PuckSR
Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005
|
| Quote | | Sure, with four aces you couldn't tell. But with sufficent levels of unlikelihood, one comes to the conclusion a thing was not random. And the ID proponents, in their arguments, always acknowledge that you cannot prove in any absolute sense that something or other could never have occurred. But when evolution as a whole relies on a large number of very fortuitious events, but insists on retaining the random and unplanned explanation, it does raise the incredulity quotient. |
Exactly....and I would most certainly agree with you that if all the cards came in a specific order....that i probably stacked the deck. The problem is....those would both be assumptions. Pay attention...Im going to keep bringing this up. We would assume, and probably correctly, that if the cards kept coming up in a specifically good order...that the deck was stacked. This is why you believe in ID, this is why I believe in God.
The problem is that you couldnt prove that I stacked the deck. To prove that I stacked the deck, you would have to see me stacking the deck, or explain how I was cheating.
| Quote | | The only argument between Miller and Behe is the amount or placement of interference. |
Totally wrong. Miller might actually believe that God takes a stronger hand and more direct hand in his involvement. That is not the difference, and this is the source of a great deal of your confusion.
Behe thinks that he can prove that God interferes. Miller doesnt know if you can prove God or not, but he does know that Behe's proof isnt any good.
Let me see if i can explain how Behe and Dembski are trying to prove God:
Assumptions are important to science....in science several things have to be assumed. Normally theories based on observations can be considered assumed. They are based on a lot of observations....not just 5-10, but normally thousands before they are even considered theories.
Behe and Dembski are abusing the typical assumptions of science. They are providing an assumption...then providing 2-3 cases of that assumption possibly being correct. The 2-3 cases that they provide;flagellum, eye, etc. are all heavily contested.
Going back to my playing card analogy Avo. You even agreed that if I got 4 aces right off the draw, while it might be a bit curious, you probably wouldnt even feel comfortable accusing me of cheating. Behe got 3 aces, and then claimed that he had proven that the deck was stacked.
Dembski was even worse, he realized that 3 aces dont provide very high odds against. He also knew that IDist wouldnt be able to find thousands of examples of ID. He therefore provided incredibly high odds for a single case. He showed that the odd of life evolving in the way that it has is very rare. The problem with Dembski's approach is a little bit harder to grasp.
You know that the odds of all of the cards in a deck being in a perfect order(like when they come out of a box) are very rare. What you probably dont realize, is that if you go get a shuffled deck of cards, and deal them all out, the odds of them being in that order is just as rare....
Doesnt make sense? Well, odds dont deal with the desirability of the results. Sure, to us, the odds of a perfectly arranged deck are much higher than a random deck. The problem is that statistics says that the odds are the same.
Dembski abuses this little trick. He shows that the odds of life evolving are very, very slim. He ignores the fact that it doesnt make the evolution of life extraordinary. You dont consider most decks of cards "extraordinary" despite the fact that it is incredibly rare that they will be in that order!
| Quote | | Yes, I think that for argument purposes, the similarities are exaggerated, and when the fray settles, I don't believe the similarity will be 99%. It think the truth is closer to 95%. |
No, you completely missed the point. The original research placed the similarities at around 95%. Better analysis, and a better understanding of certain genes moved the percentage up 99.4%
Why did it move up? It wasnt because they fudged the numbers, it was because they better understood what genes to compare. Better analysis does not mean that they changed the numbers to advance an argument. You really seem to attach a lot of paranoia to the scientific community.
| Quote | | the difference is both profound on the one hand, and less than for all other species on the other. |
Why is the difference profound?
Your just a hairless walking talking ape.
It should be kinda obvious, we have constantly found apes that are showing more and more hairless. with a more bipedal stance, and even eventually talking apes.
So your an ape, there isnt anything profound about it.
My dog comparison, which everyone seems to miss, is that domestic dogs are physically very different. We do not see anything profound in the fact that a rottweiler and a pomeranian are strongly related, but start telling a human he is related to a chimp....and suddenly you have a profound relationship?
| Quote | | So if that fine day comes, we will not have philosophy and science in separate realms. It is only our ignorance that causes them to appear separate. |
What?
Science and philosophy are not seperate realms because of topic, they are seperate realms because of procedure.
Lets go back to the beginning, and bring this all full circle.
A philosopher would say that if you got 4 aces right off the bat on a deal, that you were probably cheating
A scientist would say that if you got 4 aces right off the bat on a deal, that you got 4 aces right off the bat
Philosophers are free to assume away, as long as the assumption pertains slightly to logic.
A Scientist must either prove, or display to a great degree that he is correct, and is not nearly as free to make claims.
This is why ID belongs strongly in philosophy. I can look at this wonderful world, with all of its beauty, and say that God must have designed it. This is a perfectly valid philosophical statment.
A scientist cannot say the same thing...he cannot even say anything close. He deals in emperical evidence and absolutes.
Science, Philosophy, and Religion will never merge, because they actually approach the question from different perspectives. The simple fact that you think they will is highly dubious.
|
