Round Two: God vs. Darwin

[Biochemist]

In the first place, there is no theistic "model," there is only a belief system. Science requires consistency .

LG- PLeae help be a bit and elaborate on your impression of the difference between a model and a belief system. I regard any theory as a belief system. A theory is a framework within which we arrange information ( to bolster the theory) until empirical data surfaces that is at odds with the theory. A that point, we modify or jettison the theory. How is a hypothesis related to ID not consistent with this?

There is no probability involved in ID since even the belief is that each "miraculous" even occurred only once. If it occurred by whim of the supernatural being, then it cannot be tested. If it occurred by natural means, then it is disproves ID. Again, you can't mix science with supernatural. They cancel each other out.

I mentioned above that a single intervention in course of events might be testable. Why would you think it would not?

 

You have suggested that science is "by definition" at odds with the supernatural. I don't think that is true. As I have offered before, many of our greatest scientific thinkers (e.g., Newton, Einstein, Mendel, Coipernicus) were theists of some sort. They did not see any contradiction between science and a Creator. In fact, it looks as if these folks regarded the Creator as the epistemological basis for the scientific method. In other words, they thought that cause-and-effect could be determined because those relationships were established by a rational Creator. You certainly don't have to agree with them, but I think it is a stretch to suggest that allowing for a Creator obviates the study of science. Some important folks thought it was required.

[Biochemist]

Read what I said again.

Let it go, TM. You are now making the point of the poster that you were disagreeing with.

 

Why don't we just all agree you are a smart guy and get on with it.

[Fishteacher73]

The problem with any belief syatem (theist model, if you like) is that it is untestable. There is a great deal of evidence that eludes to the fallicy of ID. Another problem with ID is that there really is not a solid ID theory, just various splinter cells that for many is just a extension of their faith, not a scientifically reasoned conclusion.

 

As for many of the great thinkers that you spoke of as being religious,

 

(e.g., Newton, Einstein, Mendel, Coipernicus) were theists of some sort.

 

Aside from Einstein, the rest lived when heresy was punishable by death. As for Einstein, as great of a thinker as he was in physics, outside that realm his notions were not that groundbreaking or were just plain erroneous. It is much like saying that my automechanic is a genius with a carbourator so he must have some insights into eviolutionary theory and god...

[Biochemist]

Great post, Paultrr

 

Part of the problem here, which was what I was trying to point out is neither dogmatic side is willing to compromise enough for any honest discussion. The ID's cannot abandon their commonly held belief systems enough to venture into a real discussion of any evidence outside of odds. The evolutionists tend to not even be willing to look at anything besides their own perspective themselves.

I concur

 

One thing that should be done away with to start is debate over odds. Trying to pin down odds on events no one was around to witness is foolish on both sides.

I am not sure I agree with this point, but I am still thinking about it.

 

Let me reframe the discussion slightly, and try and take the emphasis off of probability (although I think it will still come back in). Many folks in the Darwinism camp believe the Naturalism argument that the existing state of nature arose from first cause by a series of random events. Somewhere in this process, we achieved a system that appears to be non-random. That is, many folks believe (as TeleMad has repeated often) that natural selection is NOT random.

 

If this is the case, has anyone ever shown that a truly random system (e.g., the primordium) can generate a subsequent system (e.g., the existing natural selection system) that is organized? In this case not only is the resultant system organized, but it looks as if it moves toward increasing organization.

 

It seems to me, this is the crux of the discussion, and it is unaddressed by current theory. To hold to Naturalism, you have to hypothsize that randomness generated organization. I think (although I am not sure) that the IDists hold that it never was random. One could argue that that the assertion that our environment was never random is more consistent with the observied experimental facts than the Naturalism view which assumes an unsubstantiated transition.

 

I think this is a legitimate debate. I regard it as biased to discard this assertion out-of-hand.

 

Has anyone ever demonstrated (in any field) that a highly organized system (that actually tends toward increasing organization) can be generated from random presursors? If not, I think the theists have solid position on scientific and philosophical grounds.

[Biochemist]

...the center position of science is not that there is no God. Its that there is no proof of a God. A real scientists would not be shaken if in the end run there ever was discovered evidence of such.

I concur

 

Good post again, Paultrr.

[Biochemist]

Good post, FT-

There is a great deal of evidence that eludes to the fallicy of ID. Another problem with ID is that there really is not a solid ID theory, just various splinter cells that for many is just a extension of their faith, not a scientifically reasoned conclusion.

Perhaps. But the issue for people of science is not whether there is a lot of rabble out there. It seems to me that is always true. The issue for people of science is whether there is 1) a testable hypothesis, or 2) bias in the existing interpretation of observed data. I think the (more articulate) IDers contend both are true.

 

Aside from Einstein, the rest lived when heresy was punishable by death. As for Einstein, as great of a thinker as he was in physics, outside that realm his notions were not that groundbreaking or were just plain erroneous. It is much like saying that my automechanic is a genius with a carbourator so he must have some insights into eviolutionary theory and god...

I can't attest to the religious credentials of these thinkers, although I suspect that Mendel and Copernicus were actually religious folks.. The fact that Einstein was weak in other technical disciplines does not obviate the fact that be believed in the scientific method. The point here is NOT that these folks had any insight into evolution. The point is that they held the scientific method as consistent with theism.

[Fishteacher73]

I think the use of "random" is probably one of the issues here. Our sytems are chaotic, but not random.

 

As for:

the Naturalism view which assumes an unsubstantiated transition.

 

Every transition is not acounted for but there are plenty examples of transition. (As well as illogical designs in some animals). To see a tree grow from one type of seed would be reasonable eveidence that other trees grow from seeds, even if they were differnt types.

 

It seems a bit naive to yet again attribute soimething that is not still fully understood as the hand of god. How many countless other phenomenon have been attributed to god/s that now we find completely natural? True evolutionary theory is still working out all the kinks, but I do not think we need to go running to the gods yet again. There is enough evidence to support the current theory almost to assurance. If we are going to clain a deity, why is it your version as opposed to perhaps the aboriginal views of creationism?

[IrishEyes]

This thread is getting too large.

Please consider taking some of these ideas and starting new threads with them.

[Biochemist]

I think the use of "random" is probably one of the issues here. Our sytems are chaotic, but not random.

FT- this is the first time I have heard this. I did mean random, not chaotic. Chaotic elements are organized. Are you saying that folks in the Naturalism camp believe systems were always organized?

It seems a bit naive to yet again attribute soimething that is not still fully understood as the hand of god.

I am not sure that is the point, and it is certainly not mine. My point is that it is biased to exclude God without evidence.

 

There is enough evidence to support the current theory almost to assurance. If we are going to clain a deity, why is it your version as opposed to perhaps the aboriginal views of creationism?

FT- I apologize, but I don't understand your latter question about the aborgines. I was not intending to label a specific Creator.

 

On your former point, I think the empirical data for many elements of the heterogeneous basket of ideas we call "evolution" is strong. Certainly natural selection is strong. Punctuated equilibrium (to me) feels like a name for an unaddressed issue (the sudden emergence of phyla) rather than an answer. I think that suggesting that '"evolution" is "almost to assurance" only applies to elements of the model (e.g., natural selection), not to the entirety of the development of our biological systems fromm first cause.

 

 

FT- I would really appreciate your views on my post 157 back to Paultrr.

 

Thanks.

[Fishteacher73]

My statement aboput chaos was based upon another thread in the physics forum in which free-will vs. determinism was discussed. This discussion included the idea that all things are determined by the nature of the universe. All actions are the logical and natural acumulation of all other previous actions and therefore free-will did not exist. We only do what we can, which is to be the culminated result of our chemistry and physics, so nothing is random. Chaotic, yes. We may never fully understand all the variables.

 

Life formed because that is the natural outcome given the circumstances on earth 3.8 billion years ago. I think the speed at which life showed up after the planet solidified is reasonable eveidence that life was the inevitable outcome. There is no design to it, it just is.

 

My biggest argument against ID is the basic fact that it implies a "master plan". I can concieve no "master plan" that would hav a 99.9% failure rate (if not higher) on its organisms and the extant ones have so many vestigal, useless, or reto-evolutionary traits.

 

Has anyone ever demonstrated (in any field) that a highly organized system (that actually tends toward increasing organization) can be generated from random presursors? If not, I think the theists have solid position on scientific and philosophical grounds.

 

 

Crystalization is a perfect example of increased complexity from disorder.

[Biochemist]

This is a reallly good response. Thanks FT

Life formed because that is the natural outcome given the circumstances on earth 3.8 billion years ago. I think the speed at which life showed up after the planet solidified is reasonable eveidence that life was the inevitable outcome. There is no design to it, it just is.

A quick question- are you of the opinion that all higher level social functions (altruism, love, creativity, morality, etc) are also exclusively derived from precursors (which I assume you discussed in your other thread) , and hence deterministic?

 

My biggest argument against ID is the basic fact that it implies a "master plan". I can concieve no "master plan" that would hav a 99.9% failure rate (if not higher) on its organisms and the extant ones have so many vestigal, useless, or reto-evolutionary traits.

This is a really interesting point. It is mostly philosophical but it has some clean logic to it.

Crystalization is a perfect example of increased complexity from disorder.

This is an outstanding example (thanks), but I don't think it covers the issue. Crystallization ( and dissolution or melting) happens reproducibly both directions, with essentially a 100% success rate (under the right condition). This argues that the source system is not random (although it does appear disordered), but is structured for crystallization. That is, the tendency to organise and the exact end product of the organization is defined by the source system.

 

I am groping for a better word to use to describe a system that has a high diversity of outcomes (that is, it appears diverse in breadth of outcome) and that produces at least one single outcome, a non-random sytem, that then maintains its organization irreversibly. Is there an example of that?

 

Thanks for helping me clarify this.

[Biochemist]

This thread is getting too large.

Please consider taking some of these ideas and starting new threads with them.

Will do. I will start a thread on order from randomness.

 

Thanks, IE

[Christopher]

These are good questions, the answer is biological system formed all at once around a flow of energy and crystalized into a completed functioning complex system, from genitic potentialties. macro-evolution formed around an attractor in an instant from the; {vesica attractor}

[TeleMad]

These are good questions, the answer is biological system formed all at once around a flow of energy and crystalized into a completed functioning complex system, from genitic potentialties. macro-evolution formed around an attractor in an instant from the; {vesica attractor}

 

Can't work. Quantum loop gravity would distort the spatial fabric of oscillatory branes causing vortices of tunneling feedback mass/energy.

[Christopher]

"Can't work. Quantum loop gravity would distort the spatial fabric of oscillatory branes causing vortices of tunneling feedback mass/energy."

 

 

I have spent a little time thinking about your last post..... What I beleive you discribing is a bridge between two fields that would produce disorder... rather than connections of order.... are you talking about entropy ? paying Schroedinger's “entropy debt.”

[blazer2000x]

If the sun has always been shrinking at its current rate, then it would have charred the earth to dust if you go back just a little over ten thousand years.

[infamous]

If the sun has always been shrinking at its current rate, then it would have charred the earth to dust if you go back just a little over ten thousand years.

 

Thats very interesting blazer2000x; The question really is however, how do we determine it's rate of shrinkage over this time period. IF is the biggest word in the dictionary. My father always used to say " if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his backside on the ground everytime he hopped".