Creationists Turn

quote:

---

I have no idea why intelligent design is a problem. We believe in an omnipotent God. Only such a One could design a living, complex creature like the bombardier beetle, which, as I said in post 2, we humans still don't fully understand. God, with His infinite intelligence, designed the beetle. Since He foreknew the beginning of sin, He would have been able to include latent genetic information for activation after the Fall. Or perhaps He added the mechanism afterwards. With his infinite power, He could create this predesigned animal and then modify it with a defence mechanism for protection in a sinful world - just like you'd modify your car with snow tyres if you moved to Greenland.

---

1. What exactly is the testable hypothesis here?
2. How is your hypothesis of an omnipotent god falsifiable?
3. What is the evidence that could be gathered to support the hypothesis if there is one?
4. How is the hypothesis better at explaining both naturally observed and laboratory data than other competing hypotheses?

In fact sidelined, no creationist has answered or even attempted to answer your original question in the first post of this thread. Thus far 4 creationists have posted that they personally cannot fathom how evolution could account for the diversity of life...and then for whatever reason the thread went off track into cosmology...but regardless, it would seem that the creationists on this board are unable (and unwilling to try) to posit a1. testable hypothesis of creation
2. demonstrate how it is falsifiable
3. provide evidence supporting the hypothesis
4. how it better explains what is observed than competing theoriesthus far 1 and 2 have never been addressed. 3 has always been quotes from the bible or quotes from websites that quote from the bible
4. consists of things like "evidence for ID is self evident" or "I cannot personally understand how this system could have evolved therefore it must have been god" type of arguments....the point is where are the creationists who ACTUALLY want to try to propose how to engage in science to support their position? Like god(s), I don't think they exist.

The beetle apparently does not need this gun as it is related to other beetles without such a defense mechanism..Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2002 Aug;24(2):228-48. Related Articles, LinksErratum in:
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2003 Feb;26(2):334-6..Phylogenetic relationships of the carabid subfamily Harpalinae (Coleoptera) based on molecular sequence data.Ober KA.Department of Entomology, 410 Forbes Building, Interdisciplinary Program in Insect Science, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA. kober@uconnvm.uconn.eduThe carabid subfamily Harpalinae contains most of the species of carabid beetles. This subfamily, with over 19,000 species, radiated in the Cretaceous to yield a large clade that is diverse in morphological form and ecological habit. While there are several morphological, cytological, and chemical characters that unite most harpalines, the placement of some tribes within the subfamily remains controversial, as does the sister group relationships to this large group. In this study, DNA sequences from the 28S rDNA gene and the wingless nuclear protein-coding gene were collected from 52 carabid genera representing 31 harpaline tribes in addition to more than 21 carabid outgroup taxa to reconstruct the phylogeny of this group. Molecular sequence data from these genes, along with additional data from the 18S rDNA gene, were analyzed with a variety of phylogenetic analysis methods, separately for each gene and in a combined data approach. Results indicated that the subfamily Harpalinae is monophyletic with the enigmatic tribes of Morionini, Peleciini, and Pseudomorphini included within it. Brachinine bombardier beetles are closely related to Harpalinae as they form the sister group to harpalines or, in some analyses, are included within it or with austral psydrines. The austral psydrines are the sister group to Harpalinae+Brachinini clade in most analyses and austral psydrines+Brachinini+Harpalinae clade is strongly supported.In addition there are more primitive i.e. ancestral versions of the bombadier beetle defense mechanism in some species...J Exp Biol. 2000 Apr;203 Pt 8:1265-75. Related Articles, LinksSpray mechanism of the most primitive bombardier beetle (Metrius contractus).Eisner T, Aneshansley DJ, Eisner M, Attygalle AB, Alsop DW, Meinwald J.Department of Neurobiology and Behavior, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA. te14@cornell.eduThe bombardier beetle Metrius contractus discharges its defensive secretion as a froth that clings to its body. When attacked from the rear, it allows the froth to build up over the gland openings near the abdominal tip; when attacked from the front, it conveys the secretion forwards along special elytral tracks. M. contractus has two-chambered defensive glands typical of bombardier beetles, and its secretion, like that of other bombardiers, is quinonoid and hot. Its frothing mechanism, however, is unique for bombardiers and possibly illustrative of the ancestral glandular discharge mechanism of these beetles. M. contractus, thus, could be the least derived of extant bombardiers.Now why exactly is it impossible for this to have evolved?

Hi sidelined,
My expectations from hard core creationists are extremely low given what I have seen. I would be more interested in seeing the intelligent design folks (some of whom are scientists who suddenly ditch all scientific principles when dealing with evolution) take a crack at coming up with a testable, falsifiable hypothesis. Creationism and ID are thus equivalent because neither can or even attempts to be scientific..on occassion they couch what they say in (often comically misinterpreted and inappropriate) technical jargon...but this does not make it science.But in any case, I don't think that acceptance (and actual understanding of) the theory of evolution would be the end of religion...even the largest sect of christians i.e. the catholic church accepts it. With the hardcore fanatics it would be too much to expect reason, logic, or willingness to learn as that would force them away from their precious dogma....but it is fun to keep posting the simple test required to make creationism/ID a scientific hypothesis and then listen to the sound of the wind blowing when there is no answer forthcoming cheers,
M

Hi crash,
However, the entire point of this thread that sidelined started was for creationists to actually support their position as opposed to the usual pablum of things like "evolution is not true because you did not see the big bang and my dog did not give birth to a monkey" bullcrap.The issue is, we on the evolution side continuously provide testable and falsifiable hypotheses, our evidence, and why it explains the data better than posulating a pink unicorn did everything....the creationists (and IDists for that matter) have NEVER EVER done this and none in this thread have tried either.What I think sidelined is getting at is that rather than actually think, some creationists put their fingers in their ears and blindfold themselves and just scream "I am right I have faith I am right I have faith" with the fear that if they stop for two seconds somehow their entire world will crash to pieces...so I think sidelines comments are justified if I am reading them correctly.

quote:

---

I agree with you, and I think sidelined agrees with us, that at the foundation of both faith and knowledge there is a belief. The degree to which you have (or claim) scientific certainty of that belief you have knowledge, and the degree you lack certainty (but still hold that belief) you have faith.

---

Hi holmes..as always you make a good point and provide a well worded post. This is the crucial point..you make your scientific claim with certainty (and admitted tentativity as science does not "prove" things) based on hypotheses that best explain the observations. Furthermore they must be supported by evidence you (meaning the scientific community) gather, and which still remain tentative as they are constantly tested, refined, and if found lacking or not reproducible, discarded. Thus, scientific knowledge runs an eternal gauntlet of quality control. However, creationism falls into your second category where you lack any certainty but still maintain the belief..even when maintaining that belief requires one to completely ignore its conflict with scientific certainty.