Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science

[bhsmte]

No, they don't. A survey of scientists, no doubt with biologists well represented (it could even have been of biologists), was taken and every one polled said that they had never had occasion to have recourse to the theory of Evolution in their work.

I hope you never need serious medical attention then, because much of medicine is based on evolutionary theory.

Just ask Dr. Collins, former head of the human genome project and physician himself.

Karl Giberson: One of the things I appreciate a lot about Darrel Falk, who I think is a courageous voice in this conversation, is that he will come out and say that common ancestry is simply a fact. And that if you’re not willing to concede that the genetic evidence points to common ancestry than you’re essentially denying the field of biology the possibility of having facts at all. That’s the strong language that he uses.

Would you say that common ancestry and evolution in general is at that level? How compelling is the evidence at this point?

Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.

Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics

How does evolution impact my life?

 

[bhsmte]

Pardon me, but I was labouring under the evidently mistaken impression that your words, '... explain life as we know it', included both its origin and nature, both of which remain total mysteries to science.

See OP title for clarity.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Right now, there is no scientific evidence to either rule in or rule out the existance of God.

Again, who is saying in a scientific setting where it is proposed that evolution is unguided or unplanned? I have seen discussions where it is proposed that evolution appears to be unplanned and unguided. Note the term "appears". That is not much different from proposing that the appearance of design implies that evolution is guided and planned by God.

Evolution - guided or unguided?

From Panda's Thumb:
A group of 38 Nobel Laureates headed by Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel have asked the Kansas State Board of Education to reject science standards that criticize evolution. [Read letter here]

Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.
Evolving Thoughts: Evolution - guided or unguided?

So we know that at least 38 Nobel Laureates believe that evolutin is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection. Not that it appears to be so.

As much as you wish it to be true, that logic of your stance on appearance of design meaning the existence of design does not work. What does work is the idea that the appearance of design indicates the possibility of actual design at play but it could just as easily turn out that no actual design is involved.

I can understand unbelievers creating a straw man but you? I have told you and others that appearance of design does not mean the existence of design. It means that the appearance of design supports design. Why do you continue to fault me for something I am not claiming?

So I agree with you that the appearance of design implies the possibility of design and is supportive of that possibility but it does not imply design as fact or even close.

Right.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I agree with this 100%.

What about you Oncedeceived?

See my post to Diz.

 

[bhsmte]

See my post to Diz.

Just for clarity, would your post to Diz indicate you agree or disagree with the question?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Just for clarity, would your post to Diz indicate you agree or disagree with the question?

What question?

 

[bhsmte]

What question?

Let me help you.

This one below, do you agree or disagree with this:

Originally Posted by Dizredux View Post
I do agree that the naturalist process are sufficient to explain life as we know it at least right now. That does not mean that God cannot be involved but it very much looks like he uses natural processes to do his work.

I agree with this 100%.

What about you Oncedeceived?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Let me help you.

This one below, do you agree or disagree with this:

Originally Posted by Dizredux View Post
I do agree that the naturalist process are sufficient to explain life as we know it at least right now. That does not mean that God cannot be involved but it very much looks like he uses natural processes to do his work.

I agree with this 100%.

What about you Oncedeceived?

What was that quote from?

No, I do not believe that natural processes are sufficient to explain life as we know it.

 

[Dizredux]

Dizredux

Right now, there is no scientific evidence to either rule in or rule out the existence of God.

Again, who is saying in a scientific setting where it is proposed that evolution is unguided or unplanned? I have seen discussions where it is proposed that evolution appears to be unplanned and unguided. Note the term "appears". That is not much different from proposing that the appearance of design implies that evolution is guided and planned by God.

Once

Evolution - guided or unguided?

From Panda's Thumb: A group of 38 Nobel Laureates headed by Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel have asked the Kansas State Board of Education to reject science standards that criticize evolution. [Read letter here]

Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection. Evolving Thoughts: Evolution - guided or unguided?

So we know that at least 38 Nobel Laureates believe that evolutin is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection. Not that it appears to be so.

Here is the letter. Your cite did not go through.

We, Nobel Laureates, are writing in defense of science. We reject efforts by the proponents of so-called “intelligent design” to politicize scientific inquiry and urge the Kansas State Board of Education to maintain Darwinian evolution as the sole curriculum and science standard in the State of Kansas.

The United States has come a long way since John T. Scopes was convicted for teaching the theory of evolution 80 years ago. We are, therefore, troubled that Darwinism was described as “dangerous dogma” at one of your hearings. We are also concerned by the Board’s recommendation of August 8, 2005 to allow standards that include greater criticism of evolution.

Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection. As the foundation of modem biology, its indispensable role has been further strengthened by the capacity to study DNA. In contrast, intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent.

Differences exist between scientific and spiritual world views, but there is no need to blur the distinction between the two. Nor is there need for conflict between the theory of evolution and religious faith. Science and faith are not mutually exclusive. Neither should feel threatened by the other.

When it meets in October, 2005, we urge the Kansas State Board of Education to vote against the latest draft of standards, which propose including intelligent design in academic curriculum.

Kansas USD 383: 38 Nobel laureates - The Panda's Thumb

I remember when this came out. There had been reactions from some organizations (a teacher organization for one if memory serves) saying that evolution that evolution *is* an unguided, unplanned process. There was a good bit of criticism over this much from scientists and possibly as a result, the wording in this letter is very precise to reflect the actuality of scientific opinion.

What the letter writers were carefully saying (and I think it is clear) that for the purposes of doing science evolution is "understood" to be a unguided unplanned process. They did not rule out the possibility of a deity but made it plain that they did not agree with ID

This is precisely what is done in science. Using methodological naturalism, evolution is indeed *understood* to be unguided and planned. Again this does not rule out the possibility of a God but when doing science with our present understanding, the effects of supernatural intervention are not used as a factor.

Please note this

Differences exist between scientific and spiritual world views, but there is no need to blur the distinction between the two. Nor is there need for conflict between the theory of evolution and religious faith. Science and faith are not mutually exclusive. Neither should feel threatened by the other.

This is hardly a statement supporting the idea that evolution *is* an unguided, unplanned process.


Also please note that they were not addressing the issue of appearance of design but were very clearly voicing their opposition to ID being taught in schools.

Also for your reading pleasure: List of scientific bodies explicitly rejecting Intelligent design - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


To the next part:

Dizredux

As much as you wish it to be true, that logic of your stance on appearance of design meaning the existence of design does not work. What does work is the idea that the appearance of design indicates the possibility of actual design at play but it could just as easily turn out that no actual design is involved.

Once:

I can understand unbelievers creating a straw man but you? I have told you and others that appearance of design does not mean the existence of design. It means that the appearance of design supports design. Why do you continue to fault me for something I am not claiming?

Once, in the past you have argued for just that, the appearaance of design *means* the fact of design. If you no longer hold to this then I will no longer mention it.

I will argue over the wording that the appearance of design supports design. It really doesn't but it does support the possibility of design. In other words, the appearance of design puts actual design into a rule in/out status.


Dizredux

 

[Oncedeceived]

Dizredux

Once

Here is the letter. Your cite did not go through.

Kansas USD 383: 38 Nobel laureates - The Panda's Thumb

I remember when this came out. There had been reactions from some organizations (a teacher organization for one if memory serves) saying that evolution that evolution *is* an unguided, unplanned process. There was a good bit of criticism over this much from scientists and possibly as a result, the wording in this letter is very precise to reflect the actuality of scientific opinion.

What the letter writers were carefully saying (and I think it is clear) that for the purposes of doing science evolution is "understood" to be a unguided unplanned process. They did not rule out the possibility of a deity but made it plain that they did not agree with ID

This is precisely what is done in science. Using methodological naturalism, evolution is indeed *understood* to be unguided and planned. Again this does not rule out the possibility of a God but when doing science with our present understanding, the effects of supernatural intervention are not used as a factor.

Please note this This is hardly a statement supporting the idea that evolution *is* an unguided, unplanned process.


Also please note that they were not addressing the issue of appearance of design but were very clearly voicing their opposition to ID being taught in schools.

Also for your reading pleasure: List of scientific bodies explicitly rejecting Intelligent design - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


To the next part:

Dizredux

Once: Once, in the past you have argued for just that, the appearaance of design *means* the fact of design. If you no longer hold to this then I will no longer mention it.

I will argue over the wording that the appearance of design supports design. It really doesn't but it does support the possibility of design. In other words, the appearance of design puts actual design into a rule in/out status.


Dizredux

I have never claimed that appearance of design proves actual design. I have always maintained that it supports design. If design is true then there should be an appearance of design, there is an appearance of design so the appearance of design supports the conclusion that design is true. It does not prove design is true, it supports the conclusion that design is true; thus a theists conclusions are supported by the appearance of design in the universe.

 

[Dizredux]

I have never claimed that appearance of design proves actual design. I have always maintained that it supports design. If design is true then there should be an appearance of design, there is an appearance of design so the appearance of design supports the conclusion that design is true. It does not prove design is true, it supports the conclusion that design is true; thus a theists conclusions are supported by the appearance of design in the universe.

I am aware that you do not assert the the appearance of design "proves" the existence of design but you rather clearly feel that the existence of design strongly implies the existence of design.

Here are a few quotes I gathered to research trying to be sure that I was reading what you were saying accurately. I only used quote tags where I felt they were needed. There were plenty more statements from you but I think this is more than enough to establish that you believe the appearance of design does imply the existence of design.

Start quotes

In fact, that design in the universe would be evidence that what we believe is factual. Appearance of design is not just an illusion but in reality is what it appears to be.

Actually it was your claim. You said that appearance of design did not necessarily mean actual design. It would seem the burden of proof rests on you. You must tell me why the appearance of design does not necessitate actual design.

The design in the universe is not due to false detection, the precise equations that are used to represent the forces of nature and all the elements prove the fine tuning that shows design.

Yes, that is true. Regardless, we can take the appearances of design farther and calculate the exactness of that pattern with the aid of mathematics. We then find that fine tuning to be not an illusion but in fact, actual.

So if I am understanding you, you want to know how one can falsify the universe is designed, although, the universe has all the appearance of design, which would in all other cases prove it was designed. If it has the appearance of design one could presume that if it didn't appear designed that it would in fact prove it wasn't.

The appearance of design supports the premise that God did design the universe.

In the Christian worldview the universe is designed. The universe appears to be designed.

Many physicists and scientists claim the universe appears designed.

Physicists and scientists have the experience and expertise to understand the materialistic composition of the universe and to make educated statements such as the universe appearing to be designed.

IF God exists and created the universe it would be intelligently designed and appear so.

Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the universe supports the Christians worldview that God designed the universe.

Actually the far more parsimonious explanation is that if it appears to be designed, it is designed.

Exactly. If something looks designed it is the simplest assumption that it is indeed designed.

The universe appears to be designed.

Scientists that have the expertise and experience determined the universe appears to be designed.

The creation narrative claims that the Christian God created and designed the universe.

If the universe was created and designed by the Christian God it would reflect that in its appearance.

The universe reflects design in its appearance thus we can conclude that the universe was created and designed by the Christian God.

Perhaps not, but if God designed the universe like I claim it would indeed appear to be designed which supports my claim.

My claim is that evidence supports God designed the universe. Appearance of design would in fact support that claim.

Explain how naturalistic processes created the appearance of design in the universe. When you can supply the needed information of how that is possible then you can ask how the appearance of design does not reflect actual design. Until then, the most parsimonious answer is Design.

Perhaps you have not understood my position. The fine tuning of the universe has the appearance of design, that appearance of design is evidence that supports the claim that the universe was designed.

My claim is that there is an appearance of design in the way the constants are in our universe to allow for intelligent life. That appearance of design supports my position that the universe is designed.

The impression, or appearance of design supports actual design. There is no objective evidence that gives reason for this appearance by natural means.

Diz

The big thing to keep in mind is that the appearance of design means the appearance of design but not the fact of design. That has to be established by other means.

Once

More atheist mumbo jumbo. If there is an appearance of design that one must ignore then it is there. It is evidence of design and if you want to stand with the atheists on this that is your choice.

This is simply false. There is positive evidence in support of Design in the universe. It is simply denied.

In reality, the appearance of design, the purpose in life forms, the connection of our minds and the ability to understand a universe that supposedly happened without a plan or purpose is the evidence of design. One must explain away the appearance of design to claim a natural arising universe. It should be the anti-theist that must explain why everything in our universe appears designed but isn't. The evidence is for design, it takes a good explanation to deny it all and say it is just an illusion.

So in your own words what does "appear" designed mean? What makes the appearance different than actual design?

The question really is, when they appear designed and they have "A" design to them and which are more complex than anything that man can replicate it seems more parsimonious to believe they are what they appear to be... Designed.
End quotes


Dizredux

 

[Davian]

 

[Oncedeceived]

Hi Davian!

 

[Oncedeceived]

I am aware that you do not assert the the appearance of design "proves" the existence of design but you rather clearly feel that the existence of design strongly implies the existence of design.

So?

Here are a few quotes I gathered to research trying to be sure that I was reading what you were saying accurately. I only used quote tags where I felt they were needed. There were plenty more statements from you but I think this is more than enough to establish that you believe the appearance of design does imply the existence of design.

So? I do believe the appearance of design does imply the existence of design. Emphasis on I believe. However, what I believe is not the issue. The issue is that the appearance of design SUPPORTS design...period. I believe that the appearance is actual. That is my belief, my belief does not alter the fact that the appearance of design is my claim, not that it is to prove design.

Start quotes

In fact, that design in the universe would be evidence that what we believe is factual. Appearance of design is not just an illusion but in reality is what it appears to be.

In this quote you can see that I am using the theists point of view (highlighted)

Actually it was your claim. You said that appearance of design did not necessarily mean actual design. It would seem the burden of proof rests on you. You must tell me why the appearance of design does not necessitate actual design.

I need to look this one up to see it in context.

The design in the universe is not due to false detection, the precise equations that are used to represent the forces of nature and all the elements prove the fine tuning that shows design.

This quote was concerning the fine tuning as something that is falsely detected which is not the case because the measurements are scientifically measured and tested.

Yes, that is true. Regardless, we can take the appearances of design farther and calculate the exactness of that pattern with the aid of mathematics. We then find that fine tuning to be not an illusion but in fact, actual.

The fine tuning is a fact. I am not claiming that design is however.

So if I am understanding you, you want to know how one can falsify the universe is designed, although, the universe has all the appearance of design, which would in all other cases prove it was designed. If it has the appearance of design one could presume that if it didn't appear designed that it would in fact prove it wasn't.

? This seems to be irrelevant to your point.

The appearance of design supports the premise that God did design the universe.

Yes...so?

Actually the far more parsimonious explanation is that if it appears to be designed, it is designed.

Yes. I believe that.

Exactly. If something looks designed it is the simplest assumption that it is indeed designed.

Yes. I believe that.

Perhaps not, but if God designed the universe like I claim it would indeed appear to be designed which supports my claim.

Highlighted.

My claim is that evidence supports God designed the universe. Appearance of design would in fact support that claim.

Explain how naturalistic processes created the appearance of design in the universe. When you can supply the needed information of how that is possible then you can ask how the appearance of design does not reflect actual design. Until then, the most parsimonious answer is Design.

Yes, I believe that.

Perhaps you have not understood my position. The fine tuning of the universe has the appearance of design, that appearance of design is evidence that supports the claim that the universe was designed.

My claim is that there is an appearance of design in the way the constants are in our universe to allow for intelligent life. That appearance of design supports my position that the universe is designed.

The impression, or appearance of design supports actual design. There is no objective evidence that gives reason for this appearance by natural means.

Diz Once This is simply false. There is positive evidence in support of Design in the universe. It is simply denied.

In reality, the appearance of design, the purpose in life forms, the connection of our minds and the ability to understand a universe that supposedly happened without a plan or purpose is the evidence of design. One must explain away the appearance of design to claim a natural arising universe. It should be the anti-theist that must explain why everything in our universe appears designed but isn't. The evidence is for design, it takes a good explanation to deny it all and say it is just an illusion.

Yep.

So in your own words what does "appear" designed mean? What makes the appearance different than actual design?

We can not "prove" actual design. The appearance of design supports the conclusion that believers have of actual design.

The question really is, when they appear designed and they have "A" design to them and which are more complex than anything that man can replicate it seems more parsimonious to believe they are what they appear to be... Designed.

Yes, I believe that.
End quotes

 

[Smidlee]

Who claims the sun is alive? Life is something we all recognize but hard to nail down the definition. Life appears designed because it made of matter ,energy , and information all work in unity for a giving purpose and goal.

 

[Smidlee]

No one.

The problem all life has in common with all other life is it all dies.

Ok. That problem has to do with the laws of thermodynamics. Since information is riding on matter and/or energy which are acceptable to the law of thermodynamics then with time the information becomes corrupted.
Now the Bible describe a new laws of physical so our bodies will never see corruption. The Laws of Thermodynamics leads death including the death of the universe. Man comes up with strange theories trying to create an universe and life with laws that leads to death.

 

[Strathos]

Ah, so they use Darwin as a type of strawman. I guess that have trouble attacking evolution any other way.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7833441/

 

[Smidlee]

That's an incredible achievement being able to talk our bodies out of corruption, brilliant, I wonder how it managed that?

Exactly. The very laws that out cells runs on leads to it's own destruction. There must be a greater law to bring it all together the start with.

 

[bhsmte]

What was that quote from?

No, I do not believe that natural processes are sufficient to explain life as we know it.

See post 53 for clarification to the question.

 

[Davian]

...
We can not "prove" actual design. The appearance of design supports the conclusion that believers have of actual design.

As a believer, you have concluded the universe is designed. You perceive design in and of the universe based on that conclusion. Your perception supports your conclusion.

How circular.