Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[Oncedeceived]

Okay. Please cite the primary peer-reviewed literature that establishes that life forms have been designed for a purpose, and establishes what that purpose is.

So what are you going to do here Cadet, Richard Dawkins is considered by most on this forum a very reputable biologist and he made the claim that life appears designed for a purpose due to his experience in the field of biology. Do you believe he is lying, unaware or simply wrong?

 

[Oncedeceived]

They not gonna do it.

Right, you can't present something that doesn't exist.

 

[HitchSlap]

So what are you going to do here Cadet, Richard Dawkins is considered by most on this forum a very reputable biologist and he made the claim that life appears designed for a purpose due to his experience in the field of biology. Do you believe he is lying, unaware or simply wrong?

What do you think Dawkins means when he says there is appearance of design?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias works the same with everyone, why do you think it is only in those who "perceive" it as real as those having this confirmation bias?

Confirmation bias.

No, what is the opinion of the observer?

That is confirmation bias with zero empirical evidence.

1. The evidence is that life forms appear to have been designed for a purpose.
2. There are two conclusions coming from this evidence. The first is that it is what it appears to be and is evidence of actual design. The second that it is an illusion produced by natural phenomena.
3. The first conclusion is the most parsimonious with the evidence, which means the evidence is evidence for the conclusion. The second conclusion is not the most parsimonious and must include many more elements to explain it, has its own predictions which should leave evidence that should not appear to be designed at all.
I believe it is due to confirmation bias on the side of those who claim it is an illusion because the evidence defies that conclusion.

Quite the opposite. It is completely logical when all of that can be shown to be due to natural causes.

Do you know the cause of all natural causes?

No, I'm not saying they cannot be designed. I'm saying that there is no empirical evidence for a non-natural design mechanism, nothing more.

No, you are not saying that they cannot be designed. You are claiming that the evidence is being viewed with confirmation bias and that bias is on the side of actual design without any evidence for the opposing claim that it is an illusion. You are making a claim that the evidence that life forms appear designed is based on confirmation bias but you have not shown how that claim is true.

Absolutely, I agree. The trouble is we cannot physically connect them to an intelligent agent.

Why not?

What is "Design predicts", and how can it be confirmed that it predicted something? Are you using "design" and "designer" interchangeably" as a single physical entity?

Design is the product of a designer.

That is what we find in life forms. Science tested this and found it to be true.

Science can show design and attribute it to natural physical process. It cannot attribute it to a designer it cannot observe.

You cannot observe that evolution produces the illusion of design. Science has not shown that this appearance of design is attributed to natural physical process. If you have that evidence that shows this appearance of design is an illusion present it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What do you think Dawkins means when he says there is appearance of design?

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}

“We may say that a living body or organ is well designed if it has attributes that an intelligent and knowledgeable engineer might have built into it in order to achieve some sensible purpose… any engineer can recognize an object that has been designed, even poorly designed, for a purpose, and he can usually work out what that purpose is just by looking at the structure of the object.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 21}

if anyone saw a machine on some other planet, he would know life had existed on that planet because machines are designed by intelligent beings. {p.2.}

Life is made up of molecular machines that are so efficient and so functionally designed that we humans can not even duplicate them.

 

[bhsmte]

For clarification and truth to support what I stated about Behe's testimony in bold. The rest is linked, for those who want to look at his entire testimony in the Dover trial.

Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?

A That is correct.

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.

Q Has there ever been a time when astrology has been accepted as a correct or valid scientific theory, Professor Behe?

A Well, I am not a historian of science. And certainly nobody -- well, not nobody, but certainly the educated community has not accepted astrology as a science for a long long time. But if you go back, you know, Middle Ages and before that, when people were struggling to describe the natural world, some people might indeed think that it is not a priori -- a priori ruled out that what we -- that motions in the earth could affect things on the earth, or motions in the sky could affect things on the earth.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html

 

[HitchSlap]

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}

“We may say that a living body or organ is well designed if it has attributes that an intelligent and knowledgeable engineer might have built into it in order to achieve some sensible purpose… any engineer can recognize an object that has been designed, even poorly designed, for a purpose, and he can usually work out what that purpose is just by looking at the structure of the object.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 21}

if anyone saw a machine on some other planet, he would know life had existed on that planet because machines are designed by intelligent beings. {p.2.}

Life is made up of molecular machines that are so efficient and so functionally designed that we humans can not even duplicate them.

Do you think Dawkins believes in an "intelligent designer?"

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'll be happy to, care to do it in a formal debate that has a moderator?

Here? Most surely, in mainstream controlled territory, think not - start the forum and let me know. Just be sure we wont be allowing claims of Fermi's Interaction being valid at those energies when it's clearly in violation of parity and was abandoned for the electroweak theory. I'm quite sure the moderator's will agree. So basically we won't be discussing radiocarbon dating or anything leading to that process, since radiocarbon dating, as you insisted, had nothing to do with the electroweak theory, which is both beta decay and high energy interactions all wrapped up into one. So I am not sure what you plan to discuss besides a theory that would be out of scope of the OP anyways.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

"Radiometric dating has been carried out since 1905 when it was invented by Ernest Rutherford as a method by which one might determine the age of the Earth." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

(Note: I meant Fermi above, not Pauli. I didn't get much sleep last night.)

We were discussing radiocarbon dating. Best go back and reread the posts. Why go off topic?

Besides that's covered under quantum electrodynamics.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7122/abs/nature05390.html

 

[DogmaHunter]

There has been no evidence given to show that the evidence that life appears to be designed with purpose is only an illusion. If you have evidence of such present it.

There is no evidence of life being designed with a purpose.
If you have any, please share.

 

[RickG]

Confirmation bias works the same with everyone, why do you think it is only in those who "perceive" it as real as those having this confirmation bias?

Confirmation bias lacks physical evidence, or omittance of evidence that shows no confirmation.

No, what is the opinion of the observer?

Just an opinion unless it can be physically confirmed and verified. What you suggested did not include confirmation nor verification.

Do you know the cause of all natural causes?

Of course not. But by stating that, one cannot conclude that non-natural causes were invoked, unless non-natural causes can be observed, quantified, and confirmed.

 

[Oncedeceived]

For clarification and truth to support what I stated about Behe's testimony in bold. The rest is linked, for those who want to look at his entire testimony in the Dover trial.

Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?

A That is correct.

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.

Q Has there ever been a time when astrology has been accepted as a correct or valid scientific theory, Professor Behe?

A Well, I am not a historian of science. And certainly nobody -- well, not nobody, but certainly the educated community has not accepted astrology as a science for a long long time. But if you go back, you know, Middle Ages and before that, when people were struggling to describe the natural world, some people might indeed think that it is not a priori -- a priori ruled out that what we -- that motions in the earth could affect things on the earth, or motions in the sky could affect things on the earth.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html

Which is exactly what I said. He said that at one time Astrology was viewed as a science.

 

[HitchSlap]

Which is exactly what I said. He said that at one time Astrology was viewed as a science.

Read the transcript again. You're wrong.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Do you think Dawkins believes in an "intelligent designer?"

Oh My Gosh....NO I do not believe, have any wild aspirations, nor any delusions that Dawkins believes in an Intelligent Designer.

 

[HitchSlap]

Oh My Gosh....NO I do not believe, have any wild aspirations, nor any delusions that Dawkins believes in an Intelligent Designer.

Then why do you think he made that statement in the BW?

 

[The Cadet]

I apologize, when going to look up the date on this quote I found it was made by Jacques Loeb in 1916. So it was not by Mendel but about Mendel. What do you mean by prior to this landmark discovery?

The work "On the origin of species".

This sounds like the same thing that was said of Galileo.

You know what the difference is between Behe and Galileo? Galileo had produced a real scientific theory not dependent on magic, and the data to back it up. The comparison is bogus anyways; the modern implementation of the scientific method and peer review are far younger than one might think, and the "scientific" community of the day simply did not have access to the powerful methods of the later centuries. This is another thing you see everywhere in crank circles - trying to wrap "maverick" scientists in the cloak of Galileo. So how do you tell which ones are cranks and which ones aren't? Well, if I may put forward a mildly useful criteria: the fact that Behe took his ideas to court and got his ass handed to him might offer a clue.

He has not been prove downright wrong either. There are those who feel his view on the Bacterial Flagellum were incorrect, there is no way to show who is actually correct.

That's kind of a red flag, isn't it? That means that someone has an unfalsifiable hypothesis (hint: it's Behe). Of course, if the Bacterial Flagellum were evolved, we would expect that each of the proteins involved were generally already present in some form and performing useful functions (they were) and that some intermediate forms could be found (they were). Behe's ideas about the bacterial flagellum were soundly trounced, insofar as they were falsifiable at all. In fact, in every case of irreducible complexity brought forward, real scientists have found evolutionary pathways. No fingerprints of the designer yet, though.

Biologists and in fact most of science in the recent past were as a majority unbelivers...

Beg your pardon? As recently as 2005, the majority of biologists believed in God. The claim that, in the past, the majority of scientists were atheists, is downright untenable. It's like claiming that geology was invented to try to disprove the flood - completely backwards.

So what are you going to do here Cadet, Richard Dawkins is considered by most on this forum a very reputable biologist and he made the claim that life appears designed for a purpose due to his experience in the field of biology. Do you believe he is lying, unaware or simply wrong?

None of the above. You're misinterpreting him. Dawkins acknowledges that he thinks life appears to have been designed for a purpose. He does not actually believe that life has been designed for a purpose. What's more, Dawkins's personal beliefs are not the scientific literature. You want to claim it was "proven scientifically"? Let's see it!

Here? Most surely, in mainstream controlled territory, think not - start the forum and let me know.

With all due respect, are you for real? This is ChristianForums! The moderators here are Christians! At least a few of them are Young Earth Creationists (who obviously have some issues with carbon-dating)! You could hardly find a venue more in your favor! This is like complaining about Judge Jones after the Dover trial - I'm sorry, but if you can't win with those conditions, I don't know where you want to moderate this. David Icke? Ken Ham?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Read the transcript again. You're wrong.

I did.

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.
Q Has there ever been a time when astrology has been accepted as a correct or valid scientific theory, Professor Behe?

Well, I am not a historian of science. And certainly nobody -- well, not nobody, but certainly the educated community has not accepted astrology as a science for a long long time. But if you go back, you know, Middle Ages and before that, when people were struggling to describe the natural world, some people might indeed think that it is not a priori -- a priori ruled out that what we -- that motions in the earth could affect things on the earth, or motions in the sky could affect things on the earth.

bshmte said:
Behe admitted that if ID was considered science, then astrology would also be considered science. This happened under oath and on the witness stand.

That is a misrepresentation of his words. Intelligent Design is a theory as is a multitude of theories out there, Astrology was once considered science and a theory that has now been shown incorrect. He never said that if ID was considered science, then astrology would also be considered science and it is totally shown in the transcript that he did not say that.

 

[bhsmte]

Read the transcript again. You're wrong.

And she tells me I misrepresented what he said, when he said exactly what I said he did.

I guess she banks on nobody looking this stuff up.

 

[RickG]

Here? Most surely, in mainstream controlled territory, think not - start the forum and let me know. Just be sure we wont be allowing claims of Fermi's Interaction being valid at those energies when it's clearly in violation of parity and was abandoned for the electroweak theory. I'm quite sure the moderator's will agree. So basically we won't be discussing radiocarbon dating or anything leading to that process, since radiocarbon dating, as you insisted, had nothing to do with the electroweak theory, which is both beta decay and high energy interactions all wrapped up into one. So I am not sure what you plan to discuss besides a theory that would be out of scope of the OP anyways.

So yes or no?

 

[HitchSlap]

And she tells me I misrepresented what he said, when he said exactly what I said he did.

I guess she banks on nobody looking this stuff up.

That does seem to be MO for some around here.