Intelligent Design vs Evolution

everlastingxxx
atheist
everlastingxxx's picture
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Intelligent Design vs Evolution

Been in a debate on a message board. I suck at science, but wanted to see if you guys had any thought into what he has been saying. Below is his comments.

-----------------------

 

I would appreciate feedback on an idea I've had recently.

One of the criticisms of ID is that it isn't falsifiable. In other words, how do you disprove the claim that an object has been designed? Obviously, we can recognize design -- the pyramids, the statues on Easter Island, etc. -- but I'm not certain it's ever been quantified or defined in an exact way.

Here's my proposed definition for design: Design is present where local forces cannot provide an adequate deterministic or probabilistic explanation for a phenomenon.

Local forces are those forces that are "close enough" to affect the phenomenon. Deterministic or probabilistic implies that one can predict with some degree of certainty how those forces will affect the phenomenon. When a phenomenon falls so far out of the realm of deterministic or probabilistic predictions, it is likely designed.

So, in order to falsify a claim of design, one would need to show how local forces could provide a deterministic (or probabilistic) explanation for the observed phenomenon.

Thoughts?

 

------

 

For a moment, let's replace the word "local" with the word "natural", and then revise my original definition for Design.

Design is present where natural forces cannot provide a deterministic or probabilistic explanation for an observed phenomenon.

With this in mind, let's return to our pyramid analogy. Despite not having seen the pyramids being built, we recognize the pyramids are the product of design because natural forces (i.e. wind, rain, sun, etc.) aren't likely to have produced them. In other words, natural forces simply can't provide a sufficient deterministic or probabilistic explanation for the pyramids' existence.

As you probably know, science is about creating models that are capable of predicting (either deterministically or probabilistically)how a certain force will behave. When we model the probable effects of wind, rain, and sun on the natural environment, we don't get the pyramids; therefore, we infer design.

Intelligence is unique in that it never behaves deterministically and seldom probabilistically (i.e. in a manner that we can predict), especially at the individual level. This is why we infer design in phenomenon whose existence cannot be predicted by any model.

This is currently true of the configuration of our universe.

 

Some would argue that there are deterministic forces in the universe we simply haven't seen yet and, once discovered, these forces will be able to provide a sufficient deterministic explanation for the universe's observed configuration. These people would also argue that, by attributing the universe to an intelligent agent, we might "miss out" on these forces.

Others would argue that, by constantly seeking deterministic explanations, we "miss out" on the possibility of an intelligent agent and the philosophical issues it broaches. Consider, for instance, if we were intent on discovering a deterministic explanation for the pyramids. We might "miss out" on the ancient Egyptians and a whole myriad of anthropological finds.

There are arguments to be made on both sides.

 

---------

 

As I've already explained, the fact that we're unable to recreate a particular phenomenon does not negate the possibility of design. For example, after the collapse of the Roman Empire, the formula for concrete was lost and not rediscovered for centuries. Yet, man still rightfully inferred that the preponderance of concrete roads throughout Europe was the product of design, even though he couldn't recreate them. A more modern example is SETI, the search for higher order intelligence in the Universe.

Scientists actually have a workable understanding of the process necessary to make a new universe -- that is, the ability to create a singularity. The new supercollider in Europe is capable of reproducing the initial conditions of the Big Bang.

Speaking of the Big Bang, the odds of it creating universe capable of supporting life and other forms of complex matter is exceedingly slim. For instance, if the ratio of electron to protons had deviated from 1 to 10^37, no atoms would've been able to form at any time in the universe. To better understand just how delicate a ratio of 1:10^37 is, consider the following analogy: Cover the entire surface of the United States in dimes and stack them 239,000 miles high (the distance between the earth and the moon). Then, cover a billion more US-sized land masses with the same amount of dimes. Now, throw in one red dime and ask your friend to select a dime at random. The odds of your friends picking the red dime are 1:10^37.

Believe it or not, these ratios become even more delicate once we factor in the cosmological constant. If the energy density of the cosmological constant had deviated from a ratio of 1:10^120, no matter of any kind (including subatomic particles) could have formed at any time in the universe.

These ratios are so delicate that human engineering is incapable of reproducing them; therefore, they constitute some very compelling evidence for the existence of a divine intelligence.


Furthermore, belief in God does not prevent the world from advancing in technology and science. The very notion is asinine. Newton, widely regarded as the greatest scientist who ever lived, was a Christian. Einstein was a Deist. America is the most religious of all the first-world countries and the most scientifically productive.

 

message board link if you want to message yourself. http://spintopia.com/forum/8-religion-forum/


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Where the hell are you going?

Ah, here it is - down here at the end.

everlastingxxx wrote:

These ratios are so delicate that human engineering is incapable of reproducing them; therefore, they constitute some very compelling evidence for the existence of a divine intelligence.


Furthermore, belief in God does not prevent the world from advancing in technology and science. The very notion is asinine. Newton, widely regarded as the greatest scientist who ever lived, was a Christian. Einstein was a Deist. America is the most religious of all the first-world countries and the most scientifically productive.

 

The argument about the perfect ratios and delicate balance is an old one.  Think of this - the universe we can see with our current technology is a tiny fraction of the total universe.  And we know nothing of whether life can exist - or not - with different constants.  Is god a twiddler?  Twiddling knobs to fine tune the galaxy for humans?  And it seems really strange - only one planet in the probable billions of planets has humans.  It doesn't seem as if the universe is all that wonderful for humans or we would have some neighbors, don't you think?  SETI has had no contact with possibly sentient beings regardless of sci-fi movies full of wishful thinking.

Scientists who are religious can be productive.  As long as they don't throw up their hands and say "goddidit".  The minute you stop searching and researching and questioning is the minute you have to hang up your lab coat.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5086
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
It's funny that god folk

 

deny evolution's possibility,  ignore all the bits and pieces of evidence and instead leap into the complete unknown. I think you should ask this person to explain to you in some detail how the creation happened - in technical terms. Perhaps jesus wiggled his nose and it just 'appeared' like elisabeth montgomery used to do. of course Elisabeth was beautiful so she'd have far more chance than he would. The pre-molecular hum would want to please her. Most the pictures of jesus I have seen make him look like he should be parked down at greenhills in a sandman eating a chico roll.

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
everlastingxxx

everlastingxxx wrote:

 

Here's my proposed definition for design: Design is present where local forces cannot provide an adequate deterministic or probabilistic explanation for a phenomenon.

There is a flaw here -- predicating what is from what we understand. Until our understanding of the universe is perfect, there will be things we cannot entirely answer to the complete satisfaction of some. However, our understanding does not determine what "is." It's exactly the opposite: that which is determines our understanding.

The phrasing here smuggles in the concept of the god of the gaps. We don't entirely understand something: therefore, God.

Quote:


Local forces are those forces that are "close enough" to affect the phenomenon. Deterministic or probabilistic implies that one can predict with some degree of certainty how those forces will affect the phenomenon. When a phenomenon falls so far out of the realm of deterministic or probabilistic predictions, it is likely designed.

So, in order to falsify a claim of design, one would need to show how local forces could provide a deterministic (or probabilistic) explanation for the observed phenomenon.

That's all well-and-good. The interesting thing is, there is a probabilistic model that explains how all of these "irreducibly complex" structures can come to exist. That fits well within the rules stated above.

This whole argument fails both on an epistemic level, and within the confines of the argument itself. We have discovered nothing within evolution that cannot be adequately explained in a probabilistic level. Evolution is a stochastic process, and has been modeled as such.

Quote:

Speaking of the Big Bang, the odds of it creating universe capable of supporting life and other forms of complex matter is exceedingly slim. For instance, if the ratio of electron to protons had deviated from 1 to 10^37, no atoms would've been able to form at any time in the universe. To better understand just how delicate a ratio of 1:10^37 is, consider the following analogy: Cover the entire surface of the United States in dimes and stack them 239,000 miles high (the distance between the earth and the moon). Then, cover a billion more US-sized land masses with the same amount of dimes. Now, throw in one red dime and ask your friend to select a dime at random. The odds of your friends picking the red dime are 1:10^37.

Le sigh. Of course he uses the cosmological argument.

The cosmological argument is pretty damned poor. It lacks all subtlety, and is founded on a false assumption. Like the myth that scientists once determined that bees are incapable of flight, the concept of a "finely-tuned universe" is not even wrong.

First, it is entirely probable that the relationships of the universe are tied together, much like the angles and sides of a triangle. If you add up all the angles within a triangle, they add up to 180 degrees, independent of the length of the sides! Wow! Isn't that incredible? Isn't it?

Second, like the "bees can't fly" myth, the fine-tuned universe came from a rudimentary study, in which only one value was changed at a time. If you alter many of the universal constants, there are vast swaths of uninteresting universes, certainly. But there are other vast swaths of interesting universes, in which structures will form. So, while there are an infinite number of uninteresting universes, there are also an infinite number of interesting universes (though of a lower ordinality). So any number of those infinite interesting universes might exist in our stead.

They just wouldn't be our universe. But then the life that arises in those universes would marvel how perfectly-tuned their universe is, too, wouldn't they?

Quote:

Furthermore, belief in God does not prevent the world from advancing in technology and science. The very notion is asinine. Newton, widely regarded as the greatest scientist who ever lived, was a Christian. Einstein was a Deist. America is the most religious of all the first-world countries and the most scientifically productive.

Really? Tell that to the Muslims. (Islamic countries used to be the best at math and astronomy. Until belief in God interfered.)

Tell that to Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo, Darwin, Halley, Hubble, and Descartes.

While belief in God does not necessarily lead to suppression of novel ideas, it is often the case that churches -- the power structures that form around belief in God -- do. Their power is based entirely on their ability to dictate what the people believe. When someone arrives at a new idea that is distinct from what the church desires, there is conflict. And the church almost always has more power than the person they attack.

Take a look at the apologetics presented by the OP. That is filled with statements that go against both science, and the advance of knowledge. By placing restrictions on what can naturally be, the statements attempt to erect a wall between scientific knowledge and belief in God.

So, while belief in God does not prevent the world from advancing in technology and science, it sure as fuck ain't for lack of trying. And his own post proves it.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


everlastingxxx
atheist
everlastingxxx's picture
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Thank you guys for the

Thank you guys for the responses.

 

nigelTheBold here is his response to yours. If you want to reply directly, here is the link: http://spintopia.com/topic/57343-intelligent-design-vs-evolution/page__st__15

 

Quote:
There is a flaw here -- predicating what is from what we understand. Until our understanding of the universe is perfect, there will be things we cannot entirely answer to the complete satisfaction of some. However, our understanding does not determine what "is." It's exactly the opposite: that which is determines our understanding.

The phrasing here smuggles in the concept of the god of the gaps. We don't entirely understand something: therefore, God.


The emboldened portion constitutes a very weak argument that fails on three levels: 

1) It can be applied to all epistemic approaches.  If a person doesn't like the findings within a particular field of study (any one of them), he can simply throw up his hands and say, "Well, our understanding of the universe isn't perfect; therefore, until it is, the finding isn't valid."  In truth, our understanding of the universe will never be perfect -- but not for the reasons you may predict (See reason 2 below).

2) What constitutes a perfect understanding of the universe?  Your friend here evokes the notion of a "perfect understanding" without providing any epistemological frame of reference.  In other words, how do we know when we've gained a perfect of the understanding of the universe?  What criteria what must be fulfilled, and how does your friend establish that criteria? If his idea of a perfect understanding is every single observed phenomenon having a locally deterministic explanation, what happens if there isn't a such an explanation for every phenomenon?  Then he's missed the true explanation in a fruitless pursuit of one that fits his preconceptions that are based more on wishful thinking than reality.

3) Your friend labels my argument "God of the gaps" as if the notion of design automatically constitutes a gap in understanding rather than understanding in and of itself.  Let me ask your friend this:  Is there a gap in our understanding of the statues on Easter Island because we must attribute their formation to design (i.e. the workings of an intelligent agent)?  Of course not.  The very notion would be ludicrous.  It's simply that, once we recognize design in object, further understanding requires that we use other epistemic approaches (i.e. other methods of understanding the world around us) that aren't predicated on locally deterministic (or probabilistic) understandings. 

Of course, if your friend is contending that all phenomena must be attributable to  predictable, naturally-occurring forces (i.e. a philosophical position known as metaphysical naturalism), is he not committing his own version of the "gaps" fallacy?  "We don't have a locally deterministic, probabilistic understanding of a certain phenomenon; therefore, imperfect understanding of the universe."  Again, how do we define what's perfect?

Interestingly enough, your friend makes my argument for me when he says, "Our understanding does not determine what "is." It's exactly the opposite: that which is determines our understanding."

As it currently stands, according to "that which is", there is no locally deterministic (or probabilistic) understanding for the observed configuration of the universe; therefore, the design premise has not been falsified.

Now, your friend may posit that science should only be interested in seeking locally deterministic understandings of phenomenon.  That's fine.  However, in doing so, he's placing limitations on what science is capable of understanding.


Quote:
Le sigh. Of course he uses the cosmological argument.

The cosmological argument is pretty damned poor. It lacks all subtlety, and is founded on a false assumption. Like the myth that scientists once determined that bees are incapable of flight, the concept of a "finely-tuned universe" is not even wrong.

First, it is entirely probable that the relationships of the universe are tied together, much like the angles and sides of a triangle. If you add up all the angles within a triangle, they add up to 180 degrees, independent of the length of the sides! Wow! Isn't that incredible? Isn't it?


Your friend is comparing apples and oranges here.  There is a very rigid, very clear set of geometric principles that determine what constitutes a triangle.  By definition, a triangle must have three sides; as a consequence, the sum total of all angles contained therein must equal 180.  There is no other possibility in the matter.  In essence, the three sides that every triangle must possess impose locally deterministic boundaries on the sum total of all angles contained therein.

Guess what?  There are no such locally deterministic boundaries governing the configuration of the universe.  It can exist in any number of configurations, the vast majority of which can't support life of any kind.  To use your friend's analogy, consider a phenomenon that was capable of creating any number of geometric forms with any number of sides.  If the phenomenon only produced perfect squares, you might suspect the workings of some outside force.

Now, your friend is certainly free to conjecture that the universe is governed by boundaries that we simply haven't observed yet, but such boundaries would fall more under the "our understanding determining that which is reality" category rather than "that which is reality determining our understanding" category, wouldn't they?


Quote:
Second, like the "bees can't fly" myth, the fine-tuned universe came from a rudimentary study, in which only one value was changed at a time. If you alter many of the universal constants, there are vast swaths of uninteresting universes, certainly. But there are other vast swaths of interesting universes, in which structures will form. So, while there are an infinite number of uninteresting universes, there are also an infinite number of interesting universes (though of a lower ordinality). So any number of those infinite interesting universes might exist in our stead.


Given an infinity of possibilities, one should still expect to find himself in the most likely of those possibilities.  In other words, although all possible outcomes of an event can occur, they don't occur in an equal way; therefore, even in infinity, there are still outcomes that are more likely (in some cases, far more likely) than others.  This fact is observable via the quantum wave function.

Notice your friend never once denies my point.  He never denies the extreme unlikelihood of the Big Bang producing a universe capable of supporting life and other forms of complex matter.  Instead, he denigrate the study as rudimentary (even though it's our best one to day, putting it firmly in the camp of "that which is&quotEye-wink and appeals to the infinite possibility within those outcomes.  However, he omits the fact that, even in infinity, not all outcomes are equal.

 

Quote:
They just wouldn't be our universe. But then the life that arises in those universes would marvel how perfectly-tuned their universe is, too, wouldn't they?

Interesting. Your friend has moved from the "infinity of outcomes" tact to the "life might be able to exist in the absence of complex matter" tact.

Of course, given that we haven't the slightest inkling how such life could exist, this claim again falls under the "our understanding determining that which is reality" category rather than "that which is reality determining our understanding" category.

 

Quote:
Really? Tell that to the Muslims. (Islamic countries used to be the best at math and astronomy. Until belief in God interfered.)

 

I'm not a Muslim. I'm a Christian. To put everyone who believes in God in the same light is tantamount to claiming that all African-Americans are the same.

 

Quote:
Tell that to Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo, Darwin, Halley, Hubble, and Descartes.

While belief in God does not necessarily lead to suppression of novel ideas, it is often the case that churches -- the power structures that form around belief in God -- do. Their power is based entirely on their ability to dictate what the people believe. When someone arrives at a new idea that is distinct from what the church desires, there is conflict. And the church almost always has more power than the person they attack.

 

Your friend has fallen victim to a common historical misconception -- religion and religion alone suppressed new ideas. A philosopher of science Paul Freyerand has written extensively about this topic. The most vociferous opposition against heliocentrism came from the contemporaneity scientific community, spearheaded by Tycho De Brahe.

Furthermore, the most violent, oppressive regimes in modern history have been atheistic. If calculate the number of people killed under the three most prominent communist regimes (Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot), we get 300 million people in period of less than 100 years. It seems that atheist regimes are no less prone to stifling new ideas than Christian ones.

 

Quote:
Take a look at the apologetics presented. That is filled with statements that go against both science, and the advance of knowledge. By placing restrictions on what can naturally be, the statements attempt to erect a wall between scientific knowledge and belief in God.

So, while belief in God does not prevent the world from advancing in technology and science, it sure as hell ain't for lack of trying. And his own post proves it.

 


And there you have it...in the emboldened portion. Remember my earlier statement:

"It's simply that, once we recognize design in object, further understanding requires that we use other epistemic approaches (i.e. other methods of understanding the world around us) that aren't predicated on locally deterministic (or probabilistic) understandings.

Of course, if your friend is contending that all phenomena must be attributable to predictable, naturally-occurring forces (i.e. a philosophical position known as metaphysical naturalism), is he not committing his own version of the "gaps" fallacy? "We don't have a locally deterministic, probabilistic understanding of a certain phenomenon; therefore, imperfect understanding of the universe." Again, how do we define what's perfect?"

It seems as if your friend is imposing his own set of restrictions on "what can be" and building his own set of walls.

 

Quote:
That's all well-and-good. The interesting thing is, there is a probabilistic model that explains how all of these "irreducibly complex" structures can come to exist. That fits well within the rules stated above.

This whole argument fails both on an epistemic level, and within the confines of the argument itself. We have discovered nothing within evolution that cannot be adequately explained in a probabilistic level. Evolution is a stochastic process, and has been modeled as such.

 

I'm discussing this section separately in order to point out that I didn't initially bring up the topic of irreducible complexity for a variety of reasons:

1) I lack extensive knowledge of it.

2) I discuss ID in order to demonstrate that it is a valid and rational conclusion drawn from observational evidence. I'm NOT asserting that it's the only rational conclusion nor am I claim that it is necessarily scientific. Ultimately, the scientific community (not some object standard) determines that is scientific.

Since the issue was broached, I'll share my limited understanding of it:

Few would deny that evolution is a fact of life. It's an observed fact that species undergo mutation in any given generation, and the beneficial mutations are passed on the next generation.

Beneficial is the key word in irreducible complexity. Many biological systems are complex, meaning they consist of many parts working in unison, and there's no apparent "benefit" to having each part individually. They're only beneficial unless if they're working together as a whole. So, since a species can only develop one part through mutation in any given generation, it begs the question, why would they develop this whole collection of useless parts over centuries if, according to evolution, only the beneficial mutations can pass on.

If you want to learn more about this process, go here:

http://www.ideacente...ils.php/id/1156
http://www.iscid.org/

Like I said, it's really not my thing.

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Just correcting one of the

Just correcting one of the more obvious mistakes there...

Quote:

Only the beneficial mutations can pass on. 

Is not correct.

ALL mutations will be passed on, except those which prevent reproduction.

The mutations which significantly reduce reproductive success will disappear relatively quickly - neutral ones, which is most of them, can persist indefinitely, and provide the raw material for a really new and positive genes.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5086
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
How annoying.

everlastingxxx wrote:

Of course, if your friend is contending that all phenomena must be attributable to  predictable, naturally-occurring forces (i.e. a philosophical position known as metaphysical naturalism), is he not committing his own version of the "gaps" fallacy?  "We don't have a locally deterministic, probabilistic understanding of a certain phenomenon; therefore, imperfect understanding of the universe."  Again, how do we define what's perfect?

 

Everlasting could you ask your friend to provide us with one single phenomena, one single event, one single anything, that can verifiably be sheeted home to a supernatural cause.

Just one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
everlastingxxx wrote:Thank

everlastingxxx wrote:

Thank you guys for the responses.

nigelTheBold here is his response to yours. If you want to reply directly, here is the link: http://spintopia.com/topic/57343-intelligent-design-vs-evolution/page__st__15

This guy isn't worth registering. I'll point out a couple of examples of why, and then I'm moving on.

Quote:

The emboldened portion constitutes a very weak argument that fails on three levels:  

1) It can be applied to all epistemic approaches.  If a person doesn't like the findings within a particular field of study (any one of them), he can simply throw up his hands and say, "Well, our understanding of the universe isn't perfect; therefore, until it is, the finding isn't valid."  In truth, our understanding of the universe will never be perfect -- but not for the reasons you may predict (See reason 2 below).

Spoken like someone who doesn't understand the scientific method at all.

I was referring only to the introduction of a new entity (in this case, God). In science, if you don't like the findings of something, you can only approach the problem with more science. That is: observation, hypothesis, prediction, more observation. Rinse and repeat.

The flaw in his original statement is the introduction of an entity (God) as a method of mortaring in the areas of ignorance. He presents no finding which might be declared invalid. He presents bald assertions, and then is unable to back them up. He uses well-debunked cliches, such as the cosmological argument (for which the standard riposte is the weak anthropic principle, though there are stronger arguments as well).

In science, the current findings stand until something else takes their place. As an example, Einstein's theory of relativity has replaced Newton's Laws as an understanding of gravity. Now, there is evidence via neutrino experiments that relativity might not be completely accurate. It too might be replaced one day -- but only via observation, hypothesis, prediction, and experiment (more observation).

And considering I never predicted we'd have perfect understanding of the universe, the final sentence above is slightly arrogant.

Quote:

2) What constitutes a perfect understanding of the universe?  Your friend here evokes the notion of a "perfect understanding" without providing any epistemological frame of reference.  In other words, how do we know when we've gained a perfect of the understanding of the universe?  What criteria what must be fulfilled, and how does your friend establish that criteria? If his idea of a perfect understanding is every single observed phenomenon having a locally deterministic explanation, what happens if there isn't a such an explanation for every phenomenon?  Then he's missed the true explanation in a fruitless pursuit of one that fits his preconceptions that are based more on wishful thinking than reality.

I have given an epistemological frame of reference: science. Science is the only epistemology that has provided accurate, objective, reproducible insight into our universe (through the practice of the eponymous scientific method). From that, "perfect understanding" can only be achieved through observation of how the universe works. When there is no new observations to make, when there are no novel predictions, when every instance of every process is understood, we will have achieved perfect understanding.

We will never get there.

That does not mean our incomplete, our imperfect understanding is not effective. It does not negate our current understanding at all. Our understanding of the universe today is far greater than it was 50 years ago, which is far greater than it was 50 years before that -- and not one instance of our increase in knowledge is attributable to faith in God. It is all based on science.

If he has some other method, I'd be glad to hear of it. However, I would expect that method to have practical, provable results.

Do I expect we'll ever have "perfect understanding?" Not really. I hope we'll one day puzzle out quantum mechanics, which might provide deep insight into the reason our universe is they way it is. But really, that's a hope. It's a hope founded on inductive logic, though: science has worked consistently and accurately in the past. There's no reason to expect it to fail just yet.

Quote:


3) Your friend labels my argument "God of the gaps" as if the notion of design automatically constitutes a gap in understanding rather than understanding in and of itself.  Let me ask your friend this:  Is there a gap in our understanding of the statues on Easter Island because we must attribute their formation to design (i.e. the workings of an intelligent agent)?  Of course not.  The very notion would be ludicrous.  It's simply that, once we recognize design in object, further understanding requires that we use other epistemic approaches (i.e. other methods of understanding the world around us) that aren't predicated on locally deterministic (or probabilistic) understandings. 

First question: which epistemic approach is he proposing, and how is that epistemic approach vetted? Science has proven itself valid. Has his proposed epistemology done the same?

Second, comparing statues on Easter Island to the complexity of a cell, or the formation of the universe, is a non sequitur. He's very fond of non sequiturs, but here is one perfect example.

We know the statues on Easter Island were designed specifically because they are out of place. We would not expect to find them naturally occurring on the island like that. We know they are man-made (and therefore designed) because we have a long string of evidence indicating pillars formed in the shape of people are generally man-made. That, coupled with other evidence of a once-existing civilization, make the conclusion of design simple.

Finding "design" in nature is a different beast entirely. Crystals are beautiful, and often resemble sculptures; they may appear to be out-of-place, just like the statues on Easter Island. The simple conclusion is that they were designed by an artist. Understanding of simple chemistry, however, shows how they might be made by simple chemical bonding. Crystals appear all over the world, in a variety of places, many of which have no history of human settlement. As some appear in caves, or attached to other rock formations, other evidence indicates they are natural, in spite of their seeming complexity.

Quote:

Of course, if your friend is contending that all phenomena must be attributable to  predictable, naturally-occurring forces (i.e. a philosophical position known as metaphysical naturalism), is he not committing his own version of the "gaps" fallacy?  "We don't have a locally deterministic, probabilistic understanding of a certain phenomenon; therefore, imperfect understanding of the universe."  Again, how do we define what's perfect?

No. i contend that all phenomena must be observable. I contend that a valid epistemology must be based on the fewest assumptions. I contend that the history of science, the very fruits of science, have shown its efficacy. I contend that no other epistemology has shown to be consistently effective. I contend that, until science has been stymied, there's no reason to abandon it.

I contend whatever epistemology he may hold, it has proven to be ineffective at unraveling any mysteries whatsoever.

Quote:

 

Interestingly enough, your friend makes my argument for me when he says, "Our understanding does not determine what "is." It's exactly the opposite: that which is determines our understanding."

As it currently stands, according to "that which is", there is no locally deterministic (or probabilistic) understanding for the observed configuration of the universe; therefore, the design premise has not been falsified.

Assuming design when design is not necessary is called "getting the cart before the horse." Or, as the Tlingit like to say, "Wishful thinking."

Actually, we've made great strides at understanding the origins of the universe. All understanding of the origin of the universe so far has come only from science. Religion gave us a 6-day work-week for God. Religion gave us a world which was vomited up by Mbombo. Religion gave us a universe born from two loons playing with mud. Religion says that Raven freed man from a clam.

Science has given us an approximate age to the universe. Science has provided us with a minimum extent of the universe. Science has given us a model of the stars in their courses. Science has given us plausible models of how the universe came to be.

And now he wants to usurp that with religion?

Quote:

 

Your friend is comparing apples and oranges here.  There is a very rigid, very clear set of geometric principles that determine what constitutes a triangle.  By definition, a triangle must have three sides; as a consequence, the sum total of all angles contained therein must equal 180.  There is no other possibility in the matter.  In essence, the three sides that every triangle must possess impose locally deterministic boundaries on the sum total of all angles contained therein.

Guess what?  There are no such locally deterministic boundaries governing the configuration of the universe.

That's a bold statement, declaring there is nothing governing the configuration of the universe. That's precisely what research into quantum mechanics is all about -- modeling the most basic levels of reality.

Quote:

It can exist in any number of configurations, the vast majority of which can't support life of any kind.  To use your friend's analogy, consider a phenomenon that was capable of creating any number of geometric forms with any number of sides.  If the phenomenon only produced perfect squares, you might suspect the workings of some outside force.

You might, but suspecting a natural process that produced squares (such as some crystals) makes far more sense, and employs fewer entities.

Quote:


Given an infinity of possibilities, one should still expect to find himself in the most likely of those possibilities.  In other words, although all possible outcomes of an event can occur, they don't occur in an equal way; therefore, even in infinity, there are still outcomes that are more likely (in some cases, far more likely) than others.  This fact is observable via the quantum wave function.

Notice your friend never once denies my point.  He never denies the extreme unlikelihood of the Big Bang producing a universe capable of supporting life and other forms of complex matter.  Instead, he denigrate the study as rudimentary (even though it's our best one to day, putting it firmly in the camp of "that which is&quotEye-wink and appeals to the infinite possibility within those outcomes.  However, he omits the fact that, even in infinity, not all outcomes are equal.

Uhm, no, it's not the best study today. He is working with conjectures originally posited in the 1960s. Models today suggest an interesting universe is far more likely than original estimates. That was my fucking point. How did he miss that? I thought I was explicit.

There are also other possible naturalistic conjectures: Lee Smolin has posited a method for the evolution of universes. The initial predictions of that model hold true in our universe. It is entirely possible that universes evolve from other universes, and only universes capable of producing black holes (which would also incidentally include universe that produce life) can reproduce. This method of selection would result in many interesting universes.

And that's just one possibility! There are others: that there are an infinite number of universes, and life will only form in the interesting ones. There is only one universe, that expands and collapses infinitely, and we find ourselves in one instance which is interesting.

Note that not one of these posit something that is far less likely than the universe itself.

That's something I've never understood. It seems that theists are very incredulous at the "complexity" of the universe, but extremely credulous when it comes to an infinitely more complex God. The universe is unlikely, but God is? How does that makes sense in the least? If the universe is so complex it couldn't've come from something less complex than itself, then God must be at least as complex as the universe, and so has the same problem of complexity as the universe. Saying that God needs no creation is special pleading -- if God (who is at least as complex as the universe) needs no creation, they why does the universe?

It's all circular logic and special pleading, all based on a strawman version of the universe.

Quote:

Quote:
They just wouldn't be our universe. But then the life that arises in those universes would marvel how perfectly-tuned their universe is, too, wouldn't they?

Interesting. Your friend has moved from the "infinity of outcomes" tact to the "life might be able to exist in the absence of complex matter" tact.

I think he has a problem with comprehension. I explicitly stated there were other configurations of cosmological constants that would produce interesting universes. I specifically stated if one of the infinitely-available interesting outcomes occurred in our stead, that it would be other life, made from other matter, asking the same questions he's asking now.

Was I that incomprehensible? I try to be clear in my writing. That sometimes makes me dry, because I am often unable to be both entertaining and clear. But I don't think I was that confusing.

Quote:

Quote:
Really? Tell that to the Muslims. (Islamic countries used to be the best at math and astronomy. Until belief in God interfered.)
 

I'm not a Muslim. I'm a Christian. To put everyone who believes in God in the same light is tantamount to claiming that all African-Americans are the same.

Here is another case of intellectual dishonesty. I do not like playing shell games. The original quote to which I responded was this:

Quote:
Furthermore, belief in God does not prevent the world from advancing in technology and science.

Muslims believe in God. The original quote did not specify Christianity -- it specified belief in God.

And Christians aren't that different from Muslims. They wish their own version of Sharia law. They use violence and terrorism to get their way (shooting abortion doctors, for instance, or killing witches or homosexuals such as is happening in Africa right now). Here is both moving the goalposts, and special pleading.

Quote:

Quote:
Tell that to Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo, Darwin, Halley, Hubble, and Descartes.

Your friend has fallen victim to a common historical misconception -- religion and religion alone suppressed new ideas. A philosopher of science Paul Freyerand has written extensively about this topic. The most vociferous opposition against heliocentrism came from the contemporaneity scientific community, spearheaded by Tycho De Brahe.

Nice evasion. It is insufficient to deflect the whole point of what I said. I'll grant Copernicus (though there is sufficient evidence he feared persecution by the church, and so delayed by many years publication of his work). Galileo was persecuted by the church. He stood trial for heresy for supporting heliocentrism. Whether or not de Brahe opposed the ideas is not the issue -- de Brahe did not have the power to suppress Galileo.

It was belief in God that drove the church, not support of one scientific idea over another for the sake of discovery.

And I see his strawman. I never once claimed the Church was the only suppressor of knowledge. I was merely showing he was completely and absolutely wrong in his statement that belief in God does not impede the progress of knowledge. It demonstrably and unequivocally does. Any time science presents new ideas, it is religious belief that is at the forefront of opposition. Other scientists with different ideas also protest -- but evidence will win out, and old theories pass in favor of those better supported by evidence.

With religious belief, no amount of evidence will sway the debate, because religious belief is not founded on logic or evidence. It is founded on earnestly-held fantasy. There's no reasoning with fantasy.

Quote:


Furthermore, the most violent, oppressive regimes in modern history have been atheistic. If calculate the number of people killed under the three most prominent communist regimes (Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot), we get 300 million people in period of less than 100 years. It seems that atheist regimes are no less prone to stifling new ideas than Christian ones.

My. He does like his non sequiturs, doesn't he?

We weren't talking about mass murder. We weren't talking about oppressive regimes. We were talking about the suppression of science due to belief in God. He seems to be uncomfortable with the evidence against him on this. (How long did it take the Catholic Church to apologize for their treatment of Galileo, again?)

Quote:

Of course, if your friend is contending that all phenomena must be attributable to predictable, naturally-occurring forces (i.e. a philosophical position known as metaphysical naturalism), is he not committing his own version of the "gaps" fallacy? "We don't have a locally deterministic, probabilistic understanding of a certain phenomenon; therefore, imperfect understanding of the universe." Again, how do we define what's perfect?"

It seems as if your friend is imposing his own set of restrictions on "what can be" and building his own set of walls.

I state only that science relies on the minimum set of assumptions for a working epistemology.  The epistemology proposed here seems to take those assumptions (after all, they work for science, and science demonstrably works) and layer on top the assumption that an infinite, invisible, eternal, supernatural being exists and fucks around with the universe. The added assumption is currently unnecessary (as science still works), and rather silly.

And, as a certain friar might say, it multiplies entities unnecessarily.

There may come a day when the application of science comes to the conclusion that an entity resembling God exists, and created the universe. I do not limit the universe in that way -- after all, it's reality, and I'm merely an observer.

That day is not today.

Quote:

Beneficial is the key word in irreducible complexity. Many biological systems are complex, meaning they consist of many parts working in unison, and there's no apparent "benefit" to having each part individually. They're only beneficial unless if they're working together as a whole. So, since a species can only develop one part through mutation in any given generation, it begs the question, why would they develop this whole collection of useless parts over centuries if, according to evolution, only the beneficial mutations can pass on.

So, not only does our poster not understand physics and cosmology, but he also doesn't understand evolution at all.

First, almost every case of "irreducible complexity" presented so far has been demonstrated to have an evolutionary path. In many of those systems, what would be considered a "useless" mutation turned out to have a function that was later subverted in the "irreducibly-complex" function. Second, any mutation that is no directly detrimental does not change the chances of propagation one bit. Useless (and often mildly-harmful) mutations survive all the time.

Third, I will simply refer our erstwhile evolutionary expert to the Lenski experiment. It produced a structure that Behe would've called "irreducibly complex," if its evolution had not been observed in the lab.

This is a perfect example of how belief in God impedes progress. The energy and effort dedicated to both asserting and contradicting irreducible complexity drains resources from other, more progressive work. If the church had more power, it might very well suppress the results of the Lenski experiment, for example, the same way they suppressed Galileo's support of heliocentrism.

So my example of faith in God impeding science still stands.

I'm done. I don't like moving goalposts. It indicates either intentional evasiveness, or intellectual sloppiness. Either one results in tedious discussion with no progress, and I'm no longer interested in that.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


everlastingxxx
atheist
everlastingxxx's picture
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
his response: Once again,

Atheistextremist wrote:
Everlasting could you ask your friend to provide us with one single phenomena, one single event, one single anything, that can verifiably be sheeted home to a supernatural cause.

Just one.

 

 

 

his response:

 

Once again, the issue of "verification" (like the issue of "perfection" that preceded it) is an epistemological one.  What's your friend's epistemic framework for verifying the existence of something?

If his framework automatically rejects evidence of supernatural intelligence on grounds that it's merely the product of incomplete understanding, then his framework is incapable of ever acknowledging the existence of a supernatural cause regardless of the evidence presented; therefore, his question is inherently fallacious.

 


everlastingxxx
atheist
everlastingxxx's picture
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold i really do

nigelTheBold i really do appreciate your time and intellect. Very impressive, thank you.

 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
everlastingxxx

everlastingxxx wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:
Everlasting could you ask your friend to provide us with one single phenomena, one single event, one single anything, that can verifiably be sheeted home to a supernatural cause.

Just one.

 

his response:

 

Once again, the issue of "verification" (like the issue of "perfection" that preceded it) is an epistemological one.  What's your friend's epistemic framework for verifying the existence of something?

If his framework automatically rejects evidence of supernatural intelligence on grounds that it's merely the product of incomplete understanding, then his framework is incapable of ever acknowledging the existence of a supernatural cause regardless of the evidence presented; therefore, his question is inherently fallacious.

 

That is a dodge.

Get him to present us an example of what he considers good evidence, and let us critique it. So he can point out specifically where our anti-supernatural prejudices are coming in.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
everlastingxxx wrote:Here's

everlastingxxx wrote:
Here's my proposed definition for design: Design is present where local forces cannot provide an adequate deterministic or probabilistic explanation for a phenomenon.

How extraordinarily unimpressive and useless. Note that this isn't even attempting to actually define design, it's the opposite. It puts the label design on the unknown. The god of the gaps-mentality that permeates ID has rarely been more clearly illustrated.


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:That is a

BobSpence1 wrote:
That is a dodge.

Get him to present us an example of what he considers good evidence, and let us critique it. So he can point out specifically where our anti-supernatural prejudices are coming in.

I'll go one further:

Have him present an epistemology that can derive useful and verifiable knowledge from supernatural causes. I'll even leave the terms of what is "verifiable" up to him.

I personally do have an anti-supernatural bias. I do not believe you can use the unknown to explain the unknown. That's why scientific knowledge is gained incrementally and so painstakingly. New knowledge must be based on previous knowledge, coupled with new observation. Otherwise, it is indistinguishable from "making shit up," as the Aztecs used to say.

But I'm willing to entertain the idea there is a valid epistemology other than science. Even though far smarter men than he have failed to formulate one, I'm always open to knew ideas.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold

nigelTheBold wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
That is a dodge.

Get him to present us an example of what he considers good evidence, and let us critique it. So he can point out specifically where our anti-supernatural prejudices are coming in.

I'll go one further:

Have him present an epistemology that can derive useful and verifiable knowledge from supernatural causes. I'll even leave the terms of what is "verifiable" up to him.

I personally do have an anti-supernatural bias. I do not believe you can use the unknown to explain the unknown. That's why scientific knowledge is gained incrementally and so painstakingly. New knowledge must be based on previous knowledge, coupled with new observation. Otherwise, it is indistinguishable from "making shit up," as the Aztecs used to say.

But I'm willing to entertain the idea there is a valid epistemology other than science. Even though far smarter men than he have failed to formulate one, I'm always open to knew ideas.

I will expand my request a bit:

Get him to show us what actual verifiable knowledge (along with whatever system he uses to validate it) our rejection of the supernatural has prevented us from seeing.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Both evolution and

Both evolution and intelligent design are entirely immaterial from the perspective of applied science.

Living organisms change over numerous generations - so what? It doesn't do a damn thing to improve the human condition, and no one is getting super-rich off of it (and justifiably so) save for a handful of highly acclaimed authors, as well as A Certain British Biologist.

The only reason it's relevant to (most*) RRS'ers, is because it dispels some of the tripe found in the  Xtian bible, and even then it doesn't really do much of a good job at that (More of that pesky wishful thinking on behalf of antitheists). None of this is because many of you have an (apparent) interest in long-extinct species from before the Holocene Epoch.

Protip:most Christians treat the Bible as allegorical -rather than literal- anyhow!

A few of you probably already knew this, but it bears repeating anyhow...

 

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Both evolution

Kapkao wrote:

Both evolution and intelligent design are entirely immaterial from the perspective of applied science.

Living organisms change over numerous generations - so what? It doesn't do a damn thing to improve the human condition, and no one is getting super-rich off of it (and justifiably so) save for a handful of highly acclaimed authors, as well as A Certain British Biologist.

The only reason it's relevant to (most*) RRS'ers, is because it dispels some of the tripe found in the  Xtian bible, and even then it doesn't really do much of a good job at that (More of that pesky wishful thinking on behalf of antitheists); not because many of you have an (apparent) interest in long-extinct species from before the Holocene Epoch.

Protip:most Christians treat the Bible as allegorical -rather than literal- anyhow!

A few of you probably already knew this, but it bears repeating anyhow.. 

The distinction between ID and evolution is extremely relevant to understanding and dealing with the emergence of new diseases.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:I will

BobSpence1 wrote:
I will expand my request a bit:

Get him to show us what actual verifiable knowledge (along with whatever system he uses to validate it) our rejection of the supernatural has prevented us from seeing.

Yeah. What Bob said.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5086
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Grooge

 

everlastingxxx wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:
Everlasting could you ask your friend to provide us with one single phenomena, one single event, one single anything, that can verifiably be sheeted home to a supernatural cause.

Just one.

 

his response: 

Once again, the issue of "verification" (like the issue of "perfection" that preceded it) is an epistemological one.  What's your friend's epistemic framework for verifying the existence of something?

If his framework automatically rejects evidence of supernatural intelligence on grounds that it's merely the product of incomplete understanding, then his framework is incapable of ever acknowledging the existence of a supernatural cause regardless of the evidence presented; therefore, his question is inherently fallacious.

 

What your mate is doing is endeavouring to excuse god from the normal processes and methodologies that would normally surround acceptable proof in order to install his vivid imagination as the font of universal truth. This is nonsensical.  If god exists in this universe, we should be able to prove he exists in this universe. We have not done so. If god exists outside this universe and is a sort of puppeteer who spends all his time hovering over our ant farm, we can never and will never know it. Claiming something not proven to exist in this universe in fact exists outside of this universe indicates a desire to believe in one's god no matter how impossible his existence clearly must be.

P.S. Pol Pot's regime followed a version of Theravada Buddhism and used it as justification for their peasant-led rebellion. Any one who pins the atrocities of authoritarian regimes onto atheism is no more than a dozy fuck indulging in vile adhom. I grew up being force-fed this evil shit and it disgusts me more deeply than I can say. If you haven't told this person to sod off yet, now is the time.

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


everlastingxxx
atheist
everlastingxxx's picture
Posts: 24
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Thanks for the responses. I

Thanks for the responses. I did learn something. You guys are great. This was his final response to me:

Everlasting, I understand that your knowledge in this area is lacking and I appreciate your need to let others argue on your behalf; however, I lack the time to respond to each one of your fellow atheists. If I had the time, I would simply go to the site where you've taken my responses.

My suggestion to you is this: Rather than simply re-posting their responses verbatim, why don't you read them, extract a few key points, and then put them into your own words on this site?

 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
everlastingxxx wrote:Thanks

everlastingxxx wrote:

Thanks for the responses. I did learn something. You guys are great. This was his final response to me:

Everlasting, I understand that your knowledge in this area is lacking and I appreciate your need to let others argue on your behalf; however, I lack the time to respond to each one of your fellow atheists. If I had the time, I would simply go to the site where you've taken my responses.

My suggestion to you is this: Rather than simply re-posting their responses verbatim, why don't you read them, extract a few key points, and then put them into your own words on this site?
 

 

You know, I have yet to have any IDer tell me how the human prostate is so perfect.  I live with a man who takes medication for it and still has to get up twice a night. 

Perfection?  Route a flexible waste tube through a structure that swells with age.  This is intelligent?

 

Four engineers were sitting around one day trying to figure out who might have designed the human body.

The first fellow said, "I think it might be a Mechanical Engineer, because of joints and muscle and sense of balance." The other three nodded their heads and said, "Yeah, could be."

The second fellow said, "I think it might be an Electrical Engineer, because of the nervous system and neural network." The other three nodded their heads and said, "Yeah, could be."

The third fellow said, "I think it might be a Chemical Engineer, because of hormonal balances and metabolism." The other three nodded their heads and said, "Yeah, could be."

The fourth fellow snaps his fingers and shouts out, "I know, it HAD to have been a Civil engineer!" The other three ask "Why?"

"Well," replied the fourth fellow, "who else would put a waste water drainage right through a recreational area?"

http://humorvault.tripod.com/engineer/engin_11.html

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Elaborate plz...

BobSpence1 wrote:

The distinction between ID and evolution is extremely relevant to understanding and dealing with the emergence of new diseases.

How/In what manner/Why Is ID standing in the way of future research in pathology/etc?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
everlastingxxx wrote:Thanks

everlastingxxx wrote:

Thanks for the responses. I did learn something. You guys are great. This was his final response to me:

Everlasting, I understand that your knowledge in this area is lacking and I appreciate your need to let others argue on your behalf; however, I lack the time to respond to each one of your fellow atheists. If I had the time, I would simply go to the site where you've taken my responses.

My suggestion to you is this: Rather than simply re-posting their responses verbatim, why don't you read them, extract a few key points, and then put them into your own words on this site?

Bah. He only needs to respond to Bob's post asking for concrete examples of how science has been blinded to discovery by its assumption that God does not exist. I have given examples of how belief in God (through its political expression, the church) has held back knowledge. Now it's his turn.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:BobSpence1

Kapkao wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

The distinction between ID and evolution is extremely relevant to understanding and dealing with the emergence of new diseases.

How/In what manner/Why Is ID standing in the way of future research in pathology/etc?

It does not not "stand in the way", as long as the researchers or their funders do not take ID seriously.

Since micro-organisms have such short 'generation' times, they can evolve in time-scales  of decades if there is sufficient selection pressure and/or new opportunities appearing, often due to the changes in human society. Understanding this process as thoroughly as possible is essential if we are to improve our understanding and work out how best to deal with it, just as the germ theory of disease itself revolutionised the control of disease itself.

Here is an example of how evolutionary theory can be applied in new theories:

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/99feb/germs.htm

Accurately understanding how disease organisms evolve under the 'selection pressure' of their particular environment, including the drugs and antibiotics we use, is rather important if we are to minimize and control the likelihood of new strains emerging.

Here is another relevant article:

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2540070.htm

From that last article:

Quote:

Darwin's original discovery about the origin of species and evolution and natural selection was a fundamental building block for really all of modern biology, and it really has underpinned the way we think about a lot of modern medical research, biological research in general.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I suck at science too. But

I suck at science too. But scientific method is not a field, it is a tool that scientists use in different fields. Scientific method is not hard to understand and you already hinted in the op to its core "falsify". In layman's terms it is merely the ability to replicate and falsify.

Entertaining something that cannot be replicated and falsified is stupid, and that alone makes ID bullshit. You don't have to be an expert when the claim itself already lacks credibility from the start.

The reason ID exists as a claim is because of a political religious movement, not any real scientific data they have. The prior name for this political movement was "Creationism", and both are nothing more than Christians trying to prop up their myth through government.

Even if you want to go beyond their absurd starting point, which has no prior data to back it up, it still has logical flaws, that laymen like you and me can see without being a PHD biologist.

If everything is designed like they claim, then nasty things too, like cancer, and ecoli, and AIDS are designed too. Watch how fast the cockroaches scatter backpedaling to escape this inconsistency. They'll try to dodge that with "fall of man" "sins" "free will" yadda yadda yadda, and so on.

And even if we pretend, for argument's sake only, that "everything is designed" that still would not prove that the Christian god did it, and not the Muslim or Jewish god, or any god for that matter.

What allows believers to buy into this argument is that they never consider complexity as being an emergent property coming from simplicity. Instead, they assume a needless conflated super hero which begs the question "if everything is designed, then who designed the designer, and who designed that designer, and so on and so on" . That mistake they make is ignoring the problem of "infinite regress".

You do not have to be a neurologist to have good crap detector. You just have to have the simple mindset that when someone makes a claim, can they repeat it, and can it be tested. If they cant, the simple explanation to why they cant, is because they had nothing to start with in the first place.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Kapkao

BobSpence1 wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

The distinction between ID and evolution is extremely relevant to understanding and dealing with the emergence of new diseases.

How/In what manner/Why Is ID standing in the way of future research in pathology/etc?

It does not not "stand in the way", as long as the researchers or their funders do not take ID seriously.

Since micro-organisms have such short 'generation' times, they can evolve in time-scales  of decades if there is sufficient selection pressure and/or new opportunities appearing, often due to the changes in human society. Understanding this process as thoroughly as possible is essential if we are to improve our understanding and work out how best to deal with it, just as the germ theory of disease itself revolutionised the control of disease itself.

Here is an example of how evolutionary theory can be applied in new theories:

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/99feb/germs.htm

Accurately understanding how disease organisms evolve under the 'selection pressure' of their particular environment, including the drugs and antibiotics we use, is rather important if we are to minimize and control the likelihood of new strains emerging.

Here is another relevant article:

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2540070.htm

From that last article:

Quote:

Darwin's original discovery about the origin of species and evolution and natural selection was a fundamental building block for really all of modern biology, and it really has underpinned the way we think about a lot of modern medical research, biological research in general.

 

I have apparently "missed the boat" on the basic precepts of ID....

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:I have

Kapkao wrote:

I have apparently "missed the boat" on the basic precepts of ID....

Not really -- there's no underlying principle, except that "some entity must've planned out our genetics." On the surface, there's nothing really evolution. There are some old-earth creationists (like Behe) who believe evolution occurs, but that there is some sort of guiding force. What that force is, who can say? Behe believes it is God.

That's really all there is for a "basic precept." I don't think you're missing much there.

There are some implications, though. In Behe's case, he claims there are some structures that simply could not have evolved. This has the effect of stopping cold some lines of inquiry. If something was designed, there's no need to figure out how it evolved.

To me, the biggest problem is this mindset -- ID is, at its heart, a god of the gaps. That means some things are inexplicable, because God Did It. At its most extreme, it looks very much like the Lenski Affair, and idiots start denying basic research just because it contradicts their beliefs.

I believe that's why Bob mentioned that ID is relatively innocuous in microbiology as long as the researchers and doctors don't let it interfere with their knowledge of evolutionary biology. But you end up with folks like Andy Schlafly, and you have a recipe for plagues of Biblical proportions.

That's my take, anyway.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Kapkao

nigelTheBold wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

I have apparently "missed the boat" on the basic precepts of ID....

Not really -- there's no underlying principle, except that "some entity must've planned out our genetics." On the surface, there's nothing really evolution. There are some old-earth creationists (like Behe) who believe evolution occurs, but that there is some sort of guiding force. What that force is, who can say? Behe believes it is God.

That's really all there is for a "basic precept." I don't think you're missing much there.

There are some implications, though. In Behe's case, he claims there are some structures that simply could not have evolved. This has the effect of stopping cold some lines of inquiry. If something was designed, there's no need to figure out how it evolved.

To me, the biggest problem is this mindset -- ID is, at its heart, a god of the gaps. That means some things are inexplicable, because God Did It. At its most extreme, it looks very much like the Lenski Affair, and idiots start denying basic research just because it contradicts their beliefs.

I believe that's why Bob mentioned that ID is relatively innocuous in microbiology as long as the researchers and doctors don't let it interfere with their knowledge of evolutionary biology. But you end up with folks like Andy Schlafly, and you have a recipe for plagues of Biblical proportions.

That's my take, anyway.

How any of that presents a valid obstacle to efficient pathology research, I'm not entirely sure...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:How any of that

Kapkao wrote:

How any of that presents a valid obstacle to efficient pathology research, I'm not entirely sure...

I think it's a matter of understanding. To use a completely inapt analogy, I'd say it's like programming. You can be a perfectly decent programmer without knowing exactly how a computer works. In my experience, though, programmers with a deep understanding not only of current computer architecture, but the history of computer architecture, make better programmers.

I'd bet that someone like Behe would make a perfectly decent pathologist. He doesn't deny evolution, he just believes God has a hand in it. There may be very specialized instances in which understanding of the evolution of "irreducibly complex" structures is vital to understanding how to treat a disease, but I'm no microbiologist.

Someone like Andy Schlafly, though, would make a terrible pathologist. His denial of evolution would interfere with his ability to understand how pathogens adapt to treatment. His denial of the results of the Lenski experiment pretty much proves that.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote: How any of

Kapkao wrote:

How any of that presents a valid obstacle to efficient pathology research, I'm not entirely sure...

 

Kap, let's look at an example.

Behe is a biochemist.  That is not the same as being a cellular biologist.  He was, from what I have read, a good one when he was still doing research.  He looked at the admittedly complex structure of the flagella and decided it had to be designed.  Trying to get a picture of the chemical structure of a flagella is next to impossible.  Not that you can't find dozens on the internet, but that they are all vastly simplified.  The flagella is more complex than you can cram onto one web page, one paper page, and still have a picture that makes any kind of a pattern.  So the pictures are simplified and you get some neat patterns.  Behe went off the deep end.

He could have walked down the hall and talked to the cellular biologists.  It is pretty apparent he didn't.  This is where the valid obstacle to any research happens.  The researcher is amazed at the complexity of a structure, entity, result and attributes it to god/s/dess.  They stop researching at that exact instant.

If you are curious.  Cellular biologists know ( and knew when Behe came up with his "theory" ) the flagella is the exact same structure as the internal mechanism that allows a single cell to contract then expand.  But the external flagellum is more efficient and allows the cell to move more quickly.  This gives evolutionary advantage to the external structure.  For a single cell organism, it is not only important to move into an area that is not depleted of food, but also to move out of your own waste.  If you have a colony of cells in a petri dish, and you keep feeding them, they will eventually die out from the toxic effects of their own waste.  Yeah, they die in their own shit.  I'd be one of the first to die off.

All cells move by the same mechanism - including the pathogens that make us sick.  Understanding the how and why of that movement in many cases facilitates treatment.  You need to understand both internal only movement as well as the external movement, because a single cell organism may use one or the other or both.  If you could prevent pathogenic movement for flagella, you could prevent it for internal as well.  If you didn't understand that, you could waste a lot of time devising different methods when only one would do.  And if we could prevent pathogenic movement?

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Someone

nigelTheBold wrote:
Someone like Andy Schlafly, though, would make a terrible pathologist. His denial of evolution would interfere with his ability to understand how pathogens adapt to treatment. His denial of the results of the Lenski experiment pretty much proves that.

Andy Schlafly makes for a great useful idiot; that's why he's writing a reference website for GOP politicians.

That doesn't change the fact that atheistic interest in evolution is primarily because of ideology, not because of significant ramifications it might lead to regarding the Human Condition.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:nigelTheBold

Kapkao wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:
Someone like Andy Schlafly, though, would make a terrible pathologist. His denial of evolution would interfere with his ability to understand how pathogens adapt to treatment. His denial of the results of the Lenski experiment pretty much proves that.

Andy Schlafly makes for a great useful idiot; that's why he's writing a reference website for GOP politicians.

That doesn't change the fact that atheistic interest in evolution is primarily because of ideology, not because of significant ramifications it might lead to regarding the Human Condition.

No, our big concentration on it is primarily because so many Theists keep attacking it, making such a big deal about it.

Just as "atheism" would not be thing to organize around or identify with if there wasn't so much Theism around.

Apart from that, it would appeal to any rationally inclined person as a major part of explaining "how we got here", but otherwise just as part of the whole spectrum of science.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:No, our big

BobSpence1 wrote:

No, our big concentration on it is primarily because so many Theists keep attacking it, making such a big deal about it.

 

Same difference, Bob. Theists attack it because it goes against their (religious) ideology.

 

Quote:
Apart from that, it would appeal to any rationally inclined person as a major part of explaining "how we got here", but otherwise just as part of the whole spectrum of science.

It appealed to me when I was 10-11. Had an entire book dedicated to long-dead species, starting from the oldest Agnathans known.

Now I see it as relatively easy to take for granted -after all, it happens regardless of what humans think about it.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:It appealed to

Kapkao wrote:

It appealed to me when I was 10-11. Had an entire book dedicated to long-dead species, starting from the oldest Agnathans known.

Now I see it as relatively easy to take for granted -after all, it happens regardless of what humans think about it.

Definitely. I loved books about dinosaurs, books that speculated about the origins of life, books that discussed genetics in a way that a 11-year-old could understand. I have been very much interested in evolution since long before I realized others might deny it happens.

I disagree that understanding evolution doesn't affect the human condition -- much research into evolution overlaps with research in genetic treatments, research in information theory, and so on. Its affects might not be directly observable, but behind the scenes, it's pretty important. At least, in some fields, it's important.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Nigel and Kap

nigelTheBold wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

It appealed to me when I was 10-11. Had an entire book dedicated to long-dead species, starting from the oldest Agnathans known.

Now I see it as relatively easy to take for granted -after all, it happens regardless of what humans think about it.

Definitely. I loved books about dinosaurs, books that speculated about the origins of life, books that discussed genetics in a way that a 11-year-old could understand. I have been very much interested in evolution since long before I realized others might deny it happens.

I disagree that understanding evolution doesn't affect the human condition -- much research into evolution overlaps with research in genetic treatments, research in information theory, and so on. Its affects might not be directly observable, but behind the scenes, it's pretty important. At least, in some fields, it's important.

 

I was never a little boy.  And I remember thinking dinosaurs were mildly interesting but I didn't get what my younger brother saw in them.  And then when I was all grown up, my family went to a natural history museum and they had a display of the carboniferous era.  3 foot cockroaches.  Dragonflies big enough to carry off kittens.  I had to be drug away as the guys (husband and boys) insisted they were going to lose lunch if we didn't move on.

And then I found out about the Burgess Shales.  And stromatolites and diatoms and ...  Did you look at AtheistExtremeist's post about the 1.2 billion year old multi-cell critters they just discovered using x-ray chromatography?  I think he has the title not quite right.  But isn't that cool?

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
everlastingxxx wrote:One of

everlastingxxx wrote:

One of the criticisms of ID is that it isn't falsifiable. In other words, how do you disprove the claim that an object has been designed? Obviously, we can recognize design -- the pyramids, the statues on Easter Island, etc. -- but I'm not certain it's ever been quantified or defined in an exact way.

But the "materialistic hypothesis" is falsifiable. That's what I focus on.

everlastingxxx wrote:


Here's my proposed definition for design: Design is present where local forces cannot provide an adequate deterministic or probabilistic explanation for a phenomenon.

"Probabilistic explanations" are non-materialistic explanations. It's that simple.

Don't make this complicated. It's really simple. The bottom line is that the "neo-Darwinian theory of evolution" is not really a materialistic theory because it is based on chance. Pure chance events have no physical explanation by definition.  If we have evidence for probabilistic events (which we do), then we have falsified materialism. Unless the materialist can respond to this, then this debate is over.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:everlastingxxx

Paisley wrote:

everlastingxxx wrote:

One of the criticisms of ID is that it isn't falsifiable. In other words, how do you disprove the claim that an object has been designed? Obviously, we can recognize design -- the pyramids, the statues on Easter Island, etc. -- but I'm not certain it's ever been quantified or defined in an exact way.

But the "materialistic hypothesis" is falsifiable. That's what I focus on.

everlastingxxx wrote:


Here's my proposed definition for design: Design is present where local forces cannot provide an adequate deterministic or probabilistic explanation for a phenomenon.

"Probabilistic explanations" are non-materialistic explanations. It's that simple.

Don't make this complicated. It's really simple. The bottom line is that the "neo-Darwinian theory of evolution" is not really a materialistic theory because it is based on chance. Pure chance events have no physical explanation by definition.  If we have evidence for probabilistic events (which we do), then we have falsified materialism. Unless the materialist can respond to this, then this debate is over.

 

Muahehehehehehehe. She's returned...

*Cue evil materialistic laughter...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
everlastingxxx wrote:So, in

everlastingxxx wrote:

So, in order to falsify a claim of design, one would need to show how local forces could provide a deterministic (or probabilistic) explanation for the observed phenomenon.

Thoughts?

Dembski uses statistics and says that it is falsifiable--that is a null hypothesis exists for a given certainty level. The problem with this is that confidence interval is largely arbitrrary and the rubric for generating is as the ID proponents define it. In short, no matter how one defines it, the argument results in question begging.

everlastingxxx wrote:

With this in mind, let's return to our pyramid analogy. Despite not having seen the pyramids being built, we recognize the pyramids are the product of design because natural forces (i.e. wind, rain, sun, etc.) aren't likely to have produced them. In other words, natural forces simply can't provide a sufficient deterministic or probabilistic explanation for the pyramids' existence.

As you probably know, science is about creating models that are capable of predicting (either deterministically or probabilistically)how a certain force will behave. When we model the probable effects of wind, rain, and sun on the natural environment, we don't get the pyramids; therefore, we infer design.

Distinguishing design within natural phenomenon creates is-ought problems--that is just because something is a certain way, does not mean that it ought to be that way. Should some natural phenomenon appear to be designed does not entail that the phenomenon is designed.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

Everlasting could you ask your friend to provide us with one single phenomena, one single event, one single anything, that can verifiably be sheeted home to a supernatural cause.

Just one.

Yeah, I can. It's called "free will."

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Don't make

Paisley wrote:

Don't make this complicated. It's really simple. The bottom line is that the "neo-Darwinian theory of evolution" is not really a materialistic theory because it is based on chance. Pure chance events have no physical explanation by definition.  If we have evidence for probabilistic events (which we do), then we have falsified materialism. Unless the materialist can respond to this, then this debate is over.

 

If you believe that the Theory of Evolution is based on "chance" then you don't understand the theory.  Since you have evidenced no inclination to get educated on the subject, I suggest you stop writing on it.  You just display your ignorance.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Paisley wrote:Don't

cj wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Don't make this complicated. It's really simple. The bottom line is that the "neo-Darwinian theory of evolution" is not really a materialistic theory because it is based on chance. Pure chance events have no physical explanation by definition.  If we have evidence for probabilistic events (which we do), then we have falsified materialism. Unless the materialist can respond to this, then this debate is over.

 

If you believe that the Theory of Evolution is based on "chance" then you don't understand the theory.  Since you have evidenced no inclination to get educated on the subject, I suggest you stop writing on it.  You just display your ignorance.

"The big deal wasn't masonry, it was secular humanism."

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:cj

Kapkao wrote:

cj wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Don't make this complicated. It's really simple. The bottom line is that the "neo-Darwinian theory of evolution" is not really a materialistic theory because it is based on chance. Pure chance events have no physical explanation by definition.  If we have evidence for probabilistic events (which we do), then we have falsified materialism. Unless the materialist can respond to this, then this debate is over.

If you believe that the Theory of Evolution is based on "chance" then you don't understand the theory.  Since you have evidenced no inclination to get educated on the subject, I suggest you stop writing on it.  You just display your ignorance.

"The big deal wasn't masonry, it was secular humanism."

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Paisley

Paisley wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

Everlasting could you ask your friend to provide us with one single phenomena, one single event, one single anything, that can verifiably be sheeted home to a supernatural cause.

Just one.

Yeah, I can. It's called "free will."

 

Is free will free? Or is it a characterization of human-animals regarding other human-animals and their decision-making processes?

"Free will", from my understanding, is nothing more than an endless complex chain of chemical reactions. You are welcome to demonstrate otherwise...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Kapkao wrote:cj

cj wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

cj wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Don't make this complicated. It's really simple. The bottom line is that the "neo-Darwinian theory of evolution" is not really a materialistic theory because it is based on chance. Pure chance events have no physical explanation by definition.  If we have evidence for probabilistic events (which we do), then we have falsified materialism. Unless the materialist can respond to this, then this debate is over.

If you believe that the Theory of Evolution is based on "chance" then you don't understand the theory.  Since you have evidenced no inclination to get educated on the subject, I suggest you stop writing on it.  You just display your ignorance.

"The big deal wasn't masonry, it was secular humanism."

 

 

MUAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao

Kapkao wrote:
MUAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh, geez, you two. Get a room already.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Kapkao

nigelTheBold wrote:

Kapkao wrote:
MUAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh, geez, you two. Get a room already.

But ANTONIO! I thought you loved me!

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:nigelTheBold

Kapkao wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

Kapkao wrote:
MUAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh, geez, you two. Get a room already.

But ANTONIO! I thought you loved me!

I was going to join you. I just have to pick up a bottle of wine and some roses first.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Paisley wrote:Don't

cj wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Don't make this complicated. It's really simple. The bottom line is that the "neo-Darwinian theory of evolution" is not really a materialistic theory because it is based on chance. Pure chance events have no physical explanation by definition.  If we have evidence for probabilistic events (which we do), then we have falsified materialism. Unless the materialist can respond to this, then this debate is over.

 

If you believe that the Theory of Evolution is based on "chance" then you don't understand the theory.  Since you have evidenced no inclination to get educated on the subject, I suggest you stop writing on it.  You just display your ignorance.

I believe that you're the one who should educate yourself on the subject. The "neo-Darwinian theory of evolution" is definitely based on an element of chance (genetic variation is due to random mutations). 

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Paisley

Kapkao wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Yeah, I can. It's called "free will."

Is free will free? Or is it a characterization of human-animals regarding other human-animals and their decision-making processes?

"Free will", from my understanding, is nothing more than an endless complex chain of chemical reactions. You are welcome to demonstrate otherwise...

If you believe that free will is illusory, then the onus is upon you to prove it.

 

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Kapkao

Paisley wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Yeah, I can. It's called "free will."

Is free will free? Or is it a characterization of human-animals regarding other human-animals and their decision-making processes?

"Free will", from my understanding, is nothing more than an endless complex chain of chemical reactions. You are welcome to demonstrate otherwise...

If you believe that free will is illusory, then the onus is upon you to prove it.

Problem: I don't believe it is illusory, but I still believe it is concept of human characterization.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Kapkao

nigelTheBold wrote:

Kapkao wrote:
MUAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh, geez, you two. Get a room already.

 

ewwwww.......... bug spray!!!!!!!

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Kapkao

nigelTheBold wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

Kapkao wrote:
MUAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh, geez, you two. Get a room already.

But ANTONIO! I thought you loved me!

I was going to join you. I just have to pick up a bottle of wine and some roses first.

 

I'm not sure the bribe is big enough.........

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.