|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 09/25/2005 : 23:16:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
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.
By all means, do. Please credit Red State Rabble for it.
I'm not sure robins will clear their nests of cowbird eggs (I've not studied avians much). Most birds that parasitize others in this manner chose species that will not. The European cuckoo, for example, picks on a little marsh wren, and quite the opposit happens: the cuckoo chick expells the wrens eggs and'or chicks from the nest.
Pretty good simile there, eh: ID, the wannabe cuckoo of science.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2005 : 12:59:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Dave, lol. You're entirely echoing my sentiments, yet coming across like you disagree!
No, you're saying that the "PUM" should be falsifiable by saying that after so many years of trying to mechanistically create life and failing, we should claim that the "PUM" is falsified. But since ignorance can't falsify anything, that cannot happen.
It's not that scientists are just being stubborn about giving up philosophical naturalism - that concern doesn't even affect this particular question, scientifically speaking. I also believe you're mistaking "we don't know of any other scientific method of examining the world except for looking for natural causes to natural phenomena" with "there is no supernatural world, period." That's why I said that your "PUM" was a straw man.
By the way, have you figured out a non-naturalistic science yet?quote:
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.
Yes, but the small sample of scientists who are members of the National Academy of Sciences cannot be generalized to the world.quote:
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.
Yes, you have been. Guys like Behe are lying scumbags. Admitting defeat, for them, is tantamount to spitting on the baby Jesus. They are lying for God, markie. Defeat means that God is dead.
quote:
I hate that phrase 'failure of science.' I don't regard science as failing, merely having natural limitations in what it can explain.
It does, but your description of evidence for ID relies on scientists trying and failing to come up with an all-natural explanation.quote:
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 :)
No, nor is it terribly accurate. I'm not aware of any species which we know has been around for a billion years.
In another post, you wrote:quote:
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).
Interesting that you know so much, so definitively. Biologists have been arguing amongst themselves for decades about whether or not viruses are alive. Today, most seem to think they are.quote:
Perhaps in another post I may get into more specifics of what I would call 'aliveness'.
Well, without your definition, nobody else can agree (or disagree) that artifical life is inconceivable. |
- 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 - 09/26/2005 : 16:49:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
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.
And I'm claiming that Occam's Razor supports my induction before your supernatural explanation. Especially since your explanation requires an entity which is not supported by any evidence thus far.
|
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 - 09/26/2005 : 20:27:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Dave, lol. You're entirely echoing my sentiments, yet coming across like you disagree!
No, you're saying that the "PUM" should be falsifiable by saying that after so many years of trying to mechanistically create life and failing, we should claim that the "PUM" is falsified. But since ignorance can't falsify anything, that cannot happen.
Hmmm, I'm saying that a Purely Unintelligent Mechanism theory cannot, by it's very nature, be falsified. Perhaps for that very reason it is not strictly scientific. The failure of PUM to 'explain' life, even after thousands of years of effort, would not falsify PUM but should (one would think) give one ample reason to doubt it.
quote:
It's not that scientists are just being stubborn about giving up philosophical naturalism - that concern doesn't even affect this particular question, scientifically speaking. I also believe you're mistaking "we don't know of any other scientific method of examining the world except for looking for natural causes to natural phenomena" with "there is no supernatural world, period."
Well, I wish I heard from professors of biology more of the honest "science doesn't yet know" than the inferences that science indeed had life's origins pegged down to purely natural causes. The latter is a sufficiently blatent enough untruth as to be tantamount to asserting that "the alleged supernatural world has nothing to do with the natural world we experience". Tsk.
quote:
By the way, have you figured out a non-naturalistic science yet?
I've been giving it some thought. Unfortunately, as I see it, higher realms of mind-spirt may be so nearly perfectly integrated with purely physical mechanism that it may be about impossible to scientifically extricate the actions of the one from the other.
quote:
They are lying for God, markie. Defeat means that God is dead.
Well if that is that case with some ID scientists, that is truly sad. A person with any faith at all knows that God can handle things just fine without people lying supposedly on his behalf.
quote:
I'm not aware of any species which we know has been around for a billion years.
Perhaps Archeobacteria (sp?) would about fit the bill. Some types of sharks have apparently retained the same form for many millions of years. I believe that some species like man have reached the end of their potentials of further significant biological development. Another useless prediction: Man's brain in a million years won't be significantly larger than it now is.
quote:
Interesting that you know so much, so definitively. Biologists have been arguing amongst themselves for decades about whether or not viruses are alive. Today, most seem to think they are.
While some may think they are alive, I highly doubt it is the majority. Afterall viruses don't even metabolize. More generally, they don't have the protoplasm upon which is played the interior dynamism which is characteristic of life.
Mark
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2005 : 22:17:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie...
Well, I wish I heard from professors of biology more of the honest "science doesn't yet know" than the inferences that science indeed had life's origins pegged down to purely natural causes. The latter is a sufficiently blatent enough untruth as to be tantamount to asserting that "the alleged supernatural world has nothing to do with the natural world we experience".
Maybe it would have been more to your liking if those professors had been somewhat more detailed and accurate with their comments. Maybe something like...
"There isn't the tiniest shred of evidence that any gods, mythical beings, or other supernatural forces had anything to do with the origin of life or its evolution to the current state. Although there are some details about the sequence of events that 'science doesn't yet know', what we teach you as fact comes from applying the scientific process. This involves developing falsifiable theories through observation, creation of hypotheses, experimentation, prediction, and revision. The origin and evolution of life can be explained, at least in concept, to have occurred by purely natural causes. The use of the scientific process has borne this out innumerable times, and continues every day to provide more support for these explanations. Although some people believe in magical powers, absolutely nothing supports the idea that life began or evolved through the intervention of any sort of 'intelligent designer'. Among the scientific community, and virtually all others who don't have delusions of gods and magic, it is well accepted that 'the alleged supernatural world has nothing to do with the natural world we experience'."
You weren't deceived. There were no blatant untruths. It's likely you just didn't get it. The scientific method, as simple as it is, is beyond the grasp of some people. We all have varying levels of aptitude for different subjects. You may just have a poor aptitude for science and might just never get it. Don't let it trouble you.
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2005 : 22:45:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I believe that some species like man have reached the end of their potentials of further significant biological development
Once man reaches the stars, I think you will see evolution continue as new environments are encountered. Also, as man's culture and societies evolve, man may evolve themselves using technology (which to me is evolution and natural). We shouldn't think so proventially. Further, I have a hard time imagining one million years worth of time. Maybe it is just me. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2005 : 06:18:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
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
I think the confusion here is focus on PUM. There is no scientific theory of PUM in the same sense that there is no theory of ID. There IS a theory of Evolution and it's tennets ARE falsifiable and have been upheld again and again via observation and experimentation. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2005 : 09:10:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
quote:
Originally posted by markie...
Well, I wish I heard from professors of biology more of the honest "science doesn't yet know" than the inferences that science indeed had life's origins pegged down to purely natural causes. The latter is a sufficiently blatent enough untruth as to be tantamount to asserting that "the alleged supernatural world has nothing to do with the natural world we experience".
Maybe it would have been more to your liking if those professors had been somewhat more detailed and accurate with their comments. Maybe something like...
"There isn't the tiniest shred of evidence that any gods, mythical beings, or other supernatural forces had anything to do with the origin of life or its evolution to the current state. Although there are some details about the sequence of events that 'science doesn't yet know', what we teach you as fact comes from applying the scientific process. This involves developing falsifiable theories through observation, creation of hypotheses, experimentation, prediction, and revision. The origin and evolution of life can be explained, at least in concept, to have occurred by purely natural causes. The use of the scientific process has borne this out innumerable times, and continues every day to provide more support for these explanations. Although some people believe in magical powers, absolutely nothing supports the idea that life began or evolved through the intervention of any sort of 'intelligent designer'. Among the scientific community, and virtually all others who don't have delusions of gods and magic, it is well accepted that 'the alleged supernatural world has nothing to do with the natural world we experience'."
You weren't deceived. There were no blatant untruths. It's likely you just didn't get it. The scientific method, as simple as it is, is beyond the grasp of some people. We all have varying levels of aptitude for different subjects. You may just have a poor aptitude for science and might just never get it. Don't let it trouble you.
GeeMack, are you by chance a professor of biology? ;)
You see, GeeMack has demonstrated my point. Of taking the liberty of saying that strictly uninintelligent evolution has been "explained" in "concept". In actuality of fact however, there is no "explanation" of this concept by science, it is merely *assertion* of "concept".
Rest assured GeeMack that I "get" science. Bonus, I get God as well, and God has gotten me!
Mark
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2005 : 09:15:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
I believe that some species like man have reached the end of their potentials of further significant biological development
Once man reaches the stars, I think you will see evolution continue as new environments are encountered. Also, as man's culture and societies evolve, man may evolve themselves using technology (which to me is evolution and natural). We shouldn't think so proventially. Further, I have a hard time imagining one million years worth of time. Maybe it is just me.
I heard Gene Rodenbury speak in person in London Canada in the early 80s. Very inspirational vision of humanity going towards an expanding frontier of outer and inner exploration.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2005 : 10:01:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Hmmm, I'm saying that a Purely Unintelligent Mechanism theory cannot, by it's very nature, be falsified. Perhaps for that very reason it is not strictly scientific. The failure of PUM to 'explain' life, even after thousands of years of effort, would not falsify PUM but should (one would think) give one ample reason to doubt it.
The only philosophy that's at all scientific is the philosophy of science. What else would you have taught or discussed in a science class? We know of no phenomenon whatsoever which requires a non-naturalistic "intelligent mechanism" to explain. Why should we assume that some phenomenon (which one, we don't know) will require one?quote:
Well, I wish I heard from professors of biology more of the honest "science doesn't yet know" than the inferences that science indeed had life's origins pegged down to purely natural causes. The latter is a sufficiently blatent enough untruth as to be tantamount to asserting that "the alleged supernatural world has nothing to do with the natural world we experience". Tsk.
When we're talking about science, which studies the natural world, there's no evidence of anything supernatural. So why does that assertion seem false to you?quote:
I've been giving it some thought. Unfortunately, as I see it, higher realms of mind-spirt may be so nearly perfectly integrated with purely physical mechanism that it may be about impossible to scientifically extricate the actions of the one from the other.
So, as far as science is concerned (you're saying), a world created by purely natural means would be indistinguishable from a world created by your "Great Architect." How would you explain that to a science class?quote:
Well if that is that case with some ID scientists, that is truly sad. A person with any faith at all knows that God can handle things just fine without people lying supposedly on his behalf.
It is the case, and they are pathetic hypocrites. Better you find a different name for your version of ID, rather than confuse people into thinking you're also an asswipe like Behe, Dembski and the rest.quote:
Perhaps Archeobacteria (sp?) would about fit the bill.
That's an entire Kingdom, if I remember correctly, and not a single species.quote:
Some types of sharks have apparently retained the same form for many millions of years.
Yes, and Stephen J. Gould says that the evidence shows that new species evolve, then remain relatively evolutionarily stagnant for 10 million years on average, and then vanish. Of course some species, like certain sharks or crocodiles, are today on the extremes of the bell curve of survivability.quote:
I believe that some species like man have reached the end of their potentials of further significant biological development.
Why? What observations have led to that belief?quote:
Another useless prediction: Man's brain in a million years won't be significantly larger than it now is.
Be sure to let me know.quote:
While some may think they are alive, I highly doubt it is the majority. Afterall viruses don't even metabolize. More generally, they don't have the protoplasm upon which is played the interior dynamism which is characteristic of life.
Seems I was wrong, but it's clear that viruses exist somewhere close to the border that separates life from non-life. Do you have a definition, yet? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2005 : 10:11:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I believe that some species like man have reached the end of their potentials of further significant biological development
Thus demonstrating to all that you don't actually have any grasp whatsoever on even the most basic concepts of the ToE.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2005 : 10:17:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie...
You see, GeeMack has demonstrated my point. Of taking the liberty of saying that strictly uninintelligent evolution has been "explained" in "concept". In actuality of fact however, there is no "explanation" of this concept by science, it is merely *assertion* of "concept".
No, again you're wrong. This is not an assertion; it is a proposal. That's what theories are. As has been pointed out, your notion that there is a diametrically opposing theory, you called it PUM, is also incorrect. That is not a theory; it's a straw-man.quote:
Rest assured GeeMack that I "get" science. Bonus, I get God as well, and God has gotten me!
You continue to provide evidence that you don't understand the scientific process. If you actually do get it, and if you actually have another theory developed by using the scientific process, you are highly encouraged to propose it as well. If it has any merit it will surely be the subject for some interesting discussion, and may even provide some extremely important breakthroughs in the field of the biological sciences.
So far you haven't provided any commentary that would support your notions other than to suggest that you simply believe supernatural forces had a hand in creation/evolution. But here's a way you can demonstrate that you get it. Propose an alternative theory, not a guess, not a statement of your belief in magic, not an attempt to discredit existing theories, but a legitimate proposal of your theory. You see, without that proposal, your disagreement with the current theories about life's origins and evolution show that you really don't get it.
And if you also understand mythical beings, if you take them to be real, please define them and describe your theory to support their existence. Then describe the process they might have used to magically create life and the method of their intervention in the process of evolution. Since so far we have nothing more than your say-so about your bogeyman, it would be of interest to me, and I'm sure to all the world, if you could describe it by including any supporting evidence. Better still, use the scientific process to support your claim by proposing your theory of its existence.
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2005 : 11:13:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
I believe that some species like man have reached the end of their potentials of further significant biological development
Thus demonstrating to all that you don't actually have any grasp whatsoever on even the most basic concepts of the ToE.
And I suppose then that you 'believe' differently, that any organism has the potential to evolve into just about anything given enough time.
Just like stem cells have the potential to differentiate to a myriad of forms, while a skin cell is the culimation of that differentiation and will go no further, it is not implausible to think that some organisms have reached the end of significant further biological development, dude.
Mark
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2005 : 11:32:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMackNo, again you're wrong. This is not an assertion; it is a proposal. That's what theories are.
A 'proposal'? Evolution isn't presented as a 'proposal' at universities, it is presented as fact. And I hardly mind that really, because to me the genetic and fossil record very strongly suggests this very thing. What I object to is the presentation as 'fact' that blind mechanism is sufficient to explain it. Sure, 'propose' such a belief, but don't present it as if it's a scientific fact.
quote:
You continue to provide evidence that you don't understand the scientific process. If you actually do get it, and if you actually have another theory developed by using the scientific process, you are highly encouraged to propose it as well. If it has any merit it will surely be the subject for some interesting discussion, and may even provide some extremely important breakthroughs in the field of the biological sciences.
So far you haven't provided any commentary that would support your notions other than to suggest that you simply believe supernatural forces had a hand in creation/evolution. But here's a way you can demonstrate that you get it. Propose an alternative theory, not a guess, not a statement of your belief in magic, not an attempt to discredit existing theories, but a legitimate proposal of your theory. You see, without that proposal, your disagreement with the current theories about life's origins and evolution show that you really don't get it.
Hello? If I point out a flaw, say, in the conclusions of a scientific experiment, am I required then to provide an alterate experiment to demonstrate that the first was flawed? Of course not.
quote:
And if you also understand mythical beings, if you take them to be real, please define them and describe your theory to support their existence.
Really, God consciousness is not too different than self consciousness, which we all experience I hope. I would roughly approximate God consciousness to be recognition of your highest thinking and an inner realization of and allignment with your most ideal thoughts.
Mark
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2005 : 12:07:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
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
One example: it would look like a peer reviewed experiment supporting an hypothisis.
Another: If I have this nonsense correct, ID claims that all species were created as is -- no transitionals. Therefore, ID must come up with a sound explanation for horse and whale ancestors, among many others.
And a third: a sound explanation as to why the fossil recorrd is so neatly arrainged, just like the ToE predicts. The ToE predicts that there will never be a Homo fossil found in relation with dinosaurs. It further predicts that a common ancestor existed for hominids and apes some 6 to ten million years ago, but this one is probably not it. Might be close, though. ID must come up with an explanation for it, again peer reviewed by science, to be beyond fatious speculation. That would look like real evidence.
These people do no research beyond refining their claims; contribute nothing to scientific effort beyond sowing unnecessary discord. Thus, they lack integrety as well as credibility.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
