Intelligent Design

[Evan]

Evolution theory fails on some of the aspects of what is commonly called science.

Generally a scientific theory makes predictions, experiments can be devised, and the theoretical outcome is compared to the actual outcome.

Evolution has not made any prediction save that there should be missing links. These links have never been found in the fossil record. New theories have been devised to overcome this deficiency but even those who propose the alternatives are scorned by the ‘religious’ belief in evolution.

ID in fact looks at the proposed theory and tries to apply it to the earliest life to see if an unguided probabilistic natural selection would have resulted in our present world. The statistics say, “not a chance.” So where do we go from here? Evolutionists deny the problem which does little to solve it.

 

[Brian_C]

Well, not that I really want to argue, but I wouldn’t say that’s completely the case. Evolution is not totally immersed in just looking for missing links. As for not finding the links, it’s not like there are no evolutionary relationships noted in nature. The search for the missing link where apes and humans branched is not the end all be all. We can note how other later protohuman hominids all seem to slowly evolve more modern characteristics over time.

Evolution doesn’t just apply to humanity, either.

Again, I don’t wish to take the whole evolutionist side here just because I was somewhat trained in it. I like what Einstein said (on a different matter but I think it applies): God doesn’t play dice.

 

[Catholic2003]

Evan:

Evolution has not made any prediction save that there should be missing links.

Evolution predicted the existence in humans of a pseudogene to synthesize vitamin C, which was subsequently discovered.

This link, originally from PhilVaz, lists hundreds of predictions made by the theory of evolution:

This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.

 

[rossum]

Evan (post #166):

That is not evolution, that is selective breeding.

Remember that one of the processes driving evolution is Natural Selection. The word “selection” tells you that this is a selective process. Bacteria that have been killed by an antibiotic do not breed as well as those which survived it. Those which survived relatively unscathed will breed better than those which barely survived at all. Natural selection is selective breeding. This is one of the mechanisms which drives the change in populations over time.

Evan:

I don’t know if any scientist has ever witnessed evolution in action

Evolution is not just the arising of new species, though it does include that. There are many examples of speciation, both in the lab and in the wild. This webpage lists some of them and this webpage lists some more.

Evan:

We are waiting for someone to create a new specie in a controlled experiment, a specie that is more fit that the ancestor.

Have a look at the fruit flies in the lists I gave you above. Also remember that the mechanisms of evolutionary change include “neutral drift” so a new species may not always be “more fit” than the ancestor species, just different. Doing some research on “Ring Species” may also help you here.
Evan (post #181):

Evolution has not made any prediction save that there should be missing links.

Evolution makes many predictions:
1 There are no intermediate fossils between birds and mammals.
2 There are no intermediate fossils between oak trees and ants.
3 There are intermediate fossils between birds and Archosaurs.
4 All newly discovered vertebrates will have the standard code for translating DNA into proteins.
5 No newly discovered deuterostome will have chloroplasts.
6 All newly discovered non-viral organisms will use RNA.

So far all of these predictions, and many others, have all been confirmed.

Evan:

ID in fact looks at the proposed theory and tries to apply it to the earliest life to see if an unguided probabilistic natural selection would have resulted in our present world. The statistics say, “not a chance.”

So far every calculation of probability I have ever seen from supporters of ID or Creationism has been flawed. They all include the element of Random Mutation, but fail to include the element of Natural Selection. Richard Dawkins’ metaphor of “Climbing Mount Improbable” is a good one; showing that the cliff at the north face of the mountain is unclimable is not a great deal of use when there is a longer gently sloping path up the south side of the mountain. All those “Tornado in a Junkyard” calculations ignore the path up the back of the mountain. For a more realistic calculation see my piece on “The Evolution of Boojumase”.

Judging by your posts here, you do not yet know enough about evolution to be able to criticise it well. I suggest that you learn more about evolution so you are able to criticise it more effectively in future. At the very least have a look at the An Index to Creationist Claims to check that what you are saying has not been said, and refuted, before.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Donald45:

I agree with your comments on evolution, but have a question regarding your signature: Is the proposition that “The ultimate truth is that there is no Ultimate Truth” itself intended to be taken as an ultimate truth? I’m trying here to critique the inherent relativism in your statement, which strikes one as both self-refuting and internally corrupt.

My sig is indeed paradoxical, and deliberately so. The original source is Mark Siderits, “Thinking on Empty: Madhyamika Anti-Realism and Canons of Rationality” in S Biderman and B.A. Schaufstein, eds, Rationality In Question (1989). Dordrectht: Brill.

I have not read Siderits but saw the quote in a piece on Nagarjuna. The “Madhyamika” in Siderits’ title refers to the religious and philosophical school of Buddhism that Nagarjuna founded. I have seen the same quote again in other places in reference to the Madhyamika and Nagarjuna - it seems quite popular. The quote is intentionally paradoxical; paradox is necessary to remind us that words are insufficient when trying to describe the fundamental nature of reality.

For an advanced philosophical discussion of Nagarjuna and reality see the web article Nagarjuna and the Limits of Thought. This might be rather heavy going for those of you not philosophically inclined. The Siderits quote is at the end of section four of the article:There is, then, no escape. Nagarjuna’s view is contradictory. The contradiction is, clearly a paradox of expressibility. Nagarjuna succeeds in saying the unsayable, just as much as the Wittgenstein of the Tractatus. We can think (and characterize) reality only subject to language, which is conventional, so the ontology of that reality is all conventional. It follows that the conventional objects of reality do not ultimately (non-conventionally) exist. It also follows that nothing we say of them is ultimately true. That is, all things are empty of ultimate existence; and this is their ultimate nature, and is an ultimate truth about them. They hence cannot be thought to have that nature; nor can we say that they do. But we have just done so. As Mark Siderits (1989) has put it, “the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.”

rossum

 

[Matt16_18]

wanerious:

There are lots of obvious counterexamples to that, such as the millions of agnostics and atheists.

How are they “obvious counterexamples”? Agnostics and atheists are not exemptions to the fact that all men have a knowledge of the natural law, which is a knowledge of that which is supernatural. Just because agnostics and atheists may doubt or deny that a personal God exists, it doesn’t follow that they are not aware of a supernatural standard against which they measure their moral behavior.

Materialist evolutionists will never be able to explain how a chemical process gave rise to intelligent beings that possess knowledge of the supernatural. Materialist evolutionists may claim that man is nothing more that a skin sack full of reacting chemicals, but the absurdity of that claim is shown every time a materialist evolutionist complains about men acting indecently or immorally.

C.S. Lewis makes this argument much better than I ever could in the chapters of Book I, “Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe”, of Mere Christianity.

 

[Evan]

rossum:

Evolution makes many predictions:
1 There are no intermediate fossils between birds and mammals.

Of course the platypus is an intermediate between birds and mammals.

 

[dts]

Evan:

Of course the platypus is an intermediate between birds and mammals.

Depending on the method of categorization.

 

[zian]

Evan:

Of course the platypus is an intermediate between birds and mammals.

Ha. Good one Evan; you do have a sense of humor.

I’d like to underscore the point made by wanerious in reply to

Anonymous_1:

This certainly is not the explanation of evolution that I ever got in my Science class. … that Deisgn is a better, and stronger explanation than purley naturalistic, unguided and random mistakes that are being proposed by neo-darwinists. … If you applied to the same principals of probability you would see how tremenndously unlikley it is that existence, life and the diversity and complexity of it has happened as a fluke.

As wanerious pointed out, natural selection is not random.

wanerious:

Natural selection depends on the very non-random effects of selection.

. The changes to genes are random, but whether of not they lead to increased fitness or not is definitely not random. Anon_1 choses a lot of loaded words in the description quoted
‘naturalistic’ instead of ‘natural’
‘unguided’
‘mistakes’ instead of ‘changes’
‘as a fluke’ instead of ‘as a result of change’

This ascription to evolution of false notions related to probability is apparently a common error. Sorry that your teachers were not able to explain this to you very well, Anonymous_1. Now is your opportunity to rectify the situation.

 

[Anonymous_1]

Matt16_18:

I don’t agree. Is not psychology considered to be part of the natural sciences? Whenever we begin speaking about what constitutes right behavior and wrong behavior (i.e moral behavior), we are entering into a discussion that involves the supernatural. All men are aware of the “natural law” that is written in their hearts, and knowledge of the natural law an awareness of a supernatural reality.

Apologists for materialist evolutionary theories have to explain how a strictly materialistic process brought about in man an awareness of a supernatural reality. This is a problem that materialistic evolutionists will never be able to answer.

In fact the moment you begin consciousness you are inevitably studying the metaphysical. Look at some of the most recent research on consciousness…

 

[Anonymous_1]

Brian_C:

Actually, eveolutionary theory doesn’t state that man evolved from today’s apes. Rather, that current members of the hominid family share a common ancestor. This is where the term “missing link” comes from. One of the (uh, should I use this term?) Holy Grail’s of evolutionary biology or more directly paleoanthropology is to find the species that lived and gave rise to both apes and humans. In other words, right before the tree branched. Every few years, someone will find an early species of hominid with both ape and pre-human hominid characteristics but eventually everyone will decide that the species found dates to far to the period before the split.

In simpler terms, the who apes things can be summed in in the belief that at one point the family tree branched and apes descended from one branch and humans from another.

Lol, there is no half man half ape though…I mean seriously…look at a monkey and look at a human…need i say more…
sure science will tell you that 99 percent of our genetic makeup is shared iwth the orangutan…but keep in mind that over 50 percent of our genetic makeup is shared with a danilion…The truth is, they are learning genetics is not what they once thought. BASICALLY, ALL OF THE INFORMATION IS NOT THERE…

 

[Anonymous_1]

rossum:

Remember that one of the processes driving evolution is Natural Selection. The word “selection” tells you that this is a selective process. Bacteria that have been killed by an antibiotic do not breed as well as those which survived it. Those which survived relatively unscathed will breed better than those which barely survived at all. Natural selection is selective breeding. This is one of the mechanisms which drives the change in populations over time.

This is where Irreducible complexity comes into play. Professor Behe from Leheigh University wrote a book called Darwins Black Box. A Black box is used to refer to something which is cool, but is not understandable how it works. In the days of Darwin, the cell was a “Black Box.” They could observe it under a microscope, but it was nothing compared trasmission electron microscopes and so ont hat we have today. Today we know that the cell is an EXTREMLEY COMPLEX, essentially self sustaining entity.

in the words of Behe…"Weve learned the cell is horrendously compleicated, and that it’s actually run by micromachines of the right shape, right strength, and the right intereactions. The existence of these amchines challenges a test that Darwin himself provided…Darwin said in his Origin of Species, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, succesive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutley break down.” Behe uses this very test provided by Darwin when he talks about irreducible complexity…

Evolution makes many predictions:
1 There are no intermediate fossils between birds and mammals.
2 There are no intermediate fossils between oak trees and ants.
3 There are intermediate fossils between birds and Archosaurs.
4 All newly discovered vertebrates will have the standard code for translating DNA into proteins.
5 No newly discovered deuterostome will have chloroplasts.
6 All newly discovered non-viral organisms will use RNA.

This is a joke right?

 

[Anonymous_1]

zian:

Ha. Good one Evan; you do have a sense of humor.

I’d like to underscore the point made by wanerious in reply to
As wanerious pointed out, natural selection is not random… The changes to genes are random, but whether of not they lead to increased fitness or not is definitely not random. Anon_1 choses a lot of loaded words in the description quoted
‘naturalistic’ instead of ‘natural’
‘unguided’
‘mistakes’ instead of ‘changes’
‘as a fluke’ instead of ‘as a result of change’

It is naturalistic…when i talk about naturalism, I talk about the presupposition of naturalism! Come on now, dont even tell me science is not naturalistic. Naturalism is the worldview, the idea that the universe is a closed circuit and everything that happens within that circuit can be explained by forces and principals within that circuit. But because it is a presupposition it undermines objectivity. If the evidence were to lead us outside of this circuit we would never be able to determine the truth because science starts with a supposition in this case and works backwards…Intelligent Design is scientific blasphemy…it challenges the very supposition of naturalism…sure…its a loaded word but so is science…

 

[wanerious]

Anonymous_1:

It is naturalistic…when i talk about naturalism, I talk about the presupposition of naturalism! Come on now, dont even tell me science is not naturalistic.

Indeed not. 100% naturalistic. This is not in dispute.

Naturalism is the worldview, the idea that the universe is a closed circuit and everything that happens within that circuit can be explained by forces and principals within that circuit. But because it is a presupposition it undermines objectivity. If the evidence were to lead us outside of this circuit we would never be able to determine the truth because science starts with a supposition in this case and works backwards

This is the only thing I can quibble with. Evidence, scientifically probed, can never lead us out of that circuit, since (as you say) we start with the presupposition that nature is understandable through scientific methodology. Science can only show that some phenomena or other cannot be readily explained by any existing theory. To assume that there will never be such a theory is premature, and, in many other cases so far, wrong. Science is not done yet. There are indeed mysteries that may be solved.

 

[wanerious]

Anonymous_1:

in the words of Behe…"Weve learned the cell is horrendously compleicated, and that it’s actually run by micromachines of the right shape, right strength, and the right intereactions. The existence of these amchines challenges a test that Darwin himself provided…Darwin said in his Origin of Species, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, succesive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutley break down.” Behe uses this very test provided by Darwin when he talks about irreducible complexity…

Right — so isn’t it the job of scientists to find these evolutionary pathways to seemingly irreducibly complex systems? Would he have us throw up our hands and surrender? Again, I’m glad there are people willing to take on the challenge. And as revealed in the link in post #139, his own examples of irreducible complexity are shown not to be so (see the conversation with Kenneth Miller). It is a flawed and needlessly pessimistic paradigm.

 

[wanerious]

Anonymous_1:

Lol, there is no half man half ape though…I mean seriously…look at a monkey and look at a human…need i say more…

I’m pretty sure you still don’t understand evolutionary theory. It predicts there will be no such beast.

sure science will tell you that 99 percent of our genetic makeup is shared iwth the orangutan…but keep in mind that over 50 percent of our genetic makeup is shared with a danilion…The truth is, they are learning genetics is not what they once thought. BASICALLY, ALL OF THE INFORMATION IS NOT THERE…

And do you believe that the thousands of scientists who work on this are just, what, not as smart as you? That this simplistically obvious curiosity is a real head-slapper to them? Perhaps they have already considered this, and there is a very good (and terribly interesting) explanation for the similarities (and, more importantly, the tiny differences) in the DNA of all organisms? I would urge you to read more about it, and hopefully not from whatever source generated that last sentence.

 

[wanerious]

Matt16_18:

How are they “obvious counterexamples”? Agnostics and atheists are not exemptions to the fact that all men have a knowledge of the natural law, which is a knowledge of that which is supernatural. Just because agnostics and atheists may doubt or deny that a personal God exists, it doesn’t follow that they are not aware of a supernatural standard against which they measure their moral behavior.

Possibly for some, though there are millions who have no acknowledgement of the supernatural, and it never occurs to them to hold their behavior up to any standard rooted in such. Though their ideals may be congruent with what we call “natural law”, they ascribe to it no supernatural authority.

Materialist evolutionists will never be able to explain how a chemical process gave rise to intelligent beings that possess knowledge of the supernatural.

But wouldn’t it be wonderfully sublime if the laws of the Universe were constructed in such a way that it were so? We just have to disagree — I think this is too pessimistic. Perhaps one day we will have a good understanding of consciousness that is rooted in physical theory. We ought not stake our theologies upon such shifty sands. The Church learned this hundreds of years ago.

 

[Matt16_18]

wanerious:

Possibly for some, though there are millions who have no acknowledgement of the supernatural, and it never occurs to them to hold their behavior up to any standard rooted in such.

Every man holds his behavior up to a standard of right and wrong that is not of his own making. Men can’t help but do this, since doing this is part of man’s nature.

Though their ideals may be congruent with what we call “natural law”, they ascribe to it no supernatural authority.

What do you mean “their ideals”? The ideal exists quite independent of man, and we all know that the ideal places demands upon us, and when we fall short of the ideal, we are convicted in our conscience. Perhaps we don’t know the ideal perfectly, but we all are born with an awareness of a standard of right and wrong that is the same for all men - a standard that no mere man made up, and a standard that all men are subject to.

If an atheist or an agnostic doesn’t understand that knowledge of the natural law is a knowledge of the supernatural, what of it? Perhaps a little study of Plato might help them think a bit more clearly about such things.

But wouldn’t it be wonderfully sublime if the laws of the Universe were constructed in such a way that it were so?

What sane man finds dialectical materialism wonderfully sublime?

 

[Anonymous_1]

wanerious:

Right — so isn’t it the job of scientists to find these evolutionary pathways to seemingly irreducibly complex systems? Would he have us throw up our hands and surrender? Again, I’m glad there are people willing to take on the challenge. And as revealed in the link in post #139, his own examples of irreducible complexity are shown not to be so (see the conversation with Kenneth Miller). It is a flawed and needlessly pessimistic paradigm.

Behe and Miller had a discussion about a mousetrap correct? Im familiar with Millers rebuttals and im also familiar with Behes counter rebuttals.

Irreducibly complex mechanisms in the cell is an excellent example of where it is terribly unlikley that neo-darwinistic mechanisms of evolution can account for some of the incredibly complex intricacies of life.

And you know what wan, your right. We can not go outside of that circuit with Science itself. But you can take the scientific evidence and apply it to theology. We know that Big Bang almost certainly happened…the Kalam argument, which I believe Thomas Aquinas sued which states whatever begins to exist has a cause…the universe began has a beginning…the universe must therefore have a cause…From this we can use our reason to deduce certain attributes about this Uncaused First Cause…namley God…He is Intelligent, Powerful, Timeless(if He created space and time He must be outside of space and time(nameley Heaven) outside the realm of decay, corruption and change…
Even when we look at the four universal force…gravity, weak and strong nuclear forces within the cell and electromagnetism…lol science can conclude that life…indeed even existence itself is a statistical fluke…once again Intelligent, purposeful design is a better explanation that accounts for all of the facts…
Anyway im going to stop posting in this post…i see it is fruitless…
God bless you all…and may the Lord enlighten our mids and lead us into all truth…

 

[Anonymous_1]

Matt16_18:

Every man holds his behavior up to a standard of right and wrong that is not of his own making. Men can’t help but do this, since doing this is part of man’s nature.

What do you mean “their ideals”? The ideal exists quite independent of man, and we all know that the ideal places demands upon us, and when we fall short of the ideal, we are convicted in our conscience. Perhaps we don’t know the ideal perfectly, but we all are born with an awareness of a standard of right and wrong that is the same for all men - a standard that no mere man made up, and a standard that all men are subject to.

If an atheist or an agnostic doesn’t understand that knowledge of the natural law is a knowledge of the supernatural, what of it? Perhaps a little study of Plato might help them think a bit more clearly about such things.

What sane man finds dialectical materialism wonderfully sublime?

Lol that ideal is not merley descriptive either…it is not just an explanation of what Men should adhere to…It is perscriptive…it is what we ought to do, but often don’t…This proves it exists outside of ourself…

For everyone who contends that Intelligent Design is not a legitamate alternative to Neo-Darwinistic evolution because it is not Science I say this: I am interested in truth. Modern Science which fails to take into account our creator, is looking through a cloudy lense. One that is dimly lit.