Posted by Coach on May 14, 1998 at 10:04:48:
In Reply to: The God hypothesis is a cop-out posted by Chris on May 13, 1998 at 13:52:19:
: Similarities are found, especially at the molecular level, in most living things on the Earth. These similarities are possible evidence for Speciation, but one must ask are they conclusive or could there be asternative explanations?
: They aren't conclusions, they are observations. An acceptable explanation must not only explain how those similarities came to be, but why they are graded similarities: humans are molecularly most similar the great apes than to other mammals-->mammals as a whole are most similar to other vertebrates-->vertebrates are most similar to other multicellular organisms (except plants)-->etc, etc, etc. There is a pattern to the molecular similarities that must be explained by whatever theory you propose as an alternate to evolution.
---Look closely, I never said anything about conclusions. I was speaking about the strength of the evidence and whether it could point ot other explanations. Your 'graded similarities' point is a non-sequiter for 2 reasons. First, the design model explains similarities equally well. Cars that are designed for great gas mileage are by definition going to be more similar to other cars designed for great gas mileage. They will not be as similar internally or externally to cars designed for great speed. Thus, we would expect
---organisms that have similar diets and methods of reproduction and mobility etc. to be the most similar regardless of the model(design or evolution) which we are using.
---The second reason your argument is a invalid is because man seperated animals into species catagories based on similarities that he could observe. There is no tag in nature that says one animal is to belong to class Reptillia while another is Aves. We grouped them according to similarities, the most similar ones we grouped together into categories like class and genus. It should come as no surprise that they are similar organisms, because that is why we grouped them together in the first place. But the groupings being similar still doesn't
---have anything to do with whether the cause of the similarities was design or evolution.
: It really is a matter of the Chicken and the Egg. Did all life evolve from one or a few common simple forms, thus having similar biochemical characteristics? Or was life designed to exist under a certain set of conditions, therefore making certain biochemical similarities a necessity?
: That form of reasoning only works for molecular similarities that have a function. What about introns? What about pseudogenes? What about the demonstrably functionless portions of pro-insulin? These non-functional features follow the same pattern of similarity as the genes and proteins with actual functions. There is no biochemical necessity for them to follow an apparently evolutionary pattern.
---Only if you are assuming that we have discovered ALL of the functions of EVERY molecule. What about introns? Are you making the claim that YOU know exactly what all of their functions (or non-functions) are? If so, publish quickly and win your Nobel Prize, because you are the greatest Biologist in history. "Demonstrably Functionless" is nonsense. What does it mean to be "demonstrably functionless"? Once again you are assuming you know everything about these moecules when you claim that "There is no biochemical...". Publish if you fully understand these molecules
---and their 'non-function'.
: Scientifically only one answer can be investigated...the evolutionary one. Since Science can only deal with natural phenomena, the second option (a Designer not part of nature/Supernatural) cannot be spoken to.
: And what about the other non-scientific possibilities? You apparently haven't considered that space aliens could have made life on this earth. Or that we are all the imaginations of a cosmic Invisible Pink Unicorn. Or that the Universe and everything in it were actually created ten seconds ago, and all the "proof" of a longer existence (including your memories) were placed there to give the illusion of a past existence.
---Ahh, sensational language. Getting past your hyperbole, I think the essence of what you are trying to say here is that if we assume that there may be a possibility that an explanation may exist that is non-scientific (or that is unanswerable by current science) then we are off in Never-Never land and must assume that anything is possible. Is this a good summation? I will have to assume(very unscientific) that it is at least until your next post. So, your assumption is that anything that Science cannot answer is nonsense and that reality cannot be defined by anything but present day Science?
---Hmmm... and you would claim that you do or don't view Science as a religion? To equate the position that there is evidence of design in the universe and on earth to Pink Unicorns is really quite odd. As for the 10 seconds ago creation, I really don't think that that happened, but I can't prove it didn't. But if it did then our whole discussion is invalid, so lets try to keep to the subject instead of tossing out useless hyperbole.
: This, however, does not preclude the second possibility from being true.
: Or the third or the fourth or the fifth that I have proposed. Can we think of any others? I'm not mocking your beliefs here, I'm just pointing out that there are MANY alternatives that science can't examine. Why should we waste time with any of them?
---Again I ask if you really believe that present day Science has all the answers?
: Science cannot investigate many things which we assume are true. In fact, Science as we now know it can only investigate natural phenomena in a very limited area of the Universe, and ASSUMES that the rest of the Universe acts and reacts the same way. Science cannot investigate Truth, for what experiment confirms or denies Truth. In fact, there are no Truths in Science, just theories and data that lead to conclusions which are never 100% certain.
: I agree with you. Science does not produce TRUTH, only approximations to truth.
---Actually Science draws conclusions based upon data derived from observations. It has nothing to do with truth in the sense of conclusions, only with the truth of the data (and this only in so far as the accuracy can be determined).
: I say this to say that Science, while being a wonderful tool, is not the only method for obtaining information that humans use.
: I'm going to sound like a science-chauvanist now, and perhaps Tammy will try rebuke me for it ;), but science is the only method for generating and testing explanations for natural phenomenon.
--I agree. So the real question we are trying to ask is was the beginning of life Natural or Supernatural. That is exactly what I was saying in my post. Is it the chicken or the egg? Let me say again that we are not arguing whether science is a valid tool for gathering info on nature.
--What we are discussing is whether a naturalistic explanation (specifically evolution) is the only reasonable explanation for the life that we see on the earth.
: Your arguments assume that if one explanation can be investigated Scientifically and one cannot that the Scientifically valid one is the superior argument. I believe this to be a faulty premise.
: You are welcome to your beliefs, but you are wrong in this case.
--Hmmm... Sounds like you have a set of beliefs also - Science is the only valid method for seeking knowledge. Once again you presuppose that everything is naturalistic.
: The biggest scientific problem with the theory of evolution
: : is that it Cannot be experimentally verified.
: Yes it can.
--OK, show me. Take me to any lab in the world and show me Chemical Evolution. If you really can show me, then publish now and become the next Nobel winner. You can win it twice by proving Chemical Evolution is
--sufficient for the begginning of life and for proving that evolution by mutation or natural selection is sufficient to explain life on earth as we see it today. Added to your other Nobel for determining
---everything about introns, that will be three in a row. Of course you will never get them 'cause you and I both know that it can't be done.
: Evidences for and against can be found, but unless we are able in the future to find a virgin planet and observe it for several billion years we will never be able to experimentally show if it is a good theory or not.
: You are kidding, right? You must also believe that we must fially valid one is the superior argument. I believe this to be a faulty premise.
: You are welcome to your beliefs, but you are wrong in this case.
--Hmmm... Sounds like you have a set of beliefs also - Science is the only valid method for seeking knowledge. Once again you presuppose that everything is naturalistic.
: The biggest scientific problem with the theory of evolution
: : is that it Cannot be experimentally verified.
: Yes it can.
--OK, show me. Take me to any lab in the world and show me Chemical Evolution. If you really can show me, then publish now and become the next Nobel winner. You can win it twice by proving Chemical Evolution is
--sufficient for the begginning of life and for proving that evolution by mutation or natural selection is sufficient to explain life on earth as we see it today. Added to your other Nobel for determining
---everything about introns, that will be three in a row. Of course you will never get them 'cause you and I both know that it can't be done.
: Evidences for and against can be found, but unless we are able in the future to find a virgin planet and observe it for several billion years we will never be able to experimentally show if it is a good theory or not.
: You are kidding, right? You must also believe that we must find a virgin planet and observe erosion for a few million generations in order to "prove" that the Grand Canyon was produced by the Colorado River and nothing more. We all accept (I'm assuming you're not a full-blown creationist here) that the natural processes of erosion have produced the features of our earth. The same logic argues that natural selection, which can be experimentally demonstrated in the laboratory--has produced species as varied as humans and bacteria over a few billion years. Science is not limited by what it can observe in real-time. You might like to read The Unnatural Nature of Science by Lewis Wolpert.
---Hmmm...the Grand Canyon was "produced by the Colorado River and nothing more"? Interesting. The Colorado in its present form? THe Colorado with the help of glacier melt-off during the end of the last ice age? The Colarado when? How? Do you think the Colorado as it is today could
---have carved out the canyon? Interesting. Where are you getting this stuff? What does "and nothing more" mean? The natural processes of erosion have produced SOME of the featk, Heisenberg, and Einstein felt differently. "In the land of the blind the one eyed man may be King", but the one eyed man is not to smart if he doesn't swivel his head when he tries to cross the road.
: This example does not support your belief that we should consider Special Creation even though it is not scientifically verifiable. 19th century physics was replaced by 20th century physics--both are scientifically verifiable. Special Creation is admittedly (by you) not scientifically verifiable. What you need to support your assertion is a historical example where a scientifically verifiable explanation was overturned in favor of one that is not scientifically verifiable.
---What do you mean by "Scientifically Verifiable"? 19th century Physics is verifaibly incorrect. If that is what you mean. 20th century Physics is verifiable as far as our technology goes. But lets look at what Verifiable means. Does it mean conclusively shown without a doubt?
---Obviously not. Does it mean 'supported by current evidences and data'? I think so. I never claimed that he premise of Special Creation is not scientifically verifiable. I do agree, however, that the act of special creation could not be confirmed or denied by science because it is supernatural.
---My post was simply to say that current evidences can be equally well explained with a design or evolution hypothesis. Please don't draw conclusions for me. It confuses me to see me say things I don't remember saying.
: If Science comes up with a theory and then can only
: : support it with indirect and secondary evidence, then it is valid for other theories to be propounded.
: It is ALWAYS valid for other explanations to come along. But they have to be scientifically verifiable. The God hypothesis is a cop-out.
---Once again you deify science. And once again you use verifiable but do not define it. Once again I will say that scientific verification is the use of current info to support a
---hypothesis. Finally, the implication that those who hold an opposing point of view from yours are copping out is an interesting statement. Are you saying that only those who agree
---with your point of view are legitimate seekers of knowledge? That the rest of us are taking the easy way out? It would seem to me that the easy way out in modern society would be
---to not oppose the main viewpoint. Perhaps I have it backwards...?