Which Came First?

[philadiddle]

Before we get too much further there's a question I need to get answered. Why does ID have to challenge evolution and abiogenesis? Couldn't evolution and abiogenesis be the mechanisms that the intelligent designer used? If evolution is so unlikely at times, couldn't the presence of an intelligent designer overcome this?

You're kidding me right?? All this criticism you have levied against Meyer and ID and you don't understand what it is. That is very unscientific behavior. What would you say to a YEC if they told you they never took the time to understand what common descent was. Please take the time to read and understand what it is. I will then be glad to debate, discuss and answer questions, but any responses run the risk of more cross talk. You still may not agree but at least you can genuinely discuss the pros and cons.

Maybe you could refer me to some specific articles. I clicked a few and they didn't seem to be related to our discussion.

There is no evidence that abiogenesis occurred via natural processes not on earth or in space. The evidence is building that we are, in fact, plain and simply a one shot deal in the universe.

To say that we are the only life in the universe is pure speculation.

We have building evidence that abiogenesis is not a product of necessity or chance.

What do you mean?

What do you believe was uncaused?

The release of energy by radioactive isotopes is not only random, but appears to be uncaused. There is no cause for the energy to release when it does, as opposed to any time before or after.

 

[shernren]

You do make some interesting points, OC, I'm glad to see a thinking IDer around here. Makes life interesting.

But I think you need to think a bit more carefully about just what you think science is and why. Take for example:

You have been listening to one side exclusively, I presume. Explanations for historical natural events are often not falsifiable. Plausible explanations are given and weighed. The best explanation is usually accepted. For example, no experiment can be done based on the current theories of why the Cambrian Explosion occurred. Good ideas and theories are provided. Some geological evidence is verifiable and corroborates some of the assumptions in the theories. In the end we have no idea and can not prove why the Cambrian Explosion occurred. We will never really know. It is still science to seek and understand the Cambrian Explosion. ID does make predictions in the same manner an argument for a theory of why the Cambrian Explosion occurred.

On the one hand, in blue, you talk about how historical explanations and theories are not falsifiable. Mind you, I think that by itself that might be a reasonable position. But then you go on to say that ID makes predictions (presumably about why the Cambrian Explosion occurred - I couldn't quite parse your sentence).

A theory that makes predictions is a falsifiable theory. Whether or not falsifiability itself is a useful criterion (which some debate), we can say that falsifiability and predictive power do come hand in hand. If ID predicts, for (a very silly) example, that all life forms should be purple, then ID is falsifiable upon the discovery of a non-purple life-form.

So, what predictions does ID theory make? Don't ask me to buy books please - I'm a poor student who doesn't even know what he will eat next week; I don't have money to buy books I am pretty sure I will disagree with. Give me some idea of what the world would look like if ID was true, as opposed to if it wasn't.

Because the thing about your evolution-dodging up to now, rational-sounding as much of it has been, is that you've done a lot of parrying, but no thrusting up to now. Take for example:

This demonstrates that RNA enzymes in vitro can be selected against/for. It shows that given the right chemical and thermodynamic conditions along with artificially maintained homeostasis some RNA enzymes react more favorably. This says nothing about abiogenesis. There is a huge leap from this to life in the wild. It was really doing nothing more then taking a reaction that we already know exists in cells and then creating a completely artificial environment and letting it play out in a way we knew full well would happen.

In fact, artificially engineered conditions are a long way from a wild occurrence. This is basic science. We can fabricate all kinds of polymers in the lab, but nobody claims this is proof they occur in the wild.

(bold in original; color added)

That's a very ideologically colored conclusion for you to draw from RNA experiments. After all, you don't approach other scientific research this way. I'm demonstrating in my uni's chem laboratories for first year students; one of the experiments starts with a demonstration (by the students) that water really does turn to ice at 0 degrees Celsius.

It would be utterly strange if a student came up to me after that and said: This says nothing about the freezing point of water. There is a huge leap from this to ice in my refrigerator.

You see, the whole point of science is to replicate, in closed situations, the kind of causal factors which might affect occurrences in open systems. For you to say that an experiment says nothing about "life in the wild" is basically to say that science doesn't work (or at least works in a very radically different way from what most people understand).

Why doesn't self-replicating RNA in test tubes say anything about self-replicating RNA in a prebiotic world? Are there any substantive reasons for you to say so, or is this your ideological bias talking instead of you?

 

[Mallon]

ID does not require an appeal to the Bible ( which I hardly consider "some holy book") or magic (which is not what miracles are - btw). You fabricate a false choice. You can do good science and pursue vigorously all lines of exploration, and still admit the study of the design inference as a valid form of scientific endeavor.

Design inference is a perfectly valid form of scientific endeavor. But the way by which ID is inferred -- via arguments from ignorance -- is not a valid form of argument. ID's appeal to magic is also not a valid form of scientific argument (if you disagree with this statement, perhaps you could identify the mechanism ID posits).

You misunderstand the formation of evidence in the case of historical rare events. See my comparison to the theories offered to understand the Cambrian Explosion (there are other examples). I don't think you understand what ID is to be honest. Can you describe it?

ID is an argument from ignorance. It says that if some structure is difficult to account for by evolutionary mechanisms, then it must have been miraculously created in an instant. It relies entirely on negative evidence.
How did I do?

While science iterates over solutions it also accepts the current best explanation. There is no reason whatsoever a design argument can not be held until a better one is constructed and evidence is built for it.

If an ID inference was falsified (as they traditionally have been), what does this suggest to you as a Christian? That some structure x was not designed? What are the theological implications of falsifying an ID hypothesis?

 

[OrdinaryClay]

Before we get too much further there's a question I need to get answered. Why does ID have to challenge evolution and abiogenesis? Couldn't evolution and abiogenesis be the mechanisms that the intelligent designer used? If evolution is so unlikely at times, couldn't the presence of an intelligent designer overcome this?

God could have done it anyway he wanted. ID does not "have to" do anything. It is a matter of evidence and the willingness to follow it. He could of, after all, have created the illusion of age 6000 years ago. I don't believe so. My personal goal is to ask the most difficult questions I can and see where it leads. I have found that they lead to God.

When an atheist says that religion is grounded completely and totally on faith and that believing in leprechauns is equivalent to believing in Christ they are wrong. Christianity is rational. Christianity is evidence based. Christianity is not a delusion. They have no excuse when they reject Christ. When our university students are taught that science can explain the entire natural world and that God is superfluous and just a matter of spiritual preference they are being deceived.

This is not saying faith is not the bedrock of Christianity. It is. If it were not then it would violate grace and allow people to "think" their way to Christ. No logical or scientific ability is required by Christ, that is for sure, but on the same token Christ does not require us to give up our logical thinking to accept Him either. I do not believe that a belief in ID or creationism is required for salvation. I believe that believing that the OOL and evolution was/is completely materialistic is acceptable for a Christian. I think that is wrong. My concern is that such worldviews lead to a needless doubting of faith based on the endless drum beat of irrationality and delusion as heard from atheism.

Maybe you could refer me to some specific articles. I clicked a few and they didn't seem to be related to our discussion.

Sure.

Short and quick video.
Discovery Institute

Good much longer video. Skip to about minute 9 to get into the discussion. Watch this one in its entirety. Notice that Ward never answers the questions, but instead just throws political jabs and re asks red herring questions. Watch this one. Meyer answers many of the questions asked in this thread.

Reading ...
Intelligent Design - Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Resources for Learning More about Intelligent Design
Intelligent Design Coming CleanWilliam A
Design Inference Website: The Writings of William A. Dembski

To say that we are the only life in the universe is pure speculation.

I did not present a theory of "no life in the universe except us". I'm not stating an hypothesis of "we are alone". I said that the evidence is building for this position.

What do you mean?

Necessity refers to physical laws. A stone falls to earth because of the law of gravity. Ammonia is produced by this reaction because of the necessity of the laws of chemistry: 2 NH4Cl + 2 CaO -> CaCl2 + Ca(OH)2 + 2 NH3

Chance produces results if something is probabilistically possible, and there are the right probabilistic resources to make it "likely" to occur. For exampe, drawing a white marble from a jar of marbles with 9999 black marbles and 1 white marble is likely because it is possible(white marble exists) and we may allow ten million draws(ample probabilistic resources). If we only allowed one draw it would be far from likely.

The release of energy by radioactive isotopes is not only random, but appears to be uncaused. There is no cause for the energy to release when it does, as opposed to any time before or after.

These are quantum events. Science considers these caused even if they are not deterministic. The laws of quantum mechanics are still causal in the sense that there exists physical laws that govern them. We capture these laws through mathematics. Non caused events are literally unexplainable via science. For example, we do not understand the fine tuning of the universe. We have no defined cause for why this is the case.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

You do make some interesting points, OC, I'm glad to see a thinking IDer around here. Makes life interesting.

Thank you, but I must ask. Have you taken the time to understand what ID is or have you just listened to the opponents and assumed everything they said was true? Is this discussion going to be both an ID lesson and an ID debate simultaneously? If it is both doesn't it seem like this is a bit unfair on your part. I understand evolution well and would never require anyone to teach me the theory all while I rejected it. Sounds absurd on its face.

But I think you need to think a bit more carefully about just what you think science is and why. Take for example:

On the one hand, in blue, you talk about how historical explanations and theories are not falsifiable. Mind you, I think that by itself that might be a reasonable position. But then you go on to say that ID makes predictions (presumably about why the Cambrian Explosion occurred - I couldn't quite parse your sentence).

A theory that makes predictions is a falsifiable theory. Whether or not falsifiability itself is a useful criterion (which some debate), we can say that falsifiability and predictive power do come hand in hand. If ID predicts, for (a very silly) example, that all life forms should be purple, then ID is falsifiable upon the discovery of a non-purple life-form.

First, I was not saying that ID says anything about the Cambrian Explosion. I was contrasting an accepted study of modern evolution (the Cambrian Explosion) with one that is not (ID). I was demonstrating that it is hypocritical to reject the study of one while accepting the study of the other based on the argument of the latter not meeting the criteria of being science.

The predictions of both are in regard to side effects or "echos" if you like. For example, one variation of why the Cambrian event took place was because of oxygen. We can then look at the geology to determine if there was a coincident or preceding increase in O2. Yes there was, and we mine iron because of it. So in this sense the theory can be corroborated or weakly verified, but the theory can still not be falsified strictly. It is important to note that in the case of the Cambrian we have multiple competing theories about why it happened and there is internal debate about which is better suited as an explanation. The OOL is analogous in the sense that it was a single historical event that has multiple competing "theories" of why it took place. In the case of OOL we theoretically should be able to fully reproduce the correct one. Not even close.

So, what predictions does ID theory make? Don't ask me to buy books please - I'm a poor student who doesn't even know what he will eat next week; I don't have money to buy books I am pretty sure I will disagree with. Give me some idea of what the world would look like if ID was true, as opposed to if it wasn't.

Well if anything is "ideologically colored" it is your statement here. You are "pretty sure you will disagree with" sounds as if you reject the reasoning and evidence without knowing it. I have taken and continue to take the time to understand, read and study evolutionary and origin of life science. So it appears I'm the one who is studying all perspectives here. There is no excuse for staying uninformed. There are plenty of free resources on ID.

Because the thing about your evolution-dodging up to now, rational-sounding as much of it has been, ...

I've dodged nothing. Maybe it is your "ideologically colored" opinion that is preventing you from accepting as rational what sounds rational.

... is that you've done a lot of parrying, but no thrusting up to now. Take for example:

Maybe because my thrusts are ignored in lieu of presenting red herrings for me to "parry". It appears at first blush that there is a large lack of understanding on this forum for what ID is. There is a lot of canned responses. This is hardly my fault.

That's a very ideologically colored conclusion for you to draw from RNA experiments. After all, you don't approach other scientific research this way. I'm demonstrating in my uni's chem laboratories for first year students; one of the experiments starts with a demonstration (by the students) that water really does turn to ice at 0 degrees Celsius.

It would be utterly strange if a student came up to me after that and said: This says nothing about the freezing point of water. There is a huge leap from this to ice in my refrigerator.

Hmmm ... this is not an analogy. Your experiment on ice does in fact directly demonstarte the freezing point, and hence would directly imply ice in similar conditions. You are grossly trivializing the problem and the evidence of the OOL if you think these are in any way analogic.

You see, the whole point of science is to replicate, in closed situations, the kind of causal factors which might affect occurrences in open systems. For you to say that an experiment says nothing about "life in the wild" is basically to say that science doesn't work (or at least works in a very radically different way from what most people understand).

I understand the need and role of problem reduction. Ribozyme engineering, which is what the article was demonstrating, is not a reduction of the problem into its simpler form. It was a fabrication of a "virtual homeostasis" and then jumping to conclusions.

Science does not by definition ignore gaps and proclaim victory. This is almost what OOL researchers do. They give us some tantalizing tidbits on the edges, which do not in any way come close to demonstrating a plausible sequence to life and then just waive their hands and say time and chance takes care of the rest. This is an admission of ignorance. This is not how science works. You don't celebrate and then discover.

Why doesn't self-replicating RNA in test tubes say anything about self-replicating RNA in a prebiotic world? Are there any substantive reasons for you to say so, or is this your ideological bias talking instead of you?

I just gave you substantive reasons in the post you quoted. I bolded the saliant points.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

Design inference is a perfectly valid form of scientific endeavor. But the way by which ID is inferred -- via arguments from ignorance -- is not a valid form of argument. ID's appeal to magic is also not a valid form of scientific argument (if you disagree with this statement, perhaps you could identify the mechanism ID posits).

There are no arguments from ignorance used by ID. ID does not appeal to magic. You misunderstand what ID is. ID does not posit a mechanism. ID posits detectable evidence of design. As I stated SETI could, and does with out calling it such, use design detection strategies.

ID is an argument from ignorance. It says that if some structure is difficult to account for by evolutionary mechanisms, then it must have been miraculously created in an instant. It relies entirely on negative evidence.
How did I do?

Not very good. Where did you get your understanding of ID from? ID says that specified, or functional, complexity is more plausibly explained as deriving from design rather then natural undirected processes.

If an ID inference was falsified (as they traditionally have been), ...

Again, I think you misunderstand ID. It does not say that every change and structure is micro designed by miracle. Not at all. Listen to Meyer in the videos above. He will provide you with a much better understanding of ID then you currently have.

... what does this suggest to you as a Christian? That some structure x was not designed? What are the theological implications of falsifying an ID hypothesis?

ID is not a religious or theological position so I don't worry about where the evidence leeds. I don't fear science. Like I have said many times I embrace it. ID does not require or imply that change through natural selection and mutation not occur.

What is the scientific implications if we are never able to formulate a grand unified theory? What are the scientific implications if we are never able to explain the origin of, let alone artificially reproduce, life? What are the scientific implications if we are never able to artificially reproduce a true human mind? Will your worldview of science be shattered? It shouldn't. What if if we find out we can not understand all of physical reality with science?

 

[philadiddle]

I believe that believing that the OOL and evolution was/is completely materialistic is acceptable for a Christian. I think that is wrong. My concern is that such worldviews lead to a needless doubting of faith based on the endless drum beat of irrationality and delusion as heard from atheism.

What is OOL?

As our understanding of the weather increases we see that it is a natural process. I see the natural processes as being God's handiwork. Am I being unChristian because I accept that the weather is purely natural? Is it necessary to think that God plays a role in it in order to be a "real" Christian?

Short and quick video.
Discovery Institute

He says that ID deduces that a designer did it, but by what mechanism? What is the actual explanation beyond a god of the gaps "goddidit" kind of statement? This is what I'm having a hard time understanding. He also says that complicated systems could not have the appearance of design from a random undirected process. But random processes are used all the time to produce certain results. The lottery for example is a random process designed to have a winner, and it does.

Furthermore, if we do pin down how the flagellum evolved, does this mean there is no designer? I think that teleological claims such as intelligent design shouldn't be forced into science. Also, as was brough up in another thread, does this mean the natural processes don't proclaim the handiwork of an intelligent designer?

Good much longer video. Skip to about minute 9 to get into the discussion. Watch this one in its entirety. Notice that Ward never answers the questions, but instead just throws political jabs and re asks red herring questions. Watch this one. Meyer answers many of the questions asked in this thread.

I started watching this a bit yesterday but the opponent really annoyed me, he is not a well spoken individual. I don't know if I could make it through all of this video.

Reading ...
Intelligent Design - Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Resources for Learning More about Intelligent Design
Intelligent Design Coming CleanWilliam A
Design Inference Website: The Writings of William A. Dembski

I will get to these.

I did not present a theory of "no life in the universe except us". I'm not stating an hypothesis of "we are alone". I said that the evidence is building for this position.

You said that the evidence was building for the position that we are the only life in the universe. I was saying that it is mere speculation, meaning, there is no mounting evidence for that position. We can't even see planets in other galaxies let alone gather evidence for or against other life in the universe. I'm gonna drop this though cause it really isn't related to our conversation, at least as far as I can see.

Necessity refers to physical laws. A stone falls to earth because of the law of gravity. Ammonia is produced by this reaction because of the necessity of the laws of chemistry: 2 NH4Cl + 2 CaO -> CaCl2 + Ca(OH)2 + 2 NH3

Chance produces results if something is probabilistically possible, and there are the right probabilistic resources to make it "likely" to occur. For exampe, drawing a white marble from a jar of marbles with 9999 black marbles and 1 white marble is likely because it is possible(white marble exists) and we may allow ten million draws(ample probabilistic resources). If we only allowed one draw it would be far from likely.

Abiogenesis is likely because chemical reactions create the nessesary parts for prebiotic self replicating chemical compounds. It is likely given the sample space (the earth) and the time allows (hundreds of millions of years.) Statistically, it is a probable event, just as your analogy of drawing a white marble is likely given enough chances to draw. I must admit, I kinda forget the points we were each trying to make on this subject lol.

These are quantum events. Science considers these caused even if they are not deterministic. The laws of quantum mechanics are still causal in the sense that there exists physical laws that govern them. We capture these laws through mathematics.

Radioactive decay is a spontaneous self causing event. It is uncaused by anything outside of itself. The laws that it follows isn't a governing force that causes it, the law is our measurement and explanation for it.

 

[Mallon]

Thanks for plowing through this stuff with me, OrdinaryClay. I think a big part of peoples' confusion surrounding ID is the use of the term "design". What does it mean for something to be designed? Is it a word that refers to some a priori plan to effect some structure into being (akin to Aristotle's formal cause)? Or does it refer to the mechanism by which that plan is brought about (Aristotle's efficient cause)? You seem to be using the term in the former sense, whereas many ID advocates use it in the latter sense. Amirite?

Can I ask you what the theological implications are if a design hypothesis for some structure is falsified? Many scientists, including Ken Miller, have falsified Mike Behe's design inference for the bacterial flagellum by showing that it is indeed reducibly complex. Does this mean to you that the flagellum does not have a designer? What do the implications mean to you as a Christian?

 

[Smidlee]

ID is an argument from ignorance. It says that if some structure is difficult to account for by evolutionary mechanisms, then it must have been miraculously created in an instant. It relies entirely on negative evidence.
How did I do?

I've read many times evolutionist used the argument that "God wouldn't do it that way" as an evidence for TOE so I guess they use argument of ignorance as well.
We have went to the moon , build supercomputers, invent the internet and even WMD yet haven't create a cell from scratch. It's the fact scientist has put all their effort in trying to prove abiogenesis is the best evidence against it. With every break through requires nature to follow extremely narrow paths from non-life to a living cell. The tight rope that nature has to walk is becoming more narrow and longer with each new discovery.

 

[Mallon]

I've read many times evolutionist used the argument that "God wouldn't do it that way" as an evidence for TOE so I guess they use argument of ignorance as well.

Please elaborate using examples.

It's the fact scientist has put all their effort in trying to prove abiogenesis is the best evidence against it.

That's a silly argument. Scientists have put even more effort into curing cancer, and yet a cure has yet to be found. Do you therefore think that we should stop the search? Can you be so confident that a cure will never be found?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I've read many times evolutionist used the argument that "God wouldn't do it that way" as an evidence for TOE so I guess they use argument of ignorance as well.
We have went to the moon , build supercomputers, invent the internet and even WMD yet haven't create a cell from scratch. It's the fact scientist has put all their effort in trying to prove abiogenesis is the best evidence against it. With every break through requires nature to follow extremely narrow paths from non-life to a living cell. The tight rope that nature has to walk is becoming more narrow and longer with each new discovery.

I've never suggested "God wouldn't do it that way" is evidence for evolution, however I WOULD suggest that several biological systems that could have been designed better are evidence that they were not, in fact, designed at all. Further, the "good enough to get by" nature of biological systems is exactly what evolution predicts... but nowhere in there is anyone equating "God wouldn't do it that way" with actual evidence for evolution, so there's no argument from ignorance.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

What is OOL?

Origin Of Life

As our understanding of the weather increases we see that it is a natural process. I see the natural processes as being God's handiwork. Am I being unChristian because I accept that the weather is purely natural? Is it necessary to think that God plays a role in it in order to be a "real" Christian?

Of course not. I thought I spelled out my position on this clearly in my last response to you.

He says that ID deduces that a designer did it, but by what mechanism? What is the actual explanation beyond a god of the gaps "goddidit" kind of statement? This is what I'm having a hard time understanding.

It is a fallacy to assume that an explanation needs an explanation in order to be explanatory. This is not double talk. It is true. We understand the laws of gravity in great deal and it has powerful explanatory power, yet we don't have an explanation of gravity itself. This is the goal of unified field work in physics.

You don't need to know who the designer was in order to develop the ability to detect design.

He also says that complicated systems could not have the appearance of design from a random undirected process. But random processes are used all the time to produce certain results. The lottery for example is a random process designed to have a winner, and it does.

You need to read up on ID. A lottery win is improbable but not specified. For example, if you pick up a random rock the probability of that rock looking exactly as it looks is extremely low. It is just as low as the probability of a human crafted stone tool looking the way it does. Yet one was designed and the other wasn't. The tool has specified function. The random rock does not.

Furthermore, if we do pin down how the flagellum evolved, does this mean there is no designer? I think that teleological claims such as intelligent design shouldn't be forced into science. Also, as was brough up in another thread, does this mean the natural processes don't proclaim the handiwork of an intelligent designer?

See my responses to Mallon on this subject.

I started watching this a bit yesterday but the opponent really annoyed me, he is not a well spoken individual. I don't know if I could make it through all of this video.

You should watch the whole thing. True, Ward is a very poor representative for an anti ID position, but as I stated if you watch it and listen to Meyer he will answer many of the questions you have been asking me. You may still not agree, but at least you will be better informed. This would help the discussion.

You said that the evidence was building for the position that we are the only life in the universe. I was saying that it is mere speculation, meaning, there is no mounting evidence for that position.

Yes, there is mounting evidence for my position. See the beginning of this thread for some info, much more of a case can be made. Remember, the more you are unable to gather positive evidence for something the greater the probabilistic argument becomes for its negation.

Abiogenesis is likely because chemical reactions create the nessesary parts for prebiotic self replicating chemical compounds. It is likely given the sample space (the earth) and the time allows (hundreds of millions of years.) Statistically, it is a probable event, just as your analogy of drawing a white marble is likely given enough chances to draw. I must admit, I kinda forget the points we were each trying to make on this subject lol.

First, you hand wave about the process to a huge degree. You don't specify what is produced out of necessity, and what is acted on by chance. This is a critical point. You must be more specific with regards to what the sequence is to even hope to have something you could call a theory. Two, you are making gross leaps of faith in your estimation of whether there is enough probabilistic resource to produce your unspecified results from your unspecified component. There has been much done by non Christian researchers on whether such a scenario is possible, and it has been demonstrated that it is fantasy so far. The book Signature in the Cell provides chapter notes and bibliography citations that would help you understand.

Radioactive decay is a spontaneous self causing event. It is uncaused by anything outside of itself.

You don't know that. No one knows. All they know is it is a random event described by quantum mechanics.

The laws that it follows isn't a governing force that causes it, the law is our measurement and explanation for it.

Laws are not a measurement. True we explain things with laws but all indications are that the laws of nature are indeed real causal factors. They are not just constructs of our mind.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

Thanks for plowing through this stuff with me, OrdinaryClay.

No problem, but we would both benefit if you took the time to study ID from the source of the concept as well.

I think a big part of peoples' confusion surrounding ID is the use of the term "design". What does it mean for something to be designed? Is it a word that refers to some a priori plan to effect some structure into being (akin to Aristotle's formal cause)? Or does it refer to the mechanism by which that plan is brought about (Aristotle's efficient cause)? You seem to be using the term in the former sense, whereas many ID advocates use it in the latter sense. Amirite?

ID is about detection not cause. Every ID explanation or advocate I've read/heard, which is not all of them by any means, uses the term in the same sense I'm using it. ID treats design as a detectable characteristic independent of cause including any philosophical notion of cause.

Can I ask you what the theological implications are if a design hypothesis for some structure is falsified? ... What do the implications mean to you as a Christian?

I thought I answered this already. None for me.

Many scientists, including Ken Miller, have falsified Mike Behe's design inference for the bacterial flagellum by showing that it is indeed reducibly complex. Does this mean to you that the flagellum does not have a designer?

I have not studied the specific case of the flagellum or even irreducibly complex systems. As I said, I've only recently started studying ID. I'm not willing to accept at face value your conclusions until I do and definitely not until I read Behe's and other's responses. This thread is clear evidence that there is much misinformation about ID circulating. Behe is under extreme ostracization by the scientific community ... see Behe's blog here for some interesting examples.

I also plan to read his latest book ... The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism

 

[OrdinaryClay]

I've never suggested "God wouldn't do it that way" is evidence for evolution, however I WOULD suggest that several biological systems that could have been designed better are evidence that they were not, in fact, designed at all.

How do you know what the best design would be? This seems very presumptuous on your part.

Further, the "good enough to get by" nature of biological systems is exactly what evolution predicts... but nowhere in there is anyone equating "God wouldn't do it that way" with actual evidence for evolution, so there's no argument from ignorance.

You are implying there is something such as "better then good enough to get by". What is that?

 

[Mallon]

No problem, but we would both benefit if you took the time to study ID from the source of the concept as well.

In due time. Right now I'm in the middle of writing my candidacy exam.

ID is about detection not cause.

If ID has no mechanism, then why is it always presented as being opposed to evolution?

I thought I answered this already. None for me.

I simply don't understand how the falsification of design hypotheses holds no theological consequences for you, a Christian. What does it mean to you for something to be designed or not? Do you view undesigned things as coming from God?

I have not studied the specific case of the flagellum or even irreducibly complex systems. As I said, I've only recently started studying ID... This thread is clear evidence that there is much misinformation about ID circulating.

Maybe there's a chance we know something about ID that you don't, too.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

If ID has no mechanism, then why is it always presented as being opposed to evolution?

From what I gather so far, it seems ID opponents want to build a caricature of ID proponents.

I simply don't understand how the falsification of design hypotheses holds no theological consequences for you, a Christian.

I don't understand how you don't understand. I'm the same Christian now as I was before I knew anything about ID.

What does it mean to you for something to be designed or not?

Read about ID.

Do you view undesigned things as coming from God?

Of course. He is the creator. All things come form God. Do you believe Christ physically changed water into wine?

Maybe there's a chance we know something about ID that you don't, too.

The difference is that I'm willing to (and have) read and study both sides.

 

[Mallon]

From what I gather so far, it seems ID opponents want to build a caricature of ID proponents.

You didn't answer my quesiton. If ID has no mechanism, why is it always presented in opposition to evolution? Surely you don't deny this is so.

I don't understand how you don't understand. I'm the same Christian now as I was before I knew anything about ID.

But now you wield a tool that you believe can distinguish between things that are designed and things that are not designed. What does it mean to you for something not to be designed? You say you believe all things come from God -- and yet you must believe that there are some things in this world that are not designed. Does that mean God does not control the manifestation of all things? Like shernren said, you appear to be trying very hard to avoid the poignant questions. If ID is as useful and essential as you say it is, then please demonstrate that by answering our questions rather than just telling us to go read a book.

Of course. He is the creator. All things come form God. Do you believe Christ physically changed water into wine?

Yes. I have no reason not to believe such a thing happened.

The difference is that I'm willing to (and have) read and study both sides.

Here's a medal:

 

[OrdinaryClay]

You didn't answer my quesiton. If ID has no mechanism, why is it always presented in opposition to evolution? Surely you don't deny this is so.

I provided multiple opportunities for you to hear the answer from the horses mouth. I also pointed out that this strawman you are proposing is a caricature built by opponents. Clearly, if you listened to Meyer you would have heard that there are large agreements between what ID espouses and a materialistic definition. ID is a variation on evolution. How in the world can you claim something about ID without knowing what it is? This is non-sensical.

But now you wield a tool that you believe can distinguish between things that are designed and things that are not designed.

You've jumped subjects. My response was to your disbelief in my ability to not have a theological quandary.

What does it mean to you for something not to be designed? You say you believe all things come from God -- and yet you must believe that there are some things in this world that are not designed.

You know full well you personally and routinely make the distinction between designed and undesigned things. You also know exactly how we all do it. It is an inference. This is of course why we call it a design inference. I assume you understand what an inference is? Given a set of possible explanations (as I described in the Cambrian event example) we infer to the best explanation. Just as is the case with the Cambrian event example we have multiple choices and we make a judgment about which is the most plausible. It is a probabilistic judgement. Dembski attempts to apply some mathematical rigor to the inference, but (as in all our historical reasoning) we still can apply inference with out mathematical rigor. This is all found very easily by doing a small amount of reading.

Does that mean God does not control the manifestation of all things?

Again, I answered this already clearly and pointedly and in no uncertain terms. It is not my fault if you ignore or can not understand the answer.

Like shernren said, you appear to be trying very hard to avoid the poignant questions. If ID is as useful and essential as you say it is, then please demonstrate that by answering our questions rather than just telling us to go read a book.

I've been answering questions. You fabricate my dodging where none exists. Why? Why, do you make excuses for not listening to a couple hours of video, yet you seem to have ample time to spend on this sight most everyday? I'm beginning to suspect your questions are not asked seeking answers but rather to build another caricature. Please say it ain't so.

Why are you not engaged in any posts defending the RNA World? You know this is the dominate theory. You must have access to the subject material.

Yes. I have no reason not to believe such a thing happened.

Good. I have to wonder though, is the only reason you believe because you "have no reason not to", or are you just saying it is faith based. For example why do you not believe the gnostic gospels? (which I reject also of course).

Here's a medal:

Sarcasm is the sign of frustration. It is clear that I have in fact looked at both, and that you seem to be criticising ID out of hand.

 

[Mallon]

I provided multiple opportunities for you to hear the answer from the horses mouth. I also pointed out that this strawman you are proposing is a caricature built by opponents. Clearly, if you listened to Meyer you would have heard that there are large agreements between what ID espouses and a materialistic definition. ID is a variation on evolution. How in the world can you claim something about ID without knowing what it is? This is non-sensical.

You're still dancing around my question. If ID is "a variation on evolution", then why does Meyer describe ID and evolution as being in conflict? He's one of the main proponents of the Discovery Institute's campaign to "teach the controversy". If ID and evolution are compatible, as you imply, then what controversy are they referring to?

You know full well you personally and routinely make the distinction between designed and undesigned things. You also know exactly how we all do it. It is an inference. This is of course why we call it a design inference. I assume you understand what an inference is? Given a set of possible explanations (as I described in the Cambrian event example) we infer to the best explanation. Just as is the case with the Cambrian event example we have multiple choices and we make a judgment about which is the most plausible. It is a probabilistic judgement. Dembski attempts to apply some mathematical rigor to the inference, but (as in all our historical reasoning) we still can apply inference with out mathematical rigor. This is all found very easily by doing a small amount of reading.

Still not answering my question. I know what a design inference is. I'm asking you about the theological implications of saying something in nature isn't designed (see below). I get the impression that it isn't something you've spent a lot of time thinking about.

Again, I answered this already clearly and pointedly and in no uncertain terms. It is not my fault if you ignore or can not understand the answer.

If you had answered clearly, I wouldn't have asked again. I simply don't understand how you can say God designed some things and not others, all while maintaining that God is the creator of all things. Do you hold that some things are created, but not designed by God? If so, what does this mean?

Good. I have to wonder though, is the only reason you believe because you "have no reason not to", or are you just saying it is faith based.

Jesus' miracles were singularities. We do not have access to the wine he allegedly produced from water, and so it must be taken on faith that the miracle occurred as described. It can neither be proved nor disproved.

Sarcasm is the sign of frustration.

You bet I'm frustrated. I have no idea what you're trying to say. Am I the only one?

 

[Smidlee]

I've never suggested "God wouldn't do it that way" is evidence for evolution, however I WOULD suggest that several biological systems that could have been designed better are evidence that they were not, in fact, designed at all. Further, the "good enough to get by" nature of biological systems is exactly what evolution predicts... but nowhere in there is anyone equating "God wouldn't do it that way" with actual evidence for evolution, so there's no argument from ignorance.

There has been agrument from ignorance about the human eye being poorly design yet even this bad argument didn't stop science. Engineers are trying to learn more about our eyes to build better digital cameras.
Also the idea nature only gives us just "good enough to get by" is false.
Here is an amazing example :"A 10-year old girl born with half of her cerebral cortex missing sees perfectly because of a massive reorganisation of the brain circuits involved in vision, a new study finds."
Girl with half a brain retains full vision - health - 20 July 2009 - New Scientist
It seems that having only a half of a brain is "good enough to get by" yet most of us have both halfs.
This is the problem with evolutionist's "junk DNA" idea. Just because you can remove some the this DNA without seeing an immediate results does not mean it's "junk DNA" and serves no purpose. I believe life is engineered to adapted even with half of the brain missing. I can't imagine a better system than that.
So the world isn't perfect yet even with the curse it's still amazing and beautiful.