"Bruce Barnett" wrote in message
...
"Mike Marlow" writes:
ID
does not attempt to deny something between fossil A and C necessarily,
but
it does reject the idea of everything originating in some primeval pool
of
goo.
I've heard ID proponents claim that the eye is too complex to have
"evolved." This is not the pool of goo you mention.
I'm sure, but you're missing the point. I've heard BS stuff from
evolutionists too. There's all types in both camps. I stated that in a
couple of different ways in my reply. ID does not strictly imply what you
heard an ID believer state.
There are radicals on both sides of the issues, as is the case in
everything. In the evolution camp there are those who are quick to jump
to
conclusions not backed by science, simply because it's easy to throw the
cloak of evolution over things.
And it's also easy to prove the accuracy of evolution by its
predictive model. It works.
No, again you're missing it Bruce. A great deal of evolution rests on the
predictive or assumption that the "author" feels is justified by past or
related observations. That's fine - I don't have a problem with that as a
working model, but to suggest that all who subscribe to evolution only, are
honest in their science and don't jump to the conclusions that they want the
data to support is naive. Certainly you've heard about the misuse of data?
That does not exist strictly in the ID camp.
However, ID can never be "disproved" because it provides no predictive
capabilities. It's like claiming ESP and UFO's exists. Disprove one
example, and we can claim it still exists, since it hasn't been disproved.
So what? In what way does that discredit ID? Your statement also ignores
the fact that the order in the universe upon which science is built, and
which science leverages every day, could not come from chaos - by the very
rules and beliefs of that science.
As has been proposed many times by minds far greater
than mine, order does not come out of chaos, rather, order tends to
decay
into chaos.
You are confusing entropy with order/chaos.
Order can be created out of chaos. There are many examples. Brownian
motion will mix chaotic dispersions into a more orderly mises. Pour
milk into coffee, and it will "decay" into a uniform color. Wind
turbluence and weather are examples of chaotic systems that are very
difficult to simulate, but as we gain experience, we gain
understanding.
That's not order is it Bruce? Isn't that still chaos? Can you build a rule
out of the milk mixture with the coffeed? Don't get me wrong - I am not
prepared to tackle a debate on this, but isn't there a difference between a
mixture and order?
Crystals form out of chaos. Nanotechnology and the creation of
nanotubes also form out of chaos. A pile of random carbon atoms can
form perfect nanotubes - one of the most amazing materials in the
world. Personally, I think nanotubes is a better example of "ID."
But these things do follow specific rules - right?
Complexity theory of self-similar organisms show that patterns emerge
out of chaos. Also look at genetic programming.
But aren't you working with a very finite and predictable matter in those
cases? And... a matter that is in order, and not chaos?
There are many studies using evolution simulators that show exactly this.
And the results are surprising.
As yet, I've never heard anyone put forward a theory for how
order in the universe evolved from chaos and somehow found a way to
stabilize at the level of order that we now base all of our science on.
Now you have.
Don't take this as an insult because I just don't have the ammunition in
this field to cast an insult, but you haven't convince me yet.
I'm actually seeing where you are addressing my comments with tangential
comments and not addressing them headlong. That may make the conversation
wider, but I don't see how it will deal with the points at hand.
Anyway - my only point originally was that ID does not necessarily deny
evolution. It can very well embrace evolution but it does put bounds on it
to some degree, and of course, it does presume a creation.
--
-Mike-