News and Politics Forum

I'm sorry, but you aren't very convincing. Let's take... an apple. How is that designed? How could you possibly prove such a thing?

That's what I really dislike about ID. You're starting from a predetermined answer, and trying to rig the test to back it up. It's highly unscientific, and intellectually dishonest.

axe wrote:

I'm sorry, but you aren't very convincing. Let's take... an apple. How is that designed? How could you possibly prove such a thing?

That's what I really dislike about ID. You're starting from a predetermined answer, and trying to rig the test to back it up. It's highly unscientific, and intellectually dishonest.

When we're talking design, we're typically not talking about things like apples, but rather the component parts and cell machines that make up the apple, though of course, simply explaining the complexity of an apple in evolutionary terms (random chance + time + survival) then it gets a bit dicey.  It seems actually easier to say that some designer WANTED it that way, and engineered it to be so than to believe that it "somehow" by chance arrived in its current state by mere chance after some bolt of lightning hit a puddle of goo...

Have you ever done much reading or investigation into the complexity of microbiology?

Here's an article (pro-evolution, BTW) that details SOME of the biological complexity in what they consider one of the primordial organisms responsible for assisting with the planet's atmosphere creation (what they fail to answer is how these cells managed to live before they created the atmosphere!).

http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/full/72/5/3685

Here is one theory of how cell complexity came to be:  (Pro evolution) -- note that this short video utterly fails to explain where the component parts come from that make up the symbiotic relationship -- they "just so" happened to be there and "just so" managed to form a living community, co-mingled into what is now called a cell, that exists as a singular entity, with reproductive capability.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ibd94cJ6co

For a more detailed look at the inner life of a cell check out this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylVoUjNy … re=related

Note that this is still a VERY basic look at what is actually happening inside of EACH living cell in each living creature.  EVERY protein, amino acid, etc., has to fit PRECISELY together into another one, and they are all guided by others still to insure that each is in the appropriate place, time, and function, for the life of the cell.  The more we learn, the more we realize that there is NO POSSIBLE WAY that this all happened without guidance and design.

axe wrote:

glfredrick wrote:

Note that this is still a VERY basic look at what is actually happening inside of EACH living cell in each living creature.  EVERY protein, amino acid, etc., has to fit PRECISELY together into another one, and they are all guided by others still to insure that each is in the appropriate place, time, and function, for the life of the cell.  The more we learn, the more we realize that there is NO POSSIBLE WAY that this all happened without guidance and design.

See, I don't buy that. I don't think it's right to just throw our arms up, and say "a Wizard did it". It's a cop-out. How can you even say "THERE'S NO POSSIBLE WAY!"? How could you possibly say that with such certainty? And you say it's the evolutionists that are close-minded?

Unless, of course, that is what happened...  In that case, we're not "throwing our arms up..."  we're just admitting that life was designed.  What is the problem with that?

When we go out and purchase a new car, do we just throw our arms up in dismay because that car wasn't "evoloved" from goo to you?  Of course not.  We simply accept the fact that it was designed and in fact, desire that design.  When we look at something like a computer, we accept that it was designed also -- in fact, a high level of design with software requirements tied to the design.  The more complex something is in this world, the more design work that goes into it -- and life is complex to a level magnitudes above ANY other thing in this cosmos -- so design is seemingly a more natural way of looking at life than mere random chance over time.  It is that random chance deal that seems to be contrived -- not design -- but we've been schooled to think otherwise.  That's where the a priori presupposition comes in.  Design CANNOT BE -- simply because someone, somewhere decided that as a condition for living things -- NOT -- because no design can be seen.

What I'm saying, is that the "cop out" defense is a fallacy.  If something has ALL the hallmarks of design, it is rather a "cop out" to suggest otherwise for ideological reasons -- they being the implications of a god/first cause/higher power in this universe that may or may not have a claim on our lives.  In the end, IF this universe IS designed, and there IS a designer -- that truth will become evident.  IF it is true, then there is no stopping it, even if we greatly desire otherwise.  Saying that something isn't so, when in fact it exists, is the ultimate escape into fantasy and ought have no bearing in science or any other life pursuit.

axe wrote:

IF it's true, then so be it. But you have to prove it. And you won't -- or you simply can't.

What if neither of you can prove your assertion?

glfredrick wrote:

axe wrote:

But how do you PROVE that something was designed?

Look at it...  Design is apparent.

And glfredrick effectively demonstrates that he doesn't know what "PROVE" is!  Yay!

Tell our contestant what he wins!


"He wins a DICTIONARY!  <cue applause> And an all expense paid trip to Biology 101! <cue applause & cheering>

axe wrote:

zukiphile wrote:

axe wrote:

IF it's true, then so be it. But you have to prove it. And you won't -- or you simply can't.

What if neither of you can prove your assertion?

Then we can hope the next generation keeps looking for the answer.

You can certainly look for an answer, and even use provisional ones that make sense.  However to demand proof of only one would be special pleading.

MC Escher wrote:

glfredrick wrote:

axe wrote:

But how do you PROVE that something was designed?

Look at it...  Design is apparent.

And glfredrick effectively demonstrates that he doesn't know what "PROVE" is!  Yay!

Tell our contestant what he wins!

"He wins a DICTIONARY!  <cue applause> And an all expense paid trip to Biology 101! <cue applause & cheering>

I know EXACTLY what "prove" means...  And, I also know that we can't "prove" ANYTHING (even mathematics) at the level that axe is asking.

Next?

Seeing as how I don't know what the word "prove" means, I want to introducing the concept of "burden of proof."

In the case of naturalistic Darwinism (or any of its derivatives) the burden of proof is often said to be upon the "challenging theory" (or from their perspective, the lack thereof), i.e., Intelligent Design or Creationism. However, as it currently stands, this is not true, for naturalistic evolution has so far failed to actually replace Intelligent Design or Creationism as a true viable theory -- so the burden of proof actually resides in Darwinism, not Intelligent Design. Let me demonstrate...

The prevailing theory for virtually the entire history of humanity has been Intelligent Design or Creationism (I'm using both terms -- not because they are interchangeable, for they are not -- but because both come into play in this discussion.). It is naturalistic Darwinian evolution that is the usurper theory -- and as such IT must provide the burden of proof that it exists as 1) a viable theory and 2) with some semblance of provability/falsification/repeatability, which it has not done.

The theory of evolution, as it currently stands in the popular market (think biology textbooks) states emphatically that ALL life must arise by naturalistic evolutionary means -- period. There is no alternative allowed, and if only ONE item in all of the various sorts of life on earth exists which cannot be demonstrated came about by purely chance-driven naturalistic evolutionary means, then the theory is null and void. I suggest that the theory IS null and void for there is as yet not ONE proven naturalistic evolutionary means to demonstrate how: 1) life arose from non-organic matter on this planet; 2) how life, once existing modified itself by chance/random patterns into ever complicated forms; 3) how life changed from one form to another; 4) how that life gained cognizance and consciousness (to reason about the meaning of life); and 5) how that life became so structured as to offer overwhelming appearance of design and intelligence, when it is purely random/chance/undirected and subject only to prior causes with no free will of its own.

This burden of proof might be seen in several stages:

Stage 0 - The original pre-Darwinian situation, in which the complex functionality of life triggered a natural human disposition to recognize intelligent agency, creating a strong presumption in favor of such agency as the cause of life.

The prevailing theory that must be overtaken -- and which is STILL held by the majority of persons on this planet -- even after decades of intensive Darwinian teaching, censorship in the classroom, and a virtual lock on peer-reviewed materials in the scientific realm.

Stage 1 - An alternative mechanism is proposed, random variation culled by natural selection, and preliminary evidence in favor of the new theory is collected, gathered, and systematized. It is at this stage that the new theory (naturalistic Darwinism in any of its forms) is treated as a hypothesis representing the potential for further development and investigation.

At this stage, the presumptions of stage 0 are not negated, for there has been no new theory forthcoming as yet -- intelligent agency is still the presumptive cause.

Stage 2 - Hypothetical naturalistic Darwinism pathways leading to actual adaptive forms are described in sufficient detail and with sufficient understanding of the underlying genetic and developmental process that it seems virtually certain that these pathways represent genuine possibilities. These pathways must be possible, not only in the sense of involving no violation of physical or chemical laws, but also in the sense that EVERY step in the path can be assigned an estimated probability that is sufficiently high for the joint probability of the entire pathway to be consistent with a reasonable belief that such a thing might really have happened.

At this stage, we have, for the first time, grounds for some degree of doubt in the correctness of the presumption of intelligent agency. The presumption is not yet canceled out, the attitude ought to be one of continuing to assume that the original presumption is correct until later stages are fulfilled, however, some evidence is forthcoming to support further investigation of the Darwinian hypothesis.

Stage 3 - A significant number of hypothetical pathways of the kind described in stage 2 are verified as the pathways probably actualized in history. New evidence from fossils and homologies is found that conforms to the specific expectations, based on the hypothetical pathways, and few if any instances of evidence are found that cannot readily be explained in terms of these pathways. Each hypothetical pathway describes a large number of intermediate steps, leading from some known ancestral form lacking the adaptation in question to some known form possessing it. Each step should be fully described at both the genetic and the morphological level: that is, we should be specific about which mutations, lateral gene transfers, or other processes have occurred, and how the new genotype is expressed in the morphology. For each step, a hypothetical environment needs to be specified, and the tools of population genetics employed to show that the hypothetical new genotype would in fact be selected over its rivals in the hypothetical environment.

The pathways described above should generate a vast number of specific predictions. First, the fossils found should match exactly the morphology of the hypothetical steps. Second, the new forms of genetic vestiges and other homologies that are found should be witness to the actual existence of the hypothetical genotypes. And third, the evidence of ancient ecosystems, including climate, geographical isolation, and presence of food sources, predators, and competitors, should be found -- namely evidence of the hypothesized selective environments.

Once this is found, the naturalistic Darwinian can probably be said to be responsible for all of life with some degree of certainty, however, even at this stage, there is still some apprehension that exactly the correct assumptions and proofs have been found in case later discoveries moot some point in the process.

Stage 4 - In nearly every case, apparent design has been successfully explained by naturalistic Darwinian terms, and in each case, there has been found an overwhelming body of specific evidence confirming the discoveries.

Here, we are justified in treating naturalistic Darwinism as established beyond a reasonable doubt.

So, where are we today, along this continuum of stages? I assume that many leading biologists and many on this board assume that the progress is at stage 4, however, in fact, we are not. We are still at stage 1. The tasks of stage 2, describing in detail specific naturalistic Darwinian pathways leading to the origin of specific forms of biological function remains an unfulfilled dream in the hearts of naturalistic evolutionists.

This is NOT due to laziness or sloppiness in the naturalistic sciences, for they have indeed worked day and night to attempt to fulfill stage 2, but alas, they still cannot even penetrate its most simple issues, much less explain the higher issues such as how life arose (to be successfully and subsequently modified by survival of the fittest) and so, naturalistic Darwinism is still the competing theory -- and not at all "fact" as pronounced in so many textbooks, public discourses, and as the secular humanistic religion of our day.

The interesting point is that Darwin, himself, knew all of the above, and stated it in his work, "The Origin of Species." "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." (Origin, 6th ed. p.154) Of course, Darwin hedged his bet with a "negative" theory -- indeed a "non-theory" for we all well know that it is impossible to prove a negative -- something Darwin was well aware of in his field.

So, if we are to hold naturalistic Darwinism as "true" I'd suggest that we see some form of evidence beside the fact that "science says so" based on their presupposition of naturalism excluding any other potential rival to the theory.

axe wrote:

zukiphile wrote:

You can certainly look for an answer, and even use provisional ones that make sense.  However to demand proof of only one would be special pleading.

The evidence behind Darwin's theory is much, much (muchmuchmuch) stronger than that behind ID. I don't think evolution should be taught as an absolute, as a law, but I don't think ID should be taught at all.

I understand your position, but to demand that an opponent prove his assertion doesn't make sense unless you have or can prove your own.

axe wrote:

zukiphile wrote:

axe wrote:

The evidence behind Darwin's theory is much, much (muchmuchmuch) stronger than that behind ID. I don't think evolution should be taught as an absolute, as a law, but I don't think ID should be taught at all.

I understand your position, but to demand that an opponent prove his assertion doesn't make sense unless you have or can prove your own.

He wants schools to teach ID. Why should they?

Is the bolded statement intended to be responsive to the italicised statement?

I don't have any special enthusiasm for the teaching of Grand Evolution or any variant of creationism, but I don't see a basis for teaching one over the other especially since both involve dubious or unprovable beliefs.

zukiphile wrote:

Is the bolded statement intended to be responsive to the italicised statement?

I don't have any special enthusiasm for the teaching of Grand Evolution or any variant of creationism, but I don't see a basis for teaching one over the other especially since both involve dubious or unprovable beliefs.

Evolution is -- to me, and apparently to most others as well -- more plausible than ID. I don't think it should be taught as absolute fact, though.

glfredrick wrote:

We're not "back in the day" in case you haven't noticed.  The call for design is based on RIGHT NOW science from observation of the utter complexity of living entities.

The funny thing is that we'll call design for a stupid sand castle on the beach made by a 4-year old with a platic bucket, some sand and some water, but when we examine the complesity of life, we call "random chance."  Go figure... 

Oh, and thanks for the admission that evolution has a LONG way to go before even being a proper theory...  Why is IT being taught as true?  Can't we just speak of competing theories and leave it at that?  Why all the dogma, unless it is JUST that -- dogma?

I suppose most of the dogma stems from the fact that ID is (for practical purposes) religious in nature, and people will do most anything to keep religion out of government, and especially schools.

zukiphile wrote:

The idea that organisms (in a corporate rather than individual way) respond to their environment by ill suited individuals failing to reproduced, and that this can lead to a wide array of changes over time is one I find entirely plausible as well.

Well that's more than plausible, I think that's nearing "law" status. It's the origin of life:

zukiphile wrote:

However that is not the Grand Evolution in which so many find fault and which is not a scientific theory, i.e. one that is necessary to normal science.

that is the main cause of debate.

axe wrote:

Evolution is -- to me, and apparently to most others as well -- more plausible than ID. I don't think it should be taught as absolute fact, though.

Why?  Somehow it is more plausible to suggest that an almost infinite number of causes came to be perfectly ordered so that they could not only live, but accurately reproduce until one day conscious beings exist from that process who have the mental capacity to ask the question?  It would appear more plausible to say that we were created in some image -- and that is indeed what humanity has said for virtually all of their recorded history.

I suggest that evolution is not "more plausible" but it is more "indoctrinated" starting with pre-school books about dinosaurs.

axe wrote:

I suppose most of the dogma stems from the fact that ID is (for practical purposes) religious in nature, and people will do most anything to keep religion out of government, and especially schools.

That's the point -- ID (for practical or other) purposes is NOT religious in nature, a poorly decided court case aside.  As I said in the other thread, there is ONE major difference at the head of the ID/CS hypothesis -- ID works from an evidence forward position, while CS works from a Creator backward position.  In ANY other field of endeavor, that would be more than ample distinction, but invoke the concept of deity or designer, and all bets are off, even it it is true science making the call.