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.
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.
Yes, we are more in agreement than we thought. I would argue however that evolution is, for all intents and purposes, not disprovable either. The great equalizer being time. If we insert enough time into the equation then we could hypothetically disprove it. The problem is we cannot insert an infinite amount of time and actually see the results of said experiment. So to say it is disprovable is to accept something that is by our very nature unknowable. Sure there is plenty of evidence to suggest evolution, I even claimed it as a fact earlier in this thread. But to use it as an example of a scientific theory do disprove ID as a scientific theory is not only a little weak, but telling of why these ID vs Evolution debates keep springing up in the first place.
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.
I disagree with your idea of disprovable. The true proof of a scientific experiment is not in its design (possible or hypothetical) but in its provided data. Youre getting into a philosophical debate that has been labeled as science. If we can think up an experiment (that even though is impossible to perform would give us (at least in our minds) the proof (or disproof) of an idea means the said idea is a valid theory. Its a nice way to keep people's heads from exploding, but not mutually exclusive to ideas.
The problem a lot of ID people (as I understand it) have is that what you just said is not presented well in our classrooms. Even your partial theory lacks evidence. It clings to a false sense of knowledge about what conditions were actually like when life began. The experiment your referring to has become a farce of sorts really. Because you can make very basic molecules in a specific environment doesnt prove that said environment was actually the conditions when life began. Again, you cant disprove a theory on the conditions surrounding the beginning of life. So that wouldnt even be a partial theory (by your definition).
I will say that I think the classroom debate is a strawman. Im not saying people arent impassioned about it, or hold it to be serious, but its not really the heart of the issue if we are honest. If it were, those who have stood in this very thread against ID would say they are ok with accepting it outside the classroom, meaning in their lab? If the posts here are indicative of their acceptance I would call that a false claim (if anyone went so far out as to claim that). So the true issue is not what is read in our classrooms albeit I think how we address the origins of life in the classroom is pretty bunk right now. To say its not a scientific theory and so should not be presented in high school classrooms is disingenuous unless you are also saying everything that is presented in high school classrooms is a scientific theory. There is a lot of false information presented in our classrooms in many subjects. To cherry pick one based on ones own beliefs is just as wrong as what they are saying about the opposing side. I havent seen anyone saying ID should be given the same amount of time as scientific theories or that it must be presented as one. If thats the only argument against it, its pretty weak in my opinion. However as I said, I think that classroom argument is a big façade (pronounced fah-kade).
Here is an interesting article written by some college and medical professors in Texas. Its a bit on the older side but is a clear argument about what is presented in the classroom.
Origin of Life & Evolution in Biology Textbooks - A Critique
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?
lol I love semantics. Ok, couple of points and then we can move on from this side issue.
1.) I dont buy the premise that even infinite knowledge of the universe would convey knowledge about conditions
before life began.
2.) You have inserted a change of argument fallacy here, no one needs to know the mind of God, or even prove God at all. You are still arguing for ID as being about your God.
3.) This distinction does in fact exist in science. Im sure you have heard the term statistical zero?
No we haven't. Because pro-ID people want to use ID to compete with natural selection.
Thats two different arguments.
Using ID to compete with something else is not the same as arguing ID itself.
Except it doesn't. It's like saying we are discussing theoretical experiments as theory of relativity addresses abiogenesis.
Thats my point, I wanted to set up an irrefutable source that evolution does not address origins of life.
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').
Analysis of old rocks and other methods? Against what source of knowledge? I can analyze a rock but without knowledge of the true conditions before life began, how would one scientifically say it is or is not meeting those same conditions? That is without a leap from the lions mouth (if anyone names that one you get bonus points, it will show your worth)?
I disagree. It is very scientific. It at least attempts to explain something you yourself have said is as of yet unexplained. Evolution doesnt address the origin of life, so why is something like ID such a threat? Is it because it implicates something that would in the future endanger evolution? But why would it do so? It certainly doesnt endanger the basic tenants of Darwinian Evolution
.so maybe its because it would endanger personal beliefs held by proponents of evolution? Honestly I think this is much more about that, than anything else. The true clash is one of world view and personal beliefs and not science; as science just isnt able to address origin of life at the moment. Any hypothesis of what science will be able to do in the future (regarding origin of life) is simply fantasy. Dont tell me what science could do, show me what it does.
I have respect for them as a human being, but I do not respect the views because the view is not deserving of respect.
To you; they are not deserving of respect to you. Again, tolerance is not in the eye of the beholder. I have respect for your views even when they differ from mine (which admittedly are not really along the lines of everything Ive been arguing) why cant you see my views as deserving of respect. Seems like a problem outside of the science classroom to me. Closing off of hypotheses to questions you admittedly do not have answers for is the definition of close-mindedness. But you are still arguing the idea that ID = Christian faith. Thats a misdirected argument that really doesn't even address ID in any plausible manner. You have a personal belief about a god and so you wont give respect to people who have a personal belief about a god. Sounds like the two are more alike than not.
ID addresses the origin of complex biological structures that ID "scientists" deem too complicated to have been produced by any process other than design by some intelligence. This puts ID in direct competition with evolution, since evolution essentially says that every phenotype has come about by natural processes (ie. biological structures and species were not designed).
To say that the two are reconcilable is false.
I dont agree. Youre still mixing things like phenotype and the creation of information. ID at its core doesnt address the origins of complex biological structures but the origins of information. The phenotype, structure, cell, etc comes after the creation of the information needed to build such a thing. Design is inherent in the system even under the explanation of evolution. There must be design (read: information) to build these structures, its not the design that is the problem but the information source. This is where evolution is used beyond its true means. Darwin didnt even know what a cell was, let alone try to address where that massive amount of information came from. This is an overreaching of evolution to cover gaps in personal belief systems. I have theretofore named this fallacy the Evolution of the Gaps and will be creating its very own wiki page straightaway.
😀
