Freethought & Rationalism Archive

BioBeing · 05-29-2003, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by steadele
I find the flagella arguments (since you specifically brought it up) to be pretty good ones on the ID side of the coin. The explanations I have read on the "origin" of the flagella leave much to be desired and make a lot of (in my opinion) rather convenient assumptions. The type 3 secretory system explanation comes to mind for example.

What convenient assumptions? Genetic evidence shows that the base of the flagella and the type III secretory system are related. The "irreducible complexity" has been reduced. End of story.

Here is a good explanation The Flagellum Unspun

Quote:

The most powerful rebuttals to the flagellum story, however, have not come from direct attempts to answer the critics of evolution. Rather, they have emerged from the steady progress of scientific work on the genes and proteins associated with the flagellum and other cellular structures.

i.e. as pointed out by another poster, ID is an argument from ignorance, nothing more.

CALDONIA · 05-29-2003, 01:18 PM

It is interesting that H.L. Mencken addressed the ID issue in the early 1920s. He suggested that the examples of poor, inadequate or worthless design found in nature may point to the fact that there is no ONE designer. Only a COMMITEE of designers could have created such "designs" that suggest compromise and timidity.

It was a group of Intelligent Designers that decided after much argument to allow for near-sightedness and the human appendix.

The ID argument is nothing more than the argument from ignorance cloaked in scientific clothing.

RufusAtticus · 05-29-2003, 01:26 PM

Hi guys,

I just want to point out that stealdele does not have a position on the origin of the diversity of life. Last time I looked he was floating between OEC, ID, and evolution. As such, I suggest that we let him ask the questions. Otherwise, he'll just lurk. So how about it stealdele? You want to start a thread of your own?

MrDarwin · 05-29-2003, 02:01 PM

Fair enough, and the comments on I.D. and flagella were getting away from the OP. But I would like to leave Steadele with one question to mull over: do you think that the creationist side is being entirely upfront and honest with the "evidence" they provide against evolution, in particular when it comes to their use of quotations by "evolutionists"?

Peez · 05-29-2003, 02:01 PM

Quote:

CALDONIA:
It is interesting that H.L. Mencken addressed the ID issue in the early 1920s. He suggested that the examples of poor, inadequate or worthless design found in nature may point to the fact that there is no ONE designer. Only a COMMITEE of designers could have created such "designs" that suggest compromise and timidity.

Intelligent Designer (ID) #3: "Any more business for the committee today?"

ID #1: "We need to give humans a nice big cecum, where bacteria can digest cellulose. After all if we are designing this world for humans, why did we bother making so much cellulose if humans cannot use it for food?"

ID #2: "No, not the cecum again! It's a lousy, inefficient organ. Why have an organ working on cellulose so far along the digestive system that the animal has to eat it's own faeces to make full use of it? I didn't like it in rabbits and it will play havoc with all those cleanliness rules that we want the humans to follow. Why do you like cecums so much?"

ID #1: "You are just trying to get back because we didn't use your "starch" in animals."

ID #2: "Starch is a perfectly good molecule, and glycogen is..."

ID #3: "Let's not get into that again, stick to the cecum."

ID #4: "To heck with the cecum, there are plenty of other things the humans can eat."

ID #5: "And we are running out of room in the abdomen."

ID #1: "But think of all the humans who will starve just because they don't have a working cecum!"

ID #2: "Great, they can survive on their carbohydrate-rich faeces."

ID #1: "They need a cecum!"

ID #2: "No they don't!"

ID #1: "Yes they do!"

ID #3: "Whoa! Can't we find a compromise here?"

ID #4: "Look, we have just enough room in the abdomen for a little cecumette the size of a finger. I don't know what to do with the extra space. Let ID #1 have his cecum as long as it is no bigger than that."

ID #5: "That sounds fair."

ID #1: "That's USELESS! A cecum that size won't do anything, except maybe provide a site for dangerous infections."

ID #2: "Stop whining, I move that we add the small cecum and be done with it."

ID #4: "I second the nomination."

ID #1: "But it won't even work as a cecum!"

ID #2: "Fine, we'll call it an appendix."

ID #3: "All in favour of the appendix?"

ID #2: "Aye."

ID #4: "Aye"

ID #5: "Aye"

ID #1: "This is stupid!"

ID #3: "All opposed... nobody... any abstentions?"

ID #1: "Just wait �till you try to get your prehensile ears in."

Peez

RufusAtticus · 05-29-2003, 02:05 PM

:notworthy

There is a play in there somewhere.

CALDONIA · 05-29-2003, 02:07 PM

Peez,

:notworthy

Warcraft3 · 05-29-2003, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrDarwin
This (as does most of "intelligent design", as far as I can tell) boils down to "I can't imagine how it could possibly have evolved, therefore it must not have evolved." The problem with such an approach is that, like the discussion on the fossil record of plants, the things we don't know today become the things we do know tomorrow. That's the whole point of science: we seek to find out that which we do not already know. Sometimes we do, sometimes we don't, sometimes the things we find out aren't what we expected, and sometimes we find answers to questions we didn't even ask.

I really think there is more to the ID argument than, "Well golly, gosh, gee Cousin Jed, I sure cant figur' this one out. Wait,I know....... God did it!!!" I think many of their arguments and points are better than that.

Quote:

As far as I can tell, the I.D.ists look at a flagellum, throw up their hands, and say "it's just too complex to have evolved!" The problem with "irreducible complexity" is that I have yet to see any proponent of "intelligent design" offer any testable hypotheses or propose how the design hypothesis could be falsified (short of building a time machine and going back to watch such things evolve).

Things such as testability are still in the infancy stages of the theory. Give them some time, and I think positive progress will be made. They have some interesting discussions about such things in the forum at www.iscid.org

Quote:

The issue of poor or suboptimal design is an important one. The whole point of "intelligent design" is that some things seem so well "designed" that they could never have evolved. But if that's the case, then what do clearly suboptimal designs mean? That the designer was incompetent, or got sloppy? That the designer did design some things, but others just happened on their own? That there were several designers, some better than others? (Where do we draw the line between "good" and "bad" design, anyway, and what does it mean if they fall on a continuum from good to bad?) These are things that "intelligent design" needs to address.

Yes, such things do need to be addressed eventually by any theory on lifes origins and development. But I do not see this as a critical issue currently, since there are "bigger fish to fry" within the ID model.

Russ

Warcraft3 · 05-29-2003, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Korihor
Hi Russ,

If you had time, I'd recommend looking at this video presentation by Kenneth Miller that you can watch here:

Paley in a Test Tube

The video is about 23 minutes long, and Dr. Miller critiques Behe's ID argument from irreducible complexity. In my opinion, his critique was quite compelling. If you see it, let me know what you think about it.

Hey Korihor. Thanks for the link, Ill be sure to watch it. I have Reserves this weekend, so it will have to wait until sunday. Ill send you a PM after I watch it to let you know Ill be posting my thoughts.

Russ

Warcraft3 · 05-29-2003, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NialScorva
Russ,

Engineers have somewhat of a bad stereotype with actual scientists in the Evolution vs Creation debate, since there seems to be quite a few engineers in the creationist ranks.

I am an engineer, myself. My personal belief is that this is due to the way in which we approach our jobs. Scientists are always reverse-engineering things. When an engineer is reverse-engineering something, it's almost always to find the (mis-)design elements for use. Everything revolves around the thought of "design", whether it be "how do I...", "how did they...", or "how can I use this in a...". It makes it hard to consider the possibility of something not being designed when you're evaluating everything in the context of being designed or as a raw material/ispiration for design.

I will concede that I may actually have a bias towards design partially because of background in engineering. Such a thing is a reasonable assumption in my opinion. I do make an attempt to be objective, but alas, I often fail. But I do try.

Russ

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-29-2003, 01:18 PM	#32
CALDONIA Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sunnyvale,CA Posts: 371	It is interesting that H.L. Mencken addressed the ID issue in the early 1920s. He suggested that the examples of poor, inadequate or worthless design found in nature may point to the fact that there is no ONE designer. Only a COMMITEE of designers could have created such "designs" that suggest compromise and timidity. It was a group of Intelligent Designers that decided after much argument to allow for near-sightedness and the human appendix. The ID argument is nothing more than the argument from ignorance cloaked in scientific clothing.

05-29-2003, 01:26 PM	#33
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Hi guys, I just want to point out that stealdele does not have a position on the origin of the diversity of life. Last time I looked he was floating between OEC, ID, and evolution. As such, I suggest that we let him ask the questions. Otherwise, he'll just lurk. So how about it stealdele? You want to start a thread of your own?

05-29-2003, 02:01 PM	#34
MrDarwin Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 4,140	Fair enough, and the comments on I.D. and flagella were getting away from the OP. But I would like to leave Steadele with one question to mull over: do you think that the creationist side is being entirely upfront and honest with the "evidence" they provide against evolution, in particular when it comes to their use of quotations by "evolutionists"?

05-29-2003, 02:05 PM	#36
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	:notworthy There is a play in there somewhere.

05-29-2003, 02:07 PM	#37
CALDONIA Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sunnyvale,CA Posts: 371	Peez, :notworthy

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.