Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution vs Intelligent Design
Highlander
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 4 (232735)
08-12-2005 4:53 PM


Part One: Evolution isn't science by the same definition that Intelligent Design isn't science
The blogosphere and op/ed columns are abuzz over President Bush's recent comments about Intelligent Design (ID). Search any bloggy engine such as Technorati for the ID keywords and you'll see entry after entry, ranging from arrogant sneering to maternal clucking. The high majority of posts are critics of ID, a smatter defend ID and even smaller number do so with logical rigor.
In all the criticisms, several common themes exist, foremost among them that ID is not science, but myth, religion, politics all wrapped in fear of having cherished beliefs shot out of the sky by rational, true, science-based Evolutionary Theory.
In almost all the blog entries I read over the last few days, what ID proponents put forward is distorted by unsupported dismissals such as the 'not science' critique. Most ID critics fail to consider the inverse of this argument and apply the same standard to the Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary (NDE) 'just so' explainations for the origin of life.
Moreover, most entries I read don't seem to have the first clue what the founders and scientists involved in ID theory have actually said, as evidenced by their gross misrepresentations of what these ID researchers are proposing and what science they are using in making the design inference. In fact, opponents of ID seem blind to their own inferences where the naturalist narrative is concerned.
To be clear, I'm talking of the rise of complex bio-mechanics at the sub-cellular level.
This criticism says ID isn't science because it isn't falisifiable, has religious implications and isn't supported by the scientific community at large, as witnessed by a dearth of peer-reviewed ID papers.
Yet, evolutionary theory (in full) rests upon a naturalist assumption that nothing exists that we cannot quantify and that life must have arisen by means explainable without any outside influence.
Ask any believer of evolution how it is that cells and the incredibly complex micro-system needed to operate a single cell arose by chance and they'll likely tell you radiation decided the earth needed amino acids, which somehow gathered together randomly, eventually stringing an intelligent code which then decided it should replicate and direct the ooze around it to form even more fragile proteins which then assembled into highly specialized micro machines, which formed the cell walls and gave those proteins protection from the volatile environment of primordial earth. (I have heard many 'popular' evolutionists say something very similar to this - ascribing choice and benefit analysis to a whole species, as if it has consciousness.)
Is such a notion falsifiable? Does such an experiment exist where life proteins arise spontaneouly and form into complex microbiological life? And what are the odds, given the time frame?
Does not the whole Darwinian narrative have religious and philosophical implications, especially in the face of thousands of years of human Theism? If correct, does it not prove the religion of Atheism to be correct?
Finally, do scientists suffer the same foibles of other humans, including ignorant bible thumping hicks? Are scientists prone to vanity and closed minded reactions when long held beliefs are challenged? Is 'Science' immune from prevailing orthodoxies? Can we find past examples of widely held beliefs among scientists that were upturned by dissenters who were ostracized and refused publication in peer-reviewed journals?
Clearly, by the same standard upon which ID critics call it pseudo-science, so too can the NDE narrative be characterized. What critics fail to acknowledge is the belief in NDE origins is as faith based as those of an intelligent creator.
I don't dispute that species change over time, nor that they may, in fact, change enough to be categorically different from prior generations. But the observation that physical attributes change over time doesn't necessarily mean those changes 'prove' the very huge changes required for the diversification we see, nor does it necessarily mean those changes were all due to random mutations and selective adaptation. (the latter of which requires a pre-exiting information set to function)
The ID researchers - not the creationists who are trumpeting their work, are all trained scientists. All use scientific evidence to support their conclusions. Indeed, Mike Behe is a micro-biologist and converted to the view of ID based upon the scientific evidence his profession has produced.
When critics dismiss ID arguments out of hand as 'not Science', they attempt a pass on addressing the arguments that are being put forward for this theory.
If one were to study intelligence and come up with general rules or properties of intelligence, would critics consider that science? If they were then to apply those rules to observable and documented processes or structures in nature (for instance, the ATP synthase motor), is that science?
The fact is, critics do not know if the micro-evolutionary process of adaptation is built in (ie 'designed') or if it is part of a larger purposeless process. They start with the premise it must be the latter and circle around to prove their original premise.
NDE proponents do not know that natural processes account for the origin of life. That is simply a matter of their own faith! Got gaps? Natural selection or infinite monkeys on infinite typewriters eventually producing the works of the old Bard is the answer!
I'm wide open to science and believe in the scientific method and the rigor of review and critique. It is critical to a decent understanding of our physical world. But I also know that with humans, the philosophic framework by which we view the world around us informs our conclusions about that world. Naturalists deny this when they deny their faith in science to provide the answers and their faith that observable, quantifiable nature is the means to all ends of understanding.
The bottom line? Critics should practice a little more intellectual honesty with their own faith based narrative and acknowledge the science upon which the nascent ID movement draws the design inference.
Originally posted on my blog

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 08-12-2005 5:50 PM Highlander has replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 4 (232764)
08-12-2005 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Highlander
08-12-2005 4:53 PM


A bit too much in one OP
One of the constant challenges here is to keep a thread on topic. This is effectively impossible if the OP isn't well focussed.
You seen to be covering in this post:
1) Abiogenesis (and muddling it up with evolution of life forms)
2) Evolution and it's likelyhoood.
3) ID and what it does and doesn't say.
4) Some comments on the underpinnings of science
Maybe more
ID seems to be your major theme. There are at least two threads that are currently discussing that. Perhaps you could post some more focussed comments there.
If you want a new thread it will have to be much more focussed than this. You might also do well to read over some of what has been posted previously. You will have a hard time defending some of what you posted here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Highlander, posted 08-12-2005 4:53 PM Highlander has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Highlander, posted 08-13-2005 1:43 AM AdminNosy has not replied

Highlander
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 4 (232892)
08-13-2005 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminNosy
08-12-2005 5:50 PM


Re: A bit too much in one OP
Well, I beg to disagree as all are related to challenge that ID isn't science. My first sentence is meant to be the theme - that by the same standard one calls ID 'non-science', so too must the naturalist evolutionary origins be called 'non-science'.
But oh well. It makes no great difference to me.
I think I tried to post this in "Is it Science".
This message has been edited by Highlander, 08-13-2005 01:44 AM
This message has been edited by Highlander, 08-13-2005 01:45 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 08-12-2005 5:50 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by AdminBen, posted 08-31-2005 3:03 PM Highlander has not replied

AdminBen
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 4 (239055)
08-31-2005 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Highlander
08-13-2005 1:43 AM


Re: A bit too much in one OP
Is ID Science encompasses two forums, let alone threads. Threads are for discussing individual challenges of whether or not ID is science. If you want to discuss challenges like that, open a thread introducing a single challenge and your response. More than likely, you can find an existing thread or two on each well-known challenge, as we've seen many such challenges done here more than once.
Check out the "Is it Science" and "Intelligent Design" forums.
I'll leave this open for a couple of days, then close it down if there's no comment or objection. You can open a new thread to address a single issue you can't find an appropriate thread for.
Thanks!

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Highlander, posted 08-13-2005 1:43 AM Highlander has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024