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 -
-
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.
It means things don't evolve.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 -
-
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
-
-
-
-
-
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 -
All of this shows how little you have grasped of the argument.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 -
I'm not that interested in what ever concept of ID PDN specifically holds to.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 -
-
-
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 -
How do you test that?Soul Winner wrote: »ID - No such thing as a designer. ID needs modification
Millions. Every single fossil is an intermediary fossil. You are an intermediary organismSoul 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?
They are different species, that is the point.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 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
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
Awh
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 -
-
Evolution makes predictions of what an intermediary fossil should contain. You match these predictions against discovered fossils. If the evidence does not match the predictions then there is a problem with the theory that was making that prediction.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.
Getting close to the Creationist thread but .. Yes. And there are (anyone disagree take it to the other thread). If you died and were fossilised tomorrow you would be a "mutant" like fossil. An average human contains about 60 significant mutations from their parents. You are an intermediary between your parents and your children.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
-
Advertisement