Is Human Design Truly Intelligent?

  • Thread starter Psi 5
  • Start date
In summary: The eye is filled with a gel sac that shrinks quite a bit by age 50. This shrinkage sometimes results in torn retina's that, until recent times, caused blindness. Not a big deal because the average life span then was about 50 years so it went pretty much unnoticed. If an omipotent designer had designed the eye you would think it would take into account the fact that we would eventually have a much longer lifespan than 50 years. Especially if he was the Christian God who designed earlier humans to live hundreds of years like Moses and his buddies.What about designing us with skin full of holes (pores) that are perfectly designed to harbor bacteria and cause many people much grief?Then there are inadequate muscles and tend
  • #71
DaveC426913 said:
(Note highlit words)
And, like any believer, you are entitled to your personal beliefs. (Some of which - such as https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=789200&postcount=51" - you might be wiser to keep to yourself...), but don't try to pretend it has anything to do with "proof", "logic" or "science".

Science and logic are involved in my beliefs. My believes come from information and induction. Some of the claims I made dealing with IQ I based off of *information* I received from scientific sources. Furthermore, if I believe atheism is the correct philosophy, it is only natural for me to think more intelligent people lean towards it (induction).

Furthermore, in my opinion, the philosophical support for atheism is superior to theism. Theism simply switches the definition of God and the nature of his abilities to avoid accepting the truth (Opinion). Therefore, higher IQ individuals are more likely to realize that - if it is true, of course.

You are intitled to your beliefs; however, scientific reductionism is different from religious belief. Science is founded upon principles of reductionism, and, as a result, atheism (a reductionist belief) is often adopted by scientists using the same methods they use to analyze any other issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism

Both evolutionists and creationists make decisions based on information they believe to be legitimate. If you are claiming that making a decision on this matter is illegitimate in either sense, I disagree with you. People sometimes make decisions based on a strong amount of evidence in one direction and poor evidence or a lack of evidence in another direction.

I believe there is strong evidence for evolution and little evidence for ID. As a result, I feel comfortable stating the ID is false because I am a reductionist, and ID has been presented as an alternative to evolution. Though I would still be reluctant to believe it because of a lack of evidence, an ID argument that simply says evolution exists and there was a creator would be much more believable to me.

If the information supporting ID is equal to that supporting evolution (they are both wrong or both right, ect), you are correct - scientific dogmatism and religious dogmatism are both equally foolish. However, if they are not equally supported, they cannot be equally foolish.

Perhaps my reductionism is incorrect on this matter. Perhaps, even if evolution is correct and ID false, it is too soon to be making a judgment on this issue. I have not closed the issue; theoretically, either is possible. However, at this time, I feel it is best to believe evolution is correct and ID is false because of the evidence I have been presented with.

In short, unless the information for both sides is completely the same, the dogmatic individuals of either side are not equally foolish. Furthermore, reductionism is not a disregard of other possible theories. Reductionism involves excepting something as a truth so you can base other things off of it. Bigger things are made up of smaller ones. Reductionism has always been applied, in the scientific community, to evolution. Are all scientists 100% certain about evolution? No. Does the scientific community accept evolution as fact so it has a basis to learn more about biology. Yes. Evolution has expanded because of reductionism.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
wave said:
Please show us one paper from a peer reviewed scientific journal that claims to have proven abiogenesis.

I didn’t say they claim abiogenesis is proven, everyone knows it isn’t. They say abiogenesis is most likely[/] the origin of life. I object to that since they are missing the key self-organization trait they need to say "most likely." And THEN, if you ask how they can possibly justify that "most likely" is when they start with the Miller-Urey etc. stuff.

I say that claiming a few amino acids forming spontaneously justifies their confidence in abiogenesis gives away the fact that they are physicalist, not objective; to anyone not committed to a purely physical explanation, that measly bit of self-organization in no way suffices as a demonstration that matter can self-organize into a living system.


wave said:
Not true. Many phyla appear before and after the Cambrian. Angiosperms, mammals and insects didn't appear in the Cambrian to name a few. Just because more fossils started to appear in Cambrian doesn't mean there were less evolution in Precambrian.

I didn't say organ/organism evolution did not happen before or since. I said 3.5 billion years of bacteria and algae, that soon after there was a huge explosion of metazoan life forms over a ten million year period, and then nothing like THAT EXPLOSION before or since. This you cannot deny. It is also true that we find the first appearance in the fossil record of all modern animal phyla in that 10 million year period.

So you missed my point. My point was to ask how you explain the speed of evolution that went on in a ten million period. For that to happen, according to the current theory, it would require enormously diverse genetic variation compared to the level of variation we now see, and then time for generations to be selected with the most survivable traits, then lots more variations which just so happen can lead to organ development, and so on. I mean, how many fortunate accidents in mutation can you count on to develop kidneys, lungs, livers, eyes, brains . . . within such a short period, not to mention the numbers and variety of new phyla?

We still have bacteria and algae don't we? We still have a suitable atmosphere don't we? We still have remote areas and a variety of climates don't we? Why no more bursts like that? In fact, why no evidence of new organ evolution in any species?


wave said:
I am not a physicalist, but there is nothing wrong with the claim that natural selection and mutations are mechanisms for evolution.

Well, if you are going to keep misrepresenting my views I don’t know that I should answer.

I know natural selection and mutations are at least responsible for adaptative potential, and I know they can produce new species. None of that is in question. The question is if they can, as they are often represented they can, evolve an organism. Right now they are only shown to make superficial changes to an extant organism.

wave said:
No one is claiming those are not the only mechanisms. In fact, mainstream science accept other mechanisms and new mechanisms are being proposed.

Now it is your turn to give us these hypothetical “new mechanisms.” And even if you come up with some, got proof any of them can form organs/organisms? And what do you want to bet that any mechanism you propose will be purely physical? Tell me, if you aren’t physicalist, then why do you seem so ready to jump to the conclusion that only mechanics are involved in the development of life and consciousness?


wave said:
If you can demonstrate gene fairies as a influence then we will consider that too, OK? But there is nothing wrong with claiming scientific fact.

Gene fairies? Did I say that? Your implication seems to be that I believe in fairies if I don’t buy scientific theories whole hog. That is the same condescending tone I hear from too many science geniuses. Why don’t you first prove abiogenesis and organisms evolving via natural selection/mutation/new mechanisms before acting like it is all but fact.

Until you do prove it, I will continue to see something significant missing from any 100% physical theory that attempts to explain life and consciousness, and continue to resent those who treat others open to “something more” like they are morons.
 
  • #73
Dooga Blackrazor said:
In short, unless the information for both sides is completely the same, the dogmatic individuals of either side are not equally foolish.

Dogmatism is a type of stupidity no matter what one's philosophy In those areas you are dogmatic, you have stopped being open to learning since you think you already know the truth. Pure unadulterated stupidity.


Dooga Blackrazor said:
Furthermore, reductionism is not a disregard of other possible theories. Reductionism involves excepting something as a truth so you can base other things off of it. Bigger things are made up of smaller ones.

To be reductive is fine with things composed of units, but if you say you are only reductive in your thinking, they you must disregard certain other theories.

Tell me, what if there is something that is not made up of smaller things. For example, what if there is something that always remains "one." How will you find it reductively?

Also, what if there are things which can only be known, not by thinking about them (whether reductively or otherwise) but through our heightened sensitivity to them? Take the entire event of you appreciating a piece of music. You can reductively know the structure of the music, but how will you reductively know appreciation of that music?

Some people claim they have developed their sensitivity to the point they can feel there is a greater consciousness. If you are obsessed with reduction, and as a result your sensitivity is ignored, then you may egocentrically think that because you are deadened to your own sensitive nature, all people making claims on the basis of sensitivity are inferior in intelligence.

And of course, if you devise an intelligence test, what qualities are you going to test for? How will you define intelligence to begin with so you can test for just that and get to imply those differently intelligent are actually LESS intelligent.

In any case, you are so full of yourself it is appalling.
 
  • #74
הזה בילבולי סכל
 
  • #75
jimmysnyder said:
Tisthammerw said:
It's a very interesting ruling to make. What is so religious about the theory that life on Earth was artificially created?
I doubt that the courts decide these cases solely upon this characterization of the argument. I expect that when a case comes before the court on the issue of teaching of creationism, the court simply agrees with the argument that creationism is bible based and for that reason cannot be taught in public schools. And when the issue of teaching Intelligent Design comes up, the court agrees with the argument that ID is old wine in a new bottle.
So in other words, there's nothing religious about ID itself--but we kind of pretend that it is because a different alternate theory of evolution is religious.
 
  • #76
DaveC426913 said:
... My entire response is geared towards the arrogance that you think you can shoot down a counter-theory without understanding it first.
...

Intelligent design, there's a tough theory to understand. The universe, and everything in it including us, was designed/created by God. I am aware that there are other flavors of this belief, I am taking pot shots at this one.

DaveC426913 said:
... I’m just tired of people taking cheap shots. It gives rational people a bad rap. ...

I may have not been clear in my assumptions, I thought they were obvious. And I don't feel like I'm getting a bad rap from all the cheap shots in your response.

DaveC426913 said:
...
Let me distill your argument:
“….lets see how intelligent our design really is…”
“A human being has many bad design components.”
it isn't the way an omnipotent designer would make [it]” [italics mine]
“…Taking all this into account shows that the intelligent designer wasn't too intelligent, much less omnipotent….”
...

My main assumptions are:
The ID I am talking about believes we were designed by God.
God is a perfect omnipotent being.
All his creations would also be perfect.
My argument is we are far from perfect on a physical basis (let alone intellectual or philosophical) compared to other of his works (animals) which I would think that he would have engineered us to be at least equally as good as instead of inferior.
My conclusion is we could and would have been designed better if we were in fact designed by an omnipotent being who wasn't 'working in mysterious ways'.

DaveC426913 said:
...
Your overarching assumption is that you think you know what the “criteria for success” is (something like “human body as well-oiled machine”). Upon reflection, do you really think you understand the “criteria for success” behind ID?
...

I am making some observations, I don't claim to know the criteria for success. If you want to believe we are poorly designed because God can and does work in mysterious ways, just say so.

DaveC426913 said:
...
I think your claim needs to be put through internal review (i.e among the scientifically-minded types) before presenting it as a (very wide) target externally. i.e. I think your argument is poorly thought out.

What planet are you from? Did I get the wrong web site? I didn't realize this was a science board of review forum. I thought this was an open public forum where people can and do propose half baked ideas for discussion. Pardon me, I'll write my thesis on this, get my doctorate and THEN post it here like everyone else does.
 
Last edited:
  • #77
Dooga Blackrazor said:
If the information supporting ID is equal to that supporting evolution (they are both wrong or both right, ect), you are correct - scientific dogmatism and religious dogmatism are both equally foolish. However, if they are not equally supported, they cannot be equally foolish.
Perhaps my reductionism is incorrect on this matter. Perhaps, even if evolution is correct and ID false, it is too soon to be making a judgment on this issue. I have not closed the issue; theoretically, either is possible.

Good post. I'm with you now. I think that keeping one foot in the grey is a wise idea.

As far as your assertion that: if they are not equally supported, they cannot be equally foolish. If you will, consider this (I have to use a big brush here because I'm out of the realm of physics, but): 99% of ID is perfectly identical to evolution. And, to my knowledge, in each case study of a gap in evolutionary theory (tree rings out of place, biogenesis, the platypus, and of course the beginning) ID swoops in and fills the informational void with the designer’s will. Whether or not you feel this is opportunistic, you must admit it leaves markedly little room for sciences objection. So, evolution and ID are in 100% agreement with the exception of the gaps, where science is at a loss anyway.
 
  • #78
Les Sleeth said:
I didn't say organ/organism evolution did not happen before or since. I said 3.5 billion years of bacteria and algae, that soon after there was a huge explosion of metazoan life forms over a ten million year period, and then nothing like THAT EXPLOSION before or since.

The evidence is not conclusive on this matter, so I'll just agree with you for the sake of the argument. But let's not further exaggerate the hyperbole...

Les Sleeth said:
It is also true that we find the first appearance in the fossil record of all modern animal phyla in that 10 million year period.

Except Bryozoan but OK...

Les Sleeth said:
My point was to ask how you explain the speed of evolution that went on in a ten million period.

Like I said, there is still great contention so I don't think anyone can provide an adequate answer at this time.

Les Sleeth said:
In fact, why no evidence of new organ evolution in any species?

I am not sure how to interpret that question. Insects, reptiles, mammals and angiosperms first appear 180, 230, 330 and 390 million years post Cambrian respectively. So lots of new organs have evolved post Cambrian. If you're referring to the evolution of a particular animal, then the transition from Pakicetus to Cetaceans would be a counter example.


Les Sleeth said:
Well, if you are going to keep misrepresenting my views I don’t know that I should answer.

wave said:
I am not a physicalist, but there is nothing wrong with the claim that natural selection and mutations are mechanisms for evolution. No one is claiming those are the only mechanisms.

Les Sleeth said:
physicalists don’t get to claim natural selection and accidental genetic variation is responsible for [genetic change] until they can prove it

Then please say what you really mean...

Les Sleeth said:
I know natural selection and mutations are at least responsible for adaptative potential, and I know they can produce new species. None of that is in question. The question is if they can, as they are often represented they can, evolve an organism.

I am not aware of anyone in mainstream science who claims that natural selection and mutations are responsible for abiogenesis. Can you clarify who "they" are? Any scientists? If so, in what papers?

Les Sleeth said:
Right now they are only shown to make superficial changes to an extant organism.

What is "superficial" about speciation? Are we only superficially different from gorillas?

Les Sleeth said:
Now it is your turn to give us these hypothetical “new mechanisms.” And even if you come up with some, got proof any of them can form organs/organisms?

You missed my point. I am not trying to support physicalism or Abiogenesis by mentioning "new mechanisms". Instead, I am trying to point out that evolutionary biologists does not claim that our understanding of evolution mechanisms is complete - physical or not.

Les Sleeth said:
And what do you want to bet that any mechanism you propose will be purely physical?

All of the proposals that I know of are purely physical. Nonetheless, anyone is free to propose non-physical mechanisms as long as they have scientific evidence to support it.

Les Sleeth said:
Tell me, if you aren’t physicalist, then why do you seem so ready to jump to the conclusion that only mechanics are involved in the development of life and consciousness?

When have I ever ruled out any non-physical mechanisms?

Les Sleeth said:
Gene fairies? Did I say that? Your implication seems to be that I believe in fairies if I don’t buy scientific theories whole hog. That is the same condescending tone I hear from too many science geniuses.

I apologize if I gave you that impression. It is not my intention to condescend. I couldn't think of a better non-physical mechanism so I used gene fairies as a hypothetical example. My point is that scientists would consider non-physical mechanisms seriously, as long as you provide scientific evidence to support your claims.

Les Sleeth said:
Why don’t you first prove abiogenesis and organisms evolving via natural selection/mutation/new mechanisms before acting like it is all but fact.

Let's not confuse Abiogenesis with Evolution. First of all, I don't accept Abiogenesis as scientific fact. Secondly, I can't prove Abiogenesis. Otherwise I wouldn't have asked you for a proof in my previous post. Lastly, neither I nor anyone else in mainstream science have claimed that Evolution can explain abiogenesis.

Les Sleeth said:
Until you do prove it, I will continue to see something significant missing from any 100% physical theory that attempts to explain life and consciousness

Suppose you can add any non-physical process you want to Evolution and/or Abiogenesis, as long as you can back it up scientifically. Here is your chance to include that "significant missing" piece. What would you like to include?
 
  • #79
wave said:
It's meaningless to nitpick and say that it's "not strictly an experiment".
With respect, I do not consider this "nitpicking".
An experiment is an attempt to take a prediction made by an hypothesis, and to test that prediction under controlled circumstances, to either falsify or re-inforce the hypothesis.

The "lack of observation of a mermaid" is not a controlled experiment, and the failure to find such a beast tells us nothing useful.

A more definitive result would ensue if we were to construct a controlled experiment to test one or more predictions of the hypothesis.

MF
 
  • #80
wave said:
I am not aware of anyone in mainstream science who claims that natural selection and mutations are responsible for abiogenesis. Can you clarify who "they" are? Any scientists? If so, in what papers?

Let’s drop abiogenesis for now since it seems to be getting mixed up with our talk about evolution. When I said “evolve an organism” I meant evolve from say a sea scorpion to a spider. Obviously natural selection and mutations cannot have produced abiogenesis when genes didn’t exist.


wave said:
My point is that scientists would consider non-physical mechanisms seriously, as long as you provide scientific evidence to support your claims.

It seems to be a very difficult task to explain what I find wrong with your above logic (since I have tried and failed many times with others in the past). To try to make my point, I’m going to jump back and forth between a couple of issues.

To understand my objection, you have to see the significance of the fact that the most important part of empiricism’s epistemology is based on sense experience. As you know, we can hypothesize brilliantly, but nothing is said to be “known” empirically until it is confirmed by observation (which occurs via sense experience). Something that seems without controversy is that the senses only transmit physical information, and therefore sense experience strictly gives us awareness of the physical world.

I accept it as an ironclad principle that (tautologies aside) to know reality we must experience it. But rather than empiricism, I have referred to my own personal epistemology as “experientialism” because of my conviction that sense experience isn’t the only kind of experience available to consciousness. If so, might another kind of experience produce knowledge of something other than physicalness? Hold that thought for a second and let’s talk about science a bit more.

If we decide to study the physical world, the senses serve us well. Because the physical world is bound in order, rhythm, cycles, predictability, symmetries . . . our intellect can develop and use calculating methodologies to work with physicalness. We are deeply entrenched in the physical world, from the universe as a whole to our own bodies, especially the CSN, so there is lots and lots to study and understand through scientific investigation. It seems there is little, and to some, nothing, that isn’t either physical or entangled in physicalness somehow.

Now, here we are talking about if the development of the universe might have been guided by some sort of universal consciousness. As a “neutral” thinker (i.e., not a Biblical IDer) I have suggested it’s worthwhile to give that hypothesis serious consideration. You respond by saying, “scientists would consider non-physical mechanisms seriously, as long as you provide scientific evidence to support your claims.” Hmmmmm. See the problem? How is science going to evaluate non-physical evidence?

But I don’t get off that easy because if I am an experientialist, what experience can offer evidence of the universal consciousness hypothesis? In this case, the experience required to reveal the evidence seems to be through a method that is exactly opposite of the scientific method. For science, one peers through the senses “outward” at the external world. But the most consistent reports of experience of universal consciousness have come from people who learned withdraw from the senses to feel “inward.”

To a devoted externalizer, the idea that looking inward might tell us something about evolution seems ludicrous. But to accomplished meditators, it is clear what the relevance is. The inner dimension reveals that the external world is a condensed form of something far more basic. I’ll borrow and bastardize Bohm’s concept of “enfolded” to describe what I mean. It’s like the physical world is densely folded, and when someone can work their way back through the folds, one finds it all stretched out and one. Once you reach that unfolded realm, there you are conscious and unified with something vast which also seems conscious.

The history and nature of this experience is rarely studied carefully, even by meditators. I seldom find anyone who has focused their study (or practice) of inwardness specifically on what’s called “union.” Yet that experience, at least what I found in my research, is the experience responsible for the most consistent reports about an underlying consciousness behind manifest physical creation.


wave said:
Suppose you can add any non-physical process you want to Evolution and/or Abiogenesis, as long as you can back it up scientifically.

A non-physical process obviously can’t be backed up scientifically. I will offer you one below anyway, but first let me point out how this is interpreted by scientism devotees (i.e., those only willing to accept as true scientifically confirmable facts).

Scientism devotees typically demand scientific evidence. They also typically refuse to accept anything which isn’t scientific. Do you see the epistemological assumption they are operating under? They assume if it can’t be investigated scientifically, then it isn’t real. Because science relies only on the senses, which only transmits physical information, scientism devotees are only prepared to look at physicalness. If someone suggests there maybe something non-physical, the science devotee demands scientific proof.

Further, it has been my experience that the majority of scientism devotees are so conditioned by their obsession with externals, they not only resist looking inward, they view it as basically a waste of time. After all, if you value studying externals above all else, then what can inwardness possibly offer?

So we have scientists studying the evolution of life. What do they find? They find only physical factors. What do they conclude? That only physical factors are responsible. Yet there are problems with the theory, like the fact that evolution operated at one time in such a way that it developed new organs, then it stopped. The only thing that scientists can find now that produces changes to an organism is natural selection and genetic variation, but the only thing we can observe it doing is making bigger bird beaks, or altering the color of moths, etc.

We don’t now see new development of organs that will lead to new classes of organisms. Why no midstage stuff? Why no new organs-in-progress? Surely all organisms can be improved upon. But do you hear many scientism devotees admitting that, based on what we can observe, genetic variation is far too unvaried and natural selection is ridiculously too ordinary to create such a thing as an organ? No, they cling to it as the most likely creator of the different life forms, and only allow that if some other mechanism is involved, it must be physical factors we’ve yet to discover.

The problem is, all who are insisting evolution is only physical, and that it be taught in school that way, aren’t representing the full range of human experience. They are a specialized group, possibly obsessed with externals, who want us all to buy their ontology and epistemology. Others of us think inwardness and learning to feel deeply have epistemological value, and don’t want theories derived from looking at reality only in one way shoved down our throats.

Those gaps filled with half-baked physicalist theories, notably abiogenesis and organ development through natural selection/mutation, are areas still fillable by a theory of universal consciousness. So a lot of people (the vast majority in fact) aren’t yet ready to hear scientism devotees claiming, and insisting on teaching our children, that life and consciousness are “most likely” only physical.


wave said:
Suppose you can add any non-physical process you want to . . . Here is your chance to include that "significant missing" piece. What would you like to include?

What sort of non-physical influence would I propose? If you understood about getting back to the unfolded place where a foundation of consciousness resides, I might suggest that that consciousness is evolutive in nature, and was responsible for the bursts of organizational quality which led to new organs. If that “evolutive” consciousness is key to the organization of the folding, then it would be part of genetic organization, and so I’d see genetic manipulation as where this evolutive consciousness intervened during the evolution of biology.

I might explain the punctuated thing like this. Since the evolutive impetus is consciousness, it strives to develop a form that will allow consciousness to emerge. So as the planet became more supportive, eventually the evolutive force gave priority to paths with the most emanative promise, and these became the lead evolutive structures; but left behind were evolutive effects still alive in all surviving species.

The non-selected forms continued to physically evolve in the sense that they could adapt to environmental conditions, but since they were no longer the vanguard of the evolutive thrust, such peripheral evolution was not where one might find continuing consciousness evolution in biology. The evolutive force continued to push, leaping up through species after species, ever seeking the highest possible expression of itself (“seeking” in the opposite sense of how water “seeks” the lowest point) until after millions of years of evolutive momentum, the modern human came about.

In this model, after survivability is established, the drive toward emergence is the most powerful force of evolutiveness, and the human form was eventually singled out as the lead evolutive structure to surpass all other life in the sophistication of evolutive emergence. In other words, consciousness is emerged evolutiveness.
 
  • #81
Psi 5 said:
My main assumptions are:
The ID I am talking about believes we were designed by God.
God is a perfect omnipotent being.
All his creations would also be perfect.
Excellent summation. Now, to this last statement:
Why?
 
  • #82
Has S chirality been mentioned yet? Why are almost all of our proteins S-chirality and not R?
 
  • #83
Originally Posted by Psi 5
My main assumptions are:
The ID I am talking about believes we were designed by God.
God is a perfect omnipotent being.
All his creations would also be perfect.

DaveC426913 said:
Excellent summation. Now, to this last statement:
Why?

Why would a perfect beings creations be perfect? For the same reason an imperfect beings creations are not perfect.

If a perfect beings creations are flawed then he would not be perfect. Now you are going to say why couldn't a perfect being design something flawed on purpose. The answer is he wouldn't have any need to if he could design things perfectly.

Take people for instance. It's the commonly held belief that we are imperfect and we are here to improve ourselves to become worthy of God or heaven. If God were omnipotent he could have created us in the state we would be in after we improve ourselves right at the start, in other words perfect with no need for improvement, pain, suffering or wasted souls to torture in hell. Would Ford have created the Model T if he could have created the Mustang Mach I (I have one so I think it's perfect)? Not if he knew how to create the perfect car right from the start. And a car is a good example of evolution, evolution made necessary by imperfect designers.
 
Last edited:
  • #84
Les Seeth, I admit that I am prone to value intelligence over sensitivity or emotion; however, I do not disregard the latter. However, on this issue, a person can "feel" confident God/a higher power doesn't exist just as someone can feel confident he does. Since the emotions do not provide a definitive answer, I believe logic is what solves the problem, and, as stated earlier, I think logic/reasoning supports evolution more than ID. Einstein's music analogy was an excellent point though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

Just because I believe I already know the truth doesn't mean I am not open to learning. Even though I feel confident enough to state what I believe is true, I am willing to learn about other theories. The willingness to learn about another theory only requires a zest for learning.

Would believing something to be fact make me less likely to actually shift my position is wrong? Yes. I analyze ID information under the assumption that it is false because of what I believe. Does that make it utterly impossible for me to shift my position on the issue? No. It is beneficial to make decisions based on probability when you are confident in the answer; furthermore, there is no loss from me disregarding. If I were a scientist, I would simply be narrowing my research down to a specific field because I can't study everything. If I believed ID, I would focus in that area.

Reductionism is very practicle, and, if I led you to believe that I completely disregard learning about other theories, that is untrue. However, most people read information and try to interpret it in a way that best suits them.

For example, I am doing a project on scientific racism, and I am looking specifically for anti-racist arguments because that is what I believe is the correct philosophy and will provide the most logical scientific information. At first, when reading the information, I noticed that those advocating the 15 IQ pt gap amongst blacks had very valid points. I realized that without being on that side; however, as I read further, I found other valid points against the gap.

Saying something is true and believing with 100% certainity that something is true is different. Saying something is true is beneficial in a world where decisiveness is pratical. Philosophically, it is foolish to be 100% sure on everything. Even mathematics could be a complex illusion of the mind.

I don't take life too seriously, so I apologize if I offended you, and I am sorry that I sound arrogant. The IQ variation I am referring to between religious and non-religious individuals comes from studies I've read about and the variation is not large. Nor does it mean I think I am more intelligent than you. I would be quite surprised if I am.
 
  • #85
Psi 5 said:
Intelligent design, there's a tough theory to understand. The universe, and everything in it including us, was designed/created by God. I am aware that there are other flavors of this belief, I am taking pot shots at this one.
But your entire argument rests on the assumption that you know what the intended goal is. The argument grinds to a halt when you are posed with the question:"And what does this Intelligence see as "Perfect", such that we may determine whether it succeeded or failed?"


Psi 5 said:
All his creations would also be perfect.
My argument is we are far from perfect on a physical basis
It sounds like your definition of perfect makes us something like well-oiled machines and nothing more. If we *were* physically perfectly efficient, would we have any need to explore some oft he more ephemeral and bittersweet aspects of our humanity?


Psi 5 said:
What planet are you from? Did I get the wrong web site? I didn't realize this was a science board of review forum. I thought this was an open public forum where people can and do propose half baked ideas for discussion. Pardon me, I'll write my thesis on this, get my doctorate and THEN post it here like everyone else does.
I don't literally mean it must pass muster, I mean your argument is so weak that your own "teammates" (in the ID vs/ evolution debate) might as well set you right, let alone anyone who actually disagrees with you.

Or more critically, your viewpoints are as unfounded as those of the fundamentalists whom we are trying to defeat in this epic debate.
And I like to believe that the evolutionists are more careful at thinking their arguments through.
 
Last edited:
  • #86
Psi 5 said:
Why would a perfect beings creations be perfect? For the same reason an imperfect beings creations are not perfect.

If a perfect beings creations are flawed then he would not be perfect. Now you are going to say why couldn't a perfect being design something flawed on purpose. The answer is he wouldn't have any need to if he could design things perfectly.

Take people for instance. It's the commonly held belief that we are imperfect and we are here to improve ourselves to become worthy of God or heaven. If God were omnipotent he could have created us in the state we would be in after we improve ourselves right at the start, in other words perfect with no need for improvement, pain, suffering or wasted souls to torture in hell. Would Ford have created the Model T if he could have created the Mustang Mach I (I have one so I think it's perfect)? Not if he knew how to create the perfect car right from the start. And a car is a good example of evolution, evolution made necessary by imperfect designers.


It seems to me that you assume that God would have no will as a designer. There is a misstep in your rationale. Do you think ID's designer is supposed to be some kind of machine? ID's designer is a being with will or some kind of decision making abilities (even if only at the modest god level).

"If a perfect beings creations are flawed then he would not be perfect." No, then the most sensible answer is that he meant them to be flawed. Pretend for second that we aren't talking about a mechanism. There is an inherent intelligence to a designer in ID. We are discussing the potential for a designer who presumably created with purpose or will and not just so that we would be having this conversation. If "he" wants perfection it is his to have. If imperfection, that is his choice.

I believe this is one of the pillars of the Christian faith (excuse me), that we are intentionally flawed. Not flawed because God couldn't work something better out at the time. (And no, your car example is not useful in the least).

I think your biggest problem is that you are sticking with the word "perfect" when it's just hurting your argument more than helping.
 
Last edited:
  • #87
DaveC426913, you have yet to make a valid criticism and this is my last answer to your invalid ones. I should have known better than to respond to someone that suggests I should submit my idea to scientific review before posting it here :zzz:
 
  • #88
Conehead said:
... If imperfection, that is his choice.
I believe this is one of the pillars of the Christian faith (excuse me), that we are intentionally flawed. Not flawed because God couldn't work something better out at the time. (And no, your car example is not useful in the least).
...

The idea that a perfect being would not make an imperfect creation is neither mine originally or even new. The religious view that God is perfect and we are imperfect, therefore he had a reason to create us imperfect is nothing more than religion justifying it's beliefs to cope with an obvious conflict, just like the 'god works in mysterious ways' justifying the illogic that is man's condition.

And you don't address the fact that a perfect being would have no need to create something imperfect.
 
  • #89
Psi 5 said:
The idea that a perfect being would not make an imperfect creation is neither mine originally or even new. The religious view that God is perfect and we are imperfect, therefore he had a reason to create us imperfect is nothing more than religion justifying it's beliefs to cope with an obvious conflict, just like the 'god works in mysterious ways' justifying the illogic that is man's condition.
And you don't address the fact that a perfect being would have no need to create something imperfect.

You're right. You're reasoning is completely unoriginal. I didn't address the designer's "need" to do anything. I addressed the issue of will which would give a designer the choice. If all he can create is perfection that would eliminate all but one option, correct? Which isn't a choice, it would be forced. Not a mechanism, Psi. A designer.

Perhaps conflict is evident in your justifications as well as religion's. Just as religion struggles to explain our imperfection, you struggle to explain God's. The reason you struggle is because you are as dogmatic as the church and just as hamstrung.

Let's try a "yes" or "no" to avoid more circuitous reasoning. A perfect designer does not have the ability to create something flawed?
 
Last edited:
  • #90
moving finger said:
The "lack of observation of a mermaid" is not a controlled experiment, and the failure to find such a beast tells us nothing useful.
A more definitive result would ensue if we were to construct a controlled experiment to test one or more predictions of the hypothesis.
MF

jimmysnyder was only interested in knowing how natural selection can be falsified. You can do all the experiments you want, but at the end of the day you still have to observe a counter example in nature. If you find such an instance then you have a falsification - with or without the experiment.
 
  • #91
Thanks for the informative response, Les.


Les Sleeth said:
Let’s drop abiogenesis for now since it seems to be getting mixed up with our talk about evolution.

OK, good idea.


Les Sleeth said:
To understand my objection, you have to see the significance of the fact that the most important part of empiricism’s epistemology is based on sense experience.

I concur.


Les Sleeth said:
Something that seems without controversy is that the senses only transmit physical information, and therefore sense experience strictly gives us awareness of the physical world.

There are those who claim to see or hear deities and spirits. I don't know whether those claims are valid, so I'll go along with your premise.


Les Sleeth said:
I accept it as an ironclad principle that (tautologies aside) to know reality we must experience it. But rather than empiricism, I have referred to my own personal epistemology as “experientialism”

I am not familiar with that idea, so please excuse my ignorance. I want to understand your views and evaluate it against my own (questions to follow).


Les Sleeth said:
might another kind of experience produce knowledge of something other than physicalness?

I haven't ruled out that possibility.


Les Sleeth said:
You respond by saying, “scientists would consider non-physical mechanisms seriously, as long as you provide scientific evidence to support your claims.” Hmmmmm. See the problem? How is science going to evaluate non-physical evidence?

I understand your dilemma. However, to play the scientists' game you have to abide by their framework. You don't have to agree with it, and you are free to quit the game and go do your own thing.


Les Sleeth said:
But I don’t get off that easy because if I am an experientialist, what experience can offer evidence of the universal consciousness hypothesis? In this case, the experience required to reveal the evidence seems to be through a method that is exactly opposite of the scientific method. For science, one peers through the senses “outward” at the external world. But the most consistent reports of experience of universal consciousness have come from people who learned withdraw from the senses to feel “inward.”

How is that achieved exactly? Through meditation? How does the evidence "reveal" itself? Does the knowledge suddenly become available to you? This is the part that I am very interested in. Please feel free to add anything that might help explain your position, especially from a epistemological standpoint.


Les Sleeth said:
So we have scientists studying the evolution of life. What do they find? They find only physical factors. What do they conclude? That only physical factors are responsible.

Perhaps by those with a bias. Mainstream science would say "only physical factors are responsible as far as we can tell thus far".


Les Sleeth said:
Yet there are problems with the theory, like the fact that evolution operated at one time in such a way that it developed new organs, then it stopped.

That is simply false. I gave examples where entirely new classes of organisms appear post Cambrian. Why did you ignore it and continue to make this false claim?


Les Sleeth said:
The only thing that scientists can find now that produces changes to an organism is natural selection and genetic variation, but the only thing we can observe it doing is making bigger bird beaks, or altering the color of moths, etc.

That is misleading. Evolution operate at long timescale. What we've been able to directly observe in the last 70 years is not representative of the whole story. We have to look into the past by relying on fossils, comparative anatomy, etc. to find more dramatic evolutionary changes.

I offered the Pakicetus/Cetaceans example in my previous post. That's a transition from a weasel/wolf-like animal to modern-day whales. It's anything but "superficial". Once again, the transition began 450 million years after Cambrian.


Les Sleeth said:
Why no midstage stuff?

Evidence from transitional fossils not good enough?


Les Sleeth said:
Why no new organs-in-progress?

Vestigial organs not good enough? Human babies with tails not good enough?


Les Sleeth said:
But do you hear many scientism devotees admitting that, based on what we can observe, genetic variation is far too unvaried and natural selection is ridiculously too ordinary to create such a thing as an organ? No

What exactly do you mean by "genetic variation is far too unvaried" and "natural selection is ridiculously too ordinary"? Furthermore, I don't understand your objections since you accept speciation via Evolution.


Les Sleeth said:
they cling to it as the most likely creator of the different life forms, and only allow that if some other mechanism is involved, it must be physical factors we’ve yet to discover.

You are being unfair. Even you admitted that non-physical evidence cannot be supported scientifically. So it's unreasonable to expect a scientific explanation for non-physical factors if none exist. The onus is on "experientialists" to convince scientists that they are indeed missing something.
 
  • #92
wave said:
jimmysnyder was only interested in knowing how natural selection can be falsified.
With respect, jimmysnyder asked :
jimmysnyder said:
Are intelligent design and natural selection falsifiable and if so, what experiment would falsify them?
(post #14 in thus thread, my emphasis)

I rest my case.

MF
 
  • #93
Psi 5 said:
DaveC426913, you have yet to make a valid criticism and this is my last answer to your invalid ones.
My criticism is that your entire argument is based upon the assumption that you understand the motives and goals an Intelligent Designer. You don't. It is not up to me to prove your statements false; it is up to you to back them with valid arguments. You haven't.

Psi 5 said:
I should have known better than to respond to someone that suggests I should submit my idea to scientific review before posting it here :zzz:
2] Uh, we dealt with this one - see post #85. "I don't literally mean it must pass muster [i.e. actually be subjected for formal review], I mean your argument is so weak that your own "teammates" (in the ID vs/ evolution debate) might as well set you right, let alone anyone who actually disagrees with you."


So, staying on topic: what makes you think you know the motives and goals of an Intelligent Designer such that you can tell whether their creations are successes or not?

This is the core fault of your argument; let's both not get distracted with details.
 
  • #94
selfAdjoint said:
Sure. If you find the conserved portion of the human genome is encoding the message, "Patent Pending: God". That would do it (falsify natural selection) I suppose.
No, it would not. What it would do is raise ID to the status of a postulate. Natural selection is something different.
 
Last edited:
  • #95
jimmysnyder said:
No, it would not. What it would do is raise ID to the status of a postulate. Natural selection is something different.

If, in the course of observing the biological world, we suddenly realized we were wrong, and populations did not show any collective allele rate changes due to differential reproductive success, this would falsify natural selection.
 
  • #96
Part One

Well, I got carried away with this post, so I’d had to split into two.

wave said:
Les Sleeth said:
I accept it as an ironclad principle that (tautologies aside) to know reality we must experience it. But rather than empiricism, I have referred to my own personal epistemology as “experientialism”
I am not familiar with that idea, so please excuse my ignorance. I want to understand your views and evaluate it against my own (questions to follow).

It is simple really. “Empirical,” if we are being dictionary-precise, can mean experience of any sort. But the term “empiricism” has come to stand for the scientific method where the only human experience epistemologically-allowed is sense experience.

The major reason for the successes of empiricism, in my opinion, is its inseparable bond to experience. That tells me that if I want to know, experience is the most powerful avenue.

But why assume sense experience is the only human experience that brings knowledge? In fact, I can’t assume it because there is an experience I value more in that respect. I can’t categorize it under empiricism without confusion, so I just use what seems like a more general term, experientialism, to describe giving the highest priority to human experience in one’s search for knowledge.


wave said:
Les Sleeth said:
You respond by saying, “scientists would consider non-physical mechanisms seriously, as long as you provide scientific evidence to support your claims.” Hmmmmm. See the problem? How is science going to evaluate non-physical evidence?
I understand your dilemma. However, to play the scientists' game you have to abide by their framework. You don't have to agree with it, and you are free to quit the game and go do your own thing.

I am not sure you do quite understand since it isn’t exactly my dilemma. If someone works in a rock quarry all the time pounding rocks with a sledge hammer, he knows that works well for breaking rocks. But what if he becomes so enamored and conditioned by rock smashing, he goes around treating everything like a rock? So when he wants to open a door, he takes a sledge to it; when it’s time to redecorate the house, the sledge hammer is the perfect tool; or if his kid needs disciplining . . .

My point was, when it comes to defining the human being, consciousness, and the origin of life and all else, there is a strong effort amongst many scientists to proclaim to the world it is all physical. But they are only looking at and working with the physical! It’s their sledge hammer. And if you try to get them to look at anything else, it can’t pass the physicalistic filter and therefore is “dismissed” as irrelevant.

But there is a bigger question of if scientists are justified in demanding everyone play the scientific game. Only if one assumes that through science alone is knowledge acquired will one demand that. You might say we don’t have to play the science game, but that isn’t true since science seems to have assigned to themselves the role of almighty judge in terms of what’s acceptable or not when it comes to incredibly important issues. The origin of life, the evolution of life, the emergence of conscious . . . these issues belong to all of humanity, not just the scientists. So it can be a bit irritating to hear scientists dismiss everything but an empirical fact. Who made them the keepers of humanity’s epistemological keys?


wave said:
Les Sleeth said:
For science, one peers through the senses “outward” at the external world. But the most consistent reports of experience of universal consciousness have come from people who learned withdraw from the senses to feel “inward.”
How is that achieved exactly? Through meditation? How does the evidence "reveal" itself? Does the knowledge suddenly become available to you? This is the part that I am very interested in. Please feel free to add anything that might help explain your position, especially from a epistemological standpoint.

Yes, through a very specific type of meditation known as samadhi where one learns to experience and “merge” with the foundational basis of one’s own consciousness. It is very ancient, descending from the Buddha, but practiced in elsewhere as well including in early Christian monasteries where it was called union. I’ve written extensively here at PF about it, so I hesitate to go into it again. I’m not sure if PF’s search feature will allow you to search my posts for “union” and “samadhi.” If you can’t find anything, and are still interested, I’ll look myself when I have more time.

I might just say now that in the West we’ve become objective geniuses, but we are rather backward when it comes to the advanced subjective expertise that can be realized.


wave said:
Perhaps by those with a bias. Mainstream science would say "only physical factors are responsible as far as we can tell thus far".

I know what they say when pressed by people like me, but it contrasts sharply with what you find in science writings and media specials. I rarely find anyone who isn’t biased and usually being clever about hiding it.


wave said:
Les Sleeth said:
Yet there are problems with the theory, like the fact that evolution operated at one time in such a way that it developed new organs, then it stopped.
That is simply false. I gave examples where entirely new classes of organisms appear post Cambrian. Why did you ignore it and continue to make this false claim?

All sorts of things I’ve said have gotten jumbled together. This is my fault for not distinguishing more clearly. I will explain better (hopefully) over the next few posts. But regarding the above, I meant, organ development has NOW stopped (as far as we have observed).


wave said:
Les Sleeth said:
The only thing that scientists can find now that produces changes to an organism is natural selection and genetic variation, but the only thing we can observe it doing is making bigger bird beaks, or altering the color of moths, etc.
That is misleading. Evolution operate at long timescale. What we've been able to directly observe in the last 70 years is not representative of the whole story. We have to look into the past by relying on fossils, comparative anatomy, etc. to find more dramatic evolutionary changes.

All it meant was, as far as anyone can observe, natural selection/genetic variation can only produce superficial changes. Those are the facts. The rest is grand evolutionary theory which Darwinists have managed to force into textbooks as the “most likely” source of all organ development.


wave said:
I offered the Pakicetus/Cetaceans example in my previous post. That's a transition from a weasel/wolf-like animal to modern-day whales. It's anything but "superficial". Once again, the transition began 450 million years after Cambrian.

I am not saying that whales didn’t evolve from a weasel/wolf-like animal, I am saying that you don’t know that natural selection and accidental genetic variation alone did that, and you have no evidence today that demonstrates natural selection/genetic variation producing that level of change. Again, I will take the blame for not being more clear. I will lay out my objections more carefully below.

(continued in next post)
 
  • #97
Part Two

(continued from last post)

wave said:
Les Sleeth said:
Why no midstage stuff? Why no new organs-in-progress?
Evidence from transitional fossils not good enough? Vestigial organs not good enough? Human babies with tails not good enough?

Same issue. I meant midstage stuff in progress NOW, which relates to no new organ development being observed via natural selection/genetic variation alone. Transitional fossils only tell us that animals transitioned, they don’t tell us what caused the genetic variation that allowed that transition.

I am sure you know the babies-with-tails claim (caudal appendages) is highly controversial. All true tails have bones in them that are posterior extensions of the spinal column, and have muscles coupled with their vertebrae which allow tail movement. There has never been a single documented case of a human caudal appendage having any of these features.

The same is true of the vestigial organs. In the 1800's, Darwinists listed over 100 vestigial organs in the human body. The functions for virtually all have now been found. If you didn’t mean that sort of vestigial organ, but rather the homologous organ (such as the whale pelvis), then it is irrelevant to my point since I don’t deny that all life evolved through genetic variation.


wave said:
Les Sleeth said:
But do you hear many scientism devotees admitting that, based on what we can observe, genetic variation is far too unvaried and natural selection is ridiculously too ordinary to create such a thing as an organ?
What exactly do you mean by "genetic variation is far too unvaried" and "natural selection is ridiculously too ordinary"? Furthermore, I don't understand your objections since you accept speciation via Evolution.

First, I accept speciation because it is observed. But the speciation that’s been observed doesn’t show the production of new organs! Every speciation observation example I can find in my dozen or so books on evolution, and online, talks about superficial changes that result when a species population is subject to different conditions.

But the new species is just bigger, or a different color, or longer-legged, or have a different diet, etc. It doesn’t take much genetic variation for that type of speciation to happen. An example I’ve used before is the minute difference between the house and purple finches found around here. The main way I tell them apart is by their song because they look so similar, yet they don’t normally interbreed.

In terms of what I mean by "genetic variation is far too unvaried," I am not claiming new organs didn’t develop by way of genetic variation. I am claiming that we can’t see the class of accidental genetic variation now that would give us cause to believe it can create complex organs.


wave said:
Les Sleeth said:
. . . they cling to it as the most likely creator of the different life forms, and only allow that if some other mechanism is involved, it must be physical factors we’ve yet to discover.
You are being unfair. Even you admitted that non-physical evidence cannot be supported scientifically. So it's unreasonable to expect a scientific explanation for non-physical factors if none exist. The onus is on "experientialists" to convince scientists that they are indeed missing something.

How is anyone going to convince physicalist scientists of anything nonphysical? It is hopeless. From things you said it doesn’t seem like you understand what I doubt, and why I cited, for example, the Cambrian explosion, so let me lay this out carefully.

1. I don’t doubt all life evolved, likely from a single cell transformed in Earth’s oceans long ago. I think if every bit of the fossil record had been preserved we would see all the transitional stages.

2. I don’t think if there is any type of “creationary consciousness” it is supernatural since all in the universe we find is natural (“natural” in the sense of coming about by way of universal and existential laws).

3. I don’t doubt that genetic variation produced all significant physical changes.

4. Because it has been observed, I don’t doubt that natural selection and accidental genetic variation together can produce “adaptive” speciation. Adaptive speciation is that which comes about through simple changes in existing biological structures.

5. Because it has not been observed, I do doubt that natural selection and accidental genetic variation alone can produce complex and functional organ systems. If so, this leaves a serious evidence/logic gap in the current evolution theory.

6. What is a serious gap? I pretty much see just one. There is huge gap between the observed mechanistic capability to organize resources into high-functioning systems and what Darwinist theory (and abiogenesis theory) claim mechanistic processes have done.

7. Because of the rather mundane way natural selection and accidental genetic variation, I do not believe they were responsible for the Cambrian explosion. I said accidental “genetic variation is far too unvaried” to have produced all those organs and organisms in ten million years. I say that based simply on how accidental genetic variation is observed now. So I am not saying that the Cambrian explosion was it, I am saying that natural selection and accidental genetic variation we can observe today doesn’t explain what happened then.

8. I don’t accept the theory of punctuated equilibrium as “just how evolution works.” That is merely a convenient way to get rid of any anomaly one finds in one’s pet theory. There are other reasonable explanations.

9. For example, it is possible that the Cambrian explosion was creation’s associated consciousness acting purposefully on genetics, initiating a great variety of forms to experiment with (obviously this consciousness is not omniscient), and that new organs developed where that creationary force was still experimenting or developing.

As it chose preferred evolutive pathways, those life forms not still in the evolutive thrust were left to the devices of simple natural selection and accidental genetic variation to survive. But those paths still under development and/or consideration continued to manifest exceptional new biological structure.

It is also possible that this creationary force, since it is consciousness, wanted to manifest new individual consciousnesses. That isn’t unreasonable given the proposed creationary nature, and given that humans are new individual consciousness. What’s the point of all the physicalness then? To more fully separate from the source so that complete individuation can take place.

10. Do I “believe” any of the creationary theory I just offered? No. But I have sensed and felt “something more,” and I don’t see how physicalness alone can achieve all physicalists want us all to believe it can.

11. What’s the problem with science devotees? I don’t have a problem with science only accepting physical factors into their models since that’s all they are able to study. What are problems are, 1) the ontological claim or insinuation that all is physical because physicalness is all they can find, 2) glossing over serious gaps in theory so they can maintain physicalist beliefs, and 3) dismissing out of hand anything which isn’t physical. You (wave) may not do this, but I see it all the time by the majority of science believers I read or encounter.

So I say, because there are other claims on ontology, and because physicalist ontology is far from proven, the proper attitude would be to drop all ontological claims and simply show how physicalness is involved in existence.
 
  • #98
loseyourname said:
If, ... populations did not show any collective allele rate changes due to differential reproductive success, this would falsify natural selection.
I'm no biologist. Can this be restated in a way that I could understand what it means?
 
  • #99
Dooga Blackrazor said:
I don't take life too seriously, so I apologize if I offended you, and I am sorry that I sound arrogant.

I'll have to answer you more thoroughly when I have more time. But thanks for the olive branch. I think most of the anger people have over these types of issues comes from feeling a disrespectful attitude from someone (I know it's true for me), and also from unfair debating tactics.

I might offer now however, that being scientific in no way excludes developing one's ability to feel. By "feel" I don't mean emotions, I mean being more sensitive to everything. When the mind is quiet you'd be surprised what it can pick up on; it can get extremely sensitive to subtleties one can never feel when the mind is going nonstop.

To be able to quiet the mind doesn't mean one can't think when one wants to, and if thinking is for science, then all the better. What I learn through my feeling nature doesn't interfere with me studying that which can be studied scientifically. If one learns to feel so deeply one feels God (or whatever you want to call it), then I don't see what that has to do with the ability to think.
 
  • #100
moving finger said:
jimmysnyder said:
Are intelligent design and natural selection falsifiable and if so, what experiment would falsify them?

(post #14 in thus thread, my emphasis)

I rest my case.

MF

That's the only part of the question that I chose to answer. If you still want to nitpick, then you have my permission to design an experiment based on my idea.
 
  • #101
jimmysnyder said:
I'm no biologist. Can this be restated in a way that I could understand what it means?

Sure. Natural selection is a mechanism by which evolution occurs. Evolution is defined as a shift in allele frequencies from generation to generation in any given population. "Allele" is simply a name for the different brands of genes that one can inherit - for instance, green eyes and blue eyes are expressions of different alleles for the same gene. If one generation of the city of Toledo, Ohio has a higher frequency of green eyes than the generation prior to it (and this is not due to migration), then the population has evolved in the direction of more green eyes. This may or may not have anything to do with natural selection. More likely it is just genetic drift, or the tendency for certain allele frequencies to randomly shift due to nothing more than chance.

However, let us consider an example where it is more obvious how natural selection could play a factor. North Africans, as a population, are far more likely to have sickle-cell anemia than humans anywhere else in the world. A certain percentage of sickle-cell alleles exist in any human population. What happened in North Africa was that having sickle-cell anemia became advantageous, because, even though it shortens one's life, it makes it impossible to become infected with malaria. Malaria is more of a threat to young people in that part of the world, and so those North Africans who had sickle-cell anemia were more likely to live long enough to reproduce; thus, the allele for sickle-cell anemia became more likely to get passed on.

To get back to what I was saying earlier, if events like this did not occur, then the hypothesis that natural selection is a strong factor in the evolution of populations would be falsified.
 
  • #102
Les Sleeth said:
wave said:
How is that achieved exactly? Through meditation? How does the evidence "reveal" itself? Does the knowledge suddenly become available to you?

Yes, through a very specific type of meditation known as samadhi where one learns to experience and “merge” with the foundational basis of one’s own consciousness.

Suppose you used samadhi and some evidence revealed itself to you.

1) How do you verify to yourself that your evidence is valid?

2) How do you convince someone else that your evidence is valid?

3) Suppose a condescending physicalist claims that samadhi revealed gene fairy as a mechanism for evolution. How do you prove them wrong?

4) Suppose someone genuinely used samadhi and revealed contradicting evidence. How do you tell who is right or wrong?

5) Can anything useful (for the physical world) result from evidence of the nonphysical? Better medicine, faster computers, etc. would certainly qualify as useful.I hope you agree those are valid questions, and not just skepticism typical of "them". I will reply to your other points once I understand you views better.
 
Last edited:
  • #103
Conehead said:
...
Let's try a "yes" or "no" to avoid more circuitous reasoning. A perfect designer does not have the ability to create something flawed?

Of course he does, I said he had no need to. Would you put scaffolding around a building to facilitate repairs if you could do the repairs without them? Would you stitch a severe cut if you could heal it instantly without them? Would you stick the sword in the flame to temper it if you could snap your fingers and make it tempered? Do you see the analogy yet? According to christian religion we are the untempered sword and Earth is the flame, an omnipotent being could have created us already tempered if he was indeed pefect and omnipotent. If you argue against that you are merely contradicting the assumption that, by definition, a god IS perfect and omnipotent. Whatever we become to make us worthy of heaven, god could have made us exactly that way from the start.
 
Last edited:
  • #104
Psi 5 said:
Of course he does, I said he had no need to. Would you put scaffolding around a building to facilitate repairs if you could do the repairs without them? Would you stitch a severe cut if you could heal it instantly without them? Would you stick the sword in the flame to temper it if you could snap your fingers and make it tempered? Do you see the analogy yet? According to christian religion we are the untempered sword and Earth is the flame, an omnipotent being could have created us already tempered if he was indeed pefect and omnipotent. If you argue against that you are merely contradicting the assumption that, by definition, a god IS perfect and omnipotent. Whatever we become to make us worthy of heaven, god could have made us exactly that way from the start.

Your natural bias is crystal now. Just as a side note, you clearly don't understand the concepts behind Judeo-Christian believe structures. You don't have the ability to assess what a designer's needs are. You can't reason out what his motives might have been no matter how hard you try. And your insertion of them into your arguments has poisoned your reasoning. Do you sense that your logic isn’t allowing you to delve into the heart of this debate?

Beyond what I have already said and others better still, well, let's just say we've reached an impasse.
 
  • #105
Conehead said:
Your natural bias is crystal now. Just as a side note, you clearly don't understand the concepts behind Judeo-Christian believe structures. You don't have the ability to assess what a designer's needs are.
Ok, we need to stop here because #1 There is no evidence of a "designer". That is merely something that has been thrown out to be considered, without anything to substantiate it, I might add.

You can't reason out what his motives might have been no matter how hard you try.
Please tell me how someone is supposed to reason out the motives of something that no one knows exists?

ID is nothing more than handwaving. At least evolution has evidence to support it. ID has none.

ID is fine as a religion, an idea based on faith, but it has no merit as science. That is the problem with ID. You want to teach it as a belief in a god or alien beings, something without any tangible proof, fine. You want to teach it as science, then come up with scientific evidence which can be studied. Otherwise, it's not science.
 

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
24
Views
1K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • Programming and Computer Science
2
Replies
39
Views
4K
Replies
27
Views
5K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top