Isn't that evolution?
Yes, it is. But on a larger scale than biology alone.
In the face of belief, truth doesn't stand a chance.
And what is truth, Void? By the way, I think that your picture is a gross mischaracterization.
BTS
The Probabilty of there being an Intelligent Designer part 2. (some responses)
by hooberus 21 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
BurnTheShips
-
Razziel
Here is the reason the majority of scientists reject ID.
To scientifically judge the plausibility of competing theoretical explanations in relation to each other, inference to the best explanation is used. This consists of submitting each theory to several criteria, known in sum as the criteria of adequacy. The best theory is one that satisfies the criteria better than the others.
The criteria are:
1. Testability (whether there is some way to determine if a theory is true)
2. Fruitfulness (the number of novel predictions made)
3. Scope (the amount of diverse phenomena explained)
4. Simplicity (the number of assumptions made)
5. Conservatism (how well a theory fits with existing knowledge)
Evaluation of evolution and ID:
1. Testability - Evolution is testable. Countless test implications have been derived from evolutionary theory, and have led to countless experiments being conducted, confirming the theory. ID is relatively new, but is in the process of being tested on the one main prediction that ID theory makes. The premise is that the development of complex biological systems cannot be fully accounted for by natural (darwinian evolutionary) processes alone. Therefore there must be outside influence by an ID. The prediction is that though incremental evolutionary changes might be seen in a laboratory setting, evolutionary leaps to more complex systems (i.e. organisms developing entirely new abilities) will not be observed. In the last 5 years, bacteria-level organisms have been observed in the laboratoty developing entirely new abilities. The E. coli experiment mentioned in the previous thread is one such example. That experiment was not intended as an ID test. I'm sure more experiments will be conducted in the future specifically to test ID involving multi-cellular organisms.
2. Fruitfulness - Again, evolutionary theory has made innumerable novel predictions that have been confirmed as true. The one novel prediction ID makes has had doubt cast upon it, but this will have to be tested using a variety of complex organisms before it is proven false.
3. Scope - Evolutionary theory is now used to explain observations in a wide variety of scientific fields. IDs scope is basically limited to "evolutionary leaps" that result in more complex organisms. Some will say that since ID falls back upon an unknown designer using an unknown force to influence evolutionary events, it does not increase our understanding and therefore has no scope.
4. Simplicity - Evolution makes assumptions. ID makes more, and are beyond natural processes.
5. Conservatism - Evolution has consistently agreed with observations, evidence, and experimentation. If multiple evolutionary leaps are observed in complex organisms in a laboratory setting, ID as it is officially stated now will fail this criteria.
Evaluating all five criteria, evolutionary theory fares better than ID or other similar explanations. That does not mean evolution is 100% correct. It just means it's the best explanation when compared to competing theories. On every criteria, they are inferior. Based on these methods scientists are justified in rejecting other theories in favor of evolution, and that is exactly what the majority of them do. If, in the future, another explanation arises that meets these criteria better than evolution, even if it somehow involves a creator, intelligent designer, or aliens, the majority of scientists would switch to using the new best theory.
As reference for the criteria of adequacy, I dug up my college book, "The Power of Critical Thinking", 2nd ed., by Lewis Vaugn.
-
paul from cleveland
The way I see it is that existence itself is a paradox. Using natural, observable laws, nothing should be here in the first place! Why is there something rather than nothing? The paradox of existence itself leaves a lot of room for the supernatural.
-
frankiespeakin
Paul,
I thought about that too. What I mean is, why do we conclude nothing should be here? Isn't that an assumption just as much as something should be here? both are assumptions when you come right down to it?
Of coarse something is here? But will it remain or eventually just sorta evaporate according to what they postulate in physics this universe will eventually vanish in trillions years.
The End of The Universe5/5
-
paul from cleveland
Existence just "is". The foundation of everything is built upon an illogical paradox. Until this is explained, I'm not going to rule anything out.
-
frankiespeakin
Paul,
That's the way I look at it too. I like to stick to what is proven, not to fairy tales just because I like them or they dull our senses with wishfull thinking about some future reward based on ancient mythology before they had science.
-
Razziel
Existence is only a paradox if you try to explain it in the framework of causality. Using that framework, the existence of God is a paradox as well.
-
frankiespeakin
Raz,
I agree. Existence always by means of a causality and nonexistence always the predetermined result of no causality are both assumptions that can not be proven.
What about this: If universal space is not infinite and you come to its outer edge where there is nothing beyond that edge when you hit the edge where nothing exist not even space it will appear solid and harder than diamond because you will not be able to penetrate Nothing. Thus Nothing is solid to our senses, even though it is nothing. Sorta like a hypothetical thought experiment.
-
Razziel
If you were at the edge of an inflationary universe, it would appear as an event horizon, similar to that of a black hole. Even traveling at light speed, it would never appear to get any closer. It would seem like a solid of nothingness, but from the observers viewpoint they would never cross the boundary.
Instead of thinking of space as a volume, think of it as a surface. The surface can have positive curvature, negative curvature, or can be flat. In any case, the geometry is either closed, or open. There is no "brick wall", so-to-speak, at a boundary. We can't visualize in 4d very well, so we reduce to 3d or 2d analogies, but the math in 4d space works.
-
paul from cleveland
In the natural world, every event has a cause. Therefore, the first event must have been caused by something outside of nature. Something supernatural. This supernatural cause is what I call God.