Why is the concept of theistic evolution unacceptable to you?

[Jan Ardena]

About this book: some of the shit stinks. It's full of it.
It is the sheer volume of shit that is remarkable.
I'm quite sure that if you read the whole book, it would smell differently, if you were being truly objective.

So we should overload ourselves with shit.

Why is the book ''shit''?

jan

[Jan Ardena]

Again, it was you who posted the pdf earlier containing a selection of those examples, so you've entered them into the discussion. So, let's actually discuss them. I've already provided references to responses to those examples, so the ball is clearly in your court now.

I thought it was the actual book, but it wasn't.
In the book there are scenarios where the acrcheologist and his team unearthed alot more evidence from the same strata, after the first lot
explained away. This is why it is best to read the book.

jan.

[GeoffP]

Why is the book ''shit''?

jan

You're asking us to read the book based on your subjective opinion of it. Instead, why not debate Kuhn's article?

[Jan Ardena]

If this is the definition of "scientific theory" that you work with then it is no wonder you reach the conclusion that you do.
Garbage in - Garbage out, as they say.
Your conclusion is reasonable, given your definition, but alas the definition is poor.

Fundamentally it misses the need for a scientific theory to be falsifiable. Not merely testable, but falsifiable. There is a significant difference.

ID is not falsifiable.
The conclusion "such structures were designed" is not provable... it is merely a question-begging conclusion - and one among a number of possibilities. And it is unfalsifiable. To show that it can be falsified they need to show that it is not possible for "irreducible complexity" to have arrived any other way.
If they can not show that it is not possible, it can not be falsified (- the falsifiability would be in showing that it is possible).

And the question of "intelligence" is likewise unfalsifiable.

As such ID should not be considered a scientific theory, although it might well employ some of the aspects of the scientific method. But only following some of the aspects does not mean that you can use the label "scientific theory".

To falsify ID, a scientist can simply go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure, grow it for a few thousand generations, and see if a flagellum—or some other complex system pops up. If that happened, irreducible complexity would be neatly disproven.

jan.

[Jan Ardena]

You're asking us to read the book based on your subjective opinion of it. Instead, why not debate Kuhn's article?

So you're not going to read the book then?

jan.

[Jan Ardena]

You'll notice Jan evades questions and challenges on specific items. I think it's pretty clear at this point he hasn't actually read the material he's defending. At what point do the mods step in and hold him to the same standards that they hold, say, RedStar to?

You're not Dwrrdyr (or whatever) are you?
There's a certain mardy, wingy, childishness that seems to come from your posts, that are very characteristic of him.

jan.

[Jan Ardena]

wynn,

This is precisely what some atheists say - about the books they favor.

So?

How could a human possibly prove or disprove the existence of God?

How can prove or disprove anything?

jan.

[James R]

To falsify ID, a scientist can simply go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure, grow it for a few thousand generations, and see if a flagellum—or some other complex system pops up. If that happened, irreducible complexity would be neatly disproven.

Science doesn't work that way.

If you think something is irreducibly complex, the onus of proof is on you to explain why that must be the case.

That doesn't mean, of course, that some scientists won't decide to investigate some matters, or make incidental observations that disprove ID claims.

As I explained before, the bacterial flagellum has been shown NOT to be irreducibly complex, so why you keep banging on about that as your best example is a bit of a mystery.

As to your "neatly disproven" point, proving the flagellum is "reducibly complex" (as has been done), does NOT, of course, disprove ID. Why? Because an IDer can simply say "Well, we were wrong about the flagellum..." (How many IDers have done that, by the way? I'm guessing none.) "...but there's this OTHER thing that we NOW claim is an example of irreducible complexity. Disprove that, evolutionists!"

No doubt you can see how this provides an endless loophole for IDers, who practically never do any real research of their own and who spend most of their time trying to pick holes in standard science while offering little to no evidence in favour of their own hypothesis.

PS Mousetraps aren't irreducibly complex either.

[GeoffP]

So you're not going to read the book then?

jan.

Probably not. I tend to stay away from alien prophesies literature and the like except as mental entertainment.

Can you defend the first article in your list of ID articles? (Kuhn 2012 "Dissecting Darwinism" Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent) 25: 41-47)

[GeoffP]

To falsify ID, a scientist can simply go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure, grow it for a few thousand generations, and see if a flagellum—or some other complex system pops up. If that happened, irreducible complexity would be neatly disproven.

jan.

How about alterations to the gut system of a common lizard, making the species transit from insectivory to herbivory? Would that be a change sufficiently complex to warrant the rejection of ID?

[Jan Ardena]

Aqueous Id,

There is a twisted view of what Darwin actually said and did. I was wondering if you were able to see that.

I haven't seen that (at least not in the way you see it) but I would be interested to see what you have to say.

You may want to call this ignorance, but among those of us who have read Darwin there is a tendency even among us to forget what he said and did. It's worse among people who dislike him because they shut down and their eyes glaze over as soon as the substance of what he said and did comes out. As for whether Darwin's ideas are the last word, you merely have to answer the question he asked himself were the animals on the Galapagos, a young volcanic archipelago, created specially for that island? Now, is there any doubt? This alone will determine if Darwin had "the last word". Is there a reasonable doubt about his findings at Galapagos?

My impression is that these animals insects and birds, came from adjoining islands, and the mainland. They were carried there by different ways, and they adapted over time. You seem to be saying they are indegenous to that island because they evolved (darwinian evolution) on tha island. Maybe I misunderstand you, but that's what I'm getting. Am I correct?

My curiosity extends to countless people who are against Darwin. You happen to express a similar point of view, and you are willing to engage science pros and fans here at SciForums.

I'm expressing my point of view, and that aspect of evolution, namely goo to man, or from cell to whatever, seems very similar to the story ''the emporers new clothes''. At first you could say I'm ignorant of science or whatever, but it's not just me who thinks like this.
There are scientists who think that Darwins ideas probably need to be looked at, and as such dissent. The evolutionists then switch, accusing these people as not understanding evolution, or something like that. Their reaction is partly what inspires curiosity.

I only sense a suppression of Darwin's discovery at Galapagos. In a way you even seem reluctant to discuss it. Your author, as far as I can tell, is actively suppressing Darwin's discovery. That is, the man set out to criticize Darwin, yet never lays out what the findings at Galapagos were. (As far as I can tell. I only read your link, not the book.)

What Darwin found at the galapagos would most probably fade, if the evidence that is relayed in the book, wasn't supressed.

The problem, Jan, is I have yet to see any challenge raised to Darwin's findings at Galapagos. I am not aware of any critic of Darwin who has ever tried to refute what he found at Galapagos and how he explained it.

He found animals that adapted to the particular conditions of the island. Didn't he?

So far I have only encountered vague arguments against peripheral ideas (like politics and suppression, etc.) that are not relevant to his discovery.

It is important though, and very profound, a society where humans is forced to accept whatever the controlling power wants, is never good.

In reality I'm opposing the people who say they are challenging Darwin, because they are completely ignoring the actual material Darwin wrote. Your author is one of them.

This book isn't a challenge to Darwin. It exposes fraud, lies, deciet, and unproffessional conduct in a bid to keep darwinism as the only explanation, suppressing anything that contradicts it. And there's loads of stuff that contradicts it.

The evolution of primitive cells leads us to first metazoans (like hydra and sponges) and from there to worms, then to jawless fish. Jawless fish lead us to mud-walking fishes, and from to earliest quadrupeds - amphibians to reptiles and birds, then mammals. Insects follow a parallel course, upon their divergence from primitive insect-like marine animals.

How do you know they did?

I'm asking why you don't address Darwin in your own mind, independent of the comments and complaints of others.

You seem to think I have some contention with Darwin. I don't
I see him as a figure-head. The damage is perpertrated by something else.
The book refers to ''darwinism'', ''darwinistic... or ''darwinian....'', and it

I read the link you gave us. I found the writer to be lacking in science, and merely arguing, from an irrational position that defies any discussion of the way nature actually works. It's merely his opinion. I'm not sure if you appreciate what I mean when I distinguish between nature and opinion. Having read his essay, I couldn't bear to read a whole book that never tries to address Galapagos, while bashing the man whose ideas are completely founded upon what he discovered there.

They're merely acting as a go-between, relaying the information that was suppressed.

Until he addresses Galapagos, nothing he says can undermine Darwin.

He's not trying to undermine Darwin.
He's showing that the current scientific domination is based, at least in part, in dogma, and the subject of that dogma are (neo-) darwinian explanations

jan.

[Sarkus]

To falsify ID, a scientist can simply go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure, grow it for a few thousand generations, and see if a flagellum—or some other complex system pops up. If that happened, irreducible complexity would be neatly disproven.

That wouldn't disprove ID, nor even the concept of irreducible complexity. All that would do is merely disprove the lack of irreducible complexity in whatever system "pops up". To falsify ID, and irreducible complexity, you would require every single claim of irreducible complexity to be disproven, which is not possible.
Which is why ID remains an unfalsifiable - and hence unscientific - theory.

And I understand that the flagellum has already been shown to NOT BE irreducibly complex...
So if you think disproving the irreducible complexity of the flagellum shows irreducible complexity itself to be disproven, then - since it has been shown to be NOT irreducibly complex - by your own admission you now consider irreducible complexity to be disproven.

But my guess is that you'll demonstrate, by your own counter, how the disproof of one claim of irreducible complexity does not / can not disprove it totally, and by your own counter demonstrate how ID is unfalsifiable.

[James R]

My impression is that these animals insects and birds, came from adjoining islands, and the mainland. They were carried there by different ways, and they adapted over time. You seem to be saying they are indegenous to that island because they evolved (darwinian evolution) on tha island. Maybe I misunderstand you, but that's what I'm getting. Am I correct?

The Galapagos is a group of islands, not just one island. Many species there are unique to the Galapagos. They were not carried there; they evolved there. The meaning of "indigenous", by the way, is "originating where it is found". Galapagos finches, to cite a famous example, are indigenous to the Galapagos. That is not to say that finches are not found elsewhere. They are, but they are different species.

I'm expressing my point of view, and that aspect of evolution, namely goo to man, or from cell to whatever, seems very similar to the story ''the emporers new clothes''. At first you could say I'm ignorant of science or whatever, but it's not just me who thinks like this.
There are scientists who think that Darwins ideas probably need to be looked at, and as such dissent. The evolutionists then switch, accusing these people as not understanding evolution, or something like that. Their reaction is partly what inspires curiosity.

The story of the Emperor's New Clothes would need to be modified for you, to read more like this: in the Jan Ardena version, we'd have the Emperor actually wearing a magnificent royal outfit, superbly tailored by the finest clothiers in the kingdom. And our hero Jan is the little boy standing in the street fruitlessly shouting "Look! The Emperor has no clothes!"

Scientific dissent over the basics of evolution is, to all intents and purposes, non-existent, as I have pointed out to you before.

As for people not understanding evolution, where there's smoke, there's often fire. Time and again it turns out that supporters of ID demonstrate clearly that they don't understand the basics of evolution. The more you talk to them, the clearer it becomes. Often, their religious motivations for embracing ID, in the absence of actual ability to be able to tell whether it is worth a fig, become clearer and clearer, too.

This book isn't a challenge to Darwin. It exposes fraud, lies, deciet, and unproffessional conduct in a bid to keep darwinism as the only explanation, suppressing anything that contradicts it. And there's loads of stuff that contradicts it.

Like what? Everything concrete you have mentioned so far has turned out to be disproved or wrong or whatever.

The evolution of primitive cells leads us to first metazoans (like hydra and sponges) and from there to worms, then to jawless fish. Jawless fish lead us to mud-walking fishes, and from to earliest quadrupeds - amphibians to reptiles and birds, then mammals. Insects follow a parallel course, upon their divergence from primitive insect-like marine animals.

How do you know they did?

Many convergent lines of evidence. Fossils, DNA, morphology etc. etc.

[wynn]

So?

So the atheists and the theists have essentially the same line of reasoning intended to persuade the seekers - "If you would be an honest person, with integrity, you would see that what we say is true and you would abide by it."

It's a line of reasoning that is impossible to defend against, an unfalsifiable line of reasoning.

IOW, a mindfuck.

In the end, it is the seekers who are in the precarious position, as it turns out that neither the theists nor the atheists actually care about them, even if both profess to do so.

How can prove or disprove anything?

One can't.

And yet the core of the theist vs. atheist dispute is precisely the idea that is is possible to prove or disprove God or religion and related ideas.

[Yazata]

It seems to me that natural shapes often contain more raw information than intelligently-designed artifacts.

What's ''raw information''?

The Discovery Institute wrote this:

"Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information."

What that means isn't exactly clear, because the phrase "complex and specified information" hasn't been defined.

But the assertion seems to include the idea that "intelligently designed" objects are more complex, or contain more information, than naturally occurring objects. I'm suggesting that's typically false.

Imagine a naturally occurring rough surface, the surface of a rock let's say. In order to provide a complete geometric description of that surface, somebody would have to specify its constantly varying contours everywhere on its surface. That description is going to be very complex and will require a great deal of information.

Now imagine a surface that's been machined and polished into a plane. The description of that designed and manufactured surface would simply be the geometric specification of the plane. The description could be much simpler and it wouldn't have to include anything close to the volume of information necessary to describe the rough natural surface.

I'm suggesting that designed and manufactured objects are often simpler than naturally occurring objects, in terms of the volume of information that's necessary to fully describe them.

So "complex and specified information" isn't information as a mathematician, computer scientist or information theorist would understand the term. It's something else. It's apparently supposed to be a special "specified" kind of information, one that "ID" proponents can detect with (unspecified) "experimental tests", that's supposed to be uniquely associated with intelligent design.

That would be an extraordinary trick: inventing an experimental test for intelligent design. I'm curious what the details of the test are supposed to be and how well it works in distinguishing human artifacts from naturally occurring objects. Frankly, I don't think that such a test exists.

I don't even see how it could exist in the form that the "ID" proponents want it to exist, even in principle, without falling into hopeless circularity.

The problem for the "ID" proponents is that they are claiming that much if not all of the natural world is actually designed by some hidden, occult, super-powered designer. So if their hypothetical experimental information-test successfully distinguishes human designs from naturally occurring objects, then that would seem to be evidence against their own "ID" proposition. But if the test generates positive results not only for human artifacts, but for some or all naturally occurring objects as well, then we're still faced with the problem of whether those results are false positives (indicating only that the test has failed) or whether the results are true indications of supernatural intelligent design in the natural world.

I don't see how they can answer that without rendering their whole 'experimental test' assertion circular, by introducing their desired results into their initial premises. In other words, they can't demonstrate the accuracy of their supposed experimental test unless they have some other means of recognizing intelligent design that's independent of the test.

[superstring01]

Here you go.

jan.

Do you understand what a "Defense" is, and how it works?

Part of the peer review process is acknowledging and addressing those who demonstrate you to be factually wrong. That's how peer review works.

Interestingly enough, your link lists none of the detractors (and a cursory search finds quite a few).

Even better: Dr. Craig is a philosophical theologian with no scientific creds. His PhD is really that: philosophical. He's brilliant though, it's fun to hear him speak.

~String

[LIGHTBEING]

For Jan:

Ken Miller refutes the "irreducible complexity" of mousetraps
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieKDLtrBXs0

Ken Miller: Irreducible Complexity (bacterial flagellum) debunked
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU

[Rav]

I thought it was the actual book, but it wasn't.
In the book there are scenarios where the acrcheologist and his team unearthed alot more evidence from the same strata, after the first lot
explained away. This is why it is best to read the book.

So you're conceding that the examples provided by Cremo in the pdf you linked to, which were clearly supposed to be a compelling selection of those from his book, can not stand up to scrutiny?

[superstring01]

Here you go.

jan.

After several days of reviewing (since you posted this) and after reading some of the "sources" with an actual bio-chemist with a real PhD in science, this is the conclusion. It's horseshit. Most of the papers are in journals specifically aimed at taking intelligent design seriously, founded for that purpose, like LIFE and BIO-Complexity. They publish papers like these for that reason. These papers don't get cited elsewhere. "Peer review" is pointless when the peers are useless.

They're also fond of citing works by ID people in non ID contexts, with a wink-wink-nudge-nudge that it proves ID. Just because you tell me it's raining, and it is raining, doesn't mean I'm interested in your opinion on what's wrong with my car. For example, the paper “The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search,” is about how humans search for information by humans. Relevance to Intelligent Design: nonexistent.

The page is designed to make the number of entries seem long, by citing lengthy abstracts. All told there are only a few dozen papers here, and none of them demonstrate anything like what they claim it does. The length is padding to make it seem important.

The fact that they have to make shit up to seem relevant is prima facie evidence that they don't have anything else to offer. This page is a lie; the people who put it together are liars.

~String

Credit to J. Engle

[Jan Ardena]

So you're conceding that the examples provided by Cremo in the pdf you linked to, which were clearly supposed to be a compelling selection of those from his book, can not stand up to scrutiny?

No, what you have is the introduction to the book, where he introduces himself, his work, and gives a taster of what
the book is about with a few examples.

jan.