Posted on 01/12/2009 7:23:26 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Arguing that evolution isn't possible because the necessary metainfo isn't there makes assumptions about what can or cannot be part of the original design.
You're looking at species here, tacticalogic. What Williams is looking at is a generalized, universal description of what constitutes a life form — any life form.
Didn’t we already have this argument yesterday?
LOL I don't think you even know what evidence is : ) Do you even understand that an 'argument' is not evidence? Let me try and illustrate the difference.
Ancient man was very familiar with gravity and they had many laws concerning it. One of the laws was that heavy objects fall faster than light objects. That law is logical and has experimental evidence to back it up, just go drop a feather and a bowling ball at the same time. The argument (logic) is that gravity attracts heavier objects more than lighter objects. It is perfectly logical and math equations can show the different accelerations.
We now know through experimentation and evidence from new experimentation that gravity attracts all objects equally (they accelerate and fall at the same speed). This theory too can be logically shown, with the corresponding Math equations.
What is the difference between the two theories? EVIDENCE! In a vacuum, a bowling ball and a feather hit the ground at the same time if they are dropped at the same time.
So I will politely ask once again. What is your EVIDENCE! that supports ID?
And not a one of them can explained by the level below it. And, as Williams points out, there an “unbridgeable abyss” between the lowest level (perfectly purity) and the natural environment.
“Would you support teaching of islamic Creationism?”
No I wouldn’t. I also wouldn’t support teaching of any other religion’s Creation account.
That being said, there should be a counterpoint to ToE. That is Intelligent Design. ToE is currently being taught as fact (even though it’s a theory) in public schools everywhere....and as far as I’m concerned ToE IS a religion - it’s called Secular Humanism. And ToEs don’t seem to have a problem with it being taught....
Do you support the teaching of Secular Humanism?
I don't believe the theory states that at all. In fact, quite the contrary. Provided all five levels of the AP hierarchy are present, the organism has amazing flexibility to adapt to changing external and internal conditions.
[[For one thing, the Designer went to a great deal of trouble to make living things look like they are related by common descent,]]
Really? He didn’t ‘go to a lot of trouble’ to make it look like common design?
[[The Designer also also took great pains to make genomes that look like the result of incremental change.]]
He did? Similar designs wouldn’t suffer similar ill effects? if no, Says who?
[[When humans are designing life they use genetic material that crosses species, families, even kingdoms.]]
What are you tryign to get at here JS? I’ve asked a couple of times, but what are you inferring? Are you saying genticists take genes from say a potato, and splice htem into a rubbarb plant? (Just pickign two dissimilar kinds)
IF so, lateral gene transference CAN be artificially manipulated by science- so what? What does htis show? We know all species have similar designs- We also know that you can take a wire off a Royles Royce, and put it in a Volswagon, and it will work- does it mean the Royce evolved fro mthe Volkswagon? Of course not- they were both created seperately. Whiel science CAN laterally transfere genetic material between dissimilar kinds, this does NOT happen in nature, and certainly did not happen literally millions of times without leavign a shred of evidnece behind-
The only species that allows natural gene transference is between bacteria- but htis is between species of a similar kind- Altering species genetically via lateral gene transference might work, but let’s try alterign them to the extent they MUST have been altered IF macroeovlution is true and see what happens? Species Do, once again, have built in parameters which only allow just so much change before they become non viable- We know this for fact, and yes, science has pushed to hte limits, but htey ALWYS run into the brick wall in hte end
Science has been able to- beleive it or not- introduce genetic info from a spider into a goat- the goat produced silk in it’s milk- Big deal- a tiny lateral gene transference artificially inserted, produced silk in milk- but again- let’s start introducign myriad genetic info and see what happens. Again, the brick wall. What htis hsows is not ‘common descent’ but rather common design, and it ALSO shows that species have very species specific built in protection levels that prevent alteration. Every species we know of has these species psecific parameters- but science tells us that ‘some time i nthe past’ all these parameters were non existent, and htne all of a sudden, these parameters all engaged all at once, and fro mthen on, no more macoreovlution was possible?
Actually that statement was presented as a consequence of arguments that the theory disallows evolution. If that's the case that seemed to suggest that every species had to be designed and created individuallly as a separate, irreducibly complex system. Basically it was "thinking out loud" about the consequences of the assertion.
Thank you. If both sides could be nicer to each other perhaps more could be accomplished.
In all that wonderful material with which you’ve spammed us, can you cite which articles in which journals addresses the issues being discussed in this thread, and specifically how they have relevance to our discussion? If you are unable or unwilling to do just so little as that, then you have reduced yourself to standing off at a distance and peppering the assembly with spitwads. A sad state for someone of your dignity and stature.
Again, there I was making observations about the consequences of the theory based on information I had been provided about what it said, before I got a chance to read it all for myself. Having done that I will withdraw that comment.
We touched on it, but it bears repeating!
[[I’ve watched lots of these threads degenerate into flame wars, starting with people making broad perjorative statements about “the other side”.]]
This htread has remained remarkably calm and civil so far except for a few perjorative remarks made by some hoping I guess to take hte disscusions away fro mthe central issues and onto irrelevent topics and claims. but really though, these have been just minor irrelevent distrations so far
Which, I hasten to add, Creation/ID predicts. That is, both Creationists and IDers believe this capablity was built-in by the designer. If memory serves, IDers call this frontloading.
Next up for consideration is the possibility of "frontloading" an organism with enough metainfo and a design sufficient to allow for evolution.
[[I do indeed think it’s an airtight case against materialist evolution (as does the author IMHO). However, if my Creation and ID FRiends think otherwise, they are free to voice their opinions. ]]
I’m not sure I’d make that claim just yet- I think the paper provides them ost reasonable and plausible case against naturalism, and for IC, but I’d need to know more about whether or not nature is capable of creating chemically pure systems (And I don’t think pointing to just one example of a sugar being somewhat pure translates into ‘then al lthe systems could have been created chemically pure- we just don’t know yet”) I would also like to know a bit more about whether metainfo can or can not be created in a stepwise fashion- so far htough, the evidence seems to indicate it can not, and makes a fairly strong case that it can’t- but I’m not sure it’s an ‘airtight’ case- close perhaps, but hterem ight be soemthign science, and htis paper is overlooking that might indicate metainfo ‘might have’ a chance of arising naturally- however, having said that- this paper’s concepts, along with the serious impossobilities facign macroevolution, I think it presents a case of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that macroevolution didn’t happen- infact couldn’t happen.
Williams made a coupel of unfortunate statements- however, they did nothign to undermine the central concepts that I can see. It seems to be a favorite tactic of the opposition to point ot irrelevent mistakes, and then claim that hte whole central issues are therefore invalid, but the objective analysis of the central concepts shows this is just an avoidance technioque as far as I’m concerned.
Agreed. I think it will stay that way if we don't let ourselves, or each other, fall into "old habits".
That (partial) list of journals was posted to illustrate a point: Science is conducted not in internet chat rooms, but in journals such as those.
A subpoint, which I did not feel it necessary to mention, is that the article which is the subject of this thread is not in one of those journals, nor any like them. Rather it is on the website of Creation Ministries International.
Further, if you look at the "About Us" section of their website you will find their Statement of Faith. If you examine that, and compare it with the scientific method, you will find that they are doing religious apologetics, not science. In fact, given the mandates of their statement of faith they are doing the opposite of science.
STATEMENT OF FAITH(A) PRIORITIES
1. The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.
2. The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.(B) BASICS
1. The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.
2. The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.
3. The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.
4. The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation.
5. The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.
6. The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman), and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the necessity of salvation for mankind.
7. Death (both physical and spiritual) and bloodshed entered into this world subsequent to, and as a direct consequence of, man’s sin.Continues...
Now, given this statement of faith and the fact that the article being debated appears on their website, do think it most likely that that article reflects A) religious apologetics, or B) science?
And that is what discerning researchers would have understood from my list of journals.
ID is on the same level as astrology - neither should be taught in Science class.
And how does one teach SH?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.