paper against evolution, for intelligent design

Hello again Matt: Of course Matt, you are more than welcome to reply to any post your feel relevant. I was only trying to point out that you were speaking FOR sweetstuff383. If she feels the same way you do (and she probably does)...fine...that's her perogative. I just think that she can/should speak for herself. Sorry. Well now Matt, that depends. If you have seriously studied evolutionary theory...if you have become relatively knowledgeable about biology, chemistry, astronomy, geology, physics, and other sciences to the point that you can refute the science behind their conclusions regarding evolution....if you can show that the science behind the Theory of Evolution is somehow flawed (not simply reject it Matt, but show that the science is false), then perhaps rejecting the Theory of Evolution would not make you close-minded. To simply reject the theory because it conflicts with your religious convictions, well sorry to tell you this Matt, but that's the epitome of being close-minded. Wow...so the Popes going to Hell. I guess I have no real response to this one...except to mention that he's gonna have a lot more company than even I ever imagined. Other horrible heathens, such as Mahatma Gandhi and Mother Teresa (just to name a couple), will make for fine eternal company. Don't you find it a bit disturbing that such great, peace-loving, caring, unselfish people are condemend to an eternity in Hell by your God, while people like Jeffrey Dalmer and other wonderful mass murderers that repent will go to heaven? You don't have to answer this Matt, it's a rhetorical question. What is unjust about asking your school questions about their curriculum? Actually Matt, nothing at all would be wrong with talking about these topics. I would however, have serious problems with your school if they were teaching about them as scientific facts. And since they have as much scientific validity as creationism...well...guess what. Where, exactly, did I say I didn't believe in God? But since you brought it up, since (I assume) you accept things like Chemical Bond Theory and The Theory of Gravity, please show me where in the bible God explains these wonderous miracles. Let me ask you a few questions Matt. What do you receive after you graduate from this school? Are you awarded some sort of "high school" diploma? If so, is it accepted at non-religious state funded Universities? That is to say, would, for example, The University of Maryland accept you based on this diploma?
Asqara provides a link to a web page that explains the criteria that all schools in Maryland must meet. It includes a section that states that approved nonpublic schools need to include four hours of science and mathematics. I guess your school bypasses evolution by not considering biology to be a science?

First, you have to claim knowledge of the thought processes of the designer. Second, bad design argues against an intelligent designer. Third, no mechanism is given by which things were designed. Evolution can cover all three problems.That, any predictions that ID makes are worthless in that there is no mechanism for design and design is attributed arbitrarily. For example, I could say that if DNA was created by a unicorn it would have a helix shape in honor of its helical single horn. Lo and behold, DNA has a helix shape. Therefore, it was a unicorn that was the designer. Why can't I use this argument to argue ID by a unicorn? My predictions seem to work. Second prediction, unicorns have four feet, therefore DNA will have four possible bases at each position. Hmmm, my predictions are getting even better.

NosyNed<< In any case it was an analogy to describe a situation. Not a real description of the view of the cell at the time.>>Really? Looking back on his career as a cell biologist, Bruce Alberts, now president of the National Academy of Sciences, remarked in an article for the scientific journal, Cell:"We have always underestimated cells. Undoubtedly we still do."Why? Could it be that scientists have been misled by Darwinian expectations? As one scientist once noted: "biological reality is never as simple as we think it is."All I'm saying is that looking at the cell as something that fell together via a blind watchmaking process isn't a fruitful guide for research and I don't really think this is the perspective scientists are using today to make discoveries about the cell. The terminology used to describe how the cell works comes from engineering and communications theory. We even hear the term "reverse engineering " being use by scientists that are working in cell biology. Reverse engineering is fundamentally a teleologic perspective. Reverse engineering implies engineering.It is often argued that ID is an argument from ignorance, and that to throw up hands and declare "an intelligent designer did it" does not provide a perspective with potential for discovery. I think that the useful perspective that ID naturally leads to is one of reverse engineering. How was evolution accomplished? This is the perspective that Mike Gene assumes, for instance.Let's not lose track of what we are discussing here. I'm responding to the ID critics that misrepresent ID as creationism and claim that there is no such thing as testable ID hypotheses. Mike Gene has produced several ID hypotheses and he says it's easy to do. From looking at his web site I would have to agree. All that's necessary to produce an ID hypothesis is the suspicion that something in nature may have been the product of bioengineering rather than blind watchmaking and then following up on this suspicion by employing an "if, then" forensic approach to guide an experimental inquiry that can generate results that either support or weaken the initial design inference. Now if this method helps us understand something about how the cell works then it has proved to be useful. That's all ID has to do.ID doesn't have to show the designer in action and it doesn't have to prove blind watchmaking impossible. It doesn't have to demonstrate that it's the only way to knowledge. It only has to be a useful research guide. Viewing biological objects as random purposeless objects hinders scientific progress. Viewing them as designed is a superior paradigm operationally regardless of whether there is a Designer. Afterall, that's how the non-teleological approach has worked for the past century, right? The non-teleological approach has no test to distinguish design from non-design. Instead, there has been a focus on the utility of the approach, where at some point, a successful track record becomes an argument for validity. Teleologists need do no more.

It's the if's and then's that are totally useless. On his proof reading hypothesis, he seems to forget something. Why do you have to translate into an intermediary language to begin with. Or better yet, why do you have to translate at all. I could just as easily form this hypothesis:IF: Because translation between mechanisms can create mistakes the cellular systems should not have intermediary systems that could cause translational problems. In a cell, proteins are derived directly from the information carrying material.NOT THEN: RNA goes against this hypothesis because it adds a superfluous second translational step that is not needed if the system were intelligently designed.There you go, a simple refutation of the idea of an intelligent designer from a teleological perspective. In ID theory, the if's and then's are arbitrary and have no logical stance. ID argued through this framework are refuted through examples of bad design. You then have the job of deciding what is designed and what isn't, a task that will not even add to knowledge between "soup" and "ordered".[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 12-15-2003]

Loudmouth<< First, you have to claim knowledge of the thought processes of the designer.>>Nonsense.Loudmouth<< Second, bad design argues against an intelligent designer. >>Are you prepared to accept good design as evidence FOR an intelligent designer? Let me guess. Blind watchmaking accounts for both bad and good design.Loudmouth<< Third, no mechanism is given by which things were designed.>>The dictionary defines "mechanism" as a "process or technique for achieving a result." Seen in this light, ID is a mechanism. Through intelligent design, one can achieve a result whereby a free and rational mind directs and imposes boundary conditions on the natural world. This form of causation is known to exist for human artifacts, and with the development of biotechnology, the biotic world too is being progressively shaped by rational minds. ID simply extrapolates such causation given there is no reason to think only human beings possess and have ever possessed rational minds.Loudmouth<< That, any predictions that ID makes are worthless in that there is no mechanism for design and design is attributed arbitrarily. >>By your reasoning your post is worthless as it has no mechanism. One could argue that both design and non-design can be attributed arbitrarily. But all this is beside the point anyway. If the assumption of design (whether correct or not) leads to a better understanding of some aspect of biotic reality then it can hardly be worthless.[This message has been edited by Warren, 12-15-2003]

If an intelligence can design something better, then yes I would say bad design argues against intelligent design. Am I going to agree that good design is proof of a designer? I say produce the designer. Evolution is a measurable mechanism, ID is not. ID is arbitarily assigned, can you prove otherwise? I can't. See post #64 above. I can arbitrarily assign design theories and prove that design is not present. My ID theories are supported with the same amount of evidence as Mike Gene's theories and they lead to no designer. The same can be said for every system. Isn't it curious that we can detect bioengineering in bacteria because of design characteristics, but no one is able to do the same through ID. ID lacks a mechanism, period. The mechanism is how the designer designed. We know that a watch is designed because there are mechanisms to make a watch, etc for the rest of human artifacts.

Loudmouth,Not sure I understand what you're saying. Mike Gene clearly used teleological reasoning to predict proofreading during transcription. He didn't use ateleological reasoning and I'm not sure how ateleological reasoning would lead anyone to predict proofreading of any kind.

Hypothesis: If a system is intelligently designed, it should not need proofreading.Data: There exists proofreading mechanisms in DNA translation that seem to indicate lack of intelligent design.It is that easy, you arbitrarily attribute characteristics to expected design and see if it is there. My hypothesis does not meet up with what is present in the cell therefore ID fails.

Okay Mr. Moderator, I will try to stay closer on subject. I think it was a relavant point since I see the evolution/creation debate and the Bible as inseperable. You attack the Bible, and you attack the premises of Creationism. But with that said, I will move on.I just wanted to point out that I won't be able to talk much on here until after Christmas, so please forgive me for being slow.And to my point. FliesOnly, I have known Matt for a while, and I know what is taught at his school. I don't mean to commit the same problem by speaking for him, but since I agree with what his school teaches, I will attempt to defend it (as opposed to speaking for Matt, I will speak on behalf of the school).First about your rehetorical question; it is slightly off topic, but again, I believe that Creationism and the Bible are connected. The Bible teaches that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23) So this means no matter how good you are in other people's eyes, you are not perfect, and so you deserve death (as Romans 6:23 says). So everyone deserves to go to Hell. But God in his grace says that if you believe that Jesus is Lord, you will be saved. So that is where Matt is coming from. Like I said, this is slightly off topic for evolution, but it relates to what you were saying to matt.The school does have people who have been accepted into colleges such as Penn, Purdue, and Taylor, and it is accredited. The school does consider biology to be science; that is what Matt is studying now. The school looks at both sides of the evidence, and pretty much allows you to pick your own views, though Matt is a creationist.And an interesting way I have come to accept in view of what you call miracles is that God has instituted what we call laws of science. We need to remember when we say this that science is really actually limited, and cannot use logic deductively, meaning that it is not able to prove anything. So these laws are not truely set then? Does gravity apply in space? Black holes? The laws we all refer to, if instituted by God, then why shouldn't God be able to go outside of that order he has put in the universe? This action of breaking away from the "set laws" of the universe, is what people might call miracles.So when God might not explain the laws in the Bible, there is another way of viewing it. But also, I think it would be unfair to demand that of the Bible, just as much so as saying the Bible is incomplete because it does not mention cars, jetts, or even things like cigars. It is somewhat irrelevant; still though, a good point.Finally, to tie this all back to the main topic so that I don't get accused to following rabbit trails again, this type of stuff will be in the paper the ashley and matt are doing, and we need to consider such ideas as the allowance of the Bible in schools, because it is being used in schools, as Matt has seemed to prove.

By the way, let me know if that is too off topic. It was not my intention to do so, but give me warning anyway.Thanks.

That was a very good post, and you're very articulate for your age. And it was definitely on subject, in my opinion at least...

quote:

---

The school does have people who have been accepted into colleges such as Penn, Purdue, and Taylor, and it is accredited. The school does consider biology to be science; that is what Matt is studying now. The school looks at both sides of the evidence, and pretty much allows you to pick your own views, though Matt is a creationist.

---

Those aren't particulary impressive colleges. Do you know what the rate of college acceptance is? I suppose you could probably get into Bob Jones or somewhere like that...

quote:

---

And an interesting way I have come to accept in view of what you call miracles is that God has instituted what we call laws of science. We need to remember when we say this that science is really actually limited, and cannot use logic deductively, meaning that it is not able to prove anything. So these laws are not truely set then?

---

Correct. However, one of our greatest abilities as human beings is the ability to notice trends (and consequently take advantage of them). It is this abilility to notice that, without fail, gravitation keeps bodies in space moving as we would predict them, subject to the limitations of available data, chaos theory, and quantum mechanics. It lets us notice that, without fail, E equals M * c ^2. And it is this that lets us notice that, without fail, the archaeological record shows steady lineages of species, and that current species continue to change.

quote:

---

Does gravity apply in space? Black holes? The laws we all refer to, if instituted by God, then why shouldn't God be able to go outside of that order he has put in the universe? This action of breaking away from the "set laws" of the universe, is what people might call miracles.

---

Of course a God, as you've defined it, could do anything it wanted. But we have to look at the situation reasonably.I could also define an omnipotent pink unicorn who I believe created the universe. What would make my concept less likely? The only thing that you have going for yours over the unicorn - since neither are supported by the evidence - is that yours has a few millenia-old collection of the transcribed oral traditions and legends of a particular desert shepherd tribe, assembled and merged by committee. Please understand why many people see the need to look for more evidence than that.For ages, scientists worked *under the assumption* that the bible was infallable. And it really hurt science. The elaborate hoops people had to jump through, because the bible said the sun orbits the earth! The elaborate hoops they had to jump through, because the Bible places Earth at the center of all creation! Even the fact that the moon was put there as a "light" in the night for humanity caused huge problems when Gallileo found similar "lights" orbitting another planet.Scientists struggled to keep "creationism" going. In fact, when the fossil record contradicted it, their initial solution was not evolution, but in fact multiple creations. However, they had to keep adding in new creations to try and reconcile the fossils that kept being discovered... and eventually, they had to abandon that theory all together.Yes, a God could have faked all of this. God could fake everything to make the unverse look ancient. He could do it. The question is: Why? Why would God choose to deceive us? Or did God hand creation over to Satan afterwards, and say "now, YOU create!"? Both of these concepts are rather hard to bear, wouldn't you say?

quote:

---

Finally, to tie this all back to the main topic so that I don't get accused to following rabbit trails again, this type of stuff will be in the paper the ashley and matt are doing, and we need to consider such ideas as the allowance of the Bible in schools, because it is being used in schools, as Matt has seemed to prove.

---

I'm all for allowing the bible in public school - as long as it's taught as a work of literature. Everyone's religious book should be allowed to be taught in this manner. The problem arises when it is taught in a non-objective manner, or when it is imbalanced.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Loudmouth<< Hypothesis: If a system is intelligently designed, it should not need proofreading.Data: There exists proofreading mechanisms in DNA translation that seem to indicate lack of intelligent design.It is that easy, you arbitrarily attribute characteristics to expected design and see if it is there. My hypothesis does not meet up with what is present in the cell therefore ID fails. >>I don't see any prediction here. Mike Gene didn't make any design claim. He merely used teleological reasoning to predict proofreading during transcription. This refutes the assertion that ID can't make predictions. That's the only point being made here. How about providing an example of how ateleological reasoning could have predicted proofreading during transcription?[This message has been edited by Warren, 12-15-2003]

Rei, thanks for your encouragement.Okay, I will let you in on the college thing. This is the first year the school has a senior class, and it has 5 guys. At this point, it already has 3 colleges wanting students, and I know more will come in March. So I guess I wouldn't be able to answer the acceptance rate question now, but I do know of one senior who has about a 1500 on SATs, and class average was something like 1366 (i think).That is a good point for the fact that we as humans notice trends. I will have to visit the section of the fossil record, because as far as i know, multiple layers can form in minutes, and there have been layers that scientists have hailed as thousands of years of history, with trees running up the middle of it all! Not to get off topic though...I thought I was looking at the situation reasonably when I talked about God. And I am not sure you really did the Hebrews or the Old Testament justice. Anyhow, I don't believe (and yet some of my friends will argue this point with me) that I am not able to prove the Bible is true to anyone, for it is God's job to convict people of the truth. I clearly see why people wouldn't take the Bible at face value, but what I was attempting to do was give you something to think about, and maybe have you (or anyone else) give a little more thought to the credibility of the Bible, even just as a historical text.I agree that the view of the world was wrong in Gallileo's day. Now that we know so much more about the way the universe works, wouldn't it be reasonable to forgive those past faults, and work with the knowledge we know now?Finally, your idea of God purposefully deceiving people, and acting as some sort of jokester argument (imho) is stretching things. If you view God as a weak, contradictory being, then yes, I would also conclude that he must be deceiving us, and your logic holds up. This is not so the way I view God. Maybe this part should go on in the faith and belief section. I will try to post in there when I get time to. It may be close to Christmas by the time that happens. I just would like to let you know I want to further debate that point.Thanks for your reply.

*... because the bible said the sun orbits the earth! Even the fact that the moon was put there as a "light" in the night for humanity...*I'm just curious, where in the Bible does it state this? Also, in the Bible does it ever state the world is 10,000 years old? Or has someone approximated this based on what is in the Bible?[This message has been edited by Spencer, 12-15-2003]

quote:

---

Okay, I will let you in on the college thing. This is the first year the school has a senior class, and it has 5 guys. At this point, it already has 3 colleges wanting students, and I know more will come in March.

---

Aaah, ok That explains it then.

quote:

---

I will have to visit the section of the fossil record, because as far as i know, multiple layers can form in minutes, and there have been layers that scientists have hailed as thousands of years of history, with trees running up the middle of it all! Not to get off topic though...

---

I'll direct you to the appropriate threads, if you wish to join us there Polystrate fossils (and telephone poles!):
http://EvC Forum: Polystrate Telephone Pole and Bridge Observed in PhilippinesRapid depositing of layers:
http://EvC Forum: Rapid generation of layers in the GCAnd the talkorigins FAQs for these:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html
CD241: Are varves annular?

quote:

---

I agree that the view of the world was wrong in Gallileo's day. Now that we know so much more about the way the universe works, wouldn't it be reasonable to forgive those past faults, and work with the knowledge we know now?

---

Of course, one can forgive those faults. The problem remains that people are insistant on adhering to their reading of the bible as absolute truth about the physical nature, even today. I have no problem with people turning to it for spiritual guidance, but to inhibit scientific advancement and discovery because of a reading of it is very unfortunate. If something is the truth, it should stand up on independent scrutiny - regardless of whatever religion the person doing the research is (and researchers are all religions!)

quote:

---

Finally, your idea of God purposefully deceiving people, and acting as some sort of jokester argument (imho) is stretching things.

---

If you would like, you can join me over at:http://EvC Forum: What is the YEC answer to the lack of shorter lived isotopes?I brought up a topic that I have yet to see someone who believes in a Young Earth explain: The missing isotopes. You can be the first, if you have an explanation. Otherwise, we're just left with the notion of God deliberately deceiving people, which is very unpalatable..------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 12-15-2003]