NationStates Jolt Archive

It's just principle.

When one states the platform of another (especially when the 'other' is not tangibly able to represent itself - as in the case with 'evolution'), one has a responsibility to state that platform accurately.

If one does NOT - any argument they base on that platform must, logically, be fallacious (strawman)... but good form would be to make sure you are stating an accurate rendition ANYWAY.

Now - if Braurong HAD prefaced it: 'I think..." I'd have less of a problem. As it is - it looks like he is stating a fact.


Sure, slap his wrist, bad form. That's not the same as calling him a liar for it.

Here's something oddly relevant....

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/49180

:D The only publication that always makes sense!

Sure, slap his wrist, bad form. That's not the same as calling him a liar for it.

I'm not sure I used that word, to be honest... however... there IS a difference between having your sins pointed out to you and being contrite, and having your sins pointed out to you and responding 'yaa boo sux'.

I'm not sure I used that word, to be honest... however... there IS a difference between having your sins pointed out to you and being contrite, and having your sins pointed out to you and responding 'yaa boo sux'.

To be fair, Bruarong hasn't engaged in anything like 'yaa boo sux' and has admitted his errors and problems communicating his ideas more so than many.
I believe you've avoided saying liar, but you have implied he is being dishonest and you have supported Jocabia's arguments, who has continually used the lying accusation.

Which takes you and I back full circle to the beginning of our conversation...

To be fair, Bruarong hasn't engaged in anything like 'yaa boo sux' and has admitted his errors and problems communicating his ideas more so than many.
I believe you've avoided saying liar, but you have implied he is being dishonest and you have supported Jocabia's arguments, who has continually used the lying accusation.

Which takes you and I back full circle to the beginning of our conversation...

Does that mean I get to post my thing again?

Does that mean I get to post my thing again?


No one wants to see that.

To be fair, Bruarong hasn't engaged in anything like 'yaa boo sux' and has admitted his errors and problems communicating his ideas more so than many.
I believe you've avoided saying liar, but you have implied he is being dishonest and you have supported Jocabia's arguments, who has continually used the lying accusation.

Which takes you and I back full circle to the beginning of our conversation...

No, he didn't. When we were still discussing that point he said I don't care if it's wrong, it's not my problem. Later he pretends he meant it differently. Basically anything but simply correcting the error. He admits to errors without discontinuing them. Stating something that is wrong like the things I quoted of him while simply saying you don't care if it's misleading is lying. I said it. I meant it. I still think it. And when you have someone contradicting themselves as much as he does and equivocating as much as both of you do, it's absolutely germaine to a sane conversation. Otherwise the conversation becomes absurd.

The statement that I remember most was something along the lines of 'Evolutionary theory has it that humans evolved from apes.' If I came across this statement in someone else's post, I would assume that he was referring to the ancient apes. If you are referring to another of my posts, perhaps you ought to provide it.





If we are referring to the same post, I certainly was referring to the ancient ancestor apes.

I don't recall any mention of monkeys in that post.

Really? You don't see it in the post I quoted?

Then perhaps you can agree that science cannot prove that we evolved from apes or monkeys. Then why do you accept it?

Speaking to Dem who clearly doesn't accept such a thing. She told you as much yet you claimed it. Tons of equivocations, contradictions and outright untruths. Forgive me if I don't buy that you are this unaware of what you're saying.

No one wants to see that.
Jayne Cobb: I could stand to hear a little more.

:D

Jayne Cobb: I could stand to hear a little more.

:D

Shiny.

I heard a good sermon in which the reverend disproved all the evidence showing the earth to be billions of years old by citing the amount of dust on the moons surface. It was right after he talked about dinosaurs and humans living on the earth together.

Honestly, church is one of the most entertaining ways imaginable to spend your sunday morning.

Shiny.
I really, truly don't get enough opportunities to quote Mal & Co. :(
To be fair, Grave_n_idle started it! :)

Some people believe that one of the platforms of evolutionary theory is that God doesn't exist. ==> Doesn't make them right.

Some people believe that one of the platforms of evolutionary theory is that a dog one day just turned into a cat. ==> Doesn't make them right.

Some people believe that the Big Bang Theory and Evolutionary theory are the same thing. ==> Doesn't make them right.
Keeper! :D

*pokes head in finally*

...so...what all has been discussed in this thread since I originally posted it?

*pokes head in finally*

...so...what all has been discussed in this thread since I originally posted it?
God and all its follies, of course.

God and all its follies, of course.
Of course.

Okay...I'm going to leave this thread alone for ten more pages or so now...

Of course.

Okay...I'm going to leave this thread alone for ten more pages or so now...
What, back to the "Ann Coulter/$500,000,000" thread?

God and all its follies, of course.
;)

What, back to the "Ann Coulter/$500,000,000" thread?
No, see, I haven't read through this thread because the long posts bore me, oddly, so...yeah, that's why I'm leaving it alone, for I have nothing to contribute.

No, see, I haven't read through this thread because the long posts bore me, oddly, so...yeah, that's why I'm leaving it alone, for I have nothing to contribute.
I suspect the question would be, then, whether or not you already got what you wanted earlier in the thread.

I suspect the question would be, then, whether or not you already got what you wanted earlier in the thread.
I did at that. Now I'm just pondering why it has somehow lived for so long. Threads I create never manage that.

;)
Arrh - ya got me!
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/crazy/1471.gif


Good sig, btw ;)
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/crazy/265.gif

I did at that. Now I'm just pondering why it has somehow lived for so long. Threads I create never manage that.
If it involved an opportunity for people to express their misgivings, misunderstandings, misappropriations, and misanthropy involving some kind of deific principle, you should expect it would wind on and on and on and on and on ....
;)

You can kill it though, mercy or otherwise.
I think i've seen you on the Moderation forum, as is. :)

If it involved an opportunity for people to express their misgivings, misunderstandings, misappropriations, and misanthropy involving some kind of deific principle, you should expect it would wind on and on and on and on and on ....
;)

You can kill it though, mercy or otherwise.
I think i've seen you on the Moderation forum, as is. :)
I have no intention of killing it. It has gained a life of its own, a personality, a will to live! I shall, therefore, allow it to flourish.

I have no intention of killing it. It has gained a life of its own, a personality, a will to live! I shall, therefore, allow it to flourish.
Right to "life"r, are ya? ;)

Ever see the first episode of Dead Like Me?
There's a lesson in there involving a young girl and a train accident. *nods emphatically*

*repeats*

Jayne Cobb: I could stand to hear a little more.

:D

Yay! +1 Shiny Points for Straughn.

Ah, exactly like the "God of the gaps" argument. What you are saying is, "Based on what we know so far, we can't get rid of this component. Therefore it is irreducibly complex." This is logically equivalent to, "Based on what we know so far, there is no explanation for this. Therefore, God did it."


As I understand the God of the gaps argument, God is invoked every time one finds a gap that is not adequately covered with an experimentally supportable explanation.

In the case of irreducible complexity, it's not a matter of simply for gaps in knowledge. Rather, this approach would investigate the possible ways in which complexity could arise through natural forces. Each possibility is considered. Simulations of predicted changes can be attempted, and the resulting effect analysed. Each part is investigated to determine whether it could have possible functioned alone to result in an advantage. It is very difficult to label something as irreducibly complex, obviously, since it requires a rigorous investigation of every possibility, but it might be possible, based on what we do know of the material world. This is where it is somewhat different from the 'God of the gaps' argument, since the 'irreducible complexity' approach means that simply lacking evidence for the adequacy of natural causes is not enough to label something as irreducibly complex. One must do the 'wet' experiments to find the data.


The minute you make the statement, "This is irreducibly complex," you cut out all necessity to investigate it further. It cannot be broken down - it is irreducible, therefore, there is no reason to investigate any less complex system.


When someone has discovered, e.g., the gene that codes for a particular antibiotic resistance, it generally means that nobody keeps looking for another gene that might have the same effect (of course there are exceptions). This is because the conclusion is based on experimental evidence and is repeatedly demonstratable. Some goes with irreducible complexity. We cannot label anything as irreducibly complex until we know enough about the complexity and the parts. Thus, posing the question whether something is irreducibly complex actually stimulates a good deal of investigation.


Knowing only what we know, we can never make the statement that something is "irreducibly complex," as we always might find a reduction.


The same principle can be applied to all of science. We send people to the moon based on what we know, knowing full well that our knowledge is not perfect. Discovering something that appears to be irreducibly complex should not be taken as proof of God's existence, because it cannot be proven. It should only serve to enhance our understanding of the natural world.


Indeed (although abiogenesis is not yet a theory - and may never be). The laws of thermodynamics have implications for all natural processes. You claimed that the implication was a prediction against these processes ocurring - a statement logically equivalent to stating that the theories are inconsistent with the laws of thermodynamics. Yet, you have been unable to back this up. Instead, you have prattled on and on about how the law does not directly mention abiogenesis or evolutionary theory, as if that has anything at all to do with it.


What I claim is that someone could make a reasonable prediction that abiogenesis is unlikely, based on the implications of the SLT. (And although I may not have put it quite like that before, this is what I meant, before you accuse me of lying). And, you have yet to provide any evidence or reasonable arguments to the contrary, just to keep the score even.


Let's look at how this has gone:

You: The SLT2 predicts against abiogenesis.
Me: No, you must misunderstand the theory, the SLT2 does not predict against abiogenesis at all.
You: The SLT2 doesn't directly reference abiogenesis. Why are you taking my comment to mean that it does so?
Me: I'm not. But it does have direct implications on all processes, and there is nothing in the SLT2 to predict against abiogenesis if you understand the theory.
You: The SLT2 doesn't have anything in it about abiogenesis, but anyone who understands the SLT2 would know that it predicts against abiogenesis.
Me: No, it really doesn't.
You: Why do you keep saying that I think the SLT2 mentions abiogenesis?
Me: ::headslap::


When you misrepresent my posts like that, making gross simplifications and generalisations, no wonder it ends in frustration. The SLT does not predict anything regarding abiogenesis, as I have said before. It is people that make predictions.

OK. Let's start all over again. Do you think, based on your knowledge of the SLT, and the other natural forces involved, that one can make a reasonable prediction that abiogenesis is likely? In other words, given the same thoretical conditions and ingredients and time as was theoretically required (whatever they were), would you say that abiogenesis would happen again?


This is logically equivalent to saying that the SLT2 directly predicts against abiogenesis.


Not necessarily, because another person knowing what I know about the SLT might make the opposite prediction. He might know more or less than I about the SLT, and he might know more or less about chemistry and physics in general.


You really need to go to a physics dictionary if you want a physics definition of entropy, since we are discussing the laws of physics.


Are you suggesting that these definitions are wrong or inadequate, or not pertinent to my point? If so, why?



Meanwhile, "generally implying" something does not mean "always implying" something. I have pointed out, more than once, that an increase in entropy generally means a decrease in order. However, it is important to note that the two are not equivalent, and that an increase in entropy can and sometimes does mean an increase in order.


Which is why I was using the word *tendency*. I have a tendency to go to work five days a week, but that does not mean that I always go to work.


An axiom is not made as part of the use of the process - it is part of the process itself. Your questions are like saying, "So, within mathematics, I can assume that the angles of a triangle always add up to 180, but I cannot assume that apples are red?"


All I get from that is that you think my questions are silly.


You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word falsifiable. It does not mean "Can be proven false," because even true theories in science are falsifiable - but they cannot logically be proven false. It means that, if it is false, it can be disproven. The fact that we could find a life form obviously n ot related to any other lifeform (if it exists) means that the idea is falsifiable.


I have been using the word 'testible' almost interchageably with 'falsifiable'.

We can say that an alternative life form might exist. That means, we don't know if there is one or not. In the possibility that there isn't, then the existence of one cannot be discovered, and thus will never be discovered. The single ancestor assumtion is testable in the case that another life form exists (although even the presence of another life form will not necessarily absolutely prove this). If another life form does not exist, the assumption isn't testable. Thus the possibility is based on our ignorance, not on our knowledge. This is not a 'testible' that science can claim, since it is theoretically possible that science might be able to investigate the supernatural world. We both think that we cannot investigate the supernatural right now, with science, because we think this is a limitation of science. But we actually don't know this from science, because there is no experiement that anyone can do that demonstrates that investigating the supernatural is impossible. It is a philosophical conclusion.



Meanwhile, you are going back to your old habits again and mistaking a conclusion of a theory for an assumption of that theory. The idea that there is a single or a few ancestors of all lifeforms is a conclusion of the theory - one drawn from the evidence - it is not an assumption of the theory.


I realize that the single ancestor concept is a conclusion, but it also forms an assumption by which much data is interpreted. It is possible for a conclusion to be also an assumption under different scenarios. The concept of common ancestry is not something that can be proven. Science cannot investigate history. It is limited to observing the current material world. So while one might look at all the similarities in life and conclude a single common ancestor, one cannot persue evolutionary biology without assuming that this conclusion is an accurate one, good enough to interpret the data. Thus, it serves as a basic assumption within much of the explanations within evolutionary theory.


Yes, we do. God is said to be outside the laws of nature - to have created them, in fact. As such, God is supernatural and is, by definition, outside the very realm of science. The supernatural cannot be investigated using scientific means, and thus cannot be falsified through those means.


You will be hard put to find any scientific evidence that suggests that the supernatural cannot be investigated. This is a philosophical/theological conclusion, not one based on empirical science.


Show me someone who successfully published, "God did it," in a scientific paper.


When someone discovers more about the material world, as a creationist, it is not necessary to conclude (in the paper) that 'God did it'. My idea of science is not to demonstrate that 'God did it'. I assume that God did it. I just don't know how.


Logically, the methods of science cannot be used to detect the supernatural. Because of their empirical basis, any interference of the supernatural would appear to be natural.


I'm not suggesting that we can detect the supernatural. However, any interference of the divine may or may not appear natural (we won't know if we don't look). In fact, it need only appear as designed or not designed for the IDer approach. The question of divinity does not enter the search, but is resolved through philosophical arguments.


Finding evidence for divine interaction is the same thing as investigating God. There is no logical distinction.


Doch. See above.


Yes, it does, just as evidence for homology requires a direct investigation of homology. Evidence for gravity requires a direct investigation of gravity. From an empirical standpoint, we cannot find evidence for something we cannot investigate.


I believe the IDers have settled on investigating design, something that we can directly investigate and observe (e.g a computer program).





[quote]The explanation that God created the world certainly can be investigated. If God created man as man, it is possible to investigate this.[/qutoe]
How? How can you empirically demonstrate God's involvement?


You don't have to. The IDers simply investigate man to see if the data is more consistent with either theory. God's involvement is dealt with in philosophical considerations (if not God, then some other creator, either divine or not divine, such as aliens, etc.)


There is no such assumption. It is a conclusion, one that would be disproven by the theory being disproven.

How do you propose we set about testing the concept of a single ancestor? Or even better, how would you propose testing the theory of evolution. Upon what grounds would you consider it reasonable to reject?


Meanwhile, science cannot demonstrate that anything is true - only that it is either false, or not yet found to be false.

Although plenty of people seem to think that science rules out creation. Do you think science has demonstrated that creation is false?



To a point, yes. They are untestable within the framework of the logical system they are a base of.

So if you find something within evolutionary theory that is generally regarded as untestable, would you say it is an axiom?



Indeed it is. This is the reason that theists and atheists cannot really come to logical agreements in religious matters without moving to the axioms of the other. Because the base axioms are different, the conclusions are generally different - as the logical process is controlled by the axioms made.

Of course, the existence of God is not an axiom of the scientific method. Neither is the non-existence of God. Science is neutral on this point.


I suppose I also feel that pure science is neutral, but that modern science isn't, because modern science isn't pure. Rather, philosophical arguments get passed off as science. People insert their beliefs (e.g., abiogenesis is likely, the big bang is likely, all life has a single ancestor, evolution is fact, etc.) and call it science. So if we consider a pure definition of science as simply sticking to the empirical method, I might agree that it is neutral. But if we take the broad definition of science, then I don't see why others are allowed their philosophical bents, while I am not. So I'm ready to defend my 'science' so long as we are using the same definition of the word.


Ah, but you are. You are basically saying, "Science is based in an axiomatic statement that the universe is deterministic. I cannot use science to disprove this statement. Therefore I can assume that God exists within my science."


No, I'm saying that scientific progress does not die the moment someone accepts an axiom or an assumption that is not (nor currently is) testable, as you seemed to be saying earlier.


But a recognition of an axiom that is not one on which the scientific method is based, and thus cannot be included without "injecting" it into science - injecting God into science.


Well, I've learned that you think injecting God into science means testing God with science, so I have to be very careful not to agree with you, lest you call me a liar. However, if you mean by 'injecting God into science' as allowing that he may have created e.g. humans and thus investigating humans to see if the evidence is consistent with this proposal, then I think this does not kill science, but asks an interesting question that is worth investigating.


If science cannot investigate God, then science cannot investigate actions of God. Your statment is like saying, "I know that science cannot investigate worms, but I can conclude from my empirical evidence that worms made these holes."


I'm not suggesting that science should investigate the actions of God, but it can investigate the natural world to search for effects of those actions. We can conclude that worms made those holes, provided we can demonstrate that all the other known causes are inadequate. Of course, we cannot rule out undiscovered causes, because that would be based on our ignorace, so our conclusions will always be tenative. The best fit approach.


What makes you think it is an either/or proposition?


Are you avoiding the question? I don't say that it must be either abiogenesis or creation, although these are probably the two most likely in my opinion. What's your opinion?


The two are interchangeable. If the theory exists as a whole, then any modification of that theory is discarding the old theory and replacing it with the new.


I doubt that the theory of endosymbiosis was called into question when the hypothesis that humans evolved from apes in multiple and independent locations around the globe was rejected.



[quote]And wouldn't that mean that there is a danger that the whole theory is never really called into question?[/qutoe]

Only if there were portions of the theory which no evidence ever contradicted and no other, equally supported, theory were found.


I don't understand your point here. Was there a typo? Could you expound a little?



Every time I am linked to any "Creation theory" argument, one of the biggest arguments (which doesn't support Creation theory, and is meant only to attack evolutionary theory) is "We haven't found transitionary forms for everything, therefore evolutionary theory is wrong." You show them transitionary forms, and the answer is, "But what about the forms between those?" And so on......

Such an argument does not prove the creation theory wrong. There are weak arguments used on both sides.

And I have never seen any such argument in any creation theory arguments.
Feel free to provide a link though.

OK. Let's start all over again. Do you think, based on your knowledge of the SLT, and the other natural forces involved, that one can make a reasonable prediction that abiogenesis is likely? In other words, given the same thoretical conditions and ingredients and time as was theoretically required (whatever they were), would you say that abiogenesis would happen again?


It doesn't HAVE to be likely - just possible.

Our laboratory is one planet... we lack data on any other similar laboratory to compare out situation with.

And we can only make claims about THIS laboratory, because the experiment 'worked' here, once.

So - if the Second Law allows this to be 'possible'... that is enough.

I'm not sure why you think the Second Law would work against it, though... or even how you think it directly applies.

A world is not a sealed system... it can easily be interfered with... and, indeed, is - since we consistently receive a number of radiation types... not to mention more 'tangible' input.

As I understand the God of the gaps argument, God is invoked every time one finds a gap that is not adequately covered with an experimentally supportable explanation.

Basically, yes.

And the way that one comes to the "irreducibly complex" explanation is to say, "There is no natural way we can think of that this could be broken down, therefore it can't." The two thought processes are logical equivalents.

In the case of irreducible complexity, it's not a matter of simply for gaps in knowledge. Rather, this approach would investigate the possible ways in which complexity could arise through natural forces. Each possibility is considered.

Wrong. There is no way to consider each and every possibility - which is what would be required to ever come to an "irreducibly complex" conclusion.

This is where it is somewhat different from the 'God of the gaps' argument, since the 'irreducible complexity' approach means that simply lacking evidence for the adequacy of natural causes is not enough to label something as irreducibly complex. One must do the 'wet' experiments to find the data.

And one cannot do such experiments on all possibilities, as we do not know all possibilities. Thus, one could never come to the "irreducibly complex" conclusion, as one would always have more possibilities to test.

The same principle can be applied to all of science. We send people to the moon based on what we know, knowing full well that our knowledge is not perfect. Discovering something that appears to be irreducibly complex should not be taken as proof of God's existence, because it cannot be proven. It should only serve to enhance our understanding of the natural world.

How can making a statement that, if the conclusion is correct, should stop all investigation in that area, "enhance our understanding of the natural world"?

What I claim is that someone could make a reasonable prediction that abiogenesis is unlikely, based on the implications of the SLT.

This is basically exactly what you have said before. You are simply fishing around, trying to get away from what each and every rewording implies - that the SLT2 has implications that would make abiogenesis impossible.

Of course, as I have pointed out numerous times, this simply isn't true. Unless you can show that there is not enough energy input, there is no reason whatsoever to think that any implications of the SLT2 would lead to a prediction against abiogenesis.

And, you have yet to provide any evidence or reasonable arguments to the contrary, just to keep the score even.

Yes, actually, I have. The only possible way to say what you are saying is to make the following claims:
(1) Life has less entropy than non-life. (Generally true)
(2) The conception of life through abiogenesis would decrease the overall entropy in a closed system. (Not even close to true).

When you misrepresent my posts like that, making gross simplifications and generalisations, no wonder it ends in frustration.

I'm not misrepresenting anything. I simplified, yes - but that is it.

The SLT does not predict anything regarding abiogenesis, as I have said before. It is people that make predictions.

This is nothing more than semantics.

OK. Let's start all over again. Do you think, based on your knowledge of the SLT, and the other natural forces involved, that one can make a reasonable prediction that abiogenesis is likely?

At this point? I wouldn't say likely. I would also point out, however, that one cannot make a reasonable prediction that it is unlikely, based on the same data. There is a reason that abiogenesis stands as a hypothesis, but has not yet been supported enough to be theory.

Not necessarily, because another person knowing what I know about the SLT might make the opposite prediction.

Considering the processes of logic, this is highly unlikely. You might come to slightly different predictions, but coming to totally opposite predictions is most likely impossible to do if you both follow logical processes and stick to science.

Are you suggesting that these definitions are wrong or inadequate, or not pertinent to my point? If so, why?

A little of all of the above. Of course the layperson thinks that entropy = lack of order. They are given that generalization and it sticks. A physics textbook will give a much clearer definition (if it is high enough level, anyways).

All I get from that is that you think my questions are silly.

Not silly, they simply don't logically follow. You are trying to jump from, "There are axioms that underly the scientific method," to "I can insert any old axom I like into the scientific method without changing it."

I have been using the word 'testible' almost interchageably with 'falsifiable'.

Generally, testable and falsifiable are the same, but "testable" does not mean, "we are currently able to test it."

We can say that an alternative life form might exist. That means, we don't know if there is one or not. In the possibility that there isn't, then the existence of one cannot be discovered, and thus will never be discovered. The single ancestor assumtion is testable in the case that another life form exists (although even the presence of another life form will not necessarily absolutely prove this). If another life form does not exist, the assumption isn't testable.

Here is where you are absolutely wrong. Every single time we find a lifeform that does not meet the criterion of the "alternative lifeform", we have tested for the alternative lifeform. Every time we don't find it, based on inductive logic (in which the scientific method is based), we can conclude that the existence of such a lifeform is less and less likely. We can never rule it out completely, but we have more reason to find it unlikely.

It is logically no different from testing a protein to see if it does a certain function. If we knock out the gene for that protein, and the function is still carried out, that protein most likely does not perform the function. If we come up with an in vitro reaction to test the functionality, and it is not observed, that protein most likely does not perform the function. And so on...

By your definition of "testable", the only way we could test the protein for that function is if the protein actually performed the function.

This is not a 'testible' that science can claim, since it is theoretically possible that science might be able to investigate the supernatural world.

Wrong. Science can only be used to study that which follows the rules of the universe. Once you go outside of those rules, outside of this universe, there is no logical reason to believe that the rules would be the same, that inductive logic would work, or even that logic as we know it would work. Then there is the fact that science is based in empiricism, and we cannot empirically measure anything outside of our universe. Thus, only the natural can possibly be studied with science.

Meanwhile, while you will surely deny it, you have admitted earlier in the thread that science cannot test the supernatural.

But we actually don't know this from science, because there is no experiement that anyone can do that demonstrates that investigating the supernatural is impossible. It is a philosophical conclusion.

It is a logical conclusion that comes directly out of the logic that went into the method itself. This isn't something that science has to "test". It logically follows directly from the axioms in which science is based.

I realize that the single ancestor concept is a conclusion, but it also forms an assumption by which much data is interpreted.

But, within evolutionary theory, it is a conclusion - one drawn from the data. It is not an assumption in which the theory is based, or in which science as a whole is based.

The concept of common ancestry is not something that can be proven.

Nothing in science can be proven.

Science cannot investigate history.

Really? Tell that to archeologists.

It is limited to observing the current material world.

...which bears traces of history.

You will be hard put to find any scientific evidence that suggests that the supernatural cannot be investigated. This is a philosophical/theological conclusion, not one based on empirical science.

This is like saying, "You will be hard put to find a mathematical proof that the axiom of equality is true."

Axiom of equality:
Axiom of Equality. For each variable x, the formula
x = x, is universally valid.

The fact that science cannot investigate the supernatural follows directly from the axioms in which science is based - and the process it uses.

When someone discovers more about the material world, as a creationist, it is not necessary to conclude (in the paper) that 'God did it'. My idea of science is not to demonstrate that 'God did it'. I assume that God did it. I just don't know how.

And you can do such science without making that an assumption on which your science is based. But every time I suggest that, you claim that I am taking God out of science.

I assume that God created everything, that God set up the rules that run the universe, that God interacts with me through meditation and prayer, etc. But I don't need to start my science by assuming any of these things. My science works equally well whether God exists or does not, because God is not something I can investigate with science.

I'm not suggesting that we can detect the supernatural. However, any interference of the divine may or may not appear natural (we won't know if we don't look).

It would look natural by the scientific process, because the natural is all that the process can investigate.

In fact, it need only appear as designed or not designed for the IDer approach. The question of divinity does not enter the search, but is resolved through philosophical arguments.

Nothing can "appear designed" until you have first assumed a designer. The question of divinity is an integral part of the search, because the search cannot even commence until you assume that the designer is there.

I believe the IDers have settled on investigating design, something that we can directly investigate and observe (e.g a computer program).

We can only investigate design if we know that a possible designer exists.

You don't have to. The IDers simply investigate man to see if the data is more consistent with either theory. God's involvement is dealt with in philosophical considerations (if not God, then some other creator, either divine or not divine, such as aliens, etc.)

God's involvement is assumed from the start. IDers assume that God exists. Then they look for evidence of God in creation. This is the logical equivalent of the following:

http://www.kommy.net/~downtym/images/danielle/flatearthism.bmp

How do you propose we set about testing the concept of a single ancestor?

The same way we would test any concept in science - look for data that is inconsistent with it.

Or even better, how would you propose testing the theory of evolution.

The same way we would test any concept in science - look for data that is inconsistent with it.

Upon what grounds would you consider it reasonable to reject?

You would reject it if you found data that was inconsistent with the overall theory, or with any of its mainstays. This is no different from rejecting any other theory. Newton's Laws were rejected when it was found that all motion was not consistent with them. We found a theory that does fit all current data, and it continues to be tested.

Although plenty of people seem to think that science rules out creation. Do you think science has demonstrated that creation is false?

Of course not. Science cannot deal in the supernatural, and thus cannot disprove the supernatural. Science may have shown that, from an empirical standpoint, certain ideas some may have about creation are incorrect (ie. if someone claimed that the world was created last Tuesday). However, even then, we are talking about empirical disproof. If someone does not feel that empiricism is correct, then their idea of Creation would never be disproven.

So if you find something within evolutionary theory that is generally regarded as untestable, would you say it is an axiom?

No. First of all "generally regarded as untestable" is not logically equivalent to untestable. Once upon a time, much of the theory of relativity was "generally regarded as untestable" because we did not yet have the technology to test it. These days, more and more, we are able to test the theory, because we have the technology.

Second of all, an axiom is a statement which is taken as true for a given logical process. Thus, it cannot be tested by that process. In some cases, it cannot be tested at all, but to be an axiom, it simply cannot be tested by that process, as it is a premise on which that process is based.

Finally, "something within a theory" is not the same thing as "something that theory is based in." An axiom is a statement in which a logical process or discussion is based - not something that comes out of it.

I suppose I also feel that pure science is neutral, but that modern science isn't, because modern science isn't pure. Rather, philosophical arguments get passed off as science. People insert their beliefs (e.g., abiogenesis is likely, the big bang is likely, all life has a single ancestor, evolution is fact, etc.) and call it science.

Once again, you are mistaking conclusions for assumptions. People have come to the conclusion that these things are true, based on the empirical evidence. This is not logically equivalent to believing something and then "inserting" it.

You have no empirical evidence for the existence of God. None of us do. And yet you wish to insert it into science. You can hardly claim that this is the same thing as looking at the empirical evidence and coming to a conclusion that someone else doesn't like.

No, I'm saying that scientific progress does not die the moment someone accepts an axiom or an assumption that is not (nor currently is) testable, as you seemed to be saying earlier.

There is a difference between personal acceptance and scientific basis.

Well, I've learned that you think injecting God into science means testing God with science, so I have to be very careful not to agree with you, lest you call me a liar. However, if you mean by 'injecting God into science' as allowing that he may have created e.g. humans and thus investigating humans to see if the evidence is consistent with this proposal, then I think this does not kill science, but asks an interesting question that is worth investigating.

"Investigation humans to see if the evidence is consistent with this proposal," is "testing God with science."

I'm not suggesting that science should investigate the actions of God, but it can investigate the natural world to search for effects of those actions.

There is no logical difference. If you look for evidence of my actions, you are investigating my actions.

We can conclude that worms made those holes, provided we can demonstrate that all the other known causes are inadequate.

Wrong. We can conclude that worms (which we do not even know to exist) made those whole only if all other causes period inadequate. Only using known causes is an example of the God in the gaps (or, I suppose, the "worm in the gaps") argument.

Are you avoiding the question? I don't say that it must be either abiogenesis or creation, although these are probably the two most likely in my opinion. What's your opinion?

I think it was abiogenesis and creation. Whether or not abiogenesis followed the currently proposed mechanisms - I do not know. I'm waiting for more evidence on that.

I doubt that the theory of endosymbiosis was called into question when the hypothesis that humans evolved from apes in multiple and independent locations around the globe was rejected.

You are intermixing words again. Is endosymbiosis a stand-alone theory, or part of evolutionary theory?

I don't understand your point here. Was there a typo? Could you expound a little?

No, no typo. You asked if this caused a danger that the theory in its entirety would never be called into question - that certain parts of the theory would never be challenged with new evidence. The answer was that this "danger" would only exist if two criteria were met:
'
(1) That no evidence was ever found that contradicted those parts of the theory. If no evidence which contradicts them is found, there is no reason to reject/modify them.

(2) No scientifically derived theory which equally fits the data is proposed.

Such an argument does not prove the creation theory wrong.

Of course not. It is impossible - even with science - to prove creation wrong. This is exactly why it cannot be a scientific theory. No matter what evidence is found, it still fits with the idea of creation.

And I have never seen any such argument in any creation theory arguments.
Feel free to provide a link though.

http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html#pesky

These people whine that the transitional forms already found aren't transitional enough for them. They want forms in between those forms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_evolution#There_are_no_transitional_fossils

Wikipedia even lists it as one of the main arguments.

Just do a general google search if you want a lot on it. And search pretty much every Creation/Evolution thread on NS - minus this one.

My apologies for my unforseen absence, and it's a bit late to try to start again at the point in the discussion I left off. Though I did find a reference to what I was trying to originally say, so if you can find "Civilisation left its mark on our genes" from New Scientist (p. 8 NewScientist, issue 2531/2 December 24th/31st 2005 double issue) it makes decent reading. But anyway....

As I understand the God of the gaps argument, God is invoked every time one finds a gap that is not adequately covered with an experimentally supportable explanation.I wouldn't word it like that, to be honest, but that's as good an equivolence as I could personally imagine we could agree upon.

I see it as "I can't see how <foo1> could happen naturally", "How about the <bar1> mechanism?", "But I still can't see how <foo2> could happen naturally", "How about the <bar2> mechanism?". 'bar1', 'bar2' need not be the correct explanation, or the entiriy of it, but a GotG-devotee will (IME) accept any scientific explanation (and even a pseudo-scientific one, given the kind of GotG-devotee I usually encounter) but still retain 'ownership' of the gaps as a residence for their particular flavour of deity.


I'm not happy with the above description. I'll try and refine it prior to posting.


[...]It is very difficult to label something as irreducibly complex, obviously, since it requires a rigorous investigation of every possibility, but it might be possible, based on what we do know of the material world.I'd go so far as to say that you could never argue something as irriduscibly complex. No matter what and how much you know already, it's always possible that new information can make a mockery of any assumption of IC.

There is no 'evidence of IC', merely 'lack of evidence of RC'. It's not even as if IC is the most likely hypothesis. To paraphrase: "There are more things in heaven and Earth, Bruarong, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."


This is where it is somewhat different from the 'God of the gaps' argument, since the 'irreducible complexity' approach means that simply lacking evidence for the adequacy of natural causes is not enough to label something as irreducibly complex. One must do the 'wet' experiments to find the data.On the contrary, I see it as living in the same neighbourhood.

When someone has discovered, e.g., the gene that codes for a particular antibiotic resistance, it generally means that nobody keeps looking for another gene that might have the same effect (of course there are exceptions).IMO, it means that someone has discovered a gene for a particular resistence. It doesn't stop someone finding that a secondary gene is also required in the expression of such resistance. People don't (shouldn't) stop looking altogether while there's more to learn. My faith in the scientific community would be severely dented if conscious decisions were made to that end (as opposed to just not being able to keep looking while investigating other 'wish-list' targets, which is more a failure in funding/administration).



Some goes with irreducible complexity. We cannot label anything as irreducibly complex until we know enough about the complexity and the parts. Thus, posing the question whether something is irreducibly complex actually stimulates a good deal of investigation.Nothing of the sort. The possibility of irreducable complexity has no scientific value. "We have not yet found the explanation" is scientific, but "There is no expanation to find" is not, and IC's foundation is that <Foo1> is proof that there is no explanation. At least until they are forced to say they accept <Bar1> but point out that <Foo2> is proof.

It's symptomatic of the general confusion about proof (something that I'm not immune to, and I've left in a similar expression in this missive that I'm sure the pedantic could comment on).



These messages are getting too long... Pity, I had several other points to make. I reckon someone else will jump into the fold, however, if not already...

Yay! +1 Shiny Points for Straughn.
*tucks Shiny Points away for use later*

*laments lack of appropriate smilie*

This thread makes me happy. :D

This thread makes me happy. :D
All 36 pages of it?

Depends on what you mean by "anti-Christian". If you mean he [Graves] argues with certain points made by certain Christians - then I suppose you might get that impression. If you mean that he is opposed to Christianity as a whole - or has taken positions as such, I have yet to see it.

Did somebody call for an Anti-Christian?

*puts on Super AntiChristian Avenger cape*

Whenever there is a Christian in danger of not being oppressed, I will be there! Whenever a Christian feels that the Jews are getting entirely too much attention, I will be there! Whenever a Christian needs to deflect attention away from their own flimsy grasp on basic scientific principles by pointing the finger at anti-Christian eggheads, I will be there! With the speed of a run-away atheist rocket car fueled by combusting fetuses, I will leap to oppress the Christians in the nick of time!

For I am...THE ANTICHRISTIAN AVENGER!!!

Did somebody call for an Anti-Christian?

*puts on Super AntiChristian Avenger cape*

Whenever there is a Christian in danger of not being oppressed, I will be there! Whenever a Christian feels that the Jews are getting entirely too much attention, I will be there! Whenever a Christian needs to deflect attention away from their own flimsy grasp on basic scientific principles by pointing the finger at anti-Christian eggheads, I will be there! With the speed of a run-away atheist rocket car fueled by combusting fetuses, I will leap to oppress the Christians in the nick of time!

For I am...THE ANTICHRISTIAN AVENGER!!!

See? I was right!

=)

*tucks Shiny Points away for use later*

*laments lack of appropriate smilie*

Whoever would have thought that you of all people, would run out of smilies?

See? I was right!

=)
Never fear, citizen, for the AntiChristian Avenger is here! No Christian shall go unmartyred, not as long as I can draw breath!

All Christians are morons!
(BIFF!)
We should make it illegal to mention Jesus in public!
(THWOCK!)
Let's ban Christmas!
(ZING!)
Science is our new God!
(KAPOW!!!)

And the way that one comes to the "irreducibly complex" explanation is to say, "There is no natural way we can think of that this could be broken down, therefore it can't." The two thought processes are logical equivalents.



I think it's more like saying that of all the natural processes that we do know of, none of these can account for the complexity. It is termed irreducibly complex according to the knowledge that we do have. The 'god of the gaps' approach is based on a lack of knowledge. How can you claim logical equivalency there? Both approaches might point to God, but that is about where the similarity ends.


Wrong. There is no way to consider each and every possibility - which is what would be required to ever come to an "irreducibly complex" conclusion.


One only has to investigate the most likely possibilities, is what I meant. Absurd possibilities need not be checked, unless they are the only ones remaining, perhaps. And since we know something about the basic requirements of life, this narrows down the possibilities, giving us parameters to work with. It is unnecessary to 'prove' irreducible complexity, only to find good evidence to support it. Otherwise you would be demanding something that science cannot do.


How can making a statement that, if the conclusion is correct, should stop all investigation in that area, "enhance our understanding of the natural world"?


Once we are able to make sensible conclusions about irreducible complexity, it would spark off an intensive investigation into every piece of complexity that is found in all of nature in order to categorise every complexity as either reducible or irreducible. The investigation would be seemingly infinite. Furthermore, when something is considered irreducibly complex, there would still be endless investigation into reverse engineering, or perhaps to manipulate the system in order to make the world a better place. It could be a huge source of innovative technology, alternative energy sources, etc.


This is basically exactly what you have said before. You are simply fishing around, trying to get away from what each and every rewording implies - that the SLT2 has implications that would make abiogenesis impossible.


Actually, I used the word 'unlikely', not 'impossible'. And if I might return the compliment, you are still reading in my posts what you want to see, not what I am saying.


Of course, as I have pointed out numerous times, this simply isn't true. Unless you can show that there is not enough energy input, there is no reason whatsoever to think that any implications of the SLT2 would lead to a prediction against abiogenesis.


One of the considerations is the importance of information in life. My argument has been from the beginning, not that we would predict a decrease in complexity, but that the complexity that might arise would be an inadequate source of information. It isn't only complexity that is required, but information, a specific type of complexity. It is this problem of specificity that makes me think that the implications of the SLT would lead to a prediction against abiogenesis.


At this point? I wouldn't say likely. I would also point out, however, that one cannot make a reasonable prediction that it is unlikely, based on the same data. There is a reason that abiogenesis stands as a hypothesis, but has not yet been supported enough to be theory.


Why can't we say that it is unlikely based on the data that we do have? Sure, our knowledge is not perfect, but based on what we do know, I think anyone can say that it is unlikely, unless they wish to believe it.

The reason might be because it is perhaps the only way (or the best way) to explain how life came about without needing God.


Considering the processes of logic, this is highly unlikely. You might come to slightly different predictions, but coming to totally opposite predictions is most likely impossible to do if you both follow logical processes and stick to science.


Just take a look around and see the great variety of conclusions among scientists. Which ones are you going to accuse of illogical reasoning? Many believe that abiogenesis really happened. But they are departing from science to conclude this, since there is nothing in science that tells us that abiogenesis is even possible. If we could do an experiment whereby we might be able to demonstrate abiogenesis, only then have we demonstrated that this is possible, or at least if we can demonstrate each of the steps required. Thus, currently, we don't even know if abiogenesis is possible. And yet a great many scientists believe that it happened. Based on what? Not science, at any rate. Rather, it is their world view. They are just as 'non-scientific' in their conclusions as the creationist who rejects abiogenesis.

Some people think that abiogenesis only has to be possible, in order to accept it as what really happened. But I say that we have a very long way to go in science before we can declare abiogenesis possible, and perhaps that day will never come. Until then, anyone who believes in abiogenesis is a believer.


Not silly, they simply don't logically follow. You are trying to jump from, "There are axioms that underly the scientific method," to "I can insert any old axom I like into the scientific method without changing it."


You have yet to demonstrate how being a creationist prevents or retards the investigation of the natural world.


Here is where you are absolutely wrong. Every single time we find a lifeform that does not meet the criterion of the "alternative lifeform", we have tested for the alternative lifeform. Every time we don't find it, based on inductive logic (in which the scientific method is based), we can conclude that the existence of such a lifeform is less and less likely. We can never rule it out completely, but we have more reason to find it unlikely.


Not really, because we still don't know what to expect of an alternative life form. We don't have any parameters or definitions by which we can determine if a life form is alternative.


It is logically no different from testing a protein to see if it does a certain function. If we knock out the gene for that protein, and the function is still carried out, that protein most likely does not perform the function. If we come up with an in vitro reaction to test the functionality, and it is not observed, that protein most likely does not perform the function. And so on...


It logically quite different, because we don't have a 'test' by which we can determine if a life form is different or not. With the protein, the test is for functionality. The parameters are set, the positive and negative controls are included, and the conclusions are drawn from the parameters and the result (a comparision to the controls). With an alternative life form, we don't know if the conditions of nature are so that every life form could survive only if it looked like modern life. I.e., we don't know if an alternative life form is possible in these conditions. We don't know if a life form could use any other molecule (other than DNA or RNA) for the genetic code, for example, or even if it did whether this would mean that such a life did not share the same ancestor with us. In short, while our imaginations might run wild, science cannot tell us whether an alternative life form is possible, thus to imagine a test for the concept of common ancestry is closer to myth than science.




Wrong. Science can only be used to study that which follows the rules of the universe. Once you go outside of those rules, outside of this universe, there is no logical reason to believe that the rules would be the same, that inductive logic would work, or even that logic as we know it would work. Then there is the fact that science is based in empiricism, and we cannot empirically measure anything outside of our universe. Thus, only the natural can possibly be studied with science.


If you define the supernatural as that which does not interact with the natural, then of course, you can say that science cannot investigate the supernatural. But this is because you have defined the supernatural that way, not because you have a special understanding of the supernatural. The reality is that we don't know enough to make such a definition. If you defined green apples as supernatural, then your definition of science will prevent you from investigating green apples.


Meanwhile, while you will surely deny it, you have admitted earlier in the thread that science cannot test the supernatural.


I think that science cannot investigate the supernatural, i.e. God (particularly if we stick with your definition of the supernatural). And I have no wish to do this. However, while I know so little about the nature of the supernatural (until this point in our discussion, we have not distinguished between God and other elements of the supernatural, if there are any), I cannot define it as that which does not interact with the natural. The little that I do know does not come to me from science. And what I do know tells me that it would be unwise to attempt to put God in a test tube. But, if I were to base my knowledge strictly on science, and only science, and if I was to question the definition of the supernatural as that which cannot interact with the supernatural, then I can say that it *might* be possible for science to investigate the supernatural, but that I only know that I cannot say for sure. What makes me think it unlikely is perhaps that I simply don't know where to begin with such an investigation.


It is a logical conclusion that comes directly out of the logic that went into the method itself. This isn't something that science has to "test". It logically follows directly from the axioms in which science is based.


It's the sort of logic that consists of using definitions without really basing those definitions on anything other than belief. For example, the idea that the supernatural cannot interact with the natural is not supportable with knowledge of the nature of the supernatural. Sure, you can make your definition of the supernatural as that which does not interact with the natural, but how can one really know that God (obviously supernatural) cannot interact with the natural world? Whoever first made that definition (I think it was one of the Greek philosophers) obviously didn't know much about God and his capabilities. What did he know of the real supernatural and it's limitations? And why must I accept his definitions?


But, within evolutionary theory, it is a conclusion - one drawn from the data. It is not an assumption in which the theory is based, or in which science as a whole is based.


My understanding of evolutionary theory is that processes like natural selection and mutation are adequate to explain all the variety that we see in life. This is simultaneously a conclusion and an assumption. The common ancestor concept is in a similar postion, although perhaps not quite so 'elemental'. If we could somehow show that life was not related through common ancestry, it would mean that evolutionary theory would be quite different. It might even be a theory that I could support. I currently support the idea that selection and mutation can account for many things, but am critical of the claim that they are sufficient to explain how all of life came from a single ancestor.


Nothing in science can be proven.


I meant that the concept of a single ancestor cannot be demonstrated as being true (I shouldn't have used the word 'proven', my error). We don't even know if it is possible. But this doesn't prevent people from *believing* it. That makes them believers, scientists or not.


Really? Tell that to archeologists.


It is the archeologists themselves that say that they are not investigating history, in the sense that they cannot go back in time. The only thing they can observe is the modern world. They then have to interpret the modern world in order to 'construct' history.


...which bears traces of history.


It bears the effects of historical causes, but it doesn't bear history.


This is like saying, "You will be hard put to find a mathematical proof that the axiom of equality is true."

Axiom of equality:
Axiom of Equality. For each variable x, the formula
x = x, is universally valid.

The fact that science cannot investigate the supernatural follows directly from the axioms in which science is based - and the process it uses.


Which is really my point. If you wish to define the supernatural as that which cannot interact with the natural world, you will certainly be incapable of investigating the supernatural through science. However, that doesn't mean that the supernatural is accurately reflected in your definition of it. Thus, if it isn't a conclusion based on empirical science, then it must be based on a philosophical conclusion. But when you go there, you are leaving your 'pure science' behind.


And you can do such science without making that an assumption on which your science is based. But every time I suggest that, you claim that I am taking God out of science.


Science is possible without a belief in God. It is also possible with a belief in God. However, it is impossible for any person to be without a belief, and that belief cannot help but impact his 'scientific' conclusions. When I am skeptical of some of the conclusions of evolutionary theory, or of abiogenesis, it means that I do not believe that they *must* be right. Thus, even a skeptic has his share of belief. No scientist can hold an opinion on something like abiogenesis without exercising belief. You can believe that God did not interact with the natural world if you wish. But why should you criticise me for believing that He did? It would appear to be one belief versus another.


I assume that God created everything, that God set up the rules that run the universe, that God interacts with me through meditation and prayer, etc. But I don't need to start my science by assuming any of these things. My science works equally well whether God exists or does not, because God is not something I can investigate with science.


You cannot make a conclusion without belief. If you were to stick to pure science, you would only accept that which science can demonstrate. That would mean that you ought to shy away from any 'scientific' discussion on origins, because you are aware that science cannot demonstrate many of the conclusions.


It would look natural by the scientific process, because the natural is all that the process can investigate.


But we can identify design, and we can distinguish between natural causes and human causes. A computer program, for example, is designed, while a computer bug may not be.


Nothing can "appear designed" until you have first assumed a designer. The question of divinity is an integral part of the search, because the search cannot even commence until you assume that the designer is there.


But the question of divinity does not enter the empirical method, which is what the limitation of science demands.


We can only investigate design if we know that a possible designer exists.


That's like saying that before we can investigate design, we have to investigate the designer. I have already said a hundred times that we don't need to investigate the designer or *know* that he exists. We simply make a postulation about his existence. We need not have *any* empirical evidence for him, in order to look for design.





The same way we would test any concept in science - look for data that is inconsistent with it.


So, in other words, you recommend looking for an alternative life form, not even knowing if one is possible, nor how you would define it as alternative even if it did exist? Don't you see anything 'unscientific' about that? How do you know that your test works? There is no positive control in your experiment. A sum of negatives do not make a positive, do they?


You would reject it if you found data that was inconsistent with the overall theory, or with any of its mainstays. This is no different from rejecting any other theory. Newton's Laws were rejected when it was found that all motion was not consistent with them. We found a theory that does fit all current data, and it continues to be tested.


Could you provide an example whereby you found something that was sufficient to reject either creation theory or evolutionary theory?


Of course not. Science cannot deal in the supernatural, and thus cannot disprove the supernatural. Science may have shown that, from an empirical standpoint, certain ideas some may have about creation are incorrect (ie. if someone claimed that the world was created last Tuesday). However, even then, we are talking about empirical disproof. If someone does not feel that empiricism is correct, then their idea of Creation would never be disproven.


So which ideas of creation to you think that empirical science has disproven?

And do you think it is 'unscientific' to be critical of evolutionary theory?


No. First of all "generally regarded as untestable" is not logically equivalent to untestable. Once upon a time, much of the theory of relativity was "generally regarded as untestable" because we did not yet have the technology to test it. These days, more and more, we are able to test the theory, because we have the technology.

Second of all, an axiom is a statement which is taken as true for a given logical process. Thus, it cannot be tested by that process. In some cases, it cannot be tested at all, but to be an axiom, it simply cannot be tested by that process, as it is a premise on which that process is based.

Finally, "something within a theory" is not the same thing as "something that theory is based in." An axiom is a statement in which a logical process or discussion is based - not something that comes out of it.


In other words, an axiom is a definition. So, who gets to decide the definitions of science?


Once again, you are mistaking conclusions for assumptions. People have come to the conclusion that these things are true, based on the empirical evidence. This is not logically equivalent to believing something and then "inserting" it.


People conclude that something like evolutionary theory is true because they believe it. There is no data from empirical science that says that all life is related through a common ancestor. This is an interpretation of the data, not the data itself.


You have no empirical evidence for the existence of God. None of us do. And yet you wish to insert it into science. You can hardly claim that this is the same thing as looking at the empirical evidence and coming to a conclusion that someone else doesn't like.


I can see a difference, sure, but I also see a similarity, and that similarity lies outside of 'pure science'. And it is your argument of 'pure science' which makes you object to my position of allowing that God might have created life as life.


There is a difference between personal acceptance and scientific basis.


Sure there is. But the acceptance of a common ancestor is not a scientific acceptance. It is simply one way to interpret the data, and anyone who accepts it as truth does so based on his judgement, not a mathematical formula. It has more to do with the personal acceptance part.


"Investigation humans to see if the evidence is consistent with this proposal," is "testing God with science."


No it really isn't. God never enters the 'wet' experiment, and need not be mentioned in the 'materials and methods'.


There is no logical difference. If you look for evidence of my actions, you are investigating my actions.


No, because if you died tomorrow (God forbid) and no trace of your physical body remained, and I wanted to investigate the impact that your life had on your family, I could do so by observing and talking to your family, without even meeting you. All I have to do is postulate that you exist or have existed, and that your actions might have had an effect in the natural world.


Wrong. We can conclude that worms (which we do not even know to exist) made those whole only if all other causes period inadequate. Only using known causes is an example of the God in the gaps (or, I suppose, the "worm in the gaps") argument.


I had trouble understanding the grammar in the middle sentence. Could you repeat your point please?


I think it was abiogenesis and creation. Whether or not abiogenesis followed the currently proposed mechanisms - I do not know. I'm waiting for more evidence on that.


Would that be a 'scientific' conclusion? I'm guessing you would say no. In which case, you can hardly criticise me for the 'unscientific' conclusion that God created life without abiogenesis.


You are intermixing words again. Is endosymbiosis a stand-alone theory, or part of evolutionary theory?


It is considered a theory in itself, but I cannot imagine it standing alone. If evolutionary theory were rejected, the theory of endosymbiosis would go with it. However, were the theory of endosymbiosis to go, evolutionary theory would probably not go with it, since evolutionary theory is much older. And thus my point is that there is much within evolutionary theory that could be rejected without resulting in even the questioning of validity or usefulness of evolutionary theory.



Of course not. It is impossible - even with science - to prove creation wrong. This is exactly why it cannot be a scientific theory. No matter what evidence is found, it still fits with the idea of creation.



I have pointed out on several occassions that this is incorrect. One creation theory hypothesis predicts that all evolution is 'downhill', so that modern species are descended from ancestors with greater genetic variety, and speciation is a result of a decrease in variation. And example would be a poodle and a wolf. The (ancient) wolf was the ancestor with the greater genetic variation. If there is any evidence that demonstrates that this is wrong, such a hypothesis would have to be rejected.


http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html#pesky

These people whine that the transitional forms already found aren't transitional enough for them. They want forms in between those forms.


But that is not the same thing as what you said: ''We haven't found transitionary forms for everything, therefore evolutionary theory is wrong.'' They don't ask for transitionary forms for everything, just a single example of a convincing case which would support evolutionary theory.

And I wouldn't describe them as whining, any more than that you are whining about their comments. (I.e. You needn't paint them in an unpleasant light simply because they are criticising evolutionary theory--that is unnecessary.)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_evolution#There_are_no_transitional_fossils

Wikipedia even lists it as one of the main arguments.

Just do a general google search if you want a lot on it. And search pretty much every Creation/Evolution thread on NS - minus this one.

Keep in mind that your statement was: ''We haven't found transitionary forms for everything, therefore evolutionary theory is wrong.'' My google searches have not come across any statements like this one, nor was there one in Wikipedia.

And as for that Wikipedia article, it is perhaps the worst 'encyclopedia' entry I have ever read, since it contains statements intended to sway the opinion of the reader against intelligent design. It looks suspiciously like someone lifted it out of the talk on origins web site. No wonder it has been labelled for editing.

I think it's more like saying that of all the natural processes that we do know of, none of these can account for the complexity.

(a) This is not how it is used in ID.
(b) This makes it a completely useless term. It's no different from saying, "I don't yet know why there is lightning, so I'm just gonna say Zeus throws it until I come up with something better."

Meanwhile, the "God of the gaps" argument is, "We don't know of any natural processes to explain this. Therefore, God did it."

Logically equivalent.

It is termed irreducibly complex according to the knowledge that we do have.

ID tries to use "irreducible complexity" as evidence for design. They are not saying, "We haven't yet found a way that this is reducible." They are saying, "This is not reducible. Therefore, God did it."

The 'god of the gaps' approach is based on a lack of knowledge.

So is this. They are basically saying, "We don't know everything yet, so this is irreducibly complex." This is logically equivalent to, "We don't know everything yet, so God did it."

One only has to investigate the most likely possibilities, is what I meant. Absurd possibilities need not be checked, unless they are the only ones remaining, perhaps.

It is impossible to determine the most likely possibilities ahead of time, my dear. Only investigation will determine what is and is not likely.

It is unnecessary to 'prove' irreducible complexity, only to find good evidence to support it. Otherwise you would be demanding something that science cannot do.

That is the whole point - science cannot support the idea of "irreducible complexity", because the only way to logically support such a conclusion is to have already checked for every possibility.

One of the considerations is the importance of information in life. My argument has been from the beginning, not that we would predict a decrease in complexity, but that the complexity that might arise would be an inadequate source of information.

Something that I have already debunked, as your distinction between "information" and "complexity" is simply something using the complexity to determine something else. *Any* complexity can become information, if something uses it as such.

Why can't we say that it is unlikely based on the data that we do have?

Because we have no reason to believe that abiogenesis or evolutionary theory would decrease the overall entropy in the universe.

Just take a look around and see the great variety of conclusions among scientists.

Show me two contemporary scientific papers which used the exact same information and came to exact opposite conclusions. I'll wait....

Many believe that abiogenesis really happened. But they are departing from science to conclude this, since there is nothing in science that tells us that abiogenesis is even possible.

Science doesn't tell us that "X" is possible. We hypothesize and then look for evidence to support that hypothesis. There is evidence which supports the hypothesis of abiogenesis, but not enough to elevate it to the level of theory. Obviously, some scientists will find it plausible and others will not - at least not yet - because the plethora of evidence we have for established theories simply isn't there.

Thus, currently, we don't even know if abiogenesis is possible.

When someone first hypothesized the structure of an atom, we didn't know if such a structure was possible. That didn't make it an unscientific hypothesis - as there was evidence to back up the hypothesis.

You have yet to demonstrate how being a creationist prevents or retards the investigation of the natural world.

Making, "God did 'x'" or even "God exists" an axiom of science injects the supernatural into science. It bases scientific investigation in the supernatural - an area in which science cannot be used.

A person who believes in a given literal creation story and uses that as a basis of their science has already come to a conclusion - before even forming a hypothesis. The result of this is as follows:

http://www.kommy.net/~downtym/images/danielle/flatearthism.bmp

Not really, because we still don't know what to expect of an alternative life form. We don't have any parameters or definitions by which we can determine if a life form is alternative.

Of course we can. We know those things which have led us to believe that all lifeforms are related. If something falls outside of those criterion, we must investigate the very real possibility that it is not related.

For instance, if we were to discover a lifeform with an reproductive information carrier other than DNA - it *might* be related to other lifeforms, but this would be unlikely. If we were to discover a lifeform without the molecular pathways shared by all life - it *might* just have lost them, but if they are integral to all life, this is unlikely. And so on...

It is largely the fact that these things are shared by all lifeforms we have discovered that has led us to the conclusion that they are all related. Finding something that does not share these traits would provide quite a challenge to that conclusion.

It logically quite different, because we don't have a 'test' by which we can determine if a life form is different or not.

Yes, we do. Meanwhile, that wasn't what you stated before. You stated that the only way to test for a different lifeform would be if a different lifeform existed. This is logically equivalent to saying, "The only way to test for functionality is if that functionality is present."

If you define the supernatural as that which does not interact with the natural, then of course, you can say that science cannot investigate the supernatural.

No, that isn't the way that supernatural is defined at all.

The supernatural is that which is not bound by the natural - that which is outside the universe and is not bound by the rules which govern it. There is nothing in this to suggest that it cannot interact with the natural.

If you defined green apples as supernatural, then your definition of science will prevent you from investigating green apples.

Apples are within the universe and governed by its rules. As such, they are a part of nature. To suggest otherwise would be no different than whining that you want to call black "white".

It's the sort of logic that consists of using definitions without really basing those definitions on anything other than belief. For example, the idea that the supernatural cannot interact with the natural is not supportable with knowledge of the nature of the supernatural.

Then its a good thing that you are the only person making any claims as to what the supernatural can and cannot do, isn't it?

I never even implied that the supernatural cannot interact with the natural - only that it is not bound by the natural - the universe.

My understanding of evolutionary theory is that processes like natural selection and mutation are adequate to explain all the variety that we see in life. This is simultaneously a conclusion and an assumption.

Wrong. It is simply a conclusion, drawn from the observation of natural selection and mutation. Research into the minutae may use it as an assumption, but it is a conclusion - not an assumption - of evolutionary theory itself.

I currently support the idea that selection and mutation can account for many things, but am critical of the claim that they are sufficient to explain how all of life came from a single ancestor.

You should be critical of any claim. But do you have any evidence that disproves the idea? If you do not, then the theory still stands as valid, whether you "believe" it or not.

I meant that the concept of a single ancestor cannot be demonstrated as being true (I shouldn't have used the word 'proven', my error). We don't even know if it is possible. But this doesn't prevent people from *believing* it. That makes them believers, scientists or not.

Personal beliefs are irrelevant to scientific theories. There are those who believe there is a God. We don't know if there is or if there is a God. We don't even know if there is a supernatural. The natural - the universe - might be all there is to existence. But such beliefs are not a part of science.

It bears the effects of historical causes, but it doesn't bear history.

Ah, I see, you are arguing pure semantics. Well, in that case, science can't investigate a process, since we only measure the effects of the process, not the actual process itself.

Which is really my point. If you wish to define the supernatural as that which cannot interact with the natural world, you will certainly be incapable of investigating the supernatural through science. However, that doesn't mean that the supernatural is accurately reflected in your definition of it. Thus, if it isn't a conclusion based on empirical science, then it must be based on a philosophical conclusion. But when you go there, you are leaving your 'pure science' behind.

You seem really stuck in this weird definition of the supernatural that I never suggested. The supernatural is, quite simply, that which is not natural. It is that which is outside the universe - that which is not bound by the universe and its rules. There is nothing in this to suggest that it must not interact with the natural.

Science is possible without a belief in God. It is also possible with a belief in God.

Exactly. Thus, science must be neutral on the very idea. If science is to be carried out, regardless of the personal beliefs of those using the process, those personal beliefs must not become a part of the process.

However, it is impossible for any person to be without a belief, and that belief cannot help but impact his 'scientific' conclusions.

The same is true of bias, but it doesn't keep those who wish to stick to the scientific method from doing everything they can to keep their biases from affecting their science.

You can believe that God did not interact with the natural world if you wish.

Why would I wish to believe that? I have, in fact, stated quite the opposite on numerous occasions.

But why should you criticise me for believing that He did?

I shouldn't. Nor would I. Nor have I. You can believe whatever you want. You simply cannot use your personal beliefs as scientific assumptions, any more than I can.

But we can identify design, and we can distinguish between natural causes and human causes. A computer program, for example, is designed, while a computer bug may not be.

Human causes are natural causes. Humans exist within the universe - we are bound by its rules. As such, we and everything we do is natural.

Thus, the fact that science can determine evidence of human design does not contradict the fact that science can only investigate the natural.

But the question of divinity does not enter the empirical method, which is what the limitation of science demands.

It does the minute you use, "There is a divine being" as an assumption for your interpretation of data.

That's like saying that before we can investigate design, we have to investigate the designer. I have already said a hundred times that we don't need to investigate the designer or *know* that he exists. We simply make a postulation about his existence. We need not have *any* empirical evidence for him, in order to look for design.

We need to have evidence that a being that could have been the designer exists before we can study design. You like to use man-made objects as your examples. Guess what? We have plenty of empirical evidence that human beings exist and make things. Thus, it is reasonable to use that as a background for scientific study and possibly conclude that a given object has been designed by a human being.

However, to conclude that a given object has been designed by a "Creator", we must first assume that such a being exists and can "create", just as the conclusion that a man-made object was designed is based in the assumption that human beings exist and design things.

You can say over and over again that this isn't true, but you can't support it.

So, in other words, you recommend looking for an alternative life form, not even knowing if one is possible, nor how you would define it as alternative even if it did exist?

No, I recommend continuing to study biology. If a lifeform that is inconsistent with the hypothesis that all lifeforms on Earth are related is found, then said hypothesis would be disproven.

How do you know that your test works?

How do we know that any test works?

There is no positive control in your experiment.

Many experiments have no positive control. It is generally better if they do, but this is not always possible.

A sum of negatives do not make a positive, do they?

No, but they suggest a positive. This is the very basis of the scientific method - inductive logic. When we repeat an experiment 100 times, and never disprove the hypothesis, this does not actually mean that the hypothesis is true. The 101th experiment might go the other way. However, each successive repetition provides support to that hypothesis - strengthens it through inductive logic.

Could you provide an example whereby you found something that was sufficient to reject either creation theory or evolutionary theory?

What kind of question is that? "Creation theory" is impossible to reject scientifically, as it involves a supernatural being that could do anything. And, if I had found something that was sufficient to reject evolutionary theory, I'd have a Nobel Prize by now.

So which ideas of creation to you think that empirical science has disproven?

I would say that we have plenty of empirical evidence to disprove the idea that the world was created last Tuesday. The evidence seems to disprove the idea that one human being was created before plants and animals, his mate was created afterwards, and these two populated the entire planet.

Of course, the problem with this is that both of these ideas involve the supernatural. Thus, while science can disprove them within the natural, it cannot completely disprove them - as it cannot investigate the supernatural. The world might have been created last Tuesday, with all the memories and evidence planted to make us believe it wasn't. The Yahwist story of Creation in Genesis might be literally true, but God might have planted things that made the evidence look as if it were not. And so on...

And do you think it is 'unscientific' to be critical of evolutionary theory?

Of course not. Criticism is a mainstay of science. It is, however, unscientific to bring in your personal beliefs about the supernatural when engaging in such criticism. Scientific criticism must be based in science - in the scientific method - in the empirical evidence, not in personal belief.

In other words, an axiom is a definition.

Once again, no, not really. An axiom is a statement that is accepted as true for the purposes of a logical discussion or process. Thus, the process is based in that axiom, and is uselss in the case that said axiom is not true.

So, who gets to decide the definitions of science?

The scientific method itself defines science.

People conclude that something like evolutionary theory is true because they believe it.

Wrong. In fact, you are describing exactly what those who engage in "Creation science" do - and exactly why their "science" isn't science at all. They start with a conclusion in hand, and then interpret the data to meet it.

In science, we start with a hypothesis based in observation, test it, and then come to a conclusion based on new evidence. And so on and so on....

People conclude that something like evolutionary theory is true because they observed the world, hypothesized the basis of the theory, and have tested it over the years. Nothing has yet disproven it, thus, they conclude that it is true.

This is logically no different from me thinking that a protein carries a certain functionality, testing it and finding data consistent with that hypothesis, and then concluding that the protein truly does carry said functionality.

There is no data from empirical science that says that all life is related through a common ancestor.

Of course not. But there is data that supports such an idea.

And it is your argument of 'pure science' which makes you object to my position of allowing that God might have created life as life.

I have no problem with you "allowing" any such thing. Science already does this, as it allows that God *might* exist and *might* have done whatever God wanted to do. What I object to is you basing science in your assumption that God exists and does or has done certain things.

Sure there is. But the acceptance of a common ancestor is not a scientific acceptance. It is simply one way to interpret the data, and anyone who accepts it as truth does so based on his judgement, not a mathematical formula. It has more to do with the personal acceptance part.

There is a reason that nothing in science is accepted as "truth". It is accepted as theory - as something that is a valid explanation only because it has not yet been disproven. Evolutionary theory is no different. The conclusion that a common ancestor existed is no different. It is a valid explanation only because it has not yet been disproven.

No it really isn't. God never enters the 'wet' experiment, and need not be mentioned in the 'materials and methods'.

Last time I checked, the scientific method is more than just the materials and methods section.

No, because if you died tomorrow (God forbid) and no trace of your physical body remained, and I wanted to investigate the impact that your life had on your family, I could do so by observing and talking to your family, without even meeting you. All I have to do is postulate that you exist or have existed, and that your actions might have had an effect in the natural world.

The fact that you are investigating that means that you have already assumed I existed. You have empirical evidence that I existed, even if my actual body is not around. And any results of my actions that you find are, well, results of my actions. Thus, you are investigating my reactions, just as when I look at the results of a protein being activated, I am investigating the action of that protein.

Your analogy really doesn't work.

I had trouble understanding the grammar in the middle sentence. Could you repeat your point please?

Not really. You didn't get the analogy, and its so far back now that I've lost the train of thought.

Would that be a 'scientific' conclusion? I'm guessing you would say no.

Of course it isn't - which is exactly why I don't use it as a basis for my science.

In which case, you can hardly criticise me for the 'unscientific' conclusion that God created life without abiogenesis.

I don't criticize you for any such thing. I simply criticize you for your wish to use that conclusion within your science.

It is considered a theory in itself, but I cannot imagine it standing alone. If evolutionary theory were rejected, the theory of endosymbiosis would go with it. However, were the theory of endosymbiosis to go, evolutionary theory would probably not go with it, since evolutionary theory is much older. And thus my point is that there is much within evolutionary theory that could be rejected without resulting in even the questioning of validity or usefulness of evolutionary theory.

If it cannot stand alone, then it is not a theory in and of itself. It is a part of a theory - in this case, evolutionary theory. Meanwhile, if it were rejected, that would mean that evolutionary theory, as it now stands, was rejected. It would be replaced either with a completely new theory, or with a modified version of evolutionary theory.

I have pointed out on several occassions that this is incorrect. One creation theory hypothesis predicts that all evolution is 'downhill', so that modern species are descended from ancestors with greater genetic variety, and speciation is a result of a decrease in variation. And example would be a poodle and a wolf. The (ancient) wolf was the ancestor with the greater genetic variation. If there is any evidence that demonstrates that this is wrong, such a hypothesis would have to be rejected.

Not really. We are talking about the supernatural here. God could have just changed things, even though the general rule would be that there would be a decrease in variation.

Meanwhile, you didn't answer what I said. I said that no evidence can disprove Creation. I did not say that no evidence could disprove a given incarnation of Creation. It is impossible to disprove the idea that God created the universe. It is impossible to disprove that God did so out of cell phones and did so three days ago. The reason this is impossible is that God is not bound by any of the rules of the universe - the rules of nature. God is supernatural. We cannot, then, apply the rules of the natural to any actions of God.

But that is not the same thing as what you said: ''We haven't found transitionary forms for everything, therefore evolutionary theory is wrong.'' They don't ask for transitionary forms for everything, just a single example of a convincing case which would support evolutionary theory.

You aren't reading between the lines, my dear. Every time a transitionary form is found, they say, "Oh, that doesn't really count. We meant something between those two things...." Taken to its logical conclusion, this means that they wish to see every single transitionary form. It isn't enough to see one. Now you need the forms between those two. And then it would be the forms between those two. And so on and so on....

And as for that Wikipedia article, it is perhaps the worst 'encyclopedia' entry I have ever read, since it contains statements intended to sway the opinion of the reader against intelligent design.

Does it? What statements?

(b) This makes it a completely useless term. It's no different from saying, "I don't yet know why there is lightning, so I'm just gonna say Zeus throws it until I come up with something better."

No, it's not anything like a conclusion for Zeus. It is simply a conclusion for a designer, regardless if that means a supernatural designer or a natural one. It is a distinction between chance and design and makes no comment on the nature of the designer.



Meanwhile, the "God of the gaps" argument is, "We don't know of any natural processes to explain this. Therefore, God did it."

Logically equivalent.


In ID, there is a conclusion of 'it is designed', or 'it isn't designed', based on the data, regardless of who the designer might be. In the God of the gaps approach, it is a direct ascribing to God, based on the lack of data.

You have to address the plain difference there.


ID tries to use "irreducible complexity" as evidence for design. They are not saying, "We haven't yet found a way that this is reducible." They are saying, "This is not reducible. Therefore, God did it."


Rather than saying that ''This is not reducible. Therefore, God did it,'' they would say ''This is not reducible. Therefore, it is designed.''


It is impossible to determine the most likely possibilities ahead of time, my dear. Only investigation will determine what is and is not likely.


However, when we know about the requirements of life, natural selection, sources and types of mutations, we can begin to consider some possibilities based on this knowledge. We actually don't need to do an experiment to investigate each possibility. We already know a good deal about what is possible and what isn't.
If someone was to win the lottery 10 consequtive times, we would no longer be wondering how lucky that person was, but would be looking for some connections between him and officials of the lottery company. In the same way, when considering a possibility within complex biology, providing we know something of the biochemical pathways and the requirements of life, we begin to determine how likely an event was. Probabilities similar to winning the lottery 10 times in a row can be considered unlikely, but not impossible. Thus, the most likely possibilities are investigated first. So that when Mr. Behe makes the hypothesis that flagella are irreducibly complex, he needs to investigate each of the parts of that complexity, to see how the possible alterations in their parts can explain the complexity or provide functionality. One possibility is that a slightly less complex form of the flagella may have conferred a different function to the one that it currently performs, and so on. He has to do the wet experiments, but it is unnecessary to check every possibility.


That is the whole point - science cannot support the idea of "irreducible complexity", because the only way to logically support such a conclusion is to have already checked for every possibility.


Science does not require a checking of every possibility before arriving at a conclusion, just the reasonable ones.


Something that I have already debunked, as your distinction between "information" and "complexity" is simply something using the complexity to determine something else. *Any* complexity can become information, if something uses it as such.


I'm not satisfied that you have debunked this point, because you have failed to address how complexity can be recognised as information, nor how the required information can be produced with only 'blind' forces available (given that the basic requirements of life require the necessary information to provide this). Complexity cannot become information unless it is recognised. Thus, not only do we require a source of complexity, we need a way of specifically ordering the complexity in an irregular way (e.g. DNA base pairs) to meet the requirements necessary for any life.


Because we have no reason to believe that abiogenesis or evolutionary theory would decrease the overall entropy in the universe.


This is not sufficient to consider abiogenesis likely, not by a long stretch. It is more about the sheer inadequacy of the explanations, rather than the consideration of the overall entropy in the universe.


Show me two contemporary scientific papers which used the exact same information and came to exact opposite conclusions. I'll wait....


That's quite silly, because no two papers use the exact same information. They are not allowed to do this, for starters, since papers are published on the condition that the data has not been published elsewhere (though it does happen on rare occassions). Plus, it would be impossible to get two groups of scientists to use the *exact* same data. So I could look for years for two papers that happen to be almost alike, and you could still point out the differences.


Science doesn't tell us that "X" is possible. We hypothesize and then look for evidence to support that hypothesis. There is evidence which supports the hypothesis of abiogenesis, but not enough to elevate it to the level of theory. Obviously, some scientists will find it plausible and others will not - at least not yet - because the plethora of evidence we have for established theories simply isn't there.


I would say that there is more evidence against abiogenesis than for it. Plenty of people say that it is unlikely, which generally means that there is more evidence against it than for it. But apparently this doesn't stop scientists believing it is true.


When someone first hypothesized the structure of an atom, we didn't know if such a structure was possible. That didn't make it an unscientific hypothesis - as there was evidence to back up the hypothesis.


In the case of abiogenesis, though, people believe in it without even knowing if it is possible. I see this as evidence that they are being 'unscientific' about it, according to your concept of 'scientific'.

Interestingly, people postulated the existence of atoms without knowing if they existed (they only had some data that could be explained that way). Then they went about looking for evidence that is consistent with this postulation. That sounds a little bit like ID.


Making, "God did 'x'" or even "God exists" an axiom of science injects the supernatural into science. It bases scientific investigation in the supernatural - an area in which science cannot be used.


It need not base the investigation in the supernatural, so long as one recognises the limitation of science. No matter how many ways you put this, you still cannot seem to explain how my personal belief in a Creator is supposed to retard my science. You say that I cannot use my science to investigate God, and I reply that I am not trying to. You say that using God as an explanation for e.g. life will kill my investigation into life, and I reply that it does not. How can it? Perhaps you could provide an example.


A person who believes in a given literal creation story and uses that as a basis of their science has already come to a conclusion - before even forming a hypothesis. The result of this is as follows:

http://www.kommy.net/~downtym/images/danielle/flatearthism.bmp


Amusing images, but have little relevance to this debate, since I am looking at the data, and I draw my conclusions upon looking at the data, not ignoring it. I don't assume to know the literal interpretation of the Bible. I don't know the details of how God created the world, since I don't know how to interpret many parts of the Bible. Like you, I believe that God is responsible, but I don't know how he did it. It may well have been through the given literal creation story, for all I know. At least it would not surprise me if it were quite accurate. I believe the Bible is true, but I don't claim to know how to interpret every verse.


Of course we can. We know those things which have led us to believe that all lifeforms are related. If something falls outside of those criterion, we must investigate the very real possibility that it is not related.

For instance, if we were to discover a lifeform with an reproductive information carrier other than DNA - it *might* be related to other lifeforms, but this would be unlikely. If we were to discover a lifeform without the molecular pathways shared by all life - it *might* just have lost them, but if they are integral to all life, this is unlikely. And so on...

It is largely the fact that these things are shared by all lifeforms we have discovered that has led us to the conclusion that they are all related. Finding something that does not share these traits would provide quite a challenge to that conclusion.


How would one know whether the presence of an alternative genetic carrier means an alternative life form? This would be speculation, not a test for the concept of a common ancestor, since we still don't know what the theoretical common ancestor had as the genetic carrier.

Many life forms contain traits that are not shared by other life forms. Having unique traits does not indicate an alternative life form. It would be more like not having *any* traits in common. But the problem with that is that we cannot distinguish between traits that are necessary for any life, and traits that are the result of ancestry.


You stated that the only way to test for a different lifeform would be if a different lifeform existed. This is logically equivalent to saying, "The only way to test for functionality is if that functionality is present."


I meant that such a test is only relevent if we can show that an alternative life form is possible.


No, that isn't the way that supernatural is defined at all.

The supernatural is that which is not bound by the natural - that which is outside the universe and is not bound by the rules which govern it. There is nothing in this to suggest that it cannot interact with the natural.


So you think that the supernatural is outside of the universe? How do you know that? And how can you establish that the supernatural is not bound by some (at least) of the rules that govern the natural world? Where do these definitions come from?


Apples are within the universe and governed by its rules. As such, they are a part of nature. To suggest otherwise would be no different than whining that you want to call black "white".


My point is that your investigation is shaped by your definitions of the nature of your investigation. We can demonstrate that green apples belong to nature. But if you began your investigation with the definition that it was impossible to investigate green apples, they would not be investigate by you.



Wrong. It is simply a conclusion, drawn from the observation of natural selection and mutation. Research into the minutae may use it as an assumption, but it is a conclusion - not an assumption - of evolutionary theory itself.


The point that natural selection and mutation can account for all of the variety of life is an assumption, because it cannot be demonstrated, and is yet one of the mainstays of evolutionary theory. It is also a conclusion. It depends on which question you are trying to answer with your investigation as to whether it is a conclusion or an assumption.


You should be critical of any claim. But do you have any evidence that disproves the idea? If you do not, then the theory still stands as valid, whether you "believe" it or not.


It stands as a hypothesis in the lack of evidence that disproves it, but that doesn't make it a good hypothesis, particularly when we don't know if it is possible to find evidence that could disprove it.


Personal beliefs are irrelevant to scientific theories. There are those who believe there is a God. We don't know if there is or if there is a God. We don't even know if there is a supernatural. The natural - the universe - might be all there is to existence. But such beliefs are not a part of science.


Science is not possible without personal belief. Thus there is no such thing as 'pure science', except in our imaginations.

We can know if there is a God, and we can know him more convincingly than anything that can be known through the scientific method.

A belief in God is not a part of the scientific method, but it can influence the scientific method (by influencing the questions one might ask), and is thus a part of science.


Ah, I see, you are arguing pure semantics. Well, in that case, science can't investigate a process, since we only measure the effects of the process, not the actual process itself.


We can investigate a process if we can observe that process.


The same is true of bias, but it doesn't keep those who wish to stick to the scientific method from doing everything they can to keep their biases from affecting their science.


How does one try to keep their bias from affecting their science? What is 'everything they can'? The only way to do this is to stop doing science. Try telling that to all those people who are biased in favour of evolutionary theory.



I shouldn't. Nor would I. Nor have I. You can believe whatever you want. You simply cannot use your personal beliefs as scientific assumptions, any more than I can.


A belief in something like abiogenesis or the big bang is a personal belief. Someone with a lack of personal belief in abiogenesis or the big bang would have to say that these are unlikely, based on the evidence.


Human causes are natural causes. Humans exist within the universe - we are bound by its rules. As such, we and everything we do is natural.

Thus, the fact that science can determine evidence of human design does not contradict the fact that science can only investigate the natural.


The point is that science can distinguish between design and undesigned, regardless of the source.


It does the minute you use, "There is a divine being" as an assumption for your interpretation of data.


My point is that the IDer would simply not assume a divine being for the interpretation of the data. It would be a later consideration, concluded on philosophical arguments, but not necessary in order to conclude that something is designed.


We need to have evidence that a being that could have been the designer exists before we can study design. You like to use man-made objects as your examples. Guess what? We have plenty of empirical evidence that human beings exist and make things. Thus, it is reasonable to use that as a background for scientific study and possibly conclude that a given object has been designed by a human being.


The point is that we don't need to know anything about the nature of the designer, so long as we know that there are designers. Humans provide examples of designers, and thus we know how to look for design.


However, to conclude that a given object has been designed by a "Creator", we must first assume that such a being exists and can "create", just as the conclusion that a man-made object was designed is based in the assumption that human beings exist and design things.


No, we don't need to conclude who the designer is, only if something is designed or isn't designed. The identity of the designer is not a part of the experiment.


No, I recommend continuing to study biology. If a lifeform that is inconsistent with the hypothesis that all lifeforms on Earth are related is found, then said hypothesis would be disproven.


How would you know if that lifeform is inconsistent with the rest of life, unless you know something about the common ancestor?


How do we know that any test works?


When we have parameters that can define the result.


Many experiments have no positive control. It is generally better if they do, but this is not always possible.


Can you think of one? And if so, does anyone use it to test a concept like common ancestry?


No, but they suggest a positive. This is the very basis of the scientific method - inductive logic. When we repeat an experiment 100 times, and never disprove the hypothesis, this does not actually mean that the hypothesis is true. The 101th experiment might go the other way. However, each successive repetition provides support to that hypothesis - strengthens it through inductive logic.


Seems like you could use this argument for irreducible complexity. ''...each successive repetition provides support to that hypothesis - strengthens it through inductive logic.''


What kind of question is that? "Creation theory" is impossible to reject scientifically, as it involves a supernatural being that could do anything. And, if I had found something that was sufficient to reject evolutionary theory, I'd have a Nobel Prize by now.


An alternative explanation is that it is not possible to reject evolutionary theory because it is more of a belief than a theory which could be disproven. The way to know would be to think of an experiement that might be used to provide data that would disprove the theory. Since you have admitted that you cannot, it may well be because it isn't possible. How do you know?


I would say that we have plenty of empirical evidence to disprove the idea that the world was created last Tuesday. The evidence seems to disprove the idea that one human being was created before plants and animals, his mate was created afterwards, and these two populated the entire planet.


The idea that one human was created before plants and animals?! Where is that found in the Bible?


Of course, the problem with this is that both of these ideas involve the supernatural. Thus, while science can disprove them within the natural, it cannot completely disprove them - as it cannot investigate the supernatural. The world might have been created last Tuesday, with all the memories and evidence planted to make us believe it wasn't. The Yahwist story of Creation in Genesis might be literally true, but God might have planted things that made the evidence look as if it were not. And so on...


You are holding up only one particular interpretation of the Genesis account of creation--the most strict form. Even then, you admit that empirical science cannot disprove it.


Of course not. Criticism is a mainstay of science. It is, however, unscientific to bring in your personal beliefs about the supernatural when engaging in such criticism. Scientific criticism must be based in science - in the scientific method - in the empirical evidence, not in personal belief.


You simply cannot remove personal belief from science. You might be able to remove any mention of God, but not personal belief, since it a personal belief of yours that God should not be mentioned within a scientific explanation.


Once again, no, not really. An axiom is a statement that is accepted as true for the purposes of a logical discussion or process. Thus, the process is based in that axiom, and is uselss in the case that said axiom is not true.


So if I challenge your axioms, would you then say that such challenges will lead to the death of an investigation of the natural world? Is it not possible to investigate the natural world without necessarily holding onto your particular axioms? Perhaps my process is just different.


The scientific method itself defines science.


I thought it was people who make the definitions of the scientific method and consequently, science.


Wrong. In fact, you are describing exactly what those who engage in "Creation science" do - and exactly why their "science" isn't science at all. They start with a conclusion in hand, and then interpret the data to meet it.

In science, we start with a hypothesis based in observation, test it, and then come to a conclusion based on new evidence. And so on and so on....


One only has to look at evolutionary theory to see plenty of people who do the same thing there. They start with the conclusion in hand and interpret the data to meet it. And example would be the common ancestory. They look for homology based on the concept of common ancestry, and then point to the homology as evidence for common ancestry.

At least with the creationists, they admit that their conclusion of a creator does not come from science.



People conclude that something like evolutionary theory is true because they observed the world, hypothesized the basis of the theory, and have tested it over the years. Nothing has yet disproven it, thus, they conclude that it is true.


That becomes a little alarming, considering how many times the theory of evolution has required adjustment. Given the nature of the adjustment of the theory, one wonders if it is possible to disprove it. If it isn't, there is a lot of deluded people.


Of course not. But there is data that supports such an idea.


Can you give an example of some data that you would say adequately supports a common ancestor?


I have no problem with you "allowing" any such thing. Science already does this, as it allows that God *might* exist and *might* have done whatever God wanted to do. What I object to is you basing science in your assumption that God exists and does or has done certain things.


My world view is based on the assumption that God exists. My science is partly based on my world view. My science does not assume that God has interacted with nature, but I allow that He may have.


There is a reason that nothing in science is accepted as "truth". It is accepted as theory - as something that is a valid explanation only because it has not yet been disproven. Evolutionary theory is no different. The conclusion that a common ancestor existed is no different. It is a valid explanation only because it has not yet been disproven.


You have yet to adequately demonstrate whether it can possibly be disproven.


The fact that you are investigating that means that you have already assumed I existed. You have empirical evidence that I existed, even if my actual body is not around. And any results of my actions that you find are, well, results of my actions. Thus, you are investigating my reactions, just as when I look at the results of a protein being activated, I am investigating the action of that protein.

Your analogy really doesn't work.


No, I am not investigating your actions, because I cannot observe them. I can only observe the effects of your actions, unless I use a time machine. The example of the protein is different, because I can observe that protein both before and after and during activation.



I don't criticize you for any such thing. I simply criticize you for your wish to use that conclusion within your science.


I haven't concluded that God didn't use abiogenesis, since I cannot say. I am simply skeptical of it. The evidence for it is very poor, so I consider it unlikely.


If it cannot stand alone, then it is not a theory in and of itself. It is a part of a theory - in this case, evolutionary theory. Meanwhile, if it were rejected, that would mean that evolutionary theory, as it now stands, was rejected. It would be replaced either with a completely new theory, or with a modified version of evolutionary theory.


It is considered a theory in it's own right, according to some.

If it were rejected, I reckon evolutionary theory would simply be modified, rather than called into question, since evolutionary theory is much older. It also reinforces my view that the theory of evolution is not really questioned (except for by the creationists).


Not really. We are talking about the supernatural here. God could have just changed things, even though the general rule would be that there would be a decrease in variation.


But that particular creation hypothesis would have to be discarded.



Meanwhile, you didn't answer what I said. I said that no evidence can disprove Creation. I did not say that no evidence could disprove a given incarnation of Creation. It is impossible to disprove the idea that God created the universe. It is impossible to disprove that God did so out of cell phones and did so three days ago. The reason this is impossible is that God is not bound by any of the rules of the universe - the rules of nature. God is supernatural. We cannot, then, apply the rules of the natural to any actions of God.


I didn't think anyone was trying to do this.


You aren't reading between the lines, my dear. Every time a transitionary form is found, they say, "Oh, that doesn't really count. We meant something between those two things...." Taken to its logical conclusion, this means that they wish to see every single transitionary form. It isn't enough to see one. Now you need the forms between those two. And then it would be the forms between those two. And so on and so on....


I disagree with your interpretation of their comments. I don't think they would demand every single transitionary form. I don't think this is their point. Rather, they are asking for a single case of a collection of fossils that supports the concept of evolution. They are saying that the collections we do have might fit with evolutionary theory, but are not such that can not be more easily interpreted by creation.

Sometimes they go on to point out how the fossil record has just a few examples of transitory fossils. Of all the millions of species on earth, just two or three cases seem to have transition fossils, but that these transition fossils are still quite distant from each other, and do not rule out other explanations, such as a creation of separate (although similar at times) basic types. Thus, for all the other hundreds of thousands of fossils, the evidence does not support transition. This does not prove evolutionary theory wrong, but it does indicate that evidence is weak, and weaker than what we originally expected. Of course new explanations (e.g. punctuated equilibrium) are created to explain the evidence, but the problem of finding evidence to support the new explanations remains.


Does it? What statements?

''The misconception about the lack of transitional fossils is perpetuated in part by a common way of thinking about categories.''

The author doesn't bother to call this a criticism, just a 'misconception'. He is thus trying to persuade the readers. The author is obviously pro-evolution, which is a 'no no' for an encyclopedia entry.

For this reason, (and many other cases throughout the article) the article contains the following statement under the heading:
''This article or section needs a complete rewrite for the reasons listed on the talk page''

Rather than saying that ''This is not reducible. Therefore, God did it,'' they would say ''This is not reducible. Therefore, it is designed.''That's the main point of contention. "This is not reducible" is not a tenable conclusion [edit: and thus step along the route to either the specific "God did it" version or the more generic "it is designed" version]. Absence of evidence [of a reducability] is not evidence of absence [of a reducability], much as the absence of evidence of a creator is not evidence of absence of same.

Science allows the possibility of a creator at the start of everything (but does not comment either way), but ID does not allow the possibility of a 'reducibility path' for everything because there is no reason for ID to exist without some irreducability.

In other words, science cannot, will not, deny that a designer could have made btis and pieces whole (even those things that exhibit signs of having a reduced precursor). ID points at something and says it is reducable [edit, sorry, irreducable, I meant], and when shown that it is not, points at something else, until that is shown not to be. Not exactly a confidence-engendering behaviour.

I've never actually looked it up myself, but it's a common argument of IDers that supposedly proves evolution wrong. So, out of curiosity, I finally looked it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics


...hang on. I thought the IDers said it had to do with a system's complexity. Did I just kick the supports out from under one of the most pervasive and largest arguments of IDers? Or is there more to it, and I'm just being a simplistic idiot?

So...IDers...actual learned folks...what do you have to say on this?

In the words of MC Hawking:

Creationists always try
to use the second law
to disprove evolution
but their theory has a flaw

The second law is quite clear
about where it applies
Only in closed systems
does the entropy count rise

The Earth is not a closed system
It is powered by the Sun
So fuck the dam creationists
Doomsday, get my gun

That's the main point of contention. "This is not reducible" is not a tenable conclusion [edit: and thus step along the route to either the specific "God did it" version or the more generic "it is designed" version]. Absence of evidence [of a reducability] is not evidence of absence [of a reducability], much as the absence of evidence of a creator is not evidence of absence of same.

But one could say that the theory stands so long as there is no evidence to disprove it.


Science allows the possibility of a creator at the start of everything (but does not comment either way), but ID does not allow the possibility of a 'reducibility path' for everything because there is no reason for ID to exist without some irreducability.


I didn't realize that science actually allows for the possibility of a creator, at least I have never seen a creator allowed for in the more 'official' versions of evolutionary theory. Rather, I feel that the possibility of a creator is not considered, and thus, not allowed. (Note that the absence of a reference to God is not necessarily proof of a disallowance of God.) I actually have no problem with other people disallowing God, if they wish. It is their right, but it isn't a scientific disallowance. But I believe that science is not hindered by allowing for the possibility of a creator, since the addition of another possibility would stimulate more investigation, not less.


In other words, science cannot, will not, deny that a designer could have made btis and pieces whole (even those things that exhibit signs of having a reduced precursor). ID points at something and says it is reducable [edit, sorry, irreducable, I meant], and when shown that it is not, points at something else, until that is shown not to be. Not exactly a confidence-engendering behaviour.

Science may not deny a supernatural designer, without breaking its own 'rules'. It is not a scientific position to declare the existence or the non-existence of a supernatural designer, but a theological one. However, science is certainly capable of identifying design in nature. Who that design is attributed to (God or aliens or humans or some other source of intelligence) is not a job for science, and isn't immediately relevant to the search, other than a postulation that there might be a designer capable of designing living organisms, regardless of who that designer might be.

The role of criticism in the irreducible complexity approach is quite important. If something is thought of as irreducible in complexity, it is very important that the critics do their best to demonstrate that it really isn't.

But one could say that the theory stands so long as there is no evidence to disprove it.I'd like to apply Occam/Ockam, and imagine you'd see it differently, so I'll show you my working. Let us say there are two postulates:
There is a designer
There is not a designer


In the former case then the designer has designed things. The things he designed may bear the marks of his existence. Any "marks" we see upon the designed things might be true "design marks" (like the chisel-marks in a sculptured piece of wood) or natural in origin (the texture of the bark upon a tree).

In the latter, things were not designed, and the marks we see are all of the 'natural' kind. Which is not to say that one of us couldn't take a piece of wood and with the tools at our own hands create a passable, if artistic, copy of some purely-natural tree, bark texture and all.


So, let's look at things that are postulated as to having been designed. IDers point at marks and say the are from chisels. (They even point at how people, having seen pre-existing examples from, reverse engineer them and make them afresh, 'proving' that they were originally designed in a classic example of a straw man.) The thing is none of the 'design marks' stand up to scrutiny as chisel-marks. They could be, but there's really no reason they should be (unless you presuppose the need for a creator, which hasn;'t yet been proven).

So, we have a world in which a designer does or does not exist, with no sign of being designed. (No reasonable signs, no incontrovertible signs, no obvious signs, no accepted signs, no mysterious signs... No signs of any particular kind, and I challenge you to provide any.)

So. Designed Universe or Undesigned Universe. Whichever potentiality we exist in, it looks the same. Universe = Universe + (Signs of Designer * 0)

So what's the point in considering a designer (under scientific thinking) whilever there's no sign of one? Doesn't mean that can't think there is one. Doesn't mean you are 'right' to think there isn't one. Keep on looking at the universe. Look at things, be receptive to signs, but don't assume there are no signs any and don't assume they are there without applying the proper logic


(I've said before, and I'll say again: My opinion is that if there is a Creator (capital-'C') worth his salt, then He is more than capable of having made a Universe in which there are no signs of his involvement. In this event, the "No Creator" people are going to be wrong, but for all the right reasons, while the IDers may be 'right', but aren't ever going to have any reason to come to that conclusion and have no logic behind them...)


I didn't realize that science actually allows for the possibility of a creator, at least I have never seen a creator allowed for in the more 'official' versions of evolutionary theory.In that case, you don't pay attention. Science does not say there is not a God (or creater, small or large 'c'), and does not say that there is. It looks at the world and says "all the currently visible evidence is that evolution happened". Whether this is because evolution happened utterly 'naturally', evolution happened in a Universe where God caused the Big Bang, evolution happened upon a God-create world (with God-created heavens exhibitting signs of the Big Bang) where abiogenesis occured on its own, evolution occured on a world where the abiogenesis was God-inspired, evolution did not occur (creature development was guided but the same hand planted all the signs we see that pursuade us that it did) or even that the world was created 'as is' Last Tuesday with all the relevant back-history/memories/publications created in-situ to look like the world existed before Last Tuesday.

Science cannot say that.

Science will not say that.

Science does not wish to comment on the subject.

As such, you'll not find mention of a Creator in Evolutionary Theory. This is not any more an endorsement of the "He does not exist" position than it is an endorsement of the "I prefer Pepsi to Coke" position, because the relevance is not there.

Rather, I feel that the possibility of a creator is not considered, and thus, not allowed.The possibility of a creator is not considered, and thus not considered. That's all.

(Note that the absence of a reference to God is not necessarily proof of a disallowance of God.)Something I have tried to take great pains to say.

I actually have no problem with other people disallowing God, if they wish. It is their right, but it isn't a scientific disallowance.And I, and others, have no problem with other people believing in God, if they wish, but with similar caveats.

But I believe that science is not hindered by allowing for the possibility of a creator, since the addition of another possibility would stimulate more investigation, not less.Science is hindered when the belief in a Creator afects research, to the end of not investigating things because of the belief that "God did it". And one who does not make a consideration either way (regardless of personal belief, disbelief, indifference, consideration that one could never know, whatever) is not handicapped. Or am I wrong?

This is getting too wordy, so, let's summarise 'in-quote':
Science may not deny a supernatural designer, without breaking its own 'rules'. So it doesn't It is not a scientific position to declare the existence or the non-existence of a supernatural designer, but a theological one. indeed However, science is certainly capable of identifying design in nature. Like identifying a dry-stone wall as distinct from a rocky outcrop, certainly. And some ancient fortifications are indeed a little indistinct. And places such as Giants' Causeway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giants_causeway) may have looked designed once. There's no equivalent of an 'identified design' in the building-blocks of life (based on our current knowledge, regardless of what we once thought, or or what we might learn in future Who that design Of which I stress that there are no examples is attributed to (God or aliens or humans or some other source of intelligence) is not a job for science, and isn't immediately relevant to the search, other than a postulation that there might be a designer capable of designing living organisms, regardless of who that designer might be.

The role of criticism in the irreducible complexity approach is quite important. If something is thought of as irreducible in complexity, it is very important that the critics do their best to demonstrate that it really isn't.Which has been done in all examples I know of. (Not to mention that the onus is actually upon those wishing to establish irreducability as an additional/replacement to the 'seems to explain everything quite well without invoking more complications' current standard.)

I'd like to apply Occam/Ockam, and imagine you'd see it differently, so I'll show you my working. Let us say there are two postulates:
There is a designer
There is not a designer


In the former case then the designer has designed things. The things he designed may bear the marks of his existence. Any "marks" we see upon the designed things might be true "design marks" (like the chisel-marks in a sculptured piece of wood) or natural in origin (the texture of the bark upon a tree).

In the latter, things were not designed, and the marks we see are all of the 'natural' kind. Which is not to say that one of us couldn't take a piece of wood and with the tools at our own hands create a passable, if artistic, copy of some purely-natural tree, bark texture and all.


So, let's look at things that are postulated as to having been designed. IDers point at marks and say the are from chisels. (They even point at how people, having seen pre-existing examples from, reverse engineer them and make them afresh, 'proving' that they were originally designed in a classic example of a straw man.) The thing is none of the 'design marks' stand up to scrutiny as chisel-marks. They could be, but there's really no reason they should be (unless you presuppose the need for a creator, which hasn;'t yet been proven).

We cannot apply Occam's razor to this case of the chisel marks unless we have more than one explanation for them. So long as we can *show* that all known naturalistic causes are inadequate, the designer cause is the only one left standing, and is thus not a case for Occam's razor.


So, we have a world in which a designer does or does not exist, with no sign of being designed. (No reasonable signs, no incontrovertible signs, no obvious signs, no accepted signs, no mysterious signs... No signs of any particular kind, and I challenge you to provide any.)


This approach does not require evidence of a designer. It only requires that we are capable of detecting design, and we already know we can do this.


So. Designed Universe or Undesigned Universe. Whichever potentiality we exist in, it looks the same. Universe = Universe + (Signs of Designer * 0)


We don't necessarily need signs of the designer, just a way of distinguishing between designed and not designed.


So what's the point in considering a designer (under scientific thinking) whilever there's no sign of one? Doesn't mean that can't think there is one. Doesn't mean you are 'right' to think there isn't one. Keep on looking at the universe. Look at things, be receptive to signs, but don't assume there are no signs any and don't assume they are there without applying the proper logic


Personally, I don't assume that God e.g. created man as man. Like you, I just keep looking. But I am interested in an approach that would look to see if there is any evidence that supports a creation event, and I think we now have the ability to look in this direction. And I think this is worth a look. I don't assume the signs are there, but I propose that they could be.


(I've said before, and I'll say again: My opinion is that if there is a Creator (capital-'C') worth his salt, then He is more than capable of having made a Universe in which there are no signs of his involvement. In this event, the "No Creator" people are going to be wrong, but for all the right reasons, while the IDers may be 'right', but aren't ever going to have any reason to come to that conclusion and have no logic behind them...)


It depends on what you think science is for. If you think science is about finding a natural explanation for everything, then I am not interested in that approach, since I think science should be about finding truth in a material world. Thus, if the truth is that God did create humans, scientific approaches to the material world should be capable of reflecting this possibility. A common criticism of my approach is that I am mixing theology with science, that pure science is free from theological considerations. But I reply that my belief in God's existence will mean that I cannot be free of theological considerations. I must respect the limitations of the scientific method, but the moment I accept an explanation that man evolved from a primitive common ancestor, this involves theological considerations, since it means that God did not create man as man.

I cannot be at church on Sunday morning thanking God that he saved me from my sin, if on Monday morning I go to work and tell my students humans evolved from animals (which means that they are thus not sinners). So in order to keep my science 'pure', I must leave out all explanations of origins in my science that are not compatible with both evolution and creation.


In that case, you don't pay attention. Science does not say there is not a God (or creater, small or large 'c'), and does not say that there is. It looks at the world and says "all the currently visible evidence is that evolution happened". Whether this is because evolution happened utterly 'naturally', evolution happened in a Universe where God caused the Big Bang, evolution happened upon a God-create world (with God-created heavens exhibitting signs of the Big Bang) where abiogenesis occured on its own, evolution occured on a world where the abiogenesis was God-inspired, evolution did not occur (creature development was guided but the same hand planted all the signs we see that pursuade us that it did) or even that the world was created 'as is' Last Tuesday with all the relevant back-history/memories/publications created in-situ to look like the world existed before Last Tuesday.


What science says and what the implications of the explanations within evolutionary theory are, are two separate things.


Science is hindered when the belief in a Creator afects research, to the end of not investigating things because of the belief that "God did it". And one who does not make a consideration either way (regardless of personal belief, disbelief, indifference, consideration that one could never know, whatever) is not handicapped. Or am I wrong?


You are right to say that a consideration of God might alter some research, but to think that it would kill an investigation is possibly short-sighted. The nature of science is to continue any investigation that is possible, and the idea that God might have created it has never prevented me from investigating it. Even if I am convinced that God created it, I am still capable of investigating the possibility that it evolved.




Which has been done in all examples I know of. (Not to mention that the onus is actually upon those wishing to establish irreducability as an additional/replacement to the 'seems to explain everything quite well without invoking more complications' current standard.)

It is one issue that the current evolutionary explanations are insufficient, let alone 'explain everything quite well'. (You stretched that one a bit too far.)

But it is yet another argument that each person has the right to his own world view, and it is only natural that he should be expected to investigate the material world in a way that is influenced by his world view.

We cannot apply Occam's razor to this case of the chisel marks unless we have more than one explanation for them. So long as we can *show* that all known naturalistic causes are inadequate, the designer cause is the only one left standing, and is thus not a case for Occam's razor.

Unless, insufficient means impossible, you are wrong. No one has proven that leading theories are impossible.

Meanwhile, since a designer can possibly leave no sign of design, a designer is not a falsifiable assumption.

We are not able to distinguish between design and a lack of design specifically. We can do it when we've seen it in the past. However, we don't have an current evidence that design is a possiblity either. I think it amusing that you are willing to assume design with no evidence, but willing to assume natural causes are insufficience simply because you see some gaps in the evidence.

According to you, you can't even example which parts are designed and which parts are not. Interesting how design is so easy to identify that you can't actually say where it occurred.

I think design might have happened is not a scientific theory.

At this point I'd just like to make sure everyone knows what Occam's Razor is. Because if people start bringing up this "The simplest explanation is always the best" crap I'm going to start throwing chairs.

At this point I'd just like to make sure everyone knows what Occam's Razor is. Because if people start bringing up this "The simplest explanation is always the best" crap I'm going to start throwing chairs.

I believe the point of invoking Occam was that adding a designer does not simplify the law. Then he showed that there is no reason for supposing a designer based on evidence unless one starts with that assumption being true.

I've never actually looked it up myself, but it's a common argument of IDers that supposedly proves evolution wrong. So, out of curiosity, I finally looked it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics


...hang on. I thought the IDers said it had to do with a system's complexity. Did I just kick the supports out from under one of the most pervasive and largest arguments of IDers? Or is there more to it, and I'm just being a simplistic idiot?

So...IDers...actual learned folks...what do you have to say on this?

All that it means is that energy is constantly becoming less useful. IF you jumped into a pool, and all the water you displaced suddenly threw you back out of the pool, you'd be very surprised. This is what the 2nd law means. The Big Bang is equally unlikely.

All that it means is that energy is constantly becoming less useful. IF you jumped into a pool, and all the water you displaced suddenly threw you back out of the pool, you'd be very surprised. This is what the 2nd law means. The Big Bang is equally unlikely.

Is it? It's equally unlikely? Based on what evidence? Because it seems like the same people who argue FOR the second law, physicists, also argue for the Big Bang. Odd that they would suddenly forget the theory is as unlikely as you being thrown out of the pool. I can't wait for you to publish "the person thrown out of the pool" paper, because you will be the most famous physicist on the planet. I look forward to reading it. Let me know when you publish.

I believe the point of invoking Occam was that adding a designer does not simplify the law. Then he showed that there is no reason for supposing a designer based on evidence unless one starts with that assumption being true.

Simplicity has little to do with it. In fact, I would argue that the absence of God makes it a whole lot more complex. It has to do with making as few assumptions as possible. I was just making sure that that was the razor the person was using, not that "simplest explaination' nonsense.

All that it means is that energy is constantly becoming less useful. IF you jumped into a pool, and all the water you displaced suddenly threw you back out of the pool, you'd be very surprised. This is what the 2nd law means. The Big Bang is equally unlikely.


The second law is a statistical one and assumes isolation. Extremely difficult to compare to the law of displacement.

Why is the Big Bang equally unlikely?

Simplicity has little to do with it. In fact, I would argue that the absence of God makes it a whole lot more complex. It has to do with making as few assumptions as possible. I was just making sure that that was the razor the person was using, not that "simplest explaination' nonsense.

By simplify, most people ARE referring to reducing the assumptions. The assumption of God or a designer increases the number of assumptions because it doesn't actually answer any questions that it doesn't also introduce. It also doesn't address any observations.

Unless, insufficient means impossible, you are wrong. No one has proven that leading theories are impossible.

There is this 'grey area' between impossible and possible. It's grey because we cannot actually see if many of the leading theories are possible. So it is nonesense to claim that they are. The only thing we can say is that we don't even know if they are possible, but that we propose them and then look at the world to see if they can be supported. In short, it is impossible to prove the leading theories impossible.

What I mean by 'insufficient' theory is not impossible, but just unlikely. But how can we determine what is likely or unlikely? Obviously discussion and debate is important.


Meanwhile, since a designer can possibly leave no sign of design, a designer is not a falsifiable assumption.


What? A designer can possibly leave no sign of design? Since when? Anyone with enough intelligence can be a designer. Aren't humans designers (or at least capable of it)?



We are not able to distinguish between design and a lack of design specifically. We can do it when we've seen it in the past. However, we don't have an current evidence that design is a possiblity either. I think it amusing that you are willing to assume design with no evidence, but willing to assume natural causes are insufficience simply because you see some gaps in the evidence.


I think that we are able to distinguish between design and a lack of design. The SETI program recognises this possibility. The forensics departments also recognise this.

As for claiming that we have no evidence of design, it might depend on who is looking. The same might be said for common ancestry or abiogenesis. If you have made up your mind that there is no design, you won't see it.

It might be a little too soon to call living organisms examples of design, but they sure can be called complex. There isn't any need to prove that the complexity is designed, just that the data fits with the theory, and hence supports it, as is in the case in evolutionary theory.


According to you, you can't even example which parts are designed and which parts are not. Interesting how design is so easy to identify that you can't actually say where it occurred.


I think life itself is an example of design. I just don't know how it was designed, i.e. through natural forces or through supernatural ones. The chaps who wrote the Bible describes it as the breath of God. It is rather interesting that even with all our modern science, we still cannot define what life really is. But I am digressing.


I think design might have happened is not a scientific theory.

I respect your right to hold your opinion. I might even go so far to say that ID doesn't need to be called a 'scientific' theory. However, I am very interested in the progress that it might make. If it results in some good progress in understanding the material world, who cares what it is called?

I respect your right to hold your opinion. I might even go so far to say that ID doesn't need to be called a 'scientific' theory. However, I am very interested in the progress that it might make. If it results in some good progress in understanding the material world, who cares what it is called?

I don't know about anyone else - but I'd care.

If you are going to start claiming things that are definitiely NOT scientific, ARE scientific - then you are changing the definitions to suit your bias. (You - collectively).

I don't care if you call it 'science', quietly, to yourself... just don't pretend it's actual science, and expect to get it published in serious 'science' materials.

There is this 'grey area' between impossible and possible. It's grey because we cannot actually see if many of the leading theories are possible. So it is nonesense to claim that they are. The only thing we can say is that we don't even know if they are possible, but that we propose them and then look at the world to see if they can be supported. In short, it is impossible to prove the leading theories impossible.

We certainly can prove them impossible (within the requirements of science), but we haven't. Prove does not mean the same thing to science. A hypothesis MUST be falsifiable or it is not permitted in science.

What I mean by 'insufficient' theory is not impossible, but just unlikely. But how can we determine what is likely or unlikely? Obviously discussion and debate is important.

How can we determine what is unlikely? According to you, decide first and then argue it. For me, I'd say there is no way to determine what is likely and unlikely so instead I review the available evidence and see what theory it supports. The leading theories are supported by the evidence./


What? A designer can possibly leave no sign of design? Since when? Anyone with enough intelligence can be a designer. Aren't humans designers (or at least capable of it)?

Are you limiting it to human designers? Are you saying that there is no way to design something without any evidence of that design? Wanna bet I can prove you wrong?


I think that we are able to distinguish between design and a lack of design. The SETI program recognises this possibility. The forensics departments also recognise this.

No, it doesn't. It is baed on recognizing patterns. Patterns don't necessarily prove design. The SETI program addresses that fact. They have found patterns several times that turned out to be natural. They also accept that they could be wrong about what types of patterns they should look for. They are doing the best they can with what information they have.

As for claiming that we have no evidence of design, it might depend on who is looking. The same might be said for common ancestry or abiogenesis. If you have made up your mind that there is no design, you won't see it.

I haven't made up my mind there is no design. But I haven't seen evidence of it. At all. The only evidence you give is other theories you claim are insufficient. Other theories failing are not evidence for a theory. You have to base a theory on the available emperical evidence, not on it being different than other theories you don't like. You've offered no emperical evidence for design. You won't even say what was designed.

It might be a little too soon to call living organisms examples of design, but they sure can be called complex. There isn't any need to prove that the complexity is designed, just that the data fits with the theory, and hence supports it, as is in the case in evolutionary theory.

Again, you base the theory on the fact we can recognize design, but you still can't give an direct example of where design occurred. Interesting for claiming a process that is so obvious, according to you.


I think life itself is an example of design. I just don't know how it was designed, i.e. through natural forces or through supernatural ones. The chaps who wrote the Bible describes it as the breath of God. It is rather interesting that even with all our modern science, we still cannot define what life really is. But I am digressing.

Amusing. Intelligent design requires intelligence. That means natural forces cannot be the 'designer'. To include natural forces as the designer is to quite simply make the point nonsensical.



I respect your right to hold your opinion. I might even go so far to say that ID doesn't need to be called a 'scientific' theory. However, I am very interested in the progress that it might make. If it results in some good progress in understanding the material world, who cares what it is called?
Yes, I'm interested in seeing what progress we'll see in a theory that denies science and yet claims it IS science. Very interested indeed. Nah, actually I'm not. I find no interest in ridiculous theories that internally inconsistent. The FSM theories have equal merit.

No, it doesn't. It is baed on recognizing patterns. Patterns don't necessarily prove design. The SETI program addresses that fact. They have found patterns several times that turned out to be natural. They also accept that they could be wrong about what types of patterns they should look for. They are doing the best they can with what information they have.


Very true... a quasar LOOKS like intelligence. As does a pulsar. As does a rotation-powered pulsar. As do binary stars....

The list continues...

Very true... a quasar LOOKS like intelligence. As does a pulsar. As does a rotation-powered pulsar. As do binary stars....

The list continues...

Exactly. If we defined 'design' the way ID describes it we would have to declare that Aliens exist.

Exactly. If we defined 'design' the way ID describes it we would have to declare that Aliens exist.

Hey... I might be onto something, here... a black hole is irreducibly complex, wouldn't you say?

:eek:

Hey... I might be onto something, here... a black hole is irreducibly complex, wouldn't you say?

:eek:

Don't say things so clearly? How are you going to be able to deny saying it in five pages? Come on, if we're going to jump into the type of debate our friends use we have to be very vague and then declare we didn't mean wha the statements say no matter how many times we said we did five pages ago.

I don't know about anyone else - but I'd care.

If you are going to start claiming things that are definitiely NOT scientific, ARE scientific - then you are changing the definitions to suit your bias. (You - collectively).

I don't care if you call it 'science', quietly, to yourself... just don't pretend it's actual science, and expect to get it published in serious 'science' materials.


I'm not an IDer (I remind you again) so I probably won't be hoping to publish any ID based results. But if ID is not called 'science', why would they go to science journals for publishment? They would probably have their own ID journals.

And if I was an IDer, just why would you be so upset at my calling my work science, or myself a scientist? What does it matter to you anyway?

I'm not an IDer (I remind you again) so I probably won't be hoping to publish any ID based results. But if ID is not called 'science', why would they go to science journals for publishment? They would probably have their own ID journals.

And if I was an IDer, just why would you be so upset at my calling my work science, or myself a scientist? What does it matter to you anyway?
It doesn't matter to anyone so long as they don't try to have their work taught in a science classroom. No one is bitching that some ghost hunters claim to be using science. Perhaps it's because they aren't trying to make ghost hunting part of the high school curriculae.

I'm not an IDer (I remind you again) so I probably won't be hoping to publish any ID based results. But if ID is not called 'science', why would they go to science journals for publishment? They would probably have their own ID journals.

And if I was an IDer, just why would you be so upset at my calling my work science, or myself a scientist? What does it matter to you anyway?

It matters to me because I am a scientist - and I rely on people knowing what that means - that I am trained in a science, that my job is carried out scientifically.

How can I expect anyone to accept my work, if any crackpot story is considered 'science'?

We certainly can prove them impossible (within the requirements of science), but we haven't. Prove does not mean the same thing to science. A hypothesis MUST be falsifiable or it is not permitted in science.

Then perhaps you would like to suggest a theoretical example/situation in which you could see evolutionary theory being falsified? Perhaps it just isn't falsifiable??




How can we determine what is unlikely? According to you, decide first and then argue it. For me, I'd say there is no way to determine what is likely and unlikely so instead I review the available evidence and see what theory it supports. The leading theories are supported by the evidence./


But when the evidence can support more than one theory, which theory do you take as most likely?
And don't put words in my mouth, please. I never said that I decide first and then argue it. And if you think I did, provide the quote, or make yourself look dishonest.



Are you limiting it to human designers? Are you saying that there is no way to design something without any evidence of that design? Wanna bet I can prove you wrong?


1. No, 2. no, and 3. just make sure you haven't completely misunderstood my point. Actually, I misread your post and thought you were saying that a designer cannot possibly leave no sign of design. Now I see that you were saying that it is possible to design something to make it look not designed. Theoretically, yes, that is a possibility, particularly a designer with God's capabilities. The important point that I keep making here is that I am not assuming that God's design can be detected, but have the approach that it may be detectable, and is therefore worth a look.



No, it doesn't. It is baed on recognizing patterns. Patterns don't necessarily prove design. The SETI program addresses that fact. They have found patterns several times that turned out to be natural. They also accept that they could be wrong about what types of patterns they should look for. They are doing the best they can with what information they have.


Of course patterns don't prove design. That was never my point. You are attacking something I never said. I said that we are able to distinguish between designed and non designed. I never said that we can distinguish every time, only that it is possible.
Of course the SETI people are doing the best with what they can, but if they didn't think that they could distinguish design from not designed, they wouldn't be looking for extra-terrestial intelligence in the first place.


I haven't made up my mind there is no design. But I haven't seen evidence of it. At all.

Is that a conclusion based on your ignorance?


The only evidence you give is other theories you claim are insufficient. Other theories failing are not evidence for a theory.

Failing theories are evidence of inadequacy, not necessarily of being totally wrong. But if I was to be an IDer, my motive for looking for design would not necessarily be because I didn't like the other theories, but because I was genuinely interesting in having a look.

I'm not trying to provide you with evidence for ID. You are quite free to have a look around yourself for that, if you wish.


You have to base a theory on the available emperical evidence, not on it being different than other theories you don't like. You've offered no emperical evidence for design. You won't even say what was designed.


I said that I thought that life itself was designed, but never attempted to provide evidence for this. However, there is plenty of ID literature around. If you are genuinely interested, check it out yourself.


Again, you base the theory on the fact we can recognize design, but you still can't give an direct example of where design occurred. Interesting for claiming a process that is so obvious, according to you.


Did I say that the process was so obvious? I said that the search for design is not easy. Are putting words in my mouth again, or are you just being dishonest?



Amusing. Intelligent design requires intelligence. That means natural forces cannot be the 'designer'. To include natural forces as the designer is to quite simply make the point nonsensical.


Would it be so hard to imagine God designing life while using natural forces? I thought that was your point on a number of occassions. In such a scenario, it isn't natural forces that are doing the designing, but God using the natural forces as tools.



Yes, I'm interested in seeing what progress we'll see in a theory that denies science and yet claims it IS science. Very interested indeed. Nah, actually I'm not. I find no interest in ridiculous theories that internally inconsistent. The FSM theories have equal merit.

Would you be interested if it helped us to a greater understanding of the material world? If you weren't, you would be demonstrating a good deal of unnecessary bias.

Personally, I don't see the need to call ID 'science'. For me, it only has to be a genuine search for truth in the material world, and it will have my interest. Particularly since all the skeptics that I have debated with seem to have a lot of problem provide any half decent reasons why it can't produce results.

It doesn't matter to anyone so long as they don't try to have their work taught in a science classroom. No one is bitching that some ghost hunters claim to be using science. Perhaps it's because they aren't trying to make ghost hunting part of the high school curriculae.

So this is what it's all about. What is taught in school?
In that case, I suggest that we could leave the teaching of ID out of the curriculum until such time as when or if it can significantly increase our understanding of the natural world. Every theory should be included on the basis of it's contribution to understanding. I reckon we could just about agree on that one.

But while we are on this point, I would also like to see that no science teachers used evolutionary theory as an anti-religious attack. (A separate but related issue.)


It matters to me because I am a scientist - and I rely on people knowing what that means - that I am trained in a science, that my job is carried out scientifically.

Really? You science depends on people believing that you are a scientist? What are you, a salesman?


How can I expect anyone to accept my work, if any crackpot story is considered 'science'?


The way it usually is in science, on the merits of your work. Your reputation should always be of secondary importance.

So this is what it's all about. What is taught in school?
In that case, I suggest that we could leave the teaching of ID out of the curriculum until such time as when or if it can significantly increase our understanding of the natural world. Every theory should be included on the basis of it's contribution to understanding. I reckon we could just about agree on that one.

But while we are on this point, I would also like to see that no science teachers used evolutionary theory as an anti-religious attack. (A separate but related issue.)

I agree with both points.

Really? You science depends on people believing that you are a scientist? What are you, a salesman?

For someone who claims to be a scientist, the fact that you don't know how grants work is astounding.

The way it usually is in science, on the merits of your work. Your reputation should always be of secondary importance.
Yes, if getting funding didn't matter that would be true. However, since most scientists aren't independently wealthy....

Really? You science depends on people believing that you are a scientist? What are you, a salesman?


No. I work in a lab that analyses drinking water. In my hands, every day, are the lives of (literally) 10,000 consumers.

My 'science' must be beyond reproach. If I'm wrong, people die.


The way it usually is in science, on the merits of your work. Your reputation should always be of secondary importance.

Not in my field, my friend.

Then perhaps you would like to suggest a theoretical example/situation in which you could see evolutionary theory being falsified? Perhaps it just isn't falsifiable??

If, for example, it was found there is no preancestor for humans. If it was found that new species popped up with no ancestor. If we witnessed that the mechanisms of evolutionary theory were misunderstood. If it was found that gene mutations do not occur and that we were misunderstanding when we thought they were. I could keep going. Much of the testing for evolutionary theory is based on means of attempting to falsifiy it.

But when the evidence can support more than one theory, which theory do you take as most likely?

That's where Occam's comes in. The one with the least assumed unevidence entities or the one with the least assumptions. ID assumes a creator with no evidence that one exists. It doesn't even deny the assumptions of evolutionary theory, it just adds another with no real reason to do so.

And don't put words in my mouth, please. I never said that I decide first and then argue it. And if you think I did, provide the quote, or make yourself look dishonest.

I didn't say you said it. I just drew that from your arguments. You know like the ones where you said you wouldn't look for evidence of certain things because you've already decided.


1. No, 2. no, and 3. just make sure you haven't completely misunderstood my point. Actually, I misread your post and thought you were saying that a designer cannot possibly leave no sign of design. Now I see that you were saying that it is possible to design something to make it look not designed. Theoretically, yes, that is a possibility, particularly a designer with God's capabilities. The important point that I keep making here is that I am not assuming that God's design can be detected, but have the approach that it may be detectable, and is therefore worth a look.

The point is that theory is not falsifiable because being detectable is not required. Also, if it is detected then and only then should it be hypothesized that it was designed. In theories we generate the theory based on the observation. We don't assume the observation is coming so we can generate the theory.


Of course patterns don't prove design. That was never my point. You are attacking something I never said. I said that we are able to distinguish between designed and non designed. I never said that we can distinguish every time, only that it is possible.

In SETI, we assume it is the same as things we've seen before. We've never seen life designed before so it is not possible to recognize the signs of designing life under the same principles SETI uses. And, again, you argued the patterns prove design before. Don't penalize me because my memory is better than yours.

Of course the SETI people are doing the best with what they can, but if they didn't think that they could distinguish design from not designed, they wouldn't be looking for extra-terrestial intelligence in the first place.

They are basing it on signals they've seen and made. Until you can say that we've seen designed life before, the argument is spurious.

Is that a conclusion based on your ignorance?

It's a conclusion based on the evidence. Feel free to enlighten me. However, since you claim it doesn't exist, you might have a hard time. Conclusions based on what we don't know are based on ignorance. Conclusions based on what we do are based on education. Again, prove me wrong. You haven't done so in several threads and hundreds of posts, but feel free.

Failing theories are evidence of inadequacy, not necessarily of being totally wrong. But if I was to be an IDer, my motive for looking for design would not necessarily be because I didn't like the other theories, but because I was genuinely interesting in having a look.

I'm not trying to provide you with evidence for ID. You are quite free to have a look around yourself for that, if you wish.

Interesting how you are defending a theory without trying to provide evidence for it. Some would call that ridiculous, but far be it from me to be rude.

I find it interesting that you accuse me of ignorance while you admit you're defending a theory you haven't actually researched. If you were kidding, I would think you were a great comedian.


I said that I thought that life itself was designed, but never attempted to provide evidence for this. However, there is plenty of ID literature around. If you are genuinely interested, check it out yourself.

I have. It's based on fallacies and lies. I find the FSM theories more compelling. To be honest, though, that's because they are aware that they are not science.

Did I say that the process was so obvious? I said that the search for design is not easy. Are putting words in my mouth again, or are you just being dishonest?

Hmmm... amusing. I'm gonna let this one stand and hope people are actually reading your posts. I know it made me laugh.


Would it be so hard to imagine God designing life while using natural forces? I thought that was your point on a number of occassions. In such a scenario, it isn't natural forces that are doing the designing, but God using the natural forces as tools.

Ha. It is my point. The problem is that you're equivocating. When people are talking about design in the theories it is introduced, it cannot be invisible design or it is unfalsifiable. You just proved why it does not belong in science and never should be allowed. Thank you. Now, care to support your own point, or only mine?



Would you be interested if it helped us to a greater understanding of the material world? If you weren't, you would be demonstrating a good deal of unnecessary bias.

My bias is to theories that don't bastardize current evidence to come to a conclusion they really, really want. If one were to come up with a theory based on scientific analysis and not denying it, I would be very interested. If one were to show some evidence that made a designer necessary, I would be very interested. Otherwise, you're just making an argument that could just as easily be made about people searching for Bigfoot.

Personally, I don't see the need to call ID 'science'. For me, it only has to be a genuine search for truth in the material world, and it will have my interest. Particularly since all the skeptics that I have debated with seem to have a lot of problem provide any half decent reasons why it can't produce results.
If it were genuine, I would be much more interested. I've yet to see one ID article that didn't require one to ignore scientific analysis.

I could search for the Loch Ness Monster and it could produce results, but I don't think that's a good reason to take it seriously. Any search can produce results, but all current evidence, including ID papers, suggests it's just an attempt to dress up Creation as science.

No, it's not anything like a conclusion for Zeus. It is simply a conclusion for a designer, regardless if that means a supernatural designer or a natural one.

Even those who proposed ID admit that their designer is supernatural.

It is a distinction between chance and design and makes no comment on the nature of the designer.

And assumes that such a designer exists.

In ID, there is a conclusion of 'it is designed', or 'it isn't designed', based on the data, regardless of who the designer might be. In the God of the gaps approach, it is a direct ascribing to God, based on the lack of data.

You have to address the plain difference there.

We weren't talking about "It is designed" or "it isn't designed." We were talking about, "It is irreducibly complex." By your own description of how such a conclusion might be reached, it is based in a lack of information. It is always, "We don't yet know a way to reduce this, so it is irreducibly complex."

Rather than saying that ''This is not reducible. Therefore, God did it,'' they would say ''This is not reducible. Therefore, it is designed.''

Of course, even the proponents of the theory have admitted that the two statements are equivalent.

However, when we know about the requirements of life, natural selection, sources and types of mutations, we can begin to consider some possibilities based on this knowledge. We actually don't need to do an experiment to investigate each possibility. We already know a good deal about what is possible and what isn't.

Do we? How do we know what we do and do not know? All we can do is continue to try and learn - with the knowledge that just about everything we "know" might be wrong.

So that when Mr. Behe makes the hypothesis that flagella are irreducibly complex, he needs to investigate each of the parts of that complexity, to see how the possible alterations in their parts can explain the complexity or provide functionality.

Interestingly enough, every incidence of "irreducible complexity" Mr. Behe has proposed has been shown to be nothing of the sort. Of course, Mr. Behe simply declared it as such and then stopped investigating, while others demonstrated his error.

Science does not require a checking of every possibility before arriving at a conclusion, just the reasonable ones.

Generally, no, it doesn't. But, it would require a checking of every possibility to logically come to a conclusion like, "This is irreducibly complex," because the only way to back up such a statement is to have checked every possibility.

It is the same reason that science cannot declare, "There are no alien lifeforms." We can state that there is no evidence that suggests alien lifeforms, but without checking the entire universe, it would be illogical to conclude that no such forms exist.

I'm not satisfied that you have debunked this point, because you have failed to address how complexity can be recognised as information,

No, you have addressed it. You admitted that any form of complexity can become information - so long as it is used as such.


Complexity cannot become information unless it is recognised.

Indeed.

Thus, not only do we require a source of complexity, we need a way of specifically ordering the complexity in an irregular way (e.g. DNA base pairs) to meet the requirements necessary for any life.

Actually, what we need is something that uses the complexity already there, in the order in which it exists, to meet the requirements necessary for life. Your "information" does not need to be created as such - it just needs to be complex enough for something to use it as such.

This is not sufficient to consider abiogenesis likely, not by a long stretch.

Did I say it was?

I simply pointed to what would be necessary to say that the second law of thermodynamics would predict it as being unlikely.

You do realize that there might not be enough information to declare it likely or unlikely, as the hypothesis now stands?

That's quite silly, because no two papers use the exact same information.

But you made the statement that scientists use the exact same information - the exact same knowledge - and come to exact opposite conclusions. You stated it as if it happens all the time.

If two scientists never have the exact same information to use to draw their conclusions, how can you make such a comment?

They are not allowed to do this, for starters, since papers are published on the condition that the data has not been published elsewhere (though it does happen on rare occassions).

Different review articles often use the same papers - as any review will draw from the most pertinent and accepted papers on the subject. This is, however, beside the point.

Plus, it would be impossible to get two groups of scientists to use the *exact* same data. So I could look for years for two papers that happen to be almost alike, and you could still point out the differences.

You said they could come to OPPOSITE conclusions, not "conclusions with differences". Meanwhile, you also said that two people with the exact same knowledge could come to opposite conclusions. Now you admit that scientists never have the "exact same knowledge."

I would say that there is more evidence against abiogenesis than for it.

If there were evidence against abiogenesis, it would already be declared disproven. What such evidence do you have?

In the case of abiogenesis, though, people believe in it without even knowing if it is possible.

People believe in many things without knowing if it is possible. Scientists, on the other hand, hypothesize that it might have occurred. This is not the same thing as "believing in it."

Interestingly, people postulated the existence of atoms without knowing if they existed (they only had some data that could be explained that way). Then they went about looking for evidence that is consistent with this postulation. That sounds a little bit like ID.

The difference, of course, being that no one was suggesting that atoms were supernatural, while the scientists who claim to study ID do claim that their designer is.

It need not base the investigation in the supernatural, so long as one recognises the limitation of science. No matter how many ways you put this, you still cannot seem to explain how my personal belief in a Creator is supposed to retard my science.

It isn't. I have never suggested that a personal belief in a Creator is any problem at all - and you need to stop trying to argue against something I have never said.

But if you make the assumption that God exists a basis of your science, it will be a problem. Any assumption made within a scientific investigation changes the conclusions of that investigation. All data is interpreted in light of that assumption. When the assumption itself can be falsified, the conclusion drawn from it can be falsified. When the assumption cannot be falsified, the conclusion cannot be falsified. As such, using the existence of God as an assumption within science leads to unfalsifiable conclusions.

Amusing images, but have little relevance to this debate, since I am looking at the data, and I draw my conclusions upon looking at the data, not ignoring it.

You don't understand the point, do you? Once you make an assumption, that assumption becomes a basis of your logical process. Any data you gather will be interpreted in light of that assumption. In the case of the picture, that assumption is falsifiable - and so the girl looks silly. In the case of God, however, the assumption is not falsifiable. No matter what we do, we cannot find empirical evidence to disprove the existence of God. Thus, any conclusions we draw with "God exists" or even "God does not exist" as an assumption will be unfaslfiable.

How would one know whether the presence of an alternative genetic carrier means an alternative life form?

We would know that it is inconsistent with the evidence used to come to the conclusion that there is a single ancestor - as the fact that there is a single genetic carrier across all life observed thus far is one of the pieces of evidence that leads to such a conclusion.

Many life forms contain traits that are not shared by other life forms.

Indeed. But there are certain traits which we have seen in all lifeforms observed thus far. A lifeform without these traits would be quite a challenge to the conclusion of a single ancestor, as the conclusion itself was based in this data.

I meant that such a test is only relevent if we can show that an alternative life form is possible.

An alternative lifeform is possible. Science doesn't show that things are possible - it shows that they are impossible. We test hypotheses and we either support or disprove them. We never demonstrate that they are correct or "possible".

So you think that the supernatural is outside of the universe? How do you know that?

It is the definition of the word. Anything which is supernatural is outside of the natural. The natural is defined as being part of the universe.

And how can you establish that the supernatural is not bound by some (at least) of the rules that govern the natural world?

I can't, but it would obviously not be bound by all of them, as it is not of the universe itself.

The point that natural selection and mutation can account for all of the variety of life is an assumption, because it cannot be demonstrated, and is yet one of the mainstays of evolutionary theory. It is also a conclusion.

When it comes to evolutionary theory, it is a conclusion - and nothing more. It is supported by all available evidence - with none to disprove it.

Other investigations may use evolutionary theory and its implications as assumptions in their studies - just as physicists may use the theory of relativity and its implications as assumptions in their studies. Luckily, as the assumptions come from falsifiable theories, they are, themselves, falsifiable.

We can know if there is a God, and we can know him more convincingly than anything that can be known through the scientific method.

We cannot know it empirically. Thus, from a scientific point of view, we simply cannot know it.

We can investigate a process if we can observe that process.

We don't observe processes. We observe the effects of those processes. Tell me, how does one measure a process?

How does one try to keep their bias from affecting their science?

In many ways. Blinded studies. Removing themselves from studies they feel they may adversely influence. Reporting their funding sources, etc. if they may bias the study. Watching for bias and trying to avoid it. Peer review. Collaborators. And so on...

A belief in something like abiogenesis or the big bang is a personal belief.

Indeed. But a hypothesis and a personal belief are not the same thing.

Someone with a lack of personal belief in abiogenesis or the big bang would have to say that these are unlikely, based on the evidence.

What evidence would suggest that they are unlikely? What evidence do you have that is inconsistent with either?

The point is that science can distinguish between design and undesigned, regardless of the source.

Only if it first assumes the existence of a viable designer. Otherwise, it is illogical to come to the conclusion of design.

My point is that the IDer would simply not assume a divine being for the interpretation of the data. It would be a later consideration, concluded on philosophical arguments, but not necessary in order to conclude that something is designed.

And you are incorrect. The only way to conclude that something is designed is to first assume the existence of a designer.

The point is that we don't need to know anything about the nature of the designer, so long as we know that there are designers.

And you know that there are designers capable of designing life? You know that there are designers capable of designing the universe? What empirical evidence do you have of this?

Humans provide examples of designers, and thus we know how to look for design.

Humans do not provide an example of a designer that could have designed life or the universe.

No, we don't need to conclude who the designer is, only if something is designed or isn't designed. The identity of the designer is not a part of the experiment.

The existence of the designer, however, is an assumption in which the interpretation of the data is based.

Can you think of one?

Drug tests. They generally have a negative control, but how exactly would one have a positive control?

Seems like you could use this argument for irreducible complexity. ''...each successive repetition provides support to that hypothesis - strengthens it through inductive logic.''

You could, if irreducible complexity were not a conclusion that logically requires everything else to first be disproven.

An alternative explanation is that it is not possible to reject evolutionary theory because it is more of a belief than a theory which could be disproven. The way to know would be to think of an experiement that might be used to provide data that would disprove the theory. Since you have admitted that you cannot, it may well be because it isn't possible. How do you know?

At what point did I "admit" that evolutionary theory cannot be tested? I have listed all sorts of tests - all sorts of ways to disprove it. Try again.

The idea that one human was created before plants and animals?! Where is that found in the Bible?

Genesis 2. The text is clear that Adam was created before plants or animals were created. Plants were not yet created because it didn't rain and there was no man to tend the fields. Animals were created after Adam and brought to him as companions. Eve was created after that.

You are holding up only one particular interpretation of the Genesis account of creation--the most strict form. Even then, you admit that empirical science cannot disprove it.

Empirical science can empirically disprove it, but empiricism does not matter in the realm of the supernatural.

You simply cannot remove personal belief from science. You might be able to remove any mention of God, but not personal belief, since it a personal belief of yours that God should not be mentioned within a scientific explanation.

It isn't a personal belief - it is drawn from the very definitions of the scientific method.

So if I challenge your axioms, would you then say that such challenges will lead to the death of an investigation of the natural world? Is it not possible to investigate the natural world without necessarily holding onto your particular axioms? Perhaps my process is just different.

If your process is different, it is outside the scientific method, and therefore not science. This does not mean that you are not investigating the natural world -and perhaps finding things out about it. But it would not be science.

One only has to look at evolutionary theory to see plenty of people who do the same thing there. They start with the conclusion in hand and interpret the data to meet it.

Wrong.

And example would be the common ancestory. They look for homology based on the concept of common ancestry, and then point to the homology as evidence for common ancestry.

My dear, you have things backwards. Homology was first found, and was used to come to the conclusion that common ancestry exists.

That becomes a little alarming, considering how many times the theory of evolution has required adjustment.

I don't see how. The fact that science will reject a disproven theory or part of a theory is a comfort to me - it means we are moving closer and closer to understanding.

Can you give an example of some data that you would say adequately supports a common ancestor?

What do you mean by "adequately supports"? I can give you all sorts of data that supports the idea, but "adequately" is in the eye of the beholder.

My world view is based on the assumption that God exists. My science is partly based on my world view.

Then it ceases to be science.

No, I am not investigating your actions, because I cannot observe them. I can only observe the effects of your actions, unless I use a time machine. The example of the protein is different, because I can observe that protein both before and after and during activation.

You cannot observe activation. You observe the effects of the activation.

But that particular creation hypothesis would have to be discarded.

Not if it were based in the assumption of God existing, as one could logically simply say, "But God still did it that way, and made the evidence inconsistent."

I disagree with your interpretation of their comments. I don't think they would demand every single transitionary form.

And yet, every time they are shown one, they want another, more in-between form. I see no reason to think that this trend would not continue.

''The misconception about the lack of transitional fossils is perpetuated in part by a common way of thinking about categories.''

The author doesn't bother to call this a criticism, just a 'misconception'. He is thus trying to persuade the readers. The author is obviously pro-evolution, which is a 'no no' for an encyclopedia entry.

It is a misconception. By the precepts of evolutionary theory, there are transitional fossils. Thus, those who claim there are not are incorrect. They may claim that such fossils are not supportive of evolutionary theory, if they can back that claim up, but to claim that they are not transitionary fossils, according to evolutionary theory, is simply incorrect.

I didn't realize that science actually allows for the possibility of a creator, at least I have never seen a creator allowed for in the more 'official' versions of evolutionary theory.

If by "allow for a creator" you mean, "posit a creator", then you are correct. Evolutionary theory, like all of science, however, does "allow for a creator". Science neither assumes a creator nor assumes that one does not exist. Thus, a creator is allowed for - siimply not assumed.

Rather, I feel that the possibility of a creator is not considered, and thus, not allowed.

Not considered and not allowed are not the same thing.

(Note that the absence of a reference to God is not necessarily proof of a disallowance of God.)

Exactly, but you are essentially arguing that the refusal to assume a God or the nonexistence of a God is the same thing as disallowing God.

Science may not deny a supernatural designer, without breaking its own 'rules'.

Indeed, but it may not assume one or use one as a conclusion either - as such a conclusion cannot be logically drawn from empirical evidence - which can only measure the natural.

Who that design is attributed to (God or aliens or humans or some other source of intelligence) is not a job for science, and isn't immediately relevant to the search, other than a postulation that there might be a designer capable of designing living organisms, regardless of who that designer might be.

Even if one posits a natural designer, such a postulation is based in the assumption that a natural designer with the capability to design living organisms exists or existed. What empirical evidence do you have for such a designer?

We cannot apply Occam's razor to this case of the chisel marks unless we have more than one explanation for them. So long as we can *show* that all known naturalistic causes are inadequate, the designer cause is the only one left standing, and is thus not a case for Occam's razor.

This is a carbon-copy of the "God of the gaps" argument. You have no explanation, so you assume a designer.

This approach does not require evidence of a designer. It only requires that we are capable of detecting design, and we already know we can do this.

We can only detect design under the assumption that a designer capable of such a design exists. In the case of manmade objects, we can back up said assumption with empirical evidence.

Personally, I don't assume that God e.g. created man as man. Like you, I just keep looking. But I am interested in an approach that would look to see if there is any evidence that supports a creation event, and I think we now have the ability to look in this direction. And I think this is worth a look. I don't assume the signs are there, but I propose that they could be.

But to do so, you must first assume that God exists - making such an untestable assumption a basis of your scientific process.

It depends on what you think science is for. If you think science is about finding a natural explanation for everything, then I am not interested in that approach, since I think science should be about finding truth in a material world. Thus, if the truth is that God did create humans, scientific approaches to the material world should be capable of reflecting this possibility.

The scientific method cannot do so. If you wish to create a new type of study, by all means, go ahead.

I must respect the limitations of the scientific method, but the moment I accept an explanation that man evolved from a primitive common ancestor, this involves theological considerations, since it means that God did not create man as man.

No, it doesn't. It means that there is no empirical evidence that God created man as man. Your personal belief in what a supernatural being did or did not do need not meet an empirical description.

I cannot be at church on Sunday morning thanking God that he saved me from my sin, if on Monday morning I go to work and tell my students humans evolved from animals (which means that they are thus not sinners).

That is the strangest comment I have ever heard. What does being an animal have to do with whether or not you are a sinner? If you are able to understand the consequences of your actions, then you can sin. Whether or not you evolved is irrelevant.

What science says and what the implications of the explanations within evolutionary theory are, are two separate things.

You are making up implications that aren't really there, to support your pre-decided idea that evolution did not occur.

It matters to me because I am a scientist - and I rely on people knowing what that means - that I am trained in a science, that my job is carried out scientifically.

How can I expect anyone to accept my work, if any crackpot story is considered 'science'?
A-f*cking-men.

MEGA-*BOW*