Why isn't Intelligent design not allowed in public schools?

[Helen]

Yes, making UNFOUNDED assumptions IS an unscientific (and usually illogical) thing to do. And I don't see Scott doing it. However all of evolution is based on the circular, and unfounded, and illogical, and unscientific idea that it happened, so, therefore....it happened.

You want something unfounded? Look at part of the preface to Dawkins' "Blind Watchmaker"

This book is written in the conviction that our own existence once presented the greatest of all mysteries, but that it is a mystery no longer because it is solved. Darwin and Wallace solved it, though we shall continue to add footnotes to their solution for awhile yet. I wrote the book because I was surprised that so many people seemed not only unaware of the elegant and beautiful solution to this deepest of problems but, incredibly, in many cases actually unaware that there was a problem in the first place!

The problem is that of complex design. The computer on which I am writing these words has an information storage capacity of about 64 kilobytes…. The computer was consciously designed and deliberately manufactured. The brain with which you are understanding my words is an array of some ten million kiloneurones. Many of these billions of nerve cells have each more than a thousand ‘electric wires’ connecting them to other neurones. Moreover, at the molecular genetic level, every single one of more than a trillion cells in the body contains about a thousand times as much precisely-coded digital information as my entire computer. The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design. If anyone doesn’t agree that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation, I give up. No, on second thoughts I don’t give up, because one of my aims in the book is to convey something of the sheer wonder of biological complexity to those whose eyes have not been opened to it. But having built up the mystery, my other main aim is to remove it again by explaining the solution.

The solution, is, of course, evolution....

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Uh . . . where's the circle part of the circular reasoning you claim?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
It is necessary to blythly assume that all the tests scientists have done that show retroviral inserts going into genes on a random basis are atypical

Nor is it necessary to blythly assume that the genome being acted upon and the environmental conditions or even the viruses themselves were the same shortly after creation as they are now... assuming direct creation of the original order followed by progressive decay due to sin.

It isn't necessary to blythly assume that the conditions created in these experiments are the absolute conditions when the insertions took place.

... and before you go on with some argument based on parsimony or uniformitarian assumptions, remember that evolutionists suspend both of these guiding principles when they become inconvenient to the theory.

and that somehow, something about infecting a laboratory animal makes the viruses go in randomly whereas in the wild they zoom into the same spot on the genome every time. Bear in mind that in the laboratory things are more uniform by default compared to life in the wild.

Bear in mind that if the creation story is true then the world that God called "good" when He created it was significantly different from the world after a long time of speciation, mutation, and general deterioration.

I don't make the assumption that God created things as they appear now. I assume that God created "good" and that evil was brought upon the natural order by man's sin. Animals have changed. They have "descended" from better, more fit, more highly adaptable ancestors.

Somewhere I saw somebody accuse evolutionists of making unfounded assumptions as if that were an an unscientific thing to do. They don't really do that, but you do it in front of our very eyes!

It is an unscientific thing to make unfounded assumptions based upon a particular philosophical premise then deny the possibility of other alternatives simply because they reject that philosophy.

If what I suggest is unfounded then certainly what UTE is arguing is unfounded. My assumptions of cause are based on the same evidence as his.

BTW, there is nothing unfounded about the fact that our genome has picked up "baggage" over its history. If you had read our actual exchanges, you would know that I suggested a mechanism for explaining the common location of inserts between species.

A catastrophic, cross species disease may have wiped out the populations of several species except those with a particular genetic feature that allowed them to accommodate the virus. Also, the insert may have provided these various species a survival advantage when faced with some other environmental condition.

The point is that the only real reason to demand common ancestory is that it is consistent with the assumption that evolution/naturalism is true. Unbind yourself from that artificial limitation and other options become apparent.

 

[Scott J]

Speaking of "blythe" assumptions... we should consider the one where philosophers of naturalism have convinced scientists over the past 100+ years that they should assume evolution as governing truth before considering the evidence.

We should deal with the "blythe" acceptance by many that science=naturalism and naturalism=science... while science and supernaturalism are mutually exclusive.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

By the way, thank you Scott for posting things with actual content to them. A pleasant change from some of what passes for debate at times!

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
[qb] If I were a science teacher working in jr high or high school I would have a day of discussion about the disgreements over evolution, I would stress that in this class we will not be asking anybody to give up any religously held beliefs, but we will be asking them to learn what the science is saying; they would not be required to believe the science is true.

Better yet, every student should be given at least 80 hours of classroom instruction on philosophy and in particular the philosophies pertinent to this debate before learning any theory on origins.

There are three basic philosophical premises for determining what is "true": naturalism, spiritualism, and supernaturalism.

Naturalism either declares that all truth is explainable by natural laws and causes or else it completely separates the spiritual from the natural a la gnosticism in such a way that God (if there be one) never intercedes in the natural world (if he actually can).

Spiritualism contends that only the spiritual is "real" and that the natural world is a created illusion thus you can "make" your own reality.

Supernaturalism holds that both the spiritual and natural are real and that they are inextricably interwoven.

Evolution is based on the wholly unscientific premise of naturalism. It makes "scientific" arguments but ultimately it argues for naturalism and against supernaturalism.

</font>[/QUOTE]See, right here you have made fundamental mistake about the science of evolution. Like all science, it investigates the natural. That is true enough. But you take that simple fact and make the non-logical leap that this means that everybody who works in science, especially the science of evolution, is therefore philosophically oppossed to the very idea of anything spiritual or supernatural.

Hey, give us a break here. You aren't trying to say there is no natural world to invesigate, are you? It sure sounds like it to me. I say that whatever one might believe about the spiritual and the supernatural one can still investigate the natural by natural means. Why not? What could stop one from doing that?

Your desire to stop it is based on what was found out, thats all, and thats to bad because knowledge, once learned, is never really forgotten.

Intelligent design attempts scientific explanations based on the also wholly unscientific premise of supernaturalism- that a creator exists and, whether knowable or not, is a possible cause for things in nature that exhibit design attributes. The fact that reverse engineering is used to study dna lends support to the notion.

UTE loves to argue the scientific arguments based on the assumption of evolution/naturalism. He implicitly demands that you accept naturalism as the only governing framework for explaining things like retroviral inserts... and brushes off any suggestion that assumes anything but naturalism for the source.

UTE presents evidence to support his assertions, evidence you fail to deal with.

The fact remains that evolution is founded not on science nor observation.

Looking at fossils and finding they form a sequence is an observation. Looking at genomes and finding they have retroviral inserts is an observation. Finding they follow a sequence is an observation. Comparing it to the fossil based sequence and finding them a very close match is an observation. Looking at radioactive decay remnants in a mineral is an observation. Finding them to be consistent with radioactive decay taking place over millions of years is an observation. Looking at annual layers in lake bottoms, marked out by springtime blooms of life, is an observation. Finding there are 60,000 or more of them is an observation. Looking at annual ice layers in antarctica and finding there are 400,000 of them is an observation. Looking at starlight from galaxies 10 billion light years away is an observation. Finding remnants of whale legs in the body of whales is an observation.

What's this about no observation? That's as invalid as saying there is no science.

It is founded on a philosophy- a metaphysic of its own. Evolutionists routinely dismiss or deceptively deny that it is a faith based system... but it is and thus should not be taught to any impressionable individual unless they have been thoroughly informed of the non-scientific foundational, "blind" presuppositions it is founded on.

In the newspeak of creationists, accepting the implications of observations is blindness and denying the implication of observations is to see. That does not square with common sense.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
See, right here you have made fundamental mistake about the science of evolution. Like all science, it investigates the natural.

That is true. But it also does not require that all causes within nature are natural. One can use the scientific method without imposing predetermined limits on what theories can be developed or what conclusions the evidence can suggest.

Thus, this whole debate. ID looks at the evidence, applies the scientific method, and is willing to acknowledge that a "cause" for what is observed is intelligence rather than chance.

The evolutionists' object not because of the evidence or the process but because the foundational assumption does not limit causes to natural/chance ones.

That is true enough. But you take that simple fact and make the non-logical leap that this means that everybody who works in science, especially the science of evolution, is therefore philosophically oppossed to the very idea of anything spiritual or supernatural.

Actually I didn't do that... I said that an alternative is that they separate God from creation.

However, I find the contention completely inconsistent that God could raise men from the dead, suspend the laws of physics at will, and supernaturally create a whole different realm called heaven but... could not speak the world into existence in 6 days with the providential allowance of forces and historical events that would have delivered the world exactly as we observe it today.

The science of evolution is philosophically opposed to anything spiritual that in anyway serves as a cause for anything in the natural realm. The premise is that everything in nature has natural cause.

The fact that people can compartmentalize two opposing faiths really has no bearing on the fact that evolution presupposes that God was not necessary.

Hey, give us a break here. You aren't trying to say there is no natural world to invesigate, are you? It sure sounds like it to me.

Not at all. In fact, I am saying much the opposite. I am saying that the investigation of the natural world should not be limited artificially by evolution and naturalism.

Forensics is very much a healthy science... that does not assume naturalism. In fact, it necessarily looks for things "unnatural"- things that are best explained by "intelligent" causes.

Archeology is a similar field of science. Stonehenge by some improbable convergence of forces may have had a purely natural origin. But the same people who demand that the coding of DNA has a natural cause would scoff at the notion that Stonehenge wasn't designed and built even though a complex code contained in cells that will not naturally form under any known conditions is much less likely.

I say that whatever one might believe about the spiritual and the supernatural one can still investigate the natural by natural means. Why not? What could stop one from doing that?

Nothing. I agree. But nothing one believes about the natural should prevent them from considering causes during investigation that are not natural.

Supernaturalism doesn't deny natural law nor that it is normative for the world we live in now. It simply accepts that the natural and spiritual are not mutually exclusive and that both have acted as causes in natural history.

Your desire to stop it is based on what was found out, thats all, and thats to bad because knowledge, once learned, is never really forgotten.

My desire to stop it? Stop what?

There are genetic researchers who find reverse engineering useful. How would assuming an "Engineer" stop this?

The natural laws and constants of the universe are in harmony with one another in such a way that even the slightest variation in some of them would make the universe as we observe it impossible. How would assuming a Composer of that harmony stop their usefulness in science?

How would assuming that all creatures today descended and speciated from a pristine, pure order stop the study of biology or zoology?

The answer is that assuming supernaturalism does much less harm to scientific study and inquiry than does the artificially limiting presuppositions of naturalism and evolution.

Supernaturalism doesn't deny natural laws or processes. (In fact, it much better than naturalism explains where laws and constants came from.) It does not deny what is normative. It denies that natural laws and processes account for all of the causes in nature.

UTE presents evidence to support his assertions, evidence you fail to deal with.

Why should I? I have not claimed that evolution is "impossible". It is possible... and if naturalism is "truth" then it is probable.

If his assumption is correct then his explanation of the evidence is reasonable. If his assumption is not "blythely" accepted then there are alternatives that are also reasonable.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
The fact remains that evolution is founded not on science nor observation.

Looking at fossils and finding they form a sequence is an observation.</font>[/QUOTE] That does not demand an interpretation consistent with evolution. If evolution is not presupposed then the evidence and sequences can be interpretted otherwise.

Looking at genomes and finding they have retroviral inserts is an observation. Finding they follow a sequence is an observation.

Assuming that this proves common ancestory is desired or even demanded by evolution.

Looking at radioactive decay remnants in a mineral is an observation. Finding them to be consistent with radioactive decay taking place over millions of years is an observation.

No it isn't. No one has observed millions of years. Those measures are based on assumptions upon assumption upon assumptions... the assumptions necessary for evolution to have sufficient time to have occurred.

Further, evolutionists will even massage the starting point assumptions if chemical dating yields an age that is "out of range" for the fossils being studied.

Looking at annual layers in lake bottoms, marked out by springtime blooms of life, is an observation.

Speculating that they occurred over long periods of time is based on the assumption of convenient uniformtarianism. I qualify "convenient" because the model can be discarded or suspended if it contradicts a "truth" of science... like the presupposed ages of fossils that might be found in them.

Finding there are 60,000 or more of them is an observation. Looking at annual ice layers in antarctica and finding there are 400,000 of them is an observation. Looking at starlight from galaxies 10 billion light years away is an observation. Finding remnants of whale legs in the body of whales is an observation.

What is amusing about this whole tirade is that you assume the conclusion without even recognizing it. Stop assuming naturalism and evolution and other explanations become available.

What's this about no observation? That's as invalid as saying there is no science.

Some of the things you listed are observations... but none exclusively point to evolution unless you interpret them after presupposing evolution.

In the newspeak of creationists, accepting the implications of observations is blindness and denying the implication of observations is to see. That does not square with common sense.

That simply isn't what evolutionists do. The establish philosophical limitations to acceptable causes prior to considering the observations. They dismiss many potential explanations not because they do not agree with the data but because they allow for something other than purely natural causation.

It's common sense to blind one's self to the assumptions they bring to the evidence...

.

 

[Helen]

They establish philosophical limitations to acceptable causes prior to considering the observations. They dismiss many potential explanations not because they do not agree with the data but because they allow for something other than purely natural causation.

One of the best summaries I have read. Well put.

 

[Scott J]

Let me try a very simple illustration Paul.

Say the two of us are tasked to explain how a half-full glass of water came to be on a table. If you assume that the only natural causes can explain the glass then you have imposed artificial limits. In fact, half of the water could have evaporated. But it is also possible and more probable that the willful action of an intelligent creature was the cause.

It is "possible" though highly improbable that the genetic code arose from random natural causes. That it somehow added more and more complexity and function... getting better and better. However, it is much more reasonable to associate order and code with intelligence. It is more consistent with observation to assume that the original "good" has endured generations of progressive corruption.

 

[UTEOTW]

"UTE loves to argue the scientific arguments based on the assumption of evolution/naturalism. He implicitly demands that you accept naturalism as the only governing framework for explaining things like retroviral inserts... and brushes off any suggestion that assumes anything but naturalism for the source. "

Not quite accurate, but I understand why you think that.

But there are two issues here. First off, I have yet to see any reason to invoke the supernatural in these discussions. I just do not see anything in biology that seems to need intervention beyond the perfect laws that God gave us that control this universe.

Second, I question how you plan to tell the difference between a natural process and a supernatural intervention. If you cannot tell the difference, then there is no need to invole the supernatural.

"The fact remains that evolution is founded not on science nor observation."

I think Paul addressed this so I'll be short. There are plenty of observations that lead most scientists to a conclusion of evolution. You may assert other interpretations, but that is a whole different animal than claiming that they do not exist.

"But it also does not require that all causes within nature are natural. One can use the scientific method without imposing predetermined limits on what theories can be developed or what conclusions the evidence can suggest."

And I have often invited interpretations that involve the suernatural with the request that you tell us how to tell the difference.

"Say the two of us are tasked to explain how a half-full glass of water came to be on a table. If you assume that the only natural causes can explain the glass then you have imposed artificial limits. In fact, half of the water could have evaporated. But it is also possible and more probable that the willful action of an intelligent creature was the cause."

Very clear cut case. Where is such a clear case in biology?

"Archeology is a similar field of science. Stonehenge by some improbable convergence of forces may have had a purely natural origin."

But there is a key difference. We can tell what characteristics imply that Stonehenge was man made. We have no such clear case that shows that anything in biology could not have been made naturally, requiring a supernatural intervention.

 

[UTEOTW]

"BTW, there is nothing unfounded about the fact that our genome has picked up "baggage" over its history. If you had read our actual exchanges, you would know that I suggested a mechanism for explaining the common location of inserts between species.

A catastrophic, cross species disease may have wiped out the populations of several species except those with a particular genetic feature that allowed them to accommodate the virus. Also, the insert may have provided these various species a survival advantage when faced with some other environmental condition."

There are several problems with your explanation that are not present if one uses the explanation of common descent.

Let's take the first observation concerning ERV inserts. Our observations in modern times shows that the inserts happen at random locations. Now you have made much of observations that show that even though the entire genome is available for insertion that some areas are a little more or a little les likely to be used. That does not really change anything however because the key part is that the whole genome is available.

A very close analogy would be mutations in general. Everyone agrees that mutations are random even though some areas are more or less likely to have different types of mutation.

To get around this, you hypothesize that a different process acted in the past. Your idea is that for some reason past infections always resulted in a given virus inserting the same sequence into the EXACT same location every single time.

In other words, there was a whole series of different viruses that were capable of infecting a wide range of different species. Every single time one of these viruses infected a host, they inserted that exact same sequence into the exact same location of the different species and no other sequence anywhere else.

This is not in line with how we observe the insertions today and there is no evidence to suggest that any viruses behave in the manner that you suggest.

But there is a more subtle problem here because it is not that every single virus infected every single species in the groups we are examining. Observation shows us that there are some inserts which are present in only some species and some which are observed to be missing from some species. When we check the patterns formed by these observations, we see that they imply a pattern of common descent consistent with that implied by other independent means.

This would be expected if the cause was common descent. But there is no reason to suspect such a pattern in your suggested mechanism. You can only appeal to blind luck in the pattern.

And this leads directly to another subtle but important aspect that your suggested mechanism cannot acommodate.

These inserts are generally without function. Now one of the things that you suggest is that perhaps they have function. And in fact, I can come up with a couple that have been shown to have a function and another that has evolved into a gene that produces a useful protein. [One more way in which natural means can make novel genetic sequences.] But these exceptions show us that we can detect when such sequences have a use.

And most of them have no function. Now when genetic sequences serve no use, they accumulate random mutations. When you compare the accumulated mutations to these inserted sequences you again find a pattern. And once again, this pattern matches the pattern of common descent from other, independent means.

This is a much larger problem for you. For which sequences are shared and the pattern that emerges, you might could make a case for some improbable but not impossible luck. There are some many mutations in so many sequences for this latter issue that such appeal is not possible.

So while I do appreciate your effort, it comes up short. The claim is often made that YEers just interpret the same data in a different manner but it is much harder to get them to actually commit to such an alternative. Thank you for giving it a go on this one. But in the end, there are observations which your idea cannot accommodate and which common descent handles easily.

 

[UTEOTW]

"It is 'possible' though highly improbable that the genetic code arose from random natural causes. That it somehow added more and more complexity and function... getting better and better. However, it is much more reasonable to associate order and code with intelligence. It is more consistent with observation to assume that the original 'good' has endured generations of progressive corruption."

Did you know that there is some evidence emerging that the three codon code used by extant life evolved from a two codon prior code? Why would such a system need to be designed in one form and then changed into another? Not really my point for this reply, but interesting. Here is a recent pres release.

http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/releases/tripletcode020805.html

No, where I am headed is that the genome appears to have been the product of natural causes and not willful design. Let me use a previous post of mine that uses the evidence in the genome of how hemoglobin seems to have evolved. In essence, you can see where an original gene serving a different function was repeatedly duplicated with some of the duplicates evolving into useful forms while others became pseudogenes.

In some of the previous posts, I and other have scratched the surface of some of the ways in which DNA is used to track common ancestry. Things such as different animals with the exact same genes broken by the exact same mutation and animals sharing the same viral insertions in their DNA. We also scratched the surface on how this genetic data generally confirms the expectations from other types of data like fossils.

What I want to introduce is the idea that you can trace how specific genes evolved by the evidence that is in the genome. It is often claimed by YEers that all mutations cause harm or decrease "specificity" or something else asserting that a series of mutations could not build up the life that we see. One of the common answers is that duplication and mutation are powerful means of creating new genes which can be used to evolve new features. I think Petrel actually gave you some links that discussed this very thing.

Now I want to give one example here. I am doing this from memory, so please forgive any errors. But I think the general gist is correct.

The hemoglobin that carries oxygen in your blood is made up of four globins, two are called alpha globins and two are called beta globins. The alpha globins are made by two genes from a group of 7 genes called the alpha cluster. The betas are in a cluster of 6.

Each cluster also contains about 4 other copies of similar genes that are not functional because of mutations. The seventh alpha is called zeta and is used in the fetus only.

Now an individual gene is generally broken into pieces. The pieces are called exons and must be connected to one another to make the final gene. The bits inbetween are called introns, these must be spliced out. When looking at the clusters, it becomes obvious that the various genes were made by duplicating an existing DNA segment.

(Please note that this next bit is something I might have looked up first to confirm, but it is late. It is what I remember. Someone will correct me if I get it wrong.) How do we know they were made by duplication? Well, close examination will show that each individual gene in each cluster is broken into exons in the same way and that the introns, or bits of junk seperating them, are mostly the same. One original alpha was copied and copied, eventually making 7 individual genes.

Now these copies were able to mutate. A couple became useful enough to be the ones actually incorporated into hemoglobin. Others mutated themselves into uselessness. But the pattern shows that the most likely explanation is that the useful genes of today were created through a process of duplication and mutations.

YEers are free to step in here and tell us why, instead, we have this pattern. Surely we were not created with defective and unused genes. Surely we did not once have all of them working in some unusual system and we have all lost the same functional genes in the same manner through time.

Let's take this a step further. If you look around, life can be grouped in a hierarchal manner into larger and larger groups. Evolutionarily, you would expect that members of a goups would be likely to share a common ancestor.

Now if you look around at other apes, you will see that they share the same division of alpha and beta globins. So do primates. So do all mammals. So so all tetrapods (mammals, reptiles, birds, amphibians). So do most fish. You have to move to larger and larger groups before you find that the grouping that would include lampreys and hagfish with the rest of the animals mentioned above before you find animals without the division into alpha and beta globins. They have only one.

This allows you to tie down with some confidence where in the past the duplication that gave us the alpha and beta genes happened. You may have already made the connection back to our other topics. By comparing many different genes and their patterns in the genomes of life, you can use such techniques to tie down many different relationships.

If you take a look, you will also see what I have described here repeated over and over. Most genes have been found to belong to so called gene families where members of each family appear to have been made through repeated duplication events.

You will also see another recurring theme if you dig. If I remember correctly, the globins that we use for oxygen transport are very similar to proteins that some more primitive organisms use to bind to NO (nitrous oxide). Evolution has a habit of often reusing old parts for new functions and of rarely requiring true novelty.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3200/2.html#000018

 

[UTEOTW]

"Yes, making UNFOUNDED assumptions IS an unscientific (and usually illogical) thing to do. And I don't see Scott doing it. However all of evolution is based on the circular, and unfounded, and illogical, and unscientific idea that it happened, so, therefore....it happened."

Still making the unsubstantiated assertion of circular logic?

After the last time, I went through an abbreviated version of the observations of the subject being discussed to show how what you called circular was really a good conclusion based on observation. I also asked for an alternate conclusion and how to test it.

Here was my original post.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/10/5867/12.html#000173

Here is where the claim of circular logic was made.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/10/5867/12.html#000174

Here was my response.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/10/5867/12.html#000177

And then here is another explanation of the same issue from the last page of the thread.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/10/5867/14.html#000209

If you are going to make the same assertion again, do we not at least deserve a response to what was said the last time you made the assertion?

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Let me try a very simple illustration Paul.

Say the two of us are tasked to explain how a half-full glass of water came to be on a table. If you assume that the only natural causes can explain the glass then you have imposed artificial limits. In fact, half of the water could have evaporated. But it is also possible and more probable that the willful action of an intelligent creature was the cause.

It is "possible" though highly improbable that the genetic code arose from random natural causes. That it somehow added more and more complexity and function... getting better and better. However, it is much more reasonable to associate order and code with intelligence. It is more consistent with observation to assume that the original "good" has endured generations of progressive corruption. [/QB][/QUOTE]


Well when you talk about the origin of the genetic code itself, you are going way back through the mists of time to the origin of life, not the subsequent evlution of life. We all know that the origin of life is beyond the ability of present science to describe.

It is probably true that someday the origin of life will be adequately described. But that does not rule out God as the designer of life anyway, because it will by necessity show how the laws of the universe that He designed brought life into being.

It is possible that God did, in fact, work a divine miracle to start the first life a couple or 3 billion years ago; we just don't know. In that case, the efforts of science to find how it happened are, of course, doomed. Science won't be able to discern the supernatural element involved. Its really to soon to cry out that science is known to fail in that case.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"UTE loves to argue the scientific arguments based on the assumption of evolution/naturalism. He implicitly demands that you accept naturalism as the only governing framework for explaining things like retroviral inserts... and brushes off any suggestion that assumes anything but naturalism for the source. "

Not quite accurate, but I understand why you think that.

But there are two issues here. First off, I have yet to see any reason to invoke the supernatural in these discussions.

That is a choice based on your metaphysical assumption. It is every bit as valid to say "I have yet to see a reason not to invoke the supernatural in these discussions." Further, being sold on evolution and its naturalistic presuppositions, do you actually have a threshold where you would see a reason to invoke the supernatural? Evolution depends on some absurdly improbable sequences of events, it consists of mostly speculation based on interpretations that assume the conclusion... yet you see no reason to invoke the supernatural.

BUT, so you will have a reason to "invoke the supernatural", God said that He directly created the world... and that claim is reaffirmed throughout the text of scripture. The flood is described by Peter as a literal event just like the end of the world will be.

God Himself invokes the supernatural, He claimed credit... Credit that evolution is designed to deny Him (it argues as you do that the supernatural was not necessary)... I simply don't see why a Christian would argue with that.

I just do not see anything in biology that seems to need intervention beyond the perfect laws that God gave us that control this universe.

Except that in the normative operation of those laws... DNA doesn't self code and species have built in genetic mechanisms that resist mutation into another species. Those and many other reasons that evolution doesn't have a good answer for.

Second, I question how you plan to tell the difference between a natural process and a supernatural intervention.

Is that the nature of science? Certainty? You have argued against that premise in the past claiming that we misunderstand what a theory is and how they operate. Why do you demand certainty from us but not of evolution?

That said, there are principles that may not answer the gray areas but can address the more black and white. Irreducible complexity is a tool. Apparent design is another. Disobedience or contradiction of known natural laws is another... for instance evolutionists have to suspend the laws of physics or else design a hypothetical world that there is no evidence of to come up with a natural mechanism for abiogenesis.

How do forensic scientists determine what is natural and what is not? The evidence is considered comparing whether natural or unnatural forces best explain the data. There will certainly be a argument over which is best... but isn't that healthy science?

If you cannot tell the difference, then there is no need to invole the supernatural.

Again, a metaphysical assumption. It is every bit as valid to say "If you cannot tell the difference then there is no need to assume naturalism."

There are plenty of observations that lead most scientists to a conclusion of evolution. You may assert other interpretations, but that is a whole different animal than claiming that they do not exist.

There are reasonable accommodations of the evidence given assuming evolution. I realize that is the way theories work until conclusive proof can be provided. I have not denied that interpretations of evidence cause people to believe in evolution... but those interpretations are based on the assumption that evolution is true. And that, isn't the same as the evidence in and of itself leading someone to believe in evolution.

The problem with evolution is that conclusive proof is beyond the realm of observation. Even if every mechanism for evolution were proven possible... which is far from being the case... you still could not say that it occurred since it would still be history. To categorically prove that something could occur isn't the same as proving that it did occur.

And I have often invited interpretations that involve the suernatural with the request that you tell us how to tell the difference.

Right back at you. How can YOU tell us the difference... unless you deny that God is in fact capable of creating the world.

"Say the two of us are tasked to explain how a half-full glass of water came to be on a table. If you assume that the only natural causes can explain the glass then you have imposed artificial limits. In fact, half of the water could have evaporated. But it is also possible and more probable that the willful action of an intelligent creature was the cause."

Very clear cut case. Where is such a clear case in biology?

The grossly improbable idea that DNA self-coded. The virtually impossible idea that natural laws and constants occurred by chance.... just to name two.

"Archeology is a similar field of science. Stonehenge by some improbable convergence of forces may have had a purely natural origin."

But there is a key difference. We can tell what characteristics imply that Stonehenge was man made.

Code, design and machinery imply intelligent design... not natural cause. The ability to reverse engineer the mechanisms of DNA implies design. The fact that genetic biologists see "machines" at work within DNA and related processes.

Further, it is less reasonable to assume that the earth would be a "privileged planet" in so many ways by "random" natural occurences.

We have no such clear case that shows that anything in biology could not have been made naturally, requiring a supernatural intervention.

How you could possibly miss such an obvious point is mind boggling.

There is no clear case of a glass of water sitting on a table where it could not have occurred by evaporation unless the process was observe... natural history of course was not observed.

Saying that there is "no clear case" where anything in biology could not have occurred naturally is not grounds for dismissing the possibility that they may not have occurred via natural forces much less that natural forces are the best explanation.

The best explanation for code and design is intelligence. Period. That is not a debatable point. It is matter purely of probability. But you would like to dismiss probability (parsimony) because you make the a priori assumption of naturalism/evolution.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"It is 'possible' though highly improbable that the genetic code arose from random natural causes. That it somehow added more and more complexity and function... getting better and better. However, it is much more reasonable to associate order and code with intelligence. It is more consistent with observation to assume that the original 'good' has endured generations of progressive corruption."

Did you know that there is some evidence emerging that the three codon code used by extant life evolved from a two codon prior code?

Actually, I have read and even cited (I believe) articles discussing this speculation. It isn't driven by evidence however. It is driven by the need for an explanation.

Why would such a system need to be designed in one form and then changed into another?

Sin. As I have stated before, the created order before the fall was by necessity not governed by the current laws of nature. It was not corrupted nor decaying. The fact that Adam could have changed from a body that was not dying to one that was implies a significant change of some sort.

No, where I am headed is that the genome appears to have been the product of natural causes and not willful design.

You are making that assessment based on interpretations of the evidence that presume evolution to be true. That is circular and dependent ultimately on metaphysical assumptions and not the data.

If you assume supernaturalism, like assuming that a half full glass of water can have causes other than natural ones, then there are other valid interpretations of the data that will NEVER be considered if you assume naturalism/evolution. Thus "truth" becomes less important than the preservation of a philosophical premise.

 

[Scott J]

To get around this, you hypothesize that a different process acted in the past. Your idea is that for some reason past infections always resulted in a given virus inserting the same sequence into the EXACT same location every single time.

Nope. You are putting words in my mouth. The inserts obviously did not and do not occur at the exact same location every single time. That is not the same as saying there are no conditions under which they won't. Further, it is much less than saying that diseases acting on concentrated populations of similarly designed animals may have favored those with very specific inserts or mutations.

I am no more out of bounds speculating different environmental and genetic realities for the past than evolutionists are when they suspend uniformitarianism to arrive at a correct fossil dating or to explain gene evolution or abiogenesis or the origin of the universe.

 

[Scott J]

This is not in line with how we observe the insertions today and there is no evidence to suggest that any viruses behave in the manner that you suggest.

There specifically IS evidence that genetic abnormalities enable "genetically weaker" insects to survive pesticides. The "weak", not the strong, survive.

I am simply extending that as a possible explanation for how some disease or other environmental condition could leave survivors in unrelated species that possessed the same abnormalities.

 

[Scott J]

This is a much larger problem for you. For which sequences are shared and the pattern that emerges, you might could make a case for some improbable but not impossible luck. There are some many mutations in so many sequences for this latter issue that such appeal is not possible.

This statement with slightly varied wording could apply to many if not most of the explanations provided by evolution... everything from a lack of a repeatable process a naturally occuring mechanism for macroevolution to explanations for why the geologic column as boldly represented in science books is an anomaly rather than the rule.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />This is a much larger problem for you. For which sequences are shared and the pattern that emerges, you might could make a case for some improbable but not impossible luck. There are some many mutations in so many sequences for this latter issue that such appeal is not possible.

This statement with slightly varied wording could apply to many if not most of the explanations provided by evolution... everything from a lack of a repeatable process a naturally occuring mechanism for macroevolution to explanations for why the geologic column as boldly represented in science books is an anomaly rather than the rule. </font>[/QUOTE]There are times when it seems we must dispair of the objector even understanding the issues to which he is objecting.

Scott, the anomoly problem UTE is pointing out is not an anomoly problem for evolution but an anomoly problem for the theory of seperate creation of species. It is therefore evidence against the seperate creation of species.

whether due to failure to understand or simply due to complete lack of any coherent response that would make scientific sense, your failure to come up with an explanation consistent with the theory of seperate creation of species is duly noted.

 

[Clean1]

I just saw this topic and I thought that I would make a comment even there are 15 pages. The reason why people have not allowed the truth of intelligent design is because they are not intelligent enough to recognize the design. sorry for intruding... just thought id put that in.