Le 2011/04/18 04:15, Invisible a écrit :
> On 17/04/2011 17:07, Darren New wrote:
>> On 4/17/2011 2:57, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Yes, I know what a crumple zone is. But at 100MPH, there are going to be
>>> fatalities, no matter which way you design a car.
>>
>> I take it the UK doesn't have any Formula-1 races?
>
> Yeah, they do. But I'm pretty sure people driving road cars don't wear
> full-body flame-retardant suits, high-end crash helmets, custom-moulded
> seats, custom-calibrated seatbelts and heat restraints. I'm also fairly
> sure no known road car weighs as little as an F1 car, nor is quite as
> low to the ground. Also, walking around the Silverstone race circuit,
> there is a rather conspicuous absence of solid objects to collide with.
>
> If you crash a road car, you're not going to fly across a gravel trap
> for half a mile and then hit a deformable tire wall. You're either going
> to hit another car, or else a tree or a concrete wall. I doubt anybody
> is going to walk away from that alive.
>
> This is presumably why driving at 100MPH is an instant license
> revocation...

What about a head on colision against a concrete wall at over 200 Km/h?

There was such a crash here at Montréal a few years ago. The pilot was 
able to walk shortly after the crash to get into the ambulance. He only 
had some bruising.

Thankfuly, those F1 are realy tough, and the restrains excellent!



Alain

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/04/18 12:13, Jim Henderson a écrit :
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 10:57:32 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>>>> Designing it so the car doesn't survive the crash but the people
>>>> inside do would be even more miraculous...
>>>
>>> You've never seen a car crash (or the results of one), have you?  Most
>>> of them are *designed* to crumple in order to protect the passengers.
>>
>> Yes, I know what a crumple zone is. But at 100MPH, there are going to be
>> fatalities, no matter which way you design a car.
>
> Um, can you guarantee fatalities?  Because I'm sure that it's happened.
> 100 MPH is two cars in a head-on collision doing only 50 MPH, remember.
>
> Richard Hammond is still alive, for that matter - he was going 288 MPH
> when the "car" (it was a dragster with a jet assist, as I recall) he was
> in crashed.  He didn't walk away from it, but he didn't die, either (as
> evidenced by the fact that he's still presenting on Top Gear).
>
> Jim

1 car hiting a wall at 50 is similar to 1 car hiting a stationary car of 
about it's mass at 100.

2 cars, each going 100, will fare about the same as ether at that speed 
against a wall.


Alain

Post a reply to this message

>>> If you take ID to be the idea that some protein(complexe)s can not have
>>> been evolved from earlier proteins, then that is a testable hypothesis.
>>> Stating and researching that idea was real science.
>>
>> So there's a theory, the theory has been repeatedly proven wrong,
>
> no it hasn't. All *cases* that have been put forward that should have
> shown support have in fact turned out to be in support of evolution.
> That does not prove there are none. For that to prove you need to
> examine all proteins that exist anywhere in nature.

That's like saying that to prove Newton's laws of motion, you need to 
examine every object with mass in the entire universe. This isn't how 
science works.

>> there's no particular reason to believe that it might be right in some
>> unknown case,
>
> You only say that because you 'believe' the theory and not the hypothesis.

No. I say that because there's nothing special about the disproven cases 
than suggests that they're unusual. If there was, you might have a case 
for suggesting that other examples exist which would, if discovered, 
support ID.

It's like proving that Fermat's last theorem holds for all prime numbers 
less than one million. You might well argue that the fact that these are 
*prime* numbers makes them special, and the theorem might not hold for 
composite numbers. But if you prove it for a bunch of numbers chosen at 
random, there's less room for doubt.

Of course, any scientific theory always has the possibility of being 
wrong, or at least incomplete. But based on available evidence, 
evolution looks pretty safe. (Then again, people said that about 
Newton's laws of motion. But on the first hand again, people still 
*teach* Newton's laws of motion...)

>> and yet people continue to assert the truth of this theory
>> as *fact*? Doesn't sound very rational to me...
>
> That is entirely a different matter. These people need not be the same
> as the ones that do the real research.

Fair enough.

>>> BTW would dissecting the cases brought forward by Behe at al. count as
>>> spending time on ID? Because that would be an ideal way to teach
>>> students how real science works.
>>
>> I commend the idea.
>>
>> Right along side showing how String Theory, despite looking far more
>> professional than ID, is also not [yet] science.
>
> I also disagree on that. String theory is pure maths. I tend to think
> that maths is a science.
> I would agree that string theory is not physics yet.

String theory is mathematics developed explicitly for the purpose of 
describing the real world. And yet, it does not yet make any testable 
predictions. Someday it might, but it doesn't yet.

"Science" is usually defined as "the study of provable facts about the 
real world". Mathematics would fall outside that scope.

>> (And examining why it
>> has the potential to /become/ science in a way that ID does not.)
>
> Remember that in the unlikely case they do find an example of something
> that cannot have been evolved in an autonomous way, ID becomes science.
> We might think that it is just as unlikely as someone handing over the
> telephone number of God, but it might just happen.

Point being, until that day, ID is not science.

In fact, hell, even on that day, ID won't be science. The statement that 
there exist natural systems which evolution cannot explain will be 
science. But that's not ID. ID claims that God did it. This will *never* 
be science, since it is not possible to confirm or refute it by the 
scientific method.

(Note that not being science is different from not being true.)

Post a reply to this message

On 4/18/2011 2:46 PM, andrel wrote:
> On 18-4-2011 10:21, Invisible wrote:
>>>> You've got to admit, when you read about stuff like people believing
>>>> that ID is real science, it does make you wonder what kind of people
>>>> live there.
>>>
>>> If you take ID to be the idea that some protein(complexe)s can not have
>>> been evolved from earlier proteins, then that is a testable hypothesis.
>>> Stating and researching that idea was real science.
>>
>> So there's a theory, the theory has been repeatedly proven wrong,
>
> no it hasn't. All *cases* that have been put forward that should have
> shown support have in fact turned out to be in support of evolution.
> That does not prove there are none. For that to prove you need to
> examine all proteins that exist anywhere in nature.
>
Actually, this represents two huge problems with their hypothesis 
(please stop using theory, since that implies they already have some 
sort of evidence to imply it is/could be true).

First - Irreducible complexity is a non-starter, since it assumes, 
again, without *any* evidence, literally, that if you find a bridge, 
where one stone being removed makes it fall, there couldn't have been 
any sort of scaffolding to hold it up, later removed, which allowed it 
to be constructed. It had to have been intelligently designed. This is 
idiotic, since even such a bridge, having been so designed, required 
missing steps, which are not obvious from simply saying, "If you remove 
that one stone, it will fall down."

Second - If you want to call something a theory, you need to do research 
to test it. The only people that have *ever* tested it have been 
biologists, and their tests mainly consist of pointing out, usually well 
after the fact has already been established in their own research, that 
pulling some random thing out and saying, "See, irreducible!", doesn't 
work too well when 6 months prior someone had already described why it 
wasn't, but the ID people didn't bother to read all of the papers on the 
subject. The only "research" these clowns have done, to date, involves 
a) writing articles, which often repeat assertions already disproven, 
and sometimes using examples already shown to be invalid, b) scouring 
other people's work, hoping to find something that is irreducible, and 
c) writing more long winded papers, describing their hypothesis, while 
usually glossing over, or rarely, making excuses, as to why they can't 
yet describe what they are really looking for (in the case of ones like 
ontological depth, which they *said* they would have "soon", like 7 
years ago), how to find it, how to test it, how you would show it to be 
incorrect, through testing, or anything else resembling science.

In short, they have a hypothesis, which they want to fit preconceived 
data, but are using philosophy, instead of science, to "prove" it, 
wandering about picking up bits of stuff they think fit their useless 
guess.Its like if someone thought the debate over the existence of 
cyclops in ancient times was real, and they went about declaring that 
they *think* they found a skull (really from an elephant), and some big 
bones (from some dinosaur), which suggest they are right, and cyclops 
actually once existed. Meanwhile, we go on studying elephants, and 
digging up dino skeletons, and wondering what these kooks are babbling 
about, never mind why anyone is taking them seriously.

There is no science done by ID people, there is no research conducted by 
them, unless doing the equivalent of google searches constitutes 
"research", and no "theory", just a desperate guess, they want to be 
true, so that either God had to do it, or, for some of the crazier ones, 
they can take Genesis, and some made up "timeline" for the age of the 
earth seriously.

Post a reply to this message

On 4/19/2011 2:04 AM, Invisible wrote:
> In fact, hell, even on that day, ID won't be science. The statement that
> there exist natural systems which evolution cannot explain will be
> science. But that's not ID. ID claims that God did it. This will *never*
> be science, since it is not possible to confirm or refute it by the
> scientific method.
>
> (Note that not being science is different from not being true.)
Mind, if you stated the hypothesis as, "Science can either identify, or 
at least test for, whether something is true or not.", then this would, 
given all collective evidence, suggest several facts - 1) In all cases 
where you can actually collect data, this maxim is true, 2), in all 
cases where data cannot be collected, this maxim is false, and 3) in 
those cases where the maxim fails, the reason is not that the data never 
existed, but has become, via time, etc., unavailable, 4) there is 
usually some grounds to assume that the data had existed, and could have 
been collected, had such collection been timely.

Apply the same to the god question as you get - 1) No data can be 
collected, 2) There is no evidence to suggest that such data ever 
existed, 3) Therefor, lacking evidence that data was *ever* available at 
all, the implication is that you are attempting to find non-existent 
data, for an non-existent object. QED - Its highly improbable that the 
stated thing being examined is "true".

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/04/19 05:04, Invisible a écrit :
>>>> If you take ID to be the idea that some protein(complexe)s can not have
>>>> been evolved from earlier proteins, then that is a testable hypothesis.
>>>> Stating and researching that idea was real science.
>>>
>>> So there's a theory, the theory has been repeatedly proven wrong,
>>
>> no it hasn't. All *cases* that have been put forward that should have
>> shown support have in fact turned out to be in support of evolution.
>> That does not prove there are none. For that to prove you need to
>> examine all proteins that exist anywhere in nature.
>
> That's like saying that to prove Newton's laws of motion, you need to
> examine every object with mass in the entire universe. This isn't how
> science works.

What you need to examine depends on what you want to test.
For gravity, you only need a representative sampling. If all samples 
falls within experimental bounds, it's comfirmed.

If you want to prove something but you did not find a single case that 
match, you need to continue searching as long as you can, or find a way 
to prove that it can't be.

In the case of ID, you effectively need to find and test every single 
protein, enzimes, peptides and aminoacids in existance and their 
predecessors to find at least one that can't possibly happen naturaly.
You also need to do the same with every sugars and glucides, as well as 
lipids.
And then, finding one may not be enough, as it may be the result of the 
degradation or a particuliar splitting of another molecule. So, you also 
need to demonstrate that that degradation or splitting can't appen naturaly.

>
>>> there's no particular reason to believe that it might be right in some
>>> unknown case,
>>
>> You only say that because you 'believe' the theory and not the
>> hypothesis.
>
> No. I say that because there's nothing special about the disproven cases
> than suggests that they're unusual. If there was, you might have a case
> for suggesting that other examples exist which would, if discovered,
> support ID.
>
> It's like proving that Fermat's last theorem holds for all prime numbers
> less than one million. You might well argue that the fact that these are
> *prime* numbers makes them special, and the theorem might not hold for
> composite numbers. But if you prove it for a bunch of numbers chosen at
> random, there's less room for doubt.
>
> Of course, any scientific theory always has the possibility of being
> wrong, or at least incomplete. But based on available evidence,
> evolution looks pretty safe. (Then again, people said that about
> Newton's laws of motion. But on the first hand again, people still
> *teach* Newton's laws of motion...)
>
>>> and yet people continue to assert the truth of this theory
>>> as *fact*? Doesn't sound very rational to me...
>>
>> That is entirely a different matter. These people need not be the same
>> as the ones that do the real research.
>
> Fair enough.
>
>>>> BTW would dissecting the cases brought forward by Behe at al. count as
>>>> spending time on ID? Because that would be an ideal way to teach
>>>> students how real science works.
>>>
>>> I commend the idea.
>>>
>>> Right along side showing how String Theory, despite looking far more
>>> professional than ID, is also not [yet] science.
>>
>> I also disagree on that. String theory is pure maths. I tend to think
>> that maths is a science.
>> I would agree that string theory is not physics yet.
>
> String theory is mathematics developed explicitly for the purpose of
> describing the real world. And yet, it does not yet make any testable
> predictions. Someday it might, but it doesn't yet.
>
> "Science" is usually defined as "the study of provable facts about the
> real world". Mathematics would fall outside that scope.

Most scientists, starting with quantic physicists, are uneasy about the 
string theory exectly for the fact that, by it's very nature, there is 
no way to observe or realy test it.
It will probably stay forever at the stage of a mathematical abstraction.

>
>>> (And examining why it
>>> has the potential to /become/ science in a way that ID does not.)
>>
>> Remember that in the unlikely case they do find an example of something
>> that cannot have been evolved in an autonomous way, ID becomes science.
>> We might think that it is just as unlikely as someone handing over the
>> telephone number of God, but it might just happen.
>
> Point being, until that day, ID is not science.
>
> In fact, hell, even on that day, ID won't be science. The statement that
> there exist natural systems which evolution cannot explain will be
> science. But that's not ID. ID claims that God did it. This will *never*
> be science, since it is not possible to confirm or refute it by the
> scientific method.
>
> (Note that not being science is different from not being true.)

Post a reply to this message

On 4/19/2011 14:51, Alain wrote:
> In the case of ID, you effectively need to find and test every single
> protein, enzimes, peptides and aminoacids in existance and their
> predecessors to find at least one that can't possibly happen naturaly.

That has nothing to do with proving ID.

The problem is that there are an infinite number of untestable theories out 
there. In order to show *any* support at all for ID, you not only have to 
find something that didn't/couldn't evolve naturally, but you have to show 
how it *did* come from God.

Depending, of course, on what you mean by "naturally". It's entirely 
possible one might find something that could not have arisen without the 
interference of intelligent planning and forethought but which is 
nevertheless completely naturally evolved.

But disproving that every single molecule of life on Earth is evolved does 
nothing zero nada towards proving what *did* happen with that molecule. Even 
*if* every single protein could not possibly have evolved naturally, that 
doesn't tell you anything about how it *did* come to be.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:38:22 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Actually, this represents two huge problems with their hypothesis
> (please stop using theory, since that implies they already have some
> sort of evidence to imply it is/could be true).

Just a fair point, "theory" can also mean "hypothesis", just as it can 
mean "body of knowledge about a scientific subject".

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 4/13/2011 4:02 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:

> You'll get no disagreement on either of those points.  The best example
> of that (at the risk of Godwinning the thread) is Hitler - some claim
> that Hitler was an atheist because he did things; others claim that he
> did bad things because he was an atheist.
>
> But most of the people who *actually* did the bad things (not that Hitler
> didn't) were undeniably Christians who were following Hitler.  Hitler's
> actual choice of beliefs really is a minor detail in the Holocaust.

They were by no means "undeniably" Christian.  There is good ground to deny.

When contacted by American chaplains, many German prisoners-of-war 
professed either atheism or nature-worship.  It is true that most were 
nominally Christians (specifically, either Lutheran or Catholic), but 
they had long abandoned whatever faith they had acquired from either of 
these churches.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

On 4/14/2011 1:42 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/14/2011 10:00, Warp wrote:
>> I think Canada proves that hypothesis wrong, as Canada isn't any less
>> multicultural as the US (and guns are quite popular there too).
>
> Perhaps evidence against, yes. I think there's much more inter-culture
> hatred in America (intolerance?) than in Canada, even if there are the
> same number of different cultures. That's more what I was talking about.

 From what I have read, an American living outside of our major inner 
cities, and outside of the South, suffers the exact same crime rate as 
anyone in Canada.  Our high crime is very closely linked to inner-city 
poverty and drug gangs.  Outside of those areas we are just as peaceful 
as any other industrialized nation.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 15:14:36 -0400, John VanSickle wrote:

> They were by no means "undeniably" Christian.  There is good ground to
> deny.

Explain. :)

> When contacted by American chaplains, many German prisoners-of-war
> professed either atheism or nature-worship.  It is true that most were
> nominally Christians (specifically, either Lutheran or Catholic), but
> they had long abandoned whatever faith they had acquired from either of
> these churches.

Some undoubtedly did.  I didn't say "all", I said "most".  Finding 
counterexamples really doesn't disprove the point.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 20-4-2011 0:14, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/19/2011 14:51, Alain wrote:
>> In the case of ID, you effectively need to find and test every single
>> protein, enzimes, peptides and aminoacids in existance and their
>> predecessors to find at least one that can't possibly happen naturaly.
>
> That has nothing to do with proving ID.

It does unfortunately.

> The problem is that there are an infinite number of untestable theories
> out there. In order to show *any* support at all for ID, you not only
> have to find something that didn't/couldn't evolve naturally, but you
> have to show how it *did* come from God.

Don't confuse the messenger with the message. Most advocates of ID are 
Christians, but they could be muslim, jews and polytheists or animists too.

The devilish scheme they use is playing within our rules. It is clear 
that Creationism is not science, no hypothesis, no explanatory power, no 
evidence and not testable.

So what they do is formulate something as a hypothesis that is testable. 
It doesn't matter that every protein or whatever they throw at the 
scientists will be taken to pieces and strengthen the case for 
evolution. There will always be more examples to have them refute. The 
number is finite, so it is in principle decidable and testable. Only it 
will take decades to disprove all possible claims.

There are similarities with a filibuster. It is within the rules of the 
game, and you can not prevent it without braking the whole process. Yet 
is costs lots of time. And you can always hope that before they finished 
you can think of another useless hypothesis or even better that your 
party will have taken control of education and science funding.

> Depending, of course, on what you mean by "naturally". It's entirely
> possible one might find something that could not have arisen without the
> interference of intelligent planning and forethought but which is
> nevertheless completely naturally evolved.
>
> But disproving that every single molecule of life on Earth is evolved
> does nothing zero nada towards proving what *did* happen with that
> molecule. Even *if* every single protein could not possibly have evolved
> naturally, that doesn't tell you anything about how it *did* come to be.

If you look closely at the statements of ID you will find that there is 
no reference to who or what that 'intelligent designer' is or even how 
many there are.
In practice a lot of ID advocates do not fully understand the concept 
and claim that they know the name of the designer. At that point they 
invalidate their own claim of it being a scientific hypothesis and their 
proposal will be taken out of the process.
I am always amazed by the number of stupid mistakes they make. If their 
proposals had been more intelligently designed they could have been so 
much more effective in their quest for the removal of critical thinking 
from the US.



-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

On 4/20/2011 14:09, andrel wrote:
> On 20-4-2011 0:14, Darren New wrote:
>> On 4/19/2011 14:51, Alain wrote:
>>> In the case of ID, you effectively need to find and test every single
>>> protein, enzimes, peptides and aminoacids in existance and their
>>> predecessors to find at least one that can't possibly happen naturaly.
>>
>> That has nothing to do with proving ID.
>
> It does unfortunately.

No, really, it doesn't, even if you accept "ID" to mean "intelligent design".

You've simply found something that evolution fails at. But nobody has proven 
that there is no mechanism other than ID and evolution.

> So what they do is formulate something as a hypothesis that is testable.

And what is the hypothesis? That a particular protein didn't evolve? Or that 
some intelligence actually created that protein?

> If you look closely at the statements of ID you will find that there is no
> reference to who or what that 'intelligent designer' is or even how many
> there are.

But there's a reference to intelligence and design. "This protein could not 
have evolved", even if found, does not imply "someone designed it."

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 20-4-2011 23:58, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/20/2011 14:09, andrel wrote:
>> On 20-4-2011 0:14, Darren New wrote:
>>> On 4/19/2011 14:51, Alain wrote:
>>>> In the case of ID, you effectively need to find and test every single
>>>> protein, enzimes, peptides and aminoacids in existance and their
>>>> predecessors to find at least one that can't possibly happen naturaly.
>>>
>>> That has nothing to do with proving ID.
>>
>> It does unfortunately.
>
> No, really, it doesn't, even if you accept "ID" to mean "intelligent
> design".
>
> You've simply found something that evolution fails at.

indeed

> But nobody has
> proven that there is no mechanism other than ID and evolution.

indeed

>> So what they do is formulate something as a hypothesis that is testable.
>
> And what is the hypothesis? That a particular protein didn't evolve? Or
> that some intelligence actually created that protein?

That there are proteins (etc.) that didn't evolve by natural selection. 
Or even weaker that their presence is easier explained by design than as 
a result of natural selection. (hijacking Occam's razor).

I know of no other way of disproving that, than by checking each and 
every protein (etc.). I you know another way how to defuse this bomb, 
feel free to share.

>> If you look closely at the statements of ID you will find that there
>> is no
>> reference to who or what that 'intelligent designer' is or even how many
>> there are.
>
> But there's a reference to intelligence and design. "This protein could
> not have evolved", even if found, does not imply "someone designed it."

But in all likelihood it would imply that it's presence would be easier 
explained by assuming it was designed. By someone, something, a 
committee, or a mad scientist.

-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

On 4/19/2011 3:14 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/19/2011 14:51, Alain wrote:
>> In the case of ID, you effectively need to find and test every single
>> protein, enzimes, peptides and aminoacids in existance and their
>> predecessors to find at least one that can't possibly happen naturaly.
>
> That has nothing to do with proving ID.
>
> The problem is that there are an infinite number of untestable theories
> out there. In order to show *any* support at all for ID, you not only
> have to find something that didn't/couldn't evolve naturally, but you
> have to show how it *did* come from God.
>
Not to split hairs here, but while its pretty damn obvious they "want" 
god to be the answer, in nearly all cases, there are still a small 
subset that may be serious about the whole, "Life here couldn't have 
evolved, so maybe space aliens..." Yeah, I know, its bloody idiotic, but 
ID can exist without god, in principle. Still doesn't help matters at 
all for them, since the central premise to the whole thing is, 
"Complexity doesn't happen by chance.", which is demonstratively false, 
in and of itself. On the contrary, complexity happens because the 
universe isn't some huge mass of stuff, all of which forms crystal 
lattices when it gets jammed together. The number of things that do is 
small, and even then, other things get mixed in and disorder it. The 
finite state of entropy isn't perfect order, its a stable, but near 
complete chaos. And, as things try to balance out and reach a stable 
state, the interim result is ordered complexity.

Post a reply to this message

On 4/20/2011 2:09 PM, andrel wrote:
> If you look closely at the statements of ID you will find that there is
> no reference to who or what that 'intelligent designer' is or even how
> many there are.
> In practice a lot of ID advocates do not fully understand the concept
> and claim that they know the name of the designer. At that point they
> invalidate their own claim of it being a scientific hypothesis and their
> proposal will be taken out of the process.
> I am always amazed by the number of stupid mistakes they make. If their
> proposals had been more intelligently designed they could have been so
> much more effective in their quest for the removal of critical thinking
> from the US.
>
And, if you look even more carefully, with the exception of outliers, 
nearly every single one of the advocates have admitted, at one point or 
another, that God is the answer they want, and why they invented the 
whole idiocy in the first place. Second problem is, those outliers are 
not accepted by the main branch of ID at all, or even acknowledged much. 
Third, no designer other than god solves the central problem, which is, 
if something made life here, something else had to either have *been 
made* or *evolved* some place else. A fact that gives up the entire game 
right from the start line.

There is nothing about ID that isn't religion. Anything that implies 
otherwise has only been added as window dressing, while being rejected 
when talking about the real purpose, or the ravings of a few UFO people, 
who sort of like the idea, because they never look past the implications 
of life being created here, to the consequence of where/how it had to 
have started some place else.

Post a reply to this message

On 4/20/2011 3:26 PM, andrel wrote:
>> But there's a reference to intelligence and design. "This protein could
>> not have evolved", even if found, does not imply "someone designed it."
>
> But in all likelihood it would imply that it's presence would be easier
> explained by assuming it was designed. By someone, something, a
> committee, or a mad scientist.
>
Sadly, you can make a similar argument with the bridge analogy. That 
bridge, since there is no way it could stay up if you removed certain 
things, "could not have been designed", so it must QED be a natural 
formation. The only reason we don't hear people making this sort of 
moronic claim is purely bias. In both cases, the correct answer is, "We 
don't know what scaffolding may have existed, which allowed it to 
evolve/be built." In either argument, lack of understanding of how it 
could have formed doesn't prove the assertion that one or the other 
solution is true. Only finding, a) in the case of DNA, a species that 
still has part/all of the precursor, b) figuring out how such a 
precursor might have happened, or c) in the case of a bridge, watching 
someone build a similar one, gets you any place. What doesn't get you 
any place? Postulating that some invisible architect, alien, god, or 
otherwise, simply "inserted" the whole, complete, design into the genome 
(or dropped a complete bridge in place), without themselves using some 
sort of scaffolding to do it. Frankly, it doesn't matter if they used 
mental scaffolding and then just sequenced the gene from that, or 
anti-gravity beams, to lift the rocks. You still need some sort of 
"process" to get the result.

ID's central premise, sadly, is that it just "poofed" into being. Hell, 
even the ones arguing "front loading", fail to grasp that any such 
"master genetic code", to avoid breaking the organism fatally, while 
inserting new features, has to take clear steps, in which it replaces 
parts of the system, only as possible, before reaching and end result. 
You don't get to, in a running machine, replace entire sections of the 
guts, unless you can turn the thing off, or reboot it, or something. 
What "front loading" suggests is nothing less that replacing a whole 
mess of "working" code, all at once, the same way you would your video 
drivers and core kernel drivers, without either rebooting the machine, 
or restarting the kernel. Which, doesn't work. Thus, to do it, you need, 
again, something that can simply "magic" the changes in, whole cloth, 
without restarting/rebooting/etc.

There is a reason why a lot of biologists use the term IDiocy to 
describe this. Sadly, a few too many comp-sci people fail to grasp why 
its similarly intractable in terms of computer code (where, the 
equivalent in that would be taking a running application, and inserting 
new code into it, without breaking links, jump points, functionality, or 
mangling the data being processed, mid-change).

Post a reply to this message

On 4/19/2011 3:24 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:38:22 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Actually, this represents two huge problems with their hypothesis
>> (please stop using theory, since that implies they already have some
>> sort of evidence to imply it is/could be true).
>
> Just a fair point, "theory" can also mean "hypothesis", just as it can
> mean "body of knowledge about a scientific subject".
>
> Jim
No it can't. Not in science. In science the two terms have clear and 
distinct differences. The only place they mean the same thing is in 
non-scientific language, where they get used damn near interchangeably. 
This leads to serious confusion in the non-scientific world, since its 
about the equivalent of trying to go from the normal world into 
politics, where lie = reasonable opinion, and truth = negotiable 
interpretation.

If you want to understand something, you need to use clear definitions. 
Outside of the scientific community, the distinction between hypothesis 
and theory is muddier than hell, with guess and theory being used to 
mean the same thing, and hypothesis having no use at all. In reality, on 
a scale of 1-10, where 1 = guess, and 10 = theory, hypothesis is, maybe 
a 3 or 4. There may be sufficient cause, from experience, to presume 
that an hypothesis is worthy of examination, but it isn't yet a theory, 
since you haven't "done" anything to actually test it.

The last thing needed is to muddy the waters more, by claiming that an 
untested hypothesis = an established theory.

Post a reply to this message

On 4/20/2011 4:01 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> There is a reason why a lot of biologists use the term IDiocy to
> describe this. Sadly, a few too many comp-sci people fail to grasp why
> its similarly intractable in terms of computer code (where, the
> equivalent in that would be taking a running application, and inserting
> new code into it, without breaking links, jump points, functionality, or
> mangling the data being processed, mid-change).
To clarify, other requirements - The application be monolithic, not 
include scripting/JIT compilation, and have massive crosslinking, such 
that a minor change "might" be OK in the running code, but if you do 
need to reboot (split off a clone, or produce other sorts of offspring), 
some form of reboot "will" happen, and your change has just broken 500 
other steps in the process, since its a critical part of some library, 
which just happened to not cause problems in the "running" 
implementation, but causes a whole shitload of errors, during start up 
(like a zip library, which works fine for a set sized data sample, but 
breaks when you try to unzip entire branches of the boot code, which are 
larger, or smaller, than being handled in the "running" instance).

In any case, even if you could produce such a thing, and have it self 
modify safely, it only helps the front load argument, not the "it didn't 
evolve" one. You still have to show where the front load code is, which 
means doing research, and... these people don't *do* research.

Post a reply to this message

On 4/20/2011 15:26, andrel wrote:
> That there are proteins (etc.) that didn't evolve by natural selection.

OK. Let's grant that that is the actual hypothesis.

> even weaker that their presence is easier explained by design than as a
> result of natural selection. (hijacking Occam's razor).

Designed by whom? An naturally-evolved creature? Who then selected that 
protein unnaturally?  As soon as you say "naturally-evolved aliens might be 
the intelligence" then you've broken your hypothesis.

Seedless grapes and bananas were evolved by natural selection. It happened 
to be humans doing the selecting, but it was natural selection and evolution.

So again, even if you find a protein that you think could not have evolved 
naturally, then you have to prove that nobody who is naturally evolved 
created it.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 00:26:31 +0200, andrel wrote:

>> And what is the hypothesis? That a particular protein didn't evolve? Or
>> that some intelligence actually created that protein?
> 
> That there are proteins (etc.) that didn't evolve by natural selection.
> Or even weaker that their presence is easier explained by design than as
> a result of natural selection. (hijacking Occam's razor).

No, that's not correct.  Just because something can't be explained by 
evolution (assuming it were found) doesn't mean ID is how it occurred.  
What it means is we don't understand the process by which it occurred.

Leaping to the conclusion that it's ID because it isn't evolution is a 
poor application of Occam's razor (at best) and lazy rationalization (at 
worst).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:08:25 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> No it can't. Not in science.

I didn't say "in science".  In common usage, and that's part of the 
problem with the Creationist argument (which I stated before):  They 
misuse the word "Theory".

Now, if you couple the idea that ID is not science but evolution is, you 
can use "theory" in describing both - because one has the context of not 
being science, and one has the context of being science.

It is a legitimate *linguistic* usage of the word.  My point was to 
illustrate that this is the device used by creationists to argue that 
it's science, and it's born out of ignorance of the *scientific* usage of 
the word as compared to the 'common usage' use of the word - or it's born 
out of malicious use of the same word intended to cause confusion in 
those who don't understand that words can actually mean more than one 
thing, and that the *context* is important.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> They were by no means "undeniably" Christian.  There is good ground to deny.

> When contacted by American chaplains, many German prisoners-of-war 
> professed either atheism or nature-worship.  It is true that most were 
> nominally Christians (specifically, either Lutheran or Catholic), but 
> they had long abandoned whatever faith they had acquired from either of 
> these churches.

  The problem with the claims that nazis were atheists is the implied
correlation-implies-causation. In other words, nazis did what they did
*because* they were atheists (and they would not have done it if they
had been christians). This is unjustified.

  Nevertheless, whether the nazis were religious or atheists, it doesn't
really matter. The *origin* of antisemitism is largerly religious. Religion
caused the spread of antisemitism and prejudice against the jews. Without
the Catholic church it's very possible that the nazis would have not been
antisemitic (for the simple reason that there would have not been a widespread
negative notion of the jews).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 10:19:18 -0400, Warp wrote:

> John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> They were by no means "undeniably" Christian.  There is good ground to
>> deny.
> 
>> When contacted by American chaplains, many German prisoners-of-war
>> professed either atheism or nature-worship.  It is true that most were
>> nominally Christians (specifically, either Lutheran or Catholic), but
>> they had long abandoned whatever faith they had acquired from either of
>> these churches.
> 
>   The problem with the claims that nazis were atheists is the implied
> correlation-implies-causation. In other words, nazis did what they did
> *because* they were atheists (and they would not have done it if they
> had been christians). This is unjustified.

Yep, that's the point I was getting at.

>   Nevertheless, whether the nazis were religious or atheists, it doesn't
> really matter. The *origin* of antisemitism is largerly religious.
> Religion caused the spread of antisemitism and prejudice against the
> jews. Without the Catholic church it's very possible that the nazis
> would have not been antisemitic (for the simple reason that there would
> have not been a widespread negative notion of the jews).

Agreed.  At the very least, Naziism had an undercurrent of "Jews = Evil 
because they killed Jesus", which to some extent was until *very* 
recently something the Catholic Church supported (The Pope only in the 
last year renounced that idea, certainly it was considered a 'valid' 
position by some within the Catholic church in the 40's.)

But more to the point, who gets to define what is Christian (which was 
the point of asking for an explanation of that statement), as throughout 
history a lot of things are done in Christianity's name - so who gets to 
decide "yes, that's a Christian thing to do" and "no, that's not a 
Christian thing to do and one who does it isn't Christian".

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> But more to the point, who gets to define what is Christian (which was 
> the point of asking for an explanation of that statement), as throughout 
> history a lot of things are done in Christianity's name - so who gets to 
> decide "yes, that's a Christian thing to do" and "no, that's not a 
> Christian thing to do and one who does it isn't Christian".

  Ah, the classic no true scotsman fallacy...

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 10:58:20 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> But more to the point, who gets to define what is Christian (which was
>> the point of asking for an explanation of that statement), as
>> throughout history a lot of things are done in Christianity's name - so
>> who gets to decide "yes, that's a Christian thing to do" and "no,
>> that's not a Christian thing to do and one who does it isn't
>> Christian".
> 
>   Ah, the classic no true scotsman fallacy...

Precisely. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 4/20/2011 22:06, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 00:26:31 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>>> And what is the hypothesis? That a particular protein didn't evolve? Or
>>> that some intelligence actually created that protein?
>>
>> That there are proteins (etc.) that didn't evolve by natural selection.
>> Or even weaker that their presence is easier explained by design than as
>> a result of natural selection. (hijacking Occam's razor).
>
> No, that's not correct.  Just because something can't be explained by
> evolution (assuming it were found) doesn't mean ID is how it occurred.
> What it means is we don't understand the process by which it occurred.

That was exactly my point. Everyone on the goddidit side believes there's 
only evolution or god.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Following this from abroad, I don't know if this should be amusing or
> frightening...
>
> http://ncse.com/news/2011/03/antievolution-bill-tennessee-progresses-006545
> http://ncse.com/news/2011/03/intelligent-design-legislation-texas-006531
> http://ncse.com/news/2011/03/antievolution-legislation-florida-006524
> http://ncse.com/news/2011/02/antievolution-legislation-new-mexico-006469
> http://ncse.com/news/2011/01/second-antievolution-bill-oklahoma-006439
> http://ncse.com/news/2011/01/antievolution-legislation-missouri-006421
> http://ncse.com/news/2011/01/antievolution-legislation-kentucky-006389
>
> --
>                                                           - Warp

(Replying late because I've been neck deep in idiotic accounting problems for a
couple of weeks.)

Following this from within, this is an easy question:
Frightening, hands down.

Yes, the vast majority of these folks, many of whom hold positions of
responsibility and authority in important institutions, are absolutely serious
and this completely out of touch with reality as indicated by reason,
observation and the scientific method.

Once a group of people have decided that agreement with an unquestioned
authority is the one and only check on reality that is required, and can
constantly look to one-another’s agreement as a source of affirmation of this
position, there is virtually no limit to the level of outright silliness that
can don the mantle of “Truth”.

Oh, and according to the new right-wing revision on “Political Correctness”, if
you’re not willing to give superstition equal weight to reason and evidence,
then *YOU* are the bigot.

Best Regards,
Mike C.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 09:29:48 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 4/20/2011 22:06, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 00:26:31 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>
>>>> And what is the hypothesis? That a particular protein didn't evolve?
>>>> Or that some intelligence actually created that protein?
>>>
>>> That there are proteins (etc.) that didn't evolve by natural
>>> selection. Or even weaker that their presence is easier explained by
>>> design than as a result of natural selection. (hijacking Occam's
>>> razor).
>>
>> No, that's not correct.  Just because something can't be explained by
>> evolution (assuming it were found) doesn't mean ID is how it occurred.
>> What it means is we don't understand the process by which it occurred.
> 
> That was exactly my point. Everyone on the goddidit side believes
> there's only evolution or god.

Yep, that was the way I was reading what you were saying - I just 
couldn't resist the temptation to speak up (having recently read _The God 
Delusion_, it was fresh in my mind). :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 21/04/2011 05:33 PM, Mike the Elder wrote:

> (Replying late because I've been neck deep in idiotic accounting problems for a
> couple of weeks.)
>
> Following this from within, this is an easy question:
> Frightening, hands down.
>
> Yes, the vast majority of these folks, many of whom hold positions of
> responsibility and authority in important institutions, are absolutely serious
> and this completely out of touch with reality as indicated by reason,
> observation and the scientific method.
>
> Once a group of people have decided that agreement with an unquestioned
> authority is the one and only check on reality that is required, and can
> constantly look to one-another’s agreement as a source of affirmation of this
> position, there is virtually no limit to the level of outright silliness that
> can don the mantle of “Truth”.
>
> Oh, and according to the new right-wing revision on “Political Correctness”, if
> you’re not willing to give superstition equal weight to reason and evidence,
> then *YOU* are the bigot.

The title says a revolution is happening. What's the opposite of a 
scientific revolution? (Or should we just call it an "America"?)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> The title says a revolution is happening. What's the opposite of a 
> scientific revolution? (Or should we just call it an "America"?)

  Pseudoscientific revolution?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 17:12:02 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> The title says a revolution is happening. What's the opposite of a
>> scientific revolution? (Or should we just call it an "America"?)
> 
>   Pseudoscientific revolution?

I wouldn't even give it that much credit.  That puts it on par with 
homeopathy.  It's even lower than that, because it doesn't even pretend 
to be scientific (homeopathy isn't scientific, but it tries to pretend to 
be).

I'd call it an 'anti-science revolution'.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 17:12:02 -0400, Warp wrote:

> > Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> The title says a revolution is happening. What's the opposite of a
> >> scientific revolution? (Or should we just call it an "America"?)
> > 
> >   Pseudoscientific revolution?

> I wouldn't even give it that much credit.  That puts it on par with 
> homeopathy.  It's even lower than that, because it doesn't even pretend 
> to be scientific (homeopathy isn't scientific, but it tries to pretend to 
> be).

  What do you mean? ID does pretend to be scientific.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 17:43:34 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 17:12:02 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 
>> > Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> >> The title says a revolution is happening. What's the opposite of a
>> >> scientific revolution? (Or should we just call it an "America"?)
>> > 
>> >   Pseudoscientific revolution?
> 
>> I wouldn't even give it that much credit.  That puts it on par with
>> homeopathy.  It's even lower than that, because it doesn't even pretend
>> to be scientific (homeopathy isn't scientific, but it tries to pretend
>> to be).
> 
>   What do you mean? ID does pretend to be scientific.

I was thinking of something else (but of course I can't remember what 
now).  You are correct that ID does try to pretend to be - I guess I'm 
having a problem with "scientific" being combined with "religious belief" 
and that's what led me to say "anti-scientific" - as I see 'religious 
belief' as being antithetical to 'knowledge'.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> I was thinking of something else (but of course I can't remember what 
> now).  You are correct that ID does try to pretend to be - I guess I'm 
> having a problem with "scientific" being combined with "religious belief" 
> and that's what led me to say "anti-scientific" - as I see 'religious 
> belief' as being antithetical to 'knowledge'.

  The whole idea with the "intelligent design" movement is to mask the
fact that it's simply repackaged creationism, by removing all mentions
of "God" and other theistic claims. In other words, ID attempts to be
a "legit" scientific objection to the currently established hypotheses
and theories on the formation of the universe, life and its diversity.
The idea is to try to circumvent the annoying limitation in the US
that theism and creationism cannot be taught as part of science, by
simply maskerading it. Of course they aren't fooling anybody. Everybody
knows that the ID movement is simply a repackaged version of creationism,
with all mentions of theism artificially removed.

  It's actually such a well known fact that even the ID movement itself
is in part kind of starting to abhor the use of the very term "intelligent
design", and instead they are changing it to a "teach the controversy"
movement. I wouldn't be surprised if in a few years the whole "intelligent
design" term dies off, and is renamed to "teach the controversy" (or
whatever fancy term they come up with), just to avoid the stigma.

  Or in other words, it's simply an attempt to get creationism past the
hurdles of lawmaking and legal courts and into the schools, as well as
an attempt at sabotaging the teaching of evolution.

  Seemingly this tactic is somewhat effective seeing how anti-evolution
legislation is being proposed, and even passed, in more and more states
of America.

  In principle, if they succed, it could not only sabotage the teaching
of evolution, abiogenesis and even cosmology, but could possibly cause
a chain reaction with all kinds of other fields of science. After all,
if one pseudoscientific hypothesis is taught at schools in order to "teach
the controversy", what stops other pseudoscientific hypotheses from doing
the same? Perhaps homeopaths, faith healers, anti-vaccination people and
germ theory denialists will start demanding to "teach the controversy" to
medical students, holocaust denialists and conspiracy theorists will start
demanding to "teach the controversy" in history class, flat earthers will
start demanding to "teach the controversy" in geography class, and so on.

  In the worst case scenario the whole schooling system could get sabotaged
to a catastrophical point. Science, technology and progress would suffer
enormously.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 21-4-2011 1:01, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 4/20/2011 3:26 PM, andrel wrote:
>>> But there's a reference to intelligence and design. "This protein could
>>> not have evolved", even if found, does not imply "someone designed it."
>>
>> But in all likelihood it would imply that it's presence would be easier
>> explained by assuming it was designed. By someone, something, a
>> committee, or a mad scientist.
>>
> Sadly, you can make a similar argument with the bridge analogy. That
> bridge, since there is no way it could stay up if you removed certain
> things, "could not have been designed", so it must QED be a natural
> formation. The only reason we don't hear people making this sort of
> moronic claim is purely bias. In both cases, the correct answer is, "We
> don't know what scaffolding may have existed, which allowed it to
> evolve/be built." In either argument, lack of understanding of how it
> could have formed doesn't prove the assertion that one or the other
> solution is true. Only finding, a) in the case of DNA, a species that
> still has part/all of the precursor, b) figuring out how such a
> precursor might have happened, or c) in the case of a bridge, watching
> someone build a similar one, gets you any place. What doesn't get you
> any place? Postulating that some invisible architect, alien, god, or
> otherwise, simply "inserted" the whole, complete, design into the genome
> (or dropped a complete bridge in place), without themselves using some
> sort of scaffolding to do it. Frankly, it doesn't matter if they used
> mental scaffolding and then just sequenced the gene from that, or
> anti-gravity beams, to lift the rocks. You still need some sort of
> "process" to get the result.
>
> ID's central premise, sadly, is that it just "poofed" into being. Hell,
> even the ones arguing "front loading", fail to grasp that any such
> "master genetic code", to avoid breaking the organism fatally, while
> inserting new features, has to take clear steps, in which it replaces
> parts of the system, only as possible, before reaching and end result.

I know it would be hard to find a sensible way to construct something in 
such a way that it could not have been evolved. Precisely because your 
bridge example is a known pitfall (and the paragraphs above therefore 
effectively a strawman argument). But simply the fact that you believe 
it is not possible does not mean you have in any way proven it to be so. 
Man and nature are often more inventive than either of them would have 
though.


-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

On 21-4-2011 4:37, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/20/2011 15:26, andrel wrote:
>> That there are proteins (etc.) that didn't evolve by natural selection.
>
> OK. Let's grant that that is the actual hypothesis.
>
>> even weaker that their presence is easier explained by design than as a
>> result of natural selection. (hijacking Occam's razor).
>
> Designed by whom? An naturally-evolved creature? Who then selected that
> protein unnaturally? As soon as you say "naturally-evolved aliens might
> be the intelligence" then you've broken your hypothesis.
>
> Seedless grapes and bananas were evolved by natural selection. It
> happened to be humans doing the selecting, but it was natural selection
> and evolution.
>
> So again, even if you find a protein that you think could not have
> evolved naturally, then you have to prove that nobody who is naturally
> evolved created it.
>
indeed

-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

On 4/21/2011 15:30, Warp wrote:
> start demanding to "teach the controversy" in geography class, and so on.

http://www.joeydevilla.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/teach_the_controversy_t-shirt_designs.jpg

I'm sure you've seen that stuff.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/04/21 17:14, Jim Henderson a écrit :
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 17:12:02 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
>> Orchid XP v8<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>>> The title says a revolution is happening. What's the opposite of a
>>> scientific revolution? (Or should we just call it an "America"?)
>>
>>    Pseudoscientific revolution?
>
> I wouldn't even give it that much credit.  That puts it on par with
> homeopathy.  It's even lower than that, because it doesn't even pretend
> to be scientific (homeopathy isn't scientific, but it tries to pretend to
> be).
>
> I'd call it an 'anti-science revolution'.
>
> Jim

How about:
Pretend-science
Moron-science
Jackass-science
Unscience

Take your pick.

Post a reply to this message

On 21-4-2011 7:06, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 00:26:31 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>>> And what is the hypothesis? That a particular protein didn't evolve? Or
>>> that some intelligence actually created that protein?
>>
>> That there are proteins (etc.) that didn't evolve by natural selection.
>> Or even weaker that their presence is easier explained by design than as
>> a result of natural selection. (hijacking Occam's razor).
>
> No, that's not correct.  Just because something can't be explained by
> evolution (assuming it were found) doesn't mean ID is how it occurred.

In it's purest form ID does not give an explanation what did happen if 
it wasn't evolution.

> What it means is we don't understand the process by which it occurred.

yes

> Leaping to the conclusion that it's ID because it isn't evolution is a
> poor application of Occam's razor (at best) and lazy rationalization (at
> worst).

See above. you are again assuming you know what the alternative should 
be. That almost everybody publicly defending ID shares your assumption, 
indeed moves them into the camp of easily proven to be non-scientific. 
My whole point in defending that ID in the form stated above can be a 
scientific hypothesis is that you have to forget about all the people 
that claim God did it.


-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

On 4/21/2011 15:46, andrel wrote:
> In it's purest form ID does not give an explanation what did happen if it
> wasn't evolution.

Then why is it called "intelligent design" if in its purest form it's not 
hypothesizing intelligent design?

> point in defending that ID in the form stated above

I disagree that ID is "some things didn't evolve." That's backing off so far 
that one is simply searching hopelessly for anything that's non-disprovable.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 22-4-2011 1:16, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/21/2011 15:46, andrel wrote:
>> In it's purest form ID does not give an explanation what did happen if it
>> wasn't evolution.
>
> Then why is it called "intelligent design" if in its purest form it's
> not hypothesizing intelligent design?
>
>> point in defending that ID in the form stated above
>
> I disagree that ID is "some things didn't evolve." That's backing off so
> far that one is simply searching hopelessly for anything that's
> non-disprovable.

No, just to the point where it is in principle provable, but in practice 
not. If it is non-disprovable it is not science anymore. So you cannot 
cross that line.



-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

On 4/22/2011 1:22, andrel wrote:
> On 22-4-2011 1:16, Darren New wrote:
>> On 4/21/2011 15:46, andrel wrote:
>>> In it's purest form ID does not give an explanation what did happen if it
>>> wasn't evolution.
>>
>> Then why is it called "intelligent design" if in its purest form it's
>> not hypothesizing intelligent design?
>>
>>> point in defending that ID in the form stated above
>>
>> I disagree that ID is "some things didn't evolve." That's backing off so
>> far that one is simply searching hopelessly for anything that's
>> non-disprovable.
>
> No, just to the point where it is in principle provable, but in practice
> not.

But nobody has even come up with an idea of how you would show a protein 
could not have evolved. "Irreducible complexity" doesn't show a protein 
could not have evolved. So how would you recognize such a protein?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

> But more to the point, who gets to define what is Christian (which was
> the point of asking for an explanation of that statement), as throughout
> history a lot of things are done in Christianity's name - so who gets to
> decide "yes, that's a Christian thing to do" and "no, that's not a
> Christian thing to do and one who does it isn't Christian".

That's not hard.  Read the Bible and see what it says about how to 
become a Christian, and what it commands Christians to do.  Then compare 
it to the doings of the religious bodies in question.  Time and again, 
at so many points of teaching, we find things taught and practiced that 
cannot be found in the Bible, from even the very basics of becoming a 
Christian, to the organization of the church, liturgy, and so forth.

Getting back to the point at hand:  There simply is no command in the 
Bible for Christians to kill Jews, to make them second-class citizens, 
or to maltreat them in any way.  Those claiming to be Christians who did 
these things were following another authority.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > But more to the point, who gets to define what is Christian (which was
> > the point of asking for an explanation of that statement), as throughout
> > history a lot of things are done in Christianity's name - so who gets to
> > decide "yes, that's a Christian thing to do" and "no, that's not a
> > Christian thing to do and one who does it isn't Christian".

> That's not hard.  Read the Bible and see what it says about how to 
> become a Christian, and what it commands Christians to do.  Then compare 
> it to the doings of the religious bodies in question.  Time and again, 
> at so many points of teaching, we find things taught and practiced that 
> cannot be found in the Bible, from even the very basics of becoming a 
> Christian, to the organization of the church, liturgy, and so forth.

  If it were that simple, there wouldn't be something like 30000 different
denominations of Christianity (if I remember the estimate correctly).

  In modern times the interpretation of different denominations is always
colored by what is generally understood as (secular) basic human rights.
In medieval times the Catholic church (and other minor denominations of
the time) had no problem in accepting, for example, the witch killing
statutes of the old testament. Nowadays those statutes are almost globally
dismissed as not applying anymore (the reason varying wildly from
denomination to denomination, and even between individual Christians).
Not because christianity had changed on its own, but because nowadays
the secular notion of basic human rights abhors such statutes, and
christianity has adapted.

  Would you say that the Catholic church was not "true christianity" at
the time when it still persecuted witches? Why doesn't it persecute them
nowadays? What has changed?

  The thing is, when talking about what is morally right and wrong, the
Bible is a pick-and-choose book. Everybody chooses the passages that
conform to their own sense of morality (often colored by secular notions
of human rights) and dismisses the passages that don't (by using wildly
differing justifications on why the passage in question doesn't hold
anylonger).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 13:08:29 -0400, John VanSickle wrote:

>> But more to the point, who gets to define what is Christian (which was
>> the point of asking for an explanation of that statement), as
>> throughout history a lot of things are done in Christianity's name - so
>> who gets to decide "yes, that's a Christian thing to do" and "no,
>> that's not a Christian thing to do and one who does it isn't
>> Christian".
> 
> That's not hard.  Read the Bible and see what it says about how to
> become a Christian, and what it commands Christians to do.  Then compare
> it to the doings of the religious bodies in question.  Time and again,
> at so many points of teaching, we find things taught and practiced that
> cannot be found in the Bible, from even the very basics of becoming a
> Christian, to the organization of the church, liturgy, and so forth.

So that's why there's only one sect of Christianity, then?  (Oh, wait, 
there isn't).  So whose interpretation is "correct"?

That's kinda the point, John.

> Getting back to the point at hand:  There simply is no command in the
> Bible for Christians to kill Jews, to make them second-class citizens,
> or to maltreat them in any way.  Those claiming to be Christians who did
> these things were following another authority.

Maybe not in your interpretation, but I'm sure there are others who 
interpret it as being there.  So it again comes down to *whose* 
interpretation are we using.

Just like with the Qu'ran the question is *whose interpretation* is being 
used - the one that says 'kill the infidels' or the one that says 'Islam 
is peaceful'.

That's the problem with having a holy book that's used as a 'set of 
directions' where it's been translated, re-translated, interpreted, re-
interpreted, and heavily edited over a couple millenia.  Not to mention 
the books that have been removed over the centuries because they didn't 
fit with the politics of the time (or whatever other excuse was given).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 00:46:37 +0200, andrel wrote:

> On 21-4-2011 7:06, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 00:26:31 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>
>>>> And what is the hypothesis? That a particular protein didn't evolve?
>>>> Or that some intelligence actually created that protein?
>>>
>>> That there are proteins (etc.) that didn't evolve by natural
>>> selection. Or even weaker that their presence is easier explained by
>>> design than as a result of natural selection. (hijacking Occam's
>>> razor).
>>
>> No, that's not correct.  Just because something can't be explained by
>> evolution (assuming it were found) doesn't mean ID is how it occurred.
> 
> In it's purest form ID does not give an explanation what did happen if
> it wasn't evolution.

Um, ID (by its very name) does attempt to explain what happened. "God did 
it".

>> What it means is we don't understand the process by which it occurred.
> 
> yes
> 
>> Leaping to the conclusion that it's ID because it isn't evolution is a
>> poor application of Occam's razor (at best) and lazy rationalization
>> (at worst).
> 
> See above. you are again assuming you know what the alternative should
> be. That almost everybody publicly defending ID shares your assumption,
> indeed moves them into the camp of easily proven to be non-scientific.
> My whole point in defending that ID in the form stated above can be a
> scientific hypothesis is that you have to forget about all the people
> that claim God did it.

No, I'm not assuming what the alternative would be.  There's a difference 
between "God did it" (or more precisely "An intelligent being created us 
out of nothing") and "I don't know."

That's what I mean by "it's ID" is lazy - whenever humans have reached 
the limits of their current understanding, the default answer for some is 
"God did it".  Then later, someone discovers, "Wait, it wasn't God, it 
was a natural process that we can now explain."

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 18:45:49 -0400, Alain wrote:

> Le 2011/04/21 17:14, Jim Henderson a écrit :
>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 17:12:02 -0400, Warp wrote:
>>
>>> Orchid XP v8<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>>>> The title says a revolution is happening. What's the opposite of a
>>>> scientific revolution? (Or should we just call it an "America"?)
>>>
>>>    Pseudoscientific revolution?
>>
>> I wouldn't even give it that much credit.  That puts it on par with
>> homeopathy.  It's even lower than that, because it doesn't even pretend
>> to be scientific (homeopathy isn't scientific, but it tries to pretend
>> to be).
>>
>> I'd call it an 'anti-science revolution'.
>>
>> Jim
> 
> How about:
> Pretend-science
> Moron-science
> Jackass-science
> Unscience
> 
> Take your pick.

I like it. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 18:30:19 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> I was thinking of something else (but of course I can't remember what
>> now).  You are correct that ID does try to pretend to be - I guess I'm
>> having a problem with "scientific" being combined with "religious
>> belief" and that's what led me to say "anti-scientific" - as I see
>> 'religious belief' as being antithetical to 'knowledge'.
> 
>   The whole idea with the "intelligent design" movement is to mask the
> fact that it's simply repackaged creationism, by removing all mentions
> of "God" and other theistic claims. 

Yes, but a rebranding of creationism as "intelligent design" doesn't mean 
it's not religiously motivated.  I guess for those who don't see through 
that deception and who have a very limited understanding of what 
scientific discovery actually is might think it was 'an appearance of 
science'.

>   In the worst case scenario the whole schooling system could get
>   sabotaged
> to a catastrophical point. Science, technology and progress would suffer
> enormously.

Yes, and I think ultimately this demonstrates the real danger of this 
type of theistic thinking - not to mention that when it enters the public 
schools, it violates the establishment clause of the US Constitution.  If 
a public school is teaching religious theology about the creation of the 
universe (whether they use religious metaphors or not), I'm sorry, that's 
state-sponsored religion, and that's unconstitutional.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:35:20 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 4/21/2011 15:30, Warp wrote:
>> start demanding to "teach the controversy" in geography class, and so
>> on.
> 
> http://www.joeydevilla.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/
teach_the_controversy_t-shirt_designs.jpg
> 
> I'm sure you've seen that stuff.

I love it. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message