"A question to discuss..." Topic

TJ,

I stated:

Show me a theory that describes biodiversity better than the Theory of Evolution and I'll seriously consider that too.

to which you answered:

So what you're saying is that you would, and I quote, "seriously" consider supernatural creation as an explanation? It's also a valid theory that explains biodiversity… and dare I add… better.

TJ, for me to seriously consider "supernatural creation" as a better scientific explanation than evolution, please address the following:

1) Exactly how does Creationism better explain biodiversity?

2) Since "supernatural creation" is by definition supernatural, then how can it claim to be in any way a scientific theory? Considering that you answered:

And yet again, for the record yet again, I thoroughly agree… 100%… yet again!

to my comment:

The scientific method is currently the BEST way to determine the nature of the physical, naturalistic, and materialistic environment around us. We do this by controlled observation. If we can't see it, sense it, or somehow measure it, it can't be Science.

Stick to these questions please.

Thanks

Bowman: I pray that your health is improving. You asked:

Exactly how does Creationism better explain biodiversity?

I really must say that if you are posing such a question then you clearly misunderstand what creation and creationism proposes or that you do not intend to take it seriously at all.

Now, you originally said:

The scientific method is currently the BEST way to determine the nature of the physical, naturalistic, and materialistic environment around us. We do this by controlled observation. If we can't see it, sense it, or somehow measure it, it can't be Science.

And in my reply I said (and let's quote it in full thus time):

Sigh. And around in circles we go yet again. And yet again, for the record yet again, I thoroughly agree… 100%… yet again!

To all generally, and to the likes of Whatis in particular, do try and understand something: Science and the scientific method are not under attack here by me (except in your mind that is). When used correctly, science and the scientific method are an excellent way for us to determine (and note what I'm saying here yet again if you're able) the nature of the physical, naturalistic and materialistic environment around us. I have never said otherwise… though some here seem to have made it their personal crusade to make out that it is so.

Moving on, consider your next question:

Since "supernatural creation" is by definition supernatural, then how can it claim to be in any way a scientific theory?

Mmm… perhaps you are beginning to understand. Since supernatural creation is (to quote you) by definition supernatural then obviously one cannot use a scientific argument to determine its validity… and here is the crunch, nor refute it. For one to say (as the likes of Whatis does from time to time for example) that "There is no scientific evidence for God's existence" is to only show, loud and clear, that such a person truly doesn't understand the limitations of science and the scientific method.

On the other hand, science and the scientific method can certainly be used to determine if any proposed evolutionary mechanisms or processes are viable, and as I have noted previously, there are some serious scientific laws to be overcome before any proposed evolutionary processes can be considered valid. If the proper use of science and the scientific method can show that a proposed process is not physically, chemically or thermodynamically possible, then clearly that process must be excluded from the overall theory. True?

And this is where the whole evolutionary paradigm sits. Since so many of its most basic steps/processes/mechanisms/etc proposed are only theoretical/unobservable/un-testable/un-proven/etc, then how can it be called "scientific" by any stretch of the imagination?

Finally: My original topic question was this:

Much faith is put in science and the scientific method. However, I wish to propose a question for discussion if I may:

What exactly is the evidence that science and the scientific method are the only way to show that something exists?

It is not I that keeps drifting off the question.

In fact, in all of these postings, I don't think anyone has even attempted to answer this basic question and try to justify that science and the scientific method are the ONLY way to show that something exists… I must ask, why?

<Since supernatural creation is (to quote you) by definition supernatural then obviously one cannot use a scientific argument to determine its validity… and here is the crunch, nor refute it.>

Well yes, much religious belief cannot be refuted. Outright crap like young Earth Creationism certainly can, but a lot cannot.

But why exactly should we be expected to find evidence to refute something that is itself asserted without evidence? Something that is asserted without evidence can be refuted the same way. Bit of a wash really.

Key concept here for review: That something cannot be disproved does not make it true.

For instance, you are right that I cannot disprove heaven (and I have no interest in doing so). but I also cannot disprove reincarnation. They are exactly equivalent assertions about what happens after we are dead, believed by many good people with all their hearts, and each has an exactly equal body of evidence behind them, namely 0.

Neither can be disproved but that does not make both true. In fact, they cannot both be true, so at least one lots's faith is misplaced – and the real kicker is there is no way of knowing which one. Of course they can both be wrong.

So faith is sometimes wrong, and furthermore there is no way of telling when. That is really not much use as a method of knowing if something exist or not.

This is why I assert that science is a better way of analyzing the world than faith. Faith varies from person to person. It seems that God (or Gods) gives different messages to nearly everyone.

Science is repeatable everywhere and everyone gets the same result. That is what makes it is reliable. Science also has handy mechanisms to correct itself when it is wrong.

Faith gives different results to different people in different countries in different times, all of which are equally valid (or invalid), hence faith is not reliable as a way of looking at the world.

You seem to be suggesting that because science has limits, then what you believe must be true. That is simply not true. Science does have limits, but that does not mean Unicorns and magic are real. Nor does it mean your assertions are true.

That something cannot be disproved does not make it true.

btw, what is your opinion of reincarnation and the the 100s of millions who believe in it btw? Are they right? They have faith. Unfalsifiable faith, just like yours.

I do have a personal interest here as my Father-in-Law is a devout Buddhist, and my wife a nominal one who takes the kids to temple on the full and half moon as is expected.

Whatsit has grey-boxed me. But I will respond, as a person of "faith" myself.

The obvious conclusion to the fact that billions hold mutually exclusive faith-based beliefs, is either that all are equally bunk or all are equally possible. A non-faith-based thinker can toss the lot as bunk. A thinker searching for truth in the metaphysical as well as physical world can accept that beliefs operate for the believers. Specifically addressing one of Whatsit's assertions:

… I cannot disprove heaven (and I have no interest in doing so). but I also cannot disprove reincarnation. They are exactly equivalent assertions about what happens after we are dead, believed by many good people with all their hearts, and each has an exactly equal body of evidence behind them, namely 0.

Neither can be disproved but that does not make both true. In fact, they cannot both be true, so at least one lots's faith is misplaced – and the real kicker is there is no way of knowing which one. Of course they can both be wrong.

There is not a lack of evidence for either belief in the afterlife. But the evidence is all metaphysical, i.e. not repeatable because the believer wants evidence to prove the truth of his/her beliefs to another person. This is the great difference between physical/empirical and metaphysical: the former is replicable by anyone, the latter is experienced by individuals alone. Thus it is possible that reincarnation and resurrection are BOTH true. It is also true that "annihilation" is equally valid: perhaps we get what we want or have coming to us?

What cannot ever be proven is that one faith-based paradigm is "the truth" and that all others are false; or that any of the faith-based paradigms are truth. Only individuals who believe in them can accept the metaphysical evidences for the "truth" that they believe in….

<as I have noted previously, there are some serious scientific laws to be overcome before any proposed evolutionary processes can be considered valid.>

PS, no you haven't.

Merely because some religious fanatics keep screaming 'I do not accept the evidence' does not mean it is not there or that it is not compelling.

No one without a strong religious agenda thinks there are 'serious scientific laws to overcome'. But please do feel free to go educate them about science at Harvard and Oxford.

Every time you proclaim your faith does not let you accept evolution you are eloquently proving that faith alone is NOT a good way of knowing what is and is not true.

TJ, Welcome back, we've missed you!

Could I refer you to my question back in February that you seem to have ignored:

This is interesting. Which spiritual/supernatural method would you use for measuring the existance/non-existance of the spiritual/supernatural TJ?

If science can't measure the spiritual/supernatural, which method do you suggest and how do you differentiate between reality (assuming we can agree on what "reality" is) and illusion/psychosis using that method?

Still waiting.

Bowman: I pray that your health is improving.

Thanks for that, TJ, I do appreciate it. Regardless of our differences of opinion, being ill or injured is no fun, and I'd not wish that on anyone. Hope you are feeling better as well.

Exactly how does Creationism better explain biodiversity?

I really must say that if you are posing such a question then you clearly misunderstand what creation and creationism proposes…..

You are half right. I don't know what Creationism proposes. Evolution on the other hand, DOES explain biodiversity. It is a legitimate question.

"There is no scientific evidence for God's existence" is to only show, loud and clear, that such a person truly doesn't understand the limitations of science and the scientific method.

I'm sorry, who is saying this?

On the other hand, science and the scientific method can certainly be used to determine if any proposed evolutionary mechanisms or processes are viable, and as I have noted previously, there are some serious scientific laws to be overcome before any proposed evolutionary processes can be considered valid.

So you say. What are the "scientific laws to overcome" before evolution is considered valid? The overwhelming consensus of biologists already consider evolution valid and the small handful that don"t disagree on religious reasons, not biological ones (see Behe). You are bringing up a strawman.

Since so many of its most basic steps/processes/mechanisms/etc proposed are only theoretical/unobservable/un-testable/un-proven/etc, then how can it be called "scientific" by any stretch of the imagination?

It is scientific because the first part of your premise is wrong.

Much faith is put in science and the scientific method. However, I wish to propose a question for discussion if I may:

What exactly is the evidence that science and the scientific method are the only way to show that something exists?

It is not I that keeps drifting off the question.

In fact, in all of these postings, I don't think anyone has even attempted to answer this basic question and try to justify that science and the scientific method are the ONLY way to show that something exists… I must ask, why?

I answered this Sept.20th, 2011. I believe others chimed in also.

Hope your convalescence continues.

"Only individuals who believe in them can accept the metaphysical evidences for the "truth" that they believe in…."

I'm curious as to what 'metaphysical evidence' is – or even what 'metaphysical' may be?

By this I mean: If you think of or sense something you do so physically, correct? Thoughts and/or feelings are physical things. A person who 'detects' (or is aware of) something does so on a physical level – what is the prompting/reason for assigning/theorizing a non-/meta-physical identity to that something?

Because weird things happen that cannot be laid down to physical explanations. When inexplicable events cause an individual to accept that the laws of physics can be circumvented, for instance, that individual has embarked upon the road of belief in greater forces than the laws of physics; and that those forces are possessed by greater intelligence than any physical species. Answers to prayer, direct and immediate, can also have this effect upon the individual: there is no way to explain such phenomena by scientific means. That is why I have asserted for years, that science is empirical, and therefore limited to that "realm" of study alone. The other "half" of existence is not empirical. The word "metaphysical" is my favorite single word to express what that other aspect of existence Is….

Gweirda, aren't you glad you asked?

"Because weird things happen that cannot be laid down to physical explanations."

'Laid down' by whom? Joe, the guy down the street?

"When inexplicable events cause an individual to accept that the laws of physics can be circumvented…"

Again: What sort of individual? A person steeped(brainwashed?) in the 'accepted' ideas/mythos of his/her upbringing? What makes something 'inexplicable'? It seems to me the obvious answer is ignorance: hardly a cornerstone upon which to build an argument, imo.

"…belief in greater forces than the laws of physics."

Such as…?

IMO, it all comes down to "something greater than us" -ie: not humans as mere accidental blips of cognizant life in a vast, uncaring universe, and our paltry ability to understand/describe said universe – which should come as absolutely no surprise to anyone who grasps the concept of 'vast, uncaring universe'.

So, it comes down to (again, imo): You aren't worth anything more than a human, just like me. That's a bitter (and undigestable) pill for many to swallow. For myself, it's a lifetime feast. Science (an invention of humans) makes that experience humbling and awe-inspiring and joyous. 'Metaphysical' ideas (another invention of humans) seem to bypass the humbling part, which make them (imo) suspect (ie: choose this…not because it's correct, but because you'll personally gain by it).

PS- Bowman: Sure I am…Questions are good! ; )

Prayers aren't answered. They've done double blind studies with prayers for the sick. In fact those prayed for had a slightly greater chance of poorer recovery.

Religeons have the ultimate get out clause
Prayed for – gets better = prayer works
Prayed for – doesn't get better = their god has a plan beyond the understanding of humans.

Ahhh LH, they only measured the PHYSICAL benefits of prayer. That ignores the metaphysical benefits to your soul. Or perhaps you get the benefits after you are dead. Science can't measure those things you know.

Or some other 'out' clause that proves we really do not 'get the point', and coincidentally leaves no measurable trace. You are a bigot and a fanatic for not believing in them you know.

Of course it all comes down to the individual: and also that is the problem for everybody else. I like to refer to the film "Contact", because Sagan was directly addressing this issue as the climax to the plot. No matter how many people were watching with all the scientific instruments possible, Dr. Arroway asserted that she had had "an experience". The rest of the world said "No, you didn't, all you did was fall for five seconds and get a smack on the head; we watched the whole thing." Etc.

Superstitious people abound, ironically in this day of rapidly increasing empirical tools of observation: superstitions are also on the increase everywhere. Prayer works. I know it from personal experience. Studies in hospitals notwithstanding, I know that individual prayer works, and my examples are the most homely kind. Group prayer, heh, I don't like group prayer; especially the scrutinized kind that is requesting a specific (demanded) outcome.

When something odd happens, the pragmatic individual will naturally, wisely, look for the least complex empirical explanation. When all possibilities are exhausted, the oddity remains unexplained: ignorance of a natural explanation remains, still, the inescapable dominant feature. Of course, if we KNOW what caused the phenomenon, then the "metaphysical" aspects disappear.

"Metaphysical" applies only to this world. Outside of our stay here, we continue as immortals: so there is really no such thing as "metaphysics" either; Existence is all one eternal round for "God" and everything deriving from the fact that "God" Is.

Of course, none of this is provable in this limited venue….

"Contact" isn't a good reference -there was empirical evidence supporting Dr.Arroway's claim. Her personal recording device didn't run for only 5 seconds, but for some number (18? iirc) of minutes.

"…ignorance of a natural explanation remains, still, the inescapable dominant feature."

Ignorance doesn't support the existence of anything 'metaphysical', though. Such a contention is predicated on the idea that humans play a central, defining role in explaining how the universe works -instead of simply being the accidental blips of inconsequential life that our limited observations indicate.

"Prayer works. I know it from personal experience."

No – according to your own admission you 'know it' only from ignorance and/or subjective perception.

"Outside of our stay here, we continue as immortals…"

Again: Saying such a thing only serves to gain importance for oneself, and for that reason is suspect.

Is there any other support/reason for proposing a metaphysical explanation for something other than personal greed? If not, I see no reason to consider it seriously as anything other than an attempt for selfish gain that carries with it the very real danger of harming the collective good (as when such ideas enter the public policy sphere).

"Contact" IS a good reference; because the "eighteen hours" of static recorded during her c. five seconds of drop could be explained as some kind of interference that corrupted the recorder; while the length of time of the recorded static was just a coincidence. That would be the scientific explanation, since any replication of the experience was impossible.

Is there any other support/reason for proposing a metaphysical explanation for something other than personal greed?

As our species is linked to self interest I fail to see how your denigrating of that into a nullity gets us anywhere. Everything is "personal greed". But that does not eliminate the reality of our 'satiable imaginations, which require explanation. If evolution is supposed to eliminate and retain those traits which augment survival, then there is no reason, no need, for imagination at all: in fact it is a distraction and quite often aids in getting one killed.

As religion has played a dominant role in getting us to where we are, it would seem to be "necessary" to our "collective good", despite the negative aspects resulting in violence from time to time.

Since "our kind of thinking" has only been around for a couple of hundred thousand years, and appears in the archaeological record all at once, there is an apparent disconnection between our species and all others. We've talked about this before to no resolution. Integral to our thought is our constant pondering of the metaphysical. Even in this unprecedented age of scientific tools of exploration we remain stumped to explain a constant parade of anecdotal events. You toss prayer because of ignorance; but the evident reality is some connection to the so called unseen world. Ignorance creates deities and "the force" or whathaveyou. But something is going on with "prayer", which is real but unknown. I surmise that we are the cause of something that "answers" prayers; even if it is only memories at the point of death, and we cannot differentiate the difference between the only time something occurred, and the "playback" version, which already knows what is coming, yet cannot/will not separate out the replay from the original event. However, even as I write this dismissal/explanation, I cannot explain something that I had no knowledge of, i.e. no way to answer my own prayer, because the answer lay outside of my purview.

It was a simple matter of lost keys. We had returned from a road trip late the evening before. I was due back to work in two days. I had one day remaining to unwind and do what I wanted. But when I went to start the car, my keys were missing. I went over every single spot where I could possibly have put them; where I had been since returning home and crashing in bed the night before: the possibilities, as you can surmise, were very limited. I was thoroughly stumped. Amidst my frustration my wife asked if I had prayed to find my keys. Of course not. But she was always praying for that sort of thing. We had numerous small "agents of entropy" in the house, and I just knew that one of them was responsible for losing my keys; I had asked them and received no joy. So in mounting anger I verbalized the shortest prayer I could, "Help me to find my keys". I got out of the car where I had been sitting with the driver's door open and one leg out and fuming. (I had my wife's keys, but knew that that was no solution; I was faced with the prospect of spending a chunk of my morning making duplicates, not unwinding while facing that robbery of my precious freed up time.) So, was I being selfish? Yes. But was my need great? It must have been, because when I got out of the car and walked into the back yard (where I had not been for the last two weeks), and stopped beneath my boys' bedroom window, and thought my black thoughts, I chanced to look down and caught the merest metallic glint between my shoes in the rank grass (it had not been mowed the whole time we were gone). I stooped and came up with my keys. If I had stopped one step either side of them they would have been invisible; and I would have "found" them the next day with the lawn mower, maybe. So it still seems to me that something/someone outside of myself was giving me what I asked for. That doesn't often happen, but I know it can and does happen. You are now welcome to explain how this story was possible. It surely is not something that you can "test" for….

sure, I'm bored…

"…our species is linked to self interest I fail to see how your denigrating of that…"

Poor choice of words on my part: 'greed' carries too much baggage, sorry. Self-interest in terms of survival is different than that used to simply boost one's own individual value.

"If evolution is supposed to eliminate and retain those traits which augment survival, then there is no reason, no need, for imagination at all…"

Sure…"If…" which it doesn't. If evolution is seen that way then it is not understood, and we're back to ignorance…

"Since "our kind of thinking" has only been around for a couple of hundred thousand years, and appears in the archaeological record all at once, there is an apparent disconnection between our species and all others. We've talked about this before to no resolution."

Again: the premise is based on ignorance/subjective perception – stating 'you can't convince me because I choose to remain unconvinced' is not a very compelling argument.

"Integral to our thought is our constant pondering of the metaphysical. Even in this unprecedented age of scientific tools of exploration we remain stumped to explain a constant parade of anecdotal events."

So? Again: What is it about the existence of humans (beyond a personal need to feel 'special' and to bend all analysis towards that end) supports a contention that our past/current/future ability to sense/understand/describe the universe in any way affects the nature of said universe?

"You are now welcome to explain how this story was possible."

Chestnuts. You place your own infallability ("I went over every single spot where I could possibly have put them…") on the side defending prayer, and against it you place the idea that you are not in any way 'special' because of your ability to imagine being immortal. Gee…I wonder which side you would pick? For myself, I choose the answer that doesn't make you a god, because I'm afraid that if I agree to that you may take it into your head to dictate how I must game aircombat… ; )

That doesn't often happen, but I know it can and does happen. You are now welcome to explain how this story was possible. It surely is not something that you can "test" for….

Coincidence. You happened to see them. Happens to me all the time.

and stopped beneath my boys' bedroom window

Possibly gives a clue as to how they got there.

It does; and one of them did hive off with my keys and drop them in the grass. But I did not know that; and within a few minutes of my asking to have my keys back, I had walked to the one place where they could be seen and saw them. "Coincidence" is certainly the scientific/pragmatic explanation, but it doesn't seem adequate to a life spent doing the "prayer thing" and having good results time and again. Something is going on connecting prayer to outcome. But what exactly it is remains the unanswered part. Any religious person will defend his/her mode of prayer: the object/concept being appealed to, worthiness, etc. I had a non religious friend do an experiment with prayer, just to see: and he positively convinced himself that there was something occurring that correlated between deliberately praying and outcome. "This really works" is how he put it. I have no idea what "form" his prayers took. Mine, these days, are a conscious acceptance that my thoughts are a continual communication with the Cause of my Existence. So I try and remain positive and hopeful of outcomes; never borrow trouble; expect everything to turn out well; and leave the rest to "God". I have noticed no change in the quality of my life, which I always before attributed to following a daily regimen of specific religious observances, including a form of prayer that I was taught as a child, etc. It is the intent of the heart that matters. "You can't pray a lie" as Huck Finn put it. Your desires will win out. "You get what you pray for", not what expressed phraseology you use. The whole of Existence is continually "praying": and that explains why things usually go along "swimmingly", and why things return to "normal" as rapidly and often as they do: all of Existence wants to be happy and so we expect to be happy and work for it, beginning with our feelings and expectations/hopes. Negative feeling is rare enough, and unsustainable except by the "clinically depressed". So "coincidence, happens to me all the time" does not really answer anything: but anticipation/expectation having an unseen effect upon outcome does explain something. I call it "prayer", whether you consciously bow on your knees and audibly give voice to your feelings to "God" or not; that part is immaterial….

The whole of Existence is continually "praying": and that explains why things usually go along "swimmingly", and why things return to "normal" as rapidly and often as they do: all of Existence wants to be happy and so we expect to be happy and work for it, beginning with our feelings and expectations/hopes.

And all because Doug found his dropped car keys!

Chestnuts. You place your own infallability ("I went over every single spot where I could possibly have put them…") on the side defending prayer, and against it you place the idea that you are not in any way 'special' because of your ability to imagine being immortal.

An organized person KNOWS where he keeps certain things. And it works for years without a hitch, until a little "agent of entropy" messes up the works. Then the places for the object being sought (keys) are no recourse. I had positively NOT been in the backyard. We had arrived home and crashed in bed; I had not as yet left the house when I first looked for my keys. After checking every possible, fallible way my keys could not be visible, I concluded that one my dear little "agents" had absconded with them: in which case it was practically hopeless that they would turn up anytime soon if at all. I was vexed under the described circumstance; which motivated me to conscious prayer, following my wife's example. It was the first time I had tried it "her way". And it worked, immediately. Yes one of my kids had gone outside either the evening before or that morning before I got out of bed; and s/he had dropped my keys in the grass. I did not know that, or think that the backyard was any more likely a spot to look as the front yard or a neighbor's yard, etc. And after praying I walked until I stopped and looked down and there the keys were. A very nice "coincidence" I still call it. Prayer has an effect, often an impressively direct effect. When you believe it, it happens far more often, or you see it happen, recognize it, and your belief is bolstered. Belief/faith is hugely powerful and is what makes prayer work….

And all because Doug found his dropped car keys!

"O thou of little faith". Yes, it did start then, which is perhaps a central point. Like my friend who tried it out and decided there was something to this prayer thing; I had my first time that convinced me, and I have believed ever since. The paradigm of belief has altered considerably over the recent years; but not the belief that my "keys" incident was more than mere coincidence. When you're onto something, and your belief system undergoes an alteration, the view of the earlier experiences alters according to the change in paradigm: you are wise to not toss out everything that has occurred in your life as of no account: you work to fit it all in, rather than assume that before your new "enlightenment" you didn't have a clue, ergo you can dismiss everything you thought that you knew. Nobody's education is that black and white: nobody is ever completely mistaken about everything. Once you learn a truth, or apparent truth, your previous "knowledge" must undergo an alteration; it does not require a complete dumping of earlier "facts"; just adjust the effects of the past to the causes that you now accept….

"O thou of little faith"

I'll take that as a compliment.

My convalescence continues. No fun getting old…

My convalescence continues. No fun getting old…

My best wishes for a speedy recovery. I may disagree with you, but I do wish you well.

No fun getting old……….

I'm with you there, TJ! Glad to hear you're recovering. Hope you feel better soon.

"No fun getting old…"

Agreed, but it sure beats the alternative! ; )

Get well.

Thoughts are with you TJ….hope you are getting better.

TJ, Now that you are convalescing to the point of being able to respond to the TMP, I wonder if you could take some time to respond to some of the questions put to you.

Question #1

When asked: "Exactly how does Creationism better explain biodiversity?" you dodged the question stating that I obviously didn't understand the nature of Creationism.

But if Creationism and it's offspring Intelligent Design are to be taken seriously as a scientific theory, it must explain the biodiversity of life forms. This is a legitimate question and a potentially large fail for any theory that cannot.

Question #2

You stated, "On the other hand, science and the scientific method can certainly be used to determine if any proposed evolutionary mechanisms or processes are viable, and as I have noted previously, there are some serious scientific laws to be overcome before any proposed evolutionary processes can be considered valid."

When asked, "What are the "scientific laws to overcome" before evolution is considered valid?", you have remained mute. As I stated before, the overwhelming consensus of biologists already consider evolution valid and the small handful that don"t disagree on religious reasons, not biological ones (see Behe).

Question #3

An new question. Let's assume that Darwin was totally wrong in his assessment of Natural Selection as the driving force for evolution. After all, he was working in an era before any understanding of the molecular basis of life.

Then at the start of the 20th century the field of genetics blew wide open (started with Mendel actually in the earlier century) and half way through that century DNA was discovered as the molecule that carried our genetic code (along with most everything else living on this planet).

So how come every new discovery in the fields of genetics and molecular biology seem to bolster Darwin's finding? How come there are no irreconcilable findings contradicting Natural Selection? How come that there are no molecular findings that point towards Intelligent Design or Creationism?

Sadly, Michael Behe's concept of Irreducible Complexity has been delegated to the dustbin of unsubstantiated ideas.

I do hope that you are feeling better. Care to consider these during your convalescence and get back to us?

But Existence IS irreducibly complex. We inhabit a "scale" laid down by the universe. Yet we do not know what we are a part of, or what parts in total make up the world: the "scale matters" remain theoretical, with a possibility that everything material is part of something larger, and comprised of things that are smaller, ad infinitum. So "irreducible complexity" seems very rational and inescapable to me.

I am not a creationist, but I am an IDer. From what I recall, I don't think that TJ is a bonafide creationist either: I think that he is a believer in evolution, but asserts that "God did it" that way. I hope that he returns to carry on a conversation with you too….

But Existence IS irreducibly complex.

Don't make up your own definitions, Doug. Irreducible Complexity means something very specific in context with evolution according to Behe. You are not on topic.

So "irreducible complexity" seems very rational and inescapable to me.

Given that you don't know what IC means, an odd comment methinks.

I don't think that TJ is a bonafide creationist either: I think that he is a believer in evolution,…..

You're wrong on that, too.

"…we do not know what we are a part of…"

bingo. Nor is there any reason/rationale to expect that we should.

If that is accepted, then why should any idea that places humans and their blip of time/space existence into the center of a theory of the universe (ie: I think, therefore the universe is intelligent) be taken seriously? Egocentric claptrap that only serves to build up/bolster the importance of the self is suspect on motive alone, much less the complete lack of objective theory.

I'm taking the term "irreducible complexity" to its infinite definition: that exceeds the discussion of any given evolutionary "object". I thought it proved the point better, because anyone ought to accept that evidence exists to show that "scale matters" are a part of existence, i.e. existence is infinitely bigger and smaller than "our scale", or the universe as we inhabit it.

I'll wait (probably for a long time) for TJ to weigh in on his views of organic evolution (again; but my recollection is that TJ accepts organic evolution as part of God's creative process). A creationist is not bound to reject evolution; but an evolutionist is probably going to reject creationism. At least the biblical model as literal fact.

There is nothing inferior in the rationality of assuming that I AM is the most important, central feature to Existence. The egocenter is all you can judge existence by. It is the same for all of us. That in itself is evidence for the reality of egocentric universes being the criterion for judging reality; not relying on what others assert that they can prove. You don't communicate with any of them/us anyway; all any of us can hope for is to ultimately accept that we are not alone; that existence is inhabited by infinite egocentric "universes" like our own; and that all egocentric (limited) universes are caused.

I have advanced the notion that "God" does this egocentric thing for whatever reason or complex of reasons; that makes you "God" and me "God" and the entire world "God", both in total and pieces-parts: because "God in total" Is existence in the first place. The concept does not require explaining or a cause anymore than the unarguable fact of existence.

Objective theory is so limited. It fails also on the dilemma of human subjectivity; we cannot escape our subjective reasoning; it "contaminates" everything we assert to be objectively deducing. Denying subjectivity is as feckless as denying partiality. Everyone begins a study into reason with partiality; i.e. a subjective paradigm that we prefer. To pursue its opposite, and call that objectivity, is merely perversity. Insistence beyond the denial that you are subjectively defining your existence, is mounting insanity.

Science is observed through objectivity, but interpreted through subjectivity….

Oh, and happy one year anniversary to this thread! :)

to celebrate…

YouTube link

LOL! I want the entire series. I remembered that one and use it from time to time….

I'm taking the term "irreducible complexity" to its infinite definition: that exceeds the discussion of any given evolutionary "object".

But that has nothing to do with Michael Behe's work, which is what I originally brought up. For your edification:

"By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. "

Darwin's Black Book, Micheal Behe,(p. 39)

However, feel free to start your own topic, if you will.

"If there is such a thing". Is he saying there is, or there isn't? I must be stupid: I don't see the progression in his logic: how could anyone point to the world as it is, and as the evidence shows that it was, and say that a part is missing if evolution is true? What "part" is Behe asserting is missing from biological evolution?…

Behe isn't saying that something is missing from biological evolution. He means complex biological systems are irreducible, if they cease to function when a component goes missing. Therefore, he asserts that irreducible complexity defies evolution.

He's not "pointing to the world". He is commenting on complex biological systems and their functions. Some examples would be the immune system, the clotting cascade, and the bacterial flagellum.

He makes sense. Doesn't mean he is right.

The entire point is that modern molecular biology provides a firm support for evolution and does NOT support ID or creationism. You would expect some genetic findings should contradict the biochemistry of the evolutionary process, if the theory was wrong. Hasn't happened yet. Biochemical "theories" that sought to undermine evolution, such as Behe's Irreducible Complexity have not withstood critical study.

But irreducible complexity has EVOLVED. The immune system of our species is more complex because we are more complex. A simpler progenitor would possess a less complex immune system. The immune system of a single organism is very simple. Once-upon-a-time all life was single cell organisms. No "parts" were missing; they just hadn't been "invented" yet. The universe seems to be set up to foster the rise of living things. Are any parts missing from the irreducible complexity of the universe? Of course not. Yet we are the "stuff of suns" (who said that?). Just because our species can study the world and show that today very complex organisms exist, where once they did not exist, does not mean that more complex organisms defy evolution. How does asserting that to be so make sense?…

You're missing the point

"The" point? There's only one point here? How (almost) pointless….

Not almost pointless……..totally pointless. Your comment of,

Just because our species can study the world and show that today very complex organisms exist, where once they did not exist, does not mean that more complex organisms defy evolution

indicates that you don't understand the Behe quote.

I must be stupid: I don't see the progression in his logic:………

"…I AM is the most important, central feature to Existence."

There you have it.

Irreducible Complexity – Just Google (other search engines available) the Pax 6 gene and you will realise what utter nonsense the whole "Irreducible Complexity" theory is.

As well as using the flagellum as an example of irreducible complexity, Dr Behe used the common spring trap mousetrap as a metaphor. There are four bits to this simple machine, and it is (seemingly) useless with just one, two or three. Hence it is logical to assume it was put together as a design by a designer.

He then showed the flagellum as an example of an irreducibly complex organism. Take one component away and it is (seemingly) not viable, so it is logical to assume it was put together as a design by a designer. The chances of it assembling itself out of so many parts are essentially zip – and any Darwinian Evolutionist would agree about those odds.

The next day the plaintiffs' legal team came to the trial wearing rather unusual tie-pins. They were made of two pieces from a mouse-trap; the base board and the spring. Useless as a mousetrap, but perfectly functional if unstylish tie clips.

This was a beautiful metaphor in itself because they were then able to show there were simpler organisms very closely resembling the flagellum – they just did not use the flagellum for propulsion. Rather the long whip-like tail was used as a syringe. Like the 1/2 mousetrap tie-clip, it turns out it was perfectly viable with parts missing – just with a different function.

To put it even more simply, they proved the supposedly irreducibly complex organism was reducible.

Doctor Behe's example simply collapsed at that point. The odd thing is, Doctor Behe must have been aware of these counter-examples long before Dover, but went ahead with his argument anyway.

<I AM the most important, central feature to Existence.>

Yes, that explains everything. If that were true, then the rest would make sense. I am in awe of the humility.

This thread is puny, my darwin day thread got like 18 or more pages.

All hail the mighty darwin day thread!!

You are too modest: the Darwin Day thread is THIRTY (30) pages bigger.

I would like anyone to be able to show anyone else, that s/he is not the biggest (most important/central) thing in existence. That would be fun(ny) to watch….

I would like anyone to be able to show anyone else, that s/he is not the biggest (most important/central) thing in existence. That would be fun(ny) to watch….

Logical fallacy alert! You can't prove a negative. You can't prove something that is not.

Doug, you can't prove that invisible purple Space Pixies don't exist. That doesn't make them real.

Whatisit,

You are completely correct. In fact, that amusing anecdote of the Mouse Trap Tie Clip was originated by one of my personal heroes, Dr. Kenneth Miller of Brown University. His book, "Only a Theory", goes into more detail attacking Behe's concept. That why I stated, "……Irreducible Complexity has been delegated to the dustbin of unsubstantiated ideas."

The mouse trap to Michael Behe ended up what the banana was to
Ray Comfort.

YouTube link

My problem with Doug was that he didn't grasp Behe's idea in the first place to know why it was wrong.