Biological Evolution- What is being debated

Posted on by

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:

  1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature
  2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population
  3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.
  4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.
  5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.
  6. “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…

1,113 thoughts on “Biological Evolution- What is being debated”

  1. Frankie: 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?

    You sad sad man.

  2. Frankie: You never read the book so your opinion is meaningless.

    This would be an example of KF’s favorite attack: an oil of adhominem soaked strawman.

    Whether I’ve read the book does not invalidate any opinion and knowledge I gain from reading reviews of a book and criticisms of author. And since my argument is based on the fact that the book is not actually science, isn’t presented as peer-reviewed research in a scientific publication, and isn’t accepted by the scientific community as science, the actual content of the book is irrelevant to the point.

    Plain and simple: it isn’t science; it’s special pleading by question begging.

    Your entire position is question begging.

    HAHAHAHA! It’s rather evident you don’t know what question begging is!

    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)

    “Wonderful eclipses: The size, shape and positions of the Earth, Moon and Sun bring us wonderful eclipses. Guillermo Gonzalez considers how this happy state of affairs came about”

    …and he proceeds to wax poetic about how the rarity of our total eclipses must mean we are privileged to have them! Yeah…no begging the question there! LOL!

    Yeah, that’s real cutting edge science there Joe. Thanks for the chuckle!

    That is your opinion and it isn’t based on anything rational.

    …says the man who’s entire argument is special pleading and question begging…

    They weren’t when Newton and Kepler were doing science.

    Of course they were. Newton states it quite specifically:

    We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
    – Isaac Newton

    Newton did indeed believe in a higher power that set things in motion, but he was quite clear that any explanations of how things worked could only be based on the fundamental physical properties of matter and the laws governing that matter. He knew he could not find his God through science.

    Kepler noted pretty much the same thing:
    Nature uses as little as possible of anything. Johannes Kepler
    Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/johannes_kepler.html

    So no Joe…real scientists may well believe in gods or intelligent powers, but they know those things cannot be found in science.

    And if they are now too bad because they are being challenged.

    No, they simply are not. Not even folks like Francis Collins argue for such.

    Anyone who tries to limit science is doing a great disservice to it. There is no such rule in science, Robin.

    There is such a rule: it’s called being disingenuous and begging the question…

    Science only cares about reality not what biased people say reality is.

    False: science only cares about models of reality and those models have no need for gods or supernatural intervention.

    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.

    Any given “design inference” can be refuted simply by noting if the inference points to human design or not. If not, it’s refuted simply on the basis that we only know anything about human design.

  3. Frankie: 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.

    From UD: The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.

    ID claims that intelligent cause is equivalent to a mechanistic processes. You have claimed design is a mechanism. So your position has made a claim, physical features are best explained by intelligent design, a mechanism.

    Now you claim ID is not mechanistic, because you cannot explain how physical features are caused by intelligent design,which you claimed is a mechanism. So either design is not a mechanism and does not explain physical features or ID is mechanistic.

    Your position made the claim and has to support it or retract it.

    Likewise

    That you can’t grasp tat simple fact tells me you aren’t interested in a discussion and you don’t understand science.

    I grasp ID makes mechanistic claims and then claims it doesn’t. ID is trying to have it both ways.

  4. Mung: 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.

    You seem to be missing the point there Mung: your posts don’t refute what I noted: where’s the creationist complaint about “blind watchmaker thermodynamics” or “blind watchmaker gravity”? Can’t find any? Gosh…then Joe’s entire argument collapses.

    It isn’t that science embraces “unintelligent”, “purposeless”, “unguided”, and “material” processes that Joe and other silly creationists have a problem with; it’s only when “unintelligent”, “purposeless”, “unguided”, and “material” processes are applied to creation humans.

  5. Robin: Whether I’ve read the book does not invalidate any opinion and knowledge I gain from reading reviews of a book and criticisms of author.

    But those reviews have been shown to be nonsense. They don’t even criticize the arguments made

    And since my argument is based on the fact that the book is not actually science

    It is actually science. Your opinion means nothing

    They weren’t when Newton and Kepler were doing science.

    Of course they were.

    Nonsense- read Principia. And I know what Newton said and it refutes your claim

    So no Joe…real scientists may well believe in gods or intelligent powers, but they know those things cannot be found in science.

    More unsupported spam
    And if they are now too bad because they are being challenged.

    No, they simply are not

    That is what ID is all about, duh.

    Look why did Darwin have to write his book if blind and mindless processes ruled science back then? He wrote his book to try to contradict Paley. If you are right then he should have just claimed what you said.

    Obviously you don’t know what you are talking about. And you cannot support your claim with any references

    False: science only cares about models of reality and those models have no need for gods or supernatural intervention.

    ID doesn’t require gods nor the supernatural. You cannot model reality if said reality is as you say. No one knows how to model the claim that blind and mindless processes produce vision systems. Yet genetic algorithms model evolution via intelligent design.

    And you need to provide references to support your claims, which you haven’t

    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.

    Any given “design inference” can be refuted simply by noting if the inference points to human design or not.

    Nonsense. Look you think that you are some sort of an authority and you are not.

    You can’t support your claims and I am more than OK with that.

    Now address the OP or admit that all you have are rhetorical games that you cannot support

  6. Robin: your posts don’t refute what I noted: where’s the creationist complaint about “blind watchmaker thermodynamics” or “blind watchmaker gravity”? Can’t find any? Gosh…then Joe’s entire argument collapses.

    That doesn’t follow and borders on the moronic. Why does the NCSE only fight for evolutionism?

    Again, gravity is evidence for ID and no amount of whining will ever change that. Thermodynamics is also evidence for design. That is why I don’t rail against them. Now if materialists want to claim them as their own they have to do better than “:They just are(the way they are)”

    It isn’t that science embraces “unintelligent”, “purposeless”, “unguided”, and “material” processes that Joe and other silly creationists have a problem with; it’s only when “unintelligent”, “purposeless”, “unguided”, and “material” processes are applied to creation humans.

    And more unsupportable nonsense

  7. newton: Now you claim ID is not mechanistic

    What do you mean by “now”? Dembski et al have been making that claim for a couple of decades, at least. Read “No Free Lunch”- the process always comes after design has been detected

    Look newton, it is clear that you don’t know jack about ID nor evolutionism. Perhaps you should start by reading about tem from the experts on either side. I am not here to continually correct your ID PRATTs.

  8. ID has never made the claim it has a mechanism of numerous slight successive modifications. Only evolutionism has made that claim. ID does not have to support a claim it never made. Evolutionism has to support its claims. And it has to do so regardless of ID. Science 101

  10. Robin,

    Robin quotes Newton and doesn’t understand how what he said supports my claim. Here are Newton’s four rules of scientific investigation:

    1-admit no more causes of natural things than are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances,

    2-to the same natural effect, assign the same causes,

    3-qualities of bodies, which are found to belong to all bodies within experiments, are to be esteemed universal, and

    4-propositions collected from observation of phenomena should be viewed as accurate or very nearly true until contradicted by other phenomena.

    What point 1 means is if said object, event or structure can be explained by blind and mindless processes we do not ad an intentional agency to account for it. However if those processes cannot account for it then we start adding other causes until it can be accounted for. This refutes Robin’s claim

  12. Frankie: What point 1 means is if said object, event or structure can be explained by blind and mindless processes we do not ad an intentional agency to account for it. However if those processes cannot account for it then we start adding other causes until it can be accounted for

    What a marvelous intellect, LMFAO

  13. Umm dazz, that is how science works. That you didn’t know that is hilarious. So yes I am LMFAO at you

  14. Frankie: What do you mean by “now”? Dembski et al have been making that claim for a couple of decades, at least. Read “No Free Lunch”- the process always comes after design has been detected

    ID claims to have detected design over a decade ago, before the Dover trial. What work has been done since then to identify the mechanisms ID uses to implement the designs? When can we expect the first ID publications in actual science journals, not vanity or popular press venues?

  15. adapa, you and yours have had over 150 years to make your case and you have failed. There isn’t anything in peer-review that supports the claim that blind and mindless processes are capable of producing life and its diversity.

    If you don’t like ID fine. You and yours have all the power to refute ID- all you have to do is step up and actually find a way to test the claims of your position and then test them. If conformed ID is falsified. But your continual whining and foot stomping just exposes you for what you are- afraid to do the science

  17. Frankie:
    adapa, you and yours have had over 150 years to make your case and you have failed. .

    You ignored the questions FrankenJoe. Please try an honest answer for once instead of the cowardly evasions.

    ID claims to have detected design over a decade ago, before the Dover trial. What work has been done since then to identify the mechanisms ID uses to implement the designs? When can we expect the first ID publications in actual science journals, not vanity or popular press venues?

  18. “Once specified complexity tells us that something is designed, there is nothing to stop us from inquiring into its production. A design inference therefore does not avoid the problem of how a designing intelligence might have produced an object. It simply makes it a separate question.”-Wm. Dembski- pg 112 of No Free Lunch

    Stonehenge- design determined; further research to establish how, by whom, why and when.

    Nasca Plain, Peru- design determined; further research to establish how, by whom, why and when.

    Puma Punku- design determined; further research to establish how, by whom, why and when.

    Any artifact (archeology/ anthropology)- design determined; further research to establish how, by whom, why and when- that is unless we have direct observation and/ or designer input.

    Fire investigation- if arson is determined (ie design); further research to establish how, by whom, why and when- that is unless we have direct observation and/ or designer input.

    An artifact does not stop being an artifact just because we do not know who, what, when, where, why and how. But it would be stupid to dismiss the object as being an artifact just because no one was up to the task of demonstrating a method of production and/ or the designing agent.

    And even if we did determine a process by which the object in question may have been produced it does not follow that it will be the process used.

  19. Frankie: What do you mean by “now”? Dembski et al have been making that claim for a couple of decades, at least. Read “No Free Lunch”- the process always comes after design has been detected

    Then logically, since ID has no process no design has ever been detected in the last couple of decades ,its claim that design is the best explanation for the some physical features is unsubstantiated since no design has been detected.

    Look newton, it is clear that you don’t know jack about ID nor evolutionism. Perhaps you should start by reading about tem from the experts on either side. I am not here to continually correct your ID PRATTs.

    You wanted to debate the merits of ID and evolution, I just choose another premise. A non mechanistic one.

    But since you claimed you can detect design in the visual system, you should be at the point of detecting the process per ID protocol. What is the process for doing that?

  20. newton: Then logically, since ID has no process no design has ever been detected in the last couple of decades

    What? ID has a process for detecting design and design has been detected

    You wanted to debate the merits of ID and evolution, I just choose another premise. A non mechanistic one.

    But yours is the mechanistic claim

    But since you claimed you can detect design in the visual system, you should be at the point of detecting the process per ID protocol. What is the process for doing that?

    It is in the post how to test Intelligent Design- search the blog for it.

    But again all of this has been spelled out in the pro-ID literature. You are supposed to know and understand your opponent’s position before getting into a discussion- and yes I know quite a bit about evolutionism having read the books of Darwin, Dawkins, Mayr, Gould, Jones and many, many other evolutionary biologists. I will take my knowledge of evolution over the evos here. Heck some/ most/ all didn’t understand that evolution posited blind watchmaker mechanisms until I referenced Coyne saying it.

  21. adapa, respond to the OP. Your questions are irrelevant . ID is not beholden to your asinine agenda.

  23. Frankie: My challenge is disingenuous because you and yours can’t support the claims of your position? How does that work?

    Your challenge is disingenuous because there is nothing you will accept as refuting your position.

  24. Frankie:
    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?

    Nothing you say matters, Frankie.

  26. keiths: To anyone, as far as I can tell.

    Frankie, can you point to anyone that you’ve converted from an evolutionist using your “arguments”?

  27. Frankie: But those reviews have been shown to be nonsense.

    LOL! No they haven’t! You provided one guy’s critique of one of many criticisms. Even that one critique hardly rises to the level of valid.

    But of course, your claim of nonsense is simple to refute from another angle: any scientists or other research reference Gonzalez’s work? Why no! So much for having an impact on science.

    They don’t even criticize the arguments made

    Gonzalez et al didn’t make any grand arguments. They engaged in question begging and special pleading. All that anyone needs to do is note that and move on.

    It is actually science. Your opinion means nothing

    “Science” no one cares about or uses in any scientific capacity. And of course, my opinion here really doesn’t matter, but then neither does yours. What matters in scientists’ opinions in the world of research. And there, Gonzalez’ opinions of our planet’s uniqueness is not used or cared about. So really, whatever you argue about it is rather moot…

    Nonsense- read Principia. And I know what Newton said and it refutes your claim

    LOL! Newton’s word refute your claim Joe. Nice own goal there!

    And if they are now too bad because they are being challenged.

    What, you mean like Dover? Freshwater? How’s that working out?

    That is what ID is all about, duh.

    Yes, just a lot of blather and and attempts to circumvent honest education. Hence the reason we keep arguing against it.

    Look why did Darwin have to write his book if blind and mindless processes ruled science back then? He wrote his book to try to contradict Paley. If you are right then he should have just claimed what you said.

    Darwin wrote about a mechanical process, just like Einstein, Newton, Watson and Crick, Curie, Boyle, Galileo, and a slew of other scientists. Darwin didn’t deny that he felt there was a god of some kind, but he recognized – like all other actual scientists – that any processes such a god put in place run on their own. So he explained the processes, noting that no intervention…no “intelligence” or “purpose” or “immaterial” entities were needed for the processes to work.

    That’s how science works.

    Obviously you don’t know what you are talking about. And you cannot support your claim with any references

    …says the guy who doesn’t understand science and can’t seem to provide any references for his claims…

    ID doesn’t require gods nor the supernatural. You cannot model reality if said reality is as you say. No one knows how to model the claim that blind and mindless processes produce vision systems. Yet genetic algorithms model evolution via intelligent design.

    Don’t have to model “blind watchmaker” anything; we just model the material processes. There’s nothing else to model.

    Like E=MC^2…no “purposeful” or “immaterial” factors are required.

    And you need to provide references to support your claims, which you haven’t

    …says the guy with no references…

    Nonsense. Look you think that you are some sort of an authority and you are not.

    …says the guy who isn’t an authority…

    You can’t support your claims and I am more than OK with that.

    If that were the case, you wouldn’t repeatedly post your debunked nonsense.

    Now address the OP or admit that all you have are rhetorical games that you cannot support

    Already addressed. You have yet to actually address, let alone refute, my original comment.

  28. Patrick: Your challenge is disingenuous because there is nothing you will accept as refuting your position.

    Nonsense, I will accept any and all evidence that you can muster. It isn’t my fault that you and yours cannot test the claims of your position.

    And BTW I never aid I would be the sole judge.

  30. Robin,

    And more nonsense and nothing that addresses the OP.

    Look Robin you can’t support your claim about science and Newton refutes you.

    I will take my knowledge of science over yours any and every day.

  31. Robin,

    Robin quoted Newton:

    We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
    – Isaac Newton

    And it is true but it does NOT support Robin’s claim that the foundation of science is blind mindless purposeless processes. What Newton says is that if those processes cannot account for what is being investigated we add another causal agency.

  32. Frankie runs from all questions about his ID claims. Just as he’s done the last 11 years . No surprises there !

  34. Frankie: That doesn’t follow and borders on the moronic. Why does the NCSE only fight for evolutionism?

    Because creationists only complain about evolution as if it’s some exception to the way the rest of science is done. It isn’t. That’s the point.

    There is no “blind watchmaker fluid dynamics”; there is no “blind watchmaker gravity”; there is no “blind watchmaker electro-magnetic behavior” and there is no “blind watchmaker evolution”. All science approaches research with the understanding that only the material can be studied. Anything else is outside science’s purview.

    Again, gravity is evidence for ID and no amount of whining will ever change that. Thermodynamics is also evidence for design. That is why I don’t rail against them. Now if materialists want to claim them as their own they have to do better than “:They just are(the way they are)”

    If that’s your take, then ID can’t be science! Evidence isn’t science, Joe. You really want to go that route?

    And more unsupportable nonsense

    LOL!

  37. Robin: Because creationists only complain about evolution as if it’s some exception to the way the rest of science is done. It isn’t. That’s the point.

    It is because it is such an easy target. It makes untestable claims. Science requires testability

    There is no “blind watchmaker fluid dynamics”; there is no “blind watchmaker gravity”; there is no “blind watchmaker electro-magnetic behavior” and there is no blind watchmaker evolution”.

    Coyne and Dawkins disagree with you. Seeing they are evolutionary biologists they trump you

    All science approaches research with the understanding that only the material can be studied.

    Umm the design is material

    If that’s your take, then ID can’t be science!

    That doesn’t follow. Try to make your case

    Evidence isn’t science

    I didn’t say that it is. Scientific concepts require evidentiary support, Robin. Without evidence you don’t have anything.

    There isn’t a definition of science tat supports your claim about it. Wikipedia doesn’t support. You jusy made it up and are doubling down on that unsupported claim.

  38. Robon’s claim that I dispute and Robin cannot support:

    As noted, all scientific explanations imply all systems are a product of unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes.

    No, that is only the starting point

    There’s no reason to include any concept of intelligence, purpose, guidance, or immaterial properties if the system models work fine without such

    And that is true but what happens when the system models don’t work fine without such? As Newton said we add it to the mix.

    The point is there isn’t any model of biological evolution that uses unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes. There aren’t any testable hypotheses using it either. It doesn’t work, Robin.

  39. Frankie: Coyne and Dawkins disagree with you. Seeing they are evolutionary biologists they trump you

    They also disagree with you regarding the evidence for Intelligent Design in biology. Seeing as they are actual biologists presumably they trump you.

  40. Frankie: It is because it is such an easy target. It makes untestable claims.

    Funny how creationists have been completely unable to demonstrate this. Almost like they don’t have any actual basis for their claims…

    Science requires testability

    So true. So where are those tests for ID? Oh…riiiight…there aren’t any…

    Coyne and Dawkins disagree with you.

    No they don’t. They use the phrase “blind watchmaker” to mock creationist arguments concerning the need for “purpose” and “intelligence” and “guidance”. As they note, evolution does not need any of that nonsense.

    Seeing they are evolutionary biologists they trump you

    No, they simply trump you.

    Umm the design is material

    Well then, you’ve got nothing to complain about, do you?

    Do get back to me when you have some material design that isn’t human in origin though.

    That doesn’t follow. Try to make your case

    Evidence isn’t science, Joe. Evidence, by itself, doesn’t mean anything. So simply stating that “thermodynamics” or “electromagnetism” supports ID, means ID isn’t science. So sorry…

    I didn’t say that it is. Scientific concepts require evidentiary support, Robin. Without evidence you don’t have anything.

    But you don’t have anything BUT said evidence, so ID amounts to nothing.

    There isn’t a definition of science tat supports your claim about it. Wikipedia doesn’t support. You jusy made it up and are doubling down on that unsupported claim.

    LOL! You’re really struggling Joe!

    In 1877,[20] Charles Sanders Peirce (/ˈpɜːrs/ like “purse”; 1839–1914) characterized inquiry in general not as the pursuit of truth per se but as the struggle to move from irritating, inhibitory doubts born of surprises, disagreements, and the like, and to reach a secure belief, belief being that on which one is prepared to act. He framed scientific inquiry as part of a broader spectrum and as spurred, like inquiry generally, by actual doubt, not mere verbal or hyperbolic doubt, which he held to be fruitless.[91] He outlined four methods of settling opinion, ordered from least to most successful:

    The method of tenacity (policy of sticking to initial belief) – which brings comforts and decisiveness but leads to trying to ignore contrary information and others’ views as if truth were intrinsically private, not public. It goes against the social impulse and easily falters since one may well notice when another’s opinion is as good as one’s own initial opinion. Its successes can shine but tend to be transitory.[92]
    The method of authority – which overcomes disagreements but sometimes brutally. Its successes can be majestic and long-lived, but it cannot operate thoroughly enough to suppress doubts indefinitely, especially when people learn of other societies present and past.
    The method of the a priori – which promotes conformity less brutally but fosters opinions as something like tastes, arising in conversation and comparisons of perspectives in terms of “what is agreeable to reason.” Thereby it depends on fashion in paradigms and goes in circles over time. It is more intellectual and respectable but, like the first two methods, sustains accidental and capricious beliefs, destining some minds to doubt it.
    The scientific method – the method wherein inquiry regards itself as fallible and purposely tests itself and criticizes, corrects, and improves itself.

    Peirce held that slow, stumbling ratiocination can be dangerously inferior to instinct and traditional sentiment in practical matters, and that the scientific method is best suited to theoretical research,[93] which in turn should not be trammeled by the other methods and practical ends; reason’s “first rule” is that, in order to learn, one must desire to learn and, as a corollary, must not block the way of inquiry.[94] The scientific method excels the others by being deliberately designed to arrive – eventually – at the most secure beliefs, upon which the most successful practices can be based. Starting from the idea that people seek not truth per se but instead to subdue irritating, inhibitory doubt, Peirce showed how, through the struggle, some can come to submit to truth for the sake of belief’s integrity, seek as truth the guidance of potential practice correctly to its given goal, and wed themselves to the scientific method.[20][23]

    For Peirce, rational inquiry implies presuppositions about truth and the real; to reason is to presuppose (and at least to hope), as a principle of the reasoner’s self-regulation, that the real is discoverable and independent of our vagaries of opinion. In that vein he defined truth as the correspondence of a sign (in particular, a proposition) to its object and, pragmatically, not as actual consensus of some definite, finite community (such that to inquire would be to poll the experts), but instead as that final opinion which all investigators would reach sooner or later but still inevitably, if they were to push investigation far enough, even when they start from different points.[95] In tandem he defined the real as a true sign’s object (be that object a possibility or quality, or an actuality or brute fact, or a necessity or norm or law), which is what it is independently of any finite community’s opinion and, pragmatically, depends only on the final opinion destined in a sufficient investigation. That is a destination as far, or near, as the truth itself to you or me or the given finite community. Thus, his theory of inquiry boils down to “Do the science.” Those conceptions of truth and the real involve the idea of a community both without definite limits (and thus potentially self-correcting as far as needed) and capable of definite increase of knowledge.[96] As inference, “logic is rooted in the social principle” since it depends on a standpoint that is, in a sense, unlimited.[97]

    Paying special attention to the generation of explanations, Peirce outlined the scientific method as a coordination of three kinds of inference in a purposeful cycle aimed at settling doubts, as follows (in §III–IV in “A Neglected Argument”[6] except as otherwise noted):

    And

    Philosophic versus scientific views of scientific evidence

    The philosophical community has investigated the logical requirements for scientific evidence by examination of the relationship between evidence and hypotheses, in contrast to scientific approaches which focus on the candidate facts and their context.[8] Bechtel, as an example of a scientific approach, provides factors (clarity of the data, replication by others, consistency with results arrived at by alternative methods and consistency with plausible theories) useful for determination of whether observations may be considered scientific evidence.[9]

    There are a variety of philosophical approaches to decide whether an observation may be considered evidence; many of these focus on the relationship between the evidence and the hypothesis. Carnap recommends distinguishing such approaches into three categories: classificatory (whether the evidence confirms the hypothesis), comparative (whether the evidence supports a first hypothesis more than an alternative hypothesis) or quantitative (the degree to which the evidence supports a hypothesis).[10] Achinstein provides a concise presentation by prominent philosophers on evidence, including Carl Hempel (Confirmation), Nelson Goodman (of grue fame), R. B. Braithwaite, Norwood Russell Hanson, Wesley C. Salmon, Clark Glymour and Rudolf Carnap.[11]

    Based on the philosophical assumption of the Strong Church-Turing Universe Thesis, a mathematical criterion for evaluation of evidence has been conjectured, with the criterion having a resemblance to the idea of Occam’s Razor that the simplest comprehensive description of the evidence is most likely correct. It states formally, “The ideal principle states that the prior probability associated with the hypothesis should be given by the algorithmic universal probability, and the sum of the log universal probability of the model plus the log of the probability of the data given the model should be minimized.”[12]

    According to the posted curriculum for an “Understanding Science 101” course taught at University of California – Berkeley: “Testing hypotheses and theories is at the core of the process of science.” This philosophical belief in “hypothesis testing” as the essence of science is prevalent among both scientists and philosophers. It is important to note that this hypothesis does not take into account all of the activities or scientific objectives of all scientists. When Geiger and Marsden scattered alpha particles through thin gold foil for example, the resulting data enabled their experimental adviser, Ernest Rutherford, to very accurately calculate the mass and size of an atomic nucleus for the first time. No hypothesis was required. It may be that a more general view of science is offered by physicist, Lawrence Krauss, who consistently writes in the media about scientists answering questions by measuring physical properties and processes.

    You’re simply wrong Joe.

  42. Robin: Funny how creationists have been completely unable to demonstrate this. Almost like they don’t have any actual basis for their claims…

    OK Robin tell us how to test the claim that vision systems arose via blind and mindless processes. There isn’t anything in peer-review so what do you have?

    Do get back to me when you have some material design that isn’t human in origin though.

    Living organisms, including the genetic code- for a start

    So simply stating that “thermodynamics” or “electromagnetism” supports ID, means ID isn’t science

    The case has been made several times.

    And your quote-mines don’t support you. Try to make a case, Robin

  43. Robin: Things like “unguided”, “purposelessness”, “unintelligent” and “immaterial” are not claims of evolutionary theory; they are the foundations of scientific understanding.

    The immaterial is one of the foundations of scientific understanding. I agree.

  44. Hey Richie- any chance of you supporting you totally BS view of the parking lot story? Or is blatant BS all you have?

  46. Robin: “Testing hypotheses and theories is at the core of the process of science.”

    And that is exactly what I have been saying. There isn’t any way to test the claim that blind and mindless process produced life and its diversity. Robin may disagree but will never uncover a methodology to do so

  47. Robin: And since my argument is based on the fact that the book is not actually science, isn’t presented as peer-reviewed research in a scientific publication, and isn’t accepted by the scientific community as science, the actual content of the book is irrelevant to the point.

    But your argument isn’t presented as peer-reviewed research in a scientific publication, and isn’t accepted by the scientific community as science either. So we’ll just say you’re engaged in question-begging and special pleading!

    Isn’t this fun?

  49. Frankie: So it’s OK for evos to attack me but not OK if I respond in kind? Really?

    They’re provoking you. Put them on Ignore.

  50. Patrick: Your challenge is disingenuous because there is nothing you will accept as refuting your position.

    Now that’s a disingenuous claim!

Leave a Reply