The Question of Design

[James]

The odds for evolution occuring on its own are extremely ridiculous. With a creator, the odds become 100%.

Sure, it is definitely easier to explain things when there is an all-powerful creator.

"God did it" is the "why", not the how.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I agree that it is not the "how". But how is it the "why"?! Sorry, I've just confused myself.

On the other hand, Evolutionists have some less than reliable ways to measure dates, still cannot explain the rather irritating problems that keep popping up in terms of probability, and can't come up with a better "why" than "we got lucky".

I don't think evolutionists care about probabilities. Their task is to discover the naturalistic theory for how life is at the stage it is today. They are more concerned about collecting evidence to shape the theory. The fact is, as you say, it is difficult to uncover evidence about the origin of life (missing fossil records, dating etc...). I agree that if you don't have all the evidence you can never be 100% confident in a theory, BUT neither can you be confident in a probability which calculates whether or not the theory is valid. Probability calculations also rely on evidence.
So when evolution is criticized for having an impossibly low probability of occurring, this probability is only as reliable as the evidence used to calculate it, which happens to be the same evidence that is used to prove evolution. It has to be accepted that these probabilities are fallible also.

James

[Mastermind]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I agree that it is not the "how". But how is it the "why"?! Sorry, I've just confused myself.

It is the reason why evolution occured in the first place. A sort of first cause, or trigger if you wish.

I don't think evolutionists care about probabilities. Their task is to discover the naturalistic theory for how life is at the stage it is today. They are more concerned about collecting evidence to shape the theory. The fact is, as you say, it is difficult to uncover evidence about the origin of life (missing fossil records, dating etc...). I agree that if you don't have all the evidence you can never be 100% confident in a theory, BUT neither can you be confident in a probability which calculates whether or not the theory is valid. Probability calculations also rely on evidence.
So when evolution is criticized for having an impossibly low probability of occurring, this probability is only as reliable as the evidence used to calculate it, which happens to be the same evidence that is used to prove evolution. It has to be accepted that these probabilities are fallible also.

James

They may not care, but when they come up with a theory that has a ridiculous chance of having happened, I AM GOING TO CARE. And I disagree about the evidence being used to explain evolution as being the same evidence that says it is improbable. Probability is calculated based on number of mutations required, the chance of the mutations occuring, and known disasters that possibly reset the mutations counter. This has nothing to do with figuring out how evolution works. The flimsy evidence I was talking about earlier is the methods used for dating really old stuff. Evolutionists have been stretching the number of years available for it to occur for a long long time. We have observed a few instances of speciation where bacteria attach to each other and stay that way, yet the evolutionary model states that for 2 billion years out of the 4 that life supposedly has existed on earth, it was ruled by bacteria. I find it strange that it takes so long for something so simple to evolve, yet we have sudden bursts of animals coming in all at once. If anything, seismic activity should have been worse at the time life appeared, as the earth was still settling down, so we should have more fossils.

[Kurieuo]

I don't think evolutionists care about probabilities. Their task is to discover the naturalistic theory for how life is at the stage it is today.

I think this is the crunch of the matter. At the root of ID is a different philosophy to that evolution. At the root of ID is generally Theism, while at the root of evolution is generally Naturalism. It is more a clash of philosophical worldviews in my opinion, rather than Science.

Kurieuo.

[Kurieuo]

The odds for evolution occuring on its own are extremely ridiculous. With a creator, the odds become 100%.

Sure, it is definitely easier to explain things when there is an all-powerful creator.

And I'd say a creator is sometimes really the only explanation. For example, there exists some real problems with the origin of life. This isn't just a chance thing, but given our strong knowledge on the issue, no solution is forthcoming. There are times when we can't explain things because we simply don't have the knowledge. I agree. And one shouldn't too hastily rush to a God solution. At the same time, there really are things that can't be explained naturally, because they can't be. As time goes on, if the Creator exists, I'd expect these holes to become increased and more complicated as more knowledge is gained. ID for example, I see is certainly becoming a more potent force today with all our increases in knowledge, than at any other time throughout history.

Kurieuo.

[James]

And I disagree about the evidence being used to explain evolution as being the same evidence that says it is improbable. Probability is calculated based on number of mutations required, the chance of the mutations occuring, and known disasters that possibly reset the mutations counter. This has nothing to do with figuring out how evolution works.

Surely it has everything to do with how evolution works. If anything, the probability needs more historical evidence than the TOE.
Number of mutations required: To work out an accurate probability for this, one would need to know the total number of mutations which have occurred throughout the history of the earth. Then work out the number which could possibly go on to be useful in the evolutionary process. Granted these are usually estimated, but this brings in the uncertainty that I was talking about.
Chance of mutations occurring: This must not only account for historical variations of probabilities of mutations occurring, but also all the global interactions between the organisms, other organisms and their environment (which is constantly changing). How would this be calculated without relying on fossil and geological records?
Known disasters that possibly reset the mutations counter: The key word being possibly. How can anyone quantify the probability of all living matter being wiped out millions of years ago without the need for historical, physical evidence?

How do you calculate a probability based on the above? By evolutionary theory? If this is the case, then if the probability proves evolution is impossible, then implicitly the probability is wrong itself as it is based on a faulty theory. The probability has no meaning.

I find it strange that it takes so long for something so simple to evolve, yet we have sudden bursts of animals coming in all at once.

If you are referring to the Cambrian explosion, when you say "sudden" you must actually mean 53 million years. So not that sudden but relatively sudden with respect to the history of the earth/universe. You have a right to be skeptical, but this should drive you to look for reasons to prove evolution rather than find faults in it and then draw a line at these faults and state that evolution is impossible.

At the root of ID is a different philosophy to that evolution. At the root of ID is generally Theism, while at the root of evolution is generally Naturalism. It is more a clash of philosophical worldviews in my opinion, rather than Science.

I think that hits the nail on the head. Although naturalism is basically the philosophy of science.

James

[Mastermind]

James, you don't understand. I'm not saying Evolution is impossible. I'm saying it is extremely UNLIKELY without a creator. Why should I try to prove there is an atheist explanation of the cambrian explosion? I'm not on the naturalist's side of the fence. It's their job to prove it, not mine. As for calculating odds, we can use statistics. Check today's rate of mutation and use those numbers to calculate how much it would take. We don't need the entire fossil record. In fact, we don't need it at all. The envyronment does not affect the rate of mutation. Statistically, it is always the same. The only thing that could possibly affect it is radiation, and when radiation comes into play, the odds fall greatly out of Naturalistic Evolution's favor, since radiation mutations are rarely beneficial (unless you watch too many mutant movies).

"The key word being possibly. How can anyone quantify the probability of all living matter being wiped out millions of years ago without the need for historical, physical evidence? "

We don't. We estimate. I wouldn't trust the fossil record for this, but rather physical emulation of the events instead. If a meteor hit, we can predict more or less what would happen, and estimate what % of the population would be affected. The fossil record is less than 10% complete, so it would be pretty useless to figure out how many animals died based on it anyway.

[Jac3510]

must actually mean 53 million years

Reference?

These aren't the numbers I am thinking--try less than 10 million, and maybe less than 3 million. In case you don't check the footnotes on that article. PBS agrees

[Kurieuo]

I think that hits the nail on the head. Although naturalism is basically the philosophy of science.

That may be your opinion, but I don't think it aligns very well with the historic reality of science. For example, it is interesting that the general philosophical worldview of respected forefathers within Science (including Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, and Pascal), consisted of a theistic and more specifically, Christian philosophical outlook (http://www.reasons.org/resources/apolog ... ence.shtml). I believe that you are confusing Science finding explanations within nature, with nature being able providing all explanations.

Yet, it is true that Science can only examine what exists within nature, so perhaps the solution to the origin of life is out of the realm of Science? It has afterall failed miserably to provide a solution, as the Professor of Natural Philosophy Paul Davies (an agnostic) wrote in his book "The Fifth Miracle":
<blockquote>When I set out to write this book, I was convinced that science was close to wrapping up the mystery of life's origins… Having spent a year or two researching the field, I am now of the opinion that there remains a huge gulf in our understanding… This gulf in understanding is not merely ignorance about certain technical details, it is a major conceptual lacuna.</blockquote>To add a further comment, if Science can't explain the origin of life, then perhaps such an explanation is outside the realm of Science? Those who examine the philosophy surrounding the mind/body problem, generally come to understand that there appears more at play than what can be physically described (for some of the reasons decribed here). So perhaps Science is so impotent when it comes to explaining life's origin, because such an origin is outside the realm of scientific enquiry?

Kurieuo.

[James]

James, you don't understand. I'm not saying Evolution is impossible. I'm saying it is extremely UNLIKELY without a creator.

But what are you basing this on? Equally unlikely probabilities?

As for calculating odds, we can use statistics. Check today's rate of mutation and use those numbers to calculate how much it would take. We don't need the entire fossil record. In fact, we don't need it at all. The envyronment does not affect the rate of mutation. Statistically, it is always the same. The only thing that could possibly affect it is radiation, and when radiation comes into play, the odds fall greatly out of Naturalistic Evolution's favor, since radiation mutations are rarely beneficial (unless you watch too many mutant movies).

Could I ask what historical physical evidence is used to support these probabilities? Rocks alone? Also, what do you mean by "statistically it [rate of mutation] is always the same"? Just to be clear.

We don't. We estimate. I wouldn't trust the fossil record for this, but rather physical emulation of the events instead. If a meteor hit, we can predict more or less what would happen, and estimate what % of the population would be affected.

Do you mean physical simulation? I just cannot see how one could simulate an event which happened millions (billions?) of years ago with any confidence without referring to physical evidence. Do you have a reference for any of these simulations?

These aren't the numbers I am thinking--try less than 10 million, and maybe less than 3 million. In case you don't check the footnotes on that article. PBS agrees

Hi Jac. Sorry about that, my reference was from here:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/camb.html
I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that the explosion lasted for the whole Cambrian period. Although, I do not think that PBS agrees (with reasons.org) as it states 30 million years as the time range.
In any case, let me quote Dr. Rana from the apologetic article that you referenced:
"This event, known as the Cambrian “Explosion”, occurred over an extremely narrow window of geological time (~5-10 million years based on western scientific literature and less than 3 million years based on Chinese scientific literature)."
Please refer to the emotive language in bold. When Rana says "extremely narrow window", surely he means relatively narrow window. Then "geological time" - what has geological time got to do with anything!? Is he trying to imply that because millions of years is a relatively small time in terms of the age of the Earth that this makes it a small absolute time? If you want to look at this objectively then you must deal in terms of evolutionary or biological time - but not geological. Could you clear this up for me?

Yet, it is true that Science can only examine what exists within nature, so perhaps the solution to the origin of life is out of the realm of Science? It has afterall failed miserably to provide a solution, as the Professor of Natural Philosophy Paul Davies (an agnostic) wrote in his book "The Fifth Miracle":

When I set out to write this book, I was convinced that science was close to wrapping up the mystery of life's origins… Having spent a year or two researching the field, I am now of the opinion that there remains a huge gulf in our understanding… This gulf in understanding is not merely ignorance about certain technical details, it is a major conceptual lacuna.

Could the "conceptual lacuna" equate to a jump similar to that of classical to quantum mechanics? Not necessarily science to theism.

James

[Jac3510]

Hi Jac. Sorry about that, my reference was from here:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/camb.html
I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that the explosion lasted for the whole Cambrian period. Although, I do not think that PBS agrees (with reasons.org) as it states 30 million years as the time range.
In any case, let me quote Dr. Rana from the apologetic article that you referenced:
"This event, known as the Cambrian “Explosion”, occurred over an extremely narrow window of geological time (~5-10 million years based on western scientific literature and less than 3 million years based on Chinese scientific literature)."
Please refer to the emotive language in bold. When Rana says "extremely narrow window", surely he means relatively narrow window. Then "geological time" - what has geological time got to do with anything!? Is he trying to imply that because millions of years is a relatively small time in terms of the age of the Earth that this makes it a small absolute time? If you want to look at this objectively then you must deal in terms of evolutionary or biological time - but not geological. Could you clear this up for me?

I don't think there is much of a reason to debate the 3-10 million vs. 30 million years? (even TalkOrigins.com agrees)The point Rana was making is that we have hundreds of millions of years worth of evolution occurring within an absolute maximum limit of fifty million years. If you want some good responses to Creationistic interpretations of the CE, check out TalkOrigins. But, while you are at it, note that they rarely refer to any scientific literature to back up their claims, where as absolutely ever single article at reasons.org IS referenced. Also, Rana is a trained biologist . . .

The basic point is that too much evolution happened in only 5-50 million years. We have the appearance of virtually every (not all) animal phyla in less than 10 million years. (reference, see references in article as well). 146 of 182 skeletal designs made their appearance in this "short" period of time (reference). Compare this with other evolutionary advancements, and you'll see that 5 million years just isn't very long for such MASSIVE changes. I hope you'd agree that the development of skeletons, as well the proliferation of the forms in which they are found, is extremely significant! By comparison, we have the Nautilis, which has been around for tens of millions of years, and it can't even seem to develop the lense over its eye! (Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker) The entire spectrum of human evolution, as proposed by modern evolution theory, took more than 8 million years, and the advancements are hardly as significant as those during the CE. Seriously, just look at any major development, and you'll notice that they run in the tens of millions of years. Here, we have the advent, not merely improving of, phyla and skeletal designs all within only three million years, up to ten, MAYBE fifty (but that is highly debatable).

What's interesting to me is that the Cambrian explosion fits in perfectly with the Genesis account of creation

[Mastermind]

"But what are you basing this on? Equally unlikely probabilities? "

Rough calculations of observed rate of mutation, while factoring in disasters and the like.

"Could I ask what historical physical evidence is used to support these probabilities? Rocks alone? Also, what do you mean by "statistically it [rate of mutation] is always the same"? Just to be clear. "

Well, mutation is random(from a naturalist point of view), and since it is still a mechanism, it likely has a predictable pattern, from which the rate of mutation(IE, number of mutations per year) can be calculated. We can also use statistics to figure out how many of these mutations are beneficial, how many spread to a population, etc. and factor all this in. Plants mutate far more often than animals, and the more advanced animals get, the harder it is to have their genes screw up. This is another problem i have with evolution, as their own evidence suggests that the exact opposite happened. Animal population has exploded within a short period of time, something that based on this evidence should not have happened.

"Do you mean physical simulation? I just cannot see how one could simulate an event which happened millions (billions?) of years ago with any confidence without referring to physical evidence. Do you have a reference for any of these simulations?"

Just what i've seen on tv stations like discovery. They have done simulations of a meteorite's strike for example. They are based on physical evidence, but it doesn't really have anything to do with dating stuff, just predicting the outcome, and the areas it would affect. Then, using the evolutionary model, predict at what point this might have happened. The second part I don't like, but I have no problem with their simulation methods. Again, i don't have a problem with physical evidence, just their methods of dating things like fossils.

[Anonymous]

Hey people.

ive found a very interesting website with over 160 hours of Video debating MANY things that are right on topic with this and other topics on this forum

http://www.meta-library.net/

Heres the link. You got small video clips and big Debates, conferences etc.. On design vs evoloution, faith, science , relation of science religion. health, aging, technologies, intelligent design, fine tuning of the universe and loads more

You hear both sides debating it. Some very interesting videos that you should check out

here are the subjects that have videos, long and short

Subjects: Genetics | Evolution | Physics & Cosmology | History | Ethics | Psychology & Neuroscience | Computing | Philosophy | Environment | Religion

Themes: The Relation of Science & Religion | Purpose & Design | Hope | Origins | Controversy | The Future | Global Perspectives | Faith | Aging | Health | Pain and Suffering

Questions: Does God Exist? | What Makes Us Human? | Are we Free? | Does God Act? | Where did we Come From? | Was the Universe Designed? | Did the Universe Have a Beginning? | Are We Alone?

[Mastermind]

I found something rather amusing.
http://i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=7488
Click on the question mark if you can't figure out what's going on...

[James]

Thanks Whoa, that made for some good reading. And watching.

Jac, I take it that you are quite interested in the "Cambrian Explosion".

What's interesting to me is that the Cambrian explosion fits in perfectly with the Genesis account of creation

Oh, I see. Subject to literary interpretation, surely?

Also, Rana is a trained biologist . . .

...and a devout Christian?

The basic point is that too much evolution happened in only 5-50 million years. We have the appearance of virtually every (not all) animal phyla in less than 10 million years. (reference, see references in article as well). 146 of 182 skeletal designs made their appearance in this "short" period of time (reference).

But these references are from godandscience.org.... impartial? Peer-reviewed? Please do not reply by saying that I have not read the references to which the article refers - referring to a valid source does not make the article valid itself.

"But what are you basing this on? Equally unlikely probabilities? "

Rough calculations of observed rate of mutation, while factoring in disasters and the like.

Do you have a reference to any of these methods on the web?

Well, mutation is random(from a naturalist point of view), and since it is still a mechanism, it likely has a predictable pattern, from which the rate of mutation(IE, number of mutations per year) can be calculated.

But Mastermind if it is "random", by defintion it does NOT have a predictable pattern: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=random

Just what i've seen on tv stations like discovery. They have done simulations of a meteorite's strike for example. They are based on physical evidence, but it doesn't really have anything to do with dating stuff, just predicting the outcome, and the areas it would affect. Then, using the evolutionary model, predict at what point this might have happened. The second part I don't like, but I have no problem with their simulation methods. Again, i don't have a problem with physical evidence, just their methods of dating things like fossils.

I would be interested to know what their simulation methods are.
In what way do you not like the methods they use for dating fossils?

Some Christians I know completely agree with the theory of evolution. Their reason? "God intended evolution to occur in the manner which it did." Could this not be a possibility? God still had a design and He knew how evolution would progress. i.e. to create humans.

James

[Mastermind]

"But what are you basing this on? Equally unlikely probabilities? "

Rough calculations of observed rate of mutation, while factoring in disasters and the like.

I think Talk Origins(.com or .org, one of those) has a list of observed instances of speciation over the last 200 years. It's probably innacurate, but they're the only statistic I could use.


"But Mastermind if it is "random", by defintion it does NOT have a predictable pattern."

Actually, that would depend on the degree of randomness. There are still maximum-minimum rates, which is what I was referring to when I said mechanism. For example, you can set a computer to generate a number between 1 and 10. The number is still random, but there are certain limitations.

"I would be interested to know what their simulation methods are.
In what way do you not like the methods they use for dating fossils?"

Well, carbon dating sucks for long periods of time(and actually proves young earth creationists' point when you get 4000 year old dinosaur bones). The main method used to date is by estimating the ammount of time a certain layer of earth had taken to get to its current volume. The deeper things are, the older they are. The layers are rather easily disrupted by seismic activity(among other things), so they are not quite as reliable as one might think. I think we need a method similar to carbon dating(using chemical properties to figure out how old something is) whose accuracy does not drop after as little as hundreds of years.

"Some Christians I know completely agree with the theory of evolution. Their reason? "God intended evolution to occur in the manner which it did." Could this not be a possibility? God still had a design and He knew how evolution would progress. i.e. to create humans."

I believe in evolution to an extent. I don't believe humans evolved, and I don't believe it's random. Other than that, I don't really have anything against it.