God's ahead in Kansas

[pgrmdave]

I am pretty sure that many of them believe evolution is a theory of origin. I do understand (and agree) with your assertion.

 

I'm not sure here, are you saying that you agree, and that some people are wrong about what evolution is, or are you saying that evolution is an origin theory?

 

The ID folks will (probably) also argue that there are some ID frameworks that are testable.

 

However, they never offer an explanation of where that intelligence comes from. They simply skirt the fact that it implies a god. Until we can test the inteilligence, and try to look at ID from a scientific testable position rather than a philosophical logical position, then we cannot accept it as science.

[C1ay]

but i tell you, GOD AND JESUS ARE REAL! AND HEAVEN OR HELL AWAITS!

That may well be your belief but at best it is a leap of faith, there is no science to support that. OTOH, this topic is not really about the claim that god exists or not, only the debate on whether or not any origin of life not substantiated by science belongs in the science class.

[C1ay]

If ID is taught as one of two opposing theories for origin, neither has much evidenciary support, and the discussion is pretty brief. One could spend an hour(maybe) on the notion of irreducible complexity, and balance that with the probababilistic difficulties facing the ID proponents, but that would be about it. I think it would be fair to have that discussion in a science forum, versus a philosophy class. The detail discussion does not map well to philosophy.

And what is the opposing theory? I had evolution in school and we never discussed possible origins. Just because some people want to believe or claim that they think evolution is a theory of origin does not make it so. I do not think that even Darwin claimed that.

[Stargazer]

GOD and JESUS ARE REAL! AND WOULD I DIE FOR MY BELIEFS? i am getting almost to that point; but yes i am a sinner and probably would chicken out before the cock crowed!

 

but i tell you, GOD AND JESUS ARE REAL! AND HEAVEN OR HELL AWAITS!

Well, I for one am enlightened. Who needs evidence and skepticism when we have religion...

[Biochemist]

I'm not sure here, are you saying that you agree, and that some people are wrong about what evolution is, or are you saying that evolution is an origin theory?

I am saying that evolution is not a theory of origin, but that many proponents characterize it that way. That is the reason that the theists (particularly the Christian folks) get their dander up.

... they never offer an explanation of where that intelligence comes from. They simply skirt the fact that it implies a god. Until we can test the inteilligence, and try to look at ID from a scientific testable position rather than a philosophical logical position, then we cannot accept it as science.

It is true that the IDers do not offer a source for inteligence, but I am not sure that is a problem with the hypothesis. It is certainly valid within the scientific method to offer a hypothsis for a narrow slice of evidence. Goodness, look at biochemistry. The larger problem I see with ID is that the only credible proof cases I can envision are probabilistic, and the number of assumptions in the proof cases are likely to be high. It does not mean that the work should not be done. I just don't expect it will ever resolve much conflict in the underlying philosophies.

 

There is a sense in which this is similar to the current state of discussion in string theory (although I don't want to take this analogy too far). There are some elegant, logical reasons to look for string evidence, but it is possible that the undiscovered particles that will "prove" string theory are all so large that they will never be detectable with our particle accelerators. I am also troubled that the mathematics related to Calabi-yau shapes is so complex that only a handful of folks on the planet are schooled enough to review the work. Ergo, for most folks "believing" in string theory is more appropriate than "thinking" it is true. Nothing wrong with that, I just think we ought to acknowledge it.

[Biochemist]

Who needs evidence and skepticism when we have religion...

Careful, SG. Just because some theists do not rely much in the scientific method does not mean that all theists don't. Discharging theism as irrelevant is equally as baised as presuming all events are mediated by God.

[pgrmdave]

It is true that the IDers do not offer a source for inteligence, but I am not sure that is a problem with the hypothesis. It is certainly valid within the scientific method to offer a hypothsis for a narrow slice of evidence.

 

However, bringing into existance a non-testable entity violates a basic principle in science which I'm sure you are familiar with, Occam's Razor

[Buffy]

While lack of a testable hypothesis is a problem for ID (the only ones I've seen are the old canard misusing probabilities like the junkyard-into-a-747 example), its real problem lies in its reliance on what we know today. ID's fundamental underpinings boil down to "because we can't explain how this works *today*, it must have been designed." If you look at a list of things that ID believers would have pointed to as evidence of design a few hundred years ago, the vast majority have become understood and explained since that time. Disease, weather, politics, all used to be described as having been driven by the Creator because we did not understand the systems at work, but now we do. No science allows proofs that support a theory using evidence that has to change because the evidence is proven wrong. ID turns science on its head, and is the ultimate in pseudo-science.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Biochemist]

And what is the opposing theory?

Naturalism

I had evolution in school and we never discussed possible origins. Just because some people want to believe or claim that they think evolution is a theory of origin does not make it so. I do not think that even Darwin claimed that.

I may be incorrect on this, but I though Darwin did claim it in "Origin ofSpecies", or at least strongly implied it. As I recall, a couple of Darwin's acolytes took the discussion further than Darwin as well.

 

Someone correct me if I am wrong.

[Biochemist]

However, bringing into existance a non-testable entity violates a basic principle in science which I'm sure you are familiar with, Occam's Razor

Sure, but I am suggesting it is testable. I don't think anyone has done the math work yet, but I do think it is testable.

[pgrmdave]

Darwin's Origin of Species is not on the origin of life, but on the origin of the variety of life. Why, he asked, are there so many different types of life? And then he began to try to explain it. While it is more accepted with evolution that abiogenesis could have occured to spur this whole idea, it is not necessary. Evolution describes merely how we moved from fewer, simpler species to many more, more complex species.

[pgrmdave]

How could one go about testing the possibilty of the intelligence? I've never heard of anybody trying to prove it in any way other than irreducible complexity really.

[Biochemist]

...ID's fundamental underpinings boil down to "because we can't explain how this works *today*, it must have been designed."

I agree this approach is invalid.

No science allows proofs that support a theory using evidence that has to change because the evidence is proven wrong.

I am not sure I understand your point here. All theories are modified by increasing evidence in contradiction or support.

 

Let me offer a hypothetical ID argument (that, to my knowledge, no one is pursuing) that is a) potentially testable, and :( would alter the current view of evolutionary theory a bit. Suppose we were to hypothesize that the intrinsic complexity of higher life forms is only mathematically feasible because a similar intrinsic complexity existed in primordial life forms. That is, these early life forms appear simpler, but in fact were not as simple as we thought. This would suggest that the information load in the DNA of putative primordial life forms was far higher than the prevailing wisdom. This is like making the argument that if we wanted to build tricycles, we would not build a factory that could build BMWs. But if we had a BMW factory, we might choose to build tricycles in it.

 

The IDers could build the argument that most of the complexity of life existed at the promordial life form. Then we would have the problem that the time frame between the earth cooling and the 3.5 billion-year-old life form sure seems short, ergo the information load would have to pre-exist the DNA creation. Etcetera.

 

I don't need to have an army of folks attack this argument, but my point is that this would be a) interesting, and :( productive. And I don't mind labeling this school of thought Intelligent Design.

[C1ay]

ID's fundamental underpinings boil down to "because we can't explain how this works *today*, it must have been designed."

And it is for the same reason that men of the past conceived explainations for things by inventing gods.

 

At one time mankind did not understand why the bright light in the sky rose and fell everyday. To explain what he did not understand he invented the Sun God. Later on man figured out what the sun was and why it rose and fell in the sky each day.

 

Mankind did not understand fire. He invented the Fire God to explain it. We now know via the scientific method exactly what fire is and how it works.

 

At one time man believed that all of the Heavens revolved about the Earth and that some God had made our universe this way. Galileo used science again to show man that there was a real scientific reason for the way things were and that the universe did not rotate about Earth. We all know he was charged and punished for blasphemt as a result.

 

Now man wants to claim that because we do not know or understand the origin of life it must be the result of yet another God. He wants to say that because life is so irreducibly complex that we don't understand it all then it must be because of some god. This is not any more scientific than man's creation of the Sun God to explain the Sun or man's invention of the Fire God to explain fire. Any such claims as these do not belong in the science class. These claims are pure leaps of faith and that is philosophy, not science.

[Biochemist]

Darwin's Origin of Species is not on the origin of life, but on the origin of the variety of life. ...While it is more accepted with evolution that abiogenesis could have occured to spur this whole idea, it is not necessary.

I think most folks associate abiogenesis with evolution, rightly or not. And I think most folks associate Naturalism with abiogenesis, rightly or not. Hence the problem.

[pgrmdave]

Suppose we were to hypothesize that the intrinsic complexity of higher life forms is only mathematically feasible because a similar intrinsic complexity existed in primordial life forms. That is, these early life forms appear simpler, but in fact were not as simple as we thought. This would suggest that the information load in the DNA of putative primordial life forms was far higher than the prevailing wisdom. This is like making the argument that if we wanted to build tricycles, we would not build a factory that could build BMWs. But if we had a BMW factory, we might choose to build tricycles in it.

 

There are two problems that I can see with this idea. It implies that simple things cannot combine to make much more complicated things. A single molecule of water is rather simple, but once you combine them into something the size of the oceans, you have something much more complex. It also arbitrarily decides where information starts. If you accept that life held the information forever, and that life is created of molecules, and that nothing can be more complex than those things that have come before it, then we must accept that molecules, and atoms, and even quarks hold all the information necessary for a four chambered heart, a brain, an eye. It simply doesn't make sense.

[Buffy]

No science allows proofs that support a theory using evidence that has to change because the evidence is proven wrong.

I am not sure I understand your point here. All theories are modified by increasing evidence in contradiction or support.

But in the scientific method, continual refutation of its *primary* arguments is argument that the hypothesis is wrong! "Okay, well that turned out not to be proof, but um, oh! How about *this* one! You can't explain *this* one! Nyah, nyah, nyah." The fact that refutation of the proposed evidence does not *either* prove OR disprove the argument means it ain't science bub!

The IDers could build the argument that most of the complexity of life existed at the promordial life form. Then we would have the problem that the time frame between the earth cooling and the 3.5 billion-year-old life form sure seems short, ergo the information load would have to pre-exist the DNA creation. Etcetera.

 

I don't need to have an army of folks attack this argument, but my point is that this would be a) interesting, and :( productive. And I don't mind labeling this school of thought Intelligent Design.

This is actually what James Putnam has argued here in the forums, not just for life but for the whole of creation (look him up in the members list and look at the threads he started for more info). The problem is that even his arguments required the acceptance of the postulate that "the universe has direction" and ends up with the conclusion that since the intelligence of the universe was built into it before the beginning that it is by definition untestable and therefore is by definition philosophy and not science.

 

Cheers,

Buffy