A Question for Creationists

[Jose Fly]

But based on the comments i was replying to, the type of "intelligent design" that the OP is arguing against here is strictly the type of "intelligent design" where evolution does not exist.

That's a good point. I've asked several of the creationists here to specify exactly which version of "intelligent design" they advocate (e.g., Michael Behe's that accepts universal common ancestry) and in what is typical fashion for creationists, they ignored it every time.

But that's the nature of creationism.....it forces its advocates to ignore inconvenient facts and questions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't. Definitions of words are not testable hypotheses, they're just how people use words. Various peoples worldwide throughout history have conceptualized deities in many different ways. Speaking of which...

Hold it again. I did not ask how you tested a definition, I asked how you would test your personal version of God?

I'm not redefining anything. It sounds like you're either unaware of or dismissive of the many theologies where the sun is a deity. I thought I used a pretty common and easy to understand example, considering deification of the sun was near universal in human cultures worldwide, and Sun is still worshiped by peoples worldwide (hi, by the way).

Deification of the Sun is usually done by giving various attributes to it. Calling a hot ball of gas a "god" is redefining what a god is. It is making it so mundane that the term is all but meaningless.

Sadly, this narrow scope of understanding theology and god-concepts is not uncommon. The classical monotheists - mostly various Christian groups - were very successful with their genocide campaign to stamp out theological alternatives. Posts like yours remind me of this sad fact on a routine basis.

I think that you are simply making up your own woo as you go along.

I'm not sure where you're going with all of this. I'm not an adherent of an Abrahamic religion, I'm not a monotheist, and I don't care about the Bible. While it's seemingly faux pas to mention this around here, "creationist" is not synonymous with "follows Abrahamic creation mythos" much less "follows Abrahamic creation mythos literally." I suppose I get annoyed that the discussion ends up revolving around a simplistic (and false) dichotomy instead of a more interesting exploration of the various ways in which the makings of things play a role in various cultures and traditions.

Then you might try to be a bit more clear in your definitions. Let me go over some points again. I am not asking you to test your definitions. I am asking you how you would test the concept of your God.

By the way is your use of green print merely coincidence or are you merely subtly pointing out that you are being sarcastic?

Green ink - RationalWiki

 

[Sanzbir]

The problem is in the interpretation of what "evolution" includes. The creationists generally agree that genetic variation allows for both natural and unnatural selection to occur, and to effect the characteristics of the life forms to which they are applied. What they object to is the evolutionist's assertion that new species have been or could be created by this process.

So basically even in that mode, the "no new species" mode, the design would be "inefficient" from a DRY perspective.

 

[leibowde84]

Unless those difference are part of the "design". Which they clearly are.

What makes you believe that they are part of some design?

 

[leibowde84]

It's not an illusion. It IS design. When the expression of energy is being guided by a set of parameters that produce a specific result, that set of parameters is called process "design", and it infers intent.

But, the results here (mice, humans, chimps, etc.) were not planned. They were a product of certain natural parameters, sure, but they weren't intended or expected.

 

[Sanzbir]

@PureX is right: what constitutes "good design" depends on the objectives of a designer.

In your "don't repeat yourself" approach, the objectives are a function of a constraint: the time and effort of the designer. Why would a god who isn't constrained at all go with your approach? Why wouldn't a god absolutely optimize their "code" instead of making it somewhat less than perfectly ideal for the sake of making it reusable?

So first the non-serious reply: You are assuming no time constraints. But in most creationist models, there's a very strict time constraint in how quickly the organisms were designed, is there not?? The guy started from nothing with 24 hours to launch!! That's one hell of a time constraint there.

And the then serious reply: Even without constraints there's absolutely no reason for repeating oneself unnecessarily. And granted there isn't much of a reason to not repeat oneself in the design given no constraints, but there's no reason one would have to do that anyway. Where's the motive??

 

[Sanzbir]

What makes you believe that they are part of some design?

Dude, when people are discussing the topic of "If this is a design, is it efficient or not" the comment you make is fairly irrelevant, now isn't it??

 

[leibowde84]

Dude, when people are discussing the topic of "If this is a design, is it efficient or not" the comment you make is fairly irrelevant, now isn't it??

You are wrong. The conversation here is not "if this is a design, is it efficient or not". Not sure where you are even getting that from. The OP says that the similarities and differences in DNA DON'T align with intelligent design.

 

[Quintessence]

Hold it again. I did not ask how you tested a definition, I asked how you would test your personal version of God?

You may not have asked that directly, but that is what your question reduces to for me. Gods are that which a person or culture deems worthy of worship. Something is a god when someone deifies that something. You don't "test" that... it's more of an attribution.

Deification of the Sun is usually done by giving various attributes to it. Calling a hot ball of gas a "god" is redefining what a god is. It is making it so mundane that the term is all but meaningless.

It seems there are some things that you do not understand about how things like pantheism and polytheism operate if you are able to make such statements. But this digression is probably outside the scope of this thread. Also, you don't seem interested in learning about any of this anyway.

 

[Sanzbir]

I hope you're not thinking that the science behind comparative genomics and the general conclusion that it supports common ancestry is as simplistic as "they share similar sequences, therefore they're related". Surely you have a better view of scientists than that.

You see, it's not just "similarities" that point to common ancestry, it's specific types of similarities, most notably shared genetic errors. A good analogy is how telemarketers protect their lists of names and numbers by randomly inserting fake names and numbers. That way, if a competitor steals the list, all the company has to do is go to a court, show them their list with the fake names and numbers highlighted, and then show how the alleged stolen list has the same fake names and numbers. That easily proves that the second list is a copy of the first. After all, what other explanation can the defendant offer for how they came to have a list with the same fakes? Coincidence is certainly not plausible.

Annnnnnnd that's all I really need to read of your post I think because it's clear by now I did not make myself fully clear.

So to clarify: I'd like to point out that there's a great value in designing software and the like in the function of "Copy/Paste".

Again, straight-up copied code is something I'd expect a theoretical "genetic developer" to do.

I mean when we humans do gene editing and the like, a lot of times it boils down to "Copy" from one thing and "Paste" to another.

 

[Sanzbir]

You are wrong. The conversation here is not "if this is a design, is it efficient or not". Not sure where you are even getting that from. The OP says that the similarities and differences in DNA DON'T align with intelligent design.

Ah. My bad. The user who you replied to made almost the same post in reply to one of my comments, making me thing your comment was in the context of that specific conversation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You may not have asked that directly, but that is what your question reduces to for me. Gods are that which a person or culture deems worthy of worship. Something is a god when someone deifies that something. You don't "test" that... it's more of an attribution.

Then you reduce your God to an untestable hypothesis. A rather worthless concept.

It seems there are some things that you do not understand about how things like pantheism and polytheism operate if you are able to make such statements. But this digression is probably outside the scope of this thread. Also, you don't seem interested in learning about any of this anyway.

No, I am always interested in learning. But I don't take "woo" to seriously at all. Ideas that have no basis in reality do not seem to merit much in the way of respect.

And what about the "green ink"?

 

[leibowde84]

You may not have asked that directly, but that is what your question reduces to for me. Gods are that which a person or culture deems worthy of worship. Something is a god when someone deifies that something. You don't "test" that... it's more of an attribution.



It seems there are some things that you do not understand about how things like pantheism and polytheism operate if you are able to make such statements. But this digression is probably outside the scope of this thread. Also, you don't seem interested in learning about any of this anyway.

Aren't God's personified though? Isn't that a prerequisite? If not, can you provide some examples of non-personified Gods?

 

[Jose Fly]

Annnnnnnd that's all I really need to read of your post I think because it's clear by now I did not make myself fully clear.

So to clarify: I'd like to point out that there's a great value in designing software and the like in the function of "Copy/Paste".

Again, straight-up copied code is something I'd expect a theoretical "genetic developer" to do.

I mean when we humans do gene editing and the like, a lot of times it boils down to "Copy" from one thing and "Paste" to another.

So you didn't read where I explained it's not so simplistic as you portray it? Do you understand that the genetic data that directly points to common ancestry is not simply "the sequences are similar, therefore the organisms are related"?

 

[Quintessence]

Aren't God's personified though? Isn't that a prerequisite? If not, can you provide some examples of non-personified Gods?

There's no rule that says one has to personify and anthropomorphize - both of those things are aesthetic/literary tools for telling stories about the gods. It helps make them more engaging and relatable, and it builds a symbolic vocabulary that you can use to create beautiful rituals. Also, it's fun... so most of us use it. Even I use it, and I'm not a big fan of the practice.

Then you reduce your God to an untestable hypothesis. A rather worthless concept.

You are certainly free to that opinion. Judgmental declarations like this are why I remarked earlier that you don't seem to be interested in learning about forms of theism that you are less familiar with.

No, I am always interested in learning. But I don't take "woo" to seriously at all. Ideas that have no basis in reality do not seem to merit much in the way of respect.

And what about the "green ink"?

What about it? I have no idea what you're going on about with "woo" and "green ink." What, is is a crime to like the color green or something? Liking the color green means one is crazy? Well, I suppose the anti-environmental crowd might think so...

 

[Sanzbir]

So you didn't read where I explained it's not so simplistic as you portray it? Do you understand that the genetic data that directly points to common ancestry is not simply "the sequences are similar, therefore the organisms are related"?

So overall, as it might need to be stated again, I believe in evolution. I merely think OP's reasoning is flawed in stating "Thing 1 is X% similar to Thing 2, therefore common ancestor".

I mention this 'cause I kinda get the vibe from your whole first reply to me that you may be under the assumption I'm against evolution or some nonsense like that.

And again, even with your addition of "shared genetic errors", it does not become good evidence for the theory of evolution (and just because it needs to be said again, there's plenty of actually good evidence for that theory).

Because, again, "shared genetic errors" in copy/pasted genetic code would be something I'd expect to see in a genetic code written by a theoretical designer.

When I make a program that is very similar to another that already exists I may very well "copy" the existing program and modify it from there to fit whatever slightly-new function I need it to fill.

And if there was a defect I didn't originally catch in the original program, well then there is the same defect in the new one (assuming the defect didn't exist in a part that was changed).

Shared programmatic errors, if you will.

And yet these shared errors in the code, in themselves, do not in any way mean my two programs evolved from a common ancestor. No, both were designed.

And thus, I think it is insufficient to claim that shared code, even shared errors, between two sets of code is evidence of evolution. Because I myself have encountered scenarios in my life where I came across common errors in code across two different sets of code, and yet I have absolute proof those specific things were designed. These shared errors are exactly what I'd expect to see from a theoretical designer copy/pasting some code, so the argument presented in the OP is a bad one.

Likewise consider the very basics of gene editing that we have today. Usually, they copy one gene and add it to another species (usually plants). In those instances, the modified species could come to have shared genetic errors in common with another species that its ancestors did not have. (Kinda... I guess it depends on how you define "ancestry" in the case of GMOs... actually going forward, our understanding of "ancestry" is probably going to be radically altered by this technology...)

So if you want to say that shared genetic code, like OP, even accounting for shared genetic errors, is alone sufficient evidence for evolution... well I can't agree. That's not a good argument for evolution, and since there are many good arguments that one could make for the subject, I don't get why anyone would want to resort to using it when there are a plethora of better arguments out there.

Again, that doesn't mean I think evolution itself is wrong, and I'm sorry if that doesn't need to be repeated as much as I repeat it but so often do people on this forum assume my position based on my criticism of an argument that I think it is requisite to keep repeating it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There's no rule that says one has to personify and anthropomorphize - both of those things are aesthetic/literary tools for telling stories about the gods. It helps make them more engaging and relatable, and it builds a symbolic vocabulary that you can use to create beautiful rituals. Also, it's fun... so most of us use it. Even I use it, and I'm not a big fan of the practice.



You are certainly free to that opinion. Judgmental declarations like this are why I remarked earlier that you don't seem to be interested in learning about forms of theism that you are less familiar with.



What about it? I have no idea what you're going on about with "woo" and "green ink." What, is is a crime to like the color green or something? Liking the color green means one is crazy? Well, I suppose the anti-environmental crowd might think so...

I pasted a link in my earlier response. It was buried by my poor typing skills so you had to hit "expand" to see it. I have fixed the posts since then. In England it is the color that loons tend to use when responding to newspapers. Your use of it indicates several possibilities. You may be a loon too and do not realize it. You may be merely being sarcastic in your posts here and using that as the equivalent of a smiley to tell everyone that it is so. I am sure that there are other possibilities too.

And you always could try to explain your beliefs here. Though as I said, woo is hardly worthy of being taken seriously. At times I will advocate for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I am an ordained minister of their church. I did it while it was still free and have no certificate, but I assure you that all I would have to do is to pay for the certificate and I could officiate at several "church" functions including marrying two people to each other. That does not mean that I take that belief seriously.

 

[Jose Fly]

So overall, as it might need to be stated again, I believe in evolution. I merely think OP's reasoning is flawed in stating "Thing 1 is X% similar to Thing 2, therefore common ancestor".

I agree that that's an oversimplification.

I mention this 'cause I kinda get the vibe from your whole first reply to me that you may be under the assumption I'm against evolution or some nonsense like that.

No, I was merely adding a level of detail that wasn't being addressed.

And again, even with your addition of "shared genetic errors", it does not become good evidence for the theory of evolution (and just because it needs to be said again, there's plenty of actually good evidence for that theory).

Because, again, "shared genetic errors" in copy/pasted genetic code would be something I'd expect to see in a genetic code written by a theoretical designer.

Well once you invoke magic, anything is possible. That's why ID creationism isn't science. No matter what is found the answer will always be "that's just how the designer made it".

Basically what you're arguing is that in the telemarketers' lists example I gave above, the defendant could just say "Some unknown magical 'designer' may have put those fake names and numbers in" and the court would have to agree.

And thus, I think it is insufficient to claim that shared code, even shared errors, between two sets of code is evidence of evolution.

First, the "evidence of evolution" is the fact that we see it happen all the time, right before our eyes.

Second, if what you say is true then we must throw out all court rulings in paternity cases, because after all, the fact that the child and the prospective father share the same genetic errors could simply be the result of "design", right?

Because I myself have encountered scenarios in my life where I came across common errors in code across two different sets of code, and yet I have absolute proof those specific things were designed. These shared errors are exactly what I'd expect to see from a theoretical designer copy/pasting some code, so the argument presented in the OP is a bad one.

But applying that to genetic sequences requires assuming facts not in evidence. You're assuming without any evidence whatsoever that a "designer" not only exists, but is capable of manipulating genomes and was present on earth at a time when the manipulations must have occurred.

Given that we see populations evolve all the time and that we see the inheritance of genetic sequences, the conclusion that the shared errors is the result of common ancestry is much, much, much more plausible than appealing to the magical abilities of an unevidenced "designer".

Likewise consider the very basics of gene editing that we have today. Usually, they copy one gene and add it to another species (usually plants). In those instances, the modified species could come to have shared genetic errors in common with another species that its ancestors did not have. (Kinda... I guess it depends on how you define "ancestry" in the case of GMOs... actually going forward, our understanding of "ancestry" is probably going to be radically altered by this technology...)

As before, your alternative explanation requires us to assume a wealth of facts that simply are not in evidence.

So if you want to say that shared genetic code, like OP, even accounting for shared genetic errors, is alone sufficient evidence for evolution... well I can't agree.

Again, the "evidence for evolution" is that we see it happen, all the time, right before our eyes. And if your dismissal of this data is based on assuming the existence some unevidenced "designer" and invoking magic, well let's just say that's not really a compelling rebuttal.

That's not a good argument for evolution, and since there are many good arguments that one could make for the subject, I don't get why anyone would want to resort to using it when there are a plethora of better arguments out there.

What argument do you think can't also be alternatively explained by appealing to a "designer"?

Again, that doesn't mean I think evolution itself is wrong, and I'm sorry if that doesn't need to be repeated as much as I repeat it but so often do people on this forum assume my position based on my criticism of an argument that I think it is requisite to keep repeating it.

Understood.

 

[PureX]

I disagree.
And I think you'd be hard pressed to actually support the claim any further.


Since you (or Creationists if you're playing Devil's Advocate) have claimed design in the first place, you'll also have to support the flaws in design as being intentional... That's another huge task.

This sounds like more of an easy-out than an explanation, to me.

If existence is not an expression of design, then what do you imagine it is that scientists are trying to ascertain through the scientific process?

And since, by definition, design expresses a specific result, and not just any result, I don't see how you can argue with the assertion that the result is the design's intent. And that design, therefor, expresses intent.

And further, if it requires intelligence to recognize and understand the process of designed intent, and clearly it does, then I don't see why one would object to the assertion that designed intent is an expression of intelligence (since it requires intelligence to recognize it), or why one would object to labeling such designed intent, "intelligent design".

 

[PureX]

So basically even in that mode, the "no new species" mode, the design would be "inefficient" from a DRY perspective.

Why should we assume that "efficiency" was ever part of the design's intent? It appears to me that increasing opportunity and variety was the more significant choice in terms of the design's intent.