writes:

I gave several examples of order evolving from chaos:
Crystals
Carbon nanotubes
Emegent systems.
Evolutionary simulations.


Order from chaos is a temporary thing.

Not necessarily. See above.


Your examples above are all temporary, for large values
of 'temporary.'

Ah. Yes. Life on this planet is temporary. But since the topic was
evolution, and someone argued that "order does not come out of chaos"
as an argument against evolution, this is the proper timescale, eh?

--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

Charles Spitzer wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Bruce Barnett wrote:
writes:

Bruce Barnett wrote:
...

Order does come out of chaos.


And it comes with a price. The ultimate price predicted by
thermodynamics is commonly called _the heat death of the
universe_.

That's entropy, which measured the total energy.

There are other forms or order and chaos that are not energy related.

I gave several examples of order evolving from chaos:
Crystals
Carbon nanotubes
Emegent systems.
Evolutionary simulations.


Order from chaos is a temporary thing.

Not necessarily. See above.


Your examples above are all temporary, for large values
of 'temporary.'

Not even a diamond is forever.


what happens to them? do they sublimate?


Diamond is a metastable form of carbon. It degrades to graphite.

--

FF

snip
Not even a diamond is forever.


what happens to them? do they sublimate?

Diamond is the most stable phase of carbon, but diamonds will, for instance,
burn in air. At room temperature, the reaction rate is very small, but
nonzero.

Steve
--

FF

Bruce Barnett wrote:
writes:

I gave several examples of order evolving from chaos:
Crystals
Carbon nanotubes
Emegent systems.
Evolutionary simulations.


Order from chaos is a temporary thing.

Not necessarily. See above.


Your examples above are all temporary, for large values
of 'temporary.'

Ah. Yes. Life on this planet is temporary. But since the topic was
evolution, and someone argued that "order does not come out of chaos"
as an argument against evolution, this is the proper timescale, eh?

--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

Agreed, although Mark or Juanita appears to confabulate biology
with cosmology.

--

FF

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 15:02:56 GMT, "Steve Peterson"
wrote:


The list of "Dissent from Darwin" is at
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...ownload&id=443.


'The' list, or 'a' list?

Cute though, it is a list of about 350 names, only a minority are
biologists and at a least a dozen or two aren't scientists at all.

--

FF

It is a specific list with that title. The reason I listed it is what you
point to. It is a sparse list, largely missing any leading scientists and
including many who are not in the biological sciences at all. For contrast,
the Steve's List, while tongue in cheek, illustrates that there are more
scientists named Steve (including some Stephanies) who reject ID as science
and support teaching of evolution and natural selection. It is in honor of
Stephen J. Gould, and includes many outstanding scientists in many fields.
It recently exceeded 600 names, even though it is a very limited sample of
all practicing scientists. Last time I checked, 600 350.


So now we practice proof of scientific theory by majority vote?



Steve #564




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

I'm done follwing this post. The amazing thing to me is that when one
points our logical inconsistencies in things that are accepted on faith
such as macro-evolutionary theory and big-bang non-causal cosmology, the
logical inconsistency for some reason doesn't register.

On 3 Oct 2005 18:44:56 GMT, Bruce Barnett
wrote:

Mark & Juanita writes:

The poster who argued that predictions
within the fossil record using the horse as an example serve to point that
out. The horse is still a horse and not a cow nor something between a
horse and a cow or between a piece of primordial slime and a horse. What
is lacking is the "between-things" that one would expect to see.

I'm still trying to comprehend this statement. In the single history
of "horse-like" things - there are hundreds of examples of
"between-things."


... but you said it yourself, they are all HORSE-LIKE things. What came
before the first horse-like thing? Where are the examples of those things
that moved from not-quite horse-like to horse-like? Those are the
"between-things" to which I refer.


Do you NOT believe they exist?

Or do you have a concept of "between-things" as "things that there is
no fossil record for."

Or do you have a concept of a "between-thing" that shows a
relationship between two species where you define the species where
you expect to find a relationship between?

When you mention "horse and cow" - why do you mention these particular
species? Why not "horse and worm" or "cow and bird?"

I see hyperbole doesn't register with you. Fine, pick horse and worm,
pick cow and bird. The point is that there is strong evidence of the
change within various species, but a horse is still a horse, a cow is still
a cow, etc.. Where are the "links", those fossils that definitively point
to something that is moving from one species to another?

Several logical questions arise from these theories:
1) How did heterosexual organisms manage to evolve, particularly in the
change from one species to another?
2) How survivable was a "between-thing"? For example, one of those
between-things that was *almost* a bird -- it couldn't run fast and it
couldn't fly -- so how could enough of them survive long enough to evolve
into something good enough to survive?


Using http://tolweb.org/ we find ::
Horses are part of the odd-toed ungulates (Perissodactyla). Cows are
even-toed ungulates. (Artiodactyla)

Cows have more in common with whales than they do with horses, and
much more in common with creatures of category Ruminantia (deer,
goats, sheep, antelopes, etc.) i.e. animals that chew their cud.
There are more primitive cud-crewing animals that can be considered
common ancestors to cows and sheep.

To get a common horse/cow ancestor, you need to find primitive
placental mammals (Eutheria) because that's what horses and cows have
in common. And such creatures exist in the fossil record.

I get the impression you are looking for some sort of half and half
creature that is half horse and half cow, and if you can't find that
exact combination exactly as you expect, you discard the entire
concept.

As I say, hyperbole didn't work. You indicate placental mammals have
been found in the fossil record -- where are the steps between those
mammals and the ones of your primitive horses or cows? How do you show
that those placental mammals were not simply species that for whatever
reason became extinct while other co-existing species became dominant?





+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

"Charles Spitzer" wrote in message
...

Not even a diamond is forever.


what happens to them? do they sublimate?


They walk off on the hand of your ex ....

Mark & Juanita writes:

... but you said it yourself, they are all HORSE-LIKE things. What came
before the first horse-like thing? Where are the examples of those things
that moved from not-quite horse-like to horse-like? Those are the
"between-things" to which I refer.

They exist. The Hyracotherium (eohippus).

It's a perfect example of "horse-like" things evolving into horses
over 55 million years.


When you mention "horse and cow" - why do you mention these particular
species? Why not "horse and worm" or "cow and bird?"

I see hyperbole doesn't register with you.

It was your example of "horse and cow" and I was pointing out
that these two creatures are NOT similar biologically.

For all I know, you expect to find a creature that cannot fly or
glide, but suddenly sprout wings and flap away.


Fine, pick horse and worm,
pick cow and bird. The point is that there is strong evidence of the
change within various species, but a horse is still a horse, a cow is still
a cow, etc.. Where are the "links", those fossils that definitively point
to something that is moving from one species to another?

As I said - Hyracotherium (eohippis) IS a difference species than a horse.

Do you deny their fossil existance?


Several logical questions arise from these theories:

If we are going to be logical, can I assume you accept the logic of
the evolution of the horse?

If you are going to disprove evolution, you have to disprove EVERY
concept. Finding "flakes of paint" where we don't have God-like
knowledge does NOT invalidate the basic model. After all - it
accuratle predicts the types of fossiles we find. It works.


1) How did heterosexual organisms manage to evolve, particularly in the
change from one species to another?


I'm know little about these principles. I'm not a biologist or paleontology.

If you are SERIOUSLY interested in learning, you would ask them.
Perhaps it's better to ask questions of people who don;t know the
answer, when you don't want to hear the right answer.

But my inexpert guess is that as soon as random genetic variation
created an organism that was heterosexual, that organism gained a HUGE
advantage over the other organisms. Asexual reproduction never
introduces new genetic combinations, because the child's genes is a
subset of the patent's gene. Have two parents, and have every
male/female union provide a new combination of genetics, gives that
creature a HUGE advantage over every other creature. Genetically it
has a HUGE potential for diversity, and therefore is more likely to
survive.

It's a logical answer.

2) How survivable was a "between-thing"? For example, one of those
between-things that was *almost* a bird -- it couldn't run fast and it
couldn't fly -- so how could enough of them survive long enough to evolve
into something good enough to survive?


Ah. you *DO* expect a creature to suddently sprout wings and fly away.

Dividing creates into "flying" and "not flying" is a very simplistic
view of the wonders of life on earth. There are thousands of variations.

Again - I'm not an expert, but there are an amazing variety of creates
that can GLIDE but not fly. Flying squirrels, sugar gliders, flying
fish, even snakes. I bet an expert can name a 100 different species
that can glide through the air.

Well, a creature that can glide farther, and longer, may use this to
survive as a species. If it can swoop down on prey, it can survive
better. If it can control direction, it can attack/flee better.
If it can lift itself up, even better.

All it takes is looking around this wonderful world to notice the
diversity of life.

As I say, hyperbole didn't work. You indicate placental mammals have
been found in the fossil record -- where are the steps between those
mammals and the ones of your primitive horses or cows?

Go to http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/scripts/dbs/mammals_pub.asp and
discover them yourself. But somehow I suspect you don't really want to
find an answer.

Of course as I said - you can't just say you want to find a "half
horse/half cow" creature. Might as well look for a centaur, or a griffin.

How do you show
that those placental mammals were not simply species that for whatever
reason became extinct while other co-existing species became dominant?

I simply don't understand your question.

ALL of those primitive mammals became extinct.

And if more than one existed (which is indeed likely) how does that
invalidate the concept of evolution, and the ability of the model to
predict new discoveries?

We don't have God-like knowledge. But God provides the evidence for us
to examine. To deny the facts that are before our face is to deny
God's plan for us to discover and explore our world.

--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 15:02:56 GMT, "Steve Peterson"
wrote:


The list of "Dissent from Darwin" is at
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...ownload&id=443.


'The' list, or 'a' list?

Cute though, it is a list of about 350 names, only a minority are
biologists and at a least a dozen or two aren't scientists at all.

--

FF

It is a specific list with that title. ...

So now we practice proof of scientific theory by majority vote?


No, this particular exercise was directed at your claim
of hundereds of distinguished scienetists etc etc, which
suggested you gave some weight to the popularity of a
notion.

--

FF

Mark & Juanita writes:


I'm done follwing this post. The amazing thing to me is that when one
points our logical inconsistencies in things that are accepted on faith
such as macro-evolutionary theory and big-bang non-causal cosmology, the

Scientists don't "accept on faith" macro-evolutionary theory or
any comsmological theory. Scientists accept them as theories
subject to falsification and refinement as further evidence for
or against develops.

The religious proponents of so-called Intelligent Design, don't
believe ID is subject to falsification (as it is revealed truth,
donchaknow), therefore it cannot be a theory, but rather is a
folk tale.

logical inconsistency for some reason doesn't register.

So, your strawman argument falls flat on its face.



I see hyperbole doesn't register with you. Fine, pick horse and worm,
pick cow and bird. The point is that there is strong evidence of the
change within various species, but a horse is still a horse, a cow is still
a cow, etc.. Where are the "links", those fossils that definitively point
to something that is moving from one species to another?

They are there, you either weren't given an education that shows the
various intermediate forms, or you refuse to recognize them as such.


Several logical questions arise from these theories:
1) How did heterosexual organisms manage to evolve, particularly in the
change from one species to another?

Let's see. The mantle contains U235 and Thorium, both of which
produce gammas during decay. The earth is continually bombarded
by cosmic radiation, which can easily tweak a chromosome or gene pair.
DNA is also damaged by environmental effects (poisons, etc). Combining
any two sets of genes results in a new set of genes.

2) How survivable was a "between-thing"? For example, one of those
between-things that was *almost* a bird -- it couldn't run fast and it
couldn't fly -- so how could enough of them survive long enough to evolve
into something good enough to survive?

The survivable "between things" survive, those that can't, don't. That's
the _whole point_ of evolutionary theory.

"George" George@least writes:

"Charles Spitzer" wrote in message
...

Not even a diamond is forever.


what happens to them? do they sublimate?


They walk off on the hand of your ex ....



Actually, the diamonds will be destroyed by the supernova
that destroys the solar system.

scott

Scott Lurndal wrote:

SNIP


The religious proponents of so-called Intelligent Design, don't
believe ID is subject to falsification (as it is revealed truth,
donchaknow), therefore it cannot be a theory, but rather is a
folk tale.



This last paragraph is complete baloney. You need to stop listening to
NPR for your explanations of ID and go to the original sources (which I
am doing at the moment). The foundational arguments of ID have nothing
to do with "revealed truth" but rather with what its proponents see as a
fundamental epistemological problem with the current philosophy of
science. The fact that some/many of its proponents also happen to be
"religious" is neither here nor there as regards to this argument.

Again, I am not particularly defending ID as an idea - I'm still trying
to understand its claims. But the kind of self-important ad hominem
bellowing going on in the science community on this topic at the moment
casts grave doubts (at least to me) as to how willing that community is
to ever have a fair discussion on the matter. ID assaults the very
philosophical underpinnings of scientific materialism. ID does not claim
that contemporary science is wholly incorrect. It does claim that it is
not sufficient to completely know what can be known from the physical
evidence.

I'm not getting back into the debate here, but it is truly annoying to
hear people peddle themselves as "objective" or "scientific" thinkers
and then resort to distortions, strawmen, and half-truths to win the
argument. I'm reading some of the ID primary sources at the moment. I
encourage others to do so as well if they truly mean to be objective in
their assessment.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

In article ,
says...
Agreed that this is philosophy. But there is no proof one way or the other. That's why
I say the only rational answer is "I don't know."


Just a fine point: There is no "proof" in Science either. Science at best
can only propose more and more likely explanations for observed
phenomena. "Proof" is an idea pretty much limited to formal mathematical
logic, and then only because of the way axiom-based systems work.


OK, technically you're right. But when repeating a set of actions based
on a set of rules and the result comes out the same every time, I call
that pretty good (although maybe incomplete) proof.

Since "intelligent design" is based only on someones opinion, I don't
think it qualifies. We certainly can't repeat the experiment :-).

In article ,
says...
hey claim that observed complexity ("observed" by *science*)
cannot be adequately explained by proesses like mutation
and natural selection. They argue that the science drives
you to the presumption of an author, not the other way around.


I guess "claim" is a good word for it. My problem is who created the
creator? At this point all I hear in response is "but he's eternal".
Why is it any more logical to assume an eternal creator than an eternal
universe? All they do is move the question back one level.

"And what is the turtle standing on?"

Tim Daneliuk writes:
Scott Lurndal wrote:

SNIP


The religious proponents of so-called Intelligent Design, don't
believe ID is subject to falsification (as it is revealed truth,
donchaknow), therefore it cannot be a theory, but rather is a
folk tale.



This last paragraph is complete baloney. You need to stop listening to
NPR for your explanations of ID and go to the original sources (which I
am doing at the moment). The foundational arguments of ID have nothing
to do with "revealed truth" but rather with what its proponents see as a
fundamental epistemological problem with the current philosophy of
science. The fact that some/many of its proponents also happen to be
"religious" is neither here nor there as regards to this argument.


Horsehockey. Intelligent design postulates a designer. The
existance (or non existance) of a designer cannot be falsified,
thus, cannot be postulated.

Again, I am not particularly defending ID as an idea - I'm still trying
to understand its claims. But the kind of self-important ad hominem
bellowing going on in the science community on this topic at the moment
casts grave doubts (at least to me) as to how willing that community is
to ever have a fair discussion on the matter. ID assaults the very
philosophical underpinnings of scientific materialism. ID does not claim
that contemporary science is wholly incorrect. It does claim that it is
not sufficient to completely know what can be known from the physical
evidence.

Wherein it becomes "revealed truth".


I'm not getting back into the debate here, but it is truly annoying to
hear people peddle themselves as "objective" or "scientific" thinkers
and then resort to distortions, strawmen, and half-truths to win the

Yes, the arguments used by ID proponents (where's the half-horse half=cow
fossil record, evolution is a theory, blah blah) do get quite annoying,
don't they.

You would do well to dig deeply enough into ID to find the primary
sponser of the ID institute (note that it is a religious organization).

(Scott Lurndal) writes:

You would do well to dig deeply enough into ID to find the primary
sponser of the ID institute (note that it is a religious organization).



See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design.

LARRY BLANCHARD wrote:

In article ,
says...

Agreed that this is philosophy. But there is no proof one way or the other. That's why
I say the only rational answer is "I don't know."


Just a fine point: There is no "proof" in Science either. Science at best
can only propose more and more likely explanations for observed
phenomena. "Proof" is an idea pretty much limited to formal mathematical
logic, and then only because of the way axiom-based systems work.



OK, technically you're right. But when repeating a set of actions based
on a set of rules and the result comes out the same every time, I call
that pretty good (although maybe incomplete) proof.

Philosophically, you don't know that it "comes out the same every time".
You merely assume this - and mostly for utilitarian reasons.
Scientifically, a lot of work is done by induction and modeling wherein
you cannot show definitively that your hypothesis is right (via
experimental duplication). There is no such thing as "proof" in Science.
There is only repetition and consistency - which for many/most practical
(utilitarian) purposes is good enough. The central issue here though, is
that ID is attacking the knowlege system of science not to falsify it,
but to argue that today's basic scientific assumption (materialism) is
inadequate to explain all observed phenomena. In this claim, the IDers
are no different than orthodox scientists who claim is *is* good enough
- neither side can definitively prove they are right. The arguments,
therefore, can only be utilitarian (what works best to explain the most)
or secondary (what are the consequences of taking each system to its
logical conclusion). The point is that todays scientific orthodoxy does
not have some obvious, slam-dunk advantage over the IDers claims,
despite the various ad hominem attacks on the ID people you'll hear from
the "objective" voice of the science establishment.



Since "intelligent design" is based only on someones opinion, I don't
think it qualifies. We certainly can't repeat the experiment :-).

ID is *not* baed just on "someone's opinions" anymore than any other
knowledge system is. It is rooted in a claim that today's science
fails to adequately account for all observed data and proposes
and alternative. *Neither* system is provable, which is why I believe
there should be a thorough and rigorous discussion on the matter not
the copout "it's not science so we don't have to" argument. ID
is *not* "Science" as currently constructed - it denies the efficacy
of materialist philosophy. But the exact argument in question is
whether or not it *ought to become* a part of science. As I have
said over and over, this reluctance by the science establishment
smacks of turf protection, ideological defense (by atheists), and
undermines the claims of the objectivity of the establishment
scientific community. If it's baloney demonstrate it, otherwise
engage and have a meaningful conversation on the matter ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim Daneliuk (in ) said:

| But the exact argument in question is
| whether or not it *ought to become* a part of science. As I have
| said over and over, this reluctance by the science establishment
| smacks of turf protection, ideological defense (by atheists), and
| undermines the claims of the objectivity of the establishment
| scientific community. If it's baloney demonstrate it, otherwise
| engage and have a meaningful conversation on the matter ...

[referee blows whistle]

You're claiming here, as I understand your words, that your opponent
in this debate can only hold a valid stance if he can prove a
negative.

If that's the case, then the subject matter of the debate is moot -
because the debate process itself has already been tainted. To insist
on carrying any debate forward under such terms at least verges on
intellectual dishonesty.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html

Morris Dovey wrote:

Tim Daneliuk (in ) said:

| But the exact argument in question is
| whether or not it *ought to become* a part of science. As I have
| said over and over, this reluctance by the science establishment
| smacks of turf protection, ideological defense (by atheists), and
| undermines the claims of the objectivity of the establishment
| scientific community. If it's baloney demonstrate it, otherwise
| engage and have a meaningful conversation on the matter ...

[referee blows whistle]

You're claiming here, as I understand your words, that your opponent
in this debate can only hold a valid stance if he can prove a
negative.

If that's the case, then the subject matter of the debate is moot -
because the debate process itself has already been tainted. To insist
on carrying any debate forward under such terms at least verges on
intellectual dishonesty.


Huh? The ID claim is that the current philosophical base for modern
Science (materialism) is insufficient to entirely embrace what we can
observe. They do not claim that Science is completely incorrect, nor do
are they claiming to prove a negative. Rather, the debate is about the
*sufficiency* of these various epistemic systems.

Also, a fine point. It is a logical rathole to attempt to prove a
negative, I agree. But that's not what the IDers are saying. Rather,
they are claiming that they can show a concrete lack of sufficiency in
materialist epistemology. That's not at all the same as trying to prove
a negative. It is an "adequacy" argument, at least as I understand it so
far.

The basis for this claim, BTW, is their argument for what they call
"irreducable complexity". In a nutshell, irreducable complexity argues
that aspects of biological life especially could not be any less complex
and have the larger living organism survive. That is, there is a lower
bound of biological complexity (in some cases) that you could not get to
evolutionarily because the path to that point would not exhibit
sufficient complexity for the precedant organisms to survive and
evolve.

And this is the guts of the debate. The IDers make this conjecture (with
some elementary examples) but of course cannot absolutely prove it.
OTOH, the Darwinian argument is that *all* life evolved to get to its
current state, and this too is unprovable, especially given the
absence of the "transition" fossils that would say get you from
priomordial ooze, to slime, to reptiles, ... to Hillary Clinton.

The real reason this debate is so important, in my view, is that it is
about the basis for scientific knowledge. Materialism (the idea that
everything in the Universe is describable solely in matter-mechanical
terms - i.e., That the sum is never bigger than the parts) as a
scientific epistemology really is pretty new - Darwin more or less
codified it. But it is hardly incontestible. There remains considerable
debate, for example, as to whether human consciousness is merely a
byproduct of brain electicity or whether there is something larger at
work there. Contemporary Science *assumes* that it's just a mechanical
system of some sort, but it *has* to given its philosophical starting
points. Even if ID turns out to have no substance, it is an important
debate because it asks the question "Are the current assumptions about
knowledge in Science valid?" I, for one, have real problems with the
matter-mechanical view of the Universe and I welcome the discussion to
see if it just might be possible to know *more* about the Universe than
our current philosophic system enables.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

In article ,
LARRY BLANCHARD wrote:

"And what is the turtle standing on?"

Come on... you know the answer...it's turtles all the way down!

Tim...

There's a lack of sufficiency to prove _anything_ at this point.
There're good arguments both ways. My life experience leads me to want
to believe in ID; but I still don't have enough information even begin
to construct a proof.

At the same time, all of my life experience leads me to want to
believe that if something happens, it happens because something caused
it to happen. Yet, I find myself unable to prove that _nothing_
happens without prerequisite cause.

These concepts may or may not conflict - I simply don't have any way
of knowing. It seems reasonable to me to conclude there is truth in
both; but it also seems reasonable to conclude that neither is
complete - and that even the sum/union is incomplete.

Further, our reason and proofs don't appear to _define_ reality - and
in fact, have failed frequently in the past to even accurately
_describe_ reality.

There are so many questions we haven't answered - and so many more
that we haven't even asked. As always, we're using what's within our
limited horizons to draw universal conclusions. Seems to me that our
reach is awfully short and our grasp exceedingly weak.

--
Morris

Morris Dovey wrote:

Tim...

There's a lack of sufficiency to prove _anything_ at this point.
There're good arguments both ways. My life experience leads me to want
to believe in ID; but I still don't have enough information even begin
to construct a proof.

Yup.


At the same time, all of my life experience leads me to want to
believe that if something happens, it happens because something caused
it to happen. Yet, I find myself unable to prove that _nothing_
happens without prerequisite cause.

Big Yup.


These concepts may or may not conflict - I simply don't have any way
of knowing. It seems reasonable to me to conclude there is truth in
both; but it also seems reasonable to conclude that neither is
complete - and that even the sum/union is incomplete.

The intriguing thing about ID - if you get past the Rev. Billybob
In A Bad Suit level of it - is that it proposes to harmonize the
two views.


Further, our reason and proofs don't appear to _define_ reality - and
in fact, have failed frequently in the past to even accurately
_describe_ reality.

That's why I keep insisting on this thread that the best we've done
so far as humans is more-or-less entirely utilitarian - we've
selected methods of knowledge that *do* things for us. Intuitively,
ISTM that there is more to knowledge than just utility.


There are so many questions we haven't answered - and so many more
that we haven't even asked. As always, we're using what's within our
limited horizons to draw universal conclusions. Seems to me that our
reach is awfully short and our grasp exceedingly weak.

--
Morris



I agree with all that, but that's why I think it's vital the two
communities start talking to each other. It is pretty clear that Science
"works" really well at the moment, but the possibility that we might
understand even more with a different point of epistemic departure is
worth investigating... Which is why I am reading up on all this at the
moment.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

(Scott Lurndal) writes:

Actually, the diamonds will be destroyed by the supernova
that destroys the solar system.

Damn. There goes my weekend.


--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

Tim Daneliuk writes:

ID is *not* baed just on "someone's opinions" anymore than any other
knowledge system is. It is rooted in a claim that today's science
fails to adequately account for all observed data and proposes
and alternative. *Neither* system is provable, which is why I believe
there should be a thorough and rigorous discussion on the matter not
the copout "it's not science so we don't have to" argument.

There is a big HUGE difference between ID and evolution.
But you ignored my earlier point.

There is NO way to use ID to predict any results.
We CAN use evolution to predict results.

One is testable, and one is not.
Evolution has been tested millions of times, and each time works.
We can NEVER test ID as a theory.

ID can NEVER be proved or disproved.

Simple put, one is a hypothesis that can be tested, and be the basis
of science, and the other is philosophy, metaphsics and religion.













ID
is *not* "Science" as currently constructed - it denies the efficacy
of materialist philosophy. But the exact argument in question is
whether or not it *ought to become* a part of science. As I have
said over and over, this reluctance by the science establishment
smacks of turf protection, ideological defense (by atheists), and
undermines the claims of the objectivity of the establishment
scientific community. If it's baloney demonstrate it, otherwise
engage and have a meaningful conversation on the matter ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

Tim Daneliuk writes:


Also, a fine point. It is a logical rathole to attempt to prove a
negative, I agree. But that's not what the IDers are saying. Rather,
they are claiming that they can show a concrete lack of sufficiency in
materialist epistemology. That's not at all the same as trying to prove
a negative. It is an "adequacy" argument, at least as I understand it so
far.

And you know what - this type of argument is frankly bull****. Suppose an IDer
says there is a lack of adequacy for a certain evolutionary step.

Now suppose that enough evidence is found to proof there is adequacy.

Well, the IDer will just point to another "flaw"

and the cycle will repeat forever. IDers will always claim that they
found a flaw that can't be explained, and pick a new flaw as soon as
the last one is no longer considered debatable.

The exact same thing happens when occultists and scientists examine
psychic phenomina, UFO's etc. As soon as a scientist proves one
example was faked they just pick a new example, and it never ends.

ID is NOT a model. It attempts to explain LACK of evidence.
It can never be tested.
It can never be disproved.



--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.

snip
Horsehockey. Intelligent design postulates a designer. The
existance (or non existance) of a designer cannot be falsified,
thus, cannot be postulated.

It goes further than this. They claim the complexity of some things, like
the human eye, is so great that they are irreducibly complex, and there is
no point or hope of further investigation. In this way, ID is
anti-scientific.

Again, I am not particularly defending ID as an idea - I'm still trying
to understand its claims. But the kind of self-important ad hominem
bellowing going on in the science community on this topic at the moment
casts grave doubts (at least to me) as to how willing that community is
to ever have a fair discussion on the matter. ID assaults the very
philosophical underpinnings of scientific materialism. ID does not claim
that contemporary science is wholly incorrect. It does claim that it is
not sufficient to completely know what can be known from the physical
evidence.

Tim is only going to be convinced if you actually take all the evidence for
evolution, starting with the pre-Darwinian data, add all that has been
learned since Darwin provided a theoretical framework that makes it all
sensible and coherent, fill in future discoveries, and then do a Reader's
Digest condensation to make it simple enough for him to comprehend.

IMHO
Steve

"LARRY BLANCHARD" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
hey claim that observed complexity ("observed" by *science*)
cannot be adequately explained by proesses like mutation
and natural selection. They argue that the science drives
you to the presumption of an author, not the other way around.


I guess "claim" is a good word for it. My problem is who created the
creator? At this point all I hear in response is "but he's eternal".
Why is it any more logical to assume an eternal creator than an eternal
universe? All they do is move the question back one level.

"And what is the turtle standing on?"

As somebody said, "It's turtles, all the way down."

Steve

ID is *not* baed just on "someone's opinions" anymore than any other
knowledge system is. It is rooted in a claim that today's science
fails to adequately account for all observed data and proposes
and alternative. *Neither* system is provable, which is why I believe
there should be a thorough and rigorous discussion on the matter not
the copout "it's not science so we don't have to" argument. ID
is *not* "Science" as currently constructed - it denies the efficacy
of materialist philosophy. But the exact argument in question is
whether or not it *ought to become* a part of science. As I have
said over and over, this reluctance by the science establishment
smacks of turf protection, ideological defense (by atheists), and
undermines the claims of the objectivity of the establishment
scientific community. If it's baloney demonstrate it, otherwise
engage and have a meaningful conversation on the matter ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

The responsibility is on the ID community to develop a scientific basis for
their theory. The reason most of their publications, to date, are in
newspapers, books and monographs, or in their own DI publications, is that
their claims boil down to "some things are too complex to explain" which
certainly can't be proven. If they want to concentrate on "some things
haven't been proven yet" and then conduct scientific experiments to prove
that they can't be proven, have at it. Science can and will be published
with peer review.

Steve

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
Tim...

There's a lack of sufficiency to prove _anything_ at this point.
There're good arguments both ways. My life experience leads me to want
to believe in ID; but I still don't have enough information even begin
to construct a proof.

At the same time, all of my life experience leads me to want to
believe that if something happens, it happens because something caused
it to happen. Yet, I find myself unable to prove that _nothing_
happens without prerequisite cause.

These concepts may or may not conflict - I simply don't have any way
of knowing. It seems reasonable to me to conclude there is truth in
both; but it also seems reasonable to conclude that neither is
complete - and that even the sum/union is incomplete.

Further, our reason and proofs don't appear to _define_ reality - and
in fact, have failed frequently in the past to even accurately
_describe_ reality.

There are so many questions we haven't answered - and so many more
that we haven't even asked. As always, we're using what's within our
limited horizons to draw universal conclusions. Seems to me that our
reach is awfully short and our grasp exceedingly weak.

--
Morris


Please note, these are philosophical questions, not scientific questions.
The scientific approach is to break them down to small, distinct hypotheses
that can be addressed and which produce a distinct answer. It may take a
scientific breakthrough to settle some questions. Consider that at one
time, there was a question about a running horse - did it always have to
have at least one foot on the ground. It was "obvious" that a horse is too
heavy to lift all four feet, but high speed photography was invented and
settled the question. So come on ID, make the hypotheses and do the
experiments. Until the observations are made, ID will continue to fail to
be scientific. If philosophy classes want to include it, no problem. They
can argue about irreducible complexity and provability as long as they want.

Steve

Steve Peterson (in
et) said:

| Please note, these are philosophical questions, not scientific
| questions. The scientific approach is to break them down to small,
| distinct hypotheses that can be addressed and which produce a
| distinct answer. It may take a scientific breakthrough to settle
| some questions. Consider that at one time, there was a question
| about a running horse - did it always have to have at least one
| foot on the ground. It was "obvious" that a horse is too heavy to
| lift all four feet, but high speed photography was invented and
| settled the question. So come on ID, make the hypotheses and do
| the experiments. Until the observations are made, ID will continue
| to fail to be scientific. If philosophy classes want to include
| it, no problem. They can argue about irreducible complexity and
| provability as long as they want.

Steve...

Agreed - these _are_ philosophical questions. Also worth noting is
that at many stages in our quest for knowledge and understanding, it
has been the philosopher who has raised the important issues that
science has endeavored to explain.

I'm not certain that the philosopher and the scientist necessarily
work at cross-purposes - even though each (frequently) seems to
criticize the other's very perspective.

I'm also of the opinion that discussion of ID belongs in a
philosophical setting until its proponents are able to formulate
questions that can be addressed in scientific terms. Thus far, the
philosophical and theological types haven't managed to advance their
questions to that point; and the scientific types can't find a
starting point for meaningful investigation.

It's not really a new/strange situation. Even with well-formulated
questions, progress is slow and painful. The philosopher asked: "What
is the nature of matter?" and just look at how far we have and haven't
gotten. Around the corner is another philosopher asking: "What is the
nature of dimensionality?" We're still struggling to figure out what
_is_ - and appear not quite ready to scientifically address whether
the "all" is /intentional/.

My head hurts. I'm off to make some sawdust.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html

"Bruce Barnett"
Tim Daneliuk

ID is *not* baed just on "someone's opinions" anymore than any other
knowledge system is. It is rooted in a claim that today's science
fails to adequately account for all observed data and proposes
and alternative. *Neither* system is provable, which is why I believe
there should be a thorough and rigorous discussion on the matter not
the copout "it's not science so we don't have to" argument.


There is a big HUGE difference between ID and evolution.
But you ignored my earlier point.

There is NO way to use ID to predict any results.
We CAN use evolution to predict results.


You can't predict anything with evolution. Some species change,
some don't. And there's no test for the creation of life, yet it
exists. There's no test for the creation of the universe and all
it's laws, yet it exists.



One is testable, and one is not.


Not true.


Evolution has been tested millions of times, and each time works.


In what way?


We can NEVER test ID as a theory.
ID can NEVER be proved or disproved.

Simple put, one is a hypothesis that can be tested, and be the basis
of science, and the other is philosophy, metaphsics and religion.


If evolution was tested and proven in some concrete way it wouldn't
be a hypothesis. If one believes that creation happened of its' own accord,
which is the natural consequence of rejecting any answer other than secular,
then you are also engaging in philosophy, metaphysics and religion. That's
why it's important to give school children an unbiased education.

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
"Bruce Barnett"
...


There is a big HUGE difference between ID and evolution.
But you ignored my earlier point.

There is NO way to use ID to predict any results.

I don't think that's true. For example, presuming an omnipetant
intelligent designer one hypothesis might be that there would be
no evolutionary 'dead ends'.

We CAN use evolution to predict results.


You can't predict anything with evolution.

False. Hypothesis testing of competing theories of evolution
is why some come to be favored over others.

An hypothesis entails a prediction. But recall what Niehls Bohr
said about prediction, that it is very difficult, especially
about the future. A prediction, in the sense of an hypothesis
may be made about past events, evidence of which has not yet
been discovered, (e.g. predictions of what may be found in
the fossil record), or current phenomena not yet observed,
which has been happening a lot over the past several decades
in DNA studies.


If evolution was tested and proven in some concrete way it wouldn't
be a hypothesis.

Evolution is not an hypothesis. Evolution is a field of study
within biology. Over the centuries there have been several theories
within that field, those theories spawn hypotheses which can be tested.

... That's
why it's important to give school children an unbiased education.

They should be given a better education about the process of
science.

--

FF

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:50:51 -0500, "Battleax"
wrote:

Hey, the guy thinks dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time,
drinking is the least of his problems.


... as opposed to believing a theory that, for its fundamental premise
violates all logical and scientific principles? (i.e, substituting "from
nothing, nothing comes" with "from nothing, everything comes")



mark-

you're confusing issues, but I think you knew that.

evolution doesn't address the question of where life came from. it flat
out has nothing to do with genesis, either in terms of supporting it,
refuting it or making any kind of comment on it at all. what evolution
says is that species (ones that are already here, OK...) adapt to
changes in their environment and that those adaptations result in the
differentiation between species.

that's all it does.

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
"Bruce Barnett"
...


There is a big HUGE difference between ID and evolution.
But you ignored my earlier point.

There is NO way to use ID to predict any results.

I don't think that's true. For example, presuming an omnipetant
intelligent designer one hypothesis might be that there would be
no evolutionary 'dead ends'.


Meaning what? Extinction or an unchanged design? Neither
one implies the lack of a creator unless you presume to know
his purpose.



We CAN use evolution to predict results.


You can't predict anything with evolution.


False. Hypothesis testing of competing theories of evolution
is why some come to be favored over others.


Like I said, you can't predict anything with evolution, that's why
there are competing theories.


An hypothesis entails a prediction.


Not necessarily. A prediction entails a predetermined end result,
a hypothesis could entail anything.


But recall what Niehls Bohr
said about prediction, that it is very difficult, especially
about the future. A prediction, in the sense of an hypothesis
may be made about past events, evidence of which has not yet
been discovered, (e.g. predictions of what may be found in
the fossil record), or current phenomena not yet observed,
which has been happening a lot over the past several decades
in DNA studies.


If evolution was tested and proven in some concrete way it wouldn't
be a hypothesis.


Evolution is not an hypothesis.


Sure it is. Unless you are limiting the term to "micro-evolution".


Evolution is a field of study
within biology.


Evolution, in the broader sense, is a theory. There certainly is the study
of evolution, but I don't think it's considered a study of a study.


Over the centuries there have been several theories
within that field, those theories spawn hypotheses which can be tested.

... That's
why it's important to give school children an unbiased education.


They should be given a better education about the process of
science.


More emphasis on critical thinking would be good but "science" is
a very general term. I see no reason to exclude ID as a possibility
unless there are other motives.

Steve Peterson wrote:

snip

Horsehockey. Intelligent design postulates a designer. The
existance (or non existance) of a designer cannot be falsified,
thus, cannot be postulated.


It goes further than this. They claim the complexity of some things, like
the human eye, is so great that they are irreducibly complex, and there is
no point or hope of further investigation. In this way, ID is
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Utter baloney. I have never seen an IDer even suggest that this follows
from irriduceable complexity. You are erecting a strawman to desparately
try and save your position.

anti-scientific.


Again, I am not particularly defending ID as an idea - I'm still trying
to understand its claims. But the kind of self-important ad hominem
bellowing going on in the science community on this topic at the moment
casts grave doubts (at least to me) as to how willing that community is
to ever have a fair discussion on the matter. ID assaults the very
philosophical underpinnings of scientific materialism. ID does not claim
that contemporary science is wholly incorrect. It does claim that it is
not sufficient to completely know what can be known from the physical
evidence.

Tim is only going to be convinced if you actually take all the evidence for
evolution, starting with the pre-Darwinian data, add all that has been
learned since Darwin provided a theoretical framework that makes it all
sensible and coherent, fill in future discoveries, and then do a Reader's
Digest condensation to make it simple enough for him to comprehend.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ad hominem. You have no idea how well or poorly I assimiliate complex
ideas. Again, your unwarranted condescension speaks to ideological
desparation, not knowledge...


IMHO
Steve




--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Bruce Barnett wrote:

Tim Daneliuk writes:


ID is *not* baed just on "someone's opinions" anymore than any other
knowledge system is. It is rooted in a claim that today's science
fails to adequately account for all observed data and proposes
and alternative. *Neither* system is provable, which is why I believe
there should be a thorough and rigorous discussion on the matter not
the copout "it's not science so we don't have to" argument.


There is a big HUGE difference between ID and evolution.
But you ignored my earlier point.

There is NO way to use ID to predict any results.
We CAN use evolution to predict results.

*Micro evolution* (within a given species) has been demonstrated.
*Macro evolution* (moving from lower- to higher biocomplexity and
achieving new speciation) has never been demonstrated.

*Neither* predicts anything in any real sense. You are overstating
(by a lot) exactly the state of knowledge as regards to evolution.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Steve Peterson wrote:

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...

Tim...

There's a lack of sufficiency to prove _anything_ at this point.
There're good arguments both ways. My life experience leads me to want
to believe in ID; but I still don't have enough information even begin
to construct a proof.

At the same time, all of my life experience leads me to want to
believe that if something happens, it happens because something caused
it to happen. Yet, I find myself unable to prove that _nothing_
happens without prerequisite cause.

These concepts may or may not conflict - I simply don't have any way
of knowing. It seems reasonable to me to conclude there is truth in
both; but it also seems reasonable to conclude that neither is
complete - and that even the sum/union is incomplete.

Further, our reason and proofs don't appear to _define_ reality - and
in fact, have failed frequently in the past to even accurately
_describe_ reality.

There are so many questions we haven't answered - and so many more
that we haven't even asked. As always, we're using what's within our
limited horizons to draw universal conclusions. Seems to me that our
reach is awfully short and our grasp exceedingly weak.

--
Morris



Please note, these are philosophical questions, not scientific questions.
The scientific approach is to break them down to small, distinct hypotheses
that can be addressed and which produce a distinct answer. It may take a
scientific breakthrough to settle some questions. Consider that at one
time, there was a question about a running horse - did it always have to
have at least one foot on the ground. It was "obvious" that a horse is too
heavy to lift all four feet, but high speed photography was invented and
settled the question. So come on ID, make the hypotheses and do the
experiments. Until the observations are made, ID will continue to fail to
be scientific. If philosophy classes want to include it, no problem. They
can argue about irreducible complexity and provability as long as they want.

Steve



This is an argument by misdirection at best. The only reason these are
not "scientific questions" at the moment is because of the current *philosophical*
assumptions of science. The very sufficiency of "the scientific approach" is
potentially on trial and your (and so many others') answer is:

It's not science as I understand it, I cannot comprehend any
other possible way of doing science, so I refuse to even
acknowledge the possibility I could be wrong or that my
way of doing things is inadequate.

You have effectively substituted your *beliefs* about the methods
of science for real intellectual curiosity and objectivity - a truly
religious practice if I ever saw one.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Steve Peterson wrote:

ID is *not* baed just on "someone's opinions" anymore than any other
knowledge system is. It is rooted in a claim that today's science
fails to adequately account for all observed data and proposes
and alternative. *Neither* system is provable, which is why I believe
there should be a thorough and rigorous discussion on the matter not
the copout "it's not science so we don't have to" argument. ID
is *not* "Science" as currently constructed - it denies the efficacy
of materialist philosophy. But the exact argument in question is
whether or not it *ought to become* a part of science. As I have
said over and over, this reluctance by the science establishment
smacks of turf protection, ideological defense (by atheists), and
undermines the claims of the objectivity of the establishment
scientific community. If it's baloney demonstrate it, otherwise
engage and have a meaningful conversation on the matter ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/


The responsibility is on the ID community to develop a scientific basis for
their theory. The reason most of their publications, to date, are in
newspapers, books and monographs, or in their own DI publications, is that
their claims boil down to "some things are too complex to explain" which
certainly can't be proven. If they want to concentrate on "some things
haven't been proven yet" and then conduct scientific experiments to prove
that they can't be proven, have at it. Science can and will be published
with peer review.

Steve



You need to actually go read some IDers because you keep erecting strawmen
as you cling to your position. They are attacking the method of *knowledge*
used by contemporary science. A system that has not been around all that long
(essentially from Darwin forward) and which has some fairly large gaping holes in
its assumption (the "something from nothing" premise being one of the biggest ones).
You tone and intensity is religious here not inquisitive...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Scott Lurndal" wrote in message
. ..
Let's see. The mantle contains U235 and Thorium, both of which
produce gammas during decay. The earth is continually bombarded
by cosmic radiation, which can easily tweak a chromosome or gene pair.
DNA is also damaged by environmental effects (poisons, etc). Combining
any two sets of genes results in a new set of genes.

2) How survivable was a "between-thing"? For example, one of those
between-things that was *almost* a bird -- it couldn't run fast and it
couldn't fly -- so how could enough of them survive long enough to evolve
into something good enough to survive?

The survivable "between things" survive, those that can't, don't. That's
the _whole point_ of evolutionary theory.


Interestingly enough, it appears that genes - then self-replicating protein
encoders rather than a definable life form - may well have aggregated from
several sources, each supporting the other in formation of something
approaching life.

The easiest answer to the "where's the missing link" query is "in the
mirror." It may not show in your face, but it's in your genes. Pretty much
all that was tried and discarded is still available, even if it is
suppressed.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
...


This is an argument by misdirection at best. The only reason these are
not "scientific questions" at the moment is because of the current *philosophical*
assumptions of science.

It is basic philosphical assumptions that distinguish science from
other processes for aquiring knowledge.

The very sufficiency of "the scientific approach" is
potentially on trial ...

Mathematics is insufficient to prove or disprove all theora. Does
this suggest to you that those theora be resolved by non-Mathematical
means?

--

FF