Why is ID so successful?

[Robin]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Why is ID so successful?

Actually, proving theories is the basis of scientific advancement. An hypothesis leads to a proof-of-principle experiment which, if successful, proves a new universal physical principle. Gravity, the least-time principle of light, the nuclear principles allowing for fission to be replicated, and so on. Surrounding these core principles are a host of theories support by unproven but compelling empirical evidence. Revolutions occur when a new principle is discovered, forcing a cleaning-house of that host of theories.

Do you have a source for this? It sounds different to anything else I have ever read about science.

What, for example, is the proof-of-principle experiment for gravity? It seems to me that there are still observations that cannot be accounted for using current models of gravitation.

 

[CplFerro]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why is ID so successful?

Do you have a source for this? It sounds different to anything else I have ever read about science.

What, for example, is the proof-of-principle experiment for gravity? It seems to me that there are still observations that cannot be accounted for using current models of gravitation.

It should sound different. It hasn't been standard play for scientists since about Gauss' time, from what I know. This essay talks a bit about it, in the section entitled "5. The Economic Principles of Space Science."

Space: The Ultimate Money Frontier
http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/1996/space_policy.html

Truths, ideas, powers - all ultimately the same thing. Successful science discovers these things and increases man's mastery over the universe, including his ability to make new discoveries. I gather though that knowledge being so limited, a whole set of inductions about the way the world works are made from what we know, giving us "good enough" calculations for most endeavours.

On Kepler, I gathered his experiments were his observations according with his hypothesis; that is, in astronomy the experiment is going on perpetually, with proof being a matter of prediction, as always. His discovery won't explain all astronomical events because there are doubtless many principles yet to be discovered.

Here's also bit about Fermat's principle of least time.
http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/~etmcmull/FERMAT.htm

 

[Robin]

The Pope was making clear what he was willing to concede, and what concessions he expected in return. Such negotiations are commonplace in the political and economic arenas in which the the Catholic church has historically been so successful, and I wonder who would deny that much important business has traditionally been conducted under the table. Rather than take to full retreat, the Catholic church would prefer to stay on the field and offer shady deals on various parcels of its former holdings, even as the very same are being overrun. Dawkins expresses his preference for the wild-eyed ("honest-to-goodness") fundamentalist who prefers to stand and defend his hopeless cause with honor.

I have no reason to doubt that Behe is, as Dawkins states, honest. On the other hand I don't really think he is a fundamentalist. In general I would have some difficulty with the idea of the ID movement as the honorable party. Being funded by a shady religious figure to "defeat Darwin" does not sound like an honorable motive. Claiming a sinister conspiracy among scientists to exclude your ideas because you can't get published in peer reviewed journals does not sound like an honorable tactic.

But what concessions was the Pope asking for in return for his statement about evolution? The idea about non-overlapping magisteria was Gould's, not the Pope's, in fact I can see nothing that smacks of shady deals about the address. ( http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm )

Both the Pope and the fundamentalist make the same mistake: they think their business is with the messenger; they think that placating or defeating him will render their position secure. What they (and perhaps you as well) fail to appreciate is that they are being overrun by evidence, not by messengers.

I don't think this is true, either of the Pope or the fundamentalist. The Pope is accepting the evidence, the ID movement are muddying the evidence.

For the fundamentalist at least, the very presence of an atheist seems to be taken as an insult.

Perhaps, but you should not fall into the trap of classifying every believer as a fundamentalist. The average Christian, Muslim, Jew etc has no more interest in sabotaging the educational standards for their kids than you do.

 

[Christian Dude]

I think ID is successful because it is just as viable as evolution. At this point I have not seen any real proof for evolution or ID. Some of the best arguments I have seen offered as proof in evolution are bacteria that have been mutated, in laboratories, to survive in oxygen rich environments when they don’t like oxygen, or arguments for bacteria that develop immunity to antibiotics. It seems to me that this is not evolution, it is adaptation. It is still a bacteria and will still be a bacteria a billion years from now. This process, that we can repeat in the laboratory, will create super bacteria that we won’t be able to kill to save our lives, but it will not turn the bacteria into an amoeba per say. And dog breeding was mentioned earlier in this thread. Sure we have forced dogs to mutate in ways we consider positive, but they are still dogs.

From my Christian point of view, it looks like the creator loves life, and built-in wonderful mechanisms to adapt to changes in an organism's environment to preserve life, not let it die. We then, have found ways to manipulate the mechanisms that are there for preservation, and use them to modify species like dogs.

I am interested in what you guys think is the best proof for evolution. I promise you I will look at it. Please offer the references to the publications or books I can find them in.

 

[AWPrime]

Is CD a sockpuppet?

 

[cyborg]

It seems to me that this is not evolution, it is adaptation.

It seems to me that you're swallowing the ID propaganda's terms, not using real science.

It is still a bacteria and will still be a bacteria a billion years from now. This process, that we can repeat in the laboratory, will create super bacteria that we won’t be able to kill to save our lives, but it will not turn the bacteria into an amoeba per say. And dog breeding was mentioned earlier in this thread. Sure we have forced dogs to mutate in ways we consider positive, but they are still dogs.

More nonsense trotted out from the ID crowd. "Speciation doesn't occur, just small changes." Well sorry to break it to you but these small changes are what leads to speciation - not only that it has been observed!

From my Christian point of view, it looks like the creator loves life, and built-in wonderful mechanisms to adapt to changes in an organism's environment to preserve life, not let it die.

And yet most of all species that have ever existed are extinct!? Care to explain that from a Christian point of view? Did dinosaurs live next to man in a Flintstones reality? Did your god decide to have lots of mini creations to produce all these new species that suddenly pop up in geological records? Or perhaps the geological records are just phony balony science too - the Earth can only be 10,000 years old after all.

I am interested in what you guys think is the best proof for evolution. I promise you I will look at it.

Screw that, I want to see what you think is the best proof for intelligent design. Simply pointing at evolution and saying, "nah, couldn't have happened that way," doesn't actually consititute proof for ID. It's what's called a non-sequitor. Or in other words one could place any magical theory they wanted in the gap and be equally correct due to a lack of any way to actually TEST which one is correct.

It doesn't follow that just because you are not convinced that evolution is correct that ID must be. Otherwise I propose that we were built as a experiment to find the question to the answer for some mice - with just the same amount of evidence for it as ID.

 

[Iacchus]

I don't quite understand this post. You seem to be admitting that the evidence ("appearance") is in favour of evolution but then trying to say there's actually something else going on. What do you say is actually going on? And on what evidence do you say so? Is your "outlined course" some great cosmic plan designed to fool us all into thinking we evolved from lower forms when in fact it was some god's plan all along? You're getting dangerously close to last-Thursdayism here.

At the very least I don't believe something can come from nothing, which would be the case if there were such a thing as true random change.

 

[jjramsey]

Some of the best arguments I have seen offered as proof in evolution are bacteria that have been mutated, in laboratories

One of the best evidences, in my opinion, is finding the same endogenous retrovirus in the same chromosomal position in the genomes of two different species. That certainly implies common descent.

 

[Dubium]

Orthodox Jews are also 'creationists'. Not sure about Moslems - guess they are too. So there are a lot of fundies from different religions who would approve of the concept of ID - though each would think it was their god who was the intelligence in question.

 

[Hawk one]

I am interested in what you guys think is the best proof for evolution. I promise you I will look at it. Please offer the references to the publications or books I can find them in.

What we think of as the best evidence for evolution takes too long to tell in one single post: Here is however a list to different articles that explains what evolution is, and - as importantly - what it isn't. It's as good a place to start as any.

 

[cyborg]

Orthodox Jews are also 'creationists'. Not sure about Moslems - guess they are too. So there are a lot of fundies from different religions who would approve of the concept of ID - though each would think it was their god who was the intelligence in question.

Which is the same god since they are Abrahamic religions.

 

[Phil]

Re: Re: Re: Why is ID so successful?

This shows that you have entirely missed my point. . . .

No, I entirely got your point. As much as you probably like to think it, you're not that deep. I found your opening post to be a bit of flimsy conjecture, so I gave my thoughts on the underlying themes.

This too. Look please try to at least understand what I am saying before you comment. . . .

Gosh, I'll try. Maybe if you say it in the form of a little play or something . . .

. . . Oh, goody. . . .

. . . Let's put it this way, you are having a debate about having ID taught as a science in your kid's school with Bob the Fundy and Alice a non-fundy Christian:

Bob: "I think we should teach ID as science in schools to give kids an alternate viewpoint"
Ted: "You are an idiot Bob"
Alice: "I agree with Ted, ID is not a science and evolution is a model with a massive amount of evidence behind it"
Ted: "You are an idiot too Alice, in fact you are ignorant, uninformed, emotionally weak and stubborn, why should I pollute my britches every time with excitement you have a pseudo clear thought about science? Why should I give a damn about anything you say concerning reality?
Bob: "If there is a massive amount of evidence behind evolution then why do it's supporters rely on emotive, insulting tactics like that. In fact you are clearly an intelligent woman Alice and I respect your opinion in this matter, but maybe can see from this debate who is the irrational one, me or Ted? I say we move for a vote."

Now do you think Ted might have handled this situation better?

All I am saying.

Yes, Ted could have handled the situation better, and were I to encounter anyone behaving such as Ted within the scenario you constructed, I would not hesitate to point out the blunder. Because your cute little vignette centers on a political debate, it has absolutely nothing to do with the legitimacy of Alice's or Bob's beliefs. It is only concerned with whether or not ID is science. It is a political debate, one in which alienating Alice is going to be a detriment to Ted. And if the debate is an important one, say at a school board hearing or something, Ted should point out that ID is not science, and as such should not be taught in a science class. And that's all he should say.

But you posted this thread in the Religion & Philosophy forum. We're not in a political debate here. You can't just lay down a bit of conjecture centering on a religious belief (why is ID successful), and not expect the underlying philosophies to be addressed. In this forum, it's customary to discuss the validity of the multitude of religious ideas, including ID and moderate Christianity.

I realize that when you posted your opening remarks you expected people here to fall on their knees and proclaim in a loud voice, "Oh yeah, you're so right"?

But that would have made for an awfully short thread. So I didn't do it.

All I am saying.

Oh, and if you're going to paraphrase and copy my words for another dramatic illustration in the future, at least try to make it a little more entertaining.

 

[Jon.]

At the very least I don't believe something can come from nothing, which would be the case if there were such a thing as true random change.

We were talking about evolution, not abiogenesis. And who said we were talking about random change at all? Natural selection is not random.

In any event, all that you can get from "I don't believe something can come from nothing" is some form of deism. It doesn't get you to ID, let alone any of the theistic religions.

 

[Iacchus]

We were talking about evolution, not abiogenesis. And who said we were talking about random change at all? Natural selection is not random.

Oh, well thank you very much! Does that mean the "blueprint" (consider the blueprint inherent in the seed which turns into a tree) for everything which has come into existence has always existed then? Remember, you've just acknowldged that something cannot come from nothing.

In any event, all that you can get from "I don't believe something can come from nothing" is some form of deism. It doesn't get you to ID, let alone any of the theistic religions.

Nonetheless, you can't have a blueprint without its designer. Whereas this blueprint for all things to exist can only be maintained via one thing, omniscience.

 

[Robin]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Why is ID so successful?

Oh, and if you're going to paraphrase and copy my words for another dramatic illustration in the future, at least try to make it a little more entertaining.

However it seems to have served it's purpose because it answered a question you specifically posed. When I said that Dawkins had gone out of his way to insult the Pope and to insult Stephen Jay Gould for proposing a truce between religion and science you asked:

So what? Have we not held these people in high esteem long enough?
...
If a man is the leader of a billion people who believe in fairies, should we pollute our britches with excitement each time he has a pseudo-clear thought about science?

in response to my little comedy you answered your own question:

It is a political debate, one in which alienating Alice is going to be a detriment to Ted. And if the debate is an important one, say at a school board hearing or something, Ted should point out that ID is not science, and as such should not be taught in a science class. And that's all he should say

So you ask a question, you get an answer - maybe not entertaining but certainly productive. Now if you understood this in the first place, as you now claim, why did you pose those questions?

And by the way there is no "if" about it, the debate is happening right now, it is a political one, an important one and Bob has just won round one.

 

[Robin]

I am interested in what you guys think is the best proof for evolution. I promise you I will look at it. Please offer the references to the publications or books I can find them in.

Well for a start there is probably no 'proof' for any scientific theory, all that can be done is to present a model that fits the observations. But maybe a good starting point would be Ernst Mayr's "What Evolution Is".

The problem with Intelligent Design is that it is not a theory. It is a series of attempts to point out and exaggerate the gaps in the mainstream theory of evolution as well as to invent some gaps that don't exist. As I have said before, criticising someone else's theory does not constitute a theory of your own. So how can a theory that doesn't even exist be called viable?

In fact you could probably do this type of hatchet job on most areas of science if you put the time and resources into it.

 

[Christian Dude]

It seems to me that you're swallowing the ID propaganda's terms, not using real science.

I believed in creation before I ever heard of ID. I am a layman, not a scientist, I have to rely on other people’s work in this area.

More nonsense trotted out from the ID crowd. "Speciation doesn't occur, just small changes." Well sorry to break it to you but these small changes are what leads to speciation - not only that it has been observed!

OK, I would like to see the documents that describe that. Could you give me a reference so I can find it please.

And yet most of all species that have ever existed are extinct!? Care to explain that from a Christian point of view? Did dinosaurs live next to man in a Flintstones reality? Did your god decide to have lots of mini creations to produce all these new species that suddenly pop up in geological records? Or perhaps the geological records are just phony balony science too - the Earth can only be 10,000 years old after all.

I can give you this Christian’s point of view. Because of astrophysics, which was one of my majors in college, and the distances between the galaxies, I am not convinced the universe is young at all. We can also infer from scripture a lot about God’s nature, I do not believe it is his nature to deceive us. So, either we have something terribly wrong, or the universe is much older that 10,000 years. I am also studying radio active dating techniques because of the age issue as well. But, there are anomalies in the fossil record where homo sapiens remains are found in the same strata with dinosaurs. There are lots of explanations for the anomalies, but they are just theories again. I don’t have any good answers for that.

Creation took the Lord six days, I am open to explain them as six “God” days, and that they didn’t necessarily have to be 24 hour periods. Lots if Christians will jump all over me for saying that though. 2 Peter 3:8 says “But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.” So because of that verse, I am open to the six days of creation taking a very long time. Then, if you look at the creation account, you see that different species were created on different days, thus accounting for many species living at different times and some dying out before other species lived. Some of course, did not die out and continue on today.

Screw that, I want to see what you think is the best proof for intelligent design. Simply pointing at evolution and saying, "nah, couldn't have happened that way," doesn't actually consititute proof for ID. It's what's called a non-sequitor. Or in other words one could place any magical theory they wanted in the gap and be equally correct due to a lack of any way to actually TEST which one is correct.

It doesn't follow that just because you are not convinced that evolution is correct that ID must be. Otherwise I propose that we were built as a experiment to find the question to the answer for some mice - with just the same amount of evidence for it as ID.

Cyborg, you forget that I am 100 percent biased for creation. I don’t hide that fact. I am a real deal Christian, not a phony. If creation is not the way things happened, then my faith falls apart. If the Lord did not create Adam and Eve, then sin did not enter the human race though Adam, and then there is no reason for Jesus to die on the cross. Creation must be true or I am doomed. It is not a non-sequitur for a true Christian to follow that line of thought.

One of the best evidences, in my opinion, is finding the same endogenous retrovirus in the same chromosomal position in the genomes of two different species. That certainly implies common descent.

Thanks jjramsey, I will check it out.

What we think of as the best evidence for evolution takes too long to tell in one single post: Here is however a list to different articles that explains what evolution is, and - as importantly - what it isn't. It's as good a place to start as any.

Thanks Hawk one, I appreciate it.

Well for a start there is probably no 'proof' for any scientific theory, all that can be done is to present a model that fits the observations. But maybe a good starting point would be Ernst Mayr's "What Evolution Is".

The problem with Intelligent Design is that it is not a theory. It is a series of attempts to point out and exaggerate the gaps in the mainstream theory of evolution as well as to invent some gaps that don't exist. As I have said before, criticising someone else's theory does not constitute a theory of your own. So how can a theory that doesn't even exist be called viable?

In fact you could probably do this type of hatchet job on most areas of science if you put the time and resources into it.

Thanks Robin, I will pick up the book.

 

[Peter Soderqvist]

Christian Dude, Michael Shermer has said that the best book written about the "Creation evolution debate", is; Tower of Babel, the evidence against the new Creationists, by Robert T. Pennock on Amazon COM!
I have read the book, it is a must read!
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0262661659/qid=1124345907/sr=1-

 

[cyborg]

OK, I would like to see the documents that describe that. Could you give me a reference so I can find it please.

Sure can: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

I can give you this Christian’s point of view. Because of astrophysics, which was one of my majors in college, and the distances between the galaxies, I am not convinced the universe is young at all.

Is this your layman's perspective? Did you flunk astrophysics?

So please, entertain me: give me the scientific explanation for why light is coming from galaxies millions of light years away if the universe is only thousands of years old.

Nota Bene: GODIDIT is not science.

We can also infer from scripture a lot about God’s nature,

Sure can...

I do not believe it is his nature to deceive us.

Woah! This is the same god who sent lying spirits into people right?

So, either we have something terribly wrong, or the universe is much older that 10,000 years.

What to choose?

Do I go with the authourity of a book which was primarially written by people totally ignorant of modern science and the world around them at large, spent too much time in the desert and claimed they could talk to god OR I can go with the authourity of the universe when asking questions about the nature of the universe... tricky decision.

I am also studying radio active dating techniques because of the age issue as well. But, there are anomalies in the fossil record where homo sapiens remains are found in the same strata with dinosaurs. There are lots of explanations for the anomalies, but they are just theories again. I don’t have any good answers for that.

And yet you're happy to bring up what I am sure is an ID misrepresentation of science - it certainly wouldn't be the first time that god fearing Christians have beared false witness in furtherance of their relgion.

Creation took the Lord six days, I am open to explain them as six “God” days, and that they didn’t necessarily have to be 24 hour periods.

That's lovely.

Now tell me how the plants lived before your god placed the sun in the sky.

Lots if Christians will jump all over me for saying that though. 2 Peter 3:8 says “But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.” So because of that verse, I am open to the six days of creation taking a very long time.

As are a lot of Christians.

Of course the rational universe gives those clearly mythical accounts as much scientific weight as belief that Zeus jumped out of Chronous' head or Thor using his hammer to forge creation, or an egg splitting into two halves, or a giant interdimensional being sneezing us out.

None.

[quote[Then, if you look at the creation account, you see that different species were created on different days, thus accounting for many species living at different times and some dying out before other species lived. Some of course, did not die out and continue on today.[/quote]

Of course, by this account, all the plants must have been dead long before any animals were around.

Oh wait, let's just use some more magical explanations to explain that away! God made the plants live by magic!

Now get me the evidence for that one.

Cyborg, you forget that I am 100 percent biased for creation. I don’t hide that fact.

Then please have the courtesy to never, EVER expect anyone to take any matters you present as scientific seriously. What you have presented here is simply wild supposition much as a child might make. I am as likely to be convinced by your view on the universe by this method as I am by a child telling me a monster lives under its bed. Don't even pretend to care if there's evidence or not.

I am a real deal Christian, not a phony. If creation is not the way things happened, then my faith falls apart.

Too bad for you. That's not the way things happened. People just made up a creation story (two infact in your book, one nicked from the Sumerians). Your faith is a lie. Your god is a fiction. That's the truth kid - some humans just made it up and you've been caught in the con.

If the Lord did not create Adam and Eve, then sin did not enter the human race though Adam, and then there is no reason for Jesus to die on the cross.

There was little reason for Jesus to die anyway - well not any reason that makes sense to anyone outside your little fantasy world - but that's another discussion.

Creation must be true or I am doomed. It is not a non-sequitur

Well yes it is. You will not be doomed if the stories you cling to so dearly are just fiction (as they are). You will just have to grow up and realise there's no sky daddy who's gonna look after you forever.

for a true Christian to follow that line of thought.

Being doomed is to be a prisioner of such a mentally repressive relgion.

 

[AWPrime]

Oh, well thank you very much! Does that mean the "blueprint" (consider the blueprint inherent in the seed which turns into a tree) for everything which has come into existence has always existed then? Remember, you've just acknowldged that something cannot come from nothing.

Nonetheless, you can't have a blueprint without its designer. Whereas this blueprint for all things to exist can only be maintained via one thing, omniscience.

You have a very distroted view of a blueprint, for there is no fixed 'blueprint' in nature.