In an earlier post I showed that ID is not anti-evolution. http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/intelligent-design-is-not-anti-evolution-2/
So is ID is not anti-evolution then what is being debated?
Evolution has several meanings. The meanings of evolution, from Darwinism, Design and Public Education:
- Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature
- Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population
- Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.
- The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.
- Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.
- “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms. see Coyne- https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/natural-selection-and-evolution-material-blind-mindless-and-purposeless/
The debate isn’t as black & white as saying it is evo #6 against IDists, Creationists and theistic evolutionists. However it is obvious that evo #6 is what is being debated.
(Theistic evolutionists are a different breed. They don’t seem to acknowledge that evo #6 is what is being taught in our public school system. And therefore don’t appear to understand the issue. The TE’s I have debated with tell me that humans were an intended outcome of the evolutionary process, which is OK for evo #5 but defies evo #6. IOW TE’s are closet IDists.)
Creationists go with 1-4 (above), with the change in 4 being built-in responses to environmental cues or organism direction as the primary mechanism, for allele frequency change, culled by various selection processes (as well as random effects/ events/ choice of not to mate/ unable to find a mate). The secondary mechanism would be random variations or mutations culled by similar processes. IOW life’s diversity evolved from the originally Created Kind, humans included. Science should therefore be the tool/ process with which we determine what those kinds were.
With Creation vs. “Evolution #6” the 4 main debating points are clear:
1) The starting point of the evolutionary process. (What was (were) the founding population(s)?)
2) The phenotypic & morphological plasticity allowed/ extent the evolutionary process can take a population (do limits exist?).
3) The apparent direction the evolutionary process took to form the history of life. (ie from “simpler” bacteria-like organisms to complex metazoans)
4) The mechanism for the evolutionary process.
With ID vs. Evo #6 it is mainly about the mechanism- IDists go with evolution 1-5, with the Creation change to 4 plus the following caveat in 5: Life’s diversity was brought about via the intent of a design. The initial conditions, parameters, resources and goal was pre-programmed as part of an evolutionary algorithm designed to bring forth complex metazoans, as well as leave behind the more “simple” viruses, prokaryotes and single-celled eukaryotes.
IDists understand that if life didn’t arise from non-living matter via some blind watchmaker-type process, there is no reason to infer its subsequent diversity arose solely due to those type of processes (point 1 up top).
What does the data say? Well there isn’t any data that demonstrates bacteria can “evolve” into anything but bacteria. Therefore anyone who accepts evolution 5 or 6 has some splaining to do. Preferably splainations with scientific merit.
Throwing time at an issue does not splain anything:
If one desires to extrapolate small changes into large changes by simply adding time, one requires independent evidence to justify this move. The problem is that we really don’t know how evolution occurs. And when talking about the evolution of the mammalian middle ear bones, we should not forget that we are still basically in the dark in trying to explain how both a mammalian and reptilian zygote actually develops the middle ear and jaw bones, respectively. Without this knowledge, attempts to explain such a transition as a function of a series of small, incremental changes stretched across time are rooted in ignorance. That is, we don’t truly understand neither the process of development nor the process of evolution and without such knowledge, there is no reason to think we are on safe ground when employing (1).
Attempts to justify this move by appealing to the use of (1) in astronomy and geology fail because biotic complexity differs in both structure and formation.
One may assume (1) to explain evolutionary change as a working hypothesis, but we should keep in mind that large changes in evolution are basically a “black box” and a series of small incremental changes may play only a trivial, fine-tuning role in any transition (there is no evidence to think otherwise). What’s more, bacteria, as the predominant life forms on this planet, which have experience the most evolution of all life forms, tell us clearly that (1) need not apply to biological evolution.
In the end, appeals to small change + deep time are embraced merely as a matter of convenience, as it happens to be the primary way we can think about evolution at a time when we are just starting to come to grips with it. As we begin to better understand the process of evolution, I predict (1) will one day be viewed as a quaint understanding that served mostly to highlight just how much we didn’t understand evolution.- Mike Gene
However Father Time, Mother Nature and some still unknown natural process does make for an interesting trinity…
At the last resort
Would it matter, isn’t intelligence the sole criteria for the designer that we can say out loud?
newton:
PRATT 11- ID doesn’t prevent anyone from asking and trying to answer questions about the Intelligent Designer
newton, The odds increase because it is the Designer’s will that sets them.
Way to go guys! We busted through 1000 comments for this thread. All of that without one evolutionist addressing the OP.
Someone please contact Guinness, we may have something of note here. 😎
LOL. Evidence please. Is that part of ID theory?
Frankie,
Attention whore: Detected.
dazz, Do you think that the Designer of the universe is limited to just putting living organisms here? Really? Or do you think that said Designer could also put living organisms around the universe if that is what the Designer wanted to do?
The Designer’s will sets the odds
You guys must be just dicking with me. This has to be a Poe game show. You must have good writers as I couldn’t even think that stupidly if I tried.
LoL! Yes, Richie, you made your minimalist contributions too. The jealous nature of your posts says it all. The way you post pure bullshit is unrivaled. Your feeble but slanderous attempts at personal attacks, while entertaining, is still pathetic for anyone over 10 years old.
I love the way you were cheerleading for Patrick until he got shot down then you kind of slithered away. But I thank you as every little contribution counts!
“What is being debated” is that a chubby idiot who has been given short shrift from anyone of import on both sides keeps reposting his childish screeds that frames ‘the debate’ in a way he feels comfortable with but is very different from actual experts. Being wrong is no obstacle to this salad dodger, he just resets and goes again, as if the many previous eviscerations never happened. I can’t wait for “NO ONE COULD REFUTE ME IN A 1000 COMMENTS” or similar guff. You’re here because you’re commedy Joe. Nothing more.
To the tune of Rocky Racoon-
Now somewhere in the blogosphere of the intertube
There roamed a young boy named Richard T Hughes
And one day his senses ran off never knowing why
Little Richie he began to cry Richie didn’t like that
He said I’m gonna buy that toy
So he jumped all around like a clown
Fell down and broke his crown
Richard T Hughes fell down on the ground
And never did gather his senses
Richie was dumb as dumb as they come
Too dumb to be a good rival
His problem it seems he didn’t have any dreams
And he was so bloated and gassy
He used vagisil and would have taken the pill
He was as dumb as was nasty
OK, work in progress but not bad for 30 minutes, eh
Frankie,
Oooh, I’m sure the other (mental) six year olds find your songs scathing.
1000+ posts and all FrankenJoker has done is squawk the same old ID stupidity and run from questions.
That took 30 minutes!
Oh look, the attack of the moron twins. Sorry guys, I don’t speak imbecile. Try again 😛
We know FrankenJoker. That’s your job here – board imbecile. You’re handling the work load impeccably.
Lucky you!
I’ve been training him to take my spot.
30 YEC minutes are actually 43 years… nuff said
It is nice to live on the Privileged Planet.
I hope they all have total eclipses if he did. Why is “Designer” capitalized?
I would guess it would depend on his capabilities. Well beyond the reach of ID
He could make a killing in Vegas.
The question was not how does the unknown designer with unknown capabilties and unknown goals knows the odds, but how do you know the odds will rise dramatically if ID is true. Seems to me you would have to know the odds if ID was false.
And we’re only here because he’s comedy. If he weren’t, everyone would have him on ignore.
Well, it seems to be an issue with asking and answering anything about the mechanisms he uses to implement his design.
So how does one go about answering questions about the designer?
And yet the evidence proves that you two are the comedians- and sad comedians at that
newton:
That isn’t part of ID. And also we don’t know. How are we supposed to know the mechanisms of something we aren’t able to do when we don’t even know the mechanisms that were used to build Nan Madol?
Heck you and your don’t know the mechanisms used to produce ATP synthase. You and yours don’t have a mechanism capable. So focus on your own lame-ass position. Coming after ID with your ignorant spewage is a sure sign of desperation
Ok…so…after 1000 comments here, I’m now curious: is this “blind watchmaker thesis” vs ID actually being debated anywhere besides TSZ? I can’t seem to find any indication of such if it is.
Maybe that’s ID’s problem: it needs better PR…
Umm, it is what is being debated. It is being debated because that is what evolutionists claim- that bwe didit- and it cannot be tested. And alternatives to BWE have been presented- see Spetner 1997, for example.
And Robin, you don’t seem to know much of anything so your lack of knowledge in this regard is just business as usual for you.
LoL! It isn’t being debated here because you and yours are too chicken-shit to even address it
What is ID challenging– a short interview with Stephen Meyer
Why don’t evolutionists know what is being debated? Because they don’t read what IDists actually say. They don’t have any idea of what ID is really about.
Sad but true
Which IDiot? They all say something different. Most are YECs like you who think the Designer is their Christian God and all “kinds” were POOFed 6000 years ago. Meyer said the Designer came by for a few million years in the Cambrian but won’t say what happened before or after. Behe thinks the Designer created life 3.5+ billion years ago and that evolution through common descent since then is true. Some think the Designer pops in now and again to tweak things. Some think the “design” was front loaded billions of years ago.
That’s because you IDiots don’t have any idea what ID is really about. You do no work, produce no evidence. The only common theme is getting your Christian God pushed back into public school science classes.
That’s not a response to my question Joe. I get that you think that’s what’s being debated. What I’m asking is WHERE is it supposedly being debated? Who is is debating it? Congress? Doesn’t appear so. Actual scientists doing research in labs around the world? Not so much. In accredited universities? If so, it must be the down low. At the Discovery Institute? Clearly not as there is no one at the DI to debate.
So who’s debating it Joe? Just you and us here on this message board?
…Sez the man who can’t seem to address a simple question…
We’re still waiting for you to calculate the CSI of Stonehenge.
So then your OP is wrong? #6 is not what’s being debated because actual scientists refuse to debate it? Well then…you might need to start a different post there Joe… Maybe one entitled: “What I and Some Religious Folk Want To Debate But Scientists Are Too Scared To!”
But here’s the thing Joe: actual scientists have no incentive to debate that topic. We’ve already won in the courts and in practical applications. Science…even areas focused on “blind, mindless, unguided processes”. What do scientists get out of debating ID then?
Anyone who knows what is going on, Robin. Obviously you don’t. It is what has been debated for decades if not longer.
Obviously it is being debated by scientists as they are looking for ways irreducible complexity can arise via blind and mindless processes.
That doesn’t follow.
No, just clowns here
And yet they are. See Dover
Bullshit
Great, when they can demonstrate blind and mindless processes can produce ATP synthase or a vision system they will have something. But now they can’t even produce a testable hypothesis for blind and mindless processes doing so.
So you have actually lost when it comes to doing science, Robin
The following has Behe debating four scientists and a philosopher:
Michael Behe’s Response to Boston Review Critics
That’s not a response to my question Joe. I get that you think that’s what’s being debated. What I’m asking is WHERE it is supposedly being debated? Who is is debating it? Congress? Doesn’t appear so. Actual scientists doing research in labs around the world? Not so much. In accredited universities? If so, it must be the down low. At the Discovery Institute? Clearly not as there is no one at the DI to debate.
So who’s debating it Joe? Just you and us here on this message board?
…Sez the man who can’t seem to address a simple question…
Ok. Great! Got an example of someone who knows what is going on? Preferably someone who knows what’s going on since…say…2014…
Yes, clearly what you think is being debated has no impact on my life.
Hmmm…seems there’s tot a lot of evidence for this debate going on beyond a few tens of years by my reckoning. Perhaps you have a different measuring tool…
Funny how there’s no evidence of any actual research into anything called “irreducible complexity” at any accredited university or scientific institution.
Yes, it is.
So no one’s trying to figure out how blind and mindless processes could produce ATP synthase or vision systems? Figures. I bet that is because no one knows how to do so.
And clearly Robin’s lack of knowledge doesn’t impact anyone’s life.
I linked you to Meyer who said what was being debated. You ignored it. I linked to Behe debating other scientists- you ignored it.
You don’t have any idea how to test the claim tat blind and mindless processes produced life nor any of life’s systems and subsystems. You don’t have any science, Robin. And you can’t even formulate an argument
March 1, 1997
Something tells me that debate isn’t still going on…
Something tells me that you don’t know much of anything.
Come on, Robin. Tell us how to test the claim that ATP synthase or any vision system arose via blind and mindless processes. I dare you to try. And by refusing to do so you will expose why there is a debate
LOL! Actual scientists didn’t debate anything there. They simply pointed out that ID isn’t science. Funny…seems that was the verdict too!
Doesn’t seem anyone’s bothered debating it at all as Dover seems to have put the attempt to circumvent science to bed.
What? So Miller didn’t give testimony that allegedly showed IC can evolve? Really?
And how did they point out that ID is not science? Unlike evolutionism ID makes testable claims.
Robin wants to know who is debating this- well according to the polls a vast majority of Americans are. And by the looks of it scientists are too as they just had another meeting to try to get evolution back on track
Come on, Robin. Tell us how to test the claim that ATP synthase or any vision system arose via blind and mindless processes. I dare you to try. And by refusing to do so you will expose why there is a debate
Or just admit evolutionism isn’t science
A repeat from January 17, 2017:
Science Joe…UR doing it WRONG.
Got any links or are you just making conversation?