Evolution questions from my creationist friend

[Seth]

By allowing the DI and other creationists to misappropriate the term for their own nefarious purposes, objectors lose both the teachable moment and grant credibility to creationists they don't deserve and shouldn't have.

It's not misappropriating the term. They're the ones that invented it - or people like them. That's the primary meaning of it.

I think if you saying that you agree that the Intelligent Design as that term is used by Behe, the DI and other such douche bags is hogwash, but that you find the possibility of terraforming, planetary seeding of life, artificial selection, and designer life forms intriguing, you won't get many arguments from folks on a-religious side of the spectrum.

I disagree. The notion of intelligent design, of both the universal constants and the idea intelligent design of life on earth long precedes Behe and the DI. I certainly recall such notions being in evidence in science fiction writing clear back in the 60's. I'll have to try and recall what books proposed the theme, but I was thinking about the potential of intelligent design of life on earth while Behe was still in high school, so it's hardly an idea unique to neo-Creationism.

And that term, "neo-Creationism" is a very, very apt term, and THAT is the term that should be used. In fact, every time someone mentions DI-version ID, it should be replaced with "you mean neo-Creationism."

In case you haven't noticed, that's exactly what I'm probing at like a dentist scraping an infection out of a decaying tooth. You are granting legitimacy to the creationists by allowing them to control the terminology of the debate. What Behe and his cohorts are purveying is NOT INTELLIGENT DESIGN. The judge in Kitzmiller was pretty clear about that. They were purveying creationism "dressed up" and "repackaged' as "intelligent design."

That's what Intelligent Design is, neo Creationism.

I agree completely, and I like the term a LOT, and intend to begin using it.

What you're describing is not "Intelligent Design." Intelligent Design would posit that the aliens seeding the Earth, like humans maybe one day seeding Mars or some other planet, would have had to be Intelligently Designed. They think ALL LIFE must have been intelligently designed, that's the whole point of Intelligent Design in the first place.

Life is "too complex" or "too perfect" to have come about "by chance," and the universe is "too complex" or "too perfect" to have come about "by chance." That's Intelligent Design - that kind of nonsensical thinking. Intelligent Design is not now and never has been - "aliens might well have seeded Earth." That, flat out, is not "Intelligent Design."

But it should be, and we can try to change the paradigm by labeling it accurately as "neo-Creationism."

Your imagination appears to be running wild. The un-anointed public hardly cares about the issue, and those that do think "Intelligent Designer" means the "higher power" that created the universe, not some alien from the planet Mongo who seeded the Earth with life that started evolving.

And they should be disabused of that notion in part by labeling what they believe appropriately as "neo-Creationism."

I see your bait and switch. You change the debate - get them to admit that life on Earth could have been designed in the sense of aliens seeding the Earth, and then say "aha! you believe in Intelligent Design as a possibility." But, then the switch is that at the dawn of life in the Universe, the ID proponents think a deity-like being must have created the first life - because life is just too complex, or too perfect, or irreducibly complex, or some other such bullshit.

I have no "bait and switch" motive. The question of the origin of the universe is still in flux, according to current cosmological theory, even within the Perimeter Institute in Toronto. Nobody has any good read on how this universe was created, or for matter if it was created at all, and notions that this universe might have been created by an intelligence in another universe are no less valid than any other cosmological theory, all of which are abstract mathematical theories and not observationally confirmed.

Scientists, even DI scientists, are free to posit their "irreducible complexity" arguments, and other scientists are free to refute them. Isn't that how science actually works?

No. It isn't. Not the way any proponent of the idea, except for you, has used the term, not in general parlance. Google search the word - look on wikipedia and in other online encyclopedias. The word isn't defined as you define it. You're the one who made up something new. I suspect it's because you want to create the bait-and-switch I talked about. You want to lure people into "believing in" intelligent design, and then pull the old switcheroo and claim that they must then acknowledge that the origin of life in the universe or the universe itself was a creator/designor deity thingy, or at least that the idea is "scientific" (when it isn't). You can correct me if I'm wrong about that.
...
I know why you insist in shoe-horning the word "Intelligent Design" into the seeding/terraforming/artificial selection shoe - you want to give credibility to the term Intelligent Design. I get it.
...
Often, they may sniff out your agenda, yes. I don't blame them.
...
But, here is the bait-and-switch you're running rearing it's ugly head. You are hoping to argue some "credibility" into the creationist claims - you're suggesting that there is "some actual factual agreement between science and creationism." And, there is no spitting distance between Behe and science. The guy is a tool. I read a couple of his books - childish nonsense, that can only fool someone who hasn't read

You might want to consult a psychiatrist about some medication to treat that paranoia you seem to be suffering from. You appear to have delusions of persecution too.

There isn't any factual agreement between science and Creationism.

Really? So Earth does not exist and is not filled with life? Interesting hypothesis.

But that doesn't damage the creationists nearly as much as it damages the credibility of scientists in the eyes of the general public, who see the refusal of science to be objective and dispassionate about the debate as weakness in the scientific arguments.

I don't think that's the case. The bigger danger is that the public will fall for the bait-and-switch of categorizing "artificial selection" and "terraforming" as "Intelligent Design." They will then think that all Intelligent Design is of similarly reasonable.

Then it's up to science to show them the light, isn't it?

Both the notion that intelligent design may be responsible for the evolution of living organisms on this planet, and the notion that certain biological functions are irreducibly complex are legitimate scientific questions.

Irreducible complexity isn't a really serious question anymore. It's just throwing darts on a dartboard now.

So? It's still perfectly scientific in its formulation and analysis, and it's refutation.

The evolution of things like the eye or the bacterium flagellum are explained by evolution, as well as every other item alleged to be "irreducibly complex." It's not really a legitimate issue. Certainly, someone is free to write a paper on what they believe to be irreducibly complex - but, from what I've seen, these all wind up being arguments from ignorance. It's just "I don't see how it could work - so it must be irreducibly complex." Frankly, it's a very silly concept that's a waste of time to teach in school - but, if it was to be taught, it would take about five minutes.

Precisely. And that's WHY it should be taught in school. If it takes five minutes to debunk it, like it takes five minutes to point out that Copernicus was right, that information needs to be imparted to students, does it not? By labeling it as "inherently religious" and banning it from the classroom, as the Kitzmiller judge did, it does not serve the goal of debunking the science using science, it merely reinforces the common belief that science is being suppressed by atheists, and to a great extent that is absolutely correct. If irreducible complexity is inherently religious, then so is pre-Copernican science. Teaching is how you debunk the pseudo-science. You don't teach kids to think critically by concealing information from them.

The fact that humans have designed living organisms by shaping their evolution is obvious and observable. Dog breeds. Bananas. But, the rest of what you wrote is just speculation. It's not even a hypothesis, since to be a hypothesis you have to have a way of testing it. Until then, it's dreaming. Imagination. Very fun and all, but we don't even know if there are other universes. There is some theoretical physics that postulates that possibility. But, there is no way to test it as yet.

Well, I've gotten you to admit to the "as yet" part, which is a start.

It is also important to note that the debate about irreducible complexity is also, in and of itself, a completely legitimate scientific debate.

It's not, really. Name one "irreducibly complex" organism.

Irrelevant. I could say that life itself is irreducibly complex, that life cannot occur through naturalistic processes, and at this moment that claim is as accurate as any other, since we don't know how life began on earth. That's not the issue, however. The issue is whether the irreducible complexity argument is SCIENCE or RELIGION. It's not inherently religious, and it is inherently scientific.

The proposition is a valid scientific question that may be investigated and confirmed and can be falsified, so it's a legitimate field of inquiry. At the moment, the irreducible complexity arguments offered by the Discovery Institute are not strong, and the claims have been carefully examined and discussed and subjected to rigorous peer review and have largely been rejected as unsound.

So, it seems that that aspect, you will admit, has received sufficient attention.

Of course.

But, as scientists, we

We? Are you a scientist? What discipline? What's your scientific education?

Um. Not that my science background is relevant, but the segment you extracted this from is written in the person of "science," as an example of how science SHOULD respond to questions from the scientifically ignorant about neo-Creationism.

As rational, well-formed hypotheses involving the question of the intelligent design of living organisms on this planet,

What rational ,well-formed, hypothesis is that?

Whichever ones appear.

or indeed the origins of life on this planet or others, and even as cosmological hypotheses about the origin and design of the fundamental physics of our universe, or others, through intelligent design come before the scientific community, they will be investigated and discussed with due regard and respect for their strengths as scientific arguments and with an acknowledgment that science is neither omniscient nor infallible, and every scientific hypothesis is subject to examination and revision when new evidence appears.

See - you really want to make this about some entity designing the universe....

Is that an impossibility?

The OP forwarded some questions from the "friend" of a member who had legitimate questions about the subject of evolution. Rather than provide the member with useful information in a form that is persuasive and respectful, that might help him to actually educate his friend and turn him away from ignorance, little is found but ridicule, derision, insult and opprobrium for being so stupid and ignorant as to not know the obvious truths of science without having to be told them.

It depends how the question was asked, I suppose. Often, we on the atheist side get questions with ulterior motives and an intent to achieve a "gotcha" or nonserious attempts to ridicule us. So, many atheists can be defensive on that point, and suspicious of booby traps in arguments. You do it sometimes, and I can see what you're doing with the Intelligent Design argument - you're trying to get respect for the larger Intelligent Design concept by getting people to call "terraforming" and artificial selection "intelligent design." It's a way to rhetorically conflate different concepts into one.

Actually, that's just your paranoia at work. It's not real, it's just a delusion.

Right. Moreover, the hypothesis that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex is a valid scientific hypothesis, even if it has not been supported by experimentation.

So is "leaves are green" a valid scientific hypothesis. On the level of importance, however, to the issue of science, evolutionary biology, etc., it's pretty low on the totem pole.

Completely irrelevant. The ruling of the court in Kitzmiller was that "irreducible complexity" is not valid science, and therefore is inherently religious and cannot be presented to public school students. Clearly this is erroneous.

There are, as has been shown here, competing theories about how the flagellum might have evolved, but like any scientific dispute, each side now has opportunity to support their theory with research and evidence. The key point being that the proposition of irreducible complexity is NOT inherently a theistic concept.

That's true. It's not "inherently a theistic concept." I'd agree with that.

Thanks. That's all I'm saying.[/quote]

If that's all you were saying, then this post would not be a page long. You're arguing for much more than that. Who cares that it's not "inherently a theistic concept?" Neither is the price of tea in China.

If it's not an inherently theistic concept, and it is a scientific concept, however thoroughly refuted it might be, then it's lawful to present that information to public school students. Thus, the judge in Kitzmiller was wrong in that regard.

It is my contention that students should be taught about irreducible complexity and DI-version neo-creationism along with other versions of intelligent design in order to give students full knowledge and understanding upon which they can make rational decisions, and that banning the controversy from the schools does more harm than good.

Objective education does not suppress knowledge, it presents both sides of the controversy and teaches kids how to use reason and logic to discern the truth. It is better to teach children how to reason than it is to simply stuff their heads full of information.

Moreover, evolutionists insist that the facts are so clear and compelling that any rational person could not disbelieve them, so why are they afraid to put their information up beside neo-Creationism and let the observer decide what is the truth?

[Gallstones]

Seth, where is the legitimate science of intelligent design occurring?

I don't think coining a new term, regardless of how enamored one might be with it, answers any of the questions. It just gives the bullshit a new name.

Rational decisions have to be based on facts, not speculation.
You would see facts and legitimate science diluted by speculative bullshit.

That anything exists does not equate to there being a creative entity.

[Thumpalumpacus]

My creationist friend has been asking some questions about evolution, that I don't know the answer to. Can you please answer these questions:


1. Has there been a demonstration of random mutation and natural selection generating complex new biological systems?

Yes. Cichlids in Lake Victoria. There are also fish in Central America which speciated in the space of 12 years, according to Carl Zimmer. I don't remember species name, apologies.

2. Is Darwinian Evolution Falsifiable?

Yes. Finding a human fossil in strata 300 million years old -- or finding an Archaeopteryx fossil in fresh soil -- would suffice. Another falsification could occur if you sequenced the genome of two individuals, and one genome had 23 pairs of chromosomes, and the other had 16.

[Gallstones]

Whoa, Thump, I really like your avatar.
Is it Klee?

[Thumpalumpacus]

The failure is the fault of science for not being very, very careful in using precise terminology in arguments against creationists so that the distinction is always made between actual "intelligent design" science, which does exist and is both real and a legitimate field of scientific inquiry, and pseudo-ID creationism as purveyed by the DI. Image is important, and so is precision in the use of language.

Wrong. The invention of "Intelligent Design" as a concept was clearly as a Trojan Horse to inject the topic into public schools. Are you aware of the Cdesign Proponentsist issue? It is pretty clear from that trail of evidence that ID was invented to facilitate the insertion of theism into public schools.

ID is an infinitesimal possibility, so far as evidence speaks nowadays. Cling to it if you wish.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Whoa, Thump, I really like your avatar.
Is it Klee?

Naw, it's Kandinsky. And thanks for the kind words.

[Gallstones]

Whoa, Thump, I really like your avatar.
Is it Klee?

Naw, it's Kandinsky. And thanks for the kind words.

Kandinsky is good too.
Thanks.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well, they're all European to me.

[Coito ergo sum]

Who has presumed that the design of organisms,or the genesis of life on this planet, could not possibly have been done by intelligent beings? We know we can create artificial life. We know there are other planets in the universe. We know there may be life on those planets. If there is intelligent life here, there may be intelligent life there. Scientists are seriously talking about "terraforming" worlds like Mars, etc. - so, if you call that "intelligent design" (we are intelligent - terraforming is design) then we have intelligent design.

Well, it certainly seems that the vast majority of people I've encountered in this and other like fora can't integrate the facts as well as you have and admit that intelligent design is both a fact and a scientific proposition. You're one of the very few who has had the courage to go ahead and admit the obvious truths I've been stating for years now.

I doubt it. I think the idea is that what you call Intelligent Design is an unconventional use of the term. I would be willing to bet that not a single person here would "rule out" the POSSIBILITY that Earth was seeded with life. It's POSSIBLE. Is there any evidence for it now? No. All looks explainable by perfectly non-artificial, undirected means. But, frankly, we just don't know how life first arose on Earth. That's the most we can say - we don't yet know.

Correct. So the intelligent design origin of life on earth hypothesis is still in play.

"In play" is vague and ambiguous.

There is no evidence for it. But, the idea that aliens may terraform worlds, or genetically alter existing life forms, or form life forms from non-living matter is not completely ridiculous because it's certainly theoretically conceivable that humans can do all those things. I don't call that "Intelligent Design", though because of the possibility of confusion with the prevailing, common English usage of the term "Intelligent Design." I won't take your bait, in other words.

Even Dawkins acknowledges the POSSIBILITY of seeding life on Earth. The reason why people fight you on the use of the term "Intelligent Design" is the fact that ID proponents use this argument technique to bait-and-switch the issue. A person says, "we have intelligent design when people design cars, buildings ,and even life forms, so if alien creatures terraformed the Earth, that's Intelligent Design." And, if you accept that, then they say "see, you accept Intelligent Design" and they try to add all the baggage of that term, meaning the Behe and Discovery Institute NONSENSE - complete and utter NONSENSE that is the actual "theory of Intelligent Design," as opposed to your limited recognition of the ability of intelligent beings to design biological life. We obviously can, so if there are aliens, they might be able to, too.

I agree, that's precisely what they do. They use legitimate science as a Trojan horse for their creationist arguments.

That's why Intelligent Design is not a good term to use. It is too loaded, in common English usage, with the bullshit of douchebags. It's a steaming diaper.

That's no reason to discard the legitimate science of intelligent design, it's a reason to fight for accuracy and precision in usage of scientific terminology.

There isn't a "legitimate science of intelligent design." There are legitimate sciences of biology, geology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, various engineering disciplines, genetics, genetic engineering. Genetic engineering is not "intelligent design science." It's genetic engineering.

I asked you to cite the leading books on this "legitimate science of intelligent design." I'd love to read up on it.

Abandoning the field of battle should not be an option.

It's not a field of battle, except in your mind. I, for one, am not concerned with using the term "intelligent design," nor do I find the term useful. The way Behe and his douchebag cohorts use it, it is a mask for religious nonsense. The way you use it, it is a mask for pseudoscience and a backhanded bait-and-switch tactic to make people agree that the general concept of Intelligent Design has some credibility, by getting them to call genetic engineering and terraforming "intelligent design."

[Eriku]

Jesus... has nobody told Seth that what he's talking about is Panspermia, and not Intelligent Design?

[Coito ergo sum]

By allowing the DI and other creationists to misappropriate the term for their own nefarious purposes, objectors lose both the teachable moment and grant credibility to creationists they don't deserve and shouldn't have.

It's not misappropriating the term. They're the ones that invented it - or people like them. That's the primary meaning of it.

I think if you saying that you agree that the Intelligent Design as that term is used by Behe, the DI and other such douche bags is hogwash, but that you find the possibility of terraforming, planetary seeding of life, artificial selection, and designer life forms intriguing, you won't get many arguments from folks on a-religious side of the spectrum.

I disagree. The notion of intelligent design, of both the universal constants and the idea intelligent design of life on earth long precedes Behe and the DI. I certainly recall such notions being in evidence in science fiction writing clear back in the 60's. I'll have to try and recall what books proposed the theme, but I was thinking about the potential of intelligent design of life on earth while Behe was still in high school, so it's hardly an idea unique to neo-Creationism.

And that term, "neo-Creationism" is a very, very apt term, and THAT is the term that should be used. In fact, every time someone mentions DI-version ID, it should be replaced with "you mean neo-Creationism."

Look - the "notion" is not the "term." I said the "term" was invented by the douchebags. Obviously, ID is in large part repackaged ancient arguments from Apologetics in the past. The term was invented and means a certain thing today. I'll use the term as you mean it to be, but I will always be careful to clarify what I mean by that, so as not to fall for the game of "agreeing with Intelligent Design." I don't agree with Intelligent Design. I can see how it would be theoretically technologically feasible to terraform a planet, or to genetically engineer life. If you call that "intelligent design" then I know what you mean. I don't call it that, because of the confusion it would cause because of the larger, general meaning of Intelligent Design in common English usage.

In case you haven't noticed, that's exactly what I'm probing at like a dentist scraping an infection out of a decaying tooth. You are granting legitimacy to the creationists by allowing them to control the terminology of the debate. What Behe and his cohorts are purveying is NOT INTELLIGENT DESIGN. The judge in Kitzmiller was pretty clear about that. They were purveying creationism "dressed up" and "repackaged' as "intelligent design."

That's what Intelligent Design is, neo Creationism.

I agree completely, and I like the term a LOT, and intend to begin using it.

That's why I won't call genetic engineering "intelligent design."

What you're describing is not "Intelligent Design." Intelligent Design would posit that the aliens seeding the Earth, like humans maybe one day seeding Mars or some other planet, would have had to be Intelligently Designed. They think ALL LIFE must have been intelligently designed, that's the whole point of Intelligent Design in the first place.

Life is "too complex" or "too perfect" to have come about "by chance," and the universe is "too complex" or "too perfect" to have come about "by chance." That's Intelligent Design - that kind of nonsensical thinking. Intelligent Design is not now and never has been - "aliens might well have seeded Earth." That, flat out, is not "Intelligent Design."

But it should be,

I don't care. I'll use the words by their common English meanings.

and we can try to change the paradigm by labeling it accurately as "neo-Creationism."

I don't want to waste my time with that. I do not want to label things like genetic engineering "intelligent design." Genetic engineering is a perfectly good and useful term, and calling it "ID" is pointless and stupid.

Your imagination appears to be running wild. The un-anointed public hardly cares about the issue, and those that do think "Intelligent Designer" means the "higher power" that created the universe, not some alien from the planet Mongo who seeded the Earth with life that started evolving.

And they should be disabused of that notion in part by labeling what they believe appropriately as "neo-Creationism."

I'll take the easier path of just calling bullshit on Intelligent Design. I am not going to be an activist on what I think should be the proper usage of the term "intelligent design." Mainly, that's because I don't think the term is needed at all. The words we have for various sciences and engineering disciplines work just fine. Chemistry is a good enough word for the way chemicals interact, and Chemical Engineering is a good enough word for man's engineering of chemicals. Genetics is a good enough word for the science of genes, and genetic engineering is a good enough word for man's engineering of genes.

I find no good use for a euphemism like "ID."

I see your bait and switch. You change the debate - get them to admit that life on Earth could have been designed in the sense of aliens seeding the Earth, and then say "aha! you believe in Intelligent Design as a possibility." But, then the switch is that at the dawn of life in the Universe, the ID proponents think a deity-like being must have created the first life - because life is just too complex, or too perfect, or irreducibly complex, or some other such bullshit.

I have no "bait and switch" motive. The question of the origin of the universe is still in flux, according to current cosmological theory, even within the Perimeter Institute in Toronto. Nobody has any good read on how this universe was created, or for matter if it was created at all, and notions that this universe might have been created by an intelligence in another universe are no less valid than any other cosmological theory, all of which are abstract mathematical theories and not observationally confirmed.

I'll take your word for it on the motive. I agree with you on the remainder of your statement here. I will add that there is no reason to call it "Intelligent Design." That euphemism will only confuse things. Cosmology and astronomy are good enough terms, as are physics and theoretical physics, quantum mechanics and other terms that actually describe things.

Scientists, even DI scientists, are free to posit their "irreducible complexity" arguments, and other scientists are free to refute them. Isn't that how science actually works?

Sure. They are free to posit alchemy too, and other scientists are free to refute them.

Irreducible complexity is pretty well refuted, like the static universe and flat earth. Obviously, all knowledge is provisional and someone may well present a very cogent theory on irreducible complexity. If they do, they'll win a Nobel prize. Throughout the history of science, there have been many who have toiled in their laboratories proving what the common understanding rejected - germ theory of disease, for example. If you think "irreducible complexity" is of that character, then absolutely, have at it. I don't. I think irreducible complexity is an argument from ignorance, and means basically "I can't figure it out, so it must be too complex." So far, nobody has presented evidence that I find sufficient to support irreducible complexity as a plausible explanation for anything. So, that's why I find it useless. It, however, like Santa Claus, the Static Universe, the flat Earth, and alchemy may well be true - anything is possible. I highly doubt it.

I am reminded of a quote by one of my favorite people of all time, Isaac Asimov. "He said once, of the existence of god, I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time." That's how I feel about Irreducible Complexity - it's another unfalsifiable concept. All it is is a statement that some structure is "too complex" to have come about naturally. For most of these structures, all we can do is come up with a plausible natural explanation - we can't reproduce a million years of evolution in a lab, so the proponents of Irreducible Complexity will always just hand wave that away. Some of them still cling to the idea that the human eye could not have evolved because of irreducible complexity - reams of material exists on the evolution of the eye, and how eyes evolved many times independently of each other. Still the ID and irreducible complexity crowd will cling to the same tired refrains.

You might want to consult a psychiatrist about some medication to treat that paranoia you seem to be suffering from. You appear to have delusions of persecution too.

Not paranoia. It's my sense of what you're arguing. I see no other reason why you cling so tenaciously to the euphemism "intelligent design." It's not needed, and only confuses things. I'll accept that you have no ulterior motive, since you say so. But, I'll never use the term intelligent design in the way you mean it, without at least clarifying very clearly that I don't mean 'Intelligent Design' as that term is generally used. And, since that takes a lot more typing, I'm going to keep on using terms like "genetic engineering" and "terraforming."

There isn't any factual agreement between science and Creationism.

Really? So Earth does not exist and is not filled with life? Interesting hypothesis.

That life exists is not Creationist theory. Creationist theory is the idea that life was specially created. Creationism is not the theory that Earth exists and has life on it. If it were, everyone would be a Creationist. Life does exist, and so does Earth. That's a fact - not a theory. Theories are explanations of facts/phenomena. Creationism explains the fact of life existing and the Earth existing by positing a divine creator being as having done it - the various conceptions of this theory have various iterations of a god or gods doing various things which purport to explain the existence of the Earth and life on it. There is no agreement between the creationist theory - creationism - and science.

But that doesn't damage the creationists nearly as much as it damages the credibility of scientists in the eyes of the general public, who see the refusal of science to be objective and dispassionate about the debate as weakness in the scientific arguments.

I don't think that's the case. The bigger danger is that the public will fall for the bait-and-switch of categorizing "artificial selection" and "terraforming" as "Intelligent Design." They will then think that all Intelligent Design is of similarly reasonable.

Then it's up to science to show them the light, isn't it?

No. I think people should just learn about science, like physics, chemistry, biology, geography, paleontology, etc. to some reasonable degree. If they would do that, and just spend a little time in a library investigating all the interesting science out there, they would have no use for Intelligent Design. It's a false dilemma. Just learn science, and the bullshit of the ID douchebags will be just an annoyance. It's really not worthy of much attention. I happen to like reading the latest tripe from them - it's like when I read a religious text, though - I go into it hoping that this time there will be something interesting or persuasive raised, and I am always disappointed.

Both the notion that intelligent design may be responsible for the evolution of living organisms on this planet, and the notion that certain biological functions are irreducibly complex are legitimate scientific questions.

Irreducible complexity isn't a really serious question anymore. It's just throwing darts on a dartboard now.

So? It's still perfectly scientific in its formulation and analysis, and it's refutation.[/quote]

Not really - it's essentially an argument from ignorance, and it's a hypothesis that explains nothing. It boils down to: The eye is too complex to have evolved - followed by, an explanation for how it evolved - followed by "oh, yeah, but what about the flagellum?" (and, of course, the myriad folks who just reject the evolution of the eye out of hand).

The evolution of things like the eye or the bacterium flagellum are explained by evolution, as well as every other item alleged to be "irreducibly complex." It's not really a legitimate issue. Certainly, someone is free to write a paper on what they believe to be irreducibly complex - but, from what I've seen, these all wind up being arguments from ignorance. It's just "I don't see how it could work - so it must be irreducibly complex." Frankly, it's a very silly concept that's a waste of time to teach in school - but, if it was to be taught, it would take about five minutes.

Precisely. And that's WHY it should be taught in school.

I'd vote no. It's silly. I'd rather my kids be taught chemistry, physics, and biology.

If it takes five minutes to debunk it, like it takes five minutes to point out that Copernicus was right, that information needs to be imparted to students, does it not?

No. It does nothing to further their education. It's just a shoehorn for divinities.

By labeling it as "inherently religious" and banning it from the classroom, as the Kitzmiller judge did, it does not serve the goal of debunking the science using science, it merely reinforces the common belief that science is being suppressed by atheists, and to a great extent that is absolutely correct.

Ancient astronauts, genetic engineering, astronomy, terraforming, and the like are not banned from the classroom by Kitzmiller. So, if those things are what you care about, then there is no issue. It's only if you care about the things Kitzmiller rejected that there becomes an issue.

If irreducible complexity is inherently religious, then so is pre-Copernican science. Teaching is how you debunk the pseudo-science. You don't teach kids to think critically by concealing information from them.

Nothing is "concealed." Religion is just kept out of the classroom. Genetics can be taught in school. I am sure they still teach Mendeleev and his genetic experiments, and the "fruit fly" bit in school, right? I am sure they can teach how humans can genetically engineer life (a little advanced for high school, but they can certainly mention it).

Other than the general term "intelligent design" - what specific things do you want taught? Genetics, including the possibility of humans creating artificial organisms - I'm with you. Astronomy and planetary exploration, and the possibility terraforming - sure. Artificial selection and the creation of the banana and the modern dog? Sure! Yes! All good! -- Now, other than stuff like that, what other "intelligent design" do you want in the classroom....?

The fact that humans have designed living organisms by shaping their evolution is obvious and observable. Dog breeds. Bananas. But, the rest of what you wrote is just speculation. It's not even a hypothesis, since to be a hypothesis you have to have a way of testing it. Until then, it's dreaming. Imagination. Very fun and all, but we don't even know if there are other universes. There is some theoretical physics that postulates that possibility. But, there is no way to test it as yet.

Well, I've gotten you to admit to the "as yet" part, which is a start.

You haven't "gotten me" to do anything. That's been my position since long before I ever heard of you.

It is also important to note that the debate about irreducible complexity is also, in and of itself, a completely legitimate scientific debate.

It's not, really. Name one "irreducibly complex" organism.

Irrelevant.

It's the most relevant point.

I could say that life itself is irreducibly complex,

I could say that life is imaginary and we are all in the dream of a little boy sleeping in another world. I could say the price of tea in China is 42 Yuan.

that life cannot occur through naturalistic processes, and at this moment that claim is as accurate as any other,

Only one claim is accurate. But, the assertion that life cannot occur through naturalistic processes is not likely to be true. All the indications are that life arose on Earth naturally.

since we don't know how life began on earth.

Not precisely, but we do have some working theories that have experimental bases in fact.

That's not the issue, however. The issue is whether the irreducible complexity argument is SCIENCE or RELIGION. It's not inherently religious, and it is inherently scientific.

It's inherently stupid, and is swallowed mainly by scientific illiterates, from what I've seen. It's an argument from ignorance, as I've noted.

The proposition is a valid scientific question that may be investigated and confirmed and can be falsified, so it's a legitimate field of inquiry. At the moment, the irreducible complexity arguments offered by the Discovery Institute are not strong, and the claims have been carefully examined and discussed and subjected to rigorous peer review and have largely been rejected as unsound.

So, it seems that that aspect, you will admit, has received sufficient attention.

Of course.

Good, then we can call irreducible complexity what it has been shown to be: wrong and silly

But, as scientists, we

We? Are you a scientist? What discipline? What's your scientific education?

Um. Not that my science background is relevant, but the segment you extracted this from is written in the person of "science," as an example of how science SHOULD respond to questions from the scientifically ignorant about neo-Creationism.

O.k. - you said "we" which included "you." I'm not a scientist, but I do have a much higher than average scientific background.

Anyone can come up with a million different discredited and stupid ideas, like irreducible complexity. We don't have the time to teach them all to children. What I want children taught in high school is physics, chemistry, biology and mathematics (hopefully up through calculus), Anatomy/physiology, Astronomy, Earth Science and Geology, and hopefully more. Intelligent Design would be a waste of time and energy. Books on "ID" are available in libraries for free, and in every bookstore for small prices - if some kid wants to explore the idea that the universe is 'too complex" and "too perfect" they don't need to do that in class. Are kids in the US graduate stupid enough already, and I would prefer they learn the core of science.

As rational, well-formed hypotheses involving the question of the intelligent design of living organisms on this planet,

What rational ,well-formed, hypothesis is that?

Whichever ones appear.

When one appears, I'll be able to address your assertion. Right now, there doesn't appear to be one. You'll correct me if I'm wrong, of course.

or indeed the origins of life on this planet or others, and even as cosmological hypotheses about the origin and design of the fundamental physics of our universe, or others, through intelligent design come before the scientific community, they will be investigated and discussed with due regard and respect for their strengths as scientific arguments and with an acknowledgment that science is neither omniscient nor infallible, and every scientific hypothesis is subject to examination and revision when new evidence appears.

See - you really want to make this about some entity designing the universe....

Is that an impossibility?

Careful now...is that an "impossibility?" No. Neither is it impossible that there is a god or gods. Very little, if anything, is "impossible." Saying that something is not impossible is not relevant to the issue.

The OP forwarded some questions from the "friend" of a member who had legitimate questions about the subject of evolution. Rather than provide the member with useful information in a form that is persuasive and respectful, that might help him to actually educate his friend and turn him away from ignorance, little is found but ridicule, derision, insult and opprobrium for being so stupid and ignorant as to not know the obvious truths of science without having to be told them.

It depends how the question was asked, I suppose. Often, we on the atheist side get questions with ulterior motives and an intent to achieve a "gotcha" or nonserious attempts to ridicule us. So, many atheists can be defensive on that point, and suspicious of booby traps in arguments. You do it sometimes, and I can see what you're doing with the Intelligent Design argument - you're trying to get respect for the larger Intelligent Design concept by getting people to call "terraforming" and artificial selection "intelligent design." It's a way to rhetorically conflate different concepts into one.

Actually, that's just your paranoia at work. It's not real, it's just a delusion.

If you say so. I wouldn't mind you explaining why you care so much about using the term "intelligent design" in place of "genetic engineering" or "terraforming." There doesn't seem to be any need for it, and you plainly don't limit what you are calling "ID" to those specific things - you have a much larger agenda, and you've given hints at it - with your "space aliens from alternate universes" idea.

Right. Moreover, the hypothesis that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex is a valid scientific hypothesis, even if it has not been supported by experimentation.

So is "leaves are green" a valid scientific hypothesis. On the level of importance, however, to the issue of science, evolutionary biology, etc., it's pretty low on the totem pole.

Completely irrelevant. The ruling of the court in Kitzmiller was that "irreducible complexity" is not valid science, and therefore is inherently religious and cannot be presented to public school students. Clearly this is erroneous.

That wan't the holding. The Court ordered that the ID Policy in the Dover school district was unconstitutional, and that policy could not be used, and that ID was not science.

On why ID is not science:

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that
while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no
position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one
of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1)
ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting
supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID,
employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation
science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted
by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is
additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific
community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the
subject of testing and research.

Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16
th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain
natural phenomena. (9:19-22 (Haught); 5:25-29 (Pennock); 1:62 (Miller)). This
revolution entailed the rejection of the appeal to authority, and by extension,
revelation, in favor of empirical evidence. (5:28 (Pennock)). Since that time
period, science has been a discipline in which testability, rather than any
ecclesiastical authority or philosophical coherence, has been the measure of a
scientific idea’s worth. (9:21-22 (Haught); 1:63 (Miller)). In deliberately omitting
theological or “ultimate” explanations for the existence or characteristics of the
natural world, science does not consider issues of “meaning” and “purpose” in the
world. (9:21 (Haught); 1:64, 87 (Miller)). While supernatural explanations may
be important and have merit, they are not part of science. (3:103 (Miller); 9:19-20
(Haught)). This self-imposed convention of science, which limits inquiry to
testable, natural explanations about the natural world, is referred to by philosophers
as “methodological naturalism” and is sometimes known as the scientific method.
(5:23, 29-30 (Pennock)). Methodological naturalism is a “ground rule” of science
today which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based
upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify. (1:59-64, 2:41-43 (Miller);
5:8, 23-30 (Pennock)).

As the National Academy of Sciences (hereinafter “NAS”) was recognized
by experts for both parties as the “most prestigious” scientific association in this
country, we will accordingly cite to its opinion where appropriate. (1:94, 160-61
(Miller); 14:72 (Alters); 37:31 (Minnich)). NAS is in agreement that science is
limited to empirical, observable and ultimately testable data: “Science is a
particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are restricted
to those that can be inferred from the confirmable data – the results obtained
through observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists.
Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation.
Explanations that cannot be based upon empirical evidence are not part of science.”
(P-649 at 27).

This rigorous attachment to “natural” explanations is an essential attribute to
science by definition and by convention. (1:63 (Miller); 5:29-31 (Pennock)). We
are in agreement with Plaintiffs’ lead expert Dr. Miller, that from a practical
perspective, attributing unsolved problems about nature to causes and forces that
lie outside the natural world is a “science stopper.” (3:14-15 (Miller)). As Dr.
Miller explained, once you attribute a cause to an untestable supernatural force, a
proposition that cannot be disproven, there is no reason to continue seeking natural
explanations as we have our answer. Id.

ID is predicated on supernatural causation, as we previously explained and
as various expert testimony revealed. (17:96 (Padian); 2:35-36 (Miller); 14:62
(Alters)).

* * *

Conclusion

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts
of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the
Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the
seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and
moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious,
antecedents.

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock
assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory
is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in
general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the
theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the
scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the
existence of a divine creator.

To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fac
that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not
be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in
religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific
propositions.

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the
Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals,
who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would
time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID
Policy.

With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID
have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor
do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As
stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an
alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an
activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court.
Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction
on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a
constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an
imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the
Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which
has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers
of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal
maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

The judge also correctly skewered irreducible complexity in the opinion. He found that irreducible complexity had been refuted in modern science, and that even if it hadn't been, it was not an argument FOR Intelligent Design, only an argument AGAINST evolution. Page. 79. The court never ruled that I.C. was not science - he ruled that it had been refuted, and wasn't support for ID anyway, and he ruled that ID was not science.

http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller ... er_342.pdf Kitzmiller is a masterful opinion by a conservative judge.

There are, as has been shown here, competing theories about how the flagellum might have evolved, but like any scientific dispute, each side now has opportunity to support their theory with research and evidence. The key point being that the proposition of irreducible complexity is NOT inherently a theistic concept.

That's true. It's not "inherently a theistic concept." I'd agree with that.

Thanks. That's all I'm saying.

If that's all you were saying, then this post would not be a page long. You're arguing for much more than that. Who cares that it's not "inherently a theistic concept?" Neither is the price of tea in China.

If it's not an inherently theistic concept, and it is a scientific concept,[/quote]

I only admitted that it's not an "inherently theistic concept." The terms here are important - "inherently" modifying "theistic." ID is not science. Irreducible complexity does not support ID and has been refuted everywhere it rears its ugly head.

however thoroughly refuted it might be, then it's lawful to present that information to public school students. Thus, the judge in Kitzmiller was wrong in that regard.

Kitzmiller didn't rule that irreducible complexity could not under any circumstances be taught in public schools. It ordered that the ID Policy at issue in that case be enjoined, for the reasons stated therein.

It is my contention that students should be taught about irreducible complexity

Why? Because it's baseless, refuted, doesn't prove ID and doesn't refute evolution, since I.C. itself has been soundly defeated?

and DI-version neo-creationism along with other versions of intelligent design in order to give students full knowledge and understanding upon which they can make rational decisions, and that banning the controversy from the schools does more harm than good.

The only reason this crap is injected into school curricula is to infect young minds with nonsense. The kids are better off learning physics, chemistry, calculus, astronomy, biology and genetics. ID is crap and it isn't science.

Objective education does not suppress knowledge, it presents both sides of the controversy

There is no controversy.

And, we don't have time in the day to teach every cock-a-mamie dream that someone comes up with.

and teaches kids how to use reason and logic to discern the truth. It is better to teach children how to reason than it is to simply stuff their heads full of information.

There is a definite need, in my opinion, to stuff the kids' heads with information. Kids graduate very deficient in information. The idiocy that passes for scientific knowledge among high school graduates is breathtaking. I want them to learn stuff. Some of it need not be taught as a controversy - there is a flat earth society, and we need not teach their theory, even though it isn't "inherently theistic." We don't have to teach the ideas of those who claim to refute the periodic table of the elements, either.

Moreover, evolutionists

Telling use of terminology. I getcha.

insist that the facts are so clear and compelling that any rational person could not disbelieve them, so why are they afraid to put their information up beside neo-Creationism and let the observer decide what is the truth?

Because public high school science courses is not the time or the place for such debates. There is such a monumental amount of information that kids ought to be learning that wasting time with neo-Creationism or ID is a waste of time and money. They ought to be learning how evolution works. If they can do that, that in itself would be a victory.

[Coito ergo sum]

Jesus... has nobody told Seth that what he's talking about is Panspermia, and not Intelligent Design?

He appears to be obliquely advocating that things like panspermia, terraforming and genetic engineering be lumped together under some "Science of Intelligent Design" which would include aliens in other dimensions or universes theories of the origin of our universe, and presumably as well as deities, divinities and other non-natural causes. That way, we can have a science that requires us, using his logic, to teach about the non-natural causes.

[Eriku]

Jesus... has nobody told Seth that what he's talking about is Panspermia, and not Intelligent Design?

He appears to be obliquely advocating that things like panspermia, terraforming and genetic engineering be lumped together under some "Science of Intelligent Design" which would include aliens in other dimensions or universes theories of the origin of our universe, and presumably as well as deities, divinities and other non-natural causes. That way, we can have a science that requires us, using his logic, to teach about the non-natural causes.

Seth's finding it hard to convincingly troll without coming across as reaching for invisible ungraspable straws.

The name Intelligent Design tells us what's at the core of the notion, at least as it pertains to the scientific debate in biology on earth... If he begs to differ then I reckon you should file it under willful ignorance on his part and move on with your day.

Or do you get a perverse pleasure from this rampant multi-quoting?

[Coito ergo sum]

My creationist friend has been asking some questions about evolution, that I don't know the answer to. Can you please answer these questions:


1. Has there been a demonstration of random mutation and natural selection generating complex new biological systems?

This appears to be one of those carefully crafted questions - I am not clear what is meant by a "demonstration." There is evidence of random mutation occurring. There is evidence of natural selection occurring. Each time they occur, a new biological system comes into being.

Demonstrations of natural selection in action include the finches on the Galapagos Islands, and the population of dark moths in England.

A simple demonstration can be done using dandelions:
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/se ... o=EJ485452

2. Is Darwinian Evolution Falsifiable?

Yes - fossil rabbits in the Precambrian, for example. There are many others.

In the http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2 ... lsifiable/ blurb referred to in the OP, the writer points out that some biologist said that there is no way to recreate evolution in a laboratory. The writer concludes, evolution must be unfalsifiable. Rubbish. Just because we can't recreate something in a lab doesn't make it unfalsifiable - it can be falsified in other ways, like - fossil rabbits found in the precambrian.

Other theories are similar - we don't need to recreate a universe in the laboratory to demonstrate the quality of the Big Bang theory, and we don't have to recreate a solar system in a lab to demonstrate nebular theory of planetary formation (or falsify either).

The writer of the toughquestionsanswered article in the link simply draws an unwarranted conclusion - he leaps from "not recreatable in a lab" to "completely scientifically unfalsifiable."

There - OP dispatched in toto.

[Seth]

Seth, where is the legitimate science of intelligent design occurring?

I don't know, but it's not relevant. The question is whether the proposition of intelligent design is scientific or religious.

I don't think coining a new term, regardless of how enamored one might be with it, answers any of the questions. It just gives the bullshit a new name.

But is it bullshit?

Rational decisions have to be based on facts, not speculation.

Of course.

You would see facts and legitimate science diluted by speculative bullshit.

How so? How is the proposition of an extra-universal intelligence capable of manipulating genetics in this universe any less speculative than the proposition that another universe exists in the first place?

How does either speculation dilute or harm science? Is science so fragile that it cannot withstand speculation?

That anything exists does not equate to there being a creative entity.

Nor does it preclude such an entity.