General discussion on ID, God, and evolution

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

I think it is really great you are engaging him in public, substantive, and detailed dialogue. There needs to be more of this.

[CrisprCAS9]

@colewd

IC in not a specific hypothesis.

IC is definitely neither specific nor a hypothesis. It is empty conjecture at best, and useless tripe at worst.

@colewd

Its an argument

If every premise is unsupported and the conclusions don’t follow anyway, is it really an argument?

[dsterncardinale]

@colewd

IC in not a specific hypothesis.

Then what is its relevance to this conversation? If it’s a vague idea about a concept that might sorta maybe represent some undefined problem for evolution, what are we doing here? I’m trying to get to the heart of the issue, in spite of ID’ers’ best efforts. Maybe that’s misguided and I should just toss it on the same heap as the rubbish coming out of AIG and CMI and be done with it.

@colewd

Its an argument positioned around the Darwinian mechanism

Defined how? Because I think you’re playing the same games Behe plays here. How do you define “Darwinian”? Because Behe insists on defining it incorrectly.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@dsterncardinale

Then what is its relevance to this conversation? If it’s a vague idea about a concept that might sorta maybe represent some undefined problem for evolution, what are we doing here? I’m trying to get to the heart of the issue, in spite of ID’ers’ best efforts. Maybe that’s misguided and I should just toss it on the same heap as the rubbish coming out of AIG and CMI and be done with it.

There is substance to the argument IMO but I agree it is an old argument. I think for preparation with Mike it should be put aside at this point. I think the lizard placenta discussion is pretty interesting and I believe Mike will engage with it.

@dsterncardinale

Defined how? Because I think you’re playing the same games Behe plays here. How do you define “Darwinian”? Because Behe insists on defining it incorrectly.

I am simply reporting what the argument is.

If your discussion becomes more specific like the origin of Polar bears white fur, the specific mechanism can be discussed and the mechanisms label (Darwinian/Non Darwinian) becomes moot.

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@colewd

@Giltil

Okay. Let’s me reformulate more precisely:

if a complex IC system could be form in the course of some evolutionary experiment such as the Lenski’s LTEE, this would falsify ID.

In my mind a single event cannot falsify either ID, common descent or Darwinian/non Darwinian processes generically.

Thanks to your remark, I realize that I was wrong in my formulation. Indeed, if a complex IC system could be form in the course of some evolutionary experiment such as the Lenski’s LTEE, this would falsify IC as a hallmark of design, not ID, for ID relies on more than IC.

@colewd

Each can be the appropriate conclusion depending on how the data analysis turns out. Do you disagree?

No, I perfectly agree.

[Faizal_Ali]

@colewd

I think the lizard placenta discussion is pretty interesting and I believe Mike will engage with it.

Depends one what you mean by “engage.” If your definition includes Behe saying a bunch of stuff that does not address a single pertinent issue, but which does convince his besotted fans that he has provided a meaningful response, then I think you are correct.

@colewd

If your discussion becomes more specific like the origin of Polar bears white fur, the specific mechanism can be discussed and the mechanisms label (Darwinian/Non Darwinian) becomes mute,

The correct word is “moot”, not “mute.”

[Chad_the_Layman (Chad Stewart)]

@colewd

To what extent do you think the evidence supports this?

Thanks for the response, Bill! If I answer your questions, will you answer mine (from my original post)?

I see mountains of evidence that evolutionary processes are at work in the natural world, but to what extent? By “to what extent” are you asking whether I see evidence for something other than evolutionary processes? If I understand ID’s propositions correctly then that “something other” would be God reaching down and performing a miracle now and then to help the natural world along when the evolutionary process aren’t up to the task of populating the earth. My twofold answer is, I don’t know that I’d recognize evidence for those miracles to fill the gaps if I saw them (I haven’t seen that ID has shown me how to recognize those miracles) and it appears from the evidence that the evolutionary processes that God set in motion are doing quite a job, the earth being, after all, full of strange creatures, beyond count.

@colewd

If you cast ID aside because of fear it is a science stopper you then lose a tool.

I haven’t ever been afraid of ID, really, or even of being a science stopper for that matter. A decade before Black Box I was fearlessly talking up the virtues of a 6000-year-old earth, a pre-flood super oxygenated atmosphere that facilitated the growth of giant animals, and Dinosaurs that got off the ark and died out because of the post flood climate change!! If I wasn’t afraid of bringing that stuff to the table, I sure wouldn’t be afraid of suggesting that God helped evolution out with a few miracles here and there, if it looked to me like that’s what was going on!

I’ll add, and forgive me for digressing, but I’m not afraid of miracles! I ask God for them. I pray for people to be healed. I’m a full-on Jesus, Bible nut that thinks it’s all true! I have personal testimonies of miraculous, to the penny monetary provision, God speaking, me following, and cool stuff happening, etc. So, I just might be more into miracles more than most ID folks would be comfortable with!!! I’m silly enough to use my real name and hijack Peaceful Science threads to discuss the miraculous with a bunch of folks that live by the scientific method!! So, if I saw any evidence to support ID’s claims, I’d feel free to speak up.

Alrighty then, Bill, my friend. How about my original questions? I’ve asked similar questions before and haven’t gotten engagement from ID folks. I mean, maybe they’re uninteresting, bad questions, and that’s why. If that’s the case, feel free to let me know that!

[Chad_the_Layman (Chad Stewart)]

@Faizal_Ali

The correct word is “moot”, not “mute.”

Actually, the labels aren’t meant to be spoken aloud.

[Roy (30-year veteran)]

Paging Joey Tribiani…

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Chad_the_Layman

I see mountains of evidence that evolutionary processes are at work in the natural world, but to what extent? By “to what extent” are you asking whether I see evidence for something other than evolutionary processes? If I understand ID’s propositions correctly then that “something other” would be God reaching down and performing a miracle now and then to help the natural world along when the evolutionary process aren’t up to the task of populating the earth. My twofold answer is, I don’t know that I’d recognize evidence for those miracles to fill the gaps if I saw them (I haven’t seen that ID has shown me how to recognize those miracles) and it appears from the evidence that the evolutionary processes that God set in motion are doing quite a job, the earth being, after all, full of strange creatures, beyond count.

What is the evidence you see that evolutionary processes are at work? I am trying to get a feel for how you are thinking about evidence.

For instance A. seeing a dead body a gun with fingerprints and a bullet hole is evidence. So is B. witnessing someone shooting someone is also evidence.

A big part of science is type A. evidence which requires inductive reasoning to come to a conclusion about the cause of something like a dead body.

Behe’s arguments are mostly based on type A evidence and coming to a conclusion about the cause. Does this make sense?

[Faizal_Ali]

@colewd

Behe’s arguments are mostly based on type A evidence and coming to a conclusion about the cause.

Yes, but in his case he sees the dead body, the bullet hole, and the gun with fingerprints and says “That still doesn’t mean the person died from a gunshot. He died from some other process I can’t describe and for which I have no evidence, but I’m sure it’s what killed him.”

[nwrickert (Neil Rickert)]

@colewd

A big part of science is type A. evidence which requires inductive reasoning to come to a conclusion about the cause of something like a dead body.

This is misleading.

Yes, many scientific ideas may start with inductive evidence. But then the scientists work pretty hard at testing their ideas.

@colewd

Behe’s arguments are mostly based on type A evidence and coming to a conclusion about the cause.

And what testing does Behe do?

[Chad_the_Layman (Chad Stewart)]

@colewd

What is the evidence you see that evolutionary processes are at work? I am trying to get a feel for how you are thinking about evidence.

For instance A. seeing a dead body a gun with fingerprints and a bullet hole is evidence. So is B. witnessing someone shooting someone is also evidence.

A big part of science is type A. evidence which requires inductive reasoning to come to a conclusion about the cause of something like a dead body.

Behe’s arguments are mostly based on type A evidence and coming to a conclusion about the cause. Does this make sense?

I’ll answer this. However, you’re about to make me answer two posts in a row and you haven’t tackled any of my three originals questions. So, you first my brother! Pick any one of the three. I’ll even answer two for each of your one since I think I’ve already tackled two. Here are my original questions:

@Chad_the_Layman

Why the need to tag evolutionary processes as “unguided” and “blind” since it’s a not theological necessity given that there is a viable theological option, namely, that God used/uses evolutionary processes?

Does the removal of “unguded and blind” from in front of “natural processes” end the discussion? If not, why?

Is the theological choice that “God uses the processes we observe” a viable option for an ID proponent? If not, why?

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

@Faizal_Ali

Yes, but in his case he sees the dead body, the bullet hole, and the gun with fingerprints and says “That still doesn’t mean the person died from a gunshot. He died from some other process I can’t describe and for which I have no evidence, but I’m sure it’s what killed him.”

Not surprisingly, the same people who are behind ID creationism are also now behind wackaloon alternative epidemiology:

Amazon.com: The Price of Panic: How the Tyranny of Experts Turned a Pandemic...

[dsterncardinale]

Douglas Axe wrote a COVID truther book? This is my shocked face.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

You can’t make this up.

“Entertaining prose, surprising insight, and an engrossing account of how a handful of so-called experts with bad track records, dubious modeling, and no data convinced world leaders to shut down the economy.”

– “Betsy McCaughey, PhD, New York Post columnist”

This one belongs in the last category:

Kill grandma for the economy.

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

@dsterncardinale

Douglas Axe wrote a COVID truther book? This is my shocked face.

The good news is that it turns out that your risk of dying from COVID-19 is less than 1 in 10^74.

[CrisprCAS9]

At least Axe could not possibly be wrong by as many orders of magnitude about Covid as he is about functionality. There aren’t enough people!

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Puck_Mendelssohn

The good news is that it turns out that your risk of dying from COVID-19 is less than 1 in 10^74.

That implies every COVID death was intelligently designed?

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Chad_the_Layman

Why the need to tag evolutionary processes as “unguided” and “blind” since it’s a not theological necessity given that there is a viable theological option, namely, that God used/uses evolutionary processes?

God may or may not have used evolutionary processes. How do we know? The blind and unguided claim is in evolutionary biology text books.

@Chad_the_Layman

Does the removal of “unguded and blind” from in front of “natural processes” end the discussion? If not, why?

The discussion is about understanding the origin of life’s diversity. Some of observed diversity is explained by blind and unguided processes and some is not. Were in the first inning of trying to understand this so ending the discussion is a hair premature

@Chad_the_Layman

Is the theological choice that “God uses the processes we observe” a viable option for an ID proponent? If not, why?

I am not sure what this means but on the surface I don’t see any issue.