Intelligent Design / Evolution

[idscience]

You can't prove a negative. Either evidence supports a conclusion, or it doesn't.

You're free to accept ID/IC as you see fit. Personally, it is an appeal to incredulity, and does nothing to benefit my scientific knowledge.

If you're convinced that ID/IC is true, good on ya'. I truly hope it serves to enrich your understanding of science.

Wait a minute. I have been told many times on this thread IC has been thoroughly refuted. I have been ridiculed and laughed at for holding to IC as a hypothesis when it has been disproved over and over again.

Are you telling me now it can't be done? For IC to be refuted you only need to show how a Darwinian process accomplished the task. That is not proving a negative. Out of everyone here that thinks its so funny, someone must have at least a couple papers showing how this has been done.

I will accept it has not been done. I will accept it is a problem right now. ID has problems too.

Several on here have said that. Outside of Matzke's paper I have seen nothing but accusation I don't listen to evidence. I would like someone to point me to some research that proves IC is attainable by Darwinian processes.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Wait a minute. I have been told many times on this thread IC has been thoroughly refuted. I have been ridiculed and laughed at for holding to IC as a hypothesis when it has been disproved over and over again.

Are you telling me now it can't be done? For IC to be refuted you only need to show how a Darwinian process accomplished the task. That is not proving a negative. Out of everyone here that thinks its so funny, someone must have at least a couple papers showing how this has been done.

I will accept it has not been done. I will accept it is a problem right now. ID has problems too.

Several on here have said that. Outside of Matzke's paper I have seen nothing but accusation I don't listen to evidence. I would like someone to point me to some research that proves IC is attainable by Darwinian processes.

Yes, it's my opnion that multiple independent lines of evidence have been proffered, which you have ignored. It's ok, I'm aware that your opinion of ID/IC/Creo is necessarily tied to your religious faith, and no amount of evidence or reasoning will convince you otherwise. Truly, this is no skin off my nose. I honestly don't care what you, personally, believe, nor do I care what you think of my beliefs. At this point, we'll have to agree to disagree.

As I said previously, if you find IC/ID/creo to somehow benefit your understanding of science, that's great. Personally, I see no value in it. It is basically a position of incredulity, a position that, IMO, is anathema to the SM. At the point we stop looking for answers, is the point we give up trying to understand the world around us. I'm glad that dedicated men and women working diligently in universities the world over to seek to ask questions and add understanding and context to our world and cosmos. The point at which one claims that further understanding is unattainable, is the point at which we give up.

I accept ToE because it is based on the SM. It is falsifiable, independently verifiable, and every field of science supports it. It is the very foundation of science itself.

IMO, if you desire to convince people that ID/IC is legitimate, you'll need to demonstrate posivitive evidence to support your claims. To point out perceived shortcomings of ToE is not, in fact, proving your position. Scientific ideas stand on it's own merits, and unless you can demonstrate sufficient evidence to support ID/IC, all you're doing here on CF is simply switching the burden of proof. You're asking us to disprove ID/IC, when every poster on CF has pointed out that it's not up to us to disprove your claim, but for you to provide evidence. It's like me claiming to have a $100 bill in my wallet, and asking you to prove that I don't.

You honestly seem like a nice guy, but you seem to be having a bit of trouble grasping what it is that we have issue with. I've tried to explain it. Beyond this, I don't know what else to say.

Have a great week.

 

[idscience]

Yes, it's my opnion that multiple independent lines of evidence have been proffered, which you have ignored. It's ok, I'm aware that your opinion of ID/IC/Creo is necessarily tied to your religious faith, and no amount of evidence or reasoning will convince you otherwise. Truly, this is no skin off my nose. I honestly don't care what you, personally, believe, nor do I care what you think of my beliefs. At this point, we'll have to agree to disagree.

You honestly seem like a nice guy, but you seem to be having a bit of trouble grasping what it is that we have issue with. I've tried to explain it. Beyond this, I don't know what else to say.

Have a great week.

Science is not an opinion. My opinion is irrelevant as is yours. You say that you choose to believe certain lines of evidence then deny me the same. I submit that in the realm of "belief" science, there is no room for ridicule or mocking. If someone decides to stand on one side or the other of an disputed issue, why is one denounced while the other claims superiority?

Agreeing to disagree is an acceptable outcome of evidence that doesn't prove one side or the other. I am expected to prove beyond a doubt my position, while your position (not personally) only needs possibilities to be accepted. Science is supposed to be empirically based. If there is no empirical evidence showing IC is easily defeated by Darwinian processes, then no one can say their inference is superior to another's.

ID is accused of bias belief, no science because it can't prove God exists. All kinds of straw men are lined up and shot down. The same people maligning ID supporters are standing not on proof, but hypothesis (maybe) and best guess. The reason I

• "you seem to be having a bit of trouble grasping what it is that we have issue with. I've tried to explain it."

am having trouble is no proof is offered. I am not turning my back on proof. None has been presented. I have heard some ideas, some possibilities that you seem to prefer, but why should that be the criteria for me to have to accept your position when you doing the exact same thing. You do not accept ID positions from inference.

You can't see you are doing this? The solution is very simple. Show me proof that mutations, and natural selection can produce a flagellum. Simple, discussion over, frustration abated and we move to another subject.

The frustration arises when you try to assert something is proven when it has not been proven, and when the other side won't take your declaration it has been as proof, you get frustrated. If I am not listening to what is being said it would be easier just to post the post # the answer is at instead of generating pages of why you don't want to bother. (that is a general statement)

All I ask is the same consideration you demand of me. Show me proof of something before you laugh me off.

For the general thread:
Some of the conversations here reminded me of an interview I heard once. I found it. Jump to 11:45-16:00 minutes. It is about how some expect more from the other side then from themselves. It is an audio file. The only point here is the similarity in opposing views, nothing else that is said. Listen or not as you wish.

http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2011-03-18T16_07_16-07_00

 

[CaliforniaSun]

If ID/IC were true, how would it keep science working, i.e. what is it's value to the SM?

 

[AV1611VET]

If ID/IC were true, how would it keep science working, i.e. what is it's value to the SM?

Creation supplied the hardware, science supplies the software.

 

[NGC 6712]

ID is a recipe for laziness. An excuse for the abandonment of thinking.

 

[AV1611VET]

ID is a recipe for laziness.

It is, huh?

An excuse for the abandonment of thinking.

Uh-huh.

Try my shoes on for awhile and see if it's as easy as you think it is.

 

[NGC 6712]

It is, huh?

Uh-huh.

Try my shoes on for awhile and see if it's as easy as you think it is.

Of course it is. It basically is a case of throwing ones hands up and saying "Well that was intelligently designed so we can look no further".

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course it is. It basically is a case of throwing ones hands up and saying "Well that was intelligently designed so we can look no further".

You just rendered every craft in existence sterile with your logic.

For example, why be a watchmaker?

After all, if the watch was intelligently designed, then, as you put it, 'abandon thinking and become lazy.'

Are you prepared to stand behind that mindset you're espousing?

 

[NGC 6712]

You just rendered every craft in existence sterile with your logic.

For example, why be a watchmaker?

After all, if the watch was intelligently designed, then, as you put it, 'abandon thinking and become lazy.'

Are you prepared to stand behind that mindset you're espousing?

Your analogy is silly. The watchmaker is the designer - we are talking about the inference of design. Once "design" has been inferred then investigation necessarily stops in regard to an origin.

When talking about an ID approach to science what I mentioned is exactly the outcome. You reach a point where you declare "it is intelligently designed therefore we can look no further". How is this a mischaracterisation?

 

[idscience]

If ID/IC were true, how would it keep science working, i.e. what is it's value to the SM?

Keep science working? Really? are you saying all science will stop working if ID turns out to be true? what does that have to do with IC. Are you saying with this subject change, you are not aware of any "proof" IC has been falsified ? It is ok if you don't know of any.

 

[Elendur]

Are you saying that not even an inference can be made from the DNA code, that there could be an intelligent causation? The only way is a closed mind.

I agree, completely deniying it would be to close your mind. But that's not what I'm saying.
I'm just not understanding how you can say that something needs to be designed just because it's complicated.

I've seen the "watchmaker argument" some times and it feels iffy;

We have a watch.
It's complicated and designed by us.
We have DNA.
It's more complicated and therefore also designed.

It is called, language, code, building plans, and blueprints for a reason. DNA is recognizable as such. The only source for this type of information is an intelligent mind.

The 7th post on this thread http://www.christianforums.com/t7645294/ is a peer reviewed paper on DNA code. It may not prove anything but to flatout dismiss intelligence as a possibility for this programming, can only be the result of bias against intelligence.

It's called language, code, building plans and blueprints because we call them so.
Just naming things won't give properties to them.

 

[idscience]

Of course it is. It basically is a case of throwing ones hands up and saying "Well that was intelligently designed so we can look no further".

You now I really blame the education system. Your regurgitating political statements? What is it that is so important, you would be looking for?

Could it be how something works, how it can be repaired, improved or altered? Nothing to do with common descent. Maybe medicine? nothing to do with something that takes millions of year to accomplish. Engineers are reverse engineering the flagellum right now and learning how to make more. There is a whole new nano technology industry that will help society in who knows how many ways. Does it matter how the flagellum came about originally? Maybe for someones idiology.

Maybe your talking about evolution science discarding junk DNA as useless remnants of the past, stalling disease research decades? Is that the kind of throwing up your hands your talking about.

It kills me when people parrot absurd ideas like they actually mean something to the real world.

By the way, Welcome to the forum.

 

[NGC 6712]

There is no source in nature that can produce programming, code, or language. DNA represents something outside itself, like language, and code.
.

DNA is not a language - it is a substitution cypher.

 

[idscience]

I'm just not understanding how you can say that something needs to be designed just because it's complicated.

I've seen the "watchmaker argument" some times and it feels iffy;
We have a watch.
It's complicated and designed by us.
We have DNA.
It's more complicated and therefore also designed.
It's called language, code, building plans and blueprints because we call them so.
Just naming things won't give properties to them.

That isn't entirely what I am trying to say. It's not just that it is complicated. A tornado is complicated, weather is complicated but not designed. They are self organizing. Programs, codes and building instructions represent something outside themselves and require for thought. The flagellum infers purpose because there is no reason for all those parts to be put together other than for what they do.

The watchmaker thing??? I an not a fan. I get the connection but a watch laying in a field is obviously out of place, and in an entirely different element.

The names given to the properties of DNA are not because they are convenient to do so. They are recognized as such by those in the industry who use them. they have the same properties. In DNA it is not the 4 letters that are important, it is their arrangement, not the alphabet but the sentences that are important. The error correcting, stops, signaling, and layers of regulation programming that all points to design and intelligence. Not to everyone. Not to anyone here it seems, but to SOME pretty smart guys... and me.

 

[NGC 6712]

Not to anyone here it seems, but to SOME pretty smart guys... and me.

But far more (and by far I mean vast majority) do not agree with the tiny fraction of ID proponents on this issue.

 

[Elendur]

That isn't entirely what I am trying to say. It's not just that it is complicated. A tornado is complicated, weather is complicated but not designed. They are self organizing. Programs, codes and building instructions represent something outside themselves and require for thought. The flagellum infers purpose because there is no reason for all those parts to be put together other than for what they do.

How can you claim design on one thing and not another?

I think I could understand better if I could see it broken down into logical steps.

The watchmaker thing??? I an not a fan. I get the connection but a watch laying in a field is obviously out of place, and in an entirely different element.

Ok then we agree, the watchmaker isn't a good analogy.

The names given to the properties of DNA are not because they are convenient to do so. They are recognized as such by those in the industry who use them. they have the same properties. In DNA it is not the 4 letters that are important, it is their arrangement, not the alphabet but the sentences that are important. The error correcting, stops, signaling, and layers of regulation programming that all points to design and intelligence. Not to everyone. Not to anyone here it seems, but to SOME pretty smart guys... and me.

I agree to it pointing to ID, but we can't be sure, can't we? Since we can't exclude pure chance it's also a possibility.

 

[idscience]

Dr. Ewert received his Ph.D. from the University of Georgia in 1976. He is a microbiologist, and operated a research laboratory at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia for almost twenty years. His research is in the immune system, viruses, and cellular biology, and is supported by National Institute of Health, National Science Foundation, and Department of Agriculture grants.

An Immunologist Explains Why the Immune System Isn't an Example of Darwinian Evolution
Audio Interview Pt1

The Intelligent Design of the Immune System

Audio Interview Pt2

 

[idscience]

How can you claim design on one thing and not another?
I think I could understand better if I could see it broken down into logical steps.

Ok then we agree, the watchmaker isn't a good analogy.

I agree to it pointing to ID, but we can't be sure, can't we? Since we can't exclude pure chance it's also a possibility.

Yes, we agree.

We cannot be sure no. There have been considerable experiments on the limits of random chance, and there seems to be problems. This is one reason evolutionary processes are tested by ID scientists. To find the limits and or falsify ID.

I am not saying ID has been proved. Both ID and common descent have reasons for inference. ID has problems, but so does common descent. In the video below starting @ 30:00 minutes defines possible, feasible, infeasible, probable, and impossible. It gets into the probability of a single cell origin. I am suspect of their calculations. Frankly I don't think that number is accurate. Even though I don't believe one did, I will concede that the numbers used for this are usually the outer extreme example.



Maybe you will find this video interesting, maybe not.

• Programming of Life (An exploration of microbiology, information science, and the origin of life.)

Programming of Life - YouTube​

This is 52 second clip from Craig Venter talking about the relationship beteen DNA and computer programming code.​

Craig Venter on Cell's Computer Software and Hardware on Vimeo​

 

[someguy14]

God wins. End of story.