ID vs Natural Selection

[depthdeception]

Effectively what you are suggesting is that science should only be taught in the classroom if it makes no reference to God. That is strange coming from someone who claims to be a Christian. It shows the extent to which people have been influenced by humanist dogma.

Yes. Would you bring God into the conversation in a mathematics class? Or a musical theory class? Obviously not. A supernaturalistic answer for natural phenomenon has no place in a science class. I am not saying that the idea of ID has no place in schools...just not in the science class.

Given the problems we have in establishing the truth of this relatively simple example, what right do schools have to imply that 'slime to scientist' evolution can be considered a scientific theory. It is very much conjecture. For humanists, it is the basis for a philosophy where there is no God and nothing supernatural. YEC's have often pointed out the extraordinary faith of those who accept this philosophy.

As much as "slime to scientist" (which is a mischaracterization of evolutionary theory, anyway) may involve elements of conjecture and educated guesses, it is vastly superior to ID because it can at least be proven or disproven by the scientific method. ID places itself beyond observation from the starting gate.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

If we believe that God created the universe, then we'd expect to see evidence of intelligent design in Creation. The two are inevitabley going to be intertwined. Using that evidence to demonstrate a Creator, and demonstrating the evidence supports the words of the Creator is very much a part of scientific enquiry.



Effectively what you are suggesting is that science should only be taught in the classroom if it makes no reference to God. That is strange coming from someone who claims to be a Christian. It shows the extent to which people have been influenced by humanist dogma.

The peppered moth story illustrates the very tenuous nature of the evidence supporting evolution. Notto's statement that it is an example of speciation is typical of the exaggerated claims made about this story. At best it could be an example of natural selection, and even that idea has come under attack from various scientists. The scientific studies done by Kettlewell are now recognised to be fundamentally flawed to the point that his research has been invalidated along with his exaggerated claims about what his experiments proved. The more we research even a simple hypothesis such as natural selection of a moth, the more we realise how little we really understand.

Given the problems we have in establishing the truth of this relatively simple example, what right do schools have to imply that 'slime to scientist' evolution can be considered a scientific theory. It is very much conjecture. For humanists, it is the basis for a philosophy where there is no God and nothing supernatural. YEC's have often pointed out the extraordinary faith of those who accept this philosophy.

Science shouldn't talk about God because science is incapable of talking about God. The closest science can get is ruling out natural explainations for God's actions. You can't prove whether God did something because God isn't limited in acting in any particular way.

 

[ebia]

If we believe that God created the universe, then we'd expect to see evidence of intelligent design in Creation.

If everything is designed by God, how can we possibly have any idea what something not designed by God looks like? Name me one non-designed thing I can compare it to?[/QUOTE]

 

[United]

True enough, but ID is not a scientific theory--it is a philosophcial presupposition about the necessary existence of supernaturalistic answers to gaps in our naturalistic understanding of the universe in which we live.

Hi depthdeception,

Many of these posts seem to be getting stuck on the “scientific theory” point. So lets compare ID and natural selection. Both ID & natural selection are practically impossible to prove as a primary mechanism for evolution. Yet natural selection is easier to study in a scientific sense – it can be used to construct various (highly) improbable theories of how we got from A to B. Yet flexibility does not equate to proof. Nor does it mean that science can only accept a theory which is easier to study. Science can only accept a theory if there is sufficient proof to support it (which is not the case with natural selection). So there remains two options (broadly speaking) on the table at this stage of history: natural selection and intelligent design. Both must be accepted by science as possible theories and in this sense they are both “scientific theories”. Anything less implies that science is partial – which I strongly detest.

The concept of God is not foreign to branches of theoretical physics – so I don’t understand why it should be foreign to the study of evolution. I am not suggesting we spend millions of dollars on ID research, or cut back on research into natural selection. My only comment from the very beginning is that ID and natural selection are both plausible theories, and both should be presented in a class on evolution.

PS - please do not equate my use of the word "ID" to "YEC creation".

 

[depthdeception]

Many of these posts seem to be getting stuck on the “scientific theory” point. So lets compare ID and natural selection.

I haven't been talking about "natural selection."

Both ID & natural selection are practically impossible to prove as a primary mechanism for evolution.

Natural selection (if this is what I was talking about, which it is not) is possible to be proven or disproven. ID cannot possibly be proven or disproven, for it assumes answers to questions that are beyond the capability of science ot answer.

Yet flexibility does not equate to proof. Nor does it mean that science can only accept a theory which is easier to study.

No one is arguing that "flexibility does not equate to proof." This issue has nothing to do with one theory being "easier" to study than another. THe poing is that science can only accept theories which are possible to study. ID is not able to be studied, therefore, it is not properly science.

Science can only accept a theory if there is sufficient proof to support it.

Precisely why ID should not be studied in science--there is no proof, only philosophical presuppositions.

So there remains two options (broadly speaking) on the table at this stage of history: natural selection and intelligent design. Both must be accepted by science as possible theories and in this sense they are both “scientific theories”. Anything less implies that science is partial – which I strongly detest.

Once again, I am not talking about natural selection. Therefore, it seems that you are choosing points of your argument simply to load it in favor of your argument. However, if you are going to prove the point, you must actually engage the points of the person your are debating--something you have yet to do with my post.

The concept of God is not foreign to branches of theoretical physics

Apparently you don't understand theoretical physics very well, then.

– so I don’t understand why it should be foreign to the study of evolution. I am not suggesting we spend millions of dollars on ID research, or cut back on research into natural selection. My only comment from the very beginning is that ID and natural selection are both plausible theories, and both should be presented in a class on evolution.

Again, I am not talking about natural selection. And furthermore, I will once again state the fact that ID is not properly scientific theory--it is a philosophical system. Philosophical systems cannot be proven or disproven. THerefore, the same is not science.

PS - please do not equate my use of the word "ID" to "YEC creation".

I haven't done any such thing, although you have conflated my use of "evolutionary" theory with natural selection simply to support your argument.

 

[notto]

Notto's statement that it is an example of speciation is typical of the exaggerated claims made about this story.

I never claimed it is an example o speciation. I specifically stated that it was NOT an example of speciation, simply a demonstration of natural selection.

Please don't distort what others are saying in an attempt to support your point. I would appreciate if you would edit your post to accurately reflect what I have (and have not said). If you do so, I'll remove this.

It's kind of funny that you exaggerate what I said to support your claim that my statement was an exaggeration.

 

[Micaiah]

I never claimed it is an example o speciation. I specifically stated that it was NOT an example of speciation, simply a demonstration of natural selection.

Please don't distort what others are saying in an attempt to support your point. I would appreciate if you would edit your post to accurately reflect what I have (and have not said). If you do so, I'll remove this.

It's kind of funny that you exaggerate what I said to support your claim that my statement was an exaggeration.

You stated the following regarding the peppered moths:

OK, lets back up a little:

The discussion was posted in this thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/t1899256-yecch.html&page=7&pp=20

Post 76 you said as follows:

http://www3.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-top-left.gifQuote:http://www3.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-top-right.gif http://www3.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-by-left.gifOriginally Posted by: Micaiah http://www3.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-by-right.gifhttp://www3.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-top-right-10.gifIt is deceiptful to take the story about peppered moths and claim this is an example of evolution in action. May I refer you to our recent discussion on farm yard genetics.http://www3.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-bot-left.gifhttp://www3.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-bot-right.gif


It demonstrates one of the mechanisms of evolution which is all it ever claimed to do. It is deceitful to take the research and claim that it tried to show anything outside of its predictions and conclusions. You claimed that somehow the research was discredited.

Which of the following claims have been discredited?

1. The peppered moth exists in two forms, one light and one dark.
2. Prior to the industrial revolution, the dark form was a prized collector's item due to its rarity--less than 5% of the total pepper moth population.
3. During the industrial revolution the dark variety became much more common in regions of heavy industrialization, reaching at peak 95% of the affected population.
4. Since pollution controls have been established, the occurence of the dark form has been decreasing.
5. Dark colour provides better camouflage on soot-blackened trees, while light colour provides better camouflage on non-blackened trees.
6. A major predator of the moths in daylight hours are birds.
7. Birds are more likely to find and eat moths without camouflage rather than those which are well camouflaged.
8. Selective bird predation on non-camouflaged moths tends to make the non-camouflaged form rarer in each generation.

I then asked in post 103

Oh so it demostrates a mechanism of evolution. What mechanism would that be?

You responded in Post 104

Natural selection acting on variation within a population. At the time, there were still some who considered Lamarckism to be the mechanism (that moths 'willed' themselves to change in light of environmental changes or that the specific variation came about due to specific environmental changes). The study showed that this was not the case and that over time a trait can become dominant in a population when acted on by environmental pressure (selection due to predators).

You can read up on what the study was really about here:
http://genbiol.cbs.umn.edu/peppmoth/peppmoth.html

The mechansism of mutation plus natural selection leads to [size=-1]changes in allele frequencies in a population of organisms over time. The peppered moth observation confirmed this mechanism of evolution.

Now if we look again at your original claim:
[/size]How many times have we shown that the peppered moths story is not evidence for evolution and demonstrated that the claims made about the moths have been thoroughtly discredited, and yet it persists to be used by TE's

Can you show us how the claims made about the moths have been discredited?

So in summary, you were asserting that the experiments by Kettlewell demonstrated variation and natural selection.

Note the response refers to both variation and natural selection. Variation refers to genetic change due to mutation. Kettlewell's experiments did not demonstrate variation.

You seem to have back peddled from what was stated in this and subsequent posts, and now claim that Kettlewell's experiments only demonstrated natural selection. Actually Kettlewell's experiments have been soundly discredited, so they really demonstrate nothing except perhaps that birds quickly learn where to find an easy meal.

 

[notto]

Y
So in summary, you were asserting that the experiments by Kettlewell demonstrated variation and natural selection.

Where did I claim speciation? Please edit your post to accurately reflect what I have said. I have no interest in revisiting the discussion about what the experiment did or did not show. Just want you to remove reference to a claim I did NOT make. You can do that, can't you?

 

[stumpjumper]

Many of these posts seem to be getting stuck on the “scientific theory” point. So lets compare ID and natural selection. Both ID & natural selection are practically impossible to prove as a primary mechanism for evolution. Yet natural selection is easier to study in a scientific sense – it can be used to construct various (highly) improbable theories of how we got from A to B. Yet flexibility does not equate to proof. .

Hi United

I do not believe that the evidence for natural selection is as weak as you think. It is certainly difficult to test because we are talking about the selection of small gradual changes over a long period of time. But look at African's and sickle-cell disease. Now you only get sickle-cell anemia if you have two copies of the defective gene but one copy helps prevent malaria because it makes the blood cells less congenial to the malaria parasite. So by selection you find sickle cell disease in African residents were malaria is present.

Natural selection requires a variant in a gene that changes functional ability and it must be heritable. This you find all over the world as differeing populations adapt and are selected for their environment. It just makes sense and although I know the peppered moth photos were faked that does not mean there are not historical clues that show that natural selection is a driving mechanism behind evolution.

 

[Micaiah]

Okay, we will come back to this. For the time being we will simply conclude that Notto was wrong and exaggerated what Kettlewells experiments demonstrated, which is what the whole debate was about.

I subsequently said as follows:

The article you sited indicates the colour variation was not scientifically verified to be a mutation. At best you can say that the scientist witnessed variations in gene frequencies in a population. Creationists have no problem accepting this happens. I think we agreee that to claim the experiment proves what Darwin theorised about common ancestory would be an overstatement.

and sited the following quote by Kettlewell:

The story has generated boundless evolutionary enthusiasm. H.B. Kettlewell, who performed most of the classic experiments, said that if Darwin had seen this, ‘He would have witnessed the consummation and confirmation of his life’s work.’1

Clearly his claims were exaggerated, and have subsequently been found to be without any valid scientific basis from his experiments.

You responded:

It confirmed that there is a mechanism within nature that causes variation within a population and that can lead to speciation. This is what origins was all about. Darwin concluded the fixity of species was a myth. He was right.

Have you read Origins?

From its conclusions:
If then we have under nature variability and a powerful agent always ready to act and select, why should we doubt that variations in any way useful to beings, under their excessively complex relations of life, would be preserved, accumulated, and inherited? Why, if man can by patience select variations most useful to himself, should nature fail in selecting variations useful, under changing conditions of life, to her living products? What limit can be put to this power, acting during long ages and rigidly scrutinising the whole constitution, structure, and habits of each creature, — favouring the good and rejecting the bad? I can see no limit to this power, in slowly and beautifully adapting each form to the most complex relations of life. The theory of natural selection, even if we looked no further than this, seems to me to be in itself probable. I have already recapitulated, as fairly as I could, the opposed difficulties and objections: now let us turn to the special facts and arguments in favour of the theory.

It's hard to understand the statement you reference without seeing it in context. The work of Kettlewell falsified the other options for how variation and natural selection affect population (or the claim that they don't which still prevailed at the time). This was a major part of Darwins work and these experiments confirmed that he was right - the mechanism exists.

Darwins work was mainly about speciation - something that even creationists can't deny happens. As you've been told, the moth experiments confirmed Darwins conclusion about the mechanism that can cause this - the mechanism exists.

I don't see any problem with the statement when taken into context.

Regardless, the current theory of common ancestry does not rest on the Peppered moth research.

You continued to assert that Kettlewell's experiments demonstrated both variation and natural selection, a mechanism that "can lead to speciation".

 

[notto]

You continued to assert that Kettlewell's experiments demonstrated both variation and natural selection, a mechanism that "can lead to speciation".

And it is well know that variation and natural selection can lead to speciation. I am simply asking you to change your claim that I said that the Kettlewell experiment showed speciation because I never made such a claim. Darwisn conclusion was related to speciation which is what I was addressing in my post. Kettlewells experiments addressed (and confirmed) that the mechanism that Darwin asserted existed (and that Darwins claims that other ideas about how diversity happenes would be falsified).

Simply change your post to accurate reflect what I said. That is all I'm asking. Can you do that?

If you won't, that's fine. It would just be another example of creationists taking things out of context and when this is shown, being to stubborn to admit it and correct it.

I never claimed that the experiments demonstrated speciation as my comments clearly show. I know they didn't. I never thought they did. Now, why would I make the claim if I knew that they didn't and that it was demonstratable that they didn't?

Speciation is a result of the mechanism that Darwin proposed and Kettlewell confirmed. That is all I've claimed.

 

[gluadys]

Actually Kettlewell's experiments have been soundly discredited, so they really demonstrate nothing except perhaps that birds quickly learn where to find an easy meal.

You never did tell us which premise of the Kettlewell experiments was discredited. If you are going to continue to make this claim, I suggest you back it up. Otherwise, withdraw the claim.

Do you not understand that predation is a selection pressure when it is not random? If the birds were not picking off moths in proportion to visibility, there would have been no change in the dominant colour of the population.

 

[Micaiah]

Notto,

I accept that my statement was not an accurate reflection of what you said and offer my apologies. I have edited the statement. It now reads as follows:

The peppered moth story illustrates the very tenuous nature of the evidence supporting evolution. Notto's statement that it is an example of the *process leading to* speciation is typical of the exaggerated claims made about this story. At best it could be an example of natural selection, and even that idea has come under attack from various scientists. The scientific studies done by Kettlewell are now recognised to be fundamentally flawed to the point that his research has been invalidated along with his exaggerated claims about what his experiments proved. The more we research even a simple hypothesis such as natural selection of a moth, the more we realise how little we really understand.

As you can see, the impact hasn't changed much. I'm still saying that your beliefs on what the experiments demonstrated are both exaggerated and wrong. I'd suggest we restart another thread on the topic. See the thread 'Hide and Seek with Peppered Moths'

Gluadys,

You never did tell us which premise of the Kettlewell experiments was discredited. If you are going to continue to make this claim, I suggest you back it up. Otherwise, withdraw the claim.

If you have read any of the critiques on the way the experiments were conducted it is self evident they have been thoroughly discredited. The tenacity with which people continue to defend the experiements shows how bigoted people can be in their beliefs regarding evolution.

Are you still suggesting the experiments were valid in spite of the information that has been posted, and the fact that even one of your own has written a scathing review on the experiments.

 

[notto]

Thanks Micaiah, too bad it took you several posts to do so. The experiments provided valid results related to falsifying other ideas that were prominant at the time. Experiments since have shown that natural selection acting on variation can lead to speciation. Both the moth experiments and additional ones since then validate Darwins premise and conclusions no matter how much you would like to deny it.

Some of the scope of conclusion from the experiments have been re-evaluated and require a second look. The entire set of experiments and the conclusions drawn from them are far from thoroughly discredited. To claim so is to exaggerate the issue (but when you rely on a source like AIG for your criticism, I would expect nothing less).

 

[Critias]

It is quite sad to see Christians say God shouldn't be apart of certain aspects of our learning.

So much for "in all things I will honor you."

 

[United]

Hi there depthdeception,

I may be reading it wrong, but I sense this discussion is becoming more of an arguement then a discussion. So I just wanted to clarify that I am here to learn & converse, & it is not my intent to offend or work others up.

Now, onto the first point:

[/font]

I haven't been talking about "natural selection."

Agreed. But you did say that ID was not a scientific theory - and my answer tried to explain why I believe ID (which I interpret to mean "guided evolution") is a scientific theory. In doing so, I needed to discuss competing theories (ie natural selection) to show why.

Natural selection (if this is what I was talking about, which it is not) is possible to be proven or disproven. ID cannot possibly be proven or disproven, for it assumes answers to questions that are beyond the capability of science ot answer.

I don't believe it is PRACTICAL to disprove or prove either theory. But that is my opinion & we can agree to disagree.

No one is arguing that "flexibility does not equate to proof." This issue has nothing to do with one theory being "easier" to study than another. THe poing is that science can only accept theories which are possible to study. ID is not able to be studied, therefore, it is not properly science.



Precisely why ID should not be studied in science--there is no proof, only philosophical presuppositions.

Articles I have read on ID can generally be broken down into two parts:
-The main part which analyses the limitations of natural selection etc.
-The short part at the end which explains creative input (which I interpret as guided evolution) as a possible alternative.
The first part is scientific study - and I am happy to call it "weaknesses of natural selection" instead of "ID" if that makes everyone feel better. It is reasonable to study the weaknesses of any theory - particularly when that theory is largely unsupported. The second part is difficult to study in a scienfic sense, but is never the less an option and deserves to be mentioned in a course on evolution. I believe that science cannot be partial, and must at least recognise a theory even if it is not easily studied.

Once again, I am not talking about natural selection. Therefore, it seems that you are choosing points of your argument simply to load it in favor of your argument. However, if you are going to prove the point, you must actually engage the points of the person your are debating--something you have yet to do with my post.

I feel like my comments have been disected somewhat without looking at the overall intent. My main purpose was to explain why I considered guided evolution as a scientific theory. To do that, I needed to discuss natural selection - I know you did not specifically mention natural selection, but was necessary to answer the overall issue. So don't get too hung up on it.

Apparently you don't understand theoretical physics very well, then.

In my first stint at uni I studied a Bachelor of Science (majoring in physics) and a Bachelor of Electrical Engineering. I am about to complete a Bachelor of Civil Engineering which I studied part time while working as an electrical engineer for the last 10 years. I read about the latest physics research when I get time, so my previous comments were not without consideration.

I haven't done any such thing, although you have conflated my use of "evolutionary" theory with natural selection simply to support your argument.

Sorry - my closing comment wasn't aimed at you. More than once my posts have been high jacked by other parties who assume I am advocating YEC or something else - I was only trying to stop it before it happened. Thats the last time I try that - it causes more confusion then anything!

 

[gluadys]

Agreed. But you did say that ID was not a scientific theory - and my answer tried to explain why I believe ID (which I interpret to mean "guided evolution") is a scientific theory. In doing so, I needed to discuss competing theories (ie natural selection) to show why.


Articles I have read on ID can generally be broken down into two parts:
-The main part which analyses the limitations of natural selection etc.
-The short part at the end which explains creative input (which I interpret as guided evolution) as a possible alternative.

I think it is better to separate the concepts of guided evolution and Intelligent Design. Guided evolution is the proposal of theistic evolution. It is not a competing theory to natural selection. It simply affirms that God guides that process. Guided evolution does not pre-suppose that evolution needs a creative input that is an alternative to evolution. The creative input is right in the evolutionary process, not an addition to it.

And from the ID perspective, the designer does not guide evolution. The designer supplements evolution at those points where evolution fails. Creative input is an addition to evolution, an alternate to natural selection. It is not a means of guiding evolution, but of doing what evolution cannot do.

Of course, this rests on the pre-supposition that at some point the evolutionary mechanisms do break down. This is something for which ID has provided no evidence whatever. It has also provided no alternative mechanism which is accessible to scientific study.

The first part is scientific study - and I am happy to call it "weaknesses of natural selection" instead of "ID" if that makes everyone feel better. It is reasonable to study the weaknesses of any theory - particularly when that theory is largely unsupported. The second part is difficult to study in a scienfic sense, but is never the less an option and deserves to be mentioned in a course on evolution. I believe that science cannot be partial, and must at least recognise a theory even if it is not easily studied.

This is a good separation. In the first part, one would need to show that the weaknesses really exist. It is not at all true that the theory of evolution is largely unsupported. It is one of the best supported theories in all of science. I can only attribute statements of lack of support to ignorance of just how many lines of evidence support the standard model of evolution.

My problem with the second part is that it is presented--by a Christian--as an option. Since when is creation an option for a Christian? One may discuss different mechanisms of creation, evolution being one, but one may not present creation itself as an option. What ID proponents consistently overlook is that God (and in a Christian Forum let's not quibble about who the Designer is) cannot be just a sometime creator, intervening only at key points. God is always involved in creation, as much via evolution as via any other mechanism.

What can be studied scientifically is not the existence of a Creator, or even of design, but the physical manifestation of the mechanism of creation. If and when ID proposes such a mechanism, then there will really be an alternate option to natural selection. But the general concept of creation is not an alternate to evolution, since it includes evolution.

My main purpose was to explain why I considered guided evolution as a scientific theory. To do that, I needed to discuss natural selection - I know you did not specifically mention natural selection, but was necessary to answer the overall issue. So don't get too hung up on it.

Evolution is a fact and a theory. Guided/theistic evolution is not a scientific theory. It is a theological statment about evolution: namely that evolution is a creative work of God. It is important to keep this distinction in mind. Science can study evolution. It cannot study divine guidance--whether of ID or evolution.

IMO, the onus is on ID to propose an alternate mechanism to natural selection for creating biological features. Simply saying a designer acted is not good enough, since, from a theistic point of view, the designer acted through natural selection as well. If the designer can act through natural selection, why does the designer need any other mechanism?

 

[navybig]

I fail to see how an argument about this is necessary. I am a 3rd year undergrad in Bio and I have no problems with my Catholic faith and my logical understanding of scientific biological principles.

To me science is merely an explanation of how the world works, a collection of ideas that attempts to articulate the laws and processes of the universe. Why the universe exists and how it got to its present form along with all other questions along these lines to me are separate. Neither do I mean that both should be exclusive to the other. Some particularly famous Galileo quote that I am too lazy to google sums it up well.