Can ID be disproven?

[Meadmaker]

With the Pennsylvania case, ID has been on my mind recently.

I have a couple of issues to deal with. As a liberal, I think people should be free to teach things. I don't like the government stepping in and saying that only one sort of thing ought to be taught.

On the other hand, when it comes to things that are demonstrably false, those things shouldn't be taught in schools. We don't teach that the Earth is flat, because it isn't. We do teach that people went to the moon, because they did. Just because a few wackos might not believe those things doesn't mean we shouldn't teach them as true. They are true. Almost everyone agrees they are true. Teach them.

When it comes to evolution, it's true. Teach it. Well....is it true?

We can't demonstrate it. Maybe a tiny bit, like with modifications in flu viruses or yeast strains. But really, we haven't seen it. It seems like it ought to be true, based on what we know about DNA and biology, and confirmation in the fossil record. So, that's good enough for me. Teach it, I say.

But what about ID? I was reading Behe's testimony from the PA case. All he is saying is that certain things look like they have a purpose, and if they have a purpose, then they were made. It's the old watch and the watchmaker argument. If you find a watch, you assume there was a watchmaker.

At its core, all ID says is that life is too complex to have evolved without purpose. I would like to dismiss that, but I find that I can't.

In a thread over in the politics forum, I was directed to a discussion about bacterial flagella. Basically, the ID argument is that these things are extremely complex, and they couldn't have just happened without some sort of intelligent designer. There are two flavors of the argument. One is that the complexity itself is just too much that it could never happen at all. The other is that the complexity is such that it could not happen in one step, and the intermediate forms would not provide a survival advantage to the organism, and hence they would be weeded out before the finished product was ever assembled.

The evolutionary biologists put forward a chain of events which would ultimately lead to flagella, and had many steps, and provided benefits to the organism at each step. So, has ID been disproved by that argument? I am referring to even the simple case of bacterial flagella. Never mind the next argument, about blood clotting, or levers, or whatever. I am just asking if ID is still a candidate for construction of bacterial flagella.

I don't think, based on that argument, that ID has been refuted. Basically, the evolutionist would say that this sequence of steps would lead to bacterial flagella. There's no problem. The IDer, however, could reply that each of those steps is highly improbable. The entire sequence is therefore incredibly highly improbable. With such a high degree of improbability, would it not be reasonable to say that a designer was involved.

The only way to reject ID in that case would be to somehow compute the probability of such a sequence occurring by chance, so that at each stage of the evolution, an organism would exist that had an reproductive advantage over its unmutated cousins. I don't know how to do that. Can it be done? If not, it seems to me that ID is still in the game as an unconfirmed hypothesis.

Furthermore, I thought back to my days as a Christian. Back then, I believed that evolution occurred, but that it was driven by God. God chose just the right time to introduce the necessary mutation to drive the evolution to where He wanted it to go. It occurred to me that that was in fact a form of intelligent design. The tools of the watchmaker were just natural selection and "random" mutations.

I stopped being a Christian a couple of decades ago, but it was for theological reasons, not scientific ones. I don't see anything in Christianity outside of Biblical literalism that is incompatible with what is known by modern science. In other words, I don't see any inherent contradiction between ID and evolution. Both could be true. However, for ID to cross the threshold from a philosophical position to a scientific one, you would have to show that there is something that cannot be explained by purposeless evolution. It could only be explained by purposeful evolution, which would be another form of Intelligent Design.

And then we are back to probabilities. Could life as we know it come about by purposeless evolution, or would the guiding hand of a "designer" be necessary. Since we can't calculate the probabilities, I don't see how to completely reject intelligent design as a possibly valid hypothesis. I don't believe it, but I don't know if I can reject it in scientific terms.

So help me out here. Try to understand the dilemma, and see if it can be resolved. Basically, I am saying that our present state of knowledge cannot reject ID as a valid hypothesis. What are your thoughts?

[wollery]

ID of the goddidit variety can never be disproven because any disparity can always be covered with "Well that's the way God wanted it."

That's why it isn't science and has no place in the science classroom. I have no problem with it being taught in a religious studies class.

[Roboramma]

One thing that I think we should remember is that even if evolutionary processes as we know them couldn't produce some particular adaptation, it still wouldn't show ID.

For instance, there was a time when we couldn't explain how social insects evolved. I think there were problems understanding the sex ratio. Evolutionary theory didn't have any answers. Well, kin selection solved that riddle.
(I think the above is true)
Its possible that there are other mechanisms at work than natural selection, genetic drift, etc, that we don't yet know about.

If there were something that we could prove couldn't come about by evolution as we now know it, that wouldn't itself be proof of ID, any more than the blackbody problem was proof that God was keeping things from getting too hot (please correct any flawed understanding of the blackbody problem to 19th century physics).

If someone really did prove that certain things in nature could not have evolved as the theory of evolution suggests that they did, I'd be excited. It would lead to a better understanding of the world.
But right now, because the theory of evolution is so well supported, any such evidence would have to be extraordinary. Not the "Well, I can't see how this could have evolved." Sort.

And if such evidence did present itself, well, it would mean there was some other mechanism at play. ID is one option for that. At that point, maybe there would be reason to look more at ID. But even then it wouldn't be a good reason to teach it in school, until there was actual evidence for ID, rather than again our current understanding of evolution.

Oh, and to answer the thread title, no, I don't think ID can be falsified. But until we have any need for it to explain anything, I don't think there's any reason to try.

[Iacchus]

Nothing can be disproven, outside of the environment of what we "think." So, the key to answering the riddle of existence itself, is consciousness. If, in fact consciousness were a continuum, and the very foundation for all that exists -- indeed, how can consciousness be aware of anything else but, consciousness? -- I think we may have the answer as to whether the Universe was intelligently designed or not.

[Tricky]

ID can never be scientifically disproven because it is not scientific. It makes no testable hypotheses, offers no mechanisms, answers no questions. The only reason ID is popular is because it casts doubt on evolution, but without offering anything other than "Goddidit".

[Iacchus]

ID can never be scientifically disproven because it is not scientific. It makes no testable hypotheses, offers no mechanisms, answers no questions. The only reason ID is popular is because it casts doubt on evolution, but without offering anything other than "Goddidit".In other words we only have what "appears" to be evolution.

[Beth]

ID can never be scientifically disproven because it is not scientific. It makes no testable hypotheses, offers no mechanisms, answers no questions. The only reason ID is popular is because it casts doubt on evolution, but without offering anything other than "Goddidit".

You know, I don't think that's necessarily true - the reason you proposed that ID is popular that is, not the unfalsifiablity part. I think ID is popular not because it casts doubt on evolution but because it brings the concept of a creator into science. There are an awful lot of people who don't accept biblical literalism and do accept evolution, but prefer to believe that God directed evolution. I think ID appeals to them too.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

We can't demonstrate it. Maybe a tiny bit, like with modifications in flu viruses or yeast strains. But really, we haven't seen it. It seems like it ought to be true, based on what we know about DNA and biology, and confirmation in the fossil record. So, that's good enough for me. Teach it, I say.
You're being too wishy-washy. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. If you think the fossil record is good, check out the genomic record.

~~ Paul

[Tricky]

You know, I don't think that's necessarily true - the reason you proposed that ID is popular that is, not the unfalsifiablity part. I think ID is popular not because it casts doubt on evolution but because it brings the concept of a creator into science. There are an awful lot of people who don't accept biblical literalism and do accept evolution, but prefer to believe that God directed evolution. I think ID appeals to them too.
You are correct that many people who belive that evolution is real also believe that it is directed. But at some level, they have to deny the evolutionary process in favor of Goddidit, whether it is in setting up the selective pressures that "guide" evolution or in directing specific mutations. It is a way of having their cake and eating it too.

But I don't believe that many of these people are among the crowds clamoring to have ID taught in school. Most "religious evolutionists" realize that just saying "God is behind it" is not enough to build a curriculum on. People like Behe and Dembrewski (sp?) are narrowly focussed on disproving evolution, not in providing testable alternate hypotheses.

[Tricky]

In other words we only have what "appears" to be evolution.
In other words, you are incapable of reading and understanding plain English. Please don't put words in my mouth, especially when they are nothing but your own idiotic musings.

[Meadmaker]

You are correct that many people who belive that evolution is real also believe that it is directed. But at some level, they have to deny the evolutionary process in favor of Goddidit, whether it is in setting up the selective pressures that "guide" evolution or in directing specific mutations. It is a way of having their cake and eating it too.

This is true, sort of. It depends on what constitutes "the evolutionary process" If the evolutionary process is strictly considered to be the mechanism of evolution, such as natural selection, DNA mutation, that sort of thing, then they don't have to deny anything about the evolutionary process.

If, on the other hand, purposelessness is an inherent part of the evolutionary process, then they deny it.

And that is where I am having trouble saying what is and is not scientific. It seems to me that the mechanism of evolution is pretty well established. Every respectable scientist buys into it. However, the next question is whether there is evidence of purpose or purposelessness in the process of evolution.

Some people would say that this is an entirely philosophical question, outside the realm of science. But is it?

If we found a real watch, we would indeed say that there was a watchmaker. Watches don't assemble themselves. So the question is whether bacteria are like watches. What is the probability that random bits of carbon and stuff, subjected to an environment that allows selection pressure to eliminate the unstable bits, will assemble themselves in a billion years into bacterial flagella?

To me, that seems like a valid scientific question. It strikes me as testable, although it is rather impractical to run the test exactly as expressed. And if that is the case, do the supporters of ID have a point? Is ID a valid scientific hypothesis, testable but currently untested? If not, why not?

[Iacchus]

You are correct that many people who belive that evolution is real also believe that it is directed. But at some level, they have to deny the evolutionary process in favor of Goddidit, whether it is in setting up the selective pressures that "guide" evolution or in directing specific mutations. It is a way of having their cake and eating it too. The important thing here is that we don't accept things blindly, correct? While admittedly, I think if people understood that there was a hand in fashioning it, people may begin to loose interest towards science and clamor more towards religious studies. Then of course we would have many in the scientific community complaining, "There goes our beloved objectivity." So what? Or, maybe it's possible for Science and Religion to truly augment each other? ... Who knows?

[triadboy]

There are an awful lot of people who don't accept biblical literalism and do accept evolution, but prefer to believe that God directed evolution. I think ID appeals to them too.

God of the Gaps

[triadboy]

ID should be taught in Comparative Mythology classes

[Iacchus]

In other words, you are incapable of reading and understanding plain English. Please don't put words in my mouth, especially when they are nothing but your own idiotic musings.Oh, excuse me, I thought that's what this forum was all about, putting words into other people's mouths. What, did I get off on the wrong turnpike somewhere? By the way, did you know that the earth "appears" to be flat? And really, what difference should it make anyway, when some of us are perfectly "content" with our little "pet theories?" This, by the way, is all that I hear coming from you. :p

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

To me, that seems like a valid scientific question. It strikes me as testable, although it is rather impractical to run the test exactly as expressed. And if that is the case, do the supporters of ID have a point? Is ID a valid scientific hypothesis, testable but currently untested? If not, why not?
First, let's nail down the hypothesis. There is no empirical hypothesis "god did it" in Intelligent Design. The hypothesis is a logical one, instead: The flagellum is too improbable to have formed naturalistically. Then a conclusion is derived: So there must have been intelligence involved. This is a false dichotomy unless you can convince me that there really are only two possibilities.

Now, concerning the hypothesis: Has anyone given a logical proof that the flagellum could not have evolved? No. Dembski has shown that it is unlikely that it could have formed as a discrete combinatorial object, but no one in biology has ever suggested that's how it formed. He needs to show that it is unlikely to have formed by an evolutionary process. But he cannot do that without understanding the evolutionary process, which is the very thing he denies. He's caught between a rock and a hard place. Furthermore, Schneider has run evolutionary simulations that evolve a structure whose a priori probability is less than 10^150, Dembski's arbitrary universal probability bound:

http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/horserace.html

~~ Paul

[Roboramma]

double post!

[Roboramma]

This is true, sort of. It depends on what constitutes "the evolutionary process" If the evolutionary process is strictly considered to be the mechanism of evolution, such as natural selection, DNA mutation, that sort of thing, then they don't have to deny anything about the evolutionary process.

If, on the other hand, purposelessness is an inherent part of the evolutionary process, then they deny it. The evolutionary process doesn't have any purpose. If you want to add in other processes that do have some "purpose" (and I'm not even sure what that would mean), then fine, but evolution as it is described by science does not.
Now you can go ahead and say, "yeah, but maybe it was all planned out from the beginning." And you are free to do so, and I won't argue against that. But that addition isn't scientific because there is no evidence to support it.
That doesn't mean evolution says there is no god, or that there is no purpose, just that the process of evolution as we understand it has none.

And that is where I am having trouble saying what is and is not scientific. It seems to me that the mechanism of evolution is pretty well established. Every respectable scientist buys into it. However, the next question is whether there is evidence of purpose or purposelessness in the process of evolution. Except the 'evidence of purposelessness' part. To say that evolution as we understand it has no purpose is that same as saying that when you roll a die there is no particular reason that you can attribute to it's coming up as a certain number(no this does not suggest that natural selection is random). Now you could say that God made it come up that way, and I can't go against that, but I still don't posit any purpose in the die throw any more than in evolution.

And just to get away from the "natural selection is random" straw-man (this isn't directed at you, by the way, meadmaker), this analogy holds because evolution is contingent upon circumstances which have nothing to do with purpose, just like the die throw, not because they are both random.

Evolution itself does not posit any purpose. We see no mechanism in it that has purpose. So any suggestion of purpose must come from outside of the theory.

Some people would say that this is an entirely philosophical question, outside the realm of science. But is it?
Actually, i agree that it isn't necessarily outside the realm of science. It's possible for there to be evidence of purpose in evolution. There just hasn't been any yet (that I know of).

If we found a real watch, we would indeed say that there was a watchmaker. Watches don't assemble themselves. So the question is whether bacteria are like watches. What is the probability that random bits of carbon and stuff, subjected to an environment that allows selection pressure to eliminate the unstable bits, will assemble themselves in a billion years into bacterial flagella?Remember that the theory of evolution is an explanation of how life evolved not how it came to exist in the first place.
So, we're not just talking about random bits of carbon, but reproducing organisms.

Also, the argument from design only applies to watches because we already know watches are designed! I've seen someone put one together. I know that people make the parts. Given that knowledge, when I see a watch, it's correct to assume that it was designed.
Organisms are put together by other organisms (their parents) we just need to understand how one organism could lead to another that is very different from itself, why those organisms are so well adapted to their environments, and similar questions. And evolution answers these.

Here's the gist to me. Evolution explains the facts that we know very well. There are some gaps in our knowledge, but that's all they are. This doesn't mean that evolution can't explain them, just that we haven't yet found out. Does that mean that evolution can? No. But it means that those gaps say nothing one way or the other.
ID needs some actual evidence.
And a real theory might help too. Like for instance suggesting something specific that it predicts which is different from the predictions of evolution.

[Iacchus]

Actually, i agree that it isn't necessarily outside the realm of science. It's possible for there to be evidence of purpose in evolution. There just hasn't been any yet (that I know of).Notwithstanding that people "seem" to be endowed with a sense of purpose.

[Roboramma]

Notwithstanding that people "seem" to be endowed with a sense of purpose.
So because people think they have a purpose, they do?

[Iacchus]

So because people think they have a purpose, they do?Well, it would seem that purpose arises from a higher level of consciousness. Without the ability to think and see more clearly, people would probably not experience it.

[hammegk]

So because people think they have a purpose, they do?

Even if they think they don't is the problem. ;)

[KingMerv00]

Intelligent Design cannot be falsified but specific claims like "the blood clotting system is irreducibly complex" can be.

Wanna bet if the IDers lose the Dover trial it will move into the physics arena? Electron behavior is too weird to be explained by the laws of nature therefore...

[Iacchus]

Intelligent Design cannot be falsified but specific claims like "the blood clotting system is irreducibly complex" can be.They should stick with the notion that evolution was directed. They would stand a better chance.

[Yahweh]

They should stick with the notion that evolution was directed. They would stand a better chance.
Its really kinda hard to tell the difference between directed evolution and undirected evolution. But I think the people who endorse directed evolution tend to be more anthropocentric, and in that case whether evolution is directed or not is a very personal belief (and its not really appropriate for science to be concerned with peoples personal beliefs).

Maybe, in a very politically correct world, a class intended not to offend would begin with "whether you think evolution is directed or undirected is up to you, but heres how it happened..." etc.

[Kopji]

Faith, philosophy, and some religious belief offer a way to 'let go' of things in facing life's changes. Our lives include various social passages and involvements - birth, childhood, adulthood, family, community, death. Faith in God may serve as one of several helpful strategies to face life. (I think there are better ways, but that does not mean faith does not have its answers.)

However, the idea of 'letting go' is anathema to science. Science is driven by a curiosity and wonder about how and why things work.

We see a watch
What is it?
How does it work?
Why does it work?
take it apart and there are gears and springs
where did these come from?
what materials make them up?
what are their measurements?
how are they related to each other?
did they have some other purpose before they were used in a watch?
are these the first relationships and purpose of these gears and springs?
is there a better way to 'create' a watch?

But ID takes the useful 'letting go' tool of faith & philosophy and misapplies it to science. The message of 'stop the questioning and just accept it as it is' has some validity in guiding lives, but not science. With science we must always ask questions and keep searching, even when we think we have gone as far as we can go.

Now that may be a place faith could help science: Tear apart old established notions and look at something in a completely new way. Just to see what comes of it.
But ID does not offer to do that.
ID offers to replace scientific searching with religious certitude.
That to me is the real danger of ID -
encouraging the 'letting go' of the search for scientific knowledge.

Stop the journey -
We know enough, go no further.
Warning Will Robinson!
Danger ahead.
Stop, your faith is in danger.
You might find you have no purpose in life but what you make.

There will be better answers to things like blood clotting or bacteria. But they will not come from leaving their explanation to an advanced civilization or supernatural deity.

[Iacchus]

You're being too wishy-washy. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. If you think the fossil record is good, check out the genomic record.

~~ PaulDoes this include "random" evidence though? For surely if evolution relied upon randomness in order to bring about change -- albeit I admit, it may "appear" that way -- we have yet to identify the mechanism by which it genuinely works, and really haven't identified anything. Except to say, that things come about by random. Hmm ... :cool:

[Mojo]

Does this include "random" evidence though? For surely if evolution relied upon randomness in order to bring about change -- albeit I admit, it may "appear" that way -- we have yet to identify the mechanism by which it genuinely works, and really haven't identified anything. Except to say, that things come about by random. Hmm ... :cool:Actually, the theory of evolution by natural selection proposes a mechanism for evolution. It's called "natural selection," and (as I'm sure you've been told many times already) it isn't random.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Iacchus, I despair of ever understanding how your mind works.

~~ Paul

[Iacchus]

Actually, the theory of evolution by natural selection proposes a mechanism for evolution. It's called "natural selection," and (as I'm sure you've been told many times already) it isn't random.Okay then, so this pretty much tells us that all the rules (to evolutionary development that is) have been defined beforehand, correct? So, what else does this tell us, except that evolution is "directed?" Otherwise how could something "new" come about, unless there was an element of randomness to it? If it was wholly reliant upon the environment which preceded it, meaning it could have been predicted beforehand (and the mechanism was already set in place), then there is nothing new about it. In which case there is nothing new about any of the reality we see before us.

[American]

On the other hand, when it comes to things that are demonstrably false,

I can 'demonstrate' psychic powers, or that they don't exist. It's all about the audience and methodology involved.

The fundamental debate is not over details - it seldom is. At this point, it's basically about the right to be left alone. "Leave me with my books or with my bible - but leave me."

Government-types just won't listen.

On the other hand, I have often said to anyone who won't embrace evolution: good luck working in biotech or research medicine, because your degree will only add to the irony when you are ultimately laughed out of jobs and presentations. No sane company will invest in products not supported by pure science, not unless they wish for lost billions, litigation, and a stock value of zero.

[Taffer]

Okay then, so this pretty much tells us that all the rules (to evolutionary development that is) have been defined beforehand, correct? So, what else does this tell us, except that evolution is "directed?" Otherwise how could something "new" come about, unless there was an element of randomness to it? If it was wholly reliant upon the environment which preceded it, meaning it could have been predicted beforehand (and the mechanism was already set in place), then there is nothing new about it. In which case there is nothing new about any of the reality we see before us.

I used to think you were being cryptic. Now I think you do not understand evolution. Evolution has two parts, Iacchus. Random mutation (hint: It's called "random" because we cannot predict it) and selection.

[Mojo]

Okay then, so this pretty much tells us that all the rules (to evolutionary development that is) have been defined beforehand, correct? Wrong. It appears to follow rules, which the theory of evolution attempts to describe. Saying that the rules were "defined beforehand" assumes the existence of an entity to do the defining, for which there is no evidence.

[clarsct]

It is not for us to disprove ID.

It is for them to prove.


We have evidence for evolution.

Let's see the evidence of the Intelligent Designer.


Waiting.

[Iacchus]

I used to think you were being cryptic. Now I think you do not understand evolution. Evolution has two parts, Iacchus. Random mutation (hint: It's called "random" because we cannot predict it) and selection.Which is to say there is no mechanism behind the change? So, why don't we just be honest and say it's "too complex" to predict?

[Iacchus]

Wrong. It appears to follow rules, which the theory of evolution attempts to describe. Saying that the rules were "defined beforehand" assumes the existence of an entity to do the defining, for which there is no evidence.It either follows the rules or it doesn't, and if it doesn't then you have no mechanism and nothing to speak of.

[clarsct]

Which is to say there is no mechanism behind the change? So, why don't we just be honest and say it's "too complex" to predict?

Because it isn't 'too complex'.

Jumpin Jesus on a pogo stick! We've understood genetic mutation for what? 50+ years now?

This is old science, man!

We understand the mechanism by which such things occur. There are a multitude of variables that contribute to these causes. It's kinda like predicitng the outcome of the World Series at the beginning of the season. There's simply too many factors involved.

And, of course, I am still waiting for the evidence of any 'Intelligent Designer'

[Mercutio]

It either follows the rules or it doesn't, and if it doesn't then you have no mechanism and nothing to speak of.
It does not follow rules. It is described by rules. That is the way science works. You have been told this many times before, but have for some reason refused to see the difference between proscriptive rules and descriptive rules.

[Taffer]

Which is to say there is no mechanism behind the change?

No, it's not, Iacchus.

So, why don't we just be honest and say it's "too complex" to predict?

It isn't "too complex", it is just too time consuming, too resource intensive, and a waste of time.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Iacchus, you would be more honest with yourself, and save us a lot of trouble, if you would just say:

"I want there to be a source for the rules that nature appears to follow. I am going to have a source. So I may have to twist what y'all say to make it sound as if you claim there is a source."

~~ Paul

[Iacchus]

No, it's not, Iacchus.

It isn't "too complex", it is just too time consuming, too resource intensive, and a waste of time.And perhaps you'd better look up the word "complex" in the dictionary?

[Iacchus]

It does not follow rules. It is described by rules. That is the way science works. You have been told this many times before, but have for some reason refused to see the difference between proscriptive rules and descriptive rules.And you're the guy who likes to watch TV without turning it on, right? :p

[Mercutio]

And perhaps you'd better look up the word "complex" in the dictionary?
:dl:

Or you could look it up in the Iacchian dictionary, where the definition is sufficiently broad to also encompass "simple", "left-handed", "light purple" and "corn chowder".

[Iacchus]

:dl:

Or you could look it up in the Iacchian dictionary, where the definition is sufficiently broad to also encompass "simple", "left-handed", "light purple" and "corn chowder".And of course none of these things that we see before us are really happening, they only just "behave" that way. :rolleyes:

[Mercutio]

And you're the guy who likes to watch TV without turning it on, right? :p
The funny thing is, I know what you are referring to here, and it still makes no sense at all. All that is clear is that you are sticking to a metaphor that was thoroughly trashed, illogical, opposed by evidence...a metaphor you have used many times before, enough to have seen the feedback on it, enough that you must know it makes you look like an idiot.

So, do you sit at your computer and smugly think you are right? Or do you actually have some tenuous grasp on reality?

[Mercutio]

And of course none of these things that we see before us are really happening, they only just "behave" that way. :rolleyes:
false dichotomy.

[Iacchus]

It does not follow rules. It is described by rules. That is the way science works. You have been told this many times before, but have for some reason refused to see the difference between proscriptive rules and descriptive rules.In other words you deny the reality of "being," in favor of the science of "being?" Yes, your reality is definitely faith-based (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=45670).

[Mercutio]

Please, Iacchus, refrain from writing anything that starts with "in other words". Your record is abyssmal. I know it is easier for you to argue when you write both sides, but it is dishonest.

[clarsct]

Did he just say that science=faith?

Or is my Iacchain translator on the fritz again?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Or you could look it up in the Iacchian dictionary, where the definition is sufficiently broad to also encompass "simple", "left-handed", "light purple" and "corn chowder".
If it involves corn chowder, I'm all for it.

~~ Paul

[Iacchus]

Did he just say that science=faith?

Or is my Iacchain translator on the fritz again?No, if I'm not mistaken, this is what Mercutio said ... in so many words of course. ;)

[Tricky]

No, if I'm not mistaken, this is what Mercutio said ... in so many words of course. ;)
No, Iacchus. Mercutio did not say that "in so many words", nor has he ever said anything remotely similar, to my knowledge.

We all know you are willfully ignorant. Shall we add compulsive liar to that rap sheet?

[Iacchus]

Double speak.

[Iacchus]

Please, Iacchus, refrain from writing anything that starts with "in other words". Your record is abyssmal. I know it is easier for you to argue when you write both sides, but it is dishonest.:dl:

So, would you say that this is just "descriptive" or, that the "actual" rule applies? One of us is definitely in "denial" here ...

Or, would you have us believe this is merely a descriptive account of that which otherwise means nothing?

[KingMerv00]

Did he just say that science=faith?

Or is my Iacchain translator on the fritz again?

You can translate what Iacchus says? That implies understanding. Please share.

[Mercutio]

So, would you say that this is just "descriptive" or, that the "actual" rule applies? One of us is definitely in "denial" here ...

Or, would you have us believe this is merely a descriptive account of that which otherwise means nothing?
Which words are giving you trouble? Perhaps I could help you out. The situation, whether actual or described, is that you put words into other people's mouths, then argue against those words. This is dishonest, in case you were unclear on that. I, and others, have asked you on many occasions to read our actual words, to respond to what we wrote, rather than to paraphrase our words inaccurately. Whether you intend to misrepresent other people's views is impossible to know--you may merely be ignorant. What is easily known, what is patently evident, is that you do misrepresent other people's views.

So, once more, in another futile gesture, I ask you to avoid any attempts at phrasing my views "in other words". You have simply not demonstrated the ability to do so with any accuracy whatsoever.

[Tricky]

You can translate what Iacchus says? That implies understanding. Please share.
It's not so much understanding as experience.

For example, when Iacchus precedes a statement with "So what you are saying is..." or "in other words..." or similar indications that he is about to paraphrase, you can be assured that his interpretation is a complete mistranslation of your words, often diametrically opposite of what you had actually said. I used to attribute this to mere stupidity that might be corrected with careful explanation, but more and more I find that he is just being willfully dishonest.

It is easy to understand what he is saying, because it encompasses the same one or two ideas recycled endlessly. I guess you must at least give him points for tenacity.

[Iacchus]

Which words are giving you trouble? Perhaps I could help you out. The situation, whether actual or described, is that you put words into other people's mouths, then argue against those words. Yes, but is this something that exists in all actuality or, due to its alleged behavior, it just appears that way? You see you have to decide whether something is actually happening or, it's just the appearance of something. Maybe I'm just a phantom or a ghost or, just a figment of your imagination? Well, it is getting close to Halloween anyway ...

:dl:

[Mercutio]

Yes, but is this something that exists in all actuality or, due to its alleged behavior, it just appears that way? You see you have to decide whether something is actually happening or, it's just the appearance of something. Maybe I'm just a phantom or a ghost or, just a figment of your imagination? Well, it is getting close to Halloween anyway ...
Actually, Iacchus, I do not have to decide this at all. I don't honestly care whether you believe what you are saying, whether you exist as the person you claim to be, whether you are a bad computer simulation, a practical joke on the part of a fraternity, a 4th-grader on his daddy's computer, or a phantom, ghost, or figment. It does not matter. I respond to the words you post, and I do it because there have been people who have written that they have learned from our (I cannot claim sole credit) responses to your blather. Your motivation, your beliefs, your reasons are completely unknowable. It could be that you actually do read the things we tell you to; it could be that you have gained an understanding of logic and evidence; it could be that you have actually learned something in your years here; it could be any of these things, but all we can know is that the words you write do not demonstrate logic, understanding, or learning of any sort. And since your words are all we have to respond to, that is what we do.

On an internet forum, the only way to earn respect is through the words you write. Yours have not earned you any yet. Whether you deserve respect in real life is thoroughly irrelevant here.

"In other words..." once again, you are wrong.

[Roboramma]

Don't you love how every thread Iacchus involves himself in degrades to stupidity? This discussion has nothing at all to do with the original topic.
And this seems to happen a lot

I don't know why you guys even bother anymore...

[Meadmaker]

Thoughts for the day:

1. The article linked about the probability claims of ID seems to be the best way to combat ID as allegedly a scientific theory. Nail them down on specific predictions, and see what happens. In other words, treat the theory like a theory, and subject it to scrutiny like you would any scientific theory. That does happen sometimes, but other times, people say, "This isn't science, so I can ignore it."

2. Suppose I were an eccentric billionaire, and Intelligent Design was something I was intensely interested in, either to refute it, confirm it, whatever. So, in my will, I established a foundation and gave all my money to it. The purpose of the foundation was to conduct an experiment.

I will take a colony of fruit flies, and subject them to some sort of pseudo-natural selection process. Maybe I will put them in cages, bring them food and all that, but the cages will actually be wind tunnels, so the poor little bugs have to constantly struggle to stay upwind, which is where I will put all their food. Or maybe I will fill their cages with just enough praying mantises to eat most of them, but not all, and no other predators.

I think you get the point. I am going to create conditions as perfect as I can for the development of a new species. I establish the foundation to conduct the experiment so that it can theoretically go on for hundreds of years, if necessary. Does our current knowledge of biology allow us to make any predicitions about when a new species will be created?

If so, what are those predictions? If not, isn't the outcome of that experiment an important part of the experimental confirmation of the theory of evolution?

3. Let's imagine a parallel universe that had a different Supreme Court for the last four decades, so that a biology teacher was treated more like an individual, and less like an officer of the state. Specifically, he was allowed to express theological opinions, and even mix them with his teaching, so long as it didn't interfere with his ability to teach science, and he didn't show favoritism or base grades on the theological opinions of his students. Imagine a teacher saying, on day one of biology class....

"Why do we study science? I study science to gain a greater degree of understanding God's creation. The world was created by God, and by studying his creation, we can learn more about God, andour relationship with God. The psalms say, 'The heavens are telling the glory of God. The wonder of his works displays the firmament.' Well, I believe that the microscope also reveals the glory of God, and that is why I study."

Then, when he got to evolution, which he would have to if he were a decent biology teacher, he would say, "So, the theory of evolution tells us that mutations lead to new species by giving reproductive advantages to those organisms that possess those mutations." At that point, a student raises his hand and says, "Do you believe that Mr. Fernblatt? Doesn't the Bible say that God created all the animals?" Mr. Fernblatt might respond, "I do believe that God created all the animals. However, I'm not sure how he created them. Perhaps he simply guided evolution to the point that the animals came out the way he wanted. All we can do is study that creation to find out as much as we can about his works. There are some who put forth the theory that the complexity of living organisms is such that they could not have arisen without intelligent guidance or creation. I happen to believe that, but there is no experimental verification of that at this time."

A teacher talking like that today could be disciplined or fired, and the school might be sued in this country. But imagine if he could do that, without fear of reprisal. Do you think there would be such a clamor for inclusion of intelligent design in textbooks, or statements like the one at issue in the Dover trial? I am inclined to think not. I think that because God is specifically eliminated from classrooms, religious people are demanding they be allowed back in. If people had a bit more freedom to acknowledge their faith and to discuss the possibility of the existence of God and a role for that particular deity in the universe and its operation, the religious people would feel less need to demand entry.

[Taffer]

Speciation has already been observed in fruit flies.

[Mercutio]

Speciation has already been observed in fruit flies.
ah, but..."flies is flies".

[Taffer]

ah, but..."flies is flies".

You mean to tell me that their argument is that, because we haven't directly observed a shift from one family to another (for example), evolution doesn't exist, even though we've seen it at the lowest level, and we know it works the same all the way up? :eek:

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Yes, Taffer, that would be it.

Merc, is it also true that "fleas is fleas"?

~~ Paul

[Mercutio]

Yes, Paul. Although I believe there is a thread around here where I successfully argued that "cats is dogs". Or maybe it was "kitties is doggies."

[Beerina]

Does this include "random" evidence though? For surely if evolution relied upon randomness in order to bring about change -- albeit I admit, it may "appear" that way -- we have yet to identify the mechanism by which it genuinely works, and really haven't identified anything. Except to say, that things come about by random. Hmm ... :cool:

Well, it's a lot more than just "randomness" in the mutation sense, i.e. spontaneous errors in atom and molecule alignment in the DNA, etc. Mechanisms like sexual reproduction evolved because it greatly increased the rate at which the gradient descent space was explored. In other words, it's a mechanism for deliberately generating variation among a great many body parts. This hellaciously increases the rate at which a species may adapt, especially in key areas like body shape, style, and size.

And the key thing I don't think is largely realized yet: Not only is it fast, but it generates, almost always, viable specimens, unlike the true mutation, which is more likely than not to generate non-viable deformities.

And yes, mechanisms for faster evolution can themselves evolve.

[Taffer]

Yes, Taffer, that would be it.

Merc, is it also true that "fleas is fleas"?

~~ Paul

Oh dear lord...:jaw-dropp

[Iacchus]

Well, it's a lot more than just "randomness" in the mutation sense, i.e. spontaneous errors in atom and molecule alignment in the DNA, etc. Mechanisms like sexual reproduction evolved because it greatly increased the rate at which the gradient descent space was explored. In other words, it's a mechanism for deliberately generating variation among a great many body parts. This hellaciously increases the rate at which a species may adapt, especially in key areas like body shape, style, and size.But still, would you agree, that in the ultimate sense there is nothing random about it?

[Taffer]

But still, would you agree, that in the ultimate sense there is nothing random about it?

It is random, in that we cannot predict the outcome, Iacchus. That's what random means. It (probably) isn't truely random, no. What's your point?

[Iacchus]

Don't you love how every thread Iacchus involves himself in degrades to stupidity? This discussion has nothing at all to do with the original topic.
And this seems to happen a lot

I don't know why you guys even bother anymore...Well hey folks, look at all the posts which have been posted since Meadmaker's post and tell me who's not behaving childishly? :D Or, could I be mistaken since it is only a "described" behavior and it only "appears" that way? ...

:dl:

[Taffer]

Boy do you not understand what we're talking about, Iacchus.

[Iacchus]

Boy do you not understand what we're talking about, Iacchus.Sure I do. It's just that it's okay to poke fun at the obvious or, rather apparent flaws in somebody else's beliefs but, not to have somebody poke fun at the obvious flaws in yours.

[Meadmaker]

In other words, it's a mechanism for deliberately generating variation among a great many body parts.

Deliberately?

[Meadmaker]

Speciation has already been observed in fruit flies.

Well, sort of. There have been events of the sort described here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

In those events, "strong intra-strain mating preferences were observed". And similar events.

This is interesting, and it is suggestive of evolution, and it is predicted by the theory of evolution, but it doesn't say much about ID. It doesn't say much about ID because it doesn't develop a highly improbable stucture or gene sequence. To actually have an experimental result that would meaningfully address the ID hypothesis, you would have to show evidence that something that appears to have been designed for a purpose actually grew out of randomness and natural selection.

[drkitten]

Well, sort of. There have been events of the sort described here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

In those events, "strong intra-strain mating preferences were observed".

And hybrid sterility. I'm not sure how you can claim that the two strains have not speciated when they can no longer interbreed.

[Mercutio]

Sure I do. It's just that it's okay to poke fun at the obvious or, rather apparent flaws in somebody else's beliefs but, not to have somebody poke fun at the obvious flaws in yours.
Actually, Iacchus, science works by trying to poke holes in the obvious or not-so-obvious flaws in even our cherished beliefs. The problem is, the easiest way to find these flaws is to thoroughly understand the subject. Complete ignorance of evolution is not a good position from which to attempt to poke holes in it.

As for poking holes in your belief system, it really isn't necessary. As you describe it, it is so full of holes it makes swiss cheese look like granite; all we need to do is to shine a light on the holes in your own description. As I keep telling you, fix the logical errors and opposition to observed data, and perhaps you will have a view sturdy enough for people to try to poke holes in.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

This is interesting, and it is suggestive of evolution, and it is predicted by the theory of evolution, but it doesn't say much about ID. It doesn't say much about ID because it doesn't develop a highly improbable stucture or gene sequence. To actually have an experimental result that would meaningfully address the ID hypothesis, you would have to show evidence that something that appears to have been designed for a purpose actually grew out of randomness and natural selection.
How about the ability of bacteria to digest nylon?

~~ Paul

[Mercutio]

How about the ability of bacteria to digest nylon?

~~ Paul
Obviously, the designer knew there would be nylon invented...eventually.

Smart entity, that designer.

[Iacchus]

It is random, in that we cannot predict the outcome, Iacchus. That's what random means. It (probably) isn't truely random, no. What's your point?So, why differentiate between randomness and true randomness in not so many words? Don't you realize that this is the same argument that I've been making? Is it because there might be implications that true randomness, hence any element of true change, can only exist outside of the Universe (i.e., time and space), in accord with the notion of perfection?

[Taffer]

So, why differentiate between randomness and true randomness in not so many words?

Because they are different things, Iacchus.

Don't you realize that this is the same argument that I've been making?

No, I didn't.

Is it because there might be implications that true randomness, hence any element of change, can only exist outside of the Universe (i.e., time and space), in accord with the notion of perfection?

No, it isn't, Iacchus.

[Iacchus]

And you should learn how to stop speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

[Mercutio]

And you should learn how to stop speaking out of both sides of your mouth.
That means you win, Taffer!

Congratulations!
:j1:

[Iacchus]

That means you win, Taffer!

Congratulations!
:j1:Why, because he's a pathological liar?

[Mercutio]

Why, because he's a pathological liar?
I am sure you can back that up with evidence, Iacchus, otherwise it is quite an uncivil claim to make about someone...

[Iacchus]

I am sure you can back that up with evidence, Iacchus, otherwise it is quite an uncivil claim to make about someone...There's no need to back it up with evidence, according to you. But then again, it is quite clear what he said ... regarding the notion that randomness should not be construed with "true" randomness. Doesn't something smell just the least bit fishy about such a statement? All he has to do is retract what he said, and say it's not true, and yet he seems to have no intention of doing so.

[Mercutio]

There's no need to back it up with evidence, according to you.There you go again, putting words in my mouth
But then again, it is quite clear what he said ... regarding the notion that randomness should not be construed with "true" randomness. Doesn't something smell just the least bit fishy about such a statement? All he has to do is retract what he said, and say it's not true, and yet he seems to have no intention of doing so.
Perhaps the problem is that he understands the topic, and you simply do not.

[Iacchus]

There you go again, putting words in my mouthAnd need I remind you of what you said in the other post? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1250251#post1250251) ...

No, he only needs proof if he makes a claim of fact. He did not. You have repeatedly made claims, and without proof. There is nothing wrong with his pointing that out.He claimed that I don't know what I'm talking about or, that it was simply a matter of wishful thinking. Now, please repeat after me, "I, am incapable of admitting that I abide by a double standard."

Perhaps the problem is that he understands the topic, and you simply do not.Why, have you got proof?

[clarsct]

And need I remind you of what you said in the other post? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1250251#post1250251) ...

He claimed that I don't know what I'm talking about or, that it was simply a matter of wishful thinking. Now, please repeat after me, "I, am incapable of admitting that I abide by a double standard."

Why, have you got proof?

:dl:


Does he?

No..he doesn't...boy is that good!

Heh...whew...

[Iacchus]

:dl:

Does he?

No..he doesn't...boy is that good!

Heh...whew...And, as I have pointed out, both he (Mercutio) and Taffer are pathological liars.

[Mercutio]

So, wait... "he's a pathological liar" is not a claim? It is your attempt to refute his claim?

I don't think you have quite got the hang of burden of proof yet, Iacchus.

[Mercutio]

And, as I have pointed out, both he (Mercutio) and Taffer are pathological liars.
"as you have pointed out"...oh, that really is good...

Sorry, I am really dumb today--could you maybe remind me where it is you did this?

[clarsct]

And, as I have pointed out, both he (Mercutio) and Taffer are pathological liars.

:dl:

And he still didn't..

Wow..whew..heh.

Ok.

Proof that Iacchus doesn't understand the topic...hmmmm

Wherever are we going to find THAT evidence?

Oh, wait! I KNOW! We'll just read the thread in which he asks for proof!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Doesn't anyone else see the joke he played on himself? Funniest damn thing I've seen in a while....

Maybe I just have a twisted sense of humor...

[Iacchus]

Maybe I just have a twisted sense of humor...He who laughs last, laughs the longest ...

[clarsct]

He who laughs last, picks up on things slowly.

[Iacchus]

He who laughs last, picks up on things slowly.Why, is there some "dead-line" -- as in the grave -- that we must all meet? :D

[Taffer]

And, as I have pointed out, both he (Mercutio) and Taffer are pathological liars.

Where exactly were we "pathalogical liars"?

[Meadmaker]

How about the ability of bacteria to digest nylon?

~~ Paul

Can they digest nylon and only nylon? Or can they digest long organic compounds? Have these little cells evolved the ability to digest nylon, or did they have it all along, but there was no nylon lying around to digest. Could they digest, for example, spider silk?

And it's bad enough that my suits get eaten by moths. Now my crummy clothes will get eaten by microorganisms. It isn't fair.

When looking up speciation, it seems that broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, and wild mustard are darned good examples that might be worth studying. I knew they were closely related, but I didn't realize that they might actually be capable of cross-pollination. Broccoli and cabbage? Known common ancestor, possibly in historical times? Who knew?

[Mercutio]

Where exactly were we "pathalogical liars"?Hey, I asked first! (this statement must be false)

[Taffer]

Hey, I asked first! (this statement must be false)

I know, I only wanted to ask again in case Iacchus missed the first one.

[Taffer]

When looking up speciation, it seems that broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, and wild mustard are darned good examples that might be worth studying. I knew they were closely related, but I didn't realize that they might actually be capable of cross-pollination. Broccoli and cabbage? Known common ancestor, possibly in historical times? Who knew?

IIRC broccoli, couliflower and cabbage come from the same plant, in a similar way that great danes and mastiffs come from the same animal.

[Meadmaker]

IIRC broccoli, couliflower and cabbage come from the same plant, in a similar way that great danes and mastiffs come from the same animal.

So I read. Apparently, a type of wild mustard, of all things. But a Great Dane and a Mastiff are really, really, similar. I look at them both and I see dogs. Nothing difficult to explain there.

But Broccoli and cabbage? It seems to me that is a great example of speciation with radical morphological change associated, and all within a very short time period. It isn't just a case of fruit flies that don't think each other are sexy any more. I wonder if anyone has studied how much difference there is, genetically, between brocolli, cabbage, and their wild mustard ancestors.


A word on the scientific method.

Observation 1: That thing looks like it was designed for a purpose.
Observation 2: That thing is so complicated, it couldn't have come together by chance.

Hypothesis: That thing really was designed for a purpose.

Experiment: Let's see if we can see anything that complicated that comes together by random processes guided by natural selection.

Theory: Those complicated things that look like they were designed demonstrate the handiwork of one or more designers.

Now, the experiment hasn't been completed. In fact, there are some experiments that would tend to suggest that it is possible to put together very complex things randomly, which tends to cast doubt on the hypothesis. However, none of the experiments done to date are definitive in this regard. Therefore, ID is an unconfirmed hypothesis.

As such, talking about it in science classes doesn't seem far fetched to me, as long as it is taught as what it is, an unconfirmed hypothesis. Meanwhile, teaching the age of the Earth as confirmed hypotheses seems appropriate. And teaching the mechanisms of evolution as confirmed hypotheses seem appropriate.

With respect to Dover, Pennsylvania, I am leaning to the view that the resolution is very bad, for two reasons. First, it has some inaccurate portions in the manner in which it characterizes evolution. Second, it shouldn't be necessary. Science teachers should be free to talk about any unconfirmed hypotheses they want to. They can't teach "God created the Earth" because that would be asserting something that can't be confirmed. But they ought to be able to teach, "Some people think that this particular structure is too complicated to be explained by natural selection. Most scientists disagree. However, to date, there is no conclusive evidence either way."

A note on the word "random". I spent a great deal of time in graduate school struggling with courses that involved "random variables" and "random processes". Those classes were really hard, but by any definition I used in any of my classes, evolution is a random process. Why the knee jerk reaction against the word "random"?

[Taffer]

There are from the species Brassica oleracea, which includes such foods as Cabbage, Brussels Sprouts, Broccoli, Kohlrabi, Cauliflower and Kale. See here (http://www.museums.org.za/bio/plants/brassicaceae/brassica_oleracea.htm).

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Can they digest nylon and only nylon? Or can they digest long organic compounds? Have these little cells evolved the ability to digest nylon, or did they have it all along, but there was no nylon lying around to digest. Could they digest, for example, spider silk?
I believe it was a frame shift mutation that allowed it to digest nylon when it could not before. The resulting gene isn't able to digest carbs.

Now, the experiment hasn't been completed. In fact, there are some experiments that would tend to suggest that it is possible to put together very complex things randomly, which tends to cast doubt on the hypothesis. However, none of the experiments done to date are definitive in this regard. Therefore, ID is an unconfirmed hypothesis.
Dembski's goal was to confirm the hypothesis by logical analysis, not experimentation. After all, what sort of experiment could he perform? So No Free Lunch is his attempt at a logical proof of complex specified information. It fails. Meanwhile, we see "irreducibly complex" objects evolve in nature and in computer models.

As such, talking about it in science classes doesn't seem far fetched to me, as long as it is taught as what it is, an unconfirmed hypothesis. Meanwhile, teaching the age of the Earth as confirmed hypotheses seems appropriate. And teaching the mechanisms of evolution as confirmed hypotheses seem appropriate.
How is it less far-fetched than teaching the Santa Claus hypothesis?

~~ Paul

[Iacchus]

A note on the word "random". I spent a great deal of time in graduate school struggling with courses that involved "random variables" and "random processes". Those classes were really hard, but by any definition I used in any of my classes, evolution is a random process. Why the knee jerk reaction against the word "random"?Well, look at it this way, if things change, the rules have to already be set in place that allow them to do so. And what else could that possibly mean, except that the rules have always been set in place? Which is to say, everything was scripted beforehand and, that nothing occurs by chance (or random). While I think the problem here, is that people tend to confuse the complexity of the issue with the overall picture.

[Mercutio]

Well, look at it this way, if things change, the rules have to already be set in place that allow them to do so.
Why do you presuppose that this is the case? Why assume that there are causal rules? I know that you confuse descriptive rules and proscriptive rules; is that the confusion this time as well? "Things change" does not, in itself, logically imply that there are any proscriptive rules at all.

And what else could that possibly mean, except that the rules have always been set in place? Which is to say, everything was scripted beforehand and, that nothing occurs by chance (or random).It could also mean that you are confused about the application of the word "rules" again.
While I think the problem here, is that people tend to confuse the complexity of the issue with the overall picture. No, I pretty much think the problem is your lack of understanding of descriptive rules.

[Meadmaker]

How is it less far-fetched than teaching the Santa Claus hypothesis?

~~ Paul

We have extremely good evidence that says Santa didn't put those toys in my kid's stocking. Do we have equally good evidence that God did not arrange the DNA in my kid?

[clarsct]

DO we have ANY evidence that Santa did put toys in the stockings, or that god, any damned god you care to name, has so much a lifted a FINGER in human affairs whatsoever?

A shred? A clue? Anything at all?

No.

And I disbelieve in both for that one particular reason.

Once again, if you postulate an Intelligent Designer, then the burden of proof is on YOUR shoulders. It isn't up to me to prove you wrong.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

What Clarsct said. But in addition:


We have extremely good evidence that says Santa didn't put those toys in my kid's stocking. Do we have equally good evidence that God did not arrange the DNA in my kid?
If by evidence that Santa didn't do it, you mean that you have an alternative explanation, then, likewise, we have an alternative explanation for evolution.

~~ Paul

[Meadmaker]

DO we have ANY evidence that Santa did put toys in the stockings, or that god, any damned god you care to name, has so much a lifted a FINGER in human affairs whatsoever?

A shred? A clue? Anything at all?

No.

And I disbelieve in both for that one particular reason.

Once again, if you postulate an Intelligent Designer, then the burden of proof is on YOUR shoulders. It isn't up to me to prove you wrong.

Burden of proof? It's an interesting concept this "burden of proof". The burden of proof is on someone who is trying to convince someone else.

In the case of evolution vs. ID, on whom is the burden of proof? I hope it isn't on either, because they have both failed.

And keep in mind that guided evolution is a form of ID. If you prove the age of the Earth, and you prove the mechanism of DNA mutation, genetic recombination, and natural selection, you still haven't disproven ID.

The claims of ID that are subject to scientific examination relate to the probability that complex structures with an identifiable purpose could arise without guidance by intelligence. Until that probability can be computed or demonstrated, you haven't met the "burden of proof" to say that evolution could proceed as an unguided random process. Can you compute that probability? I've never seen it done. Therefore, what you have is two hypotheses competing for attention, neither of which has been confirmed experimentally.

There is a point that bears repeating. Our side, which is the skeptical side, of which I am a member, is losing ground. Fewer people accept evolution today than did 30 years ago. Why?

The last few messages in this thread demonstrate why we are losing. Belief in ID is not like belief in Santa Claus. For the thick-headed among you, that's because Santa Claus is not a viable alternative explanation for the appearance of toys in my kid's Christmas stocking. We know how those toys got there.

We don't know how the Earth got there, and how carbon atoms got together with their hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen friends and started developing advertising campaigns and the internet. If someone chooses to believe that God put them those atoms together, that's a perfectly logical explanation, although it is one that lacks evidence.

So when someone says that belief in ID is like belief in Santa, those people who believe ID know that this fight isn't just about science. It's also about philosophy and religion, and they know that the other side doesn't have any respect for them. That makes them nervous, and they fight back.

To combat that, if you are scientist, you have to stay strictly within the realm of what science can prove or disprove. Some people say that certain structures are too improbable to have originated through an unguided random process. I cannot prove them wrong at this time. Therefore, it's a viable scientific hypothesis. As scientists, you shoud be able to say, "It is my opinion that this hypothesis is ridiculous, but I can't prove that." When people fail to say that, it is obvious to many that the debate isn't about science vs. religion, it's about what brand of religion.

[Roboramma]

The claims of ID that are subject to scientific examination relate to the probability that complex structures with an identifiable purpose could arise without guidance by intelligence. Until that probability can be computed or demonstrated, you haven't met the "burden of proof" to say that evolution could proceed as an unguided random process.One point that makes me skeptical of this idea (and there are plenty of other reasons) is that all those complex structures seem to be adaptive. That is, their "purpose" is to promote the reproductive success of individuals bearing the genes that built them.
The is true of every complex structure that we understand, with (perhaps) a very few exceptions such as vestigial organs, which are also explained by evolution.
There is nothing that has a purpose that we know of that isn't explained by the theory of evolution. A complete understanding of how it evolved isn't necessary.

I mean, would it make sense that an intelligent designed designed everything to look exactly like we'd expect it to look if it came to be that way without an intelligent designer, but rather through natural selection?
(Note, if evolution is true we should even expect complex structures whose evolutionary paths we wouldn't have figured out yet. After all, it's a complex process stretching back billions of years and we've only had about 150 years to study it).

To combat that, if you are scientist, you have to stay strictly within the realm of what science can prove or disprove. To be fair, I think this statement should be "within the realm of what science can offer evidence for or against. Science might be able to disprove things, but proof is an elusive dream.

Some people say that certain structures are too improbable to have originated through an unguided random process. I cannot prove them wrong at this time. Therefore, it's a viable scientific hypothesis.
Only as much as the hypothesis that the earth came into existence 5 minutes ago, exactly as it is, or that gravity is run by fairies. Why do I suggest that? Simply because these are also things that we cannot disprove. But I wouldn't call them valid scientific hypothesis, unless there were some way to test them.

As scientists, you should be able to say, "It is my opinion that this hypothesis is ridiculous, but I can't prove that." When people fail to say that, it is obvious to many that the debate isn't about science vs. religion, it's about what brand of religion. Actually I think it's more about what science actually is. If science accepted everything that cannot be disproven as equally valid, it wouldn't be science any more. It wouldn't be able to go anywhere.
Far from making science a religion, the fact that it works only with evidence makes it capable of speaking of things that religion does not.

Does this mean religion is false? No. Does it mean that ID is false? No. It means it's not scientific, just as the theory of evolution shouldn't be considered religious, ID shouldn't be considered scientific. At least not until it has anything to offer science.

If ID could show that something actually was too complex to evolve, or that it didn't (for example, a fruit fly gives birth to a Caterpillar), then it might be time to look at it further. But until then it's just someone's vague musings. All well and good, but not science until there's actually some evidence for it.

Is the theory of evolution indestructible? No. Does it mean god doesn't exist? No. But it's an incredibly well supported theory and its the only one that offers an explanation of the evidence we have available.

[hodgy]

Well, look at it this way, if things change, the rules have to already be set in place that allow them to do so. And what else could that possibly mean, except that the rules have always been set in place? Which is to say, everything was scripted beforehand and, that nothing occurs by chance (or random). While I think the problem here, is that people tend to confuse the complexity of the issue with the overall picture.

So you are a determinist Iacchus?

[wastepanel]

These conversations always remind me of this comic whose name escapes me. Basically, he said:

"Do you know the male seahorse has the babies? I bet you there's some stubborn scientists out there that started this. "You see that one...that's the male seahorse." "Question-why is the male seahorse having a baby?" "Uhhh....the males have the babies."

[Iacchus]

So you are a determinist Iacchus?In terms of all that is natural, yes.

[Roboramma]

In terms of all that is natural, yes.
So what isn't natural?

[Iacchus]

So what isn't natural?Let me put it this way, I believe that free will is the cause, of which deteminism is the effect. In fact, I believe that free will is the origin of everything. However, the only way free will can operate and thus be maintained, is by means of determinism. Or else what is there? Without determinism, there would be no way to define free will. There would be no expression of it. So in effect, everything must have a deterministic "ending."

So basically, we've just defined two dualistic elements, in which there must be two separate "realities" (realms) to accomodate it. The one reality where free will reigns, what we would otherwise deem spiritual, and the other reality where determinism reigns, what we would otherwise deem natural. So, currently we live in the natural world, and are governed by determinism. Yet when we die, and pass on into the spiritual world, we become spirits, and are ruled by free will.

I know it's a bit oversimplified, but it should give you the general idea. :)

[hodgy]

Let me put it this way, I believe that free will is the cause, of which deteminism is the effect. In fact, I believe that free will is the origin of everything. However, the only way free will can operate and thus be maintained, is by means of determinism. Or else what is there? Without determinism, there would be no way to define free will. There would be no expression of it. So in effect, everything must have a deterministic "ending."

So basically, we've just defined two dualistic elements, in which there must be two separate "realities" (realms) to accomodate it. The one reality where free will reigns, what we would otherwise deem spiritual, and the other reality where determinism reigns, what we would otherwise deem natural. So, currently we live in the natural world, and are governed by determinism. Yet when we die, and pass on into the spiritual world, we become spirits, and are ruled by free will.

I know it's a bit oversimplified, but it should give you the general idea. :)

Why do you not apply your determinist logic to your spiritual realm? I am not implying that it should have the same physical laws as your natural realm but don't you agree that its logic should still be consistent?

[clarsct]

Basically, Meadmaker, what Roboramma said.

With a slight addition:

The person making the claim has the burden of proof. Some people choose to claim that there was an intelligent designer. I am skeptical of this claim. I ask for proof. I hear 'well, prove me wrong!'. It is not up to me to prove them wrong. It is up to them to provide evidence. I am tempted to discount ID via Occam's Razor.

But that's more of a 'rule of thumb' than a logical argument.

I also ask that they make their arguments without mentioning Evolution. A good theory should stand on its own.



Why are more people believing in ID? Because people like Behe who call themselves 'scientists' are confusing the issue. We need to stick to our guns. ID does not predict, it teaches us nothing. It is not science.

[davefoc]

I have had thoughts along the lines meadmaker expressed in his opening post.

The fact is that most things are not provable or disprovable to an absolute certainty. Isn't there some wording that ID'ers and evolution believers could agree on that expresses this concept. I am uncomfortable with the idea of a public school being in the position of forcing a curriculum on individuals that advocates a view that so many people are so strongly opposed to.

Suppose this was ID statement that was put in the front of a biology text book:

This book explains the development of living organisms by a process of mutation and natural selection. The views in this book relating to evolution, mutation and natural selection reflect current mainstream scientific ideas about these issues. There are alternative views about the development of living organisms than the ones put forth in this book. In particular some people believe that the nature of life is such that some form of intelligent design is required to explain it. Theories relating to intelligent design as an explanation for the nature of living organisms are not discussed in this text book.

Would ID'ers accept this statement (or a similar one) as adequate? Would evolutionary believers accept this statement (or a similar one) as an acceptable intrusion into a science text book? Would this statement pass constituitional muster?

Interestingly (at least to me) my Catholic wife has no trouble with this at all. ID is religion and she doesn't want any part of it in the class room.

[Mercutio]

Suppose this was ID statement that was put in the front of a biology text book:



Would ID'ers accept this statement (or a similar one) as adequate? Would evolutionary believers accept this statement (or a similar one) as an acceptable intrusion into a science text book? Would this statement pass constitutional muster?

I, for one, would not find it acceptable. Substitute a similar argument for Gravity, and see how silly it sounds. The very fact that attention is drawn to this particular theory, instead of the scientific use of theories in general, renders it an attack on natural selection. Historically, that attack is based in religion. That statement is not intended to be a science lesson, but a religious attack on science.

[davefoc]

Is there any similar kind of statement that you would find acceptable?

[Mercutio]

Is there any similar kind of statement that you would find acceptable?
I posted a bit too early before--I wanted to say that I think it is very noble of you to be trying to find middle ground here. I am giving thought to whether a statement of any sort would work.

"This book explains the development of living organisms by a process of mutation and natural selection. The views in this book relating to evolution, mutation and natural selection reflect current mainstream scientific ideas about these issues. That is the purpose of a textbook, and as such reflects the purpose of your education. If this offends you, tough. If your sensibilities are so delicate that you take conservative conclusions based on overwhelming evidence as a personal affront, please pass the plate, take up a collection, and buy a freakin' clue. It is not personal. In evolution, as in every other area of science, we simply follow the evidence."

Ok, I don't think that one would help. But it made me feel better.

[Roboramma]

Suppose this was ID statement that was put in the front of a biology text book:
"This book explains the development of living organisms by a process of mutation and natural selection. The views in this book relating to evolution, mutation and natural selection reflect current mainstream scientific ideas about these issues. There are alternative views about the development of living organisms than the ones put forth in this book. In particular some people believe that the nature of life is such that some form of intelligent design is required to explain it. Theories relating to intelligent design as an explanation for the nature of living organisms are not discussed in this text book. "

Would ID'ers accept this statement (or a similar one) as adequate? Would evolutionary believers accept this statement (or a similar one) as an acceptable intrusion into a science text book? Would this statement pass constituitional muster?
I'm not sure I'd accept that statement as it doesn't really offer anything of value to the science course.

One statement that I think might make it in (perhaps incorporating it with your wording), would be something along the lines of "the theory of evolution makes no metaphyical claims as the existence or attributes of God. It is a scientific theory relating to the development through time of the life forms of the planet earth, and offers niether assumes nor denies any role played by God."
Of course that's poorly worded, but I think you get the point - evolution isn't relgion. As, I think, Meadmaker seems to be trying to point out, it's possible that God did play a role in the process of evolution. There is no evidence for this, however, and as such God does not play a part in the theory of evolution.

Niether, though, does the theory suggest that god didn't play a role, it just doesn't account for that role because it has no evidence to base such accounting upon.

Now I'm not sure that would satisfy ID people, but it seems to get the basic point across - understanding evolution doesn't mean you have to be an atheist. I think at the least it should appeal to the middle ground - religious people who might feel threatened by the apparent implications of evolution.

[Meadmaker]

I think the Roborama statement, or something similar, would do a very good job of placating a lot of people Of course, not all ID supporters would like it, because some of them are also creationists. However, that isn't the point. I don't think many people who read this forum are concerned about the feelings of creationists or intelligent design supporters anyway.

The Dover, PA school board wanted to put forward something related to the claims of intelligent design, though. If we wanted to specifically mention that theory, but remain on firm scientific ground, we could make a statement like this:

"the theory of evolution makes no metaphyical claims as the existence or attributes of God or any other spiritual entities. It is a scientific theory relating to the development through time of the life forms of the planet earth, and offers niether assumes nor denies any role played by God. It reflects the judgement of mainstream science about the development of life, and is supported overwhelmingly by scientists.

There is a theory referred to as "intelligent design" that asserts that there is evidence from the study of biological structures that those structures were the product of the work of a designer, and were not the product of a random process. This hypothesis lacks experimental evidence, but neither has it been disproven. It should be noted that this theory is not inherently incompatible with evolution and some supporters of this theory also believe in evolution.

Because this theory is not supported by the scientific mainstream, and because there is no specific experimental evidence to support this theory, this theory is not presented in a biology textbook. Some books have been written on the subject, and they are available through bookstores and might be available through your library."

So what good would such a statement do for the skeptical side of the debate?

First, it would make a point that evolution does not exclude the existence of God, which all by itself would take away a lot of the creationist thunder.

Second, it would point out that the claims of intelligent design are not actually incompatible with evolution. This would divide a lot of the supporters of ID. It is my belief that ID gets a lot of support only because there is a perception that scientists are pushing "godless" dogma on young minds. We should make it clear that we are not.

Meanwhile, it makes a true and correct statement about the state of scientific knowledge about evolution and intelligent design.

Does anyone disagree with that?

[Meadmaker]

ID does not predict, it teaches us nothing. It is not science.


It does predict. Go back to my fruit fly experiment. We are going to subject fruit flies to severe pressure in an isolated population.

The theory of evolution predicts that, given time, those fruit flies will change into something that isn't a fruit fly, and has certain anatomical structures that are well suited to survival in that environment.

The "theory" of intelligent design predicts that any change to the fruit flies will not involve the development of new structures that appear to have been designed.

Example of one type of change: I imagined that we are going to give the flies plenty of food, but it will be in strange boxes. The boxes will have screen coverings, with mesh that just barely allows the fruit flies to get their little mouths to the food. After some generations, small-mouthed fruit flies will dominate in the cages. Then, we will make the boxes different, so that the food is actually at the bottom of short tubes. The flies can only get the food if they have very small mouths, but which can stick out from their face a bit.

The theory of evolution says that if I do this often enough, and allow enough time for evolution to work, that eventually, I will end up with a fruit fly with a long, narrow, almost mosquito-like mouth. Or maybe a better analogy would be a fruit fly with a long, narrow, mouth, similar to the long, narrow, beak of certain Galopogos Island Finches.

The theory of ID says that that will never happen because those finch beaks were designed.

There's your prediction. The experiment hasn't been run. (Has it? In some form?) If that's the case, then isn't it a valid scientific hypothesis?

[davefoc]

I think I'd be fine with something like that meadmaker.

I think some ID'ers wouldn't like this line: and because there is no specific experimental evidence to support this theory,

Some of them go nuts with these convoluted explanations of how the natural world is consistent with their interpretations of biblical inerrancy. I think they would claim that their rationalizations of biblical stories and the natural world is science. I think that's crap, but I don't think a compromise is possible if you evilutionists insist on calling it crap.

[Iacchus]

The theory of ID says that that will never happen because those finch beaks were designed.In which case I think they've missed the whole point. Evolution is nothing more than adaptation by design ... both internally as well as the dictates of the surrounding environment.

[Taffer]

In which case I think they've missed the whole point. Evolution is nothing more than adaptation by design ... both internally as well as the dictates of the surrounding environment.

Evolution has nothing to do with design, Iacchus.

[Roboramma]

In which case I think they've missed the whole point. Evolution is nothing more than adaptation by design ... both internally as well as the dictates of the surrounding environment.
No, it isn't. Evolution is nothing more than the changes in allele frequencies over time.

The theory suggests that there are a few mechanisms that cause those changes - for example differential reproduction, which itself might be caused by the adaptivity (is that a word?) of the phenotypic effects of a specific allele to the current environment relative to other alleles that are found in the gene pool.

[Meadmaker]

In which case I think they've missed the whole point.

If you are saying that ID supporters have missed the point, I doubt you will find much in the way of argument on this board.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The "theory" of intelligent design predicts that any change to the fruit flies will not involve the development of new structures that appear to have been designed.
It makes no such prediction at all. There is a lot of mumbling about it, and clearly some IDers would like it to be the case, but that's it.

ID makes the claim that the evolution of irreducibly complex biological mechanisms is highly unlikely. There is no empirical evidence for this. Dembski attempts a logical proof for the flagellum, but fails.

As an example, does the recently evolved ability of bacteria to digest nylon involve a designed structure?

~~ Paul

[hammegk]

The theory of evolution predicts that, given time, those fruit flies will change into something that isn't a fruit fly, and has certain anatomical structures that are well suited to survival in that environment.
Although this also seems to me what evolution implies -- predicts? -- do our resident evolutionists agree? Or if not, why not?


The "theory" of intelligent design predicts that any change to the fruit flies will not involve the development of new structures that appear to have been designed.

Paul says 'no'. I tend to say 'yes'; that would to me be a prediction that ID should make.



As an example, does the recently evolved ability of bacteria to digest nylon involve a designed structure?
No, but do you suggest the bacteria are no longer bacteria? And you say 'evolved', I say 'mutated', and in the presence of nylon, survives better than strains that don't digest nylon. And, was this feature found 'in the wild' or forced in the lab?

[Iacchus]

Evolution has nothing to do with design, Iacchus.Really? So how is it that man evolved to the point where he can create his own designs? Are you saying that these are not a part of the evolutionary process, or what? If not, then where the heck did they come from? :jaw-dropp

[davefoc]

...
As an example, does the recently evolved ability of bacteria to digest nylon involve a designed structure?


Apparently, not every one shares your view that nylon digesting bacteria are evidence for evolution:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp

The article was well above something that I could easily understand, but I think the basic idea is that the bacteria had some genetic material all along that could digest nylon. The genetic material preexisted in plasmids that were designed into the bacteria so that it could adapt to different environments.

[Iacchus]

If you are saying that ID supporters have missed the point, I doubt you will find much in the way of argument on this board.Which, is why I say the only possible argument they could maintain, is that evolution is guided ... which, of course is a reflection of its design.

[Mercutio]

Which, is why I say the only possible argument they could maintain, is that evolution is guided ... which, of course is a reflection of its design.
Circularity, illustrated in one sentence...

[Taffer]

Really? So how is it that man evolved to the point where he can create his own designs? Are you saying that these are not a part of the evolutionary process, or what? If not, then where the heck did they come from? :jaw-dropp

Well, since this can evolve without any design, prove to me that evolution was designed.

[Meadmaker]

It makes no such prediction at all.

I suppose we should ask someone who believes in ID what predictions it makes.

I noted in another thread in the politics forum that a lot of people who criticize ID haven't read anything written by an ID supporter, only by ID detractors. The same is true of evolution's detractors. Most of them only read anti-evolution material.

My understanding of ID is that it predicts no complex structures can evolve by random processes. Applying that to the fruit flies, they would say that maybe bigger flies or smaller flies might come about, but they would still be fruit flies, with no new complex structures.

P.S. The stuff about nylon-eating bacteria requires some study. Response to come, someday.

[Iacchus]

Well, since this can evolve without any design, prove to me that evolution was designed.Nice try. ;)

[Iacchus]

My understanding of ID is that it predicts no complex structures can evolve by random processes. Applying that to the fruit flies, they would say that maybe bigger flies or smaller flies might come about, but they would still be fruit flies, with no new complex structures.Oh, well, you see you need to get away from the notion that true randomness exists. That way you can allow for all facets of evolution and still say that it was designed.

[Taffer]

My understanding of ID is that it predicts no complex structures can evolve by random processes. Applying that to the fruit flies, they would say that maybe bigger flies or smaller flies might come about, but they would still be fruit flies, with no new complex structures.

What about flies that have legs instead of antennae?

[Taffer]

Nice try. ;)

So you have no evidence that a design is required? Colour me surprised...:rolleyes:

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Paul says 'no'. I tend to say 'yes'; that would to me be a prediction that ID should make. ID does not have a crisp definition of what is "designed." That is why I said it makes no predictions about designs. ID does have a squirrelly definition of "irreducible complexity" and claims such biological mechanisms cannot evolve. Perhaps I am splitting hairs.

Apparently, not every one shares your view that nylon digesting bacteria are evidence for evolution Yes, the IDers will say it's adaptation instead of evolution.

I noted in another thread in the politics forum that a lot of people who criticize ID haven't read anything written by an ID supporter, only by ID detractors. The same is true of evolution's detractors. Most of them only read anti-evolution material. I have read Dembski's No Free Lunch.

My understanding of ID is that it predicts no complex structures can evolve by random processes. Applying that to the fruit flies, they would say that maybe bigger flies or smaller flies might come about, but they would still be fruit flies, with no new complex structures. Dembski has an explanatory filter that tries to identify biological objects with "complex specified information." He claims these cannot come into existence by any naturalistic means. However, the only object he analyzed was the flagellum, and only by treating it as a discrete combinatorial object. I have never seen an analysis of the probability of an object coming into existence by an evolutionary means.

~~ Paul

[Meadmaker]

.

I have read Dembski's No Free Lunch.

~~ Paul


Sorry. Wasn't clear. I suspected that you had read that or other ID works, and that the "they" in my post wasn't meant to refer directly to you.

Nevertheless, I think ID supporters would predict a different outcome of the experiment than would evolution supporters. I think ID is testable, but it would take a long time to run the test.

There is one sense in which it is not truly testable. Suppose we ran the fruit fly test and some new, highly unlikely, structure appeared. The ID crowd might very well say that God just did that because he wanted to trick you. After all, "thou shalt not put the Lord your God to the test."

My point is that it is theoretically testable, and therefore we shouldn't be hostile to mentioning it in a science class. "Ok, class. There are some people who think this:....but since we can't run the experiment, that won't be on the test. Meanwhile, genes mutate and plants and animals change over time. That has been tested experimentally, and you will be tested on those experiments. Class dismissed." The fact that there is extreme hostility toward even allowing a teacher to say that demonstrates that there is more going on here than a debate about science.

[Taffer]

ID is in no way theoretically testable, for one simple reason. ID'ers say "God made the world as if evolution happened". (Taking the general stance, here, not the "evolution is false" stance). They then make a prediction, using evolution. We then test it and find that the prediction was wrong. Evolutionists say "well, our theory must be wrong", and go about making it 'right'. ID'ers say "oh well, God made the world as if evolution happened, except here". See? ID can never be wrong.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Meadmaker: So you're saying that ID is testable by running an experiment where we watch to see if evolution can produce a structure that is ... what? Irreducibly complex? Not a structure we would "expect" on a fruit fly? The source of a speciation event?

Pick one. Then tell me exactly how ID predicts that your chosen event could not happen, and fails if it does. Make sure you get the details right, because I wouldn't want any IDers to say that you'd chosen a goalpost that has nothing to do with ID.

~~ Paul

[hammegk]

ID does not have a crisp definition of what is "designed."
Reminds one of the definitional difficulties we find in The Theory, huh? :)



ID is in no way theoretically testable, for one simple reason. ID'ers say "God made the world as if evolution happened". (Taking the general stance, here, not the "evolution is false" stance). They then make a prediction, using evolution. We then test it and find that the prediction was wrong. Evolutionists say "well, our theory must be wrong", and go about making it 'right'. ID'ers say "oh well, God made the world as if evolution happened, except here". See? ID can never be wrong.
Nominated for best strawman of the decade.... ;)

[Meadmaker]

Meadmaker: So you're saying that ID is testable by running an experiment where we watch to see if evolution can produce a structure that is ... what? Irreducibly complex? Not a structure we would "expect" on a fruit fly? The source of a speciation event?

Pick one. Then tell me exactly how ID predicts that your chosen event could not happen, and fails if it does. Make sure you get the details right, because I wouldn't want any IDers to say that you'd chosen a goalpost that has nothing to do with ID.

~~ Paul
For the sake of arguement, I'll take the question, although it would be better to ask Behe or Dembski, but since they aren't here, I'll go for it.

Not a structure we would expect on a fruit fly. ID predicts that such a change would take a series of steps, but that the intermediate steps would not result in positive selection pressure, and therefore it wouldn't evolve. ID says that if we want fruit flies with mosquito-like beaks that could get the fruit out of deep, narrow, holes, we would have to design them.

Oh, by the way, while we are here, you might as well predict exactly what evolution predicts would happen during the experiment, and make sure you get the details right. That way we can compare the relative predictive quality of the two hypotheses.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Not a structure we would expect on a fruit fly. ID predicts that such a change would take a series of steps, but that the intermediate steps would not result in positive selection pressure, and therefore it wouldn't evolve. ID says that if we want fruit flies with mosquito-like beaks that could get the fruit out of deep, narrow, holes, we would have to design them.
ID doesn't predict that. ID says that if the result is irreducibly complex, then there were intermediate steps that had no selective advantage. It doesn't predict that any particular result will be IC. However, Dembski has recently backed away from this stance and now says that one has to determine that there were no possible evolutionary pathways to the object. This is, of course, impossible.

Oh, by the way, while we are here, you might as well predict exactly what evolution predicts would happen during the experiment, and make sure you get the details right. That way we can compare the relative predictive quality of the two hypotheses.
What experiment? Exactly how are you going to apply pressure on these fruit flies?


Nominated for best strawman of the decade....
How do you figure? With ID, evolution is just fine except when they pick a sacred object and claim it could not have evolved. Do they choose the sacred objects based on a theory of ID? No, they just pick objects they think are cool.

~~ Paul

[Meadmaker]

What experiment? Exactly how are you going to apply pressure on these fruit flies?


However you like, Paul.

The point is that someone said ID wasn't scientific because it makes no predictions. That isn't true. ID says that complex structures can't evolve, because they are irreducibly complex. Therefore, given an opportunity, complex structures won't evolve. Evolution, or perhaps I say unguided evolution, will sometimes end up creating complex structures if selection pressure creates an advantage for those structures and their intermediates.

The point of my question about predicting what happens when evolutionary pressure was applied to fruit flies was to demonstrate that making such predictions in more than the vaguest terms is very close to impossible. No biologist alive today can predict exactly what will happen or how long it will take. Therefore, demanding that ID people do the same is rather silly.

If I subject fruit flies to selection pressure, in whatever manner I choose to, evolution predicts that eventually I will end up with something that isn't a fruit fly, and has a form that is very well suited to its new environment. Intelligent Design predicts that you will end up with a bunch of dead fruit flies, because they can't adapt to their environment quickly enough without the hand of a designer. It's not that difficult to grasp.

[bagtaggar]

Maybe I'm missing something here.

Evolution is a robust, thoroughly tested theory supported by mountains of observational and laboratory data.

There are dozens of known examples of observed speciation occuring within the span of a couple hundred years, the Feroe Island field mouse is one such example.

The genetic code of many species testifies to the presence of evolutionary processes, as predicted by the theory. We have endogenous retroviruses, retroposons, pseudogenes, LINEs and SINEs that match the fossil record for known evolutionary changes.

We observe daily how bacteria, through rapidly accelerated evolution (due to their incredible reproduction rates), develop resistance to anti-biotics, adapt to new harsh environments, and find creative ways to take advantage of changing resources.

The fossil record very strongly supports evolution. Whatever holes in the record there are, they are more than made up for by any of the above evidences, and are still the subject of research.

I could go on and on. Evolution is a strong theory. It makes accurate predictions. It is supported by mountains of evidence from hundreds of different scientific disciplines. Every single componant of the theory, natural selection, speciation, variation, mutation, etc has been thoroughly demonstrated and proven in many different redundant ways.

Intelligent Design consists of two things. A list of complaints about philosophical elements of the theory of evolution, and a strong religious componant that invalidates any notions of objectivity.

I can't for the life of me see why there is even a debate. This is so silly.

[davefoc]

I don't want to put words in Meadmakers mouth but I believe he is saying that theoretically ID makes predictions that are testable. Whether as a practical matter they are or not is a different question. Further I do not think he is saying that even if a test was devised that tested ID that an IDer would accept the results or not attempt to weasel around the results.

Meadmaker wrote:..ID says that complex structures can't evolve, because they are irreducibly complex.
I think what is meant by this sentence is that irreducibly complex structures can not arise through a process of evolution. I take this to mean that things like eyes and wings aren't generated by a process of evolution because there would be no point to even a very simple eye unless it worked so an organism is not going to all of a sudden sprout the simplest of eyes through a random mutation process.

So the only testable prediction is that an organism won't all of a sudden evolve an irreducibly complex body part or process. It seemed like the digestion of nylon was a perfect example of a violation of a ID prediction. But alas it wasn't. At least not to an IDer who explained it by just claiming that the ability to adapt to different environments already was designed into the bacteria, so digesting nylon was really nothing new.

[bagtaggar]

Ah ok.

The problem I guess is that there are no known irreducibly complex pathways/systems. Behe (the biggest proponant of the idea) attempted to convince his readers, for example, that systems like the immune system, blood clotting, and the photon receptor process in the eye are example of irreducibly complex systems. He failed however to provide more than a foggy suggestion as to why these systems are irreducibly complex, and his book has never been successfully peer reviewed.

In fact, the vast majority of the biology community fail to see how any of the systems he mentions are irreducibly complex. I know I've run across more than a few papers talking about how the blood clotting system is actually very redundant, and I think I've mentioned in another thread that pharmaceutical companies perform genetic knock-out tests that demonstrate how supposedly irreducibly complex biochemical pathways manage to function after one or more of their componants has been removed.

So, ID basically has a hypothesis. It is not a theory. The hypothesis that an irreducibly complex system would demonstrate intelligent design is somewhat reasonable (although it's very debatable, and, quite the cop-out). However no such irreducibly complex system has yet been discovered.

Thus, it's just a hypothesis, it's not a theory.

[PatKelley]

However you like, Paul.

The point is that someone said ID wasn't scientific because it makes no predictions. That isn't true. ID says that complex structures can't evolve, because they are irreducibly complex. Therefore, given an opportunity, complex structures won't evolve. Evolution, or perhaps I say unguided evolution, will sometimes end up creating complex structures if selection pressure creates an advantage for those structures and their intermediates.

The point of my question about predicting what happens when evolutionary pressure was applied to fruit flies was to demonstrate that making such predictions in more than the vaguest terms is very close to impossible. No biologist alive today can predict exactly what will happen or how long it will take. Therefore, demanding that ID people do the same is rather silly.

If I subject fruit flies to selection pressure, in whatever manner I choose to, evolution predicts that eventually I will end up with something that isn't a fruit fly, and has a form that is very well suited to its new environment. Intelligent Design predicts that you will end up with a bunch of dead fruit flies, because they can't adapt to their environment quickly enough without the hand of a designer. It's not that difficult to grasp.

Testing the ID paradigm. That would involve actually creating some positive testable statements.

Okay, I'm an ID proponent, and to prove intelligent design, I would say that it requires a falsifiable hypothesis. Saying Evolution hasn't created life is not a falsifiable hypothesis.

To prove an intelligent creator, I would say that organisms do not get all of their instructions from DNA or related molecules, but from another source. To falsify this, I would have to show that no other source provides instruction preferably by breeding organisms that have all one type of gene, subjecting them to selective pressures, and showing that mutation had occurred, use this DNA and only this DNA (No other part of the original organism) to replace the nuclear material of another organism, and subject it to the same selective pressures. If it still survives, ID falsified. If it does not, it only shows that DNA is not the only possible mechanism of inheritence and survivability.

[drkitten]

Testing the ID paradigm. That would involve actually creating some positive testable statements.

This has been done. Meadmaker's suggestion is very close to the mark. Behe's recent testimony in the ID case provides another one -- put a whole bunch of bacteria that do not have flagellae into a test tube and see if over several thousand generations, they evolve one. The position of ID is that they will not.

Unfortunately, this is a test, not of ID vs. evolution, but of ID vs. a pale shadow of evolutionary theory, since the position of evolutionary theory is that the bacteria probably will not evolve flagellae, either. There aren't enough bacteria in a normal test tube, the thousands of generations aren't long enough for an expected event of such magnitude, and we have no idea what sort of evolutionary pressure would be appropriate to apply.

The real problems are twofold. First, even if a bacterium "evolved" a flagellum, that could simply be the mark of the Designer at work, so even a "negative" result (from the ID perspective) wouldn't disprove ID. And second, as the attorney pointed out in his closing arguments, no one from the ID side of the debate is actually interested in running such a test.

[uruk]

However you like, Paul.

The point is that someone said ID wasn't scientific because it makes no predictions. That isn't true. ID says that complex structures can't evolve, because they are irreducibly complex. Therefore, given an opportunity, complex structures won't evolve. Evolution, or perhaps I say unguided evolution, will sometimes end up creating complex structures if selection pressure creates an advantage for those structures and their intermediates.

The point of my question about predicting what happens when evolutionary pressure was applied to fruit flies was to demonstrate that making such predictions in more than the vaguest terms is very close to impossible. No biologist alive today can predict exactly what will happen or how long it will take. Therefore, demanding that ID people do the same is rather silly.

If I subject fruit flies to selection pressure, in whatever manner I choose to, evolution predicts that eventually I will end up with something that isn't a fruit fly, and has a form that is very well suited to its new environment. Intelligent Design predicts that you will end up with a bunch of dead fruit flies, because they can't adapt to their environment quickly enough without the hand of a designer. It's not that difficult to grasp.
So what would call it when a strain of bacteria or virus under the pressure of vaccines and antigen turn into a strain that becomes resistant or jumps species as has been observed on numerous occasions?

[davefoc]

I think there is a third problem with this test drkitten suggests.

Just because an organism doesn't have a particular body part doesn't mean that the organism doesn't have the genetic code for that particular body part.

Lately there seems to have been an increased understanding how the expression of genes is controlled. It is certainly conceivable that the bacteria in question just needs to have the flagellum genes turned on to get a flagellum. So what would the generation of a flagellum prove? Perhaps not more than a single mutation occurred that allowed the flagellum to develop.

I suppose it is theorectically possible to analyse the genes that control the development of the flagellum and decide whether they represent something completely new or they just represent an expression of genes that were previously inactive. If they were completely new that would be a pretty strong case for the idea that some mechanism previously believed to have been irreducibly complex by an ID advocate could be created through a mechanism of mutation and natural selection, but I also have a gut feel that something as complex as a flagellum is not going to be created through evolution in anything like the the span of a human life.

[uruk]

The thing I noticed about I.C. is that they look at a complete functioning system with all it intricate parts and get dumbfounded that it could have developed over time. It's like looking at a fine rolex watch and marveling over the intricate gears and figuring that the watch could not have evolved from a simpler design since when you remove one part the watch stops working. they forget that chronometers first started out as a stick in the ground.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

As Bagtaggar said, let's have the ID folks demonstrate, empirically or logically, that some particular biological mechanism is irreducibly complex. Then we can start the experiment to see if we can evolve the mechanism in a really big test tube.

Until then, the goalpost of irreducible complexity is moving about as if some MIT students are using it for a football prank.

~~ Paul

[Meadmaker]

Davefoc,
Quite right. I don't feel like words have been placed in my mouth.



So, ID basically has a hypothesis. It is not a theory. The hypothesis that an irreducibly complex system would demonstrate intelligent design is somewhat reasonable (although it's very debatable, and, quite the cop-out). However no such irreducibly complex system has yet been discovered.




Also quite right. When talking about ID, I frequently call it a hypothesis, or I talk about a "theory", including the quote marks. It is a genuine theory, in that it is a framework that explains the available evidence, but it lacks experimental confirmation.

My interest in the topic comes from my experience back in the days when I was a Christian. Back then, I believed in both evolution and intelligent design, although the word had not yet been coined at least in the popular press. I believed that God formed the world and created laws of physics and all of that stuff. Then, he guided the process of evolution with his own direction. When he needed it, he would introduce a "random" mutation here and there so that life evolved under His direction in the manner He wanted.

I don't believe that anymore, but I abandoned that belief based on theological musings, not scientific ones. In fact, I think that belief is completely and totally compatible with all science as we know it. In other words, ID and evolution are not contradictory.

So why the hostility? Why the debate?

I think the only explanation is that the most vocal people on both sides are talking about religion. On the ID side of things, the loudest proponents are basically creationists, who think that God made whole fish all at once complete with scales. On the evolutionary side, there are an awful lot of people who absolutely refuse to accept the possibility that God interferes with the process, even though that lack of intervention is in no way provable.

Neither position is scientific. Creationism is inconsistent with physical evidence, and unguided evolution is beyond what science can confirm, and yet there are people who will hold to either side and insist that they are totally and completely scientific. They aren't.

Meanwhile, ID goes a bit beyond what I believed when I was a Christian. It asserts that the biological evidence absolutely contains evidence of design, that certain structures could not happen by chance and selection pressure alone. That is a scientific claim, but testing it is very, very, difficult. As such, it is in the category of an unproven, untested, hypothesis.

I have no problem with science teachers saying, "Some people believe X, but we haven't tested that, and we aren't sure how to do it. Meanwhile, we have tested a lot of the following things, like the age of this rock, and they will be on the test. Please study." I think if teachers were allowed to openly discuss the religious implications of the theories of the origin of life, and then debate the evidence that actually exists, the average student would be smart enough to sort out the nonsense from the good stuff. What are we afraid of?

[Meadmaker]

Until then, the goalpost of irreducible complexity is moving about as if some MIT students are using it for a football prank.

~~ Paul


With respect to the fruit fly experiment, ID predicts...well, we aren't sure exactly what it predicts, except in vague terms. Evolution, on the other hand, predicts....?


I'm not sure where the goalposts ought to be planted.

[Meadmaker]

Finally read the answersingenesis link about those nylon-consuming bacteria, and I'm afraid they have a very good story to tell. Are they right? I doubt it, but I can't prove them wrong.

For those not interested in the link, I'll give a 5 cent version. These bacteria can adapt to lots of different novel foodstuffs. Bacteria that can't digest nylon will predicatably change into bacteria that can digest nylon in a very short time span, although if there is some other initially undigestible food source, they will adapt to that. They liken the development of nylon-digesting to the development of antibodies to a specific virus. In other words, the nylon digesting enzymes are a particular reaction to a specific environmental condition, not a random development of a new structure.

They also say this mechanism is evidence for design, because this rapid adaptability comes from a particular structure that they believe will someday be shown to be irreducibly complex.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

With respect to the fruit fly experiment, ID predicts...well, we aren't sure exactly what it predicts, except in vague terms. Evolution, on the other hand, predicts....?
That it might take a huge test tube and millions of years.

I don't believe that anymore, but I abandoned that belief based on theological musings, not scientific ones. In fact, I think that belief is completely and totally compatible with all science as we know it. In other words, ID and evolution are not contradictory.
It's not compatible with the philosophy of science, although you might argue that it is compatible with the facts. However, explain how it is that God reaches out and pokes some chromosome somewhere to effect a desired outcome. Don't you think ID should at least tackle that question? ID has a story about an intelligent designer, but refuses to even mention the back story. Why is that?

On the evolutionary side, there are an awful lot of people who absolutely refuse to accept the possibility that God interferes with the process, even though that lack of intervention is in no way provable.
That is because it would be futile and stupid for science simply to accept a supernatural explanation. Really, do you want scientists to just give up on understanding the naturalistic evolution of some biological objects? Which ones? Behe's favorites?

Meanwhile, ID goes a bit beyond what I believed when I was a Christian. It asserts that the biological evidence absolutely contains evidence of design, that certain structures could not happen by chance and selection pressure alone. That is a scientific claim, but testing it is very, very, difficult. As such, it is in the category of an unproven, untested, hypothesis.
Testing it is impossible. However, you could present a logical proof that the flaggelum, say, could not have evolved. Dembski make a poor attempt at this in No Free Lunch. Since then, no one has bothered even working on this. Why is that?

Neither position is scientific. Creationism is inconsistent with physical evidence, and unguided evolution is beyond what science can confirm, ...
Biology is confirming it just fine. Perhaps you aren't paying attention. On the other hand, as you said above, you can always assume that god poked things now and again. What possible purpose such an assumption has I can't imagine.

~~ Paul

[drkitten]

Davefoc,

My interest in the topic comes from my experience back in the days when I was a Christian. Back then, I believed in both evolution and intelligent design, although the word had not yet been coined at least in the popular press. I believed that God formed the world and created laws of physics and all of that stuff. Then, he guided the process of evolution with his own direction. When he needed it, he would introduce a "random" mutation here and there so that life evolved under His direction in the manner He wanted.

I don't believe that anymore, but I abandoned that belief based on theological musings, not scientific ones. In fact, I think that belief is completely and totally compatible with all science as we know it. In other words, ID and evolution are not contradictory.

So why the hostility? Why the debate?

Because what you describe (the technical term for it is "theistic evolution") is not, in point of fact, "intelligent design" or even compatible with it.

[davefoc]

Because what you describe (the technical term for it is "theistic evolution") is not, in point of fact, "intelligent design" or even compatible with it.

I don't understand why you would say not compatible with it. I looked up a few definitions of ID and none of them seemed to preclude the possibility that evolution does occur. The assertion is just that intelligent design is a better explanation for the existence of some complex structures.

from wikipedia:
Intelligent Design (sometimes abbreviated ID) is the controversial assertion that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent, as opposed to an unguided process such as natural selection.

[Iacchus]

Because what you describe (the technical term for it is "theistic evolution") is not, in point of fact, "intelligent design" or even compatible with it.Yet if it was intelligently designed, in conjunction with evolution, it would be a better argument for intelligent design.

[hammegk]

... the technical term for it is "theistic evolution" ...
Or perhaps '~materialist evolution'? No theology there sfaik. ;)

[Iacchus]

from wikipedia:

Intelligent Design (sometimes abbreviated ID) is the controversial assertion that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent, as opposed to an unguided process such as natural selection. That works for me.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Of course, if God creates these clever biological mechanisms either by tweaking mutations or poking selection pressures, then the phrase "unguided process such as natural selection" becomes murky in the extreme.

~~ Paul

[drkitten]

I don't understand why you would say not compatible with it. I looked up a few definitions of ID and none of them seemed to preclude the possibility that evolution does occur. The assertion is just that intelligent design is a better explanation for the existence of some complex structures.


ID specifically denies the possibility that those complex structures originated via evolution.

Let's take Behe at his word for a moment about the bacterial flagellum, for example. Behe argues that the flagellum has no possible evolutionary precursors -- that it cannot arise as a result of mutation from an earlier form. I will assume for argument's sake that he is correct.

But in this case, it's equally impossible to arise via theistic evolution, because if it cannot arise as a result of any possible mutation, it can't arise as a result of God-directed mutation, either, since God-directed mutations are a subset of the possible mutations. In order to create the bacterial flagellum, God (or the mysteriously unspecified "designer") must have resorted to some other method for creating the first flagellum. Of course, God has a lot of tools in his shed -- but whatever tool he used, it wasn't theistic evolution.

Let's look again at Meadmaker's comments:


When he needed it, he would introduce a "random" mutation here and there so that life evolved under His direction in the manner He wanted.

Behe's central point is that "introducing a 'random' mutation" would not suffice to explain the origin of an irreducibly complex system. Meadmaker's God, who restricts Himself to introducing mutations and otherwise letting life behave normally, is provably different from Behe's, who performs operations that could not be done just by mutations.

Ergo, Meadmaker's "theistic evolution" is incompatible with ID.

[PatKelley]

To put a fine point on it, ID is an attempt to embrace "micro" evolution or evolution within kinds and deny "macro" evolution, or evolution of kinds. Both of these are made-up creationist terms specifically made for apologetics, and a supposed way of getting around things.

Still doesn't work. To qualify as a change of "kind" in ID, change would have to originate somewhere other than in DNA. Any change in DNA is a mutation, unless it is completely unrelated to its precursor, or arrives ex nihilo (has no precursor).

So to truly test ID, we have to assume some things arrive ex nihilo, an even more brash assumption than assuming chemical evolution to biological evolution, and something which Pasteur put the lie to long ago.

However, we could set up a completely sterile nutrient-rich environment and see if it produces a "kind" fully formed. Consider, that to allow extinction, some form of creation of kinds must take place or we'd just be depleting our kinds, add to which all kinds would have had to exist since the beginning of the fossil record.

This is the most ridiculous part of ID/Creationist arguments. They accuse evolution of saying "the watch appeared on the ground fully-formed" when that is precisely what their argument is, albeit with "somebody put it there."

[PatKelley]

Double post only hit button once.

[clarsct]

All I have to say is that God-induced evolution and evolution via natural selection look very, very similar.

Repeat after me: Occam's Razor is our friend....


At any rate, if the IDiots want to say that they can prove their claims, then they can do so. It isn't up to me to do so. I'm still waiting for their evidence.

[davefoc]

drkitten, I believe our disagreement is largely semantic and as such perhaps not that interesting, but I will post once more on the subject and allow you the last word if you choose to make another post on the subject.

ID as I understand it is essentially this:
At one or more times in the history of life on earth an intelligent designer inserted the genetic coding into the some genomes either of new or preexisting organisms to provided those organisms with some cool irreducibly complex features. Under some ID theories organisms may evolve after their genome has gotten a little supernatural update but evolution won't create any really cool irreducibly complex features, only the intelligent designer or designers can do that.

I took this phrase of Meadmaker "he would introduce a "random" mutation here and there" to mean that the intelligent designer inserted genetic coding into the genome to create the irreducibly complex features.

Perhaps you objected to the term ""random" mutation". I agree that what he meant by that was ambiguous. But it seems that it could be taken to mean that the intelligent designer messed with genome in such a way as to cause a change that the intelligent designer was interested in creating.

Perhaps you objected to the idea that all the intelligent designing wasn't accomplished at the same time. Certainly the young earth creationists might believe something like this. But as I understand the notion of intelligent design, doing it all at once is not a requirement.

Perhaps you believe that ID precludes all evolution. I didn't get that out of what I read and it would seem like an incredibly stupid notion if that is what IDers believe. But maybe they do believe that and I am just wrong on that.

[Meadmaker]

Let's imagine that God has put together a lot of cool stuff using his double helical tinkertoy set. Now he has a bacterium sitting there, but God thinks it would be cool to put a tail on it. "Let there be flagella..No. That would be too easy." says God.

Instead, God decides that he will introduce "random" mutations into the DNA of the bacteria. A little bit here, a little bit there, now you have a protein that sticks together. Then put a new one in that makes it wiggle...whatever. Of course, this process takes thousands, or possibly millions of years, but that's just a few days to God.

How does he make these random things happen? God isn't bound by such ridiculous things as the uncertainty principle or quantum mechanics. He can choose when that atom will decay, or which way that brownian motion will take the microscopic particles. He's God. He can do that.

Does ID say that this scenario is impossible? No it does not. But isn't it still an irreducibly complex structure, which ID says can't come about that way?

ID doesn't say that. ID says it serves no purpose until it is complete, and so it can't arise by natural selection. Until it's complete, that poor little bacterium with a partial flagellum would be at a disadvantage, and wouldn't evolve like his tailless buddies. Unless he had help.

So God, before he starts this experiment in flagellum production, separates out a few bacteria from all the rest. He puts them in a separate place so they won't have to compete with the other bacteria who have an advantage because they aren't wasting their energy making half-formed flagella.

When he is done, he lets the flagella-bearing bacteria back into the general population, where they take over.

Voila. Intelligent design, and theistic evolution.

And the evidence in the fossil record would exactly match the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which says exactly the same thing, but without the God part.

[Meadmaker]

What possible purpose such an assumption has I can't imagine.

~~ Paul

I'm sure you can't.


And I ask again, what are we afraid of?

[Taffer]

And I ask again, what are we afraid of?

The teaching of something that isn't scientific in a science class.

[Tricky]

And the evidence in the fossil record would exactly match the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which says exactly the same thing, but without the God part.
Um... no it doesn't. True, there are gaps in the fossil record, but there are some fossil lineages which are almost unbroken in their succession and preservation. I refer to marine animals such as foraminifera and diatoms. Because they are small, hardbodied, and they are buried whenever sediments are buried, they can be seen to undergo exactly the sort of transformation you describe, but every step is recorded, or at least its manifestation on the shell of the creature is. You can put the succession of fossils on film and it would look as if the organism were gradually curling, becoming more ornate, going from a coil to a helix, and any number of other changes.

We use these organisms to correlate ages in marine sediments, and it is very precice.

Punctuated evolution only says that at some times, evolution moves faster than others. It does not say that organisms jump from one form to another without intermediated forms.

However, if your scenario were true, then ID would predict that between two irreducibly complex species, no intermediate fossils would ever be found. Evolution predicts that they will. Guess which one has been correct time and time again?

[Roboramma]

Voila. Intelligent design, and theistic evolution. Meadmaker, are you saying basically that God might cause certain mutations that would not be beneficial to the organisms affected by them, but then keep them alive, allow them to reproduce, etc, until he later gave their decendents, and then their decendants, other mutations that lead to an irriducibly complex organ which could not have come about without god keeping those intermediate organisms alive and reproducing, because they were actually less fit in their natural environment than their contemporaries?

Two issues. One, would that mutation be possibly or likely to have occured without god's intervention? What I mean is do we need god for the mutation or just to keep the gene around in the gene pool once it's there?

Two, how does god keep the organism alive? For instance, if the mutation caused the organism to be blind, does god give it a good shove if it's about to walk off a cliff, or is he more subtle than that?
If so, does he do it simply by altering the environment in some way?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Couldn't God, the almighty and magnificent creator of every corner of the universe, simply have planned in evolution from the get-go?

If I was God, I'd be insulted by this poke-a-little-here-and-there crapola that his believers make up just so they can rag on evolution, and by proxy, on naturalism and atheism. His ancient believers managed to extoll His glories in the Bible, but nowadays they can't even give Him credit for a decent design.

His works are beyond all understanding, except for this nit-picky, pathetic, fix-it-after-the-fact genome poking nonsense. You've reduced him to a bad auto mechanic.

~~ Paul

[Meadmaker]

What are we afraid of?

The teaching of something that isn't scientific in a science class.


Is that really it?

Let's suppose that we all believe in evolution, and we want the next generation to do the same.

Consider two approaches to teaching the subject in high school biology.

Approach 1: Class, in this course you will be taught evolution. It is the only scientific theory about the origins and devlopment of life on Earth. The others are ignorant superstition akin to belief in Santa Claus. Now, chapter 1:

Approach 2: In this class, we will discuss different concepts of the origin and devleopment of life on Earth. Evolution is a scientific theory that explains all the known evidence. (Insert evidence here.) It is accepted by almost all scientists.

There is another hypothesis called "intelligent design". The people who support this believe that life exists and was created by a designer, presumably God. They point to something called "irreducible complexity" as support for their claims. However, their claims are disputed by many scientists. Here are some of the claims and counterclaims made by ID proponents and detractors.

Meanwhile, one particular form of ID is creationism. That theory asserts that the world and life were created in accord with a literal account of Genesis. That has several problems as a scientific theory, such as....

No one has yet devised an experiment that can definitively prove Evolution or ID as competing alternatives. Indeed, some supporters of ID also believe in evolution.


Which of those two approaches would be more effective in educating young people about evolutionary theory in such a way that they are more likely to see why it is accepted by so many scientists. I think approach number 2 is more effective. The only downside is that you would have to allow the possibility in discussing number 2 that God exists. I don't see that discussion as a downside myself. I'm not afraid to let students make up their own minds about science or about God.

[Meadmaker]

Meadmaker, are you saying basically that God might cause certain mutations that would not be beneficial to the organisms affected by them, but then keep them alive, allow them to reproduce, etc,

Yeah. That's it. And that is not my personal belief today, but it is a belief I once held, and I don't think it is inconsistent with any element of science known today.



Two issues. One, would that mutation be possibly or likely to have occured without god's intervention? What I mean is do we need god for the mutation or just to keep the gene around in the gene pool once it's there? Just to keep the gene around in the gene pool. If a structure had this property of so called "irreducible complexity", it wouldn't benefit the organism until complete. So, we'll assume God keeps the organism around until His plan for that organism is complete.

Two, how does god keep the organism alive? For instance, if the mutation caused the organism to be blind, does god give it a good shove if it's about to walk off a cliff, or is he more subtle than that?

You'll have to ask God. Seriously, though, back when I was a Christian, I figured he was sometimes, but not always, more subtle than that. But it really doesn't matter.


If so, does he do it simply by altering the environment in some way? That's what I believed when I was a Christian.

[Meadmaker]

Couldn't God, the almighty and magnificent creator of every corner of the universe, simply have planned in evolution from the get-go?

Sure. The ID crowd would say, though, that that wasn't possible because of the "irreducible complexity" argument.

Until that argument can be conclusively disproved, you can't disprove ID.





If I was God, I'd be insulted by this poke-a-little-here-and-there crapola that his believers make up just so they can rag on evolution, and by proxy, on naturalism and atheism. Back when I believed that "crapola", I thought it was ragging on naturalism and atheism, but not on evolution.

[Meadmaker]

Um... no it doesn't.

Umm...yeah. It does. (Theistic evolution as a means of intelligent design does predict the same fossil record as the theory of punctuated equilibrium.)


The things you spoke of weren't relevant to the "theory" of theistic evolution.

[Taffer]

What are we afraid of?

Is that really it?

Yes.

Let's suppose that we all believe in evolution, and we want the next generation to do the same.

Consider two approaches to teaching the subject in high school biology.

Approach 1: Class, in this course you will be taught evolution. It is the only scientific theory about the origins and devlopment of life on Earth. The others are ignorant superstition akin to belief in Santa Claus. Now, chapter 1:

Approach 2: In this class, we will discuss different concepts of the origin and devleopment of life on Earth. Evolution is a scientific theory that explains all the known evidence. (Insert evidence here.) It is accepted by almost all scientists.

There is another hypothesis called "intelligent design". The people who support this believe that life exists and was created by a designer, presumably God. They point to something called "irreducible complexity" as support for their claims. However, their claims are disputed by many scientists. Here are some of the claims and counterclaims made by ID proponents and detractors.

Meanwhile, one particular form of ID is creationism. That theory asserts that the world and life were created in accord with a literal account of Genesis. That has several problems as a scientific theory, such as....

No one has yet devised an experiment that can definitively prove Evolution or ID as competing alternatives. Indeed, some supporters of ID also believe in evolution.


Which of those two approaches would be more effective in educating young people about evolutionary theory in such a way that they are more likely to see why it is accepted by so many scientists. I think approach number 2 is more effective. The only downside is that you would have to allow the possibility in discussing number 2 that God exists. I don't see that discussion as a downside myself. I'm not afraid to let students make up their own minds about science or about God.

It's fine if ID is taught as one objection to evolution, which has been answered. Not as another scientific hypothesis, which it is not. A science class is for science, not theology. Perhaps something akin to "some people think evolution is false, because of X. Here is how X is explained".

[Taffer]

Umm...yeah. It does. (Theistic evolution as a means of intelligent design does predict the same fossil record as the theory of punctuated equilibrium.)


The things you spoke of weren't relevant to the "theory" of theistic evolution.

ID has no explanations for anything. It predicts, because it can accept some of the evolutionary processes, but it makes no explanation as to the observed phenomenon. The only possible answer is "because God wanted it so". This is akin to the reason that Copernicus' theory of heavenly motion is a better theory then Ptolomy's theory, despite making the same predictions.

[joesson]

Hello all. I'm new to this forum.

There seems to be alot of brouhaha over ID and evolution. In my mind there really is no debate. Evolution best explains the evidence we have. Proponents for ID(this is just creationism with a new hat) want to force the proverbial square peg in the round hole.

Could another theory come along and knock evolution on its backside, something that could BETTER explain the evidence? Perhaps, but it won't come from ID.


:beerflag:

[Taffer]

Hello all. I'm new to this forum.

There seems to be alot of brouhaha over ID and evolution. In my mind there really is no debate. Evolution best explains the evidence we have. Proponents for ID(this is just creationism with a new hat) want to force the proverbial square peg in the round hole.

Could another theory come along and knock evolution on its backside, something that could BETTER explain the evidence? Perhaps, but it won't come from ID.


:beerflag:

EXACTLY.

Welcome to the forum, mate! :)

*Hands joesson a beer*

[joesson]

Thanks Taffer, always nice to be welcomed with a brew.



:beerflag:

[Tricky]

Umm...yeah. It does. (Theistic evolution as a means of intelligent design does predict the same fossil record as the theory of punctuated equilibrium.)


The things you spoke of weren't relevant to the "theory" of theistic evolution.
I take it then that the ID that you are speaking of does not include the concept of "irreducible complexity"?

Theistic evolution as you seem to be describing it says, "Everything happens exactly as evolution says, except God started it." You can't even say God intervenes without proposing a way to test for His intervention. Otherwise, one is just saying "He intervenes, but it is impossible to detect." And of course, if it is impossible to detect, then it is pure faith and has no business in a science class.

[drkitten]

Yeah. That's it. And that is not my personal belief today, but it is a belief I once held, and I don't think it is inconsistent with any element of science known today.


No, it's the "hopeful monsters" argument all over again. I don't want to get into a lot of epistemological twittering about whether science produces "knowledge" -- but modern evolutionary theory has pretty firmly rejected the idea of "hopeful monsters" on the basis of what the practitioners consider good and sufficient evidence.

In this regard, Behe is partly right. His discussion of ID and "irreducible complexity" basically means that to produce an irreducibly complex system would the creation and survival of hopeful monsters, and is therefore impossible under current evolutionary theory. No evolutionary biologist would disagree with this statement. He further claims that such systems exist, which is where he and the mainstream biologists part company. But a well-documented and provable "hopeful monster" would actually constitute a refutation of Darwinian evolution.

So on the one hand, neo-Darwinians say that hopeful monsters can't exist. Behe says not only that they can, but that they must (and thus is the hand of God proven). "Theistic evolution" -- simply saying "evolution happened, but it was directed by God" -- can't reconcile this difference. Either God produces hopeful monsters in the course of directing evolution, in which case theistic evolution is detectably different from neo-Darwinism, or else God does not, in which case, theistic evolution is detectably different from Behe.

Writ large, this is an example of some of the problems with the Big Tent version of ID/creationism. The proponents can't get their story straight,. This strongly suggests to me that even they don't believe their story, and are just telling what they regard as plausible fibs.

[Meadmaker]

I take it then that the ID that you are speaking of does not include the concept of "irreducible complexity"?

Theistic evolution as you seem to be describing it says, "Everything happens exactly as evolution says, except God started it."

The answer to the second part is correct. Theistic evolution is totally and completely indistinguishable from plain old evolution.

ID by means of theistic evolution would throw in that "irreducible complexity" argument. But ID by means of theistic evolution would predict the same fossil record as punctuated equilibrium. Why? Punctuated equilibrium is more than just the statement that evolution happens at a non-constant rate. It also asserts, at least in most forms of the discussion, that rapid evolution tends to occur within small groups of individuals isolated from the general population. (Which is why the Faroe Island House Mouse evolves, but the plain old House Mouse stays the same.)

ID by means of theistic evolution would assert that God deliberately isolates groups of individuals he wants to tinker with, resulting in the same fossil records as punctuated equilibrium.

Now, in order to prove that the "irreducible complexity" argument is hogwash, and therefore the intelligent design aspect of the theory should be discarded, then you have to demonstrate that a highly complex structure whose component parts do not (currently) serve an indendent function, can evolve.

Can you provide experimental evidence that such a thing has ever happened? Unless the answer is yes, then you haven't disproved the hypothesis.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Now, in order to prove that the "irreducible complexity" argument is hogwash, and therefore the intelligent design aspect of the theory should be discarded, then you have to demonstrate that a highly complex structure whose component parts do not (currently) serve an indendent function, can evolve.
Where do you come up with this stuff?

Before I need to embark on this wild goose chase, someone has to define irreducibly complex in a careful manner that doesn't change every couple of years. Next, someone has to demonstrate that at least one biological object is IC according to the definition. Note I said demonstrate, not merely claim. Only then do I need to address the issue.

Biologists don't have to jump every time someone takes another potshot from the refrigerator box.

~~ Paul

[Meadmaker]

Hello all. I'm new to this forum.

There seems to be alot of brouhaha over ID and evolution. In my mind there really is no debate. Evolution best explains the evidence we have. Proponents for ID(this is just creationism with a new hat) want to force the proverbial square peg in the round hole.



Welcome joesson.

Whether or not there is a debate in your mind is not very relevant. There is a debate in the general public, and it isn't clear who is winning that debate.

One important thing to note is that ID is very specifically not just creationism with a new hat. All creationists are ID supporters, but all ID supporters are not creationists. Opponents of ID can repeat that line all they want to, but it doesn't help their cause. When debating someone, telling him that he believes something that he does not believe is unlikely to be persuasive.

I, personally, think our side, the evolutionist side, would be more persuasive if we pointed out the compatibility of ID and evolution. They are completely compatible, except for the notion of "irreducible complexity". If we were to simply say that this was an untested and unverified claim, and move on from their, a lot of ID supporters would embrace evolution, because it would no longer conflict with their religious beliefs, and ID would not conflict with science.

It is asserted that ID and creationism persist because the supporters are too stupid to see the truth. Everyone who has ever lost an argument can say that happened because his opponent was too stupid to figure out the right answer, but I think we should look to find the fault with our arguments, not with our opponents.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I, personally, think our side, the evolutionist side, would be more persuasive if we pointed out the compatibility of ID and evolution. They are completely compatible, except for the notion of "irreducible complexity". If we were to simply say that this was an untested and unverified claim, and move on from their, a lot of ID supporters would embrace evolution, because it would no longer conflict with their religious beliefs, and ID would not conflict with science.
Oh laugh out loud. In Kansas they are trying to change the definition of what science is. Do you think they would stop this foolishness if only we pointed out that the notion of god is compatible with everything as long as god has no affect on those things?

You do realize that god controls the market, right?

~~ Paul

[drkitten]

The answer to the second part is correct. Theistic evolution is totally and completely indistinguishable from plain old evolution.

.... which makes it totally and completely distinguishable from ID, because ID relies upon the existence of hopeful monsters.


Now, in order to prove that the "irreducible complexity" argument is hogwash, and therefore the intelligent design aspect of the theory should be discarded, then you have to demonstrate that a highly complex structure whose component parts do not (currently) serve an indendent function, can evolve.

Can you provide experimental evidence that such a thing has ever happened? Unless the answer is yes, then you haven't disproved the hypothesis.

This is a straw-man. Evolutionary theory does not predict that "highly complex structure whose component parts do not (currently) serve an indendent function, can evolve." Actually, as phrased, it's an easy demonstration. The components parts may not currently serve an independent function, but they may have in the past, and as the need for the parts vanished, the parts were co-opted to a different function. We've seen this in the development of the lung (from a swim bladder), which is obviously more useful to a land animal.

But I will assume that you really meant to make the weaker claim that "highly complex structure whose component parts do not and have never served an indendent function, can evolve." As a matter of fact, modern evolutionary theory specifically rejects that idea. That's the very definition of "hopeful monster."

Modern evolutionary theory also specifically rejects the idea that any such structures exist. There are no hopeful monsters.

So your argument is like saying "my anti-evolution theory says that fire-breathing dragons can't evolve. Can you provide experimental evidence that they can? Unless the answer is yes, then you haven't disproven my theory." First show me that fire-breathing dragons exist, and then we can discuss their origins.

In either case, "proving a negative" is notoriously difficult in science. I don't know offhand how one could prove that no hopeful monsters have ever existed. I don't know offhand how one could prove that no irreducibly complex structures exist in nature (especially since the definition of "irreducibly complex" changes every time someone looks seriously at the current defintion and as a result Behe gets pwned), but neither do I know offhand how one could prove that no fire-breathing dragons exist.

What I do know is that every time we've looked for dragons, or monsters, or irreducibly complex systems, we've come up dry.

The basic problem is that Behe's "irreducibly complex systems" are even less credible than fire-breathing dragons. They're both supported by absolutely no evidence whatsoever, and at least the definition of "dragon" doesn't change every ten minutes.

But the real question is how long we need to keep looking for something that isn't there?

[drkitten]

I, personally, think our side, the evolutionist side, would be more persuasive if we pointed out the compatibility of ID and evolution.

I agree entirely. Lying is almost always more persuasive than the truth.

I don't, however, recommend it.

[joesson]

Welcome joesson.

Whether or not there is a debate in your mind is not very relevant. There is a debate in the general public, and it isn't clear who is winning that debate.

One important thing to note is that ID is very specifically not just creationism with a new hat. All creationists are ID supporters, but all ID supporters are not creationists. Opponents of ID can repeat that line all they want to, but it doesn't help their cause. When debating someone, telling him that he believes something that he does not believe is unlikely to be persuasive.

I, personally, think our side, the evolutionist side, would be more persuasive if we pointed out the compatibility of ID and evolution. They are completely compatible, except for the notion of "irreducible complexity". If we were to simply say that this was an untested and unverified claim, and move on from their, a lot of ID supporters would embrace evolution, because it would no longer conflict with their religious beliefs, and ID would not conflict with science.

It is asserted that ID and creationism persist because the supporters are too stupid to see the truth. Everyone who has ever lost an argument can say that happened because his opponent was too stupid to figure out the right answer, but I think we should look to find the fault with our arguments, not with our opponents.

Thanks for the welcome Meadmaker.

I would hesitate to say that ID and evolution are compatible. One is psuedo-science, the other is not. And I may be incorrect in saying that ID is creationism with a new hat, but the similarities are too hard to ignore: A god or a higher power/intelligence created everything.

When I said there really is no debate between creationism/ID and evolution I didn't mean that people weren't debating about it, I meant that there is truth and there is wishing-it-weren't-truth. It's like debating whether or not touching a live wire with your bare hands will hurt you. People may have opinions on things, but evolution BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION is not an opinion.


:beerflag:

[Mojo]

I, personally, think our side, the evolutionist side, would be more persuasive if we pointed out the compatibility of ID and evolution. They are completely compatible, except for the notion of "irreducible complexity". And, of course, except for the small issue of whether organisms can develop as a result of mutation and natural selection, or whether they have to have been designed by God some unspecified designer. and If we were to simply say that this was an untested and unverified claim, and move on from their, a lot of ID supporters would embrace evolution, because it would no longer conflict with their religious beliefs, and ID would not conflict with science. I've yet to see an IDer whose religious beliefs didn't include the idea that the universe and everything in it was created by God. Evolution by natural selection conflicts with this idea because it implies that particular organisms can arise without having been created by God.

[Meadmaker]

Where do you come up with this stuff?

Before I need to embark on this wild goose chase, someone has to define irreducibly complex in a careful manner that doesn't change every couple of years. Next, someone has to demonstrate that at least one biological object is IC according to the definition. Note I said demonstrate, not merely claim. Only then do I need to address the issue.

Biologists don't have to jump every time someone takes another potshot from the refrigerator box.

~~ Paul

Before you teach evolution, do you have to demonstrate that at least one biological object has evolved? Good luck.

[Meadmaker]

.... which makes it totally and completely distinguishable from ID, because ID relies upon the existence of hopeful monsters.

This is a straw-man. Evolutionary theory does not predict that "highly complex structure whose component parts do not (currently) serve an indendent function, can evolve." ... We've seen this in the development of the lung (from a swim bladder), which is obviously more useful to a land animal.

....
In either case, "proving a negative" is notoriously difficult in science.

ID does not depend on hopeful monsters. Where on Earth does that idea come from?

As for the next part, I meant exactly what I said. Evolution does predict that highly complex structures (i.e blood clotting mechanisms) whose component systems (all of the proteins) do not currently serve an independent function (the only thing they do is blood clotting. Without the rest of the blood clotting stuff, they are currently useless.)

ID says that since they don't serve any purpose unless they are all put together, and they couldn't come together randomly, they must have been designed. Evolution says that they don't serve any purpose now except blood clotting, but they developed to serve a different function, and then were pressed into service as blood clotters.

Do you think it is demonstrated that lungs evolved from swim bladders?

It seems perfectly reasonable to me, but "demonstrated"? How would you perform that demonstration without resort to circular reasoning. (i.e. Evolution explains all structures. Therefore lungs evolved from something similar. Swim bladders are the only similar structure. Therefore lungs evolved from swim bladders.)

ID, in order to be proven, is the one that has to prove a negative (and it has nothing to do with hopeful monsters). They have to prove that no apparently irreducibly complex structure has ever evolved. While it is very difficult to prove a negative, it is trivial to disprove a negative. Show that one has.

Do you think you have done that? Without circular reasoning?

[PatKelley]

[snop]
ID, in order to be proven, is the one that has to prove a negative (and it has nothing to do with hopeful monsters). They have to prove that no apparently irreducibly complex structure has ever evolved. While it is very difficult to prove a negative, it is trivial to disprove a negative. Show that one has.

Wow. So, by that logic, Phlogiston is a viable theory because it has to prove that the Physics of the universe does not operate the same everywhere.

Nope, don't buy it. To be a hypothesis verging on theory, it has to provide a property that is falsifiable.

For evolution, one had to show that only the germ line was heritable and any changes in the somatic cells would not carry over to the next generation. Then a mechanism was proposed and rules established (Gregor Mendel) indicating there were pairs of alleles in germ lines. Then we discover chromosomes in the middle of the cells, and suspect that these pairings look like the structures we were attempting to identify.

DNA is only about forty-five years old, remember - Darwin had no mechanism or rules when he proposed On the Origin of Species.

Now, ID has to propose a falsifiable mechanism. Say, involving extinction and the rate now versus the past, and wherefrom, therefore, new species may arise. It proposes that species appear full flower; it remains to be shown how this is the case. An absence of other life would satisfy this requirement, leaving a giant sterile spot for new life to arise.

[drkitten]

ID does not depend on hopeful monsters. Where on Earth does that idea come from?

Michael Behe, William Dembski, Stephen Meyer, and the Discovery Institute.

What is an irreducibly complex structure if not a hopeful monster?

For further references, I refer you to their published works.


As for the next part, I meant exactly what I said. Evolution does predict that highly complex structures (i.e blood clotting mechanisms) whose component systems (all of the proteins) do not currently serve an independent function (the only thing they do is blood clotting. Without the rest of the blood clotting stuff, they are currently useless.)


Then you've thought about it even more superficially than Behe has, because he's admitted in writing (Response to My Critics, inter alii) that a past function can be co-opted and converted to a present function without qualifying as "irreducibly complex."


ID, in order to be proven, is the one that has to prove a negative (and it has nothing to do with hopeful monsters). They have to prove that no apparently irreducibly complex structure has ever evolved.


It's much worse than that. They have to prove that no irreducibly complex structure could ever have evolved. And that one exists in the first place, which is the real bugger, because they don't.

While it is very difficult to prove a negative, it is trivial to disprove a negative. Show that one has.


You realize that you're asking me to prove that no fairy has green wings. If there are no fairies, then there are no green-winged fairies. But before I can take your request seriously, show me a fairy, with wings of any color.

Neither Behe nor anyone else has been able to demonstrate the existence of these chimerae. Speculating about the origins of mythical beasts is a waste of time.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Before you teach evolution, do you have to demonstrate that at least one biological object has evolved? Good luck. Yes, and if you think that hasn't been done, you're not paying attention or you're being thick on purpose. We have a definition of evolution and we have gobs of evidence that it happens.

Anyway, evolution is not the parallel to irreducible complexity, which is what I was talking about. This is the parallel to irreducible complexity:

The Process of Evolution is the following abstract idea:

There is a population of things that reproduce, at different rates in different environments. Those rates depend, statistically, on a collection of inheritable traits. Those traits are subject to occasional mutations, some of which are then inherited.

Then one can deduce, from logic alone, without any need for evidence, that:

THEOREM: Each population will tend to increase the proportion of traits that have higher reproduction rates in its current environment.
Now deduce me some irreducible complexity from premises that we can agree on.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

As for the next part, I meant exactly what I said. Evolution does predict that highly complex structures (i.e blood clotting mechanisms) whose component systems (all of the proteins) do not currently serve an independent function (the only thing they do is blood clotting. Without the rest of the blood clotting stuff, they are currently useless.)
Now would that be useless without one component, or two, or how many exactly?

It's not one, because dolphins have one fewer level in the clotting cascade than humans (factor XII).

So is it two?

I'll stipulate that if you remove enough of the blood clotting cascade, blood won't clot.

~~ Paul

[drkitten]

It seems perfectly reasonable to me, but "demonstrated"? How would you perform that demonstration without resort to circular reasoning. (i.e. Evolution explains all structures. Therefore lungs evolved from something similar. Swim bladders are the only similar structure. Therefore lungs evolved from swim bladders.)


Well, if you can show a chain of intermediate in the fossil record (which in the case of the swim bladder to lung transition, paleontologists can), then that's good evidence supporting the suggested chain. It's also possible to demonstrate current intermediate forms and project them back, but that's obviously less conclusive.

However, if you want really convincing evidence from modern species, look at the genes and look at the embryology. The early process of embryological development is pretty much the same for all chordates, so you can look and see which organs develop out of the same proto-structures. In the case of lungs/swim bladders, embryologists can also point to the same set of cells that start to develop identically in fishes and in land animals, but then diverge. In fishes, these cells turn into swim bladders. In land animals, the same cells develop and then turn into lungs. If you have an explanation for the common development that doesn't also involve common ancestry -- and given the fact that Devonian fishes already had swim bladders, but lungs hadn't been invented yet, doesn't also involve an evolutionary transformation of swim bladders to lungs, I'd be interested to hear it.

So would Richard Dawkins and the editors of Nature. Because a convincing alternative hypothesis would be a major scientific development.

(Oh, and then you're going to need to explain the similarly in gene expression. But you already knew that, didn't you?)

[Meadmaker]

Michael Behe, William Dembski, Stephen Meyer, and the Discovery Institute.

What is an irreducibly complex structure if not a hopeful monster?



There are two different sorts of beliefs in ID. One says that species were created in the same form that they take today, fish with fins, birds with feathers, mammals with blood clotting systems, etc. In that form of belief, the sudden radical changes that appear would be superficially similar to the sudden radical changes predicted by the hopeful moster theory. However, they are not hopeful monsters because they are not "hopeful" or "monstrous" in any sense of the word. They were created by an omniscient god to be exactly like the way they were.

There's a different form of ID, which allows a gradual transition under the guiding hand of God. I have talked about it as ID by means of theistic evolution, or simply as guided evolution. There, there is no sudden transition, as there would be in the "hopeful monster" theory. And, as before, the small mutations again would be hand picked by an omniscient god.


You realize that you're asking me to prove that no fairy has green wings.

Absolutely not. It has been asserted that blood clotting is an irreducibly complex system. Why does the ID crowd assert its irreducible complexity? Because it is a system with two properties. First, the individual pieces do not do anything useful. Second, there are enough pieces that it couldn't have come about by chance.

All you have to do is prove that at least one system just as complicated and just as useful as blood clotting has come about by means of natural selection, and you have disproven the only marginally scientific aspect of ID.

But you can't do it. You can't do it becase evolution takes a very long time, and you don't have the money to do it.

If, on the other hand, you start from the premise that there are no such things as miracles, even at the level of DNA molecules, then unguided evolution is the only answer, and you can declare it proven.

I don't have a problem with that premise, but it isn't science. It's philosophy.

[Meadmaker]

Nope, don't buy it. To be a hypothesis verging on theory, it has to provide a property that is falsifiable.


And it does so. It asserts that complex structures whose individual components serve no useful purpose cannot come about through the means of random mutation and natural selection. Discover a new structure that can be shown to have come about that way, and ID is falsified.

[Meadmaker]

Now would that be useless without one component, or two, or how many exactly?


Actually, all you have to do is show that there are some components that are necessary, but which serve no useful purpose by themselves. The fact that there are other components present isn't very significant. They might be analogous to the jewels in the watch on found on the beach.

[Tricky]

And it does so. It asserts that complex structures whose individual components serve no useful purpose cannot come about through the means of random mutation and natural selection. Discover a new structure that can be shown to have come about that way, and ID is falsified.
There are countless millions. They're happening even as you speak. A specific immunity to medicines (useful to viruses and other pathogens) is a structure that comes about as the result of mutation and natural selection. ID is falsified.

[Meadmaker]

People may have opinions on things, but evolution BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION is not an opinion.


If you follow threads that I participate in, you'll find that I'm an atheist (sometimes I say a pantheist), but one who has respect for religion, and who objects to assertions that religious belief is foolish, stupid, naive, or any of the other disdainful adjectives sometimes heaped upon that belief.

It is difficult for some people here to grasp it, but there are extremely intelligent, thoughtful, scientists who, despite both their knowledge and education, still believe in God. Or even in Christianity.

Now, as to your post, I almost agree. However, I would dispute it depending on what you mean by "natural selection". If you assert that natural selection is and must be a purely random process with no intervention by God or other non-material forces, then that is an opinion. It is not provable.

Then, if you allow the possibility of divine intervention in the process, you have to decide whether it is a necessary part of the process. In that case, it is possible to prove that it could come about without divine intervention, but how would you conduct the experiment to demonstrate that it actually does happen?

[Meadmaker]

There are countless millions. They're happening even as you speak. A specific immunity to medicines (useful to viruses and other pathogens) is a structure that comes about as the result of mutation and natural selection. ID is falsified.

Sorry, but no dice. It's similar to that nylon eating bacteria. It's an adaptation of what is already present to the specific stimulus in the environment.

ETA: Perhaps I was hasty in that explanation. I'll have to give it some thought. Anyone know what real ID people would say to this?

[Tricky]

Sorry, but no dice. It's similar to that nylon eating bacteria. It's an adaptation of what is already present to the specific stimulus in the environment.
We can show that mutations have occurred. We can show (easily) that selective pressure has been applied. We can show that the pathogens have adapted to heretofore unknown and in fact non-existant drugs.

Exactly what kind of evidence are you looking for?

Now, as to your post, I almost agree. However, I would dispute it depending on what you mean by "natural selection". If you assert that natural selection is and must be a purely random process with no intervention by God or other non-material forces, then that is an opinion. It is not provable.
Well gee whillikers! God is not provable. In fact, He is unevidenced. Yes, it is possible to postulate hidden and undiscoverable causes, but so what? What does it add? You can postulate any unfalsifiable cause, but it doesn't make it believable. Natural selection and mutation have been shown to be adequate to explain evolution. Why does anyone want to add extra, unprovable layers?

[davefoc]

Tricky, I think you are singing to the choir here.

Tricky wrote:
What does it add? You can postulate any unfalsifiable cause, but it doesn't make it believable. Natural selection and mutation have been shown to be adequate to explain evolution. Why does anyone want to add extra, unprovable layers?

I suspect everybody that has posted to this thread has had a similar thought. I wonder if there isn't some sort of major divide in the personalities of humans. For me and I think most of the people that have posted, the idea that God did it is a completely unsatisfying answer. Where did God come from? What was there before God? If God wanted to be worshipped why doesn't God just come out and make some clear cut sign like maybe getting hurricanes to bypass the churches or something? etc. etc.

As a lifelong non-believer I have never understood the part of the human psyche that believes in God based on essentially non-existant evidence.

But I still am uncomfortable with disabusing people of their religious ideas especially when the public schools are involved. I think what Meadmaker has been pushing is the idea that some sort of a compromise that gives believers some sort of recognition while still limiting the bulk of a biology course to mainstream science might be beneficial.

I guess the main argument against what he has been suggesting is that the slippery slope argument and putting a little pseudoscience into the text books this year will lead to more the next. I realize that isn't all he has said and that he has made some other substantive assertions that there has been some disagreement over on the specifics.

I frankly don't know what I think about all this. It would be nice to get across the idea that it appears that perfect knowledge about any of this is impossible but there is a distinction between mainstream science which is based on experiment, analysis and falsifiable ideas whereas ideas like ID do not appear to make predictions which are specific enough to lend themselves to being falsified nor does it make predicitions which have practical non-religious purposes.

[drkitten]

However, they are not hopeful monsters because they are not "hopeful" or "monstrous" in any sense of the word. They were created by an omniscient god to be exactly like the way they were.

Which means that they are the "hopeful monsters" under the definition of the word; I'm sorry if you don't like the metaphor that was picked -- but there's no more implication that a "hopeful monster" must be "monstrous" than there is that a lightning bug must contain high voltage electricity.


There's a different form of ID, which allows a gradual transition under the guiding hand of God. I have talked about it as ID by means of theistic evolution, or simply as guided evolution. There, there is no sudden transition, as there would be in the "hopeful monster" theory. And, as before, the small mutations again would be hand picked by an omniscient god.


The whole point of the ID theory is that "small mutations" won't get you there. This version of gradualism is incompatible with ID!




Absolutely not. It has been asserted that blood clotting is an irreducibly complex system.


It has been wrongly asserted, yes.

Why does the ID crowd assert its irreducible complexity?

Because they are unfamiliar with the literature that has been around for twenty years.



All you have to do is prove that at least one system just as complicated and just as useful as blood clotting has come about by means of natural selection,


Which has been done, for the blood clotting system itself.

We have the evolutionary precursers (such as the dolphins system, which is "reducibly complex" from humans, and the puffer fish, which is less complex even than the dolphins). We have the structural analogies in other proteins in other systems which have been co-opted, and we have the gene sequences themselves to show where and how the mutations occurred to create the modern blood clotting sequence.

This isn't mathematical "proof," but it's certainly better evidence than the competition. The basic premise of the "irreducible complexity" argument is empirically wrong, both since subsystems of the blood clotting complex can be shown to have the same function (see puffer fish), and because the individual proteins themselves are useful in other contexts. So given a choice between a theory with empirical support and a theory that relies on factual misstatements to make its basic case, I go with evolution.

you have disproven the only marginally scientific aspect of ID.

Which is exactly why ID is not even marginally scientific.

[sphenisc]

The whole point of the ID theory is that "small mutations" won't get you there. This version of gradualism is incompatible with ID!



Discovery Institute:
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Nothing in that about ""small mutations" won't get you there. "

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Absolutely not. It has been asserted that blood clotting is an irreducibly complex system. Why does the ID crowd assert its irreducible complexity? Because it is a system with two properties. First, the individual pieces do not do anything useful. Second, there are enough pieces that it couldn't have come about by chance.
That is not the definition of irreducible complexity! Can't we at least try to agree on the current definition, even though it will change in a few months? IC says nothing about what the individual pieces do. It talks about the existing mechanism with one or more pieces removed.

Actually, all you have to do is show that there are some components that are necessary, but which serve no useful purpose by themselves. The fact that there are other components present isn't very significant. They might be analogous to the jewels in the watch on found on the beach.
No, that's not what you have to show.

Here is Dembski's recent paper:

http://www.iscid.org/papers/Dembski_IrreducibleComplexityRevisited_011404.pdf

In it Dembski says:

For an irreducibly complex system, each of the parts of the
irreducible core plays an indispensable role in achieving the system’s basic
function. Thus, removing parts, even a single part, from the irreducible
core results in complete loss of the system’s basic function. Nevertheless,
to determine whether a system is irreducibly complex, it is not enough
simply to identify those parts whose removal renders the basic function
unrecoverable from the remaining parts. To be sure, identifying such
indispensable parts is an important step for determining irreducible
complexity in practice. But it is not sufficient. Additionally, we need to
establish that no simpler system achieves the same basic function.
So first we have an irreducible core. That implies that there are some parts that can be removed without a problem. If we remove a part of the core, we lose the "system's basic function." No longer does it say that we lose all function. Finally, the coupe de grace: We have to investigate all possible naturalistically formed mechanisms to see if any of them can serve the same function. If so, the mechanism is not IC.

Blam! IC is done, gone, dead, and buried.

~~ Paul

[Meadmaker]

Which means that they are the "hopeful monsters" under the definition of the word; I'm sorry if you don't like the metaphor that was picked -- but there's no more implication that a "hopeful monster" must be "monstrous" ...

But it must be "hopeful". For the creationist version of ID, there isn't anything "hopeful". God didn't "hope" that fish could swim.


Which has been done, for the blood clotting system itself.

If you assert that all systems have a naturalist cause, then the blood clotting mechanism has a naturalist cause. Q.E.D. But it's circular reasoning. Your explanation is a very good explanation of why evolution is a very good naturalistic explanation for observed phenomena in the fossil record, genomic evidence, embryology, and comparative anatomy of living creatures. It ties them all together quite nicely.

However, there are two things that it doesn't do. It doesn't prove that it actually happened, because we weren't there to see it happen, and it doesn't prove that it could have happened without divine intervention.

If you want to prove that it happens, you have to make it happen. Good luck. I sincerely wish you well. But until then, when someone asserts that it can't happen, you haven't won your case until you have proved, by demonstration, that it can happen.

[Meadmaker]

No, that's not what you have to show.

Here is Dembski's recent paper:

http://www.iscid.org/papers/Dembski_IrreducibleComplexityRevisited_011404.pdf



Behe doesn't agree with everything Dembski says, any more than Gould agrees with everything Dawkins says, but your point is well taken. Fine, we can use your, and Dembski's definition. So all we have to do is show that there is a system which doesn't function if you remove one of its components, regardless of whether or not those components have some other function by themselves.

Dembski
Additionally, we need to
establish that no simpler system achieves the same basic function.

Paul
So first we have an irreducible core. That implies that there are some parts that can be removed without a problem. If we remove a part of the core, we lose the "system's basic function." No longer does it say that we lose all function. Finally, the coupe de grace: We have to investigate all possible naturalistically formed mechanisms to see if any of them can serve the same function.

I think you are misrepresenting Dembski in the "coup de grace". I don't think he is saying that every naturalistic mechanism in every organism has to be investigated. I think he is saying that the function that is performed by that system is necessary for that organism. In other words, redundant systems are not irreducibly complex, because you can "reduce" them somewhat without them losing their function.

But I will read the paper sometime this weekend.

Blam! IC is done, gone, dead, and buried.

I don't follow. How does your argument do any harm at all to ID?

Are you saying that a human blood clotting system is not irreducibly complex because puffer fish also have a simpler blood clotting system?


DaveFoc,
Quite correct, again.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I think you are misrepresenting Dembski in the "coup de grace". I don't think he is saying that every naturalistic mechanism in every organism has to be investigated. I think he is saying that the function that is performed by that system is necessary for that organism. In other words, redundant systems are not irreducibly complex, because you can "reduce" them somewhat without them losing their function. That's now how I'd interpret what he said:
To be sure, identifying such
indispensable parts is an important step for determining irreducible
complexity in practice. But it is not sufficient. Additionally, we need to
establish that no simpler system achieves the same basic function. You need to check every possible biological mechanism, because it is possible that such a mechanism is exactly what evolved into the one under consideration.

I don't follow. How does your argument do any harm at all to ID? It's not my argument that does the harm, but Dembski's. Since it is impossible to enumerate all possible biological mechanisms, it is not possible to perform the last step in his paragraph. Thus, nothing can be shown to be IC.

Are you saying that a human blood clotting system is not irreducibly complex because puffer fish also have a simpler blood clotting system? Correct. Perhaps the human blood clotting system evolved from the puffer fish's. It makes no difference whether it really did, as long as it could have.

Come on, it's clear that the human blood clotting system evolved by successive replications of the same few genes.

~~ Paul

[Meadmaker]

That's now how I'd interpret what he said:
You need to check every possible biological mechanism, because it is possible that such a mechanism is exactly what evolved into the one under consideration.

It's not my argument that does the harm, but Dembski's. Since it is impossible to enumerate all possible biological mechanisms, it is not possible to perform the last step in his paragraph. Thus, nothing can be shown to be IC.


I just finished Dembski's paper, although I skimmed some of the boring parts.

I think this is a real misrepresentation of what he was saying. The notion of irreducible complexity isn't hard to grasp. My body is irreducibly complex, because if you take out my liver, it stops working. The liver is part of the irreducible core.

However, that is a slight oversimplification, because Dembski threw in a bit of a curve ball into the description by saying that if a simpler system can do the same function, then the original, more complex, system, is not "irreducible".

But notice in his paper that he talked about how it had to do the same function in the same manner. In other words, I can look at all other systems that have liver, kidneys, brains, lungs, etc... and the simplest one would be considered irreducibly complex. However, I don't have to look at fish with their swim bladders, because their swim bladders do not perform the same function as lungs. The fact that the swim bladders evolved into lungs doesn't disqualify terrestrial vertebrate respiration systems as irreducibly complex. The swim bladders don't perform the same function.

As for the paper, I would have no objection if that paper were presented to my son in a biology class as an example of what some people believed about biological systems. I would hope he would be able to critically evaluate it, and spot the same flaws I spotted in it. I spotted two that were extremely important.

First, in critiquing evolution, Dembski correctly notes the lack of emprical evidence. "Darwinists" can't show a specific pathway by which one complex system evolved from another. However, he asserts that using this lack of knowledge is not an "argument from ignorance". It clearly is, in fact, an argument from ignorance.

Second, in analysing "specified complexity", his argument fails, and fails for exactly the same reason he says the Drake equation fails. For those not interested in reading the paper, the Drake equation predicts the probability that extraterrestrial life will be detected, based on the probabilities that necessary precursors to the detection of extraterrestrial life will occur. Dembski has an "origination equality" that purports to do the same thing for computing the probability that an irreducibly complex system will arise via evolution. Dembski's inequality fails, for exactly the same reason. It has a bunch of probabilities in it, and none of them can be computed.

Which leaves us with the fact that Dembski's argument has not disproved evolotion nor has it proven Intelligent Design. So what harm is there in showing it to a group of fourteen year olds and asking them to think about it for themselves? Being challenged by it would be more effective as a teaching tool than being told to ignore it.

What I found most interesting is that Dembski's paper was basically championing the notion of theistic evolution. By accepting the age of the Earth, you have a case where one of today's most prominent anti-evolution author is publicly rejecting biblical literalism. I think that's progress.

[Mojo]

There's a different form of ID, which allows a gradual transition under the guiding hand of God. I have talked about it as ID by means of theistic evolution, or simply as guided evolution. There, there is no sudden transition, as there would be in the "hopeful monster" theory. And, as before, the small mutations again would be hand picked by an omniscient god. How would the results of theistic or guided evolution differ in any observable way from the results of evolution by natural selection? If they don't, all "theistic evolution" is doing is saying "Goddiddit."

[Iacchus]

How would the results of theistic or guided evolution differ in any observable way from the results of evolution by natural selection? If they don't, all "theistic evolution" is doing is saying "Goddiddit."Well, if the blue print exists prior to its creation, then the obvious question must be, "whodidit?"

[hodgy]

How would the results of theistic or guided evolution differ in any observable way from the results of evolution by natural selection? If they don't, all "theistic evolution" is doing is saying "Goddiddit."

Of course, snow is perfectly explainable as a natural process whereby water is frozen into crystals as it travels downwards to earth, landing where the winds take it.

Whilst I accept that is scientifically possible, I think we cannot rule out the possibility that snowflakes are hand-crafted by pixies in God's winter-wonderland-workshop and then individually dropped from the heavens and blown by the breath of angels into their final positions on earth.

In fact, I find the notion of the intelligent design, manufacture and distribution of snowflakes to be compelling - how else can we explain their irreducible snowflakiness? How else can we explain the purpose of the million tiny chisels found at the North Pole recently? And what about the Big Bumper Book of Snowflake designs rumoured to have been lost with the deluge of Atlantis?

[Mojo]

Well, if the blue print exists prior to its creation, then the obvious question must be, "whodidit?"If the blue print exists before its creation, the obvious question is, in fact, "have you wound your clock the wrong way?" ;)

The problem with discussing a "blue print" is that there is no evidence that a "blue print" existed at all.

[Iacchus]

If the blue print exists before its creation, the obvious question is, in fact, "have you wound your clock the wrong way?" ;)

The problem with discussing a "blue print" is that there is no evidence that a "blue print" existed at all.Well, what makes more sense to you? That the laws of nature existed prior to the Big Bang? Or, that the laws of nature came about (miraculously ;)) after the Big Bang? This in effect is what I mean by "blue print."

[Mojo]

Well, what makes more sense to you? That the laws of nature existed prior to the Big Bang? If you'd been paying attention recently you'd know that the phrase "prior to the big bang" is meaningless. There is no "before." Or, that the laws of nature came about (miraculously ;)) after the Big Bang? The laws that time and space follow appeared at the big bang, along with time and space. That's when everything started. Call it a miracle if you want; call it an accident if you want. It happened.

[Meadmaker]

How would the results of theistic or guided evolution differ in any observable way from the results of evolution by natural selection? If they don't, all "theistic evolution" is doing is saying "Goddiddit."

In my opinion? None.

In Dembski's opinion? Some of the more complex structures wouldn't exist.

How do you prove Dembski wrong? Here's a quote from Dembski:

"Minimally what’s required are detailed, testable reconstructions or models
that demonstrate how indirect Darwinian pathways might reasonably have
produced actual irreducibly complex biochemical machines like the
bacterial flagellum."

Right now, the extent of our knowledge doesn't allow the creation of such a model. Until our knowledge does allow that, ID is not disproven. So, what harm is there in presenting and discussing a paper like Dembski's in a high school biology class?

I suppose a lot of people think education consists of telling students the right answers. Personally, I think the most important part of education is getting students to ask the right questions.

[Mojo]

In my opinion? None.

In Dembski's opinion? Some of the more complex structures wouldn't exist.But Dembski's idea of ID, as far as I can see, is not compatible with "theistic evolution." In theistic evolution, where as you say "there is no sudden transition," structures are built up gradually, but with intervention from a deity to guide the process in the right direction. Dembski's theory states that "irreducibly complex" structures can't have developed gradually, but must have suddenly appeared in their final, irreducibly complex, form.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I think this is a real misrepresentation of what he was saying. The notion of irreducible complexity isn't hard to grasp. My body is irreducibly complex, because if you take out my liver, it stops working. The liver is part of the irreducible core.
No, that can't be what they're trying to define as irreducibly complex. No one would argue with that. The question is: Can your liver evolve in small steps from something else, all the while being useful or at least not harmful?

But notice in his paper that he talked about how it had to do the same function in the same manner. In other words, I can look at all other systems that have liver, kidneys, brains, lungs, etc... and the simplest one would be considered irreducibly complex. However, I don't have to look at fish with their swim bladders, because their swim bladders do not perform the same function as lungs. The fact that the swim bladders evolved into lungs doesn't disqualify terrestrial vertebrate respiration systems as irreducibly complex. The swim bladders don't perform the same function.
But then the idea of irreducible complexity is worthless. No matter what the lung evolved from, if it did so in small steps, each if which were not significantly detrimental, then why would we call it irreducibly complex and why would we need a designer?

If by irreducibly complex we are going to mean nothing more than "it has some parts that are necessary for its function," then the term is vapid.

~~ Paul

[Iacchus]

If you'd been paying attention recently you'd know that the phrase "prior to the big bang" is meaningless. There is no "before."Then there's no need to discuss the possibility of a Creator which has always existed then is there?

The laws that time and space follow appeared at the big bang, along with time and space. That's when everything started. Call it a miracle if you want; call it an accident if you want. It happened.So, if thieves broke into your house and stole all your valuables, would you attribute that to something which "just happened?"

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So, if thieves broke into your house and stole all your valuables, would you attribute that to something which "just happened?"
You just shattered by non sequiturometer, dude!

~~ Paul

[Mercutio]

So, if thieves broke into your house and stole all your valuables, would you attribute that to something which "just happened?"
No, quite obviously it was the Easter Bunny. I saw it all in a dream.

[Mojo]

Then there's no need to discuss the possibility of a Creator which has always existed then is there? There certainly isn't. Because this is clearly nonsense. So, if thieves broke into your house and stole all your valuables, would you attribute that to something which "just happened?"I'd attribute it to the thieves.

[cyborg]

NO! Clearly it was a god that caused the items to disappear. I wasn't praying hard enough that week.

[Meadmaker]

But Dembski's idea of ID, as far as I can see, is not compatible with "theistic evolution." In theistic evolution, where as you say "there is no sudden transition," structures are built up gradually, but with intervention from a deity to guide the process in the right direction. Dembski's theory states that "irreducibly complex" structures can't have developed gradually, but must have suddenly appeared in their final, irreducibly complex, form.

From Dembski's paper:

"Similarly, one can imagine an
organism forming a new structure over the course of several generations
by successively bringing about certain components (perhaps by random
variation), setting them aside (by a goal-directed selection process), and
then, once all the components are in place, putting them together to form
that new structure. Given a prespecified goal, selection has no difficulty
producing irreducibly complex systems."

Perhaps elsewhere he has said something else. I don't know. This is the only paper I've read of his, or any other ID supporter. But in this paper, he is saying that they could develop gradually, if that development was part of a goal-directed process.

[Meadmaker]

No, that can't be what they're trying to define as irreducibly complex. No one would argue with that.

Well, somebody is arguing with that.

"A functional system is irreducibly complex if it contains a multipart
subsystem (i.e., a set of two or more interrelated parts) that cannot be
simplified without destroying the system’s basic function. I refer to this
multipart subsystem as the system’s irreducible core." (Dembski)

That's it. That's the definition.


Dembski asserts that such systems cannot evolve in small successive steps that are not part of a goal directed process, but that isn't part of the definition. Actually, his assertion is somewhat more complicated than that, but that's an ok approximation.

[Mojo]

From Dembski's paper:

"Similarly, one can imagine an
organism forming a new structure over the course of several generations
by successively bringing about certain components (perhaps by random
variation), setting them aside (by a goal-directed selection process), and
then, once all the components are in place, putting them together to form
that new structure. Given a prespecified goal, selection has no difficulty
producing irreducibly complex systems."

Perhaps elsewhere he has said something else. I don't know. This is the only paper I've read of his, or any other ID supporter. But in this paper, he is saying that they could develop gradually, if that development was part of a goal-directed process.What he seems to be saying here is that the components appear gradually, but (presumably) have no function until assembled. Is this what you would expect to see in theistic evolution?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Perhaps elsewhere he has said something else. I don't know. This is the only paper I've read of his, or any other ID supporter. But in this paper, he is saying that they could develop gradually, if that development was part of a goal-directed process.
Duh.

Well, somebody is arguing with that.

"A functional system is irreducibly complex if it contains a multipart
subsystem (i.e., a set of two or more interrelated parts) that cannot be
simplified without destroying the system’s basic function. I refer to this
multipart subsystem as the system’s irreducible core." (Dembski)
The problem is that Dembski's definition of IC squirms around like a box of frogs. If that's his complete definition of IC, then he contradicts himself in the quote I gave above. In any event, it would be good if he could demonstrate such an IC system, wouldn't it?

~~ Paul

[drkitten]

From Dembski's paper:

"Similarly, one can imagine an
organism forming a new structure over the course of several generations
by successively bringing about certain components (perhaps by random
variation), setting them aside (by a goal-directed selection process), and
then, once all the components are in place, putting them together to form
that new structure. Given a prespecified goal, selection has no difficulty
producing irreducibly complex systems."

Perhaps elsewhere he has said something else. I don't know. This is the only paper I've read of his, or any other ID supporter. But in this paper, he is saying that they could develop gradually, if that development was part of a goal-directed process.

And since what he describes here is exactly a "hopeful monster," this shows in Dembski's own words how ID presupposed hopeful monsters and is thus incompatible with theistic evolution.

[Tricky]

Dembski asserts that such systems cannot evolve in small successive steps that are not part of a goal directed process, but that isn't part of the definition. Actually, his assertion is somewhat more complicated than that, but that's an ok approximation.
If Dembski's assertion were correct, then we should see no extinctions, especially those preceded by long, dead-end strings of evolution. For example, trilobites evolved greatly and expanded widely, but they all died, leaving no successors. I do not see how those eons of evolution followed by extinction could be called part of a directed process. It also ignores the well-established knowledge that most mutations are either benign or harmful. If it were directed, then most or all mutations would be beneficial.

Of course, this all gets swept away with the comment, "there is a 'director' but we don't know his plan." This is a cop-out pure and simple. How can you tell the difference between a plan that no-one can understand versus no plan?

[drkitten]

How can you tell the difference between a plan that no-one can understand versus no plan?

How can you tell the difference between a language that no one can understand versus no language?

There are lots of inscriptions out there that have never been translated because no one (now) knows the language in which they were written. You're setting the bar too high here. There are lots of things out there that we don't understand.

The problem isn't that the IDer's plan is not understandable. It's that it's not even detectable, because every proposed method for detecting design has so far proven to be unreliable and impossible to apply in practice.

[Meadmaker]

What he seems to be saying here is that the components appear gradually, but (presumably) have no function until assembled. Is this what you would expect to see in theistic evolution?

That's what I would expect to see in non-theistic evolution as well. More accurately, I would expect those components to serve a different function until they were assembled. Feathers kept dinosaurs warm, and then all of a sudden a small glider, or something, "discovered" they also kept him in the air longer.

But now, after some evolution, the birds feathers are part of an irreducibly complex system to keep the bird in the air. If you pluck the feathers, the bird falls.

Dembski asserts that such a thing can't come about through non-directed evolution. Want to prove him wrong? We've been over that path before.

[Iacchus]

But now, after some evolution, the birds feathers are part of an irreducibly complex system to keep the bird in the air. If you pluck the feathers, the bird falls.What does this say about birds which are land bound though or, can barely fly?

[Iacchus]

How can you tell the difference between a language that no one can understand versus no language?Do you mean like the laws of physics?

[Meadmaker]

The problem isn't that the IDer's plan is not understandable. It's that it's not even detectable, because every proposed method for detecting design has so far proven to be unreliable and impossible to apply in practice.

And so, if anyone were to assert that Dembski had proved his case, they would be wrong.

But, if they asserted that it was a possibility, what then? Dembski's argument, and he is correct, iz that every proposed model for evolution is also undetectable. We can't say, "Here is a possible sequence that turns a swim bladder into a lung." The closest we can get is to show a swim bladder, and then a thing that is somewhat more lunglike, and then a lung, and say that the intervening steps are simply lost to us.

Meanwhile, what would be the harm in presenting Dembski's paper to a group of 14 year old biology students? I, personally, think that the effect of exposing them to the controversy in a classroom setting would prompt discussion and allow students to see the weak points in the theory. They would also see the weak points in evolution, but it might prompt a few of them to study biology so they can either patch up the weak points, or hope to completely disprove evolution by further exposing the weak points. Either way, they are doing science.

As it is, what happens is evolution as presented. Someone asks a question related to ID, and the answer is either, "That's pseudoscience." or "The government won't let me talk about that." I think that drives students toward acceptance of ID. They are never exposed to actual analysis of the theory.

People really do believe ID. If you want them to stop, you will have to talk about it in a classroom.

[Meadmaker]

What does this say about birds which are land bound though or, can barely fly?

That ostriches don't have an irreducibly complex flight system.

[Iacchus]

That ostriches don't have an irreducibly complex flight system.What about chickens then, or turkeys, which can only fly short distances at a time? Obviously, it does show a connection between birds which can fly and, those which are flightless.

[Tricky]

But now, after some evolution, the birds feathers are part of an irreducibly complex system to keep the bird in the air. If you pluck the feathers, the bird falls.
The evolution of feathers (http://www.nurseminerva.co.uk/adapt/feathers.htm) probably had nothing to do with flight. They became adapted to that purpose (by natural selection), much as did the hollow bone structure of birds. This is exactly what would be predicted by evolution.


Xu, Zhou, and Prum (2001) describe filamentous skin structures in fossils of Sinornithosaurus millenii, a non-avian theropod dinosaur that lived about 125 million years ago. The fossils were found in north-eastern China. The filamentous structures show two characteristics that are otherwise considered to be unique to bird feathers: filaments joined in a basal tuft, and filaments joined in series along a central filament. They resemble contour feathers, and no flight feathers are apparent. In another find at the same location, a nearly complete specimen has been found of a small theropod dinosaur, the body, limbs and tail of which is densely covered with feather-like structures (Ji et al, 2001).


So if other feather-like structures are found in pre-flight bird precursors, will ID then be disproved? No, because ID proponants will simply move the goalposts.

Just as Dawkins completely debunked the idea of the irreducible complexity of the eye in his book The Blind Watchmaker, all other examples of IC will be debunked. Some were debunked even before they were proposed, but the ID'ers simply had not done the proper research.

[Meadmaker]

The evolution of feathers (http://www.nurseminerva.co.uk/adapt/feathers.htm) probably had nothing to do with flight. They became adapted to that purpose (by natural selection), much as did the hollow bone structure of birds. This is exactly what would be predicted by evolution.


And also by theistic evolution. And since theistic evolution is compatible with ID...

Nothing to see here.