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…
I just read the transcript and it doesn’t help you, Robin. Any more bluffs?
You keep repeating this, yet oddly can’t seem to provide anything that substantiates it.
Context Joe, context. Read for comprehension.
‘Fraid not Joe. If ID and TPP are against using “unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes” as a basis their explanations, then they aren’t science. See the Dover verdict. Behe tried, and was overruled, on trying to redefine science such that it could include astrology, remember. So much for ID…
Then stop trying to inject dogma into it. ID is nothing but dogma.
LOL! The Hard-Weinberg Equation has nothing to do with genetic algorithms Joe. You might want to work on that reading comprehension thing…
But ID offers no hypotheses about said design, does not test anything about design, and does not model the design process. Thus, not science.
LOL! You keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile, ID remains…oh…not science and TPP an obscure, ignored concept.
LOL! It’s not up to me Joe. I’m merely pointing out why science rejects ID.
Reference please…
Already provided Joe. See Hardy-Weinberg Equation link.
Observations of life?
I did provide references to support my claim- YOU have failed to support yours
The context was kept- look you talked about the divine and ID doesn’t need it
That is false and isn’t even the point. You said IDists weren’t doing something that they obviously are doing. You lose
You are the one injecting dogma into science, Robin. Methodological naturalism is dogma
That is your ignorant opinion
Again genetic algorithms model evolution by means of intelligent design
I didn’t say they did. I was just saying that evolution by means of intelligent design is modelled by GAs
Except ID has testable hypotheses, ID tests everything about the design and the process of design is modelled by GAs
OK Robin’s bullshit about the foundation is science has been refuted.
I don’t have to, Robin. It is obvious that you cannot support what you post
Science doesn’t reject ID- only scientists on an agenda reject ID
Except ID has all of those.
We are still waiting on all of yours.
OTOH no one knows how to model blind and mindless process producing irreducible complexity.
I saw it. It doesn’t address IC
Of the scientific literature
Robin has failed to support its claims about the alleged foundation of science. OTOH I have provided references that contradict Robin’s claims. Robin just ignores them and repeats the same refuted nonsense.
Typical but still pathetic
And still no link to this alleged scientific theory of evolution. It’s as if my claim is absolutely correct- there isn’t a scientific theory of evolution.
Just curious what would satisfy you, could you link the scientific theory of ID?
Nope…that would be special pleading Joe. Science has to deal with all subjects using the same methodology.
Nope, totally relevant. It’s why ID lost in Dover.
To mock the silly creationist claims that things like “intelligence, purpose, and immaterial elements” are so obviously a part of human creation. They aren’t and they are totally unnecessary to consider when doing science.
Methinks you need a new shtick…
You might want to brush up on your SETI reading there Joe. Radio signal analysis is only a part of what they do.
“Frankie: What I said(Except ID has all of those. OTOH no one knows how to model blind and mindless process producing irreducible complexity) is based on observations( of scientific literature )and experiences. You can refute it by showing that blind and mindless process can be modelled producing IC.”
No scientific literature says features you consider as IC were the result of evolution?
I did provide a reference Joe. Here’s another:
You said the THEORY excluded humans as ETs- try again- and I said I READ Dawkins not watched his you tube videos
Bullshit- pure unadulterated bullshit
LoL! ID didn’t lose in Dover. The judge was fooled by lies, misrepresentations and literature bluffs.ID wasn’t fazed at all by the erroneous decision, which was based on the religiousness of the school board.
After you…
Blind and mindless processes- do TRY to follow along
BWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I asked for a link to the ak\alleged scientific theory of evolution and Robin links to Dawkins talking about ET
Obviously evos have serious thinking issues
LOL! You have yet to rebut a single point I and all other folks have made Joe. Simply declaring your point stands when actual science moves on without your input is highly amusing in its illustration of cluelessness.
All evidence to the contrary of course. YOU never addressed the OP. YOU tried to go around it by spewing unsupportable nonsense about the alleged foundations of science.
The cluelessness is all yours, Robin.
Which neatly disproves your claim that they have never said anything about ET. Shame you are not sufficiently man to admit that.
The dogma of ID.
I just did.
That would be your opinion, but alas, that doesn’t count for much…
When you provide some evidence Joe, you let me know…
LOL! No it’s not.
LOL! You’re a riot Joe!
OK so Robin cannot link to the alleged scientific theory of evolution and that means Robin cannot support its claim about human ETs
Robin cannot support its claims with respect to the alleged foundations of science
Robin’s claim that IDists don’t argue about blind and mindless producing the solar system has been refuted by “The Privileged Planet”- and that stands regardless of how Robin feels about the book- ID does NOT just target biological evolution.
Every reference Robin has provided has failed to support Robin’s claims.
That bit of nonsense is proven false by the very existence of “The Privileged Planet”, the writings of walter Bradley and the book “the Nature of Nature”.
LoL! Of course it is. They prove IDists are doing what you claimed we are not. Obviously you have other issues, Robin.
Oh that’s irony, Joe! If only you would read it.
So, they won?
What dogma am I embracing? The dogma of open science?
And yet ID isn’t dogma. You have to actually make a case, Robin
Try making a case that I embrace dogma, Robin, I dare you.
LoL! Merely repeating your ignorant spewage does not amount to making a case
OTOH methodological naturalism is a dogma and Robin embraces it with open arms.
It fits the definition of dogma- you lose
Already have. Thanks for proving that you are incapable of assessing evidence, Robin
dogma- a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
That is exactly what methodological naturalism is
Balls in your court Joe: where are the supposed hypotheses, testing, and modeling? Can’t shown them, then ID isn’t science. It’s just dogma. Done.
Your opinion on that doesn’t count for anything Joe.
Which is false and doesn’t address the Hardy-Weinberg Equation.
But…what the heck…let’s run with your silly claim. In order for it to mean anything in terms of science, you’ll have to show:
1) The ID hypothesis for GAs
2) The testing of that hypothesis
3) The model that illustrates ID
Simply stating that “evolution by means of Intelligent design is modelled(sic) by GAs” is meaningless.
None anyone I know has every seen. Reference please…
LOL! Sure. Reference please…
That’s a meaningless statement as phrased.
<blockquote:I don’t have to, Robin. It is obvious that you cannot support what you post
Science as practiced by actual scientists supports my post Joe. The fact that ID isn’t practiced at all and its concepts aren’t used in any areas of scientific research supports my post as well.
Sure Joe…so all of actual science rejects ID then? Glad we agree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_bodies_explicitly_rejecting_intelligent_design
It doesn’t have to. IC isn’t science Joe.
Awww…it’s hard to be Joe…
That you don’t understand what a theory is Joe is not my problem.
Awww…so hard to be Joe…
Let me know when you provide an valid rebuttal Joe.
It’s called the Scientific Method Joe. Perhaps you’ve heard of it.
LOL! You keep telling yourself that. Maybe ID can hire Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf to be their spokesman on that…
My shtick is the science performed in hundreds of thousands of institutions all over the world providing insight into the “unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material” workings of the world and universe. It’s a pretty good shtick.
PRATT Joe. Once again, that you don’t understand what theory means is not my problem.
Oh I think Dover did a fine job of illustrating ID’s dogma. But, more importantly, the scientific community found ID to be dogma. What are you gonna do?
…says the man who keeps repeating ignorant spewage…
Well gosh Joe…you could always try and convince science of that. I doubt any actual scientists will buy your argument, but hey…you can’t succeed if you don’t try.
Or maybe you could bring a case to the courts. They’re all about squashing dogma in science. You know…like what they did with Dover…
…says the man who continues to demonstrate he doesn’t know what “theory” means…
LOL! You’ll need to work on that a bit Joe. What authority is laying down methodological naturalism as incontrovertibly true?
That is what you whole premise is based on. You’re saying that science can only deal with blind, mindless, purposeless, unguided processes. That means you are saying that it is incontrovertibly true that science can only investigate any phenomena under that “truth”.
LoL! I know Dover did no such thing.
Look ID is OPEN to any causal possibility as long as the claims are testable. In contrast methodological naturalism is CLOSED to all causal possibilities that are not blind, mindless, purposeless and unguided.
Bullshit
What? There isn’t anything in the definition of science that entails only considering blind, mindless, purposeless and unguided processes.
Again with your nonsensical opinion. Alan and I have been over this already- he lost too.
Thank you for proving my point. You don’t have any idea what a scientific theory entails. Alan Fox and I have been over this and we both agreed what it entails.
Look Robin, your first grade tactics and schoolyard taunts just demonstrate desperation. But I know those tactics are all you have.
I am comforted by the fact that if this was an open debate being judged by an impartial jury, you would have been laughed out of it.
Someone like you cannot bully me, Robin. And seeing that you cannot support your diatribe and you refuse to address the OP, what else do you have? I predict more of the same
I’d can’t “lose” if it never gets off the ground to begin with.
As well, ID can’t be tested if it makes no testable predictions.
But I’m not an authority Joe. You said so yourself.
Yep, currently that’s the case. Until someone can come up with a way to test the alternative within the scientific method, science has no way of evaluating anything other than blind, mindless, purposeless, and unguided processes. Alas, ID does not currently offer such a way. Perhaps somewhere down the road, some brilliant ID proponent will come along and provide such a tool that can be used in the scientific method.
That would be incorrect Joe. See above.
IC is an OBSERVATION, Robin. And seeing that OBSEVATIONs are fundamental to science you prove once again that you do not grasp the concept. And scientific bodies are made up of BIASED people, Robin. It is those biased people who reject ID all the while demonstrating ignorance of what ID says
I know but it is still your entire argument. That and the refuted nonsense that ID only cares about biological evolution.
You’re saying that science can only deal with blind, mindless, purposeless, unguided processes.
No it’s only your opinion
That is bullshit as Sean Carroll pointed out. We have ways of evaluating anything other than blind, mindless, purposeless, and unguided processes. Archaeology and forensic science employ those methods.
So all you can do is mindlessly repeat your oft-refuted diatribe? Really?
LOL! The law, science administrations, and education institutions beg to differ…
The Dover verdict begs to differ…
No really…just check the link.
I never said there was Joe. See above.
Umm, Robin, GAs employ a goal-oriented targeted search. That is a guided, mindful, insightful and purposeful process. That is what ID says about evolution- it is guided and most mutations are not accidents, errors and mistakes.
Then you haven’t read all of the people who said that Jones blew it and went too far
Look ID is OPEN to any causal possibility as long as the claims are testable. In contrast methodological naturalism is CLOSED to all causal possibilities that are not blind, mindless, purposeless and unguided.
The verdict never said anything about that
There isn’t anything in the definition of science that entails only considering blind, mindless, purposeless and unguided processes.
Then shut up about it. Stop saying it is the fundamental or a foundation of science when it isn’t
Joe, if you’re not going to address the substance of what I post, there’s nothing for me to respond to.
I am still waiting for the scientific theory of evolution. I need to see what you will accept for evidence. Otherwise you will just keep denying what I provide is a testable hypothesis all the while what I provide will be better than anything your position does
LoL! Your posts don’t contain any substance, Robin. That is the whole freaking point. If this was an open debate in front of an impartial panel you would have been tossed out long ago.
The only reason you can persist is due to the heavy bias of the moderators.