Putting God's Design In Perspective

[Dan From Smithville]

Again, just semantics it all depends on what do you mean by step

Let’s call the “steps” that are achievable in 1 generation “micro steps” ….. can you show all (or at least a relevant portion) of the micro steps needed to build a flagellum?........scientists can show the “micro steps” needed to build things like “resistance to antibiotics” …can they do the same with the flagellum?

It think it may be important to point out that the semantic argument here is yours. You are the one that is challenging based on your definition of "steps".

I cannot show all the "microsteps", but I am not a biochemist, molecular biologist or microbiologist that studies flagella and their origins. I have seen a secretory system that has some of the parts of the flagellar motor, thus showing that it was not irreducibly complex as asserted by Behe.

I do not have an answer to your question regarding that, but I can review the available literature just as you can and I hope you do.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Then how would you define “supernatural”? Science can test whether if I have the ability to see the future or not, whether if you what to call it “supernatural” or not is just semantics. In the same way science can (at least In principle) be used o test if the universe was designed or not, label It as “supernatural” or not is just a matter of semantics

Supernatural is beyond what is attributable to natural causes. Claiming that 13 is unlucky is appeal to the supernatural. There is no evidence that one number is luckier than any other number. Though, I can think of one number that I consider to be very lucky. But that is just me.

As I explained, science does not know of any causes outside of the natural world and cannot determine them, so the only thing that can be considered in the study of seeing the future would be natural phenomenon. Predictions would be in the natural world even if others find seeing the future to be some sort of supernatural power. Testing the predicted value against the actual value is something done in science rather routinely.

 

[Jollybear]

That might be part of the creationist methodology, but growing in a lab is not designing in a lab and would not require that it be shown without input of human intelligence.

That is very silly. Thanks for the laugh.

That big post you gave me back was a bunch of dancing around.

Why do you believe God exists, tell me?

 

[Jollybear]

If I throw a coin 1 million times, the sequence of head/tails I get at the end would have had an astronomically high probability to not have occurred; ridiculous, impossible, 1 out of 2 at the power of 1 million. Nobody could imagine such a small probability.

Yet, that precise sequence occurred. At the first try.

Post hoc probability calculations of event X, after its occurrence, are just useless, in any argument. They are hopelessly question begging.

Actually, technically, that probability (probability that X would occur if X occurred) is 1.

Ciao

- viole

Under controlled conditions chance has been shown to not exist.

Source here The Not So Random Coin Toss

In fact, its a good thing chance does not exist, your life depends on it as you drive your car to work or the market. Engineering depends on physics, not chance. The universe depends on physics, not chance.

 

[leroy]

Theyed have to grow it without using there intelligence too, lol.

Obviously

 

[viole]

Under controlled conditions chance has been shown to not exist.

Source here The Not So Random Coin Toss

In fact, its a good thing chance does not exist, your life depends on it as you drive your car to work or the market. Engineering depends on physics, not chance. The universe depends on physics, not chance.

A QM event is inherently random. Under controlled conditions (experimental evidence of Bell's theorem).

QM, one of theories with the best experimental success, by far, expects not reducible inherently random events happening at fundamental level.

Now what?

Ciao

- viole

 

[leroy]

Scientists did not grow bacterial resistance to antibiotics, it developed naturally from overuse of antibiotics.

But the process and the steps have also been observed in labs, why can t you do the same with flagellums?.... my suggestion is that unlike “resistance to antibiotics” flagellums are irreducible complex, ¿do you have a better suggestion?


Why is it that we can observe resistance to antibiotics evolving in labs and we can’t see flagellums?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That big post you gave me back was a bunch of dancing around.

Why do you believe God exists, tell me?

It was not dancing around. I answered every statement you made directly and correctly. It is not my fault that your bias has blinded you.

Intelligent design is touted as a science and not as a belief system. I address it on that basis. Why is the nature and origin of my belief in God relevant to that? You previously stated that you want to know to judge me. This is what I suspected all along and has been a consistent experience for me when I have engaged in debate with those that do not understand science or intelligent design and have a strict creationist world view. Since, their opinions fail to hold up, the next best thing they have is logical fallacies and attacking the messenger. Maybe you are just curious, and I can understand that, but it has not been curiosity that has driven this question in the past and I see no reason to elaborate on the origins of my Christianity in a context where it is not required.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But the process and the steps have also been observed in labs, why can t you do the same with flagellums?.... my suggestion is that unlike “resistance to antibiotics” flagellums are irreducible complex, ¿do you have a better suggestion?


Why is it that we can observe resistance to antibiotics evolving in labs and we can’t see flagellums?

Yes. Bacterial resistance has been demonstrated in labs. I thought you were saying that it was created by scientists for some unknown reason. My mistake.

The flagellum has failed to live up to the claim of irreducible complexity. Other bacterial structures with parts of the flagellar motor, but that are not flagella demonstrate that. Irreducible complexity has been refuted. In order to show it, you would have to demonstrate all the potential iterations possible and show that none of them have a function. A practical impossibility.

Since, the natural process of evolution is pretty well established, I do not think that growing a flagella in a Petri dish is necessary, though it would add to the burgeoning body of evidence in support of evolution. I do not know how you would design an experiment to show that a supernatural designer exists.

 

[leroy]

How was this determined? There is still the problem with determining natural design from intended, intelligent design.

what do you mean by natrual design?

Since we do not have another universe to compare and contrast ours with, it is going to be difficult.

Well pretend that we go to another planet and find a stone with some hexagonal figures…. There would be objective ways to test if the stone is a product of chance, natural processes or design. We don’t need “other planets” nor “other stones”…I don’t see why we should need more universes to draw any conclusions regarding the fine tuning of this universe

I am not sure I follow you here. It sounds like you are saying that design should be compared to the philosophical position that the universe is here for our benefit. I am not seeing a distinction to make a comparison.

All I am saying is that one can compare intelligent design vs. any other potential explanation for the fine tuning of the universe, and see which alternative is better according to objective criteria commonly accepted in science, like explanatory power, explanatory scope, parsimony, predictive power, less ad hoc, consistency with previous knowledge etc.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Obviously

Growing a flagellum is not designing a flagellum, so it is not obvious that human intelligence would need to be removed from the experimental process. That to me, makes no sense.

Even if we discovered how the flagellum evolved, it does not logically follow that intelligence is required for the process.

We can seed clouds too, but that does not mean that rain is the result of intelligent action.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Under controlled conditions chance has been shown to not exist.

Source here The Not So Random Coin Toss

In fact, its a good thing chance does not exist, your life depends on it as you drive your car to work or the market. Engineering depends on physics, not chance. The universe depends on physics, not chance.

In coin tosses. Not everywhere.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Under controlled conditions chance has been shown to not exist.

Source here The Not So Random Coin Toss

In fact, its a good thing chance does not exist, your life depends on it as you drive your car to work or the market. Engineering depends on physics, not chance. The universe depends on physics, not chance.

The randomness is still there, but it comes from the tosser, not the coin.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

what do you mean by natrual design?

The design that exists as a result of natural processes.

Well pretend that we go to another planet and find a stone with some hexagonal figures…. There would be objective ways to test if the stone is a product of chance, natural processes or design. We don’t need “other planets” nor “other stones”…I don’t see why we should need more universes to draw any conclusions regarding the fine tuning of this universe

The problem is that no way to determine design has been devised. If it had, we would not be having this debate. So design cannot be ruled out, but it cannot be determined by science.

I do follow how a chance event does not involve natural processes.

All I am saying is that one can compare intelligent design vs. any other potential explanation for the fine tuning of the universe, and see which alternative is better according to objective criteria commonly accepted in science, like explanatory power, explanatory scope, parsimony, predictive power, less ad hoc, consistency with previous knowledge etc.

It works only if you assume intelligent design without actually establishing it. Since it cannot be established using science, then it cannot be compared with natural causes.

 

[leroy]

Yes. Bacterial resistance has been demonstrated in labs. I thought you were saying that it was created by scientists for some unknown reason. My mistake.

The flagellum has failed to live up to the claim of irreducible complexity. Other bacterial structures with parts of the flagellar motor, but that are not flagella demonstrate that. Irreducible complexity has been refuted. In order to show it, you would have to demonstrate all the potential iterations possible and show that none of them have a function. A practical impossibility.

Since, the natural process of evolution is pretty well established, I do not think that growing a flagella in a Petri dish is necessary, though it would add to the burgeoning body of evidence in support of evolution. I do not know how you would design an experiment to show that a supernatural designer exists.

I will repeat my question

Why is it that we can observe resistance to antibiotics evolving in labs and we can’t see flagellums?

In order to show it, you would have to demonstrate all the potential iterations possible and show that none of them have a function. A practical impossibility.

All you did was raising the bar unrealistically to high. That is like saying, “you can not establish that dogs can´t fly until you analyze every single dog in the world” obviously the burden proof is on the guy who claims that dogs can fly, in the same way the burden proof is on the guy who claims that flagellums can evolve by the process of natural selection.

 

[shunyadragon]

There's 2 statements that contradict ID, its 1 the universe came from nothing or 2 the universe was always here.

Neither of the above is assumed by science. Science does not consider the universe originating from (philosophical) nothing, and whether our physical existence is eternal and/or infinite is unknown.

Ok.....ID is falsifiable as i see it.

What acience considers falsifiable is not as you 'see' it.

So, is the views that the universe came from nothing or that it was always existent, is THAT philosophical?

Actually yes, it is a philosophical assertion.

Neither of the above is assumed by science. Science does not consider the universe originating from (philosophical) nothing, and whether our physical existence is eternal and/or infinite is unknown.

Heres a quote from micheal behe

"The National Academy of Sciences has objected that intelligent design is not falsifiable, and I think that’s just the opposite of the truth. Intelligent design is very open to falsification. I claim, for example, that the bacterial flagellum could not be produced by natural selection; it needed to be deliberately intelligently designed. Well, all a scientist has to do to prove me wrong is to take a bacterium without a flagellum, or knock out the genes for the flagellum in a bacterium, go into his lab and grow that bug for a long time and see if it produces anything resembling a flagellum. If that happened, intelligent design, as I understand it, would be knocked out of the water. I certainly don’t expect it to happen, but it’s easily falsified by a series of such experiments.

Science has determined the step by step evolution of the flagellum since Behe made this claim.

I will cite the scientific reference next. It is likely been cited before.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

You defined objective as existing outside the mind. The issue is though, you cannot presupose God does not exist without first testing this. Otherwise, thats bias, and bias is the OPOSITE of objective.

But, you may say, how can we test that which we dont see? Well thats where the tests got to be creative.

We cant see wind, gravity, light (no, we dont see light, we see what it shines on). We dont see atoms, we dont see other peoples dreams, we can only see brain waves firing off, we dont see feelings or emotions, ect.

Its no different with God.



Theres scientists that already have. Theres a strew of peer reviewed journals on alot of this stuff.

When I was religious I tried to prove the Christian god was real. I prayed to God, I ask God to reveal itself, God remains hidden. Therefore I'm became an Atheist.

If you want to prove a god exist, you need objective evidence that is testable.

What objective evidence do you have a god exist? If science could prove that a god exist, how do you know which god it is that humans worship?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I will repeat my question

Why is it that we can observe resistance to antibiotics evolving in labs and we can’t see flagellums?

Resistance results from mutations to one or a very few genes (very few steps in your parlance). There are over 50 genes involved in forming a flagellum.

There is obvious selection pressure leading to resistance that is immediate and specific. This would not be true of a flagellum evolving.

All you did was raising the bar unrealistically to high. That is like saying, “you can not establish that dogs can´t fly until you analyze every single dog in the world” obviously the burden proof is on the guy who claims that dogs can fly, in the same way the burden proof is on the guy who claims that flagellums can evolve by the process of natural selection.

No. I have not. That is the bar. I did not set it. It is a condition of establishing irreducible complexity and one that must be passed to demonstrate it.

I do not need to see every dog in the world to conclude that they do not fly. It is very different. I am not claiming dogs can fly. The burden of proof is on the person claiming that flagella are irreducibly complex.

It is much closer to claiming something is immortal. You would have to be immortal too, in order to substantiate the claim. If not, how would you know if something were truly immortal and not just long lived. Something that lives for one billion years, might seem immortal, but it could die the next day.

 

[leroy]

The design that exists as a result of natural processes.

Would you give an example? Just to make sure I understand what you are talking about

The problem is that no way to determine design has been devised. If it had, we would not be having this debate. So design cannot be ruled out, but it cannot be determined by science.

I do follow how a chance event does not involve natural processes.

why not?
Are you talking about the hypothetical stone that I described before?

Sure one can infer using science if the hexagonal pattern is a result of design,

Archeologists do that all the time, when they find “something” In an archeological site, they have objective ways to determine if that “thing” was designed or just a product of nature

It works only if you assume intelligent design without actually establishing it. Since it cannot be established using science, then it cannot be compared with natural causes.

I really don’t understand what you mean, do I have to establish ID before proposing it as a possible explanation? It sounds like circular logic, If I have to establish ID before proposing any argument for ID, then by definition I will always fail, because any argument for ID would be dismissed on the basis that ID has not been establish … but how can I establish ID if I am not allowed to make any argument?

I mean, “show to me that evolution is true, but you can’t use any argument for evolution until you establish a priory that evolution is true”

But perhaps I am misunderstanding your point.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Would you give an example? Just to make sure I understand what you are talking about

Snowflakes. Trees. Mountains. Seashells. Insects. Puppies.

The only known cuases behind the designs of these things are natural causes. Everything else is belief.

why not?

Unless, an unnatural cause is established, the only events, chance or selected that can occur are natural events.

Are you talking about the hypothetical stone that I described before?

Yes.

Sure one can infer using science if the hexagonal pattern is a result of design,

Yes. Natural design. Any other inference is incomplete and does not have the support of objective evidence that all that see it would see intelligent design.

do that all the time, when they find “something” In an archeological site, they have objective ways to determine if that “thing” was designed or just a product of nature

Sure. Archaeologists have to determine if something is the result of natural processes or if it was man made. We have evidence that man designs things. That is not really in question. What you are saying is that the existence of man made things corroborates the existence of overarching intelligent designer. This is the watchmaker argument that was refuted long ago.

I really don’t understand what you mean, do I have to establish ID before proposing it as a possible explanation?

Yes. Claims using intelligent design as the cause bear the burden of demonstrating intelligent design. Otherwise, my previous use of invisible pink unicorns is just as viable as a cause.

It sounds like circular logic,

It is not. If you claim that something is the cause of something else, you have to be able to demonstrate both or the cause has to have been demonstrated in prior work. You are assuming intelligent design. It has not been demonstrated.

If I have to establish ID before proposing any argument for ID, then by definition I will always fail, because any argument for ID would be dismissed on the basis that ID has not been establish

If it is established and supported, then that would be the wrong conclusion. The problem that intelligent design proponents have are several. One is that they assume intelligent design without realizing, perhaps not caring, that it is not established

. … but how can I establish ID if I am not allowed to make any argument?

I do not understand. You are making an argument now. No one is preventing you from doing it. Disagreeing with an argument based on reason, logic and evidence is not preventing you from making your argument.

I mean, “show to me that evolution is true, but you can’t use any argument for evolution until you establish a priory that evolution is true”

The evidence of evolution is well established. The theory explains what we see in natural populations and has stood the test of time as the best explanation we have for the relationship and diversity of living things. I do not think the science is your actual issue. It is that evolution contradicts long held dogma that is the issue. It does not contradict the existence or the belief in God.

But perhaps I am misunderstanding your point.

In part maybe, but not completely. You are getting it better than I have seen so far.