Freethought & Rationalism Archive

pz · 06-24-2003, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by steadele
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.

It most certainly is not. The formation of irreducibly complex pathways is precisely what we would expect if evolution is undirected. When Behe has been pinned down on this, he has admitted that icness can evolve -- his new excuse is that it can't evolve directly.

Quote:

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

Look up Till's E. Coli at the No Free Lunchroom: Bacterial Flagella and Dembski�s Case for Intelligent Design. Wesley Elsberry has also done a good job of ripping up Dembski's pathetic biology.

Doubting Didymus · 06-24-2003, 05:41 PM

Regarding the evolution of irreducibly complex structures:

How to evolve an irreducibly complex mousetrap in thirteen easy steps.

wdog · 06-24-2003, 06:05 PM

well russ says

Quote:

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.

I think that about sums it up, he simply believes based on his own viewpoint, and so what? meanwhile the rest of the world moves on...

Warcraft3 · 06-25-2003, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by emotional
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.

While I am not sure exactly where I stand yet, I do find front loading to be an interesting viewpoint, and one I am considering.
I did want to comment on the last thing you said......

Quote:

God is a Creator, not a Designer.

That is a very interesting statement, and I must admit it made me pause for a moment. I will have to chew on that one for a while.

Russ
"Strumming the ole violen"

:boohoo:

Warcraft3 · 06-25-2003, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pz
It most certainly is not. The formation of irreducibly complex pathways is precisely what we would expect if evolution is undirected. When Behe has been pinned down on this, he has admitted that icness can evolve -- his new excuse is that it can't evolve directly.

I have no problem with CAN evolve, my question is DID it evolve in an "undirected, unguided" manner. The stuff I have read supporting the view that it did has left me unconvinced. But I will continue to read, as always.

Quote:

Look up Till's E. Coli at the No Free Lunchroom: Bacterial Flagella and Dembski�s Case for Intelligent Design. Wesley Elsberry has also done a good job of ripping up Dembski's pathetic biology.

Now off the top of my head I do believe I have read that already, but I could be mistaken. I will read it though and let you know what I think. I will hopefully get to it on Sunday, since I am going away for the weekend.

If I do not comment on it by Monday please remind me that I said I would read it in case I forget between now and Sunday.

Russ
"Strumming the ole violen"
:boohoo:

Warcraft3 · 06-25-2003, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus
Regarding the evolution of irreducibly complex structures:

How to evolve an irreducibly complex mousetrap in thirteen easy steps.

Okay I read the article you linked to and it reminds me of other "solutions" I have read trying to debunk Behes mousetrap example. I think such things show just how imaginative and creative an intelligent agent can be, but do not in principle destroy the argument of IC. I see some "well now suppose this....." in the arguments and I think it weakens the point the authors are trying to make.

Russ
"Strumming the ole violen"

:boohoo:

Warcraft3 · 06-25-2003, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by wdog
well russ says

I think that about sums it up, he simply believes based on his own viewpoint, and so what?

I simply believe based on my viewpoint? What the heck is that supposed to mean? We all have a viewpoint. I was simply saying that from my current perspective I can only nail down that one point. So what? Sue me for being honest and open with people about my beliefs. I am not afraid to admit weaknesses within my own point of view.

So I am not just running around with my fingers in my ears yelling "LA LA LA I am right and you are wrong LA LA LA". My viewpoints on many things are not set in stone, so I am still forming my perspective.

Quote:

meanwhile the rest of the world moves on...

Yes, yes of course. I am just some silly man stuck in his warped belief system, right? And you are so much more liberated then me and you have seen the light of truth while I am stuck in the mud. You should visit the website....
www.givemeabreakmanwiththebaloney.com

Russ
"Strumming the ole violen"

:boohoo:

emotional · 06-25-2003, 09:34 AM

Quote:

God is a Creator, not a Designer.

That is a very interesting statement, and I must admit it made me pause for a moment. I will have to chew on that one for a while.

The idea is not my original, but is influenced by John Haught's article, "Does Evolution Rule Out God's Existence?", here:

http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/evoluti...s/haught.shtml

Quote:

A God of love influences the world in a persuasive rather than coercive way, and this is why chance and evolution occur. It is because God is involved with the world in a loving rather than domineering way that the world evolves. If God were a magician or a dictator, then we might expect the universe to be finished all at once and remain eternally unchanged. If God controlled the world rigidly instead of willing its independence, we might not expect the weird organisms of the Cambrian explosion, the later dinosaurs and reptiles, or the many other wild creatures that seem so alien to us. We would want our divine magician to build the world along the lines of our own narrowly human sense of clean perfection. But what a pallid and impoverished world that would be. It would lack all the drama, diversity, adventure and intense beauty that evolution has produced. It might have a listless harmony to it, but it would have none of the novelty, contrast, danger, upheavals, and grandeur that evolution has in fact brought about over billions of years.

According to the contact position, God is not a magician but a creator. And this God is much more interested in promoting freedom and adventure than in preserving the status quo. Since divine creative love has the character of letting things be, we should not be too surprised at evolution's strange and erratic pathways. The long struggle of the universe to arrive at life, consciousness, and culture is consonant with faith's conviction that love never forces but always allows for the play of freedom, risk and adventure.

I find Haught's theology to be an excellent answer to the perplexing issue of God's goodness vs the reality of evolution. It requires more faith than the pre-Darwinian view of creationism, but that's the price to be paid for advances in science. All in all, I consider theistic evolution to be the golden middle between reality that flies in one's face and the need for personal comforting.

wdog · 06-25-2003, 11:45 AM

russ,

there are various levels of beliefs in terms of their justification, and then there is simply acceptance of what the scientific consensus is. I don't really juts believe in evolution, I accept it as the current best explaination based on the available evidence and also based on the fact that science has been far more successful than any religion in its explanatory power.

I will sometimes go out on a limb, like you, and make a qualified statement that I 'believe' this may be the case. But unlike you my standards of justification are higher.

the link didn't work but I think I have seen it before. If I remember correctly, just another attempt to undermine the validity of the scientific enterprise since it conflicts with someone's belief system, which would of course undoubtably fail to a greater a degree than the science that they are presumably questioning. Ignorance in action.

People can believe whatever they wish with little or no justification, so when you say

Quote:

Yes, yes of course. I am just some silly man stuck in his warped belief system, right

yup, i agree

emotional · 06-25-2003, 12:01 PM

You got that, Russ? You can believe anything you want, just don't claim it has anything to do with reality! And don't you DARE insert God as an explanation for anything! That really drives the materialists mad!

I've been through that no-win sh*t just too lawng...

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

06-24-2003, 05:41 PM	#42
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	Regarding the evolution of irreducibly complex structures: How to evolve an irreducibly complex mousetrap in thirteen easy steps.

06-25-2003, 12:01 PM	#50
emotional Banned Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Boxing ring of HaShem, Jesus and Allah Posts: 1,945	You got that, Russ? You can believe anything you want, just don't claim it has anything to do with reality! And don't you DARE insert God as an explanation for anything! That really drives the materialists mad! I've been through that no-win sht just too* lawng...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.