Glenn wrote:
>>>
>Yet they want to be considered theistic scientists.
> They can't have it both ways--being a scientist means making hypotheses
and
> testing them.To quote one of the speakers at the conference:
>
> "All researchers try to be neutral, to consider the alternatives, but the
> basic business of science is to build hypotheses." Simon Conway Morris,
The
> Crucible of Creation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 53
>
> If you aren't building hypotheses that can be tested, you aren't a
> scientist--period!
<<
I suppose it would depend on what is expected from the test. A lot of times
in engineering or science it is not possible to do actually definitive
tests. Instead models have to be theorized based on probability theory and
whatever data is available. Then those model "tests" are run. The problem
with ID is that it is not possible to run any validating tests beyond the
models. Since most of their goal is to prove a negative assertion( natural
selection on variation is not adequate to explain complex systems ) then
they can never achieve a level of certainty beyond the accuracy of their
assumptions. Then since their point that it is difficult to explain the
genesis of complex biochemical processes through random mutations
seems valid, how would one go about approaching this problem?
If a scientist were to dispassionately seek to evaluate their theories,
how would one go about that? Any one have any suggestions?
Best Regards,
Steve Petermann
----- Original Message -----
From: "glenn morton" <mortongr@flash.net>
To: "Steve Petermann" <SteveGP@email.msn.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2000 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: A response to Maatman with transcript
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Petermann" <SteveGP@email.msn.com>
> Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2000 11:19 PM
>
>
>
> > Glenn,
> >
> > One of your main criticisms of the Intelligent Design movement is that
it
> > doesn't offer specific experimental means for substantiating its claims.
> It
> > seems to me, however, that the notion of an outside intelligent agent
> > actually precludes any ID affirming experiments. Unlike the
regularities
> of
> > nature which can be measured experimentally, an outside intelligent
agent
> is
> > by its nature not experimentally available. An experiment would have
to
> be
> > designed essentially to catch God in the act.
>
> Exactly! But that is not what the ID group is trying to do. They are
trying
> to act as if data can be used to support their position. Darwin's Black
Box
> is a case in point. Behe said at the talk: "So my point is that science
has
> to follow the data wherever it
> leads no matter what the theological implications and let the future take
> care of itself." If Behe didn't believe that there was data to support
his
> position then he couldn't have said that. They are saying that data
> supports the concept of a designer but then refuse to give predictions for
> the future collection of data which would support their position.
>
> And I want to make it perfectly clear to everyone that I said this very
> thing to Steve Meyer and Paul Nelson at the conference. I am not saying
> something here that I didn't say to their faces. ID, if it is to be
> successful MUST come up with a scenario to explain what happened. They
have
> NO explanation for anything at all. And Ptashne is correct each of them
has
> a different view of how God worked in nature. Nelson, a young-earther,
can't
> have any form of evolution and thus God must have created nearly every
group
> directly. Behe, the theistic evolutionist believes that God inputs
> information miraculously throughout time. Meyer confines his argument to
> the origin of life and says little at the conference about the veracity of
> evolution. Who is correct and how do they determine the truth? Obviously,
> data can't do this and thus, what they have is faith which is fine, but
they
> can't call that science. Yet they want to be considered theistic
scientists.
> They can't have it both ways--being a scientist means making hypotheses
and
> testing them.To quote one of the speakers at the conference:
>
> "All researchers try to be neutral, to consider the alternatives, but the
> basic business of science is to build hypotheses." Simon Conway Morris,
The
> Crucible of Creation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 53
>
> If you aren't building hypotheses that can be tested, you aren't a
> scientist--period!
>
>
>
>
> So it would be reasonable
> > that the ID folks couldn't offer specific affirmative suggestions. It
> seems
> > to me that because of this, the real issue becomes reasonableness. I
> don't
> > know about Behe's claim that no one has offered viable detailed
Darwinian
> > explanations for any complex biochemical processes, but if he is right
> then
> > unless the Darwinians are able to show some successes in explaining
those
> > processes like blood clotting then we're stuck with a reasonableness
> > approach. It ends up like the anthropic principle. Is it more
reasonable
> > to explain the extraordinarily rare chance for a life producing universe
> by
> > believing in a designer or infinite universes?
>
>
> Ptashne's talk was designed to show how such complex mechanisms arise via
> evolution.
>
> >
> > Also aren't the Darwinians just as stymied by the lack of affirming
> > experiments. Clearly some principals can be affirmed with simple cases
> like
> > bacteria, but is it reasonable to make a leap from simple mutative
systems
> > to more complex ones? Wouldn't that proposition have to be confirmed?
> But
> > how would the multitude of inferences be avoided for more complex
> processes
> > with many variables.
>
> We have seen in the lab single celled animals become colonial animals
> (reference on request). And we have observed volvox which seem to model
how
> sex and death arose:
>
>
> In Volvox, almost all the cells are somatic, and very few of the cells
are
> able to produce new individuals. In some species of Volvox, reproductive
> cells, as in Pleodorina, are derived from cells that originally look and
> function like somatic cells before they enlarge and divide to form new
> progeny. However, in other members of the genus, such as V. carteri,
there
> is a complete division of labor; the reproductive cells that will create
the
> next generation are set aside during the division of the reproductive
cells
> that are forming the new individual. The reproductive cells never develop
> functional flagella and never contribute to motility or other somatic
> functions of the individual; they are entirely specialized for
reproduction.
> Thus, although the simpler Volvocaceans may be thought of as colonial
> organisms (because each cell is capable of independent existence and of
> perpetuating the species), in V. carteri we have a truly multicellular
> organism with two distinct and independent cell types (somatic and
> reproductive), both of which are required for the perpetuation of the
> species. Although not all animals set aside the reproductive cells from
the
> somatic cells (plants hardly ever do), this separation of germ
> (reproductive) cells from somatic cells early in development is
> characteristic of many animal phyla and will be discussed in more detail
in
> Chapter 7." ~ Scott F. Gilbert, Developmental Biology (Sunderland: Sinauer
> Assoc. Inc., 1991), p. 18
> **
> "What happens to the somatic cells of the 'parent ' Volvox now that its
> young have 'left home'? Having produced offspring and being incapable of
> further reproduction, these somatic cells die. Actually, they commit
> suicide, synthesizing a set of proteins that cause the death and
dissolution
> of the cells that make these proteins. Moreover, in this death, the cells
> release for the use of others-including their own offspring- the nutrients
> that they had stored during life. 'Thus emerges,' notes David Kirk,'one
of
> the great themes of life on Planet Earth: 'Some die that others may
> live.'"~Scott F. Gilbert, Developmental Biology (Sunderland: Sinauer
Assoc.
> Inc., 1991), p. 20-21
>
> I might draw an analogy between this last sentence and our Lord. One died
> so many could live. Death on earth before the Fall was a picture of what
the
> redemption was all about.
>
> >
> > It seems to me that biochemical processes provide an ideal situation for
> > research. They are simple enough to minimize variables and complex
enough
> > to be good test cases. As a design engineer for more than 25 years, I
> find
> > the ID arguments about irreducible complexity reasonable, but as a
person
> > who has embraced Darwinian evolution, I await detailed technical
responses
> > to the ID challenges. There's a lot of high level rhetoric going on
> between
> > the camps, but I hope that something more detailed and substantial will
be
> > forthcoming.
>
> Don't forget that some companies are now using genetic algorithms to
design
> things. Even John Baumgardner agreed with that and he hates evolution.
Yet
> he knows that such random search algorithms are quite effective. These
> algorithms are built just like living systems with genes and all.
>
>
> glenn
>
> Foundation, Fall and Flood
> Adam, Apes and Anthropology
> http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
>
> Lots of information on creation/evolution
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 30 2000 - 19:47:33 EDT