Balance of Truth as expressed in Biblical Scripture and Science

[Astrid]

No, he identified the purpose correctly. How do you pronounce cdesign proponentsists?

Why, yes. None of them are biologists, and it shows.

No evolutionary biologist is proposing that blind chance has produced the existing complexity of life. Are you sure that you understand the theory of evolution?

Whose hypothesis is that? Selection is not random, and is a directing principle behind evolution.

The present theory of evolution is not based solely on blind chance. You are falling way short of actually understanding evolutionary biology. Perhaps a refresher course is in order:
Introduction to evolution - Wikipedia

Wouldnt it be the most exciting thing ever, if someone actually could
demo ID, ( polydtrate fossil, Cambrian duck…)

 

[DennisF]

It depends on what you mean by "ID," ID as promoted by the Discovery Institute is a politically motivated fraud, a haphazardly constructed trojan horse for YECism.

The Intelligent Design movement is an intellectually cohesive singular group. By ID I mean ID. I should know; in the 1990s I was newsletter editor of the ASA and went to the ASA Annual Meetings where all the IDers came: Steve Meyer, Bill Dembski, Paul Nelson, Mike Behe, Jon Wells, David Price, John Wiester, and the ringleader, Phil Johnson. Discovery Institute was funded by Weyerhauser (yes, that Weyerhauser), who also came to some of these meetings. All you are telling me is that you have some vitriol to vent for the Discovery Institute. That is not much of a basis for a rational discussion.

 

[DennisF]

Wouldnt it be the most exciting thing ever, if someone actually could
demo ID, ( polydtrate fossil, Cambrian duck…)

Selection is random though the physical constraints imposed by selection would not be, if only it were known what they were. Suppose some or all of them are identified. Then they impose some guidance on the life development process and it makes no sense any more to talk of "blind chance" the way evolutionists getting rid of God through ignorance (blind chance) in the name of science have done in the past. Stephen Jay Gould understood this. Once evolution is no longer blind, God could be working in and through it. This is the position of evolutionary creationism. Look at Genesis 1; the elohim do not wave a magic wand and bring about the various phases of the world but the text says repeatedly: "Let the earth bring forth ..." or something like it. Genesis 1 is not modern science; it does not tell us how - what the physical mechanisms were - by which the elohim (working under Yahweh, who is identified at the end in Gen. 2:4) let it bring forth. There is a sense, however, that primordial matter (rocks, space dust) is of such a nature that the more complex creation could unfold from it.

The ID movement is about one thing: it challenges that assumption by various quite scientific arguments. Some people are still not fully understanding ID and confuse it with YEC. That's their problem. Nobody has yet refuted the arguments put forth by Meyer, Behe, et. al. though Miller has taken a crack at it. It does not appear that he has succeeded. The Santa Fe Institute - mathematicians and system dynamics people into nonlinear phenomena - understand this problem with the current state of neo-Darwinian evolution.

 

[DennisF]

The point of ID is to prove God.

Who says? I know personally essentially all of the ID people (haven't met Walter Bradley) and know how they think. ID can provide support for an argument for the existence of a Creator in the same way that "blind chance" is used by Jacques Monod or Richard Dawkins to argue for atheism as though it is implied by evolutionary science.

ID raises the specific question challenging the sufficiency of life selection processes to produce the resulting complexity of life. Evolution assumes a linear process but it has been shown (see Behe, for instance) that some development is circular; the development must have occurred to provide the conditions for its occurrence.

To accuse those who object to pseudoscience,
and / point out that ID has exactly zero data
even from those who do real research, of being the ones
lacking Integrity is kind of funny.

It is probably a combination of ignorance and denial on the part of ID critics. Intelligent critiques of ID have occurred. I have sat in on some of them, yet none of them comes close to being a knock-out punch. Why? Because there are some fundamental problems with evolution as science and those who depend on it for their religion too often depart from scientific objectivity.

 

[BCP1928]

The Intelligent Design movement is an intellectually cohesive singular group. By ID I mean ID. I should know; in the 1990s I was newsletter editor of the ASA and went to the ASA Annual Meetings where all the IDers came: Steve Meyer, Bill Dembski, Paul Nelson, Mike Behe, Jon Wells, David Price, John Wiester, and the ringleader, Phil Johnson. Discovery Institute was funded by Weyerhauser (yes, that Weyerhauser), who also came to some of these meetings. All you are telling me is that you have some vitriol to vent for the Discovery Institute. That is not much of a basis for a rational discussion.

And here I thought I was merely describing it accurately.

ID is bad science and it is also bad theology. The notion that a complete naturalistic explanation for any phenomenon denies divine causality was dismantled by Thomas Aquinas 700 years ago. DI's equivocation on this point is nothing but a cover for a political agenda, as they themselves have made clear.

 

[Astrid]

Selection is random though the physical constraints imposed by selection would not be, if only it were known what they were. Suppose some or all of them are identified. Then they impose some guidance on the life development process and it makes no sense any more to talk of "blind chance" the way evolutionists getting rid of God through ignorance (blind chance) in the name of science have done in the past. Stephen Jay Gould understood this. Once evolution is no longer blind, God could be working in and through it. This is the position of evolutionary creationism. Look at Genesis 1; the elohim do not wave a magic wand and bring about the various phases of the world but the text says repeatedly: "Let the earth bring forth ..." or something like it. Genesis 1 is not modern science; it does not tell us how - what the physical mechanisms were - by which the elohim (working under Yahweh, who is identified at the end in Gen. 2:4) let it bring forth. There is a sense, however, that primordial matter (rocks, space dust) is of such a nature that the more complex creation could unfold from it.

The ID movement is about one thing: it challenges that assumption by various quite scientific arguments. Some people are still not fully understanding ID and confuse it with YEC. That's their problem. Nobody has yet refuted the arguments put forth by Meyer, Behe, et. al. though Miller has taken a crack at it. It does not appear that he has succeeded. The Santa Fe Institute - mathematicians and system dynamics people into nonlinear phenomena - understand this problem with the current state of neo-Darwinian evolution.

Really, atvyour assertion thst “ selection is random” I quit reading.
Theres no point going on after that.

 

[Astrid]

Who says? I know personally essentially all of the ID people (haven't met Walter Bradley) and know how they think. ID can provide support for an argument for the existence of a Creator in the same way that "blind chance" is used by Jacques Monod or Richard Dawkins to argue for atheism as though it is implied by evolutionary science.

ID raises the specific question challenging the sufficiency of life selection processes to produce the resulting complexity of life. Evolution assumes a linear process but it has been shown (see Behe, for instance) that some development is circular; the development must have occurred to provide the conditions for its occurrence.

It is probably a combination of ignorance and denial on the part of ID critics. Intelligent critiques of ID have occurred. I have sat in on some of them, yet none of them comes close to being a knock-out punch. Why? Because there are some fundamental problems with evolution as science and those who depend on it for their religion too often depart from scientific objectivity.

How about yiu address your accusation of intellectual dishonesty.

Or, don’t. virtually every word you write is nonsense.

 

[DennisF]

No, he identified the purpose correctly. How do you pronounce cdesign proponentsists?

Why, yes. None of them are biologists, and it shows.

No evolutionary biologist is proposing that blind chance has produced the existing complexity of life. Are you sure that you understand the theory of evolution?

Whose hypothesis is that? Selection is not random, and is a directing principle behind evolution.

The present theory of evolution is not based solely on blind chance. You are falling way short of actually understanding evolutionary biology. Perhaps a refresher course is in order:
Introduction to evolution - Wikipedia

See my comments today elsewhere in the forum with ID as a topic.

 

[DennisF]

Really, atvyour assertion thst “ selection is random” I quit reading.
Theres no point going on after that.

I am distinguishing between which selection process is applied and what selection processes consist of. They are not the same. There are multiple selection processes. Which is applied depends on the circumstances. How they are applied depends on what they are. Many randomly chosen selection processes require conditions that are inadequate to their application, and they are not applied. However, which selection process is tried when multiple processes could be applied? The choice, from a probabilistic standpoint, is random.
Do you know how rule-based inference systems work in AI? It would be easier to explain with them.

 

[Astrid]

See my comments today elsewhere in the forum with ID as a topic.

We know what the “ discovery institute” is.

Your wasting bandwidth.

Notify us if that intellectually / ethically bankrupt
bunch ever come up with a fact.

If you’d kindly wait till then, we will never hear from you again.

 

[DennisF]

How about yiu address your accusation of intellectual dishonesty.

Or, don’t. virtually every word you write is nonsense.

Who is accusing who of "intellectual dishonesty"? Please be specific. What is the accusation? Does it relate to the discussion of ID?

 

[BCP1928]

I am distinguishing between which selection process is applied and what selection processes consist of. They are not the same. There are multiple selection processes. Which is applied depends on the circumstances. How they are applied depends on what they are. Many randomly chosen selection processes require conditions that are inadequate to their application, and they are not applied. However, which selection process is tried when multiple processes could be applied? The choice, from a probabilistic standpoint, is random.
Do you know how rule-based inference systems work in AI? It would be easier to explain with them.

Multiple natural selection processes? You might try just listing them for a start.

 

[Astrid]

Who is accusing who of "intellectual dishonesty"? Please be specific. What is the accusation? Does it relate to the discussion of ID?

You just toss suvh things about without even noticing you do it?
line two , post 97.

I notice youve nothing to say about the made up claim about
” cannot produce….” That I challenged, as made up and self
contradictory.

Ever read what wiki has to say about your “ discovery institute”?

Or, dont bother answering.

im interested in data, facts.

You have none, never will.

 

[DennisF]

Multiple natural selection processes? You might try just listing them for a start.

That is a rather far-reaching question, considering that it depends on which of the various contexts is being considered. Is it the biochemical level? Genetic level? Morphological level? Biological system level? Environmental level? Informationally or computationally?

So what are you trying to say, that there is only one selection mechanism that can act on mutations at each of these levels?

 

[DennisF]

You just toss suvh things about without even noticing you do it?
line two , post 97.

I notice youve nothing to say about the made up claim about
” cannot produce….” That I challenged, as made up and self
contradictory.

Ever read what wiki has to say about your “ discovery institute”?

Or, dont bother answering.

im interested in data, facts.

You have none, never will.

It would help you if you were more skeptical of your skepticism. Learning from Jesus could help you with that.

 

[BCP1928]

That is a rather far-reaching question, considering that it depends on which of the various contexts is being considered. Is it the biochemical level? Genetic level? Morphological level? Biological system level? Environmental level? Informationally or computationally?

So what are you trying to say, that there is only one selection mechanism that can act on mutations at each of these levels?

Wow! That's a lot. You would have to research the matter to determine what the theory says about each of those and when they were applicable. I have only ever heard of one, the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype. As far as I am aware, natural selection does not act directly on genetic mutations.

 

[Astrid]

Multiple natural selection processes? You might try just listing them for a start.

Why bother? it’s irrelevant to the basic topic,
ID, which has yet to offer any data for
their claims.
No sense discussing that which has zero info.

May as well discuss the decor of Batboy’s Secret Moon- base Lab

 

[DennisF]

Wow! That's a lot. You would have to research the matter to determine what the theory says about each of those and when they were applicable. I have only ever heard of one, the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype. As far as I am aware, natural selection does not act directly on genetic mutations.

Evolution is much more complicated now than in Darwin's day. The study of life is becoming increasingly interesting and is, in this century, pushing the 20th-century technology of electronics off center-stage. Genetic engineering is replacing electronics engineering as the most spectacular. As more is understood, I expect that Stephen Stills' 1960s song with Buffalo Springfield titled "For What It's Worth - 1967" will come true for the evolution-creation debate. Two lines of the song go
There's battle lines being drawn;
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong.
That is what is exciting about science; everyone discovers a larger perspective on the subject-matter that dissolves the conflict.

 

[DennisF]

Why bother? it’s irrelevant to the basic topic,
ID, which has yet to offer any data for
their claims.
No sense discussing that which has zero info.

May as well discuss the decor of Batboy’s Secret Moon- base Lab

Astrid, what have you based your rather strong opinions about ID on? Which ID books or articles have you read?

 

[BCP1928]

Evolution is much more complicated now than in Darwin's day. The study of life is becoming increasingly interesting and is, in this century, pushing the 20th-century technology of electronics off center-stage. Genetic engineering is replacing electronics engineering as the most spectacular. As more is understood, I expect that Stephen Stills' 1960s song with Buffalo Springfield titled "For What It's Worth - 1967" will come true for the evolution-creation debate. Two lines of the song go
There's battle lines being drawn;
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong.
That is what is exciting about science; everyone discovers a larger perspective on the subject-matter that dissolves the conflict.

More is being understood, but nothing that supports ID. And the theory of evolution does not, cannot disprove the existence of God. What other breaking news do you have?