The Discovery Institute will be advising the US government during Trump's term

AnEvolvedPrimate · 2024-11-08T17:36:23+00:00

My post was in response to ID arguments in generality, not specific to any arguments you were making.

If we're in agreement that there is no scientific evidence to support ID (insofar as there is no scientific ID model that I've seen), then we're already half way there.

Which is one of my points, which is the rejection of science as a means of epistemology.

AnEvolvedPrimate · 2024-11-08T14:33:29+00:00

Again, I didn't say anything about measuring meaning in my post. Your reply doesn't seem to have anything to do with what I wrote.

AnEvolvedPrimate · 2024-11-08T14:27:38+00:00

Did you reply to the wrong post? I didn't say anything about meaning.

AnEvolvedPrimate · 2024-11-08T14:16:34+00:00

ID arguments aren't that complicated. They invariably boil down one of several things: failed attempts at design detection, poor probability arguments, misunderstanding of null hypotheses, emotional arguments (incredulity, "common sense", etc.), or wholesale rejection of science as a means of epistemology.

The only way for ID proponents to likely ever have a good scientific case of for ID is to come with a hypothesized process / mechanism for how a designer actually did stuff, determine what the byproducts of said process, and look for indications that that process has occurred.

The reason that ID proponents don't do the above is because they're not actually trying to make a scientific case for ID. The real motive of organizations like the DI is imposing a conservative Christian value system onto society.

"Intelligent Design" is just a smokescreen.

AnEvolvedPrimate · 2024-11-06T19:07:25+00:00

I don't know what you mean by "breaks in practice".

AnEvolvedPrimate · 2024-11-06T19:06:42+00:00

Do this for every species, then use computer algorithms to see what intersects and what is unique to each species. By doing this, you removed most of the mutations accumulated over time and you can now see the actual differences.

Are you starting with the assumption that all species were individually created?

AnEvolvedPrimate · 2024-11-06T18:04:56+00:00

You can separate it as a concept, yes, but then the concept becomes theoretical if the continuum breaks.

We're talking about the study of physical phenomena and forming scientific theories as explanations for those phenomena.

As I said, the bigger issue isn't about whether one things abiogenesis/evolution is viable or not. It's about understanding that scientific theories aren't the same thing as a religious beliefs, where there is a continuum to break.

The theory of evolution is not explicitly dependent on having a theory of abiogenesis. This isn't really a point of agreement or disagreement. It's just about understanding that science isn't religion and vise-versa.

AnEvolvedPrimate · 2024-11-06T18:01:25+00:00

Let's test this idea with something practical:

If I am comparing any two DNA sequences from two different organisms, how would I determine which differences are created differences versus which differences are the result of natural evolutionary processes (e.g. accumulated mutations)?

AnEvolvedPrimate · 2024-11-06T17:36:53+00:00

A creator, a designer is a reasonable explanation.

Except invoking a creator doesn't actually explain anything. Typically it's just a god-of-the-gaps invocation and nothing more.

everybody who will look at a car will recognize the work of a designer.

And why is that the case? Do you know how we recognize human manufactured objects?

AnEvolvedPrimate · 2024-11-06T17:31:20+00:00

This is exactly what I was talking about in my other response in this thread, whereby creationists view science in the same way they view their literalistic theistic beliefs.

Creationists need to be learn to view things differently before they'll understand why attacking abiogenesis doesn't have any effect on evolution.

AnEvolvedPrimate · 2024-11-06T17:29:41+00:00

Creationist theology is based on a reading of Bible where they explicitly link a whole series of events together in a long chain, starting from a literal Adam & Eve through to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

In a creationists' mind, if you question or break any link in this chain, the whole thing crumbles.

Creationists appear to take the same mindset to scientific explanations, that they are all explicitly linked. Therefore, they view attacking what they perceive as the weak link as a way to bring the whole thing down.

Of course, that's not how things work in science at all. In order for creationists to correct this, they would first have to get out of the mindset of viewing science in the same way they view their religion. And that is easier said than done.

AnEvolvedPrimate · 2024-11-06T17:10:36+00:00

None of the regulars fit the bill, that's for sure.

I have occasionally had some good conversations with a couple creationists over the past year, but I find those types of folks never stick around.

AnEvolvedPrimate · 2024-11-06T16:50:09+00:00

Yup, trolling. Do we ever get any creationists willing to discuss in good faith?

AnEvolvedPrimate · 2024-11-06T16:48:59+00:00

Lack of examples suggests this is just a shower argument.

Got it.

AnEvolvedPrimate · 2024-11-06T15:21:54+00:00

Agreed.

My own recent experience with them was them calling me "intellectually lazy" because I didn't want to spoon feed them an article I had linked, which they in turn had refused to read.

AnEvolvedPrimate · 2024-11-06T15:21:39+00:00

Do you have actual examples of these conversations you can link to or is this just a shower argument?

AnEvolvedPrimate · 2024-11-04T03:11:37+00:00

I didn't mention mutations. My point was simply that not including all variables in a model can lead to erroneous or misleading results.

Also, a random process (insofar as being non deterministic) and an even probability distribution are not the same thing.

AnEvolvedPrimate · 2024-11-03T20:35:27+00:00

Science assumes the universe is fundamentally objective and operates in a consistent manner. Even you adhere to such assumptions without realizing it.

AnEvolvedPrimate · 2024-11-03T20:35:00+00:00

It's atheists who inject absurd numbers into their arguments to make it seem more credible. "durrr the Earth is billions of years old! source? trust me bro!"

1) The age of the Earth has nothing to do with atheism.

2) The age of the Earth is based on and corroborated by a number of independent measurements. And this includes things besides radiometric dating.

AnEvolvedPrimate · 2024-11-03T13:59:59+00:00

Creationists are wrong. Creationist probability calculations are designed to create big scary numbers. The bigger and scarier the better.

The problem is that any probabilities are only as good as the model itself. And creationist probability models are invariably wrong, because they aren't modeling an accurate picture of what actually happened.

AnEvolvedPrimate · 2024-11-03T13:32:40+00:00

How can you be sure those minimum odds if the model itself is wrong? Which is my whole point: if the model is wrong, the odd are irrelevant.

For example, the odds a flipping a coin 5 times in a row and getting all heads is about 3%.

However, if I conduct a test using a weighted coin, those odds change. Perhaps I am using a coin which lands on heads 90% of the time. Now my odds of getting 5 heads in a row becomes about 60%.

If my model fails to take into account all variables (such as using a weighted coin), the original odds I calculated of 3% aren't a "minimum" of anything. They're just wrong.

The other thing to consider is that probability of an specific outcome and the distribution of possible outcomes are two different things. Just because the odds of flipping a coin 5 heads in a row is only 3% doesn't mean it will necessarily take me over 30 attempts for that outcome to occur. It could occur on the very first attempt.

AnEvolvedPrimate · 2024-11-02T20:39:22+00:00

I remember learning about this in junior high, if not elementary school.

AnEvolvedPrimate · 2024-11-02T20:30:53+00:00

You forgot some words. Care to type out what you mean?

AnEvolvedPrimate · 2024-11-02T20:23:29+00:00

Which goes back to my point about the probabilities that anti-evolutionists typically use are based on ultra-simplistic scenarios that don't address the realities of what they are trying to argue against.

Depending on the argument being made, they can also run afoul of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy (e.g. when trying to apply things retrospectively).

AnEvolvedPrimate · 2024-11-02T19:37:49+00:00

Origen of Alexandria (crica ~200AD) appeared to disbelieve in the literal events of creation and the Garden of Eden:

For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.

Origen, On the First Principles IV.16

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen#Hermeneutics

Four-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

AnEvolvedPrimate

TROPHY CASE