Peer reviewed scientific literature will be necessary.
-
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!
Intelligent Design???
- Thread starter shunyadragon
- Start date
Peer reviewed scientific literature will be necessary.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And the fact that refutes that argument is that Behe has been unable to demonstrate a need for "codependent mutations". That is an unjustified assumption on his part.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And another argument based upon a strawman. Your argument ignores the existence of natural selection. When virtual monkeys typed out randomly under a virtual selection the writing of the works of Shakespeare were shown to be possible.
Creationists tend to be perfectly willing to look at variation. They tend to be perfectly willing to look at natural selection. They almost never look at them together.
Typing Shakespeare by monkeys is not an example of how the outcomes of cause and effect events are limited by the Laws of Nature as in evolution, nor the history of our universe since the beginning of expansion. An intelligent example would be how log would it take humans to type Shakespeare constrained by their memory and knowledge of Shakespeare. Like evolution and genetic replication there would be errors in replication' It is not a matter of debunking 'irreducible complexity' by science. It is a matter of whether the advocates of Intelligent Design can present a falsifiable hypothesis based on objective verifiable evidence that the hypothesis of Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, or Specific Complexity. At present none of the scientists associated with Intelligent Design have presented a falsifiable hypothesis positively supporting ID.
All the outcomes of cause and effect events involving the evolution of DNA are constrained by Laws of Nature, and the outcomes of each even are constrained by simply the chemistry as taught in high school, and demonstrated in simple experiments.
The above is a spin off of the watchmaker argument, and random assembly of a Boeing 707, which is unbelievably flawed.
From: These 5 Arguments for Intelligent Design Don't Make Any Sense
Watchmaker argument
"The argument: Over 200 years ago, the British theologian William Paley presented a seemingly irrefutable case in favor of God's creation of the world: if, Paley said, he happened to be out walking, and discovered a watch buried in the ground, he would have no choice but to invoke "an artificer, or artificers, who formed the watch for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use." This has been the battle cry of intelligent design advocates, and disbelievers in the theory of evolution, ever since Charles Darwin published On The Origin of Species in 1852: how could the intricate perfection of living organisms possibly have come about except by the will of a supernatural entity?
Why it's flawed: There are two ways to counter the Watchmaker argument, one serious and scientific, the other amusing and frivolous. Seriously and scientifically, Darwinian evolution by mutation and natural selection (Richard Dawkins' "Blind Watchmaker") does a much better job of explaining the supposed perfection of living organisms than the mysterious invocation of God or an intelligent designer. (The first position is supported by empirical evidence; the latter only by faith and wishful thinking.) Amusingly and frivolously, there are plenty of features in the living world that are anything but "perfect," and could only have been designed by an entity that wasn't getting enough sleep. A good example is Rubisco, the enormous, slow, and extremely inefficient protein that plants use to suck the carbon out of carbon dioxide."
Still waiting for a scientific reference that presents a falsifiable hypothesis that supports your assertions based on a religious agenda.
As with the problem with the monkeys with typewriters the point of irreducible complexity would be when the outcomes of cause and effect events are not constrained by the Laws of Nature. The choice of which keys the monkey strikes is not constrained by the Laws of Nature.
Last edited:
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Who believes in nothing??
leroy
Well-Known Member
Well the thing is that each of the premises is falsifiable; the next step would be to find out whether if these premises are proven wrong or correct.
leroy
Well-Known Member
Sure, this assumption has to be proven, but it is an assumption that might be proven wrong or true,
Bear Wild
Well-Known Member
There is variation on pantheism like all religions with some beliefs by pantheists which are closer to Religious naturalism and others with a more theistic view. Baruch Spinoza did not see god as a spirit which pervades all things but that all things are in god and are modifications of god. . Bernard Loomer described the entire interconnected we of existence as god. Samuel Alexander considered god as the universe insofar as it was evolving toward a new and higher level which he described as the deity Henry Wieman described that god is the integrative process within the world. Paul Harrison wrote "pantheism hold that the universe as a whole is divine and there is not divinity other than the universe and nature." The world pantheist movement Credo "We revere and celebrate the universe as the totality of being... It is self organizing, ever-evolving, and exhaustibly divers. Its overwhelming power, beauty, and fundamental mystery compel the deepest human reverence and wonder." "We are an inseparable part of nature, which we should cherish, revere and preserve in all its magnificent beauty and diversity" . Thus with pantheism there is a variation in beliefs but the concept of god or the divine is within the natural world and not outside. This can include the natural forces that shape the universe and include all of the principles of the theory of evolution is compatible. So there is some with a sense of an intelligent god within the universe to a divine universe as without a clear center of intelligence. .
Ellen Brown
Well-Known Member
So, I can expect more of your vapid abuse then. You could make an attempt at a bit of courtesy.
Skwim
Veteran Member
For someone who seems to relish dishing out barbs you certainly have a thin skin. But enough with the personal comments. Let's stick to the issues.
.
Last edited:
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
If anyone is interested, they can CLICK HERE to read a debunking of Behe's "three mutations" argument.
And let's not forget, ID creationism is effectively dead.
And let's not forget, ID creationism is effectively dead.
InvestigateTruth
Veteran Member
So far, nothing in the universe is found to prove scientifically that there is a God, or to prove that there needs to be a God to have created any thing in this universe.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The problem for his whole idea is that it appears that life can and does evolve without "codependent mutations". That also makes his argument pointless. As has been shown with every example that he used as examples of "irreducible complexity".
We still have a lot of 'Walking Dead' Zombies wandering around.
leroy
Well-Known Member
I would like to see your evidence, how do you know that the flagellum can evolve on a step by step basis (one mutation at the time) where each mutation is betefitial.
I believe I acknowledged the variation in Pantheism, The central concept remains a form of naturalism, but I believe your stretching the definition. Adding the word 'religious' is to general a use of the word. Pantheism does probably overlap panentheism in the descriptions and testimonies you provided.
Old moldy out of date creationist argument. See the following:
From: Biologists Trace Evolution of Bacterial Flagellar Motors | Biology | Sci-News.com
Biologists Trace Evolution of Bacterial Flagellar Motors
Bacteria use molecular motors just tens of nanometers wide to spin a tail (flagellum) that pushes them through their habitat.
Like human-made motors, these nanoscale machines have distinct ‘stator’ and ‘rotor’ components that spin against each other. The structure of these motors determines their power and the bacteria’s swimming ability.
Previously, Imperial College researcher Morgan Beeby and co-authors looked at these motors and discovered a key factor that determined how strongly bacteria could swim.
They found that the more stator structures the bacterial motor possessed, the larger its turning force, and the stronger the bacterium swam.
Despite these differences, DNA sequence analysis shows that the core motors are ancestrally related. This led the team to question how structure and swimming diversity evolved from the same core design.
Now, in new research published in the journal Scientific Reports, Dr. Beeby’s team was able to build a ‘family tree’ of bacterial motors by combining 3D imaging with DNA analysis.
This allowed them to understand what ancestral motors may have looked like, and how they could have evolved into the sophisticated motors seen today.
The scientists found a clear difference between the motors of primitive and sophisticated bacterial species. While many primitive species had around 12 stators, more sophisticated species had around 17 stators. This, together with DNA analysis, suggested that ancient motors may also have only had 12 stators.
“This clear separation between primitive and sophisticated species represents a ‘quantum leap’ in evolution,” the authors said.
“Our study reveals that the increase in motor power capacity is likely the result of existing structures fusing. This forms a structural scaffold to incorporate more stators, which combine to drive rotation with higher force.”
Family tree of the studied bacterial flagellar motors. Image credit: Imperial College London.
To carry out the study, Dr. Beeby and colleagues visualized a number of motors from different species of bacteria (Wolinella succinogenes, Arcobacter butzleri and Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus) using a variant of a method called cryo-election microscopy.
The method involves flash-freezing the motors inside living cells. Once frozen, they can be imaged from all angles to build up a 3D picture of what the motor looks like inside the cell.
The team then built up a ‘family tree’ of the species using DNA sequence analysis, which related their swimming ability and motor properties.
The researchers found that bacteria with 17 or more stators, and their relatives, had extra structures attached to their motors.
They believe that these extra structures fused in sophisticated bacteria to provide a larger scaffold for supporting more stators.
“However, this was likely not a one-time event,” they said. “The extra structures appear to have evolved many times in different species of bacteria, using different building blocks but producing the same functionality.”
“Bacterial motors are complex machines, but with studies like this we can see how they have evolved in distinct steps,” Dr. Beeby added.
“Moreover, the ‘leap’ from 12 stators to 17, while a great innovation, has an aspect of ‘biological inevitability’ in the same way as wings, eyes, or nervous systems in higher animals: the precursors of high torque have evolved multiple times, and one set of them ended up fusing to form the scaffold we describe in our work.”
I believe in God in part due to the natural glory of Creation, but I am a scientist, and realize that there is not any direct evidence in nature for God nor Creation.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Then I gotta ask....why start the thread? ID creationism is of no consequence whatsoever, so what's the point?
These remain vague assertions that do not answer the requirement of scientific methods to propose a falsifiable hypothesis.
the proposals and premises offered by the Discovery Institute do not fit the criteria of science, and 'proven wrong or correct' are not scientific criteria, they represent assertions without grounds from the layman's perspective.
Again . . . You need to support these assertions with published scientific references that support a hypothesis that may be falsified 'positively' that what you cited cannot occur naturally,