Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Excellent Letter To School Board On Intellegent Design Teachings
Comments
-
Ickle Magoo wrote: »So what is the point of arguing ID if not ultimately to argue in favour of creationism at some level & try to establish teleological arguments to support theistic belief?
Some of us are more interested in examining whether things are true rather than whether we can employ them to support our ideological viewpoint or not. You should try it, it's actually quite refreshing to think for yourself.
I'm interested in whether ID turns out to be true or not, but I'm cool either way. It won't affect my faith and I've no vested interest in the outcome. The only reason I'm discussing it now is because a non-Christian wanted to start a thread about 'Intellegent (sic) Design' and failed to distinguish between a proposed scientific theory and articles of religious belief.
If you want to discuss creationism then take it to the mega-mutant thread devoted to that subject. Here, since 'creationism' is usually taken to mean a young-earth anti-evolution position, it is an unnecessary and specious distraction.0 -
Of course. I would be very happy to see proof that ID is wrong. That would be very welcome and much better than ad hominem attacks that think you can discredit a theory by using the word 'creationism' enough times.
BTW, I do not advocate teaching ID in the classroom. I think that it should be assessed scientifically (not ideologically) and should only make it into the classroom if there is sufficient support from the scientific community. In other words, if ID is bad science then junk it, but make sure the junking is done on scientific grounds alone.
So yes, if ID is proven wrong I will accept it as so - even though some, in their eagerness to rubbish it, claim it is non-testable and non-falsifiable.
Every single scientific theory has an achilles heal that if found will falsify that theory. Examples.
General Relatvity - No such thing as Gravity Waves : GR needs modification.
Standard Model - No such thing as Higgs Field, SM needs modification.
Evolution - No such thing as natural selection : Evolutions need modification.
ID - ???0 -
You appear not to be reading, or rather misinterpreting, your own links. Methinks you're suffering from a case of confirmation bias.
The wiki link on Irreducible Complexity states: "Intelligent design advocates assert that natural selection could not create irreducibly complex systems, because the selectable function is present only when all parts are assembled."
ID allows for evolution
No it doesn't, that is what "selectable function is present only when all the parts are assembled" means.
Evolution says that State A of an organism can evolve into State B (the current state).
For the sake of argument (leaving aside my issues with theistic evolution) this holds in both Darwinian evolution and theistic evolution. Darwinian evolution says that this evolution can take place through natural selection, theistic evolution says that the odds of natural selection are often too great so a designer must come in to tweak the selection process.
But in both cases State A of the organism evolves into State B
ID say this (evolution from simpler state to more complex one) is not a possible explanation for State B because it says, based on the idea of irreducibly complexity, State A can never exist.
You cannot evolve from one state to a newer state if the original state cannot exist. You cannot have a simpler state from State B because if you do the system cannot function, State A cannot perform a function.
There is no evolution, guided or otherwise, because any earlier, "de-evolved", state from State B cannot do anything. If an organism was in state A it would die. State B must have been created as it is because anything simpler wouldn't be able to do anything.
Intelligent Design with the idea of irreducibly complex (which is the standard version of ID promoted by groups such as the Discovery Institute) is an argument against evolution and form instant creation.
If you are sitting there thinking IR doesn't make sense, join the club. I'm just explaining what Intelligent Design and Irreducibly Complex means so we can all be on the same page.And you are aparently not understanding what Irreducibly complex means in realtion to something evolving.
The point of irreducibly complex is that the current state has to be the only state, that the state is irreducible, you cannot reduce it because any simpler state would not work. There is nothing to evolve from.
That is what the irreducible in irreducibly complex means. You cannot reduce it from its current state.0 -
Ickle Magoo said:Some things in the world are irreducibly complex
Have you checked that out with Wicknight?
What other pseudo-science have you been contaminated with?0 -
No it doesn't, that is what "selectable function is present only when all the parts are assembled" means.
Evolution says that State A of an organism can evolve into State B (the current state).
For the sake of argument (leaving aside my issues with theistic evolution) this holds in both Darwinian evolution and theistic evolution. Darwinian evolution says that this evolution can take place through natural selection, theistic evolution says that the odds of natural selection are often too great so a designer must come in to tweak the selection process.
But in both cases State A of the organism evolves into State B
ID say this (evolution from simpler state to more complex one) is not a possible explanation for State B because it says, based on the idea of irreducibly complexity, State A can never exist.
You cannot evolve from one state to a newer state if the original state cannot exist. You cannot have a simpler state from State B because if you do the system cannot function, State A cannot perform a function.
There is no evolution, guided or otherwise, because any earlier, "de-evolved", state from State B cannot do anything. If an organism was in state A it would die. State B must have been created as it is because anything simpler wouldn't be able to do anything.
Intelligent Design with the idea of irreducibly complex (which is the standard version of ID promoted by groups such as the Discovery Institute) is an argument against evolution and form instant creation.
If you are sitting there thinking IR doesn't make sense, join the club. I'm just explaining what Intelligent Design and Irreducibly Complex means so we can all be on the same page.
It means things don't evolve.
The point of irreducibly complex is that the current state has to be the only state, that the state is irreducible, you cannot reduce it because any simpler state would not work. There is nothing to evolve from.
That is what the irreducible in irreducibly complex means. You cannot reduce it from its current state.
OK, not much point talking with you if you want to insist on presenting a strawman of ID and then arguing against it.
I'm out.0 -
Advertisement
-
Soul Winner wrote: »..because the originator of that theory based his theory on the assumption that there is no creator/designer which is also an improvable assumption. So if ID is to be shown the door, then so should the theory of evolution.the issue is not about whether ID is true or not,the issue here is whether it passes the test of being scientific or not
This, in my eyes is fundamental difference though between evolution and ID. Evolution makes a prediction of natural selection, this can be verified. Evolution predicts mutations again verifiable. What does ID predict that is DIFFERENT from evolution but yet testable. ID is currently untestable, give us an experiment, and then I'll consider it science until that point I cannot consider it being so.Science should not be used as a vehicle to undermine anybody’s religious faith in order to establish atheism as the only right way to view the world.0 -
He addressed the question of ID being disproved - ie as to whether certain features within nature, from a scientific standpoint, point to a designer. A designer can be there whethere scioentific evidence points to him or not, there is no need for you to twist his words or to change the subject as you did.
What? That makes no sense.
If ID Is disproven then there isn't a designer. If there was a designer then you can't disprove ID0 -
-
OK, not much point talking with you if you want to insist on presenting a strawman of ID and then arguing against it.
I'm out.
If you want to you can explain what Irreduciably Complex means in an evolutionary context, pointing out specifically what is "irreducible" in the context of things evolving from one state to another, go ahead.
I've no problem admitting I'm wrong PDN, this is not my theory, I'm not attached to it at all, but so far you have given me no reason to think that. So far all you have said is that IR does not rule out evolution, but I cannot see how something that is irreducible can evolve and based on all my study of the Discovery Institute and people like Mr. Behe that is not what they are saying.
Enlighten me by all means. Throwing your toys out of the pram and storming off is just childish.0 -
If you want to you can explain what Irreduciably Complex means in an evolutionary context, pointing out specifically what is "irreducible" in the context of things evolving from one state to another, go ahead.
I've no problem admitting I'm wrong PDN, this is not my theory, I'm not attached to it at all, but so far you have given me no reason to think that. So far all you have said is that IR does not rule out evolution, but I cannot see how something that is irreducible can evolve.
Enlighten me by all means.
Ok, now I'm lost didn't PDN say that IR only occurs in certain organisms, thereby still allowing evolution in some, wasn't that his argument or am I just misunderstanding everything here???0 -
Advertisement
-
How???
All it says to me is there was no intelligent designer, we cannot disprove or prove the existence of a designer.
I know you can't actually do that, I was going on the logic of Soul Winners hypothetical.
The whole point of ID is that you can't disprove it (and therefore it is not science), and as such ID proponents can hold to it without any risk of ever been demonstrate wrong.0 -
No it doesn't, that is what "selectable function is present only when all the parts are assembled" means.
Evolution says that State A of an organism can evolve into State B (the current state).
For the sake of argument (leaving aside my issues with theistic evolution) this holds in both Darwinian evolution and theistic evolution. Darwinian evolution says that this evolution can take place through natural selection, theistic evolution says that the odds of natural selection are often too great so a designer must come in to tweak the selection process.
But in both cases State A of the organism evolves into State B
ID say this (evolution from simpler state to more complex one) is not a possible explanation for State B because it says, based on the idea of irreducibly complexity, State A can never exist.
You cannot evolve from one state to a newer state if the original state cannot exist. You cannot have a simpler state from State B because if you do the system cannot function, State A cannot perform a function.
There is no evolution, guided or otherwise, because any earlier, "de-evolved", state from State B cannot do anything. If an organism was in state A it would die. State B must have been created as it is because anything simpler wouldn't be able to do anything.
Intelligent Design with the idea of irreducibly complex (which is the standard version of ID promoted by groups such as the Discovery Institute) is an argument against evolution and form instant creation.
If you are sitting there thinking IR doesn't make sense, join the club. I'm just explaining what Intelligent Design and Irreducibly Complex means so we can all be on the same page.
It means things don't evolve.
The point of irreducibly complex is that the current state has to be the only state, that the state is irreducible, you cannot reduce it because any simpler state would not work. There is nothing to evolve from.
That is what the irreducible in irreducibly complex means. You cannot reduce it from its current state.
ID does not say State A can never exist. Irreducible Complexity, a central point of ID, means an organism cannot have originated from a simpler organism by chance/natural selection, as the chances are realistically beyond possibility.
Irreducible Complexity however is compatible with a Intelligent Designer working on the simpler organism, bringing the necessary components together at one instance to give the otherwise impossible coincidence that forms the new, more complex organism. So the simpler organism evolves by ID rather than chance/natural selection. Natural selection changes the organism within possible limits, but the impossible requires the ID to make the big changes.
I assume ID evolutionists are more in the Punctuated Equilibrium camp than the rest of you.
Your lack of understanding of the simple concept of ID evolution confirms my suspicion that your criticism of Creationism ( that its pseudo-science) is not based on a scientific analysis, but on your anti-religious prejudice.0 -
Some of us are more interested in examining whether things are true rather than whether we can employ them to support our ideological viewpoint or not. You should try it, it's actually quite refreshing to think for yourself.
Nice ad hominem attack. Lovely.I'm interested in whether ID turns out to be true or not, but I'm cool either way. It won't affect my faith and I've no vested interest in the outcome. The only reason I'm discussing it now is because a non-Christian wanted to start a thread about 'Intellegent (sic) Design' and failed to distinguish between a proposed scientific theory and articles of religious belief.
I'm interested in whether it turns out to be true or not - and could land up with considerably more egg on my face than you, granted. I guess we will have to wait and see if the science can provide us with the genomic sequences in question & an ID model can be presented, make predictions and stand up to testing. In fairness to the OP, the two are much the same as things stand.If you want to discuss creationism then take it to the mega-mutant thread devoted to that subject. Here, since 'creationism' is usually taken to mean a young-earth anti-evolution position, it is an unnecessary and specious distraction.
I don't want to discuss creationism; at least not the 10,000 yr old planet kind. As this is the Christianity forum, I was assuming ID was generally considered a fairly important component to the creation of the universe & all its contents at some stage and as such, there was a vested interest in having ID recognised by science as a valid theory. Apparently not, my stupid.0 -
Ok, now I'm lost didn't PDN say that IR only occurs in certain organisms, thereby still allowing evolution in some, wasn't that his argument or am I just misunderstanding everything here???
ID proponents, such as the Discovery Institute, claim that the basis of life, such as proteins and DNA, is irreducibly complex. As such it applies to all life.
It would help if the IDers had a coherent argument. Unfortunately they don't. It fails basic standards. My point is simply to put forward their argument so we are all at least discussing the same thing.0 -
-
Irreducible Complexity however is compatible with a Intelligent Designer working on the simpler organism, bringing the necessary components together at one instance to give the otherwise impossible coincidence that forms the new, more complex organism.
Explain how an irreducibly complex system works in a simpler form when it has been reduced from its current state. :rolleyes:
What the heck do you guys think the word "irreducibly" means?
The example Behe himself uses is a mouse trap. A mouse trap cannot evolve (according to him) from any simpiler design because you require that all pieces exist in order for it to perform its function. It doesn't matter if I'm designing a mouse trap or not (ie intelligence or not), until I assemble all pieces in one go I do not have a functioning mouse trap. Until then I just have pieces that can't do anything. There is no reduced state for a mouse trap, therefore it is irreducible complex
IR is an argument against evolution, directed or otherwise. Irreducibly complex means that you cannot reduce the design in any way. It cannot evolve from a more simple state.
I can't believe I'm explaining this to you Wolfsbane :rolleyes:0 -
Some of us are more interested in examining whether things are true rather than whether we can employ them to support our ideological viewpoint or not. You should try it, it's actually quite refreshing to think for yourself.
I'm interested in whether ID turns out to be true or not, but I'm cool either way. It won't affect my faith and I've no vested interest in the outcome. The only reason I'm discussing it now is because a non-Christian wanted to start a thread about 'Intellegent (sic) Design' and failed to distinguish between a proposed scientific theory and articles of religious belief.
If you want to discuss creationism then take it to the mega-mutant thread devoted to that subject. Here, since 'creationism' is usually taken to mean a young-earth anti-evolution position, it is an unnecessary and specious distraction.
As I said to you in a previous post ID is not science. It's not falsifiable and not testifiable. So the scientific method can't be applied.
Do you not understand that?0 -
Ok then, tell me how to disprove ID?
Every single scientific theory has an achilles heal that if found will falsify that theory. Examples.
General Relatvity - No such thing as Gravity Waves : GR needs modification.
Standard Model - No such thing as Higgs Field, SM needs modification.
Evolution - No such thing as natural selection : Evolutions need modification.
ID - ???
General Relativity - No such thing as Gravity Waves : GR needs modification.
Standard Model - No such thing as Higgs Field, SM needs modification.
Evolution - No such thing as natural selection : Evolutions need modification.
ID - No such thing as a designer. ID needs modification
On the Evolution theory, it appeals to many other variables not just natural selection. If evolution is true then there should be millions of intermediary species in the fossil record shouldn't there? How many do we have? And what is the proof that they are in fact intermediary species and not just a different species?0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »ID - No such thing as a designer. ID needs modificationSoul Winner wrote: »On the Evolution theory, it appeals to many other variables not just natural selection. If evolution is true then there should be millions of intermediary species in the fossil record shouldn't there? How many do we have?Soul Winner wrote: »And what is the proof that they are in fact intermediary species and not just a different species?
Actually scrap that, that is a discussion for the other thread. As far as this thread is concerned evolution is testable, ID is not0 -
If you want to you can explain what Irreduciably Complex means in an evolutionary context, pointing out specifically what is "irreducible" in the context of things evolving from one state to another, go ahead.
I've no problem admitting I'm wrong PDN, this is not my theory, I'm not attached to it at all, but so far you have given me no reason to think that. So far all you have said is that IR does not rule out evolution, but I cannot see how something that is irreducible can evolve and based on all my study of the Discovery Institute and people like Mr. Behe that is not what they are saying.
Enlighten me by all means. Throwing your toys out of the pram and storming off is just childish.
It's nothing to do with throwing toys out of prams. I just don't see the point in discussing something with you if you insist on redefining the subject into a strawman that you find it easier to refute.
Let's take wikipedia's article on irreducible complexity (it is very anti-ID, but at least appears to understand what ID is actually saying) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexityIrreducible complexity (IC) is an argument made by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring chance mutations.
.... The term "irreducible complexity" was originally defined by Behe as: "A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. (Darwin's Black Box p39 in the 2006 edition)"
... Supporters of intelligent design use this term to refer to biological systems and organs that they believe could not have come about by any series of small changes. They argue that anything less than the complete form of such a system or organ would not work at all, or would in fact be a detriment to the organism, and would therefore never survive the process of natural selection. Although they accept that some complex systems and organs can be explained by evolution, they claim that organs and biological features which are irreducibly complex cannot be explained by current models, and that an intelligent designer must have created life or guided its evolution
Irreducible complexity means that if you remove one component of a mechanism then the other components serve no purpose or, even worse, would kill the organism in question. Therefore, while it is reasonable to assume that the various components each evolved, it is unreasonable to suppose that they evolved sequentially. The only reasonable explanation is that the components of such a mechanism evolved simultaneously. It is called irreducibly complex because it requires all the components.
This then leads to the argument that such simultaneous evolution is statistically impossible if explained by natural selection alone, leading to the conclusion that a designer triggered such simultaneous evolution.
You might not agree with it. You may argue on scientiofic grounds that it is wrong. But please don't redefine it to mean what you want it to mean.
Now, if you are prepared to discuss ID and irreducible complexity as understood by Michael Behe (a proponent), by wikipedia (opponents), and myself (neutral) then we can have a discussion. If you choose to hold a unique Wicknightian definition of these terms then I've no interest in continuing. I've had enough experiences in the past where you do a Humpty Dumpty by redefining language to mean whatever you want it to mean and then other atheists jump in and accuse me of semantics because I insist on using words accurately. I've no interest in participating in that kind of zoo anymore.0 -
Advertisement
-
Soul Winner wrote: »On the Evolution theory, it appeals to many other variables not just natural selection. If evolution is true then there should be millions of intermediary species in the fossil record shouldn't there? How many do we have? And what is the proof that they are in fact intermediary species and not just a different species?
Hold it right there! This threads is about ID. If you want to argue creationism or evolution then take it to the irreducibly complex Creationism thread. Any further posts that attempt to divert this into a Creationism debate will be deleted without any explanation or debate.0 -
Irreducible complexity means that if you remove one component of a mechanism then the other components serve no purpose or, even worse, would kill the organism in question.
Are my "irreducibly complex" so?0 -
Ickle Magoo wrote: »Nice ad hominem attack. Lovely.
Just give me a cookie and tell me to eat it.0 -
How do you test that?
I don't know.Millions. Every single fossil is an intermediary fossil. You are an intermediary organism
How do you test that?They are different species, that is the point.
I know but if they all descend from common ancestry then surely intermediary (mutant like) fossils would be found absolutely everywhere. No?Actually scrap that, that is a discussion for the other thread. As far as this thread is concerned evolution is testable, ID is not
Awh0 -
-
Tim Robbins wrote: »If you removed my heart or my brain I'd be dead and no other component in my body would surve any purpose.
Are my "irreducibly complex" so?
I'll confine the discussion to your heart rather than getting onto the subject of whether your brain is serving any useful function.
No, the heart is not an example of irreducible complexity because there apparently exist reasonable explanations of how it could have evolved, along with the rest of the human body, in sequential steps according to natural selection.
The concept of irreducible complexity isn't actually that difficult to grasp if you make a genuine attempt to understand it. Of course if you approach it with the express intention of attacking it then you will probably end up misunderstanding it because of your confirmation bias (this applies to many areas of life). It's generally much better to make a genuine effort to understand something first, then to decide whether you agree with it or not.0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »How do you test that?
I know but if they all descend from common ancestry then surely intermediary (mutant like) fossils would be found absolutely everywhere. No?
If you want a list of intermediary fossils feel free to ask in the Palaeontology Forum.
On topic: While I would be strongly opposed to the concept of Intelligent Design and would usually jump to aid anything that goes against it, I feel teh letter quoted in the OP is far from 'excellent' and really is not a very good argument against ID.0 -
Irreducible complexity means that if you remove one component of a mechanism then the other components serve no purpose or, even worse, would kill the organism in question. Therefore, while it is reasonable to assume that the various components each evolved, it is unreasonable to suppose that they evolved sequentially. The only reasonable explanation is that the components of such a mechanism evolved simultaneously.
Evolution is the gradual change from one state to the next. That is true if we are talking about guided evolution or otherwise. Dogs have evolved slowly based on intelligent selection, but at each point you have a dog that can function. There is slow change.
If everything happens at the same time then there is no evolution taking place, nothing is gradually changing. In fact nothing is changing at all. Everything just appears. Everything that is required for the function is instantly created.
Simultaneous appearance of all pieces is instant creation, which again is what IC is trying to demonstrate. It is an argument against evolution, or the gradual change from one state to the next because IC says that similar states cannot exist.
A Behe himself says
An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional
Slight successive modifications of a precursor system is evolution, guided or otherwise. The instant simultaneous appearance of all component parts is not evolution :mad:This then leads to the argument that such simultaneous evolution is statistically impossible if explained by natural selection alone, leading to the conclusion that a designer triggered such simultaneous evolution.
What do you think "simultaneous" evolution is PDN?
Say you have a mouse trap. You have 15 pieces that all have to exist at the one time for the mouse trap to do something. All 15 pieces must be present. 14 pieces and you have a non-functioning device
So you start with nothing and then simultaneously you create and assemble all 15 pieces into one device (this is Behe's example of Irreducible Complexity by the way)
How is that "evolution"? What is evolving if all the pieces have to be created at the same time?
You are simply inventing an nonsense concept such as "simultaneous evolution" in other to try and win an argument that IC isn't trying to contradict evolution, guided or otherwise. :mad:0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »How do you test that?
That is why evolution is a scientific theory, it is a model of how life works that is testable.Soul Winner wrote: »I know but if they all descend from common ancestry then surely intermediary (mutant like) fossils would be found absolutely everywhere. No?Soul Winner wrote: »Awh
Well we can discuss I guess why evolution is science (which is why the above is, it is testable). Further discussion about how valid evolution is belongs in the other thread.0 -
Advertisement
-
I'll confine the discussion to your heart rather than getting onto the subject of whether your brain is serving any useful function.
No, the heart is not an example of irreducible complexity because there apparently exist reasonable explanations of how it could have evolved, along with the rest of the human body, in sequential steps according to natural selection.
The concept of irreducible complexity isn't actually that difficult to grasp if you make a genuine attempt to understand it. Of course if you approach it with the express intention of attacking it then you will probably end up misunderstanding it because of your confirmation bias (this applies to many areas of life). It's generally much better to make a genuine effort to understand something first, then to decide whether you agree with it or not.0
Advertisement