Why is the concept of theistic evolution unacceptable to you?

Why is the book ''shit''?

jan

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

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

jan.

 

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.

 

wynn,

So?

How can prove or disprove anything?

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)

 

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?

 

Aqueous Id,

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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

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.

How do you know they did?

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

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

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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?

 

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

 

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.