[__ Science __ ] A Hill to Die On

[Barbarian]

The evidence from science is that the universe is composed of substance which can't be added to, or subtracted from. It appears to have always been here.

Your assumption isn't true. The Universe appears to be billions of years old. Yes, if God is deceptive, He could easily fake that evidence. But that wouldn't be the God of the Bible.

You're point is "the living creature" brought forth after every kind.

The point is, you don't approve of the way He did it.

You have it backwards. Life created natue.

No. God made nature first. Then He made living things, using nature.

 

[Vaccine]

All you've done here is repeat your original assertion without adding any supporting evidence or advancing any new arguments. As far as IC being a legal strategy, it's not directly that. It's one aspect of ID creationism, which as I've shown and a federal court has ruled, is most definitely a legal strategy.

We need to define some terms then because it seems you object to creationism but keep saying ID. Intelligent design theory states:
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

What Is Intelligent Design?

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design…

intelligentdesign.org

Thanks for at least acknowledging IC is not a legal strategy. Because ID theory doesn't qualify as a legal strategy, nor a religion. The idea "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" is not a legal strategy, in any sense of the word. On the other hand, The Wedge document qualifies as a legal strategy. It was written by a lawyer after all. Next, ID theory being conflated with religion, aka creationism. ID theory at its core, like any science, is a search for causes.

Simply put:
Creationism moves forward: that is, it assumes, asserts or accepts something about God and what he has to say about origins; then interprets nature in that context. Intelligent design moves backward: that is, it observes something interesting in nature (complex, specified information) and then theorises and tests possible ways how that might have come to be. Creationism is faith-based; Intelligent Design is empirically-based.

Frequently raised but weak arguments against Intelligent Design | Uncommon Descent

Creationism is religion, ID theory is science. ID creationism, is a nominal fallacy incorrectly assuming that giving something a name is tantamount to an explanation. It's no different than equating a chicken and an egg. There's definitely a relationship there but the bottom line is they are two separate things. Conflation is a losing battle.

Using a court case to redefine terms isn't rock solid evidence either. Courts aren't very good at definitions since the supreme court ruled corporations are people (Nat'l. Park v Ross).

First, there is no "ID theory". In science, an explanation only becomes a "theory" when it successfully explains a wide range of observations/phenomena, and stands up to scientific testing. IDC hasn't explained a single thing nor has it ever been scientifically tested.

In spite of the objections, ID theory is actually thing. ID theory is based on empirically proven concepts such as specified-complexity and irreducible-complexity:
1. It is based on empirical data: the empirical observation of the process of human design, and specific properties common to human design and biological information.
2. It is a quantitative and internally consistent model.
3. It is falsifiable: any positive demonstration that CSI can easily be generated by non design mechanisms is a potential falsification of the ID theory.
4. It makes empirically testable and fruitful predictions

Frequently raised but weak arguments against Intelligent Design | Uncommon Descent

uncommondescent.com

They make predictions and publish their findings in peer reviewed journals:

• Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Vol. 117(2):213-239 (2004) (HTML).
• Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27 (December 2010).
• Douglas D. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341:1295–1315 (2004).
• Michael Behe and David W. Snoke, “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues,” Protein Science, Vol. 13 (2004).
• William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search,” Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Vol. 14 (5):475-486 (2010).

As far the list of reasons why ID is not science and is a form of creationism, let's start with....

Consider Paul Nelson's article to young-earth creationists, "Life in the Big Tent: Traditional Creationism and the Intelligent Design Community" (PDF). In that article, he describes the history of how IDC came to be...

Let's begin with some history. The year 1997 marks a noteworthy turning point in the American debate over the science and philosophy of origins. In that year, a long cultural battle that had begun more than a quarter century earlier with Henry Morris and John Whitcomb's classic, The Genesis Flood, in 1961 appeared to many onlookers to have come decisively to an end when the Edwards v. Aguillard decision of the U.S. Supreme Court declared creation-science to be a religious belief.​

Note how he starts off by referring to the impact of the SCOTUS ruling against creationism in public schools.

The two-model approach to the origin's controversy was now dead.​

Note: The "two model approach" argues that the only explanations for the history of life on earth are evolution and creationism, and that an argument against evolution is therefore an argument for creationism.

As for the two model approach, it's creationism vs Darwinism as far as the origin of life. There is no two model approach when in comes to the history of life. The theory of evolution and ID theory are compatible. It's not a winner take all, there's room for both since both compliment science.

Also, the idea an argument against evolution is for creation is a pretty broad brush to paint with. Nobody would consider this an argument for creationism:
"The discovery of pervasive HGT and the overall dynamics of the genetic universe destroys not only the Tree of Life as we knew it but also another central tenet of the Modern Synthesis inherited from Darwin, gradualism."
"The summary of the state of affairs on the 150th anniversary of the Origin is somewhat shocking: in the post-genomic era, all major tenets of the Modern Synthesis are, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution. So, not to mince words, the Modern Synthesis is gone. What’s next?"

The Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight?

The 200[th] anniversary of Darwin and the 150[th] jubilee of the Origin of Species prompt a new look at evolutionary biology. The 1959 Origin centennial was marked by the consolidation of the Modern Synthesis. The edifice of the Modern Synthesis has ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

IIRC Koonin is an atheist and would be outraged to hear his statements against the modern synthesis and the tree of life are considered arguments for creationism. Which they aren't. Make no mistake, Koonin isn't being despondent here, rather he's looking forward to new horizons by shedding a some of the outdated shackles of an 150 year old theory. This is merely to point out why painting any criticism of evolution with a wide brush is a bad idea.

Edwards v. Aguillard seemingly had ended the public debate over origins. A revolution from an unexpected quarter, however, was about to occur. In 1987, Phillip Johnson, a professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley, was taking a year's sabbatical in London, England

Every day on the walk to his office, he passed a book shop where Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker and Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, were on sale. Curious, Johnson bought the books and read them through. He noticed immediately that the ostensible issues of Edwards v. Aguillard were not the real issues at all............................

So creationists got their a**es handed to them by the supreme court in '87 and realized creationism isn't science. Bully. Then Johnson sulks for a while until he meets a bunch of new scientists in '93 and see's a new opportunity in them. These scientists actually formulated a legitimate scientific theory apart from Johnson's input. It's not like their theory is based on any forged evidence such as the impact Haeckel’s embryos had on Darwin.

They all wrote and published their works independently of any defunct creation science or Johnson. If creationism were being peddled by Behe, Meyer, Dembski, and the others wouldn't be published in any peer reviewed sources. Regardless how much people hate creationism there's no reason to transfer that hate to ID theory. True, most are creationists but that doesn't change the fact they all have science degrees, are doing actual science, and haven't had any real scientific challenges to their theory. Public opinion is awash with misinformation, but that's nothing new.

 

[Vaccine]

Continued...

That would only be true if ID was about gods, which would make it a form of creationism and remove it from the realm of science. Can't have it both ways here....can't try and pretend that ID creationism is science while also saying its mechanism is creation by gods.​

ID theory at it's core is about identifying causes, as is all science. Identifying the intelligent agent is beyond the scope of ID theory or any theory for that matter. Identifying a cause is sufficient. Allowing you to define the terms creates the false dichotomy. I stated earlier if you define terms it sets up a straw man. Who defines climate change? The proponents or opponents of it? Do you see how problems are created when the opponents of climate change are allowed to define climate change?

Not at all the same. The evidence very clearly shows that ID creationism was specifically crafted by creationists as a legal strategy to advance sectarian religious and social goals. That's not science.​

Darwin crafted his theory with the goal to overthrow creationism, and you say that isn't the same? You're kidding right?
Here's the quotes:
"Some of those who admit the principle of evolution, but reject natural selection, seem to forget, when criticising my book, that I had the above two objects in view; hence if I have erred in giving to natural selection great power, which I am very far from admitting, or in having exaggerated its power, which is in itself probable, I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations." -Descent of Man
"Finally, we may conclude that when the principle of evolution is generally accepted, as it surely will be before long, the dispute between the monogenists and the polygenists will die a silent and unobserved death." -Descent of Man

My position is the worldview of the people is separate from their theories. Darwin, as well as Behe, Meyer, Dembski, and the others are well aware of the implication of the science they're doing. We can criticize the science or their worldviews, but let's dispense with the nonsense scientific theories aren't science simply because the people who craft them have opinions.

It's from the judge's ruling (pg. 28)​

Well, the quotes don't belong since that's Judge Jones opinion, not Behe's actual words. Behe didn't say the plausibility of ID theory depends upon the existence of God, rather, he was speaking about his personal experience that:
"...people make decisions even about a scientific theory, based not only on the science itself, but what they perceive as other ramifications of the theory. But I argue, I've argued a number of places, that it s the proper role of a scientist to leave aside those other considerations as much as possible and focus simply on the scientific data."
https://ncse.ngo/kitzmiller-trial-transcripts

Behe also said this to two different questions:
Q. So is it accurate for people to claim or to
represent that intelligent design holds that the
designer was God?
A. No, that is completely inaccurate.
********************************************
Q. Is intelligent design based on any religious beliefs or convictions?
A. No, it isn't.
Q. What is it based on?
A. It is based entirely on observable, empirical, physical evidence from nature plus logical inferences.

Barbarian has already posted a paper about a lab experiment where it was observed to happen.​

Are you sure? Because I didn't see anything about chromophores, opsin, or retinal molecules. But we had discussed that before so my answer was a little short.

Doesn't matter. We've seen an IC system evolve in the lab.​

I know Barbarian is confident it has but he's bluffing. Notice he didn't cite any source. No doubt he'll produce a source now. And if it actually proves what he thinks it does, I guarantee the ID folks would pack it in and call it a day. Did you catch the source he cited which merely described a type III secretion system, then asserted it came first? Two sources said the flagellum came first but that didn't faze him.

Let's see your calculations.​

It isn't a calculation. I said improbable, as in it's improbable a tornado striking a junkyard produces a corvette. It's also improbable a light sensitive cell arose by random mutations. Applying Occam's razor to the situation points to in intelligent cause being more likely. Which is why Behe and the others created such a stir in the first place.

LOL...they label themselves creationists (emphasis mine)...

"In March 1992, a landmark symposium took place at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. At that meeting, Phillip Johnson, Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, Michael Behe, and other Christian scholars squared off against several prominent Darwinists. The topic of debate was "Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?"

The remarkable thing about the meeting was the collegial spirit that prevailed. Creationists and evolutionists met as equals to discuss serious intellectual questions."

.​

Touche. Many ID theorists identify as creationists. Darwin referred to himself as a materialist. Surely you aren't implying a label is tantamount to evidence Darwin or Dembski's scientific theories are invalid?

https://www.conservapedia.com/Religious_views_of_Charles_Darwin

If that's all that went on, you'd have a point. The problem is, your depiction of the situation is completely off base and inaccurate. First, there is an enormous amount of evidence showing that ID is a form of creationism and was crafted as a legal strategy. Second, lots of scientists spent lots of time and effort showing how ID creationism is meaningless and vacuous from a scientific perspective.​

I agree, that's an enormous amount of evidence. Which makes a good case for creationism being a religion, The Wedge Document being a legal strategy, and creationists believing in ID theory. What you've barely scratched the surface of is ID theory, irreducible complexity or specified complexity. There's scare quotes and Trump labels surrounding those terms when they're mentioned. Some people are eager for ID theory to go away but it isn't.

ID theory isn't the threat people think it is. It isn't meant to replace evolutionary theory. It's perfectly compatible with common descent or even atheism if we're being honest. The theory of evolution isn't evil, nor is ID theory virtuous. Variation, inheritance, and selection are concepts to explain features in biology the same as IC and SC. But some people want to conflate terms and spend a lot of time on something they find meaningless and vacuous. Which means it isn't exactly meaningless and vacuous after all. They did the same in Darwin's day too.

 

[Vaccine]

Merely shows that the flagellum, evolved from the Type III secretory apparatus. So not irreducibly complex after all. Another icon of creationism debunked.

At a loss for words here. The source you cited describes the type III secretion system but makes no mention of where it came from. While the two sources I cited explained it came from the flagellum. Which makes a lot of sense. Because in your scenario bacteria would be floating around without a form of locomotion, however they'd have a nice tool to poke holes and colonize eukaryote cells that wouldn't exist for a few million years. It's more probable the form of locomotion came first, then as time passes broken genes lead to a way to get at their new found friends.

Not surprising. Historically, corporations have been considered legal persons.

Asserting ID theory is a religion based on a court case, is on the same shaky ground as arguing a corporation is a person based on a court case.

Nope. The Type III secretory apparatus is still there. How can that be? If you thought about it, I'm sure you could see how that works. And It seems very odd even for a creationist to consider the bacterial flagellum to be "broken." It usually works very well, indeed.

What's your source? Because the peer reviewed sources say:
"I show that by far the most common adaptive changes seen in those examples are due to the loss or modification of a pre-existing molecular function, and I discuss the possible reasons for the prominence of such mutations." -Behe

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/656902

The eye has been proposed to be irreducibly complex, but in nature we see every step from a simple dark patch on the surface of an organism to the highly complex vertebrate and mollusk eyes. In the mollusks, all these steps still exist.

A light sensitive cell was proposed to be irreducibly complex, not an organ. This is a bit like anti-evolutionists asking why chimpanzees are still around. But let's take a look at your source. Is this about the jist of it?

• Pigment spot, nerve fibers.
• Pigment cup, nerve fibers.
• Simple optic cup, optic nerve
• Eye with primitive lens, optic nerve.
• Eye with primitive lens, optic nerve, cornea, iris.

Those are entirely plausible steps once you get a working light sensitive cell. It just seems to have emerged. How about showing all the steps involved in that?

So another supposed irreducibly complex organ turns out to not be irreducibly complex. There's a pattern here...

In fact, the evidence shows that complex eyes are not irreducibly complex; they evolved from very simple beginnings.


All cells are light sensitive to some degree. The key is a bit of pigment can make a spot more sensitive to light. I thought you knew. So that's not an adequate excuse.

Do you have any sources explaining this phenomenon?

This is religion:
"Governing Goals

• To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
• To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

(Discovery Institute's declaration of goals)

This is a scientific theory:

• Reproductive surplus: more offspring are created than needed.
• Every individual is slightly different than its parents
• Some difference affect the likelihood of surviving long enough to reproduce
• Natural selection tends to remove the harmful ones and tends to preserve the useful ones. And this accumulates over time. Speciation is often the eventual result.

It usually goes the other way:
But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

“From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true?”

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said ‘No!’ A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, “Wait a minute. There has to be one!” But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now, but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist.

Why I Left Young-Earth Creationism

In memory of Glenn Morton (1950-2020), Peaceful Science is republishing his personal account and testimony of leaving Young-Earth Creationism.

peacefulscience.org

YE creationism is a powerful atheist-maker.

Aer you not aware most atheists base their worldview on Darwin?
That's some convoluted logic to blame YE creationism.

Words have meaning. An ideology intent on establishing the existence of God is a religious ideology, not science.

I agree.

 

[Uncle J]

We need to define some terms then because it seems you object to creationism but keep saying ID.

Because ID is one of many forms of creationism.

Intelligent design theory states:
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

What Is Intelligent Design?

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design…

intelligentdesign.org

First, that's not a scientific theory in any sense of the word. As I explained before, a scientific theory explains a wide range of observations and phenomena, and has withstood scientific testing. The above is none of that. If you disagree, then perhaps you can name something that ID creationism has explained and point to a scientific test that it's successfully passed.

Second, it's far too vague to be at all useful. What "certain features of the universe...and living things" has ID creationism explained? How do we tell the difference between something that's "designed" and something that's not? What is an "intelligent cause"?

Finally, scientific theories are not negative propositions. The phrase "not an undirected process such as natural selection" is a negative statement and is also vague. What do they mean by "undirected"? Who or what would "direct" it?

ID theory doesn't qualify as a legal strategy, nor a religion. The idea "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" is not a legal strategy, in any sense of the word. On the other hand, The Wedge document qualifies as a legal strategy. It was written by a lawyer after all. Next, ID theory being conflated with religion, aka creationism. ID theory at its core, like any science, is a search for causes.

That makes no sense. The Wedge Strategy literally lays out why ID creationism was created, what its goals are, what the "designer" is, and what ID creationists hope will ultimately happen. It's quite blunt in that ID creationism was created as a legal strategy to advance a social/religious objective (align science with the Christian God), that the "designer" is the Christian God, and that if the strategy is successful, materialism will have been defeated.

There's absolutely nothing scientific about any of that.

Creationism is religion, ID theory is science. ID creationism, is a nominal fallacy incorrectly assuming that giving something a name is tantamount to an explanation. It's no different than equating a chicken and an egg. There's definitely a relationship there but the bottom line is they are two separate things. Conflation is a losing battle.

Nope. The evidence is right there in black and white. ID creationism was created in response to court rulings against teaching creationism, was intended to advance social and religious objectives, and has absolutely zero scientific content or relevance.

Using a court case to redefine terms isn't rock solid evidence either. Courts aren't very good at definitions since the supreme court ruled corporations are people (Nat'l. Park v Ross).

Lazy thinking. "Courts aren't always right, therefore I can wave away the Dover ruling".

In spite of the objections, ID theory is actually thing. ID theory is based on empirically proven concepts such as specified-complexity and irreducible-complexity:
1. It is based on empirical data: the empirical observation of the process of human design, and specific properties common to human design and biological information.
2. It is a quantitative and internally consistent model.
3. It is falsifiable: any positive demonstration that CSI can easily be generated by non design mechanisms is a potential falsification of the ID theory.
4. It makes empirically testable and fruitful predictions

Frequently raised but weak arguments against Intelligent Design | Uncommon Descent

uncommondescent.com

They make predictions and publish their findings in peer reviewed journals:

• Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Vol. 117(2):213-239 (2004) (HTML).
• Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27 (December 2010).
• Douglas D. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341:1295–1315 (2004).
• Michael Behe and David W. Snoke, “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues,” Protein Science, Vol. 13 (2004).
• William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search,” Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Vol. 14 (5):475-486 (2010).

If you really think that's so, then name one thing that ID creationism has contributed to science. Heck, if you could show where any ID creationist has established a means to differentiate between "designed" and "undesigned" things, and has applied it to something in the biological world, that would be notable.

As for the two model approach, it's creationism vs Darwinism as far as the origin of life. There is no two model approach when in comes to the history of life.

What other model is there?

Also, the idea an argument against evolution is for creation is a pretty broad brush to paint with.

I didn't say it was a good argument; I pointed out how it's advocated by creationists, including ID creationists.

Nobody would consider this an argument for creationism:
"The discovery of pervasive HGT and the overall dynamics of the genetic universe destroys not only the Tree of Life as we knew it but also another central tenet of the Modern Synthesis inherited from Darwin, gradualism."
"The summary of the state of affairs on the 150th anniversary of the Origin is somewhat shocking: in the post-genomic era, all major tenets of the Modern Synthesis are, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution. So, not to mince words, the Modern Synthesis is gone. What’s next?"

The Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight?

The 200[th] anniversary of Darwin and the 150[th] jubilee of the Origin of Species prompt a new look at evolutionary biology. The 1959 Origin centennial was marked by the consolidation of the Modern Synthesis. The edifice of the Modern Synthesis has ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

IIRC Koonin is an atheist and would be outraged to hear his statements against the modern synthesis and the tree of life are considered arguments for creationism. Which they aren't. Make no mistake, Koonin isn't being despondent here, rather he's looking forward to new horizons by shedding a some of the outdated shackles of an 150 year old theory. This is merely to point out why painting any criticism of evolution with a wide brush is a bad idea.

Do you have a good understanding of what that's actually about?

So creationists got their a**es handed to them by the supreme court in '87 and realized creationism isn't science. Bully. Then Johnson sulks for a while until he meets a bunch of new scientists in '93 and see's a new opportunity in them. These scientists actually formulated a legitimate scientific theory apart from Johnson's input. It's not like their theory is based on any forged evidence such as the impact Haeckel’s embryos had on Darwin.

That's a rather bizarre recreation of history. As ID creationists themselves describe, after the SCOTUS ruling the creationists thought their cause was doomed. But then Johnson and a bunch of other creationists got together and came up with "intelligent design" as a legal means to revive their religious, political cause. Again, it's right there in black and white from the pens of creationists themselves.

If creationism were being peddled by Behe, Meyer, Dembski, and the others wouldn't be published in any peer reviewed sources.

Incorrect. Creationists get published in scientific journals all the time. They just don't publish about creationism. For example, Behe has published in the PNAS. But he hasn't ever published anything about ID creationism in any scientific journal.

True, most are creationists but that doesn't change the fact they all have science degrees, are doing actual science, and haven't had any real scientific challenges to their theory.

You've never read any of the counter arguments against ID creationism from scientists? Also, advocates merely having degrees doesn't make their ideas science. If that were so, flat-earthism would be a science.

 

[Barbarian]

At a loss for words here.

A lot of creationist react that way when they discover the bacterial flagellum isn't irreducibly complex, after all.

The source you cited describes the type III secretion system but makes no mention of where it came from.

Doesn't matter for the question at hand. Behe's claim is falsified. Would you like to discuss how the Type III apparatus evolved?

Because in your scenario bacteria would be floating around without a form of locomotion

One of my degrees is in bacteriology. A lot of them don't have a form of locomotion.

however they'd have a nice tool to poke holes and colonize eukaryote cells that wouldn't exist for a few million years.

Or engage in conjugation. Which happens between prokaryotes.

Bacterial conjugation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's more probable the form of locomotion came first, then as time passes broken genes lead to a way to get at their new found friends.

And now you know why.

A light sensitive cell was proposed to be irreducibly complex, not an organ.

All cells are light-sensitive to some degree. The cells on your skin can detect sunlight and release melanin. A dark spot on a cell makes it more sensitive to light. And so it goes.

Do you have any sources explaining this phenomenon?

Synechocystis, the species of cyanobacteria used in this study, is spherically shaped. As a result, it can focus light to the back side of the cell, so that the region of the cell farthest from the light source is the brightest. The bacteria respond to this brightness, moving away from that side and advancing towards the light. Synechocystis move using pili, hair like strands that coat the surface of the cell and attach to nearby surfaces, dragging the cell along in a jerking motion, in this case towards a light source.

Follow the Light: Bacteria in Motion – Yale Scientific Magazine

www.yalescientific.org

Behe also said this to two different questions:
Q. So is it accurate for people to claim or to
represent that intelligent design holds that the
designer was God?
A. No, that is completely inaccurate.

Well, let's see what IDers say about that...

"Governing Goals

• To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
• To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

(Discovery Institute's declaration of goals)

Yep. The whole point of ID is to show that nature and people are created by God. Which is true. It's just not science and it's dishonest to pretend that ID is not about showing that the "designer" is God.

Words have meaning. An ideology intent on establishing the existence of God is a religious ideology, not science.

I agree.

Aer you not aware most atheists base their worldview on Darwin?

I've visited a number of their websites. Not one cites Darwin as the determinant of their worldview. So it seems pretty unlikely to me, particularly since Darwin wrote that God created the first living things.

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Last sentence of On the Origin of Species

Doesn't seem like something an atheist would want for his worldview.

 

[Uncle J]

ID theory at it's core is about identifying causes, as is all science.

Then what specific mechanism does ID creationism propose?

Identifying the intelligent agent is beyond the scope of ID theory or any theory for that matter.

Would you agree that if ID creationism can't differentiate between "designed" and "undesigned" things, doesn't propose a mechanism, and can't say what the "designer" is, then it's scientifically useless and empty?

Identifying a cause is sufficient. Allowing you to define the terms creates the false dichotomy. I stated earlier if you define terms it sets up a straw man. Who defines climate change? The proponents or opponents of it? Do you see how problems are created when the opponents of climate change are allowed to define climate change?

LOL, seriously? Haven't you noticed that I'm relying on material from ID creationists themselves?

Darwin crafted his theory with the goal to overthrow creationism, and you say that isn't the same?

It's not the same at all. Darwin proposed an explanation and mechanism, and formally presented his hypothesis to the scientific community. ID creationists propose no explanation or mechanism, and have never presented their ideas to the scientific community.

Here's the quotes:
"Some of those who admit the principle of evolution, but reject natural selection, seem to forget, when criticising my book, that I had the above two objects in view; hence if I have erred in giving to natural selection great power, which I am very far from admitting, or in having exaggerated its power, which is in itself probable, I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations." -Descent of Man
"Finally, we may conclude that when the principle of evolution is generally accepted, as it surely will be before long, the dispute between the monogenists and the polygenists will die a silent and unobserved death." -Descent of Man

Right. Before Darwin first proposed his hypothesis special creation was the paradigm. Eventually his explanation replaced it. But that doesn't mean that was the reason he developed it in the first place, which is directly contrary to ID creationism, which as the writings and documents from ID creationists themselves show, was specifically developed to advance social and religious goals.

let's dispense with the nonsense scientific theories aren't science simply because the people who craft them have opinions.

Nice try, but all the material from ID creationists goes waaaaaay beyond "opinions". It's quite literally them writing down "This is what ID is, this is why we came up with it, and this is what we hope it accomplishes", and it's all about achieving social and religious goals.

Well, the quotes don't belong since that's Judge Jones opinion, not Behe's actual words.

I'm trying to figure out what the citation in the ruling refers to. It says "P-718 at 705" and I'm not sure what that is. Barbarian do you know?

Behe also said this to two different questions:
Q. So is it accurate for people to claim or to
represent that intelligent design holds that the
designer was God?
A. No, that is completely inaccurate.
********************************************
Q. Is intelligent design based on any religious beliefs or convictions?
A. No, it isn't.
Q. What is it based on?
A. It is based entirely on observable, empirical, physical evidence from nature plus logical inferences.

Sure, that's part of the charade. Behe also had to admit that ID creationism is science only in a way that also allows astrology to be science (emphasis mine).

"Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well."

Are you sure? Because I didn't see anything about chromophores, opsin, or retinal molecules. But we had discussed that before so my answer was a little short.

Yes, it's the Hall experiment.

I know Barbarian is confident it has but he's bluffing. Notice he didn't cite any source.

Yes he did.

Did you catch the source he cited which merely described a type III secretion system, then asserted it came first? Two sources said the flagellum came first but that didn't faze him.

Did you even read the material?

It isn't a calculation. I said improbable

So you claim it's improbable despite not having done any probability estimates. Hopefully you see the issue there.

It's also improbable a light sensitive cell arose by random mutations. Applying Occam's razor to the situation points to in intelligent cause being more likely. Which is why Behe and the others created such a stir in the first place.

Sorry, your empty assertions aren't at all persuasive.

Touche. Many ID theorists identify as creationists.

LOL, you keep trying to wave away all this damning material from the pens of ID creationists themselves, but it isn't going anywhere.

Darwin referred to himself as a materialist. Surely you aren't implying a label is tantamount to evidence Darwin or Dembski's scientific theories are invalid?

Nope, never said that at all.

I agree, that's an enormous amount of evidence. Which makes a good case for creationism being a religion, The Wedge Document being a legal strategy, and creationists believing in ID theory.

LOL....keep trying to wave it all away. The fact remains, ID was specifically and deliberately crafted as a legal strategy to advance social and religious objectives, with a definitive religious goal. Its advocates refer to themselves as creationists. They define "intelligent design" and "creation" in exactly the same terms. They utilize the same arguments as creationists. And so on.

Some people are eager for ID theory to go away but it isn't.

Really? What exactly is it doing?

ID theory isn't the threat people think it is. It isn't meant to replace evolutionary theory. It's perfectly compatible with common descent or even atheism if we're being honest. The theory of evolution isn't evil, nor is ID theory virtuous. Variation, inheritance, and selection are concepts to explain features in biology the same as IC and SC. But some people want to conflate terms and spend a lot of time on something they find meaningless and vacuous. Which means it isn't exactly meaningless and vacuous after all. They did the same in Darwin's day too.

Well, I suppose you can cling to a dead movement if you wish, but you're wasting your time. No one is pushing to get it into schools, it's not contributed a single thing to science, no one has ever done one bit of scientific research on it....it's effectively dead. Oh sure, diehards like you still defend it in obscure Christian websites now and then, but the same can be said for flat-earthism.

In fact, how about you name some of the ways in which ID creationism is active but flat-earthism isn't?

 

[Barbarian]

I'm trying to figure out what the citation in the ruling refers to. It says "P-718 at 705" and I'm not sure what that is. @Barbarian do you know?

Not sure. Let me look for a bit...

 

[journeymanisnothing]

No. God made nature first.

That's what I said. Life made nature. Life has always existed. Just not how scientists believe.

 

[Barbarian]

That's what I said. Life made nature.

And then nature made living things. You're trying to demote God to a creature. He isn't just different from creatures quantitatively; he's an entirely different being. Angels existed before the world, too. But they aren't biological creatures, either.

 

[journeymanisnothing]

And then nature made living things.

By reproducing itself. And only by the spirit God gave to each.

You're trying to demote God to a creature.

Actually, it's the evolutionist who demote God to a creatire, because evolution says humanity came from a lower life form.

He isn't just different from creatures quantitatively; he's an entirely different being.

I've been saying that all along. He made Adam in his own Image.

Angels existed before the world, too. But they aren't biological creatures, either.

And it wasn't necessary for angels to evolve.

 

[Barbarian]

By reproducing itself. And only by the spirit God gave to each.

Yes. The problem is, you don't like the way He did it.
You're trying to demote God to a creature.

Actually, it's the evolutionist who demote God to a creatire, because evolution says humanity came from a lower life form.

Your sentence makes no sense at all. BTW, evolutionary theory doesn't even consider "higher or lower" life forms. People who think they hate science don't know much about it.

 

[journeymanisnothing]

Yes. The problem is, you don't like the way He did it.
You're trying to demote God to a creature.

Your sentence makes no sense at all. BTW, evolutionary theory doesn't even consider "higher or lower" life forms. People who think they hate science don't know much about it.

Use any terminology you want. Non-human is incapable of making human.

 

[Barbarian]

Use any terminology you want. Non-human is incapable of making human.

You don't think God made you? Or are you saying God is human?
And if he chose to make us by evolution as the evidence shows, why would that be a problem for you?

 

[journeymanisnothing]

You don't think God made you?

Yes I do, but from the reproductive seeds of my parents etc. to Adam and Eve who were created fully formed.

Or are you saying God is human?

God became human once in the person of Jesus and that's really the problem with evolution.

And if he chose to make us by evolution as the evidence shows, why would that be a problem for you?

Because I see no reason to doubt how God animated the fully formed body of Adam or reanimated the fully formed body of Jesus instantaneously.

 

[Uncle J]

Not sure. Let me look for a bit...

I found it. The statement, "the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God" comes from the following exchange from Behe's testimony (Day 11)...

Plaintiffs' attorney Rothschild to Behe: ​

"And you write here, "What if the existence of God is in dispute or is denied? So far I have assumed the existence of God. But what if the existence of God is denied at the outset, or is in dispute? Is the plausibility of the argument to design affected? As a matter of my own experience the answer is clearly yes, the argument is less plausible to those for whom God s existence is in question, and is much less plausible for those who deny God's existence."​

​

It s a God friendly theory, isn t it, Professor Behe?​

​

Behe: ​

​

Let me respond in a couple of ways to that. First, let me clarify for context that this is a journal called Biology and Philosophy. So not only am I speaking about scientific matters here, but I m also talking about nonscientific matters here in an academic forum. Academics embraces more than just science. This is an academic forum which also embraces philosophy, and so I addressed philosophical issues as well. And again, my statement as written is certainly correct.​

So Behe wrote an article in Biology and Philosophy where he said that the plausibility of ID creationism is dependent on one's belief in gods. He was asked about that statement at the trial and he confirmed it. The "(P-718 at 705)" is a reference to Behe's article and how its labelled in the court's records.

 

[hawkman]

A brief respite ....

 

[journeymanisnothing]

I only have one more thing.

I have led you forty years in the wilderness. Your clothes have not worn out on you, and your sandals have not worn out on your feet. Deu.29:5

Maybe their sandals were made of metal.

 

[Barbarian]

Which is pretty consistent with the "Governing Goals" in the Wedge Document from those guys.

But there's this that Behe also testified:

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences.

 

[Barbarian]

The idea that nature is "front loaded" to produce all things in this world is a pretty sound religious idea. It seems consistent with the Creation account in Genesis, but is, as IDer Michael Denton says, completely at odds with special creationism.