B
buffalo
Guest
I think you will come around - eventually, if you are a truth seeker.
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
Update your reading list.
B
buffalo
Guest
“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality… Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” ~ Michael Ruse, How evolution became a religion: creationists correct?
Michael Ruse no less.
Michael Ruse no less.
N
niceatheist
Guest
If I come to believe in God (and I’m not as far away as you may think), it won’t be based on fake science like ID. Theological evolution would be the appropriate route, which doesn’t require basically lying about evolutionary theory.niceatheist:
I think you will come around - eventually, if you are a truth seeker.
B
buffalo
Guest
You do not think there are any issues with TE?
B
buffalo
Guest
Good. Neither do I. The science must be sound and correctly reasoned. Right?
E
edwest211
Guest
“what we see in biology”?
E
edwest211
Guest
That’s the version being promoted here. 
N
niceatheist
Guest
From a scientific perspective, it’s not a consideration. It’s the means by which a person of faith can reconcile their faith with science without breaking their faith or science.niceatheist:
You do not think there are any issues with TE?
ID, or at least the formulation that the likes of Michael Behe and William Dembski came up with (largely to try to get Creationism into the classroom after Edwards v. Aguillard) is pseudoscience. There was a bit of a forensic breakdown of where Intelligent Design as a term came from, with a version of Of Pandas and People came up during the Dover Trial with the infamous search and replace fail that had “Cdesign_proponentsists” showing up throughout the draft manuscript, due to a hasty replacement of “creationist” replaced with “design proponent”.
Unlike ID, TE makes no claim as to what elements of biology are “too complex”, and is a more general principle that evolution wasn’t necessarily unguided. Again, not useful from a scientific perspective, but that isn’t the purpose of TE. TE’s purpose is almost the opposite of ID’s.
E
edwest211
Guest
“The researchers believe this shredding technique could be useful in non-coding regions of DNA, where they can delete long sections to assess what happens. Cas3 also has the ability to travel long distances along chromosomes, which is currently not possible with Cas9. Therefore, it might also be a useful platform in epigenome engineering if the shredding ability is removed.”
Source: https://www.biotechniques.com/crispr/crispr-upgraded-from-scissors-to-shredder/
Source: https://www.biotechniques.com/crispr/crispr-upgraded-from-scissors-to-shredder/
N
niceatheist
Guest
And for that to happen, science can’t reference supernatural causes, and neither can it reference pseudoscientific concepts like “irreducible complexity”. So for someone like me, if you’re trying to convince me to believe in God (and as I said, I’m not as far away from that as you may think), referencing bad pseudoscience developed in the late 1980s because the US Supreme Court rejected teaching Creationism in public science classes, you’re going in the wrong direction. That’s intentionally trying to make a metaphysical argument sound like a scientific one. I’d argue ID is even bad metaphysics. TE doesn’t answer scientific questions either, but neither does it pretend to answer scientific questions.niceatheist:
Good. Neither do I. The science must be sound and correctly reasoned. Right?
B
buffalo
Guest
First off, we don’t do science based on a judges decision. Research will go on and enter the public domain.
IC - If something is claimed to be IC, all evo has to do is show the continuous path and steps to achieve it. At every step it must show the increase in fitness. In the case of the mousetrap, the fact there are parts used that are used elsewhere is not a good argument. The mousetrap contains high FSCI. What will you say when FSCI is more ably to be formulized mathematically? We know functional specifies complex design when we see it. We know this only comes from a mind.
ATP synthase motor - what came first the energy or the motor?
N
niceatheist
Guest
The problem is that IC isn’t a scientific claim. Science doesn’t need to deal with it all. Scientists work in the realm of science, not in the wishful thinking of Creationists who want to impose their world view on science.
B
buffalo
Guest
It isn’t? Then why are the evo folks trying to use experiments to refute it? In addition, the complexity of this motor is a further challenge that cannot be ignored.
Remember: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
–Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
“The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations , hypothesis , experiments , and conclusion . ID begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be tested for by reverse-engineering biological structures through genetic knockout experiments to determine if they require all of their parts to function. When scientists experimentally uncover irreducible complexity in a biological structure, they conclude that it was designed.”
Last edited:
N
niceatheist
Guest
I don’t recall any scientist using science to refute it. It always as an empty claim. Biologists have ignored it. It’s never been published in any journal that I’m aware of (I think someone tried to get a paper pushed through a dubious journal a decade or so ago). Believe it or not, most scientists don’t pay any attention to Creationists at all. I imagine folks like Dawkins have probably given it closer inspection, but the only real application I ever heard of was an attempt during the Dover trial to assert that IC was needed to explain the vertebrate immune system, which was rebuffed by dozens of papers over decades demonstrating the evolutionary pathways that lead to the vertebrate immune system. That’s what you’re referring to in your bold text, and as I said, there were already explanations for the evolution of the system, which either Behe knew and attempted to deceive the court on, or he’s not much of a microbiologist at all. Since his colleagues have never complained about his published work or research as a scientist, I’m afraid I have to lean toward Behe either intentionally attempting to deceive, or having compartmentalized his scientific background from religious beliefs that he’s deluded himself.
You seem to think a few IDers raising objections constitutes some sort of coherent and meaningful rebuttal. But IC has never been successfully applied, even in areas where it might be useful (for instance, information theory). The problem always is that “complexity” as a scientific notion is, er, complex.
But really, even if you could somehow assert any given structure needed intelligent intervention, it raises three issues; one being whether one can be really certain that natural forces weren’t involved, secondly what was the mechanism by which the said intelligent designer made the change, and third, who was the intelligent designer. It’s often a question in archaeology; for instance when dealing with the most ancient stone tools, where it takes some work to identify flint tools as being the product of intelligent intervention. You have the tool, you have evidence that it was worked (fashioned), and then you attempt to answer who it was that did it.
ID is specifically designed NOT to answer the last two questions. it’s an assertion that an intelligent Designer made the structure in question, but because it’s just Creationism in disguise, it literally cannot answer the latter questions, because to do so reveals what it really is, Creationism.
I have to ask though, why is any of this necessary? What fundamentally is incompatible between evolution and Christianity? Would you stop believing in God if you couldn’t lean on IC? Is that the nature of your faith, to seek out direct evidence of God’s intervention?
You seem to think a few IDers raising objections constitutes some sort of coherent and meaningful rebuttal. But IC has never been successfully applied, even in areas where it might be useful (for instance, information theory). The problem always is that “complexity” as a scientific notion is, er, complex.
But really, even if you could somehow assert any given structure needed intelligent intervention, it raises three issues; one being whether one can be really certain that natural forces weren’t involved, secondly what was the mechanism by which the said intelligent designer made the change, and third, who was the intelligent designer. It’s often a question in archaeology; for instance when dealing with the most ancient stone tools, where it takes some work to identify flint tools as being the product of intelligent intervention. You have the tool, you have evidence that it was worked (fashioned), and then you attempt to answer who it was that did it.
ID is specifically designed NOT to answer the last two questions. it’s an assertion that an intelligent Designer made the structure in question, but because it’s just Creationism in disguise, it literally cannot answer the latter questions, because to do so reveals what it really is, Creationism.
I have to ask though, why is any of this necessary? What fundamentally is incompatible between evolution and Christianity? Would you stop believing in God if you couldn’t lean on IC? Is that the nature of your faith, to seek out direct evidence of God’s intervention?
B
buffalo
Guest
I will start here. God is so beautiful, loving and merciful etc He overshadows all. I do not depend on any science to confirm my experience of God.
I enjoy research and science. I understand faith and reason cannot be opposed. There are areas where they do not intersect. In areas that they do, both must be true.
The usual way this goes is science has trumped Revelation. That I do not agree with. Revelation absolutely must be considered in the areas of intersect and gives us a more informed view of the universe. Revelation and properly reasoned empirical science will complement each other. Scientism does not complete the picture.
Catholics understand the universe to be intelligible and worthy of study. Why wouldn’t this intelligence be also part of biological systems?
Last edited:
N
niceatheist
Guest
Intelligence is a part of biological systems. Selective breeding and genetic engineering are both examples of intelligent designers. But the only creature we know of that does this is humans, and that intelligent activity leaves its traces; in selective breeding it often leads to animals and plants of pretty intense specialization, and for which we have, if not actual organisms, then fossil records of the original stock. As well, selective breeding often breeds for forms that, to be honest, wouldn’t survive long without continued intervention. As to the latter, well that’s an example of intelligently-guided horizontal gene manipulation or transfer, and suffers some of the same problems as selective breeding.niceatheist:
I will start here. God is so beautiful, loving and merciful etc He overshadows all. I do not depend on any science to confirm my experience of God.
I enjoy research and science. I understand faith and reason cannot be opposed. There are areas where they do not intersect. In areas that they do, both must be true.
The usual way this goes is science has trumped Revelation. That I do not agree with. Revelation absolutely must be considered in the areas of intersect and gives us a more informed view of the universe. Revelation and properly reasoned empirical science will complement each other. Scientism does not complete the picture.
Catholics understand the universe to be intelligible and worthy of study. Why wouldn’t this intelligence be also part of biological systems?
But we have no physical evidence of any previous designers than humans. Therefore, in terms of science, one can only go from the observational data. At best, ID is wishful thinking, but I think it’s more malign than that. And since we do know the “genealogy” of ID, I’d say it’s the latter.
If you’re hoping to look into a microscope and see “God made this”, then I think you’re going to be continually disappointed.
B
buffalo
Guest
Perfect. …
N
niceatheist
Guest
That doesn’t help you, because as I said, the only beings we know that intervene in evolution are humans, and they at best only started doing that in the last 20,000 to 30,000 years (the presumed period when the first wolves were domesticated). There is no evidence of any previous designers.niceatheist:
Perfect. …
B
buffalo
Guest
It sure does. When we see design and it is not done by humans and by your admission not done by evo, who did it? Science cannot answer the who, but can answer it was not done by evolution.
- Status