The Power of the New Intelligent Design...

Hi sensei, That sounds an awful lot like an admission that creationism and ID make no testable predictions. That would make them unfalsifiable. This is, to put it mildly, not a plus, especially if you want these ideas to be taken seriously in the scientific world, where all hypotheses must be falsifiable.Or perhaps I have misunderstood. If so, please clarify; what predictions does your model of special creation make? How do these predictions differ from those of the mainstream model?Mutate and Survive

Hi Phat,Nope. No apple pie for diabetics like us!Mutate and Survive

Hi sensei, Sure. That's nice. But it gets me no closer to understanding your position.You're a recent member and we've never interacted before and whilst I've read some of your posts, I don't think I've ever really seen you set out your stall regarding precisely what your position is. I'm just trying to get a feel for what it is you actually believe.In your previous post you very strongly implied that special creation makes no testable predictions. Is that really what you wanted to say?It's not a trick question. It's pretty foundational stuff. This thread is supposed to be about Intelligent Design and ID has always been very keen to be seen as science. In order to be taken seriously as science ID must make testable, falsifiable predictions. If your personal theory makes no predictions, it can hardly be called science and it certainly wouldn't be in step with the stated aims of the ID crowd. Is that really what you wanted to say?Mutate and Survive

Those are some possibilities. Where do you stand exactly? I'm only pressing you because I have found that there as many variants of creationism as there are creationists, so it's not obvious precisely what you're arguing for. I don't want to get dragged into the weeds here, but just for the record, Richard Dawkins didn't originate the idea of panspermia and doesn't support it, describing panspermia as being "only slightly more plausible than divine creation.". i don't care for it either. Okay. So what boundaries does your version of multiple instances of special creation observe? How do we tell if they are supported or violated by observations?This is important because if evolution were true, we would also expect to see multiple nested hierarchies, as branches of the wider hierarchy.. After all, each smaller part of a nested hierarchy is another, smaller nested hierarchy. How do we distinguish between truly separate nested hierarchies and the branches of the wider nested hierarchy that is all life? Where are those boundaries exactly? Obviously everyone agrees in principle that we can only study data that exists.Where I suspect we disagree is in what we would call "speculation".It is not "speculation" to derive a testable hypothesis from the predictions of a theory and compare that hypothesis to observed reality.. That is, in fact, how the scientific method works.The Theory of Evolution makes a number of testable predictions. The existence of nested hierarchies is one of them. The non-existence of nested hierarchies would falsify the ToE. The existence of nested hierarchies in nature has been observed countless times. This is, by any definition, evidential support for the ToE. Can you provide similar support for whatever model you have in mind?Mutate and Survive

We all have an opinion. It necessarily colours our perceptions.And why bring up an idea like separate special creations if you aren't interested in arguing for it?But okay, you're not interested in arguing for anything. You are interested in arguing against evolution, but you have no model to take its place. Is that correct? Do you have any observations which do not fit the data as far as the ToE is concerned? But you easily fall into insulting people who have only been respectful towards you. Duly noted.You can't have it both ways sensei. You can't complain about trolls one minute and respond to good faith attempts to engage you in meaningful debate with abuse the next. I would like to second what Tangle was trying to tell you; you can either engage in good faith discussion or you can shout into the void. Your choice.Mutate and Survive

Everyone has biases sensei, including me and including you. The scientific method is there to cut through those biases, not pretend they don't exist.
​ I'm aware of the various ideas out there, I was just wondering what your take is. Most people who come to a debate board do so because they have a specific idea they are interested in discussing. This thread, for instance, is supposed to be about Intelligent Design. If you're not criticising or defending ID, what are you hoping to accomplish here? Do you mean to tell us that you don't even have an opinion? You've received no disrespectful comments from me yet you chose to insult me anyway. And I am accusing you of nothing. I'm just trying to get an idea of what you're trying to say, because honestly, it's not entirely clear what you're trying to communicate here. But you stand by none of them yourself right? You just mentioned them in passing? Seriously? You have no opinion on the subject? None at all? Is that really what you're trying to say? That's exactly what I'm asking. I'm trying to encourage you to pick a topic and examine the evidence, rather than get lost in the long grass of petty bickering. I'm trying to get a handle on what you are actually arguing for, if anything.If there is a theory or idea for which you wish to advocate, tell us about it.Alternatively, if there is no idea you wish to advocate for and you only wish to attack the ToE, then help us out; what is wrong with the ToE? What do you think the predictions of the theory are? How do they fail to match observation?If you're not interested in either, well I have to wonder what it is that you're trying to accomplish.Mutate and Survive

Discuss away then.There has been plenty of discussion here on the subject of nested hierarchies. Do you think that the observations of nested hierarchies are somehow flawed? If so how? How exactly do the observations fail to meet the predictions of the ToE?Mutate and Survive

If you accept that the observations of nested hierarchies support the case for evolution then feel free to say so. We can then move on to the many other lines of evidence for the ToE.I never said that this was the only evidence we had for the ToE. It isn't. Enlighten me then, O sensei; what are the right questions?Mutate and Survive

That response reads as a graceless way of admitting that you have no point to make, no critique to bring, nothing, in fact, to say at all.You claim to want to address the evidence, but when invited to do so, you clam up.So again; Do you think that the observations of nested hierarchies are somehow flawed? If so how? How exactly do the observations fail to meet the predictions of the ToE?Mutate and Survive

You did not. You responded with a condescending lecture about how you want more than one piece of evidence, as if anyone was claiming that the ToE has to stand or fall on nested hierarchies alone, a painfully obvious strawman. Silly goose! We have plenty of lines of evidence, nested hierarchies is just one. But it's the one we're talking about and you have made zero attempt to address it. If you insist on beating on this rather dreary strawman, fine.You point out what any child knows, that one piece of evidence, viewed in isolation can mislead. This is, however, irrelevant; I have more than one piece if evidence. The ToE is supported by countless lines of evidence. I'm just starting with this one. We can't very well discuss them all at once.So, again; do you think that the observations of nested hierarchies are somehow flawed? If so how? How exactly do the observations fail to meet the predictions of the ToE?If you are unable to refute this supporting evidence for the ToE, that's fine. You said it yourself, one piece of evidence alone might lead one to an erroneous conclusion, so the jig ain't up yet. There's absolutely no reason why you can't just admit that the observations of nested hierarchies in living things are indeed evidence in support of the ToE and we can move on to the next piece of evidence.You said you wanted to discuss the evidence. Well this is what that looks like. Time to put your money where your mouth is.Mutate and Survive

How can there be straw men when you refuse to take any position, pretending instead to some high-minded neutrality? You need to take some sort of position before anyone can misrepresent you. No you didn't. You got all shy, bless you! Remember? And then you started making excuses for why you didn't need to address the evidence. But those excuses were fallacious nonsense.All that leaves you still seemingly unable to find fault in the evidence cited, the presence of nested hierarchies and how they provide strong evidence for evolution. I think your example is flawed. There is no known process that creates a nested hierarchy other than evolution and nested hierarchies are far from the only evidence for the ToE. There's no equivalence with geocentrism/heliocentrism. It's a poor metaphor. You're the one who asked it, as a dodge, to get you out of addressing the point you can't answer; the presence of nested hierarchies in nature and the powerful evidence they provide for the ToE.For your silly comparison to work, there would have to be an alternative explanation for the nested hierarchy of life. Do you have one? Do you have anything? Anything at all? Because all this weaseling around just makes it appear as though you're desperate to avoid discussing this evidence.Do you think that the observations of nested hierarchies are somehow flawed? If so how? How exactly do the observations fail to meet the predictions of the ToE? It is hardly nonsense to compare the predictions of a theory to the observations we see in nature. That is, in actual fact, the scientific method. Do you have a better method than deriving predictions from a theory and then testing those predictions against observed reality? If so your Nobel Prize is in the post.Again; do you think that the observations of nested hierarchies are somehow flawed? If so how? How exactly do the observations fail to meet the predictions of the ToE?Mutate and Survive

How is it poor form to compare the predictions of a theory to observation? That is science, that's just how it works.Why did you sign up here sensei? Of all the forums on the net, what attracted you to this one? No-one forced you to come here. You could just as easily signed up to the Hello Kitty forum, but you didn't. You came here. Well here, on this forum, we discuss the evidence for the theory of evolution. You claimed you wanted to discuss evidence. But when invited to do so you recoil, like a vampire presented with a crucifix. It's just such deeply weird behavior. Why join an evolution/creationism forum if you don't want to discuss evolution or creation?If you're unable to answer the evidence presented by nested hierarchies, that's fine. We can move on to one of the many other lines of evidence. I would encourage you to address one of the examples Taq gave. Or we could talk about something else, like biogeography, another powerful piece of evidence for the ToE.Mutate and Survive

No it isn't. That's called a straw man. Yet when I ask you to compare this predictions of the ToE with data, you call it a poor question and scuttle away. What exactly is poor about asking you to compare the prediction of nested hierarchies with the data?So again; do you think that the observations of nested hierarchies are somehow flawed? If so how? How exactly do the observations fail to meet the predictions of the ToE?Mutate and Survive
​

It's not a game, it's a conversation, or a debate if you prefer that framing. Nested hierarchy. Lots of things can be arranged into hierarchies, very few things can be placed into nested hierarchies.And I'm using the standard definition, as understood in evolutionary biology. Groups emerging within groups which emerge from within groups would the quick version. I f you want more detail, I agree with the definition Taq provided above.This matters because it is a good test of the predictive power of the ToE.

• The ToE predicts that evolving populations would produce nested hierarchies.
  ​
• Nested hierarchies are widely observed in biology.
  ​
• No other model predicts the existence of nested hierarchies.

To me, that looks like a validated prediction for the ToE? Do you dispute any of this?Mutate and Survive

Define "define".Define "childishness", you know, other than by example.Or alternatively, you could discuss the evidence you claimed you wanted to discuss.Mutate and Survive