Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

No, it’s a theory molded to fit the data we see, like any good theory.

It is a priori theory.

Oh, so the intelligent designer your theory is based on has been empirically observed???

All the data my theory is based on has. Else we wouldn’t use it in crafting and editing the theory.

 

[buffalo]

Oh, so the intelligent designer your theory is based on has been empirically observed???

All the data my theory is based on has. Else we wouldn’t use it in crafting and editing the theory.

No it has not. It is not observable, repeatable and predictable.

Evolution was based on information available at the time. Over and over big money has been spent to validate it. Micro has been well validated. Macro, not. So so stories are printed in that have the result of indoctrinating people that macro is just an extension of micro, and people have gobbled this up.

Now we have newer information that is supporting ID more and more everyday.

That it why all the top evo’s understand the modern synthesis is dead and they are trying to update. We will spend more money, but in the end ID will be left standing as the best explanation for the programming and complexity of life.

 

[Bradskii]

Should we teach all life is designed? Or better to teach all life is designed and here are the proofs? I pick the latter.

You have your ‘proof’ in Option 1. You spent a few posts decribing it in detail. It’s dna. It’s that which you and the ID claims that all life is designed. You need nothing else. If you start with the claim that engines prove that cars are intelligently designed then you don’t need to spend any time investigating the suspension on a '64 Chevy to look for irreducible complexity to show that a '64 Chevy is intelligently designed. You’ve already made that call and offered the ‘proof’. It’s a fools errand.

According to you (and the DI) all you need to teach children is that things with dna, that is, everything that lives, proves that life itself is intelligently designed. So Option 1 is all you need. Everyone the becomes an instant expert. No need for investigations. No need for science. No need for pages and pages of technical nonsense. No need for anything other than asking: ‘Is it alive?’

Now if you like we can bounce a few Q and A posts back and forth to determine the real reason for the search for ic. Because all that fluff I gave earlier about it being a fools errand is not exactly true. And you know that as well as I do. We both know why it’s required. Shall we dance?

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Oh, so the intelligent designer your theory is based on has been empirically observed???

All the data my theory is based on has. Else we wouldn’t use it in crafting and editing the theory.

No it has not. It is not observable, repeatable and predictable. As to repeating it - we’re talking about time spans so massive that the length of human life, even recorded history, is just a tiny little blip on the tape.

The evidence it’s based on is very observable and very predictable.

Take the whale evolutionary chart - I’m going to guess that those bones weren’t found in the same order in which they evolved since we’re just chancing into them in the rocks.

There’s been innumerable times where we theorized what an intermediary species between one further back and one more recent would like like. And what do you know? We tend to find them - further validating the theory.

Evolution was based on information available at the time.

Slight change. “Evolution is based on all information presently available”.

Micro has been well validated. Macro, not.

The line between micro- and macro- isn’t drawn by the scientific community. It’s an arbitrary line drawn by ID-ers that are trying to force-fit the same data to match a theory it doesn’t support.

I’m not not trying to be mean when I say this.

Now we have newer information that is supporting ID more and more everyday.

Except for, you know, any direct evidence that there even is an intelligent designer.

Not this doesn’t eliminate God from the equation. It just means that evolution was designed by God to work without Him having to guide and correct it all the time.

Which would be very smart of Him. You have to admit.

 

[buffalo]

Oh, so the intelligent designer your theory is based on has been empirically observed???

Well, actually Catholics understand the creator has been observed and even rose from the dead. One guy even put his fingers in His wounds, because he did not believe the others. Over 500 witnessed the Creator after His resurrection. But we are discussing science, so… back to the science…

However, evidence is based on odds. Proof is not absolute. The higher the odds, the more confidence rises. ID science shows that certain features have very high fsci and the odds of this happening by chance or randomly are very low.

 

[buffalo]

Slight change. “Evolution is based on all information presently available”.

You are ignoring the latest information.

 

[Bradskii]

Now we have newer information that is supporting ID more and more everyday.

You don’t need it. Ifs omething is alive, it has been intelligently designed. This from your own posts. What else do you need…

Or more specifically, why do you need anything else?

 

[buffalo]

The line between micro- and macro- isn’t drawn by the scientific community. It’s an arbitrary line drawn by ID-ers that are trying to force-fit the same data to match a theory it doesn’t support.

Actually, it was coined by an evo guy around 100 years ago. It is not arbitrary. It is real. Macro does not happen.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Oh, so the intelligent designer your theory is based on has been empirically observed???

Well, actually Catholics understand the creator has been observed and even rose from the dead.

I’m not talking about Jesus, I’m talking about an Intelligent Designer. Evolution (or your ID) was happening waaaaaaay before Jesus of Nazareth was born somewhere around 3 BC.

 

[buffalo]

Not this doesn’t eliminate God from the equation. It just means that evolution was designed by God to work without Him having to guide and correct it all the time.

Which would be very smart of Him. You have to admit.

ID fits better. He does not need to correct it. He may do so if He chooses for reasons we could not know. We live in a fallen world and sinful man influences outcomes. He may have to step in from time to time.

 

[buffalo]

I’m not talking about Jesus, I’m talking about an Intelligent Designer. Evolution (or your ID) was happening waaaaaaay before Jesus of Nazareth was born somewhere around 3 BC.

Jesus is a member of the trinity so He is the ultimate creator/designer. We do not need ID the science to tell us this. He has way before modern science existed.

 

[Vonsalza]

Jesus is a member of the trinity so He is the ultimate creator/designer.

Ok, but then you have to empirically prove that the Trinity exists…

Do you really not see the issue here for rationalists that want to explain how life came to be without using someone else’s god that the rationalist might not believe in?

 

[Bradskii]

ID science shows that certain features have very high fsci and the odds of this happening by chance or randomly are very low.

Yeah. You did this. If something has dna it’s been intelligently designed. But odds weren’t part of the equation:

'Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. (my italics)

So high levels mean it WAS designed. But hang on…you can’t prove that, so all that bulldust earlier was just that. Bulldust. Now we have this:

‘If it contains dna then the odds of this happening by chance or randomly are very low.’

So let’s update your statement:

‘Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI and the odds of this happening by chance or randomly are very low.’

Not very convincing is it. And a long way from what you and the DI claimed earlier. Which is exactly why you need ic. Because your main criteria for proving ID is laughably inept. It doesn’t even do what it claims. It’s simply an opinion put forward by people who support a fundamental reading of scripture.

 

[buffalo]

Ok, but then you have to empirically prove that the Trinity exists…

Do you really not see the issue here for rationalists that want to explain how life came to be without using someone else’s god that the rationalist might not believe in?

Since the Trinity exists outside of our limited frame of reference we cannot test the Trinity in a lab. However, by becoming a man, He did allow some inspection. His miracles and works also gave people confidence He was God.

Of course.

The uncaused cause is true for everyone, though. It is basic logic, reason that everyone can get to. Usually, it is - “I don’t want to”

Science by its own definition set the rules that ID must play in. So, why not?

 

[buffalo]

Yeah. You did this. If something has dna it’s been intelligently designed. But odds weren’t part of the equation:

They always have been and always are. Evo theory is heavily based on the same thing. Take the fossil record. We have relatively few fossils and fossilization itself is rare. When the bones are laid out on a table the scientist lays them out in a fashion that he thinks have better odds of being true, thereby increasing their confidence. Then the story is created.

Nothing really can be proven 100%. It is all based on odds.

 

[buffalo]

So let’s update your statement:

‘Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI and the odds of this happening by chance or randomly are very low.’

If you read up on ID literature that is what it says. Except it is fsci not just csi. Nothing new here, except perhaps your realization…

 

[Vonsalza]

Since the Trinity exists outside of our limited frame of reference we cannot test the Trinity in a lab.

Ok, but then it’s clearly not a scientific concept. And as such, you can’t base scientific concepts off of it.

This isn’t a controversial position, Buff.

The uncaused cause is true for everyone, though. It is basic logic, reason that everyone can get to. Usually, it is - “I don’t want to”

I agree. But as to the specifics on what the uncaused cause was, no one knows. The only thing we can observe is that it appeared to happen.

That the Intelligent Designer caused it doesn’t naturally flow from the observation.

That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist! But we can only build scientific theory on what we know with high certainty.

I’m trying to be as gentle as I can here, man.

 

[buffalo]

Ok, but then it’s clearly not a scientific concept. And as such, you can’t base scientific concepts off of it.

Under the broad definition of knowledge it is. Under the limited methodological naturalism it is not.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Ok, but then it’s clearly not a scientific concept. And as such, you can’t base scientific concepts off of it.

Under the broad definition of knowledge it is. Under the limited methodological naturalism it is not.

No, we’re just trying to stick with “observability”.

 

[buffalo]

can get to. Usually, it is - “I don’t want to”

Philosophy, with logic and reason can take one to the understanding there exists the uncaused cause, that everyone calls God. (Theology tells us who He is and more about Him)

Based on what we observe what can we reason about this uncaused cause? That everything caused by the uncaused cause is intelligible and rational? Or not intelligble or rational?