Intelligent Design is not creationism

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from drtomaso:

First of all, I repeat: there is no such thing as an "evolutionist." The proper term is "biologist" or more colloquially, "scientist."

Second, there are no observed supernatural phenomenon. None. Only observations of natural phenomenon whose natural causes are not immediately apparent to science. Further, positing that an observed event is "supernatural" automatically implies that it is non-scientific, cannot be studied, reproduced, etc, and we are automatically discussing something that cannot ever be scientific.

Lastly, if we were making a purely logical argument for evolution, you would be correct. Luckily for evolut^h^h^h^h^h^hbiologists, we get to make a scientific argument, and we need not show that 100% of all species were "evolved"- only that the mechanism covers all of the major trunks-o-the-tree and that research methods exist to cover all the rest. ie: if you take a biologist, and pick any animal, there is a scientific process by which its evolution can be traced. It may not have been tested yet, but no one is seriously worried that the 3-toed tree salamander may not fit evolutionary theory.

Further still, no one espouses "100% Evolution and Evolution only"- evolution as a scientific theory has a 150+ year development history during which it has gone under significant scrutiny (it is after all, not a very popular theory, except among scientists), had several major additions (Genetics, molecular biology, etc) all of which have proven complimentary. Science has this nifty feedback mechanism- theories are constantly questioned and challenged, and as such made stronger or abandoned for better theories. Evolution has been tested, retested, challenged, etc, for 150+ years and passed every single test.

ID can never be such as it simply isnt a theory. It explains nothing because it explains everything, sans the need for any research, experimentation, observation or logic.

Do not delude yourself- evolution as a scientific theory is not in jeopardy (its only in jeopardy in the US- the rest of the world will happily continue progressing without us if we continue to abandon the natural, materialistic scientific method).

ID and other Creationisms have no appeal to science- they are unfalsifiable. They must resort to logos and inconsequential attacks on evolution itself. Unfortunately, that doesnt work too well either, and their logical arguments all reduce to fallacy. I have yet to hear an argument for ID that wasnt a blatant fallacy.

If you have a true ID theory, please share it with the world. but we warned: it also has a 150+ year track record- one of failure.

You're preaching to the choir here for the most part. But, for the sake of argument, I am pointing out that there are aspects of evolution that are very perplexing and are difficult to explain almost to the point of absurdity. And, if we're honest, the absurd cannot always be counted on as solid scientifically.

Let me just say, as you're obviously quite aware, that some of the gaps in evolution have to be explained by "punctuated equilibria" or other non-traditional explanations. Think of how strange this is: most of evolutionary advancement supposedly occurred in small, backwater populations moving at an incredible - I would argue unbelievable - genetic pace.

Could punctuated equilibria be true? Sure. But it is very difficult to prove or imo even imagine. You have huge structural and physiological changes in animals supposedly in the space of a few million - 5 to 10 in most cases - years??

Where am I headed? Well, what would you expect to see if there was occasional supernatural intervention in the evolutionary process? Just exactly what we see...

Again, I'm not saying that I necessarily believe that. I'm just saying it's not an entirely unreasonable possibility...

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from drtomaso:


Further still, no one espouses "100% Evolution and Evolution only"- evolution as a scientific theory has a 150+ year development history during which it has gone under significant scrutiny (it is after all, not a very popular theory, except among scientists), had several major additions (Genetics, molecular biology, etc) all of which have proven complimentary. Science has this nifty feedback mechanism- theories are constantly questioned and challenged, and as such made stronger or abandoned for better theories. Evolution has been tested, retested, challenged, etc, for 150+ years and passed every single test.

Sorry, but the best arguments for evolution have nothing to do with "a 150 year history". Imo that's a weak argument. By far the best arguments for evolution come from the last ten years in the field of genetics.

And, ultimately, this is where the whole debate will come to rest...

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from drtomaso:


Second, there are no observed supernatural phenomenon. None. Only observations of natural phenomenon whose natural causes are not immediately apparent to science.

This is avoiding the issue: we all know on this board, atheist or not, what supernatural means and could name 20 phenomenon that would exist in this category. So just because we don't have Maxwell's Equations for the Supernatural Realm doesn't mean it is not applicable...

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from Teleologist:

kjkent1 wrote:

What do you mean by "test", precisely? You can't really test a historical proposition in the same way that you test things in the experimental sciences. That is, you can't test to see if something did happen in the same way that you can test to see if something will happen under a given circumstance. If by "test", however, you simply mean finding data that renders the inference to a given conclusion more or less rational than it was before, that's possible now. And if a proposition is not testable in that sense (meaning, you can have no reason to rationally accept or reject it) then neither is it's negation.

ID doesn't have to be proven or needed, just capable of guiding research. Isn't that all that's expected from the non-teleological approach? Are the non-teleologists searching for a test to verify non-design?

By applying what we do know about design to that which has the appearance of design we can make a reasonable design inference. Additional research can strengthen the design inference and generate testable hypotheses that help us better understand biotic reality. That's all I expect of ID.

I asked for evidence of ID. HH insisted that I define evidence. I defined evidence. You now insist that I define test. Okay.

A test is any regimen which can be repeated, and from which a result can be obtained.

Now, I'll ask you again: do you have any regimen which can be repeated, the results of which shows that an intelligent designer is responsible for the existence of biological life on Earth?

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from jem:

I believe your testing is backwards. You should have a verifiable test supporting the hypothesis that the original cause of living organisms on the Earth is not intelligent Design.

In my opinion - that would be the correct way to set up the test. Where is James to lecture us on the null hypothesis.

Until you can prove the hypothesis set up by me you must grant that there is a chance of design.

I've always granted that there's a "chance" of design, thus you cannot require me to prove the negative, because I already concede your point.

However, if design is true, then how do you explain all of the evidence in support of evolution:

1. Satan's work?
2. Deceitful creator?
3. Coincidence?
4. Ignorant scientists?

You tell me, John.

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from kjkent1:


However, if design is true, then how do you explain all of the evidence in support of evolution:

Actually, and as is so often true in this both beautiful and bizarre universe that we inhabit, both could be true. A few of the most prominent evolutionary biologists argue that Design and Evolution actually go hand in hand.

I believe the originator of this line of thinking was Simon Conway Morris, a brilliant and prominent British paleontologist that argued that evolution was funneled between relatively narrow physiological design spaces and thus that evolution is random only in the short term but that the longer term had a certain inevitability to it.

Imo it's a fascinating concept. His prominent work was Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe. It's a fascinating concept and one that is very difficult to disprove or even argue substantially against.

And it's yet another example of a concept that few Christians or evolutionists have considered: both may be right in the sense that evolution may have produced a Designed result.

Wouldn't that just be a kick in the butt for both sides after all the years of vitriolic exchange?

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from kjkent1:

However, if design is true, then how do you explain all of the evidence in support of evolution:

1. Satan's work?
2. Deceitful creator?
3. Coincidence?
4. Ignorant scientists?

You tell me, John.

You bring up a good point: most Christians fear scientists and science in general. They actually do not want to talk about the subject.

This is very sad because the Christian should believe Ps. 19: "The heavens [the physical universe] declare the glory of the Lord".

What is there to fear? That I will never understand...

 

[jem]

Quote from kjkent1:

I've always granted that there's a "chance" of design, thus you cannot require me to prove the negative, because I already concede your point.

However, if design is true, then how do you explain all of the evidence in support of evolution:

1. Satan's work?
2. Deceitful creator?
3. Coincidence?
4. Ignorant scientists?

You tell me, John.

1. Kj what is the point of you using a first name in your post. In the past you made some ugly threats - are you some sort of off balance person sending up a warning sign-- "counselor". If you are I will ask you not to respond to my posts and I will not respond to yours. (as I was doing at one point)

2 Well now that have granted that there is a chance of design - are you granting that there is some evidence which may support the hypothesis of design.

3. Evolution if it is a fact as you may or may not choose to define it, is not necessarily inconsistent with a designer just ask the Pope.

Finally It does not even have to be inconsistent with fundamentalists beliefs.

It is probably inconsistent with people who believe that some Reverend in the 16th century was able to discern who old the universe was by counting the generations in the bible.

Of course there is no guarantee that every generation was included in the bible. Nor that time or light has been a constant. Additionally, the Hebrew word for day "Yom" can also stand for an "interval of time" not necessarily a day.

Not that I ask this question a lot, but the majority of Christians I know do not base their faith on the some guys guess that the earth is 5000 current years old.

A creator could have made the big bang and then let the universe roll out according to his thoughts. (science has no more valid thought than that)

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from jem: (clip)

In as much as your response was entirely non-responsive, I agree that there's no point in our discussing anything on this subject. Please don't respond to my posts and I won't respond to yours.

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

You bring up a good point: most Christians fear scientists and science in general. They actually do not want to talk about the subject.

This is very sad because the Christian should believe Ps. 19: "The heavens [the physical universe] declare the glory of the Lord".

What is there to fear? That I will never understand...

Perhaps we should wait for a Christian to explain.