Jim And Penny Caldwell's Archaeological Findings:

[Joshpantera]

I've read through the second link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/106728402/The-Bacterial-Flagellum

 

This is more of the same biased attempt to poke holes with no valid alternative given. The new paradigm for design section suggests an intelligent designer. He very carefully avoided giving us the options, but we already know the options. The intelligence is either nature itself or a supernatural being outside of nature.

 

Nature is not especially intelligent until it can manage to produce intelligent creatures. Inwardly things are far less self aware even lending an ear to the all is consciousness angle. From a natural point of view nature would have had to put itself together so there's no external party piecing together the components of something like the flagellum motor. No tiny little intelligent creatures with nuts and bolts putting together a motor for bacteria to swim around in fluid. Where or what is this intelligence if not nature trying to design itself by trial and error / gradual evolution?

 

What about a supernatural mind?

 

Does this supernatural mind enter the natural world of the microcosm, fashion together a flagellum motor real quick, and then retreat back out of the natural universe before any one sees it? I'd like to see that proposed as valid science in a peer reviewed setting.

 

Or does the supernatural mind never enter the universe at all but instead speaks out orders like "let there be..." and bam, a fully formed flagellum motor appears fully operational from the outset as God commands the waters to teem with living things? Once again, not much of a scientific peer reviewed proposal.

 

And time and again, link after link, the ID / IC proponents carefully avoid presenting a clear cut alternative to Darwinian Evolution aside from very vague appeals to a mysterious intelligent mind. They're doing this on purpose, you know, keeping it vague and not coming right out and suggesting that this is aimed at claiming that Genesis is true. Or maybe some think it was engineered by alien intelligence and not necessarily the God of the Bible. But neither options make any sense. If so then the aliens would have to be designed by something else. It goes back, and back, and back and at some point there wasn't anything around to design anything else. They don't want to get into an alternative explanation because they know that it will come out sounding ridiculous which ever angle they present, God or aliens.

 

And meanwhile there's every reason to believe that the flagellum motor could have evolved gradually just like everything else in the world that has been shown to have evolved gradually. If we have a wide ranging variety of evidence for gradual evolution all over the place, and in one case there's a theory but no direct fossil evidence for ancient varieties of bacteria with stages inbetween non, crude, and advanced motility, how would concluding that the flagellum motor had to be designed make any sense of the assortment of other evidence in nature that clearly did not have to be designed by an intelligent mind? Do we suppose that some things evolved naturally while some things did not?

 

It seems to me that people want to throw up what they think is clear cut evidence for design in hopes that they can then walk backwards from that point and then get others to agree that a supernatural God has to be real because there's no other explanation.

 

And if so, that's precisely a deceptive move on their part.

 

The vagueness we're encountering from the ID camp is the result of a deceptive angle in play.

 

Is this not what you get from Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, or even SDA's trying to proselytize people into their folds? They don't want you to know the full impact of what they're selling right up front as far as their wacky theologies are concerned. They will try and get their foot in the door with whatever they think you'll find acceptable and agreeable and fill you in on the details later. The more I read about ID the more the motives and methodology resembles Christian cult tactics....

[Thought2Much]

And time and again, link after link, the ID / IC proponents carefully avoid presenting a clear cut alternative to Darwinian Evolution aside from very vague appeals to a mysterious intelligent mind. They're doing this on purpose, you know, keeping it vague and not coming right out and suggesting that this is aimed at claiming that Genesis is true. Or maybe some think it was engineered by alien intelligence and not necessarily the God of the Bible. But neither options make any sense. If so then the aliens would have to be designed by something else. It goes back, and back, and back and at some point there wasn't anything around to design anything else. They don't want to get into an alternative explanation because they know that it will come out sounding ridiculous which ever angle they present, God or aliens.

 

This.

 

It seems to me that people want to throw up what they think is clear cut evidence for design in hopes that they can then walk backwards from that point and then get others to agree that a supernatural God has to be real because there's no other explanation.

 

And if so, that's precisely a deceptive move on their part.

 

The vagueness we're encountering from the ID camp is the result of a deceptive angle in play.

 

And this.

[BlackCat]

 

I didn't link to a 'paper'.   I linked to an article, as I clearly stated.  You are the one that called it a paper.  I linked to it, mainly to provide some information regarding the Type III SS.   I know it's not a peer- reviewed paper. It's an article that had the relevant information regarding the Type  III.  

 

Except it's not relevant, really. It's the same thing as me saying that invisible faeries designed the Honda Accord, and then providing a detailed parts list for the car, with the sentence "I think it's obvious that invisible faeries designed it" tacked on the end. It's a distraction. It doesn't show any evidence of purposeful design or a designer. You're so hung up on the intricacies of this one thing that you think can prove your case, you're losing sight of the fact that no one can provide anything that actually shows the evidence you're looking for.

 

What's not relevant?  

 

The rest of your comment makes no sense with reference to my last post to you???  Let's see if I can make sense of this without resorting to bad manners......

 

I posted a couple of links to ARTICLES,  which contained information relevant to the article that Josh linked to.  The second ARTICLE was very technical but had more information about the type III. 

 

I haven't a hope in hell of proving or disproving design in molecular machines.  My knowledge of biology etc, is too meagre, but I have enough of an understanding ,to appreciate the 'problems' which are being posed by the research being done in molecular biology and chemisty (which is a young discipline compared to maths and physics).  I am fascinated by these 'design inferences' and hence this debate.  We don't have to mention or rather be concerned with creationism, God, invisible faeries etc.  It is possible to conduct this enquiry without these distractions.  Are you willing to do this?   

[Ravenstar]

I think what the point is that you can criticize an hypothesis (say: probable flagellum evolution) all you want, but until you an provide a working model that is different... one actually tested, experimented, etc... then it's not really a viable alternative - it's just speculation. And to take one little (or even several) question mark(s) in an ocean of evidence to the contrary and not even state what the alternative hypothesis is.. well - it's not honest.

 

It's just opinion.. without evidence.

 

However - the questions they bring up may spur a real scientist to solve that particular puzzle with more motivation than he had before... and from what I've seen there is a lot of work in this area.

 

I'm open to the 'universe' being sentient, in a way... but I don't think it has much to do with ID as it's stated. It's just dressed-up creationism.

 

Read Seth... now that's interesting for a 'sentient' universe... but most of what I have come across in this area is mysticism, and pantheism.. not science.

[BlackCat]

I think what the point is that you can criticize an hypothesis (say: probable flagellum evolution) all you want, but until you an provide a working model that is different... one actually tested, experimented, etc... then it's not really a viable alternative - it's just speculation. And to take one little (or even several) question mark(s) in an ocean of evidence to the contrary and not even state what the alternative hypothesis is.. well - it's not honest.

 

It's just opinion.. without evidence.

 

However - the questions they bring up may spur a real scientist to solve that particular puzzle with more motivation than he had before... and from what I've seen there is a lot of work in this area.

 

I'm open to the 'universe' being sentient, in a way... but I don't think it has much to do with ID as it's stated. It's just dressed-up creationism.

 

Read Seth... now that's interesting for a 'sentient' universe... but most of what I have come across in this area is mysticism, and pantheism.. not science.

 

 

I think what the point is that you can criticize an hypothesis (say: probable flagellum evolution) all you want, but until you an provide a working model that is different... one actually tested, experimented, etc... then it's not really a viable alternative - it's just speculation. And to take one little (or even several) question mark(s) in an ocean of evidence to the contrary and not even state what the alternative hypothesis is.. well - it's not honest.

Hmm, I don't think the scientists who have had peer-reviewed papers published that highlight 'problem areas' are being dishonest.  They are providing research of a particular area of the evolutionary process, and questioning how evolution alone accounts or doesn't seem to be able account for this problem.  If we take the example of the flagellum, they've studied it for years, done the research, the experiments etc, and after years of study, they present the 'problem', which can then be scrutinized by other scientists and encourage further research. 

 

It's just opinion.. without evidence.   Their interpretation of the data they compile in their research, may well turn out to be wrong.

 

However - the questions they bring up may spur a real scientist to solve that particular puzzle with more motivation than he had before... and from what I've seen there is a lot of work in this area.  Yes.

 

I'm open to the 'universe' being sentient, in a way... but I don't think it has much to do with ID as it's stated. It's just dressed-up creationism. It can be but doesn't have to be.

 

Read Seth... now that's interesting for a 'sentient' universe... but most of what I have come across in this area is mysticism, and pantheism.. not science.

'Sentience' is surely as controversial as 'intelligence'.   It's all interesting though.

 

I think what the point is that you can criticize an hypothesis (say: probable flagellum evolution) all you want, but until you an provide a working model that is different... one actually tested, experimented, etc... then it's not really a viable alternative - it's just speculation. And to take one little (or even several) question mark(s) in an ocean of evidence to the contrary and not even state what the alternative hypothesis is.. well - it's not honest.

 

It's just opinion.. without evidence.

 

However - the questions they bring up may spur a real scientist to solve that particular puzzle with more motivation than he had before... and from what I've seen there is a lot of work in this area.

 

I'm open to the 'universe' being sentient, in a way... but I don't think it has much to do with ID as it's stated. It's just dressed-up creationism.

 

Read Seth... now that's interesting for a 'sentient' universe... but most of what I have come across in this area is mysticism, and pantheism.. not science.

[BlackCat]

>I think what the point is that you can criticize an hypothesis (say: probable flagellum evolution) all you want, but until you an provide a working model that is different... one actually tested, experimented, etc... then it's not really a viable alternative - it's just speculation. And to take one little (or even several) question mark(s) in an ocean of evidence to the contrary and not even state what the alternative hypothesis is.. well - it's not honest.

Hmm, I don't think the scientists who have had peer-reviewed papers published that highlight 'problem areas' are being dishonest.  They are providing research of a particular area of the evolutionary process, and questioning how evolution alone accounts or doesn't seem to be able account for this problem.  If we take the example of the flagellum, they've studied it for years, done the research, the experiments etc, and after years of study, they present the 'problem', which can then be scrutinized by other scientists and encourage further research. 

 

It's just opinion.. without evidence.   Their interpretation of the data they compile in their research, may well turn out to be wrong.

 

However - the questions they bring up may spur a real scientist to solve that particular puzzle with more motivation than he had before... and from what I've seen there is a lot of work in this area.  Yes.

 

I'm open to the 'universe' being sentient, in a way... but I don't think it has much to do with ID as it's stated. It's just dressed-up creationism. It can be but doesn't have to be.

 

Read Seth... now that's interesting for a 'sentient' universe... but most of what I have come across in this area is mysticism, and pantheism.. not science.

'Sentience' is surely as controversial as 'intelligence'.   It's all interesting though.

[Ravenstar]

Maybe consciousness is a better term than sentience?

 

Consciousness science is still in it's infancy though.. but highly fascinating.

[Joshpantera]

It seems to me that the problems pointed out by the ID lobby aren't necessarily problems. In all of those opposing arguments I've linked to the general theme seems to be that evolution can produce things that appear to be irreducibly complex. And they offer ways in which evolution could produce something that ends up looking that way. Simply stripping off parts and claiming it doesn't work without those parts seems like a straw man argument with respect to what the evolution side is actually suggesting in many of the articles and the updated evolutionary path for the flagellum diagram.

 

 

4. Conclusions

The detailed evolutionary model described above is summarized in Figure 7.  The role that various evolutionary processes played in the model can now be roughly quantified.  Only one major shift of function occurred at the system level, the transition from a pilus to a protoflagellum.  All of the other changes in system function can be seen as minor modifications of a basic function; if these are enumerated (export --> secretion --> adhesion --> pilus, and dispersal --> taxis), then four minor shifts of function occurred. In all cases a “shift” in function is actually more accurately described as an addition of function at the system level, as previous functions are maintained.  At the level of subsystems (consisting of two or more proteins), the cooption events can be tabulated: subsystem cooption was invoked for the origin of the core export apparatus, outer membrane secretin (proto-FlgI) and lipoprotein chaperone (proto-FlgH), the adhesin ancestral to the axial protein family, the motor complex, and the chemotaxis/switch complex, for a total of five subsystem cooption events.  In each of these cases, cooption occurred by the mutation of one protein to link two preexisting systems (Figure 7), followed by the duplication and integration of the new subsystem proteins into the major system. Except for the major transition between pilus and motility, subsystem cooption was associated with improvements of system function rather than major changes in system function.  At the gene level, duplication events within the core system were invoked 11 times for origin of 12 axial proteins from one, and an additional time for the divergence of FliN and FliM.  None of these events requires postulating functional shift at the subsystem or system levels.  Addition of a new domain with novel functionality was identified twice (FliN+CheC --> FliM, rod cap+muramidase --> FlgJ), although it probably occurred in additional instances where homologies are currently more vague.  It appears that loss of a component is only a possibility for the outer membrane secretin of the primitive type III secretion system, although if this became FlgI then no component loss events are necessary. This is the case even though some components that are ancient on the model (e.g., FliH) are apparently not absolutely required in modern flagella (Minamino et al., 2003).  All other changes at all levels were matters of gradual improvement of function, i.e. optimization and co-adaptation of components. Even at this early stage of development, the model gives decent estimate of the relative importance of various evolutionary processes involved in the origin of complex biochemical systems.

 

Figure 7: Summary of the evolutionary model for the origin of the flagellum, showing the six major stages and key intermediates.  White components have identified or reasonably probable nonflagellar homologs; grey components have either suggested but unsupported homologs, or no specific identified homologs, although ancestral functions can be postulated.  The model begins with a passive, somewhat general inner membrane pore (1a) that is converted to a more substrate-specific pore (1b) by binding of proto-FlhA and/or FlhB to FliF. Interaction of an F₁F₀-ATP synthetase with FlhA/B produces an active transporter, a primitive type III export apparatus (1c).  Addition of a secretin which associates with the cytoplasmic ring converts this to a type III secretion system (2).  A mutated secretion substrate becomes a secreted adhesin (or alternatively an adhesin is coopted by transposition of the secretion recognition sequence), and a later mutation lets it bind to the outer side of the secretin (3a).  Oligomerization of the adhesin produces a pentameric ring, allowing more surface adhesins without blocking other secretion substrates (3b). Polymerization of this ring produces a tube, a primitive type III pilus (4a; in the diagram, a white axial structure is substituted for the individual pilin subunits; all further axial proteins are descended from this common pilin ancestor).  Oligomerization of a pilin produces the cap, increasing assembly speed and efficiency (4b).  A duplicate pilin that loses its outer domains becomes the proto-rod protein, extending down through the secretin and strengthening pilus attachment by association with the base (4c).  Further duplications of the proto-rod, filament, and cap proteins, occurring before and after the origin of the flagellum (6) produce the rest of the axial proteins; these repeated subfunctionalization events are not shown here.  The protoflagellum (5a) is produced by cooption of TolQR homologs from a Tol-Pal-like system; perhaps a portion of a TolA homolog bound to FliF to produce proto-FliG.  In order to improve rotation, the secretin loses its binding sites to the axial filament, becoming the proto-P-ring, and the role of outer membrane pore is taken over by the secretin’s lipoprotein chaperone ring, which becomes the proto-L-ring (5b).  Perfection of the L-ring and addition of the rod cap FlgJ muramidase domain (which removes the necessity of finding a natural gap in the cell wall) results in 5c. Finally, binding of a mutant proto-FliN (probably a CheC receptor) to FliG couples the signal transduction system to the protoflagellum, producing a chemotactic flagellum (6); fusion of proto-FliN and CheC produces FliM.  Each stage would obviously be followed by gradual coevolutionary optimization of component interactions.  The origin of the flagellum is thus reduced to a series of mutationally plausible steps.

 

Even the present extended treatment has left out detailed discussion of the origin of the chemotaxis and regulatory proteins listed in Table 2.  However, many of these proteins have homologs functional in different systems, and the chaperones of axial proteins might have originated by duplication in a fashion similar to the axial proteins themselves. The evolution of the organization of flagellar genes and operons also deserves attention, although the precise organization found in modern bacteria is probably not essential (Kalir et al., 2001).

4.1. Evaluating the model

Biological evidence supporting the model is summarized in Table 6, in terms of extant analogs to the hypothesized intermediates and nonflagellar homologs of system components.  Of the 30 major structural components listed in Table 1, 12 are axial proteins and probably share a common (unidentified) ancestor, a hypothetical type III pilin subunit.  Of the remaining 18 components, four (FliI, MotA, MotB, and FliM) have well-accepted nonflagellar homologs based on significant sequence similarity. Suggestive evidence of homology exists for eight components, FliHJOPQR (with components of the ATP synthetase), the P-ring FlgI (with secretins), and the lipoprotein FlgH (with lipoprotein chaperones of secretins).  On the basis of interactions with other components with identified nonflagellar homologs, homologies can be postulated, with little current supporting evidence, for two components, FlgA (with other secretin-associated proteins secreted by the type II secretion system), and FliG (with a fragment of a TolA homolog). Finally, five components (FliF, FlhA, FlhB, FliN, and the ancestor of the axial proteins) have no identified potential homologs, although nonflagellar ancestral functions are not difficult to postulate.  The type III virulence system contains homologs of most of these proteins (probably including an axial protein; Cordes et al., 2003), but as discussed previously its phylogenetic position is controversial.

Table 6: Functions and analogs at each stage of the presented model.  See Figure 7 and text for further details. 

[Ravenstar]

^^^^ that's the section that helped me understand what the scientists were saying!!!  The really interesting part was seeing this not only in bacterium but also analogies in archea with the proteins. There are still problems but not as many as one would at first think...

 

I'm interested in how this plays out as they keep experimenting

[Joshpantera]

The general trend for ID seems to be in loosing ground and then searching for some area to try and hold out. It's sort of dwindled down to the flagellum motor issue which doesn't look like a very strong footing for a hold out.

 

Thinking back to the first issue, the people showing what looks like a menorah inscription in the Saudi desert were so convinced that it can only be interpreted one way, their way, which is to assume the supernatural. And yet the inscription finds a much more logical and reasonable explanation as a common known character in a prayer addressing a desert goddess figure. And besides that Jews had been in the region right up until Islam took hold around 1,000 years into the common era. So what if there really were actually menorah's about in the Saudi desert? The radical conclusion of the believers was entirely unwarranted every step of the way, and yet that's the only way they could manage to see it. 

 

Now this flagellum motor must have been designed fully intact, right?

 

It wouldn't function otherwise, would it?

 

It's the same type of reasoning we already uncovered previously with the pseudo-archaeological claims. They seemed like valid interpretations at a passing glance for some people, but in the end they weren't necessarily so. BAA's post a few pages back about how things are 'not always as they appear to be' was a great post but for one reason or another it was misinterpreted and the situation sort of curved off course.

[BlackCat]

Okay, I'm all caught up now. I said it before, I'll say it again: Occam's Razor. I think I'll add the Argument From Ignorance fallacy to that too. That's when you say you can't prove it didn't so it did. I could say that this morning an electric green magic sky eel came through my kitchen window, and we had coffee together. He was wearing a spiffy top hat and bow tie. You can't prove it didn't happen, so it totally did. This kind of argument is ludicrous: that's not offering proof, that's short-circuiting an argument with lack of proof, rather than finding your own. This is, by definition, the antithesis of science. "There's got to be a creator or intelligent designer, and you can't prove otherwise" isn't proof OF one. And that's what you have to do. Prove it DID. Bring me the head of Nessie and I'll believe there's a serpent in the Loch.

What the 'ID' scientists seem to be doing, is presenting theirs (or others) research and highlighting problems or features that they claim cause a problem for evolution.  This is not really the same as the examples you cite.

 

We have proof FOR evolution, though. There's a theory that birds developed flight by their early maniraptoran ancestors using feathers on their forearms to help them get up steep slopes (wing assisted incline running, or WAIR hypothesis). How to test? If this is true, then it might be supported by this ability being preserved in existing birds from all over the bird family tree, and even before they learn to fly properly, as a reflex. (Stuff that is in your genetic past might be preserved, if just because natural selection fails to eliminate it. Heck, human babies have a lot of fun reflexes. An infant will try to swim in water, but an older child will fail to try. We lose this ability, and have to be taught to swim as a cultural thing later. Our other relatives, the great apes, don't swim naturally, either. This is why a moat with water is an effective barrier against a gorilla.) This can be tested. And,

Just one piece of evidence. Fun fact: some living birds still have legit CLAWS on what's left of their fingers. (They're mostly covered in fluff, so it's hard to tell, most of the time.) Birds as distantly related as ostriches and the famous hoatzin have claws on their wings. The hoatzin is most famous for it, because they have them as babies, when

before their feathers grow in, and because they use them to climb around. Chickens still have the genes to grow teeth, and, when they do, it's pointy ones like archosaurs. We don't just use DNA to test to see who's the baby-daddy on reality TV. We can see who's related, among all life on Earth. Sure, we share 98% of our genes with chimps, but also 57% with cabbage.

I don't think they're denying evolution but how far evolution can 'go'.

I'll leave it to others to debate the specifics, but I do have one thing that's been gnawing at my brain (ha ha). I think one reason that scientists don't explain themselves better is that people are squeamish about hurting other people. Beliefs are considered intensely private things, and we believe people have a right to theirs. I don't want to get up in anyone's face and say: you're wrong about everything, the cake is a lie. It's none of my business. I only debate the issue if it comes up, and/or someone gets in MY face about it. I see how this jitteryness is hurting education, though, and I think maybe science should push harder to be heard.  I think everyone's tried to make scientific objections to ID clear, so I'll try another tack: maybe it's an emotional attachment. Forget the scientific evidence, for this or that, for just a moment:

 

I didn't pull any punches here. I don't want to hurt anyone of delicate sensibilities.

Besides, I'm not gonna lie: the idea of a "creator" that would dabble in things like the guinea worm or polio or entire genera of mind-control fungus or the parasitic wasps, scares me rigid. Nature's not exactly benevolent. Given some of the things we see, I'm not really sure how people think the idea of a creator is comforting, in any realistic way. Lots, and lots, and lots of creatures make their way in life by (to humans) hideously amoral ways. Things that cannibalize their siblings in the womb, or obligate siblicide, or the

(Warning: that link is graphic.) the whole lifecycle of the male anglerfish (<= this webcomic link has some spicy language, but it is accurate, actually. Horrifyingly.)

 

I just don't get how anyone could find the creator or intelligent designer of all kinds of creatures that HAVE to make their way in life by torturing other living things an emotionally comforting idea. Good gravy. I'm sure that if every last guinea worm dropped dead tomorrow, nobody would cry.

The good ,bad and the ugly of 'design' is not really the issue.  Design is design (using the word the way scientists use it), whether it's for the purpose of killing a host, or healing an injury. 

I understand the problems with the educational issues.  It's not a developed enough 'theory' to be taught as many theists would like, but the question of design is bound to crop up with some students, and there should be enough leaway, for the teacher to address any questions raised.  Science shouldn't fear questions or try to stifle them.

[BlackCat]

I've read through the second link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/106728402/The-Bacterial-Flagellum

 

This is more of the same biased attempt to poke holes with no valid alternative given. The new paradigm for design section suggests an intelligent designer. He very carefully avoided giving us the options, but we already know the options. The intelligence is either nature itself or a supernatural being outside of nature.

 

Nature is not especially intelligent until it can manage to produce intelligent creatures. Inwardly things are far less self aware even lending an ear to the all is consciousness angle. From a natural point of view nature would have had to put itself together so there's no external party piecing together the components of something like the flagellum motor. No tiny little intelligent creatures with nuts and bolts putting together a motor for bacteria to swim around in fluid. Where or what is this intelligence if not nature trying to design itself by trial and error / gradual evolution?

 

What about a supernatural mind?

 

Does this supernatural mind enter the natural world of the microcosm, fashion together a flagellum motor real quick, and then retreat back out of the natural universe before any one sees it? I'd like to see that proposed as valid science in a peer reviewed setting.

 

Or does the supernatural mind never enter the universe at all but instead speaks out orders like "let there be..." and bam, a fully formed flagellum motor appears fully operational from the outset as God commands the waters to teem with living things? Once again, not much of a scientific peer reviewed proposal.

 

And time and again, link after link, the ID / IC proponents carefully avoid presenting a clear cut alternative to Darwinian Evolution aside from very vague appeals to a mysterious intelligent mind. They're doing this on purpose, you know, keeping it vague and not coming right out and suggesting that this is aimed at claiming that Genesis is true. Or maybe some think it was engineered by alien intelligence and not necessarily the God of the Bible. But neither options make any sense. If so then the aliens would have to be designed by something else. It goes back, and back, and back and at some point there wasn't anything around to design anything else. They don't want to get into an alternative explanation because they know that it will come out sounding ridiculous which ever angle they present, God or aliens.

 

And meanwhile there's every reason to believe that the flagellum motor could have evolved gradually just like everything else in the world that has been shown to have evolved gradually. If we have a wide ranging variety of evidence for gradual evolution all over the place, and in one case there's a theory but no direct fossil evidence for ancient varieties of bacteria with stages inbetween non, crude, and advanced motility, how would concluding that the flagellum motor had to be designed make any sense of the assortment of other evidence in nature that clearly did not have to be designed by an intelligent mind? Do we suppose that some things evolved naturally while some things did not?

 

It seems to me that people want to throw up what they think is clear cut evidence for design in hopes that they can then walk backwards from that point and then get others to agree that a supernatural God has to be real because there's no other explanation.

 

And if so, that's precisely a deceptive move on their part.

 

The vagueness we're encountering from the ID camp is the result of a deceptive angle in play.

 

Is this not what you get from Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, or even SDA's trying to proselytize people into their folds? They don't want you to know the full impact of what they're selling right up front as far as their wacky theologies are concerned. They will try and get their foot in the door with whatever they think you'll find acceptable and agreeable and fill you in on the details later. The more I read about ID the more the motives and methodology resembles Christian cult tactics....

 

These are very good points.   I take on board similar points that the other guys here are making.  Where I differ from the main adherents of ID, who we know are mainly theists, is that I am not concluding at this stage of the enquiry, that the intelligence is 'God'.  The research they have done is interesting to me, and I enjoy the to and fro debate between both camps.  I've learned loads about evolution that I didn't know before, and I am convinced that evolution is happening, as are many of the ID camp.  I'm happy to check out their articles/papers, their lectures etc, but I'm not just going to except their conclusions.  This is a lengthy process that is similar to the one I had with the Bible and Christianity (and the Caldwells).  I have to 'make sure of all things' for myself, or at least try to.  It doesn't bother me that Ken Miller is a Catholic or that Micael Behe is a Catholic.  They're both learned scientists who have interesting things to say on this matter.   The main group of scientists and intellectuals who make up the core of the ID movement, are not fundie creationists.  If you take David Berlinski, he's an agnostic.  If I may compare myself to Mr Berlinski, in that I find the same fascination and challenges with evolution and the design inference that he does.  There may not be many agnostics or non theists who would find this so interesting and challenging but I'm content to be amoung the very few non theists, who are interested in intelligent design.  

 

I think we've all exhausted our positions on what we think of the ID movement and their motives, and what we think of the work that the ID scientists are conducting and on whether there's any 'point' in studying this design inference at all.  My priority now, is to check out these models that have been put forward that disprove ID/IC.  This will no doubt be a lengthy process, as I'll be emailing non ID people too.   I'll report back as soon as I get any replies, just as I did regarding the Caldwells. 

[Joshpantera]

That's what I find really mind boggling. If the ID proponents (at least some) do see evolution as happening but also think there's IC design, how in the world does that chart out?

 

Abiogenesis > Gradual Evolution > Mysteriously designed fully intact Flagellum motors with no explanation > more Gradual Evolution

 

Let's take you for instance BC. You've come forward as suggesting that:

 

I've learned loads about evolution that I didn't know before, and I am convinced that evolution is happening, as are many of the ID camp.

 

This looks very ancient aliens oriented. We set God aside, theistic or deistic, and where do we land?

 

It looks like we're heading in the direction of technologically advanced beings coming to an already living earth and tampering with things to where we find a combination of some evolution in nature and some IC intentional design. If this hadn't occured to you yet then you may want to consider where the implications of your suggestion is headed and whether or not that's really what you have in mind.

 

I've actually read a lot on the mysteries of ancient technology and how advanced scientific knowledge seems to appear in some of the oldest mythological cosmologies all while in metaphorical presentation:

 

This stuff is obviously very wild and very speculative and I've already posed the question of infinite regress of necessary designers.

 

So is this where you're trying to take us with your one foot in evolution and one foot out approach?

[bornagainathiest]

Josh Pantera wrote...

It's the same type of reasoning we already uncovered previously with the pseudo-archaeological claims. They seemed like valid interpretations at a passing glance for some people, but in the end they weren't necessarily so. BAA's post a few pages back about how things are 'not always as they appear to be' was a great post but for one reason or another it was misinterpreted and the situation sort of curved off course.

 

Do you want me to take any action here, Josh? 

Re-post the whole thing? 

Enlarge on any specific points? 

 

Just lmk, ok?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

I think we've all exhausted our positions on what we think of the ID movement and their motives, and what we think of the work that the ID scientists are conducting and on whether there's any 'point' in studying this design inference at all.  My priority now, is to check out these models that have been put forward that disprove ID/IC.  This will no doubt be a lengthy process, as I'll be emailing non ID people too.   I'll report back as soon as I get any replies, just as I did regarding the Caldwells. 

 

Hello BC.

 

I presume this to mean exactly what it says and no more? 

You're not bailing out of this whole thread, but just calling a halt to further discussion of the ID movement and it's motives?

So, you and I will carry on as we'd agreed and try and understand each others position on the issue?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[BlackCat]

 

I think we've all exhausted our positions on what we think of the ID movement and their motives, and what we think of the work that the ID scientists are conducting and on whether there's any 'point' in studying this design inference at all.  My priority now, is to check out these models that have been put forward that disprove ID/IC.  This will no doubt be a lengthy process, as I'll be emailing non ID people too.   I'll report back as soon as I get any replies, just as I did regarding the Caldwells. 

 

Hello BC.

 

I presume this to mean exactly what it says and no more? 

You're not bailing out of this whole thread, but just calling a halt to further discussion of the ID movement and it's motives?

So, you and I will carry on as we'd agreed and try and understand each others position on the issue?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Yes, I'm not bailing out.  This is far too interesting.  I'll look forward to your synopsis of my position.

[BlackCat]

That's what I find really mind boggling. If the ID proponents (at least some) do see evolution as happening but also think there's IC design, how in the world does that chart out?

 

Abiogenesis > Gradual Evolution > Mysteriously designed fully intact Flagellum motors with no explanation > more Gradual Evolution

 

Let's take you for instance BC. You've come forward as suggesting that:

 

I've learned loads about evolution that I didn't know before, and I am convinced that evolution is happening, as are many of the ID camp.

 

This looks very ancient aliens oriented. We set God aside, theistic or deistic, and where do we land?

 

It looks like we're heading in the direction of technologically advanced beings coming to an already living earth and tampering with things to where we find a combination of some evolution in nature and some IC intentional design. If this hadn't occured to you yet then you may want to consider where the implications of your suggestion is headed and whether or not that's really what you have in mind.

 

I've actually read a lot on the mysteries of ancient technology and how advanced scientific knowledge seems to appear in some of the oldest mythological cosmologies all while in metaphorical presentation:

 

This stuff is obviously very wild and very speculative and I've already posed the question of infinite regress of necessary designers.

 

So is this where you're trying to take us with your one foot in evolution and one foot out approach?

 

Hi Josh.  I've not had a chance to watch that film yet, but if it's about aliens, then no, I'm not considering we 'came' from aliens or anything like that.  It's not impossible, but no (some of the stuff in the bible sounds more like aliens than angels???).   I believe what we know about how the universe formed, the enormous amount of time that has elapsed and the similarities in life forms, suggests evolution or a gradual emergence of life forms.   I don't know how you can reconcile IC with evolution other than to bring in ANOTHER cause which then starts the domino effect leading to God.  How can you have a fully formed flagellum zap into existence?  You can't unless some other force has caused it to happen and then that starts sounding like Genesis.  This realisation is no doubt what halts most people in their tracks and why there isn't the interest I would imagine.  Why doesn't it halt me in my tracks?  Is it because I'm willing to consider a counter intuative possibility i.e a universal intelligence?  I was willing to believe in all manner of fairy tales when I was a Christian, and so my ability to weed out the dross, is maybe not so good.  The more I am analysing this issue, the more the 'design' leads to a designer that must have 'mind' (how else would you get an engine with a specified funtion?) and then that starts all the God problems again.  Trying to keep this 'designer' as nature, seems implausable.  So right now, it's fair to say I'm all mixed up.   

[Joshpantera]

Trying to keep this 'designer' as nature, seems implausable.  So right now, it's fair to say I'm all mixed up.   

You're starting to get it now.

 

Something like universal mind would operate through the forces of nature in gradual stages and not just zap things into existence out of thin air like a supernatural magical God. So the mind of nature path leads to accepting evolution as the only real means by which the universe can work with it's own properties in order to create all the variety of life we observe. It would have to design by way of trial and error with a tendency on trying to improve. That's how no motility and crude motility could later become what we see as modern motility. Nature doesn't appear especially intelligent and all knowing from the outset, even if it is aware on primitive levels. 

 

When you eventually start seeing the error in the IC argument itself and understand that something like the flagellum motor doesn't actually have to trace back to an especially intelligent designing mind in the first place, it will probably start making better sense. This whole Darwins Blackbox thing looks like a conscious effort by a Catholic (Behe) to try and reconcile Christian theology with science. They do this with the BB too just in case you were unaware of that problem. Catholics have tried to allow that the BB was the first "let there be light" in Genesis, when, for similar reasons, that just plain doesn't work out in their favor at all. This IC issue is but an extension of the same type of theological reasoning and wanting to conceive of ways of trying to merge religion and science in very force fitting type of way.

 

I believe what we know about how the universe formed, the enormous amount of time that has elapsed and the similarities in life forms, suggests evolution or a gradual emergence of life forms.   I don't know how you can reconcile IC with evolution other than to bring in ANOTHER cause which then starts the domino effect leading to God.  How can you have a fully formed flagellum zap into existence?  You can't unless some other force has caused it to happen and then that starts sounding like Genesis.  This realisation is no doubt what halts most people in their tracks and why there isn't the interest I would imagine.

This whole fiasco tracing back to a Catholics attempt to oppose Darwinian Evolution because it doesn't quite gel with his personal theology is quite suspect to say the least. Sort of like Ron Wyatt and the Caldwell's looking for some type of loop hole that they think they have to justify the Exodus myth, when in reality they do not. But you seem to be coming around now that you've had a chance to digest a lot of the controversy with both issues. The issues raised in this thread so far have been interesting though and looking into the arguments has been educational. 

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

I think we've all exhausted our positions on what we think of the ID movement and their motives, and what we think of the work that the ID scientists are conducting and on whether there's any 'point' in studying this design inference at all.  My priority now, is to check out these models that have been put forward that disprove ID/IC.  This will no doubt be a lengthy process, as I'll be emailing non ID people too.   I'll report back as soon as I get any replies, just as I did regarding the Caldwells. 

 

Hello BC.

 

I presume this to mean exactly what it says and no more? 

You're not bailing out of this whole thread, but just calling a halt to further discussion of the ID movement and it's motives?

So, you and I will carry on as we'd agreed and try and understand each others position on the issue?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Yes, I'm not bailing out.  This is far too interesting.  I'll look forward to your synopsis of my position.

 

Ok BC, here goes.

 

If you agree with a point that I've written (with no qualms, qualifications or special conditions) please just let the point stand, unchanged.  There's no need to indicate your agreement by adding anything.

 

If you do need to add something, I'd suggest two ways to do so. 

If it's something you can deal with briefly and succinctly, please do so.  (Why not use the method you seem most comfortable with?  That is, inserting your comments, in red.  Ok?)  The other way (If you need to take up a lot of space and/or if you need more time to think about the point and want to get back to me on it.) is to just mark the point, "Response pending", or something like that.  Then I'll know to expect your future input.

 

If I've missed out a salient point completely, please follow the above guidelines and insert it in red, if it's brief.  Or if it's longer and/or needs further thought from you, please just do as suggested above and add a brief description, that way I'll know to expect your future input and what it'll be about.

 

If you don't understand a given point and/or need my to clarify it, please follow the same general principles.  If you can do it briefly, go for it.  If not, signal your future intent in the usual way.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seeing as this is something new and that the topic of ID is a complicated one, let's begin, just with the basics.  After all, if we misunderstand each other here, the potential for misunderstanding later on will be that much greater.

 

BlackCat's position re: Intelligent Design.

 

1. The Universe.

You accept the orthodox scientific explanation for the evolution of the universe - Big Bang Theory (BBT).

You accept that BBT is a good, working theory of the early phases of the universe's evolution.

You accept that it is supported by several, independent lines of evidence and confirmed predictions.

You accept that BBT is incomplete, since it doesn't describe the mechanism of the universe's origin - only what happened afterwards.

You accept the initial 'breakage' of the universe, where the simple SuperForce shattered into the complex reality we experience today.

You accept that this breakage means that reality is 'winding down' from a highly energetic, simple state, into a less energetic and complex one.

You accept that matter and energy are equivalent (as per Einstein) and cannot be created or destroyed - only changed from one form into another.

You accept that some (but not all) parts of the universe appears to display a Natural Tendency (NT) towards complexity.

You accept that all but one of the theorized possibles endings of the universe will destroy complexity completely.

You therefore accept that in the above scenarios, the NT towards complexity is not an eternal thing, but a temporary one.

 

2. Christian Theology.

You have come to doubt Biblical Christianity, in any of it's literal, Creationist interpretations.

You have come to doubt Biblical Christianity, re: the origin and purpose of the universe.

You have come to doubt Biblical Christianity, re: the origin, purpose and destiny of the human race.

You have come to doubt Biblical Christianity, re: any of it's claims about an afterlife.

You have come to doubt Biblical Christianity, re: any of it's historical and archaeological claims.

 

 

That should be enough for now, BC.

 

Please take your time with this and get back to me whenever you like.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Joshpantera]

BC and BAA, I just started a new thread about the anti-BB movement within secular science:

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/55376-the-big-bang-never-happened/

 

Feel free to jump in.

[BlackCat]

Hey Josh.  I'll check out your thread.  I've had a quick look and it looks interesting.

 

BAA- thank you for presenting my position.  I'll hopefully get back to you tomorrow or over the weekend. 

[Akheia]

My priority now, is to check out these models that have been put forward that disprove ID/IC.  This will no doubt be a lengthy process, as I'll be emailing non ID people too.   I'll report back as soon as I get any replies, just as I did regarding the Caldwells. 

Not to flog a dead horse, but wanted to say this:

 

It's not on you to disprove creationism's ideas.

 

It's on *them* to prove their ideas have merit.

 

So far they haven't. Don't let the fundies shift burden of proof. While you're not going to have trouble finding all sorts of educated biologists speaking at length about how goofy "design" is, and while you're not going to have the slightest amount of trouble figuring out why "design" even exists as a concept, don't get so caught up in that search that you forget that the real problem is that creationists do not have any evidence of their claims at all. It's *their* burden to prove stuff, not *yours* or anybody else's.

 

I just wanted to make sure we were all on the same page here. The real questions for a modern ex-Christian:

 

How do you tell what's true and what's fiction?

 

How do you know when a purported fact is real or not?

 

Who do you listen to?

 

Remember, we've had half a century of fundies distorting facts, revising the truth, and doing their damndest to destroy science and history education in the US, and it sounds like you guys across the pond are facing similar troubles. It can be really hard to figure out who is right when two people are saying totally different things. That's why I look at it this way:

 

* You have one group with an avowed religious agenda, vs. a group that might be religious but isn't using it to base their worldview on (a distinction you seem to have not caught on to, not realizing that there is a major difference between "being Christian" and "demanding that reality conform to Christianity")

* You have one group decidedly on the fringe, which hasn't done any peer-reviewed studies, or added anything new to the body of established science, vs. a whole bunch of guys who are doing real science and adding new stuff to our knowledge base by the month.

* You have a group with a long pattern of lies and falsified results, with a membership largely composed of people who aren't even formally educated in that field's disciplines, vs. numerous groups of people who stamp out falsification whenever they can, happily retract or change their positions if it turns out they're wrong, and are educated in the various disciplines upon which they speak.

 

It can be hard for a layperson to figure out who to listen to, but I'm going with Group B personally because that group has a much longer track record of honesty and integrity, of unbiased research, and education in the subject.

[♦ ficino ♦]

I know it's a drag to have yet another book recommended.  Yet I think that Karl Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery is one of the most insightful works of philosophy of the 20th century.  Popper pretty much upended empiricism.  He pointed out that induction, the form of argument needed for reaching scientific conclusions, can never achieve an absolutely certain conclusion the way a deductive argument can.  That's because induction derives premises from a string of examples that we perceive.  And we can never perceive all the instances of a class of phenomena.  There might be a counterexample lurking out there, waiting to be discovered.  But after a hypothesis generates experiments that produce the results predicted, time after time, the theory begins to prove its mettle, as he put it.  Strictly speaking, you can't verify a scientific theory, since there might be an as-yet undiscovered counterexample.  You can only falsify a theory.  But the more a theory resists falsification, and the more it does the work that theories do - explain, predict further results, guide further research - the more it proves its power, esp. as the results that follow from it spill over wider and wider domains of inquiry. 

 

All the above is true of the TOE.  None of it is true of ID or IC.  They are not structured as scientific theories.  You can't design experiments from them that will yield measurable results to confirm them.  They are ad hoc explanations.  The more that is discovered by research guided by scientific hypotheses, the smaller becomes the number of phenomena that ID/IC purport to explain.   

 

"Reasoning to the best explanation" and coming up with a supernatural entity that is supposed to have done something is not scientific thinking - it is something else.  It is also very tricky to demonstrate that the resulting explanation is actually the "best," since usually there is another conclusion that also can be made consistent with the data (e.g. maybe life on earth was not created by God but by aliens - I don't mean to ascribe either of those beliefs to you, BC). 

[Akheia]

Ficino, I have to read your posts a few times to get them sometimes, but dude, you know I love you, man. You get right to the heart of things. I see a Ficino post and I know it won't be all PONIES MAN I SEE PONIES or something like I probably write half the time.

 

For creationism/design to work, it'd have to up-end a dozen different discipines--geology, biology, astronomy, etc--and offer a valid hypothesis of its own. By hypothesis of course I mean a valid, science-supported idea that can be tested and falsified. And bless its little heart, it just can't. There's not a way to do it, at least not with what they've got right now. Irreducible Complexity's been shown to be total mental masturbation--there's no way the creationist crowd can specify how they know what numbers they're assigning to their ideas about the likelihood of design. Design itself is ridiculous enough that it gets laughed out of court--and almost literally did in the Dover case, when the creationists got their asses handed to them in the most humiliating fashion when they tried to bleat about blood clotting, immune systems, and flagella. And there's just not a way for the creationists to wean their ideas away from their fundamentalist roots and major fanbase, which taints their entire outlook with a top-down, rather than bottom-up, way of looking at science.

 

I'm okay with someone bringing forth a new idea about science. I just want creationism-friendly folks to get past this idea that scientists are quivering in their little white booties about this SCARY NEW THEORY or sniffing at it in disdain because it's different, because that is so totally not what's going on. That's a mythical strawman put forth by creationists to protect their egos and poison the well.

 

The truth is much more entertaining: Scientists don't engage with creationism/design because it's pseudo-science, unsupported and unsupportable, that makes a mockery of established science without actually putting forth anything of substance that even could be tested or falsified but taking potshots at what science has done. If we look at the groups that started the whole creationism/ID/IC ideas, they are fundie groups. If we look at the political groups espousing these principles, they are the way-right-wing Republicans pandering to religious kooks who'll vote for them and their policies--and these same Republicans are furiously slashing education and science budgets like it was their slutty moms' prom dresses. Follow the money and the political power. "Design" has about as much to do with real science as being "pro-life" has to do with saving actual babies.

[BlackCat]

Akheia-  the more I'm looking into this subject, the more it's apparent that I can't really make heads or tails of it.  I just don't have enough specialist knowlege.  Is it really worth emailing a bunch of non ID scientists who will tell me that evolution does account for the flagellum, or email a bunch of ID scientists who will tell me it doesn't?  I think the sensible thing to do, is assume evolution can cope with these 'problems' and as advances in these 'young' disciplines of molecular biology and other related fields throw more light on this, it should explain how evolution did it.  If there is any basis at all, in the claims of the ID camp, they will be settled in the near future surely.  

 

Ficino-  good points.