DescentBB

Grendel wrote:

Cell evolution puzzle wrote:Prokaryotic cells, such as bacteria, are relatively simple and have no nuclei.

It is believed they evolved first then absorbed other prokaryotes and became eukaryotes - complex cells that have nuclei and structures like the energy-producing mitochondria.

Article, more background

OK, I was wrong about the nucleus bit... I haven't had biology since 9th grade. But if you broaden the idea of a nucleus a bit, it's still the same problem. Organized, functioning DNA doesn't exist outside of a cell wall, and cell walls are created by the DNA.

sorry guys, I just have to ask:

which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Eggs. Since chickens are a kind of domesticated fowl, by definition they didn't exist before fowls were domesticated. Many animals (reptiles, dinosaurs, other birds) were laying eggs long before chickens were bred from pheasants.

I read the Newsweek article that Dawkins wrote, and was bothered by it. His article was misleading. I imagine that his book follows the same lines.

He took truths about what some Christians believe, cast them in a critical/comical light, and proceeded to state why Christians where wrong. Most of what he said started with a fact about Christians that was true, ignored the true root of the disagreement, and then left the reader to fill in the \"right\" answer. (which was hinted at, but not expressed.)

I'll give some examples to show what bothered me.

1. Let's address the ID/evolution issue. True, natural selection can theoretically get past immense complexity, using small increments. ID people will bring up irreducible complexity, and he dismisses it by stating that all \"examples\" of IC are refutable. Alright, everything said my very well be true, but I would claim that the burden or proof lies in both courts, not just in ID's. So, while it is true that creation can't be proven, evolutionary origins can't be proven either, leaving both in the philosophical realm. Of course, he leaves the reader to fill in the blank as to which theory is correct, without mentioning the philosophical nature of purely naturalistic origins.

Example #2: He brings up Bush's veto of funding for embryonic stem cells, stating that he's blocking a very promising avenue of research. He attacks the fact that Christians believe that an embryo of a human life, stating that it's a mass of cells called a blastocyst. He then moves on, without bringing up the root questions- when does a human life begin? If you pose that question, you will find a plethora of answers, and suddenly the belief doesn't seem so bizzare. Furthermore, he never mentions that research is free to continue, just without federal funding, and that adult stems cells are more easily harvested, and have shown equal potential in research.

My point is that he seems to bring up only part of the equation, casts Christians in a negative light, and moves on before any one of the subject is fully dealt with. It leaves people less educated, and more filled with emotion. I should read the book, and see if he dealt with things more completely there, since I was quite disappointed in the article.

In the book he goes into a lot more detail.

Jeff250 wrote:I don't believe that ID is a legitimate scientific theory.

Its not. Not legitimate nor scientific, and as far as a theory goes... It only fits 4, 5 and 6.

THEORY

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice.

3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.

4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment.

6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.


Bee

Sorry, the article was by Sam Harris- so maybe Dawkins did a better job than Harris. I guess the post still (somewhat) applies, but not so much.

Bee, I think you are mistaken. ID is a systematic, mathematical approach to detecting intelligent design. It's range of valid application, and a maturity of the system is less than some would claim, but it is a valid theory. The problem is that no one seems to be able to separate a theory from the statements that people try to make about origins using the theory. I can validly use the ID system to determine if a pattern on a paper is man-made, possibly with questionable results, but I can't prove that the earth was created using the ID system. Likewise, I can use evolutionary theory to explain why strains of bacteria develop immunities, but I can't prove that we evolved from single-celled organisms.

This isn't something we have to keep hashing over and over again- origins are a philosophical question. Maybe I won't go so far as to say we will never know, but we certainly don't right now. That's why I agree with ID not being taught in science, but I think that evolutionary origins should likewise be banished from the science room. Teach evolution as a scientific mechanism in action right now, teach ID methods as an application of probability & statistics, and teach origins as a philosophical pursuit.

Another good read -- John Jones, detail. I would agree to have students analyse the ruling in detail.

ID is not science and will fail scientific tests.

Edit2: statistics is math science BTW

Above case nails it pretty well (full text):

4. Whether ID is Science wrote:After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.

Edit: "4. Whether ID is Science" is a very entertaining read. So is the conclusion -- highly recommended.

Snoopy wrote: So, while it is true that creation can't be proven, evolutionary origins can't be proven either, leaving both in the philosophical realm.

Let's not forget that the scientific method either disproves or suspends disproving. It cannot prove anything--nothing can be scientifically proven! I guess that leaves all of science in the philosophical realm too!

Snoopy wrote:This isn't something we have to keep hashing over and over again- origins are a philosophical question.

I don't see why it's necessary to think this. Sure, studying the origin of, say, the universe itself, is a purely metaphysical inquiry, because the inquiry steps outside the bounds of the natural universe and thus outside the bounds of science. However, it's not clear to me why you think that we cannot scientifically study the origins of species, like why wouldn't this work:
Question: Did species X evolve from species Y?
Hypothesis: If species X evolved from species Y, then we should expect to find a linear progression of fossils from Y to X in that chronological order in the fossil record. We should also expect to find that species X and Y have similar DNA. Et cetera.
Test: Well, do they?

Unfortunately, Naturalistic Evolution has become unfalsifiable. It's proponents no longer believe that there are any structures that natural selection could not produce. And they cling to this position with a tenacious faith that reminds me quite strongly of the young earth creationists.

The court concluded that while ID may have valid theories, it is so tied to a philosophical idea that it currently cannot be treated as science.

Evolutionary origins are likewise tied to the philosophical idea of naturalism. I understand that science is the study of natural effects and natural causes, setting philosophical ideas (usually understood to be about the supernatural) aside. My contention is that origins are so deeply rooted in any person's philosophical views that the two cannot be separated. As you pointed out, if you go back far enough into the past, eventually the questions become philosophical in nature. I place that line at macro evolution, because I don't see the present-day scientific relevance in our origins beyond the early cave man. (Our more recent history is more relevant- explaining vistidual organs, etc.) If there is a present-day scientific relevance, please point it out and I may change my opinion.

My point about neither being proven is that both stand as relatively weak scientific theories, when compared to theories that can be lab-tested. My contention is that people plug on in trying to test these ideas in an attempt to make their pholosophy stronger, rather than in an interest to make scientific knowledge stronger.

Grendel, everything your previous posts say specifically about ID are only directly applicable to the application of ID to origins. ID is much broader than that. (We've been over this about a dozen times here.)

Reread my 1st post.

I'm not sure what you are saying here -- do you imply that the \"braoder\" aspects of ID are more correct than it's application to origin ? In what way is ID \"broader\" anyway ? How could you split the origin part out of ID w/o it losing meaning ? Do you acknowledge that ID isn't a scientific theory ? (I will not discuss theology w/ you )

Anyone reading bits of above mentioned Dover trail may be interested in this for some background info. ID was pushed forward into the science realm to stop science from filling the gaps in knowledge.

Grendel wrote:I'm not sure what you are saying here

Then you'd do well to look over the archives of this forum for ID posts.

In short: it would be useful to be able to detect intelligence in many applications, and IMO origins is about the least interesting of them. Intelligent Design is an attempt to do so, but it has focused far too heavily on one particular application (origins) to its detriment. Some of Dembski's ideas are actually quite useful, but unfortunately nobody (including him) has bothered really looking at the ideas outside of origins.

The machinery for detecting intelligence is promising. I find it very useful in hermeneutics -- that is, in the study of text. But it's seriously underdeveloped. I wouldn't call it a "science" so much as a "protoscience" -- it needs a lot more work before it can even begin to be useful on problems of the scale people currently apply it to.

Not to be poignant Lothar, but I've seen you post this before that ID is underdeveloped. From your perspective, where is growth needed or would most benefit this new school of thought?

I haven't spent much time reading up on the matter and am curious. (bad use of a pronoun there, i know.)

snoopy wrote:Evolutionary origins are likewise tied to the philosophical idea of naturalism.

Isn't all science! Science wouldn't make any sense if we thought that some god was actively interfering with nature! You might as well say that "evolutionary origins are tied to the philosophical idea of empiricism" or that "they are tied to the philosophical epistemology of the scientific method"!

snoopy wrote:Evolutionary origins are likewise tied to the philosophical idea of naturalism.

No more or less than the meteorological origins of thunderstorms are tied to naturalism. There's nothing unreasonable about using meteorology to explain how rain falls while also believing that rain ultimately comes from God. Similarly, it can be quite reasonable to believe that both a stove and a spouse cooked a meal.

Kilarin wrote:Unfortunately, Naturalistic Evolution has become unfalsifiable. It's proponents no longer believe that there are any structures that natural selection could not produce. And they cling to this position with a tenacious faith that reminds me quite strongly of the young earth creationists.

Kilarin.

Have you read this book? I just bought it.



Bettina

The problem with \"Naturalistic Evolution\" is that it doesn't jive theologically.

By doing so, you've introduced death into the world BEFORE the fall of Man; which did not exist until that time.

Bettina wrote:Have you read this book?

Nope, but it looks like it might be good.

I do not question that Evolution can do some absolutely wonderful and amazing things. The question is, is there ANYTHING that natural selection can not do?

Darwin said:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down". -Darwin, Origin of Species

Which brings us to the problem with modern evolution. It's not that the proponents believe evolution is true, it's that they no longer believe that there is any possible structure that natural selection could not build. This belief makes these discussions very difficult because it makes naturalistic evolution unfalsifiable.

I abandoned young earth creationism because I found it frustrating that whenever someone brought up a new scientific difficulty, the young earth creationists would make up some wild "just so" story to account for it. Not only did they deny that any of the evidence found so far falsified the young earth theory, but it became clear to me that there was no POSSIBLE evidence that would falsify the young earth theory for them. And so, while not abandoning my Faith in God, I did become an evolutionist.

Many years later, I ran into ID/Evolutionist debate, and after looking into it, I realized that the Naturalistic Evolutionists responses reminded me VERY much of the young earth creationists stories that made me abandon that movement. It's not that Dawkins and Miller don't believe that an Irreducibly Complex Biological Machine has been found. It's that they don't believe that ANY structure would be impossible for Natural Selection to create. Just like the Young Earth Creationists, they will stubbornly insist that Natural Selection could have done it and just made it APPEAR impossible. Which means it's moved from a science, to a matter of faith.

Lothar wrote:Some of Dembski's ideas are actually quite useful, but unfortunately nobody (including him) has bothered really looking at the ideas outside of origins.

I agree. ID would profit immensely by backing off on the hot topic of origins and proving itself in less controversial areas. It would give it a chance to grow and mature in an arena where it is much easier to confirm your results.

Duper wrote:The problem with "Naturalistic Evolution" is that it doesn't jive theologically

I think you may mean "Theistic Evolution", which is the belief that God used Natural Selection as part of the creation process. "Naturalistic Evolution" is the belief that Natural Selection alone was adequate to create all the diversity of life we now see. Which makes it VERY theologically difficult.

But I agree that introducing evolution does create a problem in exactly this area. I posted here How I thought this issue should be dealt with theologically.

Ironically, it's become what it despises most.

Kilarin wrote:Unfortunately, Naturalistic Evolution has become unfalsifiable. It's proponents no longer believe that there are any structures that natural selection could not produce. And they cling to this position with a tenacious faith that reminds me quite strongly of the young earth creationists.

Not falsifiable?? Umm, nope. There is an easy (conceptually ) test - just find a bonafide set of fossils that are unexplainably out of sequence, Cretaceous or Cambrian humans, for example.

I certainly don't disagree with your last statement. When scientists start talking about their beliefs based on their scientific studies, then they have wandered from science into philosophy. There's nothing wrong with that - in the olden days, back when the earth (and I) were young, science used to be called "natural philosophy". I think you just need to be humble about the value of your claims, and this is where I think that writers like Dawkins and Dennett are a bit overzealous. Dawkins makes the point several times in "The Blind Watchmaker" that he simply does not understand why a god would have done things this way or that. I do not find his lack of understanding necessarily compelling. I'm willing to concede that atheism may be true, but the jury is still out on whether it must be true.

Those who don't give a rip about theology may want to scroll past this post. It has nothing to do with evolution or science.

Duper wrote:The problem with "Naturalistic Evolution" is that it doesn't jive theologically.

By doing so, you've introduced death into the world BEFORE the fall of Man; which did not exist until that time.

The Bible never says animal death started with the Fall. A few points that weigh against such a view:

1. Genesis 1:29 no more limits the human diet to plants than Genesis 2:16 limits the human diet to fruit from trees. Just as there is a difference between "you may surely eat of every tree" and "you may only eat from trees", there is also a difference between "I have given every green plant for food" and "I have only given the green plants for food".
2. If Genesis 1:29-30 does list all permitted food sources, then fish before the Fall were not permitted to eat anything, since the plants created for food were on dry land (Genesis 1:9-12, 29). Also, fish are conspicuously absent from the kinds of animals given food in Genesis 1:30 (compare the list with Genesis 1:26).
3. The death God said would occur if Adam ate the forbidden fruit was the death of Adam, not the start of death for all animals. Adam (and by extension, Eve) would surely die because of his sin, and this would also apply to his descendents. How would the animals inherit this death?
4. Adam and Eve had access to the tree of life before they disobeyed, and this is the reason they could expect to live forever (Genesis 3:22-23). Nowhere are we told of similar trees available for all the animals, or that the animals also had access to this tree. (I think the tree of life represents God's sustaining power, but this issue remains whether the tree is literal or symbolic.)
5. The only change in diet in early Genesis comes after the flood, not after the Fall. Noah already knew which animals were clean (meaning they could be eaten) and which were unclean, and Abel raised livestock and only sacrificed the fat portions (implying that the rest was eaten). Genesis 9:3 seems to expand the animals that can be eaten to all animals (just as all plants could be eaten), rather than just the clean animals.
6. The prophet Isaiah pictures a future paradise where God will prepare a feast of rich food for people at a time when death has been swallowed up (Isaiah 25:6-8). What's on the menu? Why, the best of meats, of course! Even if the imagery here isn't literal, would God use a picture of eating animal flesh to describe a banquet in Paradise if killing animals were morally abhorrent?
7. Imagery of docile lions living with lambs is paralleled by imagery of lions not being present (Isaiah 11:6-9; 35:9-10). This is an indication that the imagery is not literal and uses nature to evocatively describe human events, just like trees clapping their hands elsewhere in Isaiah. Sometimes imagery of tame animals is used at times when human death is still occurring (Isaiah 65:20-25), so even if taken literally, it cannot be an indication of how things were before the death that is our enemy existed.
8. The Bible never says that our future Paradise will be the same as Eden was; instead, we can expect something even better. As such, descriptions of a future Paradise should not be assumed to also be descriptions of how Eden was.
9. God points to the carnivorous activity of some animals to showcase his creative power to Job (Job 38:29-41). He even points proudly to ostriches who deal cruelly with their young and allow their eggs to be trampled (Job 39:13-18). It is a mistake to apply human standards of morality to animals, or to treat animal suffering or death as abhorrent in the same way as human suffering and death.
10. In a creation psalm, the psalmist sees lions who roar for prey as one of the many works of God that he made in his wisdom (Psalm 104:14-28). Not only that, but the prey the hungry lioness devours is among the "good things" God provides to his creatures. If animal death can be called good here, there's no reason it couldn't be part of what is called good in Genesis 1.
11. The death Paul refers to as starting with Adam was death that spread to all humans (Romans 5:12), not all humans and animals.
12. Paul says that, "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Corinthians 15:22; see also Romans 5:17-21). Does the "all" just refer to humans, or also to animals? Keep in mind the ramifications of your answer!
13. Romans 8 speaks of creation being subjected to futility and decay, but not to death. Rather than reading animal death and carnivorous activity into this passage, it can just as easily be explained as referring to creation being subjected to the immoral and reckless rule of humanity, who was given dominion over it.
14. In a passage confronting those who teach abstinence from certain foods (including meat, according to parallel passages), Paul says that God created all foods to be received with thanksgiving, because everything he made is good and not to be rejected (1 Timothy 4:1-6). While this may be a generalization, the passage seems to say that animals did not become food, but were food from the beginning.
15. Eating meat is not a necessity for humans. If animal death really were the result of sin or God's accommodation to a sinful world, then Christians should be about as eager to eat meat as we are to start a war or get a divorce.

Kilarin wrote:I do not question that Evolution can do some absolutely wonderful and amazing things. The question is, is there ANYTHING that natural selection can not do?

Darwin said:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down". -Darwin, Origin of Species

I agree with what dissent said -- there are ways evolution could be falsified. The fact that it has not yet been falsified does not mean it has not been tested by potential falsifications. Your quote from Darwin gives what is perhaps a more subjective way to falsify evolution, but still a possible way. Note the direction of Darwin's statement. He is speaking about a complex organ that cannot be formed through numerous, successive, slight modifications. Popular ID theorists like to reverse the direction and speak of complex systems that cannot be taken apart piece by piece while remaining functional.

Why does this matter? Because reversing the order assumes that all the parts necessary to build the system still exist. A system may add part A, then part B, then part C, and then lose part A, leaving parts B and C both required. Part A functioned as "scaffolding" allowing parts B and C to be incrementally added. Such a system would be irreducibly complex as far as taking it apart, but would still be able to be built through stepwise changes.

It is theoretically quite possible to start with a simple system, then add an optional part that improves the system, then add another part that further improves the system, but with the result that the first added part is now mandatory. Once additional parts dependent on these parts are also added, neither of these two parts may be removable without destroying the system.

The results of these and other similar scenarios have been observed many times. For instance, there are knockout tests that show how removing any single part of a system makes it nonfunctional, while later tests that remove two or more parts at the same time allow the system to still have limited functionality.

A common example of irreducible complexity is the bacterial flagellum. People like Jonathan Wells like to say that "the" flagellum requires 40 parts, and removing even one of them breaks its functionality. However, there are many different kinds of flagella, not just one, and the different varieties have different numbers of required parts. A part that is required in one flagellum may be superfluous or not even present in another. In other cases, different parts accomplish the same function in different systems. Because of the many similarities between different flagellar systems, it seems unlikely that they each emerged through independent "intelligent design".

It's that they don't believe that ANY structure would be impossible for Natural Selection to create. Just like the Young Earth Creationists, they will stubbornly insist that Natural Selection could have done it and just made it APPEAR impossible.

I don't see this as problematic because scientists have examples of natural selection creating similar things elsewhere. For example, they may not be able to describe the exact pathway through which a certain irreducibly complex structure evolved, but they can show how natural selection (both actual and simulated) can result in other irreducibly complex structures.

As long as biological ID merely points to unclear examples of transitions of the same type as have been explained elsewhere, I think the stubbornness of scientists towards it is justified. If they manage to uncover a different type of transition that observed natural selection has never produced, they may be on to something. Perhaps originally irreducible complexity was an unexplained type of transition, but due to ongoing research, that is no longer the case.

dissent wrote: There is an easy (conceptually Razz ) test - just find a bonafide set of fossils that are unexplainably out of sequence, Cretaceous or Cambrian humans, for example.

There are lots of cases of fossiles out of sequence. Anomalies are almost guaranteed by the nature of the fossil column. Previous layers are subject to erosion, cracking, etc. Layers get jumbled and the jumbling is not always obvious. A few anomalous, out of order fossils are not sufficient to invalidate evolution. It would require something much more consistant.

Mercury wrote:For example, they may not be able to describe the exact pathway through which a certain irreducibly complex structure evolved, but they can show how natural selection (both actual and simulated) can result in other irreducibly complex structures.

In other words, there is no imaginable system that would convince you it could not have evolved through natural selection alone. And Darwin's original falsification standard is useless. Yes, there are examples of co-option and degeneration, but I have yet to see any such cases that put together anything I would have called Irreducibly complex.

More specifically:

Mercury wrote:If they manage to uncover a different type of transition that observed natural selection has never produced, they may be on to something.

What kind of transition would convince you?

Mercury wrote:Because of the many similarities between different flagellar systems, it seems unlikely that they each emerged through independent "intelligent design".

And why not? But anyway, judging that this or that design doesn't seem to make sense to us is not a valid argument. I analyze other peoples computer code for a living, and TRUST me, intelligent designers are not required to do things that make sense. ID attempts only to detect design, not necessarily design that makes sense. That's one of it's advantages.

You are hear arguing "But God wouldn't have done it that way", which is a very subjective argument. ID avoids that subjectivity entirely by only looking for design instead of judging the designer, whether that designer was God, or some alien 8 year old with a "do it yourself life" kit.

Kilarin wrote:In other words, there is no imaginable system that would convince you it could not have evolved through natural selection alone.

Please don't presume to know what would or wouldn't convince me. I'm way more of an expert on that topic than you are. If the Torah could be extracted from a genome through a straight-forward conversion between bases and Hebrew letters, that would convince me immediately. There's many less extreme examples too. Just because convincing examples have not yet been found doesn't mean nothing would convince me.

• If a tenth or more of fossils were found out of order, I would find that extremely troubling and would no longer accept evolution. If even a tiny percentage of anomolies were found by independent sources that had no known explanation through geologic processes, that would cause me serious doubt. (And if evolution weren't true, why wouldn't there be a sizable percentage of out-of-order fossils?)
• If some macroscopic animals were chimeras, that would cause me to doubt common descent. By a chimera I mean a creature that shares traits from two or more different creatures, and the similarities of these traits goes all the way down to the DNA. For instance, if bats had wings that were genetically the same as birds, or if whales had fins that were genetically the same as sharks, they would be chimeras. If the echolocation system of whales and bats was derived from the same genes that didn't exist in either of their ancestors, that would be more evidence of non-linear descent. If animals came about through independent creation by a common designer rather than through common descent, chimeras would be expected, though not required.

And Darwin's original falsification standard is useless.

Not useless, but probably more difficult to establish than Darwin expected. Turning it upside down and speaking of breaking apart systems piece-by-piece instead of building them up piece-by-piece is virtually useless.

You are hear arguing "But God wouldn't have done it that way", which is a very subjective argument. ID avoids that subjectivity entirely by only looking for design instead of judging the designer, whether that designer was God, or some alien 8 year old with a "do it yourself life" kit.

The trouble is that natural processes -- especially processes with a feedback system -- are able to create design.

As presently defined, we can't even rule out an intelligent designer who tried to trick us through designing in a way that looked like evolution. Until biological ID is willing to state some characteristics of the designer or designers, it will remain unfalsifiable.

Jeff250 wrote:

snoopy wrote:Evolutionary origins are likewise tied to the philosophical idea of naturalism.

Isn't all science! Science wouldn't make any sense if we thought that some god was actively interfering with nature! You might as well say that "evolutionary origins are tied to the philosophical idea of empiricism" or that "they are tied to the philosophical epistemology of the scientific method"!

The difference lies in relevance. I don't think looking for fossel records to find macroevolution furthers science, because it doesn't really have any present-day scientific relevance. It does, however, strengthen naturalism. It brings us to a question of the purpose of science. Is science out there to strengthen our philosophies, or is it out there to improve our quality of life? So, while one can claim that the study of origins is a scientific excercise, (Certainly the scientific method can be used to some degree- I'm getting to that.) the ultimate result is the furthering of naturalism, not science.

This scientific research itself has problem, because of the nature of humanity. The problem is, because of the strong philosophical ties that one has to the subject of origins, a double blind system is quite impossible. So, the gathering, studying, and evaluating of the evidence is a subjective endevour. We all know that one tends to find the results we want, regardless of the "true objective outcome" of a test. Looking at fossel records & such is really more of a historical reconstruction than a scientific study. There is really no way to test a hypothesis when one can only perform the analysis part of the test-record-analyze system of experimentation. We are forced to attempt to reconstruct the parameters of the "test" based of what the results where- again a historical, subjective process. (Note: I'm not claiming that it is blatently subjective, but that the best way to avoid subjectivity (double blind tests) is impossible to avoid, making all tests at least a tiny bit subjective.)

That's why I claim that origins isn't a purely scientific study:
1. Because it doesn't have relevance in furthering scientific knowledge.
2. Because the research is by nature subjective & the results come from historic reconstruction, not true experimentation.

Snoopy wrote:Looking at fossel records & such is really more of a historical reconstruction than a scientific study.

Oh really? Then I suppose you believe that astronomy is an illegitimate science too! I mean, all we're really doing is just looking at stars through telescopes. Stars don't even fit into glass beakers, so I don't see how the scientific method could possibly be applicable.

Snoopy wrote:There is really no way to test a hypothesis when one can only perform the analysis part of the test-record-analyze system of experimentation.

No, I already laid out how this works a couple of posts ago.

For example, suppose somebody was questioning if species X evolved from species Y. You could lay out a number of hypotheses, like we should find comparable DNA, etc. that could be experimentally confirmed. In the context of the fossil record, you could lay out a hypothesis and experiment as follows:

Question: Did species X evolve from species Y?
Hypothesis: If species X evolved from species Y, then we should find no case where an X appears in the fossil record without a linear progression of fossils, from Y to X in that chronological order, leading up to it.
Experiment: Dig up the ground and find out.

Your lab coat and glass beaker restriction on experimentation isn't supported by the scientific method. While a lab experiment can offer increased flexibility in what sort of experiment you can produce, since you have more control over your environment, that sort of flexibility isn't necessary. The totality of the fossil record, the global gene pool, etc. provide for an ample variety of experiments.

Remember too that with experiments both inside and outside the lab, you analyze results, so there's no reason to be afraid of experimentation that consists heavily in analysis either.

Snoopy wrote:It brings us to a question of the purpose of science. Is science out there to strengthen our philosophies, or is it out there to improve our quality of life?

Both are wrong. If you're going to remain adamant about science even having some sort of inherent "purpose," I'd suggest that it's just its function--methodologically acquiring knowledge about the world, no more than that.

Snoopy wrote:It does, however, strengthen naturalism.

Science per se cannot demonstrate naturalism. It fundamentally assumes naturalism to demonstrate anything, so any attempt to demonstrate naturalism would be begging the question.

But taking a step back from the picture and looking at how science itself plays with the other boys, does science's success rate in describing phenomena, contributing to technology, etc., help bolster naturalism? Sure, science has been largely successful, which suggests that, if its methodology is correct, then its necessary assumptions, including naturalism, are correct too. (Let's sidestep Humean levels of skepticism for now.)

Of course, this is true of all science, not just evolution. I mean, you just don't get it, do you? Every time science successfully makes a prediction, God falls back. Every time science successfully explains a phenomenon, God retreats. Occam's razor slices God right out of the equation. There's little room at all for God to explain things in the universe these days, and macro-evolution has played very little role in this.

Now, it just so happens that a small group of Christians is desperately hanging onto the vestige of the notion that science might not be able to explain this one thing, macro-evolution, to try to prove God's existence or something. But I don't see it fit to reward creationists with the notion that macro-evolution is more deeply tied with naturalism than other sciences just because their obstinance is the thing verily responsible for any such stronger tie.

Even so, even if macro-evolution did somehow bolster naturalism in a meaningful way more than other scientific topics, it's unclear to me why we should abandon a topic as a science simply because it bolsters a philosophical belief.

(As a matter of clarification, when I use the word naturalism, I'm using it in the more general, weaker definition, which goes something like, everything experiencable can only be explained in terms of nature, not the stronger definition, which goes something like, everything is nature, and nothing else exists.)

Jeff250 wrote:Of course, this is true of all science, not just evolution. I mean, you just don't get it, do you? Every time science successfully makes a prediction, God falls back. Every time science successfully explains a phenomenon, God retreats. Occam's razor slices God right out of the equation. There's little room at all for God to explain things in the universe these days, and macro-evolution has played very little role in this.

This is only true if one assumes that God only works against the grain of science. This is illogical, as if we assume God exists and that God created the world, then he also created the rules governing the world, aka science. Therefore, God would probably not want to break his own world's rules in all but the most exceptional cases, if for nothing else than to save us the shock and anxiety that would come with such a chaotic world.

So you're saying that God shaves with Occam's razor ...?

Kilarin wrote:

dissent wrote: There is an easy (conceptually ) test - just find a bonafide set of fossils that are unexplainably out of sequence, Cretaceous or Cambrian humans, for example.

There are lots of cases of fossiles out of sequence. Anomalies are almost guaranteed by the nature of the fossil column. Previous layers are subject to erosion, cracking, etc. Layers get jumbled and the jumbling is not always obvious. A few anomalous, out of order fossils are not sufficient to invalidate evolution. It would require something much more consistant.

Lots of cases? Such as? Please note that my criterion set out in my test above was that they be bonafide fossils that are unexplainably out of sequence. Indeed, there are a few places we can go to find the entire geological column. Can we find any such anomalous fossils there?

dissent wrote:Please note that my criterion set out in my test above was that they be bonafide fossils that are unexplainably out of sequence.

from Don Lindsay (NOT a creationist): Occasionally a fossil is found in the "wrong" place, or a rock is dated to a "wrong" age. There are a whole bunch of possible explanations

And that's the issue. An individual anomalous fossil may not have an obvious explanation, but there are lots of entirely reasonable and plausible explanations for a small percentage of fossils to be out of sequence. The geological column is not perfect, nor should we expect it to be. Finding a single mammal skull in the Jurassic would not convince me that we had misunderstood the geological column. Finding a significant number of them would.

So I'm not entirely certain we disagree here.

Mercury wrote:Until biological ID is willing to state some characteristics of the designer or designers, it will remain unfalsifiable.

I would say exactly the opposite. Attempting to identify the difference between structures that can occur through natural processes and structures that can only occur when designed by an (unspecified) intelligent agent is a valid scientific pursuit. Attempting to decide what a specific intelligent designer would or would not have designed can never get entirely beyond opinion.

Mercury wrote:Please don't presume to know what would or wouldn't convince me.

Point conceded.

Let's take a concrete example.

What about the rock bottom origins issue. How did life get started? We have a serious problem here. At the simplest level we have viruses. Above that are some extremely simplified parasitic cells. But both of these have one important detail in common, they can not reproduce by themselves. They must commandeer the reproductive machinery of a cell in order to reproduce.

Which brings us to a distinct problem. In order for natural selection to work, you MUST have reproduction. But the simplest self reproducing unit we find in nature is a bacteria, whose level of complexity makes a modern battle ship look pretty simple. And scientist have yet to prove that any structure less complicated than the simplest bacteria can be self-reproducing in a natural environment.

This is NOT a problem that creationists have made up. It's a problem that has true blue naturalistic evolutionists struggling to find better answers. It's the reason we keep getting new and stranger theories such as Exogenesis/Panspermia etc.

Natural selection can NOT operate until self-reproduction is in place. How big would the gap to that first reproductive unit have to be before you began to question if it could have come about by chance?

Kilarin wrote:Natural selection can NOT operate until self-reproduction is in place. How big would the gap to that first reproductive unit have to be before you began to question if it could have come about by chance?

I don't think I've ever said that I believe abiogenesis happened entirely by chance. I don't have a strong opinion one way or another about abiogenesis. I'm quite open to a natural pathway being found, but I certainly won't claim that it's already been found.

But, I don't doubt evolution, natural selection or common descent because abiogenesis is still an open question. That would be like doubting physics because we still don't know how the fundamental forces and matter ultimately came about. Evolution describes what happens to populations of imperfectly replicating organisms. It assumes that imperfectly replicating organisms already exist. And, looking around, I think that's a pretty safe assumption.

Kilarin wrote:from Don Lindsay (NOT a creationist): Occasionally a fossil is found in the "wrong" place, or a rock is dated to a "wrong" age. There are a whole bunch of possible explanations

And that's the issue. An individual anomalous fossil may not have an obvious explanation, but there are lots of entirely reasonable and plausible explanations for a small percentage of fossils to be out of sequence. The geological column is not perfect, nor should we expect it to be. Finding a single mammal skull in the Jurassic would not convince me that we had misunderstood the geological column. Finding a significant number of them would.

So I'm not entirely certain we disagree here.

I would agree with the assessment as you have phrased it here - that is what I meant by saying the fossils would have to be bonafide.

Kilarin wrote:I would say exactly the opposite. Attempting to identify the difference between structures that can occur through natural processes and structures that can only occur when designed by an (unspecified) intelligent agent is a valid scientific pursuit.

No it isn't. It hinges on a false dilemma, that something is either created through a natural process or it was designed by an intelligent agent. edit: And without knowing something about the designer, there's no clear way that this can be resolved.

Shadowfury wrote:Therefore, God would probably not want to break his own world's rules in all but the most exceptional cases, if for nothing else than to save us the shock and anxiety that would come with such a chaotic world.

A God who plays hands-off with the universe is compatible with the more general notion of naturalism.

Jeff250 wrote:No it isn't. It hinges on a false dilemma, that something is either created through a natural process or it was designed by an intelligent agent. edit: And without knowing something about the designer, there's no clear way that this can be resolved.

ID does make a statement about the designer- that he/she/it is intelligent. The dilemma as you call it, is exactly the driving force behind all of science, isn't it? One is curious enough about a given question that they have the motivation to pursue an answer to it.

What you question is a matter of application. You don't see an application where it would matter if something was intellegently designed or not. I can give you an example of where it would matter- cryptology. Say someone would have an encypted transmission line that normally carries "white noise", unless a message be being transmitted. At that point it become critical to be able to recognize the difference between the intellegently designed signal, and the random noise that is transmitted otherwise. Those trasmitting will try to mask the difference as much as possible, while those trying to tap the line need a systematic way to expose the difference. For purposes of determining what information is intellegently designed, any details about the transmitee are irrelevant. (Determining if the information is worth decrypting, or what it means once it is decrypted is another matter.) That's one of the things that are misunderstood about ID as a science, it purposely limits the scope to determining the existence of intelligent design, and doesn't delve into what should be done that has been determined.

snoopy wrote:....That's one of the things that are misunderstood about ID as a science, it purposely limits the scope to determining the existence of intelligent design, and doesn't delve into what should be done that has been determined.

There is nothing misunderstood about ID. It is not a science and has not been accepted as even a theory by the majority of scientists. To me, "A Supernatural Concept" is a better description for it unless you can show me where it is stated as science.

Your analogy of the white noise transmission is a good one. You wouldn't be a teacher would you? You explain things very well. I read that at one time scientists listening to white noise thought they were receiving intelligent signals when all they were listening to were pulsars.

Bee

Snoopy wrote:The dilemma as you call it, is exactly the driving force behind all of science, isn't it? One is curious enough about a given question that they have the motivation to pursue an answer to it.

Anyone who is taking a look at a system and evaluating between whether it is created by a natural process or by a designer on the grounds that those are the only two possibilities has put his or her self into a false dilemma. And so is anyone who concludes that something is designed by showing how it couldn't have been created by a natural process. Intelligent designer isn't a default option. This is why I think we need to know something about the designer (other than it is intelligent) in order to detect design. Else, on what basis can we begin to speculate how design can be detected? Maybe the designer enjoys creating order, and that is his signature. Maybe the designer enjoys creating chaos, and that is his signature. Maybe there's a healthy balance, and that's the key. Who knows. But I think we have to know something like that before we can attempt to detect design.

Jeff250 wrote:Anyone who is taking a look at a system and evaluating between whether it is created by a natural process or by a designer on the grounds that those are the only two possibilities has put his or her self into a false dilemma.

Precisely. It's like asking whether Mt. Rushmore was formed by intelligent designers or by tools that can shape stone. If there is a creator, then natural processes may be among the tools the creator fashioned. Biological ID advocates needs to make up their mind whether the designer they're searching for could be this transcendent. If so, their present ways of detecting the designer are misguided.

Mercury wrote:Precisely. It's like asking whether Mt. Rushmore was formed by intelligent designers or by tools that can shape stone. If there is a creator, then natural processes may be among the tools the creator fashioned. Biological ID advocates needs to make up their mind whether the designer they're searching for could be this transcendent. If so, their present ways of detecting the designer are misguided.

Wow, this is an excellent way of looking at things, it also nicely sums up my perspective on this issue, as well as Jeff250's, though he may have been a bit more inclined towards ambiguity than a transparent God.

Mercury wrote:Precisely. It's like asking whether Mt. Rushmore was formed by intelligent designers or by tools that can shape stone.

And I think there's even a fourth possibility.

The first two were (1) natural without design and (2) supernatural with design. Then there's a third one, the one you mentioned, (3) natural with design, but I think there's also another important fourth: (4) supernatural without design. Something like a great supernatural sneeze could splatter across our cosmos and create things that somebody might mistakenly interpret as design (perhaps by mistakenly reasoning that natural processes cannot create them, so they must have been designed, or even because the sneeze created things with features also reminiscent of human design, even though no design took place). The fourth one was the one I particularly had in mind, but this is because as Shadowfury notes, I'm more skeptical of a God's role (either that or by "ambiguous" he's trying to point out a feature of my writing style ).