muse@nature.com: The Tyranny of Design

Cohen argues that the fallacy in the Intelligent-Design argument about the flagellar motor (or any other system), is that proponents present the motor we see as The Motor, the exemplar, the only one possible, and, what's more the best possible, surely optimized by a Designing Hand. But when Cohen searched the literature, he found that a wide variety of flagellar motors have been described, each arranged in its own way, each its own solution to effective rotary motion in the microworld. There is no such thing as The Motor, no Platonic perfection enforced on bacteria by Divine fiat. Instead we see ad hoc solutions that are not perfect, but idiosyncratic and eclectic -- just what you would expect if evolution were working on its own, without a Designer.

Yes, Intelligent Design is so flexible that it can encompass almost anything. I agree thouhg that Cohen's argument may not be the strongest argument against ID (ID's failure at the theoretical and practical levels are far more compelling). But what Cohen has shown is that life is far better explained by science than by theology. Why would a 'designer' reinvent the wheel time after time? In fact, when looking at cars we notice that most engines are very similar. They all are based on a fossil fuel, have fuel injection mechanisms, a spark plug, cylinders. While we see some slight variation we also notice that the motor is quite limited in its variation. Of course we see how multiple designers can accomplish larger variations but I doubt that the multiple designer idea is going to be well received by creationists.
Once again, an evolutionary explanation seems far more plausible than an appeal to our ignorance. Sigh...

Despite the fact that ID is scientifically dead, it seems that some strongly hold on to Dembski's futile attempts to reliably detect design and consider (complex specified) information in life to be a problem for evolutionary theory. Of course, we on Panda's Thumb have the luxury of being exposed to the facts and have come to realize that the concepts of ID are not only theoretically flawed, but empirically meaningless.

We learned to dissect The Dogfish, The Frog, The Rat, as if each one was the only possible example of its kind.

(While criticizing the exageration of some popular accounts, allow me a tangential excursion to express a pet peeve. I relied upon primary, technical literature for all my descriptions, but I began by reading several popular renditions. All versions written for nonscientists speak of fused males as the curious tale of the anglerfish--just as we so often hear about the monkey swinging through the trees, or the worm burrowing through soil. But if nature teaches any lesson, it louldly proclaims life's diversity. There ain't no such abstraction as the clam, the fly, or the anglerfish. Ceratioid anglerfishes come in nearly 100 species, and each has its own peculiarity. Fused males have not evolved in all species. In some, males attach temporarily, presumable at times of spawning, but never fuse. In others, some males fuse and others become sexually mature while retaining their bodily independence. In still others, fusion is obligatory. In one species of obligate fusers, no sexually mature female has ever been found without an attached male--and the stimulus provided by male hormones may be a prequisite for maturation. These obligate fusers have become the paradigm for popular descriptions of the anglerfish, but they do not represent the majority of ceratioid species.... If all fishes either had totally independent or completely fused males, then how could we even imagine an evolutionary transition... But the abundance of structurally intermediate stages...conveys an evolutionary message...

In fact, when looking at cars we notice that most engines are very similar. They all are based on a fossil fuel, have fuel injection mechanisms, a spark plug, cylinders. While we see some slight variation we also notice that the motor is quite limited in its variation.

Mayr's What Evolution Is has a great discussion showing that Darwin was the first to think of species (and other biological terms) as populations rather than typologies. We often don't realize at all how far-reaching this insight is.

But when Wagner searched the literature, he found that a wide variety of automobile motors have been described (Diesel, Wankel, Piston), each arranged in its own way, each its own solution to effective rotary motion in the autoworld. There is no such thing as The Motor, no Platonic perfection enforced on cars by Divine fiat. Instead we see ad hoc solutions that are not perfect, but idiosyncratic and eclectic -- just what you would expect if motor design were working on its own, without a Designer.

— Charlie Wagner

Charlie: So I guess we better just forget about electric cars or nuclear powered cars . . . or hydrogen fuel cells either for that matter.

Nuclear powered cars??? So is Charlie proposing many designers for the flagellar motors? I doubt that multiple designers would be an acceptable solution to creationists. What about it Charlie? Are you accepting multiple designers? Or a fumbling single designer? As I said, the flagellum does not present for much of an intelligent design idea. But then again, ID is fundamentally flawed at a theoretical level, we may as well add theologically flawed.

So is Charlie proposing many designers for the flagellar motors? I doubt that multiple designers would be an acceptable solution to creationists. What about it Charlie? Are you accepting multiple designers? Or a fumbling single designer?

Charlie: Well, since I'm not a creationist, it doesn't really matter to me if there is one or a hundred designers.

But it surely makes a ID even more intractable

So is Charlie proposing many designers for the flagellar motors? I doubt that multiple designers would be an acceptable solution to creationists. What about it Charlie? Are you accepting multiple designers?

But it surely makes a ID even more intractable

Mayr's What Evolution Is has a great discussion showing that Darwin was the first to think of species (and other biological terms) as populations rather than typologies. We often don't realize at all how far-reaching this insight is.

— Frank Schmidt

I might also modestly point out that Multiple Designers Theory has a research methodology that has produced more actual data than current Dembski/Behe-style Single-Unembodied-Designer ID (SUDID_ research in spite of the latter having a large head start.

RBH

Not at all. Since we know nothing at all about the nature of the designer or the mechanism by which it is implemented, we are open to all possibilities.

— Charlie

Charlie Wagner's point, if I understand him, is that because of the similarities between man-made machines and living orgainisms, we should form similar conclusions about their genesis. That is, if we can conclude that machines are "designed", then we should be able to use the same reasoning to conclude that life is "designed".

Or, to put the argument another way, machines and life have similar features, and when we see those features in a machine we assume that it was designed, therefore when we see those same features in a living thing we ought to assume that it too was designed.

The problem with that argument is that there are no internal features of man-made machines that lead us to conclude that they were designed, since we already know they are designed without any examination of their workings.

If there was a machine like a car or a computer, but it could reproduce like a living orgainism, we might well assume that it was evolved, not designed (until we found evidence otherwise). So it isn't true that the features of a machine that are similar to features of living organisms are used to conclude that the machine was designed.

Exactly, because the designer argument is unconstrained it is meaningless, anything goes. Which is why it makes it ID even more irrelevant. Unless we can constrain ID in some manner of course. But that seems unlikely given that ID is all about an omnipotent designer, now isn't it?

The problem with that argument is that there are no internal features of man-made machines that lead us to conclude that they were designed, since we already know they are designed without any examination of their workings.

Isaiah, I think you raise some interesting points.

A lot of creationists point to all these teleological things and say, Ah! we recognize this was designed for some purpose, is how we know something was designed by man, therefore intelligence, so anything which looks teleological must have been designed by an intelligence also.
Stupid for many reasons. One of the more obvious reasons is, we can recognize things which were designed by man even if we have no idea what it's function is, what processes it uses, and what overall system is created. For instance, you're walking in the desert and you see a somewhat rectangular box composed of steel, inside which is a mangled, random, rusty collection of pieces of metal and plastic which superficially resemble machined parts. You don't know anything about the structure, function, or system here, and nothing about its origin. But you'd conclude without thinking, this is obviously man-made.
Like I've said before, identifying design is just a heuristic which depends on ways of loosely matching known creators with known created objects, and even then is capable of failing. The anthropocentric examples creationists use only work because you already know humans, they don't work like creationists think, and even then they could fail any number of ways.

No, it is not. Please confine yourself to what I actually say, not what you think I mean. My argument is very clear and specific: complex, highly organised systems such as are found in living organisms could not have bootstrapped themselves into exitence without the assistance of intelligent input. Now we know what intelligence is, and we can measure it to some degree, so let's stick with that. I'm not making any claims about designers or their possible nature. In fact, I don't like to even use the word "design" anymore.

— charlie

There are distinctive features that lead us to conclude that man-made machines and living organisms are the result of intelligent input. They display multiple structures and multiple processes with multiple functions. And these structures, processes and functions are all integrated in such a way as to support each other and to support the overall function of the system. These qualities are only found in intelligently guided entities irrespective of whether or not they are "man-made".

— charlie

They display multiple structures and multiple processes with multiple functions. And these structures, processes and functions are all integrated in such a way as to support each other and to support the overall function of the system. These qualities are only found in intelligently guided entities irrespective of whether or not they are "man-made".

— Charlie Wagner

That is merely appeal to analogy which suffers from the simple problem that such structures can arise naturally as well.

Unless of course Charlie accepts that natural selection can not be ruled out as an intelligent designer.

Natural selection can be ruled out as an intelligent designer. It can only work on already existing variation and has no creative power of its own.

— Charlie

Random processes can never produce functional systems because only a designer can know what the intent of the system is and only the designer can determine whether the system is doing what it was intended to do.

— Charlie

"Now we know what intelligence is, and we can measure it to some degree, so let's stick with that."

Things I know about intelligence:

(1) a property of animal central nervous systems
(2) ...?

Will Charlie be willing to look at the work by Schneider, Adami, Lenski and many others who have shown contrary to Charlie's beliefs that natural selection can be an excellent designer?

they have attacked a strawman argument of their own creation. They seek to explain complexity, when complexity is not the issue.

A couple of points to consider:

It's conceivable that the authors are addressing arguments of Dembski et alia , rather than Wagner et nemo , and "complexity" is central to the arguments of those more prominent Paleyists, not a "strawman... of their own creation".

While I would agree that ID pretty much means whatever its proponents say it does, and that varies quite a bit, I don't think complex numbers (in the sense of "x + iy") have ever been part of the "complexity" they're talking about.

Unfortunately, this work is deeply flawed and I reject it in its entirety. The central question is: can computer simulation models yield knowledge about the real world? The answer is an emphatic no. The very best we can hope for is that a simulation model is consistent with the real world. No one could ever logically prove that a simulation model was absolutely true.

Random processes can never produce functional systems because only a designer can know what the intent of the system is and only the designer can determine whether the system is doing what it was intended to do.

Further, I point out quite correctly that an acceptance of common origins and closely related forms, in which many structures and processes are shared does not support the mechanism of variation and selection and can easily support any number of different mechanisms, including intelligent design and Lamarckism.

And all of these reports support the notion that random processes and accidental mutations are incapable of generating complex, highly organized structures, processes and adaptations in which multiple processes and multiple structures support multiple functions and are integrated into the system in such a way that the structures and processes not only support their own functions, they also support the functions of other structures and processes and the overall function of the system.

It has never been demonstrated that variation and selection has the power to create the complex structures and biochemical processes found in eyes and ears.

What mechanism explains the decreases in entropy attributed to evolution?

It depends on what mechanism you propose for speciation. If you are relying on copying errors and natural selection, I don't believe that this mechanism is adequate.

In an article in the May 8 issue of the journal Nature, Richard Lenski, Charles Ofria, Robert Pennock, and Christoph Adami report that the path to complexity is paved with a long series of simple functions, each unremarkable if viewed in isolation. This project alleges to address a fundamental criticism of the theory of evolution, that complex functions cannot arise from mutation and natural selection. Unfortunately, this work is deeply flawed and I reject it in its entirety. -CW

As I have explained at great lengths previously, what evolutionary theory has to explain is not complexity but organization, the kind of organization that is found in biological systems.

— Charlie Wagner

I would pay money to see what Chris Adami, sitting in his office at CalTech, would say about CW's rejection of his Nature paper.

I'd guess it would be something along the lines of "Who?"

I would pay money to see what Chris Adami, sitting in his office at CalTech, would say about CW's rejection of his Nature paper.

Followed perhaps by "-gives a shit? Why are you wasting my time with this?"

This is a public forum and these messages are available to anyone. Why don't you e-mail him a copy of my message and see if he wants to come here and defend his work. I'm not afraid to present my case and defend it. My opinion remains that the use of "digital organisms" to model biological evolution in nature is deeply flawed and unless he can provide compelling arguments to the contrary, it will continue to be my opinion.

Further, I point out quite correctly that an acceptance of common origins and closely related forms, in which many structures and processes are shared does not support the mechanism of variation and selection and can easily support any number of different mechanisms, including intelligent design and Lamarckism.

— Charlie Wagner

As I asked you many moons ago on talk.origins, what exactly do you mean by "common origins"?

Often I'm accused of not giving people answers, but sometimes I just don't have the answers. I only know what I know and nothing more. I just felt that the use of the terms "common descent" and "common ancestor" carried too much baggage WRT darwinian evolutionary theories and that they conjured up images that may or may not be factual and correct. I felt that saying that all living things are related and probably had a common origin would sufficiently distance me from the darwinian paradigm. I also felt that you were trying to get me to say something that I didn't want to say that might paint me into an uncomfortable corner which would be hard to extricate myself from. After considering the matter, I simply decided that the semantics were a trivial point and that it was using up a lot of discussion time that could be better applied elsewhere. Everyone knows I'm not a darwinist, so what difference does it make to call it "common descent" or "common origin"? I will simply repeat what I said above: Evidence for common descent is not evidence for evolution by variation and selection.

There's a difference between "common descent" and "common origin". I think that there's strong evidence for the latter and little evidence for the former. As I understand it, common descent means that all living organisms are the descendents of a single common ancestor from which all subsequent life forms evolved. I don't think there's much evidence for this view. Nothing that I can find in the molecular data is compelling for this claim. The molecular evidence shows a great deal of similarity among the various extant species, insofar as biochemical processes and cell structures are concerned and many of the genes are shared across a wide spectrum of species, leading one to the conclusion that all extant forms are closely related and to the suggestion that whatever process or mechanism was responsible for living organisms, they all probably had a common origin.

I prefer to use the term "common origin". I prefer to compare organisms based on the numbers of characteristics that they have in common, the more closely related being those with the most characteristics in common. I don't think we could or should draw any evolutionary implications from these comparisons. We know very little of the mechanism of evolution, and certainly what patterns we may or may not see do not speak to this question. So why not just separate the two issues? In addition, the so-called "common ancestors" are all hypothetical. Does not this have significance? It seems to indicate to me that life did not evolve from one common ancestor, traceable back to the beginning, but many common ancestors, none of which evolved from any other. The major phyla, the echinoderms, the molluscs, the arthropods, the coelenterates, the vertebrates, all stand isolated, with no apparent evolutionary connections.

OK. This could be progress. So do I understand correctly then that you do accept that the evidence is compelling for common ancestors for all vertebrates, common ancestors for all molluscs, etc, but not common ancestors between vertebrates and molluscs, e.g.?

As I understand it, common descent means that all living organisms are the descendents of a single common ancestor from which all subsequent life forms evolved. I don't think there's much evidence for this view. Nothing that I can find in the molecular data is compelling for this claim.

— Charlie

I prefer to compare organisms based on the numbers of characteristics that they have in common, the more closely related being those with the most characteristics in common.

— Charlie

No one could ever logically prove that a simulation model was absolutely true.

— Charlie

there's a difference between "common descent" and "common origin"

— Charlie

There's a difference between "common descent" and "common origin". I think that there's strong evidence for the latter and little evidence for the former.

— Charlie

Wayne, in Charlie's weird world, the hypothetical kids you mentioned probably have a 'common origin' with the adults who live in their house and look like them, but there's no evidence of 'common descent'. :-)

So do I understand correctly then that you do accept that the evidence is compelling for common ancestors for all vertebrates, common ancestors for all molluscs, etc, but not common ancestors between vertebrates and molluscs, e.g.?

So do I understand correctly then that you do accept that the evidence is compelling for common ancestors for all vertebrates, common ancestors for all molluscs, etc, but not common ancestors between vertebrates and molluscs, e.g.?

Charlie, it sounds to me that you're saying that, based on your understanding of the available evidence, you accept the reality of evolution, but remain unconvinced about the mechanisms?

Charlie, it sounds to me that you're saying that, based on your understanding of the available evidence, you accept the reality of evolution, but remain unconvinced about the mechanisms?

Charlie,

"Change over time" as opposed to what? Where are you concerning punctuated equilibium?

Where are you concerning punctuated equilibium?

Charlie: As hard as it may be for you to accept, the fact is I just don't know [whether, e.g., vertebrates share common ancestry]

That's not hard for me to accept at all. I, also, don't "know". I do find the evidence compelling, though. Common ancestry is consistent with all the evidence I'm aware of, and I haven't seen any viable alternatives offered.

Charlie,

I must ask again, then. "Change over time" as opposed to what?

I must ask again, then. "Change over time" as opposed to what?

Thanks, Charlie.

I do find the evidence compelling, though.

Charlie,

Where does the concept of Intelligent Design, or a Designer come into your view of evolution?

As hard as it may be for you to accept, the fact is I just don't know. And neither does anyone else. All we know for sure is that on a molecular level, all living organisms are related by structure and process. This leads one to the opinion that since all living things share a common biochemical platform, they probably had a common origin. We also know that the organisms of the past are somewhat different from those of the present and change can be observed over time. This is what we call evolution. Unfortunately, the evolutionary phylogenies and the mechanisms by which this was accomplished are unknown to us.

— Charlie

Charlie: the operative word is "compelling". I prefer "suggestive".

Well, OK. We all have our different thresholds of certainty. But to put things in perspective, how you feel about the evidence that there was a Roman Empire 18 or 19 centuries ago? Compelling, or suggestive? How about the evidence that the earth has been around for at least 4 billion years?

Or, to approach it from a different angle, are you aware of a scenario other than common descent (just of vertebrates, now) that is compatible with the existing evidence?

Where does the concept of Intelligent Design, or a Designer come into your view of evolution?

Thanks Charlie, but where or from whom or what do you propose that the intelligent input came/comes from? I would happily accept that life on this planet was the result of alien seeding or somesuch, but then we're left with the question of the aliens' origins.

I think Gould and Eldredge wished that they had never brought up the subject. Neither of them hardly mention it any more and a search of PubMed gives only a few dozen references, mostly historical. It's a total non-issue.

— Charlie

I don't support Intelligent Design, I support intelligent input. I don't think it's possible for complex, highly organized structures, prosseses and systems to have bootstrapped themselves into existence without intelligent input. I am not defending the Intelligent Design movement or Bill Dembski or any such organized entity.

— Charlie

Separate creation and no change over time.

— charlie

Wayne,

I believe you're misquoting Charlie. Backtrack to posts #4920, 4921, 4922, and 4932 to get the context of that answer.

I don't support Intelligent Design, I support intelligent input. I don't think it's possible for complex, highly organized structures, prosseses and systems to have bootstrapped themselves into existence without intelligent input.

Or, to approach it from a different angle, are you aware of a scenario other than common descent (just of vertebrates, now) that is compatible with the existing evidence?

Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

until it has been clearly established that the molecular distances and sequences are actually tekling us something of evolutionary significance, the serach for...

until it has been clearly established that the molecular distances and sequences are actually telling us something of evolutionary significance, the search for...

Charlie: Often the phrase "from a single common ancestor" is omitted and also any references to hypothetical mechanisms is avoided.

Even 'Charlie' Darwin considered the possibility of multiple common ancestors not implausible. And the mechanisms are hardly hypothetical as they are observed in nature. As far as phylogenies and horizontal inheritance, there are tools out there which can take into consideration these factors. Combine all the data oand one finds well supported data. To claim that such data have no evolutionary relevance is just plain silly.

Sigh

Charlie,

The intelligent input - what, who, and from where?

Even 'Charlie' Darwin considered the possibility of multiple common ancestors not implausible.

— Pim van Meurs

The intelligent input - what, who, and from where?

Charlie,

That's really amusing. You accept the reality of evolution as long as it's defined as "change over time" or "changes in the frequency of alleles in a population", and common descent and/or common origin, at the same time you reject ID but use ID rhetoric, and insist that it couldn't have happened without the input of an intelligent entity both unknown and unknowable, about whom you profess to not have a clue. That's quite a theory - I think I'll stick with Horatio's Hypothesis. It makes more sense.

I believe you're misquoting Charlie. Backtrack to posts #4920, 4921, 4922, and 4932 to get the context of that answer

— Bob M

Charlie, you say you have no clue where the "intelligent input" may come from. Can you tell us if you tell us if this "intelligent input" is supernatural or not?

I, and many others probably, are wondering where you coming from because you seem delibrately vague at times.

I find it strange that you would be very opinionated in so much of your views then say "Not a clue . . . " on a question about the intelligent input.

Basically I'm an agnostic panspermist and a scientist who believes that just-so stories are not appropriate in science.

And I'm an agnostic scientist who believes that panspermia is a just-so story.

Charlie:
Basically I'm an agnostic panspermist and a scientist who believes that just-so stories are not appropriate in science.

Well that rules out most of ID

"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." So it doesn't feel strange to me at all to say "I don't know".

— Charlie

"These forms are not still hidden in the fossil record. They never existed"

Charlie Wagner referred earlier #4951 to "horizontal inheritance". Can't quite understand his point about evolutionary significance or lack of, but I am having difficulty lining horizontal inheritance up with the idea of neat nested hierarchies. Can anyone help please?

Horizontal gene transmission can play havoc with neat nested hierarchies. This is more of an issue with prokaryotes than, say, vertebrates.

I think nested hierarchies work as well as they do because HGT is generally a minor contribution to the flow of genetic information.

The likelihood that this was not so in the earliest history of life is what causes phylogenists like Carl Woese to despair of ever reconstructing the "root" of Darwin's "tree of life".

Of course, the concept of horizontal gene transfer would have been totally unanticipated by Darwin, in whose time no one had a clue what the genetic material was, let alone how it was routinely transmitted, let alone how it was transmitted in rare "freaky" ways.

I think that, although selection generally works at the level of individual organisms, to the extent that chunks of nucleic acid are "detachable" (as in transducing viruses or mobile plasmids) the logic of natural selection works quite well on these smaller units, too.

(I haven't cleared that with the Office of Darwinist Orthodoxy Enforcement, though, so if I've become a non-person by tomorrow, you'll know why)

How could you reconcile this with your beliefs,

This process is accomplished in a biochemical factory called a chloroplast. It does not occur anywhere else on the earth.

We only know a small fraction of what there is to be known

— Charlie

These forms are not still hidden in the fossil record. They never existed

— Charlie

the earth radiates back into space an amount of energy equal to that which it receives from the sun, minus that which is stored in the process of photosynthesis

— Charlie

The net energy budget of the earth is zero

— Charlie

Random processes can never produce functional systems because only a designer can know what the intent of the system is and only the designer can determine whether the system is doing what it was intended to do

— Charlie

And all of these reports support the notion that random processes and accidental mutations are incapable of generating complex, highly organized structures, processes and adaptations in which multiple processes and multiple structures support multiple functions and are integrated into the system in such a way that the structures and processes not only support their own functions, they also support the functions of other structures and processes and the overall function of the system

— Charlie

incapable of generating complex, highly organized structures, processes and adaptations in which multiple processes and multiple structures support multiple functions and are integrated into the system in such a way that the structures and processes not only support their own functions, they also support the functions of other structures and processes and the overall function of the system

— Charlie

This is a fascinating discussion and it appears to be far over my head in many areas. In fact, I just discovered this site and have read very little other than most of the posts on this "chain". So if I'm intruding by offering these observations, forgive me, just let me know, and I'll go back to the rear of the class...

Again, I find the discussion fascinating--especially as someone (certainly not a scientist) who subscribes to, I suppose what many of you might label classic? ID... that is, frankly, that the God of the Bible created all that we see and experience.

I'm picturing most (if not all!) of you nearly falling off your seats with laughter at this point, however, if you'll permit me, allow me to make the following observation and I will be most interested in your responses...

It seems to me that this discussion, for the most part--and apart from all the scientific semantics--centers around evolution vs ID as a means of explaining the universe. The debate comes in to play where each of you challenges the other to get into the "specifics" of their claims.

I use that term on purpose, and this is the point I wish to emphasize... either way, your arguments boil down to a belief you hold. Certainly, each of you bases his belief on what you consider to be rational and logical ideas, science, theories, hypotheses, etc, etc. Nevertheless, in the end, either way, it boils down to BELIEF.

If you will grant that that is, in fact, true, then you must accept that, at least on some level, you are accepting your world view on FAITH.

Given that, I find Charlie's arguments, at the very least, to be more honest, since he admits he hasn't got all the answers. (A statement that seemed to baffle the defenders of evolution!)

Admittedly, he loses me when the "alien" theory comes into play, but I suppose an open-minded study of evolution, flaws and all, has led him to no other conclusion, since he apparently can't bring himself to accept the possibility of a biblical, omnipotent creator.

My question is this: Can all of you accept the idea that you all, to one degree or another, accept your beliefs by faith in your theories?

This is a fascinating discussion and it appears to be far over my head in many areas. In fact, I just discovered this site and have read very little other than most of the posts on this "chain". So if I'm intruding by offering these observations, forgive me, just let me know, and I'll go back to the rear of the class...

Again, I find the discussion fascinating--especially as someone (certainly not a scientist) who subscribes to, I suppose what many of you might label classic? ID... that is, frankly, that the God of the Bible created all that we see and experience.

I'm picturing most (if not all!) of you nearly falling off your seats with laughter at this point, however, if you'll permit me, allow me to make the following observation and I will be most interested in your responses...

It seems to me that this discussion, for the most part--and apart from all the scientific semantics--centers around evolution vs ID as a means of explaining the universe. The debate comes in to play where each of you challenges the other to get into the "specifics" of their claims.

I use that term on purpose, and this is the point I wish to emphasize... either way, your arguments boil down to a belief you hold. Certainly, each of you bases his belief on what you consider to be rational and logical ideas, science, theories, hypotheses, etc, etc. Nevertheless, in the end, either way, it boils down to BELIEF.

If you will grant that that is, in fact, true, then you must accept that, at least on some level, you are accepting your world view on FAITH.

Given that, I find Charlie's arguments, at the very least, to be more honest, since he admits he hasn't got all the answers. (A statement that seemed to baffle the defenders of evolution!)

Admittedly, he loses me when the "alien" theory comes into play, but I suppose an open-minded study of evolution, flaws and all, has led him to no other conclusion, since he apparently can't bring himself to accept the possibility of a biblical, omnipotent creator.

My question is this: Can all of you accept the idea that you all, to one degree or another, accept your beliefs by faith in your theories?

It is constantly a source of wonder and amazement to me that highly competent scientists, whom I otherwise hold in high regard, have not come to these same conclusions. The other, far worse possibility is that they have come to these conclusions, but will not speak out for fear of being shunned by the establishment, upon whom they depend for their financial support. But this is nothing new. It permeates the entire history of science from Galileo to Copernicus to Barbara McClintock

Pretty good Wayne. I keep getting the feeling that Charlie's concept is an uneasy and less than cohesive attempt to merge several contradictory parts into one muddled whole.

Wayne: Thank you for your thoughtful response. Wow! You've offered quite a lot to consider. I'll respond to your points...

Wayne wrote:
Question #1: Does a belief in evolution mean you can't believe in a "God"?

I agree that the answer is "no", however, it is my assertion (and this is obviously a generalization) that evolution was conceived and developed as a means of explaining reality in the absence of God or as a replacement to a creator. (This is why atheists gravitate toward evolution.) So while I agree that it is possible to accept evolution while still accepting the idea that God may have put it on motion, I tend to view the two "ideologies" as inherently at odds with one another.

To put it in laymen's terms (of which I am one!) it seems to me that a creator who creates the universe in such a manner as to hide himself while providing data that convinces humans that life evolved is much more deceptive than a creator who simply creates, then reveals himself as doing so (in the Bible; and prior to that directly to men or prophets) and then leaves it up to us to decide the truth.

Wayne wrote:
Question #3: Doesn't the belief in theory of Evolution require as much "Faith" as a belief in a divine creator?
Answer #3: Yes and no. Let mean handle this in 2 parts. (Yes) The theory of Evolution requires faith in that what we observe is actual and not deceptive. (No) Given that we can look at the available data the theory of Evolution is the only theory that is testable and falsifiable at this point in time.

Again, Wayne, you've given me a lot to think about! I agree with your "yes" conclusion. Obviously creationism rests on the same assumption. To put it bluntly, I believe the reality I experience is real. Anything that goes beyond that just gets too wierd for me.

I would also add this... it is necessary to believe in absolute truth to arrive at any definitive conclusion. I therefore believe truth:

1. exists
2. is knowable or discoverable
3. does not change relative to who or how many subscribe to it

Therefore, if you and I disagree, either one of us is right and the other is wrong, or we're both partially right or we're both wrong... etc, etc, but the absolute truth exists either way.

The "no" part of your answer is where I believe we start to part company. Certianly, I don't dispute that you can't "test" for a creator per se, but, correct me if I'm wrong, the EVIDENCE you use to postulate the theory of evolution is the same evidence used by others to postulate creationism. You simply disagree with their conclusions and interpretations of the evidence and you, perhaps, dispute their qualifications.

This, of course, is where I as a non-scientist am at a great disadvantage, since I am not familiar with the research, experiments and semantics that those in the field of science are. And, frankly, I don't have the credentials necessary to enter the debate at that level.

So, of course, the discussion then moves to the level of: "the 'scientists' on MY side are better (smarter) than the 'scientists' on your side." Which then, often DEVOLVES (no pun intended... well maybe some) into a name calling, semantics twisting match, which, in my view, does nothing to move us toward the absolute truth.

Is it fair to say then, that the same evidence exists for both sides, but both sides interpret the data differently, sometimes radically different? In addition, both sides probably have their geniuses.

Wayne wrote:
Question #4: What do you men about falsifiable?
Answer #4: With a the theory of evolution there is no data that says at this point it could not happen and there are many test that could prove it false but to this point the test agree with the theory of evolution.

This may be a good opportunity to ask a question I'm guessing someone out there might have some data on. Again, I'm a creationist, so this argument caught my attention, but I haven't heard it much recently so I'm guessing there must have been some flaw somewhere.

I have heard that the sun is consuming itself. I have no idea at what rate, but if it is and it can be measured it would have phenomenal implications for evolution. If it can be shown, for example, that even a few million years ago a much larger sun would have made life on earth impossible due to extreme heat, then the implications for evolution are enormous. Anyone ever heard anything about that?

Wayne, as I understand it, your next point deals with either ruling in or ruling out a creator through the scientific method. If I'm following your logic, I think we agree that God cannot be proven or disproven. That's been my point all along. Of course, the atheist would argue that God can't be proven because he doesn't exist. I would argue that he can't be proven because he is God and he wants it that way. You accept either world view on faith.

You then get into radiometric dating and, I believe, punctuated equilibrium.

...then you write:
Question #8: Why do main stream scientist and their followers proclaim to know all the answers?
Answer #8: We don't. This is a false assumption. Science just says "given the current data, theory x fits that data" When new data arrives science re-examines and refines theory x or discards it completely in favour of a new theory that does fit the data.

Wayne, this is where the rubber meets the road! I agree with you in principle that science should work the way you describe, but in reality, it does not. Let's face it, we're all human! Even scientists... unless you know something I don't! Egos, grants, reputations, peer pressure... all of this comes into play when it comes to interpreting the data. I assert that in the present academic climate, which is dominated by a secular/humanist world view, there is enormous pressure on scientists to interpret the data in a way that fits into the widely accepted evolutionary model. Ridicule and shunning can be the consequences of sincere dissent.

In fact I've heard circular reasoning from evolutionists that goes something like, since we know evolution is true we know that "A' must be true, we just haven't figured it out yet.

Wayne wrote:
The difference is sciences theories are testable and until they are tested and shown wrong we hold them as true.

Hmm. That is very interesting. Until a theory is proven wrong it is held as true? Did you mean to say that? Is that really the case?

Wouldn't that often lead you to the wrong conclusion? For thousands of years it wasn't possible to test whether or not the world was round, but that didn't change reality. What am I missing here?

Holding that logic, I could make the same argument against evolution that you do with ID... it is not testable as the lifespan of science, indeed humanity in general, is far too short to make any definitive conclusions about the origin of the universe--especially under an evolutionary model that demands BILLIONS of years. The world in which we (and the available data) exist is a mere blip on a radar screen the size of the Empire State Building. We are merely one random sample out of a potential of gazzillions. Therefore any tests performed in that limited atmosphere are meaningless when it comes to the whole picture.

Wayne wrote:
I have no issue with god at all. I just believe we are not as close to god as many people think. God by definition can do anything so I don't see why when then current evidence shows a pattern that god didn't just create the natural laws to be able to cater for evolution and even abiogenesis. Seems strange that YECers say that god could create the earth in 7 days and Adam from dust but god could not have created a universe with natural laws that would, over 13.5 billion years or more, eventually come to us and that in the future we couldn't evolve into another species from what we are now.

Very interesting thoughts, Wayne. (I sincerely mean that.) I have a problem with the phrase "but god could not". In my world view "God could not" is a dangerous phrase, as I do believe in an omnipotent God. I also believe he is uniquely omnipotent, but that's another discussion. About the only thing I feel comfortable with in saying that God could not do is sin, which, by definition, is going against his own will or desires.

Could God have created an earth to appear old? Yes. Could God have created us through evolution? Yes. Could God have created us to evolve into something else? Yes. Is it likely based on what we know of the God described in the Bible? No.

Wayne wrote:
Most of us just thirst for knowledge and want to learn more and more but if I say to you "I'm a believer in x" and don't provide any evidence for why x is true would you believe me if it goes against what you see?

Wow, Wayne, you're right on. We agree big time! This is where I believe the evidence for biblical Christianity outweighs the alternatives, including evolution.

Consider this, in science you have human beings--granted some of them pretty smart, but still human beings--making assumptions in their own lifetimes and drawing conclusions based on what is in their limited capacity to "test" about a universe that is either infinite or practically so while making assumptions and educated guesses of what occurred BILLIONS of years in the past based on what exists today. Seems like a stretch, at best, to me.

By contrast, in the Bible you have the extraordinary claim that the "designer" himself is choosing to, at least partially, reveal himself. I will go a step further and agree with the Apostle Paul when he says if Jesus was not who he claimed to be, then we (who put our trust in him) are among men most to be pitied! In other words, if I put my trust in Christ and then you (Wayne) and your world view turn out to be right, then I'm the dupe!

On the other hand, I assert that the possibility exists that Jesus was indeed precisely who he claimed to be (the Son of God and the creator of the universe). Given the implications, isn't that possibility worth checking into? Especially given the fact that millions of people down through the ages have come to that conclusion, many of them, arguably on an intellectual level that rivals or even exceeds the brilliance of the greatest evolutionists of our time?

You're right, Wayne. With no evidence I wouldn't expect you to give my views the time of day. But since Jesus is unquestionably an actual historical figure, (whether or not you agree with his claims), the evidence exists. It is my contention that given a proper examination (or testing, if you will) of the evidence coupled with his claims, his deity becomes difficult to dismiss.

At the risk of this post exceeding some preordained level of word count, or perhaps lack of boringness, I'd like to offer the following observations:

A couple problems I have with evolution, and in particular atheistic evolution, are as follows:

1. When boiled down to its core, evolution must be accepted on faith, just like any other religion. Therefore it IS religion, yet the vast majority of its proponents vehemently deny this while at the same time holding on to their beliefs with a passion and zeal similar to radicals of any faith.

2. I have heard evolutionists describe such things as "how wonderfully" or "beautifully" evolution "works". This devotion to the theory reveals both the aforementioned religious devotion held by its advocates as well as the fact that they seemingly want to have their cake and eat it too. Evolution (and I'm speaking of atheistic evolution which attempts to replace a creator)can't "work." It can't think; it can't act; it can't design; it can't even sympathize. It is heartless, meaningless, uncaring and basically dead. It does nothing. Natural selection can't "work". Mutations can't "work". My point here is IT CAN'T MAKE SENSE. The minute it begins to make sense, the minute the patterns cease to be "random", the minute some sort of thought enters the picture it becomes Intelligent Design.

This, to me is way, and I mean WAY too easily poopooed by evolutionists. The fact that you have NOTHING effectively creating EVERYTHING is about as absurd a thing as I've ever heard. Even if you subscribe some sort of eternal quality to matter itself I find it difficult, indeed impossible, to believe that life spontaneously generated and then evolved entirely by randomness, meaningless, designless nothingness. It makes no sense.

Think of all the possibilities for disaster. If you have no ultimate guiding force determining the outcome, the possibilities that something could go fatally wrong along the way are astronomical! So probable as to make failure an absolute certainty. Of course it wouldn't even BE failure until we came along and evolved to the level of understanding required to even label it such.

Life from non-life is problematic enough, but the problems along the evolutionary highway to where we are today make evolution inconceivable.

Wayne wrote:
So feel free to make your ideas known but be prepared to have them challenged. Also feel free to challenge other people's ideas but be prepared for answers that address your challenge.

Fair enough, Wayne. Thanks, and, if you'll permit me, God Bless!

Question #8: Why do main stream scientist and their followers proclaim to know all the answers? Answer #8: We don't. This is a false assumption. Science just says "given the current data, theory x fits that data" When new data arrives science re-examines and refines theory x or discards it completely in favour of a new theory that does fit the data.

Wayne, this is where the rubber meets the road! I agree with you in principle that science should work the way you describe, but in reality, it does not. Let's face it, we're all human! Even scientists . . . unless you know something I don't! Egos, grants, reputations, peer pressure . . . all of this comes into play when it comes to interpreting the data. I assert that in the present academic climate, which is dominated by a secular/humanist world view, there is enormous pressure on scientists to interpret the data in a way that fits into the widely accepted evolutionary model. Ridicule and shunning can be the consequences of sincere dissent.

In fact I've heard circular reasoning from evolutionists that goes something like, since we know evolution is true we know that "A' must be true, we just haven't figured it out yet.

Wayne wrote:The difference is sciences theories are testable and until they are tested and shown wrong we hold them as true.

Hmm. That is very interesting. Until a theory is proven wrong it is held as true? Did you mean to say that? Is that really the case?

Wouldn't that often lead you to the wrong conclusion?

For thousands of years it wasn't possible to test whether or not the world was round, but that didn't change reality. What am I missing here?

Holding that logic, I could make the same argument against evolution that you do with ID . . . it is not testable as the lifespan of science, indeed humanity in general, is far too short to make any definitive conclusions about the origin of the universe---especially under an evolutionary model that demands BILLIONS of years. The world in which we (and the available data) exist is a mere blip on a radar screen the size of the Empire State Building. We are merely one random sample out of a potential of gazzillions. Therefore any tests performed in that limited atmosphere are meaningless when it comes to the whole picture.

that evolution was conceived and developed as a means of explaining reality in the absence of God or as a replacement to a creator

— roger

So while I agree that it is possible to accept evolution while still accepting the idea that God may have put it on motion, I tend to view the two "ideologies" as inherently at odds with one another.

— roger

To put it in laymen's terms (of which I am one!) it seems to me that a creator who creates the universe in such a manner as to hide himself while providing data that convinces humans that life evolved is much more deceptive than a creator who simply creates, then reveals himself as doing so (in the Bible; and prior to that directly to men or prophets) and then leaves it up to us to decide the truth.

— roger

...Is it fair to say then, that the same evidence exists for both sides, but both sides interpret the data differently, sometimes radically different? In addition, both sides probably have their geniuses.

— roger

I have heard that the sun is consuming itself. I have no idea at what rate, but if it is and it can be measured it would have phenomenal implications for evolution. If it can be shown, for example, that even a few million years ago a much larger sun would have made life on earth impossible due to extreme heat, then the implications for evolution are enormous. Anyone ever heard anything about that?

— roger

...In fact I've heard circular reasoning from evolutionists that goes something like, since we know evolution is true we know that "A' must be true, we just haven't figured it out yet

— roger

This, of course, is where I as a non-scientist am at a great disadvantage, since I am not familiar with the research, experiments and semantics that those in the field of science are. And, frankly, I don't have the credentials necessary to enter the debate at that level.

— roger

Hmm. That is very interesting. Until a theory is proven wrong it is held as true? Did you mean to say that? Is that really the case?

— roger

I hold that the Sun is located at the centre of the revolutions of the heavenly orbs and does not change place, and that the Earth rotates on itself and moves around it. Moreover ... I confirm this view not only by refuting Ptolemy's and Aristotle's arguments, but also by producing many for the other side, especially some pertaining to physical effects whose causes perhaps cannot be determined in any other way, and other astronomical discoveries; these discoveries clearly confute the Ptolemaic system, and they agree admirably with this other position and confirm it.

— Galileo

Wouldn't that often lead you to the wrong conclusion? For thousands of years it wasn't possible to test whether or not the world was round, but that didn't change reality. What am I missing here?

— roger

it is not testable as the lifespan of science, indeed humanity in general, is far too short to make any definitive conclusions about the origin of the universe

— roger

In my world view "God could not" is a dangerous phrase, as I do believe in an omnipotent God.

— roger

Could God have created an earth to appear old? Yes. Could God have created us through evolution? Yes. Could God have created us to evolve into something else? Yes. Is it likely based on what we know of the God described in the Bible? No.

— Roger

Consider this, in science you have human beings---granted some of them pretty smart, but still human beings---making assumptions in their own lifetimes and drawing conclusions based on what is in their limited capacity to "test" about a universe that is either infinite or practically so while making assumptions and educated guesses of what occurred BILLIONS of years in the past based on what exists today. Seems like a stretch, at best, to me. By contrast, in the Bible you have the extraordinary claim that the "designer" himself is choosing to, at least partially, reveal himself. I will go a step further and agree with the Apostle Paul when he says if Jesus was not who he claimed to be, then we (who put our trust in him) are among men most to be pitied! In other words, if I put my trust in Christ and then you (Wayne) and your world view turn out to be right, then I'm the dupe!

— Roger

1. When boiled down to its core, evolution must be accepted on faith, just like any other religion. Therefore it IS religion, yet the vast majority of its proponents vehemently deny this while at the same time holding on to their beliefs with a passion and zeal similar to radicals of any faith.

— roger

2. I have heard evolutionists describe such things as "how wonderfully" or "beautifully" evolution "works". This devotion to the theory reveals both the aforementioned religious devotion held by its advocates as well as the fact that they seemingly want to have their cake and eat it too. Evolution (and I'm speaking of atheistic evolution which attempts to replace a creator)can't "work." It can't think; it can't act; it can't design; it can't even sympathize. It is heartless, meaningless, uncaring and basically dead. It does nothing. Natural selection can't "work". Mutations can't "work". My point here is IT CAN'T MAKE SENSE. The minute it begins to make sense, the minute the patterns cease to be "random", the minute some sort of thought enters the picture it becomes Intelligent Design

— roger

This, to me is way, and I mean WAY too easily poopooed by evolutionists. The fact that you have NOTHING effectively creating EVERYTHING...

— roger

Think of all the possibilities for disaster. If you have no ultimate guiding force determining the outcome, the possibilities that something could go fatally wrong along the way are astronomical!

— roger

Life from non-life is problematic enough, but the problems along the evolutionary highway to where we are today make evolution inconceivable

— roger

Fair enough, Wayne. Thanks, and, if you'll permit me, God Bless!

— roger

Wow my post was really big...please excuse and spelling/gramatical errors I may have done.

Good points Ian.

One thing I would ask of you Roger is that while you hold your views please do not bundle all evolutionist as athiests. While Ian may be one many others aren't. Also Atheism isn't evil. I actually admire them too. I joke that many Christians follow morals because of a fear of god but Athiests can be nice to their fellow creatures of the earth just because it is the right thing to do :)

Agian please feel free to discuss theology with me via email as this is not the place to get into that discussion.

Wayne & Ian:

Your thoughts and reasoning are obviously very well thought out and and very well communicated. In all candor, you have given me a lot to consider. That is very refreshing! I've been to a few sites where an argument is really what people are after.

You mention that the discussion of "theology" is not appropriate here, and if that is the case, I will respect it by not posting anymore. I find it unfortunate though. Here's what it says to me, correct me if I'm wrong...

We (whoever uses or created this site) have already determined that anything having to do with God or theology is wrong, therefore there is no place for it here. In effect you're saying: we don't respect your views and we don't want to hear them.

You mentioned earlier that most of you just search for truth, to which I applaud you. And you mentioned earlier that I am free to express my views. Am I correct in understanding that you perhaps should have qualified that with something like: You are free to state your views as long as you don't mention anything about God, Jesus or the Bible... ?

Where is the line between freely expressing my views and "discussing theology"?

For example, Ian states:

As far as evidence in favor of literal interpretations of the Bible? If you have some, please share it with us. Though make sure it hasn't been debunked numerous times before.

Am I free to do this, or is this prohibited speech? I need to know, because some people get offended if they feel you are "preaching" at them.

In any event, I sincerely appreciate your attitude, Wayne. You seem very level headed and respectful, and I can tell, while you personally don't agree with me, you respect my beliefs. So I'm guessing that you are politely warning me that others who frequent this site may not?

I guess if I am not free to share my opinions here, or if my views will need to be censored, then I would prefer to simply thank you for sharing your thoughts with me up to this point and just bow out gracefully.

It's really unfortunate though, as I thought we were having a very meaningful exchange of ideas. I'd like to comment on a lot of what you said, ie: I differ with you on your presentation of the flat earth argument which you presented as religion supressing science. While Galileo's trial was unquestionably unjust, he was, in fact, a devout Christian all his life. He was deeply concerned that the Church's reputation would be damaged if they rejected Copernicanism. Galileo firmly believed that his science was in no way incompatible with the Bible.

You took the liberty of quoting a letter Galileo wrote to the Grand Duchess of Tuscany. In that same letter he also wrote:

"I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the Holy Bible can never speak untruth -- whenever its true meaning is understood."

History is replete with many other examples of scientists who were also devout Christians. Bacon. Newton. Kepler. Columbus, while not a scientist, put his neck on the line for the round earth concept. He was a devout Christian.

In any event, let me know if I can or cannot freely share my ideas here. I am not afraid to submit them and certainly won't be offended if you dissect them. That's what the exchange of ideas is all about. But perhaps this is more of a support group for evolutionists than that type of forum.

Oh yeah, one more thing I should add, you ask me not to bundle all evolutionists and atheists, and you are right. I wasn't trying to, sorry if it came across that way. That's why I mentioned specifically atheistic evolution.

You're also right that atheism isn't evil. However I would centend that the two philosophies combined can and have lead to "evil".

We (whoever uses or created this site) have already determined that anything having to do with God or theology is wrong, therefore there is no place for it here. In effect you're saying: we don't respect your views and we don't want to hear them.

RBH:

Great. Then it sounds as if I can freely express my views. And, of course, I wouldn't expect you to accept them as scientific accounts.

We (whoever uses or created this site) have already determined that anything having to do with God or theology is wrong, therefore there is no place for it here. In effect you're saying: we don't respect your views and we don't want to hear them.

— roger

You're also right that atheism isn't evil. However I would centend that the two philosophies combined can and have lead to "evil".

— Roger

"I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the Holy Bible can never speak untruth -- whenever its true meaning is understood."

— Galileo

A [person said] to him, "Tell my brothers to divide my father's possessions with me." He said to the person, "Mister, who made me a divider?" He turned to his disciples and said to them, "I'm not a divider, am I?"

— Thomas

Posted on talk.origins by Erik on 13 July 2004 2:14 am Topic: Black Hole Proof of Creationism ... Thus, the speed of light has been proven to be non-constant. This is clear evidence for creationism.

— Erik

Great. Then it sounds as if I can freely express my views. And, of course, I wouldn't expect you to accept them as scientific accounts.

Thanks RBH didn't know where to take off topis stuff like this
So...Roger meet me in the Bathroom after school! :P

The Bathroom Wall

Okay... to boys room, then? Or is this facility multi-gendered?... :o

Okay... to boys room, then? Or is this facility multi-gendered?... :o