Horizon - 2006 - A War On Science (Intelligent Design)

Ekancone

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tUjpqnrZZ6I&feature=PlayList&p=B7859E2AE5A2E816&index=0

Good series of videos about intelligent design vs science, featuring Attenborugh among others.

2Scoops

That was good enough. It gave a more than fair amount of time to creationists (some pretty notable ones too - Behe and Dembski were in there!) to make their case. That case was found wanting. Simple stuff.

kelly1

Interesting video.

I have difficulty with the tiny probabilities involved that something simple would randomly mutate into something more complex. I do believe that God was behind the Big Bang and based on that I don't have much difficulty believing that God nudged evolution in the right direction at critical points. I just find the randomness problematic. And that's just in biology. When you look at the physics involved in cosmology, you also have to consider how the numerous "parameters" had to be just right for life to exist. But then I'm not a scientist.

kelly1

kelly1 wrote:

When you look at the physics involved in cosmology, you also have to consider how the numerous "parameters" had to be just right for life to exist. But then I'm not a scientist.

They didn't have to be a certain way, life just arose and adapted to them and if we hadn't we wouldnt know.
It's not a case of: must have life -> how to get there in one specific way
more
how things happened -> what else can exist in these conditions


...and evolution isnt random

Ekancone

kelly1 wrote: »

. I do believe that God was behind the Big Bang and based on that I don't have much difficulty believing that God nudged evolution in the right direction at critical points. I just find the randomness problematic. And that's just in biology.

Evolution isn't random, i am getting a little weary of making this point to people. If you watch the Dawkins videos i posted about the Blind Watchmaker you will discover why. I would rather you actually read the book, that way you be left in no doubt as the the non-random nature of evolution.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

I have difficulty with the tiny probabilities involved that something simple would randomly mutate into something more complex.

The odds that mutations will occur are very likely. For example every human born on Earth has mutated DNA from their parents. The odds that a mutation would occur that actually does something useful are less likely, but then don't forget that every offspring in every species on Earth is a mutation from their parents. With literally trillions of organisms reproducing all the time its not hard to see how this can happen all the time. If only 1 out of every 1000 human children carries a mutation that actually alters something in a useful fashion, that still happens hundreds of times a day. Now spread that out over thousand of years.

Ekancone

Wicknight wrote: »

The odds that mutations will occur are very likely. For example every human born on Earth has mutated DNA from their parents. The odds that a mutation would occur that actually does something useful are less likely, but then don't forget that every offspring in every species on Earth is a mutation from their parents. With literally trillions of organisms reproducing all the time its not hard to see how this can happen all the time. If only 1 out of every 1000 human children carries a mutation that actually alters something in a useful fashion, that still happens hundreds of times a day. Now spread that out over thousand of years.

Or billions. :eek::eek::eek:

Zillah

I have trouble believing in evolution because [insert comment that demonstrates I have no idea what evolution is]. I find it much more reasonable to think that [insert supernatural mumbo jumbo that has no bearing on reality] is responsible. Of course I accept [insert vague attempt at showing support for science in general] but I just can't get over [insert specious argument that is likely to dupe the uncritical into thinking science got it wrong].



So. Sick. Of. Hearing. This.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

rofl

you mind if I steal that for a sig?

Zillah

Me? Sure.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

nm, it's 50 characters too long

Tzetze

kelly1 wrote: »

When you look at the physics involved in cosmology, you also have to consider how the numerous "parameters" had to be just right for life to exist. But then I'm not a scientist.

It's not a case of the parameters being 'just right', but more a case of life (as we know it) being 'just right' for the particular parameters it finds itself resident inside of.

Think of the puddle remarking on how the hole it's sitting in fits perfectly. So perfectly, in fact, that it couldn't be anything other than designed to fit the puddle.

Life is a puddle and will adapt itself to fit inside of any hole.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

I just find the randomness problematic.

Evolution is not random. It happens because a random process is filtered to give non-random results.

Calibos

kelly1 wrote: »

Interesting video.

I have difficulty with the tiny probabilities involved that something simple would randomly mutate into something more complex. I do believe that God was behind the Big Bang and based on that I don't have much difficulty believing that God nudged evolution in the right direction at critical points. I just find the randomness problematic. And that's just in biology. When you look at the physics involved in cosmology, you also have to consider how the numerous "parameters" had to be just right for life to exist. But then I'm not a scientist.

What really gets me is that even if,

I do believe that God was behind the Big Bang and based on that I don't have much difficulty believing that God nudged evolution in the right direction at critical points

ie. Even if you can't imagine a universe coming into being all by itself without requiring a first cause....even if you can't imagine the universal laws being 'just right' for life without an 'Intelligent designer'.....

how does one extrapolate from that to believe the ramblings of a particular tribe of goat herders from a semi desert land on the shores of the eastern Mediterranean circa 3000 bc - 70 AD as opposed to the ramblings of a tribe from northern europe that had horns in their helmets Circa 800 AD or the ramblings of a tribe in the forests of Central America circa 1300AD or the ramblings of a tribe in the mountains of tibet Circa 1700AD or the ramblings of a small tribe in a town called Waco in Texas circa 1990 etc

You must be so special, God created the universe just so, so that you could exist, he nudged evolution along, so you could exist,........he even made sure you just happened to be born in the right geographical location and to parents of the same religion so that you would believe in the one and only correct religion. Lucky You.

I just don't understand how the former can be used to prove your belief in the latter.

Sangre

kelly1 wrote: »

Interesting video.

I have difficulty with the tiny probabilities involved that something simple would randomly mutate into something more complex. I do believe that God was behind the Big Bang and based on that I don't have much difficulty believing that God nudged evolution in the right direction at critical points. I just find the randomness problematic. And that's just in biology. When you look at the physics involved in cosmology, you also have to consider how the numerous "parameters" had to be just right for life to exist. But then I'm not a scientist.

The above 3 lines covers about 90% of wishy-washy theists reasons for believing in God.

Dades

Zillah wrote: »

I have trouble believing in evolution because [insert comment that demonstrates I have no idea what evolution is]. I find it much more reasonable to think that [insert supernatural mumbo jumbo that has no bearing on reality] is responsible. Of course I accept [insert vague attempt at showing support for science in general] but I just can't get over [insert specious argument that is likely to dupe the uncritical into thinking science got it wrong].

Class!

Bduffman

Zillah wrote: »

I have trouble believing in evolution because [insert comment that demonstrates I have no idea what evolution is]. I find it much more reasonable to think that [insert supernatural mumbo jumbo that has no bearing on reality] is responsible. Of course I accept [insert vague attempt at showing support for science in general] but I just can't get over [insert specious argument that is likely to dupe the uncritical into thinking science got it wrong].

So. Sick. Of. Hearing. This.

You realise of course you are going to be plagerised in countless forums after that.

Tzetze

Not sure if these should be posted into a new thread, but I'm posting these as a reply to Kelly's earlier response.

Here are a couple of vids by youtube user cdk007. He has some great vids debunking creationist nonsense, but I really like how he uses computer programs in these to illustrate natural selection in process.

How Evolution works Amazing how quickly the population adapts to (and keeps up with) a changing environment (Towards the end of the clip).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeTssvexa9s

Evolution IS a blind watchmaker

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

Ekancone

Here is another two guys with similar creationist debunking vids.

http://ie.youtube.com/user/potholer54

http://ie.youtube.com/user/AronRa

Here is one by the latter, its brilliant.

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=g8Q2Db17v5U

kelly1

daithifleming wrote: »

Evolution isn't random, i am getting a little weary of making this point to people. If you watch the Dawkins videos i posted about the Blind Watchmaker you will discover why. I would rather you actually read the book, that way you be left in no doubt as the the non-random nature of evolution.

I watched the video, very interesting. There is actually randomness but as Robin says, it's filtered (and directed by natural selection).

Ekancone

kelly1 wrote: »

I watched the video, very interesting. There is actually randomness but as Robin says, it's filtered (and directed by natural selection).

Evolution is a non-random process. Mutation is random. Natural selection makes the process non-random. So your comment about the randomness being problematic is based on a false premise. You do see that, don't you?

Ciaran500

kelly1 wrote: »

I watched the video, very interesting. There is actually randomness but as Robin says, it's filtered (and directed by natural selection).

:eek:

You sound like this is the first time you've heard this.

limerick_woody

a brilliant video - nice to see a man passionate about his subject!

Great thread this one, i hope my wife never sees me reading it

Zillah

Ciaran500 wrote: »

:eek:

You sound like this is the first time you've heard this.

Would it be naive of me to hope he will not be back calling it a random process in a couple of days?

Or that he will claim the "filter" is God?

kelly1

daithifleming wrote: »

Evolution is a non-random process. Mutation is random. Natural selection makes the process non-random. So your comment about the randomness being problematic is based on a false premise. You do see that, don't you?

OK, point taken. Thanks.

Ciaran500 wrote: »

:eek:

You sound like this is the first time you've heard this.

You're right, I haven't. I never studied biology in an great depth.

Zillah wrote: »

Would it be naive of me to hope he will not be back calling it a random process in a couple of days?

Or that he will claim the "filter" is God?

Evolution doesn't diminish my faith in God. I think it's possible that God knew in advance what the outcome of evolution would be. Evolution vs Creation for me is not the point. I believe that at some point, two human beings (Adam and Eve) were given immortal souls and these souls gave us (greater) intelligence and reason which far exceeds that of every other animal.

Ciaran500

kelly1 wrote: »

You're right, I haven't. I never studied biology in an great depth.

This is something creationists bring up almost everyday and gets corrected every time. I can't see how this is the first time you've heard this

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

....Evolution doesn't diminish my faith in God. I think it's possible that God knew in advance what the outcome of evolution would be. Evolution vs Creation for me is not the point. I believe that at some point, two human beings (Adam and Eve) were given immortal souls and these souls gave us (greater) intelligence and reason which far exceeds that of every other animal.

How does that fit in with the teachings of the catholic church? Since according to you the church has a mandate from Jesus himself preach his truths.

kelly1

CerebralCortex wrote: »

How does that fit in with the teachings of the catholic church? Since according to you the church has a mandate from Jesus himself preach his truths.

The Church doesn't have an issue with evolution and doesn't say whether man's physical body was created from clay or came about through evolution. However, it teaches dogmatically that Adam and Eve were the first humans to be given immortal souls. The Church has competence in spiritual matters, not biology.

Ekancone

kelly1 wrote: »

I believe that at some point, two human beings (Adam and Eve) were given immortal souls and these souls gave us (greater) intelligence and reason which far exceeds that of every other animal.

Of course, and you are free to believe whatever you like as far as i am concerned. What really annoys me is that when science once again contradicts the bible, people like you come out and spread lies and accusations based on ignorance and false premises which only seek to undermine science as a whole. This is happening the the USA and i am genuinely concerned about the future of science in that country and around the world. If people like you keep spreading lies and misinforming the gullible masses then we could very well end up back in the dark ages. All i can say is i feel lucky that i live in the EU and the teaching of creationism as science is pretty much banned by EU law.

Dades

Ciaran500 wrote: »

This is something creationists bring up almost everyday and gets corrected every time. I can't see how this is the first time you've heard this

Kelly1 isn't a creationist - he's a catholic!

I dare say 90% + of catholics (or the public in general) wouldn't be up to speed with the basics of natural selection as outlined in this thread.

Though the Adam and Eve notion seems somewhat of a square peg to evolution's round hole. Noel - if the church can decide the OT's creation story can be seen as metaphorical, how come they haven't done the same Adam & Eve? They are surely intertwined.

Ekancone

Dades wrote: »

I dare say 90% + of catholics (or the public in general) wouldn't be up to speed with the basics of natural selection as outlined in this thread.

I would agree with that.

death1234567

kelly1 wrote: »

I do believe that God was behind the Big Bang

Just one quick question if "God" was behind the big bang what is behind "God"? Or does "god" have his own Super "God" that created him and he has to go to mass every sunday in heaven?

The big bang is the most complex thing that we know about and can prove existed. In order to to be "behind" the big bang you need to be even more complex than that. So god would have to have a complexity rating of >50 on the death1234567 scale of complexity. So what created "God"?

A quick guide to the death1234567 scale of complexity:
50 rating (The maximum rating) eg. The big bang

25 (high rating) eg. Homo Sapiens

0 rating (Average rating) eg. Simple multi-celled life such as plankton.

-25 (low rating) eg. Single celled life such as bacteria and viruses.

-50 (the lowest possible complexity rating) eg. Creationists.

kelly1

Dades wrote: »

Though the Adam and Eve notion seems somewhat of a square peg to evolution's round hole. Noel - if the church can decide the OT's creation story can be seen as metaphorical, how come they haven't done the same Adam & Eve? They are surely intertwined.

The Church doesn't say (afaik) that Adam and Eve were the first human beings (afaik) but that they were the first humans with God-given immortal souls. That is the important point. No soul, no eternal life.

kelly1

death1234567 wrote: »

Just one quick question if "God" was behind the big bang what is behind "God"? Or does "god" have his own Super "God" that created him and he has to go to mass every sunday in heaven?

The big bang is the most complex thing that we know about and can prove existed. In order to to be "behind" the big bang you need to be even more complex than that. So god would have to have a complexity rating of >50 on the death1234567 scale of complexity. So what created "God"?

Clearly there's ignorance on both sides of the debate, sorry. You can't keep going back along an infinite chain of creator and creation or cause and effect. The only rational explanation is that God was never created, that He exists eternally. He is the uncaused cause.

Ekancone

kelly1 wrote: »

Clearly there's ignorance on both sides of the debate, sorry. You can't keep going back along an infinite chain of creator and creation or cause and effect. The only rational explanation is that God was never created, that He exists eternally. He is the uncaused cause.

Why?

death1234567

kelly1 wrote: »

The only rational explanation is that God was never created, that He exists eternally. He is the uncaused cause.

I wouldn't say that was a rational explanation. Anyway I guess we'll agree to differ.

rational [Defn] Adjective
rational (comparative more rational, superlative most rational)
1. Characterized by truth or logic.

death1234567

Great comment under the first in those sets of videos:

"Arguing with Creationists is the intellectual equivelent of untangling a set of headphones."

Ciaran500

Dades wrote: »

Kelly1 isn't a creationist - he's a catholic!

I dare say 90% + of catholics (or the public in general) wouldn't be up to speed with the basics of natural selection as outlined in this thread.

Didn't mean to imply that he was a creationist (I wouldn't sink to such low blows ) but point out that almost every thread where evolution gets mentioned someone says its random and we end up going through the same argument. Amazed that he hasn't seen it before.

CerebralCortex

daithifleming wrote: »

Why?

Good question!!! Come on Noel?

Ekancone

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Good question!!! Come on Noel?

It is the greatest question that humanity has ever asked, and one which religion tries its best to suppress.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

I watched the video, very interesting. There is actually randomness but as Robin says, it's filtered (and directed by natural selection).

Evolution is as random as rain water collecting in a lake is (ie the only random part of that is the very start, where the rain drops will fall, after than nothing is random)

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

The only rational explanation is that God was never created, that He exists eternally. He is the uncaused cause.

That isn't exactly a rational explanation. There is nothing to say that a super complex, super powerful intelligent entity wouldn't have just always existed, but it isn't very rational to think that that would be the case. Super complex things don't tend to just exist.

Isn't it more rational to assume that God evolved from a non-God like substance?

Obni

kelly1 wrote: »

The only rational explanation is that God was never created, that He exists eternally. He is the uncaused cause.

I would have thought that your explanation was one of the least rational.

Just because we cannot make sense of something, it does not follow that we should allow others to explain it with nonesense. "Uncaused cause" may be a rather elegant piece of rhetoric, but does it actually provide any sort of answer? Rather than simply support a foregone conclusion on your part, that a god is the prime mover?

We cannot, as yet, look back beyond the big bang. Humanities scientific acheivements have not yet allowed us to pierce that particular mystery, and it may be that the truth is beyond the limits of human intellect. If it is ever resolved, I'll wager it'll be by science, not religion.

"Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine." Arthur Eddington

kelly1

daithifleming wrote: »

Why?

Why does God have to be uncreated?

I was asked the question "what created God" and to me at least this is absurd if you assume that God exists which is the assumption that I'm working under.

OK, you can have a first scenario where you propose that God has always existed and alway will exist i.e. He is eternal. From a theological point of view this is not a problem. God exists outside time. Maybe it's something to do with the interdependence between time and space, I don't know.

Or you can propose that something created God which of course begs the question "who created the creator" and this can be applied ad infinitum. This is absurd because it would result in an infinite number of gods if you assume every god is created.

So the former argument is the only logical one.

Ekancone

kelly1 wrote: »

OK, you can have a first scenario where you propose that God has always existed and alway will exist i.e. He is eternal. From a theological point of view this is not a problem. God exists outside time. Maybe it's something to do with the interdependence between time and space, I don't know.

So why did it take him six days to create the universe? Why did he need to rest on the seventh if he is not of the physical world?

kelly1 wrote: »

Or you can propose that something created God which of course begs the question "who created the creator" and this can be applied ad infinitum. This is absurd because it would result in an infinite number of gods if you assume every god is created.

So the former argument is the only logical one.

Really? The Christian argument is that humans are so complex that they imply a creator. But surely something complex enough to create man should be at least as complex as man. Therefore using that logic, something must have created the creator, and something must have created the creators, creator, etc, etc. So it is the idea of god that is illogical, as well as the creators creator hypothesis.

In fact, nothing you said was logical.

kelly1

Obni wrote: »

Just because we cannot make sense of something, it does not follow that we should allow others to explain it with nonesense. "Uncaused cause" may be a rather elegant piece of rhetoric, but does it actually provide any sort of answer? Rather than simply support a foregone conclusion on your part, that a god is the prime mover?

I've made it clear that I believe God exists without any scientific evidence. Assuming that God exists, don't you accept that He would have to be uncreated?

Obni wrote: »

We cannot, as yet, look back beyond the big bang. Humanities scientific acheivements have not yet allowed us to pierce that particular mystery, and it may be that the truth is beyond the limits of human intellect. If it is ever resolved, I'll wager it'll be by science, not religion.

We'll both find out one day. I really don't think science will discover how something can come out of nothing.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

OK, you can have a first scenario where you propose that God has always existed and alway will exist i.e. He is eternal. From a theological point of view this is not a problem. God exists outside time. Maybe it's something to do with the interdependence between time and space, I don't know.

Or you can propose that something created God which of course begs the question "who created the creator" and this can be applied ad infinitum. This is absurd because it would result in an infinite number of gods if you assume every god is created.

So the former argument is the only logical one.

What about the idea that God evolved from a similar "non-god" form? It seems to be a bit silly to suggest that a super complex intelligence just exists

kelly1

daithifleming wrote: »

So why did it take him six days to create the universe? Why did he need to rest on the seventh if he is not of the physical world?

I thought it was fairly clear by now that I don't take the creation story literally.

daithifleming wrote: »

Really? The Christian argument is that humans are so complex that they imply a creator.

That's a creationist argument. Not mine.

daithifleming wrote: »

But surely something complex enough to create man should be at least as complex as man. Therefore using that logic, something must have created the creator, and something must have created the creators, creator, etc, etc. So it is the idea of god that is illogical, as well as the creators creator hypothesis.

The hypothesis God was created makes no sense as I've already explained. If God exists, He must be uncreated.

daithifleming wrote: »

In fact, nothing you said was logical.

Please forgive my ramblings O logical one.

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

What about the idea that God evolved from a similar "non-god" form? It seems to be a bit silly to suggest that a super complex intelligence just exists

How can spirit evolve? Wouldn't this assume that gods pro-create? You may be interested to know that it is a dogma of the Catholic Church that God is "absolutely simple" in His nature. See:

http://www.catholicfirst.com/thefaith/churchdocuments/dogmas.cfm

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

How can spirit evolve?

No idea. I'm not even sure how a supernatural spirit like a deity can exist in the first place, but you seem pretty confident that it can.

kelly1 wrote: »

Wouldn't this assume that gods pro-create?

It would. Again it would seem the most logical explanation of how a complex intelligence like God could arise (if one assumes that he did)

kelly1 wrote: »

You may be interested to know that it is a dogma of the Catholic Church that God is "absolutely simple" in His nature.

Well no offence but that is just nonsense. By his very nature God is not simple. For example he can do anything, and how he decides to do something involves a complex decision making process. He is also described as having complex emotions like humans, again not simple. He also (according to the Bible) demonstrates complex problem solving ability (Jesus on the cross), and long term planning, again not the properties of a simple entity.

Ekancone

kelly1 wrote: »

We'll both find out one day. I really don't think science will discover how something can come out of nothing.

Science doesn't say life popped out of nowhere. As far as where the universe came from, we don't know. But think about what we didn't know 100 years ago. Is the question can be answered, science will find it eventually.