Evolution vs. Creation- serious discussion only please

Post Reply New Topic

Monty- I do not want to mock creationists here. I want to see what evidence they can give for their hypothesis, or against evolution. So far I haven't seen any takers to this challenge, so I'm going to leave this thread alone and I suggest you do the same. I'll bump it every few days, and if there are no serious challenges for about a month, I will consider ID to have lost the debate on this board.

One can not use reason and logic against those who have forsaken its use. The proper purpose of any debate with such a person is to forewarn those who would not know any better.

The philosophical error all those who debate Iamnotaparakeet and Ragtime is that by employing logic and reason and pretending that they are doing the same by continued argument is to assert that they are debating on a rational level. Which neither of them are doing. By continuing debate you are giving them intellectual credentials which neither of them posses in this debate. They NEED you, who support evolution, to attempt to debate them as equals to establish their credentials in this debate.

To repeat. You can outline exactly why they are wrong. But if you accept their premises.. that is all they need. No matter how much you argue, they have won. Because there goal isn't to establish creationism as fact., it is to attempt to give the respect that is afforded genuine science to the ID movement. And by arguing against it continually what you are saying to the world is that all creationism is is a differing viewpoint. Which it isn't. It's childish poppycock that would be dismissed if anyone were to take even a cursory glance at reality. So don't give it the benefit of the doubt.

Izaak, frankly I agree with you. But I also wanted to demonstrate all the more convincingly that ID has no basis in reality to support it. This is best done by giving them at least some chance to debate on a level playing field, and watching them fail to produce any convincing evidence for their side whatsoever. Otherwise they, like Ben Stein in his movie Expelled, will claim to be the victims of oppression and, as Ragtime already has repeatedly, assert the existence of some vast anti-Christian conspiracy to discredit ID.

One should never mock anybody. I may not agree with what a creationist has to say, but they deserve to be able to say it. After they say it, feel free to refute it. But one should be sure to never accept their premises.

Rightly Creationism is pure make believe which any person who takes even a cursory glance at reality would dismiss. But one should never do it out of hand. Instead of debating the creationist (which is a waste of time because they have already given up their rational faculty), one should outline exactly why it is wrong. Not for the creationist themselves, they are a waste of time. But for the person who does not know any better. The mind that is not already lost. For they are the person that needs convincing that Creationism is indeed make believe. And evolution is the theory that corresponds best to reality. For that is the truth.

By debating the creationist you establish credentials which they have no right to claim except that which you give them. DON'T DO IT. And not just you Orwell, all those who debate creationists. Don't do it. Your target audience should be the people that haven't made judgment yet. Those that have and have picked the wrong side are probably wasted anyhow.

They have the chance to present logical and reasonable arguments at every single tick of the clock. You don't have to be mean or vindictive. But you must not concede any points about giving them a rational leg to stand on until such a time as they come forward with logical and reasonable arguments in order to claim that leg. Until such times, conceding them a level playing field on the basis of logic debate is to give up the entire debate. As I outlined... they don't want to win... they just need your concession. By you conceding that level playing field you put doubts into the mind of those who have not looked at either side. You the scientist that KNOWS the truth because you have looked at reality confer to your opposition at least a part of that respect (in the minds of those who have not looked at it at all) because you have given your opposition that leg to stand on. It is only by YOUR concession that they have that leg... All I am simply saying is give them the chance to put forward a rational argument. But let them do it on their own merits, not yours. Because they don't want to convince YOU. They want to get your concession so they can convince themselves and others. Because they know YOU already subscribe to reality. As far as they are concerned you are a lost cause.

For evidence carefully look through and read what Iamnotaparakeet and ragtime have actually said. And don't sugar coat it... in your best imitation of an aspie read their words for what they ACTUALLY SAY.

Well, their refusal even to step onto the level playing field I tried to provide seems to support the hypothesis that they would be destroyed in an even debate on the factual evidence. Why not come into the debate unless they know they would lose?

whoa! way too many negatives in that sentence for me to understand the properly.. can you rephrase?

If ID proponents had any confidence that they would be able to hold their own in a debate over the facts of evolution vs creationism, they would debate on this thread. I offered a level playing field, which is really more than they can ask for. The fact that they refuse to address these issues indicates that they have nothing to support their views.

As I said, their purpose isn't to convince YOU that they are correct. But to get YOU to concede that level playing field. To get YOU to concede that THEY have something rational to offer. To get YOU to say that they are WORTHY of debate.

Because it isn't YOU that they are trying to convince. Primarily it is themselves. Secondarily it is anyone that has any doubt whatsoever. but You (a person of at least some association with a scientific view point) saying that a person with no rational basis for their views whatsoever has a respect they don't deserve, it elevates Creationism to a level that IT doesn't deserve.

So to repeat. They aren't out to prove that creationism is true. They are just out to get you to concede that it is an issue worth debating. Because debate makes it seems as if there is an issue open to debate in order to reach a conclusion.

I'd like to divide that up into what must be true if the theory is true, and what can't be true if the theory is true. "Must be true" means that if the prediction is not true, that would be convincing evidence that the theory is false. "Can't be true" means that if one finds what the theory says should not happen, that would be convincing evidence that the theory is false. I'll also distinguish between the necessary predictions of a theory and points on which a theory is neutral, which it may explain if they happen, but can't predict.

A necessary prediction of evolution is that if you construct cladograms (you reconstruct the family tree) from data which, as far you you know the biology should be independent except by common descent, you get statistically significant correlations. The more data you use, the less random disagreement there should be. Examples of suitable independent data sources are non-functional genes, endogenous retroviruses, morphology (if you compare morphology to the genes that control development you can only have partial independence, but neither will you have a one to one relationship, because there are different ways to create the same body shape and small differences in developmental genes can make a big difference to body shape), stereotyped behaviours, the cladograms of specialized parasites and their hosts.

If the data sets are independent except by common descent, they should not agree perfectly, exactly because changes in each trait are independent. Common descent should still create a statistical relationship, which should (again on average) become stronger the more data you have.

Creationists explain this by saying the designer used a hierarchy of common blueprints. That is not a necessary prediction of any variant of creationist theory I know, because a designer might have mixed alternative solutions to the same problem in a way different than the one predicted by evolution. The common blueprints explanation is therefore only a post-hoc explanation, not a prediction.

The evolutionary prediction is a prediction. It applies to new species. There is an estimate that only about 10% of all species have yet been discovered and described, so there is plenty of opportunity to test the prediction. If suddenly species were to turn up not showing the pattern of correlations, creationists could say the designer chose not to use the hierarchy of common blueprints, but evolution would be in trouble. That makes evolution the more specific and therefore more easily falsified theory. It is the stronger scientific theory.

Some ID proponents have started talking about "front loading", the notion that the designer included genetic information in organisms long before their descendants started using it. The concept is very elastic, and it is therefore important to distinguish versions that merely put an ID label on known evolutionary processes from those versions whose confirmation would be evidence against evolution.

A version of front loading inconsistent with evolutionary theory is that all the developmental blueprints for multicellular life were already present in the genome of the last common unicellular ancestor to all multicellular life. The claim is that the developmental programmes did not themselves evolve, but that they inserted, in a completely functional form, by the designer, and later apparent evolution was merely selecting from the menu of existing options. If that were true at the level claimed, evolution would be in serious trouble. One important point here is the level at which this is claimed to happen. By "at the level claimed" I mean we are not talking about co-option of existing genes for new functions (that is part of evolutionary theory) but picking one of several completely functional, yet distinct developmental programmes as different as the ones making fungi rather than green plants, or arthropods rather than molluscs, or insects rather than spiders, with all of these programmes present before there was any multicellular life.

Although high level front loading is pushed by some ID proponents, the concept again shows evolution to be the stronger theory. I have never heard of any evolutionary mechanism that could produce high level front loading as I described it. But for ID, front loading is optional, and not all ID proponents believe in it. Some believe the designer intervened to change the developmental programme either at all major points of divergence, or even at every single speciation event. This is obviously inconsistent with high level front loading, because that says all major developmental programmes were inserted by the designer before they were needed. There are no constraints on what the designer is supposed to have done. ID can therefore have it any way it likes, but that is a weakness, not a strength. A theory that is consistent with any finding can't make any prediction. Anything could be true, so no possibility can be selected. If a theory makes no prediction what must be true and what can't be true, it is useless.

The elasticity of the idea of front loading is also problematic. A known process in the evolution of development is changing the time at which existing genes are expressed. I have already seen that claimed as an example of front loading, when it is merely a relabeling. If that relabeling in uncritically accepted, by generalizing to the high level front loading inconsistent with evolution ID proponents could then claim to have evidence against evolution. That would seem plausible to anyone who doesn't know what biological details to look at. That's why it is important to ask just what information is supposed to have been inserted by the designer before it was needed.

Those are some interesting points, Gromit. What are some things you think creationism might predict? If we find something specific that they will predict, than we will have evidence for or against their claims. Evolution has made numerous predictions that have been proven true.


iamnotaparakeet...

Ragtime...

You both regularly frequent this forum. I know you've seen this thread. Are you willing to debate on even terms, with no flaming? Or will you concede that ID has no basis in fact?

i think iamnotaparakeet is willing to believe things like frogs can speciate (lol is that a word) into more frog species ect... but i think he has issues with the common descent of all organisms... hence his refusal to accept proposed cladograms and porposed mechanisms of homoplasy and homolgy

im not sure though... wish he would elaborate

creationism USED to be considered a science.... until all the evidence came back negative (ie-not getting any positive results)

same reason phrenology is no longer considered a science.

if you could posit some scientific evidence in favor of it.... you might be on to something.

To accept speciation while rejecting common descent would seem to at least imply a rejection of uniformitarianism. I do wish he would elaborate more, so we could stop guessing as to his views.

If you ask for specific predictions that necessarily follow from assuming a designer, I don't think that can be done under the assumptions ID advocates are willing to make. Those who openly say the designer is God postulate an omnipotent designer, so anything that does not create a logical paradox is consistent with the assumption. The "scientific" ID advocates refuse to discuss the designer, so they don't have to admit their motivation is religious, but thereby create a big logical gap in their idea. If I know nothing about the designer or the design process, I don't know what limits there are to the products of the design process. If I find design that is demonstrably not optimal, and I see a better solution to the same problem in a different species, ID proponents won't accept that as evidence against intelligent design, because the designer might have had some unknown reason not to use the better solution. For a practical example, the copper based oxygen binding molecule hemocyanin in cephalopod (octopus, squid, cuttlefish, nautilus) blood is less efficient than the iron based hemoglobin. Why didn't the designer use the more efficient solution the designer obviously knew? And why, when it comes to common blueprints, did the designer distribute traits very carefully so as to mimic the distribution expected from an evolutionary process?

If the designer is either omnipotent or unknown (and uses or used unknown processes), there are no constraints you can put on either the design process or the product. Therefore there are no specific prediction that can be derived from the assumption of a designer. The central assumption of ID is worthless for the purpose of making predictions.

The closest ID comes to specific predictions is when it tries to find something that is inconsistent with evolution, but consistent with a designer. The first condition alone turns ID into a theory that is merely anti-evolutionary, rather than making any predictions in its own right. The second condition is easy to satisfy because there are no constraints from the design assumption and doesn't rescue ID from being merely anti-evolutionary.

Irreducible complexity might have been a specific prediction, if someone could turn it into something better than an argument from ignorance. Behe claimed the Krebs cycle (a biochemical pathway) was irreducibly complex, but had missed a publication reporting a simplified Kreabs cycle before Behe published his claim. I read that every single one of the supposed examples of irreducible complexity claimed by Behe have been shown to be reducible. So all of them were arguments of the form "I don't see how this could be made simpler, therefore it can't be made simpler". With that history of failure, the idea would need mathematical proof to impress. I don't know whether that is possible.

Then there is the claim that information can only come from intelligence. The difficulty there is the meaning of information. Stenger writes it was trivial to show that in Dembski's original use, information was negative entropy. Entropy is not conserved (the second law of thermodynamics creationists are fond of quoting), therefore information defined in this way is not conserved.

ID proponents have tried to fix the problem by talking of "complex specified information". The difference is that information as used in information theory asks how many bits do you need to describe a situation. You need the most bits when something is totally random. Increasing information by that definition can be achieved by increasing randomness, so a random process will do just fine. ID advocates try to argue against the role of randomness, so that won't do. "Complex specified information" is supposed to be meaningful information. So there needs to be a definition of meaning. That is a legitimate scientific endeavour. I know of a mathematical biologist who is trying to define a measure of meaning for use in evolutionary analyses. I don't know how far he has gotten with it. I have not heard of the ID people getting anywhere. There needs to be a definition rigourous enough to be used in mathematical proofs. Then it would be possible to examine the ID advocates' intuition that complex specified information might increase only through intelligence, provided there is a good enough computational theory of intelligence. Then, of course, there would be the problem of the origin of that intelligence. If it is supposed to be eternal, how did it get into this universe? Things would get very interesting for the physicists. It should be easier to check whether complex specified information can be increased through the combination of random and systematic processes in evolutionary theory.

All in all, I argue that with the assumptions that creationists and ID advocates are willing to make about the designer, it is impossible to make a specific prediction that follows from the assumption of a designer. The predictions that have been made in reaction to evolutionary theory have either failed or are not yet specific enough to be tested.

So you're saying that, regardless of the evidence, IDers will come up with some post hoc rationalization for it or just reject it outright. That seems like a fair criticism. And then the anti-evolutionary evidence is pretty much just an appeal to ignorance. I found the Krebs cycle issue you mentioned rather humorous.

Ragtime, iamnotaparakeet? Would either of you like to contest these claims? Perhaps you could clarify for us what specific predictions creationism makes so it is testable/falsifiable...

Ignoring the thread isn't going to convince anyone, and I'm certain you've both seen it by now... but w/e. I'll keep bumping every once in a while so it's always available to you if you want to correct me on something.