Kerostasis

*stretches fingers*

Ok, that was a nice relaxing vacation. Lets dive back into the arena then!

There is nothing "automatic" about the "outside agent" argument, because it is not an argument, it is a conclusion. The argument is based on comparing the mechanics of evolution to the present diversity of life on earth. To clarify slightly, By "the current observed state of this world" I mean "our total accumulated knowledge of all biology that exists on the planet today or existed upon it in the past".

I intended this phrase as an attempt to be generous rather than an attempt to be picky. Geologists and assorted other scientists have made a variety of guesses as to what the initial conditions of the planet were like. For the sake of argument I'm including every guess they have as "reasonably probable". And if you come up with a new guess that doesn't make them all wince, that can go in here too. However, if you suppose that the initial condition was a planet made entirely of ice cream, then I'm going to call that "not reasonably probable". Sound fair?

Here you're just playing Semantics. The outside agent does not have to be unobservable -- although the fact that there were no human observers around during the time period in question makes it quite likely that it was not, in fact, observed. Anyway, To qualify as an "outside agent" it only needs to be beyond the list of "proposed mechanics of evolution + assorted astronomical events".

@Fenix: I'll get back to you tomorrow.

__________________

AMosely

Kero and everyone else - Intelligent Design has been proven in court to be a direct descendant of creationism - it was purposefully drafted by creationists in a vain attempt to push theology into public science education. There is no debate here other than that of the endless believer vs. unbeliever arguments.

There is an uncomfortable overlap between religious belief and scientific faith (if you can call it that) in society whose friction only seems to increase as both sides become more entrenched, especially that of science. As science brings us closer and closer to an understanding of the unknown (the ultimate questions of who we are, where we come from, how we got here, where we are going) through the cycle of hypothesis and experimentation, it undoubtedly crosses into religious beliefs - which still represent the most widely accepted 'viewpoint' of the unknown. The conflict between the two tends to strike at the heart of those very questions, at least in my opinion.

There is a well circulated video of Ann Druyan (a non-relgious scientist) responding to a statement by Darren Schreiber (a religious scientist) at a conference in 2006 that I think sums up what is at the heart of this debate.

Kerostasis

Again, that is nothing more than Guilt by Association. The mere coincidence that people with whom you have disagreed in the past were the original proponents of a theory does not in and of itself discredit the theory. If the original description of the theory is imperfect and flawed, then we can modify it and improve upon it until it does make sense. Isn't that how the scientific method is supposed to work? Isn't that what evolution scientists do all the time? Darwin's description of Evolution, inspired as it was, still contained lots of inaccuracies -- but that is not seen as a reason to dismiss the theory, but rather as a reason to improve upon it and correct the inaccuracies. Yet you would deny the same privilege to any competing theories?

__________________

Steeler

But the proponents of ID, even the original authors, are not interested in refining the theory. They merely restate claims to its merit with demands that it be taught in schools. The goal is not to form a better theory, the goal is to manufacture a controversy and gain prominence as an ideological movement.

__________________

Kerostasis

My goal is to refine the theory, because my goal is to seek the truth. From your suggestion that the opposition goal is merely to generate controversy and an ideological movement, should I take your statement to imply that your goal is to squelch controversy and maintain the primacy of your own ideological movement?

__________________

AMosely

First of all, I pointed out the Kitzmiller v. Dover School District case because ID's guilt by association is exactly what was on trial - the theory of Intelligent Design was produced and subscribed to only by religious creationists. Unfortunately, some scientists are also creationists. Would you accept someone running for Congress who was a Communist? It is conflict of interest at a fundemental level, and to bring that into public teaching is, in fact, unconstitutional. It belongs in the church. Furthermore, the case proved - beyond a reasonable doubt - that ID is not a theory - it was a manufactured idea to achieve a political outcome (the teaching of creationism in public schools). It has about as much scientific merit as Scientology's theories about human life - that we are derived from aliens. You can have theories about anything, but they are scientific unless they have some semblance of proof - the scientific method.

I think I understand what you're saying regarding refinement of the theory, but I would argue that it is flawed beyond refinement. What aspects of the scientific method fail in seeking the truth? The acceptance of the theory of evolution - and any other credible scientific theory for that matter - is based on the scientific method - it holds up to the scientific method. Intelligent design, or any such theory that accepts 'irreducable complexity' as a given, is flawed. It's like saying that unsolveable equations in mathematics should be accepted and left unsolved - that humans were simply not meant to know the answers. This is not a question of refinement - it's a question of absolution. To speak of that when it comes to evolutionary or any other environmental or earth science is, at least in my opinion, preposterous.

Kerostasis

@Fenix: I was going to respond to your last post here, but it's so full of sarcasm and bitterness it's hard to find something worth talking about. Lets try this angle:

Certainly, proposals without evidence should not be taught in a science classroom. Fortunately, ID has plenty of evidence. But really, I'm not even worried too much about high-school education. What about adult-level discourse and research? It's hard to even hold a conversation about ID without being accused of being an anti-scientific religious bigot. Its been an awfully long time since I've even had time to worry about what the actual evidence was, since its so hard to even get a fair hearing.

__________________

El_Gringo_Grande

Is there any evidence for ID? I ask because I don't know.

__________________
Sen. Barack Obama (IL) For President '08
---
I’m not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host.
- "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt
- "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
- "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta
- If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette

Kerostasis

In general, the existence of any question to which Evolution does not have an answer is evidence for ID. As soon as Evolution finds an answer to the question, it stops being evidence for ID.

Specifically, the single biggest point in favor of ID is Abiogenesis, the creation of the first life. Evolution scientists are so confused about Abiogenesis that it's usually not even mentioned as being a part of Evolution at all -- yet without it, the whole theory falls apart. Life cannot evolve if there is no life.

__________________

AMosely

So ID is an answer for the evolutionary miscellaneous bin? Again, I'd argue that it's not a theory because it asserts that we are incapable of designing and therefore understanding the origins of life.

There are two theories of the creation of cellular life - metabolism-first and genetic-first. As with most scientfically accepted theories, both have been proven through experimentation, as in the Miller-Urey experiment on 'primordial soup.' There is proof that conditions on Earth supported the formation of cellular life between 2.5 and 4.5 billion years ago. If you want to really stretch things out to include the influence of other planets, the notion of extraterrestial life, and therefore elements unknown, you have the Drake equation - though I would argue that this (like ID) cannot be held as scientific theory because it cannot be proven.

War.mongeR1

Hi everyone. I'm back.

That Ann Druyan video was interesting. I started this thread not to prove that ID is right and evolution is wrong, but to explore as to why scientists who do believe in ID and Creationism are cast out and blacklisted. That's what's frustrating from the ID side's point of view. Some scientists want the opportunity to explore further into this theory. Many scientists make their living off of grants and such. It's hard for them to do their jobs with a lack of funds and/or support.

It reminds me of the scientists in the world community who propose that man is NOT necessarily the culprit of global warming, or deny global warming all together. Oh my! How dare they contradict the majority! Those scientists have also been largely ostracized, denied grants, and such.

What upsets me is how many scientists themselves are guilty of something. That would be standing in the way of others who have different beliefs. What harm is there in exploring different options? So what if it seems crazy? If all scientists believed the same things through out history, there's no way we'd be where we are today. It takes diversity of thought and thinking outside the box to truly advance. I don't understand what's so hard about that. If you are a scientist and believe solely in pure evolution. Fine. Just keep pursuing that theory. If you are a scientist who believes in ID. Fine. Just keep trucking with that idea. I don't believe these ID scientists are trying to FORCE their beliefs on the opposition. I'm not either. But, let's not quell those with different theories.

__________________
"Common sense is not so common." -Voltaire

El_Gringo_Grande

But with that logic can't I also attribute the answer to anything unkown to something I make up? I don't know how that happened so it was Zeus, until scientists figure it out. Until then I am going to teach that Zeus did it. Doesn't that sound wrong to you?

That is what bothers me about it and what makes ID smell strongly of religion/belief.

And I don't see where there is a problem with Abiogenesis. Having one process generate a state then having another process take over with the new state happens all the time.

Photosynthesis was created by evolutionary process, but photosynthesis itself has nothing to do with evolution.

__________________
Sen. Barack Obama (IL) For President '08
---
I’m not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host.
- "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt
- "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
- "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta
- If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette

Steeler

I think you'll find that there are quite a few differing opinions between credited scientists, as well as different levels of quality when it comes to research. These differences either get resolved as better data becomes available, or they persist for decades, so long as each side in the fight can continually produce trustworthy and peer-reviewed research.

But in the case of ID there isn't even a research basis to refer to, as the entire library of data published in support of ID consists of pointing holes in evolutionary research (which is something that competing bio scientists do anyway) and then jumping to the intelligent creator conclusion. It's a philosophical argument, it has no basis in reproducible data.

Then there is the political movement associated with ID, which is inseperable from the "science" aspect of ID. And that movement IS trying to force their beliefs on others, by making direct appeals to have their beliefs taught in US public schools.

__________________

Kerostasis

Ah yes, the famous Urey-Miller experiment, which generated a handful of biological proteins in an environment conducive to the rapid destruction of those proteins rather than their assembly (with many other not yet available compunds) into a living organism. The distance between that and the actual generation of life is so immense that to say this experiment is "proof through experimentation" of abiogensis is nothing less than fraudulent.

Certainly, it makes sense to ask which piece of the puzzle of life might have come about first -- but if, after deciding to first pursue the conjecture that metabolism came first, the best that can be accomplished is "and then I suppose the other pieces must have come next, for look, life exists!", without proposing any mechanism for an actual pathway accomplishing the transition, that cannot be considered a "scientifically accepted theory". Likewise the opposite conjecture that genetics came first suffers from the same lack of any available evidence. The only serious evidence for abiogenesis is the fact that life does, indeed, exist -- but this does not help you discriminate between natural and divine origin.

You are not actually replicating the logic of ID but extending it. ID basically says, "If the answer isn't anything I know of, then it must be something I don't know of." You are of course free to insert whatever you wish in the category of "something I don't know of", but some guesses there will be rather more plausible than others, with Zeus being fairly low on my list of plausible guesses.

__________________

El_Gringo_Grande

So this thing you plug in, what makes it plausible? Why is an intelligent designer plausible? Because you believe it to be plausible or do you have any kind of evidence that make it plausible?

And if you could explain why Abiogenesis is a problem for evolution.

__________________
Sen. Barack Obama (IL) For President '08
---
I’m not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host.
- "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt
- "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
- "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta
- If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette