|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
 Posted - 09/25/2005 : 10:43:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
...
Of course I think Behe has some very good points, ...
Dave has addressed this as my first reaction to this was also, name one.
But looking at your response it appears to be similar to those that might follow a person such as Behe. A fuzzy evaluation. Sound scientific and offer fuzzy details and those that like the idea will suck it up without a critical analysis.
Also, you get those that somehow view science with overall disdain for whatever reason they have established such a position. It then becomes easy to follow one like Behe who complains that science is wrong.
quote:
Sure all things don't work optimally at all times, there are accidents, but life overall has a well nigh miraculous track record.
It is no miracle that selection pressures select better options.
quote:
Oh well, the atheist who thinks that life is essentially an fortuitous accident of nature should at least be able to take the less fortuitous accidents of nature in stride.
I like this comment. But it made me wonder the opposite, that those who believe the designer made such imperfect creatures. |
 |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2005 : 10:45:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Hah! Just found this at Red State Rabble:
quote:
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Cowbirds, Parasitism, and Intelligent Design
Red State Rabble reader Neil M. was eating lunch at his desk, reading Scientific American, and thinking about the many spurious arguments for intelligent design coming out of Seattle's Discovery Institute when it suddenly occurred to him that -- huge though their brains may be -- the boys at Discovery could not possibly have come up with any of their many arguments for intelligent design in the absence actual science.
Behe, Dembski, and others talk about irreducible complexity, their favorite examples are the many proteins in the blood that are involved in clotting. They talk, also, about the structure of the eye, and bacterial flagella. They talk, and they talk, and they...
But, Neil asks, how would anyone know anything about the structure of the eye, or proteins in the blood, or even what a protein is, for that matter, without science?
Infallible though it may be, you can't look any of these things up in the Bible.
This is an excellent point that set RSR to thinking:
Perhaps we should begin to think of intelligent design not as a theory, or an intuition, or even a glimmer in Behe's eye, but rather as a form of intellectual parasitism -- a half-baked concept become cowbird that propagates by laying its eggs in the nests of other birds leaving its young to be raised by the unfortunate hosts.
In the same way the cowbird slips into the nests of others to lay her eggs, dissolute intelligent design "theorists" want to drop their ill-formed idea off in science classrooms with a note pinned to its jacket -- "please take care of little so and so."
The intelligent design dilettante -- like the cowbird -- refuses to do the hard work of field or laboratory research to feed and clothe their gawky child. They refuse to nurture the little monster they've so crudely stitched together in that Frankensteinian laboratory in Seattle.
I'm told that robins push cowbird eggs out of their nests...
In a nutshell, ladies and gentlemen, in a nutshell.
I just love this analogy. I'm going to post it over on the new Bad Astronomy site if you don't mind. |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2005 : 18:06:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markieLet me conclude by replaying something you said, but replacing Intelligent Design ID theory with it's opposite, Purely Unintelligent Mechanism (PUM) theory.
"Since PUM cannot be falisified it is therefore NOT science. And since it is NOT science, it should not be taught as though it were. The concept of PUM belongs in a philosophy or comparative religion class, not in a biology/geology/chemistry/astronomy class."
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
If by PUM, you mean evolution, then you are wrong. It is testable and falsifiable. It just so happens that observation and experiment have upheld the overall theory of evolution to such a great extent that science accepts it as tantamount to fact.
You see? The typical response is to about equate the fact of evolution with the mindset that evolution is of a purely unintelligent and mechanical nature. I believe that evolution from microbe to human has occurred, but I totally disbelieve, er, am skeptical, of the claim that it was of a totally unintelligent and mechanistic nature.
As I said, PUM is not falsifiable. For instance, say the PUM scientist, despite great effort, cannot discern the mechanism responsible for a certain phenomenon within the cell. Is the theory of PUM therefore falsified? Of course not, all one has to say is that we don't have enough information yet, or some such thing.
Mark |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2005 : 18:33:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Markie, in reply to all of your lastest posts, I can say that science doesn't depend on metaphysical naturalism. Most scientists working today are not philosophical naturalists. Science depends upon practical naturalism because nobody can propose any way to accurately test non-naturalistic hypotheses. Or maybe you can?
It may indeed be true, as you say, that most scientists are not philosophical naturalists. But certainly many are, and it often does get conveyed to students in one form or another in the university classroom. Practical naturalism? Yes of course, that is how we do science - assuming mechanism and looking for it by reductionist, deductive approach.
But the phenomenon of life is rather a wholistic thing, that is, the sum of the parts has the property of what we call 'alive'. I can't fathom a scientific approach which could confirm this as being beyond materialistic.
quote:
You think that a human-built life form will disprove ID, but it won't. ID proponents will say, "See? It took intelligence to make that life form, therefore it takes intelligence to make all life forms" (ID doesn't posit a "superhuman" intelligence).
Yes, you are echoing my point. And I never did say that a human-built life form would disprove general ID. It would however disprove my particular belief (which you have obviously remembered), that super-human energy-intelligence is *required* to intiate life.
quote:
That's why ID is unfalsifiable: any data whatsoever can "support" ID.
Again, if somehow, using demonstrably pure mechanistic processes, it was shown how life can be originated and evolved, then that would certainly falsify *my* idea of Intelligent Design.
Mark |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2005 : 18:37:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy But "evidence of sorts" is no evidence at all. Merely a place to start looking for real evidence. And an hypothisis is a conjecture with a little "evidence of sorts" behind it; see what I'm sayin'? Unfortunatly, real evidence for ID has yet to be forthcoming, so the hypothisis is back to being a conjecture. Or in this case, creationism (again), writ small.
I'm curious Filthy, are you able to conceive of what "real" evidence for ID would look like?
Mark
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2005 : 18:49:40 [Permalink]
|
markie wrote:quote:
As I said, PUM is not falsifiable. For instance, say the PUM scientist, despite great effort, cannot discern the mechanism responsible for a certain phenomenon within the cell. Is the theory of PUM therefore falsified? Of course not, all one has to say is that we don't have enough information yet, or some such thing.
Wrong again, markie. Ignorance cannot falsify a theory (even a pathetic straw-man theory like your "PUM"). The only thing capable of falsifying PUM is an unambiguous "GOD MADE THIS" written into a gene, or other evidence of an intelligent designer.
Our ignorance of any particular phenomenon may be eliminated tomorrow. That's why it cannot falsify anything.
And then,quote:
It may indeed be true, as you say, that most scientists are not philosophical naturalists. But certainly many are, and it often does get conveyed to students in one form or another in the university classroom.
How? And how "many"? You do understand that most practicing scientists today are religious, do you not?quote:
Practical naturalism? Yes of course, that is how we do science - assuming mechanism and looking for it by reductionist, deductive approach.
But the phenomenon of life is rather a wholistic thing, that is, the sum of the parts has the property of what we call 'alive'. I can't fathom a scientific approach which could confirm this as being beyond materialistic.
Then you're achoing my sentiments: that the hypothesis that life requires something "beyond" materialism is untestable - and therefore unverifiable - by science. So why argue that scientists should say anything about it? The answer, if you're correct, will always be "science cannot tell us how life began," period. The answer will never be "science tells us that life began thanks to a 'super-human energy-intelligence'," unless that intelligence makes itself known to us and available to our scientists.quote:
Again, if somehow, using demonstrably pure mechanistic processes, it was shown how life can be originated and evolved, then that would certainly falsify *my* idea of Intelligent Design.
Yes, but your idea of ID is certainly not what the vocal proponents of ID mean by ID.
Now, that aside, can you state your idea of ID in a positive fashion? Or will it always be something which must be inferred from the failure of science? In other words, can you offer an experiment to demonstrate your ID in under a year? Under ten years? If the experiment takes the remaining age of the universe, it's pretty much worthless (scientifically).
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2005 : 18:49:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Is there empirical evidence for the intelligence of man? Of course, and one way to show this is what man has made. Now, the living cell far surpasses the capability of man to create thus far. Thus it is not *unreasonable* to hypothesize a greater intelligence beyond man. quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse A volcano far surpasses the capability of man to create thus far. This does not mean the volcano is created by an intelligence.
Ah that's just a matter of quantity. We could indeed create a very minature volcanoe in the lab.
quote:
The crystal structure of any specific snowflake is currently impossible to recreate by man in the same scale.
Ah that's just a matter of specificity. Man can create unique crystals.
quote:
That this is beyond the capability of man does not necessarily mean an intelligent designer made it. Just because a cell is complex does not mean it has been created by a designer.
Certainly you are correct that man's inability to create a living cell is not proof that a superhuman intelligent designer is responsible. But imo it is *reasonable* to postulate such. Or somewhat differently, it is *not unreasonable* to postulate such :)
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2005 : 19:15:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Of course, science should always be pressing the envelope for detecting discernable mechanism. That will keep science busy for a long, long while. But that is a far different thing that claiming that everything is purely a result of materialistic mechanism.
So, when it turns out that materialistic mechanisms explains many things previously thought to be supernatural, will you still cross the river to water your horse?
That must be a Swedish expression or something, this simple Canadian doesn't get it. eh!
quote:
Why not let science try to figure out how stuff works before we place the blame on supernatural causes? Science has done a great job thus far in explaining many things, so I'm confident that it will eventually explain anything you throw at it. Eventually. If you're patient enough.
Why, that sounds like faith. Kidding.
Personally I would go as far as saying that for any specific phenomenon of which we can even *conceive* a possible mechanism, we will probably find it. Yet I challenge anyone to come up with even a conception for a mechanism (or a network of mechanisms) which would produce the property we call 'aliveness'.
quote:
Or you can take the easy way out and say God Did It. Personally I think that is lazy.
Yeah, either lazy or inspired. But really, God as I see it is into delegation to lessor beings, so life's origins would have lessor causes. Still great, mind you.
Mark |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2005 : 19:35:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
quote:
You know that I know what the point of science is. I'm merely saying that some scientists go *beyond* the scope of science by implying it is *all* mechanism, while skeptics look the other way. Yet when a Behe comes along and tries to similarly mix science with a different metaphysical opinion, you cry foul.
I have never heard of a biology teacher that told his/her students that god didn't exist because of evolution. Nor have I ever heard of any example even remotely similar to this absurd example.
Has an event such as this ever made it to the news? If so, please provide a link. If not, then how do you expect us to know about it?
Are you saying that you doubt that some university professors who teach in the biological sciences don't even *imply* that life's origin and its progressive evolution to self conscious beings was more or less just a fortuitous coming together of molecules under certain selective presssures? I've heard it from at least two profs in my experience.
Now, if a teacher rather made the implication that higher beings (and not luck) were responsible for life's origin and progression towards self consciousness, *that* might make the news.
Mark |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2005 : 19:39:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Personally I would go as far as saying that for any specific phenomenon of which we can even *conceive* a possible mechanism, we will probably find it. Yet I challenge anyone to come up with even a conception for a mechanism (or a network of mechanisms) which would produce the property we call 'aliveness'.
Depends on your definition. I believe the scientific definition for "alive" hinges upon a thing being able to (A) metabolize (use raw materials from its environment for a local decrease in entropy), (B) grow, (C) respond to the environment, and (D) self-replicate.
Given such a definition, it isn't at all difficult to conceive of large machines which, using nothing more than solar power, find, mine and smelt ores and build smaller copies of themselves which would then self-build (grow) into fully-functional machines. It would cost many billions of dollars to implement such things, and they'd be almost worthless in the end ("pure science"), but they're easily conceived. They could even be programmed in such a way as to make them susceptible to evolution.
I'm willing to bet, though, that you believe there's a certain je ne sais quoi about living things which that definition doesn't capture, making those conceptual machines "not living." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2005 : 19:43:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
So, when it turns out that materialistic mechanisms explains many things previously thought to be supernatural, will you still cross the river to water your horse?
That must be a Swedish expression or something, this simple Canadian doesn't get it. eh!
It was an attempt at translating a Swedish idiom, apparently not a successful one at that. I was hoping that the image would convey the principle. If you have a horse that needs water all you have to do is to get it to the river to drink. You don't have to cross over the river bridge with the horse before reaching the shore on the other side to water it there.
If there is a materialistic explanation for a phenomenon, you will not have to involve the supernatural in order to explain it. It's a bit like Occam's Razor.
quote:
quote:
Why not let science try to figure out how stuff works before we place the blame on supernatural causes? Science has done a great job thus far in explaining many things, so I'm confident that it will eventually explain anything you throw at it. Eventually. If you're patient enough.
Why, that sounds like faith. Kidding.
Or maybe induction?
If phenomenon A with complexity X is naturalistic
and phenomenon A+1 with complexity X+1 is naturalistic
and phenomenon A+2 with complexity X+2 is naturalistic
isn't it reasonable that phenomenon A+n with complexity X+n is naturalistic?
Is is that which is referred to as inference?
quote:
Personally I would go as far as saying that for any specific phenomenon of which we can even *conceive* a possible mechanism, we will probably find it. Yet I challenge anyone to come up with even a conception for a mechanism (or a network of mechanisms) which would produce the property we call 'aliveness'.
Start by defining 'aliveness', so we all have the same set of references for what life is. Otherwise you will be able to move the goal-post if we produce evidence.
quote:
quote:
Or you can take the easy way out and say God Did It. Personally I think that is lazy.
Yeah, either lazy or inspired. But really, God as I see it is into delegation to lessor beings, so life's origins would have lessor causes. Still great, mind you.
Mark
God or "lesser beings", your referring to supernatural entities for which there is no hard evidence. The supernatural explanation is not an explanation, but an excuse to not trying to find the real answer. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2005 : 20:18:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
markie wrote:quote:
As I said, PUM is not falsifiable. For instance, say the PUM scientist, despite great effort, cannot discern the mechanism responsible for a certain phenomenon within the cell. Is the theory of PUM therefore falsified? Of course not, all one has to say is that we don't have enough information yet, or some such thing.
Wrong again, markie. Ignorance cannot falsify a theory (even a pathetic straw-man theory like your "PUM"). The only thing capable of falsifying PUM is an unambiguous "GOD MADE THIS" written into a gene, or other evidence of an intelligent designer.
Our ignorance of any particular phenomenon may be eliminated tomorrow. That's why it cannot falsify anything.
Dave, lol. You're entirely echoing my sentiments, yet coming across like you disagree!
quote:
You do understand that most practicing scientists today are religious, do you not?
I suspect so, but I vaguely recall you posting something about the proportion of atheists(?) being very much higher in the academy of sciences (?) than in the general population.
quote:
Then you're achoing my sentiments: that the hypothesis that life requires something "beyond" materialism is untestable - and therefore unverifiable - by science. So why argue that scientists should say anything about it? The answer, if you're correct, will always be "science cannot tell us how life began," period. The answer will never be "science tells us that life began thanks to a 'super-human energy-intelligence'," unless that intelligence makes itself known to us and available to our scientists.
Yeah, I would agree with that.
quote:
by markie Again, if somehow, using demonstrably pure mechanistic processes, it was shown how life can be originated and evolved, then that would certainly falsify *my* idea of Intelligent Design.quote:
Yes, but your idea of ID is certainly not what the vocal proponents of ID mean by ID.
Perhaps so. But I would think that guys like Behe would be admitting 'defeat' as well. I don't know, I've been out of the loop in this area.
quote:
Now, that aside, can you state your idea of ID in a positive fashion? Or will it always be something which must be inferred from the failure of science? In other words, can you offer an experiment to demonstrate your ID in under a year? Under ten years? If the experiment takes the remaining age of the universe, it's pretty much worthless (scientifically).
I hate that phrase 'failure of science.' I don't regard science as failing, merely having natural limitations in what it can explain.
Can I offer a positive scientific experiment to demonstrate the Intelligent Design theory I hold? I'm very doubtful, but I'll think about it. I could offer the prediction that the universe will thrive for untold trillions of years, and that man will be on the earth for billions of years, hardly changed in general form from what he is now (but very higly evolved socially and ethically and spiritually). But that isn't very useful :)
Mark
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2005 : 20:36:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.Depends on your definition. I believe the scientific definition for "alive" hinges upon a thing being able to (A) metabolize (use raw materials from its environment for a local decrease in entropy), (B) grow, (C) respond to the environment, and (D) self-replicate.
Given such a definition, it isn't at all difficult to conceive of large machines which, using nothing more than solar power, find, mine and smelt ores and build smaller copies of themselves which would then self-build (grow) into fully-functional machines. It would cost many billions of dollars to implement such things, and they'd be almost worthless in the end ("pure science"), but they're easily conceived. They could even be programmed in such a way as to make them susceptible to evolution.
I'm willing to bet, though, that you believe there's a certain je ne sais quoi about living things which that definition doesn't capture, making those conceptual machines "not living."
That's a nice try. As described, it's true that I would likely not regard those machines as living. Nature already has very good non living machines, the viruses. I believe scientists could make a functioning virus from 'scratch', but then they are not alive, merely molecular machines (which BTW have been indispensible in the course of evolution).
Perhaps in another post I may get into more specifics of what I would call 'aliveness'.
Mark
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2005 : 20:55:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. MabuseOr maybe induction?
If phenomenon A with complexity X is naturalistic
and phenomenon A+1 with complexity X+1 is naturalistic
and phenomenon A+2 with complexity X+2 is naturalistic
isn't it reasonable that phenomenon A+n with complexity X+n is naturalistic?
Is is that which is referred to as inference?
Yes the induction that because science has discovered some things that it will discover more things is entirely reasonable and indeed demonstrated every day. However, that science will discover *all* things (like the mystery of life) is a leap (of faith?) beyond inference and induction. Of course I'm not saying that science in itself takes that leap.
quote:
Start by defining 'aliveness', so we all have the same set of references for what life is. Otherwise you will be able to move the goal-post if we produce evidence.
Yeah I'll try to produce something at some later time that may be satisfactory.
Mark
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2005 : 22:58:58 [Permalink]
|
Markie, I'm not going to try to explain the falsifiability concept of scientific investigation because others here do a better job of that part of the discussion than I do. It does seem from your arguments though that you are missing the point there.
But as to the need for intelligent guidance vs random molecular actions resulting in organic molecules eventually becoming advanced organisms, genetic research has clearly shown you only need random molecular actions and a few million years.
What I find is those that doubt the purely random nature of evolution just don't know what the current state of the science is. Advances in the field of genetics have surpassed what people not in that field could imagine. In the years to come these scientific advances will become more in the line of common knowledge at least in schooled children.
I really don't worry too much about the ID movement because the science has already passed that nonsense long ago. What we are waiting for now is just for the public to catch up to where the science is. Even if some sad school boards manage to stifle the scientific education in their schools, very soon even those teachers are going to be faced with textbooks that explain how an eye and a wing evolve. ID will only look more and more unnecessary as time goes by. The science is already there. It just hasn't been disseminated. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
