E
edwest2
Guest
Those are the correct questions. Does the arrow know what it is for? Of course not. Only the one who provides the direction the arrow will go knows.
Peace,
Ed
- Status
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
Scientists missed “half the picture” for a long time.
sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131212142151.htm
Peace,
Ed
sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131212142151.htm
Peace,
Ed
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Interesting. The question that seems to be completely ignored is, “How do, not one, but two ‘layers’ of code using dual purpose duons get accidentally assembled in the DNA genome?”
That would be like finding a story that has certain characters with dual functions where reading only those dual function characters reveals a complete other story. I’d like to see a human author achieve that!
How could dual encoding like this happen randomly?
I guess we’ll need not just one infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of typewriters, but another infinite set of monkeys working in tandem with the first set coordinating their typing so the two stories overlap by using the dual function words in places but pound out two completely distinct stories.
The “random” camp has its work cut out for it because its random mutation explanation has just become half as plausible and at least twice as improbable.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
And an implication of God is not science because?Because EVERYBODY knows that this implies GOD! God is not
a science. God is REAL, but God is not Creation. Science looks
at Creation, not the Creator, who for all metaphysical intents and
purposes, is beyond science.
I’ll bring the comparison up again: Aztecs discover the abandoned
city of Teotihuacán. SUCH MAGNIFICENT STONE WORK, LOOK
AT THEM, HUGE! Only logical conclusion: Built be the gods. That
is Creation-Sci… “Intelligent Design.”
I was using “realm” as a metaphor, if you read in context.
I’m the one deciding it to be a theological issue? That has
been the very root of Intelligent Design since it’s inception.
Just because they’ve toned down on the God-talk doesn’t
make it not about God, but let’s play the game.
“DNA is designed, therefore it must have a designer who designed it.”
“GOD?!”
“No no, could be aliens.”
“Alrighty, ‘aliens,’ but who is their designer? God?!”
“Not precisely, but perhaps another alien race.”
“Who created them?”
“Is not it obvious? Yet another alien race.”
“Then it’s an eternal progressions of aliens?”
“What? NO!”
“Then in the beginning of it all, GO-O-OD!”
“I did NOT say ‘God’?!”
“Then who created the universe?”
". . . . "
It would seem the big bang would have similar implications.
S
Skeptic92
Guest
ID Can not be falsified, and therefore does not count as a scientific theory (Popper)
It postulates a designer based upon mechanisms we have no seeming material cause for, yet this requires an argument from ignorance (we can not explain, therefore designed) which is logically fallacious and invalidates the argument (Kreeft, Socratic Logic).
How about addressing one of my numerous criticisms along metaphysical, scientific (i.e it can not be counted as a scientific theory as it can not be falsified), and logical grounds (it is by nature an argumentum ad ignoratum) ?
You aren’t doing your argument any service by attacking a strawman and demonstrating incompetence at dealing with rational evaluation. If ID is a ‘scientific’ hypothesis, you should be able to defend it from logical criticism. So far there hasn’t been a single ID proponent that has done that, either started throwing out attacks on character, ignoring the criticisms, or simply begging the question.
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
No the Big Bang wouldn’t!
I mean you could argue “Let there be Light, and it was so” and jazz,
but that conclusion was only made as a Catholic priest observed all
the galaxies and stars moving away from one another. From there he
came to the logical conclusion that there was a Big Bang, but there
is nothing about God there.
SOME Intelligent Designists also like to pick on the Big Bang Theory,
comment that “explosions never create, they only destroyee…”
Oh, and that implication of God, did you not see the dialogue?
M
Monkey1976
Guest
An implication of any conscious designer invalidates a hypothesis that is supposed to explain the natural world. The reason is that a consciousness is by nature unpredictable. One feature of any successful hypothesis is that it makes testable predictions. In the case of evolution, one of these predictions is that we should see a gradual change in the physical features of creatures as we track their lineage back through time. In the case of evolution, that prediction has been borne out. To take whales as an example, we can track their progression from land-dwelling foxlike predators all the way to the modern forms. Should we find a whale with fully-modern features alongside one of their ancestors, then the prediction has failed the test.
In the case of ID, the fact that there is a conscious intelligence controlling the process as a positive factor makes it pass any test. Taking the whale as an example again, the finding of a modern form doesn’t mean that the test failed, because it simply means that the “designer” chose differently than we thought.
As far as the Big Bang is concerned, it is still a valid theory because it explicitly says that there is a point where predictability breaks down because physics simply breaks at that point. What it does not do is directly affirm God (or Shiva, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or…) by including a conscious agent as the direct cause. The cause is left to the realm of metaphysics and philosophy. For the atheist, the cause is a random fluctuation in the nothingness which caused the universe to start existing. For us, the cause is God saying, “Fiat lux”. From an objective viewpoint, both of these positions are equally valid, as they are both inherently untestable using empirical methods.
Just as the Big Bang places the untestable cause beyond the boundaries of the theory, evolution does the same. When “random” changes are mentioned, it is simply saying that as far as can be empirically tested, the changes are random. It doesn’t in any way preclude God (or aliens, or Zeus, etc), because it is impossible to prove that there is a consciousness controlling a sequence of events which we perceive to be random. If one were to tap into a network cable and try to understand an encrypted datastream, it would appear to be totally random, even though we knew for certain that the cable carried information which could be understood by those on either end.
From a theological standpoint, when we read Scripture telling us that all creation speaks to the Glory of God, it follows that the speech would be intelligible. Proper understanding of this “speech” is where Revelation comes in. When we read of a planet made of diamond being discovered, those of us who accept and believe in God can understand how such a thing speaks to his Glory. Science is like using Google Translate to understand this speech: We can get the basic grammar, but not the exact meaning. Faith is where we learn the precise meanings of the “words”, even if we might not know exactly how they fit together. At the intersection of the two, we have full understanding of what creation is telling us.
Faith is not a mathematical equation. The object of faith can never be proven using empirical methods. The Catechism even says as much in paragraphs 156-159. To attempt to prove God using science is - at it heart - an attempt to remove the need for Faith.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
How would you know that not a single ID proponent has done that? Have you read them all? Have you read Meyer or Dembski? You do realize that Dembski, for example, addresses this point about argument from ignorance as it was, essentially, Wein’s point in the linked paper cited on my last post.
You still are not at all convincing because you gesture toward issues but make absolutely no attempt at including a single argument or support for your contention. Two can play that game. I could also gesticulate madly making suggestions about your arguments being full of holes because they are unfalsifiable and from ignorance, but until I actually present an argument I would hope the more intelligent among us would see through the posturing at the lack of any argument. You haven’t provided an argument just made claims about ID that are not substantiated. As a professional philosopher you ought to know better. Present an argument, not a feeble substitute for one.
You have done, in your post, what I asked you NOT to do, you excused your lack of argument by making empty claims that demonstrate precisely nothing.
Yes I know what an argument from ignorance is. The question is whether the case for IDvolution relies on an argument from ignorance. You haven’t shown that and Dembski demonstrates that it is not. Besides your depiction of an argument from ignorance is problematic since it itself IS an argument from ignorance. We don’t KNOW of any non-material causes therefore there are no non-material causes.
Furthermore, if the claims of IDvolution - specifically, regarding irreducible complexity - are not falsifiable, why does Miller, for example, spend so much time attempting to falsify them?
Dembski uses the criterion of complexity-specification to argue that it is a reasonable induction to rule out material causes and therefore admit some other plausible explanation. We are not ignorant about how intelligence creates code. Humans do it all the time.
Dembski’s argument is based on two suppositions
- That material causes can be ruled out - on probability grounds - as not being implicated in the creation of genetic code. He has given many examples, for example, the combination “code” on a bicycle lock that has been “user set” to open the lock, cannot be reduced to material causes found in or about the lock. Similarly, with genetic code.
- That genetic code is sufficiently like complex-specified codes created by human intelligence that we can legitimately infer that genetic code is the product of an intelligence.
The sequencing order in DNA has no chemical or physical explanation for the arrangement it takes - an arrangement that is critical, highly, highly, highly improbable and functionally specified.
If you want to argue against Dembski, do so, but as Aristotle would observe (paraphrased slightly)…
Flapping one’s arms up and down in imitation of one swallow (or argument) does not a summer (or argument) make.
B
buffalo
Guest
Sure I did. Transparency is key. What she is getting at is OK, we (evo’s) might be wrong but we don’t think the other side has an answer except ID or God did it. Did you get the message?
All scientists is incorrect as I have already shown. She might have said Most scientists.
Now - ALL scientists agree evolution as in micro has occurred. There is no argument by anyone. There has been extinction - agreed. New taxa have arisen - agreed. All life comes from common ancestry? - there is disagreement on this one.
Next sentence - The question is, is natural selection enough to explain evolution? Is it the driver of evolution? - She obviously is pro evo, yet we can see she has a big problem with NS, which was my point. Most evo’s when they find an issue don’t swear off evo entirely and continue to prop it up. But over time we can see the shifts as new data come in a little at a time. Their position is evolving so to speak.
Perhaps you can show me which scientists keep checking the foundations of the theory? Many keep building over the top of it. But you know what it means to build a foundation on sand. That is their dilemma right now.
We are in agreement here. All theories should be tested and be accountable. The ID vs Evo debate is healthy as I see it. If ID is accepted it won’t be because no one resisted it.
Every one of the links points back to source material. The salient points are brought forward. You put it into context as everyone should do. You certainly are not going to claim evos do not bring the salient points forward? (I have some land for sale…)
I have got more links…
S
Skeptic92
Guest
That is an Argument from Ignorance: it is stipulating that because we can not identify a material cause there can not be a material cause, which does not logically follow. We then must accept that Intelligent Design does no better at demonstrating the existence of a transcendent Design, then it does the possibility of an extraterrestrial designer.
We then must deal with as Catholics that Intelligent Design uses a metaphysical framework that is incompatible with traditional Catholic Theology and Philosophy, any attempt to fuse the two systems leads you to incoherency and inconsistency. May I suggest that instead of relying of a problematic argument from Evolution, we look to the Cosmological Constants? If you can infer purpose, rather than random chance from the data available in modern cosmology (which you can) this is compatible with the classical Metaphysics and is a more solid piece of Philosophy.
Answer me two questions:
Does Intelligent Design rely upon the supposition that because we can not know the material cause, no material cause exists? If, yes it is an argument form ignorance by definition and therefore is an invalid argument. If no, there is no way to prove or justify your premise and therefore the argument is invalid.
Can Intelligent Design be falsified? Meaning is there any specific set of data that is conceivable (I’m using this in its technical meaning) that would demonstrate that ID is false? If no, Intelligent Design is not a scientific hypothesis. I would concede however that it is a Philosophical argument, and not a scientific one, which relies upon inductive reasoning. There is much however to be said about the deistic metaphysical framework upon which it relies, alongside the problematic Cartesian assumptions it takes from modern science.
B
buffalo
Guest
We have no instances that show us otherwise. Can you show one?
B
buffalo
Guest
I was going up that road. Information only comes from information and information only comes from a mind.
The DNA code has a transmitter, a key, decoder and receiver. It is from a mind.
B
buffalo
Guest
Is your conclusion they detected design, or that the elements did it?Because EVERYBODY knows that this implies GOD! God is not
a science. God is REAL, but God is not Creation. Science looks
at Creation, not the Creator, who for all metaphysical intents and
purposes, is beyond science.
I’ll bring the comparison up again: Aztecs discover the abandoned
city of Teotihuacán. SUCH MAGNIFICENT STONE WORK, LOOK
AT THEM, HUGE! Only logical conclusion: Built be the gods. That
is Creation-Sci… “Intelligent Design.”
I was using “realm” as a metaphor, if you read in context.
I’m the one deciding it to be a theological issue? That has
been the very root of Intelligent Design since it’s inception.
Just because they’ve toned down on the God-talk doesn’t
make it not about God, but let’s play the game.
“DNA is designed, therefore it must have a designer who designed it.”
“GOD?!”
“No no, could be aliens.”
“Alrighty, ‘aliens,’ but who is their designer? God?!”
“Not precisely, but perhaps another alien race.”
“Who created them?”
“Is not it obvious? Yet another alien race.”
“Then it’s an eternal progressions of aliens?”
“What? NO!”
“Then in the beginning of it all, GO-O-OD!”
“I did NOT say ‘God’?!”
“Then who created the universe?”
". . . . "
ID the science makes no claim who the designer is. Philosophers do that. The implications indeed are dire for the god of BUC. I say tough. Go where the evidence leads. Let the evo’s try to knock it down. It will only toughen the position. That in my mind is a good thing. The truth will survive.
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
Just remember, she is only ONE scientist.Sure I did. Transparency is key. What she is getting at is OK, we (evo’s) might be wrong but we don’t think the other side has an answer except ID or God did it. Did you get the message?
All scientists is incorrect as I have already shown. She might have said Most scientists.
Now - ALL scientists agree evolution as in micro has occurred. There is no argument by anyone. There has been extinction - agreed. New taxa have arisen - agreed. All life comes from common ancestry? - there is disagreement on this one.
Next sentence - The question is, is natural selection enough to explain evolution? Is it the driver of evolution? - She obviously is pro evo, yet we can see she has a big problem with NS, which was my point. Most evo’s when they find an issue don’t swear off evo entirely and continue to prop it up. But over time we can see the shifts as new data come in a little at a time. Their position is evolving so to speak.
Perhaps you can show me which scientists keep checking the foundations of the theory? Many keep building over the top of it. But you know what it means to build a foundation on sand. That is their dilemma right now.
We are in agreement here. All theories should be tested and be accountable. The ID vs Evo debate is healthy as I see it. If ID is accepted it won’t be because no one resisted it.
Every one of the links points back to source material. The salient points are brought forward. You put it into context as everyone should do. You certainly are not going to claim evos do not bring the salient points forward? (I have some land for sale…)
I have got more links…
B
buffalo
Guest
I gave you the source material for Trillions of years. It is not my claim.
How many random shots will it take to make a useful protein fold in your best estimation? How long to make just one?
B
buffalo
Guest
This has just upped the ante by quite a bit. Everyone of these discoveries raises the bar for evo. In addition, they found overlapping code. It is an exciting time.
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
I do not, but even if I did, Intelligent Design by default says, “Because that’s how the
Designer designed it,” going back to the fact that Intelligent Design is non-falsifiable.
B
buffalo
Guest
And that is the hole ID the science is plugging. ( how about giving it the 150 years evo has to try and prove its case? Look what ID has done in such a short time.) Lots of good stuff here.
On Information, Design, Science, Creation & Evolutionary Materialism:
- Status