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…
LoL! No, Robin, YOU are doing it wrong. Science does no such thing. Science requires all claims to be testable.
Look, you aren’t an authority, Robin. You don’t get to make bald assertions and think they mean something
So unlike asking and trying to answer questions about the designer, ID doesn’t ask and try to answers about the mechanisms because it is too difficult. A practical decision.
How do you know you claim it is untestable.
Maybe but we know for sure you don’t.
Why, your demand for detailed mechanisms while lacking any mechanism l by definition is way more fun.
Maybe desperation does not mean what you think it does.
Wow, you really don’t know anything-
Gallup Poll on evolution (they don’t understand ID but my point is made.
And there was just a meeting in Scotland about evolution
newton:
Wrong again. Questions about the designer and mechanisms are SEPARATE from detecting and studying the design. How many times do you have to be told this?
Frankie,
Yeah. ID is doing just fine on it’s own! I mean, look at what ID has already achieved this year alone.
LoL! @ OMagain! What has evolutionism achieved, ever? Do tell and show your work.
Of course, but you and your creationist buddies are insisting on engaging in a burden of proof fallacy when it comes to biology. The fact is, if you want to propose some purpose, guidance, mindfulness, etc to processes, then you have to propose a test for “God” (oh…I’m sorry…”the designer”). Until you folks come up with that, the default is going to remain blind, mindless, mechanical explanations. That’s what science does and that’s all it can do right now.
You aren’t an authority on science either Joe.
As for me, I just do science according to the methodology. Nothing from my research implies anything about “guidance, purpose, intelligence, or Casper the Friendly Process Influence”
Wrong again
Wrong again. We just have to propose the criteria for design, intelligent design
Even the default has to be tested, Robin. Otherwise we say “we don’t know” which is the real default in science
If you cannot test the claim that ATP synthase arose via blind and mindless processes it isn’t science. That you cannot grasp that simple fact proves your knowledge of science is lacking
There is that.
Uhh…Joe? That polls shows the belief in God’s influence going down. LOL!
So really…where’s the debate?
Ooo…a meeting in Scotland about evolution! I’m sure that somehow shows there’s a debate about ID going on!
And that is why I support my claims with valid references. You never do.
And what research do you do, Robin? Obviously it isn’t archaeology, forensics or SETI.
So what? The vast majority of people in the USA are against evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. Do TRY to follow along.
The rest of your post is just ignorant spewage- scientist my ass
And now Robin thinks that the default position doesn’t need to be tested. Science be damned!
Some read it. Then they turn what they read into a caricature. Then some other nitwit picks up on that and repeats it. But every time I start an OP on an ID friendly book here at TSZ no “skeptic” has read it and no “skeptic” plans to read it.
Because this site is all about leaving your priors and posting in good faith and all that.
It’s always amusing how ID supporters refuse to talk about ID but seem obsessed with talking about evolution.
It’s always amusing when evoTARDs say IDists won’t talk about ID when there is plenty of that going around. What we never see is anyone trying to support the claims of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes.
It is always easier to erect and attack a straw man then actually deal with the real thing
Not sure where you’re getting that idea. That poll doesn’t indicate anything about anyone being against evolution Joe. It does indicate that 28% of the US think that evolution is definitely false, but that’s neither a majority, nor does it indicate what “kind of evolution” (from your list above) they think is false.
C’mon Joe…you can whine louder than that.
By reading the poll, duh.
What part of “god guided the process” don’t you understand? The one in which God didn’t have a part in the minority, by a huge margin. Scientist my ass, Robin.
Facts are not whines Robin and whining is all you have been doing. You don’t even understand that in order to be scientific the claim must be testable. You thinks your position can slide by that entailment. That is sad coming from an alleged scientist
Robin,
From the link in the OP:
Scott refers to me as an intelligent design “creationist,” even though I clearly write in my book Darwin’s Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think “evolution occurred, but was guided by God.”- Dr Michael Behe
So 40% of the scientists are debating the OP’s topic, Robin
Which A) doesn’t indicate being against evolution and B) doesn’t indicate anything about anything being debated. You seem to be reading into that something not in evidence.
LOL! I have nothing to whine about. ID has been banished by the courts to the some dead alley and evolution continues to be studied and taught as valid science. The only whiners are those folks like you who seem not to understand this.
The only people unable to test their claims are the creationists. Funny how there are no positive tests for
God…I mean the designer. Oh…riiiight…ID doesn’t know anything about any designer at all, but can’t seem to even test any design concepts. Oh well…Can’t pin lack of testing on my side Joe. We have more than enough supporting our process concepts. ID…not so much. That there’s no testing for intelligence for our process concepts isn’t an issue since there’s no intelligent agents or implications to test for. But do let us know when you find some.
LOL! No their not. Where did Behe and/or Scott get the 40% figure. Clearly the poll doesn’t agree with such a figure. But even if it’s accurate, such doesn’t show any debate. But you go on believing there are people actually debating ID in some capacity. Good luck with that!
Do people who say that “god guided the process” say how or when? Or why? What is it that’s lacking that requires guidance, precisely? And how do they know?
Looks like the chickenshit ID-Creationist is still too afraid to commit to an ID position.
The landfills must be filling up with toasters with Joey spending so much valuable toaster-repairing time commenting at TSZ.
LoL! Per the OP evolution is not being debated. Those who say God guided the process are against evolution #6. Those who say God Created are also against evolution #6. Only those who say God didn’t have any part are for evolution #6.
So yes the debate is real and is summarized in the OP.
Clearly there is contention in argument; strife, dissension, quarrelling, and controversy stemming from the fact the claims cannot be tested. Even the alleged evidence for universal common descent is absent a mechanism.
Wrong- science cannot be adjudicated. And the legal experts say the judge had no place making such a declaration. And given the fact he bought the lies, misrepresentations and bluffs of the plaintiffs it is clear he wasn’t in any position to make a judgement on science.
Dr Behe corrects Judge Jones
Total bullshit, Robin. If that were true it would have been presented at Dover instead of the equivocations, lies and bluffs they got away with.
Neither you nor anyone else knows how to test the claim that vision systems evolved by means of blind and mindless processes. Any claim to the contrary is either or lie or a bald assertion. And nothing you can do or say can distract from that fact.
But their not debating anything Joe. They’re not scientists nor involved in the scientific arena. Like you, they just hold this opinion. So again, where’s the debate? Is Ken Ham involved in one? No…he just built a fantasy amusement park that he insists reflects reality, but there’s no science debate about. Science knows it’s bunk and just moves on.
Hey…creationists and other fringe folk can believe and say anything they wish. But since the Dover battle, I don’t see any evidence of anyone in science taking anything you folks say seriously.
And what do the polls actually show? That people’s perspective on some supernatural influence on evolution continues to go away.
So what’s the debate? That you and a few fringe holdouts are losing ground for your silliness? Fine by me.
LOL! You keep telling yourself that Joe!
So where’s ID now? Oh…right…adjudicated out of Dover and not being used as a basis for any teaching anywhere. Your fringe “legal experts” can say anything they want, but actual legal experts brought the hammer down on the obviously fallacious and disingenuous ID program.
C’mon Joe…more whine with that rant…
But you keep telling yourself that the blood clotting example was a bluff or whatever:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day1am2.html
Louder Joe!
ID is doing just fine. Evolutionism still cannot be tested.
Talk origins? Really? They are just a propaganda site.
BTW the Dover decision doesn’t matter outside of that school district.
Yes, they are, Robin. The debate that blind and mindless processes can produce living organisms, their systems and subsystems.
And guess what? No one knows how to test the claim that blind and mindless processes can do it. And because of that your position isn’t science. But you don’t seem to understand that.
Ken Miller misrepresented Behe’s arguments
Robin mindlessly links to talk origins so obviously Robin doesn’t understand anything about ID’s arguments.
Poor Joe. He’s so ronery….
Neither you nor anyone else knows how to test the claim that vision systems evolved by means of blind and mindless processes. Any claim to the contrary is either or lie or a bald assertion. And nothing you can do or say can distract from that fact.
Come on, Robin- reply with your standard cowardly response of how you and yours don’t have test your claims or some such unscientific nonsense.
….so very very ronery.
Riiiight…
https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=%2Fm%2F03ym_
Sez the guy linking to the Disco Tute! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!
You keep telling yourself that Joe! LOL!
Whatever Robin. At least I understand that Science works with testable ideas and evolutionism doesn’t have any beyond a change in allele frequency over time, which is OK with baraminology.
BTW the link to ENV proved that Miller lied on the stand.
You keep telling yourself that Joe! LOL!
HAHAHAHA! No it didn’t. It simply demonstrates that Luskin doesn’t understand biology or science.
https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/01/god-of-the-gapsin-your-own-knowledge-luskin-behe-blood-clotting.html
LoL! It shows that you don’t understand biology or science. And your cowardly responses prove that you don’t know jack about science.
Find a mistake in what Casey said- I dare you. The mistake in what Miller said was found.
Neither you nor anyone else knows how to test the claim that vision systems evolved by means of blind and mindless processes. Any claim to the contrary is either or lie or a bald assertion. And nothing you can do or say can distract from that fact.
Come on, Robin- reply with your standard cowardly response of how you and yours don’t have test your claims or some such unscientific nonsense.
Still waiting, Robin…
…
LoL! acartia has a pecker in the middle of its face!
Nice own goal
Yes that seems a convenient point of view for a theory which has neither . Or at least neither which can explicitly admitted
For example pick a known designed feature of an organism( how you know it is designed might be useful,in a general way) and relate what the studying the design has revealed , without reference to the designer or mechanisms.
newton, what you don’t know about ID and science could fill volumes. Focus on your own position as that is what it is going to take to refute ID- actually finding evidence that supports blind and mindless processes.
We can say ATP synthase is designed because it meets the criteria- it is unexplainable via blind and mindless processes and it meets Behe’s criteria for ID.
See nothing about the designer nor the processes used.
Nor anything that is remotely scientific or evidence based.
I am asking you to do that, focus on your own position. Provide some detail of the theory and evidence that it is effective and useful.
So design which is non mechanistic can be falsified by a mechanism. Weird
Ok, sound a bit thin. One scientist’s work.
Except you have not provided anything the study of ATP that has been the result of assuming it is designed.
OK, newton, so you remain unaware of what newton’s four rules of scientific investigation or Occam’s razor mean. That isn’t my fault.
acartia you don’t seem to know what science is nor what it entails.