Overwhelming evidence for Design?

[Peter_Plato]

The forensic pathologist keeps an open mind to the possibility that someone did it only until the evidence suggests otherwise. Biologists kept an open mind to design for centuries. In fact, most of them believed in specific creation, until the evidence pointed elsewhere. And now that the evidence points to evolution, there is no reason to keep other, clearly false, ideas open.

As a professing Catholic, you also must believe in some form of creation and design at some level. For you the question must be: “At which point is/was the design incorporated?”

Was it front loaded? Is it ongoing? Or do you not believe in creation at all?

But it is a paulty amount of evidence on which to base a conclusion. It would be like a forensic pathologist studying a deceased person’s fingernail, and, finding no evidence of foul play only on it, concluding that it was a natural death.

It is not clear to me that the origin of life is a paltry consideration. It is more like a pathologist assessing the cause of death and if a fingernail is crucial in understanding that, then a fingernail becomes an important and not paltry piece of evidence. Considering that a cell contains within it the level of complex machinery and information that would drive the workings of large automated factory or even a city and this merely came about some 3.65-3.85 billion years ago, the origins of such complexity, or at least the potential for it, would be a very important consideration.

 

[Farsight001]

As a professing Catholic, you also must believe in some form of creation and design at some level. For you the question must be: “At which point is/was the design incorporated?”

Was it front loaded? Is it ongoing? Or do you not believe in creation at all?

I would not use the term design because that term has been taken and twisted by the ID advocates. But my views on if it is ongoing or if it was front loaded are really irrelevant here.

It is not clear to me that the origin of life is a paltry consideration.

I didn’t say it was paltry by itself. It’s a huge deal figuring out where the origin of life is. I clearly said that pointing to that one piece of “evidence” (really it’s just a claim, though), and producing a conclusion from it is utilizing a paltry amount of evidence from all the evidence available. If the fingernail points to a natural death, but the gaping bullet wound in their chest points to murder, you conclude that they were murdered. But what is being done is the opposite - deciding that, because the fingernail doesn’t have a gaping bullet hole, it must be natural causes, forget all the other evidence that suggests otherwise.

Considering that a cell contains within it the level of complex machinery and information that would drive the workings of large automated factory or even a city and this merely came about some 3.65-3.85 billion years ago, the origins of such complexity, or at least the potential for it, would be a very important consideration.

Again, the origins of such complexity is a huge deal. However, we are not discussing abiogenesis here. That is another subject entirely, with different scholarly journals, different degrees, different experts, and really different everything. It’s another subject for another time, perhaps.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The forensic pathologist keeps an open mind to the possibility that someone did it only until the evidence suggests otherwise. Biologists kept an open mind to design for centuries. In fact, most of them believed in specific creation, until the evidence pointed elsewhere. And now that the evidence points to evolution, there is no reason to keep other, clearly false, ideas open.

The evidence from evolution is not a knockdown argument and if you claim it is, you are mistaken. Perhaps the scientific thought for the past 200 years has been led down a blind alley and is in need of correction. Certainly there is a case to be made that natural selection does bring about change. There is no doubt about that. However, that does not entail that evolution can be evoked to explain origin of life, since it clearly cannot. Natural selection only has effect when there is something there to select about, it has no power to originate. Assuming it explains everything is precisely what has been, rightly, called into question.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I would not use the term design because that term has been taken and twisted by the ID advocates. But my views on if it is ongoing or if it was front loaded are really irrelevant here.

The thread is about evidence for design, it would seem that merely waving off someone else’s views without venturing your own is a somewhat “timid” contribution to the discussion, especially from someone with claimed expertise.

It is not clear to me that your presentation of the way in which “ID advocates” have “taken and twisted” the idea of design is not itself twisted.

 

[Farsight001]

The evidence from evolution is not a knockdown argument and if you claim it is, you are mistaken.

I personally own proof of evolution. They sell proof of evolution for 50 cents in tourist gift shops all over the world. It’s not a knockdown argument because it’s not an argument. It’s proven and settled and soundly as we have proven gravity exists and that the Earth orbits the sun. You think it unsound because you do not see the evidence, not because it is not there. There’s a library down the street from me with an entire wing filled of scholarly papers and studies that provide evidence and proof of evolution going back nearly a century. I would bet a lot you haven’t read a single one of them, in that library or any other.

However, that does not entail that evolution can be evoked to explain origin of life, since it clearly cannot.

No one evokes evolution to explain the origin of life. As I already explained, the origin of life is a separate field of study entirely (abiogenesis).

Natural selection only has effect when there is something there to select about, it has no power to originate. Assuming it explains everything is precisely what has been, rightly, called into question.

No one believes it explains everything. It can’t be called into question because it was never posited by anyone in the first place. The fact that you didn’t know this proves to me that you are ignorant as to what evolution actually is on the most fundamental and basic of levels. And you can’t properly criticize what you clearly don’t understand.

The thread is about evidence for design, it would seem that merely waving off someone else’s views without venturing your own is a somewhat “timid” contribution to the discussion, especially from someone with claimed expertise.

Our views have no impact on the presence of evidence for or against design, hence my views on the subject are irrelevant.

It is not clear to me that your presentation of the way in which “ID advocates” have “taken and twisted” the idea of design is not itself twisted.

If it is not clear to you, then perhaps you should do the research needed to make it clear.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I already explained this multiple times. I’m not going to do it again. If you can’t read what I typed, then you really shouldn’t be discussing the issue.

You were talking about Behe while I was talking about Dembski, and yet when I point out this discrepancy, you make it sound as though you were talking about Dembski all along. And the insults are unnecessary. I really fail to understand the need for hostility in this conversation.

What an eloquent, well thought out response to the storerooms of evidence to the contrary.

I won’t deny that it is one of the most important and prime vehicles of propounding ID theory, but my point was that there are differences of opinion among the leading voices of the ID movement. These differences would clearly not be reflected by this one book. Behe, for example, dissents from the ID mainline in accepting common descent of all species, including humans.

If you want to take their word on what they believe over mine, then take their word as found in private documents like the Wedge Strategy and other things that have been leaked in which they, including Behe, openly and freely admit to each other that ID literally is Creationism with a new name.

That it is a form of creationism, in the sense that it explicitly implies the existence of a creator, is beyond obvious. This does not speak to whether some within their ranks believe in some evolutionary process or not. I am familiar with the wedge strategy, which, yes, makes no bones about the fact that getting God back into the conversation in our educational schema is their major agenda. As a Catholic, I don’t oppose that basic idea.

As to their methods and theories, again I don’t necessarily support them. Not being a scientist, I am open to what they have to say because I don’t reject out of hand the possibility that there are ways of deducing “tinkering” in the universe. I have read a lot of the back and forth between both sides and I think there’s been a lot of dishonesty in both directions.

Natural selection is not the only proposed mechanism of evolution, but it is a crucial one without which evolution cannot happen, so denial of it is denial of evolution by default.

This denies the ability of God, to borrow PeterPlato’s words, to “front load” the development of the universe. If we understand evolution to merely be change over time, the implementation of a more or less structured plan that allows for anomalies and spontaneous variety to emerge shouldn’t be ruled out by Catholics or any theists, I don’t think.

And even leaving ID aside, among secular scientists, Lynn Margulis, for one, had some interesting ideas about evolution which did not rely on natural selection.

And? Scott Hahn’s Rome Sweet Home might be the most well known Catholic testimony, but it’s still the pope who leads. It boggles my mind how you think the popularity of their book is a determining factor in their authority.

I don’t think that the popularity of their books is the sole determining factor, and the comparison to Scott Hahn is an inept one. Scott Hahn has no position of authority within the Catholic Church. Behe and Dembski hold very high positions in the Discovery Institute.

So who do you consider to be the leading voices of the ID movement, if not those two?

When are you going to realize that the ID advocates are lying bleepedy bleeps? Every word out of their mouth is deception. They are literally about as trustworthy as Jack Chick, and you have clearly been duped, hook, line, and sinker. If you seriously doubt my familiarity with the work of ID theorists, that is your prerogative, but I would still be willing to bet a ridiculous amount of money that I have read more of their claims from their mouth than you have evolution claims from the mouths of biologists.

I have not been “duped hook, line and sinker.” As I have repeated numerous times throughout this thread, I don’t even consider myself an “ID-er”. And, actually, I was an atheist for fifteen years and read Richard Dawkins’ work religiously, among others. And, again, I am not opposed to evolution myself. I am, at this point, somewhat neutral on the matter. Again, I am not a trained scientist, and I listen to the arguments on both sides. I dislike, though, when conversations turn into hurling epithets and ad hominems without any serious discussion of the issues, like you have been doing.

I have no need to enlighten you. I have come across people like you a thousand times before. No matter what I say, no matter what documents I produce, no matter if I give you the words of the leading ID advocates themselves freely, happily admitting that ID IS creationism in disguise, you will not change your mind. I am not here for you. I am here for the edification of the lurkers that you might otherwise be misleading. If they want an explanation, I will give it to them, not to one who would refuse to listen no matter what I do.

I’m glad you know me so well already. But, really, you don’t know a thing about me. I don’t refuse to listen. If I didn’t want your opinion, I wouldn’t have asked for it. I have no personal stake in ID. But I have yet, in my own reading and discussion, to come upon any clear refutation of Dembski’s U.P.B. They are either vague and dismissive, like yours and Jason’s, or are selective in their reading of it. When I ask how bringing those other factors into consideration would effect that criticism, I am routinely dismissed and insulted.

 

[prodigalson2011]

K. Still doesn’t change his faulty premise, which is not a matter of statistics or mathematics.

What is the faulty premise? That’s what I keep asking and no one will give me a clear answer. “One interaction per particle” or “a single computation” are both very vague and don’t make sense to me. I’ve layed out my understanding of it (i.e. one interaction per particle would produce a quantity of half of 10^80 as opposed to the 10^150 that is reached). Why does everyone consider it so beneath them to explain my error? Am I misunderstanding what is meant by “interaction”?

And to the best of my understanding, it is precisely about statistics and mathematics. You have a large set of highly improbable events necessary to achieve a “goal” set against a finite number of total past events and span of time. Right?

Well, considering that the laws of physics as we know them break down the closer we get to the singularity before the big bang, I kind of find the fact that it would conflict with the laws of physics rather irrelevant. But I think we’re getting off topic here.

I’m not a scientist, so I can’t say anything definitive, but to the best of my understanding, the stability of those laws throughout oscillations is a necessity for the theory. I’ll look into it more.

My use of trillion was not meant to be a real analog either. The amount of instances and the amount of locations on which this miniscule chance happening might “randomly” occur is astronomically larger than that. This is, again, Dembski’s problem - his beginning point (premise) is based on one point in space at one point in time, not every point in space in which there is useful matter at every point in time.

So can you provide a more accurate equation? I ask in earnest, because I still am unable to see how Dembski’s equation implies this.

Plagairism implies nothing of the sort. You quote from somewhere else and you fail to attribute your source, it’s plagiarism. though I will concede that it’s not if the source declares it ok to do, which wikipedia does, and I’m guessing now that’s where you got it. In which case, no thank you. I’ll stick with real scholarship.

plagiarism:the act of taking the writings of another person and passing them off as one’s own. The fraudulence is closely related to forgery and piracy-practices generally in violation of copyright laws. (from Encyclopedia Britannica)

plagiarism: an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author’s work as one’s own, as by not crediting the original author. (from Dictionary.com)

The dictionary has spoken. Simple failure to provide a source is not plagiarism. Plagiarism has always referred to taking credit for someone else’s work.

But anyway, yes I pulled the information from Wikipedia, but it’s sourced information. The peer review exists–you can access the primary sources from Wikipedia.

 

[Farsight001]

What is the faulty premise? That’s what I keep asking and no one will give me a clear answer. “One interaction per particle” or “a single computation” are both very vague and don’t make sense to me. I’ve layed out my understanding of it (i.e. one interaction per particle would produce a quantity of half of 10^80 as opposed to the 10^150 that is reached). Why does everyone consider it so beneath them to explain my error? Am I misunderstanding what is meant by “interaction”?

I have explained the faulty premise no less than three times now. Other posters have done likewise. I see no need to explain it again. If you’re not going to bother reading my posts the first time I make them, I’m not going to waste time explaining it again.

And to the best of my understanding, it is precisely about statistics and mathematics. You have a large set of highly improbable events necessary to achieve a “goal” set against a finite number of total past events and span of time. Right?

The math performed is about math. The starting point, however, is not so much a matter of math. I cannot give the right answer for the area of a circle if use the wrong radius, no matter how good I am at math. Dembski, no matter how good his math, cannot provide the right probability statistics when beginning with a false premise. It’s that simple.

So can you provide a more accurate equation? I ask in earnest, because I still am unable to see how Dembski’s equation implies this.

Once again, I am taking issue with the premise, not the equation. It has it’s own problems, but I have not spoken of them here.

plagiarism: an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author’s work as one’s own, as by not crediting the original author.

The dictionary has spoken. Simple failure to provide a source is not plagiarism. Plagiarism has always referred to taking credit for someone else’s work.

Presenting it without attributing it to the author IS representation of that author’s work as one’s own, according to the court of law.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I have explained the faulty premise no less than three times now. Other posters have done likewise. I see no need to explain it again. If you’re not going to bother reading my posts the first time I make them, I’m not going to waste time explaining it again.

I have read your posts, but I fail to see where you point out his faulty premise. The only thing I found that I can assume may have been such a statement is this one:

If you rolled the dice only once, that outcome would be extremely surprising. However, and once again, as I already explained, the dice is not rolled once. It is rolled trillions of times. After that many rolls, 6 100’s in a row is completely mundane

Is that what you are calling his faulty premise? Because again, I don’t see where he uses that premise. It seems, rather, that his premise includes the maximum amount of times the dice could have been rolled.

Once again, I am taking issue with the premise, not the equation. It has it’s own problems, but I have not spoken of them here.

And you are saying that premise is that he only allows the dice to be rolled once? Am I following you correctly? If that’s so, I still fail to see how one could possibly arrive at 10^150 rolls of the dice from 10^80 dice.

If I’m wrong, I would really like to be corrected. Contrary to what you may think, I really don’t like looking a fool, if that is indeed the case here.

Presenting it without attributing it to the author IS representation of that author’s work as one’s own, according to the court of law.

Well, fortunately, I’m not publishing my forum posts, and I think it was clear in context (especially the use of italics) that I was quoting from another source. You seemed to pick up on the fact that it was written by someone else without any assistance.

P.S. No response to the first half of my reply?

 

[Farsight001]

You were talking about Behe while I was talking about Dembski, and yet when I point out this discrepancy, you make it sound as though you were talking about Dembski all along. And the insults are unnecessary. I really fail to understand the need for hostility in this conversation.

I brushed it off because it doesn’t actually matter. Neither Dembski or Behe have any expertise on the subject of evolution, end of story. And I am not being hostile. Rather, I detect quite strong hostility from you.

I won’t deny that it is one of the most important and prime vehicles of propounding ID theory, but my point was that there are differences of opinion among the leading voices of the ID movement. These differences would clearly not be reflected by this one book. Behe, for example, dissents from the ID mainline in accepting common descent of all species, including humans.

There are differences of opinion publicly. As I already suggested once, read their private documents they never intended the public to see. They freely admit, over and over, that the “intelligent designer” is the Christian God and that ID’s very purpose is to squeeze creationism into public schools. What they intentionally make public is a front.

That it is a form of creationism, in the sense that it explicitly implies the existence of a creator, is beyond obvious. This does not speak to whether some within their ranks believe in some evolutionary process or not. I am familiar with the wedge strategy, which, yes, makes no bones about the fact that getting God back into the conversation in our educational schema is their major agenda. As a Catholic, I don’t oppose that basic idea.

Uh…maybe you should read it again. They’re not trying to reintroduce God into the equation. They’re trying to drive a wedge between belief in God and acceptance of evolution - trying to convince people that evolution is intrinsically atheistic - so that they can convince people to pick one or the other. and most of this country believing in God, they hope to get them to reject evolution, so they can replace it in schools with ID/Creationism. It is all laid out in their own words.

This denies the ability of God, to borrow PeterPlato’s words, to “front load” the development of the universe. If we understand evolution to merely be change over time, the implementation of a more or less structured plan that allows for anomalies and spontaneous variety to emerge shouldn’t be ruled out by Catholics or any theists, I don’t think.

It denies nothing of the sort. It merely makes no comment on the issue.

And even leaving ID aside, among secular scientists, Lynn Margulis, for one, had some interesting ideas about evolution which did not rely on natural selection.

Uh…no she didn’t.

I don’t think that the popularity of their books is the sole determining factor, and the comparison to Scott Hahn is an inept one. Scott Hahn has no position of authority within the Catholic Church. Behe and Dembski hold very high positions in the Discovery Institute.

Ok. Not Scott Hahn. Try St. Paul. Great authority. Wrote part of the bible. Still not the pope. And if you don’t think that the popularity of their books is the sole determining factor, you could have fooled me when you presented it, solely, as a determining factor.

I have not been “duped hook, line and sinker.” As I have repeated numerous times throughout this thread, I don’t even consider myself an “ID-er”. And, actually, I was an atheist for fifteen years and read Richard Dawkins’ work religiously, among others. And, again, I am not opposed to evolution myself. I am, at this point, somewhat neutral on the matter. Again, I am not a trained scientist, and I listen to the arguments on both sides. I dislike, though, when conversations turn into hurling epithets and ad hominems without any serious discussion of the issues, like you have been doing.

I don’t mean to sound like I have been hurling ad hominems. I simply find it impossible to properly discuss evolution with someone who doesn’t actually know what evolution really is. My comments were meant to suggest that you take a step back, read up a bit, familiarize yourself with what evolution really is, and try again. I can’t explain why we worship Mary to an anti-Catholic when we don’t actually worship Mary. If that anti-Catholic won’t correct this false information, there is nothing I can do to clarify things for them. Likewise, I cannot clarify things for you if you cannot correct the errors in your understanding.

I’m glad you know me so well already. But, really, you don’t know a thing about me. I don’t refuse to listen. If I didn’t want your opinion, I wouldn’t have asked for it. I have no personal stake in ID. But I have yet, in my own reading and discussion, to come upon any clear refutation of Dembski’s U.P.B. They are either vague and dismissive, like yours and Jason’s, or are selective in their reading of it. When I ask how bringing those other factors into consideration would effect that criticism, I am routinely dismissed and insulted.

No one has insulted you even once. Furthermore, I have explained the flaws with Dembski’s UPB several times now, succinctly, clearly, and directly. The fact that you continue to suggest that my, and other’s responses are vague and dismissive tells me, and all here, rather clearly, that you aren’t even reading them. And as long as you continue to do that, we cannot continue this discussion. So, bye.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I brushed it off because it doesn’t actually matter. Neither Dembski or Behe have any expertise on the subject of evolution, end of story. And I am not being hostile. Rather, I detect quite strong hostility from you.

I would say our first few exchanges were very civil. Then, this started:

Which it would - to those who are unlearned on the issue.

…but it’s also plagiarism.

*…you have clearly been duped, hook, line, and sinker. *

I have come across people like you a thousand times before.

If they want an explanation, I will give it to them, not to one who would refuse to listen no matter what I do.

Maybe you didn’t mean those remarks to sound confrontational, but that’s how I read them, especially the last two.

There are differences of opinion publicly. As I already suggested once, read their private documents they never intended the public to see. They freely admit, over and over, that the “intelligent designer” is the Christian God and that ID’s very purpose is to squeeze creationism into public schools. What they intentionally make public is a front.
… and most of this country believing in God, they hope to get them to reject evolution, so they can replace it in schools with ID/Creationism. It is all laid out in their own words.

O.K., I’ll cede that. Even still, there are plenty of biologists who hope to do the exact opposite: use their work in evolutionary theory to drive a wedge between evolution and God and eliminate religion altogether. I don’t think it follows that all of their ideas are wrong.

Again, I don’t support the ID movement as a whole. I find some of their ideas interesting.

It denies nothing of the sort. It merely makes no comment on the issue.

But to say that natural selection is absolutely necessary for evolution does deny it; it assumes that evolution must necessarily be a blind process.

Uh…no she didn’t.

Well, I suppose that’s a matter of opinion.

Ok. Not Scott Hahn. Try St. Paul. Great authority. Wrote part of the bible. Still not the pope. And if you don’t think that the popularity of their books is the sole determining factor, you could have fooled me when you presented it, solely, as a determining factor.

But we could still say that St. Paul was a leading voice of Christianity. And, really, we could say that Scott Hahn is a leading voice of the American Catholic Church today. Because that’s all I said about Behe and Dembski. I didn’t say they were the head of the movement. I said they were the 2 leading voices (i.e. most prominent and recognized advocates) of ID.

I don’t mean to sound like I have been hurling ad hominems. I simply find it impossible to properly discuss evolution with someone who doesn’t actually know what evolution really is.

Why do you assume I don’t know what evolution is? We haven’t even discussed the matter. I have read a good deal about evolution and I understand all of its basic premises. I am merely open to the idea that it might be shown that time is not on the status quo’s side. Several evolutionary biologists, including atheists, have already openly admitted that life appears to emerge too early in the geological record for it to have developed here by chance, as it appears almost simultaneously with liquid water, leading to hypotheses like panspermia, etc.

My comments were meant to suggest that you take a step back, read up a bit, familiarize yourself with what evolution really is, and try again.

Again, I think I’m adequately familiar with evolutionary theory.

I can’t explain why we worship Mary to an anti-Catholic when we don’t actually worship Mary. If that anti-Catholic won’t correct this false information, there is nothing I can do to clarify things for them. Likewise, I cannot clarify things for you if you cannot correct the errors in your understanding.

My only question has been about the error in Dembski’s equation, which does not apply strictly to evolution, but to all physical activity in the known universe.

No one has insulted you even once. Furthermore, I have explained the flaws with Dembski’s UPB several times now, succinctly, clearly, and directly. The fact that you continue to suggest that my, and other’s responses are vague and dismissive tells me, and all here, rather clearly, that you aren’t even reading them. And as long as you continue to do that, we cannot continue this discussion. So, bye.

I outlined the remarks to which I took offense already.

Your explanations have been phrases like “assumes one computation.” That’s not a very clear explanation, as I’m not even sure what you mean by computation. I asked you to clarify if one of your previous remarks was meant to imply a faulty premise, because until you started saying that you had already pointed out his faulty premise, you hadn’t even used the word premise. And if that remark was indeed what you intended as a refutation of his premise, I provided the reason why it doesn’t make sense to me.

You see, even though I disagree with you, I still explain my position. Is it too much to ask in return?

I have been reading and rereading each of your posts. I merely fail to grasp what you are trying to say, so perhaps you are not being so clear as you think you are.

I love your continued presumption. I have admittedly expressed my doubts about your intellectual integrity and the negative impressions I received from some of your remarks, but they were at least expressed as MY personal temptations to doubt and MY personal impressions . But nowhere have I gone so far as to say that you are clearly, to everyone here, being deliberately dishonest. Again, that’s an ad hominem and it is insulting.

 

[tonyrey]

In view of misrepresentations of the meaning of Design it is worth restating a previous post - to which there has been no response:

• But there is also overwhelming evidence against intelligent design, except as it occurs through evolved intelligent beings.*

                             "evolved intelligent beings" again begs the question. How could it be proved that your posts do not have an intelligent origin?

Even Darwin conceded that the adaptations of animals to their environments bore the illusion of design - but he recognised that there was an explanation that fit the evidence much better than the assumption of special creation by an omnipotent god.

A false dilemma. You are assuming human purpose is unique. Do you have any evidence?

I certainly don’t assume that purpose is unique to humans. Where have I ever implied this?

You implied that purpose is the product of events on this planet.

It’s obvious that other animals act with purposeful intent, even if we (perhaps rather arrogantly) consider it to be simpler than human intention and purpose.

Why aren’t they held responsible for their activity? (BTW “other animals” assumes persons are animals.)

How would the laws of nature, such as they are, even be aware of the welfare of individuals?

That was the implication of your objection to Design.

Moreover the phrase “with human interests in mind” is a misrepresentation of Christianity with its implication that the world was designed solely

for man. The focus of Christian theology is human salvation.

Why would it be otherwise?

That being the case, then according to the theological interpretation, the world was designed either as a cradle for human development…

Non sequitur.

…or a challenge to test human mettle, a way to prove worthiness for salvation.

A distortion of Christian belief.

Concern for other sentient beings is a relatively recent afterthought.

Only in your opinion.

You have made it abundantly clear that you regard reason as a product of purposeless events.

Which there is no reason to assume it’s not, unless you believe it impossible for simplicity to give rise to complexity.

You are using reason to destroy its validity by reducing it to a physical process which lacks insight.

If natural selection actually works, the existing environment would select for beings that succeeded in comprehending it, to the extent that such comprehension promoted their survival.

An even more astonishing assumption! How on earth could that be proved?

1. The fact that a phenomenon exists does not imply that it **must **

exist. Never said it does…

You implied evolution was inevitable.
…

…that would imply an ultimate purpose that I do not believe exists!

Non sequitur. Purpose is totally irrelevant in the context of “physical necessity”.

1. How did atomic particles acquire the **potential **

to perform such an incredible feat? How indeed? How do the laws of physics operate on a subatomic scale? How do you still imagine that these atomic particles behave in such perfect isolation that they never interact to give rise to more complex phenomena? How does a single car braking cause a traffic jam on the freeway?

None of these questions answers the question:

 "How did atomic particles acquire the **potential **to perform such an incredible feat?"

1. It takes an enormous act of faith to believe inanimate objects

have the power to develop into rational beings. Though rather less faith than it takes to imagine an entirely separate class of reality to the one we may access through experience.

False dilemma. We access rational activity through direct experience.

(Unless it is claimed human activity is not rational - which is clearly self-contradictory!)

 

[Peter_Plato]

I personally own proof of evolution. They sell proof of evolution for 50 cents in tourist gift shops all over the world. It’s not a knockdown argument because it’s not an argument. It’s proven and settled and soundly as we have proven gravity exists and that the Earth orbits the sun. You think it unsound because you do not see the evidence, not because it is not there. There’s a library down the street from me with an entire wing filled of scholarly papers and studies that provide evidence and proof of evolution going back nearly a century. I would bet a lot you haven’t read a single one of them, in that library or any other.

That is precisely the problem. The term is so vague and misused that it could mean anything to anyone, so in a sense you are correct. Using a vaguely applicable meaning, evolution could very well be indisputable, but that does not mean every claim about it is as soundly settled as you state. This lack of precision seems to be the screen behind which you are lobbing your critique in the direction of ID.

No one evokes evolution to explain the origin of life. As I already explained, the origin of life is a separate field of study entirely (abiogenesis).

Abiogenesis is precisely the locus that ID proponents like Stephen Meyer and others have focused as an open question. You cannot then lodge a blanket critique at ID by claiming that it is contrary to evolution, but at the same time hide behind a statement that evolution does not cover abiogenesis. Many ID proponents freely admit that some aspects of evolution are beyond contention, but that in no way implies that every aspect is beyond dispute as you maintain, albeit via vague contentions that the theory is simply beyond dispute. It is time to deal with specifics or the vague claims you make and support by claiming “owning proof” will rapidly lose credibility.

No one believes it explains everything. It can’t be called into question because it was never posited by anyone in the first place. The fact that you didn’t know this proves to me that you are ignorant as to what evolution actually is on the most fundamental and basic of levels. And you can’t properly criticize what you clearly don’t understand.

That is one way to place it beyond the reach of any critique. It is just true, therefore, it (however undefinable IT is) ought not be challenged. This is one step short of claiming IT was simply revealed and therefore indubitable. I also cannot properly criticize an idea so vague and shifting that there is nothing to criticize, like your refusal to explain how you reconcile belief in God with your understanding of how he might have carried out the act of creation, if not with some implementation of intelligent design.

Our views have no impact on the presence of evidence for or against design, hence my views on the subject are irrelevant.

If it is not clear to you, then perhaps you should do the research needed to make it clear.

Sounds like blind faith in some nebulous concept that you refuse to spell out because, I venture to guess, you are as unclear as everyone else (despite contentions otherwise) as to where and how it applies.

All evidence is subject to acceptance or denial by individuals with perspectives colored by their own understanding and biases about the issues in question. To think you are completely free of such bias because the evidence speaks for itself may be true. On the other hand, only revealing the reasons behind your thinking regarding the interpretation of evidence would make that clear to others. Your failure to reveal your viewpoints makes me question your ability to recognize your own viewpoint limitations.

 

[prodigalson2011]

In view of misrepresentations of the meaning of Design it is worth restating a previous post - to which there has been no response:

                             "evolved intelligent beings" again begs the question. How could it be proved that your posts do not have an intelligent origin?

A false dilemma. You are assuming human purpose is unique. Do you have any evidence?
You implied that purpose is the product of events on this planet.
Why aren’t they held responsible for their activity? (BTW “other animals” assumes persons are animals.)
That was the implication of your objection to Design.

                                       Why would it be otherwise? 
                                             Non sequitur.

A distortion of Christian belief.
Only in your opinion.
You are using reason to destroy its validity by reducing it to a physical process which lacks insight.
An even more astonishing assumption! How on earth could that be proved?
You implied evolution was inevitable.
…Non sequitur. Purpose is totally irrelevant in the context of “physical necessity”.
None of these questions answers the question:

 "How did atomic particles acquire the **potential **to perform such an incredible feat?"
                                             False dilemma. We access rational activity through **direct experience.**

(Unless it is claimed human activity is not rational - which is clearly self-contradictory!)

Sorry, Tony. Afraid I’ve been contributing to that digression in this thread.

 

[prodigalson2011]

That is precisely the problem. The term is so vague and misused that it could mean anything to anyone, so in a sense you are correct. Using a vaguely applicable meaning, evolution could very well be indisputable, but that does not mean every claim about it is as soundly settled as you state. This lack of precision seems to be the screen behind which you are lobbing your critique in the direction of ID.

Abiogenesis is precisely the locus that ID proponents like Stephen Meyer and others have focused as an open question. You cannot then lodge a blanket critique at ID by claiming that it is contrary to evolution, but at the same time hide behind a statement that evolution does not cover abiogenesis. Many ID proponents freely admit that some aspects of evolution are beyond contention, but that in no way implies that every aspect is beyond dispute as you maintain, albeit via vague contentions that the theory is simply beyond dispute. It is time to deal with specifics or the vague claims you make and support by claiming “owning proof” will rapidly lose credibility.

That is one way to place it beyond the reach of any critique. It is just true, therefore, it (however undefinable IT is) ought not be challenged. This is one step short of claiming IT was simply revealed and therefore indubitable. I also cannot properly criticize an idea so vague and shifting that there is nothing to criticize, like your refusal to explain how you reconcile belief in God with your understanding of how he might have carried out the act of creation, if not with some implementation of intelligent design.

Sounds like blind faith in some nebulous concept that you refuse to spell out because, I venture to guess, you are as unclear as everyone else (despite contentions otherwise) as to where and how it applies.

All evidence is subject to acceptance or denial by individuals with perspectives colored by their own understanding and biases about the issues in question. To think you are completely free of such bias because the evidence speaks for itself may be true. On the other hand, only revealing the reasons behind your thinking regarding the interpretation of evidence would make that clear to others. Your failure to reveal your viewpoints makes me question your ability to recognize your own viewpoint limitations.

PeterPlato, I must thank you again for speaking so much more eloquently than I could ever hope to the points I try so vainly to make.

 

[Peter_Plato]

PeterPlato, I must thank you again for speaking so much more eloquently than I could ever hope to the points I try so vainly to make.

Your points are insightful, honest and clear. That is as high a standard as anyone could hope for.

I certainly don’t get a sense of a hidden agenda or hiding behind pretense from you.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Your points are insightful, honest and clear. That is as high a standard as anyone could hope for.

I certainly don’t get a sense of a hidden agenda or hiding behind pretense from you.

Well, thank you, sir. :tiphat:

 

[Bradski]

Meyer does not assume a designer.

You just have to be joking, surely. It’s the sole reason for his work.

Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions. antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

A science consonant with a religion? ID is what they used to call Creationism. Creationism needs a Creator. Which one do you think they mean?

 

[Dami_Akomolafe]

I believe in Intelligent design.

I believe in evolution.

I believe in God.

Why should these 2 points of view contradict one another?

 

[Peter_Plato]

You just have to be joking, surely. It’s the sole reason for his work.

Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions. antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

A science consonant with a religion? ID is what they used to call Creationism. Creationism needs a Creator. Which one do you think they mean?

I said, “Meyer does not assume a designer.” Let me rephrase my point. Meyer** [in his argument ] **does not assume a designer. He does indeed argue for one based upon the improbability of DNA code arising given the probabilistic resources available. As to what Meyer’s motives are with regards to promoting ID is irrelevant to the truth of his argument. Ever hear of the genetic fallacy?

So what if science is consonant with a religion or creator? That should only make a difference to someone who has some predisposition towards there not being a creator. If true scientific neutrality is observed then the evidence should point the way, not our own predilections, one way or the other.

What is your point? That ID is false merely because it points to a creator or designer? That would seem a bias on your part, would it not?

So why not just claim that ID is false because it transgresses the tenets of atheism and be done?