• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Does DNA prove intelligent design?

Alceste

Vagabond
Ha - OK, check this:

sandor's scientific paper said:
Ontogeny, Phylogeny and the Origin of Biological Information
(2000)

by John A. Davison

Rivista di Biologia (Biology Forum), forthcoming

John A Davidson responding to a blog post about himself said:
Incidentally, and I am sure this will please you, Rivista has also now
refused to publish any of my work. It seems I am not creationist enough
to please Giuseppe Sermonti or whoever it is that I have offended.

I checked the Rivista di Biologia website, and they have nothing by this guy in their archives.

Edit: Whoops, that thing is in there after all. However, Rivista is a philosophy of science journal, not a science journal.
 
Last edited:

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
It was never published in Revista? It's a lie? Fake? wotthehell! Will Sandor continue to cite it, one wonders?
 

sandor606

epistemologist
Ha - OK, check this:





I checked the Rivista di Biologia website, and they have nothing by this guy in their archives.

Edit: Whoops, that thing is in there after all. However, Rivista is a philosophy of science journal, not a science journal.

I did not try to deceive anyone; in everything I wrote I was utterly sincere: that is the way of my Avatar. Carelessly, I took the info on the paper at face value and I was wrong. I accept my mistake. However, if you reject the other proof for one mistake you are throwing away the baby with the bath water.

From the back cover of The Anthropic Cosmological Principle:
"Is there any connection between the vastness of the Universe and the existence of life within it on a small planet out in the suburbs of the MIlky way? The book shows that there is.
The question of Design and Mankind's place in the Universe is investigated and the modern collection of ideas known as the Anthropic Cosmological Principle emerges historically as the latest manifestation of such ideas. The reader is taken on an eclectic study of many scientific disciplines and is presented with a reveaing picture of the structure of the physical world solely in terms of its invariant constants." (italics mine)

I have provided info that may answer the thread's question; whether you use it or not is up to you.
 
Last edited:

camanintx

Well-Known Member
I did not try to deceive anyone; in everything I wrote I was utterly sincere: that is the way of my Avatar. Carelessly, I took the info on the paper at face value and I was wrong. I accept my mistake. However, if you reject the other proof for one mistake you are throwing away the baby with the bath water.
You mean proofs like how an invariable constant requires a designer? You still haven't explained that one.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
I did not try to deceive anyone; in everything I wrote I was utterly sincere: that is the way of my Avatar. Carelessly, I took the info on the paper at face value and I was wrong. I accept my mistake. However, if you reject the other proof for one mistake you are throwing away the baby with the bath water.

From the back cover of The Anthropic Cosmological Principle:
"Is there any connection between the vastness of the Universe and the existence of life within it on a small planet out in the suburbs of the MIlky way? The book shows that there is.
The question of Design and Mankind's place in the Universe is investigated and the modern collection of ideas known as the Anthropic Cosmological Principle emerges historically as the latest manifestation of such ideas. The reader is taken on an eclectic study of many scientific disciplines and is presented with a reveaing picture of the structure of the physical world solely in terms of its invariant constants." (italics mine)

I have provided info that may answer the thread's question; whether you use it or not is up to you.

I don't think you know what science is. I'm sorry if that's harsh, but that's what I think. If I spend a half an hour studying my navel, it is not science just because I used the word "study". Anybody is allowed to use that word. Even creationist propagandists. That's why the concept of "peer review" - meaning peers in the field of biology, not "philosophy of science" - is key to our body of scientific knowledge.
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
I did not try to deceive anyone; in everything I wrote I was utterly sincere: that is the way of my Avatar. Carelessly, I took the info on the paper at face value and I was wrong. I accept my mistake. However, if you reject the other proof for one mistake you are throwing away the baby with the bath water.

What proof?

From the back cover of The Anthropic Cosmological Principle:
"Is there any connection between the vastness of the Universe and the existence of life within it on a small planet out in the suburbs of the MIlky way? The book shows that there is.
The question of Design and Mankind's place in the Universe is investigated and the modern collection of ideas known as the Anthropic Cosmological Principle emerges historically as the latest manifestation of such ideas. The reader is taken on an eclectic study of many scientific disciplines and is presented with a reveaing picture of the structure of the physical world solely in terms of its invariant constants." (italics mine)

I have provided info that may answer the thread's question; whether you use it or not is up to you.

No, you haven't. What does this quote of yours prove? Again, the anthropic principle does not prove or even point to the existence of an intelligent designer, and you still have yet to show any reason you think it does.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
I did not try to deceive anyone; in everything I wrote I was utterly sincere: that is the way of my Avatar. Carelessly, I took the info on the paper at face value and I was wrong. I accept my mistake. However, if you reject the other proof for one mistake you are throwing away the baby with the bath water.

From the back cover of The Anthropic Cosmological Principle:
"Is there any connection between the vastness of the Universe and the existence of life within it on a small planet out in the suburbs of the MIlky way? The book shows that there is.
The question of Design and Mankind's place in the Universe is investigated and the modern collection of ideas known as the Anthropic Cosmological Principle emerges historically as the latest manifestation of such ideas. The reader is taken on an eclectic study of many scientific disciplines and is presented with a reveaing picture of the structure of the physical world solely in terms of its invariant constants." (italics mine)

I have provided info that may answer the thread's question; whether you use it or not is up to you.

I thought you were done here? Change your mind? Then would you answer the several questions I have asked you several times? Thanks.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
I don't think you know what science is. I'm sorry if that's harsh, but that's what I think. If I spend a half an hour studying my navel, it is not science just because I used the word "study". Anybody is allowed to use that word. Even creationist propagandists. That's why the concept of "peer review" - meaning peers in the field of biology, not "philosophy of science" - is key to our body of scientific knowledge.

Also: facts, research, methodological naturalism and falsifiability, all notably absent from ID "theory."
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
Wow... I started to loose it when he 'described' Diplodnium .... or rather he used the 1914 description that is woefully outdated.
The description he used is so bad that I have trouble taking anything else he says seriously. If he can't get a description of a simple ciliate correct.

There was nothing in the paper to support his supposition... and that is all it was, one long supposition with very bad biology tacked on in an attempt to keep the wobbly structure upright.

He says he has some laboratory experimental evidence to support his ideas, but he never describes it or enlightens us on it in any way. Leading one to think it's either not that good or non-existent.

I suppose it was an ok paper for a philosophy journal... but it would never make it into a science journal like Nature or Science or even PNAS.

I'm afraid you will have come up with something better... something with evidence in it.

wa:do
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Some thoughts about why ID isn't and couldn't be science.

ID starts from a premise that a world, or organism, designed by an intelligence, would tend to look like X. But the reason science excludes supernatural intelligence from study is that we neither know nor can know what a world or organism that is designed by one would look like, nor how it would differ from one that wasn't. Therefore it's unfalsifiable. And falsifiability is (generally held to be) key to a scientific theory. It's impossible to assert any condition whatsoever that would falsify this premise. The only thing IDers ever put forward that would falsify it is a feature that could not be explained by ToE. Which is, of course, not the kind of thing we are looking for at all. We're looking for an objective, observable prediction int he natural world. The dial will read 47. Organisms will all fit into a nested hierarchy. That kind of thing. Worse, it's pure God of the gaps.

ID combines basically Paley's watch with God of the Gaps. It posits: We can't explain X, therefore we must assume a (supernatural) intelligence did X. God of the Gaps sucks rocks.

First, history shows us that we tend to close those gaps. That's what science is all about. Rather than say, as science does, "We can't explain X, let's find out," ID throws up its hands, halts all research, and fills in the blank with God. It's not just unscientific, it's anti-scientific.

Second, it's terrible theology. Every time you fill in a gap with knowledge, (as science does regularly) you get a punier God. For example, Behe is left with a God who didn't set up evolution or natural laws, but rather fiddled around with a butt-widget on a gut bug. What kind of God is that? If God is worth anything, then He must have set up the whole shebang: evolution, Big Bang, Planck's constant, everything. He may have done so, but science can never discover that, if so. Trying to do so shoe-horms God into a little box. And what kind of God is that?

And Paley's watch, while it tends to work for theists, is unsatisfactory to me and most non-theists. At most, it gets me a God so unknowable and other-worldly as to be functionally non-existent in my world and my life.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Just for fun, here's a quote from John A. Davison, the author of that article you posted, from a forum:




There are many more. It's entertaining reading, if anyone feels like it. Apparently, the guy has been to several different forums and been banned from them all for ridiculous behavior. Why am I not surprised?


Oh, here's the link, by the way.
Like I said earlier, I'm quite familiar with John Davidson. Believe me, the guy is truly insane....and I don't mean that jokingly.
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
Like I said earlier, I'm quite familiar with John Davidson. Believe me, the guy is truly insane....and I don't mean that jokingly.

Yeah, I read a bunch of that forum, and he really is off the deep end. He reminds me somewhat of Rolling Stone, only focusing on biology.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
I think by now it's pretty obvious that Sandor is either one of two things...

1) A troll who's just playing around, or

2) Here to preach...not answer questions, discuss, nor debate or provide substance beyond "It's in this book and it has math in it, so it's true".

I personally think #1 is quite likely.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Yeah, I read a bunch of that forum, and he really is off the deep end. He reminds me somewhat of Rolling Stone, only focusing on biology.
In the forum where I interacted with him, he started on this thing where he refused to "speak" to anyone who used a pseudonym online. If you didn't use your real name, he called you a coward (among other things) and ignored you.

He's recently infamous for starting his own blog, putting up one or two posts, and then commenting to himself in the comments section. CLICK HERE to read more about it.
 
Top