[Search] Search   [Recent Topics] Recent   [Hottest Topics] Hottest   [Login] Login
individual training with TALONE
Forum Index » General Discussion
cogger

Messages: 46,
Joined: Dec 20, 2011,
Offline

cogger

Messages: 46,
Joined: Dec 20, 2011,
Offline
I love how God was mentioned once not even in this context and this rose out of it.
[Avatar]
waxoid

Messages: 442,
Joined: Aug 07, 2010,
Location: Seattle, WA
Offline

[Avatar]
waxoid

Messages: 442,
Joined: Aug 07, 2010,
Location: Seattle, WA
Offline
(Apologies to forum regulars who dislike o/t threads, I personally enjoy philosophy and df is presenting his views civilly but mods if y'all say this belongs elsewhere it's n/p.)

I respectfully submit as an ID supporter you just don't need to go this trouble. A conception of omniscient and omnipotent God means he could create in whatever way he likes, His miracles are in everything. You're saying the laws of physics and chemisty etc. that he created weren't good enough to create what he wanted to create (a limitation??) and he has had to hand-manipulate DNA in fine-tuned increments over billions of years – because you don't buy the DNA mutation argument (or whatever link in the chain you decide seems most vulnerable at any given point in the development of the body of theories.) You don't need to make this argument to support a faith-based belief.

I take it the ID movement does this because there is a real belief that these critiques constitute not just recurring and familiar challenges to evolutionary theory, but much more strongly constitute genuine scientific evidence for divine providence, and therefore can be used immediately for proselytizing purposes. However, for that to work, i.e. for this to be compelling to scientific thinkers, science would have to come to the conclusion you desire *on its own, through scientific method*. You can't premise the argument on "science may believe one thing, but that's because scientists are biased by [insert explanation, anti-religious biases or what have you], and if they weren't, the scientific conclusion would be [this]." Scientific conclusions are *only* those that are arrived at by the method and global peer review system that we have, and while there can be mistakes they must be addressed and affirmed through that system. After all, the 'science is biased' argument is directly evolved (sorry) from (say) the Inquisition's allegations that Galilieo's motivations in promoting heliocentrism were heretical – a dramatically more civil and respectful(!) form of such argument for sure, but essentially a modern version of the same thing, which has been present throughout the history of science right through the Scopes trial in 1925, which began the end of modern political attempts to mandate creationism via political authority.
[Avatar]
droidfreak36

Messages: 183,
Joined: Jan 23, 2012,
Offline

[Avatar]
droidfreak36

Messages: 183,
Joined: Jan 23, 2012,
Offline
The reason why I go through this argument is that the modern theory of evolution as described by modernists is the absence of God's influence in all of creation, something that isn't supported by science and isn't compatible with the Bible.

The laws of physics and the fundamental aspects of reality were fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life (minute changes in physical constants result in an uninhabitable universe), but that only created the building blocks of life. Life is much too complicated to have arisen out of a random arrangement of building blocks, it was designed by God. At the simplest level, life consists of DNA sections coding for proteins. Some proteins are made up of a specific arrangement of more than 1000 amino acids, of which there are 20 common types. Thus the chance of one of these proteins arising from a random string of DNA is one in 20^1000, far greater than the number of atoms in the earth (1.33*10^50 or about 20^39) times the age of the earth in milliseconds (1.42*10^20 or about 20^16), which comes out to about 20^55. In other words, the chance of the DNA code for a single protein arising by chance anywhere at anytime of the earth is basically zero, and Natural Selection cannot act on a protein until it is fully functional. The mechanism of Natural Selection is completely incapable of creating a single protein, let alone the human body.

This may come as a surprise to you, but not all ID proponents are Christians. In fact, many of them are atheists or agnostics that support ID because of the overwhelming evidence. Most ID proponents are scientists, and the scientific method has been applied to ID much more than it has to evolution. In fact, when scientists supporting either theory perform experiments, they almost always come away discovering how unfit Natural Selection is to produce common descent. Science itself is not biased, but peer-reviewed journals are. Whenever ID proponents try to write in peer reviewed journals they are denied not because their methods are flawed, but because the publishers don't like the conclusions of the experiment. Just as the Church was biased against Galileo's scientific discoveries, the peer-reviewed journals are now biased against ID's scientific discoveries.

DroidFreak, the roboticist who plays as Khrals.

(Or Titans now that I realize how legit they are)
[WWW]
[Avatar]
waxoid

Messages: 442,
Joined: Aug 07, 2010,
Location: Seattle, WA
Offline

[Avatar]
waxoid

Messages: 442,
Joined: Aug 07, 2010,
Location: Seattle, WA
Offline
I think you are missing on both the philosophy and the science. Here's another author's take on the philosophy:
"The ID proponents are fighting a battle that was lost in the 17th century: the battle for understanding nature in terms of final causes and efficient causes. Prior to the 17th century, there was no essential conflict between a mechanistic view of nature and a teleological view, between a naturalistic and a supernaturalistic view of nature. Nature could be thought of as a vast purposive mechanism. With the notable exception of Leibniz and his intellectual descendents, just about everyone else gave up the idea of scientific explanations needing to include theological ones. Scientific progress became possible in part because scientists attempted to describe the workings of natural phenomena without reference to their creation, design, or ultimate purpose. A god may well have created the universe and the laws of nature, but nature is still a machine, mechanically changing and comprehensible as such. A god became an unnecessary hypothesis, as Laplace once said."

On the science, you don't need a protein for life, all you need is chemistry, something that is able to replicate and be subject to selection and thus start the pattern in motion, purposefully assembling the complexity. There is loads of research supporting this. Here's a longer treatment (ten years old even) that breaks down some of the reasons why this line of argument fails.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html

ID is essentially still 'the missing link' argument, whether you put the link at every gap between species or at the very beginning or wherever. And history has not been kind to the "missing link" arguments; this debate really ended decades ago, in science. I'm sure ID gets a hard time in the peer review process, but it really is for good reasons given the history, and the degree to which it misses the usual bar for scientific theories. What you have is a set of (relatively speaking, layman) critiques of evolutionary theory, combined with a rational philosophical argument that if evolution is in crisis, it fairly provokes questions of what then resulted in the complex life forms we see. It's a fine secondary philosophical question, but it's not science – doesn't inspire testable hypotheses etc. other than an inverse interpretation of the experiments that you conduct to test evolution, as has held up in real science for generations now.
[Avatar]
droidfreak36

Messages: 183,
Joined: Jan 23, 2012,
Offline

[Avatar]
droidfreak36

Messages: 183,
Joined: Jan 23, 2012,
Offline
I agree that science need not deal with the metaphysical, but the whole theory of Evolution in it's modern form deals with the metaphysical. I have rarely heard a definition of Darwinian Evolution without the word "undirected", which is implies the absence of metaphysical intervention, which is itself a metaphysical statement. In other words, I'm fighting fire with fire, science-supported metaphysical theory with science-supported metaphysical theory.

You misunderstand my point when it comes to the science portion of my argument. I'm not even referring to the origin of life right now, I'm referring to the normal course of Evolution. What I'm saying is that Natural Selection is incapable of creating a single large protein, whether or not there was any self-reproduction going on.

Also, the link you gave me attacks several specific arguments that were made over 12 years ago, before much of the current data has been discovered. For instance, lab experiments have discovered that if Natural Selection has to mutate two bases of DNA to create a protein (two were intentionally changed), it takes virtually forever to do so. This test was done on a large population of fast-reproducing bacteria, so there were plenty of chances for Natural Selection to work, but it didn't do so.

As to whether or not ID is a "missing link" argument, I don't believe it is. Recent discoveries continue to support ID, with no evidence coming out to explain how the increasingly improbable odds can be dealt with. In fact, Evolution is supported mostly by a "missing link" argument when you get down to the core:

God didn't play any part in the creation of the universe, therefore it must have been done by XYZ undirected process.

ID does inspire testable hypothesis, but it's true that most of the data for ID comes from experiments conducted by people who support Evolution. The main reasons for that are: A) Most scientists currently support evolution, therefore they generate much more data than ID supporters. B) ID supporters don't get research funding from regular channels, so they are forced to rely on private funding.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at Apr 22, 2012 11:19


DroidFreak, the roboticist who plays as Khrals.

(Or Titans now that I realize how legit they are)
[WWW]
[Avatar]
talone

Messages: 566,
Joined: Aug 02, 2010,
Location: runiwar.ru
Offline

[Avatar]
talone

Messages: 566,
Joined: Aug 02, 2010,
Location: runiwar.ru
Offline
Training is continuing

Who loves UniWar and wants seriously study the UniWar secrets and tactics - email me
[WWW]
radroach

Messages: 2,
Joined: Jan 24, 2014,
Offline

radroach

Messages: 2,
Joined: Jan 24, 2014,
Offline
. For those who get a light from a hundred dollar bill.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at Feb 23, 2015 18:26

Forum Index » General Discussion
Powered by JForum 2.1.9 © - 2020-04-14 v124 - UniWar website