Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 08/12/04 5:57pm
In reply to:
Ben
's message, "More on Deceptive Design Theory" on 07/16/04 3:05pm
>>>>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
Methinks there are more scientists who accept ID than those that think the world is flat.
>>>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."
Then you might want to look at the list again (e.g. Piltdown man, with a human skullcap and the jawbone of an ape).
>>>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
I agree. Nonetheless my point on human evolution still stands.
>God (or some creative
>force, whatever) has always lived in the places where
>science has not yet reached.
There are a number of problems with that view. One, why think that God and nature are in competition with each other? This view is not only mistaken but not very theologically accurate either. I don't have any theological problem with evolution (nor do a lot of other ID scientists, e.g. Behe). The problem has to do with the evidence.
>>>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.
It's an analogy to help explain the point of view here. My point is that the similarity doesn't per se prove common ancestry.
>>>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.
No, that is not my view. Nonetheless, this particular kind of order, especially in view of the severe coherency problems of an infinite past, suggests design.
>>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.
Remember, above I was talking about human evolution. Beyond fossils, there is no conclusive evidence.
>>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.
I can play the same game: go to creationist books (e.g. Mere Creation).
>>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.
Yes, there is beauty and explanatory power of evolutionary theory. There are also some holes. I similarly 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.
>Whenever you jump to Intelligent Design
>theory, you basically jump right out of any
>meaningful, testable idea of how things work
I wouldn't say that. If we did, for instance, find a known natural mechanism for abiogenesis, had actual evidence that the initial conditions existed, I would concede the point. But one of that has been done, despite decades of research. Wait 30 years from now. I bet we still won't have a known mechanism that could do it.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 