Thread: Teaching Intelligent Design

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

I could not find this paper on Pubmed nor on Scopus, which is weird because these are good databases for molecular biology publications.

Maybe it has to do with Dynamic Genomes being an edited book rather than a peer reviewed journal. Anyway, the artice started quite ok but then took a very bewildering turn. Lönnig (2005) claims that the only theory so far explaining "irreducible complexity" is ID. That was the point where I asked myself if Lönnig is either incapable or dishonestly having an agenda. His claim that there has been only ID to explain "irreducible complexity" is factually wrong. If I could prove that with a short literature research by myself I am sure that actual experts in evolutionary biology could come up with even more. Shanks and Joplin (1999) described the hypothesis of "redundant complexity" for real complex biochemical systems, which they argue is a consequence of evolutionary processes.

This is why I don't usually get into this. The claim is that ID is not credible because it doesn't pass peer review muster. Then when an ID-friendly article is published the bar is raised or it is rejected for the flimsiest of reasons...the writer is dishonest...they snuck it in...et cetera.

And I'm sure 'the actual experts' are the ones who agree with you. It's one of the reasons I gave up on debating global warming.

Wow that Prof. Lönnig is a fascinating guy. Don't ask me how he made it to a Prof. at the Max Plank institute in Cologne. But a guy who is using a jehova witness book as reference for a scientific work is quite convinced about his case. Well, Lönnig as Jehova witness is free to practice his religion as he likes, but he should not attempt trying to sell his religion as science.

Originally Posted by darth omar

If Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead the event is more than possible: it is neccessary. Similarly, if the God created the universe, the universe is not improbable. It only becomes improbable if it wasn't created.

There's no evidence that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. The Bible saying so isn't evidence. The Bible is filled with plenty of scientific inaccuracies.

If God exists [I speak rhetorically] He exists outside of space and time and thus beyond science. So, it's pointless to ask for evidence of His existence; that said, the existence of such a being is entirely plausible, if only as a philosophical matter---given the evidence.

Completely agreed. Science cannot prove or disprove God and it doesn't try to. There may very well be a God, but that's up for people to find or decide for themselves, not science.

The universe itself is such evidence. Without a creator, the universe is insanely improbable; indeed, they have resorted to positing an unknowable [and thus, arguably unscientific] mega-verse with an infinite number of universes with an infinite variety of physical constants.

How is it insanely improbable? I'd say it's quite probable, since we're, you know, living in it right now.

And we are lucky enough to inhabit the one that is compatible with life. Or so the story goes.

Well, yea, it'd be impossible to inhabit a universe that isn't compatible with life, now wouldn't it?

Who is casting it aside? My position is that I don't need for it to be true. It may be true, I don't pretend to know. I just don't have the same degree of faith in it as yourself.

I don't have any faith in evolution, it's not necessary. I don't need for it to be 'true', either. If they could conclusively show that evolution was bullshit, that'd be the most exciting day in science in quite a long time. It would be a huge game changer and I'd personally find it pretty cool. However, that hasn't happened, evolution continues to be supported to this very day by new discoveries. Therefor, I have no reason to believe otherwise.

Let me ask you something. What do you mean, precisely, when you say 'evolution is true'?

Where have I said that? Science can never prove anything absolutely.

Originally Posted by darth omar

This is why I don't usually get into this. The claim is that ID is not credible because it doesn't pass peer review muster. Then when an ID-friendly article is published the bar is raised or it is rejected for the flimsiest of reasons...the writer is dishonest...they snuck it in...et cetera.

And I'm sure 'the actual experts' are the ones who agree with you. It's one of the reasons I gave up on debating global warming.

Peer review is a minimum criterion. I don't know if this book article was peer reviewed at all, but lets assume it was. Just because something is peer reviewed does not mean I am not allowed to critical reading. Actually the opposite is the case, you should never read something without questioning it. Being uncritical would be unscientific. I would do the same with papers of what you may call "Darwinists".

The point that Prof. Lönnig does not mention contradictory theories of his thesis, even though they affect the core of his argumentation, is unacceptable and bad practice at best. This has nothing to do with his position but about the basic rules of good scientific practice which he has has violated. To call that "for the flimsiest reason" shows a bad understanding of basic rule of good scientific practice.

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

There's no evidence that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. The Bible saying so isn't evidence. The Bible is filled with plenty of scientific inaccuracies.

I guess I'm not being clear. I'm stipulating for the sake of argument that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. If He did, then probabilities go out the window.

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

Completely agreed. Science cannot prove or disprove God and it doesn't try to. There may very well be a God, but that's up for people to find or decide for themselves, not science.

I agree as well. But what do you say about people like Richard Dawkins who basically get all fundamentalist with their scientific atheism? I read his book, The God Delusion and concluded that he should leave philosophy to the philosophers.

I bring him because some of the public school controversy cited in the OP is reactionary. There is the perception--and it's not wrongly held, that there is a movement afoot to use science to disprove God and/or religion.

What are you're thoughts on that?

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

How is it insanely improbable? I'd say it's quite probable, since we're, you know, living in it right now.

Well, yea, it'd be impossible to inhabit a universe that isn't compatible with life, now wouldn't it?

The universe certainly exists and we certainly inhabit it. But the physical constants---virtually all of them, are fine-tuned such that if any of them were off just a fraction we wouldn't be here.

I think it was Fred Hoyle who called it 'a put up job'. I think he was the same fellow how gave us the 'tornado going through the junk yard and forming a 747' analogy with respect to the origin of life. You want evidence of design in nature?

It's every where you look.

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

I don't have any faith in evolution, it's not necessary. I don't need for it to be 'true', either. If they could conclusively show that evolution was bullshit, that'd be the most exciting day in science in quite a long time. It would be a huge game changer and I'd personally find it pretty cool. However, that hasn't happened, evolution continues to be supported to this very day by new discoveries. Therefor, I have no reason to believe otherwise.

We part company here. I have trouble accepting evolution's major premises [no one doubts micro-evo] because I find the evidence to be unconvincing. For me to accept it totally would require me to believe things I will never see demonstrated.

Which, ironically, makes me something of a doubting Thomas.

Originally Posted by darth omar

I bring him because some of the public school controversy cited in the OP is reactionary. There is the perception--and it's not wrongly held, that there is a movement afoot to use science to disprove God and/or religion.

What are you're thoughts on that?

I feel I kinda have to butt in here.

The purpose of science is to advance knowledge and outside of maybe a handful of truly weird people, I have a hard time buying that there is a "movement afoot" to disprove religion using science. That isnt how science works; you cant prove a negative.

The universe certainly exists and we certainly inhabit it. But the physical constants---virtually all of them, are fine-tuned such that if any of them were off just a fraction we wouldn't be here.

Then we should probably count ourselves lucky

I think it was Fred Hoyle who called it 'a put up job'. I think he was the same fellow how gave us the 'tornado going through the junk yard and forming a 747' analogy with respect to the origin of life.

Except that's a bass-ackwards analogy.

It should be noted that the theory of evolution does not address the origin of life, it only explains (and only ever did explain) the diversity of life, not it's origin.

You want evidence of design in nature?

It's every where you look.

The problem with this idea is if you're claiming an intelligent designer, they must not be THAT intelligent because there are countless examples of TERRIBLE design.

What sick, twisted mind thought up Ebola Zaire? Why do humans have so many vestigial traits, some of which cause us serious problems today? What the HELL is up with cecotrophes?

We part company here. I have trouble accepting evolution's major premises [no one doubts micro-evo] because I find the evidence to be unconvincing. For me to accept it totally would require me to believe things I will never see demonstrated.

Because these are things that cannot be demonstrated in a human lifetime. The process of evolution and speciation is a process that takes generations. You can see snapshots of the process by looking at certain animals.

Horses and donkeys are a good example of two species that are starting to branch out because they are so genetically dissimilar, they can only produce infertile hybrids (mules). Dogs are another example, while still technically the same species, physical limitations mean that many dog breeds cannot interbreed with each other without human intervention. Eventually genetic drift will mean the breeds will not be able to interbreed at all, even with human intervention.

There are dozens of instances of observed speciation and speciation is the cornerstone of evolution.
Observed Instances of Speciation

Originally Posted by darth omar

I guess I'm not being clear. I'm stipulating for the sake of argument that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. If He did, then probabilities go out the window.

I'd agree, if it was shown without a doubt that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, that'd certainly change quite a bit. But...it hasn't been shown.

I agree as well. But what do you say about people like Richard Dawkins who basically get all fundamentalist with their scientific atheism? I read his book, The God Delusion and concluded that he should leave philosophy to the philosophers.

I bring him because some of the public school controversy cited in the OP is reactionary. There is the perception--and it's not wrongly held, that there is a movement afoot to use science to disprove God and/or religion.

What are you're thoughts on that?

Dawkins is a smart guy who knows his stuff and can make some pretty good points. Other than that, I'm not a big Dawkins fan. He can get a bit too militant about his atheism and that certainly puts me off. While not a religious person, I'm not an atheist, either, so quite frankly I don't really care about Dawkin's atheism and it tires me when he goes on about it endlessly at times.

I think the movement that you're seeing that's trying to use science to 'disprove God and/or religion' is merely a push back against the what is perceived as religion stymieing the advancement of science. And in parts I agree, such as the topic we're discussing now, I think ID just sort of muddies the water and confuses the issue. It doesn't add any scientific knowledge, it merely exists to attack evolution. So, it's sort of a two way street in that regard.

The universe certainly exists and we certainly inhabit it. But the physical constants---virtually all of them, are fine-tuned such that if any of them were off just a fraction we wouldn't be here.

It's pretty amazing, isn't it?

I think it was Fred Hoyle who called it 'a put up job'. I think he was the same fellow how gave us the 'tornado going through the junk yard and forming a 747' analogy with respect to the origin of life. You want evidence of design in nature?

It's every where you look.

Well, since you believe in a higher power, it makes sense that you'd see evidence of this higher power all around you. I was raised Christian, went to church every Sunday, went through confirmation, helped run the Sunday School classes, was baptized and all that jazz. However, I didn't see evidence of design. With enough time spent researching, I started to realize that pretty much everything can be explained with a perfectly natural reason behind it. I certainly didn't lose my amazement or constant appreciation of the beauty of our existence in the process. In fact, learning about how everything worked, from the huge size of our Universe down to the very smallest level made me even more amazed. I didn't need a belief in a higher power to appreciate a beautiful sunset or get lost looking at the night sky. It was already incredible enough.

An analogy I like to use is that to me, existence and life is a like a three story chocolate sundae. If God were real, he'd be the cherry on top. That'd be cool and all, but it would be inconsequential to the impressive huge three story chocolate sundae it sat on top of. If that makes any sense.

We part company here. I have trouble accepting evolution's major premises [no one doubts micro-evo] because I find the evidence to be unconvincing. For me to accept it totally would require me to believe things I will never see demonstrated.

Well, micro and macro evolution are the exact same thing, just different scales. Saying you believe in one and not the other is akin to say you believe in inches, but not miles. Same process, different time spans. Same measurements, different distances.

Which, ironically, makes me something of a doubting Thomas.

Which isn't a bad thing, a little skepticism can go a long way.

I guess I'm not being clear. I'm stipulating for the sake of argument that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. If He did, then probabilities go out the window.

Yes, but that is like saying if The Naavi (Avatar), did really defeat the Marines, then it IS possible that we can talk to trees and become 10ft Blue people.

Avatar is a movie--a work of fiction. The Bible is a collection of fictional stories. None of it is historical fact other than have been written a very long time ago by people who lacked the sophistication to understand the world around them to any advanced degree but understood that the idea of divinity had power over the uneducated, illiterate masses.

What amazes me about this whole discussion is that it is fairly new in America. The Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925 pretty well settled America on the issue of Creationism vs Evolution. "Inherit the Wind" in 1955 put the lid on it.

This resurgence of the idea of the Bible as history is new, and it is scary. It indicates lazy minds looking for simple answers. If allowed to gain prominence, it will enable a significant number of people conditioned to not think critically, and who will accept the most outrageous of ideas.

This can't be good for the Republic.

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

This resurgence of the idea of the Bible as history is new, and it is scary.

What a dumb thing to say.

The Bible is almost ALL "history." For goodness sake, Dick, the whole first part of the old testament is history of the Jewish people... surely you knew that: IT was in all the papers for awhile (though probably not back in 1925 ... although it MIGHT have been).

Don't say dumb things: They make you look silly.

Originally Posted by Good1

What a dumb thing to say.

The Bible is almost ALL "history." For goodness sake, Dick, the whole first part of the old testament is history of the Jewish people... surely you knew that: IT was in all the papers for awhile (though probably not back in 1925 ... although it MIGHT have been).

Don't say dumb things: They make you look silly.

Is the information presented in the bible backed up by any other sources?

Originally Posted by Good1

What a dumb thing to say.

The Bible is almost ALL "history." For goodness sake, Dick, the whole first part of the old testament is history of the Jewish people... surely you knew that: IT was in all the papers for awhile (though probably not back in 1925 ... although it MIGHT have been).

Don't say dumb things: They make you look silly.

Is the Bible inerrant? Is it accurate history?

Originally Posted by Hoplite

Is the information presented in the bible backed up by any other sources?

God?