Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Warcraft3 · 06-24-2003, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GunnerJ
[B]I'm not going to gratify these absurd accusations.

Absurd accusations? I asked you to clarify your point and I explained why I took your post the way I did. So instead of answering my post you simply declare it absurd....good discussion stopper.

Quote:

I have already clarified my intent, any other meanings you derive from my post are yours and yours entirely.

No I do not think you have clarified your intent actually. Here is what you said...

Quote:

I have misrepresented nothing. In fact, I could make a good case that you're misrepresenting me: you'll note that nowhere did I imply that you think that "the Holocaust is something God wanted the Nazis to do." All I did was a little skeet-shooting on your "cry me a river and get over it" defense.

I would like more of an explanation than "skeet-shooting" thats all. I am not trying to be unreasonable here, really Im not.

Russ
"Strumming the ole violen"
:boohoo:

Warcraft3 · 06-24-2003, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by emotional
You know, long ago, when I was an evolution sceptic, it was computer-designed evolution simulations that convinced me of the validity of evolution - Dawkin's biomorphs, Karl Sim's Evolved Virtual Creatures, Tom Ray's Tierra et cetera.

They do indeed demonstrate evolution - how complexly organised entities can arise by a blind algorithmic process. But what is noteworthy about those simulations are that they demonstrate theistic evolution. In each of them, the simulation is not self-started, but requires an initial starter to kick them off. Eg Richard Dawkins is the "god" of biomorph evolution.

It isn't an argument for the necessity of theistic evolution, but it shows that theistic evolution is a valid concept. Of course, it may open the can of worms about the designer/starter ("Who created God?"), but that's another topic for another forum...

I find such simulations fascinating. I have only read a little bit on such simulations...so where can I go to get more detailed descriptions of these simulations (for free preferably)? Thanks.

Russ
"Strumming the ole violen"
:boohoo:

pz · 06-24-2003, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by steadele
Ah yes "argument from ignorance" and "personal incredulity" blah, blah, blah......more of the same definitions over and over....

As to the "argument from ignorance" I said I see no reason why it is an ILLOGICAL viewpoint. I did not say that that implied it WAS a logical viewpoint. I simply stated I do not find any arguments that it is illogical to be very convincing.

The question in the OP, and the one I thought you were trying to address, was whether theistic evolution is logical and scientific. Am I to take it that this is your concession speech, and you are acknowledging that there isn't a logical reason to believe in theistic evolution?

Quote:

*Sigh* You obviously do not know what I was referring to when I said "testability is a problem." I was referring to the fact that whether one believes in "front loading" or in a creator who periodically "helps" evolution along, it is difficult (if not impossible) to test such intervention by an outside force. This is the "testability" problem that TE has.

OK, so these are untestable hypotheses that lack evidence to support them. I think that means you have also conceded that theistic evolution is unscientific.

TE is 0 for 2. We both agree on something.

Quote:

And as far as the "personal incredulity" argument goes....I do not need a doctorate in Biology to spot bull%$^& when I see it. Lets take the flagellum for example. The supposed "pathways" and "physical precursors" I have read about simply do not explain its origin. Alot of speculation and imagination, but not very convincing.

Given that you've admitted that "yes, my knowledge is limited in this area and many other areas as well", why should anyone find this to any degree persuasive? I agree that you do not need a doctorate, but you do need a reasonable amount of knowledge about microbiology, transmembrane proteins, protein structure, and comparative genomics and proteomics. The people who have that knowledge think the homology between flagellar proteins and other transmembrane proteins suggests a promising explanation that can be examined in greater detail; those who lack that knowledge do not. Doesn't that tell you something?

Quote:

I find some of the ID arguments to be promising.

That was my question...which ones? I haven't seen any that are worth pursuing.

Quote:

As for Behe...I find the idea of IC to be an interesting one. The definition needs some work, but the idea does have merit. I have read some of the explanations in rebuttal to Behe and have some of them to be rather weak.

I've read Behe's book, and have heard him speak. To say that the definition "needs some work" is a remarkable understatement. IC is a mangled version of ideas about mechanisms that would increase complexity, not impede it, that have been around since Muller. The only novel things that Behe added were to 1) erroneously claim that it was a barrier rather than a common cause of complexity, and 2) tap into a credulous audience who would give him money and acclaim while being simultaneously incapable of questioning him. (1) was just stupid, and is why his reputation among competent biologists is abysmal, but (2) was clever, if venal.

Quote:

As for Dembski....His attempt to provide a mathematical framework for detecting SC was admirable and was a difficult undertaking. His latest book falls short with regard to false positives (in my opinion) but does have some good points also. I find his use of a universal probability boundary to be compelling.

I've read parts of Dembski's work. The numerous critiques of the math have ruined his credibility on that part, but for me the totally bone-headed ignorance of basic biology made it absolutely worthless, little more than a fantasy. Behe misinterprets, but Dembski just plain doesn't know it.

emotional · 06-24-2003, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by steadele
I find such simulations fascinating. I have only read a little bit on such simulations...so where can I go to get more detailed descriptions of these simulations (for free preferably)? Thanks.

Start here:

http://xxx.infidels.org/~meta/getalife/

That was the URL I was referred to when I asked about demonstrations of evolution here on these boards.

Or you can do a search of "biomorphs" or "evolutionary design" or "karl sims". See http://www.biota.org for the Digital Biology Project, including Karl Sims' Evolved Virtual Creatures.

GunnerJ · 06-24-2003, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Absurd accusations?

Yes, such as...

Quote:

From an earlier post:

You came close enough. You did not directly imply that I think "the Holocaust is something God wanted the Nazis to do", but you did in imply a connection with this type of suffering and another type I was dealing with in my post.

Since I seperate the two into different categories I found the "lumping together" of the two to be approaching an argument from outrage which could easily misrepresent my position.

This, combined with the specific parts you quoted from my post, lead me to suspect there may be some subtle implications in your post.

Quote:

I asked you to clarify your point and I explained why I took your post the way I did. So instead of answering my post you simply declare it absurd....good discussion stopper.

You assume that I wish to discuss that matter further. I do not. My statement is as clear as I wish it to be. If you are still confused by it, then consider it a riddle to be pondered. If you still think I had any intentions other than my stated ones, then these intentions are, again, nothing more than the product of your imagination.

Oolon Colluphid · 06-24-2003, 12:16 PM

Quote:

I find some of the ID arguments to be promising.

and

Quote:

Lets take the flagellum for example. The supposed "pathways" and "physical precursors" I have read about simply do not explain its origin. Alot of speculation and imagination, but not very convincing.

Whether you personally find them convincing depends, of course, on what you're willing to find convincing. For myself, 'reasonable' and 'plausible' are good enough, given the alternative. For where exactly did the intelligent designer step in, and where did he leave things alone?

For, you see, there are a host of examples where it's either evolution, or else the designer(s) in question were incredibly stupid. Have I mentioned these before? Would you like me to list a few?

You see, if there was an intelligent designer faddling about with flagella, why the blue blazes did it not correct the really foolish designs?

Let me lay it out:

We have plausible pathways to supposed irreducible complexity. So an intelligent designer is not, at best, strictly necessary.

On top of which, a standard-issue intelligent designer is completely refuted by the presence of poor designs elsewhere in nature.

Therefore there is no reason to think that one is involved in alleged irreducible complexity.

Or are you proposing that the intelligent designer of flagella is not the same intelligent designer of eyes, ears, wings... and laryngeal nerves, appendices and bat respiration?

TTFN, Oolon

Warcraft3 · 06-24-2003, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pz
The question in the OP, and the one I thought you were trying to address, was whether theistic evolution is logical and scientific.

Actually the OP asked the question.....

Quote:

any thoughts regarding if it is logically and scientifically false?

And I say no it is not false logically or scientifically (although I concede it has its problems).

Quote:

Am I to take it that this is your concession speech, and you are acknowledging that there isn't a logical reason to believe in theistic evolution?

I would not put it so strongly as that. I would say I concede that my beliefs are far from air tight arguments and are tentative at best. I do not find TE to be very illogical or very logical. It is something I consider because I see the appearance of common descent, but I also see the appearance of design. I believe both may be true.

Quote:

OK, so these are untestable hypotheses that lack evidence to support them. I think that means you have also conceded that theistic evolution is unscientific.

I believe there is some "evidence" that leans towards evolution being "helped" along the way. The extreme difficulty of producing certain functional systems in Biology (like the flagellum, to beat a dead horse here) is troublesome to me when I consider undirected evolution. Something being possible does not imply it actually practical. I find many of the "explanations" I have read in books and internet articles on the evolution of complex systems to be little more than imaginative explanations. If things truly came about randomly, then I do not think they should be so difficult to explain, since they happened randomly.

Quote:

TE is 0 for 2. We both agree on something.Given that you've admitted that "yes, my knowledge is limited in this area and many other areas as well", why should anyone find this to any degree persuasive? I agree that you do not need a doctorate, but you do need a reasonable amount of knowledge about microbiology, transmembrane proteins, protein structure, and comparative genomics and proteomics.

Hey man I am always learning, so yeah I have alot to learn and this is why I read articles from the "experts" on both sides of the fence.

Quote:

The people who have that knowledge think the homology between flagellar proteins and other transmembrane proteins suggests a promising explanation that can be examined in greater detail; those who lack that knowledge do not. Doesn't that tell you something?

I have read some of the promising explanations and I think they are a long way from convincing me.

Quote:

That was my question...which ones? I haven't seen any that are worth pursuing.I've read Behe's book, and have heard him speak. To say that the definition "needs some work" is a remarkable understatement. IC is a mangled version of ideas about mechanisms that would increase complexity, not impede it, that have been around since Muller.

Yes, his ideas are not entirely new, this is true. But he is correct when he says that possible precursors do not solve the IC problem. Only actual physical precursors (which had to exist and should at least leave some sign of having existed) solve the "problem" of IC.

Quote:

The only novel things that Behe added were to 1) erroneously claim that it was a barrier rather than a common cause of complexity, and

You do not think IC is a barrier to undirected Darwinian pathways? I have to disagree with you on that one. While I do not think it is the "silver bullet" that Behe thinks it is, I do think it is a problem.

Quote:

2) tap into a credulous audience who would give him money and acclaim while being simultaneously incapable of questioning him. (1) was just stupid, and is why his reputation among competent biologists is abysmal, but (2) was clever, if venal.

Well I have read some of Behes "internet" debates with his critics and I think he does a decent job defending his ideas.

Quote:

I've read parts of Dembski's work. The numerous critiques of the math have ruined his credibility on that part, but for me the totally bone-headed ignorance of basic biology made it absolutely worthless, little more than a fantasy. Behe misinterprets, but Dembski just plain doesn't know it.

Numerous critiques of the math? I have not seen any critiques showing mathematical errors in the book. I found none when I read it, and a friend of mine who majored in math and cs did not find any either. Most of the arguments I have seen are dealing with the specific way he applies probablity to the system as a whole. There are different ways one can go about it and some poeple disagree with his method. That does not make his method invalid though. So from what I have read on this both Dembski and his critics make some valid points.

Bone headed ignorance of basic biology? Could you give me an example where Dembski displays such blatant ignorance?

Russ
"Strumming the ole violen"
:boohoo:

Warcraft3 · 06-24-2003, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GunnerJ
Yes, such as...

You assume that I wish to discuss that matter further. I do not.

Very well then. I will not bring it up again.

Quote:

My statement is as clear as I wish it to be.

Ummmmmmmm okay man.

Quote:

If you are still confused by it, then consider it a riddle to be pondered.

I shall ponder it and solve the riddle of GunnerJ.

Quote:

If you still think I had any intentions other than my stated ones, then these intentions are, again, nothing more than the product of your imagination.

Thats what I was trying to figure out in the first place. I wanted to know exactly what was meant or implied by the link, since it was in responce to a post by yours truly. But, very well, I shall drop the subject and will speak of it no further.

Russ
"Strumming the ole violen"
:boohoo:

Warcraft3 · 06-24-2003, 02:17 PM

Good post and good questions. I have struggled with these problems myself, so let me take a stab at em.....

Quote:

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid
and
Whether you personally find them convincing depends, of course, on what you're willing to find convincing.

Sure, there may be some bias on my part here, but hey, I am only human and I would like to think that I do try to be objective

Quote:

For myself, 'reasonable' and 'plausible' are good enough, given the alternative. For where exactly did the intelligent designer step in, and where did he leave things alone?

Yeah the "where did the ID step in" question is a tough one to be sure. For now I think the question of DID He step in is a big enough question without coming up with a time line. This is the first question ID has to answer, then comes the more specific questions of "Well okay, now at what points exactly did the ID intervene and at what points did He not supernaturally intervene?" That is still something I am trying to figure out myself. At this point I simply believe that intervention was necessary. The only "specific point" I can nail down (within my own viewpoint) would be the introduction of carbon based life.

Quote:

For, you see, there are a host of examples where it's either evolution, or else the designer(s) in question were incredibly stupid. Have I mentioned these before? Would you like me to list a few?

No need. I have seen such arguments before. All I can say is the questions of "Why would a designer do it this way instead of that way?" go way beyond the general detection of a necessary designing intelligence. Those questions are somewhat philisophical in nature and also touch on ones theological perspective. I am not trying to be evasive here, I am just saying that answers to these questions get into several different areas.

Quote:

You see, if there was an intelligent designer faddling about with flagella, why the blue blazes did it not correct the really foolish designs?

Yeah good question. I really can not say WHY He would do something one way or the other. From my perspective the creation was "good" not "perfect". We can argue over how "good" it was and use examples of "not so good things" to try to rebut the idea of design, but I do not think design implies perfection.

Quote:

Let me lay it out:

We have plausible pathways to supposed irreducible complexity. So an intelligent designer is not, at best, strictly necessary.

Yeah some are plausible, while others are just imagination with little actual physical systems to point to. So you could use the argument that maybe some day we will solve all these problems, and so in light of future discoveries an ID is not strictly necessary. And I think that argument is not a foolish one, although I disagree with it.

Quote:

On top of which, a standard-issue intelligent designer is completely refuted by the presence of poor designs elsewhere in nature.

Well you are basing this on what you think the designer should have done. But the designer has the freedom to design however He wishes. Even if the design is "poor" by our standards, the designer has the freedom to make such designs.

Quote:

Therefore there is no reason to think that one is involved in alleged irreducible complexity.

I find that conclusion a bit hasty.

Quote:

Or are you proposing that the intelligent designer of flagella is not the same intelligent designer of eyes, ears, wings... and laryngeal nerves, appendices and bat respiration?

TTFN, Oolon

Hmmmm I think I see where you are going with this question, but I will answer it (at my own risk of course

)

I do think it is the same designer.

(By the way people I am enjoying this discussion so I hope you guys are as well)

Russ
"Strumming the ole violen"
:boohoo:

emotional · 06-24-2003, 02:31 PM

I have a low opinion of Behe's IC argument. I think it's an attempt to find a last evidential gasp for God. Behe is as good as saying "I have found God in the bacterial flagellum". Only the bacterial flagellum? That's the only place where God's work can be seen? That's a very meagre portion indeed, a very far cry from the All-Sovereign God of the Bible that Behe believes in. And it has the danger, like all "evidences" for the existence of God, that if it is refuted, the faith will have no foundation. If IC is refuted, will Behe stop believing in God? He should if he's consistent. It is better, then, to base the belief of God on faith alone and not on evidence.

I adhere to front-loaded theistic evolution. I believe God set up all the necessary laws for evolution 15 billion years ago (at the Creation of space and time). He hasn't designed anything, and he didn't intervene any more than a computer simulation of evolution needs programmer intervention to succeed. God is a Creator, not a Designer.

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

06-24-2003, 02:31 PM	#40
emotional Banned Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Boxing ring of HaShem, Jesus and Allah Posts: 1,945	I have a low opinion of Behe's IC argument. I think it's an attempt to find a last evidential gasp for God. Behe is as good as saying "I have found God in the bacterial flagellum". Only the bacterial flagellum? That's the only place where God's work can be seen? That's a very meagre portion indeed, a very far cry from the All-Sovereign God of the Bible that Behe believes in. And it has the danger, like all "evidences" for the existence of God, that if it is refuted, the faith will have no foundation. If IC is refuted, will Behe stop believing in God? He should if he's consistent. It is better, then, to base the belief of God on faith alone and not on evidence. I adhere to front-loaded theistic evolution. I believe God set up all the necessary laws for evolution 15 billion years ago (at the Creation of space and time). He hasn't designed anything, and he didn't intervene any more than a computer simulation of evolution needs programmer intervention to succeed. God is a Creator, not a Designer.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.