One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

[Farsight001]

That’s not what I argued at all.

It may not be what you intended to say, but it is what you argued.

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

You also suggested that they can’t do this without the education of a philosopher/logician. That’s a distinction without a difference.

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.

“provided they conceptually grasp the scientific premises grounding an argument”.

And how do you think they do that? By getting an education in the subject., which you just said they don’t need.

 

[Farsight001]

Post #1672

Ok. you’re right and wrong. It should be 1/(520000!). I’m talking about calculating the EXACT order of flips, not the chances that the card I flip is an “ace of spades”, but the chances that the card i flip is “the ace of spades from deck 8573”, and the continued chances that they all come up in a precise order, hence the factorial symbol. Using 10000 instead of 520000 was clearly a brain fart, which even the best of us have from time to time.

So I did set up a feasible situation and my brain fart aside, I did present a way to calculate probability with accuracy. You just didn’t understand what I was saying.

 

[buffalo]

File not found error.

IDvolution the philosophy.

 

[buffalo]

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.

The UPB - probability calc
The UPM - plausible calc

If one takes a shuffled deck and they all line up by suit A-K it is possible but not plausible. Two times in a row? Very implausible and one should definitely look further to see how this was cooked up.

 

[buffalo]

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 amount of functional complex specified information.

 

[edwest2]

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?

Well said. Intention is the driver not some random, unguided and unintelligent thing.

Science is not a replacement for God or a god.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Farsight001]

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

That is a nonsequitor. His questions still need answered before anyone can test for design. A precise scientific definition of design in this context is needed so that we can determine what is and is not designed, which means you need to be able to draw a line somewhere. That was his point. Where is the line? HOW do you determine what is and is not designed?

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.

Err…but there IS a cause. This is actually very common and mundane knowledge. This is just a case of Meyer not knowing it exists and therefore claiming it does not. Just look up “DNA replication”. There are a myriad of explanations.

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.

Who said it wasn’t a pattern? Why do you get to determine that its not a pattern?

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

Err…that’s not explaining it at all. Just Meyer lying to a large crowd of people about what ID is. When are you going to get it? Its over. ID has an official definition. It has its primary promoters who popularized the idea and who have full on admitted personally and professionally AND UNDER OATH that ID is creationism in disguise. That they are now playing damage control and going around trying to convince people otherwise just makes them MORE dishonest, not correct.

I might also point out, since its hard to see, but the room was slowly clearing out as he talked. The crowd of smart people and experts there were not sticking around for his carp. Furthermore, he also said that he relied only on info from biology 101 for his talk. That is part of the problem. Its just not that simple.
Lastly, let me also point out that he said he would be open to questions at the end, but only answered one question, and even then, with a backwards and convoluted answer, not honestly. What is science is not a confusing and convoluted issue anywhere but in his mind. It has well defined parameters and well defined criteria. He’s just trying to stir the pot.

 

[Farsight001]

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

No, I’m using it by its proper scientific definition. You keep saying evolution is random, but it is a lie when you say that. I have clarified and pointed out to you a dozen times now that evolution is NOT random and you continue to insist that it is. That is in no way true.

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).

There is only one form of evolution and ID specifically denies that evolution occurs. Again, this is another lie that I have had to correct a dozen times now.

 

[Farsight001]

Zero proof.

In THAT comment? You’re right. The proof came in copious amounts earlier in the thread. Were you paying attention instead of looking to pick a fight, you would have seen it.

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.

Lol. In no way does he do that. You really do put waaaay too much faith in one man.

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.

I have not once misrepresented his position. I have pointed out, with evidence, that he is lying about what his position really is. That is not an attack.

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.

Lol again. In no way has Behe been honest about his position. Again, you are placing WAAaAY too much faith in one man.

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.

Again, evolution is not random and irreducible complexity was never a real thing.

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

Its not pretending. I’ve seen evolution in action, as have millions of others. Not one person has seen ID occurring, nor even tested it.

 

[Farsight001]

Because it is true.

What claims of intelligent design creationists?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Using 10000 instead of 520000 was clearly a brain fart, which even the best of us have from time to time.

You say “brain fart,” I say “incomplete digestion of information.” What’s a little intellectual off-gassing among friends, then, eh?"

You still don’t get the difference between laying down the cards in whatever order they turn up and predicting accurately the order that they do. The first would be a simple task, the second is where the proverbial probability hits the fan. If you had to specify the order card for card in order to hit a target, say all the aces in order by trump, then twos, threes, etc., surely you are not insisting that task would be no different, probability-wise, than merely laying down the cards as they turn up.

Try it, with just one deck. Shuffle the cards and predict, card for card, what will turn up. You are not claiming that task would be essentially the same as merely laying the cards down card for card? No difference? The second doesn’t invoke probability at all because it merely turns cards over. There is no probability “target” specified, so it isn’t a question of how probable something will be, it is merely an undefined action without parameters. Define the parameters first, then we can legitimately speak of the probability of a selected event occurring.

Genetic code is specified. It must be in a highly predetermined order for the functions to be carried out efficiently. Why are the nucleotide bases in that highly specified order “before the fact?” For the same reason computer code is, perhaps? It was ordered by an intelligent agent to accomplish a foreordained purpose.

Theistic evolution seems to propose that God’s instrumental means for creating genetic code was to allow “random” and undetermined forces to conjure it up. It offers, very seriously, the possibility that God could opt to allow an infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of typewriters to be his chosen method for writing the works of Shakespeare.

Certainly, that option might be open to him, but why would he legitimately choose it? The works of Shakespeare do not now have listed as their author “Infinite N. Monkeys” do they?

 

[Farsight001]

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?

That is still not an answer. I’ve said it before, but apparently I have to explain again. If you cannot incorporate the question into the answer, its not an answer. Let me start you off: “The criteria for determining that conscious design is present are…”

 

[Farsight001]

The UPB - probability calc
The UPM - plausible calc

If one takes a shuffled deck and they all line up by suit A-K it is possible but not plausible. Two times in a row? Very implausible and one should definitely look further to see how this was cooked up.

Why is it not plausible? It is no less likely statistically than any other order that comes up. The only reason you call it implausible is because it looks neat, while any other defined order you provide might not. A-K is EQUALLY as likely as a-4-7-K-Q-2-J-10-8-9-5-3-6.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I and any thinking person would and should reject that definition as valid. By that definition, quartz crystals are designed. Clouds that are shaped like things are designed. Volcanoes, being shaped like a cone purposefully for maximum expulsion of magma under pressure would be “designed”. The problem here is the word “purposeful”. This presupposes the intelligent designer because it presupposes that there was a non-natural purpose to the arrangement.

You lost me here. How are quartz crystals “purposefully arranged?” The arrangement is completely dependent upon their molecular structure. The fact that humans make use of quartz crystals cannot after the fact provide the purpose for their arrangement. That would be like claiming petroleum molecules are purposefully arranged because we can make plastics from them.

That is a complete misunderstanding of design. The purpose, i.e. function, has to be integral to its structure. Crystals do not have a function in nature, the function they have in human technology is an add-on one imposed by humans.

In genetic code, the purposeful arrangement of nucleotide bases is integral to their function as code which is to be transcribed for a large array of functions, none of which are imposed by humans. The question, legitimately to be asked, is: How could blind forces of nature arrange the bases to formulate a highly complex and specified code upon which all future life functions depend with no intent or foreknowledge, but blindly?

That is very like, but much more difficult than you laying down the cards from those 10,000 decks in a precise order that would unlock the intricate functionality we call “life.” You say God chose to leave it to “random events,” and did not pre-design the code, but left it to essentially to the infinite number of monkeys to come up with it.

If you find that a compelling means by which God would work, we just have very different views of God. What did Einstein say about God playing dice?

 

[Monkey1976]

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.

In other words, the criteria for determining design is that it looks like design?

I’m not really understanding why this seems to be such a difficult question to answer. If I asked, what are the criteria for determining if a given creature is a mammal, there is a specific list which answers that:

• Specific structure to the jaw joint
• Specific structure to the bones of the ear
• Presence of sweat glands, including mammary glands in females
• Teeth are replaced a maximum of once or not at all
• Warm-blooded

Can someone provide a similar checklist of criteria for determining if design is present? If “design” is an objective property, then there must be a set of criteria which can only be filled by that property. Further, given that there are many structures which we can agree are not the specific result of conscious design - such as spiderwebs, honeycombs, and crystals - there must also be certain criteria for demonstrating that a given structure is the result of design by a conscious mind.

Science is not subjective. If a specific property - such as “design” - is present, then it must be able to be measured, with any party performing the measurement agreeing with the result. In other words:

What are the criteria for determining that conscious design is present?

 

[Farsight001]

You still don’t get the difference between laying down the cards in whatever order they turn up and predicting accurately the order that they do. The first would be a simple task, the second is where the proverbial probability hits the fan. If you had to specify the order card for card in order to hit a target, say all the aces in order by trump, then twos, threes, etc., surely you are not insisting that task would be no different, probability-wise, than merely laying down the cards as they turn up.

no. I calculated the difficulty of specifying. If I specify the order of cards, I start with the first flip a 1/520000 chance of being right. For the second, a 1/519999 chance and so on. Hence, a 1/(520000!) of that precise order being produced.

Genetic code is specified. It must be in a highly predetermined order for the functions to be carried out efficiently. Why are the nucleotide bases in that highly specified order “before the fact?” For the same reason computer code is, perhaps? It was ordered by an intelligent agent to accomplish a foreordained purpose.

Why do you assume that it was for the same reason computer code is? You want to say that it was ordered by an intelligent agent? You’ve got to be able to test for that and do so in the nucleotide bases. And when I say test, as this seems to be a missed distinction, I mean TEST. I mean do an experiment in a lab. Thus far all I’ve seen are philosophical arguments.

Theistic evolution seems to propose that God’s instrumental means for creating genetic code was to allow “random” and undetermined forces to conjure it up. It offers, very seriously, the possibility that God could opt to allow an infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of typewriters to be his chosen method for writing the works of Shakespeare.

Theistic evolution is just that God is behind it. It does not specify to what extent he is.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Why is it not plausible? It is no less likely statistically than any other order that comes up. The only reason you call it implausible is because it looks neat, while any other defined order you provide might not. A-K is EQUALLY as likely as a-4-7-K-Q-2-J-10-8-9-5-3-6.

Precisely because laying down cards in the order they turn up is NOT the same as predicting the order beforehand. Where the order must be specified, probability comes into play. Laying down the cards after randomly shuffling them so that they do come up in a specified order is challenging and more or less impossible, depending on the target precisely BECAUSE the specification sets the probability beforehand and must meet the “bounds.” Randomly laying down cards sets no probability bounds because no target is defined to make it a question of probability at all.

It is like laying down a card and claiming “I told you the ace of hearts would come up!” after you see it. There is no possibility of you being wrong because you have taken the “probability” out of it by not defining a target outcome. What is the chance of you guessing the card correctly AFTER you see it? Still 1/52? No! 1/1 because the chance of that one card being the one card is 1/1.

 

[edwest2]

no. I calculated the difficulty of specifying. If I specify the order of cards, I start with the first flip a 1/520000 chance of being right. For the second, a 1/519999 chance and so on. Hence, a 1/(520000!) of that precise order being produced.

Why do you assume that it was for the same reason computer code is? You want to say that it was ordered by an intelligent agent? You’ve got to be able to test for that and do so in the nucleotide bases. And when I say test, as this seems to be a missed distinction, I mean TEST. I mean do an experiment in a lab. Thus far all I’ve seen are philosophical arguments.

Theistic evolution is just that God is behind it. It does not specify to what extent he is.

That last sentence is false since science is silent about God. No connection can be made from the science side.

Peace,
Ed

 

[FRLBJ]

The catechism states our belief in the reality of Adam and Eve. Christ’s sacrifice would be unecessary if Adam had not existed.Man is a union of body and soul. So before Adam and Eve there were no people. Animals have an animal soul, but not a human one. So science seems to have some things wrong about man. Also, i see no evolution going on around me like cats, dogs and horses becoming more like each other. All mutations are lethal to higher organisms. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Evolution is irrational at it’s core.

 

[Farsight001]

You lost me here. How are quartz crystals “purposefully arranged?” The arrangement is completely dependent upon their molecular structure. The fact that humans make use of quartz crystals cannot after the fact provide the purpose for their arrangement. That would be like claiming petroleum molecules are purposefully arranged because we can make plastics from them.

Then you would need to clarify “purposeful”. If by “purposeful”, you are assuming that an intelligent agent made it with a purpose, then that is circular logic, as you have assumed intent to prove intent. I was using a more open definition of purposeful that would not force circular logic into the issue.

That is a complete misunderstanding of design. The purpose, i.e. function, has to be integral to its structure. Crystals do not have a function in nature, the function they have in human technology is an add-on one imposed by humans.

I mentioned nothing about human technology for one thing. For another thing, now you have added more terms that need defining. Structure? Function? Integral? You need operational definitions of these words.

In genetic code, the purposeful arrangement of nucleotide bases is integral to their function as code which is to be transcribed for a large array of functions, none of which are imposed by humans. The question, legitimately to be asked, is: How could blind forces of nature arrange the bases to formulate a highly complex and specified code upon which all future life functions depend with no intent or foreknowledge, but blindly?

How could crystals form? Asking how its possible is not an argument against it being possible. Again, look up DNA replication.

That is very like, but much more difficult than you laying down the cards from those 10,000 decks in a precise order that would unlock the intricate functionality we call “life.” You say God chose to leave it to “random events,” and did not pre-design the code, but left it to essentially to the infinite number of monkeys to come up with it.

You do the math on that to know its much more difficult?

And I did not say that God did not pre-design the code. He may have. But that is theistic evolution, not intelligent design.