Darwinism?

[touchingcloth]

Well both of those resources discuss ways in which the ID hypothesis might be confirmed, neither touches on how it might be disconfirmed.

Oh really? Show me where it didn't..

Show you where they didn't say something?

If you believe that either of those particular articles deals with how the ID hypothesis might be falsified then feel free to point it out to me as I may be missing something.

They both give details for what observations might confirm the ID hypothesis ("High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.") but as far as I can see neither article states what observations would render ID falsified (or at least count as a large negative mark against it).

[touchingcloth]

Right now? Well I'm on the SW Coast, but the time is 4.15 in the afternoon...What's the time in sunny California??

Oh sorry.. It's 8:23 am. And it is sunny.. But cold, 46 degrees..

I live close to this..

Looks kinda almost a little teeny bit like Durdle Door here in England

[Gman]

Show you where they didn't say something?

Please read the articles TC.. Also your tests don't reveal anything either.. Just an idea that rests on a future outcome.. Darwin in the gaps explains the rest..

Also remember that no scientific theory stands or falls on a single test or prediction. The test could be wrong, or you might have the wrong data or misinterpretation of that data.

You mentioned SETI earlier.. Finding life on other planets. To falsify this you could propose that the conditions for life are very narrow, so you need a lot of components for life to exist. To test this you would have to find native life around the planet radically different from the earth or you find life based on a completely different chemistry than carbon and water or even in a more hostile environment than ours. If you could find life in these conditions, you could easily falsify the argument.

Rich brought up these cases below.. All of these methods are testable and are in use today.

1. Archeology: Is that rock formation natural or due to intelligent design?
2. Anthropology: Do sharp, pointed rocks occur naturally or are they designed by intelligent beings?
3. Forensics: Intelligent cause of death or natural circumstances?
4. SETI: Are those radio signals natural or caused by intelligent beings?

Source: http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... esign.html

If you believe that either of those particular articles deals with how the ID hypothesis might be falsified then feel free to point it out to me as I may be missing something.

They both give details for what observations might confirm the ID hypothesis ("High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.") but as far as I can see neither article states what observations would render ID falsified (or at least count as a large negative mark against it).

Easy.. ID would be proven false on the general grounds that the scientist didn't invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes would suffice. You could do this with any idea.. As another example if we used evolution to falsify ID, all a scientist needs to do is experimentally reverse-engineer biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they could conclude that such structures were designed.

In hindsight, if a scientist performed that same test using gradual evolutionary standards perhaps it would be even harder to falsify since natural selection requires a much longer time or a greater population base of parts to produce a biological structure. Perhaps it never could, scientists don't really know. ID therefore can easily be tested or falsified although it has not been falsified as of yet.

[derrick09]

As a interesting side question TC (this doesn't directly have anything to do with the conversation) but I wanted to comment that your avatar thing is the coolest ones I've seen on message boards. I was curious is that George Jefferson from the show "The Jeffersons" or is that someone else? Just curious.

[Gman]

Looks kinda almost a little teeny bit like Durdle Door here in England

Yes... At one time the land was connected to make a bridge.. Basically the water came and tore it all down, but the water carved the arches in the rock to make it look like a bridge.

Here is the way it looked 20 years ago..

[Gman]

So for possible ways to (in principle at least) falsify evolution:

• A lack of existence of a mechanism for heredity that allows for mutations from one generation to the next (perhaps one of the first tests of the theory as Darwin understood it, as he lived before the discovery of genes or DNA)
• Multiple extreme violations of nested morphologies between animals (as an example - a mammal that could photosynthesize)
• Compelling evidence that the fossil record is uniform rather than graduated
• Observation of ex nihilo creation of species
• Evidence of mechanisms/phenomena that would constrain the extent of mutations of genotypes

I'll try and discuss the rest of your post (and read the rest of the thread!) when I've next got some free time

Let's just reverse this claim...

So for possible ways to (in principle at least) falsify ID:

• Multiple existences of mechanisms for heredity that allows for mutations from one generation to the next (perhaps one of the first tests of the theory as Darwin understood it, as he lived before the discovery of genes or DNA)
• No extreme violations of nested morphologies between animals (as an example - a mammal that could photosynthesize)
• Compelling evidence that the fossil record is graduated rather than uniform.
• No observation of ex nihilo creation of species
• No evidence of mechanisms/phenomena that would constrain the extent of mutations of genotypes.

[touchingcloth]

Let's just reverse this claim...

So for possible ways to (in principle at least) falsify ID:

• Multiple existences of mechanisms for heredity that allows for mutations from one generation to the next
  So the ID hypothesis doesn't allow for a designer of such a mechanism?
• No extreme violations of nested morphologies between animals (as an example - a mammal that could photosynthesize)
  Well we haven't found any so far - does that count against the hypothesis then?
• Compelling evidence that the fossil record is graduated rather than uniform.
  The evidence is there and compelling - another mark against the hypothesis or not?
• No observation of ex nihilo creation of species
  As above - does the hypothesis not allow for designers who work bottom-up rather than top-down/ex nihilo?
• No evidence of mechanisms/phenomena that would constrain the extent of mutations of genotypes.

I'm not aware of any such mechanism, but I'd be interested to know if there was one

Phenomena such as the graduated fossil record are particularly interesting as without a process like evolution there's no reason they should exist. It's a far cry from being proof for the theory but it's potentially a ludicrously easy way of falsifying it. Likewise for nested morphologies.

[touchingcloth]

As a interesting side question TC (this doesn't directly have anything to do with the conversation) but I wanted to comment that your avatar thing is the coolest ones I've seen on message boards. I was curious is that George Jefferson from the show "The Jeffersons" or is that someone else? Just curious.

Ha, thanks derrick!

It's from Arrested Development

[Gman]

Let's just reverse this claim...

So for possible ways to (in principle at least) falsify ID:

• Multiple existences of mechanisms for heredity that allows for mutations from one generation to the next
  So the ID hypothesis doesn't allow for a designer of such a mechanism?

Not if you are implying macroevolution.. No.. Why can't ID use it?

[[*]No extreme violations of nested morphologies between animals (as an example - a mammal that could photosynthesize)
Well we haven't found any so far - does that count against the hypothesis then?

If you say it falsifies evolution, then why can't ID use it too?

[*]Compelling evidence that the fossil record is graduated rather than uniform.
The evidence is there and compelling - another mark against the hypothesis or not?

There certainly isn't any compelling evidence.. Oh.. So you are agreeing with me that ID is falsifying it in principle just like evolution.... Thanks.

[*]No observation of ex nihilo creation of species
As above - does the hypothesis not allow for designers who work bottom-up rather than top-down/ex nihilo?

What do you mean by not allowing for designers who work bottom-up rather than top-down/ex nihilo?

[*]No evidence of mechanisms/phenomena that would constrain the extent of mutations of genotypes.[/list]
I'm not aware of any such mechanism, but I'd be interested to know if there was one

Phenomena such as the graduated fossil record are particularly interesting as without a process like evolution there's no reason they should exist. It's a far cry from being proof for the theory but it's potentially a ludicrously easy way of falsifying it. Likewise for nested morphologies.

Again.. If you say it falsifies evolution, then why can't ID use it too?

[Proinsias]

Pro, I don't think we disagree on too much, and what we do disagree on we can agree to disagree on. So just a few points,.

Agreed!

Ultimately you do take those laws on faith. How do you know that a scientific 'law' will be the same tomorrow as it is today? You don't. You can certainly be 100% confident that when you step outside your door this morning that your front foot will make contact with the pavement in an ordinary fashion, but you ultimately rely on this knowledge based on 100% inference, hence faith has to play a part in your 'knowledge' of how gravity will treat you this morning on the pavement outside your house.

I don't know that a scientific law will be the same tomorrow as it is today - as I say most of them end up broken eventually. I can't be 100% what will happen regarding the pavement when I step out of my door in the morning but I am pretty confident I can make a reasonable prediction. I do rely on what as happened to predict what will happen but I'm not 100% confident.

The majority of science accepts Darwinian evolution as sufficient to explain the diversity of life, but this does not seems to have much of an impact on you.

And this is where honest science vs dishonest science comes into it. Anyone who seriously believes that impersonal, inorganic matter can somehow, over however millions of years you like, organise itself into organic matter is simply living in cloud cookoo land. Not only this, but then to believe this organic matter, in the form of the highly complex, information-heavy cell...to be the consequence of random, impersonal chance is to lose sight of one's senses... Nothing indicates that this could occur 'naturally' from inorganic matter...Nothing.

Science, as I gather from your previous posts, is putting aside personal belief's and following the evidence. I would hope that we both agree that inorganic matter, over whatever time period, came to think of itself as a person. If God gave it a helping hand or not is another matter. As an aside the matter that you are composed of was at some point inorganic.

But for anything to appear is surely a miracle, even if it appeared by 'chance'. That's my point.

So if the universe and everything arose by chance, without God, it's still a miracle? I suspect many Darwinist Naturalists would be happy with that, although they may choose to use the word 'chance' instead - you say tomato I say tomato and whatnot.

Ah but Davison is not doing that at all. He explicitly is not a Christian, although he admires the "Christian ethic", as he puts it. He says that for any biologist to dismiss the blatant evidence of "a plan" in the emergence and complexity of life is simply preposterous. Like the heretic Marcion of the 2nd century, he believes in two gods, one evil and one loving...To paraphrase "How else do we account for the good and evil in the world".
On chance, here's Davison, first quoting Grasse: "..."To insist, even with Olympian assurance, that life appeared quite by chance and evolved in this fashion, is an unfounded supposition which I believe to be wrong and not in accordance with the facts.”
Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, page 107.

I think he is very much mixing his philosophy with his science. He starts by discussing a new mechanism for evolution and ends with talking about plans and chance. To insist that life appeared by chance is to me unfounded, but so is insisting it appeared by God. It seems we have a few scientists giving the opposite answer to that which the likes of Dawkins would give.

There is no room for chance in Davison's mind.

And you seems fine with this. If another scientist even gives the impression that he has no room for God you dismiss him. A scientist with no room for alternative answer to the big questions is mixing his philosophy with his science - you get angry when they make no room for God and are happy when they make no room for chance.

He does mention in the paper that experimental evolution is a great possibility still...I don't know what he's done about it.

Not much that I can find. Over 30 years on, you're going to need more than that to argue with a Darwinist using hir principles in lab conditions.

But then we lose all sense of the Darwinian mechanism if we drop the random and natural. I'm happy if you are.

I don't think we do. It still works in a lab and helps advances in medicine. It does all the practical stuff without the unprovable philosophical speculations.

Thanks Danny.

[DannyM]

As a interesting side question TC (this doesn't directly have anything to do with the conversation) but I wanted to comment that your avatar thing is the coolest ones I've seen on message boards. I was curious is that George Jefferson from the show "The Jeffersons" or is that someone else? Just curious.

Ha, thanks derrick!

It's from Arrested Development

TC, I thought your avatar was Basil - John Cleese - in Fawlty Towers?? Please clarify... <<scratchy head>>

Remember Ze Germans? ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wb7K_KUJqoQ

[zoegirl]

lol, I remember that scene....Fawlty towers was rather painful to watch, I cringe whenever he messed up...it's on on PBS station saturday nights but I can rarely watch it.

[DannyM]

Pro, I don't think we disagree on too much, and what we do disagree on we can agree to disagree on. So just a few points,.

Agreed!

Ultimately you do take those laws on faith. How do you know that a scientific 'law' will be the same tomorrow as it is today? You don't. You can certainly be 100% confident that when you step outside your door this morning that your front foot will make contact with the pavement in an ordinary fashion, but you ultimately rely on this knowledge based on 100% inference, hence faith has to play a part in your 'knowledge' of how gravity will treat you this morning on the pavement outside your house.

I don't know that a scientific law will be the same tomorrow as it is today - as I say most of them end up broken eventually. I can't be 100% what will happen regarding the pavement when I step out of my door in the morning but I am pretty confident I can make a reasonable prediction. I do rely on what as happened to predict what will happen but I'm not 100% confident.

The majority of science accepts Darwinian evolution as sufficient to explain the diversity of life, but this does not seems to have much of an impact on you.

And this is where honest science vs dishonest science comes into it. Anyone who seriously believes that impersonal, inorganic matter can somehow, over however millions of years you like, organise itself into organic matter is simply living in cloud cookoo land. Not only this, but then to believe this organic matter, in the form of the highly complex, information-heavy cell...to be the consequence of random, impersonal chance is to lose sight of one's senses... Nothing indicates that this could occur 'naturally' from inorganic matter...Nothing.

Science, as I gather from your previous posts, is putting aside personal belief's and following the evidence. I would hope that we both agree that inorganic matter, over whatever time period, came to think of itself as a person. If God gave it a helping hand or not is another matter. As an aside the matter that you are composed of was at some point inorganic.

But for anything to appear is surely a miracle, even if it appeared by 'chance'. That's my point.

So if the universe and everything arose by chance, without God, it's still a miracle? I suspect many Darwinist Naturalists would be happy with that, although they may choose to use the word 'chance' instead - you say tomato I say tomato and whatnot.

Ah but Davison is not doing that at all. He explicitly is not a Christian, although he admires the "Christian ethic", as he puts it. He says that for any biologist to dismiss the blatant evidence of "a plan" in the emergence and complexity of life is simply preposterous. Like the heretic Marcion of the 2nd century, he believes in two gods, one evil and one loving...To paraphrase "How else do we account for the good and evil in the world".
On chance, here's Davison, first quoting Grasse: "..."To insist, even with Olympian assurance, that life appeared quite by chance and evolved in this fashion, is an unfounded supposition which I believe to be wrong and not in accordance with the facts.”
Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, page 107.

I think he is very much mixing his philosophy with his science. He starts by discussing a new mechanism for evolution and ends with talking about plans and chance. To insist that life appeared by chance is to me unfounded, but so is insisting it appeared by God. It seems we have a few scientists giving the opposite answer to that which the likes of Dawkins would give.

There is no room for chance in Davison's mind.

And you seems fine with this. If another scientist even gives the impression that he has no room for God you dismiss him. A scientist with no room for alternative answer to the big questions is mixing his philosophy with his science - you get angry when they make no room for God and are happy when they make no room for chance.

He does mention in the paper that experimental evolution is a great possibility still...I don't know what he's done about it.

Not much that I can find. Over 30 years on, you're going to need more than that to argue with a Darwinist using hir principles in lab conditions.

But then we lose all sense of the Darwinian mechanism if we drop the random and natural. I'm happy if you are.

I don't think we do. It still works in a lab and helps advances in medicine. It does all the practical stuff without the unprovable philosophical speculations.

Thanks Danny.

Thanks Pro, I've enjoyed reading your perspective... I come away from our discussion both enlightened/stimulated and with my views of Darwinian Evolution reinforced and in tact. I can't disagree too much with your views on Davison...though to my own views on 'chance', I'd have to say that I do not expect the Darwinian Naturalist to invoke God, but rather to abandon this nonsensical notion that 'chance' could be 'responsible' for the highly complex, un-chance-like information-heavy data that exists in the cell/DNA... a causal agent must be invoked; and 'chance' must be abandoned as being any kind of significant mechanism... 'Chance' simply won't do.

[DannyM]

lol, I remember that scene....Fawlty towers was rather painful to watch, I cringe whenever he messed up...it's on on PBS station saturday nights but I can rarely watch it.

A bit like The Office, funny but cringe-worthy...? If so I 'get' where you're 'at' Zoe...

[zoegirl]

I actually can't sit through the american version of the Office...I'm one of the few people who doesn't like it over here...I feel too much empathy...it's too real! The way they shoot it it's like watching one of my students mess up on stage