Intelligence Inquiry

[inquiring mind]

If evidence can point to evolution, with all its discrepancies, why can’t it point to intelligent design? With the theory of evolution having so much questionable evidence, which falls short of an actual explanation, what keeps the scientific community so locked into and protective of that rationality?

Why wouldn’t it be better for education to present accurately, and in detail, what the theory of evolution can and can’t show with a comparison to Intelligent Design, instead of just presenting their dogma? Wouldn’t an opposing theory be good for education?

 

[DaisyDay]

Occam's razor.

If evidence can point to evolution, with all its discrepancies, why can’t it point to intelligent design?

It's not so much that it can't as it is that it simply doesn't.

With the theory of evolution having so much questionable evidence, which falls short of an actual explanation, what keeps the scientific community so locked into and protective of that rationality?

While there may be questionable evidence, there is, at the same time, substantial solid evidence which just keeps growing.

Why wouldn’t it be better for education to present accurately, and in detail, what the theory of evolution can and can’t show with a comparison to Intelligent Design, instead of just presenting their dogma? Wouldn’t an opposing theory be good for education?

Intelligent Design isn't a real theory - it's a conclusion which makes no predictions and is unfalsifiable. It is simply a religious explanation which is not useful in science. It's fine for philosophy class, however.

 

[Ophiolite]

If evidence can point to evolution, with all its discrepancies, why can’t it point to intelligent design? With the theory of evolution having so much questionable evidence, which falls short of an actual explanation, what keeps the scientific community so locked into and protective of that rationality?

Why wouldn’t it be better for education to present accurately, and in detail, what the theory of evolution can and can’t show with a comparison to Intelligent Design, instead of just presenting their dogma? Wouldn’t an opposing theory be good for education?

Several reasons stand against your proposal:
1. The evidence that you find questionable is not judged to be so by tens of thousands of educated individuals (including many Christians) who have devoted their professional lives to studying the matter.
2. The evidence does not point to design because, it seems (based on the evidence), that intelligent design is not a viable hypothesis.
3. To deny that the theory of evolution is not an actual explanation is to alter the meaning of the words "real" and "explanation" beyond recognition. You may question the explanation, but to deny it is one is idiosyncratic, but without the charm that can often accompany eccentricity.
4. You appear to be suggesting that scientific community should not protect rationality. If you wish to rephrase that sentence (the last of the first paragraph) I'll respond to what you may have actually meant.
5. A comparison with Intelligent Design would be as favourable to ID as a comparison between my clay court tennis and that of Rafael Nadal. ID is a propaganda exercise and has no place in a science curriculum.
6. Calling what is arguably the best established theory in science a dogma is silly.
7. An opposing theory would be excellent for education. Unfortunately ID is not a theory and as a hypothesis it has been found wanting.

 

[inquiring mind]

Several reasons stand against your proposal:
1. The evidence that you find questionable is not judged to be so by tens of thousands of educated individuals (including many Christians) who have devoted their professional lives to studying the matter.
2. The evidence does not point to design because, it seems (based on the evidence), that intelligent design is not a viable hypothesis.
3. To deny that the theory of evolution is not an actual explanation is to alter the meaning of the words "real" and "explanation" beyond recognition. You may question the explanation, but to deny it is one is idiosyncratic, but without the charm that can often accompany eccentricity.
4. You appear to be suggesting that scientific community should not protect rationality. If you wish to rephrase that sentence (the last of the first paragraph) I'll respond to what you may have actually meant.
5. A comparison with Intelligent Design would be as favourable to ID as a comparison between my clay court tennis and that of Rafael Nadal. ID is a propaganda exercise and has no place in a science curriculum.
6. Calling what is arguably the best established theory in science a dogma is silly.
7. An opposing theory would be excellent for education. Unfortunately ID is not a theory and as a hypothesis it has been found wanting.

Why is everything in science held to scrutiny, and I mean no other area left untouched, except evolution? Is it a sacred cow or something?

 

[RichardY]

Depends what you mean by evolution. The theory of evolution by natural selection and survival of the fittest. Was shown to be inadequate when compared to evolution in peacocks. So was amended with sexual selection, to my knowledge.

From a teleological point, an acorn becomes an oak tree. But the laws of nature are causally deficient, and freewill enters the picture allowing for intelligent design. Livestock breeding is one such aspect.

 

[pitabread]

If evidence can point to evolution, with all its discrepancies, why can’t it point to intelligent design?

The fundamental problem is two-fold:

1) In order to have testable hypotheses for ID, there needs to be some sorts of constraints in which to frame those hypotheses.

2) The ID community by-and-large believes the designer is an all-powerful supernatural entity. Such an entity is free of constraints and therefore one cannot formulate testable hypotheses in that scenario.

Basically, the ID community has shot itself in the foot scientifically from the get-go.

This is also why IDists seem to assume design as the null hypothesis and mostly just argue against evolution. Unfortunately, arguing against evolution doesn't make design true since design is not the null hypothesis.

Why wouldn’t it be better for education to present accurately, and in detail, what the theory of evolution can and can’t show with a comparison to Intelligent Design, instead of just presenting their dogma? Wouldn’t an opposing theory be good for education?

The Theory of Evolution is presented accurately. The problem is that there is neither a theory of ID, nor even testable hypotheses within ID. Basically, there is nothing to present in opposition.

The fault lies not with the science of evolution. The fault lies with ID.

 

[inquiring mind]

They're false because you don't know the field.

Now, what gives you that idea?

All aspects of evolution are constantly subjected to testing, implicit and explicit.

Well now, let's not include the tests explained with soft verbs like 'should have, could have been, must have been'... you know, all the ones with no data to back them up.

 

[inquiring mind]

The modern theory of evolution is the most robust, scientifically tested explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.

Sure it is.

If there was something better, scientists (especially those in industry) would be all over it. The current state of ID is not that, however.

Not for those who need to hold their jobs.

 

[inquiring mind]

You didn't say anything that had any discernible meaning. How can I respond to nothing? If you wish to restate that post with semantic content I shall be pleased to respond. The central point is that I addressed every one of your points from the OP and you have failed to address a single one of my refutations. Do you intend to do so?

Also, you can and should respond to my query, repeated by SFS, as to how many research papers you are exposed to on a regular basis?

If I said several, or if I said none... which would you believe?

 

[sfs]

Now, what gives you that idea?

Reading your posts -- including the ones in which you state that you're not an expert.

Well now, let's not include the tests explained with soft verbs like 'should have, could have been, must have been'... you know, all the ones with no data to back them up.

How about we talk about the tests I just mentioned -- the ones that occur every time a new genome is sequenced. Do you know how they support common descent? Do you know of any predictions that ID makes about what we'll see in the next genome?

 

[inquiring mind]

Do you know of any predictions that ID makes about what we'll see in the next genome?

How many predictions above the species level have 'panned out' for evolutionists?

 

[pitabread]

Sure it is.

It really is. It's simply the reality of the situation.

Don't take my word for it though. See what creationist Todd Wood has to say about it: The truth about evolution

Not for those who need to hold their jobs.

It has nothing to do with that. Biology-related industries stand to benefit from the best understanding of biology possible. If there really were a superior alternative to evolution, the first place you would here about it would be industry.

The primary interest there is competitive advantage. There is no reason for companies to invest in "protecting" a scientific theory just for the sake of it.

 

[inquiring mind]

Why not just say what's true instead of dancing around the subject?

I speak the truth all the time, as I know it. What do you think of that?

 

[pitabread]

nevermind

 

[TRVL ONE]

What does this bizarre question have to do with mine or the flow of the conversation?

Daisy - "Occam's razor."
IM - "The pot calling the kettle black."
Me - "This "riposte" made no sense."

Since clearly Daisy and myself know what Occam's Razor is and IM thinks he knows it well enough to respond with a quip, how could you possibly think asking me what you did was germane?

This question is not bizarre. It appeared to me you were insulting this person. Am I wrong? Were you not insulting this person?

 

[USincognito]

Depends what you mean by evolution.

I always cringe a little when I see this. I'm glad you didn't go where a lot of people do. When we talk about evolution we're talking about descent with modification over time as described by the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution by natural selection and survival of the fittest. Was shown to be inadequate when compared to evolution in peacocks. So was amended with sexual selection, to my knowledge.

Survival of the fittest is one of the most misunderstood phrases in biology. It really means survival of those most successful of reproducing. In the case of peafowl, it was sexual selection that lead to the reproductive success of males with the largest tail feathers. Sexual selection is a mechanism of selection, not different type of evolution however.

 

[sfs]

How many predictions above the species level have 'panned out' for evolutionists?

Millions.

 

[sfs]

Now, you're not still including the 'should haves, could have beens, and must have beens' are you?

No. I'm alluding to the millions of specific patterns of genetic differences and similarities that can be predicted from common descent, and that have been confirmed through observation.

 

[inquiring mind]

No. I'm alluding to the millions of specific patterns of genetic differences and similarities that can be predicted from common descent, and that have been confirmed through observation.

You make it sound as though genetics and common ancestory have left the world of science... more like they're a given, incontestable, dogma-like.

 

[RichardY]

@USincognito

I think a lot of it comes down to whether people view life and evolution as purely a mechanical process. Or something that can be manipulated through independent and unseen forces.

Perhaps a peacocks tail feathers provided some evolutionary advantage, but the fixation on them has led to something less streamlined for the environment. Obviously a species can get stuck in an evolutionary sink, and go extinct.

I think there is intelligent design involved. An unbroken linear chain of causality, leads no room for design or freewill; allowing for what measure to apply. At the microscopic level I've read that time no longer applies, which makes sense if time is relative. So time is perhaps not so much a measurement, but modes in which we think.