News and Politics Forum

axe wrote:

The scientific community seems unwilling to leave any margin for error with Evolution, because 1) it's nearly impossible to prove, and 2) the only other scenario getting any airplay is of a religious nature, and I'd say most would commit seppuku before saying "God did it".

So, is that really "science" or just protection of a particular meta-narrative that works for them right now?

Also, why does design automatically mean that religion needs to enter the discussion?  It seems as if science is looking to alien origins for most of life as it originated on earth, for they have seeminly exhausted any hopes in proving an inorganic to organic tie here on the planet.

axe wrote:

Well a "designer" implies a being that is at the very least much more evolved (heh) than ourselves, so really the only options are a deity, or a super advanced alien species. Since most ID proponents obviously have a religious agenda, that's the label that sticks.

I'll buy that...  Only one wonders why?  Basing science or the lack therof on the fact that some people "believe" something sounds rather infantile and ideologically driven, doesn't it?  I've never seen science dancing around the religious belief issue in other cases -- they typically just bull forward with a devil-may-care attitude -- unless -- something they discover MIGHT just lead to the potential FOR a god/power, etc.  Then, it is hands off, even if the theory no longer works.  Hmmm...  Science or ideology?

MC Escher wrote:

glfredrick wrote:

There seems to be a basic assumption that an evolutionary framework is REQUIRED to advance Science.

Only on the part of the enemies of evolution, who are projecting that assumption on the defenders of science because they don't understand what science actually IS.

You know...  I hear that crap over and over again, but it simply does not play.  I know as much about "science" as anyone else and I know when "science" is pulling an ideological rabbit out of its collective "hat" and when it is actually doing "science."

Now, back to the discussion at hand...

Why is evolution needed for cell biology, and what has evolution actually contributed to the field regarding significant advances in medicine, plant biology, etc?

glfredrick wrote:

I know as much about "science" as anyone else ...

Leaving aside the fact that your statement is both silly and meaningless as constructed, I am aware that the point you were trying to make is that you have a sufficient understanding of science to be able to evaluate it.


Unfortunately, you don't; and the fact that you think of evolution as being no more than a flimsy "theory" that is on an equal scientific footing with creation is prima facie evidence that you don't.



Even worse, you don't understand how much harm you do to your own cause. Or more accurately; God's cause.

You've never even met me in person, yet you claim to know much about me

Are you familiar with the phrase; "Your actions are speaking so loudly that I cannot hear a word you're saying."?



I know that "evolution" has not, nor can never describe how life arose on this planet, nor can it explain how information increases in the genome, nor has it predicted the complexity of life, the anthropic principles that enable life, etc., etc., etc.

Evolution is not a single idea. It is a massive body of work. You appear to believe that shortcomings in that body of work invalidate the whole body of work; and yet you are surprised that I laugh at the notion that you understand science on any more than a basic layman's level.
And flashing pictures of your library, presumably under the assumption that it proves something other than ownership of dead trees...

But the MOST amazing thing is that you, allegedly a Man of Faith, cannot bring himself to understand that belief in Intelligent Design IS faith. Which in turn makes me wonder what your definition of faith really is.


And you still are no closer to understanding the damage you do.

What is ridiculous about my statement, other than the fact that it challenges the status quo?

About my faith -- that is clearly none of your business...  I'm not really here to exchange tit for tat with you about how much faith each of us have -- and that is clearly an intentional fallacy to redirect the conversation away from the actual topic of the post.

I understand that there is a Designer who stands outside this universe "by faith" and that He has revealed Himself via the Scriptures.  I also understand that this same Creator has also revealed Himself via the general revelation of this cosmos, and that we, with careful observation, inference, and investigation, can discover some of the orderliness that He built into the fabric of this universe.  THAT is what originally drove science, and I see no reason whatsoever to abandon that working philosophy for empty naturalism or materialism.

With that being said, the inferences to design are seemingly more evident than are the inferences to evolution, and the original tenet of this post was to discuss whether evolution has actually advanced science in any meaningful way.  I say that it has not... 

Now, are you going to continue fallacy after fallacy, or are you going to actually deal with the subject matter of this thread?

Actually, I think the greatest fundamental error of Science is to get away from the belief
in God.  By "destroying" God, they are free to cross moral and ethical boundaries as will,
as if *they* were gods, which is a sign of arrogance run wild which by the usual metrics
means a coming apocalypse.

And in addition, by not acknowledging that there is an inherent order and design, they
frequently, *frequently* miss very obvious connections between things.

Mix in a fresh batch of university and federal grant money competition, and we have
people entrenched in belief in doctrine rather than the scientific method and keeping an
open mind.

The results are scary indeed.

Last edited by adoniram7 (07-02-2008 12:38 PM)

adoniram7 wrote:

Actually, I think the greatest fundamental error of Science is to get away from the belief
in God.  By "destroying" God, they are free to cross moral and ethical boundaries as will,
as if *they* were gods, which is a sign of arrogance run wild which by the usual metrics
means a coming apocalypse.

I don't think science does that, and the scientists I know appear to grasp the difference between science and materialism.  If the problem you note were a feature of science itself, it seems unlikely that som many in the material sciences would also belief in God.  I do see people who are materialists conflate the two with the apparent intention of using the material sciences to prove the truth of their beliefs.

I do note an interesting phenom.  Larry Krause is a physicist who has done some Star Trek science episodes on History or Discovery channels.  In calm moments, he will himself explain the contingent nature of scientific premises and he knows perfectly well the difference between a methodological and a metaphysical proposition.  However, when I last saw him speak about ID, he lost his bearings.  He railed against ignorance in favor of "fact", dropped his any bits of subtlety from his message, and became a part of the ID/evolution brawl.

This suggest to me a subtext.  I know that many of the things Larry included in his diatribe to the club did not, I'll be charitable here, reflect the full nuance of his understanding of the philosophy of science.  He had become, for that moment, a political advocate.

Why would an obviously smart fellow do that?  My WAG is that a prejudice against low caste southern culture supports a contempt for anything thought to arise from it.

zukiphile wrote:

adoniram7 wrote:

Actually, I think the greatest fundamental error of Science is to get away from the belief
in God.  By "destroying" God, they are free to cross moral and ethical boundaries as will,
as if *they* were gods, which is a sign of arrogance run wild which by the usual metrics
means a coming apocalypse.

I don't think science does that, and the scientists I know appear to grasp the difference between science and materialism.  If the problem you note were a feature of science itself, it seems unlikely that som many in the material sciences would also belief in God.  I do see people who are materialists conflate the two with the apparent intention of using the material sciences to prove the truth of their beliefs.

I do note an interesting phenom.  Larry Krause is a physicist who has done some Star Trek science episodes on History or Discovery channels.  In calm moments, he will himself explain the contingent nature of scientific premises and he knows perfectly well the difference between a methodological and a metaphysical proposition.  However, when I last saw him speak about ID, he lost his bearings.  He railed against ignorance in favor of "fact", dropped his any bits of subtlety from his message, and became a part of the ID/evolution brawl.

This suggest to me a subtext.  I know that many of the things Larry included in his diatribe to the club did not, I'll be charitable here, reflect the full nuance of his understanding of the philosophy of science.  He had become, for that moment, a political advocate.

Why would an obviously smart fellow do that?  My WAG is that a prejudice against low caste southern culture supports a contempt for anything thought to arise from it.

Yeah, I do think, from my experience, that there's a lot of Connecticut Yankee prejudice out there.
If you read Mark Twain's book on the subject, you'll see what I mean and where I'm coming from
on this topic.

I think there's in in-born prejudice so strong, which combined with the academic competition
(money/fame/fortune), that leads otherwise extremely intelligent and logical fellows to ignore
the obvious.

This can be overcome through immersion in other countries' histories, histories of science, worldview,
and medicine, but those few that have done this either end up way out in space with no tether
to anchor them, or come up with such cool ideas that these by necessity (of professional survival)
must be rejected, ridiculed or ignored by the Western community.

This is much to our own detriment, and it does lead me to wonder what would have happened
if the South had won.  I'm certain slavery would have gone away - no poor white man wanted
the slaves anyway (competition) - but then we might not have the Connecticut Yankee's strong
sense of industry.

Last edited by adoniram7 (07-02-2008 02:48 PM)

Fatal error*please reboot.

axe wrote:

OK so let me get this straight -- you complain that money is spent researching the yet-unproven theory of evolution, so you want to spend money on the unproven theory of ID instead? Your bias is showing.

Perhaps the money issue isn't at the forefront of my argument, but it is one of the critical aspects, along with potential peer-review, submission of experimental and observational data, etc.

Actually, I see it the other way around...  I'm arguing for SOME equality in the playing field, which currently is DOMINATED by naturalistic evolutionists.

axe wrote:

And secondly, how do you research ID? Evolution can be researched, because you can look for it. What about ID?

Why can we more easily look for evolution than design?  In fact, I'd submit that we're finding a WHOLE bunch more design than evolution, but that design is called evolution to stay within the rigid structured guidelines of the purely naturalistic crowd.

From what I've read (most of the current works defending Darwin's theory, or some derivative of it) evidence of design is rampant -- and each author in turn tells his or her readers to dismss the "supposed" evidence that "appears to be" designed, for it "cannot be designed."  That is a pure philosophical a priori presupposition that is NOT driven by observation or testing (or even falsification) but instead, ideology.

I'll be happy to furnish quotes once I return home to my collection...

In particular, when we "look for" design, what we are actually looking for is specified complexity.  There are complex entities, both organic and inorganic in our universe, but in examination of some organic entities, more than mere complexity is observed.  Michael Behe popularized the concept of irreducible complexity, which states, simply, that certain parts must work in concert in order for an entity to function.  This irreducible complexity must be designed into the framework of the entity in order for it to live, survive, reproduce, etc.  That is specified complexity in a nutshell.  There is NO random chance mechanism that can provide the means to accomplish all that we now know about living organisms, or more so, the machines at work within the cells of those living organisms that are complex beyond the capacity of human beings to duplicate.  The chances of such complexity arising by chance, in some random bit-by-bit fashion are impossible.

When Darwin proposed the framework for his popular theory, he presupposed that the matter that made up living organisms would be fairly simple -- blobs of tissue that could be easily modified.  He had no concept whatsoever (nor do a good many still pushing naturalistic Darwinian evolution -- from goo to you -- it would seem) of the utter complexity and the number of things that would have to change -- and reproduce in changed fashion -- in order for life to so easily evolve.  Darwin himself offered the test for his theory...  (paraphrase) If it could be demonstrated that life could not arise by small incrimental, random, chance, by survival of the fittest means, then the theory was invalid.  I'd say that has been proven beyond a doubt, but the naturalists have way too much invested in their dead theory to let go so easily, which is why we're having these sort of conversations.

I'll say it in really plain English -- Darwinian evolution, as an explanation for life on earth is dead.  It can explain -- in very limited fashion -- some adaptation, intra-species, ala, his famous bird beak observation, why or how certain small changes occur, but on a macro-scale, the theory is bankrupt.  Get used to it...

axe wrote:

But how do you PROVE that something was designed?

Look at it...  Design is apparent.  (And note: by "look" I'm speaking of all the observational powers that science can bring to bear on any particular entity or substance.

We can easily see the difference between complexity and specified complexity.  Crystals are complex, but not specified.  Life is specified, and even has an information system built in that does the specification tasks, including replication.

It is really not that difficult to tell the difference between something that is designed and something that is not -- with the potential exception of something that has intentionally been designed to appear as if it has NOT been designed, but even there, evidence exists to prove the design.

Mostly what it takes is simply to remove from one's mind the presupposition that says that design is impossible and all of a sudden it is fairly easy to discover.

A couple of other objections that typically arise at about this point in the conversation...

1)  If life is designed, then why is it so screwy, wrong, dead-ended, etc.?

Because "design" does not automatically HAVE to equate to our idea of perfection.

2)  If design is so evident, why do we not see it?

We do.  Some, however, simply don't want to deal with the inference of a designer that may or may not have some claim on our life, and that ideology drives their search for some (any) alternative beside design.

3)  If life was designed, why are there so many similar traits passed back and forth between living creatures, such as DNA, proteins, etc.?

Because designers don't necessarily have to recreate the wheel each and every time they make a new design.  In fact, the similarity between life forms on Earth may be more positive evidence for design than for random evolution.  One would think that evolution would have produced all sorts of wacky different means of producing life, but there seems to be a singular platform upon which all exists.

4)  Can design be falsified?

Of course, just like any other theory.  Just because there is a design doesn't automatically mean that we stick our collective heads in the sand and say, "God did it -- hands off..."  That is silly in the extreme, but that is also typical of the arguments made against design.  We would conversely expect design to make a few predictions that could be tested, examined, and further theorized about, such as:  Do we find an irreducible core in life that can be examined, tested, and predicted, or not?  Is there a rapid occurance of life forms in the fossil record that are otherwise unexplainable?  Are certain "stock parts" re-used over and again by the desgner?