Creationism v. Intelligent Design v. Evolution

[rossum]

Whoah - this is big - every scientist will tell you information is required for life?

Don’t get too excited buffalo. Lie down in a darkened room for a few minutes and then go back and read what I said: “Any ID scientist will tell you…” Sorry to get your hopes up.

So we are back at the real issue. The primary aspect of ID. Information.

Evolution is a process which copies information from the environment into the genomes of organisms living in that environment. Evolution has no problem with information. ID has a problem because it cannot rigorously define a measure for information. So far it has been easy to show that any objective measure of information can be increased by evolutionary processes.

IDvolution posits this information is (name removed by moderator)ut from God.

Which is why it falls outside the definition of science.

ID the science, posits it is from a designer.

But is can show no scientific evidence in support of this contention. There is no evidence for the designer and evolutionary processes can increase, or copy, information with no outside assistance.

Materialism posits it grew from nothing.

Material processes can increase information.

rossum

 

[rossum]

You are the one claiming scientific process.

You have not provided any contrary evidence. I have given the overwhelming proportion of living organisms using DNA. I have the evidence, you don’t.

And you still have not provided the scientific basis for the decision.

I have. You fail to accept it, but that is your problem, not mine.

rossum

 

[rossum]

So we have Rossum doing a very circuitous path to information from nowhere.

So we are still waiting for a rigorous objective definition of what it means by “Information” from the ID side. When we have such a definition we can look at where it comes from.

Natural processes can generate Shannon information. Natural processes can generate Kolmogorov information. Material processes can generate information.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The fact that you are a Buddhist demonstrates beyond all doubt:

1. You don’t believe science can ever be an adequate explanation of reality

Yes, but science is a very good explanation of the material portion of reality. Within that boundary it is an excellent tool. Outside it is not so good, which is where I use Buddhism instead of science.

1. The one sample we have is insufficient

I assume you are talking about universes here. The one sample we have is sufficient for studying that one sample. It is insufficient for studying all possible samples.

1. Your criteria of probability are defective because they imply there is no reason to believe Buddhism is true

How so? The probability of chemical based life is one of those material things that science is good at. Buddhism is not about the probability of chemical based life. In Buddhist cosmology there are times when the entire material universe is destroyed and all life is non-material.

rossum

 

[minkymurph]

Which is why it falls outside the definition of science. (Addition - ID is imput from God)

rossum

I have to come on-side with rossum here. A study of the origins of man in relation to God’s intimate involvement with his creation is a theological inquiry, not a scientific one.
Scientific methods can be used in theological inquiry; such as the methods used in Catholic exegesis. That itself does not make it a scientific inquiry. What it makes it is a theological study using scientific methods.

I would also have to say for ID to posit the information is imput from God stretches the boundaries. It is interpretation of scientific evidence in conjunction with literal interpretations of the Genesis account by certain Christians.

This is my problem with ID. It confuses the relationship between scientific and theological study. This discredits it in as a scientific study which is at least one of the things it claims to be. In discredits itself as a theological study because it appears to take into account only one interpretation of Genesis; the literal one, which is not based on biblical scholarship. Also, some who support ID, subtly or otherwise, promote the notion subtly ID and literal interpretations of Genesis have to be accepted in order to be truly Christian. Lastly, ID at best proves evolutionary theories flawed which does not prove God created us.

 

[buffalo]

But cosmology is only trying to study that one universe. If you are trying to calculate over all universes then a sample of one is biased. American History is not biased because it only studies the history of one country. A World History that only covered American History would be biased.

I agree, but in this case there are unknown values. What is seven divided by unknown?

Dembski uses Monod as an authority. I do regard Dembski as an authority of the DI version of ID, he is one of their senior people.

And I have agreed. You can do calculations if you have a range of values. You cannot do calculations if there is a complete unknown. I can calculate 7 / (4±0.5); I cannot calculate 7 / (unknown).

Yes. Evolution allows us to make correct predictions. The finding of Tiktaalik for example.

Please show your calculations.

rossum

Let’s study the Universe we know and can see, the one with a God.

 

[buffalo]

Don’t get too excited buffalo. Lie down in a darkened room for a few minutes and then go back and read what I said: “Any ID scientist will tell you…” Sorry to get your hopes up.

Evolution is a process which copies information from the environment into the genomes of organisms living in that environment. Evolution has no problem with information. ID has a problem because it cannot rigorously define a measure for information. So far it has been easy to show that any objective measure of information can be increased by evolutionary processes.

Which is why it falls outside the definition of science.

But is can show no scientific evidence in support of this contention. There is no evidence for the designer and evolutionary processes can increase, or copy, information with no outside assistance.

Material processes can increase information.

rossum

I could have sworn I saw “every scientist” - my bad…

Can and does are very different. By that same thinking God can do it too.

Again, the probabilities of increasing meaningful information are small.

 

[vz71]

Why do you think Rossum is a materialist?

There is a claim to Buddhism.
But I only have the testimony of the words.

 

[buffalo]

I have to come on-side with rossum here. A study of the origins of man in relation to God’s intimate involvement with his creation is a theological inquiry, not a scientific one.
Scientific methods can be used in theological inquiry; such as the methods used in Catholic exegesis. That itself does not make it a scientific inquiry. What it makes it is a theological study using scientific methods.

I would also have to say for ID to posit the information is imput from God stretches the boundaries. It is interpretation of scientific evidence in conjunction with literal interpretations of the Genesis account by certain Christians.

This is my problem with ID. It confuses the relationship between scientific and theological study. This discredits it in as a scientific study which is at least one of the things it claims to be. In discredits itself as a theological study because it appears to take into account only one interpretation of Genesis; the literal one, which is not based on biblical scholarship. Also, some who support ID, subtly or otherwise, promote the notion subtly ID and literal interpretations of Genesis have to be accepted in order to be truly Christian. Lastly, ID at best proves evolutionary theories flawed which does not prove God created us.

ID the science is clearly a scientific endeavor. How can anyone say that ID the science is dependent on Genesis? Design exists of that there is no doubt. Why do you claim the empirical study of it is theological?

You cannot possibly be giving evolutionism a pass with regards to its forays into philosophy.

 

[vz71]

You have not provided any contrary evidence.

I do not need to.
If you are really trying to adhere to the scientific process, YOU would have searched the alternatives and found evidence to back your case.
You have not done so. Else it would be no problem to point out your evidence.

I have given the overwhelming proportion of living organisms using DNA. I have the evidence, you don’t.

OK, What of the other properties that are shared by all organisms?
Why do you settle on one property that has exceptions when there are others that have no exceptions?
What is your scientific process? Where is the evidence?

I have. You fail to accept it, but that is your problem, not mine.

OK, please provide the specific post number to reference this answer.
Else answer the question.

I am beginning to see that yours is not a scientific position at all. It is faith.
You do not know, you have no evidence, and you have no answers.
Yet somehow you also claim footing for tearing at ID.

 

[vz71]

This is my problem with ID. It confuses the relationship between scientific and theological study.

The science behind ID has been around for quite some time.
I have found people reject it because it logically leads to God.

It is a solid science that illuminates a path to our creator.

People do not like it when God is highlighted.

 

[tonyrey]

				[

](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7921401#post7921401)
*

You have a biased sample of one

Your view of science is too parochial! Multiverses have been hypothesized by reputable scientists in cosmology, physics and psychology. You should find Tegmark’s classification %between%of universes interesting and worthy of consideration.

Many scientific principles and conclusions are not based on knowledge of precise values

I agree, but in this case there are unknown values. What is seven divided by unknown?

What is Buddhism divided by scepticism about Buddhism?!

I’m sure you don’t regard Demski as an authority! And Monod was a Nobel Laureate…

Dembski uses Monod as an authority. I do regard Dembski as an authority of the DI version of ID, he is one of their senior people.

As an authority for what purpose?

I have pointed out that many estimates of probability even in science

are not based on a precise ratio.
And I have agreed. You can do calculations if you have a range of values. You cannot do calculations if there is a complete unknown. I can calculate 7 / (4±0.5); I cannot calculate 7 / (unknown).

What is the mathematical probability that the principle of induction will continue to be valid?

Does the theory that life is an accident deliver on its promises?

Yes. Evolution allows us to make correct predictions. The finding of Tiktaalik for example.

You are unwisely equating evolution with the theory that life is an accident…

The odds against the appearance of any type of life within our experience are overwhelming but the odds in favour of human life are negligible

Please show your calculations.

That is your standard reply but I have shown it is inconsistent with your belief that Buddhism is true. Do all your important views and decisions depend on your calculations?
A propos of the human brain Jacques Monod - who was no fool - wrote that its chances of appearing were “infinitely slender”. Does your request invalidate his judgment and that of other atheists who regarded each stage of development as increasingly improbable - without producing precise ratios for their considered verdicts?

 

[rossum]

OK, What of the other properties that are shared by all organisms?

RNA.

Every living organism on Earth, including all viruses uses RNA. There are no exceptions.

rossum

 

[minkymurph]

The science behind ID has been around for quite some time.
I have found people reject it because it logically leads to God.

It is a solid science that illuminates a path to our creator.

People do not like it when God is highlighted.

True, there are people who reject because it is theologically based. That is not the only reason people reject it.

I personally don’t think it is a solid science. There are many reasons for that. One of them is not because it illuminates a path to our creator.

True, there are some people who don’t like it when God is highlighted. Those who believe in God have no difficult with God being highlighted.

 

[vz71]

RNA.

Every living organism on Earth, including all viruses uses RNA. There are no exceptions.

rossum

I see.
So every argument you have made in this thread in which DNA appears I should now substitute RNA…
That does eliminate those pesky exceptions.

Same question, only now shifting to RNA.
What is your scientific basis for determining that it has anything at all to do with life?
What is the basis for discounting everything else?

 

[vz71]

True, there are people who reject because it is theologically based. That is not the only reason people reject it.

Is it really theologically based to acknowledge a design in nature that we did not put there ourselves?

 

[rossum]

Your view of science is too parochial! Multiverses have been hypothesized by reputable scientists in cosmology, physics and psychology.

Indeed, but those scientists are not trying to make spurious estimates of the probability of life appearing.

You should find Tegmark’s classification %between%of universes interesting and worthy of consideration.

I suspect you may have been thinking of the Multiverse article. It is indeed interesting. It also shows that a crude probability calculation is insufficient.

What is Buddhism divided by scepticism about Buddhism?!

The sound of one hand clapping.

What is the mathematical probability that the principle of induction will continue to be valid?

Mathematical induction will always be valid because it is axiomatic. Scientific induction may fail in future, but then science will find some other principle to work with in the changed universe.

You are unwisely equating evolution with the theory that life is an accident…

Chemistry is not an accident. It is not an accident that water is exactly two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

That is your standard reply but I have shown it is inconsistent with your belief that Buddhism is true. Do all your important views and decisions depend on your calculations?

You talked about “odds”:

The odds against the appearance of any type of life within our experience are overwhelming but the odds in favour of human life are negligible

Since you are quoting odds it is not unreasonable to ask for your calculations. My Buddhism is not a matter of either odds or calculation. Pascal’s Wager played no part in the process.

rossum

 

[minkymurph]

ID the science is clearly a scientific endeavor. How can anyone say that ID the science is dependent on Genesis? Design exists of that there is no doubt. Why do you claim the empirical study of it is theological?

To me, it doesn’t appear to be a scientific endeavor to establish empirical evidence in relation to a scientific hypothesis. ‘Did God create the world’ cannot be called scientific hypothesis. Neither can God’s intimate involvement with his creation or many other beliefs. Therefore, these are topics for theological inquiry, not scientific inquiry. We should not need empirical evidence God created us. To me, that is what ID is attempting to do.
in

I don’t see in that way; that ID the science is dependent on Genesis. Everyone I have ever met or know who promotes ID interprets Genesis literally, which means they have a certain bias. Science has called their interpretation of Genesis into question. From their perspective, science must be wrong because there’s no way their interpretation of Genesis can be wrong. Such people cannot separate scientific discovery from Genesis because of the implications of accepting empirical evidence that questions interpretations of scripture.
In addition, their intention appears to be not just to disprove evolution, but ‘prove’ the beliefs such as God created the world in six daysHowever, it’s perhaps unfair of me to categorize all IDer’s the same way, I appreciate you raising the question. If there are any IDer’s out there who don’t interpret Genesis literally and have other objections to evolution I’d be glad to hear from them.

Why I would say the empirical study of it is theological is - why would anyone want to prove we have an intelligent designer other than someone who believes in God? Why would someone want to question scientific findings supporting evolution other than someone who believes it challenges creation? For these reasons, while ID may a scientific inquiry, it is not one that is completely divorced from religious belief. That is why I say it has a theological dimension.

You cannot possibly be giving evolutionism a pass with regards to its forays into philosophy.

I can’t answer this because I have absolutely no idea what it means. :hypno: Sorry!

 

[minkymurph]

Is it really theologically based to acknowledge a design in nature that we did not put there ourselves?

If we believe God that put it there, yes.

 

[rossum]

What is your scientific basis for determining that it has anything at all to do with life?
What is the basis for discounting everything else?

A specialist will be able to tell you in more detail, but abiogenesis is looking at a simple proto-cell with a lipid bilayer membrane filled with self replicating RNA ribozymes. I am sure there is more to it than that, but that is the level of detail I am aware of. Beyond that you are going to have to do your own research.

So far abiogenesis has the lipid bilayer, all the required RNA bases and RNA chains up to about 120 bases. ID abiogenesis research has nothing: no bases, no RNA and no lipid bilayer.

rossum