 
Support Wrong Planet Awareness!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gromit
Velociraptor
![]()
Joined: May 20, 2006
Posts: 477
Location: In Cognito
|
 Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 5:50 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Orwell wrote: | | What are some things you think creationism might predict? If we find something specific that they will predict, than we will have evidence for or against their claims. Evolution has made numerous predictions that have been proven true. |
If you ask for specific predictions that necessarily follow from assuming a designer, I don't think that can be done under the assumptions ID advocates are willing to make. Those who openly say the designer is God postulate an omnipotent designer, so anything that does not create a logical paradox is consistent with the assumption. The "scientific" ID advocates refuse to discuss the designer, so they don't have to admit their motivation is religious, but thereby create a big logical gap in their idea. If I know nothing about the designer or the design process, I don't know what limits there are to the products of the design process. If I find design that is demonstrably not optimal, and I see a better solution to the same problem in a different species, ID proponents won't accept that as evidence against intelligent design, because the designer might have had some unknown reason not to use the better solution. For a practical example, the copper based oxygen binding molecule hemocyanin in cephalopod (octopus, squid, cuttlefish, nautilus) blood is less efficient than the iron based hemoglobin. Why didn't the designer use the more efficient solution the designer obviously knew? And why, when it comes to common blueprints, did the designer distribute traits very carefully so as to mimic the distribution expected from an evolutionary process?
If the designer is either omnipotent or unknown (and uses or used unknown processes), there are no constraints you can put on either the design process or the product. Therefore there are no specific prediction that can be derived from the assumption of a designer. The central assumption of ID is worthless for the purpose of making predictions.
The closest ID comes to specific predictions is when it tries to find something that is inconsistent with evolution, but consistent with a designer. The first condition alone turns ID into a theory that is merely anti-evolutionary, rather than making any predictions in its own right. The second condition is easy to satisfy because there are no constraints from the design assumption and doesn't rescue ID from being merely anti-evolutionary.
Irreducible complexity might have been a specific prediction, if someone could turn it into something better than an argument from ignorance. Behe claimed the Krebs cycle (a biochemical pathway) was irreducibly complex, but had missed a publication reporting a simplified Kreabs cycle before Behe published his claim. I read that every single one of the supposed examples of irreducible complexity claimed by Behe have been shown to be reducible. So all of them were arguments of the form "I don't see how this could be made simpler, therefore it can't be made simpler". With that history of failure, the idea would need mathematical proof to impress. I don't know whether that is possible.
Then there is the claim that information can only come from intelligence. The difficulty there is the meaning of information. Stenger writes it was trivial to show that in Dembski's original use, information was negative entropy. Entropy is not conserved (the second law of thermodynamics creationists are fond of quoting), therefore information defined in this way is not conserved.
ID proponents have tried to fix the problem by talking of "complex specified information". The difference is that information as used in information theory asks how many bits do you need to describe a situation. You need the most bits when something is totally random. Increasing information by that definition can be achieved by increasing randomness, so a random process will do just fine. ID advocates try to argue against the role of randomness, so that won't do. "Complex specified information" is supposed to be meaningful information. So there needs to be a definition of meaning. That is a legitimate scientific endeavour. I know of a mathematical biologist who is trying to define a measure of meaning for use in evolutionary analyses. I don't know how far he has gotten with it. I have not heard of the ID people getting anywhere. There needs to be a definition rigourous enough to be used in mathematical proofs. Then it would be possible to examine the ID advocates' intuition that complex specified information might increase only through intelligence, provided there is a good enough computational theory of intelligence. Then, of course, there would be the problem of the origin of that intelligence. If it is supposed to be eternal, how did it get into this universe? Things would get very interesting for the physicists. It should be easier to check whether complex specified information can be increased through the combination of random and systematic processes in evolutionary theory.
All in all, I argue that with the assumptions that creationists and ID advocates are willing to make about the designer, it is impossible to make a specific prediction that follows from the assumption of a designer. The predictions that have been made in reaction to evolutionary theory have either failed or are not yet specific enough to be tested. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 18
Posts: 3208
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So you're saying that, regardless of the evidence, IDers will come up with some post hoc rationalization for it or just reject it outright. That seems like a fair criticism. And then the anti-evolutionary evidence is pretty much just an appeal to ignorance. I found the Krebs cycle issue you mentioned rather humorous.
Ragtime, iamnotaparakeet? Would either of you like to contest these claims? Perhaps you could clarify for us what specific predictions creationism makes so it is testable/falsifiable...
Ignoring the thread isn't going to convince anyone, and I'm certain you've both seen it by now... but w/e. I'll keep bumping every once in a while so it's always available to you if you want to correct me on something.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kalister1
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 09, 2007
Posts: 2882
Location: California
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What distinguishes us [scientists] from the pious and the believers is not the quality but the quantity of belief and piety; we are contented with less. But if the former should challenge us: then be contented and appear to be contented! - then we might easily reply: 'We are, indeed, not among the least contented. You, however, if your belief makes you blessed then appear to be blessed! Your faces have always been more injurious to your belief than our objections have! If these glad tidings of your Bible were written on your faces, you would not need to insist so obstinately on the authority of that book... As things are, however, all your apologies for Christianity have their roots in your lack of Christianity; with your defence plea you inscribe your own bill of indictment.
- Nietzsche
_________________
Warghh!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 18
Posts: 3208
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 12:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Kallister, this thread is not about bashing religious people or their beliefs. I don't particularly care what Nietzsche has to say on the matter.
Still no one wishes to step forward and pose a challenge to evolution? Or at least correct our working definition of ID?
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kalister1
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 09, 2007
Posts: 2882
Location: California
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 12:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Orwell wrote: | Kallister, this thread is not about bashing religious people or their beliefs. I don't particularly care what Nietzsche has to say on the matter.
Still no one wishes to step forward and pose a challenge to evolution? Or at least correct our working definition of ID? |
I was putting forth serious discussion about the separation of science and religion. You aren't going to get a rational answer from the religious side.
_________________
Warghh!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 18
Posts: 3208
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 12:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kalister1 wrote: | | I was putting forth serious discussion about the separation of science and religion. You aren't going to get a rational answer from the religious side. |
Maybe. For purposes of this discussion I don't care much about anything relating to religion. I care about the observable evidence for or against different explanations for the diversity of life. In regards to your second statement, this isn't a religious vs non-religious debate, so there can't really be a "religious side."
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
Gromit
Velociraptor
![]()
Joined: May 20, 2006
Posts: 477
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 11:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Orwell wrote: | | So you're saying that, regardless of the evidence, IDers will come up with some post hoc rationalization for it or just reject it outright. |
Close. I'm saying that the lack of constraint following from the assumption of a designer allows them to rationalize anything. Whether they do you can treat either as an empirical question or a psychological one, but either way it's not directly related to the merits of their theory.
The Science Blog of New Scientist has an entry on efforts by the ID community to do (or possibly just claim to be doing) scientific work, with a link. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Ragtime
Legal Eagle Eye
Joined: Nov 03, 2006
Age: 29
Posts: 7392
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 11:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Biologic wrote: |
"The scientists of Biologic Institute are developing and presenting the scientific case for intelligent design in biology. Biologic brings together experts in molecular biology, biophysics and biochemistry, bioinformatics and genomics, astrobiology, and engineering and information science in order to examine the question of design from all angles, the aim being to build a comprehensive and coherent picture." |
Sounds reasonable to me.
I think what we need to have is less knee-jerk foul-crying every time ID is mentioned.
I mean, a new approach to the scientific inquiry of our origins is not heresy.
(Unless the scientific community now considers itself infallible.  )
The quoted passage is clearly one of honest scientific inquiry,
and you simply can't knock that. Not without knocking all of science.
But I understand the fear involved in the evolutionists who decry ID most vociferously.
ID is a competing idea, and, as it's much more instinctively attractive to people than the theory of evolution,
it's likely to catch fire quickly, and become a formidable competitor to evolution.
But competition is good -- it stimulates all participants to do their very best.
_________________
Anyone who is interested in philosophy, the of meaning of life, and answers to our hardest questions, I suggest you check out the free, online mp3 archive of Ravi Zacharias at www.rzim.org. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Sedaka
Searching For My Catcher in the Rye
Joined: Jul 17, 2006
Age: 26
Posts: 5067
Location: In the recesses of my mind
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 12:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ragtime wrote: | | Biologic wrote: |
"The scientists of Biologic Institute are developing and presenting the scientific case for intelligent design in biology. Biologic brings together experts in molecular biology, biophysics and biochemistry, bioinformatics and genomics, astrobiology, and engineering and information science in order to examine the question of design from all angles, the aim being to build a comprehensive and coherent picture." |
Sounds reasonable to me.
I think what we need to have is less knee-jerk foul-crying every time ID is mentioned.
I mean, a new approach to the scientific inquiry of our origins is not heresy.
(Unless the scientific community now considers itself infallible. )
The quoted passage is clearly one of honest scientific inquiry,
and you simply can't knock that. Not without knocking all of science.
But I understand the fear involved in the evolutionists who decry ID most vociferously.
ID is a competing idea, and, as it's much more instinctively attractive to people than the theory of evolution,
it's likely to catch fire quickly, and become a formidable competitor to evolution.
But competition is good -- it stimulates all participants to do their very best. |
you still have no idea of the quality of experiments these "experts" are doing... you can't even analyze the experiemtns evolutionists are doing with any6 sort of competancy.
as soon as you see scientists researching ID... you're oooh, i buy that! (me---i'd like to see some of their papers).
it's not like i agree with every paper ever published on evolution... there's definitely some crap ones.
_________________
and yet i'm
still roaming these
empty streets at night
alone again only to find
there are no shelters here;
i must simply resolve
to play in the rain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Gromit
Velociraptor
![]()
Joined: May 20, 2006
Posts: 477
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 12:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ragtime wrote: | | But I understand the fear involved in the evolutionists who decry ID most vociferously. |
Please read the terms of debate outlined by Orwell. Alleging fear is well off topic. This is for a serious discussion of the scientific basis for evolution or various versions of creation-related theories. This thread is about the theories, not the psychology of their adherents.
| Ragtime wrote: | | ID is a competing idea, and, as it's much more instinctively attractive to people than the theory of evolution, it's likely to catch fire quickly, and become a formidable competitor to evolution. |
"instinctively attractive" has nothing to do with scientific merit, which is the topic of this thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 5497
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ragtime wrote: |
I think what we need to have is less knee-jerk foul-crying every time ID is mentioned.
I mean, a new approach to the scientific inquiry of our origins is not heresy.
(Unless the scientific community now considers itself infallible. ) |
Not infallible, one of the issues with ID is whether or not it can genuinely follow the scientific method, and many believe it cannot. In fact, some scholars and individuals promoting the ID movement have pushed for a different interpretation of science just to allow for the theory, which considering that science itself is relatively valid and the criticisms are mostly ideological, there is no reason to allow it.
| Quote: |
But competition is good -- it stimulates all participants to do their very best. |
Competition IS good, which is why if ID is a valid theory, they should have been publishing in scientific papers trying to prove the validity of their theory. They have not been doing so but instead seeking political power, which is not how competition works just about anywhere. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 18
Posts: 3208
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ragtime wrote: | | Biologic wrote: |
"The scientists of Biologic Institute are developing and presenting the scientific case for intelligent design in biology. Biologic brings together experts in molecular biology, biophysics and biochemistry, bioinformatics and genomics, astrobiology, and engineering and information science in order to examine the question of design from all angles, the aim being to build a comprehensive and coherent picture." |
Sounds reasonable to me.
The quoted passage is clearly one of honest scientific inquiry, |
No, it's a press statement. Anyone can have a fancy press statement. I want to see some of their science. Post links if you find anything interesting.
| Quote: | But I understand the fear involved in the evolutionists who decry ID most vociferously.
ID is a competing idea, and, as it's much more instinctively attractive to people than the theory of evolution,
it's likely to catch fire quickly, and become a formidable competitor to evolution. |
Creationism was the established theory before the overwhelming evidence for evolution convinced most people of its truth. What you are saying is akin to pointing at the coronation of Charlemagne in 800 AD as evidence of the Roman Empire as an emerging power. It's simply not true, you're taking a dead concept and trying hopelessly to breath new life into it. Evolutionary biologists aren't worried about a serious intellectual attack on the fundamentals of evolution, because that's simply not forthcoming. I see you have finally posted in this thread; would you like now to respond to its question? I would like to see some science, or if not science, at least directly observable and measurable evidence.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
BazzaMcKenzie
Wild colonial man
Joined: Aug 22, 2006
Age: 48
Posts: 3666
Location: the Antipodes
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think these quotes say it all
| Carl Sagan wrote: | | In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time someting like that happened in politics or religion. |
I think the last time in religion was c1520
| Carl Sagan (again) wrote: | | Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep insights can be winnowed from deep nonsense. |
_________________
I just dropped in to see what condition my condition was in.
Strewth!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 18
Posts: 3208
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 1:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Bazza, that didn't really have anything to do with science. We're not bashing religion here, create your own thread if you want to do that. No ad hominems, just discussion of whether or not evolution best explains our observations, and whether ID has any evidence going for it.
My response here wasn't actually to you so much Bazza, I kind of wanted to bump the thread. But my comments still stand.
Ben? (iamnotaparakeet) Ragtime? I know your both regulars here, and you've both responded to this thread. I really am interested in seeing what contributions you can make. If you want to convince anyone of your ideas, you'll have to give solid reasons for them.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
BazzaMcKenzie
Wild colonial man
Joined: Aug 22, 2006
Age: 48
Posts: 3666
Location: the Antipodes
|
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 2:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't believe ID is a theory. Evolution is. If there is any credible evidence to support ID, I would like to see a link to it.
IMHO ID is just an argument that was invented by creationists to replace the "theory" of creationism is about as credible as the world being flat.
_________________
I just dropped in to see what condition my condition was in.
Strewth!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
