Why is the concept of theistic evolution unacceptable to you?

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's very telling, how you have to interprate things to your likeing, in order to comprehend them.
You should try just responding to what is actually written. It may be a challenge, but it's rewarding iin that the discussion.
can truly proggress instead of stagnating.

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Jan's admission that he is not interested in truth?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

The idea of "complex and specified information" needs to be explained and justified.

It seems to me that natural shapes often contain more raw information than intelligently-designed artifacts. For example, imagine a rough surface compared to a polished machined surface. The rough surface has a slightly different contour at each point. Oftentimes natural shapes resemble mathematical fractals. It's possible to imagine information such as computer files being encoded in the kind of seemingly random irregularities that one finds on natural surfaces.

Crafted objects are often dramatically simplified objects, objects transformed to conform to simple geometrical shapes. Of course, relatively simple physical processes can oftentimes perform these kind of simplifications without there being any underlying purpose or intention.

Or maybe an unusually small amount of "CSI", or maybe the same amount that's been rearranged, or maybe something else.

What scientists are doing this? What tests?

What "easy test" exists for whether or not "complexity" is "reducible"? Reducible to what? Natural causes? Irreducible in terms of what? Current knowledge? Irreducible in principle?

It looks to me like "CSI" is dropping out of the picture in place of "irreducible complexity", which in turn drops out in favor of something very similar to Paley's old 18'th century "watchmaker" design-argument. This revolves around the idea of functional form, and it introduces the as-yet unsupported assertion that functional forms can only arise through design.

Of course, that's something very much like the thesis that "ID" was trying to "scientifically" demonstrate in the first place. So some circularity seems to be creeping into the argument.

I'm sure they do. The problem they face is in coming up with persuasive scientific reasons for other people to agree with them.

The whole "ID" argument looks to me like an analogy. Some of the functional forms that we encounter in life are human artifacts like watches, others aren't human artifacts at all, like dogs.

So the design-argument simply chooses to treat all examples of functional form in nature as analogous to human artifacts like watches. Watches are known to be purposeful artifacts created by human beings. So the design-argument analogy insists that dogs must also be purposeful artifacts created by... what? Something hidden and occult, that doesn't appear in our natural experience. And something very powerful, that can do essentially anything. How this occult designer performs its work is left unexplained, it's just... miraculous. As to what the designer is, that's left unexplained too. But obviously the implication is intended to be that it's the "God" figure of whatever religion that the "ID" proponent happens to adhere to.

The thing is, this design-argument is only going to be as persuasive as its underlying analogy. In the 18'th century and prior, that was very persuasive indeed. Even religious free-thinkers couldn't imagine any way that functional form could appear in nature, except as the product of design. That's the 'deist' idea, which is skeptical of the purported revelations of particular religions, but which still accepts that there must be some unknown creator necessary to account for the observed functional forms in nature.

That's why the mid-19'th century idea of natural selection was so devastating to the traditional design argument. It became possible to imagine that history itself might be a giant process of trial-and-error, gradually generating more complex forms with increasingly elaborate functionality. And that made the fundamental design-argument analogy seem far less obvious and far less persuasive, since it provided thinkers with a credible account of how functional form might have appeared in a way other than by intelligent design.

 

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".

 

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?

 

One small problem with that... no one has yet discovered irreducible complexity in biology.

 

Really?

jan.

 

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

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

 

Which atheists? Which books?

 

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

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 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 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.)

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. So far I have only encountered vague arguments against peripheral ideas (like politics and suppression, etc.) that are not relevant to his discovery. Darwin's discovery stands on its own two legs today as it did in the 1850s when he published it. But why do we never see it discussed in threads like this? Because people want to talk about everything except nature. And yet this theory entirely hinges on what nature is actually doing. So now perhaps you see that your question is asking something different. It's not about me not accepting a challenge. It's about the challengers not challenging the actual material. I'm voicing this, and it appears to you that I am not accepting challenges made of Darwin's ideas. 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.

(I'm assuing it's not a rhetorical question, so I'll answer as to my own experience.) My personal experience began in the 60s when I first took biology. I was fascinated with the fossil record. It begins with single celled organisms, and as you ascend to higher layers, you see the diversity and increasing complexity of forms. The first thing that leaps out at you is that these creatures arose throughout all of natural history, springing one from another, and spread out over vast reaches of time. It would otherwise be impossible for them to be layered one upon the other. This is the first piece of information. The second piece is Darwin's discovery at Galapagos. This was also covered in my 60s biology class. Darwin was not simply making up some idea about the fossil record. He was initially only trying to explain how the peculiar creatures of Galapagos got to the islands. (That's the material religious people don't like to discuss). Most of the species on Galapagos occur only there, nowhere else. Yet the islands are young. They were volcanoes that rose from the ocean floor only very recently (in geologic time). Therefore these creatures could not have come into existence at the same time as similar creatures on the mainland. They came much later. Put all of this together and you need an explanation. Evolution is so far the only rational explanation for how those creatures got there. Finally, link the two--the fossil layers, and Darwin's theory. They are perfectly compatible. So are genetics, DNA studies, observations of natural selection, speciation in lab dishes, and so on. Dig just a little, and you find a mountain of evidence that all dovetails together. So you see, this has nothing to do with blindly following someone's ideas. It has to do with investigating nature and taking one's own Beagle on a trip to those same remote islands, and responding to nature that same way Darwin did: by application of logic, to deduce the best possible answer that explains what nature is doing.

(Some 40% of Americans do not accept evolution. But OK, we can start with simple cells.) 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.

Darwin was aware of selective breeding. But natural selection did not dawn on him (as far as I know) until the need arose for him to explain the creatures on Galapagos. He needed to explain how they got there. Had it not been the case that the islands rose from the sea floor fairly recently, he may never have stumbled onto the need to explain such a thing. This gets back to why any discussion of Darwin or his theory ought to go into his discoveries at the Galapagos Islands.

I'm asking why you don't address Darwin in your own mind, independent of the comments and complaints of others. That is, can you address how the creatures got to Galapagos by retracing what Darwin went through. This way, if you have any objections, they they address nature instead of just politics and ideas. I'm not just asking this to launch into argument. What I mean is, aren't you curious about what Darwin experienced that was so phenomenal it produced this huge discovery?

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.

Until he addresses Galapagos, nothing he says can undermine Darwin. This discussion has to begin where Darwin begins, or it just derails and begins talking about people and politics, not nature. What Darwin discovered concerns nature, specifically the nature of the Galapagos islands. There's no politics involved, just nature. This is why I initially asked you if you aren't curious yourself about the wildlife on those islands, and what led Darwin to his famous discovery. Without this on the plate, we're never actually talking about evolution.

There is no establishment or prevailing ideas or gate keepers at Galapagos. Just birds, turtles and iguanas. That's all we need to analyze Darwin. Your author has no interest in these facts (none in his essay anyway.)

I did read the link and it was sufficient for me to quickly determine that the man is a quack. He makes no scientific inquiry into nature. All he's worried about is what he perceives as politics and persuasion. Without the discussion ever touching on Galapagos, there is no basis to refute Darwin. The origin of the animals at Galapagos remains completely unaddressed. It's not science, just an essay of a guy's opinion - a guy who is just interested in people and politics, not nature.

It's not about a man, or men and women and their ideas. It's about nature, nothing more. As long as we are not talking about nature, we are not talking about evolution. And that discussion, if it is to honestly try to capture Darwin's discovery, has to begin at Galapagos. But even ignoring Darwin, the question of how the creatures got to Galapagos remains the linchpin of any idea that favors or criticizes the Theory of Evolution. Either kind of theory must completely turn on nature itself, and the processes by which we figure out the subtle ways nature works. The more we leave nature out of any discussion of evolution, the more we are talking about something entirely different. And that is the prevailing opinion of religious people that I've noticed--a desire to talk about something else, and yet to call it a discussion on evolution, or Darwinism, or science-- while in fact talking only about politics and persuasion.

 

Hypocritical bullshit. You're calling him out for not not engaging in a discussion of the material? I've tried twice now to get you to do the same thing, and you wimped out.

 

Really.

Or bring some examples.

Or, evade.

 

Easily. Does the concept contradict itself in such a way as to make it non-sensical? Yes. God disproved.

 

I invoke magic.

 

My magic is better.

 

I invoke still more magic, and I have the collectible cards to prove my case.

 

Well...crap.

I issue a magic fatwa against you!