The Great Debate, Part I: Miller & Pennock vs. Dembski & Behe
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 сен 2024
- The scene: the American Museum of Natural History. The topic: "Blind evolution or Intelligent Design". Introduction by Richard Milner. The moderator: Genie Scott. In this first part, Dembski, Pennock, and Miller debate. Event date: 4/23/2002
The universe does not owe us answers. There are things about the natural world that we may never known. If science has yet to understand something, that does NOT mean that your religion or superstition somehow wins by default. Which is exactly the premise of creationism, including its most richly pseudoscientific iteration known as 'intelligent design'.
Those who support evolutionism and atheism too often try to paint a stereotype of creationists as being low I.Q. science illiterates. Such people are smugly sure that THEY ain't religious. (Like me in the past when I called myself an atheist.) But they are. Profoundly so. Why? Because they have great...faith...in what is never seen and is even what is impossible. Yet they flatter themselves that they are way smart, and all about science, while feeling sure that creationists have nothing but an Imaginary Friend.
.
Let's look at just a few of the imaginary friends and myths from evolutionism and atheism.
.
First there is the belief in the imaginary time fairy friend. Evolutionists promote the idea that life can come from inorganic matter. (And don't say they do not. It's easily found all over Google and on YT. Who came up with the mythical primal pond theory? Creationists?) When it is pointed out that life only comes from life and life of the same kind they respond "Well, with enough tiiiiime, anything can happen. We have...faith...therefore, that things happened differently in the conveniently unverifiable past."
.
They have faith, too, in their imaginary crystal ball friend that sees into the unverifiable past. For ex. they will pick up a fossil from a rock and tell you what happened to its invisible and evidenceless descendants for over 100 million Darwin years. They also talk about "missing" links, more of their imaginary friends. Don't bother to ask how you tell missing links from never existed links. They have...faith...that they are just "missing."
.
Next we see the imaginary Geologic Column friend that "supports" evolution. The real evidence shows the fossils are jumbled. Giant shark fossils are found with dino fossils in Montana, for ex. Whales' fossils are found in wildly improbable places like the Andes mountains, the Sahara and a desert in Chili. Deep sea "Cambrian" fossils are found at every level on the planet, including on most mountain tops, as with the world's highest, the Himalayans. Take a look.
www.bing.com/images/search?q=trilobites+on+mountain+tops&qpvt=trilobites+on+mountain+tops&qpvt=trilobites+on+mountain+tops&qpvt=trilobites+on+mountain+tops&FORM=IGRE
.
Those are the fossils of extinct, ocean bottom dwelling, trilobites. They, and other marine fossils found with them, are often in stunningly well preserved, and beautifully detailed, condition. We are told "plate tectonics" moved those deep sea creatures, for a millions of years trek, all over the world, in unbroken, vast sheets of concrete in the billions onto the world's mountain heights in such great shape. That's fine.... If you don't believe in erosion and admit you believe in miracles!
.
"Cambrian" fossils, like those trilobites, are found in the hills of mid America and countless other places on the planet, high and far, inland. Now why do we see evidence of sea life all over the planet at every level? And, how did all that sea water get everywhere? Hmmmm....
And btw, oceans don't, and can't, create fossils. Fossils are created when life forms are rapidly buried - so that animals can't eat them and natural forces can't erode them and the chemistry of fossilization can take place. There are no fossils anywhere in the oceans, or even after such things as local floods and tsunamis. Yet the great majority of fossils found on land are marine.
.
Next, there is the imaginary Family-changing fairy friend. Put a Species of any Genus of fish, bird, lizard, tree, bacteria, whatever, under your Darwinian pillow. Voila! Over an evolutionary "night" it will change into the next step up in the Animal or Plant Kingdom, i.e. a different Family. However, in the real world of trillions of life forms, and throughout recorded history, eagles stay eagles, bullfrogs stay bullfrogs, tulips stay tulips, eboli bacteria stay eboli bacteria, chimps stay chimps, fish stay fish, and of course people stay people, no matter how much they change.
.
We never, ever, see any evidence of a life form transitioning from one Family to another. Since all the evidence shows that never happens all around us with life forms, you just have to have... faith ... that it somehow happened differently in the unverifiable realm of the ancient and conveniently invisible past.
.
With no evidence of any Family transitioning to be another kind of Family, there is no evidence for evolution. (Not to mention never seeing any transitions from any Order, Class, Phylum or Kingdom.) It's just that simple.
.
Then there is the supremely imaginary god-friend of nothingness. Richard Dawkins and others tell us that everything came from nothing. This defies the laws of thermodynamics and physics, not to mention common sense. But their imaginary friend, the nothingness god, sells big time to those who want to believe they can be their own, puny, little gods.
.
Are you willing to take a serious and open minded look outside the box? If nothing else you can hear what the creationists are really saying, not the spin about what they are saying.
.
On this webpage you can see Nobel Prize winning scientists, other secular scientists - including some world famous evolutionists - admitting there is no evidence for evolution. You can see them calling evolution a kind of religion, something that leads to "anti knowledge", etc. Notice how many of these secular scientists acknowledge evidence for a Creator. freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1435562/posts
.
Are you aware that more and more blood cells, blood vessels and soft stretchy materials are being found in dino bones? Forensic science and common sense tell us such things could not last for more than a few thousand years. Go to Genesispark to see ancient art depictions of dinos from around the world. My fave is the stegosaurus carved on a 1,000 year old Cambodian temple. That site has lots of info on soft tissues and blood cells being found in dino bones, and historical reports of dino type creatures, including some from the famous historian Herodotus and from Alexander the Great. All information is gleaned from secular sources. www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/ancient/dinosaur/
.
See Don Patton's The Fossil Record and many others. In this link he uses the fossil record to place evolutionary and creation predictions side by side. You can see for yourself what the real record of the rocks shows: .ruclips.net/video/6qp3oNIRb90/видео.html
.
Thomas Kindell's vids are great, especially Thermodynamic Evidence For Creation where in the first 10 min. you hear quotes from well known evolutionists like "Evolution is unproven and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation and that is unthinkable." ruclips.net/video/I1yto0-z2bQ/видео.html
.
Wazooloo vids, particularly The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution and So Ya Think Yer A Chimp, and the DNA ones, are full of scientific fact presented in an often humorous way.
ruclips.net/video/mjQtqg3yyjk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/9ZHrcy8l9cU/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/QyRiqOFiOH8/видео.html
.
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed shows the politics of Neo Darwinism which harasses and expels those in academia and the media who even hint that there MIGHT be evidence for a Creator. ruclips.net/video/4HErmp5Pzqw/видео.html
.
Physicist Dr. Russell Humphreys gives scientific evidences for why people believe in a young, yes young, earth. Check it out and see: ruclips.net/video/tX9eDTNfQHY/видео.html Part 1 And regarding the speed of light "problem", there are many unproven assumptions about light. It was always assumed, for instance, that the speed of light was constant. Since last century, various secular scientists have been saying it is slowing down. However, here is another perspective. We have found that space, as in outer space, is stretchy. Several times in the Bible we are told that the Almighty stretched out the Heavens. This would mean the light from stars got stretched out, too, thus creating a false impression of distant time for light travel.
.
Answersingenesis.org covers just about everything
.
You are not a goo through the zoo ape update. You were created in the image and likeness of the Almighty Creator Who loves you. Why are you trading in those astounding truths of who you are for pseudoscience fairy tales and imaginary friends? Rhetorical Q.
The debate starts at 13:30
I cannot stand "debates" like these. Intelligent Design does not deserve to be taken seriously. We should either laugh at them or start inviting the Scientologists and Odinists to the debates and taking them just as seriously.
it's not fair to say "evolutionists explanations using unknown mechanisms in unknown was is destined to fail" because as of yet these explanations are the only ones that can succeed, and the only ones that can fail. intelligent design, as of yet can't fail or succeed because it has no parameters for success or failure. this is called "the god of the gaps" more commonly known as "nobody knows".
+Chad Hinterman As is usual in evo. defense, the exact opposite is true in what is said. It is the evolutionist who say "Nobody knows." Where did life come from? Nobody knows. Where did the universe come from? Nobody knows. Where are those 3 million years worth of "missing" links between us and Lucy or some other transition du jour? Nobody knows. Then comes the faith, the religious part: We don't know, but have faith brothers, we will find out some day! The evo. fans have the god of the gaps. In the meantime creation science looks at the actual data, the real evidence that true science requires. We see irrefutable examples of intelligent design from the cell on up. We see that the so called Geologic Column is a scam and nonexistent and that the actual fossil record shows things like so called Cambrian seashells on mountain tops, dino bones in western states' mountains, etc. etc. We look at the real data. We never say nobody knows, either, because we know there is One Who always knows all.You make it clear that you are just believing what you have been indoctrinated into with your comments about creationism. You are so sure that evolution is true that you suppose you don't have to actually do critical thinking and use your own mind, much less seriously and studiously look outside the matrix of deception that you are currently living in.
***** you are wrong "nobody knows" doesn't refer to anything specific like creation or evolution it means "nobody knows".
With that cleared up I don't think creation will be true, call it indoctrinated but it's no different than your opinions that you just forced upon me. If you think it's creation great, until you prove it beyond doubt to the supposedly indoctrinated, it's still hypothesis. What do you think science has "hypothesis" nobody is pretending they know. I don't have faith it's natural I see no other way to prove one way or the other without studying natural, if God did it fine but unless he tells me how he did it God is irrelevant when studying nature. I don't care what you or God think about my way of thinking.
"Archaeopteryx has been classified as a full bird,"
The creatards can call it what they like. But the fact is:
it shares the following features with the deinonychosaurs (dromaeosaurs and troodontids): jaws with sharp teeth, three fingers with claws, a long bony tail, hyperextensible second toes ("killing claw"), feathers (which also suggest homeothermy), and various skeletal features.
How has your comment been here for 8 years and NO ONE like it? It's brilliant!
Here's how I heard this maddening "debate":
Scientist asks a convergently demanding question and
Dembski, philosopher, dances divergently backwards from a clean, scientifically lean answer.
I used to come to videos like this to debate creationists- err I mean intelligent design proponents- err I
mean those that wish to teach the controversy (not sure what they call themselves these days to cover up the fact that they’re Christians with an agenda.)
Then I went back to school to study biology. I no longer had the desire to debate something this is not being debated whatsoever in my field of study. It truly became as if I was debating a toddler on 1+1. I can teach you why 1+1 doesn’t equal God, but I will not engage in a debate about the answer. (The answer is 2. There is no controversy, just like with evolution)
I don't consider myself part of the ID paradigm, but you said there is no controversy when there is indeed controversy, you given that there's an actual debate with scientists on both sides, and many books written on the issue. I'm not saying evolution isn't real just because there are people opposing it, I'm simply stating that it's not so crystal clear, and there are a lot of "we don't know" moments from evolutionists.
Just because there is much discussion at university about the subject doesn't mean it's true, it just means it's been normalized.
So if you believe in ID you are a Creationist and have a bias. But if you believe in evolution you doesn't matter if you are an atheist you don't have a bias at all.
I start to see why Dembski refused to testify under oath in the Dover trial. This kind of non-answers are in line with those that will send you to jail for contempt of court.
My father-in-law was a lawyer. He had a great saying about courtrooms and trials, "It'll all come out in the wash".
He was right. A good lawyer will never allow a witness for the other side to waffle, duck, dodge or evade. In a debate, one can do all of those things with impunity. In a courtroom, under oath, the witness can get cross-examined until the truth comes out.
Judges will not allow waffling, ducking and dodging. A witness is supposed to tell the truth and efforts at dodging are immediately frowned upon.
"Answer the question" is the most common thing you'll hear a judge say during a trial. If the question isn't answered, it's followed by, "or I'll hold you in contempt of court", which usually means jail time.
Yes...Dembski didn't testify for very good reasons.
Herbal Life 420 I understand ID theory. I've read up on it, seen various ID videos put out by Dembski, Meyer and Behe and I've read some of the books. I understand ID theory.
I also understand homeopathy, Scientology theology, astrology, communism, 'trickle-down' economics, iris diagnosis and Deepak Chopra's _quantum consciousness._ Understanding is one thing. Accepting all of that bullshit is quite another. *I have always had a serious problem with those who assert that to undestand something is to accept that something.* I find that very weird and also very chilling. I understand all of the above and reject them as pseudoscientific, mumbo-jumbo woo-woo.
ID theory is simply re-branded theology. Dembski himself has acknowledged that may times. All the following quotes are from Dembski himself.
_"As a biblical inerrantist, I believe that what the Bible teaches is true and bow to the text, including its teaching about the Flood and its universality."_
_"Intelligent design is a modest position theologically and philosophically. It attributes the complexity and diversity of life to intelligence, but does not identify that intelligence with the God of any religious faith or philosophical system."_
_"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."_
_"My thesis is that all disciplines find their completion in Christ and cannot be properly understood apart from Christ.
_"Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners do not have a clue about him."_
_"The question rather is how we should do science and theology in light of the impending collapse of Enlightenment rationalism and scientific naturalism. These ideologies are on the way out. They are on the way out."_
_"If we take seriously the word-flesh Christology of Chalcedon (i.e., the doctrine that Christ is fully human and fully divine) and view Christ as the telos toward which God is drawing the whole of creation, then any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient."_
Dembski makes no appology for his religious (supernatural) underpinnings of ID theory.
The reality of the situation is that *science is the search for natural mechanisms to explain the real world.* Science does not accept supernatural explanations. That is the purview of religion and theology. Science only deals with the natural world. That's why every governing body of science on the planet has denounced ID as pseudoscience.
The _Kitzmiller vs. Dover_ trial was about whether ID is real science or merely re-branded religion. It was not about whether or not ID is true. The court took no position on whether or not ID is factual. It did take a position, based on expert testimony as to whether ID is science or not. It ruled (based on expert testimony) that *ID most certainly isn't science.*
So, Dembski answers ever question given to him, "pretty damn succinctly" does he?
_"His lectures have been met with criticism: a presentation he made to the University of Oklahoma was funded by Trinity Baptist Church in Norman, Oklahoma, as a "gospel investment" but university faculty instructors criticised Dembski's presentation as half-hearted, lackluster, containing numerous errors and distortions, lacking positive evidence for intelligent design, _*_and for evading questions_*_."_
- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski
As for the Scopes trial, I do get it. It was a farce, cooked up to bring attention to two things: the sleepy town of Dayton Tennessee and the asinine nature of _The Butler Act._ (Okay... and also two very publicity-wise lawyers named Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan.)
John Scopes, who never really thought he had taught evolution agreed to admit that he had in order to have a defendent. Bryan got to preach creationism in court, Darrow got to show Bryan as the blow-hard he was, Scopes got found guilty of contravening _The Butler Act_ (go figure) and said _Butler Act_ was shown to be the ass that it was.
Dayton Tennessee became the focus of the world, thanks to a brilliant PR campaign that the press lapped up, everyone was happy and Scopes was soon let off on a technicality, thus relieving him of his $100 dollar fine.
I understand the Scopes trial.
Herbal Life 420
Dembski refused top testify under oath in the Dover Trial, as did all the others from the Discovery institute.
Dembski's statistical analysis is plain rubbish and have been shown as that already. Dembski makes basic mistakes, such as confusing probability with complexity and stupidly tries to obtain probability of chemical reactions without knowing the rate-constants and concentration of the species. He constantly mischaracterize evolution (and he knows the right definitions of it, which means he lies)
ncse.com/rncse/27/3-4/has-natural-selection-been-refuted-arguments-william-dembski
whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/debmski-pwned-ant-trails-and-intelligent-design/
I keep my comments to a minimum on
this channel. Please excuse my English (although I studied at English
Universities): ...and, I have posted this before.
I’m assuming you accept some sort of
big-bang theory and a Darwinian explanation for human existence? I am assuming
this, as without a Creator, you must adhere to some naturalistic (non-God)
explanation for the universe, how life came into existence, and how we came to
be.
Most assume and conflate the fact
that since someone is contradicting and challenging the big-bang and Darwinian
explanations for life, that I am proposing an alternate explanation-I am
not. Please do not set up a straw man
and knock it down.
A couple things to begin with: the
big-bang (and, since that theory didn’t work, the myriad of others,
singularity, multiverse, eternal inflation etc.) all violate the 1st
and 2nd Laws of thermodynamics-you cannot get around that fact.
Briefly stated, “The first law, also known as Law of Conservation
of Energy, states that energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated
system. The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of any
isolated system always increases.” In
summary, the big-bang (where did the “singularity come from?”) and all theories
state that matter was, at some point, created from nothing. Whether you believe that science has worked
this out (and, if you do ANY research on the subject, they absolutely have
not), that still doesn’t get around the second huge problem-that instead of
going into an increased state of entropy/disorder-the universe did the exact
opposite!
If these problems are not enough,
you have the origin of life. For a
completely naturalistic explanation of life, you MUST have an explanation of
its origins. A side-note-darwinists
always say that “evolution doesn’t refer to origins!” That is very convenient,
very unscientific, and tantamount to saying” goddidit or the magic wand theory
of life’s origins. Here are some facts:
Harold Morowitz, a distinguished Yale biophysicist and former master of Pierson
College, wrote inhis book, “Energy Flow in Biology”, that the evolution of the
theoretically simplest cell, requiring no less than about 124 proteins, would
be an incredible probability of 1 to 10 raised to the 340,000,000th power (1
with340,000,000 zeros after it!) (Morowitz, H.J., Energy Flow in Biology,
Academic Press, New York, 1968, p.99).
Further, you have Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe (atheist
mathematicians) that calculated DNA arising from random processes at 1 in 10 to
the 40,000 power. Scientists consider
any event with a probability than 1 in 10 to the 80th power as operationally
impossible. If we use this criterion, we can therefore judge that the theory
that life can evolve from non-life through evolutionary processes is
operationally impossible.
A few more insurmountable problems
with evolution: There is no fossil record/evidence of transitional species;
millions, upon millions should exist.
Dr. Stephen Jay Gould on Transitional Forms “The extreme rarity of transitional formsin the fossil
record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees
that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips…” Then you have the problem that all parts of
the cell need to be extant to have an operational (living and replicating)
organism: nucleus, DNA, mitochondria, ribosome(s) (read that: protein
synthesis); cell membrane, etc. etc.
Therefore, you may have anticipated my point-all extant parts would have
needed to “co-evolved,” and have no functionality outside the cell. DNA must have been concurrently present, as
the cell cannot replicate without it.
You have a protein "needs" other proteins problem and the
proteins that are involved in protein synthesis are needed to for DNA, mRNA,
and tRNA, so it's chicken/egg insurmountable problem. Then you have the problem
with genetic entropy. (and, these represent only a fraction of the problems
with big-bang/darwinism).
What is the bottom line? One must infer to the best explanation of
origins. When I see a laptop computer, I
do not infer “that appeared by random processes.” When I see and understand (to
my limited education and ability) the functioning and existence of the cell, I
assume/infer that there is a vast intelligence involved. I hope that is a good
explanation.
Answer this:
One simple question the darwinists cant answer: even if two, lets say, amino acids did get together and formed a successful combination, there should have been a system already in place to record this combination and replicate it. Otherwise this successful combination would have no continuity. Here comes the question: what was this system and where would such system come from? With darwinian rational this question is impossible to answer and yet answering this question is absolutely essential. The rest is demagoguery. Darwiniststs, good luck in answering it. 🙈😁
It is a bit funny that Pennock nails Dembski on the age of the earth, in that Dembski wouldn't admit that ID gives room for the creationist view of the age and the flood.
"...the universe could have been created by some kind of life form."
Sure; anything's possible. But that really doesn't get us anywhere, because we'd still have to explain the creator. It does us no good to replace one mystery with another, larger mystery.
I was there! It was great, and Dr. Miller signed a book for me. I'm so glad to see that this video has been posted.
Although I obviously disagree with Dembski's conclusions, I have to say Pennock's approach really bothers me. It seems very similar to the tactics used by Ray Comfort, Eric Hovind, etc. These issues are fairly complicated, and it's important to define the words you are using in context. You can't simply keep repeating the same oversimplified yes/no question and laugh at your opponent's inability to circumvent the limitations of language.
Exactly my reaction. pressing your opponent to make a yes/no answer is childish. I immediately thought that this guy employs similar tactics to Kent Hovind. Whatever happened to the pursuit of truth?
I want to hear Dembski answer the question, "What practical benefit to humanity do you see coming from ID theory?" In order to progress, we have to deal with the natural causes of events. How does ID propose to further our understanding of the world we see around us?
Seems like a random question. Are you suggesting all scientific endeavor ought to have a clear benefit to humanity? An awful lot of research does not.
But to answer your question - simply opening the door expands the range of possible explanations for what we observe.
By the same token, what good is there in taking any scientific theory, for instance evolution, as proven?
@@deanodebo Isn't all biology, medicine, research, based on the *idea* that evolution *might* be the truer than other explanations? I never said anything about assuming any theory as proven. Anyone who thinks in those terms doesn't appear to understand how science works.
And yes, scientific endeavor should be of benefit to life on Earth.
@@boohahahoo
Ok so you’ve “evolved” from “benefit to humanity” to “benefit to life on earth”.
Why the change?
What’s your justification for what science “should” be good for? Are you adding some sort of ethical or metaphysical obligation to the scientific method?
I’m interested in understanding.
So for instance, if I want to research the statistical average number of whiskers on male lions, do I need some sort of benefit to life on earth to be my ultimate aim? Isn’t an interest enough? Like simple curiosity without a grand purpose?
Regarding evolution, one need not take a position to do scientific research. It is after all a provisional theory subject to being falsified and superseded potentially at a later date.
Shouldn’t some scientists doubt evolution?
Science is great for material issues. Science is shitty for non material issues!!
What does truth have to do with benefiting humans? But I can give one example that's beneficial. It can lead people to God and give then objective meaning and purpose to their life and they can have a loving relationship with God and be reconciled to him through Jesus Christ, instead of thinking they are a random accident with no objective meaning and purpose. It can help bring people out of depression and nihilism and give people hope, joy, and peace!
This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedivere! Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.
He's actually complaining that evolutionary biology is limited to material mechanisms, you know, like ALL SCIENCE. And then he suggests that there can be empirical evidence for non-material mechanisms.
And this is how we know that Intelligent Design theory is not science.
Judge Jones on ID/Creationism proponents, "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy." Quoted from his United States District Court ruling. In federal court Judge Jones called the defendants (ID/Creationist supporters) liars! That should tell one quite a lot about creationism's place in science.
nice try, nice try hiding behind attacks and myths.
are you talking dr miller who had haeckels fraudulent charts in his school text as late as 2000?
the many fossils that were frauds
the miller/ uray failed experiments where the building blocks create had to be removed and separated or they would have been destroyed.
98% junk dna that proved dawinizm before the 2013 charting and the no junk dna that proved dawinizm after...(youtube vid: dawkins hypocrisy - on junk dna)
boyofGod81 Lying is fine if it's for Jesus, is that right? Do some honest research and you will discover for yourself. Go at it like you were going to use scientific principles to "prove" your stance. Have a go at it and see what you discover.
Herbal Life 420 A lie by omission is still a lie. The Urey, Miller experiments successfully created amino acids and the precursor chemistry of life in the lab and successive, updated experiments have done so too with better results. Lets call that lie trough omission 1. Fossil frauds? Who discovered they were frauds? Other scientists did. Not Biblical scholars, not religious fundamentalists or apologists. Also, that says nothing of the millions (yeah, millions!) of genuine fossils. Lets call that lie through omission 2.
So if by 'weren't lying', you mean 'were totally lying', then yeah, I can agree with that. You may want to put the hash pipe down once in a while and do some honest research too, so there's that as well.
hi InformationIsTheEdge , it will be nice debating with someone who must believe in absolute truth by your reply. God's best
boyofGod81 You'll have to take another run at that. I couldn't quite catch your meaning. The brevity really hampered the meaning.
I want to commend the American Museum of Natural History for hosting the debate rather than pretending that it doesn't exist.
Dembski was on fire here. Well done.
Miller flubbed his presentation when he introduced his wife as an intelligent mind designer who is an artist reflecting upon what she will create. Just forked over to ID an easy victory.
You have to love "specified complexity". What does that mean?
Maybe I'm wrong but it seems Dembski is saying that if he can show that somehing in biology is too complex for it to have arisen through evolution, then he has a case for intelligent design. I believe another term for this, or something similar, is irreducible complexity.
ID theorists give examples such as the eye, the immune system, the blood clotting protein cascade and bacterial flagella as examples of biological entities that could not have arisen by natural selection. Why they propose these examples and not such things as human hair, the appendix and the reason behind almost half a million different species of beetles is interesting.
My guess is that they believe evolutionary biologists, entymologists and haematologists will never work out the entire sequence of the evolutionary changes that finally arived at these complex biological systems.
What's interesting is that as science keeps reaching various specific goals in demonstrating natural mechanisms, ID types will say, "Okay, perhaps this isn't specified complexity but that still is".
When that is shown by science to be explained by natural means, the ID types come back with, "Okay, maybe that isn't specified complexity but the next thing still is".
Do I detect an "Intelligent Designer of the Gaps" plea? Dembski will say (and has), "No, because you haven't come close to explaining this to my level of satisfaction".
Note to Dembski; science doesn't exist to reach your level of satisfaction. That's what intelligent design was invented to do.
My 2 cents on irreducible complexity and a different way of looking at the bacterial flagellum. First, the evidence for creationism is irreducible complexity. Let's say someone, even a child, sees a pyramid for the first time, not just in Egypt but anywhere around the world. No one has to tell him or her that it was intelligently designed. No one is going to think all that complexity came about by random processes of nature. Ditto so many archaeological artifacts.
.
Irreducible complexity is seen at every level in life forms, too. I will give my favorite example. Cell biologist Michael Behe spoke of the i.c. of the bacterial flagellum and supposedly that got debunked biochemist by Ken Miller. No, it didn't. Behe's argument got misrepresented and the misrepresentation was attacked, i.e. a classic straw man logical fallacy move was done on it. But I prefer to look at another part of the bacterial flagellum anyway.
.
Google a picture of the b.f. and its motor and whip. Now if the b.f doesn't move, it doesn't do its job and is useless. It isn't going to move anywhere until both the motor, and whip on the motor, are completely formed and attached together. Now, while those 2 parts are just "evolving" nubs and stubs, what good are they? What "co option" purposes could they serve? If you can't even imagine the answer to that, how is "evolution" going to make it happen? Why and how would evolution keep those two, partial and incomplete, parts in limbo for eons until they are complete and connected and ready to go? Well, it's not going to happen. There is zero evidence it ever happened, too, of course. In fact, there is zero evidence the b.f. has ever been anything but exactly what it is right now.
.
Back to the "debunk" of the i.c. of the b.f. as described by Behe. It is the usual in evolutionary defense. There is no observable, supporting, data whatsoever, only theories piled on speculations that are presented as facts. For ex. they say that some simpler organism "evolved"into the b.f. Where is the evidence for that, or for any organism, including the b.f., ever being anything but what it is presently? They could have used the scientific method and taken a part away from the b.f. and then watched to see if it could still function. They didn't. Funny about that.
.
If you, with intelligence, can't figure out how to make those "evolving" stubs and nubs of a whip and motor on the b.f. be anything but pointless and useless, how are random acts of nature going to do it? If you, with intelligence, can't even make up a diagram - not to mention show any data - for coordinated ever "evolving" reproductive systems between male and female parts of animals all over the planet, how is mindless nature going to do it?
.
But if you think it can happen, great. Give the details. Give any fossil or current life form evidence anywhere. Not theories about the unverifiable past, now, but actual observvable data.
.
And while we are at it, let's think of all those male and female animals that reportedly "evolved" into different families, classes, orders and phyla. Now, while the males are making their changes in their reproductive systems during those "transitions" what kinds of miracles would it take for the females to continuously make exactly coordinated, and synchronized, matching, and compatible, changes in their own systems, in a totally other body that has no way of knowing what is going on in the male body? Over and over. With vast numbers of animals?
.
Now we'ere not talking about synchronized changes in just, say, sperm and eggs, but the essential and related changes also required for things like muscles, nerves, hormones, etc. etc. etc. And of course, with billions and billions of fossils and trillions of living animals around us, we see no example whatsoever for any such coordinated changes. In fact, we never even see any species moving into a new family, order, class or phyla. Or if any of that is wrong, cite your data.
.
Evolutionism is a tragicomedy. It is all based on theories piled on hypotheses, which are heaped on speculation and loaded with logical fallacies like Correlation Does Not Imply Causation and Presuming Omniscience. That package is then presented as gawd's truth scientific fact.
.
Anyone: Who designed that b.f. with its whip and motor and other irreducibly complex, interdependent, parts? How tiny it is. How magnificently...DESIGNED. Like you, my friend, lovingly designed by your Heavenly Father. Get to know Him, and real science - which He designed, too.
Why would they appoint a "full - time, professional anti-Creationist, who has BATTLED Intelligent Design in many fora" to be a MODERATOR in a debate involving the same Intelligent Design advocates that she's been 'BATTLING' for years?
IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
Because there's not much to moderate?
A debate moderator will generally tend to be on one side of the argument or the other. I don't imagine it would be easy to always find someone who is completely dispassionate about any given topic. As long as that moderator is unbiased in directing the proceedings and enforcing the rules, which she was, I don't see a problem.
Because the pro-science side can be trusted to be honest, objective, and even-handed in their treatment of the subject. Creationists are by definition dishonest, and consider it a virtue to dismiss all arguments that discredit their fairy tales. If a science supporter went back in time to 4004 BCE and witnessed the Abrahamic deity creating the universe before his eyes, he'd change his views. If a creationist went back to the same time and saw an already ancient planet, inhabited by millions of humans with well established stone- and bronze age cultures, he would tell himself it was just a trick of the Devil. This is why no rational person would trust one of their lot to moderate a debate. Whereas creationists can rest assured that a pro-science moderator will be more than fair, and will allow their 'evidence' (such as it is) to get a fair hearing.
Let's talk population dynamics, since you mentioned it. Today, there are 7 billion humans in the world. At a rate of population growth of 1.6%, the first two humans would have lived around 4000 BC. If you projected that humans were alive 100,000 years ago, at the same growth rate, we would have trillions of humans alive today. DO THE MATH.
The Pharoah Notice you give no scientific support for what you claim. I have found this to be very typical of evolution supporters on YT. They make insulting comments,and they pop out evolution sound bites like "DNA! Transitional forms!" but that's as far as it goes. They rarely try to actually provide observable data or to refute any that has been presented.
There is a fast and easy way for you to convince me that evolution happens, though. You only have to use 1 or 2 sentences to do that. Just provide the information I request below.
.
First, we are told that the two forces behind evolution are natural selection and "beneficial" mutations. So fine. Name a life form. Then name an act of natural selection, or a mutation, that you can demonstrate is causing the life form to "evolve" as the result of either of those.
.
Now remember that the poster kids for evolution are things like antibiotic resistant and nylon eating bacteria, snowflake yeast, some geckos, spotted salamanders, walking stick bugs, lizards, fruit flies, peppered moths, sickle cell anemia victims and lactose intolerant people. The problem is - and this is always true in evolutionary claims - the so called proof proves the exact opposite of what is claimed.
.
The bacteria, yeast, geckos, salamanders, walking stick bugs, fruit flies, peppered moths, and people - and all their descendants - are staying nothing but bacteria, yeast, geckos, salamanders, walking stick bugs, lizards, fruit flies, peppered moths, and homo sapiens. Or, if that is not true, what are they "evolving" into that is not in those categories? Cite your data.
.
No one ever gives the data asked for, however. They may change the subject, or make excuses. They may try to pass the buck and tell me "Your answers are out there on the net. Somewhere." At the same time they don't show that they, themsleves, have done any research at all on the topic. They may put down a glut of words, but none of those words ever names the life form, or the act of natural selection or beneficial mutation, that I asked for.
.
Now, there are countless life forms out there. The vast bulk of them are microscopic ones that multiply at rocket rates. Further, we are told that evolution is going on all the time. Surely, if evolution is true, you ought to be able to find just one life form, as requested, and offer your evidence that natural selection or a mutation is causing it to evolve?
.
Real science requires real evidence. When we are told as gawd's truth fact that such and such is true and there is zero observable data to support that idea, and when, in fact, we are told that such and such is true when it actually contradicts the data, what do we have? Pseudoscience.
.
But, hey, if you like thinking you have a bunch of hairy knuckle draggers hanging from your family tree, and don't want to believe you are "fearfully and wonderfully made" and loved by your Creator, who am I to burst your bubble?
Are there any studies or observations on darwins theory? If not why not?
I must say I found this debate simply too time constrained to clarify things adequately.
It seems to me that Dembski waffles so much that he never actually answers single question that was put to him.
I would have liked to hear another twenty minutes of Demski trying to explain to Pennock how too teach ID & not giving a single actual usable fact...just a whole lot of "sort of, sometimes, maybe etc"
Demski just has nothing at all to say about Ken Miller's attempts to get more specific answers.
...hmmm. I guess more time would have just brought more waffling. Still I would like to have seen Dembski sqirm a while longer...just to satisfy my sense of justice towards people like him who spend their lives trying to confuse people.
IMO, Dembski is profoundly dishonest. I do not believe that he actually thinks that he can undermine evolution among educated people. Far to much evidence available to anyone who looks. He is all about trying to cloud & confuse the subject so he can sneak his god in the back door. Lying for a living ain't nice.
I guess those who say "you can't teach ID. There is nothing to teach except god did it", can use this video in support of their position.
NCSE is a very important organization, & Ugenie Scott is fabulous!!
IMO, Dembski is profoundly dishonest.
you have a penchant for the understatement.
Rembrandt972 xD ...you're right. ...what was I thinking?
He's a filthy scumbag who's quite prepared to lie for gawd at every turn and to lie to the kids if he can find a way to get away with it ...legally or not. He is a dirt bag from a long line of dirt bags who don't give a damn about the well being of others.
....is that better? (feel free to add your own....ahem....perspective) xD
Cool hat although that is much better, it is still an understatement. :P
Rembrandt972 .....OK, show me how it's done xD
They take about half hour for the introductions and then say lets keep the answers short. They sure got their priorities straight.
One thing that I can't help thinking about ID advocates is that they seem to have an inability to distinguish what is natural and what isn't. Dembsky used Stonehenge as an example of design, yet if we go with the idea that a designer created everything (the universe, earth, life etc.) then how do we distinguish Stonehenge from a volcanic sill?
"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."
Ronald R. West, PhD (paleoecology and geology) (Assistant Professor of Paleobiology at Kansas State University)
"the first living things were prokaryotes/singled celled creatures, which means that if a common ancestor existed, then it would have to have been a prokaryote."
- The confidence with which you express your misconceptions is astounding.
Yes, ignoring the web of life of the prokaryote branch, we have a common ancestor with them.
But we also share Eukaryote common ancestors from after separating from prokaryotes.
The Turkish evolutionist Professor Ali Demirsoy was forced to make the following confession on the issue:
In fact, the probability of the formation of a protein and a nucleic acid (DNA-RNA) is a probability way beyond estimating. Furthermore, the chance of the emergence of a certain protein chain is so slight as to be called astronomic.
Quote mine this-- "When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance." George Wald, winner of the 1967 Nobel Peace Prize in Science.
Some believe blind, undirected evolution by natural selection can design things. But does it make sense to say that blind, undirected process can arrange parts intelligently if design is the intelligent arrangement of parts?
This has to be the most useful discourse and debate on the subject of falsifiable intelligent causal agency claims. If one is new to the discourse and contentions between Evolutionary Biologists and purporters of ID, this may be quite a healthy intro. Thanks NCSE for sharing this.
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
Stephen Jay Gould
@LoricaLady No, the sperm flagellum does not have a rotary motor its function is more akin to that of a tail (as the bacterial flagella were once thought to be).
There are reasons from experience and knowledge to not expect to wake up and be an elephant. There are reasons to believe that we all have a common ancestor and that we evolve via random mutation and natural selection. It is unreasonable to assume impossibility when we can't immediately produce a mechanism for each step.
I know I replied to you via inbox but I feel morally duty-bound to also post here for everyone else, so they aren't mislead by what you said.
The papers he cited were all FULLY in support of evolution and common ancestry, by scientists that FULLY accept that we have confirmed the family tree of the Eukaryote family.
What they were calling 'neo-Darwinism' and 'the modern synthesis' and throwing into question was the idea that genes are the major player in evolution.
Inference;
Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true.[1] The conclusion drawn is also called an idiomatic. The laws of valid inference are studied in the field of logic.
p.s. I'm taking logic classes, I understand how to make a valid inference.
Saying you did is easy, but you keep proving that you didn't. I recommend not skipping the parts you disagree with.
You are trying to find holes where there is are none. The theory of gravity is also "implied" and "inferred". If you see an apple fall down you can infer the Newton's law of gravity. It doesn't mean that there is a thing "gravity". Einstein showed that what we call "gravity" is the geometry of space-time.
That is how science works. Patterns in the species and in genes are discovered. A theory is proposed that can explain those patterns.
Just Some Penetrating Questions:
1. Is "bioinformatics" a sub-discipline of "Intelligent Design"?
2. Does the "Law of Conservation of Information" express what is observed in bioinformatics?
3. How does bioinformatics confirm Dr. Michael Behe's predictions in his book "Darwin's Black Box"?
Design theory is a very broad term. It includes:
C-K theory
Mathematics
Combinatorial design
Block design (including symmetric designs)
Design of experiments
Architecture
Interior design
Economics
Mechanism design
Theological argument
Intelligent design
And I tell again, of course we as humans are using "Intelligent design" because we are intelligent.
Modern Quantum Physics has shown that reality is based on probability:
A statistical impossibility is defined as “a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a Rational, Reasonable argument." The probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80. The probability of just one (1) functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119,000. The probability of random chance protein-protein linkages in a cell is 1/10^79,000,000,000. Based on just these three cellular components, it would be far more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the cell was not formed by un-directed random natural processes. Note: Abiogenesis Hypothesis posits that un-directed random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment. (*For reference, peptides/proteins can vary in size from 3 amino acid chains to 34,000 amino acid chains. Some scientists consider 300-400 amino acid protein chains to be the average size. There are 42,000,000 protein molecules in just one (1) simple cell, each protein requiring precise assembly. There are approx. 30,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body.)
Of all the physical laws and constants, just the Cosmological Constant alone is tuned to a level of 1/10^120; not to mention the fine-tuning of the Mass-Energy distribution of early universe which is 1/10^10^123. Therefore, in the fine-tuning argument, it would be more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the multi-verse is not the correct answer. On the other hand, it has been scientifically proven numerous times that Consciousness does indeed collapse the wave function to cause information waves of probability/potentiality to become particle/matter with 1/1 probability. A rational and reasonable person could therefore conclude that the answer is consciousness.
A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse would all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely irrational and unreasonable hypotheses are what some of the world’s top scientists ‘must’ believe in because of a prior commitment to a strictly arbitrary, subjective, biased, narrow, limiting, materialistic ideology / worldview.
Every idea, number, concept, thought, theory, mathematical equation, abstraction, qualia, etc. existing within and expressed by anyone is "Immaterial" or "Non-material". The very idea or concept of "Materialism" is an immaterial entity and by it's own definition does not exist. Modern science seems to be stuck in archaic, subjective, biased, incomplete ideologies that have inadequately attempted to define the "nature of reality" or the "reality of nature" for millennia. A Paradigm Shift in ‘Science’ is needed for humanity to advance. A major part of this Science Paradigm Shift would be the formal acknowledgment by the scientific community of the existence of "Immaterial" or "Non-material" entities as verified and confirmed by observation of the universe and discoveries in Quantum Physics.)
The MIT Park Center is working on reducing complexity to understand natural biologic systems:
"We are working on the idea that we can reduce the complexity associated with understanding the behavior of natural systems such as biological systems by applying our theory. The goal of our biology project is to explain the physiological functions of biological systems in terms of molecular behavior of DNA, proteins, etc."
I read all your cited papers (in part) and no paper cited that natural selection does not happening. The papers cite additional mechanisms that was unknown before, like HGT,
"The crucible of the new biology: molecular evolution" "Genomics is fundamental for the new biology" "Evolutionary biology supplied a better explanation of aging" "Sex has been subject to natural selection at multiple levels", etc. "Soft inheritance in animal social evolution"
The idea of omnipresence goes even further back. The Hindu Vedas, which predate the Old Testament by centuries, introduced the concept of brahman, or transcendental omnipresence.
It's not all that surprising, really. Over time, people's conceptions of gods have grown. What started as limited deities with specific roles gradually evolved over time into an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present "superdeity." It strikes me as a natural progression of human thought.
@Staunts
I would agree with you that life didn't have "pre-existing" materials before it began. Can you explain what you mean when you say that the process as how life assembles itself is identical or similar to how it functions? So that I properly understand what you're saying. Now what about the bacterial flagellum? From what I have read it sounds very similar to designed machines in our world.
For many years, Francis Crick believed in the theory of molecular evolution, but eventually even he had to admit to himself that such a complex molecule could not have emerged spontaneously by chance, as the result of an evolutionary process:
An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle.
Yes, smart people are also vulnerable to “god of the gaps.” It just seems to be human nature. We answer all we can and then, where our knowledge stops, we want to slap a label saying “and then a miracle happened” on it.
He didn't do .Infact ,he was optimistic that life can be created in lab.
Ms. Eugenie Scott: I thought your long introduction was unnecessary.
Demski was being vague on purpose so he could evade critique.
Love Miller, his approach is much directer. Sadly he didn't had more time.
Are his sheets available for download?
Does Intelligent Design includes tsunami, hurricanes, tornados, typhoons, flooding, lightning, thunder, diseases, hunger, etc.?
No, but there's a big difference between your statistical inference and what Behe is saying, that we can tell absolutely. You're able to make that inference because you know a bit about human communication, including that there's generally a human sending the message. With DNA, we've never seen any entity that communicates that way, so we would not be justified in concluding that it is actually carrying a message.
Again "design theory" is a broad term. The MIT is concern with engineering, manufacturing, complex systems. Yes the cell is a complex system, nobody denies that. But since even your MIT is using their studies of complex systems to reduce the complexity of natural systems like the cell (for a better understanding) there is another argument against "irreducible complexity".
"We are working on the idea that we can reduce the complexity [of] natural systemsbiological systems by applying our theory."
Acknowledging that it takes intelligence to understand a natural phenomenon in no way suggests that there must be an intelligence "behind" the phenomenon.
Our brains evolved within the universe, and we have adapted, albeit in a limited way, to understand that universe. But this is no way implies that an intelligence must have been responsible for the universe ITSELF. To say that it does is to engage in a sophisticated form of anthropomorphism.
I have realized lately that evolution actually breaks this. Simply not being able to identify the intelligence behind something does not warrant attributing what we KNOW to only come by intelligence to chance. it goes against what even evolutionists themselves say and they don't realize it. We know what creates what we see in biology, yet we are forced to ignore that for something that has never created what we see in biology.
I do not think designed physical laws are assumed. If an amino acid sequence has a particular function, why is it relevant if the physical laws were designed or not?
A Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil that is in the fossil record and are you saying it's a hoax? and were these two books published to the Academy of science and what did they determine what was in those books?
We use empirical science to map phylogenetic trees. Did you add 'universal' in there to include the messy lineages of prokaryotes as an emergency escape button?
Would you have dared made the same claim about limited family trees, like the Caniform family tree?
(and inference doesn't mean assumption based, it can be a logically sound, scientific thing.)
Though I agree abiogenesis is flawed, try not to confuse that topic with evolution. Of course in all fairness, Intelligent Design Theory does try to address both topics of where did life come from & how did we get such a variety of life.
I also agree with the importance of disproving abiogenesis BEFORE reviewing the physical evidence of an intelligent designer because if abio is impossible than ID can not be attributed to biological aliens either, as postulated by Sir Francis Crick & others.
So you agree with "Chandler", ok.
Abiogenesis is "practically" impossible anyway because there was no material process that could safely store:
1. any newly formed amino acids in a "reducing" atmosphere which is what Stanley Miller's experiment requires of earlier Earth (4.54 billion yrs ago);
2. any correct combination of newly formed amino acids (protein) until the other correct combinations were tried;
3. results of any self-replicating cell.
So, abiogenesis breaks down at every step.
Peace.
"Evolution is a destroyer, not a creator."
Where did you get that from?
"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations"
evolution doesn't destroy, it is the change of living forms.
"Laws and orders usually are the result of reason and the ability to think."
Perhaps you can elaborate on this. While it's true that comprehending such laws and order requires the ability to reason, it doesn't follow that they RESULTED from such a process in the first place.
And why would you assume that equations have to be "created"? Equations in science are simply mathematics representations of how things work in the real world.
Mutations in genetic code, including: translocation, duplication, deletion, and/or inversion of genetic sequences. These types of mutations create new information, and therefore increase the complexity in an organism.
Your papers do not refute evolution. Please cite papers if you have any, that do.
"Horizontal gene transfer in eukaryotic evolution" by Patrick J. Keeling & Jeffrey D. Palmer , Nature Reviews Genetics 9. "Horizontal gene transfer (HGT; also known as lateral gene transfer) has had an important role in eukaryotic genome evolution, but its importance is often overshadowed by the greater prevalence and our more advanced understanding of gene transfer in prokaryotes."
@pcaggegi
I absolutely agree with you that Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. It has to do with life that has already started. So the question is, how did life get started? I would agree to an extent that ID in itself is not an alternative to evolution. In fact, I accept evolution. I believe that natural selection is a real process that happens. Those things you mentioned I agree with so we're on par here.
I can't find the phrase "separation of church and state" in my pocket Constitution. Can you please be more specific where I may find it? I do know that was a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury, CT baptist church who were concerned about a state run religion similar to the Anglican church of England. TJ said that wouldn't happen, seeing there's a separation of church and state. So, again, please show me sep of ch & state in the Constitution. If you can't, then you're a liar.
I don't have a degree in biology or chemistry, but I took more classes than I needed to in both in order to have a better of understanding of them and the argument (so I admit, I'm no expert and won't be publishing anything anytime soon). I know enough that evolution doesn't disprove creation. In fact, evolution and the origin of life are so astronomically impossible it effectively could be used to show the overwhelming need for a Creator!
Of course exploration is necessary. I'm simply asking how one would go about "exploring" the existence of a "conscious entity."
Wow Pennock rips Dembski a new one! Science 1 - Disguised creation 0
I see your point, but I'm curious what you mean by "exploring the different possibilities." Unless and until we acquire more information about the universe and how it works, we can't really "explore" the question in any meaningful sense. All we can do is continue to speculate, and while that's fun, it's not very satisfying.
Also, it's not at all clear what you mean by "conscious entity." It would seem it suffers from the same inherent problems as the concept of a "higher intelligence."
Again, it's just a discussion what tools are used, and what tools are more important in evolution. Is HGT more important, is mutations more important, etc. or will we discover even more tools of evolution.
Those discoveries only show how much more of a family we are. That we are just a specific form adapted to a specific environment. And that it is much more easier of one species to evolve in a different species.
She spoke about IC in another video. I believe the video has since been taken down and only an edited version where that part of the video was cut off remains.
Here is an article in science journal that speaks favorably of ID and IC put forth by Behe and specified complexity as put forth by Dembski.
Lönnig, W.-E. 2004. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity. In: V. Parisi, V. de Fonzo and F. Aluffi-Pentini, eds. Dynamical Genetics, 101-119.
QED! A huge non-answer. Read my question again. WHAT DOES ID tell us?
Also, do you support the ID's manifesto, as set out in the wedge document?
Park Center
Our main research areas include:
Large-scale Complex Systems:
Space Exploration System of Systems
Complex Machine/Mechanism Design:
Micro/Nano-scale Machine Design
System Design with Human Factor:
Healthcare System
Systems Biology:
Understanding of the Cell
Maybe you don't understand. As of today phylogenetic trees are based on inference, and these papers are speaking of trying to build cohesive trees based on empirical data. These papers speak of the many problems and incongruencies in trying to build a cohesive phylogenetic tree and this is stated explicitly.
I think it was Lawerence Krauss that said he didn't like moderators because they but in just when it gets interesting. Love Eugine scott but couldn't agree more
"Yes the papers show the problem that the species tree are not always matching the genetic tree. And that using different methods you can get to different genetic trees"
Yes and this is the problem. Trees should not conflict with one another. Maybe you didn't fully understand what was said in the papers. This not a positive. It is a negative.
Actually I have no idea what you claiming. I think you are a proponent of ID but you cite article after article about evolution.
That natural selection is *insufficient* to explain the whole range of evolution, we knew that since at least 50 years. We have now more and better tools for evolution. So what is the big deal?
@LoricaLady So would you say Australopithecus is 100% great ape or 100% human? Is Archeopteryx 100% bird. To hold any of these positions or that Tiktaalik is all fish is to deny evidence to the contrary. Imagining connections along clear trend lines is not magical thinking.
The evolutionary biologist Frank Salisbury has comments on this impossibility:
A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain, one consisting of 1,000 links could exist in 41,000 forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that 41,000=10600.
Dembski spends more time during Pennock's portion rebutting than Pennock does! Dembski seems to be afraid to commit to ANY position. So wtf IS his position? ANY viewer should be skeptical of Dembski's hesitation to give definite answers, and his vagueness in each case.
At no point Eugenie Scott is admitting that IC is a valid scientific "construct" (you mean theory?). But to give you the benefit doubt, maybe I missed it, I had to skip a lot of Dembski and the Q/A. You mean this video we are discussing, then you can sure point to the time in which she saying that.
Isn't Dembski's adversary supposed to present his position? I could cut anyone down if that's all I had to do.
No. He actually wasn't supposed to. He was just supposed to question Dembski about Dembski's presentation.
I'm glad you pointed that out. Yes, that act, if it was religiously created for the explicit reasons of educating anyone in a specific religious doctrine, which at times claims supernatural conclusions that are proven to be false and conflict with our ongoing understanding of the world around us.
Not sure they did that Genius.
Try again.
Evolution is NOT a failed theory. We do vast amounts of science mapping the history of life. It IS science. We can confirm something happened without actually having a full understanding of how and why it happened - it's called evidence.
"Yet this same failed theory called the "modern synthesis" is still taught today as an axiom"
- When you said it's taught in schools, you did not mean what they teach in high schools, you meant in evolutionary biology classes. Right?
You keep saying its not random because its chemistry. Chemistry itself isnt random but the events that take place are. Just like if some wind blows a guys hat off and it lands in a lake. The wind and the hat are following the laws of physics which isnt random. But that event had no purpose aim or intend. So the event itself was random. Im not saying its impossible, but i find it hard to believe that a series of random chemical reactions could form DNA.
The theory of gravity is empirical and testable in real time. Newtonian physics is still taught because it is still valid, and Einstein's theory of general relativity did not destroy Newton universal law of gravity. And again which is still used till this day. It only gave us a more precise way of quantifying gravity from a micro to macro level. You're throwing out red herrings.
How many books has Dembski written on this and yet he cannot comment on what a class on Intelligent Design would teach?
I will not site with a man that believes that the age of the Earth was "less than 100,000" years. I chose to site with the fast majority of biologists, geologists, geneticists, etc. that have accepted evolution as a fact.
"LIMITED amount of habitats"? Do you have a number? Do you know that almost every millimetre of the earth have life?
For example: "crust is several kilometers thick and covers 60% of the planet’s surface, making it the largest habitat on Earth."
The issue isn't whether it's POSSIBLE for something to have "no beginning or end"; the issue is whether any god(s) actually exist, and whether that god(s) possesses this attribute.
I'm curious why you would choose to use the god of the Bible as an example. It seems to me that if there IS a conscious creator, the structure and function of the world would point to something along the lines of a deistic god. Nothing about our universe suggests a personal god involved in human affairs.
I thought you said we don't have steps in a process, and now you're saying we do. You were closer the first time.
from a review on Eugene Koonin's book The Logic of Evolution:
"The role of population genetics and population structure is introduced and this theory is used to highlight that the relatively long term stability of eukaryote genes is not shared in the turbulent world of prokaryote evolution. This theme of the necessity for different thinking when considering eukaryotes, particularly the animal kingdom, and the prokaryotes is discussed at length in relation to phylogenomics and the tree of life.
Dembski, dude, bro, only because you have "specified complexity" it does not mean that it's "intelligent specified complexity", meaning that there is an intelligent agent behind it.
For example, the Fibonacci-Number sequence can be find in "such as branching in trees, arrangement of leaves on a stem, the fruitlets of a pineapple...".
Also fractals are very common in nature. "For example, the leaves of ferns and umbellifers (Apiaceae) are []self-similar (pinnate) to 2, 3 or 4 levels.".
She was the moderator. Should you not watch the video before starting to troll?
Y "amigo", la teoría de Darwin no es sobre el origen de la vida, sino sólo cómo los cambios de la vida en el tiempo. Evolution no es abiogenesis.
Además, la ciencia es neutral acerca de Dios. Ellos simplemente no hablar de ello. Eso no significa que el ateísmo.
I guess it depends on which argument is being used. If it's the Fine Tuning argument, then it could be relevant.
I guess what I'm saying is that genes do not exhibit the arbitrary meanings that human words do. Design can only be inferred where it's allowed, and purely physical processes do not allow for it. Even if the Creationist myth was true, there is no valid rule of inference which could be applied to the inspection of DNA which would bring the conclusion that it was designed.
I hope you realize that once you start misinterpreting/misrepresenting a basic English paragraph, people will stop presuming you to be a rational being.
Would I be justified in concluding that your response is, in fact, randomly generated?
I'm not sure what you'd include in 'neo Darwinism', or specifically what's included in 'the modern synthesis', but are you including the common ancestry history of life when you say those two models have crumbled beyond repair?
*The Moderator's name is -- **_EUGENIE ... not GENIE Scott_** ...*
Sure it's a non-answer. You said the 'why' doesn't matter, the 'when' see fossil records and the 'whom' doesn't matter. So what DOES ID tell us? Why is it useful? I mistyped the other question, that should be the DI's manifesto, have you heard of the wedge strategy ?
Wow this was waaaay over my head :P but to me something doesn't seem right with ID, why would some things be designed and others left to chance? Also doesn't design imply a designer?
To me, the Universe is so amazingly awesome that I would be shocked if there weren't any amazing random variations of biology.
If you reply to this please be kind and speak in layman's as I am uneducated but very interested .
Maybe you're having a problem distinguishing between mechanism and agency. Even the bacterium that readily took on a 37% increase in adaptable DNA mutations as described by Miller doesn't necessarily imply the absence of a program-in fact, adaptable DNA IS the program. So we see the mechanisms but without information they cannot work much like DNA relies on a code. Junk in junk out as they say in computer terminology.Also, seeSeth Lloyd's quantum computing universe (MIT)-that may be the evidence
I didn't imply that theories don't describe laws - I said just the opposite in the case of gravity -
There is nothing as precise and empirically verifiable as a law when it comes to the so-called theory of evolution.
Didn't I say that I was prepared to set evolution aside to hear your argument for creation? I'm just trying to be open minded.