Creationism v. Intelligent Design v. Evolution

[rossum]

My references are the actual papers themselves.

Everyone agrees that some non-coding DNA has a function. You have still failed to indicate why the existence of non-functional DNA is not possible under Intelligent Design. Why cannot the Designer(s) make an organisms with large quantities of useless DNA? For example an Amoeba like Polychaos dubium has 220 times as much DNA as a human, 670 bbp vs 3 bbp. Is that an indication that Polychaos dubium was not designed because it has so much inessential DNA?

They may have been backup copies.

Evidence for this please. I will agree that pseudogenes are broken copies, but a broken copy is useless as a backup copy.

To repeat my question, why is the absence of useless DNA a prediction of ID? What is the reason the designer is incapable of making an organism with a lot of useless DNA?

That is the thing about scientific predictions, they say X will happen. By implication not-X will not happen. There has to be a reason for either X or not-X that makes one allowed and the other not allowed. Why is useless DNA not allowed?

rossum

 

[donsnow]

I

You’re basically accusing me of the argumentum ad populum fallacy. I can see why this is tempting for you, but the fact is that science is dictated by methodology, not by opinion. The methodology, grounded as it is in years and years of successful objective results, provides a very straightforward set of criteria. And ID doesn’t meet 'em.

Uh, wanstronian,

Please, allow me to step into the discussion with ya’ll, here.

With all due respect, it’s an opinion, not a fact, that science is dictated by methodology. Imho, science is influenced by economy (grants for research), academic politics (lobbying one’s peers for a consensus on a published matter) and the opinions of one’s superiors. All this human interplay includes “opinion” which does color the viewpoint of the scientist that applies the methodology. That is to say, there is a spin put to the methodolgy, inherent with the academic atmosphere that surrounds research. In other words, there is no unmitigated, nor pure, methodology.
And, I get the impression that your statement premises a pure methodology.
Methodology does not happen in a vacuum, apart from the above influences.

That’s the gist of my disagreement.

God loves you,
Don

 

[wanstronian]

Your faith is that the “natural” can explain itself - without you ever having to explain what the “natural” is - an ambiguous term that covers every eventuality. How would you define it? The things you can see, hear, touch, smell and taste? Or what?

If you mean that humans, who are products of natural processes, are capable of describing those processes (or many of them at least), then yes, this is true. However, this is not really “faith” - it should more properly be referred to as “confidence” - confidence born of the irrefutable success of science in describing our world.

This is very different to the blind faith, unencumbered by even the smallest shred of evidence, that an invisible, all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful god exists or has ever existed.

The two meanings of the word “faith” are NOT equivalent and to attempt to equate them is pure disingenuity.

In answer to your question about what “natural” is - right again - everything is natural. That’s not ambiguous, it’s just a recognition of the fact that there is no evidence or even a reasonable suggestion that anything exists beyond that which can ultimately be described in scientific terms.

 

[samiam1611]

Uh, wanstronian,
With all due respect, it’s an opinion, not a fact, that science is dictated by methodology. Imho, science is influenced by economy (grants for research), academic politics (lobbying one’s peers for a consensus on a published matter) and the opinions of one’s superiors. All this human interplay includes “opinion” which does color the viewpoint of the scientist that applies the methodology. That is to say, there is a spin put to the methodolgy, inherent with the academic atmosphere that surrounds research. In other words, there is no unmitigated, nor pure, methodology.
And, I get the impression that your statement premises a pure methodology.
Methodology does not happen in a vacuum, apart from the above influences.

Well dictated doesn’t mean exclusively. He didn’t say methodology was absolutely the one and only influence on science. Your examples certainly may come into play. However, science strives to minimize those influences in order to achieve neutrality and sound results. “A scientific theory is empirical, and is always open to falsification if new evidence is presented. That is, no theory is ever considered strictly certain as science accepts the concept of fallibilism.” Methodology is the core of science, and does steer (dictate) it in the direction it is intended. Well that’s how I see it anyway, can’t speak for wanstronian.

I have some questions for those that believe in Creationism, specifically, those that interpret the story of Adam and Eve literally. (My question arises from how obvious evolution is to me.) Do you deny evolution completely? Or do you just deny human evolution? For instance, do you accept that dogs are descendents of wolves? Of course, that is intelligent design in a sense - humans being the designer. But you know what I mean. What do you make of fossils that scientists have deemed to be humans’ anscestors? (i.e. species in the genus homo, such as neanderthals.) We can’t technically discuss evolution, but I think it should be ok to just ask for a brief explanation on your beliefs on the matter.

 

[wanstronian]

No, according to the odds actually you have more faith in materialism considering the odds against it. The odds of materialism are so miniscule. You know it, but you still hang on to the itty bitty thread of hope. Again the search function is easy to use. Use it.

Despite the admittedly small odds, there is at least evidence that it happened, which is far more than you have to support your hypotheses. Relatively speaking, evolution is infinitely more likely than IDC - evolution has evidence supporting it, no other hypothesis has any. Non-zero divided by zero is infinity. So you’re not really in a position to go citing the odds. And against the backdrop of time over which the universe has existed, the odds are not so remote as they first seem.

I borrowed from the atheist playbook and you do not like it.

I have no idea what you mean by this comment. Are you still equivocating on the meaning of “faith?”

God does not subject himself to you examining Him on a lab table. So if is unlikely the created will be able to empirically test the creator. If He did then you would undoubtedly question His reasons for doing so.

God clearly does not subject himself to any kind of test whatsoever for his existence! Given your claimed (but not evident) support of science, I wonder why you believe in him.

And I have to ask - how do you know what God’s intentions are? You’re confidently claiming that he’s decided not to prove his existence, one wonders how you’ve come by this privileged information. In fact, one might almost suspect you are making stuff up in an attempt to justify an irrational belief in a non-existent phenomenon.

Now there is plenty of rational reasoning as well as Revelation that gives theists confidence in God.

But no such rational reasoning has ever been published - just wishy-washy philosophical car-crashes of faulty logic and baseless assumptions. As for Revelation - what is that other than someone’s personal conviction? Why should the rest of us be convinced just because you are? If I were convinced that everybody had an invisble head in addition to their visible one, would that be enough for you to believe it too?

 

[wanstronian]

IDvolution and evolution both are philosophy.

No - the former is speculation and the latter is established science.

Your faith is based on your interpretations void of any illumination from the truth of Revelation. That is irrational.

If you insist on equivocating on the word “faith,” that’s fine - we both know you’re doing it. Calling upon the “truth of Revelation” is ridiculous - I might just as well claim a Revelation that evolution is true. Although I don’t need to, because I have something far more valuable than “Revelation” (aka. personal conviction, aka. guessing) - I have evidence. Slam dunk, baby.

IDvolution is a conclusion reached by using the information garnered from Revelation and modern science. It is relatively easy to connect the dots.

My friend, you can’t even define IDvolution. You can’t describe the mechanism of “breathing” the “super-language” of DNA. You can’t define the “kinds”. I doubt very much that you can define “super-language” in any terms other than your own subjective ones. So really, IDvolution is nothing but your own pet term for a phenomen which has no rational basis for existing.

Scientific knowledge is improving, just not in the direction you need to be “fulfilled”.

You carry on believing that, boyo. If you think that ID is “scientific knowledge,” then you’re flat wrong, and I feel no threat. Why would I, anyway - true science is the pursuit of knowledge. Whatever that knowledge turns out to be, that’s just fine. It’s you and your fellow IDC pretenders who are trying to bend science to reach your presupposed conclusion.

It would be scary if you had a realistic chance of hijacking science in the way you’re attempting to. In fact, it is scary that so many otherwise intelligent people, in positions of power, share your superstitions. But all the indications are that in general, more and more people with each new generation are realising that 2,000 year old ghost stories are no longer necessary to explain and guide our existence.

 

[wanstronian]

I find the amount of boastful pride in the statement surprising.

Hey - I didn’t come up with the theory. I have no sense of pride that I am in possession of basic common sense - just amazement that so many others aren’t.

It is usually those that have the conviction of delusions that are so confident in their conclusion that all others with a different one are accused of being ignorent of the topic.
As a matter of fact, I have read plenty of materials in support of the theory.
I find them lacking.

In what way?

Well, it looks like someone needs to be reminded of their own words.

Sorry, you’ve lost me here. I was drawing the distinction between the fact that scientist have an established methodology to back up their massive majority view, whereas theists have nothing but shared opinion. That is why the argumentum ad populum fails as a charge against scientists in the matter of what counts as science - they can draw on thousands of cases where science has irrefutably been successful, and the scientific method has been shown to work. Popular theistic opinion has no such cornerstone.

That is classic science by majority.

If you still think this after my previous paragraph, then you clearly fail to grasp what is a very simple distinction.

 

[edwest2]

I invite everyone to read the following:

icr.org/article/95/

Peace,
Ed

 

[wanstronian]

Uh, wanstronian,

Please, allow me to step into the discussion with ya’ll, here.

With all due respect, it’s an opinion, not a fact, that science is dictated by methodology. Imho, science is influenced by economy (grants for research), academic politics (lobbying one’s peers for a consensus on a published matter) and the opinions of one’s superiors. All this human interplay includes “opinion” which does color the viewpoint of the scientist that applies the methodology. That is to say, there is a spin put to the methodolgy, inherent with the academic atmosphere that surrounds research. In other words, there is no unmitigated, nor pure, methodology.
And, I get the impression that your statement premises a pure methodology.
Methodology does not happen in a vacuum, apart from the above influences.

That’s the gist of my disagreement.

That’s a fair comment, I am talking about science in principle. I accept what you say about the numerous influences on science as a practical activity; nevertheless, the principles, the established methodology of science, is well-established and very clear. Individual scientific results can be skewed or misinterpreted, but the beauty of science is that someone else can repeat the experiments and make corrections. It’s a sad fact that when those corrections amount to a negation of the politically-motivated sensationalist original result, it doesn’t get anywhere near as much press. Nevertheless, it does happen, frequently.

The methodology of science is pure, but the application of that methodology is often perverted. Nevertheless, science owes its undeniable success to its intrinsic openness to criticism and correction.

So to believe that, for example, evolution is wrong but has survived as the predominant (in fact, only) scientific theory purely due to external influences on the result of experiments, is to succumb to a conspiracy theory on a massively delusional scale.

I believe my original point is perfectly valid.

God loves you

I seriously doubt that, on many levels!!

 

[Al_Moritz]

I invite everyone to read the following:

icr.org/article/95/

Peace,
Ed

Horrible article. It is clear that the author confused science and philosophy when he was a non-believer; no wonder he would keep on doing the same after coming to believe in God. “Evolutionary science is atheistic” so why don’t we reject it since we believe? (His short embrace of theistic evolution seems just a small chapter in between that ongoing confusion of science with philosophy.)

And Morris and the Genesis Flood? He seems to have become a Young-Earth creationist no less. Certainly he has a lot of credibility . . .

 

[wanstronian]

I invite everyone to read the following:

icr.org/article/95/

Peace,
Ed

Read it. In a nutshell - theistic evolutionist puts religion before science when the chips are down, becomes creationist, spouts rhetoric about a scientific theory being a “religion” despite the clear reasons why it is not.

And all posted on a website which claims it is biblical, accurate and certain, with not a hint of awareness that the first adjective contradicts the remaining two.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I invite everyone to read the following:

icr.org/article/95/

Peace,
Ed

By the way, I don’t believe for a moment any of this from the article:

In one graduate class, the professor told us we didn’t have to memorize the dates of the geologic systems since they were far too uncertain and conflicting. Then in geophysics we went over all of the assumptions that go into radiometric dating. Afterwards, the professor said something like this, “If a fundamentalist ever got hold of this stuff, he would make havoc out of the radiometric dating system. So, keep the faith.” That’s what he told us, “keep the faith.” If it was a matter of keeping faith, I now had another faith I preferred to keep.

That’s called “lying for Jesus”. Despicable.

 

[edwest2]

From yahoo answers:

“Many MANY MANY MANY MANY times I have seen people claim that if Christians get control, all science will be banned.”

This appears to be the real issue.

Peace,
Ed

 

[donsnow]

Well dictated doesn’t mean exclusively. He didn’t say methodology was absolutely the one and only influence on science. Your examples certainly may come into play. However, science strives to minimize those influences in order to achieve neutrality and sound results. “A scientific theory is empirical, and is always open to falsification if new evidence is presented. That is, no theory is ever considered strictly certain as science accepts the concept of fallibilism.” Methodology is the core of science, and does steer (dictate) it in the direction it is intended. Well that’s how I see it anyway, can’t speak for wanstronian.

I have some questions for those that believe in Creationism, specifically, those that interpret the story of Adam and Eve literally. (My question arises from how obvious evolution is to me.) Do you deny evolution completely? Or do you just deny human evolution? For instance, do you accept that dogs are descendents of wolves? Of course, that is intelligent design in a sense - humans being the designer. But you know what I mean. What do you make of fossils that scientists have deemed to be humans’ anscestors? (i.e. species in the genus homo, such as neanderthals.) We can’t technically discuss evolution, but I think it should be ok to just ask for a brief explanation on your beliefs on the matter.

Hi, samian1611,

Thanks for posting. I think I can handle your questions; in that, I can give you the answers that satisfy me.

In response to your first paragraph, I simply don’t esteem science as highly as you do. I see science as one human establishment among several other human establishments (military, law, religion, politics, economy and etc.) with no greater value than any of the other human establishments. So, that’s my view on science, per se.

No, I do not deny evolution completely. I see evolution as one of the wonders which gives evidence that there’s the Creator.

I reject, when it comes to humans or other macro-evolution creatures, “descent of species”.

I question, since there’s no wolves in either Africa nor Australia but there are wild dogs in Africa and Australia, that wolves predicate all dogs. I wonder that could there be dogs without wolves? That’s so in Africa. That’s so in Australia. I wonder, have Darwinists taken the little knowledge of European and America wolves to dogs, and in error applied that to species of dogs that did not descend from wolves? Is there the chance that a repetition of ruling out a parallel development of two different sources of dogs has occured?

All fossils are subject to the interpretation of fallible people. I think that the claim that some fossils show the macro evolution of humans are an error in interpretation.

I do readily accept data not so open to interpretation from micro-biologists that certain types of adaption occur in germs and genes. Which data plainly looks like evolution without any qualifying interpretation. In other words, micro-evolution doesn’t come with a sales pitch and descent of species does need a sales pitch. And, Darwinists have been pitching a sales speil for descent of species ever since Darwin and I still don’t buy it.

Ok, there you have a my brief synopsis on what and why I believe or don’t believe about Darwinism (a quaint nineteenth century creation myth) and micro-biology (clinically tested to repeat itself under like circumstances).

In all fairness , I go along with the people who doubt Darwinist or Neo-Darwinist, evolution won’t ever be clinically tested and/or proven, because humans don’t have long enough life spans to observe billions of years of species activity and change.

My objection to Descent of Species? Common Sense.

I would like to point out, there are several different theories of evoluition, having little or nothing to do with Charles Darwin. Some of those theories say there can be a creator and some say that God is ruled out of the picture. Some include descent of species and some, I guess, don’t. It’s that all those other theories of evolution seem to have been shoved out of the public view by the followers of Charles Darwin. I wish those followers would quit smothering all the other theories of evolution.

There you have it. Did I answer your questions?

God loves you,
Don

 

[Al_Moritz]

My objection to Descent of Species? Common Sense.

Common descent is proven. Here is what I wrote in another discussion:

Common descent

The great triumph of the theory of evolution lies in the stunning convergence of data from paleontology, comparative physiology and genetics. The tree of life, i.e. the pattern of descent of living beings from one another (from bacteria to humans), that can be drafted from the former two exactly correlates with the tree of life from genetic data alone, where descent is analyzed from mutations, gene patterns, gene recombinations, chromosome patterns etc. (exactly = with discrepancies that are so minor that they can safely be assumed to fall within the error of scientific investigation). This convergence cannot be explained in any other way than by actual common descent. The only alternative explanation would be that God faked the evidence and made it look like common descent. But would anyone really want to portray Him as a liar and a charlatan?

Paleontology alone has had spectacular successes. All fossils that have been found have been dated exactly as evolutionary theory had predicted. Never has an intermediary fossil had an age that was not in line with expectations (this would have brought down evolution like a house of cards). Old contentious areas are being resolved. For example, in the last 10-15 years finally fossils of transitional forms have been found between land mammals and whales – just like evolutionary theory had predicted (and again, genetic data are fully in synch with predictions and the findings of paleontology).

In his book The Language of God Francis Collins, famous biologist and Christian, shows how not only genes for different enzymes are aligned in the same sequence within mouse and human chromosomes, but also that there are truncated genes in the same spots that have lost their functions and thus are “junk” remnants that are simply carried along upon gene replication. The only reasonable explanation can be that they came from a common ancestor. If the genes in mice and humans were both designed from scratch by God, why would He insert such functionless (yes, they can be shown to have lost function) “junk” remnants at the same positions? This explanation simply makes no sense.

Apes have 48 chromosomes, humans have 46 (24 and 23 chromosome pairs, respectively). How can humans then originate from apes? Well, it can be shown that the chromosome reduction in humans is found in chromosome 2: this chromosome is in fact a fusion of two chromosomes, as can be precisely shown by the fusion spot, and by the centromere and telomere arrangement (this fact is shown by the Catholic Ken Miller, a hero for evolution education, in each one of his recent talks). A telomere is only found at the end of chromosomes, not in the middle. The fact that human chromosome 2 has telomeres in the middle can only be explained as fusion of two chromosomes. And, there is gene homology in human chromosome 2 with two of the ape chromosomes, as expected if chromosome 2 is a descendant from these two ape chromosomes. Also, the size of human chromosome 2 is exactly the sum of the two ape chromosomes.

The only alternative explanation is, again, to claim that the Creator faked the evidence: He perfectly made it look like chromosome 2 in humans is such a fusion of chromosomes. But would anyone really want to portray Him as a liar and a charlatan?

(I need to put it scientifically more accurately: we don’t originate from apes, but from a common ancestor of modern apes and humans. By the way, this discusses the descent of the human body. The rational soul by which we distinguish ourselves from apes, and by which we are made “in the image of God”, is a different issue.)

Many other examples can be given, but it can be said with confidence:
Common descent is proven without a shadow of a doubt. There is no other reasonable explanation of the overwhelming mountain of correlating data.

 

[vz71]

God clearly does not subject himself to any kind of test whatsoever for his existence! Given your claimed (but not evident) support of science, I wonder why you believe in him.

Just wondering something here.
What experiment would you propose to test for the historic existence of my grandmother?

I imagine there is no experiment possible…but could be wrong.
I also imagine that the only real evidence of her existence in the past is my existence now.

Given this, it would be fairly easy to look around at whatever is nearest, in my case a brick wall, and know that every atom had to come from somewhere.
There is no scientific precedent for something coming from nothing.
Right?

 

[tonyrey]

Your faith is that the “natural” can explain itself - without you ever having to explain what the “natural” is - an ambiguous term that covers every eventuality. How would you define it? The things you can see, hear, touch, smell and taste?

Confidence in science amounts to confidence in the power of reason - which cannot be explained by science!

This is very different to the blind faith, unencumbered by even the smallest shred of evidence, that an invisible, all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful god exists or has ever existed.

Faith in the power of reason and in the intelligibility of reality amounts to a rejection of the primacy of atomic particles. Logical positivism collapsed because its proponents realised that the verifiability principle cannot be verified by sense observation, i.e. empirical knowledge. All facts, principles and explanations are intangible and are not located in the brain yet they are real. If they aren’t real we are wasting our time and energy! Crude materialism was abandoned long ago by anyone who came to grips with the problem of knowledge.

In answer to your question about what “natural” is - right again - everything is natural. That’s not ambiguous, it’s just a recognition of the fact that there is no evidence or even a reasonable suggestion that anything exists beyond that which can ultimately be described in scientific terms.

How on earth would you prove that proposition? There is **no evidence **whatsoever that reality consists solely of what you can see, taste, smell, hear and touch. In fact evidence is an abstraction. Sense data in themselves are meaningless. Science itself is intangible and cannot be explained in scientific terms! It is based on logical and epistemological premises, axioms, principles and conclusions. All our knowledge of the outside world is the result of inference from our perceptions. Our minds are the starting point because we are the observers, interpreters and creators of science whereas our bodies are just the instruments we use to implement our discoveries and inventions.

 

[rossum]

“Many MANY MANY MANY MANY times I have seen people claim that if Christians get control, all science will be banned.”

This appears to be the real issue.

It is a real issue. Here is an excerpt from the Answers in Genesis Statement of Faith:4:6 By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

answersingenesis.org/about/faith
That says that science will not be allowed if AiG get control. Scientists will only be allowed to publish results that conform with scripture. That would not be science any more.

ICR’s tenets place similar theological restrictions on science.

Would you consider an organisation whach said: “We will only allow scientific results if they conform with our interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita.” to be a genuinely scientific organisation?

rossum

 

[edwest2]

So, how will any of these groups take control?

Peace,
Ed

 

[Mystic_Banana]

I do not know which experiments you are talking about specifically, when you mention “half the world”. However, on the contrary, the last decade has seen tremendous success in getting closer to solving the puzzle. If you would have asked me 10 years ago about an origin of life by natural causes, I would have said, no way, this is ludicrous. Now I say it is almost a certainty.

Hang on - werent they trying to demonstrate abiogenesis at CERN about a year or 2 ago? And failed? I seem to remember a phase where there was even a theory that “the future stopped it happening” or somesuch, since it wasn’t understood how it hadn’t worked

Did I dream this? It was on “Have I got news for you” and everything!