One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

[edwest2]

ID is wrong because it makes a category error in its notions of causality, and makes a presumption of the metaphysics of modernity which makes it inherently problematic to Classical Theism. This isn’t circular reasoning, and has been a point ignored through this entire thread by those in support of ID. Evolution is at least one step up as it isn’t make an error in which mode of causality it is looking at, nor attempting to make an empirical observation create a metaphysical argument.

Design actually exists in nature. The causality aspect can be viewed separately.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Skeptic92]

Design actually exists in nature. The causality aspect can be viewed separately.

Peace,
Ed

Are you sure its design? It seems you are presupposing its design and then looking for what you’ve presupposed would indicate design. That’s circular reasoning and assuming the premise.

 

[Monkey1976]

Design actually exists in nature. The causality aspect can be viewed separately.

Peace,
Ed

Wouldn’t it be more correct to say that “Patterns which we perceive to be design exist in nature”? As far as I know, there is no metric for “design”.

 

[vz71]

ID is wrong because it makes a category error in its notions of causality, and makes a presumption of the metaphysics of modernity which makes it inherently problematic to Classical Theism. This isn’t circular reasoning, and has been a point ignored through this entire thread by those in support of ID. Evolution is at least one step up as it isn’t make an error in which mode of causality it is looking at, nor attempting to make an empirical observation create a metaphysical argument.

Any other theory being incorrect does not provide credibility to evolution.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I am curious if the theory of gravity or atomic theory presume as many things.

It is interesting that evolution “theory” proponents such as this one will point out that the theory of evolution is on the same footing as theories about gravity, but clearly they miss the point completely.

The author tries to focus on the manner by which we inductively arrive at a theory of the universal fact of gravity to argue that, similarly, we can argue for natural selection acting on random mutations as universally accounting for all adaptive change. That we have no problems doing so with gravity would seem to put into question why we are resistant to doing so for NS acting on RM. At least, that is the author’s point.

The problem is that the two positions are fundamentally different in type. That bodies with mass attract (gravity) is not a theory, it is an observable fact. That living things change in order to adapt is, likewise, an observable fact. These are not the theoretical aspects in question.

An explanation for why gravity is an observable fact is fraught with difficulty. We don’t know or fully understand why gravity works. So, to compare apples to apples, NS acting on RM is an attempt to explain why adaptive change is observed. We don’t need to deny that adaptive change occurs in order to deny the Darwinian account for why it does, just as we don’t need to deny gravity to question theories that attempt to account for it.

So for the author of that article to make a case, which her/his (Ellery could be either, I suppose) article doesn’t, s/he would have to compare theories that attempt to explain the fact of gravity to Darwinian notions that try to explain the fact of adaptive change. Neither of these attempts at theorizing or explaining are matters of fact.

What does bother me is that the author represents the National Center for Science Education and, yet, cannot make a fundamental distinction that leads her/him to invoking a false analogy.

We do need better science education, but we also need better thinking skills, i.e., education in logic and philosophy.

 

[edwest2]

Are you sure its design? It seems you are presupposing its design and then looking for what you’ve presupposed would indicate design. That’s circular reasoning and assuming the premise.

As I mentioned in a previous post, if an an archaeologist finds two triangular stones, he can determine, by close examination, which one is an example of breakage and erosion and the one that shows careful flaking or tool marks. The genome is increasingly showing evidence that, at one time, it was somewhat complex, then the arbitrary assumption that non-coding regions were junk was just left to stand. Now that the assumption has been challenged, it has been found to have function. Recently, scientists have found a code inside the code of DNA and are admitting they missed half the picture. The evidence is clear: more complexity decreases the possibility of chance by an order or two of magnitude as more research is done.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Skeptic92]

Any other theory being incorrect does not provide credibility to evolution.

It’s methodology being proper to what it is attempting to observe however does give it more credibility. ID is a philosophical argument employing inductive reasoning, not a scientific argument in the sense of the natural sciences. This leads us on to ID being philosophically problematic, it makes a category error in modes of causality (equating bringing into existence with a material cause, which is simply change within a material body/object vastly different to ex nihilo) and the only way to give the argument validity is to presuppose the premise of irreducible complexity inferring design which is an example of begging the question.

 

[edwest2]

Wouldn’t it be more correct to say that “Patterns which we perceive to be design exist in nature”? As far as I know, there is no metric for “design”.

Ask any archaeologist how he can tell if any piece of stone was an ancient hand axe, or knife or arrowhead. I’m sure no guessing is required.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Skeptic92]

As I mentioned in a previous post, if an an archaeologist finds two triangular stones, he can determine, by close examination, which one is an example of breakage and erosion and the one that shows careful flaking or tool marks. The genome is increasingly showing evidence that, at one time, it was somewhat complex, then the arbitrary assumption that non-coding regions were junk was just left to stand. Now that the assumption has been challenged, it has been found to have function. Recently, scientists have found a code inside the code of DNA and are admitting they missed half the picture. The evidence is clear: more complexity decreases the possibility of chance by an order or two of magnitude as more research is done.

Peace,
Ed

Please demonstrate that incredibly complex systems can not occur by chance: you are still begging the question.

 

[vz71]

An explanation for why gravity is an observable fact is fraught with difficulty. We don’t know or fully understand why gravity works. So, to compare apples to apples, NS acting on RM is an attempt to explain why adaptive change is observed. We don’t need to deny that adaptive change occurs in order to deny the Darwinian account for why it does, just as we don’t need to deny gravity to question theories that attempt to account for it.

Agreement here.

I might actually find myself in the camp of evolution supporters if the RM and NS were not included.

The simple fact is RM is just a conjecture.
It cannot be tested and is likewise not falsifiable.

 

[Peter_Plato]

ID is wrong because it makes a category error in its notions of causality, and makes a presumption of the metaphysics of modernity which makes it inherently problematic to Classical Theism. This isn’t circular reasoning, and has been a point ignored through this entire thread by those in support of ID. Evolution is at least one step up as it isn’t make an error in which mode of causality it is looking at, nor attempting to make an empirical observation create a metaphysical argument.

No, ID is not wrong in questioning the notion that natural selection acting on random mutations is in any way sufficient for innovating life on Earth to the point it has. That is not a misguided presumption, nor is it a category error to expect scientific “theories” to bear out. NS acting on RM to explain all life as a logical inference far exceeds warrant. That is a simple logical observation. There is no presumption of metaphysics. It would be misguided to accept all the implications of Darwinism simply on logical grounds.

Evolution isn’t a “step up” because it has very little ground, if any, upon which to make that step. ID science is attempting to build a case on empirical grounds. It is YOUR metaphysical presumptions that are pushing YOU to deny the endeavor because YOU see it as metaphysically motivated. The motivation is actually irrelevant because IF an empirical case can be made it will be made on empirical grounds. Why should that opportunity be denied because YOU think only a metaphysical case is to be had?

 

[Skeptic92]

Agreement here.

I might actually find myself in the camp of evolution supporters if the RM and NS were not included.

The simple fact is RM is just a conjecture.
It cannot be tested and is likewise not falsifiable.

Random mutation has been verified, or do you deny that DNA and chromosomes have propensity to change? Which would entail denying the existence of many Genetic Disorders, the cause of many miscarriages, and numerous forms of cancer.

 

[edwest2]

It is interesting that evolution “theory” proponents such as this one will point out that the theory of evolution is on the same footing as theories about gravity, but clearly they miss the point completely.

The author tries to focus on the manner by which we inductively arrive at a theory of the universal fact of gravity to argue that, similarly, we can argue for natural selection acting on random mutations as universally accounting for all adaptive change. That we have no problems doing so with gravity would seem to put into question why we are resistant to doing so for NS acting on RM. At least, that is the author’s point.

The problem is that the two positions are fundamentally different in type. That bodies with mass attract (gravity) is not a theory, it is an observable fact. That living things change in order to adapt is, likewise, an observable fact. These are not the theoretical aspects in question.

An explanation for why gravity is an observable fact is fraught with difficulty. We don’t know or fully understand why gravity works. So, to compare apples to apples, NS acting on RM is an attempt to explain why adaptive change is observed. We don’t need to deny that adaptive change occurs in order to deny the Darwinian account for why it does, just as we don’t need to deny gravity to question theories that attempt to account for it.

So for the author of that article to make a case, which her/his (Ellery could be either, I suppose) article doesn’t, s/he would have to compare theories that attempt to explain the fact of gravity to Darwinian notions that try to explain the fact of adaptive change. Neither of these attempts at theorizing or explaining are matters of fact.

What does bother me is that the author represents the National Center for Science Education and, yet, cannot make a fundamental distinction that leads her/him to invoking a false analogy.

We do need better science education, but we also need better thinking skills, i.e., education in logic and philosophy.

Better thinking skills are often not the issue in debates like this. It is ONLY insisting that evolution is a fact and getting people to ACCEPT IT. That is the goal. So 33% of Americans reject it. So what? That’s like saying that just because I live in a small country town that moving to the big city/accepting evo will automatically increase my IQ.

Students go to class with the expectation that their teachers and books both present factual information. If even the laziest student says yes to evolution, then that’s good enough. So some “lament” that 33% of Americans reject it. So what? A few will point out that some type of Creationism or ID is creeping into classrooms. So what?

So, some arguments simply boil down to:

ID is always wrong. Always. Accept it.
Creationism is wrong. Accept that.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Skeptic92]

No, ID is not wrong in questioning the notion that natural selection acting on random mutations is in any way sufficient for innovating life on Earth to the point it has. That is not a misguided presumption, nor is it a category error to expect scientific “theories” to bear out. NS acting on RM to explain all life as a logical inference far exceeds warrant. That is a simple logical observation. There is no presumption of metaphysics. It would be misguided to accept all the implications of Darwinism simply on logical grounds.

Evolution isn’t a “step up” because it has very little ground, if any, upon which to make that step. ID science is attempting to build a case on empirical grounds. It is YOUR metaphysical presumptions that are pushing YOU to deny the endeavor because YOU see it as metaphysically motivated. The motivation is actually irrelevant because IF an empirical case can be made it will be made on empirical grounds. Why should that opportunity be denied because YOU think only a metaphysical case is to be had?

You still haven’t addressed any criticism, you are simply attacking my character. I have already stated that ID is making a metaphysical claim (the complexity of organic system could not have happened by chance) now either you are going to conceded that ID is a proof of extraterrestrial life, or it is attempting to argue for a metaphysical designer of the universe. At which point you are either conceding: the argument is useless and suffers from an infinite regress, or the argument is Philosophical and metaphysical rather than belonging to the Natural Sciences.

Maybe it is YOU (see I can use caps as well) that is experiencing some cognitive dissonance, as you are carrying on presenting a flawed argument after numerous papers and articles have been posted that lay down the inherent problematics and why Philosophers and scientists alike have rejected it.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Please demonstrate that incredibly complex systems can not occur by chance: you are still begging the question.

It isn’t a question of whether incredibly complex systems “can” occur by chance, but whether these specific incredibly complex systems - in the order they did come about - could possibly have occurred by chance AND what reasons do we have for insisting that they did.

We cannot presume that they did occur by chance just because we don’t like the implications that come about IF they didn’t.

Theism is not a metaphysical bias, it is a metaphysical possibility, just as materialism is not a metaphysical bias, it, too, is a metaphysical possibility. To claim that supporting either one is a bias and THAT bias precludes discussing the question at all is silly.

The evidence may, actually, point to which view is the correct one. We cannot dismiss evidence or the searching for evidence merely because it appears to favour one or other position. One of them WILL be proved wrong and the evidence, if it is at all meaningful, will support one or the other.

Theists need not to cede ground to materialist views merely because materialists make the accusation of bias. Materialist bias is just as “biased.”

Let the evidence speak for itself, if we want to know the truth of the matter.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Maybe it is YOU (see I can use caps as well) that is experiencing some cognitive dissonance, as you are carrying on presenting a flawed argument after numerous papers and articles have been posted that lay down the inherent problematics and why Philosophers and scientists alike have rejected it.

That is the problem.

The reasons why scientists and philosophers - at least those that do - reject it, is because, clearly, they don’t understand it. The scientist referred to in my Post #2088, made a bogus philosophical argument in defense of evolution.

That is the best case that most apologists for evolution can make.

Neither do I find your arguments in the least compelling because you use abstract terminology and appeals to authority to make a case. You fail to address any of my particular points, but insist on presenting the “bigger picture” of metaphysics as if mere abstraction will suffice to dispel the issues.

It doesn’t.

 

[edwest2]

Please demonstrate that incredibly complex systems can not occur by chance: you are still begging the question.

The evidence is contained in Information Science. There is a definite limit regarding what chance can and cannot do.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Skeptic92]

It isn’t a question of whether incredibly complex systems “can” occur by chance, but whether these specific incredibly complex systems - in the order they did come about - could possibly have occurred by chance AND what reasons do we have for insisting that they did.

We cannot presume that they did occur by chance just because we don’t like the implications that come about IF they didn’t.

Theism is not a metaphysical bias, it is a metaphysical possibility, just as materialism is not a metaphysical bias, it, too, is a metaphysical possibility. To claim that supporting either one is a bias and THAT bias precludes discussing the question at all is silly.

The evidence may, actually, point to which view is the correct one. We cannot dismiss evidence or the searching for evidence merely because it appears to favour one or other position. One of them WILL be proved wrong and the evidence, if it is at all meaningful, will support one or the other.

Theists need not to cede ground to materialist views merely because materialists make the accusation of bias. Materialist bias is just as “biased.”

Let the evidence speak for itself, if we want to know the truth of the matter.

First of all: ID and Materialism are not two different metaphysical framework, they are built upon the exact same framework. One has just discarded one assumption whilst the other has kept it. I reject both because the Metaphysics behind them (which they hold in common) is highly flawed. One thing Evolution does right is that it keeps itself within Material causality, and in describing the process has got it fairly right (although there is some Philosophical interpretation going on); ID doesn’t do this, and attempts to mix up material and formal causality.

If you are going attempt to smear me by labelling the Philosophical tradition I’m coming from: please Scholastic, Aristotelian, Thomist, or Aristotelico-Thomist would be far more accurate

 

[vz71]

Random mutation has been verified, or do you deny that DNA and chromosomes have propensity to change? Which would entail denying the existence of many Genetic Disorders, the cause of many miscarriages, and numerous forms of cancer.

I do not deny change.
I deny the mechanism.

Randomness cannot be tested for.

 

[Monkey1976]

It isn’t a question of whether incredibly complex systems “can” occur by chance, but whether these specific incredibly complex systems - in the order they did come about - could possibly have occurred by chance AND what reasons do we have for insisting that they did.

We cannot presume that they did occur by chance just because we don’t like the implications that come about IF they didn’t.

Theism is not a metaphysical bias, it is a metaphysical possibility, just as materialism is not a metaphysical bias, it, too, is a metaphysical possibility. To claim that supporting either one is a bias and THAT bias precludes discussing the question at all is silly.

The evidence may, actually, point to which view is the correct one. We cannot dismiss evidence or the searching for evidence merely because it appears to favour one or other position. One of them WILL be proved wrong and the evidence, if it is at all meaningful, will support one or the other.

Theists need not to cede ground to materialist views merely because materialists make the accusation of bias. Materialist bias is just as “biased.”

Let the evidence speak for itself, if we want to know the truth of the matter.

This is the biggest flaw in the position of ID: Insisting so much on the grand picture that they ignore the evidence which explains the details - missing the trees in a quest to explain the forest.

We have directly observed bacteria developing capabilities like using nylon as food or shrugging off antibiotics. In the most radical departure from nature, we’ve been able to purposefully make produce electricity as part of a biological fuel cell. Such a change necessarily involves a change to the genome. In the case of the bio-battery, that change was accomplished not through genetic engineering, but by manipulating the growth environment so that the ability to convert a given food source to electricity was a survival advantage. Throughout the entire process, there was no direct manipulation of the genes of the bacteria. Where did these changes in the genome come from? How is it that these changes - after several generations - were able to perform the task that the researchers were looking for? If there was an intelligent agent at work manipulating the bacteria’s genes, that agent would have to have been invisible, massless, able to pass through walls, and capable of making chemical changes while leaving no byproducts. In other words, the result of this agent’s work would be indistinguishable from the result of random mutations filtered by natural selection.

I can already hear the objections: But that’s just bacteria! It’s micro-evolution, not macro! Objections like this are ignoring the explanation for the tree, because they want the forest to be explained.