| Subject: More on Deceptive Design Theory |
Author:
Ben
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 07/16/04 3:05pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Okay." on 07/15/04 10:11pm
>>>True, but ID doesn't look nearly as implausible to me
>>>as an orange instantly turning into an ape.
>>
>>Obviously not, but it is not the _most likely_
>>explanation of the data.
>
>That's open to debate.
So is the idea that the earth is a sphere, but not by any scholars who don't have another agenda guiding them.
>>>That's a bit open to debate. Note, for instance, the
>>>apparently dismal track record regarding fossils and
>>>human evolution.
>>
>>I haven't heard any dismal scientists in this regard.
>
>I was talking about the track record, not the
>scientists.
There is no such "dismal track record." As Damoclese noted in some response to these same threads, it's all about expectations. No one who really understands the evolutionary theory expects these "transitional life forms" (read: something obviously half one thing and half another thing), because evolution doesn't work that way. Rather than continuing this part of the dicsussion, I'd recommend you take a journey over to Talk Origins.
>>Apart from Chick Tracts, where are you getting your
>>information?
>
>I read books now and then. Don't tell me you've never
>heard of Piltdown man or think that it's a creationist
>conspiracy. Or Nebraska man, Neanderthal man,
>Cro-Magnon man...
I don't pay a lot of attention to the media-grabbing aspects of the evolutionary theory. 99% of the time, it's just scientists doing their job and collecting more and more data, from almost every branch of science, that supports the evolutionary theory. There is no debate whatsoever in the mainstream scientific community about this, any more than there is debate about whether the Sun is the center of our solar system.
>>Slow down, there. I thought we were talking about
>>human evolution and the common ancestry of humans and
>>apes.
>
>We were. I extended it a little bit in attempts to
>see the creationist's point of view. Bottom line: a
>lot of would-be intermediates have been discarded.
Bottom line: it doesn't matter. The evolutionary theory does not revolve around intermediates. Only creation scientists purport this to be the case. The evolutionary theory is incredibly broad, so to begin attacking it, get ready to go up against the discoveries of physics, biology, astronomy, etc. etc. Even if no intermediate life forms were ever found, that would not invalidate the evolutionary theory in any sense. It is by far the best explanation of the data. The very nature of science is not to invoke unprovable, untestable ideas to explain things. Scientists have learned that if they wait and keep working, more data will come up to fill in any seeming gaps in knowledge. Had you lived 1,000 years ago, I have little doubt that you would be arguing strongly that the Sun revolves around the earth, since the Bible seems to indicate that the earth is the center of the universe. Had you lived 1,000 years _from_ now, I imagine that evolution would have been accepted for so long that you would be arguing in one of the remaining "gaps" which have always been filled in by God through the centuries. God (or some creative force, whatever) has always lived in the places where science has not yet reached.
>>I said nothing about how life began, and that
>>is still not the topic under discussion. Basically,
>>you can simply look at apes and humans and see that
>>there is very likely relatedness. Then you can take
>>DNA tests and discover that we are more related to
>>apes, according to DNA, than we are to any other
>>creature on earth. Coincidence?
>
>Not according to DNA, but to an interpretation
>of the DNA. The DNA itself only reveals similarities,
>which I acknowledge exist. But they are still some
>differences. A tomato and a pool of water are 95%
>identical chemical composition (both water).
>Coincidence?
This is the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard you use. Pools of water don't have DNA. I am talking about the way DNA is torn apart, then heated and put back together to see how similar it is. This is a convenient way to see how closely related life forms are to one another. It is not an "interpretation" of data. If it is, tell me another way to interpret the reason that apes are so similar to humans, and rats are so similar to mice (according to DNA comparison). Or, more accurately, tell me a _better_, _more obvious_ way to interpret this.
I can't believe you jumped from a discussion of DNA to "chemical composition."
>If the tomato is not related to a pool of water, then
>someone or something has gone to great lengths to make
>me think that they are. Could it be me
>misinterpreting the data? That's ridiculous.
It's ridiculous, alright. It's ridiculous that you brought this up at all.
>But long story short, the track record leaves me
>unconvinced. Do apes and people have a common
>ancestor? Not sure, but I doubt it.
Well, you have every right to your opinion. Just realize that you lump yourselves in with the many other people who simply do not understand science well enough to see its claims on our worldviews. People who believe that the earth is flat, people who think that if you get your picture taken, it steals your soul... all of these people would agree with the method you are using for forming your worldview.
>>Oh, can we? So if you happened to look at the quantum
>>world, full of uncertainty, would you assert the
>>opposite... that we can tell when something _isn't_
>>designed?
>
>Quantum mechanics, with all its Heisenberg uncertainty
>principles and the existence of true randomness (which
>is still disputed) is, after all, highly mathematical
>in nature, still leaving an intricate mathematical
>order in the universe and orderly physical laws. If
>the universe where highly chaotic, possessing no
>order, then your claims might have some merit. Still,
>the fact remains that whatever caused the universe to
>exist imprinted a sophisticated mathematical order to
>it that only the most educated mathematicians can
>fully comprehend.
It's apparently your view that the only way order can exist is if some intelligent being makes it that way. I do not agree.
>Ah, but I'm babbling. Bottom line: track record
>leaves me (and creationists) understandably
>unconvinced, especially with claims of "We got it
>wrong then, but we got the real fossils now." The old
>saying comes to mind of "Fool me once, shame on you;
>fool me twice..." Well, you get the idea. That's the
>point of view.
Then stop looking so narrowly at the evidence for the evolutionary theory. The evidence is broad and multi-layered. Everyone knows fossil identification is not an exact science. Creationists love to find any inexactness as evidence that an entire theory is not accurate, but this is not the case. The fact is, though, that the majority of evidence we do find in fossils matches up amazingly well to the predictions of the evolutionary theory.
I find that creationists, growing up with the idea that the Bible is this perfect book, have a need for science to be just as perfect. Science isn't, but the Bible is exceedingly less so. In reality, there is nothing perfect. We look for the most likely conclusions based on the evidence. In the case of the evolutionary theory, we happen to have voluminous evidence all pointing in the same direction.
>Your point of view: we got it right now. This time we
>have legitimate hominid fossils. The similarities
>between apes and people confirm it. ID is not as good
>as an explanation for the similarities.
>
>Why the difference in interpretation? Possibly it has
>something to do with the mechanism. Some believe
>there is one; I and a number of others are skeptical
>that one exists. We don't have any currently
>observable mechanism to cause large-scale changes.
>Yes, there are mutations and extrapolations, but with
>no observable vertical changes there doesn't seem to
>be anything to extrapolate for creationists (whereas
>evolutionists claim it's happening too slowly). What
>would be an example of an observable vertical change?
>One example: pointing to organs that are now gradually
>developing. But, curiously, we've only been able to
>point to a number of organs that have deteriorated and
>become vestigial; and zero when it comes to new,
>incipient organs.
Go read Talk Origins. All of these things have been discussed by much more serious scientists than myself.
>Now I don't expect to convince you, only to illustrate
>one point of view, one that I have come to (partially)
>accept. I think the creationists (at least the
>lower-tier ones, like in chick publications) are wrong
>about a great many things. But I also think that some
>good points are raised (to be fair, evolution also has
>some good points).
Thanks for illustrating that point of view. I always find it interesting to see why people think the way they do. Being as intelligent a guy as you obviously are, I wish you could really step back and look at this whole issue more broadly, get rid of whatever it is that makes you _want_ it to be true, and really see the beauty and explanatory power of the evolutionary theory. Whenever you jump to Intelligent Design theory, you basically jump right out of any meaningful, testable idea of how things work, and it's a discredit to your intellect.
Ben
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 