Interesting video about evolution and origins.

[Subduction Zone]

So better educated guesses.
But you are right, science is more than educated guess work,,,,,,,,, or should be.
So is it real science to make educated guesses about how the universe and life came to be?

That is not exactly accurate. Many ideas start as guesswork. That is true. But then they are tested and people actively try to refute them, including the person that came up with them. Once an idea has been tested and confirmed multiple times it is no longer guesswork even if it started that way. And a reminder, there may be a thousand tested and failed ideas before the right idea is hit upon. Please do not forget that all scientific ideas are heavily tested before they are accepted. Calling them guesswork only shows that you do not understand how reliable that they are. It is why science is so well respected. The person that comes up with an idea is likely to try to refute it harder than anyone else. He knows that others will be testing it themselves. It is far less damaging to one's ego to reject one's own idea before publishing it than to have the whole world refute one's idea.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

I agree with much of this and thanks for drawing my attention to the ASA, which I had not been aware of previously.

However, in fairness to the ASA, it looks as if it was founded to teach American evangelicals to drop the pseudoscience of "flood geology" etc and understand that evolution and the scientifically estimated age of the earth need to be accepted and need not conflict with religious faith. For instance there was a guy called Kulp: J. Laurence Kulp - Wikipedia who was both a fundamentalist Christian (Plymouth Brethren, no less, which is pretty much off the scale at the fundie end of the spectrum) and a pioneer in radiometric dating! He must have wrestled with some serious cognitive dissonance, until he resolved it. Kulp apparently did much to get the current scientific view of the age of the earth accepted in extreme Protestant circles, i.e. YEC -> OEC, which is a good start.

What the ASA seems to have rightly foreseen is that if extreme Protestantism persisted in rejecting well-established science, it would become an object of contempt and ridicule among educated people and would fall from favour. As it has. It is therefore particularly depressing now to see people like Garte and Tour apparently trying to send the original initiative into reverse by substituting the God of the Gaps for normal scientific enquiry into abiogenesis.

In view of its history, I don't consider that the statement of faith of the ASA is ipso facto evidence of any bias in its view of science. That statement serves to emphasise that evangelicals can trust its scientific teaching not to be some sort of Trojan Horse for atheism, as some of them might otherwise fear. Its members in the past have evidently managed the separation of religion from their own scientific work, just as you say they should.

What I do not know, and the Wiki article doesn't help, is whether the original purpose of the ASA may have more recently become subverted by people like Garte who want to replace science by the God of the Gaps or other pseudoscience. It would not surprise me in the cultural climate of the modern USA.

It appears J. Laurence Kulp was fighting an uphill battle within the ASA in an attempt to keep them at least honest about the established science rather than dishonestly portraying it in defense of flood geology.
I fear he lost out to the, if not consciously dishonest, at minimum blindly zealous among the YEC crowd who in ensuing decades, after failing to convince the scientific community, would go on to fraudulently set up “alternative science” journals in an attempt to sell pseudoscience to a credulous public which serves to encourage the proliferation of the sort the OP pushes.

 

[Brian2]

Garte also makes more false analogies, by talking about the "code" of DNA and then claiming that codes are symbolic and abstract, and that nature does not make codes. Yet DNA makes RNA by a well understood physical (biochemical) process and RNA makes proteins via another physical (biochemical) process. So there is nothing "abstract" about the code in DNA. It is a mechanical template for generating molecules with a biological function.

Garte talks about that aspect between 17:30 and 22 mins nd says that the codon has no chemical connection with the protein it points to and that is why it is abstracts.

 

[Brian2]

I don't see why. Early simple life could well have developed with inefficient repair mechanisms or none at all.

It's a creationist myth that all these systems would have to be fully formed before they could function. This myth has been used over and over again, and repeatedly falsified.

Maybe some claims of irreducible complexity have been shown to be theoretically false but I doubt that all of them have. IOW the concept has not been debunked.
Maybe this is the case with the repair mechanisms used in Genetics.
But maybe it is possible for the system to have worked inefficiently to start off and then when a functioning repair mechanism came along through mutation things got better.

 

[Brian2]

Why? Why are good repair, copy or replications necessary in a competition and predation-free environment?

I imagine so that good mutations would be preserved.

If microbes are churning out trillions of copies of themselves, what does it matter if half of them die? Those that remain to reproduce will be the ones with the fewest flaws and most robust replication chemistry. These traits will slowly accumulate. After a few billion years and trillions of generations, reproductive chemistry gets pretty reliable.

Yes in the generally accepted theory of evolution that would probably happen. Whether it would happen in real life is another question.

 

[McBell]

Maybe some claims of irreducible complexity have been shown to be theoretically false but I doubt that all of them have. IOW the concept has not been debunked.

Present one that has not been debunked.

 

[exchemist]

Maybe some claims of irreducible complexity have been shown to be theoretically false but I doubt that all of them have. IOW the concept has not been debunked.
Maybe this is the case with the repair mechanisms used in Genetics.
But maybe it is possible for the system to have worked inefficiently to start off and then when a functioning repair mechanism came along through mutation things got better.

If you follow the Dover School (Kitzmiller) trial judgement in 2005, you will see there are several examples in which the notion of irreducible complexity has proven false. (From memory - it was a while ago - two examples were the eye and the bacterial flagellum.) These examples are sufficient to show the concept of irreducible complexity, developed by Dembski et. al. is flawed as a principle. There is no valid way to establish that a given biological structure cannot have evolved naturally, however unclear it may currently be how it could have done so.

What that means is the door is always open for science to find out how it developed. You cannot shut the door and say, definitively, "God did it, case closed, stop looking for a natural explanation".

Irreducible complexity was debunked in the Dover School trial. Dembski, interestingly, failed to show up to defend it. Scientifically speaking, it is dead. Though the notion may linger on in creationist circles among those with a poor level of understanding - which includes those who deliberately avoid researching the topic because it suits them to continue to believe in it.

I have a copy of the (very long) judgement in that trial. It makes quite interesting reading and the judge (John Jones, a Republican appointee) went to town on it. He obviously enjoyed himself.

Addendum: Here is one notable passage, referred to in the Wiki article on the trial, concerning Michael Behe, whose book "Darwin's Black Box" made the case for Irreducible Complexity:

As a primary witness for the defense, Behe was asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Behe's critics have pointed to a number of key exchanges under cross examination, where he conceded that, "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred."[27]

In short, it never had any scientific support at all.

 

[exchemist]

Garte talks about that aspect between 17:30 and 22 mins nd says that the codon has no chemical connection with the protein it points to and that is why it is abstracts.

Well it's a 2 stage process of course DNA -> RNA -> protein, so the sequence of bases does not directly assemble the amino acid sequence. But it strikes me as a bit crazy to say it is abstract, when it initiates a sequence of physical processes that result in new protein being synthesised. I'll have to watch the section you refer to and get back to you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe some claims of irreducible complexity have been shown to be theoretically false but I doubt that all of them have. IOW the concept has not been debunked.
Maybe this is the case with the repair mechanisms used in Genetics.
But maybe it is possible for the system to have worked inefficiently to start off and then when a functioning repair mechanism came along through mutation things got better.

I am sorry, but you have it backwards. There is no evidence for IC, and that is largely the fault of Behe. In the sciences something with no evidence for it does not need to be refuted. It has already been effectively refuted by the author of it.

And how did Behe shoot himself in the foot and remove his concept from the realm of the sciences? Because his first hypothesis was formed properly. It was testable. It was tested and it failed.


Go ahead. See if you can find a proper hypothesis of IC. It needs to be testable. There has to be some test that could possibly refute it based upon the predictions that it makes. I doubt if you will find one.

In the sciences even a wrong hypothesis can be useful. It will tell us what direction not to go at times. Behe, after he failed the first time, redefined IC so that it is no longer scientific. To justify it he tried to redefine "science" and his definition was so poor that during the Dover trail he had to admit under oath that his definition of science, not one used any any other scientists, would mean that astrology, you no . . . signs of the Zodiac etc., would be a science.

Anyway back to hypotheses. We can learn from failed hypotheses. Behe's nonsense is even worse. Pseudoscience is held in contempt by scientists because one cannot even learn from the mistakes that it makes. Behe's work is in the bottom category of "Not even wrong".

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you follow the Dover School (Kitzmiller) trial judgement in 2005, you will see there are several examples in which the notion of irreducible complexity has proven false. (From memory - it was a while ago - two examples were the eye and the bacterial flagellum.) These examples are sufficient to show the concept of irreducible complexity, developed by Dembski et. al. is flawed as a principle. There is no valid way to establish that a given biological structure cannot have evolved naturally, however unclear it may currently be how it could have done so.

What that means is the door is always open for science to find out how it developed. You cannot shut the door and say, definitively, "God did it, case closed, stop looking for a natural explanation".

Irreducible complexity was debunked in the Dover School trial. Dembski, interestingly, failed to show up to defend it. Scientifically speaking, it is dead. Though the notion may linger on in creationist circles among those with a poor level of understanding - which includes those who deliberately avoid researching the topic because it suits them to continue to believe in it.

I have a copy of the (very long) judgement in that trial. It makes quite interesting reading and the judge (John Jones, a Republican appointee) went to town on it. He obviously enjoyed himself.

Addendum: Here is one notable passage, referred to in the Wiki article on the trial, concerning Michael Behe, whose book "Darwin's Black Box" made the case for Irreducible Complexity:

As a primary witness for the defense, Behe was asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Behe's critics have pointed to a number of key exchanges under cross examination, where he conceded that, "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred."[27]

In short, it never had any scientific support at all.

The blood clotting cascade was another one. I don't think that Behe ever used the eye since evolution of the eye has been understood for quite some time. Behe's original hypothesis failed because he stated that various functions would not work if one took out one single part. For the flagellum he did not realize that the flagellum always worked as a flagellum. It had different uses before then. And life can be found with all stages of partial "flagella" living without a hitch. The ability to be used as a propeller appears to have been an emergent process. The blood clotting cascade can be found in all stages in life too. Modern creatures with it have usually lost some traits that made it work better than nothing, sine one that evolved as an emergent process they were no longer needed, but whales for example do not have all of the elements in the cascade that other mammals do. They probably lost them due to different needs in the sea. They can still clot blood, but not quite in the same way. And of course simpler life has only some of them.

If you remember the seen in the PBS documentary the recreation of when Behe was surrounded by texts and journals those were all on the blood clotting cascade.

 

[Brian2]

I go by what the words say. They say that there exists a god that made our world in six days. Science reveals that never happened. If you'd care to try to refute that, please try. You can't. Why? Because the statement is correct. If there is a god, it's not that one. Pick one consistent with the scientific narrative. Pick one that set the universe in motion some nearly fourteen billion years ago. Pick one that set up the earth such that life and eventually human life would evolve there, because that's what the science shows happened.

Now you are showing your faith. The science does not show a deist God unless you extrapolate on what science does show and assume that the gaps are filled up with naturalistic answers.
You go by what the words (translations) say but don't care about the meaning. As long as it does not contradict your faith, it is OK with you.
You go with literal 24 hour days even though the sun is not said to be made until day 4 and day 7 has no end.

There is no valid reasoning that concludes, "therefore, the universe was designed." Once again, if that statement were incorrect, it could be refuted, but alas, once again, that is something that you cannot and therefore will not do.

I will not refute it to someone whose faith does not include the possibility of a God.

Not understand? You just paraphrased a comment I made. Yes. Science rules THAT god out, but not gods in the generic sense of supernatural universe creators. If you want to focus on just the god of Abraham, then yes, we can say that scientific advances have ruled that god out.

No all you have done is show your bias in being unwilling to see the possible meanings behind the words, and insisting on a fundamentalist understanding of the words. All you can refute is the YEC position.

I wrote, "Why should that matter to anybody else?" in response to your comment, "It is the origins of life through chemical evolution which is not scientifically sound in his opinion." The question doesn't need further clarification. It's about as simple as questions get, like yours in reply. "Anybody" refers to all other people, which means all people who are not the author of the comment. If it helps you to understand the question better, pick one or two at random, like my neighbor Mark or my high school buddy Marty. Why should that guy's opinion matter to Mark or Marty? Why should they care that the world looks like it was intelligently designed to him?

So are you saying that the opinion of no scientists matter to Mark or Marty? or is it just his opinion that does not matter?

It's a rhetorical question, not a request for information like, "What time is it?" or "Are you hungry?" It's a statement dressed up as a question, and the statement is that there is no reason to care about such unargued opinions as, "I just don't see how it could have happened without intelligent oversight, so I proclaim that it did not." Every creationist says that, and none have an argument better than that one. Some embellish it with specious statistical arguments, but such numbers are imagined (see Hoyle's fallacy).

It's an argument for the reasonableness of a designer who was more hands on than the designer you propose, a deist God.
It's an argument about going down a different path in science.
It seems that in science no argument for or evidence for God is good enough because God has not been shown to exist.
Strange but true.

 

[Brian2]

Fundamentally, it's falsifiable in the material world.
This means it can be tested experimentally, & either
confirmed or disproven. (It's never found "true".)

Are only scientific arguments for God acceptable to humanity?
No.
So why are only scientific arguments acceptable to atheists?

 

[McBell]

Are only scientific arguments for God acceptable to humanity?
No.

Obviously not.

So why are only scientific arguments acceptable to atheists?

I find your blanket statement about atheists to be rather flawed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Obviously not.


I find your blanket statement about atheists to be rather flawed.

It is much easier to defeat a strawman than it is to defeat rational arguments.

 

[Brian2]

It did? By whom?

By those who argue against the YECers' interpretation of the Bible and say that the Bible God is disproven because of evolution.
@It Ain't Necessarily So for example.

All of the Christians I know accept evolution.

Personally I think evolution goes too far in it's "no supernatural input" approach and answers, but yes I wouldn't be surprised if most Christians accept evolution.

 

[McBell]

Personally I think evolution goes too far in it's "no supernatural input" approach and answers, but yes I wouldn't be surprised if most Christians accept evolution.

Since evolution does not need a "supernatural input" to work, why muddy the waters with it?

 

[LuisDantas]

Are only scientific arguments for God acceptable to humanity?
No.
So why are only scientific arguments acceptable to atheists?

What are you talking about?

Surely you realize that there is no way any scientific argument will ever convince us atheists that there is a god.

 

[LuisDantas]

Personally I think evolution goes too far in it's "no supernatural input" approach and answers,

What do you mean by that?

It is not like there is any way of using supernaturalism in science, including evolution.

So, what would going too far even be?

 

[Brian2]

No! We believe in evolution, but generally ignore the Bible. It's not a scientific work, and says nothing about the subject.
It's you religious who jumped on the ToE as anti Biblical. The whole controversy is of your making.

Maybe let @It Ain't Necessarily So say what he thinks.

You've moved the goalpost. You've given up on biology-based apologetics and have now turned to theoretical physics.
Do you even know what physicists understand or say about creation?

All I did was comment on what Sy Garte probably meant.

When you understand the natural mechanisms beneath the order, you realize that intentional design and manipulation is a special pleading.

Yes if you believed that it is all naturalistic then you would see God input as special pleading.
But if you understand that science does not show a universe that came into being without a God or life that developed without a life giver, then you realise that what you said is a statement of faith.

 

[Brian2]

When? By whom?
Isn't it the other way round, with Christians using the Bible to deny the validity of the ToE?

Maybe that is true, but some these days use ToE to deny the Bible and so the Bible God.

What steps do you think remain to be discovered in chemical abiogenesis?

I don't know. I hear that for evey question and problem answered there appear more questions and problems, and so abiogenesis is further from their goal these days.