Data and/ or evidence that substantiates option #1
OK anti-IDists here is your chance. I have blogged that there are three options to our existence:
1) Unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes
2) Intelligent, directed (goal oriented) processes
3) a combination of 1 & 2
Please, if you can, present the scientific data and/ or evidence that would substantiate the anti-ID position of option #1.
For example present that data that demonstrates that life could arise from non-living matter under option 1.
We know the Miller-Urey experiment only gave a couple amino acids and a lot of toxins. We also know that one scientist who was on the front of the OoL, Dean Kenyon- co-author of "biochemical predestiny", which was once the premier text on the subject, now finds ID much more intellectually fulfilling.
Here is your chance- have at it. Although I predict nothing but nonsense, at least I gave you a chance.
1) Unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes
2) Intelligent, directed (goal oriented) processes
3) a combination of 1 & 2
Please, if you can, present the scientific data and/ or evidence that would substantiate the anti-ID position of option #1.
For example present that data that demonstrates that life could arise from non-living matter under option 1.
We know the Miller-Urey experiment only gave a couple amino acids and a lot of toxins. We also know that one scientist who was on the front of the OoL, Dean Kenyon- co-author of "biochemical predestiny", which was once the premier text on the subject, now finds ID much more intellectually fulfilling.
Here is your chance- have at it. Although I predict nothing but nonsense, at least I gave you a chance.
posted by Joe G @ 9:26 AM
19 Comments:
At 11:17 AM,
Richard H said…
Joe - let me ask a more fundamentally important question...
From a scientific perspective, not a religious one, what would change if the whole scientific community concluded that the universe existed due to an intelligent, directed process, based on an inference of the data?
Let me expand...
You have said that the designer is irrelevant and that we cannot learn anything about the designer, but only infer design. So even though you are convinced we have been designed, based on the evidence, you still know nothing about the designer. It therefore follows that if eveyone on the planet also accepted the inference of design then this would still give us no better understanding of the designer. I think you will agree with this point...so I will move on.
Our ability to acquire knowledge about things - atoms, hearts, etc is not changed by reaching the conclusion of design. Neither is our ability changed in how we apply that knowledge. We already accept that the universe has rules, and those rules can be identified, understood and applied, irrelevant of a belief in design or not.
Infering design does not even answer the fundamental question of 'purpose', but only infers there is a purpose that we can not identify without communication in some way with the irrelevant unnamed designer.
You cannot even say that inference of design is in search for the truth. Inference and/or a conclusion are just that - a belief based on the evidence - they are not the truth.
So what scientific benefit does the design inference bring if a person yesterday believed in unintelligent processes and today believes in intelligent processes?
You have said that you have no particular religious belief, so I take this on trust to be true. However, it seems to me that the only groups in society that will be impacted in any way by an inference of design are those with religious believes that believe in a supernatural creator.
Before getting into the detail of the evidence, maybe it is time to take a step back and understand what relevance the ID / non-ID debate has to the scientific (non-religious) community.
At 1:36 AM,
Steve said…
The RNA World
Studies on the Origins of Life: The Formation of the RNA World - James P. Ferris
Talk Origins
Hominid Fossils
Progress in Abiogenesis Research
At 9:27 AM,
Joe G said…
The first link offers nothing for the anti-IDists. It is also from 1989.
The following site stays current:
The RNA World. Howwever it does not offer anything that would substantiate the claim that life could arise from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes.
The second link doesn't offer anything either- just more speculation.
The third link is to talk origins. The best they can offer is Dr. Theobald's "29 evidences..." but the good doctor does NOT discuss a mechanism.
The 4th link is also to TO. However we already know that fossils canot tell us anything about a mechanism. Oh well.
The last link is just more of the same. No data, just speculation.
Is this the best anti-IDists can do? Lol!
At 9:56 AM,
Joe G said…
Richard:
From a scientific perspective, not a religious one, what would change if the whole scientific community concluded that the universe existed due to an intelligent, directed process, based on an inference of the data?
Geez Richard- just read the post below this one.
The Design Inference- Why it matters
Richard:
You have said that the designer is irrelevant and that we cannot learn anything about the designer, but only infer design.
That is NOT what I said. I said that the ONLY way to make ANY determination about the designer in the absence of direct observation or designer input is by studying the design. That is how it is done in real life.
Richard:
Our ability to acquire knowledge about things - atoms, hearts, etc is not changed by reaching the conclusion of design.
Reality demonstrates you are wrong and that it makes a big difference whether or not something was the product of design.
Richard:
Infering design does not even answer the fundamental question of 'purpose', but only infers there is a purpose that we can not identify without communication in some way with the irrelevant unnamed designer.
We can and have tried toi determine a purpose. Read "The Privileged Planet".
Richard:
You have said that you have no particular religious belief, so I take this on trust to be true. However, it seems to me that the only groups in society that will be impacted in any way by an inference of design are those with religious believes that believe in a supernatural creator.
I say it impacts everyone interested in understanding the reality to our existence.
At 11:35 AM,
Richard H said…
Richard said:
From a scientific perspective, not a religious one, what would change if the whole scientific community concluded that the universe existed due to an intelligent, directed process, based on an inference of the data?
Joe said:
Geez Richard- just read the post below this one.
Your link does not answer my question. I asked what would change from a scientific (not a religious) perspective if the whole planet woke up tomorrow and decided to believe we had been designed instead of having evolved. Your link does not answer that question.
Richard said:
Our ability to acquire knowledge about things - atoms, hearts, etc is not changed by reaching the conclusion of design.
Joe said:
Reality demonstrates you are wrong and that it makes a big difference whether or not something was the product of design.
So you are saying that if I have all the same skills and tools to acquire knowledge about something, I can learn more about it if I believe it was designed, than if I believe it evolved? What realm of reality are you in? A human heart still functions in exactly the same way regardless of it's origin...what can be observed here and now is not changed by whether I believe it was designed or evolved. I am starting to think you are a nutter.
I say it impacts everyone interested in understanding the reality to our existence.
Another major blunder on your part. Inference is not reality. It is only a conclusion based on the evidence we see. Reality is that I can eat an apple. I can see the apple, touch the apple, I know the apple exists and I can eat it. I do not need to theorise about whether or not the apple exists or whether I am able to eat the apple. Infering design is not reality, it is simple an inference that could be proven to be completely right, completely wrong or may never be proven in the life time of the human race. Ergo, it is a belief, not reality.
Evolution is a belief at this time, because their are still gaps in our knowledge. Even if we prove that the natural evironment can create living matter, we will never know for sure if that is what really happened, but the case for inference of evolution is considerably stronger at this time than that for inference design by a supernatural designer.
Howwever it does not offer anything that would substantiate the claim that life could arise from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes.
I do not understand your fascination and focus on organic life. Even if life can exist from unintelligent origins, this does not mutually exclude the universe from being designed and the existence of a designer. It seems to me that you are not looking for designer inference but you are specifically looking for the inference of design of human beings. Via Intelligent Reasoning it is possible that the design of the universe could have been done in a number of ways - it could have been designed to enable life to evolve. Afterall - as we are talking about a supernatural designer who can create a universe - it cannot be beyond this designer to enable the necessary proces within the universe to create intelligence.
Do you accept that the designer may have created the universe and built in the ability within that universe for life to be created and evolve into intelligence?
The designer designed it so that design can include anything we can imagine. It is still directed and goal orientated, just the process is different to him piecing together individual organic components.
It is still design, it is still not nature creating nature, but it is not consistent with any current religious view on the planet.
Do you accept that this design is a valid option, if we infer design or does it have to be the piecing together of organic parts directly by the designer?
Let's see if there is a religious nutter sitting behind this blog.
At 12:02 PM,
Joe G said…
Richard:
Your link does not answer my question. I asked what would change from a scientific (not a religious) perspective if the whole planet woke up tomorrow and decided to believe we had been designed instead of having evolved. Your link does not answer that question.
It answers the question. The post demonstrates it matters whether or not we say something is the result of intentional design or not. The fact that we have research venues that do just that demonstrates that it does matter. "Change the way you look at things and the things you look at change." unknown source.
Joe said:
Reality demonstrates you are wrong and that it makes a big difference whether or not something was the product of design.
Richard:
So you are saying that if I have all the same skills and tools to acquire knowledge about something, I can learn more about it if I believe it was designed, than if I believe it evolved?
You continue to misrepresent the issue. Something could be designed to evolve as opposed to evolving via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes. And it is reality that demonstrates that we can only truly learn about something, ie acquire knowledge, only when that which is being examined is studied in light of the reality to its existence.
Richard:
A human heart still functions in exactly the same way regardless of it's origin.
Maybe. And maybe a human heart would not exist unless it was designed. I know one thing for sure, there isn't a heart specialist in the world that starts his/her heart research with the premise "all of life's divesity owes its collective common ancestry via some blind watchmaker-typoe process to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms that just happened to have the ability to reproduce.
However it does not offer anything that would substantiate the claim that life could arise from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes.
Richard:
I do not understand your fascination and focus on organic life.
You call me a nutter and yet YOU can't even follow the discussion. Amazing. I was responding to Steve and the RNA World.
Try to stay focused.
Richard:
Even if life can exist from unintelligent origins, this does not mutually exclude the universe from being designed and the existence of a designer.
Already explained in another thread.
Richard:
It seems to me that you are not looking for designer inference but you are specifically looking for the inference of design of human beings.
That could be however you have not yet demonstrated you can follow along. The sad part is I have NEVER said NOR implied anything about the design of humans.
Richard:
Do you accept that the designer may have created the universe and built in the ability within that universe for life to be created and evolve into intelligence?
Yes, it's called "front-end loading". And you are right, it is still ID.
The issue is there still isn't any data that demonstrates that bacteria can "evolve" into anything but bacteria. However I have ALWAYS maintained that the designer could have used a method similar to the one used in "Evolving Inventions" Scientific America 2003 (Koza, Keane & Streeter).
At 10:33 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "The first link offers nothing for the anti-IDists. It is also from 1989. The following site stays current:
The RNA World."
Now I *know* this blog is a parody. Steve cites the Nobel Prize winning chemist who discovered self-replicating molecules, and you cite a website maintained by someone who retired from the textile rental industry. I mean, I'm all for textiles and everything, but gee whiz.
This has got to be a joke.
At 7:40 AM,
Richard H said…
"Change the way you look at things and the things you look at change."
Change the way you look at things and the way you perceive those things change.....the things themselves DO NOT change. The functionality of something and the way it interacts with other things does not change at all if we decide to believe it's origin is by design or via a natural process.
You are talking in riddles and talking rubbish. "We can only acquire knowledge when that which is being examined is studied in light of the reality to its existence."
Knowledge is acquired through our senses and with analysis by our brains on the data that comes from those senses. Reality is that it exists...full stop. The origin of that existence can be concluded based on external points of reference from the item itself, but if two people reach two different conclusions, the item does not function differently for the two people, and the application of knowledge is not changed by those same differences in beliefs regarding origin. To imply otherwise is nonsense.
Richard said:
Do you accept that the designer may have created the universe and built in the ability within that universe for life to be created and evolve into intelligence?
Joe said:
Yes, it's called "front-end loading". And you are right, it is still ID.
So explain the following contradiction....in a previous post I wrote:
list 3 scientific findings/evidences that would change your position that the universe was not designed.
And item 3 on your list was...
3) Demonstrate that life could arise from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes
Therefore, if it was proven that life could come into existence via natural processes within our universe you have stated that this will convince you the universe was not created. But in this post you have accepted that the universe could have been designed to enable life to come about by the natural processes of this universe. This latest admission about front-loading means that we humans could have evolved from a basic design of the first origins of life that came into existence as part of that design. Ergo, the evolution and ID debate is irrelevant as they are not mutually exclusive and could in fact be totally compliementary.
So my fundamental point is that evidence that bacteria can become something other bacteria does make ID irrelevant it just changes the way the universe was designed.
This therefore goes back to the basic fundamental principle that to acquire evidence of design you need find the raw materials, tools and processes that were used to create the universe - looking at anything in the universe, that is governed by the rules of the universe is all part of that design and any finding does not make ID redundant.
At 3:24 AM,
Steve said…
As for the last link (to take one link at random), sure there isn't explicit data in that post. But what do you want me to do, post the contents of some researcher's lab here on your little blog? Pray tell how am I to do that? Using Willy Wonka's television technology that will beam a copy of the contents to you in miniture form? However, the key part of the article was this part,
In the 5 years since the RNA world was first published (in a peer-reviewed journal), there was a number of publications; some criticized the idea, others did experimental tests. By the end of 1991 there was a solid body of experimental work that confirmed that RNA was a broad activity catalyst, a broad theory of conversion of a tRNA-like ribozyme to an mRNA based translation system, and the discovery of the sunY self-replicator system (all in peer-reviewed journals). Now compare this with ID. In the 5 years since the first general-audience books on ID were published there has been ... well, nothing. There have been no peer-reviewed publications of any level of detail at all. Heck, not even an academic-grade book which provides reasonable details of the ideas.
Clearly there is data there. It isn't explicit, but scientists have been doing the research and accumulating data.
At 11:35 AM,
Joe G said…
Life is much more than self-replicating molecules.
The link I provided contains the CURRENT scientific research on the topic- the RNA World. Those peer-reviewed articles were not written by Klyce and it is those articles which you should concern yourself with.
So it appears that Zachriel is the joke- a joke for not seeing what is in front of his face.
At 2:25 PM,
Steve said…
Now I *know* this blog is a parody. Steve cites the Nobel Prize winning chemist who discovered self-replicating molecules, and you cite a website maintained by someone who retired from the textile rental industry. I mean, I'm all for textiles and everything, but gee whiz.
Zachriel,
And on top of it, Joe G. claims that there is no data there. While literally true that there isn't an example of a self-replicating molecule, it is a disenguous position in that the research is based on data.
You might be right that this site is a parody to make ID look really stupid, and if that is the case then Joe G. is a master of parody...but somehow I don't think this is true.
At 12:14 PM,
Joe G said…
Steve,
The question isn't whether or not there is data, but what does the data point to?
Does the data point ot life arising from non-living matter via some blind watchmaker-type process? No.
Does the data point to humans evolving from non-humans via some blind watchmaker-type process? No.
Pound the table all you want, I understand that is all you can do.
At 8:32 AM,
Joe G said…
"Change the way you look at things and the things you look at change."
RH:
Change the way you look at things and the way you perceive those things change.....the things themselves DO NOT change.
The things change. A suspected homicide can change into an accidental death. A suspected natural death can change into a homicide. A suspect can change into nothing related to the case. Cases are solved just by changing the way the things are looked at.
Did you ever see the pictures that when you held it one way you saw the image of a maiden but when the picture was rotated 180 you saw the picture of an old lady?
RH:
The functionality of something and the way it interacts with other things does not change at all if we decide to believe it's origin is by design or via a natural process.
Again it is ID vs, unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes. Most, if not all, of the time, functionality = ID. And the way it interacts with other things is a direct bearing on ID. Ever hear of “plug-n-play”? Or “not compatible”?
Stonehenge is as good an example as any- I have stated it makes a huge difference in how we would study such a structure, which is demonstrated by reality. If Stonehenge were determined to be of unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes we would study it differently than we study it under the design inference.
RH:
You are talking in riddles and talking rubbish. "We can only acquire knowledge when that which is being examined is studied in light of the reality to its existence."
Just because you can’t understand the concept (ie reality) should mean what to the rest of us who can? Does reality stretch your brain?
RH:
Knowledge is acquired through our senses and with analysis by our brains on the data that comes from those senses.
And if our brains are the result of unintelligent, blind/ undirected (sheer dumb luck) processes, why should we trust anything it senses?
That we can acquire knowledge at all, is evidence enough for most people to disconnect from option #1.
RH:
Reality is that it exists...full stop. The origin of that existence can be concluded based on external points of reference from the item itself, but if two people reach two different conclusions, the item does not function differently for the two people, and the application of knowledge is not changed by those same differences in beliefs regarding origin. To imply otherwise is nonsense.
Reality demonstrates it matters a great deal, to us anyway, whether or not an event occurred via ID or unintelligent, blind/ undirected process. The fact we have the word artifact is evidence for that. It also depends on the function. Someone who concludes a motor can be brought into being and be functional, via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes isn’t playing with a full deck and therefore I would doubt his/her “understanding” of the motor in question. I would also doubt their capability to understand it.
Richard said:
Do you accept that the designer may have created the universe and built in the ability within that universe for life to be created and evolve into intelligence?
Joe said:
Yes, it's called "front-end loading". And you are right, it is still ID.
RH:
So explain the following contradiction....in a previous post I wrote:
list 3 scientific findings/evidences that would change your position that the universe was not designed.
And item 3 on your list was...
3) Demonstrate that life could arise from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes
Therefore, if it was proven that life could come into existence via natural processes within our universe you have stated that this will convince you the universe was not created.
Again, it isn’t natural processes. Both intelligence and design are natural. That you keep conflating the issue is a sure sign of your deception or ignorance.
You do realize I answered your nonsense in another thread. “The Privileged Planet” makes it clear that the universe was designed for discovery. Therefore it follows from that the universe would require discoverers- beings that could discover and contemplate its wonder- us. And if we could arise from some blind watchmaker-type process that would shoot that premise right in the butt.
The bottom line is it is all about the information required A) for the universe and B) for life.
RH:
But in this post you have accepted that the universe could have been designed to enable life to come about by the natural processes of this universe.
Again both intelligence and design are natural. That is why the debate isn’t about natural processes. The debate is about intelligent processes vs sheer dumb luck.
RH:
This latest admission about front-loading means that we humans could have evolved from a basic design of the first origins of life that came into existence as part of that design. Ergo, the evolution and ID debate is irrelevant as they are not mutually exclusive and could in fact be totally compliementary.
That is false. One, evolutionism, is a non-goal oriented premise. The other, ID, is goal oriented.
Do you even understand what is being debated? You posts indicate you do not. Yet you blather on. I have posted the following by Dr. Behe several times:
“Intelligent design is a good explanation for a number of biochemical systems, but I should insert a word of caution. Intelligent design theory has to be seen in context: it does not try to explain everything. We live in a complex world where lots of different things can happen. When deciding how various rocks came to be shaped the way they are a geologist might consider a whole range of factors: rain, wind, the movement of glaciers, the activity of moss and lichens, volcanic action, nuclear explosions, asteroid impact, or the hand of a sculptor. The shape of one rock might have been determined primarily by one mechanism, the shape of another rock by another mechanism.
Similarly, evolutionary biologists have recognized that a number of factors might have affected the development of life: common descent, natural selection, migration, population size, founder effects (effects that may be due to the limited number of organisms that begin a new species), genetic drift (spread of "neutral," nonselective mutations), gene flow (the incorporation of genes into a population from a separate population), linkage (occurrence of two genes on the same chromosome), and much more. The fact that some biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent does not mean that any of the other factors are not operative, common, or important.”
RH:
So my fundamental point is that evidence that bacteria can become something other bacteria does make ID irrelevant it just changes the way the universe was designed.
There isn’t any evidence that bacteria can become something other than bacteria. That should be evidence against common descent. And it wouldn’t make ID irrelevant because something designed to evolve is very different than something that evolves via some blind watchmaker-type process. With evolutionism Dennett tells us “there is no way to predict what will be selected for at any point in time”, making it totally useless. With ID we should be able to predict the possible mutations and know the effects each mutation brings. Very useful information.
RH:
This therefore goes back to the basic fundamental principle that to acquire evidence of design you need find the raw materials, tools and processes that were used to create the universe
We know that is nonsense. We know that is not how design detection works in real life. We know we can first infer design (ID) by our knowledge of what intelligent agencies are capable of coupled with our knowledge of what nature, acting alone, is capable of. Then we can use that inference to try to determine a mechanism and the starting materials required. And perhaps even make a determination about the designer. But those are separate questions. First we have to detect and understand. THAT is why ID was formulated.
At 1:51 PM,
Steve said…
The question isn't whether or not there is data, but what does the data point to?
Does the data point ot life arising from non-living matter via some blind watchmaker-type process? No.
Does the data point to humans evolving from non-humans via some blind watchmaker-type process? No.
Pound the table all you want, I understand that is all you can do.
Irrespective of which hypothesis you believe in the answer has to be yes when it comes to life from non-life. After all, the IDC hypothesis is that the designer created the universe and then created life in it. Life from non-life. Or do you believe in the many-worlds hypothesis and the designer simply transplanted life in this universe from another univesrse. If this is the case, please provide at least a basic sketch of how to test this hypothesis.
At 10:30 AM,
Joe G said…
Steve:
Irrespective of which hypothesis you believe in the answer has to be yes when it comes to life from non-life.
Only to those with weak minds- like you.
Steve:
After all, the IDC hypothesis is that the designer created the universe and then created life in it. Life from non-life.
Not if the designer IS life.
At 6:32 AM,
Richard H said…
The things change. A suspected homicide can change into an accidental death. A suspected natural death can change into a homicide. A suspect can change into nothing related to the case.
Reality is not changed by the way we look at things...only our conclusion/belief about reality changes. To demonstrate: If we were to secretly witness person A murder person B and then follow the case through the courts, the act of murder is not changed by the jury reaching a conclusion of death by natural causes. The reality of murder is unchanged....what does change is our conclusion about the incident based on the evidence we see and analyse. So when the jury conclude death by natural causes this does not mean that the cause was natural. For example, later on, when new techniques are available to test for tiny traces of chemicals in the body, and they realise that tiny traces of a chemical that induces a heart attack are found, the jury may then realise that their conclusion was wrong. The reality of murder is not changed by our conclusions about it based on the evidence we see.
A scientific conclusion, especially about our origin for which there are no witnesses, is only a belief based on the evidence we have, and that evidence is circumstantial.
Reality is not changed based on the conclusions/beliefs we reach.
Secondly...
RH:
This latest admission about front-loading means that we humans could have evolved from a basic design of the first origins of life that came into existence as part of that design. Ergo, the evolution and ID debate is irrelevant as they are not mutually exclusive and could in fact be totally compliementary.
JG:
That is false. One, evolutionism, is a non-goal oriented premise. The other, ID, is goal oriented.
Do you even understand what is being debated? You posts indicate you do not.
Clearly you were too busy being rude that you did not yourself understand the very relevant point I was making...so let me keep it very simple for you....
As you accept that the front-loading design theory is possible - ie. the universe may have been designed to create life from the basic elements - ie. it was not down to chance that the correct elements came together to create life and then evolve, but part of the original design, then proving evolution does not disprove ID - ie. evolution and ID are not mutually exclusive.
To take the point one step further....(I hope this doesn't get to complex for you...)if you believe that the universe has been designed then you have to believe that all of the processes that we believe to be natural were also designed. If this is true - ie. the universe has really been designed - then it is not inconcievable for the designer to build into that design a special function/feature that results in a set of events occuring to start life once a basic set of criteria are met. eg. The design could include a feature that once a planet is ready to sustain life, a one off function is initiated to create life on that planet, which is designed to evolve to become self sustaining on that planet based on the planet's unique characteristics.
This is possible, as anything is possible from a designer that can create a universe....then looking for evidence of ID by trying to disprove evolution is meaningless. So even if in the next 50 years someone proves that a bacteria can evolve into something else and everyone agrees with this finding, this does not mean that ID is wrong. It just means our conclusion about the way things were designed - ie. all creatures designed and place on earth - may not be approach taken by the designer.
At 9:22 AM,
Joe G said…
OK we know that by changing the way we look at things that the things we look at change. There are many examples to demonstrate this point. THat Richard chooses to ignore reality just further exposes his agenda.
RH:
As you accept that the front-loading design theory is possible - ie. the universe may have been designed to create life from the basic elements - ie. it was not down to chance that the correct elements came together to create life and then evolve, but part of the original design, then proving evolution does not disprove ID - ie. evolution and ID are not mutually exclusive.
One more time- it is NOT evolution that is being debated. That you keep using that word just furtehr exposes your deceptive tactics.
AND as I have said several times, if life did not arise from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes there would be no reason to infer its subsequent diversity arose solely due to those types of processes.
RH:
To take the point one step further....(I hope this doesn't get to complex for you...)if you believe that the universe has been designed then you have to believe that all of the processes that we believe to be natural were also designed.
Nope, not at all. Also I don't believe the universe was designed. That is what the data points to.
RH:
...then looking for evidence of ID by trying to disprove evolution is meaningless.
Again ID is inferred from what we do know about designing agencies and ID does not try to disprove evolution. Many IDists accept common descent, ie evolution. It is the mechanism that is being debated.
RH:
So even if in the next 50 years someone proves that a bacteria can evolve into something else and everyone agrees with this finding, this does not mean that ID is wrong.
It all depends on the mechanism.
At 7:13 PM,
biomimetic said…
OK anti-IDists here is your chance. I have blogged that there are three options to our existence:
I thought ID wasn't concerned with the origin of our existence, just biological complexity.
I know science is not yet at a point where it can claim certainty about the origins of life or existence itself. If you ask the smartest physicist in the world, "Why is there something instead of nothing?" they will admit that they don't know.
Now, if you asked a preacher the same question he would probably say that it is God's will, or something similar. Is this any kind of explanation that can be verified empirically, using the scientific method? I'd say it isn't.
If ID people claim that they can conclude anything about the reason or purpose of existence, and do so via the scientific method, they are very wrong.
At 8:36 PM,
Joe G said…
biomimetic:
I thought ID wasn't concerned with the origin of our existence, just biological complexity.
Don't think. ID is very concerned with origins. Also ID is not limited to biology.
biomimetic:
If ID people claim that they can conclude anything about the reason or purpose of existence, and do so via the scientific method, they are very wrong.
Who the f'ck are you to make such a statement? Not only have IDists done so they did it using scientific research- read "The Privileged Planet"...
Post a Comment
<< Home