Intelligent Design

KerrMetric · Mar 19, 2006

The Lady Kate said:
So the existence of flaws doesn't falsify ID, rather, in indicates the possibility of an intelligent, but possibly incompetent designer...

Which brings us back to the question... how does one falsify ID?

It will also drive the fundamentalists crazy by implying God is somewhat of an incompetent.

shinbits · Mar 19, 2006

The Lady Kate said:
So the existence of flaws doesn't falsify ID, rather, in indicates the possibility of an intelligent, but possibly incompetent designer...

Which brings us back to the question... how does one falsify ID?

By finding enough in nature to suggest that things came into existence through random process. If you can find enough randomness in nature, and also show an organism or natural system being developed through a random process, that would falsify it.

gluadys · Mar 19, 2006

shinbits said:
By finding enough in nature to suggest that things came into existence through random process. If you can find enough randomness in nature, and also show an organism or natural system being developed through a random process, that would falsify it.

Well, science doesn't suggest that organisms developed through a random process. It theorizes that new organisms developed through evolution, and evolution is not a random process.

Therefore if you falsified ID in this way, you would also falsify evolution. What theory would be left to fall back on?

The Lady Kate · Mar 19, 2006

shinbits said:
By finding enough in nature to suggest that things came into existence through random process.

"Finding enough"? ID is based solely on things we don't know? God-of-the-Gaps theology under a new name.

If you can find enough randomness in nature, and also show an organism or natural system being developed through a random process, that would falsify it.

You mean like an unintelligent algorhythmic process which can develop "designs" from randomness?

Done... natural selection.

ID is the first scientific theory that was falsified hundreds of years before its inception.

shinbits · Mar 19, 2006

The Lady Kate said:
"Finding enough"? ID is based solely on things we don't know? God-of-the-Gaps theology under a new name.

I keep hearing about this "gap" theory. What is it?

You mean like an unintelligent algorhythmic process which can develop "designs" from randomness?[

Done... natural selection.

Wow.

Many times when I've said it's no logical that an entire planet and all it's ecosystems and species with complex DNA, biological functions, living patterns like ants that build complex nests and work togehter even though there are many thousands of them, that this couldn't possibly have developed randomly---

And someone always says, "You obviously don't understand natural selection. If you did, you'd know that it isn't random."

Now you say natural selection is random? Evolutionists need to sit down and figure which one they'll stick to.

Natural selection isn't a fact anyway, it's just a belief.

Marshall Janzen · Mar 19, 2006

shinbits said:
Now you say natural selection is random?

No, she said that natural selection is "an unintelligent algorithmic process which can develop 'designs' from randomness".

The randomness is in mutations (and environmental factors). But natural selection itself is not random, any more than gravity randomly selects whether things fall up or down.

KerrMetric · Mar 19, 2006

Does anyone railing against evolution know where the actual random element to evolution really resides?

Its when you have sex with your mate and the the zygote is formed. That is where the randomness is - it's in mating.

The environment does not randomly imprint itself on the genome. The natural selection part is anything but random.

The Lady Kate · Mar 19, 2006

shinbits said:
I keep hearing about this "gap" theory. What is it?

God-of-the-Gaps (not to be confused withthe GAP theory of Creation) is basically any attempt to shoehorn "Proof" of God's existence into any natural phenomena we cannot fully understand.

For example, thousands of years ago, people believed that Earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, and most other natural disasters were caused by the wrath of someone's god, because they couldn't understand what they were and how they worked... now we know differently.

Your definition of ID more or less states that a "God" (i.e. supernatural designer who shall remain nameless with a wink and a nod to fundamentalists) is plausible only because we have not yet (and in science, the key word is always "yet") gathered enough evidence to prove anything else.

Meanwhile, ID has gathered no data on its own, offers no experiments, makes no predictions. It's a redressing of "We don't understand this... it must be God!"

The problem is that ignorance is never "proof" of anything except ignorance.

Wow.

Many times when I've said it's no logical that an entire planet and all it's ecosystems and species with complex DNA, biological functions, living patterns like ants that build complex nests and work togehter even though there are many thousands of them, that this couldn't possibly have developed randomly---

Incredulity is not the same as logic. Things are true regardless of whether or not you think they are possible.

And someone always says, "You obviously don't understand natural selection. If you did, you'd know that it isn't random."

Now you say natural selection is random? Evolutionists need to sit down and figure which one they'll stick to.

No, you need to sit down and pay attention. Natural selection is a non-random process working with random materials. Mutations are random, natural selection is not.

Natural selection isn't a fact anyway, it's just a belief.

Care to substantiate this, or is this only your own belief?

random_guy · Mar 19, 2006

shinbits said:
Wow.

Many times when I've said it's no logical that an entire planet and all it's ecosystems and species with complex DNA, biological functions, living patterns like ants that build complex nests and work togehter even though there are many thousands of them, that this couldn't possibly have developed randomly---

And someone always says, "You obviously don't understand natural selection. If you did, you'd know that it isn't random."

Now you say natural selection is random? Evolutionists need to sit down and figure which one they'll stick to.

Natural selection isn't a fact anyway, it's just a belief.

Basically, you're arguing, "It too complex, therefore God!" I'm sure that'll hold up well in science. The funniest part of this post, though, is the idea that natural selection is just a belief. The idea that some things are better suited for their environment are more likely to survive than those that aren't is just a belief. No such facts like, I don't know, antibotic resistance, to back it up.

shinbits · Mar 19, 2006

random_guy said:
Basically, you're arguing, "It too complex, therefore God!"

No. I'm not.

I do believe that, but that's NOT what I said in that post. I said, that when I use that argument, evolutionists say, "Oh, it's not random." Now we have an evolutionist that says it is.

All I was saying is pick one.

The idea that some things are better suited for their environment are more likely to survive than those that aren't is just a belief.

That part, I fully believe. It's when natural selection is used to say, that only the strongest, fastest, and best survive. That is only a belief. Certainly weaker creatures in a population do survive, and the strongest in a population do die. The fastest gazelle doesn't always live, and the slowest doesn't always die. It's largely a matter of luck.

KerrMetric · Mar 19, 2006

shinbits said:
I said, that when I use that argument, evolutionists say, "Oh, it's not random." Now we have an evolutionist that says it is.

No you misread.

notto · Mar 19, 2006

shinbits said:
That part, I fully believe. It's when natural selection is used to say, that only the strongest, fastest, and best survive. That is only a belief. Certainly weaker creatures in a population do survive, and the strongest in a population do die. The fastest gazelle doesn't always live, and the slowest doesn't always die. It's largely a matter of luck.

The same can't be said about things like malaria. It certainly is not a matter of luck who survives a disease like that.

You have some strange ideas about what the theory of evolution is. You really should study up on the subject with a good book.

Evolution of populations is not random. The overall success of a population is certainly not a matter of luck.

Do you really think that overall the fastest gazelles will not escape more often than the slowest? If you do, then you are certainly in a state of denial that nobody will be able to rescue you from.

random_guy · Mar 19, 2006

shinbits said:
No. I'm not.

I do believe that, but that's NOT what I said in that post. I said, that when I use that argument, evolutionists say, "Oh, it's not random." Now we have an evolutionist that says it is.

All I was saying is pick one.

Actually, I think you're misunderstanding what people have put. Creationists argue that random processes can not create designs. They keep forgetting that natural selection is not random. Lady Kate was pointing out that Creationists keep forgetting about natural selection, which develops designs from a a random process (mutations). Natural selection is not random, but it acts on a random process.

That part, I fully believe. It's when natural selection is used to say, that only the strongest, fastest, and best survive. That is only a belief. Certainly weaker creatures in a population do survive, and the strongest in a population do die. The fastest gazelle doesn't always live, and the slowest doesn't always die. It's largely a matter of luck.

Natural selection states that some creatures are better suited for survival their environment than others, and those better suited will more likely survive. Again, it all depends on the environment. Strength and endurance means nothing if a disease can wipe you out (again, see malaria and sickle cell anemia). You're using outdated terms and ideas to fight modern evolutionary theory.

shinbits · Mar 19, 2006

notto said:
The same can't be said about things like malaria. It certainly is not a matter of luck who survives a disease like that.

But there are many, many other diseases, each of which some may survive, some not. The Black Plague is one. The survivors of the plague could only rely on luck---if they were lucky enough to get medicine, lucky enough to avoid it, or lucky enough to come out of it alive, if they were infected. Consider also small pox, and survivors of the flu. I've had the flu before, and I survived. Others have had the flu, and died. Consider also, that many strains of the flu come out. Who gets and dies, or who doesn't get it, or who gets it and survives is luck.

And again, keep in mind that there are many other types of disease. And let's not forget natural disasters.

It's purely luck who survives.

notto said:
Evolution of populations is not random.

Aren't mutations random?

notto said:
Do you really think that overall the fastest gazelles will not escape more often than the slowest?

Yes, the fastest will escape more often then the slowest. But there are too many variables, such disease and natural distasters, as well as just being in the wrong place at the wrong time, for "natural selection" to be any sort of rule. That's why it is just a belief.

Does that make sense?

rmwilliamsll · Mar 19, 2006

The Black Plague is one. The survivors of the plague could only rely on luck

maybe not entirely.
google CD4 black plague HIV or read:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1511/is_n6_v18/ai_19447788

Aren't mutations random?

yes but evolution does not equal mutations. it is mutations passed through the filter of natural selection which is not random but biased towards fitting a population better into an ecological niche over time and changing conditions..

gluadys · Mar 19, 2006

shinbits said:
That part, I fully believe. It's when natural selection is used to say, that only the strongest, fastest, and best survive. That is only a belief. Certainly weaker creatures in a population do survive, and the strongest in a population do die. The fastest gazelle doesn't always live, and the slowest doesn't always die. It's largely a matter of luck.

I don't know if that used to be said or not (sounds like Spencer's "survival of the fittest" which is not actually a true description of natural selection), but it is certainly not the understanding of evolution presented by Darwin or used today.

Yes, by chance, the fastest gazelle may not live to reproduce and by chance the slowest may live to reproduce. But you are avoiding the fact that natural selection describes statistical results, not individual results. Take the 20% of the gazelle population that can run faster that the average gazelle, and the 20% of the gazelle population whose speed is slower than that of the average gazelle.

What proportion of the fastest group survive to reproduce? What proportion of their offspring survive to reproduce? What proportion of the slowest group survive to reproduce? What proportion of their offspring survive to repoduce?

The fastest gazelle may die, the slowest live, but it is still highly probable that the fastest group of gazelles will produce more offspring than the slowest group of gazelles (because more of them have survived to and through reproductive age), and that the differential reproductive success will continue over many generations until the limit of gazelle speed is reached.

That is natural selection and it is not random.

gluadys · Mar 19, 2006

shinbits said:
But there are many, many other diseases, each of which some may survive, some not. The Black Plague is one. The survivors of the plague could only rely on luck---if they were lucky enough to get medicine, lucky enough to avoid it, or lucky enough to come out of it alive, if they were infected.

Getting medicine is not usually a matter of luck. It is a matter of being able to afford it. The distribution of medicine is not random. It follows closely the distribution of wealth.

Avoiding it is also not dependent solely on luck. It can be. A country peasant living well inland was less likely to encounter the plague than an urban beggar child squatting near a port.

But the beggar child has no option for moving to a healthier clime, while an aristocratic or wealthy merchant's family did. So again, there is a partial non-random pattern to avoidance.

And for those who are infected? Why do you say it is purely a matter of luck? Differences in diet, in hygiene, in housing, in general health and in natural resistance to the infection are all factors that would influence survival. This is not pure luck.

Consider also small pox, and survivors of the flu. I've had the flu before, and I survived. Others have had the flu, and died. Consider also, that many strains of the flu come out. Who gets and dies, or who doesn't get it, or who gets it and survives is luck.

Do some statistical analysis before you claim it is only luck. You may find that it is actually natural selection. Though among humans there is probably a high degree of socio-economic selection.

Aren't mutations random?

Yes, but mutations are not evolution. They are only fuel for evolution.

Yes, the fastest will escape more often then the slowest. But there are too many variables, such disease and natural distasters, as well as just being in the wrong place at the wrong time, for "natural selection" to be any sort of rule. That's why it is just a belief.

This does not show that natural selection is "just a belief". It shows that natural selection is not the only operative factor. And that is something that science readily grants. Natural selection plays a big role in evolution, but it does not account for 100% of evolution. Non-selective evolution is called "genetic drift". In some circumstances, it can be a more important factor than natural selection.

shinbits · Mar 19, 2006

gluadys said:
Getting medicine is not usually a matter of luck. It is a matter of being able to afford it. The distribution of medicine is not random. It follows closely the distribution of wealth.

At the time of the Plague, if you could afford medicine, you were lucky.

Avoiding it is also not dependent solely on luck. It can be. A country peasant living well inland was less likely to encounter the plague than an urban beggar child squatting near a port.

This is not soley luck, but luck was still big part. Remember, I never said it was only luck; I said it was largely a matter of luck.

But the beggar child has no option for moving to a healthier clime, while an aristocratic or wealthy merchant's family did. So again, there is a partial non-random pattern to avoidance.

Wasn't the child born to an aristocrat lucky?

[uote=]And for those who are infected? Why do you say it is purely a matter of luck? Differences in diet, in hygiene, in housing, in general health and in natural resistance to the infection are all factors that would influence survival. This is not pure luck. [/quote]
It's not pure luck, and I never said it was. Luck is a big factor.

Those who are able to afford a good diet and good housing most likely worked for it; that wouldn't be luck. But for children born to them it would be; or a woman chosen to be a bride to a succesful man because of beauty, is lucky to be born that way, or lucky to be in circumstances where she could eat properly, stay healthy, and maintain her beauty.

It's not all luck, but much of it is.

Yes, but mutations are not evolution. They are only fuel for evolution.

So evolution is fueled on luck?

This does not show that natural selection is "just a belief".

If you consider just how much is luck, it does.

random_guy · Mar 19, 2006

shinbits said:
At the time of the Plague, if you could afford medicine, you were lucky.

This is not soley luck, but luck was still big part. Remember, I never said it was only luck; I said it was largely a matter of luck.

Wasn't the child born to an aristocrat lucky? It's not pure luck, and I never said it was. Luck is a big factor.

Those who are able to afford a good diet and good housing most likely worked for it; that wouldn't be luck. But for children born to them it would be; or a woman chosen to be a bride to a succesful man because of beauty, is lucky to be born that way, or lucky to be in circumstances where she could eat properly, stay healthy, and maintain her beauty.

It's not all luck, but much of it is.

So evolution is fueled on luck?

If you consider just how much is luck, it does.

lol, so now your argument is evolution is just luck based because of a few examples? The next question is, so what? What if there is a degree of luck involved? How does that invalidate the theory/prove ID? Remember, this thread was whether ID is science, and disproving evolution does nothing for ID.

Dannager · Mar 19, 2006

shinbits, imagine it this way: You have thirty dice, all six-sided. You roll them. This is mutation. Then you remove everything but the fours. This is natural selection. The end result is that you are left with a relatively expected number of fours. This is evolution.

Intelligent Design

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Legend

The Lady Kate

Guest

Well-Known Member

Formerly known as Mercury

Well-Known Member

The Lady Kate

Guest

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Legend

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

avid reader

Legend

Legend

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Back in Town

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency