One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

[Judas_Thaddeus]

The following just seems an unwarranted and unsolicited stab from someone who admits not knowing much about science into the side of someone who just may know more…

Originally Posted by Judas Thaddeus

But I did not claim to have studied geology then talk
down on experts of biology. All I’m doing is listening
to the real scientists who actually study evolution.

Oh, it may be worth noting that I too studied Geology, and
for some strange reason, I did not come to the same con–
clusions as that “I studied geology” guy.

The stab kinda was warranted/solicited.

 

[adawgj]

I’ll tell you two things. Actually three - Indiana Jones is NOT what archaeologists do. Geology and archaeology work can be quite tedious. That doesn’t make it not worth it. I’m just making you aware.

1. Archaeologists and historians are not popular degrees right now. What I mean to say is that jobs are hard to find and pay below average. That said, if it really is what you want to do and what you are passionate about, then you NEED TO GO FOR IT.
2. Archaeologists and geologists actually sometimes butt heads and don’t get along very well. Its a difference of principles. If a geologists digs up something neat, he says “oh, neat, lets grab that and take that back to the lab.” The archaeologist loathes disturbing the find. They pull out grids, take tons of photos, meticulously reveal more of the find with brushes, slowly excavate the surrounding area, sketch and catalog everything, etc, etc, etc. By the time the archaeologist is done at the dig, the geologist is probably on their 5th site. I’m not saying one way is better than the other. I’m just saying that these different approaches to learning and field work tend towards causing conflict when the two groups are forced to work together.

But to answer your question - its actually going to be somewhat useful if for no other reason than to improve your familiarity with soils, underground water flow and other stuff that might effect your finds. My university had a “cross-discipline class” that was geology and archaeology together, so there is some overlap and I can tell you that it would be useful.

Haha I’m well aware that archaeology is of low pay and is not as Indiana Jones like.
I actually want to teach history with some archaeology in it, because many people don’t appreciate or know history. Plus I hope to do this as a Jesuit priest.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Why? If you get 10,000 decks of cards together, shuffle them all together and flip them all, the order they came up in is a 1/(10000!) chance, an infetismally small likelihood of it happening. but no one says that that result was designed to occur. It was random.

That’s because it was ANY result that was designed to occur by shuffling the cards, there was NO specific result that was supposed to occur, so only a random one did come about.

Suppose you shuffle those 10,000 decks and predict beforehand that the first 10,000 cards dealt will be all the aces of spades from all the decks and then proceed to deal all aces of spades for the first 10,000 rounds. You wouldn’t claim that was just a stroke of luck that was just as possible as any other dealt set of cards, would you?

Just any random order of cards being dealt is not surprising precisely because random is what we would expect in that situation. However, 10,000 aces of spades is not random, that is why it is not dismissed as “just any other sequence.” It isn’t random, it is highly specified because it follows a specific order that is anything but random.

DNA and RNA code is not random because random would be highly dysfunctional. For the code to function it must be highly specified, like dealing 10,000 aces of spades in a row, which makes all the difference.

Clearly you didn’t understand what Dembski was getting at, if you had bothered to read him at all.

By the way, the fact that you calculated the chance outcome in your example to be 1/(10000!) shows you don’t understand probability calculation. Each deck has 52 cards and if, by “flip them,” you mean flip one card at a time, that would be the terms under which probability is calculated. If the cards are turned up one at a time, effectively, you would have a 1/52 chance of guessing correctly at each turn assuming the 10,000 decks were shuffled to sufficiently randomize all the cards. It gets more complicated if the goal is predicting the order of cards turned up rather than just what each card will be in isolation, but 1/10,000 isn’t accurate to describe either scenario.

 

[Monkey1976]

Patterns occur in nature. (your examples) Designs though always contain patterns. They always contain symbols, languages or maps.

A honeycomb is a discrete structure who individual parts contain patterns. As bees are the creators and constructors of the honeycomb, they are the obvious source of any possible design in it. If it is not designed, what criteria do you use to make that determination?

The web of an orb spider is a discrete structure which contains a pattern. A spider is the creator and constructor of the web, and is therefore the obvious source of any possible design. If it is not designed, what criteria do you use to make that determination?

The shell of a nautilus is a discrete structure which contains a very specific mathematical form. The nautilus is the creator and constructor of the shell, and therefore the obvious source of any possible design. If the shell is not designed, what criteria do you use to make that determination?

A quartz crystal always forms in a specific shape, down to the organization of its molecules. When formed in an autoclave using the artificial hydrothermal method, a seed crystal is required. As the crystals will always mirror the seed in form, the seed crystal is the obvious source of any design. If these crystals are not designed, what criteria do you use to make that determination?

It’s a simple, straightforward question: What are the criteria for determining that conscious design is present?

 

[Farsight001]

That’s because it was ANY result that was designed to occur by shuffling the cards, there was NO specific result that was supposed to occur, so only a random one did come about.

Scientifically speaking, there’s no result that’s “supposed” to occur in evolution either, so thanks for helping to illustrate my point.

Suppose you shuffle those 10,000 decks and predict beforehand that the first 10,000 cards dealt will be all the aces of spades from all the decks and then proceed to deal all aces of spades for the first 10,000 rounds. You wouldn’t claim that was just a stroke of luck that was just as possible as any other dealt set of cards, would you?

It very well might be a stroke of luck. If you do it enough, eventually, all 10,000 aces of spades will come up first. It IS a viable possibility, just as likely as any other combination that comes out.

Just any random order of cards being dealt is not surprising precisely because random is what we would expect in that situation. However, 10,000 aces of spades is not random, that is why it is not dismissed as “just any other hand.” It isn’t random, it is highly specified because it follows a specific order that is anything but random.

But it can be random. Like I pointed out above, dealing all ace of spades first is EQUALLY as likely as any other combination of the first 10,000 deals. Why do you conclude that the aces were planned but not the other combinations of equal statistical probability?

DNA and RNA code is not random because random would be highly dysfunctional. For the code to function it must be highly specified, like dealing 10,000 aces of spades in a row, which makes all the difference.

No one said it was random. But things that are not random are not automatically designed. That’s what the point of the quartz example was for.

Clearly you didn’t understand what Dembski was getting at, if you had bothered to read him at all.

Or I get it and I know he’s wrong. I love how your perspective is that simply because I disagree with him, I must not understand. Now THAT is an ad hominem.

 

[Peter_Plato]

No one said they couldn’t have a valid opinion. The problem is that this is not a matter of opinion, hence we should be deferring to experts who actually know the subject on which they speak.

And even if it were a matter of opinion, that still doesn’t matter. Experts on a subject have more information with which to provide a more informed decision. I have an opinion on what my favorite band is. Maybe a professional musician, however, in their expertise, can detect flaws in the band’s playing that I cannot, and can therefore logically conclude that the band is not as talented as I think they are.

Precisely, and scientists who are not experts in constructing logical arguments will have difficulty determining what follows from their observations and studies in biology. To deduce conclusions from premises requires expertise in logic and philosophy. To make inferences from a set of data likewise requires an understanding of logic. Scientists who are not experts in philosophy will not be competent to draw conclusions and construct theories. Even hypothesizing requires an understanding of what the known facts tell us might reasonably occur.

If science were only collecting data, being able to read measurement instruments or observing and taking notes, scientists adept at those skills would be good scientists. However, when scientists attempt to make sense of what is observed and draw conclusions from the body of evidence, reasoning and logic (aka philosophy) are required,

Recognizing that this conclusion does not follow from these premises or this data does not require a great background in science, as in the ability to experiment and collect data. Challenging the theories and conclusions of science requires an understanding of what the information means and the rules by which conclusions can be drawn from that evidence. Philosophers have just as much warrant and expertise to evaluate theories of science as scientists do, just from a different perspective.

 

[Farsight001]

Precisely, and scientists who are not experts in constructing logical arguments will have difficulty determining what follows from their observations and studies in biology.

Which is why they typically get that training in regards to their subject while they’re learning it in school. Something a philosopher does not get in return - learning about biology in philosophy class. Again, I highly recommend some classes on the subject.

Recognizing that this conclusion does not follow from these premises or this data does not require a great background in science,

Yes, actually, it does. Can a philosopher tell me whether or not shocked quartz has stronger or weaker piezoelectric properties than coprolite (if you know, shush! ) without having the great background necessary to know what shocked quartz, piezoelectricity, and coprolite are?

I mean, you literally just argued that scientists can’t come to reasonable logical conclusions because they’re not philosophers, but philosophers can come to reasonable scientific conclusions despite not being scientists.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Or I get it and I know he’s wrong. I love how your perspective is that simply because I disagree with him, I must not understand. Now THAT is an ad hominem.

No. My perspective is that you didn’t properly set up a feasible situation with the decks of cards to explain your point AND you didn’t calculate the probability of the cards with anything resembling accuracy so those two faux pas shows you haven’t properly understood what is entailed in probability calculation.

 

[Farsight001]

No. My perspective is that you didn’t properly set up a feasible situation with the decks of cards to explain your point AND you didn’t calculate the probability of the cards with anything resembling accuracy so those two faux pas shows you haven’t properly understood what is entailed in probability calculation.

How about you do everyone a favor and explain instead of just claim? Instead of simply declaring that my reasoning is faulty, you need to explain why it is faulty.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I mean, you literally just argued that scientists can’t come to reasonable logical conclusions because they’re not philosophers, but philosophers can come to reasonable scientific conclusions despite not being scientists.

That’s not what I argued at all.

I said scientists can’t come to proper logical conclusions without expertise in logic and good reasoning, NOT “because they’re not philosophers.”

On the other hand philosophers can assess scientific conclusions provided they conceptually grasp the scientific premises grounding an argument. There is no need to have full access to all scientific knowledge in order to know that a specific argument or theory is unsound or invalid.

 

[Peter_Plato]

How about you do everyone a favor and explain instead of just claim? Instead of simply declaring that my reasoning is faulty, you need to explain why it is faulty.

Post #1672

By the way, the fact that you calculated the chance outcome in your example to be 1/(10000!) shows you don’t understand probability calculation. Each deck has 52 cards and if, by “flip them,” you mean flip one card at a time, that would be the terms under which probability is calculated. If the cards are turned up one at a time, effectively, you would have a 1/52 chance of guessing correctly at each turn assuming the 10,000 decks were shuffled to sufficiently randomize all the cards. It gets more complicated if the goal is predicting the order of cards turned up rather than just what each card will be in isolation, but 1/10,000 isn’t accurate to describe either scenario.

 

[Peter_Plato]

A honeycomb is a discrete structure who individual parts contain patterns. As bees are the creators and constructors of the honeycomb, they are the obvious source of any possible design in it. If it is not designed, what criteria do you use to make that determination?

The web of an orb spider is a discrete structure which contains a pattern. A spider is the creator and constructor of the web, and is therefore the obvious source of any possible design. If it is not designed, what criteria do you use to make that determination?

The shell of a nautilus is a discrete structure which contains a very specific mathematical form. The nautilus is the creator and constructor of the shell, and therefore the obvious source of any possible design. If the shell is not designed, what criteria do you use to make that determination?

A quartz crystal always forms in a specific shape, down to the organization of its molecules. When formed in an autoclave using the artificial hydrothermal method, a seed crystal is required. As the crystals will always mirror the seed in form, the seed crystal is the obvious source of any design. If these crystals are not designed, what criteria do you use to make that determination?

It’s a simple, straightforward question: What are the criteria for determining that conscious design is present?

The argument for ID is NOT that because some pattern or predictable structure exists in nature, therefore design.

Meyer, for example, makes a compelling case that no physical or chemical cause exists for the order present in DNA sequences that allows for the replication and production of complex functional proteins and RNA. The order in which the nucleotide bases line up in a DNA molecule is not determined by any physical or chemical cause, yet the specific order of these bases is crucial in terms of the processes that go on in a cell, for the replication of genetic material and for a myriad of other “life” functions.

This isn’t like a crystal forming following a regular pattern because that pattern is based upon the structure of the molecule. In DNA the “pattern” isn’t a pattern, it’s a highly complex “code” where the placement of each base is crucially important, yet there is no explanation (chemical or physical) for why the bases line up the way they do.

I suggest you watch this video to really get a handle on what is the issue, instead of pointing at ideas that do not relate at all to what the case for ID is all about. It will answer your questions.

youtu.be/NbluTDb1Nfs

 

[HansTrappist]

Proof in large quantities has already been given otherwise. Until you can counter that proof, which, thus far, none of you have even acknowledged, let alone tried to argue against, it stands and you just sound like off-key broken records when you say otherwise.

Zero proof.

The big difference between Mr. Behe and those who are constantly attacking him, is that Mr. Behe always presents the opposing point of view accurately and without resorting to petty straw man arguments, before he proceeds to pick apart the opposing argument.

Contrast Mr. Behe’s approach with your own: you have consistently misrepresented the opposition’s position and have done nothing but attack Mr. Behe from the outset. You have also implied that those of us who find the case for ID compelling are somehow anti-science and that we have an agenda.

At least Mr. Behe is honest about the limitations of his position. He admits that it is possible to falsify Intelligent Design (although it hasn’t happened yet). But you will not concede that it is possible to falsify Darwinian “evolution.” You act like it is established fact. You act like Darwinian evolution is a fact because you say so, or a group of scientists says so, or a Pennsylvania Judge says so.

At least Mr. Behe concedes that there are some things that Darwinian (aka) Random evolution can do. But he has made a compelling case that Random evolution has a statistical limit and that beyond that limit Non-Random evolution is required to explain the highly improbable irreducible complexity found in the building blocks of Life.

You can embrace Darwinian evolution if you choose, but quit pretending that your position is more scientific than ID.

 

[HansTrappist]

Good. Since adaptation IS evolution, we all accept evolution now and the case is closed, right?

There you go again, using that term “evolution” equivocally.

Let’s get unequivocal: adaptation is an example of Random evolution. Random evolution (aka Darwinian evolution) is but one form of Evolution. The other form of Evolution is Non-Random evolution (aka Intelligent Design).

 

[HansTrappist]

Now why did you cite what you did from the NAS?

Because it is true.

Here’s what else the National Academy of Sciences says,

• “…the claims of intelligent design creationists are disproven by the findings of modern biology.”

What claims of intelligent design creationists?

What findings of modern biology.

Be specific.

• “Science requires testable evidence for a hypothesis, not just challenges against one’s opponent. Intelligent design is not a scientific concept because it cannot be empirically tested.”

Well, you have just admitted that Intelligent Design is Science.

Intelligent Design is most certainly testable: all one would have to do would be to demonstrate that random processes are capable of producing the irreducible complexity we find in biology.

• "The arguments of creationists reverse the scientific process. They begin with an explanation that they are unwilling to alter - that supernatural forces have shaped biological or Earth systems…

Intelligent Design arguments begin not with a supernatural explanation but rather they begin with the empirical data, with what we actually see happening in Nature.

For instance, when we look at the bacterial flagellum and determine that it was intelligently designed, we don’t come to that conclusion based on religious arguments. So, how do we come to the conclusion of Intelligent Design? Here’s how: first, we start with the definition of Design as “the purposeful arrangement of parts.” The bacterial flagellum certainly has parts arranged for a purpose. Therefore, the bacterial flagellum is, by* definition*, designed. Once it is established that a structure is designed the next question becomes: how was it designed? There are only two answers: 1. By Random processes or 2. By Non-Random Processes. To answer that question, all one needs to do is to determine whether or not the particular object in question has the property of irreducible complexity. If it does possess the quality of irreducible complexity, then the object in question was not created through Random processes.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Evoultion makes no sense in higher animals. You don’t see cats or dogs becoming more alike over time. Also, I believe our faith over any purported scalled scientific evidence.

You don’t see stars going through their life cycle either. Does that mean it does not occur? It is entirely unreasonable to expect to see something occur now that takes orders of magnitude longer than your lifetime to occur.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

At least Mr. Behe concedes that there are some things that Darwinian (aka) Random evolution can do. But he has made a compelling case that Random evolution has a statistical limit and that beyond that limit Non-Random evolution is required to explain the highly improbable irreducible complexity found in the building blocks of Life.

IMHO, that statistical limit is not a limiting factor. Until other similar intelligent life is found in the universe, the possibly of random evolution still remains because we are well within that statistical limit.

 

[Monkey1976]

The argument for ID is NOT that because some pattern or predictable structure exists in nature, therefore design.

Meyer, for example, makes a compelling case that no physical or chemical cause exists for the order present in DNA sequences that allows for the replication and production of complex functional proteins and RNA. The order in which the nucleotide bases line up in a DNA molecule is not determined by any physical or chemical cause, yet the specific order of these bases is crucial in terms of the processes that go on in a cell, for the replication of genetic material and for a myriad of other “life” functions.

This isn’t like a crystal forming following a regular pattern because that pattern is based upon the structure of the molecule. In DNA the “pattern” isn’t a pattern, it’s a highly complex “code” where the placement of each base is crucially important, yet there is no explanation (chemical or physical) for why the bases line up the way they do.

I suggest you watch this video to really get a handle on what is the issue, instead of pointing at ideas that do not relate at all to what the case for ID is all about. It will answer your questions.

youtu.be/NbluTDb1Nfs

That’s not an answer. I asked a simple, direct question: What are the criteria for determining that conscious design is present?

 

[Peter_Plato]

That’s not an answer. I asked a simple, direct question: What are the criteria for determining that conscious design is present?

If the code order in DNA is not due to chemical or physical processes but completely dependent upon previous iterations of DNA code that “told it” the proper sequence via processes of transposition and replication, then how was the original complex sequence arrived at to begin with?

Unlike crystals or shell patterns which are traceable to chemical explanations, the ordering of DNA code cannot have been the result of chemical or physical causes. The order of nucleotide bases is not susceptible to that kind of process.

That would be like claiming the arrangement of particles on your hard drive or DVD surface can be completely explained by the movement of the head and actuator. Certainly the particles were arranged by physical mechanisms but the order in which they are so placed is not. The order of the particles, not the existence of the particles themselves, is the code and that order is inexplicable by itself.

We are beginning to read and decipher genetic code. It is beginning to be understood in terms of its functions. It would be easy to dismiss the arrangement of particles on a hard drive as unimportant and due to the mechanisms in the drive, but that leaves completely unresolved that the particles have been arranged to perform functions which are unrelated to their mere existence on the drive - print documents, store data, edit text, etc.

Like the specific arrangement of particles on a hard drive to perform functions (coded regions), the arrangement (code) of nucleotide bases perform functions totally unrelated to their mere existence in the chain, but those external functions critically depend upon the order of bases in the chain. That is how code works and this kind of specified complex code is only found where it has been intelligently deposited in order to perform a future function. How could blind and unguided forces “accidentally” create a highly specified functional sequence that will perform a future function without intentional intelligence ordering it to do so?

Conscious intelligence because of its capacity to plan for the future would seem the only plausible explanation for this level of functional specificity in genetic code. The code has been transcribed from past iterations to new ones by processes embedded in the code itself, processes that, themselves, are explicated in the code. The code contains plans for functional protein machines and directions for when and how these protein machines are to be built, along with detailed instructions for replicating the DNA code itself to regenerate it. Why would such processes have been encoded without foresight as to how and why they would be required?

Conscious design explains why. Physical and chemical processes do not. Like the hard drive, physical and chemical process do explain the existence of particles, but not explain the “informed” and specific ordering of the particles that is the means by which computer (or genetic) information is carried forward to perform future functions. Genetic code is “intentional” just as computer code is.

This does answer your question. Perhaps you don’t get how it does, but it does. The criteria for intelligent design is specified functional code or sequencing that carries information that is so highly complex and specified to a function or functions that no other explanation except intelligence can explain its existence and arrangement.

Did you view the Meyer video?

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Because it is true.

Even though the NAS is the same organization that refutes ID as a science.

What claims of intelligent design creationists?

What findings of modern biology.

Be specific.

You’ll have to ask them, I didn’t see any examples,
though lack of examples tells me that in general
and overall, Science overthrows Creationism.

Don’t now be like, “HA, you can’t name examples so I’m right!”

Well, you have just admitted that Intelligent Design is Science.

Intelligent Design is most certainly testable: all one would have to do would be to demonstrate that random processes are capable of producing the irreducible complexity we find in biology.

Why would the NAS say that ID is not testable? Are they lying or are they stupid? And irreducible complexity
is a myth. It is an opinion, not a science. When the the Aztecs discovered the abandoned city of Teotihuacan,
they beheld the immense stone work, the enormous complexes, the Pyramids. The Aztecs were so marveled
by the stone work and believing that no mere human can do this, they concluded that it was built by the gods.
Same thing. somethingsurprising.blogspot.com/2011/06/irreducible-complexity-another-myth.html

Intelligent Design arguments begin not with a supernatural explanation but rather they begin with the empirical data, with what we actually see happening in Nature.

That’s not true either. It began with the premise that there is a Crea… “Designer.”
People then set out to find what they considered proof of the Cre… “Designer.”

For instance, when we look at the bacterial flagellum and determine that it was intelligently designed, we don’t come to that conclusion based on religious arguments. So, how do we come to the conclusion of Intelligent Design? Here’s how: first, we start with the definition of Design as “the purposeful arrangement of parts.” The bacterial flagellum certainly has parts arranged for a purpose. Therefore, the bacterial flagellum is, by* definition*, designed. Once it is established that a structure is designed the next question becomes: how was it designed? There are only two answers: 1. By Random processes or 2. By Non-Random Processes. To answer that question, all one needs to do is to determine whether or not the particular object in question has the property of irreducible complexity. If it does possess the quality of irreducible complexity, then the object in question was not created through Random processes.

GREAT VIDEO, gotta watch:youtube.com/watch?v=RQQ7ubVIqo4