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…
Argument from ignorance and begging the question. C’mon Joe…you can do better than that.
No, he can’t. He can’t even count his fallacies to calculate the CSI in his arguments
Not that I think Mung actually tried using the search terms…
LOL! Now that’s irony Mung! I don’t think you could have proven my point any better if you tried!
Why, you don’t seem to be able to
Evidence please- you know you have to do better than that
Nonsense- puddles are not conscious nor would they think they are a perfect fit for the hole.
How then do you explain the search that did turn up a result?
You need to learn to think like Mung. 🙂
It seems right somehow that the Flint Fallacy would involve water.
How do you explain my coming up with 41,200 results to your 0? What exactly did you search on and did you bother to use a search engine or simply plug terms into a Magic 8 Ball?
I’d rather not…
You never read the book so your opinion is meaningless.
Plenty of scientists have made the case the laws of physics is evidence for ID.
Your entire position is question begging.
It was Gonzalez’s paper “Wonderful Eclipses,” Astronomy & Geophysics 40, no. 3 (1999): 3.18- 3.20) that got it started
then there is (G. Gonzalez, D. Brownlee, and P.D. Ward, “The Galactic Habitable Zone: Galactic Chemical Evolution”, Icarus 152 (2001):185-200)
That is your opinion and it isn’t based on anything rational.
They weren’t when Newton and Kepler were doing science. And if they are now too bad because they are being challenged. Anyone who tries to limit science is doing a great disservice to it. There is no such rule in science, Robin.
Science only cares about reality not what biased people say reality is.
However there are plenty of systems that do exhibit evidence of intelligence, guidance and purpose.
Not really. The design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships. And any given design inference can be refuted just by demonstrating those blind and mindless processes are up to the task. But you can’t. You can only assert it.
It didn’t even deal with their arguments and evidence. Pathetic
http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2006/07/24/ruse-on-religion/
LOL! actually it does. Perhaps you need to up your reading comprehension…
Robin,
No, they are the foundations of materialism, which is a failed philosophy.
Make the case then. When people just post a bald link and nothing else it is a sure sign that A) it doesn’t deal with the topic or B) they haven’t read or understood it.
Make your case and I will use the book and the authors to dismantle it
Ruse? A philosopher? Utter trash- make your case
That’s easy. You were not searching where I searched.
All the information that you need in order to figure it out is at your disposal. I even gave you a hint in my previous post. I’m sure you’ll figure it out.
That’s the freaking point Frankie!
Yes, thanks Rumrat, that is an excellent description of
JoeFrancis.Frankie,
Nobody here wants you banned. For us people with moderate intelligence levels, reading your comments makes us thankful for the small gifts we have been given.
They’re more like guidelines…
Why was this turd from 2009 dug up and dropped on our dinner plates?
No. he can’t.
How the designs were implemented as well?
Why is it a turd? Please explain. No one forces you to read an OP nor participate in a thread
No, that is an ID PRATT
Please explain how to do science without using a 100% materialistic approach. Tell us how to design a science experiment that allows for the unpredictable intervention of a supernatural Loki God.
You’ve been running from the question for over a decade, every time you make the same dumb claim.
Moved a post to guano.
You tell ’em FrankenJoe! ID isn’t about providing mechanisms or scientific explanations or testable hypotheses! ID is only about getting Christian YEC stories sneaked back into public schools!
Baraminology for the win, right FrankenJoe? 😀
If the implementation of design is off limits for ID, it is off limits for evolutionary theory when comparing the ‘theories’for your debate. Your need to adjust your premises, you are requiring evolution to provide mechanism while declining to provide one yourself.
I doubt Frankie cares whether ID is taught in the schools.
You shortly then write:
Your challenge is disingenuous in the extreme.
I encourage everyone to give Frankie’s summary of the history as much credence as they give his pronouncements on scientific issues.
Not even close to true.
“I have a challenge for those who want me banned”
I’m not terribly familiar with this place, but why would anybody want to ban Joe? There are not many places left to see ID, it having been such a failure. TSZ, UD, and EN&V are the last dying sites.
BTW, I bet 2017 is the year they’re going to go back to calling themselves creationists.
I miss (making fun of the idiots at) Telic Thoughts.
Whatever Patrick. If anyone has any evidence that contradicts what I said I challenge them to present it. Tell me what pronouncements do I make that I haven’t supported- if you can. I am sure that you can’t point to any
My challenge is disingenuous because you and yours can’t support the claims of your position? How does that work?
That is plain wrong for the treasons I have told you many times. Yours is the mechanistic theory that has made the claim. ID is not a mechanistic theory and did not make the same claim yours did.
Your position made the claim and has to support it or retract it. That you can’t grasp tat simple fact tells me you aren’t interested in a discussion and you don’t understand science.
Patrick,
Earth to Patrick- if my scientific pronouncements shouldn’t be heeded then why does my saying There is no way to test the claim that the system is a product of unguided, unintelligent, purposeless material processes. – even matter? Surely you know more than I and can easily refute what I said. Or are you just full of it?
Richie, I can support my story with the evidence. You will never be able to show what I said is “not true”. And I am more than OK with that.
Publish or perish.
You keep using that word ‘scientific’. I’m not sure you know what it means.
OM- do your own work- I have nothing to prove to you and I know what the word scientific means whereas you can only spell it.
Patrick,
No one will ever be able to find any evidence that contradicts what I said. And I am more than OK with that.
So what claims does it make?
As ID is not a mechanistic theory, that’s no surprise is it.
So given nobody can contradict you, by defintiion, why do you continue to post? What are you trying to achieve? Why don’t you just bask in the glory of being right?
ID isn’t a mechanistic concept and that means no one will ever find any evidence that contradicts my story about the parking let? Really OM?
If you are going to join a discussion at least try to follow along. If you want to continue to prove that evos are clueless then by all means, carry on.