• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Can ID be disproven?

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.
 
Mercutio said:
ah, but..."flies is flies".
Click to expand...

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:
 
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."
 
Iacchus said:
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:
Click to expand...

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.
 
Beerina said:
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.
Click to expand...
But still, would you agree, that in the ultimate sense there is nothing random about it?
 
Iacchus said:
But still, would you agree, that in the ultimate sense there is nothing random about it?
Click to expand...

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?
 
Roboramma said:
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...
Click to expand...
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:
 
Last edited:
Taffer said:
Boy do you not understand what we're talking about, Iacchus.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Taffer said:
Speciation has already been observed in fruit flies.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Iacchus said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Meadmaker said:
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.
Click to expand...
How about the ability of bacteria to digest nylon?

~~ Paul
 
Taffer said:
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?
Click to expand...
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?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom