Why Creationism or Intelligent Design is Important

[Vort]

11 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Evolutionists like to distance themselves from the discussion because there isnt really any evidence and what they do have is subjective conjecture at best.

Doesn't this indicate that "evolutionists" do not necessarily consider abiogenesis to be a part of their work?

Even if, for the sake of argument, we were to grant your proposition that abiogenesis is a part of evolutionary theory, what of it? Abiogenesis has nothing to do with inheritance, mutation, survival and reproduction of the fittest, and other foundational elements of organic evolution. Abiogenesis stands out there on its own. It's as if you took issue with the Big Bang, and so discarded all elements of Newtonian and Einsteinian physics.

If you're going to argue against organic evolution, argue against it as a whole, or choose a central feature to argue against. Don't pick one small, even insignificant point, argue against it to your own satisfaction, and then claim that you have therefore disproven every element of the entire structure. You have not.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I'm missing your point here.

My point is that science understanding is a philosophy. Truth, whatever it is, stands independent of that philosophy. Thus, we cant just say "it must be true because science said so". Of the different philosophies out there in science regarding lifes origins and age of the earth, etc, truth still stands independent of the different brands (different philosophies" on what may be true). No single philosophy of man has the very complete truth. That is my point. We may and do indeed argue or debate over who is right and who is wrong but no one single philosophy of science can be proven "true" by mans current understanding.

[Rob Osborn]

15 minutes ago, Vort said:

Doesn't this indicate that "evolutionists" do not necessarily consider abiogenesis to be a part of their work?

Even if, for the sake of argument, we were to grant your proposition that abiogenesis is a part of evolutionary theory, what of it? Abiogenesis has nothing to do with inheritance, mutation, survival and reproduction of the fittest, and other foundational elements of organic evolution. Abiogenesis stands out there on its own. It's as if you took issue with the Big Bang, and so discarded all elements of Newtonian and Einsteinian physics.

If you're going to argue against organic evolution, argue against it as a whole, or choose a central feature to argue against. Don't pick one small, even insignificant point, argue against it to your own satisfaction, and then claim that you have therefore disproven every element of the entire structure. You have not.

Im just saying that there really is no evidence that intelligent life came about from the method or theory they believe in. Abiogenesis in evolutionary theory is the means whereby single steps or blocks were added upon each other until eventually it became "life". All of those steps leading up to and after it became life were part of the same process. 

Edited January 18, 2017 by Rob Osborn

[Jane_Doe]

43 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Berkeley wouldnt bring up the origins of life in the evolution portion of online study if it wasnt part of it. 

Evolutionary Biology includes much more than the Theory of Evolution.  For example, any theories on the origin of life are part of the Evolutionary Biology, but not part of the Theory of Evolution.  A person can study evolution professionally their entire life and never touch origin of life theories (I know many such scientists).

43 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

 Evolutionists like to distance themselves from the discussion because there isnt really any evidence and what they do have is subjective conjecture at best. ID proponents know this and jump all over it and so evolutionists try to skate around it alltogether. The fact remains though that whatever was their supposed "first life form" came about under the same Darwinian theory of evolution process that created it as also that propogated it afterwards. It didnt just "poof" into existance.

Do you have any references for your stance here?

Edited January 18, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[Vort]

10 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Abiogenesis in evolutionary theory is the means whereby single steps or blocks were added upon each other until eventually it became "life". All of those steps leading up to and after it became life were part of the same process. 

No, Rob. They were not. Abiogenesis is pure speculation, far less grounded than even the "Big Bang". Evolutionary theory is extraordinarily well-grounded. it has been observed in nature. It can be traced through fossil evidence, It can be shown through DNA analysis of modern beings and ancient preserved tissues. It is seen in animals, plants, and microbiota. To suggest that abiogenesis is inane, so therefore evolutionary theory is clearly false, is simply nonsense.

[Rob Osborn]

8 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Evolutionary Biology includes much more than the Theory of Evolution.  For example, any theories on the origin of life are part of the Evolutionary Biology, but not part of the Theory of Evolution.  A person can study evolution professionally their entire life and never touch origin of life theories (I know many such scientists).

Do you have any references for your stance here?

The mechanism of Darwinian theory of evolution is "natural selection". According to Berkeley they say this same mechanism of Darwinian evolution was at work before life came about in the evolution of the building blocks of life that finally became life. Im not making thus stuff up. Here, read this-

 http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/origsoflife_04

[Rob Osborn]

11 minutes ago, Vort said:

No, Rob. They were not. Abiogenesis is pure speculation, far less grounded than even the "Big Bang". Evolutionary theory is extraordinarily well-grounded. it has been observed in nature. It can be traced through fossil evidence, It can be shown through DNA analysis of modern beings and ancient preserved tissues. It is seen in animals, plants, and microbiota. To suggest that abiogenesis is inane, so therefore evolutionary theory is clearly false, is simply nonsense.

If I am not mistaken but, im pretty sure scientists of the evolutionary brand arent extracting DNA from fossils millions of years old.

[Rob Osborn]

11 minutes ago, Vort said:

No, Rob. They were not. Abiogenesis is pure speculation, far less grounded than even the "Big Bang". Evolutionary theory is extraordinarily well-grounded. it has been observed in nature. It can be traced through fossil evidence, It can be shown through DNA analysis of modern beings and ancient preserved tissues. It is seen in animals, plants, and microbiota. To suggest that abiogenesis is inane, so therefore evolutionary theory is clearly false, is simply nonsense.

If I am not mistaken but, im pretty sure scientists of the evolutionary brand arent extracting DNA from fossils millions of years old.

[Vort]

12 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

If I am not mistaken but, im pretty sure scientists of the evolutionary brand arent extracting DNA from fossils millions of years old.

No, they are not. The big stir a few years ago about dinosaur soft tissue being preserved and serving as a source for DNA apparently came to naught, as did the Jurassic Park idea of using DNA from amber-preserved mosquitoes. But they (those evolutionary scientists you mentioned) are apparently extracting DNA from frozen tissues >10,000 years old and from mummies well over 100,000 years old. In one case, horse DNA on the order of 700,000 years old was recovered. Human DNA over 100,000 years old has also been recovered. Here is the Wikipedia article.

[Jane_Doe]

30 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

The mechanism of Darwinian theory of evolution is "natural selection". According to Berkeley they say this same mechanism of Darwinian evolution was at work before life came about in the evolution of the building blocks of life that finally became life. Im not making thus stuff up. Here, read this-

 http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/origsoflife_04

Gravity was also in effect before life began in Earth and effected everything in regards to life.  That doesn't mean gravity = the theory of how life began.  Likewise evolution is not the theory of how life began. 

[Rob Osborn]

26 minutes ago, Vort said:

No, they are not. The big stir a few years ago about dinosaur soft tissue being preserved and serving as a source for DNA apparently came to naught, as did the Jurassic Park idea of using DNA from amber-preserved mosquitoes. But they (those evolutionary scientists you mentioned) are apparently extracting DNA from frozen tissues >10,000 years old and from mummies well over 100,000 years old. In one case, horse DNA on the order of 700,000 years old was recovered. Human DNA over 100,000 years old has also been recovered. Here is the Wikipedia article.

So, how can they know how DNA evolved if they can only trace it back a micro fraction in time?

BTW, they actually did get real soft tissue from dinosaur bones, but thats evidence for my brand of science and doesnt apply.

[Rob Osborn]

19 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Gravity was also in effect before life began in Earth and effected everything in regards to life.  That doesn't mean gravity = the theory of how life began.  Likewise evolution is not the theory of how life began. 

The same Darwinian theory of evolution is applied by scientists to explain  chemical evolution of how life arose. 

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

So, how can they know how DNA evolved if they can only trace it back a micro fraction in time?

They have confirmed the mechanism works, and they have demonstrated the mechanism as functioning for thousands of years.

How do you know gravity worked a million years ago? After all, there's no direct evidence. But there is plenty of indirect evidence, and such an inference is eminently reasonable.

4 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

BTW, they actually did get real soft tissue from dinosaur bones, but thats evidence for my brand of science and doesnt apply.

Your martyr pose is noted. The fact that dinosaur soft tissue survived for 70 million years is astounding, but I don't see how it evidences "your brand of science". As was pointed out, no usable DNA could be recovered from it -- and since they have recovered DNA from mummies approaching a million years old, that suggests the dinosaur soft tissue was far, far older. I may be wrong, but I suspect that doesn't really support your brand of science.

[Vort]

4 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

The same Darwinian theory of evolution is applied by scientists to explain  chemical evolution of how life arose.

Really? Guilt by association?

If I use the thinking behind the theory of gravity to explain why people make outrageous claims on the internet, and it turns out my reasoning is completely wrong and the thinking behind gravitational theory has nothing at all to do with people making outrageous claims online -- does that therefore mean that gravitational theory is wrong?

[Jane_Doe]

6 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

The same Darwinian theory of evolution is applied by scientists to explain  chemical evolution of how life arose. 

How many times do I have to say it?  The theory of evolution is NOT the same thing as abiogenesis.  Please quit mixing up the two.

[Rob Osborn]

25 minutes ago, Vort said:

They have confirmed the mechanism works, and they have demonstrated the mechanism as functioning for thousands of years.

How do you know gravity worked a million years ago? After all, there's no direct evidence. But there is plenty of indirect evidence, and such an inference is eminently reasonable.

Your martyr pose is noted. The fact that dinosaur soft tissue survived for 70 million years is astounding, but I don't see how it evidences "your brand of science". As was pointed out, no usable DNA could be recovered from it -- and since they have recovered DNA from mummies approaching a million years old, that suggests the dinosaur soft tissue was far, far older. I may be wrong, but I suspect that doesn't really support your brand of science.

The inference of gravity analogous to DNA must logically hold that DNA has always been complex. To state otherwise would be analogous to saying gravity evolved slowly.

The dino soft tissue only works for my brand of science. I dont believe anything that was once alive on this planet is older than 7,000 years old. Thats my brand of science and if its more true than evolutionary models, this whole argument is a moot point.

[Rob Osborn]

30 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

How many times do I have to say it?  The theory of evolution is NOT the same thing as abiogenesis.  Please quit mixing up the two.

Abiogenesis is the belief that life evolved from nonliving matter. The theory on this origin of life came about due to their theory of evolution.

[Anddenex]

6 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Abiogenesis is the belief that life evolved from nonliving matter. The theory on this origin of life came about due to their theory of evolution.

True; however, they are two different independent studies, and are classed differently also.

Evolution: the study of the change of alleles within organic "existing" life.

Abiogenesis: the study of how life began -- non-existent life (a note to remember, life can begin without a change in alleles).

This is where the "theory of evolution" and the "theory of abiogenesis" are fundamentally different, and I believe it is wisdom that we do not conflate different studies of science. Remember, the origin of life doesn't require any "change" among alleles within organic life. The moment "offspring" were born is when the "theory of evolution" begins, as long as their is a change of alleles, if not, evolution did not take place (As to my understanding, binary fission is not evolution, as there is no change in alleles from a clone of oneself). 

Similar principles may apply, but this doesn't make them the same study (even if they are encompassed within the same field of "evolutionary biology"). The theory of abiogenesis stems (speaking from my last reads which were a while ago) from the notion that all organic (even non-organic) life is made from elements (mainly compound elements). E.g. Hydrogen and Oxygen combined create H2O. Our bone structure is the combination of elements combined. This is my current understanding of "abiogenesis" which is a different idea of "evolution" than the "theory of evolution" regarding life and its changes. 

[Guest]

16 hours ago, Vort said:

Strictly speaking, the genesis of life is a separate issue from organic evolution.

 

14 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Evolution theory encompasses the origin of life from chemical evolution. Any basic biology class will teach you that.

Yes and no.

 The fact is that biology has "created" a branch of science which was something like "cellular biogenesis" or something.  I can't seem to find it anymore.  (I've also heard "chemical evolution"). But the formation of this branch is quite telling.

As much evidence as there is that organic evolution has taken and does take place, it has two noticeable weaknesses.

1) Nearly all evolutionary theories prior to the last decade or two involve evolving from the first cell onward.  None of it addressed the formation of the original cell.  In fact there was no viable explanation for it at all.
2) The time frame we know of is simply too short to allow the level of randomness to bring about today's species.

So, to address weakness #1, they "formed a new branch of science" to address the issue. i.e they wanted to separate the science of organic evolution from the one major weakness in the theory.  So, instead of "organic" evolution, they've had to call it something else.  Hence "chemical evolution".

The formation of the first cell is incredibly complex.   So far chemical evolution studies have created a theory that explains how a lever works (metaphor).  They hoped to be able to explain the internal combustion engine.  But the cell's complexity by comparison is more like a solar system made of Borg cubes and Death Stars.  So far, it's pretty lacking.  I have difficulty also believing that the process could have happened without conscious intervention (based on what we know today).

Regarding weakness #2, we are expected to accept:

A) The first forms of life that we would have understood prior to germ theory came about around 600 million years ago.
B) Mutations occurred with such frequency and were so widespread and so positive that species evolved on a much more accelerated scale than what they currently endorse.

The thing is that mutations do occur all the time.  But the vast majority of mutations are negative.  They will NOT be selected for, but against.  So, the positive mutation is extremely rare.  Then we're supposed to accept that this extremely rare positive mutation disseminated itself through a population with such speed that it formed a large enough subject group that "happened to be around" during a selection event (because that's faster than chronic selection) to take a step towards the next species.

Then repeat this thousands of times before a new species becomes widespread.  Then multiply that by the thousands of life forms that these creatures had to pass through to finally create humans.  We get a lot longer than 600 million years.  And this only addresses the single line towards humans.  Nevermind all the other branches of the evolutionary tree.

Randomness does not account for this. It is a statistical impossibility.  The more science based Intelligent Design proponents simply say that this means that ID was required to guide this process.  This has often been called "the God of the Gaps" by its detractors.  They can call it whatever they want, but social scientists will tell us that when we witness a long string of statistical impossibilities/improbabilities which are set in a path that achieves a desired objective, this is what is called "not random" (i.e. "on purpose").

 So, while I do believe organic evolution has occurred, evolutionary science without intelligent design philosophy has some explaining to do.

Edited January 18, 2017 by Guest

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

True; however, they are two different independent studies, and are classed differently also.

Evolution: the study of the change of alleles within organic "existing" life.

Abiogenesis: the study of how life began -- non-existent life (a note to remember, life can begin without a change in alleles).

This is where the "theory of evolution" and the "theory of abiogenesis" are fundamentally different, and I believe it is wisdom that we do not conflate different studies of science. Remember, the origin of life doesn't require any "change" among alleles within organic life. The moment "offspring" were born is when the "theory of evolution" begins, as long as their is a change of alleles, if not, evolution did not take place (As to my understanding, binary fission is not evolution, as there is no change in alleles from a clone of oneself). 

Similar principles may apply, but this doesn't make them the same study (even if they are encompassed within the same field of "evolutionary biology"). The theory of abiogenesis stems (speaking from my last reads which were a while ago) from the notion that all organic (even non-organic) life is made from elements (mainly compound elements). E.g. Hydrogen and Oxygen combined create H2O. Our bone structure is the combination of elements combined. This is my current understanding of "abiogenesis" which is a different idea of "evolution" than the "theory of evolution" regarding life and its changes. 

Evolutionists are most happy dealing with a first life form that has "poofed" into existance rather than deal with how that first life form evolved. Most important though, they can accept that nature somehow poofed it into existance and call that "science" rather than have a supernatural being do it.

[Vort]

14 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

But the cell's complexity is more like a solar system made of Borg cubes and Death Stars.

I think this is a whole new level of mixed metaphor.

One of the things that bothers me about the idea of organic evolution is the complexity we observe, as you have brought up. A million years is a very long time, and 500 or a thousand million years is unimaginably long. But long enough to move from single-celled organisms to what we see around us (and in the  mirror)? Somehow, that strikes me as unlikely. I do not know how to model the rate of gross physiological changes to a species or how to figure out how long it took for cells to hang together and specialize, but my sense is that even many millions of years would be a pretty short time for such changes to take effect.

Now, this does not rise even to the level of a handwaving argument. I am literally arguing from ignorance. But I would be surprised if anyone else had a robust and testable statistical model for how organisms change in such ways. The best we can do is to say, "Well, life has been around for about a billion years, and this is how far we've gotten, so that amount of change divided by a billion years should give us the rate." But of course, that's circular, and in the end it's cheating and doesn't give a real answer.

I don't believe the answer is ungettable. I am just not convinced that unguided evolution can reasonably account for what we see. But I also doubt it's addressable; if you insist on starting from atheism, then at no point will you ever arrive at the juncture where you just absolutely have to reject your premise and accept God. Your premise defines the nature of the evidence you're willing to consider.

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Evolutionists are most happy dealing with a first life form that has "poofed" into existance rather than deal with how that first life form evolved.

Obviously. You say this like it's a bad thing. But particle physicists are most happy dealing with elementary particles that originally "poofed" into existence rather than deal with how that existence got started. A particle physicist does not have to understand or even believe the "Big Bang" theory in order to do science; he just needs to look at the particles. Same with evolutionary scientists. For most of them, the specifics of biogenesis are not relevant to what they're doing. All they care about is that DNA exists and that it acts in certain predictable, quantifiable ways.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

Obviously. You say this like it's a bad thing. But particle physicists are most happy dealing with elementary particles that originally "poofed" into existence rather than deal with how that existence got started. A particle physicist does not have to understand or even believe the "Big Bang" theory in order to do science; he just needs to look at the particles. Same with evolutionary scientists. For most of them, the specifics of biogenesis are not relevant to what they're doing. All they care about is that DNA exists and that it acts in certain predictable, quantifiable ways.

Well, you say that because you can accept the "unknown" as being truly "unknown".  The problem with many detractors of ID is that they only accept "unknown-as-long-as-it-is-not-God".

[Vort]

9 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Well, you say that because you can accept the "unknown" as being truly "unknown".  The problem with many detractors of ID is that they only accept "unknown-as-long-as-it-is-not-God".

I appreciate and partially agree with the distinction you draw. But in the spirit of openness, I think it only fair to point out that this problem you mention is one that theists have brought upon themselves by constantly insisting on the "God of the gaps" every time there's an unknown in science (which is to say, all the time).

Suppose you and I are trying to understand gravity. We each propose a theory for gravity.

Your theory: Things always tend to go downward. What goes up must necessarily come down. Gravity is that downward tendency.
My theory: Invisible gravity fairies pull things downward.

So far, our theories look pretty much the same, at least functionally. I'd say mine is even better than yours; after all, I'm at least proposing some sort of mechanism for gravity, not just saying "There it is." But we keep looking at things and thinking about things. After some years of observation, we modify our theories:

Your theory: "Up" and "down" don't seem to have any universal meaning. All matter just appears to attract all other matter. That's gravity.
My theory: Gravity fairies, dude.

At this point, I will argue against your silly theory. All matter just "magically" attracts all other matter? Hah! Then why aren't things all just one big ball of sameness? Why don't we two come flying together because of our mutual attraction? My elegant theory of gravity fairies easily explains all observations, without resorting to such absurdities.

But your theory is gaining ground, and despite its flaws, it has the benefit of not resorting to some invisible and untestable reason. In fact, various people in various places have done experiments that seem to lend credence to your theory. So some years later, after more observations, we again modify our theories:

Your theory: Gravity is an intrinsic property of all matter, and involves a distortion in the "spacetime" in which all matter exists. These distortions lead always to an attraction between material objects and never a repulsion, as if you had iron balls on a vast rubber sheet.
My theory: Spacetime distortions are GRAVITY FAIRIES!! Why won't you open your eyes to the obvious?!

More years, more observations, more confirmation of your ideas then follow. There are also refutations of parts of your ideas, but you keep modifying your theory to at least try to keep up with the observations. Eventually, we find ourselves here:

Your theory: Gravity is an exchange of particles (which I will call "gravitons") between material bodies, which exchange draws the physical bodies closer together.
My theory: "Gravitons", eh? I'd say those sound an awful lot like, hmm, well, let's see, what could it be? Oh, that's right, GRAVITY FAIRIES!!!!

At some point, reasonable people are simply going to get tired of me always shouting about gravity fairies any time there's an as-yet-unexplained phenomenon in your theory.

I believe this is precisely what happens when religious folks are always always ALWAYS shouting "God of the gaps!" for every hole in a scientific theory.

[Rob Osborn]

44 minutes ago, Vort said:

Obviously. You say this like it's a bad thing. But particle physicists are most happy dealing with elementary particles that originally "poofed" into existence rather than deal with how that existence got started. A particle physicist does not have to understand or even believe the "Big Bang" theory in order to do science; he just needs to look at the particles. Same with evolutionary scientists. For most of them, the specifics of biogenesis are not relevant to what they're doing. All they care about is that DNA exists and that it acts in certain predictable, quantifiable ways.

But, evolutionists, and scientists in general, can only accept that naturalism accomplished everything including the first formation of life. They may care less how it happened, just as long as some "God" didnt do it.