The arguement that recently convinced me of god's existence

Hey Chips_,

[ QUOTE ]

I noticed you addressed both me and NotReady in your post. I think there are a lot of different topics being discussed here. I think he and I are covering different ground on a lot of points.


[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed. I though my answer did address some topics that both, or either, of you raised.

[ QUOTE ]

You make a scientific argument in your first paragraph. On that paragraph --- In considering the evolution of something from A1 to A100 Going from A1 to A2 might require lets say 3 changes in the genetic code. From A2 to A3 another 3 changes ..and so on. Now 6 changes to the genetic code is more than twice as hard as 3. 30 changes are far more than 10 times harder than just 3.


[/ QUOTE ]
I was trying to simplify to allow the real issue to come to the fore. You could consider each of a1, a2, a3, etc.. to be intermediate steps. Secondly, even if it was 100 or a thousand, or more times harder, it would not change the argument. In fact, IMO, it would strengthen it.

[ QUOTE ]

You mentioned experiments.....
People have done breeding experiments for centuries. Now with Breeding experiments you are usually selecting variations within the existing gene pool of a species. But still people have always known that you hit barriers. Starting with one genetic code - a few changes is OK - too many changes and you may get a type of animal that cannot reproduce - too many more changes and the animal is far more likely to be dead than alive. A wise man once said that there are far more ways to be dead than alive genetically. Now with evolution - we must realize that on the plus side that we go one step at a time. And that non random selection is in operation. Definitely different than making the large number of changes all at once. And also on the plus side (making things easier)there is more than one possible combination of the genetic code that can make an A2. But it turns out from experiments that the fact that we are making more changes to a highly complex and ordered system outweighs the other factors. I'd argue that the math bears this out also. Experiments with micro-organisms follow similar patterns to the breeding experiments. Easy to change a few things, very hard to change a medium amount of genes - completely undemonstratable to change a large number of genes.


[/ QUOTE ]
Interesting to relate DNA to evolution theory. I think we are just scratching the surface there. We are still very far from understanding the DNA processes and mechanics. I mean, we just managed to map a complete genome recently. We still don't know much about the relationship between genes and features. I hope that your interest may earn you a Nobel prize in the future. Keep it up. I am certain that it will become a very productive branch.

[ QUOTE ]

So back to the point you make. If we can clearly see A1 going to A2 going to A3 but then there are gaps...well since the A1 to A2 to A3 progression happened its reasonable to think the gaps would be filled. I would say this is not necessarily true. I think the gap is telling us that the gap area of genetic space if you will is a tough one to live in. Perhaps an impossible one to live in. In may not be simply a case of missing data. In any case saying that if we see part of the A1-A100 sequence it suggests that the whole sequence is likely to have happened - no I can't go along with that as a certainty.
I cant go along with it because of experimental evidence and what I think are mathematical estimates of how evolutionary processes would make major changes to the genetic code.


[/ QUOTE ]
You are misunderstanding the argument against ID and somewhat falling in the trap that ID'ers would love you to fall in. The test of evolution theory has been going on since it was first formulated, and has uncovered an unbelievable number of confirmations (the discovery of fossil evidence for gaps). Sure there have been adjustments and extensions made to the original theory, but no evidence has been uncovered that sap it in any significant (precisely the ways in which it is objectionable to ID'ers) ways.

[ QUOTE ]

I have a specific thread that I am thinking of starting on just this topic alone. It will start with a specific example of this concept.


[/ QUOTE ]

Go for it dude [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]

The second part of your post is a continuation of what to me is a philosophical debate. Let me clarify again that by "intelligent design" I'm not referring to a movement. I understand the objection to a movement used as a way of getting religion into the science class. What I refer to when I say design is a possible conclusion based on data. To say that design isn't science in this context says to me that we cross off the list a possible conclusion from the data we collect. And I must also add that the point I make above is not necessarily on its own a case for design. I like the theory of evolution as a general idea.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am not referring to the movement either, I am referring to the body of work that purports to be science yet fails the fundamental test of science. It cannot be tested. There are a myriad possible ways of explaining gaps, from astrology, to ID and unimagined others. The moment they lend themselves to testing, and confirmation they will be part of science, until then they are NOT and should not be presented as such in an educational context. Where do we draw the line? What bizarre theory do we present as an alternative? Until they are testable and tested they are mere speculation or a parlour game for people that have nothing better to do.

You like the theory of evolution!? I like gravity!? Means very little, what I like, or not, the question debated is: is ID science? The answer to that question is a resounding NO.

I personally don't object to people believing in ID, or astrology, or tarot cards. I don't mind a plethora of books being published about such speculation, and enjoyed and take as fact by some. Just don't confuse it with science, or all you chances at a Nobel prize for science will evaporate.

Enjoy all.

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

MidGe - We had this exchange...

[ QUOTE ]

You make a scientific argument in your first paragraph. On that paragraph --- In considering the evolution of something from A1 to A100 Going from A1 to A2 might require lets say 3 changes in the genetic code. From A2 to A3 another 3 changes ..and so on. Now 6 changes to the genetic code is more than twice as hard as 3. 30 changes are far more than 10 times harder than just 3.


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was trying to simplify to allow the real issue to come to the fore. You could consider each of a1, a2, a3, etc.. to be intermediate steps. Secondly, even if it was 100 or a thousand, or more times harder, it would not change the argument. In fact, IMO, it would strengthen it.

[/ QUOTE ]
-----------------------
1. Of course I'm considering a1,a2 and a3 to be intermediate steps. Thats the whole framework of the discussion.
2. First you said that if we have an evolutionary series A1 to A100 and we observe a few of the steps a1 to a2 to a3 etc - that it makes sense to think the whole series took place. I countered by pointing out - based on huge amounts of data - that going from A1 to A2 is much easier than each succesive step. So the logic that if you observe the easy part, concluding that the hard part must have occured is not necessarily true. Now you are saying that this stengthens your argument if it is 1000 times harder to go from a2 to a3 than it was from a1 to a2. Please explain how this strengthens your argument.

Hiya Chips_,

It strengthen the argument because there is already some evidence of succesive steps, meaning that it is possible...

The gaps are unimportant, maybe they will get filled by evidence maybe not.

MidGe - Sorry for the double post but I wanted to keep this point seperate. As to this discussion......
[ QUOTE ]
Chips:
The second part of your post is a continuation of what to me is a philosophical debate. Let me clarify again that by "intelligent design" I'm not referring to a movement. I understand the objection to a movement used as a way of getting religion into the science class. What I refer to when I say design is a possible conclusion based on data. To say that design isn't science in this context says to me that we cross off the list a possible conclusion from the data we collect. And I must also add that the point I make above is not necessarily on its own a case for design. I like the theory of evolution as a general idea.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
MidGe: I am not referring to the movement either, I am referring to the body of work that purports to be science yet fails the fundamental test of science. It cannot be tested. There are a myriad possible ways of explaining gaps, from astrology, to ID and unimagined others. The moment they lend themselves to testing, and confirmation they will be part of science, until then they are NOT and should not be presented as such in an educational context.


[/ QUOTE ]
-----------------------
OK - I'm glad we are not talking about intelligent design as a movement anymore. Let me make my point with an example....

Three scientists walk into a cave that is on the beach, near the sea. At low tide they walk through the wet sand into the cave.
Scientist #1 says "This cave was produced by slow gradual processes - the tide dug this cave over thousands of years by removing sand a little bit at a time and gradually eroding the rock"
Scientist#2 says "This cave was carved by a designer - it looks too perfectly formed to be from just nature"
Scientist #3 gets out a deck of tarot cards.

Now Scientists 1 and 2 go forth into the cave to gather data. Scientist #1 notes discoloration on the bottom of the cave where the tide marks are. And he measures these discolorations, takes some samples, runs some dating tests and comes back with pretty strong case that tides dug out the bottom of the cave.
Scentist #2 looks at the top of the cave and finds chisel marks. He does some tests on the rocks and finds evidence of chisel fragments.
So these two get back together and decide - OK the top part of the cave was carved 1,000 years ago but its twice as deep as it was back then due to water erosion.
Both used scientific techniques to arrive at their conclusions. Scientist #2 isnt going to say that the person that concluded the cave was originally designed can't have made that conclusion through the use of science. He's not going to say "Unless you can bring the original designer here and have him repeat carving this cave you are unscientific" "Your idea can't be tested, can't be repeated etc" "your idea is just like this astrologer here trying to get the answer through tarot cards"
----------------
Now some might say - OK but there are no chisel marks or chisel fragments in nature - others might say yes there are. Still others might say there are things in nature that look like chisel marks and evidence that appears like chisel fragments and were definately not dug by the ocean. I don't think any of these ideas deserve to be placed in the same category as the tarot card reader.

Chips_,

I am getting bored with the same empty arguments repeated ad nauseum.


The chisel work can be reproduced anytime you want. You don't need the original designer/chiseler. If the scientist was saying a dude this did with a tool called "trenhhisgtrtr", and could show no evidence or even explain how a "trenhhisgtrtr" works or what it was, he would have little chance of having is theory accepted, especially if the other scientist could show that water erosion does indeed chisel out rock and could test the hypothesis, at least in part. He doesn't need to repeat the experiment for 1000 years.

The tarot card dude is as good as the "trenhhisgtrtr" dude, but not any better.

If you are going to use an analogy, try to make sure that it is an analogy and that you are not, as ID'ers do, perniciously and insiduously infering things that are not there (in this case a form of anthropomorphic projection on a god concept). If you want/need a god, by all means go for it. Don't push it into science!

I am atheist, based on a moral rationale, not on a scientific one, by the way. But that is not the issue at stake. I don't mind if you tell me that a designer designed evolution... I just don't buy that, but I do not force it on your belief. But in this case the designer concept is not presented as an alternative, without any proof, against evolution, so it is OK.

Science and religion/god belong to two different domains of thought.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't mind if you tell me that a designer designed evolution


[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't that be Intelligent Design? So the only argument you have with ID is the method?

If so, what happens to your moral rationale for atheism?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't mind if you tell me that a designer designed evolution


[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't that be Intelligent Design? So the only argument you have with ID is the method?

If so, what happens to your moral rationale for atheism?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, it would be intelligent design, simply not thaught in science or as science. That is the issue and what is objected to by scientists. Just like tarot, astrology etc... If a school decided to teach astrology, as long as they don't claim it is science I have no problem. There might very well be some interest in the development of astrology. Karl Jung has made an excellent and erudite contribution to the field of psychology by his study of symbolism and within that context astrology may have a value (I would not put Jungian psychology as a science but as part of philosophy, litterature or anothet humanity field). I find it hard to believe how the argument is being twisted over and over again.

It doesn't change my moral rationale/justification for atheism one bit.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Of course, it would be intelligent design, simply not thaught in science or as science.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you agree that evolution could be designed would you also agree that means it can't be by chance? And if it's wrong to teach that evolution is by design would it also be wrong to teach that it's by chance? If one isn't science neither is the other, correct?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Of course, it would be intelligent design, simply not thaught in science or as science.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you agree that evolution could be designed would you also agree that means it can't be by chance? And if it's wrong to teach that evolution is by design would it also be wrong to teach that it's by chance? If one isn't science neither is the other, correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree that it could but not for scientific reasons.

I totally accept the fact that you or anyone may believe so. In any case, it does not invalidate one iota of the theory of evolution. The designer could have designed a random number generator, or whatever. And I have no objection to a religious class stating that all that his discovered by science is the result of an intelligent agent as long as the religious class is not compulsory ina secular education system. However that statement has no place in a science class. It is not within the purloin of science to speculate about such things, it is a form of charlatanism or "bad" science.

By the way, form my view point, by accepting a god, you simply displace the problem, you don't eliminate it. All the hard questions can now be applied to the god concept (what designed him etc...). If you can accept that he need no designer, why not accept that the world needs none either?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

In any case, it does not invalidate one iota of the theory of evolution.


[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't answer the question. Is evolution by chance scientific?