Darwin under fire (again): Intelligent design vs. evolution

First Amendment Center ^ | 12/5/04 | Charles C. Haynes

[Dataman]

Dataman regularly goes beyond the pale in these threads. Just ignore him.

Beyond the pale= evolutionists can't answer the questions.

Sorry to ask such hard questions, narby, but this is war. If your worldview can't deal with them, it's time for a new worldview.

[Dataman]

Because, as I've said before, who is better qualified to criticially examine the flaws of a biological theory than a lawyer?

That's one way to deal with the endless questions that naturalism can't answer: Allow only "qualified" people to ask them. But it really doesn't matter if a 6th grader asks the question or microbiologist does because naturalism still can't answer.

[bigLusr]

I'm going to become disgustingly rich when I can figure out a way to thump someone on the head over the internet.

[Dimensio]

That's one way to deal with the endless questions that naturalism can't answer: Allow only "qualified" people to ask them

Well, it does get a bit frustrating when we have people with no training in the field asking irrelevant questions, such as "how can evolution be true when it can't explain the ultimate origin of life", despite the fact that it has been explained to that person over and over again that the theory of evolution does not and never has addressed the ultimate origin of life.

Anyone is allowed to ask questions about biology, but when we have people who have no understanding of the field proclaiming themselves 'experts' on why a leading theory is false, then demonstrating a fundamental lack of understanding of the field in general -- much less the theory -- it becomes a waste of time listening to them.

But, then, you knew that. You're just dishonestly trying to distract from the real issue.

[Right Wing Professor]

We do seem to have discovered some universal laws, but I submit they are universal only because we haven't yet found counterexamples; not because we make the assumption they are universal.

Is this universally true? Is this assessment based on observation of every known aspect of the universe at all times? Or is this a judgment?

It's a result of induction; one of the elements of realism is that things that have always happened in the past are likely to happen again in the future. It's a fruit of experience.

Moreover, the materialist nature of scientism makes a realist metaphysics impossible.

Now you're throwing around a term whose meaning you haven't given and whose validity I won't automatically accept. What do you mean by scientism?

that something cannot both be, and not be, in the same sense and at the same time.

No, it is a first principle. It is an eternal truth, since its truth is independent of time and place. It is the presupposition inherent in all thought. And thought precedes all empirical analysis.

I've explained that, in modern physics, something can indeed be, and not be, at the same time. Your 'first principle', therefore, conflicts with what we know of the universe. I'd regard that as a good time to question whether it should really be a first principle.

A Ford Mustang is greater than its components scattered across the garage floor. There is a difference between a car and its components. The difference is real, and the whole car is superior to its parts, since the whole car possesses real, additional qualities that the group of components do not. Similarly with all things.

I agree about the Mustang, but not about 'all things'. If I have two identical pennies. In what respect are they more than the sum of 1 cent and 1 cent?

I thought there were no universals? And how would you know empirically if there were without observing every part of the universe at all times?

The speed of light in the vacuum is a universal, as far as we know. And realism does not require that we know everything at all times to know with some confidence that it is a universal constant. Mathematical certainty requires that; but science and math are not the same.

I'm not going to address your point about ethics, because that's a whole 'nother ball of wax.

[Dataman]

Well, it does get a bit frustrating when we have people with no training in the field asking irrelevant questions, such as "how can evolution be true when it can't explain the ultimate origin of life",

Don't you think it's a bit hypocritical for you to claim that one has to be qualified to ask the hard questions of evolution while, at the same time, evolutionists on FR generally lack the qualifications to defend it? Not only that, but they feel free to criticize philosophy, logic, religion, and theology-- fields for which they are equally "unqualified?"

Haven't you just disqualified yourself?

[Fatalis]

Thanks for that excellent example of your inability to distinguish a fallacy from the burden of proof. It's easy to see why evolution is collapsing.

LOL! Is it?

Shifting the burden of proof is a fallacy.

Fallacy: Shifting the Burden of Proof

In easily verifiable claims, the person initiating the claim normally assumes the burden of proof. Not doing so, however, should probably not be considered a fallacy. The fallacy occurs whenever someone shifts the burden of proof to avoid the difficulty of substantiating a claim which would be very difficult to support.

If you propose a linguistic rule, or anything else under the Sun, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it. When you attempted to shift your burden onto me, you committed a very common fallacy.

If you're not convinced that you have, or that shifting the burden of proof is a well known fallacy, here are about 17,000 other sources.

[narby]

Sorry to ask such hard questions, narby, but this is war. If your worldview can't deal with them, it's time for a new worldview.

[FingersInEars] LaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLa[/FingersInEars

[Dimensio]

Don't you think it's a bit hypocritical for you to claim that one has to be qualified to ask the hard questions of evolution while, at the same time, evolutionists on FR generally lack the qualifications to defend it?

Now you're putting words in my mouth, and making an unfounded assertion about the majority of evolution supporters here on FR. Still, lying is nothing new from you.

[Fatalis]

If I have two identical pennies. In what respect are they more than the sum of 1 cent and 1 cent?

Investors Flock to Coins Amid Rising Metal Prices -- A $400,000 Penny

[bigLusr]

Smart-alek. :-P

[Fatalis]

However, even if such a 'first cause' existed, that would be at the beginning of the chain of events that led to the existence of life, which means that you could still have 'blind materialistic forces' being responsible for life, so long as those 'blind materialistic forces' were, themselves, part of the chain that began at the 'first cause'.

Tell me if I'm wrong, but your statement seems to say that it's OK to call the forces blind, even though science isn't addressing the question of whether or not the forces had a cause that wasn't blind.

Why is there a need to characterize material forces as blind or otherwise, from a scientific perspective?

I don't see any, and it seems to me that letting such nonscientific statements leak into the discussion is the source of a lot of mischief.

[Fatalis]

Thanks.

[Dimensio]

Why is there a need to characterize material forces as blind or otherwise, from a scientific perspective?

Blind, in this context, simply means that there's no intelligent drive behind the forces. Science assumes as much because, thus far, there's no evidence to assume some extraneous intelligence. If there is some intelligence behind it all, then it's thus far remained outside of the observations of science (and if the intelligence is supernatural, then it will always be outside of science's scope).

[Fatalis]

Blind, in this context, simply means that there's no intelligent drive behind the forces. Science assumes as much because, thus far, there's no evidence to assume some extraneous intelligence

I thought that's what it meant, and it creates a real problem to allow that as the default supposition of science, and nothing scientific is gained by doing so. It's a theological position, not a scientific one, to characterize those forces as either blind or designed.

If there is some intelligence behind it all, then it's thus far remained outside of the observations of science (and if the intelligence is supernatural, then it will always be outside of science's scope).

Exactly so. Therefore, between the three choices of atheism, theism, or agnosticism, science ought to accept the neutral position as the default. The other two choices involve pontification in a lab coat, a 15 yard infraction.

[Condorman]

Creationism is not against gene shifts in populations, but in the creation of new and complex mechanisms through randomness.

So what process do you propose to explain the recorded history of new mechanisms that appear in populations? Are you suggesting that God steps in and personally adds new features to a population of critters every time He decides that it's time for a something new?

[Condorman]

Do only football players determine what constitutes football?

Sometimes you need referees, and sometimes referees from outside perspectives can bring insight that insiders don't.

Referees learn, in excruciating detail, the rules of football. Then they ignore them and pretend that $#@! Vick threw an interception on the &*#@ 1-yard-line when CLEARLY it was PASS INTERFERENCE by the @^#%$#*@ defense!!

[Condorman]

Until these questions have been answered I will continue to question todays scientists.

If you are truly interested in science, question away. Be mindful, however, that the onus is upon you to listen to the answers.

start please with proof, not conjecture.

Science cannot offer you proof. Not of evolution, not of cell theory, not of atomic theory, not of gravitational theory. Will you accept evidence, instead?

[Dataman]

Shifting the burden of proof is a fallacy.

The burden of proof is on the new idea. You are the newcomer. Hermeneutics was around thousands of years before you were. The guy in the link made a good case. You can't refute it so you shift the burden of proof. Got any other good arguments that support evolution?

[Condorman]

It does not ‘become’ resistant… It ‘is’ resistant or it dies. Do you understand?

Let's take this step by step:

1) Put a single, non-resistant bacterium in a clean petri dish.
2) Add a mutagen to the petri dish.
3) Allow the bacterium to grow into a large colony in the presence of the mutagen.
4) Add Antibiotic X to the colony.
5) Observe that the mortality rate of bacterium is less than 100%.
6) Allow the surviving members of the colony to repopulate.
7) Add another dose of Antibiotic X to the colony.
8) Observe that the mortality rate is less than in step 5.

Now, what can you conclude?