I D vs Evolution?

[Ohiobuckeye]

After almost 70 years of wondering,what, why and where.
The question of one or the other leaves me with this one
nagging thought.
If some one could tell me how and when they where born,
who made the final decision as to,sex,race,place,time of
year,date,century ,parents etc.
My feeling it is an act of randomness,and nothing more.
Like most everything else in the universe there is some order of
randomness and timelessness that no one can really
explain.
I just don't see where I D makes it's case against evolution.
Can someone here give me an opinion for or against?
By the way,I'm a first time poster,but I have thick skin,so fire
away,I'm serious and looking for a good answer.
Thanks,
Ohiobuckeye

[Monketey Ghost]

Welcome, and this should get lots of replies and redirects.

ID basically uses the 'God of the gaps' argument (that anything we don't currently understand can be solved by saying "God did it!") and an appeal to ignorance (How could this organism/structure be so complex, if not for a designer (God)).

I'm in agreement with you; ID makes no case against evolution... to me it seems a straining means of including a magical being into the explanation.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Ohiobuckeye

I just don't see where I D makes it's case against evolution. Can someone here give me an opinion for or against?


It's important to distinguish "Intelligent Design" from theistic evolution or the general observation that there is evidence of intelligence behind nature.

ID is simply the thin edge of the Christian Creationist wedge to get evolution out of the government schools.

There is no case. I don't mean it's a stupid theory, I mean it's a clever political ploy.

Unlike evolution which has the dignity of really being a theory.

ID consists of a bunch of question-begging and obfuscation taken from standard creationist arguments, with direct mention of God taken out.

A philosophical discussion of the universe possibly having been willed into existence is another matter. There it is possible for honest intelligence to exist on either side.

I'm still undecided on that one, but for all practical purposes I'm an atheist and identify myself as such.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Part of the problem with the ID vs. Evolution "debate" is that ID almost requires us to demonstrate that evolution doesn't take place.

Rather like evaporative cooling, once you understand the mechanisms responsible for evolution, it becomes obvious that it's the simplest explanation for our observations.

Imagine pouring yourself a hot bowl of soup, leaving, and returning after fifteen minutes. You'd find that the soup had cooled in the meantime. Now, while I suppose it may be possible for an intelligent entity to have engineered the cooling by personally removing the faster-moving particles, it's much simpler to attribute the cooling to the principle that the molecules that move the fastest are most likely to escape the liquid. If we want to consider the intelligent entity explanation, in fact, we need to explain why that form of cooling wouldn't take place.

Although our understanding of the origins of life is not yet clear enough for us to conclusively say how life began, it's obvious that once it started, it would begin to evolve unless somehow prevented. ID is only meaningful if you presume genetic change and selection wouldn't take place on its own, and that's quite a stretch of the imagination.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Ohiobuckeye
Can someone here give me an opinion for or against?
By the way,I'm a first time poster,but I have thick skin,so fire
away,I'm serious and looking for a good answer.
Thanks,
Ohiobuckeye
Can I correctly assume the question has come to the forefront because of what is going on in Ohio?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Please forgive my ignorance, but what's going on in Ohio?

I'll guess that educational standards are being debated again, and someone is Ohio is trying to introduce ID to schools, yes?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Please forgive my ignorance, but what's going on in Ohio?

I'll guess that educational standards are being debated again, and someone is Ohio is trying to introduce ID to schools, yes?

See Pyrrho's thread (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35313)

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Sweet, merciful Buddha on a pogo stick.

Will the horror never end?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Sweet, merciful Buddha on a pogo stick.

Will the horror never end?

Pogo sticks were designed, sir, don't you let those evilutionists tell you otherwise!

[Wrath of the Swarm]

I am reminded of a science fiction short story I read once, in which a group of scientists and academics return to a research outpost that had been abandoned by humans several thousand years previously, leaving only their mobile AI robots.

A natural disaster had wiped out the robots' memories, and they had created a religion out of the scientific texts that had been left behind - and unfortunately, while there were several texts on evolution, they were none on robot manufacturing or AI design. Rather unreasonably, the robots decided to venerate the connection they had with all life and the processes that (they believed) created them from lifelessness.

When the scientists tried to explain to them that they were the product of special creation, and hadn't evolved from the rest of the life on this world, they burned one of the scientists at the stake. The rest of the scientists grimly returned to the task to using evidence and reason to get the truth across.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Part of the problem with the ID vs. Evolution "debate" is that ID almost requires us to demonstrate that evolution doesn't take place.
..... ID is only meaningful if you presume genetic change and selection wouldn't take place on its own, and that's quite a stretch of the imagination.

Although I would say ID adds a purpose to evolution -- a "will" to beat the 2nd Law shall we say -- to self-create, perhaps.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by hammegk


Although I would say ID adds a purpose to evolution -- a "will" to beat the 2nd Law shall we say -- to self-create, perhaps.

I guess its little wonder that the wedge ploy needs to get in first so that all of science is suppressed. We've now moved from evolution to teleology itself. Don't look through the telescope. It is the devil's instrument!

[hammegk]

Willy, I've long noticed that purposelessness suits you well.

I really can't speak for anyone else.

[MRC_Hans]

But the thing is: There is obviously no will to evolution. So we do not need ID to somehow add will, because if there was will and purpose to the way nature was shaped, it would look different.

Hans

[hammegk]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
But the thing is: There is obviously no will to evolution. So we do not need ID to somehow add will, because if there was will and purpose to the way nature was shaped, it would look different.

Hans
Perhaps, or perhaps the will/purpose would have only the tiniest effect -- i.e. circumvent the 2nd Law as local energy permits.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Unfortunately, people have already shown that won't work.

Maxwell's demon was finally disproven a few years back, when it was demonstrated that the manipulation of information by the demon necessary for it to keep track of the system could increase entropy more than its manipulation of the system would.

In other words, intelligence cannot force a reversal of the Second Law. But don't worry - it can't be forced, but statistics tells us that it will eventually reverse itself.

[hammegk]

Now if you can demonstrate that will/purpose = Maxwell's Demon, you have made a rebutal. ;)

Good thinking though. Damn little of that occurs, here, lately. :D


What would you say if we take the level of "will" (silly word) down to Cramer's advanced & retarded 'waves'?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Are you referring to the idea that (for example) photons are the interference patterns that result from electomagnetic waves travelling both forward and backward in time?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Drat. Editing time has already expired, so let me post this fix of the penultimate preceding post of mine:

It was found that the information processing necessary for Maxwell's demon to keep track of the system requires an increase in entropy greater than the reduction in entropy the demon can create in the system. So, if computer science is actually correct, we have definitive proof that intelligence cannot force a reversal of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

There. That's better.

[MRC_Hans]

I'm not talking about little willful changes. There is no sign of willfulness in the overall scheme of evolution the way we can observe it everywhere. Since there is no effect, there is no reason to look for a cause.

Of course, you can always claim that there will be a needle in the next haystack, but all I can say is: OK, go find it.

Hans

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Are you referring to the idea that (for example) photons are the interference patterns that result from electomagnetic waves travelling both forward and backward in time?
Yup. A phenomena applicable to all bosons (as I currently understand the concept). Basically nothing changes from virtual to actual until the actual path has been agreed to with a specific receptor (if you get my drift).

Are you suggesting 2nd Law and the problem with Maxwell's demon operates at that level of "what-is"?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

It doesn't really change anything if we call the "will" the process of selecting what will happen. Quantum mechanics is a deterministic description of how probabilities change over time - neither determinism nor chance permits meaningful choice.

[hammegk]

Nicely asserted, and true given the assumptions materialism/atheism = true, and that current QM map = territory.

Unfortunately I at least am considering the assumptions.

Nihilism, solipsism, super-determinism -- Truth of Falsity unknown and unknowable. Value of any of them, if true, nil-nada-zilch.

Remaining:

Dualism; logically impossible. Choice -- mind, or body -- again unknowable, and approachable only by logic. Each of us makes a choice knowingly or unknowingly.

Theory of Evolution, choice = body.




Define "will". ;)

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by hammegk


Although I would say ID adds a purpose to evolution -- a "will" to beat the 2nd Law shall we say -- to self-create, perhaps.

You wish to conjoin ID and evolution? Did you not previously claim ID does not imply a god?

[hammegk]

IIRC, it was more that ID does not necessarily imply "god". Too bad we can't actually define "god", in the sense why would "god" even be definable by humans.

A comment on the Theory: backfilling & revising to accept newer data points is not predicting the future. Falsifiable theories do predict future events that will occur, not the fact that we finally discover that such occured via the geologic record or continues to occur in a biochem lab.

Butterfly collecting is still not "good science". You are of the firm opinion cladistics provides hard predictive fact; I'm less certain.

Darwinism etal remains the best Theory I'm aware of, given the assumption that materialism/atheism/science can or will answer every askable question.

[Ladewig]

I just don't see where I D makes it's case against evolution.
Can someone here give me an opinion for or against?

I see the problem as the IDers want to bring up the topic of ID on the day that the high school biology class is introduced to the topic of evolution. I can accept ID in schools, but I cannot accept it in biology class. Religion, philosophy, creative writing, debate, and psychology are, in my opinion all appropriate classes to discuss ID; biology class is not.

The link between the two also arises out of the large majority of IDers wanting to differentiate between macro-evolution and micro-evolution.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Ladewig

The link between the two also arises out of the large majority of IDers wanting to differentiate between macro-evolution and micro-evolution.
Yeah, always uncovering unwanted facts to be explained, but never a good macro-ev example. That, and ignore the abiogenesis factor too.

And it's so easy to fix; just the disclaimer that Theory of Evolution assumes materialism/atheism to be correct, but that controversy continues to exist in that matter.

[jj]

Originally posted by hammegk

Yeah, always uncovering unwanted facts to be explained, but never a good macro-ev example. That, and ignore the abiogenesis factor too.


When you chose to ignore the evidence for macroevolution, of course then you can't see the clear, incontrovertable evidence. As I've cited you some already, I won't bother to do it again.

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, so stop trying to muddy the waters.

Of course, given the chemicals present, it's pretty much a done deal that some would create self-organizing structures eventually, and that's all it takes to get started.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
I am reminded of a science fiction short story I read once, in which a group of scientists and academics return to a research outpost that had been abandoned by humans several thousand years previously, leaving only their mobile AI robots.

.................................

Sounds like a good read... Do you recall the title or author?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

No, unfortunately. Google searches have proven unfruitful.

[sigh]

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
No, unfortunately. Google searches have proven unfruitful.

[sigh]

I'll run the synopsis by some of the other forums.. Someone may recognize it.. It sounds very intriguing...

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by hammegk

Perhaps, or perhaps the will/purpose would have only the tiniest effect -- i.e. circumvent the 2nd Law as local energy permits.
Are you saying you believe that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics?

[hammegk]

Nah. I'm more at the Higgs Field / strings / whatever scale.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
But the thing is: There is obviously no will to evolution. So we do not need ID to somehow add will, because if there was will and purpose to the way nature was shaped, it would look different.
I am curious - why do you assert that if there was a will and purpose to nature it would look different? What do you base this on?

[hammegk]

Sorry, Thanz. Ask a difficult -- ok, unanswerable -- question and materialists/atheists slink silently away.