The model is in the paper I linked earlier. There’s a nice big figure that shows the proposed chain of events.
Even string theory has a model.
Ironically, IDcreationism does not. No model. Just the word “design”.
2 Likes
It does not need a model. We can test the mechanism directly.
No you can’t. I could tell you some biological function I want, and you would have no goddamn clue how to even begin to design it. Don’t agree? Then design me a calcium translocating, reversible, CTP-synthase de novo. Don’t peek at the molecules of life to see how they work, design one with a function I come up with, out of nothing but just your “mind”. Let’s not kid ourselves, you can’t actually do that. Nobody can.
Even if you could somehow assemble a team of scientists that could, in theory, spend decades trying to figure out how to do it, that would of course still tell us nothing about how the actual molecules of life came about. Just because some people might be able to do it, doesn’t mean they or some other intelligent designer actually did it.
I.e. are problems that are trivially resolved for anyone who knows how evolution works.
Only for those who believe saying “Goddidit” can solve any problem.
1 Like
The ability of IDcreationism to “solve” any imaginable problem in the same ad-hoc fashion is a bug, not a feature. It predicts nothing, but is a priori compatible with any imaginable observation. It’s method of
“explaining” and “accounting” for the observed is completely vacuous and ad-hoc.
We see some pattern of data, and IDcreationists then blindly asssert “an intelligent designer who would want that, could have done it because they wanted to”. Ta-da!
1 Like
With your graph, what you are basically saying is that the more a person is scientifically literate, the less likely he will believe in a higher power, right? Not sure that many people here at PS would agree with you on that!
Their agreement is not required. It is a well-known fact that education negatively correlates with religiosity. And among all forms of higher education, science-education is most negatively correlated with religious belief. As in, among highly educated people(lawyers, historians, politicians or what have you), scientists are the least likely to be religious.
And it is particularly noteworthy that, of all the fields of scientific study, cosmology and biology are the fields with the fewest religious people. These are just facts.
Not that this is exactly the same phenomenon as what I was referring to in the figure I posted, which while they are of course somewhat related, has more to do with the tendency for people to assign occult and supernatural causes to things they don’t understand, and when they discover how they work, stop believing they are supernaturally caused.
Edit: just to show I’m not talking out of my rear-end here: Scientists and Belief | Pew Research Center
I remember seeing a similar study more recently, with a more fine-grained analysis that arranged specific scientific sub disciplines by degree of religiosity, but I can’t seem to find it now. I’ll keep digging.
2 Likes
I am talking about the sequence of events that led to the emergence of ATP synthase. That is what he is asking for the theory of evolution, so he should be able to supply the same for ID theory.
That isn’t a problem. Chickens evolved from ancestral birds that were not chickens and did lay eggs. Eggs preceded chickens. The solution has been known for a while.
1 Like
I completely disagree, Gilbert. No ID theory I have ever read answers the question “Why this way, and not that way?”
For example, why do horses manufacture vitamin C but not primates?
Why do primates like humans have a pseudogene for vitellogenin?
Why do marsupial moles have non-functional eye lenses?
Evolution provides convincing answers for all these questions, including the mechanisms and dynamic forces involved. What ID theoretical framework can provide useful explanations for these phenomena?
The graph has the same problem that ID has: it collapses philosophical explanations and scientific explanations into a single plane.
There should instead be a z-axis for religious belief. The y-axis would represent uncertainty regarding physical causation rather than religious belief. Then we would see that science can reduce uncertainty regarding physical causation without having any effect on religious belief.
But I must emphasize: the graph and ID make the same fundamental error of confounding metaphysical and scientific explanations. In the case of ID, the fundamental error manifests when someone states “intelligent design can be inferred” and thinks the statement somehow has something to do with science. You could argue whether it is good metaphysics or not (I think it is), but the question framed in the ID fashion is not even in the realm of scientific discussion.
My $.02,
Chris
6 Likes
Which shows that ID is an unscientific idea with zero explanatory power. Glad you agree!
1 Like
Still waiting for your empirical demonstration of a physical entity being brought into existence thru pure thought.
Soon, I hope?
4 Likes
Pretty much everything we know of nature started out as a problem. Problems are the fuel of science. Problems are the impetus for most dissertations for which students gain recognition as newly minted scientists. Problems make for lifelong scientific journeys. Problems are at the heart of all that is good in science.
So what discoveries has arisen from rejecting a naturalistic framework? Name a theorem, technology, theory, medical advance, anything which has propelled further discovery, anything heuristic, which has come out of ID. ID is a dead end. ID is the epitome of anti-science, because while purporting to be science it dispenses with the need for science. Instead of a mystic saying it was poofed into existence, you have a guy with a microscope saying it was poofed into existence, but it is all the same. You have solved the problem with a non-answer, so there is no further need of investigation. Case closed.
Now YEC/OEC also holds to special creation, but at least there you get a candid answer as to God having done it. ID dances about, insisting that irreducible complexity is a scientific conclusion while engaging in this pretense that theology is another discussion. This is just duplicity. Cut the garbage. If you believe that the eye or flagellum or whatever else is evidence for God creating just say it and we can have that discussion. But the idea that ID is somehow a detached scientific quest is political posturing, a transparently dishonest veneer over theology. Everybody knows that advanced aliens or going back in time is not the source of mind or design you are thinking of. Let your yea be yea and your nay be nay.
4 Likes
Yes, I pretty much agree that problems make for lifelong scientific journeys. But scientists should worry about engaging themselves into solving problems that are impossible to solve. If intelligence is the right answer for say the problem of high FI in biology, then the search of a purely naturalistic cause for high FI is an hopeless quest, isn’t it?
What discoveries have arisen from a purely naturalistic framework? Name a theorem, technology, theory, medical advance, anything which has propelled further discovery, anything heuristic, which has come out of naturalism.
Not everybody knows this; Crick and Orgel for example
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0019103573901103
Now, to be clear, I don’t buy at all the direct panspermia hypothesis and I do believe that God is the creator of life on earth.
I just listened to 4 democratic law professors from major universities speak in front of Congress. Only one had reasonable critical thinking skills. Our global education system is broken. People are being indoctrinated into ideological group think.
Just one? Okay, the germ-theory of disease, and the associated inventions of antibiotics and vaccines.
Instead of thinking people get sick from demonic possesion, or curses, or witchcraft, or other occult, supernatural, or spiritual ailments, it’s infectious microorganisms.
How about our understanding of the basis of metabolism? The food we eat and digest is made of atoms and molecules behaving according to the laws of physics, just like the rest of our bodies are. If we run out of iron, or phosphorous, or magnesium, we need to eat foods that contain iron, or phosphorous, or magnesium, we don’t need to start praying, nor to make trinkets to protect us against wizards, nor get our food storage blessed by a priest.
Oh, refridgeration? Why? Why does cooling food or other things down reduce the rate at which it decays or spoils?
4 Likes
But ID and creationists aren’t though, right?
6 Likes
Umm, how about all of them?
Unless you’d care to cite those that only work if they include the supernatural.
3 Likes
Louis Pasteur, who was key in the germ-theory of disease and vaccines, was a fervent Christian who believed in creation and rejected Darwinism. So your examples miss the mark.
I suggest you read again. It is you missing the mark. His personal beliefs and views on evolutionary theory are irrelevant. He worked from a naturalistic framework when doing that work.
Also, you only touched on one of his examples. How about the others?
6 Likes