2005 Top Award for Evolution -AAAS

[SamCJ]

Of course the example is intended to focus not upon how the mixture comes to be filtered and arranged by viscosity and gravity, but the fact that gravity and viscosity working together can produce a highly efficient system for arranging particles based on size and weight. For an intelligent human to do the same thing would require measurements of weight and volume for each particle, and a formula for calculating position based upon a product of the two.

How do you present such a scenario as random when the mixture goes into the water in a random fashion, but arrives at the bottom in a demonstratively arranged fashion. Randomness added to randomness does not create order. Clearly the arrangement of particles after being acted upon by gravity and viscosity is quite other than random. So we either have the gravity and viscosity showing intelligence, or we have shown that no intelligence is necessary for such ordering to occur.


Purpose is completely independent of the issue. Purpose may exist or not, the outcome is the same. And the outcome is order provided to randomness, without intelligence.


My belief that there is no God does not rely upon faith. Faith is belief independent of evidence and I base my belief upon the evidence. The Bible, said to be the word of God, is known to have been written by men. That much is not open to argument. Beyond that is the claim that these men, like many others, claimed that their writings were influenced by God. Yet they can offer nothing, not offered by others of the same claim to support their assertion. We find contradiction and error in the Bible which sharply contrasts the suggestion of a perfect entity. God is said to have provided all of creation -- the physical produced from purely non-physical. This is highly illogical. The history of the Christian religion shows it to have been a very intentionally designed belief, often based on older faiths and superstition. When physical items are interacted with, physical evidence remains behind. In all of man's closest examinations of the physical world, not one sign of God has ever emerged. These evidences are the reason that no atheist has any need of faith.

I have attacked nothing. You have suggested that no such examples could be produced and I have produced them. Whether or not you wish to see them is, of course, up to you and your sensibilities concerning the information.


Tell me; is the following pattern highly complex, or of a highly simple nature, relying upon recursive redundancy to produce the illusion of complexity?

Does it resemble something made by man, by an intelligence or by nature which may or may not be intelligence depending upon your point of view concerning the topic of the thread? Is it possible to create such an image using only two mathematical concepts, working in unison?

Jeez! Either you did not understand what I said or you have deliberately framed your reply to mislead the casual reader as to what I said.

 

[SamCJ]

Hey. No one likes to be shown to be wrong, right?

Just what evidence is there, exactly? My understanding is that there is no direct evidence of any kind. If there is, what is it?

You see, SamCJ, although no scientist likes to be shown to be wrong, unassailable evidence contrary to a model (or theory) will not simply disappear if it's debated (or attacked). Attacking the evidence (or the person presenting it) will not quash its reality; the evidence will remain (or will be rediscovered) and will remain contrarian until the model (or theory) is altered to incorporate the new evidence. It is the quality of the evidence and its interpretation which are fruitfully debated; genuine but contrarian evidence will be like a thorn in the side until it's dealt with.

Even if no one looks for evidence of intelligent design (and people have), any real evidence of intelligent design will be stumbled upon (eventually). If it's genuine and repeatable, it will outlive the current model. The trouble is virtually no one really believes it's out there to be discovered, and I've heard no one devise a cogent proposal of how to look for it.

Read Dembski's writings. You can find many of them on the web.

 

[SamCJ]

Your example just doesn't work in terms of explaining origins of life because it is not analogous. No matter how many times we mix the "gravel" , "sand" and "water" of life we don't get a neatly separated or functioning system..a living organism. No one has shown so far that intelligence is not needed to form a living organism. And in your previous example, how do you know that an intelligence didn't set the parameters involved so such a scenario would occur?

Thanks for the support.

 

[SamCJ]

My only issue with religion is this: I can't, for the life of me, and I'm a thinker..it's all I do in everything I do.. I work to design applications so I get to use my imagination and imagine up crazy ideas..it's great...but I just can't imagine why anybody will settle for a stagnant answer like "Because God made it happen" or similar. How is that enough? Aren't you in the least bit curious to find out how it happened?

Go read Dembski's writings, and then maybe you will understand that I am not suggesting the stagnant answer you refer to.

 

[HairlessSimian]

I do not understand your reliance on thermodynamics and statistics. Is this your own theory or is it found in a peer review journal that has received general acceptance among other atheistic evolutionists?

Thermodynamics and kinetics (applied statistics) rule chemistry. Replication is chemistry. Not at all my theory.

Loudmouth said there was an imperfection, and when I argued, I was jumped on by other atheists supporting him. Why did you fail to advise him of his error?

I am tempted to concede this point because it's late and I'm tired. I did not jump on Loudmouth, true, but that was because I generally don't disagree with him and was focussing my limited time on the more pressing issues you evoked. There is no imperfection without perfection. Since we don't have a good exemplar of perfect replication, attributing imperfection to what we have is subjective, and moot anyway, since we don't need to call what is natural imperfect when it's doing what it can as perfectly as it can. No doubt, there is room for improvement through further natural selection.

I do not think you are really that naive. Did you count the number of newspapers in which it made the front page news?

The AAAS does not have as its mandate to hit the front pages of newspapers. That is does occasionally does not mean that they are trying to influence the lay public about evolution.

How do you know what science can do and cannot do? Have you never been surprised by the discoveriies of science? Perhaps my faith in science is misplaced. Many of my Born Again friends think so. But I do not believe you are the final authority on the abilities of science.

What is it you disagree with, exactly? Do you dispute that science can only tackle physical phenomena, or that I am the final authority on this point?

BTW, I and a great many other scientists have a fair idea of what science can do and what it cannot.

Of course, I'm always surprised by science. I wouldn't be a scientist if it was otherwise.

This is an tenaciously held belief adopted on faith about the supernatural's non-existence. It waddles, quacks, swims and flies -- it's a duck! I have no qualms calling atheism a religion.

There was no statement in my post about the supernatural's existence or non-existence. Nevertheless, it's true that most atheists do not believe in the supernatural. This disbelief is based on a lack of evidence, and is not a statement of 'faith against all evidence', which is the basis for theists' and creationists' beliefs.

 

[SamCJ]

But you are labelling everyone who doesn't agree with you an atheist. It's become a derogatory term for you.

I did not label you an atheist. There have been a few atheists here who have been civil and patient in trying to address exactly what I have said. More often I get from atheists here smart alecky remarks and deliberte misstatments about what I have said in an apparent effort to make their attacks easier.

I have some very good friiends who are atheists and when I joined this site, I was very close to being one myself. Still am. But your are absolutely correct in saying that the term has become a derogatory one in my eyes as a result of their posts to me, to Edmond, to Mark Kennedy and others who deigned to argue for the possibility of intelligent design.

 

[HairlessSimian]

Read Dembski's writings. You can find many of them on the web.

Why should I? How will it illuminate anything from my post?

 

[HairlessSimian]

I did not label you an atheist. There have been a few atheists here who have been civil and patient in trying to address exactly what I have said. More often I get from atheists here smart alecky remarks and deliberte misstatments about what I have said in an apparent effort to make their attacks easier.

I have some very good friiends who are atheists and when I joined this site, I was very close to being one myself. Still am. But your are absolutely correct in saying that the term has become a derogatory one in my eyes as a result of their posts to me, to Edmond, to Mark Kennedy and others who deigned to argue for the possibility of intelligent design.

For the record, I think Mark Kennedy is in a class by himself. I have quite a bit of respect for someone so knowledgeable. Edmond is, shall we say, not so knowledgeable.

 

[Elduran]

Read Dembski's writings. You can find many of them on the web.

If I recall correctly, Dembski weaseled out of the Dover trial after he saw that his fellow witnesses were being torn apart by the lawyer representing the scientific side of the argument. In other words, he knew his writings wouldn't stand up to close scrutiny and backed off before he could be discredited along with Behe.

Now, why are you recommending that skeptics read into writings by a man who doesn't have enough confidence in them to put them into the fray? You can imagine that few people will look now without a veryt good reason, so why not instead paraphrase some of his best arguments and see how well they do?

 

[Elduran]

You have not answered my question. If I cite you authority from TalkOrigins will you promise to find a cite to support your claim that gravity acts randomly or admit your analogy is flawed?

If the mutations are not random, then they must be directed by intelligence. If there is another alternative, please reveal it to me. If you agree there is no other alternative, either you must accept intelligent direction as a possibility and allow scientist to search for it, or you must echo the position of the overwhelming majority of evolutionists that random mutations are the only possibiliity.

Mutations are a part of evolution, but not the whole story. Hence mutations ARE random, but evolution is NOT. natural Selection is the bit that you missed out here, and it is far from random.

In other words, evolution is NOT random as you seemed to believe, which means that my analogy with gravitation was valid.

As I said above, I do not agree. Don't ask me to explain theistic evolution. I think it is a contradiction of terms if it denies ID as a possibility. If it does not deny ID as a possibility, they should not be fighting along with atheists to keep children from learning ID is a possiblity the needs further exploration.

No, please, explain. Theistic evolutionists don't seem to have any problem with their religion and their scientific stance, so please explain how the science can be a "no god" stance with theistic evolutionists around the works happily accepting it (and there are many more TEs than fundamentalists or IDists, and probably even atheistic evolutionists, so one of them should have noticed by now if they were following a "no god" theoiry, wouldn't you say?)

You are an atheist as are 90% of the opponents on this thread who are fighting against ID. Is that mere coincidence? The atheistic no-God religion must posit that the development of species happened randomly. Any acknowledge of weakness in that regard concept, necessarily implies the possiblity of intelligent direction; aliens maybe, but more likely God.

Have you missed the fact that the theistic evolutionists are for the most part also arguing against ID? Have you missed the fact that while atheism is a small religious stance worldwide, the theory of evolution is accepted by a majority almost everywhere? This thread is not representative of the overall statistics, so I think that yes, the 90% figure is a combination of coincidence and location.

The rest of your post was incorrect, as I have already showed you why evolution is not "random".

You have articulated one of the primary reasons that I have doubts about the existence of God. Why would he want to be a trickster? Someone suggested the built the universe as a toy for mankind to puzzle about. That seems a little bit of a stretch.

ID is about god, therefore you have doubts in your own theory due to the lack of evidence for it?

I want the scientific method used to answer: What is the meaning of life? I think there is a chance that it can succeed, if it is open to the possibility of a spiritual reality. If ithe search persuades everyone that there is no spiritual thing, then it will have proved that life is meaningless. At least we would have a little more certainty on the subject.

That's not a scientificquestion, so you won't get an answer from the scientific method. It's sort of like asking if your cheese grater can inflate a balloon. Wrong tool for the job.

The meaning of life is a personal conclusion that everyone has to ask themselves at some point. Their acceptance of the scientific method MAY influence their decision, but their religion is almost certainly going to trump that.

 

[Beastt]

Your example just doesn't work in terms of explaining origins of life because it is not analogous. No matter how many times we mix the "gravel" , "sand" and "water" of life we don't get a neatly separated or functioning system..a living organism. No one has shown so far that intelligence is not needed to form a living organism. And in your previous example, how do you know that an intelligence didn't set the parameters involved so such a scenario would occur?

I agree with you, James. My example is not analogous to abiogenesis in any way I can think of. But there is a reason for that. If you go back and follow the thread, the comment was made, "If the mutations are not random, then they must be directed by intelligence. If there is another alternative, please reveal it to me. If you agree there is no other alternative, either you must accept intelligent direction as a possibility and allow scientist to search for it, or you must echo the position of the overwhelming majority of evolutionists that random mutations are the only possibiliity." (Post #59)

My post was designed to demonstrate that there is another alternative to apparent direction, aside from intelligence. As for the specifics of the evolutionary randomness, it would seem a very common mistake is again raising its head here. The genetic mutations can be random but the selection process which determines which mutations will flourish and which will not are anything but random. Those mutations which provide any measurable advantage in meeting the challenges of the environment, will provide some measure of advantage in reproduction. As such, beneficial mutations, regardless of how randomly they came to be, will be more likely to continue through the blood line.

 

[Beastt]

Jeez! Either you did not understand what I said or you have deliberately framed your reply to mislead the casual reader as to what I said.

It appears to me you are suggesting that the apparent designs of nature show signs of intelligence. My statements, comments and examples are designed to show that what you may mistake as intelligence may not be anything of the sort. It's a fine point on a sidebar of the discussion but it's worthy of consideration to avoid making the mistake of assuming that we can immediately recognize that which is designed intelligently based on complexity or perceived function.

There is really no basis, aside from the standard creationist mythology, for support of Intelligent Design.

 

[SamCJ]

It appears to me you are suggesting that the apparent designs of nature show signs of intelligence. My statements, comments and examples are designed to show that what you may mistake as intelligence may not be anything of the sort. It's a fine point on a sidebar of the discussion but it's worthy of consideration to avoid making the mistake of assuming that we can immediately recognize that which is designed intelligently based on complexity or perceived function.

There is really no basis, aside from the standard creationist mythology, for support of Intelligent Design.

Dembski is trying to figure out how to distinguish random causes from intelligent causes by looking at the result because the cause is not available for observation. I do not know whether he has accomplished that yet. If you tell me that it is impossible to do, I will not believe you unless you are able to present one hell of an argument on the subject. I understand the difficulty, but I do not want atheists squelching the effort just because the results my offend their adopted religion. Archeologists do it all the time without scientific complaint.

 

[LogicChristian]

I have never heard of a scientist claiming that mutations are created by natural selection. NS simplly determines which mutations survive.

Of course you haven't because that's not the point I was trying to make.

I didnt' say the mutations are caused by natural selection, I said they are guided by natural selection. If the mutation helps the organism to survive to reproduce, it will propagate, if it does not, the mutation will go away in the population once the individual creature dies.

You seem a lot more interested in telling me why what I said was wrong than actually trying to figure out what it meant. I've seen quite a bit of that on this thread.

 

[SamCJ]

Thermodynamics and kinetics (applied statistics) rule chemistry. Replication is chemistry. Not at all my theory.



I am tempted to concede this point because it's late and I'm tired. I did not jump on Loudmouth, true, but that was because I generally don't disagree with him and was focussing my limited time on the more pressing issues you evoked. There is no imperfection without perfection. Since we don't have a good exemplar of perfect replication, attributing imperfection to what we have is subjective, and moot anyway, since we don't need to call what is natural imperfect when it's doing what it can as perfectly as it can. No doubt, there is room for improvement through further natural selection.



The AAAS does not have as its mandate to hit the front pages of newspapers. That is does occasionally does not mean that they are trying to influence the lay public about evolution.



What is it you disagree with, exactly? Do you dispute that science can only tackle physical phenomena, or that I am the final authority on this point?

Yes, I do dispute that science can only tackle physical phenomena. The last time I said this, you guffawed. Please refrain from that tactic. It gives me indigestion. Archeologists find intelligence by examining only the results all the time. I understand the distinctions you and Jones bring up. We have physical evidence of what humans can do, what they need and their artifacts do not replicate. However, we can make assumptions about God's abilities, about his intentions while searching for signs of his intellect in his creation. I do not understand why replication creates an impenetrable barrier to making the extrapolation.

BTW, I and a great many other scientists have a fair idea of what science can do and what it cannot.

Dembski is trying to create a system that will distinguish between results caused by random activity and results caused by intelligence. Maybe he is not there yet. I understand the difficulty. I believe that science is up to the task, and I want the task worked on, not squelched.

Of course, I'm always surprised by science. I wouldn't be a scientist if it was otherwise.



There was no statement in my post about the supernatural's existence or non-existence. Nevertheless, it's true that most atheists do not believe in the supernatural. This disbelief is based on a lack of evidence, and is not a statement of 'faith against all evidence', which is the basis for theists' and creationists' beliefs.[/QUOTE]

 

[SamCJ]

It appears to me you are suggesting that the apparent designs of nature show signs of intelligence. My statements, comments and examples are designed to show that what you may mistake as intelligence may not be anything of the sort. It's a fine point on a sidebar of the discussion but it's worthy of consideration to avoid making the mistake of assuming that we can immediately recognize that which is designed intelligently based on complexity or perceived function.

There is really no basis, aside from the standard creationist mythology, for support of Intelligent Design.

I am saying that apparent designs seem to be a result of intelligence, but I think I understand how that appearance can be deceptive. I think scientists can figure out how to tell the difference, even though it may not be able to do that now with living organisms. What do you think about that capability being a reasonable goal to achieve?

 

[rjw]

Not close. I suspect AAAS gave these awards primarily to influence public opinion in favor of evolution theory. IMO evolution theory to the extent it advocates randomness and denies the possibilty of intelligent design does not deserve any credit for the biologists' findings, particularly the promising findings about the chimps' genome. It would have been wise for biologists to understand the chimp genome, whether the differences between man and chimp were created randomly or by intelligence.

I am not arguing against scientists looking into where we came from. I want to encourage that search. I a simply asking how the assumed randomness of the differences contributed to the biologists genome analysis? I think the answer is the randomness was absolutely irrelevant to the biologists analysis, but that is contrary to the AAAS presentation.




On the other hand, if you wish to go down the random path and have your idea accepted then you do NOT have to:

a) demonstrate that there was an inherent imperfection that interfered with the normal replication process, and
b) show that he imperfection is capable of interference in this manner,
because 90% of the evolutionists community is athiestic (judging by the population of this site) and therefore readily accept the assumption with scant evidence to support it.

There is a double standard. Here is a quotation I found in TalkOrigins which seems to me to acknowledge that there is little on either side of the argument at present.

"Because we can access only genomes of modern (or very recent) species, we can never obtain the direct evidence - i.e. a complete list of those mutations - that some anti-evolutionists (e.g. Behe) seem to think would be necessary to support NDT. In the absence of such direct evidence, it seems pointless to argue which side is "obliged" to provide what indirect evidence; certainly neither side can hope for anything close to "proof." Although Spetner denies that he is "obliged to prove a non-existence" of such a chain of mutations, his whole effort in the correspondence seems to be directed to just that aim. Evolutionists have the job of defending the reasonableness of such a series of mutations. I believe that Spetner would agree with this"

While this quote is about past mutations, new ones cannot be observed in process either, evolutionists here have told me.



But that is exactly what evolutionists do. "We cannot observe the mutation in process, so we assume it is a result of some unknown imperfection in the mechanism that randomly occurs in rare instances of replication."



I do not think rain and gravity and other such non-living things are claimed by scientists to be random. Even if they were, it would not matter much. Life and particularly mankind are different. If man is an accident of nature or an accident of God, God does not care what happens to us. Life becomes meaningless. Perhaps that is the reality, but it is hard to swallow. I think that Dembski and Behe have used and promise to use further scientific methods to determine with greater certainty whether man is a mistake or intended. Jones made a pretty good argument, and I am not presently prepared to argue with it. I think "breathtakingly inane" is over the top and betrays an ingrained prejudice, so I am anxious to see what Dembski and Behe have to say about it. As Dembski has said: we have a way to go, or something like that. If so, I hope he keeps trying because I believe the reaction of athiestic evolutionists against him is irrationally paranoid, despite the wild talk about the wedge. While I argue that randomness is unproven, I also do not believe intelligent design is proven or even more probable at this point. I would never favor the cessation of the search for physical mechanisms, porbably ever. Science has been very good at finding them so far and I want the search to continue. I just hope it remains open to the possibility of intelligent design if that where the evidence points, even if it does offend the religious beliefs of athiestic scientist. This entire paragraph is off-topic, but because you patiently explained your position, I thought you might be interested.



We cannot observe a mutation in process so the assumed a cause, an imperfection in the mechanism or some non-directed physical interference with the normal mechanism, is not testable. Others have cited circumstantial evidence indicating probable randomness rather than intelligence, but I think the issue is still wide open. Dembski and Behe methods indicate intelligence. Their methods probably need further work, but are worthy of pursuit. I fully understand the easy confusion of intelligence from random causes, but I think smart people can come up with methods of eliminating the confusion.



That is what I suspected. Consequently, the suggestion by AAAS that they biologists work somehow enhances randomness over ID is misleading.



I am very much in favor of studying origins and using the scientic method to do so, with one qualification: i.e., I do not want the definition of "scientific" to exclude the possibility of intelligent causes to mutations if valid evidence suggests it.

But that is not what my OP is about. My OP is designed to show the misleading nature of the AAAS awards.




Some, but thanks.

Gidday SamCJ,


This reply will consist of many questions with a few comments, simply because there are many things you write which I find hard to accept and wonder just where you get your information from.

Hopefully you are happy with this.

I suspect AAAS gave these awards primarily to influence public opinion in favor of evolution theory.

You are free to be suspicious but what evidence do you have for your suspicion?

IMO evolution theory to the extent it advocates randomness and denies the possibilty of intelligent design does not deserve any credit for the biologists' findings, particularly the promising findings about the chimps' genome.

I do not understand your logic here. You appear to argue as follows:-

Premise 1) – Evolution advocates randomness.
Premise 2) – Evolution denies intelligent design.
Conclusion – Evolution does not deserve credit for findings in biology.

How does your conclusion necessarily follow from your premises?

Thus, is the following argument sound:-

Premise A) – Intelligent Design advocates non randomness.
Premise B) – Intelligent Design denies randomness.
Conclusion – Intelligent Design does not deserve credit for findings in biology?

It would have been wise for biologists to understand the chimp genome, whether the differences between man and chimp were created randomly or by intelligence.

What makes you think that understanding the origin of something is not a part of understanding something? Do you believe that biologists must know all there is about the chimp genome before they can begin to probe its origin?

Do you insist on knowing everything about how a car works before you ask “how was this car made?” If so, then why? If not then why demand exactly that of biologists?

I think the answer is the randomness was absolutely irrelevant to the biologists analysis, but that is contrary to the AAAS presentation.

Where in the article do you find the AAAS making the claim that randomness was relevant to understanding the chimp genome?

On the other hand, if you wish to go down the random path and have your idea accepted then you do NOT have to:

a) demonstrate that there was an inherent imperfection that interfered with the normal replication process, and
b) show that he imperfection is capable of interference in this manner, …

Do you ever read any text books or journals on biology or evolution?

Why do you argue that we claim that we do not have to demonstrate the processes behind genetic variation and the importance of these to evolution? (Hence my question about the textbooks and journals.)

… because 90% of the evolutionists community is athiestic (judging by the population of this site)

Given that many evolutionists are theists, then on what grounds do you argue that 90% are atheists? How did you arrive at your estimate that 90% on this site are atheists?

… and therefore readily accept the assumption with scant evidence to support it.

Given that both randomness and non-random processes are important to evolution because these are the only observed mechanisms behind evolution, and given that text books and journals continually report these observations, then in what sense are evolutionists accepting “the assumption with scant evidence”?

There is a double standard. Here is a quotation I found in TalkOrigins which seems to me to acknowledge that there is little on either side of the argument at present.

"Because we can access only genomes of modern (or very recent) species, we can never obtain the direct evidence - i.e. a complete list of those mutations - that some anti-evolutionists (e.g. Behe) seem to think would be necessary to support NDT. In the absence of such direct evidence, it seems pointless to argue which side is "obliged" to provide what indirect evidence; certainly neither side can hope for anything close to "proof." Although Spetner denies that he is "obliged to prove a non-existence" of such a chain of mutations, his whole effort in the correspondence seems to be directed to just that aim. Evolutionists have the job of defending the reasonableness of such a series of mutations. I believe that Spetner would agree with this"

If you read the quote carefully you will see that its author was complaining about the very thing Judge Jones noted – that ID requires that ToE demonstrate absolutely everything before it makes an inference, whereas ID does not demand this of the rest of science, and it certainly does not demand it of itself.

So the only double standard here is that set by ID. Evolutionists do not demand that ID show the designer in flesh and blood before it will be accepted. They only demand that ID present credible evidence. Judge Jones noted that ID fails on this ground too. Conversely, however, ID generally employs the old creationist tactic of “I am not interested in evidence. Show me it happening, then I will believe.” (I debate mostly on other boards and I can show you numerous examples of IDers making just this request – namely “You must show me so that I can see with my eyes, however I do not have to show you so that you can see.”)

This is why the Talk.Origins author wrote:-

“Because we can access only genomes of modern (or very recent) species, we can never obtain the direct evidence - i.e. a complete list of those mutations - that some anti-evolutionists (e.g. Behe) seem to think would be necessary to support NDT.”

The underlining is mine because the author was complaining how ID often demands “a complete list” from ToE while allowing that itself provide precious little. Have a think about your (seeming) demand that biologists learn all about the chimp genome before they begin to ask about origins. Why is that a reasonable demand SamCJ? I reckon you would not ask this of any other science, yet when it comes to evolution, suddenly the new demand is invoked. Why?

Can you provide me with the link to the T.O article. In these debates context is everything when quotes are presented. I would not mind having a read.

While this quote is about past mutations, new ones cannot be observed in process either, evolutionists here have told me.

As above - can you present me with examples of these claims by evolutionists? Context is everything and I would not mind reading what was actually said and in what context.

But that is exactly what evolutionists do. "We cannot observe the mutation in process, so we assume it is a result of some unknown imperfection in the mechanism that randomly occurs in rare instances of replication."

What gives you the idea that we do not know what causes variation within the genome of animals? What gives you the idea that we do not have an idea of the frequency of these events? As above, can you provide links to where these claims are made?

(Are you arguing that because the mutation events happened in the past then we do not exactly know about them? If so, then you are correct – we do not know exactly what the mutations were. In a few cases, I suspect we can present a good case for the kind of mutations, that is, we can make inferences about them. But generally we do not know.

If this is your argument though, then you have the Judge Jones problem I mentioned above. We argue that we see mutations causing variation today. We see this variation giving rise to variation in animals. We infer that this happened in the past. If you wish to argue that we cannot make this inference because we were not there to observe, then on what grounds can you even argue that animals in the past had genes? On what grounds can you even argue that fossils are the remains of extinct animals and not tricks put there by the ID to test our faith? None of us were there to observe all this either!

This is the point the T.O author and Judge Jones were making. We know how genetic systems work today and we infer they behaved like that in the past. ID on the other hand (often) argues that we cannot make those inferences because we were not there to observe those events. However, it quite happily accepts the idea that fossils are the remains of once real animals and that those animals had genetic systems – even though the ID advocates were never there to observe what they, themselves now claim.

This is the kind of thing Judge Jones meant when he talked about unfair burden of proof. ID does not make this demand on the rest of science – with the exception of some of astronomy and some of geology – and it certainly does not make this demand on itself. It only makes this demand of ToE.)

I do not think rain and gravity and other such non-living things are claimed by scientists to be random.

Well these natural systems, like evolution, do have random aspects to them. Again, do you read books on science at all? I am not being nasty here SamCJ. But statements such as this baffle me.

And given what you write about evolution, non-randomness appears to be the hallmark of ID. Are you arguing here that weather systems are the hallmark of ID such that you can reformulate the scientific description of weather phenomena in terms of ID?

Show me how you would reformulate our current scientific description of the origin of rain (from pond evaporation, through to condensation in the atmosphere, to falling back to earth) in terms of ID!

Life and particularly mankind are different.

In what way? We do not understand life, but no matter how closely we look at it, life obeys the laws of nature. That is it obeys chemical laws, physical laws etc.

Since you claim that life is different, that is, it obeys non physical laws and non chemical laws, then tell me what these laws are and how they can be incorporated into a scientific description of life!

If man is an accident of nature or an accident of God, God does not care what happens to us.

You are anthropomorphisising God here SamCJ. If you had a child accidentally, you may not care for that child. Does that mean God would not? Many parents have unplanned children and many of those children are loved. Many parents have planned children and end up behaving as if they wish they never did have the child.

Life becomes meaningless.

For you it might. For me it is not.

Perhaps that is the reality, but it is hard to swallow.

Because you dislike something does not mean that it is not reality. Because you would like something does not make it reality.

Reality is whatever you think to be real and if aspects of it are unsavory then it is best to make the most of it.

I dislike the idea of a car accident. That does not mean therefore I have not had, nor will I ever have, an accident. I like the idea of a fridge full of strawberries and a freezer full of ice cream. My fridge has no strawberries and my freezer has no ice cream, only fish, veggies and some bread.

I think that Dembski and Behe have used and promise to use further scientific methods to determine with greater certainty whether man is a mistake or intended.

Well they certainly had their chance to show to the world that:-

1) ID is not creationism,

2) ID is not religion,

3) ID has made scientific claims (irreducible complexity etc)

4) ToE is not scientific

5) Etc.

and they failed badly on all counts.

Jones made a pretty good argument, and I am not presently prepared to argue with it.

The mainstream and the ID proponents made their arguments, Jones made the judgment.

I think "breathtakingly inane" is over the top and betrays an ingrained prejudice …

Perhaps. However, Jones used the notion of “reasonable person” or something like it in his judgment, so why do you think that “breathtakingly inane” was over the top? Maybe it was, but maybe the behavior of the advocates for ID really was “breathtakingly inane”.

Hence my question – why was it over the top (in the context of Jones’ statement)?

Well SamCJ, I am going to stop here. I have already asked many questions of you and this should be enough for now.

As I said, I asked these questions because I just do not understand why you make some of the statements you do. I would like to see some evidence in support of your claims.


Regards, Roland

 

[Beastt]

I am saying that apparent designs seem to be a result of intelligence, but I think I understand how that appearance can be deceptive. I think scientists can figure out how to tell the difference, even though it may not be able to do that now with living organisms.

In assuming that scientists can tell the difference, you also seem to be assuming that scientists have apparently natural examples of both so that they may compare. I believe this to be the first error in your logic. If you can assume for a moment that everything we consider to be naturally formed is without intelligence, then perhaps you can start to see the problem with what you propose -- no sample of intelligent design to use for comparison.

What do you think about that capability being a reasonable goal to achieve?

I think we first must determine that there are both intelligent examples in nature and non-intelligent examples. If we can do that, we might be able to move to the step you suggest. But I find it highly unlikely that we will do better than to find out that all examples of nature can be adequately and accurately explained without including an unseen intelligence factor.

 

[five]

I think we first must determine that there are both intelligent examples in nature and non-intelligent examples. If we can do that, we might be able to move to the step you suggest. But I find it highly unlikely that we will do better than to find out that all examples of nature can be adequately and accurately explained without including an unseen intelligence factor.

But he wants the answers now and if science can't provide a satisfactory answer right now, then science is flawed and facts can't be believed and black is white and therefore God exists.

 

[SamCJ]

Gidday SamCJ,


This reply will consist of many questions with a few comments, simply because there are many things you write which I find hard to accept and wonder just where you get your information from.

Hopefully you are happy with this.



You are free to be suspicious but what evidence do you have for your suspicion?

Only my knowledge of the world. Are you saying you do not suspect it?

I do not understand your logic here. You appear to argue as follows:-

Premise 1) – Evolution advocates randomness.
Premise 2) – Evolution denies intelligent design.
Conclusion – Evolution does not deserve credit for findings in biology.

How does your conclusion necessarily follow from your premises?

Thus, is the following argument sound:-

Premise A) – Intelligent Design advocates non randomness.
Premise B) – Intelligent Design denies randomness.
Conclusion – Intelligent Design does not deserve credit for findings in biology?

That's not my argument.

What makes you think that understanding the origin of something is not a part of understanding something?

Nothing.

Do you believe that biologists must know all there is about the chimp genome before they can begin to probe its origin?

No.

Do you insist on knowing everything about how a car works before you ask “how was this car made?”

No.

If so, then why? If not then why demand exactly that of biologists?

NA. Atheists demand that of IDists as shown by your reply before this one.

Where in the article do you find the AAAS making the claim that randomness was relevant to understanding the chimp genome?

"Evolution" is presently all about randomness, because atheistic scientists exclude the possibility of intelligence. It is inherent in the word "evolution."
Do you ever read any text books or journals on biology or evolution? [/QUOTE]
Not much. I read this article: http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/NCBQ3_3HarrisCalvert.pdf

Why do you argue that we claim that we do not have to demonstrate the processes behind genetic variation and the importance of these to evolution?

I don't.

(Hence my question about the textbooks and journals.)


Given that many evolutionists are theists, then on what grounds do you argue that 90% are atheists?
How did you arrive at your estimate that 90% on this site are atheists?

A sample count I made here that seems to be confirmed by various things. The posts of theistic evolutionists are relatively scarce here.

Given that both randomness and non-random processes are important to evolution because these are the only observed mechanisms behind evolution, and given that text books and journals continually report these observations, then in what sense are evolutionists accepting “the assumption with scant evidence”?

If you read the quote carefully you will see that its author was complaining about the very thing Judge Jones noted – that ID requires that ToE demonstrate absolutely everything before it makes an inference, whereas ID does not demand this of the rest of science, and it certainly does not demand it of itself.

"...certainly neither side can hope for anything close to "proof." Although Spetner denies that he is "obliged to prove a non-existence" of such a chain of mutations, his whole effort in the correspondence seems to be directed to just that aim. Evolutionists have the job of defending the reasonableness of such a series of mutations. I believe that Spetner would agree with this."

I concentrated on the highlighted portions.

So the only double standard here is that set by ID. Evolutionists do not demand that ID show the designer in flesh and blood before it will be accepted. They only demand that ID present credible evidence. Judge Jones noted that ID fails on this ground too. Conversely, however, ID generally employs the old creationist tactic of “I am not interested in evidence. Show me it happening, then I will believe.” (I debate mostly on other boards and I can show you numerous examples of IDers making just this request – namely “You must show me so that I can see with my eyes, however I do not have to show you so that you can see.”)

This is why the Talk.Origins author wrote:-

“Because we can access only genomes of modern (or very recent) species, we can never obtain the direct evidence - i.e. a complete list of those mutations - that some anti-evolutionists (e.g. Behe) seem to think would be necessary to support NDT.”

The underlining is mine because the author was complaining how ID often demands “a complete list” from ToE while allowing that itself provide precious little. Have a think about your (seeming) demand that biologists learn all about the chimp genome before they begin to ask about origins.

That is not my point, as I have tried to explain.

Why is that a reasonable demand SamCJ?

Show me where I said it was.

I reckon you would not ask this of any other science, yet when it comes to evolution, suddenly the new demand is invoked. Why?

Perhaps if you quote the particular phrase that has misled you...?

Can you provide me with the link to the T.O article. In these debates context is everything when quotes are presented. I would not mind having a read.

Not easily. It was someone's notes about his email communications with Spetner dealing with "intelligent design." I think that is what I searched.

As above - can you present me with examples of these claims by evolutionists? Context is everything and I would not mind reading what was actually said and in what context.

Pass. I cannot find what this relates to.

What gives you the idea that we do not know what causes variation within the genome of animals?

Several evolutionists here have said the process cannot be observed and they referred me to a link that said it was a "mistake." Others said the exact cause is unknown.

What gives you the idea that we do not have an idea of the frequency of these events?

The same link said 1 in 100 million. Later other writings said more frequently and not well known.

As above, can you provide links to where these claims are made?

Not easily.

(Are you arguing that because the mutation events happened in the past then we do not exactly know about them? If so, then you are correct – we do not know exactly what the mutations were. In a few cases, I suspect we can present a good case for the kind of mutations, that is, we can make inferences about them. But generally we do not know.

Partly. I say "partly" because there have been no observations past, present or future of the process or the precise causes, evolutionists' assumptions are necessarily based on circumstantial evidence, which is scant.

If this is your argument though, then you have the Judge Jones problem I mentioned above. We argue that we see mutations causing variation today. We see this variation giving rise to variation in animals. We infer that this happened in the past. If you wish to argue that we cannot make this inference because we were not there to observe, then on what grounds can you even argue that animals in the past had genes? On what grounds can you even argue that fossils are the remains of extinct animals and not tricks put there by the ID to test our faith? None of us were there to observe all this either!

We have better circumstantial evidence of the things I am not arguing about.

This is the point the T.O author and Judge Jones were making. We know how genetic systems work today and we infer they behaved like that in the past. ID on the other hand (often) argues that we cannot make those inferences because we were not there to observe those events. However, it quite happily accepts the idea that fossils are the remains of once real animals and that those animals had genetic systems – even though the ID advocates were never there to observe what they, themselves now claim.

I hope Jones had something better than that. I think that is a misrepresentation of the ID viewpoint. It certainly misrepresents mine.

This is the kind of thing Judge Jones meant when he talked about unfair burden of proof. ID does not make this demand on the rest of science – with the exception of some of astronomy and some of geology – and it certainly does not make this demand on itself. It only makes this demand of ToE.)

Find my post about the Mandelbrot set and look at Beastt's post on this thread about the deceptiveness of randomness-- it creates evidence of intelligence. Why do we think it looks intelligent? That is what Dembski is trying to answer. Evolutionists seem to me to say that because the patterns of the mandelbrot set look like a product of intelligence but are actually a product of an "irrational" fomula that makes dots in random order, we cannot consider the fact that a design looks like a product of intellignece to
constitute evidence of intelligence. I believe that argument is flawed. I hope Dembski or others can determine some rules to distinguish whether apparent intelligence is a product of real intelligence or just randomness.

Well these natural systems, like evolution, do have random aspects to them. Again, do you read books on science at all? I am not being nasty here SamCJ. But statements such as this baffle me.

Have you read "Does God Play Dice?" by Ian Stewart. I was in the middle of it when I got sidetracked by this site. Einstein spent 2/3rds of his life trying to prove the negative, and never did.

And given what you write about evolution, non-randomness appears to be the hallmark of ID. Are you arguing here that weather systems are the hallmark of ID such that you can reformulate the scientific description of weather phenomena in terms of ID?

Weather systems may be deterministic or random or controlled by God on unbelievably minute levels. They are certainly more predictable than mutations. Gravity conforms to a clear formula and seems very predictable.
The answer doesn't matter to me much although I have read a lot about it and it is pretty fascinating.

Show me how you would reformulate our current scientific description of the origin of rain (from pond evaporation, through to condensation in the atmosphere, to falling back to earth) in terms of ID!

Pass. I leave it to the scientists, but I doubt many are concerned about whether God is playing dice with the rain.

In what way? We do not understand life, but no matter how closely we look at it, life obeys the laws of nature. That is it obeys chemical laws, physical laws etc.

What are the laws governing the random mutation?

Since you claim that life is different, that is, it obeys non physical laws and non chemical laws, then tell me what these laws are and how they can be incorporated into a scientific description of life!

I did not make that claim. I said it is possible and I want the question to be explored.

You are anthropomorphisising God here SamCJ. If you had a child accidentally, you may not care for that child. Does that mean God would not? Many parents have unplanned children and many of those children are loved. Many parents have planned children and end up behaving as if they wish they never did have the child.

Well, I made him in my own image and likeness or maybe it is vice versa.

For you it might. For me it is not.

What is your life's meaning to you? I do not remember if I ever knew. Are yu an atheist. What is the meaning of one's life to an avowed atheist?

Because you dislike something does not mean that it is not reality. Because you would like something does not make it reality.

Bummer.

Reality is whatever you think to be real and if aspects of it are unsavory then it is best to make the most of it.

Ohmm.

I dislike the idea of a car accident. That does not mean therefore I have not had, nor will I ever have, an accident. I like the idea of a fridge full of strawberries and a freezer full of ice cream. My fridge has no strawberries and my freezer has no ice cream, only fish, veggies and some bread.


Well they certainly had their chance to show to the world that:-

1) ID is not creationism,

2) ID is not religion,

3) ID has made scientific claims (irreducible complexity etc)

4) ToE is not scientific

5) Etc.

and they failed badly on all counts.

I have not yet found their reaction to Jones opinion in any detail. I am anxious to see it.

The mainstream and the ID proponents made their arguments, Jones made the judgment.

I'm not very impressed by that.

Perhaps. However, Jones used the notion of “reasonable person” or something like it in his judgment, so why do you think that “breathtakingly inane” was over the top? Maybe it was, but maybe the behavior of the advocates for ID really was “breathtakingly inane”.

Hence my question – why was it over the top (in the context of Jones’ statement)?

Apparent intelligence is everywhere, like I explained a little fuller above.

Well SamCJ, I am going to stop here. I have already asked many questions of you and this should be enough for now.

As I said, I asked these questions because I just do not understand why you make some of the statements you do. I would like to see some evidence in support of your claims.


Regards, Roland