Intelligence Inquiry

[xianghua]

That's not true. You should know this since we've discussed this paper previously : A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve. - PubMed - NCBI

a pesimistic? realy?

1) they only assume that the eye could evolve by small steps. they didnt do any experiment to show that every step (out of their suppose 1829 steps) is indeed functional. so to begin with its only an assumption. not a real calculation.

2) they start with a "simple" light detection. but even a simple light detection is very complex and they gave no calculation to how such a system can evolve.

see now why id is science after all?

 

[DaisyDay]

we can actually test id. first question: do you think that a robot with DNA is evidence for design or not?

What is a "robot with DNA"?

 

[xianghua]

What is a "robot with DNA"?

a robot that is made from organic components. do you think that if you will find such a robot it will be evidence for design?

 

[DaisyDay]

a robot that is made from organic components. do you think that if you will find such a robot it will be evidence for design?

It's in your definition: "made". A robot, by your definition, is made.

Question: how can you tell if something is "made" or "not made", ie naturally occurring?

 

[inquiring mind]

a pesimistic? realy?

1) they only assume that the eye could evolve by small steps. they didnt do any experiment to show that every step (out of their suppose 1829 steps) is indeed functional. so to begin with its only an assumption. not a real calculation.

2) they start with a "simple" light detection. but even a simple light detection is very complex and they gave no calculation to how such a system can evolve.

see now why id is science after all?

And, it's scrutiny that would result in productive discussion... where's the dreaded supernatural response?

 

[xianghua]

It's in your definition: "made". A robot, by your definition, is made.

so if someone will create a walking creature it will be a robot by definition since it was made by design?

 

[pitabread]

What is a "robot with DNA"?

A figment of his imagination.

Just to give you a heads up, he's trying to make a rhetorical argument based on equivocation over the word "robot". He had had it explained to him countless times what the word robot means in the English language and how his argument is logically flawed. Yet he persists in repeating it as though prior discussions never happened.

 

[pitabread]

so if someone will create a walking creature it will be a robot by definition since it was made by design?

A creature is not a robot. It's already been explained to you what the word robot means in English. You are using the word incorrectly and making an argument based on equivocation. Period.

 

[Yttrium]

First, does the info in DNA indicate no prior intelligence to you at all?

Possibly. And if an intelligent designer created the first life form, this would result in no change at all to the theory of evolution. It's only if a designer created more life later on that would stir things up.

Second, don't confuse hypothesizing with demonstrating.

Pertaining to what?

 

[inquiring mind]

Possibly. And if an intelligent designer created the first life form, this would result in no change at all to the theory of evolution. It's only if a designer created more life later on that would stir things up.

Yes, but you have to let the cards fall with the evidence... not just go back to square one of TOE when something doesn't line up with it.

Pertaining to what?

A hypothesized mechanism vs. a demonstrable one.

 

[inquiring mind]

I do think it would be difficult to contain ID within established parameters of instruction, but that’s only because TOE has apparently known none. About anything that can be hypothesized in that regard is laid out as a possibility, with little if any trouble it seems.

 

[ThievingMagpie]

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?

Because the only thing you could really say in a classroom context is "some people feel like life is designed." When I was in school, we covered that in religious education.

Question: if you think ID works successfully as an explanatory scientific theory, have you done anything to have it recognised as such, like petitioning university boards?

 

[Yttrium]

Yes, but you have to let the cards fall with the evidence... not just go back to square one of TOE when something doesn't line up with it.

Right.

A hypothesized mechanism vs. a demonstrable one.

We can demonstrate the mechanisms of evolution in laboratory conditions.

 

[eleos1954]

We will never know about our origin for sure through science as the universe is continually expanding ... so basically there is not an end to it.

The expansion of the universe is the increase of the distance between two distant parts of the universe with time. It is an intrinsic expansion whereby the scale of space itself changes. The universe does not expand "into" anything and does not require space to exist "outside" it.

In the Christian belief, it will be known when Jesus returns.

Our existence? Unsolvable by mankind ... and therefore one chooses what they believe to be true.

What I would like to see ... is teaching a real good understanding and a huge emphasis on what "theory" actually means before teaching any theories.

Truth defined:

a fact or belief that is accepted as true

Joshua 24:15

... As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD!”

 

[inquiring mind]

Because the only thing you could really say in a classroom context is "some people feel like life is designed." When I was in school, we covered that in religious education.

Question: if you think ID works successfully as an explanatory scientific theory, have you done anything to have it recognised as such, like petitioning university boards?

I think it's more about scrutinizing TOE than trying to introduce religion into the science class. You know, I think the real problem here is with very little research you can see how far this type of thing gets in the system (the courtroom is usually the end of it). Proposals, developing criteria and parameters, putting together teaching plans, appropriate text, all those things are needed to convince and they take time, resources, and a lot of 'on the line' support. As has been pointed out here numerous times, you don't see it in-depth, because it's hard to get people to commit that strongly when they have seen the outcomes and the attacks they will likely also endure.

 

[pitabread]

I think it's more about scrutinizing TOE than trying to introduce religion into the science class.

Scrutinizing the ToE doesn't validate ID though.

It goes back to what I've repeatedly said in this thread: design is not the null hypothesis of evolution.

ID has to stand or fall on its own merits. So far it's fallen flat.

 

[inquiring mind]

We can demonstrate the mechanisms of evolution in laboratory conditions.

But, you're not referring to macroevolution?

 

[Yttrium]

But, you're not referring to macroevolution?

"Macroevolution" is just a lot of "microevolution". A lot of little changes add up to a big change. It's the same mechanism.

 

[pitabread]

a pesimistic? realy?

1) they only assume that the eye could evolve by small steps. they didnt do any experiment to show that every step (out of their suppose 1829 steps) is indeed functional. so to begin with its only an assumption. not a real calculation.

It's scientific modeling and granted there are going to be assumptions inherent in any model. And certainly there could be opportunity to empirically validate such assumptions. That doesn't necessarily invalidate the model though and certainly doesn't make it "not a real calculation.

It is a real calculation. Hand-waving it away doesn't change that.

2) they start with a "simple" light detection. but even a simple light detection is very complex and they gave no calculation to how such a system can evolve.

Evolution works by building on what came before it. If we're discussing the origin of a specific biological feature, one would choose an appropriate starting point. In this case, the evolution of the eye for vision would be preceded by light detection spots.

Besides, we already had a previous discussion about the evolutionary origin of light sensitive cells which is essentially what a light sensitive spot is made of. So we already know a probable evolutionary origin for those.

see now why id is science after all?

What does criticizing a paper based on evolution have to do with ID? (Answer: nothing).

 

[pitabread]

I do think it would be difficult to contain ID within established parameters of instruction, but that’s only because TOE has apparently known none. About anything that can be hypothesized in that regard is laid out as a possibility, with little if any trouble it seems.

Hypotheses related to evolution are tested all the time. In fact, there is a lot of debate over the varying import of different mechanisms for different patterns of evolutionary development.

If you follow the history of thought with respect to evolution and biology over the decades, you'll see that there have been shifts in knowledge and understanding based on testing of hypotheses and continual gathering of new data.

This is even one of the arguments creationists use against science, by characterizing it as perpetual change and uncertainty. Conversely we then get contradictory claims about science being rigid and dogmatic sometimes from the same creationists. It's bizarre.