Creationism v. Intelligent Design v. Evolution

[tonyrey]

Whether the amount of carbon on Earth has changed is irrelevant. The issue is the initial suitability of the Earth for life.
If Earth had not been suitable for life then we would not be here. You have a biased sample of one; that is not a good basis for making statistical predictions.

Evolution is an explanation of the physical origin of species. We can extend it slightly to include abiogenesis as the explanation of the origin of physical life. Science deals with the material. While we both agree that life contains non-physical components I do not see it as useful to discuss them since our theologies differ so profoundly. Buddhism does not have souls and Christianity does not have gandhabbas.In the context of the OP Buddhism would be “something else entirely” - which does not constitute an explanation of the universe.

Vishnu is a god,

But he is not your god. He is not the Christian God.He is a supernatural being nevertheless.

“we don’t know” is not an explanation,

It is the standard scientific answer to any question where that answer is currently unknown. There are things we do not currently know, and some of them are in the area of abiogenesis. It is precisely because there are unknown things that it is still a live research area.That type of answer is still not an explanation.

chance and aliens ultimately presuppose God or physical necessity.

No. Chance is an alternative to necessity. What was Monod’s book called?Chance **and **Necessity. They are supplementary.

Precisely! That reinforces the argument that the universe is fine tuned! No universe is one of the possibilities that should be taken into account.

That still does not answer my question. Without knowing the full range of possible values we cannot calculate the probability of the value being within the sub-range that allows life. If you only have one of the two numbers then you cannot calculate their ratio.

1. “With some values of some physical constants there is no universe at all - the Big Bang goes phut” - and therefore no life, reinforcing the argument for fine tuning!
2. Many estimates of probability even in science are not based on a precise ratio. I am not a scientist but I think it is highly probable(!) that the range of some physical constants is determined to some extent by the range of other physical constants. Is your belief in Buddhism based on statistical probability? If not what is its basis?

Do you not understand that we are considering all possible universes?

I understand that. If we are to consider all possible universes then we also need to consider all possible forms of physical life. This is yet another unknown that muddies any conclusion. Humans could not survive in a completely water filled universe; fish could survive in such a universe.
The issue is the probability of any type of life within our experience. For the most part scientists are not concerned with possibilities beyond their experience unless a phenomenon seems to require an unknown factor. Even then they have to give reasons for their hypothesis which are congruent with established theories. Ultimately an explanation must be adequate, correspond to our experience and be fertile, all of which criteria are satisfied by theism.

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:

1. Most life on this planet almost became extinct several times.
2. Immensely complex organisms are far less likely to survive than simple ones.

[/QUOTE]

 

[grannymh]

Not according to the author of this article.

Is the Pope saying evolution and creation?

Check out the original speech. If it is the one I am thinking of, there have been slightly different versions by various media sources. If not, then the “quotes” above need to be read in context of Catholic teaching. A lot of readers are not familiar with “Pope-speak”.

 

[vz71]

The vast majority of living organisms use DNA as part of their intra-cellular chemistry. Removing parts of a cell’s DNA, such as its mitochondrial DNA, will kill that cell.

rossum

Exposing the vast majority of living organisms to hard vacuum will likewise kill them.
So what?

There are many ways to kill organisms, our science is very good at finding them.

Now please, what is your scientific reasoning to determine that the DNA has anything at all to do with life?

 

[grannymh]

.

The author is saying that he/she is of the opinion that evolution and the Genesis account are perfectly compatible and the Pope is sending mixed signals. If the author thinks the Pope is sending mixed signals, to the author the Pope is not being clear. I addition, the author is saying the Pope thinks evolution and Genesis is compatible meaning, the author does not think the Pope is not against evolution.

Balderdash!

The greater majority of readership have no clue about the Book of Genesis in relationship to the current scientific theories regarding the diversity of the species.
The simple majority of readership have no clue about evolution in the 21st century and the split between Catholicism and some of the other Christians.

Naturally, there are zillions of mixed signals especially when the readership depends on sound bites and mantras for their information. Of course, it takes effort to check the context of statements. Fingers and toes can be used to estimate the amount of people who will go beyond the breaking news at the check-out counter.

 

[minkymurph]

Balderdash!

That’s just rude.

The greater majority of readership have no clue about the Book of Genesis in relationship to the current scientific theories regarding the diversity of the species.
The simple majority of readership have no clue about evolution in the 21st century and the split between Catholicism and some of the other Christians.

So, in your opinion most of the people who read this article haven’t got a clue about the book of Genesis in relationship to to the current scientific theories regarding the diversity of the species. How can you jump to that conclusion? Do you all the individuals who have read this article? If not, how do you know what the greater majority of people who read this article know and don’t know?

Naturally, there are zillions of mixed signals especially when the readership depends on sound bites and mantras for their information. Of course, it takes effort to check the context of statements. Fingers and toes can be used to estimate the amount of people who will go beyond the breaking news at the check-out counter.

This statement suggests you don’t have much regard for the intellect of others. The article in question was not a record of what the Pope said, it was an article **about **what the Pope said. Therefore, one cannot know *I]from this article ***exactly what the Pope said. In which case, it makes no difference whether the ignorant masses can understand Pope talk or the relationship between science and Genesis because it’s not what the article is about.

I wrote this in response to another poster who used this article to support the view that the Pope has been absolutely clear. In my opinion, and I would say that even one of the lowly masses who is completely ignorant of Genesis, science and Pope talk is entitled to have an opinion, (although some may disagree) this article cannot be used to support the view the Pope has been absolutely clear because, **the author of the article **does not think the Pope has been clear - the author is of the opinion that the Pope is sending mixed signals. that does not mean I think, or anyone else thinks the Pope was not clear. It means the author thinks he was not. Of course, the author could be one of those ignorant masses you mentioned and therefore, doesn’t know what they are talking about. I personally wouldn’t know because I don’t who the author of this article was and I don’t know their views. If people think the Pope has been clear, fine. However, **I]this article **cannot be used to support that view because the **author **of this article, not me or the masses people out there who are apparently ignorant of Genesis and Pope talk among other things, I]seems to be of the opinion the Pope is sending mixed signals. I would take that to mean the author thinks the Pope has not been absolutely clear.

 

[grannymh]

That’s just rude.

Balderdash means nonsense. If that means something is rude, then you have my sincere apology for upsetting you.

 

[rossum]

Then much cosmology is invalid!

Cosmology is the study of the universe we live in. How is is invalid? Your probability estimates are invalid because there are terms we do not know the value of.

Chance **and **Necessity. They are supplementary.

Not according to ID proponent Dr Dembski.

1. “With some values of some physical constants there is no universe at all - the Big Bang goes phut” - and therefore no life, reinforcing the argument for fine tuning!
2. Many estimates of probability even in science are not based on a precise ratio. I am not a scientist but I think it is highly probable(!) that the range of some physical constants is determined to some extent by the range of other physical constants.

We can indeed calculate using an estimate, which gives us a range of outcomes. We cannot calculate if one term is completely unknown. Show your calculations, and how you got your estimates for the relevant values, and we can proceed.

Is your belief in Buddhism based on statistical probability? If not what is its basis?

I am Buddhist because Buddhism works. It delivers on its promises.

The issue is the probability of any type of life within our experience.

Why? If you want an overall probability of how likely life is to appear in a random universe then you need to include all possible forms of life. If you only include a subset of types of life then you are biasing the result. Perhaps Earth is completely unsuitable for some forms of life. That does not mean that Earth is unsuitable for all forms of life.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Now please, what is your scientific reasoning to determine that the DNA has anything at all to do with life?

I have given my answer. If you don’t like it then that is your problem. Alternatively you could show me some living organism that does not use DNA. I have already mentioned RNA-only viruses as an exception. Do you have any other examples?

rossum

 

[vz71]

I have given my answer. If you don’t like it then that is your problem. Alternatively you could show me some living organism that does not use DNA. I have already mentioned RNA-only viruses as an exception. Do you have any other examples?

rossum

You have chosen a rather arbitrary property of living things and simply decided it is what is necessary for life.
You also have conveniently ignored exceptions to the rule you came up with.

This does not seem very scientific.

And, no. I do not believe you have answered.
What exactly is your scientific basis for deciding that the DNA has anything to do with life?

 

[rossum]

You have chosen a rather arbitrary property of living things and simply decided it is what is necessary for life.

Not arbitrary. Any ID scientist will tell you that information is required for life, and DNA is a way of storing information.

You also have conveniently ignored exceptions to the rule you came up with.

I tend to ignore viruses because they are not alive under some definitions of “life”. They are also not the original form of life since they are obligate parasites and cannot have been original if there were nothing to parasitise.

What exactly is your scientific basis for deciding that the DNA has anything to do with life?

The fact that you are unable to show me any non-DNA forms of life. I have answered your questions. How about you answering one of mine for a change.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Cosmology is the study of the universe we live in. How is it invalid?

You have a biased sample of one universe!

Your probability estimates are invalid because there are terms we do not know the value of.

Many scientific principles and conclusions are not based on knowledge of precise values, e.g.** the principle of induction.**

Chance and Necessity. They are supplementary.

Not according to ID proponent Dr Dembski.

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

1. “With some values of some physical constants there is no universe at all - the Big Bang goes phut” - and therefore no life, reinforcing the argument for fine tuning!

1. Many estimates of probability even in science are not based on a precise ratio. I am not a scientist but I think it is highly probable(!) that the range of some physical constants is determined to some extent by the range of other physical constants.

We can indeed calculate using an estimate, which gives us a range of outcomes. We cannot calculate if one term is completely unknown. Show your calculations, and how you got your estimates for the relevant values, and we can proceed.

I have pointed out that many estimates of probability even in science are not based on a precise ratio.

Is your belief in Buddhism based on statistical probability? If not what is its basis?

I am Buddhist because Buddhism works. It delivers on its promises.

But you believe it even though it is not based on statistical probability! Does the theory that life is an accident deliver on its promises?

The issue is the probability of any type of life within our experience.

Why? If you want an overall probability of how likely life is to appear in a random universe then you need to include all possible forms of life. If you only include a subset of types of life then you are biasing the result. Perhaps Earth is completely unsuitable for some forms of life. That does not mean that Earth is unsuitable for all forms of life.

That is an argument from ignorance. If scientists followed that approach they would venture to postulate far fewer hypotheses because there are so many possible unknown factors.I have also pointed out that scientists are not concerned with possibilities beyond their experience unless a phenomenon seems to require an unknown factor. Even then they have to give reasons which are congruent with established theories. Ultimately an explanation must be adequate, correspond to our experience and be fertile, all of which criteria are satisfied by theism.

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:

1. Most life on this planet has almost become extinct several times.
2. Immensely complex organisms are far less likely to survive than simple ones.

 

[buffalo]

Not arbitrary. Any ID scientist will tell you that information is required for life, and DNA is a way of storing information.

I tend to ignore viruses because they are not alive under some definitions of “life”. They are also not the original form of life since they are obligate parasites and cannot have been original if there were nothing to parasitise.

The fact that you are unable to show me any non-DNA forms of life. I have answered your questions. How about you answering one of mine for a change.

rossum

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

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

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

ID the science, posits it is from a designer.

Materialism posits it grew from nothing.

 

[tonyrey]

Cosmology is the study of the universe we live in. How is it invalid?

Not according to ID proponent Dr Dembski.
I’m sure you don’t regard Demski as an authority! And Monod was a Nobel Laureate…

1. “With some values of some physical constants there is no universe at all - the Big Bang goes phut” - and therefore no life, reinforcing the argument for fine tuning!
2. Many estimates of probability even in science are not based on a precise ratio. I am not a scientist but I think it is highly probable(!) that the range of some physical constants is determined to some extent by the range of other physical constants.
   We can indeed calculate using an estimate, which gives us a range of outcomes. We cannot calculate if one term is completely unknown. Show your calculations, and how you got your estimates for the relevant values, and we can proceed.

I have pointed out that many estimates of probability even in science are not based on a precise ratio. Is your belief in Buddhism based on statistical probability? If not what is its basis?

I am Buddhist because Buddhism works. It delivers on its promises.

But you believe it even though it is not based on statistical probability?

Why? If you want an overall probability of how likely life is to appear in a random universe then you need to include all possible forms of life. If you only include a subset of types of life then you are biasing the result. Perhaps Earth is completely unsuitable for some forms of life. That does not mean that Earth is unsuitable for all forms of life.

That is an argument from ignorance. If scientists followed that approach they would venture to postulate far fewer hypotheses because there are so many possible unknown factors. I have also pointed out that:

Sscientists are not concerned with possibilities beyond their experience unless a phenomenon seems to require an unknown factor. Even then they have to give reasons for their hypothesis which are congruent with established theories. Ultimately an explanation must be adequate, correspond to our experience and be fertile, all of which criteria are satisfied by theism.

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:

1. Most life on this planet almost became extinct several times.
2. Immensely complex organisms are far less likely to survive than simple ones, e.g. dinosaurs and amoeba.

[/QUOTE]

 

[minkymurph]

Balderdash means nonsense. If that means something is rude, then you have my sincere apology for upsetting you.

Accepted.

 

[vz71]

The fact that you are unable to show me any non-DNA forms of life. I have answered your questions. How about you answering one of mine for a change.

rossum

You are the one claiming scientific process.
And you still have not provided the scientific basis for the decision.

 

[vz71]

Materialism posits it grew from nothing.

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

 

[Al_Moritz]

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

Why do you think Rossum is a materialist?

 

[tonyrey]

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
2. The one sample we have is insufficient
3. Your criteria of probability are defective because they imply there is no reason to believe Buddhism is true

 

[tonyrey]

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

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

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

ID the science, posits it is from a designer.

Materialism posits it grew from nothing.

Irrefutable!

 

[rossum]

You have a biased sample of one universe!

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.

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?

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.

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).

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.

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.

rossum