Evolution versus Intelligent Design

I don't know if this photo proves evolution (maybe devolution), but it sure as hell debunks Intelligent Design:

 

Digging your own grave here rhester.

ID is not science. Science is based on empirical knowledge, NOT personal belief systems.

If you aren't satisfied with science, then you need to abandon science and the scientific method... you don't need to change science into religion.

 

This might have been an appropriate debate 200 years ago, but today?

Come on.

In other scientific news of merit that underwent similar debate:

The world is round, not flat.
The sun is the center of the solar system, not the earth.
Witches don't weigh the same as a duck. <=extra points for identifying the obscure reference

 

That is way too easy. Monty Pythons Holy Grail of course.

Now when is that Rox game going to start?

 

True nuff. I figure we did kill it. We had a hell of a lot of help from the mods, but it's plainly dead now. Drag. This used to be the very best place I knew to talk politics. But yeah, it's done now. Might as well close it down. Half the good posters have been banned or lost interest. And oh so many more have been discouraged from posting here on account of the stigma the mods have attached to the forum. It's a Rockets site after all. We had a great thing going here for a while, but it was never wanted by the mods and they succeeded in closing it down with all the bannings and all the dissing. And the ones who tried to save it, like Deckard, softened it further with all the calls for "civility," which only made it even more boring than it already was. It'd be funny to see the same rules applied to the GARM. It doesn't matter which forum it is. If you tell people they're stupid for caring about something and punish their passion, eventually any forum will fall away. Whatever. This thing's done. It has been for a while. That's why I hardly hit the site anymore. The GARM's overrun and sucky and the D&D's neutered. When I want to read Rockets stuff I go to the front page, which is still my favorite source for Rockets info. And I glance at the GARM for headlines. And I glance at the Hangout for news of old online friends. But the D&D, which I used to dearly love, is dead as hell. Personally I think that's too bad, but I expect others are celebrating.

 

The statement “evolution is a fact,” assuming he’s referring to let’s call it vertical evolution as opposed to horizontal evolution, is a statement of faith. No good scientist would make such a comment. It would be like saying “Caloric is a fact,” or, “the world is flat and that’s a fact.” Good scientists know that knowledge is an evolving thing and that much of what we take for granted today will in the future be found to be quite different than what society in general assumes is “fact.”

While there is a variation of beliefs and combinations of beliefs there is a IMO a significant number of “fundamentalist” evolutionists and like other “fundamentalist” groups they do not tolerate the questioning of their beliefs, and this of course is very unscientific.

The theory of evolution is one that doesn’t preclude the existence of God, IMO, but the theory without some kind of intelligent design component is increasingly breaking down for a lot of scientists from a logical and scientific standpoint. There are a myriad of problems with it including time line problems, huge logical hurtles around the evolution of organs like eyes, and even the problem that throughout recorded history no vertical evolution (evolution to a higher level of complexity) has ever been witnessed. Then there is the problem that evolution jumps in mid stream skips past yet another huge problem. Where did that first cell or even that first piece of matter come from? By human logic you can’t get something from nothing, and everything comes from somewhere. That’s what science is all about, and yet the theory of evolution conveniently skips right past this problem.

So many scientists are addressing these serious flaws, which many believe are fatal flaws, and are looking at other theories or adapted theories, and this is where ID comes from. It is, in fact, a very scientific evolution of inquiry and knowledge. I have some problems with parts of it but I think to call all of this kind of inquiry unscientific is a reactionary position that is itself unscientific and faith based.

 

Science is based on EMPIRICAL KNOWLEDGE.
Intelligent Design is based on LOGICAL REASONING (philosophy).

ID is just a regurgitation of a philosophical argument with a new name. It is called the teleological argument. It is being called unscientific, because it is not science. It is philosophy.

 

Science, Philosophy, and Religion are all human constructed disciplines that are constantly being confused in politics. WE created all of these things, and therefore WE control them. Proving or disproving Evolution has NOTHING to do with Intelligent Design (Teleological Argument), Creationism or any religious belief. All of these disciplines look at similar problems and try to explain them, but they based on different things.

WE defined science to be based on empirical knowledge.
WE defined philosphy to be based on logical reasoning.
WE defined religion to be based on faith.

Why is it that WE want to destroy our own creations because we think they contradict one another?

 

I don’t see that ID is the same as the teleological argument at all. Now, there are going to be a range of beliefs that fall under these umbrella terms but in its purest form ID is not the TA.

From the link you posted on the TA:

ID does not say simply that because life is complex it must have been designed. It says that given the complexity and what we know and can reasonably assume about evolution as it is now conceived, the world could not have evolved to the state it’s in in the time it has had to do it. It fails the scientific analysis of that problem.

For this reason and the fact that evolution skips right over the first step, the major obstacle of the existence of matter itself that it is in fact not a “better explanation.” In fact it’s a theory that is falling apart causing people to look for alternative hypotheses, which is what ID is.

Can ID be proved? I think, like the evolutionists have done, you can develop a body of evidence that is strongly supportive. The proof isn’t ultimately any more impossible than the proof for (vertical) evolution I think, and in fact I would say that it’s easier because ID is a theory which came about to address the problems in the theory of evolution, so it is in many ways the next step in the evolution, if you will, of the theory of our material existence.

Unlike the TA, ID doesn’t assume that the designer is a specific god, merely a designer or designing force of some sort.

 

Pardon me if I disagree (Lets have a debate about a Debate and Discussion site!)

I think the forum is on a bit of a hiatus as we paid more attention to the Rox playoff run but now that it is sadly over I predict things will pick up here. There's also been a few big impassioned debates recently such as the one about the Japan's war past and China's reactions and I suspect the next time a controversial subject comes up there will be more.

I used to spend a lot of time on the NYTimes news forums and this forum is as good if not even better in terms of the quality of posters here. There are trogdylites but all forums have them and from what I've seen this forum has some of the least. Anyway this is a forum specifically set aside for controversial subjects so it should be expected that things get heated everynow and then. If they didn't then I would say the forum is dead because there is no passion for the issues.

Long Live the D & D!

 

The problem is are you using ID to prove that God/creator exists or why things are so complex?

With ID neither proposition can stand logically independent. Things are complex so there must be a creator. Only a creator can make things complex so complexity is because of a creator.

That's unscientific because its not constructed from independent ideas that are constructed from observations. Evolution says speciation is based upon mutation and natural selection. We can observe mutation and natural seclection independently so it seems likely that those could lead to evolution. With ID it becomes its own self-fulling explanation internally dependent upon itself. The scientific method is designed to weed things like that out because how would you be able to devise a test that would somehow disprove that statement. ID could never stand up to a rigorous application of the scientific method and shouldn't be considered science.

Of course Evolution skips over the question of the existence of matter because Evolution is a biological theory while that is a question for physics. To the point that ID takes on physics that's a bigger problem and one that I think further degrades it as a science since the same rigors of testing it out biologically would also have to be applied to physics.

Further I find it somewhat hypocritical to fault Evolutionary science because it skips over some things when essentially ID is the ultimate example of intellectual laziness. We can't empiracally or logically explain why things are so complex so therefore it must be the work of higher power.

With that attitude we might as well stop all science since there are tons of things we can't explain. Dark matter created by the divine. Placebo affect, the creator wanted us to have a placebo affect. Expansion of the universe, God wants the universe to grow.

Its a theory based on laziness. Its saying that we can't explain it using our present knowledge so it must be divine. ID as it is doesn't need to be proven. It proves itself since its circular logic. The difference between that and science is that science always leaves open the possibility of skepticism. So yes Evolution isn't fact but neither is the theories regarding electromagnetism yet I'm still communicating with you using a computer transmitting over telecomunication lines.

But that's a distinction with no difference. ID assumes that there is something more than what is physically observable. It could be God, it could be a giant superintelligent sea turtle. Until one can scientifically prove that without relying on circular logic its not science.

 

I don't want you to confuse this argument.

I am saying that the two have nothing to do with one another. Hypothetically, let's say that you prove Evolution is wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt. That doesn't mean ID is right!

ID is not an alternative to Evolution. Philosophy is not an alternative to Science. NOT being able to explain something means that it is not Science, because science is based on ONE THING ONLY.... empirical evidence..... the ability to explain something.

ID was created as a political tool so evolution could be presented as a "controversial theory" in public schools in the United States. I shouldn't be so kind as to call ID philosphy, because at it's basest level, it is politics. The Argument from Design is philosophy. If people are so desperate that they need religion in schools, call it that, and teach a religion course. Don't F-up science classes.

 

Hold up a minute and go back and read what I said. I said fairly specifically that this is not what ID says. It does not say “things are complex so there must be a creator.” It says that given the complexity that exists and given the current theory of how evolution happens there is a large discrepancy between the time it would take for this level of complexity to evolve an the time that has actually elapsed since life began on earth. These are two very very different statements.

Well no. What we’re lacking is the macroevolution. Micro evolution, essentially lateral adaptation, is agreed on by all I believe, but macroevolution is a very weakly sported theory that runs contrary to most known tendencies of organisms. And then there is the problem of the timeline and the lack of a fossil record and again the failure to address the fatal first step. So it is weakly supported and contradicted by a lot of empirical evidence.

No it doesn’t. I don’t think you’ve understood what I said so please re-read it.

And this is where people are increasingly starting to roll their eyes and begin to write off evolution and look elsewhere for answers. This convenient sidestepping of the fact that the cornerstone for the whole theory is missing is just not washing with people anymore. This is a fundamental question that evolutionist have to address because any possible answer to it marginalizes the theory of evolution, and yet they never do it, because they can’t. I’m sure an elaborate theory could be extended of the assumption that cows fly, but since cows don’t fly what good is that theory? It’s the same with straight evolution. It just doesn’t stand up to reason, which is why alternate hypotheses like ID are being proposed.

You’re stuck on this point, aren’t you? As I’ve said a couple of times, this isn’t what ID says. And please point out the intellectual laziness of ID. I’m sure there are a number of different things called ID but in it’s purest form, I’ll call it, it is an appropriate response to the flaws in the theory of evolution and to the fact that that theory is falling apart.

Note how you keep coming back to God and to the statement on complexity that you keep repeating. ID says none of these things yet you keep repeating them. The intelligent designers could be aliens for all ID says who’ve came to seed earth with life forms, but you keep focusing in on a couple of very narrow and incorrect assumptions. This is not very objective and not very scientific. It is more of a political or faith based position, i.e. your faith in evolution is justified by it being opposed to a certain type of “enemy” I’ll call it.

One more time! This is clearly how you are trying to characterize it but this is simply propaganda. It’s not science.

True, but you’re applying your comment about scepticism to the wrong group. It’s the ID people who are saying that evolution doesn’t add up and they have some very solid scientific criticisms, some of which we have discussed. It is the evolutionists who are afraid of this sceptical inquiry. This is not uncommon in science as politics and inflexible worldviews (tunnel vision) are an inherent part of scientific discovery as Thomas Kuhn pointed out 40 years ago. Science and the scientific community often don’t conduct themselves in very scientific ways and we cannot simply accept what they say uncritically in a spirit of blind faith.

Here is a summary of what Kuhn found for those who may not be familiar.
http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/kuhnsyn.html

There’s no circular logic. Essentially it says that since, based on the best science of today evolution is highly improbable then there must be something else going on. Since things could not have randomly evolved to the state we’re in now there must be some non-random process involved.

 

I think that is oversimplification for the sake of a primarily semantic argument. Evolution doesn't say life randomly evolved. It says that there are mechanisms in the evolution of life that include natural selection, mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, allopatric speciation, extinction, etc. Which parts do you disagree with? All of them or some of them? Micro elements but not macro elements?

If someone was to disprove Evolution, ID would not be a logical alternative. ID is not science because there is no empirical evidence that supports it. You are arguing that the LACK OF empirical evidence supports it.

Why would you not choose Panspermia or Exogenesis rather than Intelligent Design? Is it because of some empirical evidence? Maybe life evolved in another part of the universe where it had time, and was then transported to Earth. That would be an alternative, except, like intelligent design, there is no evidence to support it.

 

The more I read about ID, the more ridiculous it starts to sound.

 

How is anything in your posts not intellectual laziness?

Either ID is only a criticism of Evolution but offers no theory of its own or else it relies upon a higher power to make up for gaps in knowledge.

That to me is what I would call intellectually laziness or if you prefer "Magical Thinking." I don't know what makes the sky blue and I can't be troubled to conduct a difficult observation and experimentation so it must be due to some higher intelligence that intended the sky to be blue.

The only basis of ID is that well evolution seems improbably so therefore it must be due to a higher power that intended it so because only higher powers would intend for things to be this way.

That's circular logic at its most basic.

 

I’ll come back to the other posts but I couldn’t pass on the irony of this post.

I don’t think you’re even reading what I’m saying. How can you get anymore intellectually lazy than that? Try reading what I’ve said and referring to it in specific rather than spewing your tired old rhetoric and wasting your time and mine.

And for further intellectual laziness see the above … So nothing beyond your ability to understand could possibly exist? You preclude the existence of any being or force higher than man capable of influencing such design base on … what? What’s your scientific basis for this? How could anything be more intellectually lazy than this? You are clearly a non-critical evolutionist fundamentalist so I think this is not the discussion for you. Maybe you could head on down to the Flat Earth Society where I think you’ll find some more kindred sprits.

Magical thinking is anything that doesn’t fit your worldview, eh? That, of course, is a completely unscientific and intellectually lazy position.

You clearly haven’t read what I wrote, or perhaps it’s such a threat to your worldview that you simply ignore it. You’re a one note horn sounding your fundamentalist beliefs and I think this discussion has passed your level of analysis, so no offence but there isn’t much point in me responding to a post like this which does not even address what’s been said.

 

Grizzled,

The way I read it, you are arguing that the complexity in the universe today is too vast and impressive to be the result of evolution and/or any other theory of random dispersions.

This is a difficult opinion. While I can understand the disbelief, you cannot seem to understand the counter statement that "abscence of evidence is not proof."

Also, complexity is an inherent characteristic of many simple systems, nevermind something as dauntingly large as the universe. I invite you to read a great book (aptly titled) Complexity, by Mitchell M. Waldrop. (Warning: this book is more of a story of the development of complexity studies, a good book for actual examples and mathematical treatment is The Computational Beauty of Nature, by Flake.) Anyhow, my point is that complexity is a very natural thing - and is not necessarily indicative of a weakpoint in evolutionary theory.

--rhad

 

and i don't disagree. but the point you just made strikes at Darwin's own conclusions. evolution is founded on the idea that systems evolved from simplicity to complexity, adapting as necessary. that's not what we're finding. we're finding more complexity with nanotechnology the smaller we look than we find in larger, "more evolved" systems.