Posted on 02/19/2009 9:24:24 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
What Is Science?
"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."
—Dr. Scott Todd, Kansas State University, Nature 401(6752):423, Sept. 30, 1999
What You Will Learn
Many people do not realize that science was actually developed in Christian Europe by men who assumed that God created an orderly universe. If the universe is a product of random chance or a group of gods that interfere in the universe, there is really no reason to expect order in nature. Many of the founders of the principle scientific fields, such as Bacon, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton, were believers in a recently created earth. The idea that science cannot accept a creationist perspective is a denial of scientific history...
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
Yup, sounds like a good description of the big bang, abiogenesis, and the ToE all rolled into one.
Singularity came from somewhere before there was any somewhere to be, then for some unknown reason expanded to fill all known space in a trillion-trillionth of a second, meaning it traveled faster than the speed of light to do so, somehow established its own laws, goes on to organize itself into an orderly system in violation of the laws of thermodynamics (which it previously established for itself), to produce an orderly universe which somewhere, somehow, gave rise to sentient life.
All on its own.
And now scientists know all the why's and wherefore's and can explain all the reasons that it happened.
Yup, makes perfect sense..../s
So now that we have all the reasons, how does that not put an end to inquiry?
I thought that not knowing the reasons was why people investigated things. Silly me....
LOL! You're not making a scientific argument -- you're arguing like the worst kind of creationist! There is no need other than your own biases to assume all of those omnis and unspecifics. "Intelligent design" is real, as can be seen by reference to the multi-billion dollar industry built around the techniques of genetic engineering.
To spot your error, it is simply necessary to point to a specific example of intelligent design: genetically-engineered insulin-producing bacteria.
A scientist might wonder why a bacterium should produce insulin. He'd undoubtedly sequence the DNA of the bacterium and, using existing techiques, he would undoubtedly detect the human insulin gene that causes the effect.
He might ask a further question: how did a human insulin gene end up there? Was it somehow transferred into the genome of some other organism?
To answer that question, the scientist might well undertake an inspection/comparison of the gene sequences of the insulin-producing bacterium, in hopes of finding its closest match. Again, this is a currently-available technique. The comparison would, of course, show a very sharp and localized difference within a genome that was otherwise the same between two different "species" of bacteria.
Having found the difference, the big question: how did this change take place?
The correct explanation for the development of these particular bacteria is, of course, that an intelligent designer did it. A person who was conversant with recombinant DNA techniques would recognize what appears to be the signature of genetic engineering in the available evidence. That being the case, he would be seriously irresponsible to dismiss "intelligent designers" among his potential hypotheses.
There are, of course, a variety of ways that genes can be tranferred between organisms. The scientific problem is to select the most likely one as "the proper" explanation. What is the most likely mechanism for transferring a very specific human gene -- and nothing else -- to a bacterium?
Simple: genetic engineering.
Now to dispense with your "argument."
1. Does genetic engineering require omniscience or omnipotence? Clearly not, because humans (who are obviously capable of doing it) are neither.
2. Was there any reason we needed know the "properties" of the agents in order to conclude from the evidence that genetic engineering was most likely responsible for the phenomenon? No.
3. Methods: we did base our conclusion on our own knowlege of methods -- but then, there is no scientific requirement for an agent to not use things we know about.
4. Did we need to know the agent's motives to detect the property, and to make a conclusion of "intelligent design?" No.
4. Did we need to know times or places at which the change took place? No.
And thus your "argument" collapses under the weight of its own flawed assumptions.
So now that we have all the reasons, how does that not put an end to inquiry?
I thought that not knowing the reasons was why people investigated things. Silly me....
It’s not that they know, it’s that they know no one else is worthy of knowing (because they’re terrified of the results).
You seem to be operating under the false assumption that Intelligent Design is not a valid hypothesis. You couldn't be more wrong.
While there are many thousands of peer-reviewed papers dealing with intelligent design, I will instead point you to the Yahoo! page that proves it is not just a scientific oddity, but in fact a hypothesis with serious commercial implications. I give you the NASDAQ Biotechnology Index.
The point being: Intelligent Design is a fact -- it's called "biotechnology."
Good example. It's easy to spot human engineered life forms because their genomes don't fit the nested hierarchy required of common descent.
So the only designers we know of and can observe at work do not produce organisms that look like the result of a long series of incremental changes.
So why would the Designer eschew common design practices and limit himself to small incremental changes that are consistent with common descent?
Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.”
—Dr. Scott Todd, Kansas State University, Nature 401(6752):423, Sept. 30, 1999
As I do with every single “anti-evolution” quote from creationist writings, I looked this up.
Now, it’s not an easy one to find because it only appears in two places: 50 different creationist websites and Nature Magazines archives from 1999. And those archives cost money to peruse... unless you happen to have an account like me.
As someone wrote earlier, Dr. Todd is but one voice and he is entitled to whatever opinion he wants. This quote (and it is, indeed, a direct quote... for once) was part of a longer letter to Nature regarding the science curriculum debate in Kansas 10 years ago.
For those of you interested how how/why Dr. Todd wrote this, here’s a bit more context.
“...Creationists, according to Johnson, do not doubt that DNA encodes the features of an organism or that changes in DNA (mutations) give rise to variation in those features which are subject to selective pres- sures in nature. Mainstream creationists also accept that genetic and phenotypic changes could result in speciation. They consider evolution as a plausible model to account for the natural history of living things, but they see a great distinction between the empirically proven elements of evolution (micro-evolution) and the expla nation of speciation and origins of life (macro-evolution). Students in Kansas will still be required to learn the former, but it will be left to local school districts to decide whether they are required to learn the latter.
The lesson to be learned from the events in Kansas is that science educators every- where must do a better job of teaching evo- lution. It must be made clear that the evi- dence supporting the mechanism of evolu tion is empirical and proven, but that speci ation and natural history are derived from the admittedly weaker evidence of observa tion. The fact that one cannot reproduce the experiment does not diminish the validity of macro-evolution, but the observed phenomena supporting the theo ry must be presented more clearly.
Additionally, one must question the interpretations of the observed phenomena and discuss the weaknesses of the model. Honest scientists are far more inspiring than defensive ones who scoff arrogantly at the masses and fear that discussing the problems of macro-evolutionary theory will weaken general acceptance of it. On the contrary, free debate is more likely to encourage the curious to seek solutions. Most important, it should be made clear in the classroom that science, including evolu tion, has not disproved God’s existence because it cannot be allowed to consider it (presumably).
Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. Of course the scientist, as an individual, is free to embrace a reality that transcends naturalism.”
Scott C. Todd
Let me ask why it is (and when it was and by whom it was determined) that science could only BE science if it’s somehow natural?
After all, tax money funds scientists to study multiverse theory, string theory, and even scientific study into response to prayer. (As far as I know)
Omniscience would be required to know all the adaptations that would be required as a result of environmental changes, preditor/prey arms races, and so forth. If all that is front loaded, it could only be done by an agent that knows the future.
Their world is off limits to God, unless that god can be crammed into their predictable, naturalistic little box, where He does nothing unexpected nor out of the ordinary.
It's so much more comfortable when God answers to you, rather than you answering to God.
None of that is true. Give me a break.
Your unique perspective on what ID is will come as a surprise to Dr. Behe and his supporters.
We certainly need to know something about the agent's capabilities. Humans certainly aren't capable of fortelling the future and knowing exactly what adaptations will be beneficial in the future. If Humans were attempting to engineer systems as flexible and as adaptive a living things, they would turn to genetic algorithms.
The “uncomfortable” part about facing God is that you know that there is a standard of morality, it “ain’t yours”, and you “ain’t living it”, and you will be held accountable.
Those are all implications of facing God, and something few want to do.
The times and places need to be consistent with the known history of change over time.
As we get farther and farther from this principle in archaeology, the claim of artifact becomes more and more controversial.
In the case of living things we have no objects whose creation we have witnessed. Nor have we seen any designer in action. Other than variation and selection.
OK, we have seen engineered organisms, but they hurt your case rather than help it, because they can easily be distinguished as artifacts.
Other than plants and animals that have been bred through selection, we have no examples of living artifacts that fit the genomic nested hierarchy. And of course, breeding programs are exactly what led Darwin to his theory.
You don't know that.
First, you seem to be demanding an "either/or" -- either a designer is responsible for all characteristics and changes, or there is no designer. That's not a serious scientific argument: real scientists are comfortable with systems in which multiple causes can work together. But it is a convenient claim for those who are predisposed to deny the possibility of a designer in the first place. (The reason why they deny the possibility is usually religious in nature...)
Second, while one can spot the signatures of current methods, one need not assume that a designer is constrained to use only those we know about. For example, in Darwin's time selective breeding was the only known method of genetic engineering. They'd never have dreamed that genetic changes could be purposely inserted into a cell to produce insulin -- they'd have been utterly unable to detect it. We can likewise reasonably assume that future advances in genetic engineering will involve methods that are not known to us today. We need not assume that a designer is constrained to operate within the bounds of current technology.
When we step back to your argument as a whole, what you seem to be saying is that a "real" scientist would never even hypothesize "design" in the first place. That's not science, it's merely a bias -- and a supremely ridiculous one at that, given that we already know "design" is at least a valid hypothesis.
How would you determine if it's NOT "anti-evolution" if it's not from a creationsist, say if it was this so called "peer review of evolution" I continue to hear about, and how do you tell the difference?
Also, if a paper was submitted by a creationist or an evolutionist, how would you tell the difference between "peer review", vs. "anti-evolution", if there were no name attached to the paper and it was submitted anonymously?
Lastly, is a creation scientist "allowed" to "peer review" evolution, or is it always labeled "anti-evolution", and does this work in reverse?
Because I keep hearing, even by you on this very thread today, about creation scientists submitting their ID papers for this so-called "peer review"...is this paper up for peer review among only the creation scientists or only evolution scientists or both; or is it ALWAYS and forever to be labeled as "anti-creation science" when it is "peer reviewed" by evolution scientists and "peer review" when reviewed by creation scientists?
The problem for the ID movement is that biotechnology produces results that are easily distinguished from common descent.
LOL! My "perspective on ID" can hardly be unique if there is a stock index devoted to the commercial exploitation of the techniques of intelligent design.
OTOH, your perverse denial of something so obvious comes as no surprise to those of us who understand that your real objection is religious, rather than scientific.
Music isn’t science. Bach still did some great stuff.
Where did the genetic algorithms come from, intelligent design or sheer happenstance?
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.