Creationism v. Intelligent Design v. Evolution

[inocente]

The existence of irreducibly complex systems.
That is predicted in ID, and it is fairly easy to test out.

Thanks but the only attempts I’ve seen were quickly falsified - they were found to be composites of simpler systems, and the simpler systems were likewise not irreducibly complex.

 

[vz71]

Thanks, I downloaded the first four, but they’re not what I was looking for.

Darwin, (I think in On The Origin), says words to the effect that if one example of a living thing can be found which can’t be explained by his theory then his theory goes straight in the garbage. Up to now of course no such example has been found, despite a lot of people looking.

The first one.
The first cannot be explained by his theory.

Man himself likewise cannot be explained by the theory.
Our human nature, our emotions, cannot be explained by the theory.

 

[Al_Moritz]

A true disciple speaks.

Absolutely no problems with evolution. Amazing.

That is not what I said. I said the merits of its rejection are zero. Of course evolution still has problems, because not all questions are answered yet – that’s why we do science, remember? But at this point there is no rational reason to assume that the unanswered questions will not be resolved.

 

[vz71]

Thanks but the only attempts I’ve seen were quickly falsified - they were found to be composites of simpler systems, and the simpler systems were likewise not irreducibly complex.

And with each iteration of subsystem comes an increase in the improbability of it coming about by mere chance.

At some point you reach an improbability that defies the imagination.

Remember, just because a thing can happen does not mean it will.

 

[ricmat]

A true disciple speaks.

Absolutely no problems with evolution. Amazing.

That is not what I said. I said the merits of its rejection are zero. Of course evolution still has problems, because not all questions are answered yet – that’s why we do science, remember? But at this point there is no rational reason to assume that the unanswered questions will not be resolved.

Limitless faith that the unanswered questions will be resolved. (And apparently, if you disagree then you are not being rational).

Amazing.

 

[inocente]

And with each iteration of subsystem comes an increase in the improbability of it coming about by mere chance.

At some point you reach an improbability that defies the imagination.

Remember, just because a thing can happen does not mean it will.

But that’s a very different hypothesis, nothing to do with irreducible complexity. It would need its own tests, but last time I looked it was based on wrong data, oversights, a wrong understanding of probability and a wrong understanding of how to calculate composite probability - comprehensively wrong, it could not be more wrong if it tried, it was like someone took all the wrong things they could think up, mashed them together in a hurry and said yeah, that´ll do, just as long as it looks technical enough to fool the choir.

 

[edwest2]

While you are right that scientists often confuse science with philosophy, that should not be a problem for an informed theist. It should not be a reason for us to reject evolution, rather, we should be setting the record straight instead.

Why do you think it was decided to include such philosophical statements in the first place?

Peace,
Ed

 

[LittleSoldier]

Accepted, thank you.

For those who read published scientific papers, the approach to a project is one of the keys to understanding. Approach is often found in the abstract or introduction. Approach can be in the form of a purpose or a goal. Sometimes the approach is limited by the methods or the availability of materials, e.g., samples, data.

As is often said, the realm of science is material/physical. It used to be that Catholics would be confident enough in their skills that they could consider other realms of information, such as a spiritual or non-material source, when dealing with a project. I said information not evidence. But as I think about the current real world, I am not sure if that is true. In the old days, science undergrads took philosophy courses, which would provide analytical skills as well as a broader perspective of life.
Life changes and sometimes wisdom is lost.

Blessings,
granny

Isaiah 55: 6-9

I have three degrees in science (B.S. biology, B.A. psychology, M.A. psychology research methodology/advanced statistics/animal behavior). I’m not saying this to boast; the most important thing I learned in college was that I know so little.

Philosophy? I took one class in ethics and I have suffered ever since with not knowing enough about the very important subject of philosophy. At the very least every college degree should require at least one course in logic. I wish I had taken that class! Learning via online sources is not a substitute for real classes with a knowledgeable instructor who can answer questions. The best I can do right now is call a friend who knows logic fairly well. There is a huge gap in my education caused by my lack of knowledge of philosophy and it isn’t limited to logic.

Another gap is caused by my lack of knowledge in anthropology, although this is an easier subject (IMHO) to tackle via online sources and reading books. Again, I took one course in anthropology and I can’t even remember if it was physical or cultural.

Of course it’s easy to see these gaps with the 20-20 hindsight I have now. I wish I had seen them when I could have more easily done something about closing them.

 

[minkymurph]

Before you go into detail in another post, you should probably read something about ID that is written by supporters of ID.

Signature in the Cell devotes the first few chapters to the different types of scientific knowledge, and other knowledge that can be used to draw conclusions.

There are some actual FAQs on this page
intelligentdesign.org/faq.php

as well as links to other ID FAQs. It would be good if you read some of them.

Sorry ricmat - I have read some of the FAQ’s on the link you provided. I would argue this site is attempting to disguise the religious nature of ID. I referred to this in my last post. I will outline my reasons.

First, I would be skeptical of anything I read on the internet. When I read anything on the internet, I always consider; who wrote it, why did they write it, and how does it compare with objective, recognized, academic sources on the same topic?

The site claims that certain features of the universe can best be explained by an intelligent cause. It also claims to be an agnostic investigation. Why does the author of this material think it is the best way? One would also have to assume, or believe proof of an intelligent designer exists if it is the best way to explain it. Some agnostics would argue if there is no evidence for the existence of an intelligent designer, it cannot be called the best way to explain it. Other agnostics might argue there may be an intelligent designer, but it cannot be known whether there is an intelligent designer or not. If the existence of an intelligent designer cannot be established one way or the other, then intelligent design cannot be considered the best option.

It is true that belief in an intelligent designer is not a new concept. It has been believed for centuries as this site claims. However, the nature and concepts of ID have changed and contemporary concepts differ greatly from those proposed by Plato and Cicero, and Judeo-Christianity. This site also claims humans can observe intelligent design. Only if humans believe there is an intelligent designer. If they do not, are they not likely to attribute some other cause to the particular feature in question? Therefore, I would say acceptance of ID requires belief that an intelligent designer exists meaning, there is an underlying religious intention.

This site claims that ID challenges Neo-Darwinian opinions concerning natural selection acting on random mutations that are unpredictable and purposeless. Why do they want to challenge it? Is it because ID rejects the scientific evidence that unpredictable, random mutations occur, or because they accept they do occur and have a purpose? This site appears to fall short on clarification in that regard, but I may have missed that.

The site claims that they have no commitment to defending Genesis. If IDer’s believe in God and the bible then I say they should be. However, I addressed that argument in another post. If that is true, what are they committed to defending? The belief there is an intelligent designer who directs the universe and living things? OK, there is an intelligent designer who directs the universe and living things and certain features of the universe and living things can best be explained by an intelligent cause. Now what? Have we got to God and Genesis now? Or does ID stop short of that because it has no religious intention, no commitment to Genesis, and if someone wants to discuss such issues IDer’s would immediately direct them to the religious world because that’s their field of expertise and nothing to do with them? They merely want establish by use of empirical evidence that supports the view that the best way to explain certain features of the universe can best be explained by an intelligent cause and challenge Neo-Darwinism.

Call me a cynic but I don’t buy it. I don’t mean any disrespect to you. I’m quite sure you are sincere. But the intentions of the leaders of the ID movement is something I would be very skeptical of.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc… in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations).

Say what??? Why do you claim it is “virtually certain?” Please tell me more.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Anyone else?

Me. And that is because I do not understand what ID is. I’ve read numerous posts and still walk away, shaking my head, because I simply do not understand. I understand evolutionary theory and I understand creationism but ID is way out there in the Twilight Zone (sorry). IMHO.

If one wants to present ID to the masses, one needs to be able to present it in a form that is more easily understood. I’m a scientist and I don’t understand it! How can anyone expect those who haven’t even gone to college to understand something that is apparently as complex as ID is? (I’m not saying that those who go to college are more intelligent because I’ve known people who never graduated from high school who are a lot smarter than me, and that includes Jesus). But the terminology is difficult for the average person to understand. IMHO.

Simple statements, simple words, made clear to those with average intelligence (90 - 110 IQ or so) and comprehension skills. That would be very nice and very appreciated.

 

[minkymurph]

You’re right. I’m not very smart Especially compared with you guys.

Please don’t say that about yourself. :console:

The fact that you have said it indicates you’re smart enough not to argue about things you don’t fully understand and have the humility (a rare quality today) to say so. Besides, I’ve known some very clever people who have said and done some pretty stupid things, and people who are as thick as two short planks saying and doing things that leave smarter people astounded!

The only difference in you and anyone else here is they may have had a more extensive education. That doesn’t make people smarter, it just means they know more. Learn from those and know more and then form your own *informed * opinion.

 

[ricmat]

Sorry ricmat - I have read some of the FAQ’s on the link you provided. I would argue this site is attempting to disguise the religious nature of ID. I referred to this in my last post. I will outline my reasons.

First, I would be skeptical of anything I read on the internet. When I read anything on the internet, I always consider; who wrote it, why did they write it, and how does it compare with objective, recognized, academic sources on the same topic?

The site claims that certain features of the universe can best be explained by an intelligent cause. It also claims to be an agnostic investigation. Why does the author of this material think it is the best way? One would also have to assume, or believe proof of an intelligent designer exists if it is the best way to explain it.

Why is it the best way? Is there intelligent design at work? That’s what e.g. Signature in the Cell is all about (as one example). You’d have to read the book I suppose.

Some agnostics would argue if there is no evidence for the existence of an intelligent designer, it cannot be called the best way to explain it. Other agnostics might argue there may be an intelligent designer, but it cannot be known whether there is an intelligent designer or not. If the existence of an intelligent designer cannot be established one way or the other, then intelligent design cannot be considered the best option.

Again, I think you would need to read the book where the arguments are presented. You are dismissing the arguments as part of your assumptions.

This site also claims humans can observe intelligent design. Only if humans believe there is an intelligent designer.

mm - we KNOW that intelligent designers exist. You are one. I am one. Our friend Al is one. Why would we not believe in an intelligent designer, or intelligent design in general? Design exists. It was my job for 25 years or so (based on the products I designed however, one might not ascribe to them the title of “intelligent” design - but then, everybody has a pointy-hair boss )

Now, if you minkymurph, were to look at the universe and say - “If it was designed, then it’s obvious that the designer must be what we call God” - well, that’s your choice, but not a requirement. Some would not come to that conclusion.

If they do not, are they not likely to attribute some other cause to the particular feature in question? Therefore, I would say acceptance of ID requires belief that an intelligent designer exists meaning, there is an underlying religious intention.

There are many different sorts of people who support ID. Some of them are very religious. Some are not. What their intentions are is totally irrelevant. One can look at the facts presented independently of whether the author is a Catholic, agnostic, atheist, Buddhist, etc.

Perhaps some of these people have hidden agenda. Not unlike evolution. So what?

This site claims that ID challenges Neo-Darwinian opinions concerning natural selection acting on random mutations that are unpredictable and purposeless. Why do they want to challenge it? Is it because ID rejects the scientific evidence that unpredictable, random mutations occur, or because they accept they do occur and have a purpose? This site appears to fall short on clarification in that regard, but I may have missed that.

They want to challenge it because they think a purposeless, unguided process is is insufficient to account for the life we see today. Admittedly, a FAQ doesn’t go into this in detail, which is why I keep recommending the book.

The site claims that they have no commitment to defending Genesis. If IDer’s believe in God and the bible then I say they should be.

Many ID people do defend Genesis. Many do not.

OK, there is an intelligent designer who directs the universe and living things and certain features of the universe and living things can best be explained by an intelligent cause. Now what? Have we got to God and Genesis now?

Some people at that point will make the philosophical (not scientific) leap that there must be a God. Some people will not make that leap. The data is there. ID does not insist that you make the leap, although many ID folks would no doubt be overjoyed if some did.

Or does ID stop short of that because it has no religious intention, no commitment to Genesis, and if someone wants to discuss such issues IDer’s would immediately direct them to the religious world because that’s their field of expertise and nothing to do with them? They merely want establish by use of empirical evidence that supports the view that the best way to explain certain features of the universe can best be explained by an intelligent cause and challenge Neo-Darwinism.

One of the FAQs explains that ID does not challenge neo-Darwinism in its entirety. The same data can be viewed in other ways and different conclusions reached. ID in fact states that microevolution does occur, but that the complex life we see today could not be the result of a purposeless, unguided process. There are mathematical and other reasons for coming to this conclusion.

Call me a cynic but I don’t buy it. I don’t mean any disrespect to you. I’m quite sure you are sincere. But the intentions of the leaders of the ID movement is something I would be very skeptical of.

And what are the intentions of the evolution movement?

 

[Al_Moritz]

Limitless faith that the unanswered questions will be resolved. (And apparently, if you disagree then you are not being rational).

Amazing.

I don’t have ‘limitless faith’: I have an entirely rational assumption. Big difference.

 

[ricmat]

I don’t have ‘limitless faith’: I have an entirely rational assumption. Big difference.

But you seem to be saying that you know that the unanswered questions will be resolved by the ToE. Certain knowledge is usually associated with faith.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Name your top three ID fairytales.

1. DNA code cannot arise by natural causes *), but must be designed.
2. Evolution cannot increase information content.
3. Irreducible complexity.

*) again, natural causes does not mean ‘godless causes’. I will never tire warning against this philosophical error which appears to be at the root of many misunderstandings. Natural causes are created by God, and do not ‘stand in competition’ with Him and His providence.

 

[Al_Moritz]

But you seem to be saying that you know that the unanswered questions will be resolved by the ToE. Certain knowledge is usually associated with faith.

If you want to read something into my statement that I have not said, it only reflects on your own biases, not on me.

 

[buffalo]

Say what??? Why do you claim it is “virtually certain?” Please tell me more.

Lateran IV Profession of Faith.

 

[buffalo]

1. DNA code cannot arise by natural causes *), but must be designed.
2. Evolution cannot increase information content.
3. Irreducible complexity.

*) again, natural causes does not mean ‘godless causes’. I will never tire warning against this philosophical error which appears to be at the root of many misunderstandings. Natural causes are created by God, and do not ‘stand in competition’ with Him and His providence.

1. To falsify #1 all I have to see is another code that nature produced.
2. Evolution has to show that - “a big brown fox jumped over the fence” when mutated gives more sophisticated information.

Let us try:

"x bfg brown fox jumped over the fence

x bfg brown fix jomped over the fence

x bfg brown fix jo9mped ovrr thu mence

It is pretty clear if we keep mutating this sentence that all meaning will disappear.

1. IC - The mousetrap. I put together a number of parts to specifically catch a mouse. If I remove one of the parts the efficiency of the trap goes way down. If I remove one more probability goes down magnitudes further. Soon the trap is useless for its intention.

We can also discuss the ATP synthase motor present in each and every cell, the energy producer. No energy no life.

 

[buffalo]

Al, are you going to tackle this?

**Dvolution **- God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.

This accounts for the diversity of life we see. The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the “kind” that they began as. Life has been created with the creativity built in ready to respond to triggering events.

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc… in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations).

IDvolution considers the latest science and is consistent with the continuous teaching of the Church.