Mutations produced in the laboratory have given rise to hypothesis of vertical evolution like centipedes and millipedes.
Procedures for producing random RNA molecules in the laboratory can produce "ribozymes", which are able to produce more of themselves under certain specific conditions. Isn't this in and of itself vertical evolution? You start with a bunch of chemicals and end with an "entity" that can reproduce.
And you’re saying that you found nothing in the 10 Pro-ID links listed at the bottom of the page? This is getting ridiculous. I have also clearly said that: I will withdraw this offer, however, until you can come to grips with what had has been said in this thread. There is no point going forward when you are stuck on repeatedly falsely and perhaps dishonestly claiming that I haven’t answered questions or addressed issues that I clearly have, many times. You’re in some kind of profound denial, it appears. You have clearly chosen not to pay attention to what has been said in this thread anymore and therefore there’s really no point in my repeating my answers to your questions over and over and over again. I’ll move on to others who are prepared to address this question in an objective way. I suggest you find a way to calm down and re-read the thread and read the links provided. There is nothing for you to fear in ID. It’s only science.
This is the debatable point I was referring to above. What is happening there is something that we’d have to dig into in detail, which would be tough because I suspect that the science is over most of our heads, but it might be a worthwhile exercise. But as I also mentioned that if you take one step further back you avoid this controversy. How do you get matter from the absence of matter, or energy from the absence of energy for that matter? Everything we know about science tells us that this is absolutely impossible, and yet all of the theory of evolution is built on this cornerstone. This makes it more than a little ridiculous for people to be harping on ID about falsifiability and pseudoscience and the like. ID, again at least in it’s purest form, does not deny these obvious problems that evolutionists try to dodge and hide from. Once you acknowledge and look at these problems you can then begin to ask the question about what this “intelligence” may be about.
Uh huh. So by this guy’s definition Psychology and all of Social Science, I suppose, are not scientific. Further, the theory of evolution is not scientific either under these conditions. That’s fine, I guess, if he wants to define it that way, but it doesn’t advance the discussion much. Not much point in going any further with that piece.
This seems to have been written by someone who completely misunderstands ID. This seems more like an argument for ID than against it.
Crikey! This has been covered already! Grizzled do you understand the difference between biology and physics? Evolution is a biologically theory while the questions you are asking pertains to physics Darwin was a biologist whereas you are really questioning Einstein. Now given that obviously without the physical universe there wouldn't be species so Evolution would be a moot point but that goes then that everything would be moot. To take on your question directly as a physics question since ID is now also applied to physics, we can try chemistry and geology later, physics actually doesn't tell us this is impossible but actually very possible and something that is even now still occuring. The vacuum as we think of it isn't really nothingness but has been found to actually be seething with what are known as virtual particles. These particles instantly appear and disappear so in general the balance sheet of matter and energy is balanced. That there are many indications that they actually play a role in the expansion of the universe because the dark energy may be a force that counter acts gravitational attraction. There's other theories that in the presence of strong gravitation that the virtual parties could be separated and not annihilate each other and end up existing. Something from nothing. The latest theory regarding the Big Bang have to do with the idea that prior to it everything was vacuum but that the vacuum was disrupted leading to the Big Bang and the Universe. Under this theory it could be possible to create new universes out of the vacuum. These are incredibly complex ideas and I recommend reading Hawkings A Brief History of Time where its explained far better than I ever could.
You do understand why those are called soft sciences and things like biology and physics are hard sciences?
OK I got off track from what I was coming here to talk about. I was watching Nova last night and they are doing a series about the origin of the Earth and life. In the 1950's an experiment was conducted showing how the basic building blocks of life could've been created out of the interaction of water, CO2, and ammonia under electricity in lightning. All of those were though to be abundant on the early Earth. The problem with that theory though is that recent astronomic and geological data shows that those materials might not have existed in the right concentrations and on top of that the Earth for about the first half-billion years was molten on top of being hit by something the size of Mars that ended up creating the Moon. Amino acids have been found to be abundant already in space dusts, meteors and comets so the latest theories are that amino acids were brought to Earth by those and didn't require those to be formed here. In another experiment it shows that not only can amino acids survive the impact of a comet hitting the Earth but also that the energy of the impact causes them to interact to form more complex structures leading to proteins. Under this theory the basics of life where formed from the explosion of stars and disbursed into nebular clouds. Then became proteins when they crashed to Earth and finally reacted with liquid water to become life as we know it.
Fallacies, fallacies, count the fallacies! One! One fallacy. Muah ha ha ha. Science discovers laws. There are many examples of things that were once considered “metaphysical” that were later seen as governed by a scientific law. This includes phenomenon that follow a pattern, as though by design. To discover the nature and purpose of that design is the cause of science itself. The claim that science doesn’t address or explore questions that appear metaphysical may be the weakest point in this whole thread. Two! Two fallacies! Muah ha ha ha. Seeing a design in anything causes or should cause a scientist to ask what that design is about, why it exists, and indeed everything that can be known about it. Through such investigation one comes to gain an understanding of how it works. Three! Three fallacies! Muah ha ha ha. Because you don’t understand it means that it is not science? I trust I don’t need to say anything in response to this. Your Star Trek fan club membership has been revoked for making such a ridiculous statement though. (Do I need to address the misleading word “undetectable”? Obviously most conceptions of Aliens and God have them being detectable). Four! Four fallacies! Muah ha ha ha. I think we can see clearly in this thread that the rigid faith of fundamentalist evolutionists prevents them from exploring broader possibilities, and worse it causes them to overlook and manufacture excuses for, in some very unscientific ways, the huge scientific holes in their theory. Unfortunately this is the reality. Again, for further elaboration on this phenomenon see Kuhn. Double Crikey!! This has also already been covered! But let’s do it again. Contrary to what you suggest, biology and physics don’t exist independent of one another. If we were to follow the reasoning you suggest we could prove that cows fly, by jet propulsion! Cows eat grass and the digestion of grass produces methane that is expelled at velocity through the anus of the cow. Never mind that the thrust produced would not overcome the friction caused by gravity. We’re not talking about gravity here. That’s a separate science. So back to the “facts.” Clearly then we have proved that cows fly. If you look at the shape of a cow this becomes more obvious. The cow has a streamlined shape and clearly the tail is a rudder as it is situated just above the thrust orifice. The eyes placed on each side of the head allow the cow to see all the flight lanes and avoid the possibility of mid air collisions. Also, when cow is young this eye configuration allow the young cow to fly in and locate a teat under the mother and still be able to watch for possible mid air collisions. The udder position under the mother also allows the young to easily fly up underneath for feeding. And on and on we could go. Of course we have relied on sciences other than biology here but so does evolution, when it is convenient for them to do so that is. They only deny it to try to get past the fatal flaws in their theory. But as I have showed, doing that allows you to prove the most ridiculous things. We showed not only that cows fly but it also allows you to build an elaborate and seemingly sensible web of assumptions about how the features of a cow prove that it files. This is of course the danger of sticking your head in the sand and trying to isolate your “scientific” theory enough to that it seems justifiable. If it doesn’t make sense in the broader scientific context then it can’t be justified by saying that you choose not to consider the broader context.
This is getting absurd. A complete abuse of language and absence of logic. There is only one possible "designer" that could explain both the origin of life and the origin of the matter. That is "God". That makes ID "creationism". Outside of that argument, physics and biology have nothing to do with each other for this discussion.
