Weighing the Evidence: An Atheist Abandons Atheism

Post one or the link to one. (not one published by Discovery Inst. that doesn't count)

I posted a link to numerous links to Journals that deal with biotechnology, genetic engineering, and so on. Those activities, as you've already agreed, constitute "intelligent design" in the biological realm.

I really can't think of any convincing evidence for an IDer. The Theory of Evolution sufficiently explains speciation.

Sufficiently, or correctly? They're separate and distinct concepts, and you're apparently equating them.

With all these posts back and forth, I would expect you to tell me what would be good scientific evidence for ID.

You mean, other than the instances where it's currently practiced? And in those cases, the question would be: how would one detect the presence of humans in the loop without a priori knowledge that they were there? I don't know what such a test might be -- that's why I suggested the need to define them -- but I'm pretty sure that the current stable of tests isn't sufficient to pick it up.

With all your claims of "no evidence" I'd think you'd be able to tell us what evidence you'd accept. Moreover, I think you'd be able to show us how your "sufficient theory" would be able to correctly explain "non-natural" processes such as are documented in the journals to which I linked, or in the characteristics of the dog breeds on your street.

Can you do it? Or would your theory founder on the assumption that all characteristics must have arisen from "natural" processes?

I don't think you can use Darwin effectively to make your case.

I don't understand this statement -- please explain.

sPost one or the link to one. (not one published by Discovery Inst. that doesn't count)
r-I posted a link to numerous links to Journals that deal with biotechnology, genetic engineering, and so on. Those activities, as you've already agreed, constitute "intelligent design" in the biological realm.

Evolution has to do with how species form in nature. Genetic engineering supports evolution in that it substitutes a human for natural selection. A breeder can select non-adaptive traits, as dog breeders do. Nature does not work that way.

s-I really can't think of any convincing evidence for an IDer. The Theory of Evolution sufficiently explains speciation.

r-Sufficiently, or correctly? They're separate and distinct concepts, and you're apparently equating them.

Evolution is an observed fact, so the Theory is both sufficient and mostly correct. Theories are always being improved as new data comes in. If your intelligent designer shows up, the ToE will be discarded.

s-With all these posts back and forth, I would expect you to tell me what would be good scientific evidence for ID.

r-You mean, other than the instances where it's currently practiced? And in those cases, the question would be: how would one detect the presence of humans in the loop without a priori knowledge that they were there? I don't know what such a test might be -- that's why I suggested the need to define them -- but I'm pretty sure that the current stable of tests isn't sufficient to pick it up.

Like I said above, the genetic changes breeders and scientists do are not always adaptive to survival. Do you think Perkiness could survive in the wild? ;-)

r-With all your claims of "no evidence" I'd think you'd be able to tell us what evidence you'd accept. Moreover, I think you'd be able to show us how your "sufficient theory" would be able to correctly explain "non-natural" processes such as are documented in the journals to which I linked, or in the characteristics of the dog breeds on your street.

Biological evolution does not deal with breeding. It is about what has happened and is still happening in nature over the last many millions of years.

r-Can you do it? Or would your theory founder on the assumption that all characteristics must have arisen from "natural" processes?

So far, all the evidence points to all natural processes. You would have to show that species have originated in the wild through non-natural causes. So far, no one has been able to do that. But if you are striving for a Nobel prize, have at it. You will be the most famous scientist since Darwin himself, maybe surpass Einstein.

s-I don't think you can use Darwin effectively to make your case.

rI don't understand this statement -- please explain.

Darwin used breeding as an example of how selection works and used that example to explain how natural selection works. Have you ever read the complete Origin of Species?
It is sometimes hard to follow because of the older style of English prose, but it is a very good book to understand the basics of biology. There are some things in it that are in error. Genetics was unknown to Darwin and he was a little Lamarckian at times, but he still offers a master work to demonstrate the validity of his hypothesis. Thus, his hypothesis became a theory. A theory is a general set of principles that has been substantiated to produce the observed phenomenon involved.

OK -- still not enough time to respond properly, but I didn't want to give the impression I'm ducking your post, either.

Evolution has to do with how species form in nature. Genetic engineering supports evolution in that it substitutes a human for natural selection.

By limiting the discussion to "what occurs in nature," you're automatically excluding any evidence that might support the idea of intelligent agents. Essentially, you're acknowledging the case for ID, but then go on to dismiss it by saying you'll only consider evidence for intelligent design that does not include the presumed actions of an intelligent agent. It's a circular argument.

A breeder can select non-adaptive traits, as dog breeders do. Nature does not work that way.

Ah, but it does work that way. Breeders do not select traits at random; rather, they select traits that fill some perceived need. They might breed for an excellent sense of smell or hearing; or the ability to run long distances; or the ability to herd sheep. They might breed for intelligence, aggressiveness, or docility. They might breed thick fur for dogs who must crash through brush or live in the cold, or thin fur to help running dogs stay cool. Those are all certainly "adaptive traits" in a "survival of the fittest" sense of the term.

If your intelligent designer shows up, the ToE will be discarded.

You continue to insist on this formulation, but again: natural evolution and intelligent design are not mutually exclusive phenomena.

So far, all the evidence points to all natural processes.

Not quite. The evidence supports the hypothesis of "all-natural processes," but the evidence and hypothesis cannot be considered in isolation from each other. For example, one could hypothesize a set of natural processes to "explain" the evidence represented by the variety of dog breeds. One could also hypothesize the presence of breeders. Absent the a priori knowledge of the latter, all of the "scientific" evidence would point to a set of natural processes -- indeed, my mind's eye can see the Scientific American cover story: "Darwin's Triumph -- DNA Studies Prove Canines Are Evolving Toward Different Species."

You would have to show that species have originated in the wild through non-natural causes. So far, no one has been able to do that.

Likewise, no one has been able to "show" that the species have originated through natural causes. It is an inference drawn from various forms of evidence, but actual speciation has not been directly observed. Again, we cannot separate the evidence from the going-in hypothesis of all-natural causes. It's likewise possible that some speciation was due to intelligent agents, as opposed to natural processes -- indeed, it's preposterously easy to understand how an intelligent agent might accomplish it.

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.