Is there a God? What do YOU think???

[lindagarrette]

Surely you simply meant "accepted" rather then "correct." Incorrect theories are everywhere, even if they have not been proven otherwise yet.

 

I agree- you can't mix the two and have a scientific theory. It becomes something else, a non-scientific "theory of everything" ;) But, that doesn't make it incorrect. It does make it non-scientific, to a point, because obviously, there are things involved that are not testable, not provable, or something else.

 

But simply because something does not meet that critera does not mean it doesn't exist or is incorrect, it just means science is not the tool to investigate.

I think you are nit picking and arguing semantics. My point is that legitimate scientists don't think it's worthwhile to investigate ID conjecture.

[bumab]

Well, the accepted thing was tounge in cheek, i know what you meant.

 

But, while most ID points are worthless to investigate because they assert things ALREADY SHOWN to be incorrect, Biochemist is right in saying scientists should look at claims if there is no contrary evidence, just like science would look at any other claim.

 

Guilt by association is not scientific.

[Biochemist]

A scientific theory is correct until it is proven otherwise. The ID concept is not a theory, therefore not comparable to science....If there is a supernatural underpinning, then science is useless.

 

Hmmm. For the life of me, I can't figure out what you are talking about.

 

1) the ID theory (although I would label it more as a hypothesis) is that the probability of development of life (e.g.,even single celled life) from random events are so low as to make the process implausible. Why would this not be a valid consideration until disproven? Who disproved it?

 

2) To suggest that a supernatural entity makes science useless is a non sequitur. Many of our greatest thinkers (Newton, Einstein, Mendel, Copernicus,etc) believed that the universe was knowable because it was established by a rational creator. You certainly don't have to agree with them, but to suggest that existense of a supernatural entity obviates science is invalid.

[TeleMad]

1) the ID theory (although I would label it more as a hypothesis) is that the probability of development of life (e.g.,even single celled life) from random events are so low as to make the process implausible.

 

It is? Then why does Behe talk about blood clotting? Does Behe think that the first unicellular organisms had blood? Why does Behe talk about lysosomes? Does Behe think that the very first prokaryotes had lysosomes? And why is Behe's book focussed on evolution, instead of abiogenesis. And what about Well's book, which also focuses on evolution.

 

Biochemist: 2) To suggest that a supernatural entity makes science useless is a non sequitur. Many of our greatest thinkers (Newton, Einstein, Mendel, Copernicus,etc) believed that the universe was knowable because it was established by a rational creator. You certainly don't have to agree with them, but to suggest that existense of a supernatural entity obviates science is invalid.

 

I disagree (imagine that). I think the actual point is that the likes of Newton and others of his day didn't think all the way through what it would mean for a SUPERnatural being to be running things.

 

What would it mean? Their experiments would be meaningless. God could do anything he darn well pleased at any time He darn well pleased. Just because the same experiment run 1000 times produces the same result each time doesn't mean that God wouldn't change his mind tomorrow...you know, maybe Satan tempts him again, like he did with Job: "Ruin their experiments and surely they will curse you!", "Okay, I'll see what happens". Poof! Their scientific experiments become worthless. Maybe the only way a SUPERnatural God can be consistent with science is if God is constrained to have nature basically follow the same rules all the time, which would mean God can't do anything He pleases, which would mean God is limited in what He can do.

 

Further, you seem to not be following what was said. If a SUPERnatural God created life as a miracle, then science is useless as a means of discovering the origin of life.

[Biochemist]

Then why does Behe....

I am not referring to Behe.

I think the actual point is that the likes of Newton and others of his day didn't think all the way through what it would mean for a SUPERnatural being to be running things.

If only Newton or Einstein were as insightful as you.

What would it mean? Their experiments would be meaningless. God could do anything he darn well pleased at any time He darn well pleased.

Perhaps, but Newton and Einstein did not think He acted that way (as I explained in the original post)

[TeleMad]

Biochemist: 1) the ID theory (although I would label it more as a hypothesis) is that the probability of development of life (e.g.,even single celled life) from random events are so low as to make the process implausible.

 

TeleMad: It is? Then why does Behe talk about blood clotting? Does Behe think that the first unicellular organisms had blood? Why does Behe talk about lysosomes? Does Behe think that the very first prokaryotes had lysosomes? And why is Behe's book focussed on evolution, instead of abiogenesis. And what about Well's book, which also focuses on evolution.

 

Biochemist: I am not referring to Behe.

 

Hmm, you're not referring to either Behe or Wells. Are you SURE you are talking about ID?

 

What you presented is not the ID "theory". Behe is either THE, or one of the the top two, leading ID proponents and his ID argument focuses on evolution, which you completely left out of your definition of ID.

[TeleMad]

Perhaps, but Newton and Einstein did not think He acted that way (as I explained in the original post)

 

So work out the logic with me.

 

If there is a SUPERnatural God who created the Universe and its properties and laws, then this SUPERnatural God would also have the power to alter those properties and laws at any time. Therefore, science cannot conclude that what has repeatedly occurred in the past will occur tomorrow under the same exact circumstances. Maybe tomorrow God will change gravity so that denser-than-air objects will shoot up into space instead of falling to the ground. If there's a SUPERnatural God, He COULD do that, right? So science basically is worthless.

 

Scientists accept that what happened repeatedly in experiments will continue to occur under the exact same conditions. Therefore, scientsts who believe in God must believe that God will NOT change His mind: if science is to have any worth, then God CAN'T just up and change the laws of the Universe. But then that is a limitation on what God can do. Thus, God does have limits as to what He can and can't do. Now we're headed into a self-contradiction.

 

Now, if you know a sound way of countering the above, feel free to present it.

[Biochemist]

Hmm, you're not referring to either Behe or Wells.

I was first introduced to ID by reading Philip Johnson, although I don't think that is particularly relevant. I agree with Behe that it is difficult to establish credible statistical analysis in the bioloigcal systems of higher animals. I suggest it would be simpler to start a proof case with prokaryotes.

 

I do not regard this as a particularly insightful suggestion. Just sort of an obvious one.

[TeleMad]

I was first introduced to ID by reading Philip Johnson...

 

You mean the author of "DARWINISM On Trial"?

[Biochemist]

If there is a SUPERnatural God who created the Universe and its properties and laws, then this SUPERnatural God would also have the power to alter those properties and laws at any time...

"Miracles" are, by definition, rare. Most of us experience reproducibiltiy in the vast majority of our experience. Any reproducible event can be investigated. The scientific method is a useful way to do that.

 

I suspect that folks like Einstein and Newton had reasonably practical views of the Creator. I suspect that the issue is not that they never thought about it.

[Biochemist]

You mean the author of "DARWINISM On Trial"?

Yes. Unlike some, I do not delete opinions because they come from biased sources. I even read your posts.

[TeleMad]

Yes. Unlike some, I do not delete opinions because they come from biased sources. I even read your posts.

 

You missed the point. Johnson's "DARWINISM on Trial" is a book focussing on evolution.

 

That makes Behe, Wells, and Johnson who all focus on evolution. To define ID as relating only to abiogenesis, as you did, is wrong.

[Biochemist]

You missed the point. Johnson's "DARWINISM on Trial" is a book focussing on evolution.

I wouldn't know. I never read that book. I didn't reference it. You did. I referenced the author.

That makes Behe, Wells, and Johnson who all focus on evolution. To define ID as relating only to abiogenesis, as you did, is wrong.

I certainly did not limit ID to abiognensis. And I don't think that the originial ID hypothesizers intended to limit their discussion to later events, although they may have. Their preferred focus for a proof case is unrelated to my argument.

 

I was merely offering abiogenesis as a sample target for a proof case becasue the probabilisitc calculations are simpler. If Behe, et al, can find a credible way to establish a valid probabilistic case in higher order systems, that is fine. I just think the assumptions are a lot more slippery and the math is uglier.

[TeleMad]

I certainly did not limit ID to abiognensis.

 

Yes you did. See here...

 

Biochemist: 1) the ID theory (although I would label it more as a hypothesis) is that the probability of development of life (e.g.,even single celled life) from random events are so low as to make the process implausible.

 

Sorry, but you're ingorance and dishonesty makes following your statements difficult, but...

 

In another thread you said that natural selection is not random (after I taught you that it wasn't). So if natural selection isn't random - and it's not - and you are limiting your definition of ID to the development of life from random events, then you are not talking about evolution, but of abiogenesis only.

 

Do us all a favor and please learn what evolution is.

[Biochemist]

Sorry, but you're ingorance and dishonesty makes following your statements difficult, but......Do us all a favor and please learn what evolution is.

Hostile, hostile, hostile. If only you could read with an intent to understand the author versus an intent to attack. There is no obvious reason to construe the texts you cited the way you did.

 

But go ahead. Tell me what else I think.

[TeleMad]

There is no obvious reason to construe the texts you cited the way you did.

 

Sure there is. Anyone who knows about evolution - that excludes you, obviously - knows that evolution isn't random. Thus, you're statements wouldn't be addressing evolution. Here, let's review again, shall we...

 

Biochemist: 1) the ID theory (although I would label it more as a hypothesis) is that the probability of development of life (e.g.,even single celled life) from random events are so low as to make the process implausible.

 

Evolution/natural selection isn't random, and you are limiting your definition of ID to the development of life from random events. So you are not talking about evolution, but of abiogenesis only.

 

Do us all a favor and learn at least something about evolution. That's your assignment for the day. Post what you've learned and I'll grade it for you. How's that for trying to help you!

[Biochemist]

Evolution/natural selection isn't random, and you are limiting your definition of ID to the development of life from random events. So you are not talking about evolution, but of abiogenesis only.

TM- Read post 183 again. You have a tendency to read straightforward responses backwards or not at all.

 

I suspect that everyone on this post understands that, in normal usage, "evolution" is used ambiguously. It is often used as a specific reference to natural selection, as a framework that includes everyting from branching of phyla to punctiated equilibrium, or as a generalized statement to encompass a naturalism-based view for the origin of life.

 

The specific usage is usually obvious in the context, as I believe mine was. It is not productive to maintian that my intent was different that it obviously was, even after clarification. And you used this obfuscation as a dodge to avoid answering the core question.

 

Do you think this style is productive?