An interesting take on evolution vs. design.

I know that you all have beat this topic to death, but the old threads are not as functional anymore since the switch. HP's new religion section occasionally has some insightful blogs and I thought I'd share this one.
HP said:
Evolution Presupposes Design, So Why the Controversy? By Ervin Laszlo

The debate among conservative Christians, Muslims, and Jews (the "creationists") and natural scientists and the science-minded public (the "evolutionists") centers on biological evolution. But on a deeper level, it concerns the universe in which life has evolved -- or in which it was created. And, as I will argue, on this level there is no contradiction between design and evolution: both are equally needed to explain the facts.

At first glance, the scientific community -- and anyone who believes that science can tell us something about the nature of reality -- is compelled to reject the hypothesis that all organisms are the way they are because they were designed to be that way. But the creationists question that the stupendously varied panoply of life arose from mutations in the genome occurring by chance with the resulting organisms fitting by chance into environments where they can reproduce better than their predecessors. Such a chance-mutation and lucky-environmental-fit process is surely too "hit or miss" to have created the complex web of life in the biosphere. The theory that affirms it is bound to be false.

However, at the cutting edge of science, the theory of evolution doesn't rely on random serendipity. That view marks the classical Darwinist position, still championed by a few (though always fewer) mainline biologists. Richard Dawkins, for example, insists that the living world is the result of processes of piecemeal trial and error, without deeper meaning and significance. Evolution happens, but there is no purpose and meaning to it.

Take cheetahs, said Dawkins. They give every indication of being superbly designed to kill antelopes. The teeth, claws, eyes, nose, leg muscles, backbone, and brain of a cheetah are all precisely what we should expect if God's purpose in creating cheetahs was to maximize deaths among antelopes. At the same time, antelopes are fast, agile, and watchful, apparently designed so they can escape cheetahs. Yet neither the one feature nor the other implies creation by design: this is just the way nature is. Cheetahs have a "utility function" to kill antelopes, and antelopes have a utility function to escape cheetahs. Nature itself is indifferent to this game. This is a world of blind physical forces and genetic replication where some get hurt and others flourish. It has precisely the properties we would expect it to have if there were no design, no purpose, and no evil and no good in the world, only blind indifference.

If a Designer is responsible for the way the living world works, He/She would have to be at best indifferent to what comes about in that world, or at worst a sadist who enjoys blood sports. It's more reasonable, according to Dawkins, to hold that the world just is, without reason and purpose. The way it is results from random processes played out within limits set by fundamental physical laws. The idea of design is superfluous. Classical Darwinists echo French mathematician Pierre Laplace, who is reputed to have said to Napoleon that God is a hypothesis for which there is no longer any need.

Confronted with the classical theory, creationists are justified in pointing out that it's extremely improbable that all we see in the world of life, ourselves included, should be the result of chance processes governed by impersonal laws. The idea that everything evolved by blind chance out of common and simple origins is just theory, they say. The world is more than a random assembly of disjointed elements; it exhibits meaning and purpose. This implies design.

The creationist position would be the logical choice if -- but only if -- scientists would persist in claiming that the evolution of living species is a product of two-fold serendipity. But at the cutting edge, scientists no longer claim this. Post-Darwinian biologists recognize that the evolution of species is far more than the chance processes classical Darwinists say it is. It must be more, because the time that was available for evolution would not have been sufficient to generate the complex web of life on this planet merely by trial and error. Mathematical physicist Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the probabilities and came to the conclusion that they are about the same as the probability that a hurricane blowing through a scrap-yard assembles a working airplane.

Leading-edge scientists realize that the evolution of organic species is an orderly, highly coordinated process, even if it's not mechanistic and deterministic. The evolution of the living world is part of the great wave that created particles from the underlying virtual-energy and information field misleadingly called "vacuum" (and is better called unified field, nuether, or Akashic field). The wave unfolded in the cosmos by structuring particles into atoms, atoms into molecules, molecules into macromolecules and cells, cells into organisms, and organisms and populations of organisms into local, regional, and continental ecologies.

The wave of evolution could only have unfolded in a universe where the fundamental laws and constants are finely tuned to permit the emergence of complexity. Ours is such a universe. Physicists know that even a minute difference in these laws and constants would have foreclosed the possibility of life forever.

Our universe is staggeringly fine-tuned to the creation of systems of higher and higher orders of complexity, differentiation, and integration. That such a universe would have come about by chance is astronomically improbable. According to quantum cosmology, some 1 x 10500 (1 followed by five hundred zeros) universes could exist physically, but only a handful could give rise to life. That our life-supporting universe would have come about by a random selection from this enormous set of possible universes is a zillion times more improbable than that living species would have come about by random mutations. The great wave of evolution requires highly harmonized and coordinated processes in all its domains.

In the final count the evolution of life presupposes intelligent design. But the design it presupposes is not the design of the products of evolution; it's the design of its preconditions. Given the right preconditions, nature comes up with the products on her own.

The debate between creationists and evolutionists would be better focused on the origins of the universe than on the origins of life. Could it be that our universe has been purposefully designed so it could give rise to the evolution of life? For creationists, this would be the logical assumption. Evolutionists could not object: evolution, being an irreversible process, must have had a beginning, and that beginning must be accounted for. And our fine-tuned universe is entirely unlikely to have come about by chance.

So the creationist/evolutionist controversy really is pointless. Design is a necessary assumption, because chance doesn't explain the facts. But evolution is likewise a necessary assumption, for given the way this universe works, the evolution of complexity is a logical and by now well-documented consequence. Therefore the rational conclusion is not design or evolution. It's design for evolution.

Then why the controversy?
In case you want to read some of the idiotic comments:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ervin-laszlo/evolution-presupposes-des_b_537507.html
«134567

Comments

  • Frank Tippler, in The Physics of Christianity, theorizes (well, he actually states as necessary) that the end result is promulgated backward to the beginning point by quantum mechanics. What "needs to be" will be, because that is all that can be, so to speak.

    He wonders why all the hoopla in the scientific community against design, for design is evident. His conjecture is the same as mine -- it is ONLY an a priori dismissal of design (which of course implies a "designer") that stands in the way of Science seeing design and moving forward into new theories and new ideas based on design.

    I say to the scientific community -- welcome to the mountain top -- where Christian theologians have been sitting awaiting your arrival for centuries.
  • Magnets, how do they work? I don’t want to talk to a scientist, ya’ll MF lying and getting me pissed!
  • said:

    Frank Tippler, in The Physics of Christianity, theorizes (well, he actually states as necessary) that the end result is promulgated backward to the beginning point by quantum mechanics. What "needs to be" will be, because that is all that can be, so to speak.

    He wonders why all the hoopla in the scientific community against design, for design is evident. His conjecture is the same as mine -- it is ONLY an a priori dismissal of design (which of course implies a "designer") that stands in the way of Science seeing design and moving forward into new theories and new ideas based on design.

    I say to the scientific community -- welcome to the mountain top -- where Christian theologians have been sitting awaiting your arrival for centuries.

    So you're saying the scientific community should just accept design as a fact, despite no concrete evidence whatsoever?
  • Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.


    ...or something like that.
  • said:

    Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.


    ...or something like that.

    You can't just make up any shit you want and teach it to people because there's "no evidence to the contrary". If that were the case, you'd have to give equal classroom time to everything from Amun-Ra to the FSM.
  • said:

    You can't just make up any shit you want and teach it to people because there's "no evidence to the contrary".

    When did that standard come about?

    Schools teach:

    -equality of all men
    -that the germans were the bad guys in WWI
    -that gaining control of the new world from abos was a bad thing


    The weight of evidence is on the other side of those issues, but this does not prohibit the educational community from teaching certain conclusions.
  • said:

    The weight of evidence is on the other side of those issues, but this does not prohibit the educational community from teaching certain conclusions.

    The victor writes the history books, I don't think that's a proper comparison with the creationism/evolution debate at all.
  • edited April 2010
    said:

    said:

    The weight of evidence is on the other side of those issues, but this does not prohibit the educational community from teaching certain conclusions.

    The victor writes the history books, I don't think that's a proper comparison with the creationism/evolution debate at all.
    Why?

    What consistent standard permits patently untrue assertions to be taught, but prohibits the arguable conclusions of design from the appearance that they have been designed?

    EDIT - This isn't strictly a matter of limits on evolution as taught, but the standard for passing conclusions through to students via formal education, i.e. indoctrination in a non-pejorative sense.
  • axe
    edited April 2010
    said:

    Why?

    What consistent standard permits patently untrue assertions to be taught, but prohibits the arguable conclusions of design from the appearance that they have been designed?

    EDIT - This isn't strictly a matter of limits on evolution as taught, but the standard for passing conclusions through to students via formal education, i.e. indoctrination in a non-pejorative sense.

    I'm not defending biased history books, but at least their stance is somewhat justifiable in that they at least somewhat deal with concrete evidence. Creationism can't make that claim.

    And neither can any other religion's theory, which is why we don't teach them. Christianity isn't a special snowflake.
  • said:

    said:

    Why?

    What consistent standard permits patently untrue assertions to be taught, but prohibits the arguable conclusions of design from the appearance that they have been designed?

    EDIT - This isn't strictly a matter of limits on evolution as taught, but the standard for passing conclusions through to students via formal education, i.e. indoctrination in a non-pejorative sense.

    I'm not defending biased history books, but at least their stance is somewhat justifiable in that they at least somewhat deal with concrete evidence. Creationism can't make that claim.
    What concrete evidence is present in the assertion that all men are equal?

    And I understand that you have a beef with creationism, but the aticle subject is about design rather than creationism, right?
  • said:


    And I understand that you have a beef with creationism, but the aticle subject is about design rather than creationism, right?

    +1

    Aren't they simply offering design as a theory?
  • said:

    What concrete evidence is present in the assertion that all men are equal?

    We are all biologically the same, at least. I don't want to turn this into a nature vs. nurture thread, but there's at least some logical ground for the assertion.
    said:

    And I understand that you have a beef with creationism, but the aticle subject is about design rather than creationism, right?

    I don't have a beef with creationism at all, I have a problem with unsubstantiated fabrication. If there were quantifiable evidence backing it up, I would wholeheartedly support it.

    As for the article being about design, and not creation... Please. The term is a PC sugar coating, nothing more. No one pushing for Design in schools does so because they think we were bred by aliens.
  • said:

    +1

    Aren't they simply offering design as a theory?

    Yes, but the problem is that it isn't a theory, it's barely even a hypothesis. There's literally not a shred of evidence backing it up, thus it doesn't deserve more than a passing mention along with other creation theories. If creationists one day find some hard evidence supporting their hypothesis, then yes, it should definitely be taught in schools as an alternate theory to evolution.
  • said:

    said:

    What concrete evidence is present in the assertion that all men are equal?

    We are all biologically the same, at least. I don't want to turn this into a nature vs. nurture thread, but there's at least some logical ground for the assertion.
    No, there isn't. We are not all biologically the same. We differ considerably. Some are smarter, faster, taller and stronger than others. Asserting that all men are equal is a purely metaphysical matter.

    There is no evidence of it, and in any confirmable sense, the statement is flatly false. But we teach it.
    said:

    said:

    And I understand that you have a beef with creationism, but the aticle subject is about design rather than creationism, right?

    I don't have a beef with creationism at all, I have a problem with unsubstantiated fabrication. If there were quantifiable evidence backing it up, I would wholeheartedly support it.
    Evolution - Here is a fossil record. An explanation for this record would be a process of biological progression by which designs better adapted to their circumstances survive leads to new and better adapted designs, including current designs.

    Design - Organisms appear to be designed for specific purposes. An explanation would be that they have been designed.

    Each idea offers an explanaion of the physical world. Each is substantiated to the degree that it is consistent with that world.

    So how is either "unsubstantiated"?


    What consistent standard permits the teaching of some metaphysical assertions (all men are equal - biological progression leads to current design), but not others (current design is a result of being designed)?
  • said:

    So you're saying the scientific community should just accept design as a fact, despite no concrete evidence whatsoever?

    No, actually, I'm saying that the scientific community ought to AT LEAST admit that the possibility of design exists instead of a priori dismissing the entire concept of design because of philosophical issues with the ramifications thereof.

    Openness to possibility is different than your all or nothing, accept or don't proposal.
  • said:

    No, there isn't. We are not all biologically the same. We differ considerably. Some are smarter, faster, taller and stronger than others. Asserting that all men are equal is a purely metaphysical matter.

    There is no evidence of it, and in any confirmable sense, the statement is flatly false. But we teach it.

    I think you're taking the definition of "equal" much farther than most. If you're referring to the PC view that we're all special snowflakes, etc., then I agree with you that said POV is ridiculous. Either stance can be taken too far though, from touchy-feely-kumbaya-ness to physiognomy.
    said:

    Evolution - Here is a fossil record. An explanation for this record would be a process of biological progression by which designs better adapted to their circumstances survive leads to new and better adapted designs, including current designs.

    Evolution -- animals from the same species, in different locations, have been observed as having differing physical traits allowing them to better survive or perform tasks which would be impossible if their habitats were reversed.
    said:

    Design - Organisms appear to be designed for specific purposes. An explanation would be that they have been designed.

    Design -- animals exist. We presuppose they were designed. We offer no evidence of this, but you can't prove otherwise, neener-neener!
  • said:

    said:

    So you're saying the scientific community should just accept design as a fact, despite no concrete evidence whatsoever?

    No, actually, I'm saying that the scientific community ought to AT LEAST admit that the possibility of design exists instead of a priori dismissing the entire concept of design because of philosophical issues with the ramifications thereof.

    Openness to possibility is different than your all or nothing, accept or don't proposal.
    I can't speak for the scientific community at large, but I don't write off design. I do, however, see it for what it is -- no more than a hypothesis. It doesn't deserve special face time in classrooms just because some dude wrote it down 2000 years ago.
  • said:


    I don't have a beef with creationism at all, I have a problem with unsubstantiated fabrication. If there were quantifiable evidence backing it up, I would wholeheartedly support it.

    Have you ever investigated the quantifiable evidence put forward by either design or creationist scientists? It seems good for one to be able to, at least, make an INFORMED decision instead of relying on the same a priori assumptions of the science community on this subject.
    said:

    As for the article being about design, and not creation... Please. The term is a PC sugar coating, nothing more. No one pushing for Design in schools does so because they think we were bred by aliens.

    You are misinformed, and again, had you ever read one book on the subject, you would know better. The two are not one and the same, and are actually at odds with each other in the general theological world.

    I highly recommend that you read William Dembski's work, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory)

    http://www.amazon.com/Design-Inference-Eliminating-Probabilities-Probability/dp/0521678676/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271775049&sr=1-6

    THEN, come back here and tell me that design is not "scientific."

    I've laid out this challenge any number of times, and no one has taken me up on it yet.

    Will you be the first courageous one to do so? Probably not... You'll go on-line, read a few reviews, then come back here and explain why the book is a non-starter.

    Just wondering what everyone is so afraid of?
  • said:

    said:

    No, there isn't. We are not all biologically the same. We differ considerably. Some are smarter, faster, taller and stronger than others. Asserting that all men are equal is a purely metaphysical matter.

    There is no evidence of it, and in any confirmable sense, the statement is flatly false. But we teach it.

    I think you're taking the definition of "equal" much farther than most. If you're referring to the PC view that we're all special snowflakes, etc., then I agree with you that said POV is ridiculous. Either stance can be taken too far though, from touchy-feely-kumbaya-ness to physiognomy.
    I refer to the idea of all men as created equal, a foundation of all modern western politics, the animating principle behind the idea that it is an injustice to deny any man the franchise.

    The idea is unambiguously false unless it is meant purely as a metaphysical statement about the value of a man only in ways that evade measure.

    But we teach it. It is an element of our indoctrination.
    said:

    It doesn't deserve special face time in classrooms just because some dude wrote it down 2000 years ago.

    Teleology was written about more like 2400 years ago.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle
  • We hashed out the concept of evolution as a "theory" in a thread devoted to that topic a while back. As I recall, axe decided at that time (along with Buho, myself, and others) that evolution as it currently stands lacks the distinction of being an actual theory, but itself stands, at best, as a hypothesis, which would place it and design inference on an even playing field -- IF -- design inference would be allowed to don the uniform.
  • said:

    We hashed out the concept of evolution as a "theory" in a thread devoted to that topic a while back. As I recall, axe decided at that time (along with Buho, myself, and others) that evolution as it currently stands lacks the distinction of being an actual theory, but itself stands, at best, as a hypothesis, which would place it and design inference on an even playing field -- IF -- design inference would be allowed to don the uniform.

    Macroevolution is essentially a hypothesis, but micro-evolution can certainly stand up as a theory. Since they're both basically interchangeable save for their scale/time, I'd say it puts evolution a few notches above a hypothesis.
  • axe
    edited April 2010
    said:

    I've laid out this challenge any number of times, and no one has taken me up on it yet.

    Will you be the first courageous one to do so? Probably not... You'll go on-line, read a few reviews, then come back here and explain why the book is a non-starter.

    Just wondering what everyone is so afraid of?

    Guy, you're clearly not a stupid person, but your god-coloured glasses are clouding your impartiality. Here goes the explanation why it's a non-starter: the entire argument hinges on disproving evolution, then wedging in design as if it were the only other conceivable option, without evidence. That basically describes the ID movement in a nutshell.

    And no one is "afraid" of anything, stop playing the victim.
  • said:

    And no one is "afraid" of anything, stop playing the victim.

    Clearly there are enough reasons not to read Demski's book that fear isn't the only possible explanation.
    said:

    Here goes the explanation why it's a non-starter: the entire argument hinges on disproving evolution, ...

    I think you are mistaken. I can describe the evolution of the air-cooled VW while simultaneously holding that it has a design.
    said:

    That basically describes the ID movement in a nutshell.

    Emphasis added.

    Axe, are you conflating an idea with a movement that uses an idea and may be brimming with yahoos?
  • axe
    edited April 2010
    said:

    Clearly there are enough reasons not to read Demski's book that fear isn't the only possible explanation.

    Of course. I might read it if I:

    1. Had a pro-design agenda
    2. Was stranded on a desert island with the book
    3. Was in school and had to write a report on it

    #3 may or may not be applicable, as I probably wouldn't read the whole thing.
    said:

    I think you are mistaken. I can describe the evolution of the air-cooled VW while simultaneously holding that it has a design.

    I would venture that there is a bit more evidence proving the VW was designed than there is evidence humans were designed.
    said:

    Axe, are you conflating an idea with a movement that uses an idea and may be brimming with yahoos?

    Yes, but I'm doing it intentionally. The people pushing ID are not doing it because of a noble scientific principle, they're doing it because this reverse-engineered theory backs up their preconceived notions and religious worldview. This is also why I said that ID and creationism are interchangeable. There is simply no grounds for anyone to support ID if they don't have a religious agenda, because literally ALL of the "evidence" supporting it is religious in nature.

    ETA: ID flowchart

    1. Evolution is unproven (this is true)
    2. ???
    3. Design!
  • said:

    said:

    Clearly there are enough reasons not to read Demski's book that fear isn't the only possible explanation.

    Of course. I might read it if I:

    1. Had a pro-design agenda
    2. Was stranded on a desert island with the book
    3. Was in school and had to write a report on it

    #3 may or may not be applicable, as I probably wouldn't read the whole thing.
    I've seen Demski speak on CSPAN. I think his thesis was well founded, but I am not inclined to make the time to read his book.
    said:

    said:

    I think you are mistaken. I can describe the evolution of the air-cooled VW while simultaneously holding that it has a design.

    I would venture that there is a bit more evidence proving the VW was designed than there is evidence humans were designed.
    Your observation does not address whether it is error to holding design theories and evolution theories simultaneously. Clearly, we can.
    said:

    said:

    Axe, are you conflating an idea with a movement that uses an idea and may be brimming with yahoos?

    Yes, but I'm doing it intentionally. The people pushing ID are not doing it because of a noble scientific principle, they're doing it because ....
    Then you have no problem with the idea of design, but you are politically opposed to the group you identify as its advocates. Those are distinguishable. I can dislike national socialists while seeing the good done by skorzeny units in the east after WWII. Conversely, we can enthusiastically support 2d Am. rights, while acknowledging that lots of dolts share our position. An idea and the group that pushes it are not the same.
    said:

    ...because this reverse-engineered theory backs up their preconceived notions and religious worldview. This is also why I said that ID and creationism are interchangeable.

    You understand that this isn't sound reasoning, right? That an idea supports an opponent's view doesn't make that idea, design, and their other views interchangeable.

    The autobahn and driving quickly are not anti-semitic, right?
    said:

    ...There is simply no grounds for anyone to support ID if they don't have a religious agenda, because literally ALL of the "evidence" supporting it is religious in nature.

    That is not so. Where Plato's idea of design envisions a designer, Aristotle's does not. The design arises from the organism. If you are unalterably opposed to the idea of design because it is inseparable from christian theology, that is an error.
  • axe
    edited April 2010
    said:

    Your observation does not address whether it is error to holding design theories and evolution theories simultaneously. Clearly, we can.

    I don't understand this sentence, WTB syntax?
    said:

    Then you have no problem with the idea of design, but you are politically opposed to the group you identify as its advocates. Those are distinguishable. I can dislike national socialists while seeing the good done by skorzeny units in the east after WWII. Conversely, we can enthusiastically support 2d Am. rights, while acknowledging that lots of dolts share our position. An idea and the group that pushes it are not the same.

    The inherent problem of design is that it requires a designer (I'll get to Aristotle in a minute). That designer doesn't have to be yahweh or what-have-you, I agree that that is beside the point.
    said:

    You understand that this isn't sound reasoning, right? That an idea supports an opponent's view doesn't make that idea, design, and their other views interchangeable.

    The autobahn and driving quickly are not anti-semitic, right?

    The problem is that ID supporters don't see how flawed the whole concept is. To prove something was designed, you must first prove the existence of its designer, otherwise the whole theory falls apart. Take ID as it stands right now -- we were designed as-is, at some point in time, by some, uh, thing.

    Awesome theory there, guys.

    The problem is that you can substitute any nonsensical concept in as a "creator", and the theory becomes increasingly ridiculous, if that's even possible. Were we created by a god? By the FSM? By a giant toaster strudel? Don't laugh at me, you can't prove I'm wrong.
    said:

    That is not so. Where Plato's idea of design envisions a designer, Aristotle's does not. The design arises from the organism. If you are unalterably opposed to the idea of design because it is inseparable from christian theology, that is an error.

    Aristotle's Prime Mover thing is an interesting mental exercise, but it has basically nothing to do with reality or the scientific process. To me it seems more like a philosophical point of view.
  • said:

    said:

    We hashed out the concept of evolution as a "theory" in a thread devoted to that topic a while back. As I recall, axe decided at that time (along with Buho, myself, and others) that evolution as it currently stands lacks the distinction of being an actual theory, but itself stands, at best, as a hypothesis, which would place it and design inference on an even playing field -- IF -- design inference would be allowed to don the uniform.

    Macroevolution is essentially a hypothesis, but micro-evolution can certainly stand up as a theory. Since they're both basically interchangeable save for their scale/time, I'd say it puts evolution a few notches above a hypothesis.
    I "believe" in micro-evolution, so you have no fight against me in that regard. Also, note that I am a young earth creationist. I find NO issues that suggest that micro-evolution and creation are not compatible -- and it might surprise you to discover that neither does the Creation Museum by the organization responsible for "Answers in Genesis."

    I do however absolutely dismiss macro-evolution. And the two (micro- and macro-) are NOT just the same, save for scale and time. Nothing could be further from the truth (and "science" is now learning and presenting just that sort of evidence).

    In macro-evolution, it is said that one type of cell, containing one type of DNA and RNA encoding can "evolve" into another type of cell, entirely, and not just a cell, but an entire creature! It just doesn't work that way and we now KNOW that beyond a shadow of a doubt. In fact, "evolutionists" are, of late, presenting more anti-evolutionary material than they are pro-evolutionary evidences. The more that is learned, the more it is known that change does not come easily.

    We still have no evidence whatsoever that one type of creature "evolved" into another type all together. Simply not there, and all the extrapolation in the world cannot make it so. Cells and their structures are just too complicated and too resistant to change to pull off that sort of feat.

    The term you are implying is "whole-package phenomenon" whereby an entire critter, whether human or animal (or plant for that matter) can change into something else. Look the term up. It is worth some study, for it is the primary spot where Darwin and his followers hence have gotten it utterly wrong.

    Here is a brief overview of WPP:
    http://www.ideacenter.org/stuff/contentmgr/files/03ae9c5a630cb1e7e86d7d7b0d184516/miscdocs/humanphysiology.pdf


    The mis-calculation of Darwin was that cells easily changed form from one to another. What he knew about cell biology (apart from his observation of living things -- which is NOT cell biology) is that cells were a "blob of protoplasm" with a dark spot in the center. That was the limit of knowledge in his time-frame. Darwin knew nothing at all about cell biology, DNA, RNA, or the myriad of other cell-microbiology facts that we now possess.

    You have no basis to call evolution a "theory" based solely on time/scale of macro- versus micro-evolution.
  • said:

    said:

    I've laid out this challenge any number of times, and no one has taken me up on it yet.

    Will you be the first courageous one to do so? Probably not... You'll go on-line, read a few reviews, then come back here and explain why the book is a non-starter.

    Just wondering what everyone is so afraid of?

    Guy, you're clearly not a stupid person, but your god-coloured glasses are clouding your impartiality. Here goes the explanation why it's a non-starter: the entire argument hinges on disproving evolution, then wedging in design as if it were the only other conceivable option, without evidence. That basically describes the ID movement in a nutshell.

    And no one is "afraid" of anything, stop playing the victim.
    Nice wikkipedia quote... Like I said, read the book then come back and debate rationally.

    I'm not playing the victim here, just asking you -- like you ask me -- to be a consistent and intellectually honest scholar that brings something of merit to the debate.

    I've read the stuff from both sides. I know what is being pushed forward by both (actually, in this debate, all 3) parties. By your internet quickly answers, I know that you have not.

    So are you going to take the challenge or just sit on "what you know" (which actually makes you an evolution fundie)?
  • said:

    You have no basis to call evolution a "theory" based solely on time/scale of macro- versus micro-evolution.

    Thankfully, I didn't make that assertion.

    The catch is that evolution is currently the only "theory" that offers any semblance of evidence or plausibility right now. I will be the first to say that I strongly oppose the way it is taught in schools as a law.

    Also, I got a chuckle out of your link from the IDEA center. That's a really impartial source. I'm sure these guys have no horse in this race.

    William Dembski, Advisory Board Member
    Masters of Divinity, Princeton Theological Seminary.

    Jay Wesley Richards, Advisory Board Member
    Ph.D. (honors) Philosophy and Theology, Princeton Theological Seminary
  • edited April 2010
    said:

    said:

    Your observation does not address whether it is error to hold design theories and evolution theories simultaneously. Clearly, we can.

    I don't understand this sentence, WTB syntax?
    Fixed. Better?
    said:

    The inherent problem of design is that it requires a designer ...

    Why? Even grand evolution describes a process from which our current design comes about.

    That design theory raises in your mind what did the designing is not a flaw in a theory that posits design. Your objection to the observation that things seem designed is to the philosophical consequence of the observation, not the observation itself.
    said:

    To prove something was designed, you must first prove the existence of its designer, otherwise the whole theory falls apart. Take ID as it stands right now -- we were designed as-is, at some point in time, by some, uh, thing.

    Awesome theory there, guys.

    Why would you need to assume that each sort of mechanism was originally designed in its current form?

    Isn't evolutionary theory that Axe was designed as he currently is by an evolutionary process?
    said:

    Aristotle's Prime Mover thing is an interesting mental exercise, but it has basically nothing to do with reality or the scientific process. To me it seems more like a philosophical point of view.

    Aristotle's prime mover and his teleology are separate ideas. His teleology does not involve any explicit designer.

    You should not dismiss as a purely philosophical view ideas about design where your sole material objection to them is philosophical. For you to invoke philosophy as a valid test, it needs to be something you do not simultaneously dismiss.
Sign In or Register to comment.