Conclusions From Uncounted Creation/Evolution Debates

PatrickHenry | 10 June 2006 | PatrickHenry (vanity)

[Elsie]

Word of advice: if you want the scientifically literate to take you seriously, abjure the phrase 'Darwinists', which is used largely if not overwhelmingly by creationists.

Likewise.

Word of advice: if you want the technicaly literal to take you seriously, abjure the phrase 'pro-choice', which is used largely if not overwhelmingly by abortionists.

[WildHorseCrash]

All crimes ought therefore to be eftimated...

"Eftimated"?

Those Yalies really need to proof read better... (The Germanic "long s" is still an "s," not an "f.")

[Right Wing Professor]

Word of advice: if you want the technicaly literal to take you seriously, abjure the phrase 'pro-choice', which is used largely if not overwhelmingly by abortionists.

Not a phrase I use. I prefer the simple pro- and anti-abortion. No rational person could object to these :-)

[Right Wing Professor]

Your Sherlock Holmes example is funny, but it misses the point I was making, which was that while the lack of an explanatory mechanism is a serious absence, a gap in its causal story does not by itself render a research program "unscientific".

A theory that includes an arbitrary prohibition against investigating obvious and major aspects of the theory is an unscientific theory. We don't have such rules in real science. Answering one scientific question always leads to another. If ID happened to be true, something I rank in likelihood with my winning next Saturday's powerball jackpot, you can bet the next thing we'd try to do is figure out who, why, when, where and how. Trying to forbid prior speculation about the issue is a tacit admission that such speculation will lead to a debate about the supernatural, and thus the theory is constructed using political, not scientific considerations.

The reason I used "Darwinism" is because "theory of evolution" is too broad. Theories of evolution are thousands of years old-- it's Darwin's theory that's relatively new.

If you say 'theory of evolution', nobody will be in the least unclear what you mean. I promise.

Another ID research project is, as I understand it, being done at the level of enzymes to determine how sparsely populated islands of a given functional enzyme type are within the greater sea of non-functional polypeptides. The idea is that if they turn out to be sparsely populated, this would serve as a confirmation (not absolute proof) of an instance of hitting the called shot i.e. "specified complexity", while The idea behind Dembski's design filter is to refine it so it doesn't give false positives.

I know of a lot of research being done on this; not by IDers, though. Angela Gronenborn gave a seminar about it at my institution last year, and in fact there was a recent thread here on evolutionary pathways between proteins. The preliminary data don't look good for ID. Most of Angela's mutant proteins, IIRC, had good stable folds; some in fact had equilibria between two or more folds.

Most math types I know think very little of Dembski's work; it's essentially (according to them) a gussied up version of the old Hoyle argument, through which many very large trucks have been driven.

[2nsdammit]

Pure BS.

The Bible is no more a "legal document" than is the Encyclopedia Britannica, or any junior high history textbook, or a Steven King novel.

[2nsdammit]

What does this possibly have to do with a discussion of creationism vs. evolutionary theory?

[SaveUS]

"Pure BS.

The Bible is no more a "legal document" than is the Encyclopedia Britannica"

I don't get that either. I smell fish.

[SaveUS]

"What does this possibly have to do with a discussion of creationism vs. evolutionary theory?"

We are up over 200 posts. The original thought is but a distant memory now. Stick around till post 300 and you will be enlightened as to how The Road Runner is actually the Anti-Christ.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Most math types I know think very little of Dembski's work...

They are being too kind.

[bvw]

History is not your forte -- by your statement one guages that you stopped considerably shy of junior high, history-wise. Otherwise you'd know better.

[bvw]

I didn't check but wonder if the archaic english typeset "f" for a long s is an artifact of their OCR scanner.

[2nsdammit]

You're a riot! Obviously, reality is not YOUR forte.

Please explain how you believe that the Bible is a legal document.

[Seamoth]

The only assumption that ID posits is that it's possible to make design inferences based on the specified complexity one finds.

I always regret picking debates, but one doesn't have a clear judgment when insomniac. Complexity already has a formal description: the smallest possible program or algorithm that produces a given output.

You have crystals, lower complexity, and the things we call random, higher complexity, in nature. So given that we have examples of both things without divine intervention, how can we say that there is a designer?

The examples and analogies used in ID, IMHO, have nothing to do with complexity and more aimed at finding patterns within -human- design such that we can successfully predict whether an object is manmade or not, but those cannot be extrapolated to nature. The fact that manmade designs fall within such limited patterns are more arguably descriptive of our own limitations than our intelligence.

For his part, an IDer need not have any faith in the Bible to be an IDer

ID necessiates belief in an entity with near-infinite supernatural powers, properties of being omnipresent, and a personal interest in us. The only deity known to the vast majority of those studying ID that fits the billing is the one in the Old Testament. To build on your analogy, an ID who is not a Creationist would be about as common as a Communist who would choose to vote a Republican over a Democrat. It is not unheard of (after all, technically, communism rejects a central government), but it is such a rarity that any real-life examples would be met with skeptism.

[SaveUS]

"You have crystals, lower complexity, and the things we call random, higher complexity, in nature."

Not to mention, I can take Newton's Method and plug in a billion random numbers and give you chaos that seems God like. Its not living, but it takes on a life of its own.

[Elsie]

I guess the word COVENANT isn't in your dictionaries...

[Elsie]

What does this possibly have to do with a discussion of creationism vs. evolutionary theory?

 

 

Oh... 'bout the same as this:

 

 

 

Gosh, this is fun. Maybe I'll get to use dumbs**t in every post in the Smokey backroom?! Or should I just save it for special occasions?

157 posted on 06/11/2006 8:36:56 PM CDT by balrog666

What does this possibly have to do with a discussion of creationism vs. evolutionary theory?

Oh... 'bout the same as this:

[SaveUS]

Hmm. I'll skip over the COVENANT comment and go right for the jugular. Where exactly did you decide that judging other people was a Christian thing to do? You do realize judging and sinning are synonomous for the mortals, right? (However, something tells me we should get a break on Zarqawi and terrorists)

But seriously, how can you possibly think your brand of Christianity is better than someone else's?

[2nsdammit]

I have to bow to your superior ability to provide non-sequitors. It's astonishing how well you duck and weave actual questions, and are able to say so little, using so many words. You're a genius.....

[JamesP81]

In stating that creationism isn't essential, we are relying entirely on the statements of thousands of Christian clergy, e.g., The Clergy Letter Project, a strong, pro-evolution statement signed by over 10,000 Christian clergymen; Statements from Religious Organizations, a list of Christian and Jewish denominations, including Roman Catholics, that accept (or at least don't dispute) evolution; and the recent statement opposing creationism by the Archbishop of Canterbury, leader of the 70-million-member Anglican Communion.

I understand you're trying to make your case here, but I've looked at this list. These are mostly liberal churches, especially the anglican communion. Basically, they have no credibility (with the exception of the Roman Catholic Church) with traditional christians. Contrary to what you intended, citing this document alienates traditional Christians from your viewpoint. If you want more of us to see things your way, I wouldn't cite religious support from a church that openly defies biblical teaching. It isn't going to work.

[Elsie]

You're a genius.....

And, as always, you are correct.