Intelligent Design, on SBS TV tonight

[Nic]

Originally Posted by stinky

the IDers like to explain there is a perfect explanation for evolution when one accepts the involvement of a great designer. Perhaps cockroaches say grace when we drop crumbs - he he

But on a serious note I see no justification in discussing the scientific merits of ID when it is based on superstition.

Huh? What's that? It sounds like you're saying that ID actually agrees with evolution, so long as a designer was there to kickstart it. I don't think so.

For example, Put your hand up if you saw the big bang?

Sorry? No one?

Put your hand up if you saw the formation of our galaxy, solar system and earth.

What's that? still none?

Alright then, put your hand up if you saw the first molecules arrange themselves in such a way that they came to life.

I thought so.

ID, just like evolution, is a historical science. The difference is what you choose to base your paradigm of beliefs on. Both have the same evidence to work with, they just use different presuppositions to interpret it.

Rather than beginning with the idea that life evolved accidentally from molecules to man, ID starts off that a designer created life. From this point, life was able to "evolve" through natural selection, using only the genetic information already available. But this is more DEvolution than evolution!

In experimental science we can see this works, such as in selective breeding. However the only increase in information comes form mutations and all known mutations are destructive, not advantageous!

So now tell me how evolution of molecules to man is not superstitious??? To believe in something you have never witnessed is quite clearly, dare I say it, Religious.

Please keep in mind that both evolution and intelligent design are historical sciences. It doesn't matter what you believe about the past, so long as you agree with experimental science.

Be excellent to each other,
Nic

[fringe_dweller]

I'm sorry Nic - ID is not a science - it is a pseudoscience, like astrology - it is based on wishful thinking, not evidence. So you are saying that the earth is only 6 -10 000 yr old? You believe in DNA but not carbon dating?

[Nic]

By that logic I can also say that evolution is a pseudoscience, just as it is based on wishful thinking. If there was no one around to witness it, how can you say it is anything more?

[janoskiss (Steve H)]

But you can witness it, when your antibiotics stop working, for example, just one of many.

[Nic]

Bacteria only develop immunity to antibiotics through natural selection. That is all that are not immune die and leave those that are immune to reproduce resulting in a higher number of immune bacteria.

[fringe_dweller]

And by that logic Nic, where you around to see Noah's ark and the great flood?
Oh hang on thats right, these same group of people responsible for ID found the wreckage of the wooden ark on mt Arafat - sorry! thats it, then its all irrefutably true! sheeesh
when I wake up fully I am going to quote some BAUT forum threads - then your 'science' is in trouble :-)
But good on you, at least you have the courage to stick up for your convictions - I respect that - A LOT.
Your the first one from the other side of the equation to have a go - RESPECT!

[Nic]

And Respect is what it's about.

While you're finding this killer evidence, be sure to let me know how mammals like dolphins and whales ended up back in the water.

God bless you.

[fringe_dweller]

Now your making me not want to disrespect your beliefs by going any further, dang, this is tough! now that I like you
but I will say that not ALL mutations are bad, and also that I cant see how anyone wants to be descended from flatworms - that doesnt come under wishful thinking?

[slice of heaven]

It might save me a few $$$ on science text books if they introduce ID into schools..... should only need one

[janoskiss (Steve H)]

Originally Posted by Nic

Bacteria only develop immunity to antibiotics through natural selection. That is all that are not immune die and leave those that are immune to reproduce resulting in a higher number of immune bacteria.

Well, to go from bacteria developing immunity to antibiotics to the evolution of the diversity of life we see today from primordial slime is a HUGE extrapolation that most scientists worth their salt (including myself) could not take seriously. But, of course, there is more compelling evidence for evolution on longer timescales (up to millions of years).

But as far as going from inanimate hydrogen, carbon, oxygen etc created through nuclear fusion in stars, to the most primitive form of life on Earth, we have not a clue at this time! One can say a "higher power" did it, but to my mind that is the same as saying something like "this is too hard, my head hurts". I am happy to acknowledge I do not know what is going on, but still know enough to survive and grow as a human being.

... I could go on for ever about these things. Whatever you think the world is/was/will-be in space & time, may be a very useful approximation from where you are standing, but nothing more. Your (and my) world view is ultimately flawed in every respect. An understanding of true reality cannot come from finite rational thinking even if there are up to 100 billion neurons on your side. I am comfortable acknowledging my essential inherent ignorance.

[stinky]

Nic......"mutations and all known mutations are destructive, not advantageous!"

Is that so?!!!!

Nic....."To believe in something you have never witnessed is quite clearly, dare I say it, Religious."

I believe next week I will have several breakfasts that I have not seen. Hardly a religious experience.

Do you know any non-Christians who agree with ID and refute the science of our modern era?

[Nic]

Fringe_dweller,

Cheers mate. I find that I get along well with people I don't get along with

Stinky,

1) That's right. Except for in the case of spider man.

2) I'd imagine you've had many breakfasts before, am I right? And do you know what that means??? That means that you are dealing with operational science. That which you can observe happening. How many times have you seen fish evolve into philosophers?

I should also point out that you are assuming that you will live to eat those breakfasts. Unfortunately, the future is unknown.

3) I don't think I understand. If they agreed with ID then they wouldn't refute operational science. Because if ID disagreed with operational science, it would be discredited.

[Nic]

Janoskiss,

That's been one of my points. We simply don't know what happened because we weren't there to witness it. The evolution theory is just someone's best guess (educated guess, I should say) at what happened.

I just happen to refute that theory. It doesn't affect how science works today, so what does it matter?

All the best,
Nic

[janoskiss (Steve H)]

No problems with that Nic. Only if you go that extra step and say "... and therefore God must have done it" that I would have a problem with. Just because we do not understand does not mean we need to invoke some higher "creature" whose very supposed existence poses more questions than it answers.

[Nic]

Fair enough, Janoskiss. The only time you'll hear me saying "and therefore God must have done it" is when the Bible specifically says so. eg. Creation.

But when it comes to rocket science, relativity or microbiology, you'll be hard pressed to find me researching from the Bible.

be excellent to each other,
Nic

[stinky]

Originally Posted by Nic

Fringe_dweller,

How many times have you seen fish evolve into philosophers?

Since i have never seen Plato should I assume he didn't exist? But if I do accept the evidence that he did exist I can also accept that he evolved from a fish !

You are actually. in this case, correct. Fish evolved into Philosophers.

[avandonk]

Originally Posted by Nic

Huh? What's that? It sounds like you're saying that ID actually agrees with evolution, so long as a designer was there to kickstart it. I don't think so.

For example, Put your hand up if you saw the big bang?

Sorry? No one?

Put your hand up if you saw the formation of our galaxy, solar system and earth.

What's that? still none?

Alright then, put your hand up if you saw the first molecules arrange themselves in such a way that they came to life.

I thought so.

ID, just like evolution, is a historical science. The difference is what you choose to base your paradigm of beliefs on. Both have the same evidence to work with, they just use different presuppositions to interpret it.

Rather than beginning with the idea that life evolved accidentally from molecules to man, ID starts off that a designer created life. From this point, life was able to "evolve" through natural selection, using only the genetic information already available. But this is more DEvolution than evolution!

In experimental science we can see this works, such as in selective breeding. However the only increase in information comes form mutations and all known mutations are destructive, not advantageous!

So now tell me how evolution of molecules to man is not superstitious??? To believe in something you have never witnessed is quite clearly, dare I say it, Religious.

Please keep in mind that both evolution and intelligent design are historical sciences. It doesn't matter what you believe about the past, so long as you agree with experimental science.

Be excellent to each other,
Nic

I am going to be very tedious here.

To question one
For example, Put your hand up if you saw the big bang?
Answer : The evidence is irrefutable that it occurred. Anyone can measure it now with the right equipment. The microwave background and expansion of the Universe as measured even by Hubble. These can be tested now!

Equivalent question: Who among you has seen (fill in your God here).
Answer : Some barely attributal writings dating to many years after the events. These cannot be tested.

Question two: Alright then, put your hand up if you saw the first molecules arrange themselves in such a way that they came to life.

Answer: These days it is routine to manufacture DNA and RNA and Proteins in simple machines of any chosen complexity. It has also been shown that substrates of minerals are conducive to the spontaneous production of these same molecules given even the simplest of precursor molecules that are produced by conditions on early Earth.
This can be tested.

On this there is no record of even a faint idea how how life worked at a molecular level.

Statement: However the only increase in information comes form mutations and all known mutations are destructive, not advantageous!

Answer: Misrepresentation of mutation. Most mutations can possibly be disadvantagious, but the advantagious mutations will be passed on and spread throughout the population of the relevant organism.See Influenza for one.

Conclusion: All the things that Science tells us can be tested, here and now and into the future.

Superstition can never be tested as it does not meet the requirements for a rational world view. It is based on hearsay and wishful thinking.

As for evolution being a historical science like Intelligent design, this is a very poor logical connection. Both talk to us about the past. Only one is open to testable scrutiny. The other is assertions with no basis in reality.

Why do I even bother?
Because enlightenment is all we have as human beings!
Bert

[stinky]

Enjoyed that - clear and to the point. On ya' Bert

[janoskiss (Steve H)]

Originally Posted by Nic

Fair enough, Janoskiss. The only time you'll hear me saying "and therefore God must have done it" is when the Bible specifically says so. eg. Creation. But when it comes to rocket science, relativity or microbiology, you'll be hard pressed to find me researching from the Bible. be excellent to each other, Nic

The only question that remains then is why you would believe what the Bible specifically says.

I was raised on the Bible and bought it all almost into adulthood, even if it got me a lot of ridicule from my peers. For those who have not gone through it, it is unimaginably hard to take a step back and attempt to be objective and re-examine the world-view you've been raised under and where all your friends and family fit in. But in the end, my feeble enquiring mind had to acknowledge the severe shortcomings of any mainstream belief system. It is better to acknowledge that you do not know than to "pretend" that you do.

[janoskiss (Steve H)]

IMHO (it is getting difficult to edit messages with the new site setup...)