Is my belief ID or evolution? split from the Physics of the impossible thread

[birdless]

After all, science is all about observing the world and drawing conclusions from those observations. Any scientist who thought that bees couldn't fly would be laughed out of the lab.

The "science can't explain how bees fly" angle has been used by an "intelligent design" family member to point out that there are things in nature that can only be explained by unnatural or supernatural methods.  So I'm happy to hear when explanations are found for all these "unexplainable" events. 

While I do believe in 'Intelligent Design,' I've never heard the bees myth used as proof of it... I actually find that pretty humorous! And somehow a little sad at the same time, that someone would actually try to use that. No offense to your family members.

I mean, my first reaction wasn't that it was a miracle, but that it was obviously some physical property that just wasn't understood, yet... that anyone would assume otherwise... that just makes me sigh a little.

[qwints]

I

While I do believe in 'Intelligent Design,' I've never heard the bees myth used as proof of it... I actually find that pretty humorous! And somehow a little sad at the same time, that someone would actually try to use that. No offense to your family members.

I mean, my first reaction wasn't that it was a miracle, but that it was obviously some physical property that just wasn't understood, yet... that anyone would assume otherwise... that just makes me sigh a little.

I'm having trouble trying to avoid saying something that might start a flame war. So ... I'm just gonna ask ... why be willing to accept that science will find an explanation for one physical phenomena but be unwilling to accept that explanation for another? Is it just the "we can't observe evolution" argument?

[Tango Alpha Delta]

I'm having trouble trying to avoid saying something that might start a flame war. So ... I'm just gonna ask ... why be willing to accept that science will find an explanation for one physical phenomena but be unwilling to accept that explanation for another? Is it just the "we can't observe evolution" argument?

If you *really* want to talk about this, I give you our ID Hall of Infamy:

Predestination and Free Will
Poll: Evolution or ID
Pet Peeves
what is life?
What have you changed your mind about?
Christianity in Fiction

Knock yerself out, mate! 

[qwints]

To be fair, neither birdless or I have been involved in any of those threads. In fact I was only on the boards when one of them happened and I don't see much evolution debate there. I think it's a fair question, I'm just trying to clarify his position not start an argument.

[Tango Alpha Delta]

To be fair, neither birdless or I have been involved in any of those threads. In fact I was only on the boards when one of them happened and I don't see much evolution debate there. I think it's a fair question, I'm just trying to clarify his position not start an argument.

Oh, I wasn't suggesting you were out of line; just wanted to show you some of The Forum's Greatest Hits.  (And it was a subtle way of warning you about how nasty Russell can get.   As opposed to his usually cuddly crustaceousness!)

[Russell Nash]

To be fair, neither birdless or I have been involved in any of those threads. In fact I was only on the boards when one of them happened and I don't see much evolution debate there. I think it's a fair question, I'm just trying to clarify his position not start an argument.

Oh, I wasn't suggesting you were out of line; just wanted to show you some of The Forum's Greatest Hits.  (And it was a subtle way of warning you about how nasty Russell can get.   As opposed to his usually cuddly crustaceousness!)

I was all ready to pull it to one of those threads.  Thanks for posting the links and saving me the trouble.

To be honest I wanted to ask some questions too, because I find that the most intelligent people, who say they believe ID, don't really know all of what ID says.

If anyone wants, feel free to do a little threadromancy to any of the threads TAD listed.

[Darwinist]

I'm having trouble trying to avoid saying something that might start a flame war. So ... I'm just gonna ask ... why be willing to accept that science will find an explanation for one physical phenomena but be unwilling to accept that explanation for another? Is it just the "we can't observe evolution" argument?

If you *really* want to talk about this, I give you our ID Hall of Infamy:

Predestination and Free Will
Poll: Evolution or ID
Pet Peeves
what is life?
What have you changed your mind about?
Christianity in Fiction

Knock yerself out, mate! 

There was an intense, knock down-drag out debate about evolution & ID in November but it got wiped out in the Great Server Crash. 

[birdless]

Yeah, I don't want to start a big thing, either. You're as likely to change my mind as I am yours.

And, per Russel's statement, maybe I shouldn't have used the term ID at all. The reason I put 'Intelligent Design' (in quotes) was because it's so vague as to specifically saying what I believe. All I know about the term "ID" is that it attributes existence to an undefined higher power, and that may not even be a correct summation.

As I've stated in one of these threads, I am a Christian, and, while I may be uncertain about the literalness of the creation story in Genesis, that doesn't mean I don't believe that God had a direct hand in creating existence, setting up the rules for that existence, etc. Being a man of faith shouldn't mutually exclude me from being a man of science, as well.

For what it's worth, Qwints, I thought you phrased your question civilly enough, and I appreciate it.

<edited for clarity>

[wherethewild]

There was an intense, knock down-drag out debate about evolution & ID in November but it got wiped out in the Great Server Crash. 

Ah, so that's what happened to it. Here I was thinking I'd dreamed the whole thing, which was pretty cool because I believe my arguments made slightly more sense than my normal dream argumentation which generally goes along the lines of "Because of the thermal continuity of Nike shoes combined with a perfectly coiffed Eddie Izzard, there is an inordinate amo.... LOOK! A GIANT MAN-EATING CATERPILLAR!"

[Darwinist]

There was an intense, knock down-drag out debate about evolution & ID in November but it got wiped out in the Great Server Crash. 

Ah, so that's what happened to it. Here I was thinking I'd dreamed the whole thing, which was pretty cool because I believe my arguments made slightly more sense than my normal dream argumentation which generally goes along the lines of "Because of the thermal continuity of Nike shoes combined with a perfectly coiffed Eddie Izzard, there is an inordinate amo.... LOOK! A GIANT MAN-EATING CATERPILLAR!"

LOL!  I remember it well  because at about the same time my small town's newspaper published an anti-evolution  editorial written by one of the staff full of ridiculous statements and incorrect information.  I collected a bunch of information for my letter to the editor which I also regugitated in the fourm.     

[Russell Nash]

Yeah, I don't want to start a big thing, either. You're as likely to change my mind as I am yours.

And, per Russel's statement, maybe I shouldn't have used the term ID at all. The reason I put 'Intelligent Design' (in quotes) was because it's so vague as to specifically saying what I believe. All I know about the term "ID" is that it attributes existence to an undefined higher power, and that may not even be a correct summation.

As I've stated in one of these threads, I am a Christian, and, while I may be uncertain about the literalness of the creation story in Genesis, that doesn't mean I don't believe that God had a direct hand in creating existence, setting up the rules for that existence, etc. Being a man of faith shouldn't mutually exclude me from being a man of science, as well.

For what it's worth, Qwints, I thought you phrased your question civilly enough, and I appreciate it.

<edited for clarity>

Birdless, if I can put words in your mouth, it sounds like you believe god set up a bunch of rules and that's how we have life.  That is perfectly in line with evolution.  There is no way to tell if nature is running God 2.1 software or if it did it alone.

ID says, for example, the structure of the eye is too complex to have been made anyother way than the direct hand of a higher being.  It totally ignores the fact that you can easily connect the dots from light sensitive single celled organisms to the human eye.  ID is just a rehashing of Creationism.  It's just saying we're too good to have come from the same ancestor as chimps and bonoboes. 

If you believe god made us directly from scratch, you're an ID person.  If you think god converted us from apes, you're an evolution person.

I have just taken the can and spilled the worms all over the floor.  If this discussion sprouts it's own legs, one of us moderators will split it off.  I like the original topic and don't want it squashed.

[Heradel]

If you believe god made us directly from scratch, you're an ID person.  If you think god converted us from apes, you're an evolution person.

I agree with everything else, but the characterization of God 'converting' us from apes is badly worded — it implies agency where there shouldn't be any. Evolution doesn't allow for any agency in speciation excepting selective breeding.

[wintermute]

Evolution doesn't deny the possibility of agency, exactly. It just says that the evidence is consistent with there not being any such agency. The evidence is also consistent with there being an omnipotent entity who caused certain key mutations to happen (in some undetectable way) so that humans evolved.

Ockham's Razor says that the latter option is less likely, but it's certainly not ruled out.

[Darwinist]

If you believe god made us directly from scratch, you're an ID person.  If you think god converted us from apes, you're an evolution person.

I don't think that's true.  Some ID people believe that god converted us from apes, and think that a supernatural power is guiding this change (evolution).  Whereas a Darwin-believing naturalist would believe that purely natural forces drive these changes?   I agree that ID is just a rehash of creationism and any doctrine based on a supernatural force shouldn't be included as a science, which is based on natural theories.

And just to clarify, we didn't come from apes, but we shared a common ancestor.  If I may borrow an analogy from Skepchick Rebecca - apes, chimps, baboons, humans, etc. are all cousins and grandpa is dead.

[Heradel]

Evolution doesn't deny the possibility of agency, exactly. It just says that the evidence is consistent with there not being any such agency. The evidence is also consistent with there being an omnipotent entity who caused certain key mutations to happen (in some undetectable way) so that humans evolved.

Ockham's Razor says that the latter option is less likely, but it's certainly not ruled out.

Yes. The agent in question could also be an invisible pink unicorn. Or an alien, which is probably a few more orders of magnitude more likely than a god, and no agents what so ever is a lot more orders of magnitude more likely.

Inserting agency into a process which requires none is just silly and unnecessary. Granted, it may be possible, but Occam's razor makes us discard the possibility of agency unless presented with evidence of agency, of which there is none.

[wintermute]

And just to clarify, we didn't come from apes, but we shared a common ancestor.  If I may borrow an analogy from Skepchick Rebecca - apes, chimps, baboons, humans, etc. are all cousins and grandpa is dead.

Well, true. But that common ancestor was an ape. Just not any currently extant ape.

[wintermute]

Evolution doesn't deny the possibility of agency, exactly. It just says that the evidence is consistent with there not being any such agency. The evidence is also consistent with there being an omnipotent entity who caused certain key mutations to happen (in some undetectable way) so that humans evolved.

Ockham's Razor says that the latter option is less likely, but it's certainly not ruled out.

Yes. The agent in question could also be an invisible pink unicorn. Or an alien, which is probably a few more orders of magnitude more likely than a god, and no agents what so ever is a lot more orders of magnitude more likely.

Inserting agency into a process which requires none is just silly and unnecessary. Granted, it may be possible, but Occam's razor makes us discard the possibility of agency unless presented with evidence of agency, of which there is none.

Agreed.

[stePH]

And just to clarify, we didn't come from apes, but we shared a common ancestor.  If I may borrow an analogy from Skepchick Rebecca - apes, chimps, baboons, humans, etc. are all cousins and grandpa is dead.

"Chimps" are a subset of "apes".  Just sayin'.

[wintermute]

And just to clarify, we didn't come from apes, but we shared a common ancestor.  If I may borrow an analogy from Skepchick Rebecca - apes, chimps, baboons, humans, etc. are all cousins and grandpa is dead.

"Chimps" are a subset of "apes".  Just sayin'.

So are baboons and humans.

[stePH]

Thought baboons were in the "monkey" set.  My understanding was that "apes" meant gorillas, orangutans, chimpanzees, and (arguably) humans.

[birdless]

Birdless, if I can put words in your mouth, it sounds like you believe god set up a bunch of rules and that's how we have life.  That is perfectly in line with evolution.  There is no way to tell if nature is running God 2.1 software or if it did it alone.

ID says, for example, the structure of the eye is too complex to have been made anyother way than the direct hand of a higher being.  It totally ignores the fact that you can easily connect the dots from light sensitive single celled organisms to the human eye.  ID is just a rehashing of Creationism.  It's just saying we're too good to have come from the same ancestor as chimps and bonoboes. 

If you believe god made us directly from scratch, you're an ID person.  If you think god converted us from apes, you're an evolution person.

I have just taken the can and spilled the worms all over the floor.  If this discussion sprouts it's own legs, one of us moderators will split it off.  I like the original topic and don't want it squashed.

Okay, well, so as to try to not completely derail this thread and start some huge debate that has apparently already been hashed through here before, let's just try to take this as a personal question directed at me (which is cool), and this is my answer:

Apparently this is somewhat murky territory for me. Growing up, I was taught straight Creationism, a literal interpretation of the accounts in Genesis. As my horizons broadened, I found out that some contend that Genesis contains two stories of creation, and it was in the second that gives us the story of the creation of Adam, et al (it's in this theory that allows for an older earth, the fossil record, etc.). Obviously, there is enough geological evidence out there that, assuming Genesis is literal, makes it obvious that a complete account of all that happened to give rise to "life, the universe and everything" is not contained there.

The best I can put it is: I would prefer to believe that man was created, and that common structure in virtually all life is due to the "style of the artist," as it were, but I really don't know, and I don't base my relationship with God on the knowledge of how the universe popped into existence. Even if life did evolve, I believe God had direct involvement (the whole "style of the artist" thing, again), and, well, like you said (re: "God 2.1 software" sentence), I really don't think there's more either of us can really say on it from that point.

[wintermute]

Thought baboons were in the "monkey" set.  My understanding was that "apes" meant gorillas, orangutans, chimpanzees, and (arguably) humans.

Gorillas, orangs and chimps (humans should be considered one of the three species of chimp, but they tend to have this odd superiority complex that makes that unpopular) are the Great Apes. There's another family of apes known (imaginatively) as the Lesser Apes, consisting of gibbons and siamangs.

Baboons, it seems are Old World monkeys, making them more closely related to apes than to New World monkeys, but you are correct; they are not apes, as I should have remembered. Apologies.

[Russell Nash]

If you believe god made us directly from scratch, you're an ID person.  If you think god converted us from apes, you're an evolution person.

I don't think that's true.  Some ID people believe that god converted us from apes, and think that a supernatural power is guiding this change (evolution).  Whereas a Darwin-believing naturalist would believe that purely natural forces drive these changes?   I agree that ID is just a rehash of creationism and any doctrine based on a supernatural force shouldn't be included as a science, which is based on natural theories.

And just to clarify, we didn't come from apes, but we shared a common ancestor.  If I may borrow an analogy from Skepchick Rebecca - apes, chimps, baboons, humans, etc. are all cousins and grandpa is dead.

1)  When discussing ID, saying "some ID people" is irrelevant.  ID is put forward as a finished concept by the Dicovery Institute and is very well-defined.  You can say, "some people who believe some of ID think", but that has nothing to do with our topic here. 

2) I stated the common ancestor part earlier.  I used ape simply because it was easier than saying ancestrial apelike creature.

3) Evolution doesn't say why genetic mutations happen or why certain enviromental pressures happen.  There is no way you can say god definately isn't tweaking the code every so often.  You can only say that he didn't design the elephant without going through the protosoa.  ID wants to say god made monkeys, apes, and humans all seperately and from all new parts.

[Darwinist]

3) Evolution doesn't say why genetic mutations happen or why certain enviromental pressures happen.  There is no way you can say god definately isn't tweaking the code every so often.  You can only say that he didn't design the elephant without going through the protosoa.  ID wants to say god made monkeys, apes, and humans all seperately and from all new parts.

There is a good article in this month's Scientific American which addresses "switches" in DNA which trigger evolution. 

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=regulating-evolution

The key concepts of the article are: 

Because genes encode instructions for building animal bodies, biologists once expected to find significant genetic differences among animals, reflecing their great diversity of forms. Instead very dissimilar animals have turned out to have very similar genes.
Mutations in DNA “switches” that control body-shaping genes, rather than in the genes themselves, have been a significant source of evolving differences among animals.
If humans want to understand what distinguishes animals, including ourselves, from one another, we have to look beyond genes.

I think/hope someday we'll discover that there are natural reasons for these switches being turned on and we'll be able to stop using the supernatural to explain what we don't understand like the ancients did with the sun, moon, rain, drought, etc, etc, etc.

[stePH]

I have just taken the can and spilled the worms all over the floor. 

Just had to see that line again.