Ken Miller on Intelligent Design

[consolation]

dark4181 you miss the point completely: we are a product of our universe not vice versa; so obviously the universe and our place in it has to be uniquely suitable for us -otherwise we wouldn't be here. But, just because we are here, doesn't mean that someone brought it all into being for our convenience; that's one hell of an egocentric world view.

[gwprod12]

It is also based on the assumption that the only possible life is earth-style carbon-based life. While it is true that carbon is the known atom that allows for self-replicating molecules, that does not mean it is the only one. We've just never seen a self-replicating molecule based on anything else.

[dark4181]

Stephen Hawking said that the odds of the universe being formed naturally were 1 to 10^93? Please indicate a reference for that statement.

 

it was in his "cosmology" lecture IIRC, but it may also have been "the universe in a nutshell"

 

he also said that the big bang theory (which is mostly treated as 'the way it happened') points toward creation, rather than evolution, becuz evolution would require longer than 14 billion years (hawking's estimate of the universe's age) to reach the point it has. he has postulated that evolution would require a far greater amount of time... also, another of his postulations is that if the rate of expansion of the big bang had been 1 million million billionths of a second slower that the universe would have collapsed into a fireball and snuffed out in a heartbeat

 

i never claimed that god made the universe "for our convenience" ... i don't know god's reasons, i can't know them. i just believe in creation/intelligent design over evolution

[gwprod12]

I'm somewhat familiar with Stephen Hawking's cosmology lecture. He made several points in which he states that the "big bang" theory is not conducive (to his mind) to organic evolution, and that it indicates a moment of creation. However, he was actually arguing against the notion of the big bang, using the time scales involved since the event as interpolative evidence that there was not sufficient time to establish the universe as we see it.

 

I dont recall him saying anything about 1 to 10^93 as the unlikelihood of the universe forming naturally.

 

LeaderU and ChristianAnswers arent the best websites to find hard science.

 

It's perfectly fine to believe that gravity is angels pulling things down toward the earth. If Angels are the motivators of the physical laws of the universe, then great. As long as those Angels consistently do what we expect them to do, and can be defined in mathematical terms.

 

As I've stated about a million times: If you want to create a theory with the underlying premise that God created the universe and engineered the life on earth, that's good. But to call something science, it must be derived using empirical observation, skepticism and the scientific method. Otherwise it's just philosophy or theology. Neither creationism nor Intelligent Design conform to either empirical observation, skepticism or the scientific method.

[dark4181]

i'll try to find an exact quote/link for you tonight, i have to leave for work in a bit

[consolation]

Is there any small lab experiment you can do then to test evolution?

 

Got a spare 100,000 years on your hands?

[wildcat69410]

Got a spare 100,000 years on your hands?

 

It's called genetically inducing thousands of generations of a genetically simple creature. Scientists have attempted to prove evolution using the Fruit Fly, and breeding them with certain characteristics that are important to their survival. Didn't take 100,000 years, didn't even take 1. Yet their results did nothing to prove Evolution, in fact it almost proved the opposite. Fruit Flies bred to avoid poison died, while those that were bred to not recognize it survived.

[consolation]

It's called genetically inducing thousands of generations of a genetically simple creature. Scientists have attempted to prove evolution using the Fruit Fly, and breeding them with certain characteristics that are important to their survival. Didn't take 100,000 years, didn't even take 1. Yet their results did nothing to prove Evolution, in fact it almost proved the opposite. Fruit Flies bred to avoid poison died, while those that were bred to not recognize it survived.

 

The approximate life span of fruitfly is 30 days in 100000 year that's at least 3,216,667 generations assuming a 10 day egg to adult cycle. (That's GENERATIONS not INDIVIDUAL insects) If you can show me this amazing experiment where they induced over 3 mln generations in one year I'll poo my pants. The experiments you describe have been generally done by groups with a pseudo-scientific agenda. But, if you can provide a citation to an article in a reputable peer reviewed journal I would be thrilled to see it. You won't, because there is none...

 

The thing that astounds me about CD is that it's proponents seem to miss the glaringly obvious fact that biological organisms are incredibly poorly constructed. Look at the eye for example; the nervous structure is placed ON TOP of the photo receptive cells, greatly decreasing sensitivity and creating a blind spot. All very inefficient. Are you saying that the "Intelligent" designer is a bit of a retard? - Because a high school senior could come up with a better design than that.

 

Fortunately for most of the planet this {censored} only took root in the US; thanks to it's Christian Taleban. It's a sad fact that political convenience allows the minds of young people to be warped by such BS.

[gwprod12]

Or the appendix for that matter: An organ that is completely useless in any way, and will kill you if it gets infected.

 

Or the pinkie toe: No weight rests on the pinkie toe. It has no function whatsoever.

 

(just two for now, I just woke up)

[killbot1000]

The approximate life span of fruitfly is 30 days in 100000 year that's at least 3,216,667 generations assuming a 10 day egg to adult cycle. (That's GENERATIONS not INDIVIDUAL insects) If you can show me this amazing experiment where they induced over 3 mln generations in one year I'll poo my pants. The experiments you describe have been generally done by groups with a pseudo-scientific agenda. But, if you can provide a citation to an article in a reputable peer reviewed journal I would be thrilled to see it. You won't, because there is none...

 

The thing that astounds me about CD is that it's proponents seem to miss the glaringly obvious fact that biological organisms are incredibly poorly constructed. Look at the eye for example; the nervous structure is placed ON TOP of the photo receptive cells, greatly decreasing sensitivity and creating a blind spot. All very inefficient. Are you saying that the "Intelligent" designer is a bit of a retard? - Because a high school senior could come up with a better design than that.

 

Fortunately for most of the planet this {censored} only took root in the US; thanks to it's Christian Taleban. It's a sad fact that political convenience allows the minds of young people to be warped by such BS.

 

 

You have some good stuff here, seriously. I completely agree

[dark4181]

the design of the eye has good physiological reasons...

 

quote by renowned biologist George Ayoub

 

"the vertebrate retine provides an excellent example of functional -though non-intuitive- design. the design of the retina is responsible for it's high acuity and sensitivity. it is simply untrue that the retina is demonstrably suboptimal, nor is it easy to conceive how it might be modified without significantly decreasing it's function"

 

quote by Steven C. Meyer, Ph.D.

 

"there's an important physiological reason as to why the retina has to be inverted in the eye. within the overall design of the system, it's a tradeoff that allows the eye to process the vast amount of oxygen it needs in vertebrates. yes, this creates a slight blind spot, but that's not a problem because people have two eyes and the two blind spots don't overlap. actually, the eye is an incredible design"

 

the arguement you're pursuing is known as "disteleology" or apparent "stupidness" in the design of certain systems... it has already been refuted repeatedly by widely acknowledged biologists... did you catch that? BY WIDELY ACKNOWLEDGED BIOLOGISTS

 

or are you going to claim that Steven Meyer isn't a real scientist because he happens to believe in design?

[gwprod12]

What is Stephen C Meyer's PhD in? Biosciences? IIRC his PhD is in Philosophy (which isnt science). He has a bachelors in geology. Does having a PhD in Meteorology qualify me to be a Psychologist?

 

I dont want to attack a position based on who's making it, nor do I want to advocate a position based on who's making it. I dont find his credentials to be credible. Though I wouldnt expect anyone to find my credentials to be credible either.

 

I dont know enough about the eye to say for sure that it could be setup better. Had I been an intelligent designer (designing my own eye), I'd add in a better binocular vision system, like a carnivorous bird. The ability to see a more broad spectrum of light would be nice too. Human vision just isnt very good. (human smell and hearing arent very good either, too. I'd fix those as well)

[dark4181]

I dont know enough about the eye to say for sure that it could be setup better. Had I been an intelligent designer (designing my own eye), I'd add in a better binocular vision system, like a carnivorous bird. The ability to see a more broad spectrum of light would be nice too. Human vision just isnt very good. (human smell and hearing arent very good either, too. I'd fix those as well)

 

alright, then how would you make it work without sacrificing the function of ANY other system?

[gwprod12]

any other system? I dont get it.

[dark4181]

any other system? I dont get it.

 

how would you improve the function of the eye without sacrificing the performance of any other biological system?

 

it's easy to say "anyone can design a better system" ...but can you do it without sacrificing performance in other areas?

 

and when it gets down to it, you're still talking about "designing" a system, if you catch my drift

[gwprod12]

It is easy to say "anyone can design a better whatever". I didnt say "better". I said what I would do. How would my design of an eye necessarily compromise liver function? I mean, what are you talking about?

 

If one were to believe that an intelligent designer designed all earth life, one could also believe that many of the features of other creatures could have been incorporated into the human form. Why do human eyes and octopus eyes have similar capabilities, but very different constructions? Why design two systems that do the same thing, but are (at least superficially) independantly designed/evolved?

 

People can believe whatever they want. You want to believe in Intelligent Design. I want to believe in Organic Evolution. What's the big deal? If you sincerely think that some tenet of Intelligent Design completely disproves organic evolution, you're very much incorrect. If you sincerely believe that Intelligent Design calls Organic Evolution into question... then sure, why not? It depends on your perspective, I guess.

 

My perspective is simple. Intelligent Design is pseudoscience. The idea could be turned into legitimate scientific theory, I guess. At that point, it would be a good foil of Organic Evolution. But it's just philosophy currently. And as far as I know, no attempt to create hard science out of the hypothesis is even being attempted.

[killbot1000]

humans are an unremarkable species (physically). We have negligible strength (a chimp has 7x our strength), we have mediocre eyesight, we have mediocre hearing, and mediocre taste/smell. Actually the only two things about our species that are remarkable are our brains, and our opposable thumbs, thats all a species really needs to dominate the globe. I mean think about it, without clothing we freeze to death, what kind of design is that? Seriously, our species was weak and dying out, and then our brains started flaring up, and we made a comeback heheh. It's great actually (for us), horrible for the earth.

 

If I was playing God (like God supposedly is), I'd make a few design changes myself, like better muscle/motor control and a better way to do the spine, and perhaps most of our joints, those get crappy and arthritisy overtime. My point is that we weren't designed by any kind of creator, and if we were, it was an experiment, not the intention of creating us, because it really could have been done better. Thats all I have to say

[consolation]

the design of the eye has good physiological reasons...

 

quote by renowned biologist George Ayoub

 

"the vertebrate retine provides an excellent example of functional -though non-intuitive- design. the design of the retina is responsible for it's high acuity and sensitivity. it is simply untrue that the retina is demonstrably suboptimal, nor is it easy to conceive how it might be modified without significantly decreasing it's function"

 

quote by Steven C. Meyer, Ph.D.

 

"there's an important physiological reason as to why the retina has to be inverted in the eye. within the overall design of the system, it's a tradeoff that allows the eye to process the vast amount of oxygen it needs in vertebrates. yes, this creates a slight blind spot, but that's not a problem because people have two eyes and the two blind spots don't overlap. actually, the eye is an incredible design"

 

the arguement you're pursuing is known as "disteleology" or apparent "stupidness" in the design of certain systems... it has already been refuted repeatedly by widely acknowledged biologists... did you catch that? BY WIDELY ACKNOWLEDGED BIOLOGISTS

 

or are you going to claim that Steven Meyer isn't a real scientist because he happens to believe in design?

 

 

I don't know who S. Meyer is, he isn't cited in any Neuroscience journals or any Biology journals!!!!???? Reputable my butt... What he claims is total bollocks!!!

 

What is Stephen C Meyer's PhD in? Biosciences? IIRC his PhD is in Philosophy (which isnt science). He has a bachelors in geology. Does having a PhD in Meteorology qualify me to be a Psychologist?

 

 

He is about as qualified to comment as I am to write osX kernels -hey I have one that'll run on 486s, SSE is just there to help marketing - come download my kernel, I used BASIC to write it.

 

 

 

P.S. Strictly speaking all PhDs are in Philosophy; it stands for Doctor of Philosophy. It's an old convention, that dates back to when everything that wasn't medicine or theology was considered philosophy. It's short for latin - Philosophiæ Doctor.

[killbot1000]

I dunno, I just have a problem with ID. Not because of the idea, but because there's a push to have it taught in a science classroom. This scares me, because I think from a scientific point of view, and...this quite simply isn't science, its philosophy. I wouldn't want "utilitarianism (a philosophical view that whatever is morally right, depends on what generates the most happiness)" being taught in a science classroom. It's just mis categorized. I personally think it's {censored}, but it should be taught (for the reason that nothing can be proven wrong unless its able to spout its mouth off to the public [racists for example {not that I'm equating ID to racism}])... It just should not be in a science/biology classroom.

[dark4181]

fair enough killbot. i'll agree that ID is mostly philosophy, but philosophy invovevs reasoning just as much as science does. if an astronomer or microbiologist or whatever genre of scientist can look at their field and come to the conclusion that god exists, who are any of us to tell them they're not scientists?

 

i don't think ID should be forced on people that don't want to entertain it. but i also don't accept evolution as being fact. it's still an unproven theory as far as i can see. without going back in time and observing the phenomenon, you simply can't prove it... experiments on evolution that squeeze thousands of years into the space of a few weeks aren't verifiable becuz they're prone to human error and human expectations and human odds-stacking...

 

remember that darwin said that evolution would work best if given an infinite amount of time? ...well, the universe isn't infinitely old. that's generally accepted by everyone nowadays... so, imo, it follows that the 65 million years since the dinosaurs isn't enough time for evolution to have reached it's current state...

[gwprod12]

The problem is that no experiment can prove or disprove God. Without experiment, there is no science. A good example is General Relativity. The theory of General Relativity predicted that singuarities existed, even though no one had ever seen one. After 30 years of looking, low and behold... singularities. Not finding a singularity would not have disproved General Relativity, because one cannot logically prove a negative; But finding one good supporting evidence of the theory's implications. A hypothesis must make some sort of observable prediction. Not necessarily observed, but observable. Exactly what prediction about the natural world does Intelligent Design make?

 

You make a good point, that philosophy and science both involve reason. But philosophy involves logical constructs, where science employs empirical evidence. This brings me in mind of the old joke: "You're stuck in a room with nothing but a saw and a board. Get out of the room. Take the saw, cut the board into two pieces, stick them together and make a whole, use the whole to get out" While this logic is falacious, there are many equally nonsensical things that have logical proof.

 

Women = time * money

time = money

Women = money * money

Women = money^2

money = root of all evil

money = sqrt(all evil)

money^2 = all evil

Women = money^2 and money^2 = all evil

Women = all evil

 

That's logical proof right there. It's not good for much in the real world. (in case you havent taken algebra yet, yes, that does work).

[dark4181]

Exactly what prediction about the natural world does Intelligent Design make?

 

that there is a purpose to life

 

 

that 'women are evil' proof always cracks me up. funny stuff

 

 

oh.. evidence is supposed to be used to validate a theory... lately it seems like people are trying to use the theory simply to validate evidence (of evolution) ...sounds like the beginnings of desperation to me

[gwprod12]

I dont know what you consider a theory validating evidence. Science is saying "My hypothesis is, that if I throw a baseball straight up, it will stay there", then throwing the baseball and finding out that you're incorrect. A hypothesis is usually created from evidence. That part is easy. But that hypothesis must be consistent with any evidence you find, in order to generate a theory.

 

I just dont get how anyone who's ever had anything to do with Biology could think the theory of organic evolution is riddled with nonsense and flim flam. No one (educated) denies that the theory of organic evolution has been established scientifically. What people deny is that it's correct. Which is entirely possible. You can disagree with organic evolution as much as you want. You may even be right. You can create your own theory and go out and test it. But organic evolution is a consistent (so far) scientific theory, plain and simple.

 

No empirical evidence has ever been gathered anywhere, at any time, by anyone, that is fundementally consistent with intelligent design. ID just isnt science. Anyone can argue all they want that it "makes more sense". But logical proof isnt evidence of any sort. If you want to support Intelligent Design, get a degree in microbiology, and start coming up with experiments that will give evidence of intelligent design. If you can create a reproducible experiment that proves the existence of Intelligent Beings and their past interference/creation with life, you'll be a hero.

 

One evidence of an intelligent designer of the universe would be the one found in Contact (by Carl Sagan), where Pi actually contains a message to beings capable of calculating it to a certain precision of digits. Since the Pi ratio is intrinsic to this universe, it would be pretty good evidence of a "Creator". Go look for that!

[dark4181]

explain to me how the organic formation of cyanide and formeldahyde(sp?) as a product of an electronically charged atmosphere acting upon a primordial soup proves evolution?

 

then explain how this formation of cyanide and formeldahyde put itself together to form life as we know it

 

yes, i'm talking about the miller experiment

 

also, i'm not classifying ID as science. it may look to various scientific genres for guidelines and such, but beyond that it uses philosophy to attempt to work out the "why" and "how" of life

 

i simply don't like that evolution is often treated as unrefutable fact, rather than as the theory that is remains. further, i don't like that anyone that disagrees with (macro) evolution is labelled as a religious zeolot or a scientific pretender

[gwprod12]

The miller-urey doesnt prove evolution.

 

+boggles+

 

No one has ever claimed that it does. It simply proves that organic molecules can spontaneously generate. They can, a hundred experiments have concluded that.

 

It's the naysayers dream, I guess. "Organic molecules could not have been spontaneously generated". "Here, we just did it". "Well, what I should have said, is that they could not have been spontaneously generated on the earth". "The conditions of our experiment match the theoretical conditions of early earth". "Well, what I meant to say was that organic molecules could not have been spontaneously generated on the earth... with the atmosphere it has today!"

 

The question that engendered the experiment was simple. "Can organic molecules be created by simple chemistry?". <do experiment> "Yes, they can" <points at experiment>

 

I dont see why that's so complicated. The Creationists and the Anti-evolutionists, and the Flat-Earthers always just look at an experiment, create their own scenario, and then prove that their arbitrary scenario doesnt fit the conclusions of the experiment. Thus "proving" science wrong. When the experiment's conclusions fit precisely the original question the scientists themselves asked.

 

The thing with the Miller Urey experiment is, if you want to go do it yourself, using the same technique they did, you'll get the same result. That's science.

 

So, while the Miller Urey experiment doesnt "prove" evolution to be factual, it disproves one of the arguments against it. (A misplaced argument, as the theory of organic evolution isnt the same, and is totally unrelated to the origin of life theories. Organic Evolution makes no predictions on how life was first established. As far as The Theory of Evolution is concerned, God could have done it.)