Scientists Closer to Solving the Origin of Life on Primitive Earth

[foxpaws]

Look for anything having to do with methodological naturalism.

No Shag, looking at ID as a form of teleology is different than looking at evolution as methodological naturalism - you hadn't discussed teleology - or if you did - can you post a link, I would be interested in seeing what was discussed previously.

Teleology looks at the beginning and end point and then assumes that the interim points 'had' to line up to get to the end point, in this case, human beings. In ID we are the end result - and that we were 'designed'.

ID 'assumes' we are the desired result.

Where? Can you prove that? It looks like nothing more then speculation and conjecture on your part.

The idea is that the difference between evolution's natural selection and an intelligent designer is that a designed object is planned in advance, with forethought, and an 'end product' has been envisioned. If we are a result of intelligent design, then we are part of that designer's desired path. We might not be the end of that path - but we are part of that path - a desired result of the proceeding steps, and perhaps a needed step in the continuation of the designer's 'plan'.

I assume you are talking about the 3rd definition, as that would seem most appropriate to this discussion. ID assumes no purpose. In fact, it assumes nothing. But it does know the end result; humans, and various other species today. Fossil records give an indication of life long before today. All this is the same for both ID and Darwinism. The only difference is that ID doesn't interpret how life came about by first disregarding the idea of anything other then natural causes. Darwinism assumes there is no explanation other then natural causes, then looks at the information and concludes Darwinian evolution is the means of creation of the various forms of diverse life.

ID takes the events required to make a human and uses that end result as a conclusion that without all those events lining up in a certain way that we wouldn't exist. It then adds an 'intelligent designer' to move us from point A through a myriad of additional points to end up at point Z. ID assumes that design equals intelligence. But if you look at chaos and complexity theory, they have established that order does appear as a property of interactions among different parts of a system. That order (design) can occur as a result of naturally occurring events and can be recreated without the interference of 'intelligence'

Darwinian evolution cannot be tested. It never has been and won't be. The process takes too long to test (millenia). What Darwin calls adaptation, and others call evolution can be tested. But in any discussion of ID verse evolution, "evolution" is referred to in the Darwinian sense as that is the only type of "evolution" that ID challenges. If you are going to keep saying evolution when referring to what Darwin calls adaptation, you are perpetuating a dishonest equivocation.

So, what empirical results can ID point to shag? I am not looking to mislead or hedge anything shag, but unless you can point to empirical results on behalf of ID I will go with emergent properties. Once again, science has both tested and recreated evolution. Not just adaptation, but evolution shag...

I understand that you are claiming ID assumes something when it doesn't. ID looks at the info available without any preconceived notions (assumptions) and concludes that life could not come about randomly, and that it is more likely due to some sort of intelligence intervening in the process.

So, Shag - ID not only assumes end result, it assumes that design has to occur on behalf of an intelligent entity. It assumes that without intelligence intervening in the process, as you stated, we wouldn't be where we are today. Correct? It assumes 'intelligent' design. Shag, you do understand that there is provable design without 'intelligence' within science - right? Just like you understand the skyscraper analogy - right?

Second, to call ID a teleological process is to mischaracterize it and set up a straw man; something most people seem to do without realizing it when it comes to ID (the disinformation and lies about ID are very pervasive).

ID is a teleological process Shag - An object or a behavior is said to be teleological when it gives evidence of design or appears to be directed toward certain ends. You are using bounded or 'intelligent' design to create an end result.

Darwinism is not a teleological process because it doesn't care how 'we' ended up. We ended up as we are because of selection - not as a preconceived notion by an intelligent designer. If you assume intelligent design - you assume the designer has an 'ending design' in mind, therefore that is the difference, and why Darwinism isn't a teleological process. Darwinism doesn't have a preconceived notion on how the end result will look/act like, however ID, which involves the concept of an intelligent designer has an 'end game'.

If that isn't the case Shag - then the question is: Why go down the path of intelligent design, if we aren't the intended result, or at least on the path of the intended result? Can you answer that shag?

 

[Mr Wiggl3s]

Get back to me when you've actually read some of the scientific articles you linked to rather than posting silly youtube videos. Until then, you have no credibility, especially when you use pejorative terms like 'weak minded.' You have literally no idea what kind of minds creationists have. You're an idiot for believing stereotypes, and you're typical of the atheists in general because you resort to name calling rather than actual arguments.

Foss, i'm not a molecular bio chemist, so i'm not going to try to be one.

And, for the rest of the time you're here, don't ever say :q:q:q:q about "calling names"; you're the biggest :q:q:q:qing hypocrite when it comes to that, and everyone on the site knows it. IGNORANCE

Hey DUMBASS!

Just remember that nothing has been proven regarding the origin of the universe. NOTHING! The Big Bang is in dispute as well. So, when you atheist say prove there is a God, I say prove the scientific theories regarding the origin of the universe, including the origin of energy and matter. The bottom line is that scientist are no closer to proving how matter suddenly sprang into existence then those of us who believe in God can prove his existence through empirical data.

Nevertheless, it's only logical to ask how something can come from nothing. And it's only logical to wonder how could it be possible that everything from the a single atom, to chemicals, to the universe, and to life, are all a products of RANDOM chance. Bottom line is that you do not know squat except what you think you know.

Speaking of weak minded!

Actually, we are. They invented this machine called the the "Large Hadron Collider". Maybe you've heard of it? It's going to be used to study the big bang. Interesting stuff.

Dumbass.

 

[fossten]

So, what empirical results can ID point to shag? I am not looking to mislead or hedge anything shag, but unless you can point to empirical results on behalf of ID I will go with emergent properties. Once again, science has both tested and recreated evolution. Not just adaptation, but evolution shag...

This is where you miss the mark. You're talking about a different type of evolution, natural selection and/or survival of the fittest, rather than Darwinian evolution, where supposedly new species developed out of older ones. That has NEVER been observed, nor can it be tested or falsified.

Breed =/= species.

FAIL.

 

[shagdrum]

Foss, i'm not a molecular bio chemist, so i'm not going to try to be one.

And, for the rest of the time you're here, don't ever say :q:q:q:q about "calling names"; you're the biggest :q:q:q:qing hypocrite when it comes to that, and everyone on the site knows it. IGNORANCE


Actually, we are. They invented this machine called the the "Large Hadron Collider". Maybe you've heard of it? It's going to be used to study the big bang. Interesting stuff.

Dumbass.

Actually fossten contributes to various threads, unlike you. This forum would be better off if you simply left. All you do is grief and generally try to frustrate debate. You never contribute.

And your little point about the hadron collider doesn't prove anything. But you use that to call someone a "dumb@$$". You are demonstrating the intellectual maturity of a 12 year old.

 

[shagdrum]

right after mac1's EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of god. this should be good.

Where did he say that he had empirical evidence of God? This quote sure doesn't say that:

The bottom line is that scientist are no closer to proving how matter suddenly sprang into existence then those of us who believe in God can prove his existence through empirical data.​

I am beginning to wonder if you are intentionally distortion or simply have very low reading comprehension.

 

[shagdrum]

No Shag, looking at ID as a form of teleology is different than looking at evolution as methodological naturalism - you hadn't discussed teleology - or if you did - can you post a link, I would be interested in seeing what was discussed previously.

No?
I was responding to your claim that in the 'Expelled' thread that, "there didn't seem to be a lot regarding how evolution really differs from ID." I was pointing out what to look for. And you say "No"?!

That suggests that you are not to interested in the truth and an honest discussion; only in rationalizing and perpetuating your "teleological process" talking point.

Teleology looks at the beginning and end point and then assumes that the interim points 'had' to line up to get to the end point, in this case, human beings.

Actually, no that is not what teleology does. You are mischaracterizing it to set up your straw man. But, if you want to run with that definition, then Darwinism would be a teleological process in the same way, and to the same degree that ID is.

The idea is that the difference between evolution's natural selection and an intelligent designer is that a designed object is planned in advance, with forethought, and an 'end product' has been envisioned.

No, a designed element is not necessarily planned in advance. You are assuming that. It could be that life was "front-loaded" so that life would unfold in a specific way (teleological process) or that it was simply created with a way to acquire new info over time and adapting (non-teleological process, but not random, either). There could also be any permutation of those combinations as well. ID doesn't say either way.

What you are doing is going beyond the scope of the findings of ID to critique it. That is not a valid critique and that type of critique was covered in the "Expelled" thread.

ID makes no claim as to a "purpose" behind it's findings. The theory may lead to a discussion of teleology, but that is beyond the scope of ID. Simply because the findings have teleological implication doesn't mean that ID is build around a teleological outlook. That is like rejecting Darwinism because it has Atheist implications.

If we are a result of intelligent design, then we are part of that designer's desired path.

Again, you are looking beyond the scope of ID to critique it. That was already done in the "Expelled" thread; specifically posts 51-74 (sorry, you have to put up with a lot of hrmwrm "wall 'o' text" posts in that area); just focus on the discussion between "theDude" and me.

If your critique of ID is valid, then it would also discredit forensic sciences, archeology, cryptanalysis and many other sciences and scientific endeavors as well. The logic you are applying to ID would equally apply to those as well because they look have to look for a possible intelligence behind things as well as possible unintended consequences.

So, what empirical results can ID point to shag? I am not looking to mislead or hedge anything shag, but unless you can point to empirical results on behalf of ID I will go with emergent properties. Once again, science has both tested and recreated evolution. Not just adaptation, but evolution shag...

Ahh, the experiments you cite are talking about adaptation. They may call it evolution, but it is not Darwinian evolution. Under Darwinism, it is adaptation. Let me repeat what I said in the Expelled thread regarding this:

Darwinian evolution is a three step process:

1. Random mutation of desirable attributes
2. Natural selection weeding out the "less fit" creatures
3. Leading to the creation of a new species

Evolution is not the phenomenon of an existing species changing over the course of many years. In fact, evolution is not adaptive characteristics developing within a species at all. Darwin's theory says we get new species...

"...Eugenie Scott recommends: 'define evolution as an issue of the history of the planet: as the way we try to understand change through time. The present is different from the past. Evolution happened, there is no debate within science as to whether it happened, and so on...I have used this approach at the college level'. Scott says that once she gets agreement on that idea, she gradually introduces them to 'the Big Idea', that all species are related through descent from a common ancestor. 'Darwin called this 'descent with modification' and it is still the best definition of evolution we can use.' This underhanded tactic is known as 'equivocation'; changing the meaning of the term in the middle of an argument."
-(Johnathan Wells).​

For what you cite to be proof of Darwinian evolution, it has to show the creation of a new species. Otherwise it is simply showing adaptation and (possibly) arguing that adaptation is somehow an example of evolution.

Your butterfly experiment is not proof of Darwinian evolution because it gets a new breed of butterfly from existing butterflies. That is adaptation under Darwinism, not evolution. What the article is doing is misleading by equivocating adaptation with Darwinian evolution. To prove Darwinian Evolution you have to show speciation. Your article misleads and distorts to try and claim that (likely due to the author's ignorance on the subject).

Again, Darwinian evolution cannot be tested. Adaptation can be tested, but that proves ID as much as it does Darwinian evolution because ID doesn't question the adaptation aspect of Darwinism; it accepts it. The only difference lies in the creation of new species. Two butterflies leading to a new breed of butterfly doesn't demonstrate the creation of a new speices; they are all still butterflies.

So, the articles you cite actually affirm ID as much as Darwinism. Thanks.

So, Shag - ID not only assumes end result, it assumes that design has to occur on behalf of an intelligent entity. It assumes that without intelligence intervening in the process, as you stated, we wouldn't be where we are today. Correct? It assumes 'intelligent' design. Shag, you do understand that there is provable design without 'intelligence' within science - right?

Again, it doesn't assume anything. You are asserting the conclusion of the research as it's assumption. If you cannot get past that distortion, then there is no chance of an honest debate with you on this.

There is no provable design without intelligence in nature that would lead to the creation of species (Darwinian evolution).

It seems you need to go back and read the "Expelled" thread more in depth, as you are still grossly unfamiliar with the distinctions involved in this debate.

ID is a teleological process Shag - An object or a behavior is said to be teleological when it gives evidence of design or appears to be directed toward certain ends. You are using bounded or 'intelligent' design to create an end result.

No, ID has teleological implications, but it is not a teleological process. You are mischaractering both ID and teleology to draw that conclusion.

Darwinism is not a teleological process because it doesn't care how 'we' ended up.

So what? Being a teleological process or having teleological implications doesn't discredit something as a science. Again, forensic sciences, archeology, cryptanalysis and many other sciences and scientific endeavors would be discredited as well under that logic.

It could be argued that Darwinism is a teleological process too. It's "purpose" would be survival. So, if teleological implications were a valid reason to discredit a science, you would have to discredit many other scientific theories and endeavors; including Darwinism.

So basically, your argument concerning teleology is specious; a red herring and a dishonest double standard at best.

 

[fossten]

Actually, no that is not what teleology does. You are mischaracterizing it to set up your straw man. But, if you want to run with that definition, then Darwinism would be a teleological process in the same way, and to the same degree that ID is.

Exactly! Well said.

 

[foxpaws]

No?
I was responding to your claim that in the 'Expelled' thread that, "there didn't seem to be a lot regarding how evolution really differs from ID." I was pointing out what to look for. And you say "No"?!

That suggests that you are not to interested in the truth and an honest discussion; only in rationalizing and perpetuating your "teleological process" talking point.

Shag, I searched the entire ‘Expelled’ thread and not once does the argument of teleology ever come up – so, it does appear that you hadn’t discussed that difference on how ID differs from evolution. However, because you can’t comprehend that – you get to have fun once again labeling me as only interested in lies and dishonest debate.

Actually, no that is not what teleology does. You are mischaracterizing it to set up your straw man. But, if you want to run with that definition, then Darwinism would be a teleological process in the same way, and to the same degree that ID is.

Yes, that is exactly one of the definitions of teleology - describes the use of design as a means of ‘explaining’ something. ID uses intelligent design to get from beginning to end points, evolution does not shag – what part of that is beyond you? ID is classic teleology and evolution is not – once again – you haven’t responded to my question ‘do you understand the skyscraper analogy' – it is a very simple way to understand why ID is a teleological process. We don’t need to talk about this anymore if you don’t understand the basics of teleology.

No, a designed element is not necessarily planned in advance. You are assuming that. It could be that life was "front-loaded" so that life would unfold in a specific way (teleological process) or that it was simply created with a way to acquire new info over time and adapting (non-teleological process, but not random, either). There could also be any permutation of those combinations as well. ID doesn't say either way.

What you are doing is going beyond the scope of the findings of ID to critique it. That is not a valid critique and that type of critique was covered in the "Expelled" thread.

No – shag what I am questioning, and this is yet another question you have to answer – why even look at ID if no set endpoint is desired? Once again – if you don’t understand this basic concept of intelligent design rather than chaos theory maybe we don’t need to discuss this.

ID makes no claim as to a "purpose" behind it's findings. The theory may lead to a discussion of teleology, but that is beyond the scope of ID. Simply because the findings have teleological implication doesn't mean that ID is build around a teleological outlook. That is like rejecting Darwinism because it has Atheist implications.

ID is very obviously is built on teleology – or another way too look at it, it is built on bad science. You never take the end point and try to justify your theory using it – and that is what ID does.

Again, you are looking beyond the scope of ID to critique it. That was already done in the "Expelled" thread; specifically posts 51-74 (sorry, you have to put up with a lot of hrmwrm "wall 'o' text" posts in that area); just focus on the discussion between "theDude" and me.

If your critique of ID is valid, then it would also discredit forensic sciences, archeology, cryptanalysis and many other sciences and scientific endeavors as well. The logic you are applying to ID would equally apply to those as well because they look have to look for a possible intelligence behind things as well as possible unintended consequences.

Shag, what you don’t see is in the sciences you mentioned they don’t insert ‘unknowns’ (such as the force of ‘intelligent design’) in their line of logic.

Your butterfly experiment is not proof of Darwinian evolution because it gets a new breed of butterfly from existing butterflies. That is adaptation under Darwinism, not evolution. What the article is doing is misleading by equivocating adaptation with Darwinian evolution. To prove Darwinian Evolution you have to show speciation. Your article misleads and distorts to try and claim that (likely due to the author's ignorance on the subject).

Shag – did you look at the articles – the butterfly one discuss the random mutation of desirable attributes – the wing marking being desirable and then how those markings are continued through reproduction. Your first requirement on you tiny list… Random mutation of desirable attributes

And the second article discusses sexual reproduction and how it weeds out, through competition, less desirable traits. By using yeast and following selected traits and preferences for them it quantifies your second requirement on your ‘list’...Natural selection weeding out the "less fit" creatures

For what you cite to be proof of Darwinian evolution, it has to show the creation of a new species. Otherwise it is simply showing adaptation and (possibly) arguing that adaptation is somehow an example of evolution.

The hard one is creation of a new species, the third item on your list. Mostly because of time constraints. But, the e coli evolution experiments are working on this, and you can see the formation of the start of a new e coli strain (species) just now, after almost 50,000 generations. This experiment is in the process of showing how random mutation and ‘weeding out’ is creating a new ‘species’ of e coli. This had to be done in a single cell asexual process first – because, once again, of time constraints.

Just because we haven’t had time to do this with a sexually reproduced creature – you can draw fairly exact correlations between the e coli and the final ‘requirement’ – Leading to the creation of a new species

Again, it doesn't assume anything. You are asserting the conclusion of the research as it's assumption. If you cannot get past that distortion, then there is no chance of an honest debate with you on this.

There is no provable design without intelligence in nature that would lead to the creation of species (Darwinian evolution).

Shag – show me the provable design with intelligence – and show me the source of that intelligence. I asked for empirical results early Shag – you have once again ignored my question – we are up to strike three regarding your ability to answer my questions.

No, ID has teleological implications, but it is not a teleological process. You are mischaractering both ID and teleology to draw that conclusion.

It is a process, shag – since you seem to think it only has implications – show me those mere implications – I showed how ID uses teleology as a ‘process’, how about proving me wrong, instead of just skirting the issue with the handy word ‘implications’?

It ASSUMES design must be the result of an intelligent 'designer' and it also ASSUMES intelligence must be included in the process to achieve the end result – that is teleological process. No implied anything there shag – it is a process.

It could be argued that Darwinism is a teleological process too. It's "purpose" would be survival. So, if teleological implications were a valid reason to discredit a science, you would have to discredit many other scientific theories and endeavors; including Darwinism.

It isn't its purpose that pulls evolution along, but the object that brings forth its purpose as an epiphenomenon. So your “It's "purpose" would be survival." is wrong, often the individual is sacrificed. You need to understand appropriation – how a rock can be used as a hammer, but the purpose of that rock has never been to be a hammer. When you understand that shag – you can see where evolution doesn’t involve teleological process.

So basically, your argument concerning teleology is specious; a red herring and a dishonest double standard at best.

So, basically Shag – you can’t answer my three questions,
Do you really understand the blind man and the skyscraper analogy with regards to ID?
So, what empirical results can ID point to shag?
Why go down the path of intelligent design, if we aren't the intended result, or at least on the path of the intended result?

And you don’t really understand teleology, do you? There is no way this is a red herring - and your inability to disprove that ID is a teleological process and your willingness to quickly label this argument as specious and a 'dishonest double standard' shows me that you hope that this very viable argument against ID is just swept under the rug.

 

[fossten]

The hard one is creation of a new species, the third item on your list. Mostly because of time constraints. But, the e coli evolution experiments are working on this, and you can see the formation of the start of a new e coli strain (species) just now, after almost 50,000 generations. This experiment is in the process of showing how random mutation and ‘weeding out’ is creating a new ‘species’ of e coli. This had to be done in a single cell asexual process first – because, once again, of time constraints.

Even if the experiment is a success, it would support creation more than it would support evolution.

Strain =/= species. Strain is a breed within a species.

More dishonesty from you.

 

[foxpaws]

Even if the experiment is a success, it would support creation more than it would support evolution.

Strain =/= species. Strain is a breed within a species.

More dishonesty from you.

Regarding the e coli experiment - it is basically the same as to what happened spontaneously in Japan when they discovered specialized bacteria that could ingest nylon...

The e coli experiment's strain results would be similar to a human model where humans have mutated to ingest dirt - this means many things...

One, there would be two 'strains' that wouldn't be able to breed - the mechanics necessary to process dirt as a food source wouldn't be compatible with our current digestive system. Therefore, a new species would arise - the dirt eating humans - unable to breed with the omnivore humans. As we over develop the planet, and the food chain becomes compromised, the dirt eaters would have an advantage, while the omnivores would slowly die out - leaving the new dirt eating human species - homo dirtimus...

 

[hrmwrm]

Where did he say that he had empirical evidence of God? This quote sure doesn't say that:

The bottom line is that scientist are no closer to proving how matter suddenly sprang into existence then those of us who believe in God can prove his existence through empirical data.​

I am beginning to wonder if you are intentionally distorting or simply have very low reading comprehension.

just trying out some of your short quoting tactics. caught me.

 

[hrmwrm]

and this thread shows the flaky science behind religious beliefs and id.
http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=41017&page=3

 

[Calabrio]

The Texas-Size Debate Over Teaching Evolution
Sure, discuss Darwin's 'strengths and weaknesses.' Just not in biology textbooks.
Christopher Hitchens
NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated Apr 6, 2009

Mention the name "Texas" and the word "schoolbook" to many people of a certain age (such as my own) and the resulting free association will come up with the word "depository" and the image of Lee Harvey Oswald crouching on its sixth floor. In Dallas for the Christian Book Expo recently, I had a view of Dealey Plaza and its most famous building from my hotel room, so the suggestion was never far from my mind.

But last week Texas and schoolbooks meant something else altogether when the state Board of Education, in a muddled decision, rejected a state science curriculum that required teachers to discuss the "strengths and weaknesses" of the theory of evolution. Instead, the board allowed "all sides" of scientific theories to be taught. The vote was watched as something more than a local or bookish curiosity. Just as the Christian Book Expo is one of the largest events on the nation's publishing calendar, so the Lone Star State commands such a big share of the American textbook market that many publishers adapt to the standards that it sets, and sell the resulting books to non-Texans as well.

In many ways, this battle can be seen as the last stand of the Protestant evangelicals with whom I was mingling and debating. It's been a rather dismal time for them lately. In the last election they barely had a candidate after Mike Huckabee dropped out and, some would say, not much of one before that. Many Republicans now see them as more of a liability than an asset. As a proportion of the population they are shrinking, and in ethical terms they find themselves more and more in the wilderness of what some of them morosely called, in conversation with me, a "post-Christian society." Perhaps more than any one thing, the resounding courtroom defeat that they suffered in December 2005 in the conservative district of Dover, Pa., where the "intelligent design" plaintiffs were all but accused of fraud by a Republican judge, has placed them on the defensive. Thus, even if the Texas board had defiantly voted to declare evolution to be questionable and debatable, its decision could still have spelled the end of a movement rather than the revival of one.

Yet I find myself somewhat drawn in by the quixotic idea that we should "teach the argument." I am not a scientist, and all that I knew as an undergraduate about the evolution debate came from the study of two critical confrontations. The first was between Thomas Huxley (Darwin's understudy, ancestor of Aldous and coiner of the term "agnostic") and Bishop Samuel Wilberforce (third son of the great Christian emancipator William) at the Oxford University Museum in 1860. The second was the "Monkey Trial" in Dayton, Tenn., in 1925, which pitted the giant of Protestant fundamentalism, William Jennings Bryan, against Clarence Darrow and H. L. Mencken. Every educated person should know the arguments that were made in these transatlantic venues.

So by all means let's "be honest with the kids," as Dr. Don McLeroy, the chairman of the Texas education board, wants us to be. The problem is that he is urging that the argument be taught, not in a history or in a civics class, but in a biology class. And one of his supporters on the board, Ken Mercer, has said that evolution is disproved by the absence of any transitional forms between dogs and cats. If any state in the American union gave equal time in science class to such claims, it would certainly make itself unique in the world (perhaps no shame in that). But it would also set a precedent for the sharing of the astronomy period with the teaching of astrology, or indeed of equal time as between chemistry and alchemy. Less boring perhaps, but also much less scientific and less educational.

The Texas anti-Darwin stalwarts also might want to beware of what they wish for. The last times that evangelical Protestantism won cultural/ political victories—by banning the sale of alcohol, prohibiting the teaching of evolution and restricting immigration from Catholic countries—the triumphs all turned out to be Pyrrhic. There are some successes that are simply not survivable. If by any combination of luck and coincidence any religious coalition ever did succeed in criminalizing abortion, say, or mandating school prayer, it would swiftly become the victim of a backlash that would make it rue the day. This will apply with redoubled force to any initiative that asks the United States to trade its hard-won scientific preeminence against its private and unofficial pieties. This country is so constituted that no one group, and certainly no one confessional group, is able to dictate its own standards to the others. There are days when I almost wish the fundamentalists could get their own way, just so that they would find out what would happen to them.

Perhaps dimly aware that they don't want a total victory, either, McLeroy and his allies now say that they ask for evolution to be taught only with all its "strengths and weaknesses." But in this, they are surely being somewhat disingenuous. When their faction was strong enough to demand an outright ban on the teaching of what they call "Darwinism," they had such a ban written into law in several states. Since the defeat and discredit of that policy, they have passed through several stages of what I am going to have to call evolution. First, they tried to get "secular humanism" classified as a "religion," so that it would meet the First Amendment's disqualification for being taught with taxpayers' money. (That bright idea was Pat Robertson's.) Then they came up with the formulation of "creation science," picking up on anomalies and gaps in evolution and on differences between scientific Darwinists like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould. Next came the ingratiating plea for "equal time"—what could be more American than that?—and now we have the rebranded new coinage of "intelligent design" and the fresh complaint that its brave advocates are, so goes the title of a recent self-pitying documentary, simply "expelled" from the discourse.

It's not just that the overwhelming majority of scientists are now convinced that evolution is inscribed in the fossil record and in the lineaments of molecular biology. It is more that evolutionists will say in advance which evidence, if found, would refute them and force them to reconsider. ("Rabbit fossils in the pre-Cambrian layer" was, I seem to remember, the response of Prof. J.B.S. Haldane.) Try asking an "intelligent design" advocate to stipulate upfront what would constitute refutation of his world view and you will easily see the difference between the scientific method and the pseudoscientific one.

But that is just my opinion. And I certainly do not want it said that my side denies a hearing to the opposing one. In the spirit of compromise, then, I propose the following. First, let the school debating societies restage the wonderful set-piece real-life dramas of Oxford and Dayton, Tenn. Let time also be set aside, in our increasingly multiethnic and multicultural school system, for children to be taught the huge variety of creation stories, from the Hindu to the Muslim to the Australian Aboriginal. This is always interesting (and it can't be, can it, that the Texas board holdouts think that only Genesis ought to be so honored?). Second, we can surely demand that the principle of "strengths and weaknesses" will be applied evenly. If any church in Texas receives a tax exemption, or if any religious institution is the beneficiary of any subvention from the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, we must be assured that it will devote a portion of its time to laying bare the "strengths and weaknesses" of the religious world view, and also to teaching the works of Voltaire, David Hume, Benedict de Spinoza, Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson. This is America. Let a hundred flowers bloom, and a thousand schools of thought contend. We may one day have cause to be grateful to the Texas Board of Education for lighting a candle that cannot be put out.

Hitchens, a NEWSWEEK contributor, is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His book “God Is Not Great” is newly available in paperback.

 

[shagdrum]

just trying out some of your short quoting tactics. caught me.

Can't avoid taking the cheap shot I see...

and this thread shows the flaky science behind religious beliefs and id.
http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/sho...t=41017&page=3

Actually, that thread wasn't specifically about ID vs. Darwinism (though it did touch on it), and that thread actually came before the "Expelled" thread which was already cited earlier in this thread. As such, the arguments in the "Expelled" thread are going to be more refined. Just something to keep in mind when reading the two in relation to this thread.

 

[fossten]

Regarding the e coli experiment - it is basically the same as to what happened spontaneously in Japan when they discovered specialized bacteria that could ingest nylon...

The e coli experiment's strain results would be similar to a human model where humans have mutated to ingest dirt - this means many things...

One, there would be two 'strains' that wouldn't be able to breed - the mechanics necessary to process dirt as a food source wouldn't be compatible with our current digestive system. Therefore, a new species would arise - the dirt eating humans - unable to breed with the omnivore humans. As we over develop the planet, and the food chain becomes compromised, the dirt eaters would have an advantage, while the omnivores would slowly die out - leaving the new dirt eating human species - homo dirtimus...

This is nonresponsive. You dishonestly tried to represent a strain as a species.

Furthermore, e coli is still e coli even if it is a different breed, whether it is sterile or not.

 

[hrmwrm]

Can't avoid taking the cheap shot I see...



Actually, that thread wasn't specifically about ID vs. Darwinism (though it did touch on it), and that thread actually came before the "Expelled" thread which was already cited earlier in this thread. As such, the arguments in the "Expelled" thread are going to be more refined. Just something to keep in mind when reading the two in relation to this thread.

not a cheap shot, just a little joke. you HAVE done that to me before, and i caught you. but it was late, and i just didn't read slow enough to catch it accurately.

and that thread does show the junk science id and creationists use to try and prove thier points. they have to do a lot of throwing out and manipulation to make the figures fit thier hypothesis.

 

[foxpaws]

This is nonresponsive. You dishonestly tried to represent a strain as a species.

Furthermore, e coli is still e coli even if it is a different breed, whether it is sterile or not.

Equus africanus asinus ≠ Equus caballus

Or, foss, in simple terms…
Ass ≠ Horse

Think of creationism evolving into… well… evolution – isn’t that what ID is? A comfortable ‘middle point’. It won’t be long now – a thousand years or so , until we see it change …

In your previously used, inapposite vernacular Foss…

Creationism = ID = Evolution

 

[Calabrio]

science id and creationists ....have to do a lot of throwing out and manipulation to make the figures fit thier hypothesis.

Actually, the ID argument is so conspicuous in it's recognition of what it doesn't have answers for, it doesn't need to make contortions at all.

The Darwinian Evolutionist explanation for life on earth certainly do have to engage in those mental contortion.

If that evolutionary explanation were so solid and sound as you like to present it to be, then this story you posted wouldn't be worth note or have brought us "CLOSER" to an answer.

It's still a theory... actually, it's really still a hypothesis.

 

[Calabrio]

...delete...

 

[fossten]

Equus africanus asinus ≠ Equus caballus

Or, foss, in simple terms…
Ass ≠ Horse

Think of creationism evolving into… well… evolution – isn’t that what ID is? A comfortable ‘middle point’. It won’t be long now – a thousand years or so , until we see it change …

In your previously used, inapposite vernacular Foss…

Creationism = ID = Evolution

Again, nonresponsive. You can go down all the little rabbit trails you want, but you're not answering the issue I raised. You were dishonest, face it and admit it. Otherwise STFU.

 

[shagdrum]

Shag, I searched the entire ‘Expelled’ thread and not once does the argument of teleology ever come up – so, it does appear that you hadn’t discussed that difference on how ID differs from evolution. However, because you can’t comprehend that – you get to have fun once again labeling me as only interested in lies and dishonest debate.

You are mischaracterizing your own statement, which I am even quoting in your quote of me!!!

In post #16 you said, "there didn't seem to be a lot regarding how evolution really differs from ID [in the Expelled thread]".

In post #22 I tell you to look for anything having to do with methodolgoical naturalism. I told you that because methodological naturalism is really were all other differences between the two theories stem from. There was a lot of discussion on that in the "Expelled" thread.

In post #26 you say, "No Shag, looking at ID as a form of teleology is different than looking at evolution as methodological naturalism"

In post #31 I concluded from your actions that you were more interested in rationalizing your "teleological" talking point then in actually understanding the difference between ID and Darwinism. A very rational conclusion given your response in post #22.

Now, you are phrasing it as if the question was weather or not teleology ever came up in the "Expelled" thread when your original quote in post #16 (which I was responding to) was not about teleology specifically, but about "how evolution really differs from ID". You are, effectively changing the quote I was responding to.

Look, here is the difference between what you are asserting and what ID is doing. You claim that ID is a teleological process. That means it is aimed at studying the design and/or purpose of the creation of species and that the "intelligent design" part is assumed, a priori. That is not what ID is doing.

ID doesn't assume anything, a priori. That distinguishes it from Darwinism because Darwinism assumes methodological naturalism, a priori. Anyway, without any assumption, ID looks at the available data to determine weather or not new species are created solely through natural cause or if there is an intelligence at work. It is concerned with design detection, not the study of a design. In order to study a design, you have to have a design. ID is only concerned with seeing if there is a design or not.

And that is in no way "bad science" as you claim. Many other scientific fields and/or endeavors do the same thing in different areas. forensic sciences, archeology, cryptanalysis, the SETI project and numerous other scientific theories, endeavors and whole fields would have to be considered "bad science" if attempting to detect design is the kiss of death for a science.

In fact, Darwinism also does the same thing. However, it interprets all it's findings and data through the prism of it's a priori assumption of methodological naturalism. So all findings support that assumption and any implication from the data that natural causes might not be the best explanation is rejected out of hand. Basically, Darwinism assumes a prejudice against any non-natural cause explanation.

The conclusion that ID reaches, a posteriori does have teleological implications, but that is beyond the scope of ID.

As to your e coli study; it doesn't show the creation of a new species, only a strain within a species and so it in no way proves Darwinian evolution. The best it can do is show some adaptation and then make a huge logical leap to come to the conclusion that it somehow supports the idea of Darwinian evolution. That is true of most all the empirical data that is said to support Darwinian evolution; they have to either make huge leaps in logic or equivocate adaptation with evolution. All the empirical data ultimately supports only adaptation and so it supports ID as much as it does Darwinism.

 

[hrmwrm]

Actually, the ID argument is so conspicuous in it's recognition of what it doesn't have answers for, it doesn't need to make contortions at all.

The Darwinian Evolutionist explanation for life on earth certainly do have to engage in those mental contortion.

If that evolutionary explanation were so solid and sound as you like to present it to be, then this story you posted wouldn't be worth note or have brought us "CLOSER" to an answer.

It's still a theory... actually, it's really still a hypothesis.

you're right. it needs to create it's own science and answers and muddy true science to make it even seem plausible.

and true, evolution is still THEORY, but then so is gravity.
nothing is absolute.

 

[Titan]

It's so entertaining to see this revisited. Scientist trying to explain what they don't understand, religionist (?) trying to explain what they don't understand. All in a straight jacket of unquestionable assumptions.

What do we realy know? Were here! Where exactly is here? don't know. How'd we get here? don't know. Why are we here? don't know. Who/What's "GOD"? don't know (look at religion throughout recorded history). What happens when we die? don't know. For some reason this seems to bother some people, others just get on with life.

Perhaps the creationist are correct and the scientist are just tying to explian how god(s) did it and the evolutionist are in the peanut gallery pointing to what has transpired after the initial creation.

We arose from the primordal ooze or sprang into life as a whimsy of god(s) who appear insane, or following an agenda of their own we can't fathom, or was it something else? Does it realy make any difference? Or are we like a dog chasing its tail?

 

[Calabrio]

Does it realy make any difference? Or are we like a dog chasing its tail?

Does anything make a difference?
What's worth knowing? What's worth understanding?
Why not ask why?

 

[foxpaws]

ID doesn't assume anything, a priori. That distinguishes it from Darwinism because Darwinism assumes methodological naturalism, a priori. Anyway, without any assumption, ID looks at the available data to determine weather or not new species are created solely through natural cause or if there is an intelligence at work. It is concerned with design detection, not the study of a design. In order to study a design, you have to have a design. ID is only concerned with seeing if there is a design or not.

ID does assume there ‘is’ a design – not ‘if’ there is a design. Why call it Intelligent Design unless one assumes an intelligent designer is behind the whole thing?

The IDEA (Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness ) center has even a little ‘Primer’ on the basics of ID shag – want to know what the first sentence is in that primer?
Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

They ‘assert’ – wow – not ‘are looking into,’ ‘wondering if there is’… No ‘ands, ifs or buts’, they ‘assert’ - to state with assurance, confidence, or force; state strongly or positively; affirm.

Bad science 101…

And you have yet to answer…

Do you really understand the blind man and the skyscraper analogy with regards to ID?
So, what empirical results can ID point to shag?
Why go down the path of intelligent design, if we aren't the intended result, or at least on the path of the intended result?

Just look at the yeast experiment – the sub group isn’t mating with the parental group and when it does, it occasionally isn’t producing viable offspring… It is well on it’s way to creating a new ‘sexual’ species, since you don’t seem to understand asexual reproduction in the e coli experiments and how that is relating to creation of a new species.

We arose from the primordal ooze or sprang into life as a whimsy of god(s) who appear insane, or following an agenda of their own we can't fathom, or was it something else? Does it realy make any difference? Or are we like a dog chasing its tail?

Mr. Titan – actually where we come from is an important quest – it helps in understanding many genetic diseases and how our DNA was formed. With that information to help unlock those ‘keys’ to humans better medicine, disease prevention, who knows, perhaps human engineering can all take place (there is a fun subject!!!!). Where we come from perhaps can give us insight to where we are going, and how we can get there healthier, happier, and yes, smarter!