Intelligent debate

August 10, 2008 ^ | Roger Palfree

[js1138]

So I'm working on a classification system which is oriented toward the Biblical idea (and my personal observations) to see how (and if) it works

If it predicts new intermediate fossil finds and where to look for them as well as mainstream science, you will have something. Otherwise it's stamp collecting.

[mrjesse]

None of the major proponents of intelligent design deny common descent, so what is your competing hypothesis?

I'll try to get to your other two posts later or another day, but I'm still interested in an answer to my question - could you elaborate on your above statement please and give an example of a major proponent of intelligent design that doesn't deny ASBE (All Species By Evolution).

What exactly do you mean by "Common descent" in your statement above?

Do you consider Answers in Genesis a major proponent of intelligent design? I just did a quick search on their website and found some random article (which I did not read through) which says "Distinct kinds really are there and the experts know it to be so." -- so I don't know what major proponents you are talking about. But backing up one's claims with fact is always a useful thing to do!

Thanks,

-Jesse

[js1138]

Common descent means that all living things are related by descent, just as you are related to your parents.

This gets messy at the microbe level because single celled organisms tend to share DNA rather promiscuously. It’s also true that a good portion of our (and most living thing’s) genome consists of viruses that have infected our ancestor’s germ cells and stayed along for the ride. You can track the history of these infections in the genomes of our distant (living) cousins. It’s one of the strongest lines of evidence that we are actually related to other creatures and not just sharing a common design.

You asked for an ID proponent who accepts common descent. Michael Behe will do. He’s the only person the ID movement thought was qualified to represent their side at the Dover trial. But he’s not alone. Check out the web sites uncommondescent and telicthoughts.

Even answeringenesis accepts common descent to the level of Family. I don’t know how they work out the details, because apes, including ourselves, are a biological Family.

[mrjesse]

So would you say then that your statement “None of the major proponents of intelligent design deny common descent” is not true as stated? I’m well aware that some proponents of ID also believe in common descent of all life — but your statement is that none of the major proponents of ID deny common descent of all life — but I think AIG has got to be one of the major ones and they obviously do deny common descent of all life.

Also, as to Behe, I tried to find whether he believes in total common descent (all life forms related by common descent) but couldn’t (in my admittedly quick search.) But you seem more familiar with him, could you perhaps be so kind as to show me how you came to know that he does indeed support total common descent?

Gotta run.

Thanks,

-Jesse

[js1138]

...but your statement is that none of the major proponents of ID deny common descent of all life — but I think AIG has got to be one of the major ones and they obviously do deny common descent of all life.

AIG is a creationist site, not an ID site. If you look at major ID sites like Dembski's or telicthoughts you will find the majority of posters accept common descent and a multi-billion year old earth.

Here's a good discussion of common descent that discusses Behe's position, among others.

[mrjesse]

AIG is a creationist site, not an ID site. If you look at major ID sites like Dembski's or telicthoughts you will find the majority of posters accept common descent and a multi-billion year old earth.

Here's a good discussion of common descent that discusses Behe's position, among others.

Ack! Coherency is a fleeting thing; it a spinning thing, and it's falling deeper out of view..! I'm already working too hard to see the veracity in your statements. Like my grandpa could have but probably didn't say, if I man can't make his own point he probably doesn't have one!

The "good discussion" about Behe's position contained two short quotes of him, probably, one of which was a partial sentence, so I don't even know if they are in context.

As to AIG, I guess I figured that creation says that God is intelligent and he designed all life, and therefore AIG was a proponent of ID but I guess by "ID" you mean something like "those people who promote ID but who do not promote the idea of a God." I should have asked what ID meant to you. All cars may have wheels but not all things with wheels are cars. I figured all creationists were IDers but not all IDer's were Bible-believing creationists.

As to Dembski's or telicthoughts, you still didn't demonstrate that your statement was true. That's why I asked who you considered major proponents of ID. Without going and reading tons of forum posts (I'm not familiar with either website) I have no idea what you're talking about. You say that the majority of posters accept common descent and old earth - but what posters are you talking about? One's who agree with Dembski? or just any joe blow evolutionist poster who comes by and leaves a post - like happen on FR? If you'll notice, a very high percentage of the posts on a pro-ID article on FR are by ID apposers, which doesn't prove a thing about the intent of the article in question.

But don't worry, I'm now reasonably certain that my earlier suspicion of lack of coherency and validity was accurate. You see, as I move along in any direction whether it be driving someplace to following the logic of a conversation, when things start to not make sense, I like to stop and see if something's wrong. In our conversation, I detected that something wasn't quite right, and sure enough upon further investigation, I found that you're making rather bold statements that you are unwilling to demonstrate as accurate.

And maybe you're not a scientists, but when a scientists makes a statement as fact, I expect them to be able to show just how they came to that conclusion - without leaving the hearer guessing and searching and trying to figure out what the speaker means.

In other words, if you said that "No major ID proponent denies common descent" then when I reply with something like "Who do you consider major ID proponents? can you provide links?" I would have expected a reply along the lines of "Oh sure! I consider "X,Y,Z" to be the major proponents of ID, and here, and here, and here (links) you can see for yourself that none of them deny common descent.."

But instead I just keep getting vague references, half quotes, and I find that I'm working way harder to try and demonstrate your point then you are - and I still haven't demonstrated it.

By the way, I've already had LeGrande tell me that the apparent position of the sun is lagged 2.1 degrees behind its actual position, and by the same math Pluto wouldn't even be in the night sky when we looked up and saw it when it was far enough away that he earth rotated 102 degrees in the time of flight of light. I've had Soliton telling me that little lies are okay, and even required in order to keep society running. My attitude of desiring coherency and provability for the things I hear is not unreasonable.

What's your take on lying? Always ok? never ok? little lies are ok? What's the defining factor between an ok and not-ok lie? is the difference that you can ultimately get away with one but not the other?

It helps to know this when discussing things with people. I say lying is never ok just like murder is never ok.

Thanks,

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

If it predicts new intermediate fossil finds and where to look for them as well as mainstream science, you will have something. Otherwise it's stamp collecting.

We'll have to see how it works out. By the way, it is not true to say that a hypothesis is incorrect until it makes a prediction which comes true. For example, lets say I get home one day and my cat is out, the dog is indoors, and the front door is open, then I remember leaving the door unlatched when I left, I can hypothesis "I left the door unlatched, the dog pushed it open and the cat got out." and I could come to all that based on the evidence before my eyes, and I have a good chance of being right. If I am right, then I can make more predictions like "The dog has probably been in the refrigerator" which further confirms if true (but still doesn't prove) my hypothesis. But the dog might not have got into the fridge - and that doesn't make my hypothesis incorrect. I do realize that most believers in evolution will often recite that a theory must make predictions, but it's just not always true.

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

Said mrjesse: But as you know, all classification systems have a dogmatic assumptions or theology of how things are to be classified in that system.

AI don't know any such thing. That is like saying the shape of the earth is based on dogmatic assumptions.

All I'm saying is that an organizational system has a set of rules or statement which gives the system it's form. Whether one is organizing a bag of marbles by color, size, or roundness, each is a separate organizing method, or classification system. The ASBE (All Species By Evolution) classification system operates on the principle that ASBE is true. All classification systems have a set of rules or ideas or literally a philosophy which make them what they are. Otherwise, all classification systems would be the same!

Now, please present a competing hypothesis that predicts where to look for things like Tiktaalik and why you should look in certain places and not others, or I will have to look elsewhere for a discussion.

That's what I'm working on! Or more specifically, a competing classification system. In real science, the data is tested against multiple mathematical or philosophical calculations.

Not all "interpretations" are equivalent.

Absolutely correct! That's what I've been trying to say. I still think that with all the talk among creationists about distinct kinds I ought to try out a classification system that is oriented towards that and see just how well it works out, and see if it fits better with the missing links. It sure fits better with my own limited observations growing up on the farm. Maybe I'll learn that my classification does make sense - maybe I'll learn that it doesn't even work at all! That's what science is all about. Just because there is one idea doesn't mean that other's shouldn't be tried. The majority has been wrong before. I can't figure out why you're not happy that I'm trying to learn the truth, unless you're afraid of the truth.

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

None of the major proponents of intelligent design deny common descent,

I read a little more over the link you gave me in your earlier post and found it interesting that according to that website (and admittedly, reading about short out of context quotes about IDer's on their opponents webpage probably isn't the most accurate source of information... but) it quotes Phillip Johnson as saying:

"Because their [creationists'] doctrine has always been that God created basic kinds, or types, which subsequently diversified. The most famous example of creationist microevolution involves the descendants of Adam and Eve, who have diversified from a common ancestral pair to create all the diverse races of the human species" (Johnson 1993, 68 10).

and

"We observe directly that apples fall when dropped, but we do not observe a common ancestor for modern apes and humans. What we do observe is that apes and humans are physically and biochemically more like each other than they are like rabbits, snakes, or trees. The ape-like common ancestor is a hypothesis in a theory, which purports to explain how these greater and lesser similarities came about. The theory is plausible, especially to a philosophical materialist, but it may nonetheless be false. The true explanation for natural relationships may be something much more mysterious (Johnson 1993, 67 10).

and says he is one of the leaders of the intelligent-design movement.

Anyway, I don't think your statement (first line of this message) is exactly accurate, depending of course on just who you consider major proponents of ID. And lots of leading creationists deny total common descent.

-Jesse

[js1138]

Phillip Johnson is indeed a leader of the ID movement, but his training is in law, not biology.

There are two major websites devoted to discussion of ID. One is Dembski’s Uncommon descent and the other is telicthoughts. Dembski favors the Big Tent approach. Anyone is welcome as long as they oppose materialism. Nevertheless, most posters accept an old earth and common descent. Most people at telicthoughts are old earth common descenters.

When I refer to leader, I am thinking of people who might possibly be called upon to be expert witnesses at a Dover-like trial. There certainly will be such a trial if some state attempts to teach ID in biology classes.

This topic is a hobby of mine, in case anyone has failed to notice. I spend more than half my reading time at sites that oppose my personal opinions. When I ask for a scientific alternative to evolution I am not asking a rhetorical question or being snide. It probably looks that way, but only because folks like Phillip Johnson have admitted there is no such thing. Things could change. There is always a chance that some new line of evidence would disprove common descent, or provide a major obstacle.

Something like this needs to happen before high school textbooks change. But I have to say, the evidence piles up in favor of common descent.

[mrjesse]

Phillip Johnson is indeed a leader of the ID movement, but his training is in law, not biology.

There are two major websites devoted to discussion of ID. One is Dembski’s Uncommon descent and the other is telicthoughts. Dembski favors the Big Tent approach. Anyone is welcome as long as they oppose materialism. Nevertheless, most posters accept an old earth and common descent. Most people at telicthoughts are old earth common descenters.

When I refer to leader, I am thinking of people who might possibly be called upon to be expert witnesses at a Dover-like trial. There certainly will be such a trial if some state attempts to teach ID in biology classes.

Thanks for defining your terms! That helps a lot. At least now I know what you're saying! I really appreciate that.

I'm not certain that your statement that none of the major proponents of intelligent design deny common descent is exactly accurate. I'll have to read more on their webpages. I do note that the very name of the one "Uncommon descent" sort of suggests he doesn't buy common descent - at least not with the same meaning most people take it to mean.

On uncommon descent's home page we read:

Uncommon Descent holds that... Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins.

An incorrect and unsupported conclusion about biological origins..? Well what the current conclusion on biological origins? Isn't it total common descent? I don't know, I'll have to read more but it's not looking like to me that your statement was accurate.

When I ask for a scientific alternative to evolution I am not asking a rhetorical question or being snide.

But is it not true that by "Scientific alternative" you mean a hypothesis which does not infer a beyond-natural first cause -- regardless of the fact whether such a first cause is possible or plausible?

The fact is that there is no way for me to empirically know the evidence for ASBE (All species by evolution) without believing things by pure faith and trusting in people I don't know about things I've never seen. Maybe if I got my phd in evolution or something then I could see it - but the point is, for the common man, he has to take it by faith if he is to believe in ASBE. In all the other areas of science I've dabbled in this is no the case. If I doubt that certain computer code does a certain thing, I try it! If I doubt that a transistor works a certain way, I test it!

Am I wrong? Is there a great evidence that the common man can see himself and know? Please show me! While I may be no genius, I've found that if I work at it, I can more or less understand and test much of physics, electronics, math, chemistry, and so on. But heretofore I have not been able to see the mountains of evidence for ASBE. And to make things work, some of the people telling me that it's true either misrepresent information to me or tell me that lying is okay for little lies. So my reason is valid and understandable for wanting to be able to test science for myself without having to rely purely on my faith in other people about things I've never seen.

Furthermore, some of the things that have made it into textbooks are of such non-evidence in nature that it causes me to doubt the existence of real evidence. For example, the peppered moth: It is cited as evidence for evolution. But both species existed before! This just shows what we already know - that if you breed black dogs you tend to get black puppies, and if you breed white dogs you tend to get white puppies! But here's how WP concludes the topic:

While it is true that this example shows natural selection causing microevolution within a species, it demonstrates rapid and obvious adaptiveness with such change,[10] and despite the claims of creationists, there are no barriers preventing such changes from accumulating to form new species.

First of all, since both varieties existed beforehand, I'm not even sure that "evolution" is the correct term. (Unless you want to define it as "the change in frequency of alleles in the gene pools of two different varieties/subspecies/whatever.") The fact is, it could have been white moths and black butterflies, completely non interbreedable, and one species went near extinction while the other flourished, then went back to previous population ratios when the trees lightened up. (But certainly being able to interbreed is the only thing that kept the white varieties from going totally extinct).

But then look - they go on to say that there's no barriers preventing such changes from accumulating to form new species - such what changes? Both the light and dark varieties existed before and they both existed afterwards!

The only thing that changed was the ratio of the two pre-existing varieties! You can't get a new species by changing the ratio between two existing varieties! -- and how they look at the peppered moth and conclude that nothing bars a new species from developing is beyond me.

so don't you think they are stretching things a little, there?

Thanks,

-Jesse

[js1138]

But is it not true that by "Scientific alternative" you mean a hypothesis which does not infer a beyond-natural first cause -- regardless of the fact whether such a first cause is possible or plausible?

No, science can investigate claims of supernatural causes unless such causes are capricious. What science requires is a regular pattern of cause and effect.

If the ID proponents could ascribe some attributes to the designer, or provide some list of the times or places or modes of intervention, or cite some specific examples of intervention, that would be a first step.

What you have at the moment is Behe claiming, in generic terms, that evolution occasionally gets stuck, unable to surmount the problem of generating some complex structure.

This is not a proposition that suggests any line of research. What you have is a claim that some undefined entity having unspecified capabilities and limitations did some unspecified something at unspecified times and places using unspecified means for unspecified reasons.

I suppose that could be true, but it isn't a scientific proposition. It isn't even a very good theological proposition.

[mrjesse]

When I ask for a scientific alternative to evolution I am not asking a rhetorical question or being snide.

That reminds me of another thing I often see which I don't think is good. And that is I often see the theme coming from evolutionists toward non-evolutionists (and I by "evolution" I mean ASBE here in both cases) anyway I see the theme "Well, unless you have a better theory then evolution don't dis evolution." More specifically, there seems to be this absurd idea that we must know the answer to the origins of all matter and life - and that ASBE and the big bang must be supported even if they aren't perfect, because there's no better explanation.

But in science, there doesn't to be a conclusion if there isn't evidence for it. If we don't know, it's just fine to say that we don't know. Furthermore, the fact that I may not have empirical solid evidence of any other causation theory on hand - that doesn't mean that ASBE is true nor does it mean that I shouldn't discuss problems with ASBE.

In other words, lack of evidence for a competing theory is not evidence for ASBE, nor is it evidence against the existence of evidence which doesn't jive with ASBE. But I digress.

By the way, what did you think of my comments about WP's representation of the peppered moth issue? Do you think they are going a little out on a limb?

Thanks,

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

No, science can investigate claims of supernatural causes unless such causes are capricious. What science requires is a regular pattern of cause and effect.

If the ID proponents could ascribe some attributes to the designer, or provide some list of the times or places or modes of intervention, or cite some specific examples of intervention, that would be a first step.

What you have at the moment is Behe claiming, in generic terms, that evolution occasionally gets stuck, unable to surmount the problem of generating some complex structure.

This is not a proposition that suggests any line of research. What you have is a claim that some undefined entity having unspecified capabilities and limitations did some unspecified something at unspecified times and places using unspecified means for unspecified reasons.

I suppose that could be true, but it isn't a scientific proposition. It isn't even a very good theological proposition.

But the fact that science cannot investigate capricious supernatural things does not mean that capricious supernatural things do not exist.

It is entirely possible that capricious supernatural things do exist - and if they do, then there are things in this world that science cannot deal with. So since it is possible that there are things with which science cannot deal, then it is not correct to say that "if science can't deal with it that it doesn't exist."

Besides, I don't see what's so capricious to hypothesize that God created distinct kinds, which somewhat diversified since then. Detectives work back to the non-natural cause of a series of events all the time.

One thing I've noticed is that at least one of the following bankrupt ideas is usually used or brushed up against in most evolution debates:

If it could be it must be

If it can work a little ways, it can (and did) work a long ways

Lack of evidence against is evidence for.

if some predictions of a theory come true then the theory is true

If the analogy works so does the real thing

The fact that a theory is void in some ways does not invalidate the theory

-Jesse