Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Tuesday, May 23, 2006

Evolutionism vs. a Real scientific theory

The Germ Theory of Disease- first put forth by Creationist Louis Pasteur makes many specific hypotheses, which link specific micro-organisms (germ) with specific communicable diseases. In each case it is explained how the germ was/ is transmitted. In each case it is explained how the infection (by the germ) produces the syptoms associated with the disease.

Now THAT is a testable theory. We can treat the the disease with an agency (anti-b) known to be fatal with the hypothesized germ, then see if the disease is cured. Or we can use an agency known to block the channels known to transmit the disease and see if it is contained.

Evolutionism has none of that. It relies solely on circumstantial evidence.

12 Comments:

  • At 4:09 PM, Blogger James Wynne said…

    Do you mean we can test the hypotheses?? Or have you just demonstrated that you don't understand the difference between a theory and a hypothesis?

     
  • At 6:48 PM, Blogger Raevmo said…

    The Germ Theory of Disease- first put forth by Creationist Louis Pasteur makes many specific hypotheses, which link specific micro-organisms (germ) with specific communicable diseases. In each case it is explained how the germ was/ is transmitted. In each case it is explained how the infection (by the germ) produces the syptoms associated with the disease.

    Now THAT is a testable theory. We can treat the the disease with an agency (anti-b) known to be fatal with the hypothesized germ, then see if the disease is cured. Or we can use an agency known to block the channels known to transmit the disease and see if it is contained.

    Evolutionism has none of that. It relies solely on circumstantial evidence.


    No it doesn't Joe, you know very well that evolution by natural selection has been demonstrated over and over again in the wild and in the lab. That's direct evidence. If you deny that then you are either ignorant or a liar. I don't think you are ignorant so you must be lying.

    Of course a lot of evidence for evolution is circumstantial, there were not a lot of witnesses around during most of the time. That's an inherent problem with historical science.

    Why don't you give us an example of uncircumstantial evidence for the acts of the designer?

     
  • At 8:26 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Raevmo:
    No it doesn't Joe, you know very well that evolution by natural selection has been demonstrated over and over again in the wild and in the lab.

    Right and NS in the lab and in the wild has been demonstrated to be a conserving process. Nothing demonstrates that NS can provide evolutionism with anything of substance.

    Genetic homeostasis seems to be the rule in the lab and in the wild. Go figure. IOW one has to go against the data in order to believe in evolutionism.

    BTW evolutionism is very different than just evolution. Do I have to spell it out again? OK:

    The meanings of [I]evolution[/I], from [I]Darwinism, Design and Public Education[/I]:

    1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature
    2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population
    3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.
    4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.
    5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.
    6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.


    Evolutionism is #6.

    Raevmo:
    Why don't you give us an example of uncircumstantial evidence for the acts of the designer?

    If they are both based on the same type of evidence then poerhaps we should either teach both or teach neither.

    I would be more than OK with presenting the data and the options as to that data's existence.

     
  • At 9:34 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    JW:
    Do you mean we can test the hypotheses??

    In the Germ Theory we can test the individual hypotheses- objectively and directly.

    JW:
    Or have you just demonstrated that you don't understand the difference between a theory and a hypothesis?

    Anyone who thinks evolutionism is a theory surely doesn't understand the difference.

    Did you have a point?

     
  • At 7:26 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "I draw an inference. An inference based on the scientific data we do have."

    joe g: "Evolutionism has none of that. It relies solely on circumstantial evidence."

    Consistency is not your strength.


    joe g: "5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor."

    You have denied the evidence for common descent previously. Now you only find a problem with #6. If you can't keep track of your claims, it undermines any credibility you might have.

    joe g: "6...the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes"

    That could be applied to astronomy, chemistry, physics, plate tectonics, quantum mechanics, or any other scientific field. In any case, there is strong scientific evidence that many of the mechanisms that led to the diversification of life have been identified.

    There is no scientifically valid assertion of design in biology (other than historically recent human interventions). The assertion of design is either a philosophical or religious belief; or in the case of Intelligent Design, a falsehood disguised in the language of science to convince a gullible lay public.

     
  • At 9:35 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    joe g: "I draw an inference. An inference based on the scientific data we do have."

    joe g: "Evolutionism has none of that. It relies solely on circumstantial evidence."


    Zach:
    Consistency is not your strength.

    Conflation, misrepresentations, assertions and unsupported claims appear to be your "strengths".

    joe g: "5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor."

    Zach:
    You have denied the evidence for common descent previously.

    I haven't denied it. It is all circumstantial. That is a fact of life.

    Zach:
    Now you only find a problem with #6.

    No butthead- try to pay attention. #6 is what is being pushed in schools.

    Zach:
    If you can't keep track of your claims, it undermines any credibility you might have.

    Perhaps if you could follow along as opposed to jumping in the middle of something you would be better off. However I do understand that arguing from ignoarance is your favorite position.

    joe g: "6...the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes"

    Zach:
    That could be applied to astronomy, chemistry, physics, plate tectonics, quantum mechanics, or any other scientific field.

    You are slower than molasses on a cold winter's day. OF course it applies across the board. THAT is where "The Privileged Planet" comes in. You would have known that had you read the book but again there is your ignorance factor...

    Zach:
    In any case, there is strong scientific evidence that many of the mechanisms that led to the diversification of life have been identified.

    That is nothing but a bald assertion. We don't even know what makes an organism what it is. Until then life's diversification will have to wait.

    Zach:
    There is no scientifically valid assertion of design in biology (other than historically recent human interventions).

    That there is design in biology is obvious. It is what we attribute that to that is in debate.

    However there isn't any scientific data that demonstrates life is the result of unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes. So where does that leave us?

    Like it or not there are only three options to our existence.

    The assertion of "sheer dumb luck" is nothing but an ignoramous' view of reality. Yet that is what the anti-IDists want us to believe- that we are the product of sheer dumb luck- right from the start!

    The Earth and solar system- the result of multiple cosmic accidents- life- the result of multiple chemical accidents- life's diversity- the result of many accumulating genetic accidents.

    Do you guys ever stop and think about what it is you are saying when you rant against ID? Do you not realize that the alternative to ID is the very unscientific "sheer dumb luck"?

    You guys probably think that one could get "War and Peace" from "Don Quixote" via illions of introduced copying errors accumulating over time. True you may have a better imagination than I, but that will never be construed as scientific data.

     
  • At 11:02 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "Conflation, misrepresentations, assertions and unsupported claims appear to be your 'strengths'."

    I put two of your own statements side-by-side that appear to contradict one another. I think an explanation would be appropriate.

    joe g: "I haven't denied it. It is all circumstantial."

    So is the evidence for electrons.

    joe g: "OF course it applies across the board."

    The claim is that there is scientific evidence that the orbit of the Moon is due to design. This is a false claim. The scientific evidence indicates that the Moon is a natural object that is in a natural orbit the result of contingency. There is no scientific evidence to support the design assertion. E.g., there is no way to falsify the assertion.

    joe g: "That there is design in biology is obvious."

    The use of the word "design" in the popular debate over evolution specifically refers to intelligent design. Any other use leads to confusion and conflation.

    joe g: "However there isn't any scientific data that demonstrates life is the result of unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes."

    That is incorrect. There is the nested hierarchy of extant life, genomics, embryonics, and microbiology. There is the succession of fossils. There is the direct observation of evolution. There is the direct observation of mutation and natural selection. There are mathematical models called genetic algorithms that show how networks spontaneously order themselves. And each of these broad observations allow the prediction of specific observations, and every new observation in biology is a potential falsification.

    Evolution Defined

    But pursuing this is immaterial. As the claim is that plate tectonics and the orbit of the moon are designed, these patently unscientific ideas are enough to convince most any openminded person stumbling into this thread that your assertions are not grounded in science.

    joe g: "Like it or not there are only three options to our existence."

    Life is so simple when we can put everything into such neat categories. That doesn't usually work for science, especially scientific studies of complex topics.

    joe g: "The Earth and solar system- the result of multiple cosmic accidents"

    You might want to push that angle for a while so that people can see how unscientific your views are.

    joe g: "Do you not realize that the alternative to ID is the very unscientific 'sheer dumb luck'?"

    When you shuffle a deck of cards, the order is one in nearly 10^68 possible arrangements. When you shuffle a trillion billion stars who knows what is possible.

     
  • At 10:22 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "The assertion of 'sheer dumb luck' is nothing but an ignoramous' view of reality."

    Molecules of gas collide according to statistical rules we could call "sheer dumb luck", yet if spritz perfume into the air, "sheer dumb luck" has the inevitable result that the perfume will permeate the air thoughout the room. "Sheer dumb luck" can have specific predictable consequences.

     
  • At 10:19 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    joe g: "I haven't denied it. It is all circumstantial."

    Zach:
    So is the evidence for electrons.

    Just because we can't see electrons does NOT mean the data for their existence is circumstantial. That you think so just further exposes your anti-science agenda.

    joe g: "OF course it applies across the board."

    Zach:
    The claim is that there is scientific evidence that the orbit of the Moon is due to design.

    Actually the claim is when ALL of the data are considered, the exostence and orbit ofour large Moon being part of that, then intelligent design is the best explanation when compared to the alternative of "sheer dumb luck", which is the anti-ID position.

    joe g: "However there isn't any scientific data that demonstrates life is the result of unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes."

    Zach:
    That is incorrect.

    It could be but I am sure you will not provide any data that demonstrtaes that is incorrect. IOW all you have are assertions.

    Zach:
    There is the nested hierarchy of extant life, genomics, embryonics, and microbiology. There is the succession of fossils.

    Just how does unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes explain those? NH is also evidence for a common design. Genomics and embruonics are NO friend of evolutionism.

    Zach:
    There is the direct observation of evolution.

    Evolution is not being debated.

    Zach:
    There is the direct observation of mutation and natural selection.

    That lead to very small-scale changes.

    There isn't any way to falsify the premise of evolutionism- except to get the designer to sit down and tell us how it happened.

    joe g: "Like it or not there are only three options to our existence."

    Zach:
    Life is so simple when we can put everything into such neat categories. That doesn't usually work for science, especially scientific studies of complex topics.

    I don't know what point, if any, you were trying to make but even scientists can't escape the fact that there are only 3 options to our existence. And only the one you chose equates to "sheer dumb luck".


    joe g: "The Earth and solar system- the result of multiple cosmic accidents"

    Zach:
    You might want to push that angle for a while so that people can see how unscientific your views are.

    Seeing that is the anti-ID "angle" I take it I am showing people how unscientific YOUR views are. Thank you for admitting such.

     
  • At 10:25 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    joe g: "The assertion of 'sheer dumb luck' is nothing but an ignoramous' view of reality."

    Zach:
    Molecules of gas collide according to statistical rules we could call "sheer dumb luck",

    They may or may not collide- depending on the scenario.

    Zach:
    yet if spritz perfume into the air, "sheer dumb luck" has the inevitable result that the perfume will permeate the air thoughout the room.

    Again it all depends on the scenario.

    Zach:
    "Sheer dumb luck" can have specific predictable consequences.

    Very doubtful. With the sheer dumb luck of evolutionism we can't predict what would be selected for at any point in time. Heck that sheer dumb luck has us afraid of birds!

     
  • At 11:41 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "Just because we can't see electrons does NOT mean the data for their existence is circumstantial."

    joe g: "Actually the claim is when ALL of the data are considered, the exostence and orbit ofour large Moon being part of that, then intelligent design is the best explanation when compared to the alternative of 'sheer dumb luck', which is the anti-ID position."

    In other words, the orbit and configuration of the moon is due to intelligent design.

    Zachriel: "'Sheer dumb luck' can have specific predictable consequences."

    joe g: "Very doubtful. With the sheer dumb luck of evolutionism we can't predict what would be selected for at any point in time."

    As already pointed out, the regularity of gaseous pressure is due to random collisions between molecules.

    You will only convince those who already agree with you, and it is doubtful any of those will be scientific peers. I don't believe any additional argument is necessary to show the weakness of your position.

     
  • At 9:22 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    joe g: "Actually the claim is when ALL of the data are considered, the exostence and orbit ofour large Moon being part of that, then intelligent design is the best explanation when compared to the alternative of 'sheer dumb luck', which is the anti-ID position."

    Zach:
    In other words, the orbit and configuration of the moon is due to intelligent design.

    In light of the alternative it is the best explanation.

    Zachriel: "'Sheer dumb luck' can have specific predictable consequences."

    joe g: "Very doubtful. With the sheer dumb luck of evolutionism we can't predict what would be selected for at any point in time."

    Zach:
    As already pointed out, the regularity of gaseous pressure is due to random collisions between molecules.

    And as I pointed out it all depends on the scenario. IOW there wouldn't be any regularity in shifting winds.

    Zach:
    I don't believe any additional argument is necessary to show the weakness of your position.

    It is YOUR position of sheer dumb luck that is the weakest. That much is obvious. There isn't any way to scientifically investigate that position. IOW it is a science stopper.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home