Evidence for God from Science

Stop it with the strawmen Einstein. ID does not get support by trashing evolution...it's not built on negative evidence, genius. Thank you for possessing a negative IQ.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

Ark~Magic I think you missed ncooty's point. Ncooty I beleive, is looking for an empiracle way to support/disprove ID.

I'm sure he has no qualms with the fact that there is no way to falsify evolution...

KMart,

That would be a great point, if it were true. No scientific theory is provable, but all are falsifiable. If evolutionary theory had no falsifiable hypotheses, it wouldn't deserve consideration as a scientific theory. Of course, it has MANY falsifiable hypotheses. As one tiny example, if you find a hominid fossil in the jurassic era (either by radioactive or carbon dating or by location in the geologic strata), that won't fit with current evolutionary theory. Many others on this site have noted that any archeologist would love to make such a find. It would be so contraversial in its ability to shift explanatory paradigms that the researcher's career would be made and he or she would have made a greater contribution to science than most ever hope to make. So, it's hard to see how there would be any sort of conspiracy to cover up such a find.

Your point was addressed in greater detail earlier in this same thread. If you're going to post on the thread, at least read the thread.

(Of course, you're still trying to support ID by attacking evolutionary theory. Don't you get it? ID needs to make a scientific hypothesis in order to be considered a scientific theory. What's the objective, falsifiable hypothesis of ID? Why is this so hard to answer? Stop flailing about angrily, KMart, and just answer that simple question. What is the objective, falsifiable hypothesis of ID?)

ncooty wrote:Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 4:39 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ncooty wrote:
What kind of evidence would it take to change the mind of someone who believes in intelligent design?
This is the fundamental pre-requisite of a scientific theory.

sandy_mcd wrote:
Could you give us non-philosophers an example ? What kind of evidence would it take to change the mind of someone who believes in evolution?

ncooty wrote:
That's a great question. Testing evolutionary theory is hard, because evolution occurs over many many generations. Therefore, in order to test evolutionary theories, we need to use animals that reproduce quickly. The hypothesis would be that genetic mutations that benefit a species (i.e., result in greater reproductive success) are more likely than are other mutations to be passed on to offspring, resulting in a long-term, phenotypic change in the species. The null hypothesis would be that genetic mutations that benefit the species are not more likely than are other mutations to be passed on to offspring, and, therefore, do not result in a long-term, phenotypic change in the species. There are any number of empirical tests of these hypotheses. Some have involved viruses. In fact, a great example is the fact that the influenza virus mutates constantly. That's why you need a new (and different) flu vaccine each year. Some people wonder why we don't store last year's vaccines for this year, or stock up ahead of time. Well, that's why. We have to see how the virus will mutate this year (in order for it to survive) so that we can create the inoculation.

My favorite example involved the unintended development of a new sub-species of snail thanks to the development of a new parking lot on the campus of Texas A&M University. (One colony of snails became isolated by the parking lot and developed new traits that the non-isolated colonies did not.)

Results that support the null hypotheses in these experiments would undermine, and eventually disprove evolutionary theory.

Of course, there is circumstantial fossil evidence to suggest that species evolve over time to fit into new niches or to better survive in current niches. Unfortunately, fossil evidence isn't falsifiable. That's why we conduct empirical research that, to date, has supported evolutionary theory.

I think it would be neat to test ID. How should I go about it?

.

What's the objective, falsifiable hypothesis of ID? Why is this so hard to answer? Stop flailing about angrily, KMart, and just answer that simple question. What is the objective, falsifiable hypothesis of ID?)

Show that irreducibly complex biological systems are evolvable, duh.
Show that information can be created by random chance.
etc, etc

Of course, it has MANY falsifiable hypotheses. As one tiny example, if you find a hominid fossil in the jurassic era (either by radioactive or carbon dating or by location in the geologic strata), that won't fit with current evolutionary theory.

Not true-it would just cause for the time when hominids evolved to be pushed farther back...and it's funny how you talk about the fossil record, considering it is an utter faliure in supporting the theory of evolution.

OK, folks, these are the kinds of emails I'm getting:

**************************************************
From: Thinker
To: ncooty
Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 10:04 pm
Subject: Unofficial Warning

Ncooty, we believers of this forum have done some investigation into your posts and the like, we have noticed this. That may not be all. We have detected you are not an agnostic as you have claimed you are but rather as one member I have spoken too - a stealth atheist - masquerading under the identity of an agnostic. I am not the official on banning procedures, however, I am warning you, you are nearing that level. Just letting you know.

_________________
Is it destiny or is it fate? You choose.
- Brian
***************************************************
Incidentally, the "this" link at the end of the first sentence just went to a termination notification.

Let me state a few things simply.

1) You do not know my belief structure, so do not presume to tell me what I do or do not believe. You are not God. I am open to all sorts of ideas. I define myself largely by how I choose what to believe and what not to believe. As best I can, I do not define myself by what I believe. That was the original point of this thread. Re-read the very first post in this thread.
2) Too many of you construe curiousity about ID as a threat. You react defensively. I came here not understanding how ID is a scientific theory and I was upfront about that. I am asking for ONE THING: the objective, falsifiable hypothesis of ID. One of my students wanted to discuss the scientific merit of this theory and I told her that I didn't know enough about it to direct a conversation on the topic. I have used this weekend to look into the matter. Some of this has been helpful. However, I have yet to get a testable hypothesis from any ID advocate. I'm not advocating other theories. I just want to discuss this one openly, to see if it even meets the minimum criteria for scientific discussion.

I am a Ph.D. with multiple degrees in varied areas including psychology, philosophy, and business. I teach university courses in psychology, the scientific method, statistics, logic, etc. I came here expecting to be educated. I do not define myself with beliefs that are fundamentally opposed to ID. I have made it very clear what I'd like to know about ID. I have not advocated competing positions; I have merely posed reasonable and logical questions about ID.

What do I get? Some reasoned and interesting responses from a few people, but I still don't have the hypothesis that's required of any scientific theory. I don't understand how that's an attack.

What else do I get? Angry, knee-jerk blather from KMart and threats from Thinker. If this is a legitimate, scientific theory, you shouldn't be so defensive. At least now I understand why so many scientists denounce ID: based on my own experience, the proponents give no means to test it and meet curiousity with anger and exclusion.

Now, can we please just conclude this with a very SIMPLE answer to a very SIMPLE question:

What is the objective, falsifiable hypothesis of ID?

I would hope that strongly holding a belief would make you more confident in the outcomes of inquisition and investigation of that belief.

If ID proponents want ID to be considered a scientific theory, they shouldn't get upset when the theory meets with scientific scrutiny. Moreover, if ID isn't tied to religion, so many of you shouldn't take ID skepticism as an attack on your personal religious beliefs.

I have to say, ncooty came here to learn about ID, as many others have with a false understanding of it, and still does/do. I think that would be expected due to only one theory - evolution - ruling over everything else in science, therefore, because you know what it takes for evolution to occur and are so grounded in it, you can't see past that and in turn can't understand ID as it becomes blind to you, very blind. Maybe these people really just can't understand it, no matter how much we explain it to them. Are they REALLY willing to listen, maybe, maybe not, but in any case, all I see are attacks on it because you don't understand it.

I have answered you cooties.

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sh ... hp/id/1161

Table 2. Predictions of Design (Hypothesis):
(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.
(3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
(4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".

I have taken up more room so your beady little eyes won't miss it cooties.

Intelligent Design IS very threatened, by you atheists who just want their way again, and again, and again, and again, and again, etc... Just can't be open-minded I guess .

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:.

What's the objective, falsifiable hypothesis of ID? Why is this so hard to answer? Stop flailing about angrily, KMart, and just answer that simple question. What is the objective, falsifiable hypothesis of ID?)

Show that irreducibly complex biological systems are evolvable, duh.
Show that information can be created by random chance.
etc, etc

Of course, it has MANY falsifiable hypotheses. As one tiny example, if you find a hominid fossil in the jurassic era (either by radioactive or carbon dating or by location in the geologic strata), that won't fit with current evolutionary theory.

Not true-it would just cause for the time when hominids evolved to be pushed farther back...and it's funny how you talk about the fossil record, considering it is an utter faliure in supporting the theory of evolution.

Point 1: What you've suggested with the first sentence has been done and it has been addressed in this thread. Perhaps you should consider re-reading this thread. I don't understand your second sentence. In any case, neither of your comments is a scientific hypothesis. You repeatedly appear not to understand what constitutes a scientific hypothesis. I'm serious. I've given you multiple references with which to educate yourself, but you seem unwilling and I am even less willing to babysit you academically.

Point 2: A human tooth found from a jurassic geologic stratum would run contrary to theories of human evolution. The finding would be wholly achronistic with fossil evidence in support of evolution. I'm not sure how this is unclear to you. We don't have fossil records from every intermediate life-form, but evolutionary theory does make specific, falsifiable guesses as to what we should find... and, so far, we have yet to find fossils that contradict that theory. Again, as with all scientific theories, it isn't provable, but it's certainly falsifiable. (I assume you didn't have problems with the rest of the post, which gave further examples of falsifiable hypotheses based on evolutionary theory.) You still seem stuck on the notion that assaulting alternate theories somehow buttresses or supports ID theory. I'm not here to advocate alternate theories. I'm here to understand ID, so why do you keep changing the subject?

Heck, I'm willing to continue this discussion without reference to evolution at all. I would prefer it that way. Many of you portray me as an advocate of evolution, but that is not the case. I have only discussed evolution inasmuch as its theories provide an example of what constitutes a scientific hypothesis. I have no interest in discussing evolution. I want to discuss ID. Let's all just assume that the theory of evolution is absolutely wrong. How can we scientifically test to see if ID is right?

But ID is built off of SOME evolution proponents, therefore claiming you don't want to discuss evolution would then invalidate discussing ID. If you really are what you claim to be in the areas of study you have, why don't you research these things out for yourself instead of asking US about it, you are a teacher, no? Aren't teachers supposed to study this among others or by themselves and then teach it instead of joining a little forum asking other people about it when they have already made their minds up? Talk to Michael Behe about it, talk to the Discovery Institute. That would be a serious consideration.

Ncooty is blind. He's having someone else copy and paste random crap for him

C'mon guys, knock off the personal attacks. I had to delete some of the posts on this thread, and will do so again. Keep it clean and on topic please.

A tooth wouldn't prove evolution wrong, it'd just refute the current time frame when hominids evolved.

August wrote:C'mon guys, knock off the personal attacks. I had to delete some of the posts on this thread, and will do so again. Keep it clean and on topic please.

Calling cooties blind isn't a personal attack. It's a scientific hypothesis-it's an outgrowth of the repeated attempts of him to make me answer that which I've answered.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sh ... hp/id/1161

Table 2. Predictions of Design (Hypothesis):
(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.
(3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
(4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".

I have taken up more room so your beady little eyes won't miss it cooties.

My beady little eyes and I appreciate the effort. Statement 1 is falsifiable and earlier posts in this thread have addressed the definitional problems with irreducible complexity. Please re-read the thread. Statements 1, 3, and 4 require ascription of purpose. I have mentioned many times before that purpose is a perception, not a percept. (Nonetheless, regarding statement 4: wisdom teeth, gall bladder, pinky toe, the long tail feathers of the South American quetzalcoatl bird, etc.) Statement 2 is a gem. Falsifying the statement would require finding all fossils and showing that all fossils are continuously linked. Of course, there would be no way to know when or if we had ever found all fossils. In other words, the statement is not falsifiable. Again, please educate yourself on the nature of scientific hypotheses. Right now, I would give you an F in my methods class.

By your own statements then, my refutation of statement 4 would satisfy your criteria for disproof of ID. I just don't think other ID proponents will want you speaking on their behalf.