unintelligent design.

[Jerry Smith]

Perhaps you should start a thread to specifically refute theistic evolutionary theory?

I wouldn't want to do that. I have no problem with theistic evolution. It conforms to the evidence just as well as purely materialistic evolution. The "theistic" part isn't from science, only the "evolution" part is, but I don't have a problem with non-scientific ideas about origins (I just don't share them).

What I am refuting here is the argument that the evidence for evolution isn't evidence for evolution because the "common designer" hypothesis can also be stretched to accomodate it.

In an evolved system, structure must be modified from (and therefore homologous to) ancestral structures primarily. Adaptation to new functions is secondary. That's why the bone struture of a bat's wing is more similar to the bone structure of a mouse's forelimb than it is to the bone structure of a bird's wing. That is evidence of common ancestry, and only of common ancestry..

 

[Plan 9]

erm...the evidence for evolution isn't evidence for evolution...is that a typo or am I too tired to follow you?

 

[Jerry Smith]

There is a common argument that the evidence for evolution from homologous structures is really evidence for special creation (under the design principle of "similar structures for similar functions," or under the concept of "common design instead of common ancestor". This argument fails for the reasons set out in by chickenman and myself in this thread.

 

[Plan 9]

I see.
Theistic evolution does strongly imply that flora and fauna will turn out basically the way their Creator intended. Isn't that intelligent design in a general sense?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Yes, Plan 9, in a (very) general sense...

 

[Plan 9]

I am a Christian and do believe that the creation story in Genesis is correct in the metaphorical sense. The proponant of theistic evolution who is best known was an archeologist and Jesuit priest named Tellihard De Chardin (and I doubt if I've spelled that name correctly).
This is why I feel that this ongoing debate doesn't cover enough viewpoints.
Also, there MAY be more variation in Creationist belief than you are addressing...
The views of Gosse are still very popular, although I doubt that most Creationists know that he originated them, because none of the material I have read so far credits his book, "Omphallos" (don't fell good about the spelling of that either, but it's greek for "navel").
My problem is that I may be a good illustration for the adage that a little learning is a dangerous thing.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Plan, I look at this, in Gould's words (or my mangled version of them), as "separate magesteria." Science provides explanations of the natural world through natural explanations. I don't get too much into the side of it where one interpets the findings of science in terms of a particular hermeneutic. I just point out that it isn't sensible to deny the findings of science because of a personal interpretation of the Bible..

 

[Plan 9]

I agree! I read Gould, too, although probably not as extensively as you do.
You dabble in hermeneutics and the correct interpretation of Hebrew. I read all your posts, Jerry and they're very good.
Think of it as philosophy, which is the mother of both science and theology.
Your arguements sometimes do fail because you don't understand the underlying philosphy of your opponents.
I first learned the Scientific Method in my intro to phil class and it's because I understand it that I can follow most of your arguments.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Your arguements sometimes do fail because you don't understand the underlying philosphy of your opponents.

I'd be happy to be corrected. I imagine that some of my opponents have an underlying philosophy that, unfortunately, forces them to a kind of literal understanding of Genesis that requires them to deny the science of evolution. It may be my own failing, but I cannot see how the same underlying philosophy does not force them to read the literal text of the Bible to mean that slavery is acceptable, that the earth does not move and may or may not rest on pillars or foundations, etc.. I think what it may be in at least some cases is a simple double standard. Perhaps I am wrong.

 

[Plan 9]

Dr. Suzette Haden Elgin, who is an applied Psycho-Linguist points out that you can talk to anyone about anything if you assume for the purpose of the conversation only, that what they are saying is true.
So what you do is get a book or find a website by a creationist who is sincere and knows some science and read it with that in mind.
Do not think about slavery or a still earth or anything.
Jerry, you are a great, empathetic guy. Forget that the subject is important to you and treat it like you would if you were just shooting the bull with someone who has some odd, but interesting belief that is entertaining.
I've very much enjoyed my talks with people who believe in bigfoot and the books are fun, too! I have nothing emotionally invested in bigfoot.
Someone on the Hovind thread compared him to L. Ron Hubbard, but there is NO comparison. Hubbard was a fascinating individual; a rascal who I cannot help but admire on some level. But the reason why it's easy for me to do that, is that I think of him as a science fiction writer first.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by chickenman
Design implies function or purpose.

homology in non coding regions and processed pseudogenes can therefore not be due to design, because they are functionless (unless you can show that every base pair that is shared between humans and chimpanzees confers function)

That only proves that you think they are functionless. You don't KNOW any such thing, therefore your "proof" is only a reflection of your lack of knowledge, not of lack of design.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

Evolution predicts all of these features with the single economical theory of descent with modification.

That's a fascinating method of determining if a theory is true. If it's cheap, it must be.

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

It does not have to be stretched or changed to accomodate the data.

Considering the fact that evolution only exists because it is stretched, folded and mutilated to compensate for every new contradiction, that's about the funniest thing I've ever heard you say.

Do you make this stuff up or does someone write your material?

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

By the way, which "design principles" explain the broken vitamin C gene?

Been there, done that. If you haven't learned the answer to this by now, you never will.

 

[Morat]

That only proves that you think they are functionless. You don't KNOW any such thing, therefore your "proof" is only a reflection of your lack of knowledge, not of lack of design.

  Nick, honey bunny, you are aware that broken and turned off genes are somewhat easy to spot, right?

 Been there, done that. If you haven't learned the answer to this by now, you never will.

   God prefers his chosen people to get scurvy? God wished to discourage long ocean trips?

   Oh! It was to encourage fruit consumption (except apples).

 

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

That is evidence of common ancestry, and only of common ancestry..

I get it now. It would be impossible for an omnipotent being to create things that way.

 

[Morat]

  Not impossible. But in general, one would expect God to be a better engineer.

  If you want to argue for an incompetent designer fudging off other's work, well...okay.

 

 

[Jerry Smith]

I get it now. It would be impossible for an omnipotent being to create things that way.

You speak of what is possible: i.e. what the human mind can conceive of to harmonize the evidence with the theory. I speak of what actually does support a theory vs what the theory can be stretched to accomodate. Apples & oranges...

 

[Jerry Smith]

God prefers his chosen people to get scurvy? God wished to discourage long ocean trips?

No, he must have something else in mind. Something that explains why we share the broken gene with chimpanzees, but not with other mammals. He must have posted it in a thread that I didn't read, but I'm sure that it derives naturally from the common designer hypothesis and doesn't have to be posited ad-hoc in order to explain something that evolution not only explains but predicts based on the well understood principle of inheritance of traits.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Considering the fact that evolution only exists because it is stretched, folded and mutilated to compensate for every new contradiction, that's about the funniest thing I've ever heard you say.

Great, I'm waiting on you to point out some of these contradictions and the stretching, folding and mutilation of evolutionary theory that compensates for them. You can take your time. I'll check back tomorrow to see your list.

 

[Jerry Smith]

js: Evolution predicts all of these features with the single economical theory of descent with modification.


np: That's a fascinating method of determining if a theory is true. If it's cheap, it must be.

You are almost right - an economical theory that explains diverse phenomena using fundamental causes is preferred over a clumsy hodge-podge of theories that each explain one facet of a system. The closer your theory gets to the fundamental nature of the system the more data about the system it will predict or describe.

Of course, here we are talking about prediction in the scientific sense, not about accomodation. And we are talking about explanation in the scientific sense (something that adds understanding about the workings of the system), not explanation in the common-designer sense ("God did it" - an explanation that carries about as much information about the system as "it exists"). So the hypothesis of special creation/design fails on more than just its lack of economy, yes.

 

[Morat]

  God explains everything, predicts nothing, and is utterly useless.

   So, Nick..here's a quick question. I have a turtle, an alligator, and a bird. All three share proteins in common. I need to know which two's proteins are most alike.

   What would "Common design" predict?