Intelligent Design vs Evolution

[Howisbabbyformd]

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[7starmantis]

No, that is being disingenuous. ID textbooks very clearly attempt to replace the theory of evolution by claiming the structures existed in their present form, and that they did not change over time. Have a read at Pandas and People, the de facto textbook that they are trying to put into a classroom. To say creationism and ID only deal with origin and not diversity is not really listening to what they themselves are saying.

So by responding to my quote about creationism, using the words ID I assume you believe they are interchangeable, or identical. Virtually the same thing? I would assume we would use the bible as the source for creationism. Could you point me to a passage in the bible that even addresses diversification of species? Having been forced to memorize and quote on demand (before my 12th birthday) whole books (not chapters) of the bible in both hebrew/greek and english I can honestly say I've never seen one. So if the core source and base of creationism/ID (as you define them together) doesn't even address the phenomena of speciation, could you please explain your authority on the matter and how you can say it does?

I've read several of the ID "textbooks" and dont find them to be making that claim. I think many who read them do so with a specific assumption already determined. Sure you could say I have done the same thing, but I've read Darwin and didn't seem to get anything different from it than most evolutionists did, including most everyone on this thread. I've read most of "Pandas and People" and find it interesting that the rest of the title (The Central Question of Biological Origins) seems to be left out of these kinds of discussions. I'm certainly not defending the book and I think its definitely intent on providing its bias to its readers. I dont however see how that is any different from strict evolutionists wanting to do the same things with their textbooks. The book only attempts to attack the claims of evolution that are used to explain "origins" of life. That being said, expressing both sides of the "argument" and allowing science and fact to help the readers (certainly young readers are not immune to rational thought and individualism) make their own determination of the "origins of life" is fine with me. The fact that letting readers decide is so angering to some, is telling I think.

I think however this is getting way off from the points we were making and even further from the original point to the thread. We could continue on another thread if you like.

Dover trial. It was clearly an attack on evolution's explanation for diversity of life. Behe, the ID champion, believes there is no speciation, and all life existed in its present form, and he argued that in court.

I dont buy into the idea that the courts determine scientific facts on either side of the debate. To cherry pick specific individuals on one side and paint the entire side of the argument as such is highly disingenuous. I could do that on both sides very easily. this trial was about requiring the presentation of both cases. What the school was doing did not attack or attempt to dissuade belief in either theory, it is also important to point out that the presentation of ID was when discussing the "origins of life" and not speciation. What was said by either side in the courtroom is irrelevant in my opinion, it doesn't' change the facts that no one can offer a provable theory about the origins of life.

The OPs invocation of the blind watchmaker is a reference to EVOLUTION's attempt at explaining the diversity of life. So by definition, there is that attack.

We must have read differing "blind watchmaker" arguments. I have never heard it touted as addressing the diversity of life in the speciation sense, but the origin of life. To try and apply the watchmaker argument to speciation is a gross misrepresentation of its text. Certainly we can do better at disproving this argument than trying to apply it to something it didn't address and defeat said application. I'm not saying I agree with it, but I certainly think we cna address things honestly if we really want to make a change in this whole debate.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

You might want to offer some kind of logical argument with your links. You have provided nothing that really addresses my post let alone supports or defeats it.

 

[missbones]

A Christian group (which I personally consider to be fundamentalist) at my college sent an e-mail challenging any of our Anthropology professors to join in an on-campus debate about evolution vs. creationism. The last line of the email insinuated that if they did not participate it was because they were afraid of being proven wrong LOL

 

[Lokhtar]

So by responding to my quote about creationism, using the words ID I assume you believe they are interchangeable, or identical. Virtually the same thing? I would assume we would use the bible as the source for creationism. Could you point me to a passage in the bible that even addresses diversification of species? Having been forced to memorize and quote on demand (before my 12th birthday) whole books (not chapters) of the bible in both hebrew/greek and english I can honestly say I've never seen one. So if the core source and base of creationism/ID (as you define them together) doesn't even address the phenomena of speciation, could you please explain your authority on the matter and how you can say it does?

Huh? I never said the Bible says anything about speciation. I said Christians who want to teach creationism (which they renamed to ID after the Supreme Court decision in the 80s), do. Because they want to teach ID as an alternative to evolution. We both (and they) agree Evolution only deals with the diversity of life, the central claim they make is that evolution does not in fact explain it, and ID has a viable alternate scientific theory.

I dont however see how that is any different from strict evolutionists wanting to do the same things with their textbooks.

Really? Which textbook and what does it say that is biased?

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

I could not take part in this debate. I believe the term for what I believe in is "theistic evolution" and that, basically, God exists, He/She created the universe, as well as all of the biological processes within it, including evolution. Makes the most sense to me.

Nice to know it has a name, that's the boat I'm in myself.

 

[7starmantis]

Huh? I never said the Bible says anything about speciation. I said Christians who want to teach creationism (which they renamed to ID after the Supreme Court decision in the 80s), do. Because they want to teach ID as an alternative to evolution. We both (and they) agree Evolution only deals with the diversity of life, the central claim they make is that evolution does not in fact explain it, and ID has a viable alternate scientific theory.

Thats precisely my point, the bible doesn't say anything about it. Therefore to say creationism, which is based completely on the words in the bible, addresses speciation is false.

ID is not a "christian" idea. There are people of all religions and atheists who support the availability of ID representation. Also people of all beliefs (and lack of) that argue against evolution. To paint it as different is disingenuous. Your still saying "they" (ID folks) want to teach ID as an alternative to evolution, yet you say evolution and ID do not address the same issues. The truth is, they want both to be presented and allow free thinkers to make their own conclusions. I can wholeheartedly support that. I wouldn't support teaching one aside from the other, either side of the debate.

Really? Which textbook and what does it say that is biased?

Thats my point, if you say they are really at war with each other than all textbooks that present only evolution as the theory for "origin of life" are biased. Seems the real issue is much different from the scientific question of the origins of life. Always has been always will be.

 

[Lokhtar]

Also people of all beliefs (and lack of) that argue against evolution. To paint it as different is disingenuous. Your still saying "they" (ID folks) want to teach ID as an alternative to evolution, yet you say evolution and ID do not address the same issues. The truth is, they want both to be presented and allow free thinkers to make their own conclusions. I can wholeheartedly support that. I wouldn't support teaching one aside from the other, either side of the debate.

That's ridiculous. That's like you supporting the teaching of alchemy and chemistry in chemistry class. They are not at all equivalent. What are the problems with evolution, and why is ID a scientific theory?

Thats my point, if you say they are really at war with each other than all textbooks that present only evolution as the theory for "origin of life" are biased.

You keep making that claim. Please list one biology textbook that presents evolution as the agent responsible for abiogenesis.

 

[7starmantis]

That's ridiculous. That's like you supporting the teaching of alchemy and chemistry in chemistry class. They are not at all equivalent. What are the problems with evolution, and why is ID a scientific theory?

Seriously? Are you saying that evolution can affectively cover the origins of life in the same way chemistry can cover the natural laws of substances and their properties? Your example lists two "theories" (used lightly) that attempt to explain the same thing. Then you try to apply it to evolution/ID that you yourself say do not even address the same issues.

You are also insinuating that the way evolution covers the origins of life is in fact a scientific theory, but then you have said evolution does not cover the origins of life. Again, your trying to apply evolution to the questions of the origins of life, otherwise you wouldn't even try to determine if they are or are not equivalent. They obviously aren't, if you truly believe they address different issues. So if you want evolution to be taught when the origin of life is discussed, then why do you oppose also presenting an alternative theory to the origins of life, if and only if you really believe evolution truly does not address said questions?

You keep making that claim. Please list one biology textbook that presents evolution as the agent responsible for abiogenesis.

Thank you, you have made my point in a more solid way than I ever could have. If there is not "one biology textbook" that presents evolution as the agent responsible for "abiogenesis" then whats the issue with something other than evolution being presented when discussing "abiogenesis"?

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

You keep making that claim. Please list one biology textbook that presents evolution as the agent responsible for abiogenesis.

Now that I think about it, you're right. None of the bio text books I read ever claimed that evolution had anything to do with the origin of life.

All the ones I am familiar with discussed the experiment that demonstrated that you can form simple organic molecules from inorganic molecules in a proto-earth environment. Then they hypothesized about how these organic molecules could have combined into more complex forms, but leave out exactly how that could happen!

 

[Lokhtar]

Thank you, you have made my point in a more solid way than I ever could have. If there is not "one biology textbook" that presents evolution as the agent responsible for "abiogenesis" then whats the issue with something other than evolution being presented when discussing "abiogenesis"?

Because we don't know what causes gravity (the graviton is hypothetical). That doesn't mean we should teach it's a half-breed unicorn-fairy that binds us all and causes gravity.

See the difference? Absence of evidence doesn't lend credence to any crackpot hypothesis that wishes to fill the void in its absence.


And evolution is never presented when talking about abiogenesis because it doesn't apply. Evolution is what happens after abiogenesis has occurred. The exact mechanism of abiogenesis is not yet known. That doesn't mean I went back in time, shat on a rock, and my feces started the tree of life. It's not a valid hypothesis that should be taught no matter how much I want it to be.

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

Thank you, you have made my point in a more solid way than I ever could have. If there is not "one biology textbook" that presents evolution as the agent responsible for "abiogenesis" then whats the issue with something other than evolution being presented when discussing "abiogenesis"?

Because the creator god concept is non-falsifiable. You can never truly disprove the the existence of God or disprove his role in the creation, organization and evolution of the universe.

Scientific theories must be disprovable. It must be theoretically possible to test your hypothesis for a theory to be legitimate (iirc). ID cannot be disproven and as such, is not a scientific theory.

It's a perfectly legitimate way to view the universe, but it fails the most basic test of science.

 

[7starmantis]

Because we don't know what causes gravity (the graviton is hypothetical). That doesn't mean we should teach it's a fairly that binds us all and causes gravity.

See the difference? Absence of evidence doesn't lend credence to any crackpot hypothesis that wishes to fill the void in its absence.

That only holds true if you have some suggestion for teaching or at least touching on the idea of the origin of life. Your argument is that evolution should be taught and no ID, but then say evolution doesn't even attempt to address the origin of life.

If your last statement is in fact true, then evolution as it pertains to abiogenesis would fit the description of "crackpot hypothesis".

 

[Lokhtar]

Actually, if I did go back in time, shat on a rock, and the organic molecules in my feces started the tree of life, would that be Intelligent Design or Circular Evolution? Ponder that.

 

[7starmantis]

Scientific theories must be disprovable. It must be theoretically possible to test your hypothesis for a theory to be legitimate (iirc). ID cannot be disproven and as such, is not a scientific theory.

How would you propose to disprove the theory of evolution being responsible for abiogenesis?

 

[Lokhtar]

That only holds true if you have some suggestion for teaching or at least touching on the idea of the origin of life. Your argument is that evolution should be taught and no ID, but then say evolution doesn't even attempt to address the origin of life.

If there is no theory, no theory should be taught. I thought that would be obvious. We don't have a Theory of Everything in physics that combines the four fundamental forces of nature (Gravity, Strong, Weak and EM forces). So do you know what we do? We don't teach anything and claim it is a theory of everything.

 

[Lokhtar]

How would you propose to disprove the theory of evolution being responsible for abiogenesis?

No scientist, and no textbook, makes that claim that theory of evolution is responsible for abiogenesis.

Except you, in this thread, apparently.

 

[7starmantis]

Actually, if I did go back in time, shat on a rock, and the organic molecules in my feces started the tree of life, would that be Intelligent Design or Circular Evolution? Ponder that.

And when logical arguments fail, passive aggressive humor must take its place.


Chilax man, we probably agree a lot more than you think. I just dont see a logical argument for allowing one theory (that is admittedly not meant to address said issues) to be the only theory presented when addressing the origin of life.

What would you propose be presented in a high school class in the 30 seconds one speaks about the origin of life?

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

Actually, if I did go back in time, shat on a rock, and the organic molecules in my feces started the tree of life, would that be Intelligent Design or Circular Evolution? Ponder that.

/threadjack

That would depend entirely on the philosophy of time travel. Assuming closed time-like loops were possible, I think you have four possibilities:

1. You do go back in time and things are altered, creating a different future.

2. The universe that exists because you go back in time to take that action, thus nothing changes.

3. Going back in time actually forces you out of this reality and into another where one of the aspects of this reality is that you come into existence out of nowhere at this place and time.

4. The universe reacts to your attempted violation of causality so hard it paradox-smacks you out of existence.

 

[Lokhtar]

What would you propose be presented in a high school class in the 30 seconds one speaks about the origin of life?

"We don't know."


Which is what is presented now essentially. There are some hypothesis that are being lab tested, no theories as of yet.

 

[7starmantis]

No scientist, and no textbook, makes that claim that theory of evolution is responsible for abiogenesis.

Except you, in this thread, apparently.

What is apparent to some is not necessarily the truth. I never made that claim. I'm simply using a logical argument to debate his point. his answer will show where I'm going with the post.

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

How would you propose to disprove the theory of evolution being responsible for abiogenesis?

Theoretically, one could recreate the exact circumstances that existed on earth 4.5 billion years ago and follow the development of the planet.

If we saw that life developed in a matter that was unexplained by evolution then you've just shot a huge hole in the theory.

 

[7starmantis]

"We don't know."


Which is what is presented now essentially. There are some hypothesis that are being lab tested, no theories as of yet.

So why the heated debate on ID vs evolution?

 

[7starmantis]

Theoretically, one could recreate the exact circumstances that existed on earth 4.5 billion years ago and follow the development of the planet.

If we saw that life developed in a matter that was unexplained by evolution then you've just shot a huge hole in the theory.

Thats exactly my point. Evolution as it relates to the origin of life is not a scientific theory either.

 

[Lokhtar]

So why the heated debate on ID vs evolution?

Because the proponents of ID wish to insert it into the classroom as a viable theory.

 

[Lokhtar]

Thats exactly my point. Evolution as it relates to the origin of life is not a scientific theory either.

How many times must I say it? No textbook has claimed it was.

 

[Lokhtar]

No scientist, and no textbook, makes that claim that theory of evolution is responsible for abiogenesis.

And evolution is never presented when talking about abiogenesis because it doesn't apply

You keep making that claim. Please list one biology textbook that presents evolution as the agent responsible for abiogenesis.

Want me to say it one more time?

 

[7starmantis]

Because the proponents of ID wish to insert it into the classroom as a viable theory.

The proponents of ID wish to have it presented as a possible theory for 30 seconds along with the other opinions about origins of life, at least according to your source of the trial.

So, what your saying would simply be a debate about ID itself, not a debate about ID vs evolution. The inclusion of evolution in this debate is telling. No, I'm not talking about just this thread.

How many times must I say it? No textbook has claimed it was.

Thats my point. I'm glad you have said it so many times. Therefore there need be no debate between ID and evolution.

 

[RadioCure]

@7starmantis

I think you're making a huge mistake when you say that ID only aims to explain the origin of life and not it's diversity/history. That might be how you define it, but the whole ID movement bases its arguments on concepts such as irreducible complexity in very advanced organisms with advanced features like flagella and immune systems. I saw Dr. Behe at Penn State last spring and he stated many times that his doubts were centered on natural selection being an acceptable explanation for the complex systems found in today's organisms. Behe certainly doesn't speak for every ID proponent, but you are the very first person I've ever heard claim that ID only deals with the origins of life.

If they were really aimed only at the origins of life, they would base their arguments, explanations, textbooks, etc. on using intelligence as an explanation for only the earliest known life forms.

The ID movement has very clearly been centered on combating and challenging evolution, not abiogenesis (a distinction Lohktar is desperately trying to help you understand). Perhaps more importantly and relevantly, the participants at the OP's debate will be arguing for ID as a substitute for evolution by natural selection, not as a substitute for abiogenesis.

 

[Lokhtar]

The proponents of ID wish to have it presented as a possible theory for 30 seconds along with the other opinions about origins of life, at least according to your source of the trial.

And yet that's a problem because ID is not a theory. Alchemy theory should not be presented.

And no, the Dover trial was to present ID as an alternate to evolution to explain the diversity of life.

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

Thats exactly my point. Evolution as it relates to the origin of life is not a scientific theory either.

I apologize, I am tired and suffered a misunderstanding.

I do not feel the theory of evolution explains the origins of life.

However, I am quite sure that ID is not a scientific theory at all, for the reasons I outlined above, which I presume you accept.

However, if I was foolish enough to say "evolution explains how life came to be" you could run the experiment I detailed above and disprove what I had said. You could observe that life came to be in a manner different from evolution.

You can run no such experiment for ID and as such, it's not a scientific theory.

 

[7starmantis]

@7starmantis

I think you're making a huge mistake when you say that ID only aims to explain the origin of life and not it's diversity/history. That might be how you define it, but the whole ID movement bases its arguments on concepts such as irreducible complexity in very advanced organisms with advanced features like flagella and immune systems. I saw Dr. Behe at Penn State last spring and he stated many times that his doubts were centered on natural selection being an acceptable explanation for the complex systems found in today's organisms. Behe certainly doesn't speak for every ID proponent, but you are the very first person I've ever heard claim that ID only deals with the origins of life.

If they were really aimed only at the origins of life, they would base their arguments, explanations, textbooks, etc. on using intelligence as an explanation for only the earliest known life forms.

The ID movement has very clearly been centered on combating and challenging evolution, not abiogenesis (a distinction Lohktar is desperately trying to help you understand). Perhaps more importantly and relevantly, the participants at the OP's debate will be arguing for ID as a substitute for evolution by natural selection, not as a substitute for abiogenesis.

My point is that the "ID debate" is misrepresented. Sure lots of ID proponents also have problems with evolution, but its not at war with each other. At least not from the leading ID peeps. Using arguments like "irreducible complexity" doesn't negate where their argument is focused. We are talking about life in general so those who believe in ID would certainly believe said design would continue throughout the life of the specimen, if you will. Design is presented as the starting point for the information contained within our bodies (dna etc). That information will still be in an evolved creature later in life. The basis of ID is the starting point of the information.

So basically I disagree with you and am too tired to really type much more.

And yet that's a problem because ID is not a theory. Alchemy theory should not be presented.

And no, the Dover trial was to present ID as an alternate to evolution to explain the diversity of life.

If your first statement is correct, abiogenesis should not be presented either, so we should simply say "we dont know" which is not happening now. Thats a separate debate.

Your second statement is wrong. Read the suit. Why was the school brought to court exactly? Read the statement the school was presenting in class.

 

[7starmantis]

However, if I was foolish enough to say "evolution explains how life came to be" you could run the experiment I detailed above and disprove what I had said. You could observe that life came to be in a manner different from evolution.

You can run no such experiment for ID and as such, it's not a scientific theory.

And you can run such an experiment detailed by you? If we could we wouldn't be having this debate.

My point was that because of the inability to run your experiment, evolution is also not a theory in as much as it addresses the origin of life.

 

[Lokhtar]

If your first statement is correct, abiogenesis should not be presented either, so we should simply say "we dont know" which is not happening now.

Yea? Tell me what the textbooks say about abiogenesis. They don't present any conclusion. My high school biology said we don't know.

 

[Lokhtar]

evolution is also not a theory in as much as it addresses the origin of life.

Can I repeat it one more time?

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

And you can run such an experiment detailed by you? If we could we wouldn't be having this debate.

My point was that because of the inability to run your experiment, evolution is also not a theory in as much as it addresses the origin of life.

And my point is you can run such an experiment. It is true that you need resources beyond what we have available, but such an experiment is theoretically feasible. As such, the theory is testable, which is one of the requirements for it to be scientific. There is no such experiment that can disprove an intelligent designer.

Allow me to turn the question around to you. How would you design an experiment to test the existence of an intelligent designer? You don't actually have to do it of course, but how would such a thing be possible?

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions.

 

[JJMrK]

The debate is about whether evolution attempts to explain abiogenesis, and whether creationism attempts to explain diversity?

 

[RadioCure]

The debate is about whether evolution attempts to explain abiogenesis, and whether creationism attempts to explain diversity?

Much to my amazement, yes, that seems to be what this has become.

 

[7starmantis]

And my point is you can run such an experiment. It is true that you need resources beyond what we have available, but such an experiment is theoretically feasible. As such, the theory is testable, which is one of the requirements for it to be scientific. There is no such experiment that can disprove an intelligent designer.

Allow me to turn the question around to you. How would you design an experiment to test the existence of an intelligent designer? You don't actually have to do it of course, but how would such a thing be possible?

You have mistakenly stated the idea of a provable theory. Its not if you can think up a hypothetical experiment that (at least in your head) would prove or disprove something. Thats as fanciful as you claim ID to be.

"theoretically feasible" is no different than saying not possible in this case. Its "theoretically feasible" to to setup a flat-liners experiment and go to the afterlife and ask the "intelligent designer" if s/he did all of this. I mean, of course it requires resources beyond what are readily available, but its "theoretically feasible". To say its anything close to feasible to ever know how to create an environment identical to when life began is masturbation of the mind. Which I'm beginning to think this thread is.

lol I'm going to bed.

The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions.

Thanks, I had never heard any of that.

 

[Cleavername]

Are you seriously saying that the flagellum is irreducibly complex? Check out that video posted several posts up by the YouTube user potholer54. If you believe God invented the bacterial flagellum you also have to give him credit for the deaths that cholera, salmonella, e coli, campylobacter, and helicobacter are responsible for. Cholera kills you in 2 hours if you don't get an IV pumping fluids into you. Man, does God love us! Thanks for designing that flagellum!

i read this book once, it was about the lost boys from like this african country. any ways, the author talked about the fact that he was a leader in his tribe, and he observed people with diseases that would make them...produce alot of diahrea and cause them to dehydrate and eventually kill them. he said what he did was he only gave those people just a litle bit of water per day, so that they barely surivive. then he said that the people who sneaked off and drank alot more than what they were given eventually died, altho some of the ones who followed his orders lived.

 

[RadioCure]

My point is that the "ID debate" is misrepresented. Sure lots of ID proponents also have problems with evolution, but its not at war with each other. At least not from the leading ID peeps.

I'm not sure who you consider the "leading ID peeps," but every one I have read about or encountered entirely denies that natural selection can produce new structures and changes. They deny that natural selection can produce speciation events and say that it cannot account for the emergence of new structures, especially "irreducibly complex" ones. If that isn't "war" then I don't know what is. I'm not trying to get on your case (well, maybe I am), but I'd be interested in seeing who these ID people you talk about are.

Using arguments like "irreducible complexity" doesn't negate where their argument is focused. We are talking about life in general so those who believe in ID would certainly believe said design would continue throughout the life of the specimen, if you will. Design is presented as the starting point for the information contained within our bodies (dna etc). That information will still be in an evolved creature later in life. The basis of ID is the starting point of the information.

I understand what you're trying to get at. You're saying that ID is about promoting the concept that an intelligent agent provided the framework for which an adaptation system could exist. What you're saying makes sense (not that it's necessarily a reasonable or scientifically defensible position to hold), but it's simply not what ID proponents are pushing. When I say ID proponents, I'm talking about the people trying to get this taught in science classes, the authors of Pandas and People, the Discovery Institute, Michael Behe. These are the big players in ID and what you've outlined above is NOT what they are trying to promote. Their ideas are entirely in opposition to evolution; they cannot in any way be said to exist within or alongside the framework of evolutionary theory.

And, once again, if they were really directing their thoughts to the origin of life and not it's diversification, they would not use examples like the immune system or bacterial flagellum. They could be talking about the origin of DNA as a genetic code, the replication mechanism, etc, but they very rarely do. Why? Because all they really want is to convince themselves and everyone else that humans are a product of God and not natural processes. The designer has to be there every step of the way for that to be true.

So basically I disagree with you and am too tired to really type much more.

Goodnight, sweet prince.

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

You have mistakenly stated the idea of a provable theory. Its not if you can think up a hypothetical experiment that (at least in your head) would prove or disprove something. Thats as fanciful as you claim ID to be.

"theoretically feasible" is no different than saying not possible in this case. Its "theoretically feasible" to to setup a flat-liners experiment and go to the afterlife and ask the "intelligent designer" if s/he did all of this. I mean, of course it requires resources beyond what are readily available, but its "theoretically feasible". To say its anything close to feasible to ever know how to create an environment identical to when life began is masturbation of the mind. Which I'm beginning to think this thread is.

Err, no I had described the idea of a disproveable theory. I didn't design an experiment to prove evolution, I designed one to try and disprove it. Vastly different things and I'm honestly kinda surprised you confused the two. As we all know, you can't prove a theory. I don't remember the quote but it's like "A thousand positive observations do not prove a theory, but one negative one destroys it."

As for your comments on theoretically feasible, it is very, very different from not possible. I mean, I'm confused that you disagree, because that's the way the scientific theory is written. The theory must be theoretically disprovable for it to be a theory, that is essential to the nature of all scientific theory, from gravity to why paint dries. However, if it is difficult/currently impossible to test a theory the debate about it is generally more contentious as there is less evidence for or against it (see complex theoretical physics, string theory for instance, lot of disagreement over that).

Testing to disprove evolution is very difficult, which is why there is so much contention about it's validity (among other things). However, evolution is something that can theoretically be tested and at some point in the future it probably will be. When it is, we'll redefine the theory when we figure out the parts of it that are inaccurate/incomplete (which most probably are).

As such, evolution belongs as a theory and ID is not. There is no experiment, theoretical or otherwise that could disprove ID.

Your flat-liners experiment doesn't work because such experiences are not observable. I can't take a video camera with me to the other side and record what is going on. Now, if such a thing were possible, you'd have a different story and personally, a very interesting line of research! However, such a thing is not possible, so again, you cannot disprove ID.

One cannot disprove ID. One can disprove evolution. Until the validity of those statements change the above will remain true.

I do however agree with you that it is probably pointless to continue the argument from here. I think part of the problem is that you've been arguing with both me and another person, but your argument with the other guy has gotten a bit "heated" while ours has remained more pleasant. However, I do feel as if I'm getting a little bit of misdirected fire from that more contentious argument.

I guess at this point I feel that it is as if I have a picture of a bear and am telling you "This is a bear." You reply "No, it's not." I would not claim to have some sort of philosophical understanding of the nature of beardom, but I can't argue with you about the nature bears because to me it's a matter of fact, not opinion.

The same is true of the scientific method, because for me it's a recorded fact, not an opinion (having just read it). If you believe different facts about it, I can't productively argue with you. I only came to realize that after writing this post, so I'm happy for it to be my last on this particular aspect of the conversation.

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

To say its anything close to feasible to ever know how to create an environment identical to when life began is masturbation of the mind. Which I'm beginning to think this thread is.

I'd disagree heartily. We're already pretty decent at approximating what early conditions on the earth were like and as our understanding of the universe grows we'll get better and better.

Also, the experiment does not need to be perfect to disprove the theory, experience has taught us that. The particle accelerator built before the LHC didn't explore all aspects of string theory, but it sure as heck disproved some of them.

Testing evolution would be similar. As our knowledge and resources increase we can test more and more perfect experiments which would have the opportunity to disprove more and more of the theory, which is what you need.

 

[Go Ducks]

Evolution, in my opinion, does hurt religious beliefs. For the Christian pro-evolution people, answer me this:

You claim that ~2000-3000 years ago, God revealed himself to man and gave humans his divine revelation. It doesn't matter how you interpret the Bible. But God gave it to man progressively only a couple thousand or so years ago, and this is a path to human salvation and you believe that humans should treasure the Bible as God's revelation.

Anthropologists would say that homo sapiens have been around for at least 100,000 years (by a very conservative estimate). You mean to tell me that for 997,000 years God watched our species indifferently as it died in a horrific, bloody, and savage evolutionary arms race? He waited until then to drop by with the divine intervention? You call this God "loving"? God just watched as our ancestors routinely died at the age of 20 of starvation?

It makes more sense to me why Christians tend to accept creationism over evolution because then we wouldn't have this problem. If you mix Christianity and evolution, you have to deal with these issues.

Even when you drop evolution, the problem persists.

 

[7starmantis]

Decided to have a beer before bed, so one last post... lol I'm a freak.

Because all they really want is to convince themselves and everyone else that humans are a product of God and not natural processes. The designer has to be there every step of the way for that to be true.

I find it useless to participate in discussions about what other people think other people "really" want. Your last statement is not correct, let alone logically sound.

Goodnight, sweet prince.

This really creeped me out. heebie jeebies.

Err, no I had described the idea of a disproveable theory. I didn't design an experiment to prove evolution, I designed one to try and disprove it. Vastly different things and I'm honestly kinda surprised you confused the two. As we all know, you can't prove a theory. I don't remember the quote but it's like "A thousand positive observations do not prove a theory, but one negative one destroys it."

Sorry, typo there. I meant disprove. The problem is that you keep making the mistake of applying my statements to evolution as a whole. Thats out of context. I was speaking very specifically about evolution addressing the origins of life itself. Ask Lokhtar, no one is saying evolution addresses origins of life. You have setup a fanciful "experiment" that is impossible to perform. If your really arguing that evolution addresses abiogenesis and is a complete "disprovable" theory in that context, please meet Lokhtar. You guys have fun.

As for your comments on theoretically feasible, it is very, very different from not possible. I mean, I'm confused that you disagree, because that's the way the scientific theory is written. The theory must be theoretically disprovable for it to be a theory, that is essential to the nature of all scientific theory, from gravity to why paint dries. However, if it is difficult/currently impossible to test a theory the debate about it is generally more contentious as there is less evidence for or against it (see complex theoretical physics, string theory for instance, lot of disagreement over that).

You getting caught up in the shadowlands of technical scientific semantics. I meant not possible, in this case. I said that, I think it just got overlooked. Again, not sure your point here unless your saying evolution theory covers the origins of life, and then you and Darwin are at odds.

Your flat-liners experiment doesn't work because such experiences are not observable. I can't take a video camera with me to the other side and record what is going on. Now, if such a thing were possible, you'd have a different story and personally, a very interesting line of research! However, such a thing is not possible, so again, you cannot disprove ID.

What no video camera? Haven't you seen flatliners? The impossibility of the flatliners experiment mirrors the impossibility of the "original conditions on earth".

One cannot disprove ID. One can disprove evolution. Until the validity of those statements change the above will remain true.

once again your falling into the fallacy of debating ID against evolution. We have established the fact that they are mutually exclusive. When I'm discussing the theoretical experiments we are talking about evolution only as it addresses abiogenesis.

I guess at this point I feel that it is as if I have a picture of a bear and am telling you "This is a bear." You reply "No, it's not." I would not claim to have some sort of philosophical understanding of the nature of beardom, but I can't argue with you about the nature bears because to me it's a matter of fact, not opinion.

The same is true of the scientific method, because for me it's a recorded fact, not an opinion (having just read it). If you believe different facts about it, I can't productively argue with you. I only came to realize that after writing this post, so I'm happy for it to be my last on this particular aspect of the conversation.

I'm sorry if you feel tings are getting heated, I didn't think the other convo was heated either. I dont get upset easy, I'm pretty straightforward.

lol I'm not arguing the scientific method, I'm arguing your application of it to evolutions ability to address the origin of life. Are you saying it is a fact that evolution addresses and is a fully disprovable theory on how life began? I certainly hope not or you need to go pick up your nobel prize.

I'd disagree heartily. We're already pretty decent at approximating what early conditions on the earth were like and as our understanding of the universe grows we'll get better and better.

The problem with this idea is inherently we must believe that we know what the conditions (I would argue about the "on earth" part seriously) actually were. To recreate them perfectly we need to know perfectly what they were. Darwin thought in 1859 he knew what the cell was like, they were all terribly wrong. There is a fallacy inherent in the "theoretically disprovable theory" argument that assumes the conditions meet our expectations. But thats getting into a more into existential philosophy I guess.

Bottom line, if we could "approximate what conditions were like" in order to meet our expectations of a workable (prove or disprove) experiment either way we are still working within the confines of our current understanding. I find it preposterous to say we can be completely certain about something like the conditions that existed before life existed. Even if we had a theory about the conditions before life existed how would one prove or better yet, disprove it?

Testing evolution would be similar. As our knowledge and resources increase we can test more and more perfect experiments which would have the opportunity to disprove more and more of the theory, which is what you need.

Again, this is not about evolution. I absolutely agree with it. In fact, I said it was a solid fact earlier in the thread. Its about trying to use evolution to address origins of life. For you to offer a theoretical experiment to prove or disprove how life began in a discussion about evolution is odd. Do you believe evolution does address how life began?

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

I do not believe evolution explains the origin of life on earth and now I think I may be understanding the source of our confusion.

I was using evolution as an example of how a scientific theory must be disprovable. I chose abiogenesis as an example because it had come up in the earlier conversation and because I felt I could design an experiment to disprove it, thus proving my point about why evolution is a scientific theory.

As I understand it, you were arguing that evolution does not explain the origin of life. I'm not an evolutionary biologist/researcher, so I would not argue that point with you, because I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter. You could very well be right, so for the sake of the argument I accept your position.

I on the other hand, was arguing that intelligent design is not a theory, because it is not disprovable. Even if ID is correct (I happen to believe in God and that he did set things out the way they are), it's still not a scientific theory because it's not disprovable.

Basically, in order for a theory on the origin of life to be considered a scientific theory, it would have to be theoretically disprovable. As of now, I believe we don't have anything near approaching a complete scientific theory as to why life started. The best partial theory we have is that in a pre-organic environment, lightening plus inorganic molecules can lead to de novo creation of organic molecules. As bizarre as this sounds, they did do that experiment (in the 70's I believe) and found you could make very basic organic macromolecules. As a result, they now hypothesize that if you could make simpler molecules, perhaps you could make more complex ones? That theory however, is not the theory of evolution and is admittedly, far from complete.

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

What no video camera? Haven't you seen flatliners? The impossibility of the flatliners experiment mirrors the impossibility of the "original conditions on earth".

This is totally semantics, so feel free not to bother replying

But, with infinite or close to infinite knowledge about the universe one could replicate the original conditions of the earth. However, even with infinite knowledge of this universe, it would still be impossible to know the mind of God as He exists outside the physical universe.

Now near impossible and completely impossible might be the same thing to you, but I believe science makes a distinction. What you're arguing is more about philosophy, perhaps?

 

[necoli]

"Q: Prove God doesn't exist.
A: That's a tough one. Show me how it's done by proving Zeus and Apollo don't exist, and I'll use your method."
http://www.patcondell.net/page9/page9.html

I believe God made the earth in 6 days. I do my best to be respectful of others' views, dispite how ludicrous they may sound to me. I expect to be treated similarly... is this too much to ask for in any field concerning biology?

 

[Lokhtar]

once again your falling into the fallacy of debating ID against evolution. We have established the fact that they are mutually exclusive.

No we haven't. Because pro-ID people want to use ID to compete with natural selection.

When I'm discussing the theoretical experiments we are talking about evolution only as it addresses abiogenesis.

Except it doesn't. It's like saying we are discussing theoretical experiments as theory of relativity addresses abiogenesis.

Even if we had a theory about the conditions before life existed how would one prove or better yet, disprove it?

We can, based on analysis of things like old rocks and other methods.



Anyway, I don't know why ID is even discussed as an explanation for anything. It's not a valid explanation for anything because it's not scientific. It's as valid as my circular evolution fecal abiogenesis theory. Hereto known as the CEFA (pronounced 'sefa').

 

[Lokhtar]

I believe God made the earth in 6 days. I do my best to be respectful of others' views, dispite how ludicrous they may sound to me. I expect to be treated similarly... is this too much to ask for in any field concerning biology?

Yea, the problem is if someone comes up to you and says I believe in a geocentric universe. Should I have respect for their views?

I have respect for them as a human being, but I do not respect the views because the view is not deserving of respect.