# Developing College-Level ID/Creation Courses

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/developing-college-level-id-creation-courses/7408>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Created:** [August 13, 2019, 3:57am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/developing-college-level-id-creation-courses/7408 "2019-08-13T03:57:46Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [August 14, 2019, 10:41am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/developing-college-level-id-creation-courses/7408/68 "2019-08-14T10:41:18Z")

</div>

> [@stcordova](#):
>
> It’s reasonable to demand experimental demonstration of outrageous claims if one invokes a naturalistic mechanism (what I call “normative mechanism” since that’s a less metaphysically loaded phrase). Science should value skepticism over faith when there is no direct observation.
> 
> In contrast, if one believes a miracle was the cause of something like life, an experimental demonstration isn’t possible in principle, and one might, as a little child, simply accept it as fact based on their best guess.

The term for this is “special pleading.” It is not a proper way to think logically.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Art](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/art/32/3805_2.png) [@Art](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Art)\
**Post date:** [August 14, 2019, 12:36pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/developing-college-level-id-creation-courses/7408/69 "2019-08-14T12:36:09Z")

</div>

> [@stcordova](#):
>
> One can’t generalize one example of an orphan as an explanation for another orphan.

That’s not the point, @stcordova. In your slide show, you mention the waiting time problem, an issue that pertains to work by Behe/Snoke and by Sanford et al. Just a few posts ago, you acknowledge that this issue mandates that new genes - including orfans - should not be able to evolve. But there is no question that they do. We have discussed several case studies here on PS that make this pretty clear.

In other words, Behe/Snoke and Sanford et al. are wrong. It doesn’t do your presentation or your proposed course any good by mentioning, and presenting as true, mathematical treatments that are so plainly false.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Art](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/art/32/3805_2.png) [@Art](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Art)\
**Post date:** [August 14, 2019, 12:38pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/developing-college-level-id-creation-courses/7408/70 "2019-08-14T12:38:04Z")

</div>

> [@stcordova](#):
>
> Actually it’s only slight chiral amplification (like 1%), but how long will that last in an open system where what is made is quickly diluted, as in mixing.

This misses the point completely.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![stcordova](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/stcordova/32/2030_2.png) [@stcordova](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/stcordova)\
**Post date:** [August 14, 2019, 12:51pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/developing-college-level-id-creation-courses/7408/71 "2019-08-14T12:51:35Z")

</div>

> [@Art](#):
>
> That’s not the point, @stcordova. In your slide show, you mention the waiting time problem, an issue that pertains to work by Behe/Snoke and by Sanford et al. Just a few posts ago, you acknowledge that this issue mandates that new genes - including orfans - should not be able to evolve. But there is no question that they do. We have discussed several case studies here on PS that make this pretty clear.

I think that’s fair criticism, something I should improve on. I mentioned it Behe, Snoke, Axe, Sanford in terms of historical context, but I was trying to show that there are simpler arguments that are less assailable.

I very much appreciate you taking time to read my slides. Your criticism have been fair and pointed and highlight areas I can work on to improve my case. For areas that can’t be remedied clearly, it’s only fair to the students I convey your scholarly objections and opposing viewpoints such as you have in this discussion. That’s the responsibile thing to do.

> It doesn’t do your presentation or your proposed course any good by mentioning, and presenting as true, mathematical treatments that are so plainly false.

I don’t believe they are plainly false. But for the creation argument, it’s rather moot if common descent fails for other, and more simply stated reasons such as the evolution of chromatin (mostly in Eukaryotes, some rare analogs in Archaea), and certainly the abiogenesis is an exceptional event.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![stcordova](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/stcordova/32/2030_2.png) [@stcordova](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/stcordova)\
**Post date:** [August 14, 2019, 12:54pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/developing-college-level-id-creation-courses/7408/72 "2019-08-14T12:54:38Z")

</div>

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> The term for this is “special pleading.” It is not a proper way to think logically.

That actually describes Abiogenesis and Evoltuionary Theory quite well as there’s lots of special pleading and even more “we don’t know, but we believe and accept” which is more of a faith statement than operational science.

An operation theory are like the laws of thermodyanmics. If we take an ice cube and put it out in 100 degree whether, it melts. That is normative expected behavior. Abiogenesis is NOT normative expected behavior, nor is is normative expected behavior for a the cases I pointed out, especially for the evolution of Eukaryotes.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![stcordova](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/stcordova/32/2030_2.png) [@stcordova](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/stcordova)\
**Post date:** [August 14, 2019, 1:02pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/developing-college-level-id-creation-courses/7408/73 "2019-08-14T13:02:55Z")

</div>

> [@Art](#):
>
> This misses the point completely.

I don’t think so, but I think objections such as the ones should be made available to the students. That’s the responsible thing to do.

I do appreciate you taking the time to articulate opposing viewpoints.

On a totally different point, but one which is mentioned in passing in my slides is Doug Axe’s work. I don’t think his work is easy to understand. Since his 1997 publication on beta lactamases, I felt there needed to be revision to the probability arguments and ID probability arguments for proteins in general. I think more fruitful and clearer approaches are available in the study of quaternary structures and complexes requiring interconnection and concerted coordination rather than catalytic ability. I gave a couple examples with helicases, and chromatin remodelling.

I do have access to someone who was the lead author to an peer-reviewed abstract on TopoIsomerases which I co-authored. I believe we also can develop a good probability argument for TopoIsomerases. Topoisomerases are much more intricate than the beta lactamases Axe studied, and they are life critical to many, if not all organisms. I wrote an article regarding the type 2 variety here:

> **[Creationists Let Facts Speak for Themselves in Mainstream Science Publication...](https://crev.info/2019/06/creationist-topoisomerase-research/)**

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Chris\_Falter](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/chris_falter/32/3811_2.png) [@Chris\_Falter](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Chris_Falter)\
**Post date:** [August 14, 2019, 1:33pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/developing-college-level-id-creation-courses/7408/74 "2019-08-14T13:33:13Z")

</div>

So you concede that your argument against common ancestry from differing protein structures is checkmated, but choose to assert intelligent design?

That’s fine by me. I believe in God’s intelligent providence.

Chris

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![stcordova](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/stcordova/32/2030_2.png) [@stcordova](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/stcordova)\
**Post date:** [August 14, 2019, 1:43pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/developing-college-level-id-creation-courses/7408/75 "2019-08-14T13:43:03Z")

</div>

No, I was however pointing out something illegitimate about you using chess moves as an illustration of common descent by non-intelligence.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Chris\_Falter](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/chris_falter/32/3811_2.png) [@Chris\_Falter](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Chris_Falter)\
**Post date:** [August 14, 2019, 1:45pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/developing-college-level-id-creation-courses/7408/76 "2019-08-14T13:45:59Z")

</div>

> [@stcordova](#):
>
> That actually describes Abiogenesis and Evoltuionary Theory quite well as there’s lots of special pleading and even more “we don’t know, but we believe and accept” which is more of a faith statement than operational science.

Yes, of course. Evolutionary biologists predict the occurrence of genetic drift, enabling mutations, and corresponding phenotype changes, but then when they track the genetic changes in an E Coli colony over thousands of generations in a lab setting, they do not see any of that, do they?

Why did Lenski even try that experiment? He should have known that evolution is special pleading, not a theory!

\<“Irony Alert”/\>

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Chris\_Falter](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/chris_falter/32/3811_2.png) [@Chris\_Falter](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Chris_Falter)\
**Post date:** [August 14, 2019, 1:48pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/developing-college-level-id-creation-courses/7408/77 "2019-08-14T13:48:24Z")

</div>

I was pointing out that illogic of using a lack of transposibility to infer common ancestry. I am glad that you understood the point and conceded it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![stcordova](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/stcordova/32/2030_2.png) [@stcordova](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/stcordova)\
**Post date:** [August 14, 2019, 1:59pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/developing-college-level-id-creation-courses/7408/78 "2019-08-14T13:59:02Z")

</div>

I don’t think I conceded it, but if you insist on representing my statements that way I can’t stop you.

> I am glad that you understood the point and conceded it.

Actually what you said didn’t make much sense to me. You’ll have to forgive me if I reference Art’s comments and not yours in my classes. The way you articulated your objections seems pretty incoherent and of limited scholarly value, imho. And at some point I have to exercise editorial discretion.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [August 14, 2019, 2:17pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/developing-college-level-id-creation-courses/7408/79 "2019-08-14T14:17:26Z")

</div>

@Chris_Falter’s objection was excellent. It made a great deal of sense. You presented criteria for ruling out common descent. He found a counter example, one where two chess boards met your criteria even though they both had the same initial start, a common ancestor. This counter example demonstrates you criteria fails in an obvious example.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![stcordova](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/stcordova/32/2030_2.png) [@stcordova](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/stcordova)\
**Post date:** [August 14, 2019, 2:23pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/developing-college-level-id-creation-courses/7408/80 "2019-08-14T14:23:46Z")

</div>

The evolution of chromatin remodelling example rules out common descent unless one invokes miracles. That’s hardly refuted by pointing to a chess example. A proper refutation would be articulating why evolution of chromatin and the evolution attendant chormatin remodelling mechanisms of chromatin are normative evolutionary changes.

But since you deem Chris rebuttal as excellent, perhaps I’ll reconsider showcasing what excellent rebuttals look like.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [August 14, 2019, 2:26pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/developing-college-level-id-creation-courses/7408/81 "2019-08-14T14:26:06Z")

</div>

> [@stcordova](#):
>
> A proper refutation would be articulating why evolution of chromatin and the evolution attendant chormatin remodelling mechanisms of chromatin are normative evolutionary changes.

We do not think that the evolution of chromatin and attendant pathways is “normative”, so why would we try and demonstrate it so?

Perhaps we mean something different by that word. What do you mean by “normative”?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![stcordova](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/stcordova/32/2030_2.png) [@stcordova](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/stcordova)\
**Post date:** [August 14, 2019, 2:30pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/developing-college-level-id-creation-courses/7408/82 "2019-08-14T14:30:10Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> We do not think that the evolution of chromatin and attendant pathways is “normative”

Normative, as in chemically/physically expected changes. Scientific theories are often framed in terms of expected outcomes, not unexpected outcomes. If common descent requires exceptional events to make it work, if the events are exceptional enough, they’re not much different from miracles.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Chris\_Falter](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/chris_falter/32/3811_2.png) [@Chris\_Falter](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Chris_Falter)\
**Post date:** [August 14, 2019, 2:42pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/developing-college-level-id-creation-courses/7408/83 "2019-08-14T14:42:17Z")

</div>

Okay, I think I see what the problem is.

You thought I was referring to your chromatin-related post in this thread.

I was not, actually. I was referring to [your post 2 days ago in a different thread](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/id-supporter-takes-id-out-of-science/7385/7).

In that thread, you stated:

> [@ID Supporter Takes ID Out of Science](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/id-supporter-takes-id-out-of-science/7385/7):
>
> you can see somewhat visually the problem of invoking universal common descent from an ancetral _[sic]_ protein in these two protein architectures…
> 
> We could of course ask a professional evolutionary biologists to suggest an ancestral sequence for these two architectures. It’s doubtful a plausible ancestor will be found.

We would not want my excellent rebuttal to show up on the wrong slide!

Best,  
Chris Falter

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [August 14, 2019, 2:43pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/developing-college-level-id-creation-courses/7408/84 "2019-08-14T14:43:11Z")

</div>

> [@Chris\_Falter](#):
>
> I was not, actually. I was referring to [your post 2 days ago in a different thread](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/id-supporter-takes-id-out-of-science/7385/7).

Well that’s confusing!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Chris\_Falter](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/chris_falter/32/3811_2.png) [@Chris\_Falter](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Chris_Falter)\
**Post date:** [August 14, 2019, 2:44pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/developing-college-level-id-creation-courses/7408/85 "2019-08-14T14:44:16Z")

</div>

Well, I did preface my initial post in this thread with a general description of his claim. This seemed like the right thread for my post, since my rebuttal seems relevant to the course he is planning.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [August 14, 2019, 2:46pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/developing-college-level-id-creation-courses/7408/86 "2019-08-14T14:46:12Z")

</div>

> [@stcordova](#):
>
> One can’t generalize one example of an orphan as an explanation for another orphan.

This erodes your previous statements. It would seem that even if we observed abiogenesis occurring in the present you would not accept this as evidence for abiogenesis in the past. After all, generalizing one example of abiogenesis as an explanation can’t explain other abiogenesis events, right?

It is statements like yours that cause me to distrust statements from ID/creationists when they claim they want to see evidence.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [August 14, 2019, 2:48pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/developing-college-level-id-creation-courses/7408/87 "2019-08-14T14:48:46Z")

</div>

> [@stcordova](#):
>
> Normative, as in chemically/physically expected changes. Scientific theories are often framed in terms of expected outcomes, not unexpected outcomes.

This is one of the great insights of evolutionary theory. Paradoxically, very rare, unpredictable, and unexpected events are amplified by selection so that they have an outsized effect in the long run.

If these events (such as evolution of chromatin) were not rare, we’d expect to see a totally different pattern in the data grab we actually do see. As it is, we should expect not to recapitulate the evolution of the whole chromatin system in human observable time scales. If we could that we pull be very surprising.

[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/developing-college-level-id-creation-courses/7408.md?page=3)

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/developing-college-level-id-creation-courses/7408.md?page=5)