Split Thread Atheism and lack of belief in the afterlife

[arthwollipot]

It was certainly based on observation of what they claimed was 'irreducible complexity' within the flagellum. But in the end the observation was shown to be unsupported.

No it wasn't. The observation was "this exists", which is trivial and not scientifically notable. "This exists and it could not have evolved naturally" is the unevidenced assumption.

 

[acbytesla]

ID = GOD DID IT.... just because now Behe has been sued and ridiculed for his inability to look at actual science and now has to begrudgingly and writhingly accept the flagellum evolved... does not mean GOD DID NOT DO IT... ergo unfalsifiable claptrap not a hypothesis let alone a scientific one.

Behe was sued? For what?

Behe accepted that the flagellum evolved? Where has he stated this? I was under the impression that Behe hasn't accepted its evolution and has continued to peddle his claptrap.

 

[GDon]

Meyer, Behe etc may get some of their arguments published in scientific journals, but that doesn’t mean they are practicing science. Unfortunately, probably 60 percent of published work is false. Even in prestigious scientific journals.

Right. And isn't this part of the scientific method? Science is self-correcting, which means things change. If science discards old theories, does that necessarily mean science wasn't being done in the case of those old theories? If tentative hypotheses get shot down, does that necessarily mean those hypotheses weren't 'science'? It's perhaps more of a philosophical question.

Whereas publishing is an important aspect in science, it isn't the end all, be all. The goal shouldn't just be getting published, but to perform excellent science. ID and IC were easily seen to be fraudulent.

Yes indeed. And that's science at work.

 

[Delvo]

Observation: the flagellum could not have evolved naturally

That's not an observation. It's what they claimed was their conclusion. Even the cdesign proponentsists who came up with cdesign knew better than to admit that their "conclusion" was built in from the start. You've managed to come up with an even lamer defense for them than their own.

If so, then how can you say that the ID hypothesis is not falsifable?

Because it's not a hypothesis. You just demonstrated yourself that its starting point was not an observation but their so-called "conclusion".

 

[arthwollipot]

No. Nobody looked at a flagellum and thought "How did this happen? I think it might have been designed.". What actually happened is that Creationists, who already thought everything's designed anyway, picked out the flagellum (among others) as something they hoped they could point out to others as designed.

What's interesting is the timeline of Behe's work, which demonstrates a perfect God of the Gaps progression.

Early on he was stating that a whole host of things were "irreducibly complex", but by the time of Kitzmiller he had narrowed it down to exactly two things: the bacterial flagellum, and the mammalian immune system. He accepted that all other biological mechanisms had evolved, just not these two.

Which makes both God exceptionally small in order to fit in that gap, and also remarkably specific.

 

[GDon]

No it wasn't. The observation was "this exists", which is trivial and not scientifically notable. "This exists and it could not have evolved naturally" is the unevidenced assumption.

That's simply not true. Behe proposed reasons why the flagellum could not have evolved naturally. Those reasons were refuted. That's why we can say that ID was examined and refuted.

 

[GDon]

Observation: the flagellum could not have evolved naturally

That's not an observation. It's what they claimed was their conclusion. Even the cdesign proponentsists who came up with cdesign knew better than to admit that their "conclusion" was built in from the start. You've managed to come up with an even lamer defense for them than their own.

"Defense"? Could you explain what I am actually defending please?

 

[Leumas]

It was certainly based on observation ignorance and wishful thinking of what they claimed was 'irreducible complexity' within the flagellum. But in the end the observation ignorance and wishful thinking was shown to be unsupported.

When the caveman trembled with fear at the lightning strike that killed his wife and son and put the tree they were sitting under on fire... and then he discovered the value of fire... he concluded that his wife and son must have given their lives so as to obtain the gift of fire from the gods for the rest of the tribe.

Not really much different than Behe and all his cult followers who think Jesus was a human sacrifice to make them know the god who made the flagellum so complex.

Your insistence on thinking your errors are not error is astoundingly impressive.

But may I remind you of your very own words... I suggest you heed them...

In a similar vein, and to paraphrase CS Lewis: Nothing worse than trying to defend weak arguments in defence of your worldview.....

Sometimes people continually using bad arguments do more harm against their own side than anything the other side can do....

 

[Leumas]

Behe was sued? For what?

Maybe not him personally but his claptrap and he was witness for the claptrap in numerous court cases... read this article... and The Case Of Behe Vs Darwin... and here... and of course the most famous court case.

Behe accepted that the flagellum evolved? Where has he stated this? I was under the impression that Behe hasn't accepted its evolution and has continued to peddle his claptrap.

He conceded it under oath as witness in the court case described here.

In the Dover trial
While testifying during the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed nor are there any peer-reviewed articles supporting his argument that certain complex molecular structures are "irreducibly complex."

In the final ruling of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Judge Jones specifically singled out Behe and irreducible complexity:

"Professor Behe admitted in "Reply to My Critics" that there was a defect in his view of irreducible complexity because, while it purports to be a challenge to natural selection, it does not actually address "the task facing natural selection." and that "Professor Behe wrote that he hoped to "repair this defect in future work..." (Page 73)

 

[Leumas]

Right. And isn't this part of the scientific method? Science is self-correcting, which means things change. If science discards old theories, does that necessarily mean science wasn't being done in the case of those old theories? If tentative hypotheses get shot down, does that necessarily mean those hypotheses weren't 'science'? It's perhaps more of a philosophical question.

Yes indeed. And that's science at work.

wow!!!

 

[Leumas]

That's simply not true. Behe proposed reasons why the flagellum could not have evolved naturally. Those reasons were refuted. That's why we can say that ID was examined and refuted.

The Shaman proposed reasons why they need to shove virgins into the volcano too.

 

[Leumas]

"Defense"? Could you explain what I am actually defending please?

The cult of God Did It (ID) with Behe as head Shaman.

And if you claim that you admitted ID is nothing but claptrap... nope... definitively not... you have not admitted that at all... as is clearly evident

ID seems to have fitted the definition of "scientific hypothesis"....

Right. And isn't this part of the scientific method? Science is self-correcting, which means things change. If science discards old theories, does that necessarily mean science wasn't being done in the case of those old theories? If tentative hypotheses get shot down, does that necessarily mean those hypotheses weren't 'science'? It's perhaps more of a philosophical question.

Yes indeed. And that's science at work.

It's not very different. Showing the validity of a new hypothesis by building a body of work through peer review is how the scientific consensus gets changed. ID proponents are going through that process. Who knows? Maybe their views will gain traction in the scientific community. Currently there is no evidence for the validity of the ID hypothesis, but let them keep trying. That's what science is all about.

There are qualified academics producing peer reviewed articles for intelligent design. In what way is that not science?

...
Anyone who appreciates science as science should be celebrating the publication of ID articles in peer review. It's the difference between religious claims and scientific claims.
If anyone has a problem with the idea that ID claims have been published in scientific journals and have passed peer review, then they have a problem with science.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

"Theories are more about making predictions than hypotheses."

No they are not. Stop making unsupported assertions and go read a bit more.

Hypotheses need to make predictions or we couldn't confirm them.

Kahn Academy, free online basic science education

At the core of biology and other sciences lies a problem-solving approach called the scientific method. The scientific method has five basic steps, plus one feedback step:

Make an observation.
Ask a question.
Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
Make a prediction based on the hypothesis. Test the prediction.Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.

The scientific method is used in all sciences—including chemistry, physics, geology, and psychology. The scientists in these fields ask different questions and perform different tests. However, they use the same core approach to find answers that are logical and supported by evidence.

A theory is when you have a whole body of knowledge based on tested hypotheses that fit together in a broader sense. With that body of knowledge you develop a theory.

Stop making assertions you cannot back up.

No, by all means please enlighten me! What are the scientific definitions of theory and hypothesis, such as they differ from the ones I gave (which admittedly I found on the Internet)?

Look them up: "scientific definitions of theory and hypothesis."

 

[acbytesla]

He conceded it under oath as witness in the court case described here.

No, he didn't.

Isn’t it true, an attorney asked, that Behe’s critique of Darwin and support for intelligent design, a rival belief about the origins of life, have little scientific support?

Yes, Behe conceded.

Isn’t it also true, the attorney pressed, that faculty members in Behe’s department at Lehigh University have rejected his writings as unscientific?

Behe, a slight, balding man with a graying beard, grudgingly answered yes.

“Intelligent design is not the dominant view of the scientific community,” he said. “But I’m pleased with the progress we are making.”

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2005-nov-05-na-behe5-story.html

Behe to the best of my knowledge has NOT (excuse the expression), "come to Jesus."

He has never conceded that the bacterium flagellum evolved.

He continues to sell his book and makes paid speaking engagements peddling ID and IC. Mostly at churches etc.

 

[Leumas]

No, he didn't.

Behe to the best of my knowledge has NOT (excuse the expression), "come to Jesus."

He has never conceded that the bacterium flagellum evolved.

He continues to sell his book and makes paid speaking engagements peddling ID and IC. Mostly at churches etc.

Yup... dogged relentless incessant persistent peddling for their religious lies and pretenses and dissimulations is the hallmark of all the leaders and sheep-dogs of the cult of perfidy and hoaxing for Jesus.... I am not at all surprised!

He continues to sell his book and makes paid speaking engagements peddling ID and IC. Mostly at churches etc.

Which risibly and ironically (as usual with these morons) proves Imbecilic Dunces (ID) abound and if designed then this in and of itself proves that this alleged "designer" must be an Inept Ignoble Ignorant Designer (I³D).

 

[Leumas]

No they are not. Stop making unsupported assertions and go read a bit more.
...

Making unsupported assertions relentlessly is the hallmark of all faith based errors.

... go read a bit more.
...

And reading anything that might rattle that faith will never be allowed.

Look them up: "scientific definitions of theory and hypothesis."

Looking things up requires actually looking... which is impossible from behind the tenaciously and irrevocably donned goggles of faith.

 

[psionl0]

Since "afterlife" has long gone out the window, I will add a couple of observations about ID.

The problem with saying that "ID" is not falsifiable is that "not ID" is equally unfalsifiable.

"Not ID" would be the claim that no intelligence is involved with evolution. It all happens via the actions of random forces. However, the existence of random forces can't be tested. Statistical models assume that the outcomes of certain trials are determined by "random forces" (rather than the laws of physics) which side steps the problem of identifying and measuring all of the physical forces involved with a trial.

Although assuming that random forces are at work can produce remarkably accurate results, that is not proof that the random forces are real. A mathematical model is only as good as the behaviour it fails to predict.

So if "ID" is not suitable for publication in a peer reviewed journal then "not ID" is equally unsuitable.

 

[arthwollipot]

Premised on the incorrect description of evolution as determined by "random forces". There are no "random forces".

 

[Pixel42]

Observation: the flagellum could not have evolved naturally (IC)
Hypothesis: ID
Test: can the evolutionary path for the flagellum be shown? Yes
Conclusion: the hypothesis fails.

Do you agree that this is what happened?

No, I do not agree that is what happened.

What happened was:

1. The argument from design was put forward as a reason for believing in God centuries ago, because it didn't seem possible that complex life forms could have come into existence purely by chance

2. Darwin made observations which led him to an alternative explanation: that complex life forms were the result of millions of years of evolution by natural selection. Note that the only part chance plays is in the provision of variety, the raw material upon which natural selection acts. Enormous amounts of subsequent observation and consequent understanding of genetics etc have overwhelmingly supported this explanation.

3. Religious people either didn't understand or refused to believe this explanation, and continued to believe that complex life forms could only be the result of divine intervention

4. Religious people with scientific training renamed that divine intervention Intelligent Design, in order to pretend that it was an hypothesis rather than a religious belief, and then went looking for examples of complexity which they could argue could not be the result of natural selection in a disingenuous enough way that they might attempt to sneak into the scientific literature, thereby giving their religious belief an unwarranted veneer of scientific credibility

5. Scientists systematically demolished their examples

The scientific method is: make observations, produce hypothesis, test hypothesis

What these guys did: form religious belief, pretend religious belief is an hypothesis, make lots of observations until you find one that can be twisted and misinterpreted as support for your religious belief

 

[bruto]

And how did we conclude that "only the agency of God could effect" it if we lack understanding of it.

If you lack understanding of it then how did you exclude that The Dragon In My Garage did it instead of God?

I'm staying entirely hypothetical here, and imagining a god that could somehow prove it does something without explaining how. If a god actually existed I am imagining that such a being could do whatever needs to be done. and it is likely that if such a being existed and if something actually occurred that could only be attributed to a god it would by its very nature be beyond understanding.

I'm quite sure no such thing exists, and that no such thing will happen, and it violates all sorts of criteria that apply to the reality we know - a supernatural being like a god would sort of have to. But I think it is conceivable, and if you can conceive of it you can state a hypothesis, even if it's a stupid one that can be dismissed summarily by anyone sane.

The narrow question is not whether a hypothesis is any good, but what properties it needs to possess to be called one.

In informal discourse, we can exclude things we think egregiously bad from membership in the class they claim to inhabit. You see an awful painting and say "that's not art, it's a clumsy daub," or I think it was Dorothy Parker who dismissed someone's literary effort saying "That's not writing, it's typing." But formally I think we have to separate judgment from classification.