Natural selection v Intelligent design

[Near]

The scientific method does not include trying to prove a negative. Ask yourself this: how is trying to prove your god does not exist any different from trying to prove Enki does not exist?

Point being, if you read my whole post...
Since it's the case that no one is really trying to prove that God doesn't exist, naturalists shouldn't say speak as if science is disproving ID or somehow winning, nor should it be said that within the scientific fields of research ID vs naturalistic evolution is occurring.

Methodological naturalism is a strategy for studying the world, by which scientists choose not to consider supernatural causes - even as a remote possibility. There are two main reasons for pursuing this strategy. First, some scientists believe that there is no supernatural: they begin with the assumption that God does not exist (see atheism) and that there is no life after death (see also spiritual world). Second, some scientists believe it is possible that supernatural causes (such as God and angels) may exist, but they assume that any supernatural action would be arbitrary or haphazard and therefore impossible to study systematically.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Methodological_naturalism

Science cares what the evidence shows and side discussions don't count for much.
With ID, there is no scientific definition of what it is and no test to determine if

The data (withing the so-called evidence) doesn't lead us to naturalism.

That can be said about the bible. Which is why we rely on evidence, and the evidence for Evolution vs Creation comes down hugely on the side of Evolution.

As said earlier, there is no scientific debate on Evolution vs Creation. You know, Evolution doesn't imply naturalism.

The battle is between those who want to teach children something with no merit, people who want to deny Gays the right to marry, people who think they have a given right to oppress others.

On what basis is naturalism true? So far you have provided no evidence to make the case for it, only assertions that such evidence actually exists.
Why would it matter if gays are denied the "right" to marry? In naturalism what rights are there? Don't be guilty of speciesism. If naturalism is true, we have the same rights as other animals; which would be whatever we decide. Right, in naturalism, aren't objectively found out there in the universe; they are made up.

As you say the existence of a god isn't based on proof, it's based on people telling you to believe. Whereas science is based on proof and learning.

Science doesn't tell us whether or not God exists. As some of the atheists have said here as well. Science also doesn't tell us if gays should have the right to marry, or if it's wrong to practice eugenics. Ethics does that.

And there is scientific data available to say how things came to be.

I'm still waiting for some type of link to a scientific article detailing how naturalism is true, or even more likely.
So far your faith and assertions are only as good as the next religious guy's.

 

[bhsmte]

Point being, if you read my whole post...
Since it's the case that no one is really trying to prove that God doesn't exist, naturalists shouldn't say speak as if science is disproving ID or somehow winning, nor should it be said that within the scientific fields of research ID vs naturalistic evolution is occurring.

Methodological naturalism is a strategy for studying the world, by which scientists choose not to consider supernatural causes - even as a remote possibility. There are two main reasons for pursuing this strategy. First, some scientists believe that there is no supernatural: they begin with the assumption that God does not exist (see atheism) and that there is no life after death (see also spiritual world). Second, some scientists believe it is possible that supernatural causes (such as God and angels) may exist, but they assume that any supernatural action would be arbitrary or haphazard and therefore impossible to study systematically.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Methodological_naturalism


The data (withing the so-called evidence) doesn't lead us to naturalism.


As said earlier, there is no scientific debate on Evolution vs Creation. You know, Evolution doesn't imply naturalism.


On what basis is naturalism true? So far you have provided no evidence to make the case for it, only assertions that such evidence actually exists.
Why would it matter if gays are denied the "right" to marry? In naturalism what rights are there? Don't be guilty of speciesism. If naturalism is true, we have the same rights as other animals; which would be whatever we decide. Right, in naturalism, aren't objectively found out there in the universe; they are made up.


Science doesn't tell us whether or not God exists. As some of the atheists have said here as well. Science also doesn't tell us if gays should have the right to marry, or if it's wrong to practice eugenics. Ethics does that.


I'm still waiting for some type of link to a scientific article detailing how naturalism is true, or even more likely.
So far your faith and assertions are only as good as the next religious guy's.

Where does the data (evidence) lead you?

 

[Larniavc]

Since it's the case that no one is really trying to prove that God doesn't exist, naturalists shouldn't say speak as if science is disproving ID or somehow winning, nor should it be said that within the scientific fields of research ID vs naturalistic evolution is occurring.

Point being is that there is no evidence for ID/creationism. It's simply an argument from ignorance: "we don't know how it could work, therefor God."

 

[Asyncritus]

Let me get this straight; a philosopher, who has no biology degree, is going to refute and prove the theory of evolution wrong?

So all philosophers are stupid, and unable to make any sort of scientific contribution, is that it?

Did you know that the letters PhD stand for Doctor of Philosophy?

So let's argue the case on its merits rather than intellectual snobbery, shall we?

Natural selection is a nonsense, and that is a fact that should be better known.

 

[bhsmte]

So all philosophers are stupid, and unable to make any sort of scientific contribution, is that it?

Did you know that the letters PhD stand for Doctor of Philosophy?

So let's argue the case on its merits rather than intellectual snobbery, shall we?

Natural selection is a nonsense, and that is a fact that should be better known.

If you are very sick and you go to ten specialists for opinions on the best course of treatment for your sickness and they all agree what the best course is, would you ignore their expert knowledge in their specific area (disease), because a single philosopher disagrees with them and this philosopher has no medical training?

You can say natural selection is nonsense all you want, if it makes you feel better. The reality is, there exists boatloads of evidence to support it and the folks that know more about it than anyone, agree with it almost unanimously.

But go ahead, pretend all these experts are stupid and all the evidence doesn't exist.

Merits:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

[pshun2404]

Point being is that there is no evidence for ID/creationism. It's simply an argument from ignorance: "we don't know how it could work, therefor God."

You have it backwards, it is "God created", how it works is what we find out over time. We explore and discover what He did. It is NOT, when we cannot or do not find out or have no better answer we say "God" (that would be an argument from ignorance)...

If there is design then it is equally plausible that there is a designing intelligence. If there are laws governing processes it is equally plausible there is one or more lawmakers (dead matter does not make laws it responds to them). If there are innate systems of highly complex information that instruct and do specific purposeful things that make other purposeful things according to specific designs that are inter-dependent on and with other specifically purposeful systems and things, then it is equally plausible to suggest there is a source of that information (information of this highly complex and instructional nature does not generate itself for no reason).

 

[Larniavc]

You have it backwards, it is "God created", how it works is what we find out over time.

What you describe is not science. You are starting with a conclusion that 'goddidit' and looking for data to agree with your conclusion and throwing out anything that does not fit with 'goddidit'.

By your method there is NO eventuality where 'goddidit' is false. You may as well stop looking for evidence because you already have a conclusion.

 

[pshun2404]

Again, as repeated many times, God is not falsifiable therefore God is not an issue science can have an opinion on.

Empirical - based on, concerned with or verifiable by, observation or experience

Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.

em·pir·i·cal [em-pir-i-kuh l] Show IPA

adjective

1.derived from, or guided by, experience or experiment.

2.depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, especially as in medicine.

3.provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

So we can see here that in fact empirical evidence does not rely on having to be demonstrated by the scientific method whatsoever, and that indeed God can be said to be proven to exist through empirical means. We hear what this God has said would take place and then witness (observe that it has)…we experience God personally and our experience with God has shown to us He is real and alive…God can be demonstrated in the transformation of others not yet saved…since we are guided by God and our experience with God is derived from God then God is revealed empirically.

God has spoken audibly to many throughout time (though I understand not you), He has revealed Himself in diverse forms to different people through out time (though I understand not you)....millions upon millions (even within differing faith communities) have placed their trust in Him and been changed (most for the better), and the pursuit of spiritual realities has changed the world for the better. Many, many have had personal relationships with this being and will die rather than recant (it would be like you being forced to deny he reality of your mom), He has given a wisdom that supersedes knowledge (though He encourages both).

Most materialists I have known are persons who are like being inside a small corner of an infinitely huge box with total and sole faith in their quite limited perceptual faculties and instrumentation they intelligently designed, and by experiments they always and only intelligently engineer. They, having no possible (not just improbable) way of knowing there even is an outside or beyond the box (except perhaps SOME theoretical quantum physicists) yet make assertive assumption-based declarations of that which IS or MAY BE outside of their box.

The scientific method is not the end all of what is or is not...its great, I was trained in it and relied on it in my vocation for years (it even holds the basis of true critical thinking as opposed to thinking up ever newer criticisms)...it has its limitations. So NO one cannot prove or disprove God by the scientific method and no one EVER will by this means...however that does not mean God is not! Just as it cannot prove why I prefer violet over true purple or even why the kettle on my stove is boiling.

Paul

 

[pshun2404]

To know there is no God one would have to know and experience all things, because God could be within an area that they do not know or in which they have not experienced. Even if one were to have all the knowledge and experience of 50% of the Britannica, that would mean that there is 50% they cannot know nor have experienced. So to know God is not, one has to know all.

To know there is no God, one would have to be in all places simultaneously because God could have or has revealed Himself in a place where you are not (even to someone now, somewhere else).

You would have to have known all and been everywhere during all of the past, the present, and in all possible futures in case God was revealing Himself when you were not.

Finally, you would have to be aware of all that which is and/or has been known or experienced by all individuals of all times, in case He had revealed Himself to only certain peoples, at certain times, but not you.

Now this is rational and logical but only the tip of the iceberg but it should suffice…

So in effect, to know there is no God, you would have to be omniscient, omnipresent, and eternal, and able to experience the experience of all others, for any who may be able to receive illumination or revelation that God is. So to believe with conviction that there is no God, one then has to be exactly what is called God.

So for a person who does not know if there is a God there is only one rational position...true agnosticism, which says there could be or might be but I just do not know or have not seen any reason to believe. Atheism on the other hand is irrational because it assumes something it cannot know believing any and all who believe otherwise are either deluded, lying, or superstitious. Does this mean ALL who believe in God really truly know God? No! Some are merely mentally assenting to the belief but others...ah, the many others...they know God and thus cannot deny His existence no matter how much they are pressured, tortured, or mocked. Histories empirical witness demonstrates this.

Paul

 

[pshun2404]

What you describe is not science. You are starting with a conclusion that 'goddidit' and looking for data to agree with your conclusion and throwing out anything that does not fit with 'goddidit'.

By your method there is NO eventuality where 'goddidit' is false. You may as well stop looking for evidence because you already have a conclusion.

Why did you ignore the rest of my post? Do you think it is not correct or rational? Do you think your solution answers these realities? Your confused misunderstanding of spiritual realities and subsequent default to accusation make it false? I don't!

If there is design then it is equally plausible that there is a designing intelligence. If there are laws governing processes it is equally plausible there is one or more lawmakers (dead matter does not make laws it responds to them). If there are innate systems of highly complex information that instruct and do specific purposeful things that make other purposeful things according to specific designs that are inter-dependent on and with other specifically purposeful systems and things, then it is equally plausible to suggest there is a source of that information (information of this highly complex and instructional nature does not generate itself for no reason).

Is it really more well thought out to just assume "naturdidit"? Lol! Now that's a riot...

 

[pshun2404]

You have heard it said that “If you put enough monkeys with typewriters in room, if given enough time they would produce Shakespare”

There are 169,541 characters in Hamlet….now let’s be satisfied with just the letters in sequence…and let’s assume 1000 monkeys in a room with no limitation as to time….

The standard typewriter has 47 keys, therefore just to come up with “hamlet” (just one word) the odds for each letter are 1 in 47, so for the correct 6 letter arrangement by chance we calculate 47 x 47 x 47 x 47 x 47 x 47….just for one word….

There is thus a 1 in 10,779,215,329 chance that any monkey could produce just this one word.

Now calculating the 1 in 47 for each of the 169,571 characters in the play is 1 in 47 to the 169,571st power (we talking a number many times larger than a googolplex which is 1 in 10 with hundred zeros following)

Now know this…Hamlet is miniscule and far less complex in comparison to your own one body’s DNA (not counting its inter-dependency on all other subsystems and enzymes and organelles and so on)….now multiply these odds by the millions of people, and millions of other life forms that ever lived on just the earth, and then multiply by all their inter-dependencies….do you know what this means mathematically????? It means it is not possible in a Universe only 16 billion years old..."naturdidnltdoit"! Now that's a myth like the dollar came from the tooth fairy...

 

[Near]

Where does the data (evidence) lead you?

Speaking of scientific discoveries, they lead me to understand the way things currently work. For example, the laws of thermodynamics, how cells go through mitosis, and the difference between plant cells and animal cells... and so on.
They don't lead me to make claims about what actually happened 4 billions years ago. For that reason, we shouldn't make claims as to what actually happened 4 billion years ago citing that modern science supports naturalism, because no scientific data have been brought forth making the positive claim that naturalism is true. Any such claims are based in faith, and you and I are free to say what we believe. So atheists should stop thinking that science is actually trying to further prove naturalism when it's not, because science isn't concerned with disproving God OR proving naturalism.

Point being is that there is no evidence for ID/creationism. It's simply an argument from ignorance: "we don't know how it could work, therefor God."

Actually, I'm not offering an argument when I say God created the world. I'm sharing my faith. Likewise when an atheist says God did not create the universe, he's making a faith-based claim, not a scientific one.
I'm also not saying, "I don't know how the universe works, therefore God did it". I don't come to the belief that God created the universe based on science, and atheists don't come to a belief in naturalism based on science, because science doesn't deal with God.
What I will say is, I don't know how everything in the universe works, there's more to learn about how cells work, and about physics, and many other things. People ought to dig deeper, but humanity isn't qualified to say that we are justified in the belief that naturalism is true, for if naturalism were true, we would have no revelation of it's truth. Unless of course, one were able to create a time machine and actually observe how the universe, or life, actually came about.
Are you actually claiming that I'm making up some God to fill in my gaps of scientific knowledge?

 

[bhsmte]

Speaking of scientific discoveries, they lead me to understand the way things currently work. For example, the laws of thermodynamics, how cells go through mitosis, and the difference between plant cells and animal cells... and so on.
They don't lead me to make claims about what actually happened 4 billions years ago. For that reason, we shouldn't make claims as to what actually happened 4 billion years ago citing that modern science supports naturalism, because no scientific data have been brought forth making the positive claim that naturalism is true. Any such claims are based in faith, and you and I are free to say what we believe. So atheists should stop thinking that science is actually trying to further prove naturalism when it's not, because science isn't concerned with disproving God OR proving naturalism.


Actually, I'm not offering an argument when I say God created the world. I'm sharing my faith. Likewise when an atheist says God did not create the universe, he's making a faith-based claim, not a scientific one.
I'm also not saying, "I don't know how the universe works, therefore God did it". I don't come to the belief that God created the universe based on science, and atheists don't come to a belief in naturalism based on science, because science doesn't deal with God.
What I will say is, I don't know how everything in the universe works, there's more to learn about how cells work, and about physics, and many other things. People ought to dig deeper, but humanity isn't qualified to say that we are justified in the belief that naturalism is true, for if naturalism were true, we would have no revelation of it's truth. Unless of course, one were able to create a time machine and actually observe how the universe, or life, actually came about.
Are you actually claiming that I'm making up some God to fill in my gaps of scientific knowledge?

I agree.

Science is interested in understanding what can be observed and tested.

And, correct, science is not trying to disprove a God or prove naturalism, it just seeks and discovers.

 

[Near]

I agree.
Science is interested in understanding what can be observed and tested.
And, correct, science is not trying to disprove a God or prove naturalism, it just seeks and discovers.

That's why a christian microbiologist and an atheist microbiologist can work together and produce results. There's no bickering about whether or not God is the ultimate source of the universe, or if there is no God. It's a discussion outside of science. It's a discussion in Metaphysics.

 

[paulm50]

I showed above.natural selection is a nonsense.

Your approach to how Natural Selection works is wrong, it exposes a real lack of knowledge.

 

[paulm50]

Darwin didn't have any solid evidence for natural selection when he first made his theory. And thats what it was an unproven hypothesis. Many people believed that the evidence pointed to design in nature. Darwin's theory suggested a new idea of how creatures were made that opposed the creation idea. It was based on the limited variations found in micro evolution of animals within their kinds. Even in Darwin's day people knew there were limitations to how much an animal could vary from its original makeup through artificial breeding. Darwin was a pigeon breeder himself. But there was no evidence for macro evolution where the same mechanisms of micro evolution could be extended to create new kinds of animals.

True, Darwin had a theory. Since then the theory has been proven.

 

[Asyncritus]

If you are very sick and you go to ten specialists for opinions on the best course of treatment for your sickness and they all agree what the best course is, would you ignore their expert knowledge in their specific area (disease), because a single philosopher disagrees with them and this philosopher has no medical training?

You can say natural selection is nonsense all you want, if it makes you feel better. The reality is, there exists boatloads of evidence to support it and the folks that know more about it than anyone, agree with it almost unanimously.

But go ahead, pretend all these experts are stupid and all the evidence doesn't exist.

Merits:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Now let's argue the case on its merits.

Stove says that natural selection, which wipes out those incapable of surviving for whatever reason (like weakness, disease etc etc) should, if it was genuinely working, wipe out the females and the young.

That is correct and entirely logical.

Therefore, natural selection is a nonsense, and so is evolution which depends on it.

Therefore, evolution cannot take place, since no species could last for more than one generation.

How about that?

 

[Asyncritus]

True, Darwin had a theory. Since then the theory has been proven.

More nonsense.

Darwin hadn't got the brain to see what David Stove is saying. Neither do all these modern evolutionists.

You can't see it either, apparently, but let me reiterate:

Natural selection, Darwin's pet theory, should, according to Darwin's own admission, 'rigidly weed out' those that are too weak, diseased, whatever.

Therefore, the females and the young of any species should be wiped out by the said natural selection.

Therefore, no species could survive for more than one generation.

Therefore, since all these zillion or more species which exist nowadays, should all have been wiped out a long time ago, are still here, then natural selection isn't working, and has never worked either.

Therefore, evolution hasn't happened, isn't happening, and will never happen.

So where do you go from there?

 

[paulm50]

That's why a christian microbiologist and an atheist microbiologist can work together and produce results. There's no bickering about whether or not God is the ultimate source of the universe, or if there is no God. It's a discussion outside of science. It's a discussion in Metaphysics.

There is no bickering, because one side says it doesn't know what created the Big Bang and the other says everything was created 6,000 years ago.

 

[paulm50]

Point being, if you read my whole post...
Since it's the case that no one is really trying to prove that God doesn't exist, naturalists shouldn't say speak as if science is disproving ID or somehow winning, nor should it be said that within the scientific fields of research ID vs naturalistic evolution is occurring.

The established proof all points to evolution via natural selection. No evidence points to a god designer.

Not a jot points to the Genesis version and a mountain of evidence points out where it's wrong.