I was simply posting some information in a thread (like most) that is painfully short on that commodity. Sorry to the couple of people here who know what they are talking about. For you, somehow criticizing a particular theory of a particular mechanism is supposed to transfer to the general group of mechanisms that together encompass evolution. I don't know why that makes sense since you have already acknowledged certain mechanisms of evolution as fact. It seems logic would have you take that factual framework and empirical evidence and use it to create more encompassing theories to study (see scientific method). BUT, I would really rather hear an answer to the question I continue to post. Why do you think disproving evolution would leave ID as the logical alternative? There is no way empirical evidence can prove or disprove ID. Here is the logic of your two best illustrations of what ID represents. 1) Evolution is random 2) Intelligent Design is non-random 3) Allowable time only allows for non-random 4) Intelligent Design is true There are A LOT of problems with this argument according to the information you have posted, and easily illustrated logic errors. 1) Step #3 is not verifiably false. 2) Step #3 assumes 13 million years. 2) Step #4 excludes all other non-random processes.
To elaborate on the problems I listed: 1 - I haven't heard you say it was false, just unlikely. 2 - Most fossil records indicate the Cambrian Explosion occured for this amount of time, more recent fossil records indicate an additional 30 million years, additional unfound fossil records could change this further, and other explanations listed before (Panspermia, Exogenesis) would negate this entirely. 3 - Since there is no DIRECT empirical evidence of the actual intelligent designer, then there should be other non-random processes available. The only way to prove ID is to show Alien, God, or other intervention. There is no way to disprove it.
Excellent post! Those supporting ID IMO should give Real_Egal an award because he/she has given the best post supporting ID and challenging Evolution by going right after the crux of the pro-Evolution argument that the methodology from which Evolution is constructed from relies upon a priori assumption too. Something that no one else has done other than by vaguely implying that people believe Evolution is real only because of politics and status quo but failing to delve into the logical structure of science itself which ultimately this argument is about. Even better doing it in a non-native language! Praise aside I still disagree with the general view that ID can be considered as valid as Evolution based upon that the results of the axioms underlying science are testable while the axioms underlying ID (there must be a creator and only a creator can create complexity) are not. The test comes from that using the axioms of math hypotheses are developed that can be checked to see if they are logically consistent with empiracal evidence whereas the axiom of a creator can never be proven logically consistent because a creator of the nature called for by intelligent design is beyond logic and dependent on miracles.
1. Sure it is. Find a planet without life (or a laboratory setting), but that can sustain life. Introduce a single celled organism. If the organism evolves into life forms as complex as humans, in equal or less time than it took for humans to devolp on earth, then step #3 has been proven false. 2. I don't think anyone assumes all life on earth has developed in 13 million years, considering the fact that dinosaurs came and went from a period hundreds of millions of years ago to ~65 million years ago.
Well you have just gotta admire the conservatives when they argue science with the Bible. They argue global warming with no peer reviewed studies published but with an Ann Coulter quote "god gave you earth, and you should rape it" or something very close to that. They argue gay people aren't born gay but it's a learned behavior (and the bible said no queers!) Finally, the candle on the cake: Creationism, which they renamed intelligent design. The Earth was created 3,500 years ago and God just put dinosaur bones on earth to test our faith. This is the type of thinking that runs our country.
Correct. It’s one proposed alternative. I don’t agree that ID is a philosophy and I’m not sure why you think ID can’t be supported by empirical evidence. There are clearly ways to convincingly suggest that it is highly improbable that what exists today could have evolved in a random way. Maybe you have a problem calling non-random design ID? You could do a straightforward probability analysis on the problem. You can assess the degree of vertical evolution that has occurred in recorded history and extrapolate a timeline, for one. You could if any had happened, that is. One of the main problems with vertical evolution is of course that little or none has ever been witnessed. The standard response to this is that recorded history is a drop in the bucket compared to the time life has been on earth, but when you consider the astronomically large number evolutionary steps that must occur to get from a single cell to the world as we see it today, some degree of macroevolution should have been noticed with the timeframe of recorded history, and yet none* has been observed. I can’t speak to the US context, at least not with much authority, because I’m a Canadian (Yay Steve!). But I’ll refer back to Kuhn to make the point that science is very political too. It can be very closed to new ideas and old paradigms often need to be overthrown before science can progress. There is a tendency by this group of evolutionists to say that any mention of a designer is non-scientific. If you break this down what this claims is that no other being or beings greater than ourselves, capable of influencing such a design, could possibly exist. That is a very closed minded position, and a little arrogant too. Is it scientifically impossible that other aliens species could exist that may have seeded the earth with life and species, for example? Is it scientifically impossible that spiritual beings could exist? Once you open your mind to these possibilities, including the possibility that the Christian God may be real (if you are being objective you have to include this), you’ve got a greatly expanded pallet to work with. I should add that I’m not familiar with the debate down there but I’m not a supporter of what is typically called the “Christian Right” with all too often it’s own brand of closed minded, angry, judgementalism.
First of all, thanks for the flowers. Second, real_egal is a he i somehow disagree with that long and intelligent (no sarcasm intended) but complexed paragraph. Testable based on logic, which consists of logic rules (pre-defined axioms or assumptions). You felt it satisfies your doubt and believe it, just because you are comfortable with that way of thinking. While I am comfortable with those kind of tests as well, I am also comfortable with some testimonies from believers who felt the connection to God and their experience with God. I feel it is logical, because I accept those assumptions or self-defined truth. I don't agree with Docktor Robert about the way to prove or disprove. You said the only way to prove is to show you God, and I bet lots of people shared the same opinion before they became Christians for example. They stopped to ask that question at some point and accepted that self-defined truth. Nobody proved that to them, but rather they proved to themselves by different means. Maybe you will do that one day as well. However, that aside, my feeling is, that they don't have to prove that to you to point out the shortcomings of Evolution. Scientific research so far, has created enough contridiction and reasonable doubt of Evolution. It's not far-fatched to say that Evolution is not complete or proven. Since your opinion is that ID is false, you have to somehow prove that, in your words - disprove of ID. it won't be enough by saying there is no way to disprove. Now, my question is, if there is no way to disprove, what makes you think it's false? Why can't we do with it just as we did with those axioms in Mathe and Physics, assume it is right, and put it aside? Comments to Slikvik69's comments: I am a Christian, but I never consider myself conservative or neo-con. I am sick and tired of GWB, although I am not living in US. And I do have problem to use faith as political tools or agenda. I have problem with religion per say. I believe in God, and I don't like the word of religion. I believe in God, coz I do believe He exists just like air and water, it's truth to me, not some theory. Or in other words, it's axiom in life to me. I actually have a much easier way to escape from the question of those numbers. God's one day is just different than ours. How about that? How long it is? I have no idea, could be 1 billion years. Since I haven't been convinced of any disproval, just like Dr. Robert pointed out, I just accept it as my axiom. By the way, I have serious problem with some people have an explanation for everything "according to the Bible" or their own "wisdom". If you truly believe in God, you should have known that there are lots of things you don't know. Twisting facts or the Bible to fit your argument has nothing to do with protecting your belief. It's just human ego. It doesn't controdict with the Bible, if you simply say that I don't know or I can't explain, but I still believe.
This is my last post on this never-ending topic, I promise. ID is not falsifiable and is therefore not a scientific theory. ID has no empirical evidence supporting it other than the oft-repeated assertion that "things are too complex to have evolved." Absence of evidence is not proof. Nor is it data. Nor can it be used to hypothesize any conclusion - not scientifically anyway. At best you could call ID a conjecture or a hunch. Now it is a worthwhile philosophical argument. If our best human theory on origins and species development breaks down, philosophy may help guide us to a new understanding, and a new science. Not me. I have a problem giving scientific credance to an idea with no proof and no testability. I have a big problem with people who are trying to ram this bible-based philosophy into public science classrooms.
I’ll respond to this post and then go back and pick up some I missed later. I believe that this has been addressed already in this thread, but here you go. Please reread this post. You’ll find some of your answers there. http://bbs2.clutchfans.net/postings.php?s=&action=getip&postid=1841704 Also, if you are fine with defining ID as a non-random process then all you have to do to cast significant doubt on it is to show that there is a high probability that random evolution can explain the state of the world today given the time available. That’s pretty straight forward isn’t it? The problem of falsifiability is more of a problem for evolution. How do you falsify the theories around the spontaneous generation of life? How do you falsify the theories around the spontaneous generation of matter from the absence of matter? How do you falsify the theories around the occurrence of vertical evolution? If you can’t do this then by your definition you have proved that evolution itself is not a science, which is exactly what I think you have done here. Clearly evolution is based on some very far out and highly improbable assumptions and yet it is being passed off as truth? How can anyone call that good science? It can’t and quite clearly it can’t. Your posts show that your position on evolution is either a political or a faith based one, not a scientific one.
The same natural forces that produce microevolution (and the rest of the universe) create macroevolution. Get over it.
Isn't it possible that the development of the complex sytems we observe are the result of non-random changes that occur because of the physical properties matter and energy, i.e. entropy in action. And, that they might just exist without regard to any outside agency much less an intelligent designer. That would certainly be the simpler more logical conclusion. Human beings have always assigned supernatural explanations for natural systems they don't understand, be it Thor for thunder of god for the big bang. And in the past, they have always been proven wrong when science reaches a point of understanding the physics behind the event. It is logical to assume the same will occur in the future. Exercise your religion in your personal life it that's what it take to get you out of bed in the morning but don't ever think it has a place in the science classroom. And my favorite line I've pulled out in every ID thread we have ever had: Think of all the stars you see at night; now multiply that by several billion, now multiply that by the 10 or so planets each star has, now think of those hundreds of billions of planets having a changing history over tens of billions years. That gives you some idea of the concept of infinite possiblillities. And if the universe offers an infinite range of possibilities, why do you find it so unblieveable that you find yourself in a condition that is merely improbable?
Argh, you argue here that abscence of proof dooms evolution, but yet somehow it verifies intelligent design. A theory is based on data and observation. Nothing more, nothing less. A theory is an idea that best encapsulates the known data and observed environment. It is malleable in that it can be adjusted as new data is developed - and is likewise restricted by that same data requirement. Your posts have shown a complete lack of understanding with regard to scientific methodology and the definition of theory. Quite honestly, you have not shown one iota of good reasoning in support of intelligent design, other than that evolution seem improbable from your perspective. Furthermore, attacking my motivation for being opposed to ID is a rather lousy argument. Whatever. I am done with this topic. We can agree to disagree.
Anyone see the movie In God We Trust on atomfilms.com? Watch that and you'll understand. Some funny stuff.
