God's ahead in Kansas

[Stargazer]

Originally Posted by Kirk Gregory Czuhai

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]

Originally Posted by pgrmdave

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]

Originally Posted by Stargazer

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]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

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]

Originally Posted by C1ay

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]

Originally Posted by pgrmdave

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]

Originally Posted by Buffy

...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 b) 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 b) productive. And I don't mind labeling this school of thought Intelligent Design.