Are There Any Restrictions On...
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Darwin's Doubt, Intelligent Design And Evolution.
Has anyone watched this film, an interview with Stephen Meyer?
I found it rather compelling, and I thought he answered well the critics who have wished to steer him into the religious standpoint which is not what it's about at all.
I found it rather compelling, and I thought he answered well the critics who have wished to steer him into the religious standpoint which is not what it's about at all.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Khandro, thank you. Insofar as ‘religion’ goes you’ve made your position clear. Now you just have to convince us of the existence of a creator.
//nor does Meyer, in any way dismiss evolution.//
The words “in any way” there are superfluous to your requirements. He does indeed dismiss evolution as the primary source – hence his contention that Intelligent design is the foundation of life.
//nor does Meyer, in any way dismiss evolution.//
The words “in any way” there are superfluous to your requirements. He does indeed dismiss evolution as the primary source – hence his contention that Intelligent design is the foundation of life.
The whole point about intelligent design is that does have a strong connection to the the fundamentalist christian church. The fundamentalists seem to think that they can counter the theory of evolution by inventing a theory that supports their preconceptions. This makes them look like complete idiots to anyone who understands that science is not about proving preconceptions. Despite Dr. Meyer teaching the philisophy of science he doesn't seem to understand it himself.
If I was a creator of life and I had the same powers that this so called God has. I would have created life forms to be simple, less complex! Why did he make us with so many fragile parts that so often fail! Could he not of made us from one single substance that was infallible, could not wear out, could not break down, could not die?
He could do anything! but no he created us from how many separate cells? and each single cell can fail!
Anybody believing this creationist nonsense is clearly in denial!!
He could do anything! but no he created us from how many separate cells? and each single cell can fail!
Anybody believing this creationist nonsense is clearly in denial!!
Due to a rare 'works' evening at the pub/Indian I've yet to see what he has to say, but: Surely ID can claim the initial prototype was "intelligently" designed and yet any modifications since then are due to an 'unfortunate' evolutionary process ? Such believers need not dismiss evolution if they don't choose to.
OG, that is what the ID bunch are attempting. Since the convincing case for evolution has been demonstrated time and time again the creationists have had to find a way of compromising with reality without abandoning their belief in a creator. I expect the process will continue until they have backpedalled all the way to the big bang.
j.; If you were to quote Wikipedia as your source of information for your thesis, your tutor would fail you out of hand, you have absolutely no idea who was the author(s).
Please address the issues Meyer has postulated? How in such a comparatively short period of time could a trilobite develop vision? As I have said previously, Darwin had doubts, you have none, and no evidence has been found. Are you perhaps being holier than the pope ?
Please address the issues Meyer has postulated? How in such a comparatively short period of time could a trilobite develop vision? As I have said previously, Darwin had doubts, you have none, and no evidence has been found. Are you perhaps being holier than the pope ?
Short in comparison to what, though? One could equally well argue that it's a pretty poor "intelligent designer" that takes a couple of million years to perfect a relatively simple eye structure, let alone anything else that's needed.
Underlying evolution are mutations that are random, although obvious which mutations survive isn't random but driven by external processes. But the point is that in any random process there are chances for things to happen "quicker" than usual. And indeed slower -- but while there is some average time for complicated structures to emerge there are inevitably going to be some fluctuations about that average. Perhaps the trilobite's eye structures, developing at a relatively quick rate, represent such a fluctuation.
Obviously that's not a definitive answer, case closed, but it is a plausible one.
Underlying evolution are mutations that are random, although obvious which mutations survive isn't random but driven by external processes. But the point is that in any random process there are chances for things to happen "quicker" than usual. And indeed slower -- but while there is some average time for complicated structures to emerge there are inevitably going to be some fluctuations about that average. Perhaps the trilobite's eye structures, developing at a relatively quick rate, represent such a fluctuation.
Obviously that's not a definitive answer, case closed, but it is a plausible one.
A complex structure can be too small to fossilise, If if evolves to get bigger (which can happen in a very short space of time eg. domestic animals ) and can be found in fossils it doesn't mean that it evolved quickly. It could have evolved (undetectably)over millions of years. I wouldn't base belief in an intelligent designer on a trilobites eye or (apparent) lack of.
//As I have said previously, Darwin had doubts, //
where please ?
Darwin said that the evolution of the eye would explain evolution
but he also said that it may have evolved so quickly because it was obviously more successful that intermediate forms may not have been fossilised.
Soft tissue fossilisation such as the Cambrian layer - not in Cambria but in the Canadian Rockies is pretty uncommon which is why all the Natural History museum the world over as stuffed with skeletons and not whole bodies.
I am not aware that Darwin ever opined that the evolution of the mammalian eye was so complex it must have been caused by something else.
I am pretty sure that he didnt say - "and it may be God !"
that is because we know he became an atheist after Annie's death and Mrs D thought he would go to hell.
where please ?
Darwin said that the evolution of the eye would explain evolution
but he also said that it may have evolved so quickly because it was obviously more successful that intermediate forms may not have been fossilised.
Soft tissue fossilisation such as the Cambrian layer - not in Cambria but in the Canadian Rockies is pretty uncommon which is why all the Natural History museum the world over as stuffed with skeletons and not whole bodies.
I am not aware that Darwin ever opined that the evolution of the mammalian eye was so complex it must have been caused by something else.
I am pretty sure that he didnt say - "and it may be God !"
that is because we know he became an atheist after Annie's death and Mrs D thought he would go to hell.
I've looked up what John Polkighorne has to say on the matter and it is in summary this; "The ID people make a scientific assertion when they claim that at the molecular level there are systems that are irreducibly complex (Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box), ie they could not develop gradually since they are composed of parts all of which have to be in place but which separately confer no advantage. If true, this would be a major scientific discovery, as well as posing a deep problem for Darwinian orthodoxy, but I do not think that the ID people have so far succeeded in the very difficult task of actually demonstrating such irreducible complexity."
Which to me, leaves the door open, and seems fair.
Which to me, leaves the door open, and seems fair.
When stated in that manner ID might seem plausible. But there are two main problems. In the first place, it's hard if not impossible to prove irreducible complexity in biology, although people should still try of course. But the lesson from elsewhere in Science is that every time you think you've found the smallest level, there's something underneath after all. We had the molecule, then the atom, then the nucleus and electrons, then the quarks/ gluons underneath that... irreducible complexity is exceedingly difficult to find!
The second point is that in Physics it's assumed there must be some level at which this ever finer substructure stops. At that point you've also hit irreducible complexity of a sort, no? But in that case the irreducible "final theory", whatever it is, would not imply the existence of a designer. Very possibly it would imply the reverse, but most likely it would leave the question open still.
In biology I think the chain of argument would be essentially the same: supposing that some system were irreducibly complex, and that this was a particularly large system. It's still a huge leap from there to say that the system cannot have emerged in its full final form by chance. There would remain a small but non-zero probability that all the mutations necessary happened at the same time. How small I wouldn't care to guess -- it would surely depend on the system. But as long as said probability can't be shown to be exactly zero then this irreducibly complex system doesn't itself imply the existence of a designer, because there would remain the possibility that it still emerged by chance. Given enough time, and perhaps -- dare I say it? -- enough Universes, then even extraordinarily unlikely events have a reasonable likelihood of occurring.
Evidence for ID, then, would for me not come in the form of any such apparently irreducibly complex system being discovered -- because as I've said earlier I doubt it would be possible ever to establish such irreducible complexity definitively -- but in the Designer itself making some appearance. Maybe he's dead, or has moved on to different projects, in which case we'll never find such evidence presumably...
The second point is that in Physics it's assumed there must be some level at which this ever finer substructure stops. At that point you've also hit irreducible complexity of a sort, no? But in that case the irreducible "final theory", whatever it is, would not imply the existence of a designer. Very possibly it would imply the reverse, but most likely it would leave the question open still.
In biology I think the chain of argument would be essentially the same: supposing that some system were irreducibly complex, and that this was a particularly large system. It's still a huge leap from there to say that the system cannot have emerged in its full final form by chance. There would remain a small but non-zero probability that all the mutations necessary happened at the same time. How small I wouldn't care to guess -- it would surely depend on the system. But as long as said probability can't be shown to be exactly zero then this irreducibly complex system doesn't itself imply the existence of a designer, because there would remain the possibility that it still emerged by chance. Given enough time, and perhaps -- dare I say it? -- enough Universes, then even extraordinarily unlikely events have a reasonable likelihood of occurring.
Evidence for ID, then, would for me not come in the form of any such apparently irreducibly complex system being discovered -- because as I've said earlier I doubt it would be possible ever to establish such irreducible complexity definitively -- but in the Designer itself making some appearance. Maybe he's dead, or has moved on to different projects, in which case we'll never find such evidence presumably...
I recommend Meyer's book - started reading it last night and have got through 5%. Got up to the bit about the discovery of the Burgess Shale.
Meyer explains the theories he's attacking clearly and well (apart from a few rhetorical flourishes), comments in some detail on the controversy at the time the Origin was published and expounds his basic thesis: that the fossil record of the pre-Cambrian proves, if anything, that complex life appeared suddenly with no evidence of more primitive ancestry. So I'm looking forward to his conclusion, which, thus far, I assume can only be that new forms of life were designed and created in one geological epoch (possibly instantaneously) by an intelligent being (which could be, scientifically viewed, an extra-terrestrial or a black obelisk, but which Meyer will believe is the Christian god), that these all died out, and the intelligent designer returned to create a new set. These in turn became extinct prompting a fresh burst of creative activity. And so. Incidentally, Meyer is far too intelligent and well prepared to be ignorant of the designations Cambrian and Silurian (and that, by the way, is the last nice thing I'm going to say about him. I believe he , like most of his ID friends, is a liar, an accusation I will try to justify later).
Incidentally, seeing that Meyer's argument rests on what the evolutionist would regard is imperfections in the fossil record, a question: if the fossil record did not exist at all would there be reason to believe in evolution?
Meyer explains the theories he's attacking clearly and well (apart from a few rhetorical flourishes), comments in some detail on the controversy at the time the Origin was published and expounds his basic thesis: that the fossil record of the pre-Cambrian proves, if anything, that complex life appeared suddenly with no evidence of more primitive ancestry. So I'm looking forward to his conclusion, which, thus far, I assume can only be that new forms of life were designed and created in one geological epoch (possibly instantaneously) by an intelligent being (which could be, scientifically viewed, an extra-terrestrial or a black obelisk, but which Meyer will believe is the Christian god), that these all died out, and the intelligent designer returned to create a new set. These in turn became extinct prompting a fresh burst of creative activity. And so. Incidentally, Meyer is far too intelligent and well prepared to be ignorant of the designations Cambrian and Silurian (and that, by the way, is the last nice thing I'm going to say about him. I believe he , like most of his ID friends, is a liar, an accusation I will try to justify later).
Incidentally, seeing that Meyer's argument rests on what the evolutionist would regard is imperfections in the fossil record, a question: if the fossil record did not exist at all would there be reason to believe in evolution?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.