Let Me See Your ID
Let’s pick up here where we left off.
Atmospheric electrical discharges occur naturally and are observable. Their presence in a primitive environment along with methane released from the earth, among other substances, is a possible explanation of the origins of life on Earth.
It’s a reasonable theory because it’s based on and supported by what we can observe and demonstrate, from the outgassing of methane from naturally occurring deposits around the world to the creation of amino acids with methane and other substances in a godless public school science lab.
But I digress, and so have you, repeatedly.
Why is ID, as you say, a reasonable theory? Your argument so far is based entirely on what mainstream biology fails to explain, and not at all on what ID as a theory is about.
My hunch: It’s not the theory of ID that’s persuaded you, but the fact that science gets taken on faith.
Am I mistaken? Show me.
Posts
10 comments:
A theory is not reasonable just because the component parts can be observed. One can observe the storks overhead and the babies all around...that does not mean a theory linking the two is reasonable. There has never been any demonstration of life being created from methane and electricity. Amino acids are a far cry from life.
Macro evolution is assumed from the scientific observation of micro evolution. ID is assumed from the scientific observation of causes and backed up by the second law of thermodynamics. Either is as reasonable as the other. I fail to see the distinction you believe exists.
One last attempt to make what may be my main point: No scientist knows how life began and no scientific process exists that can demonstrate it. Therefore, origin is an open question. Which leads us to the arena of ideas and "theories". I'm not sure why my positive assertion that life begets life has not been accepted as a "reasonable theory". Please show me why it isn't.
If you believe that methane and electricity settles the question of "how", I would really love to know more about your conviction. Because you are much smarter than the other people I've known who are willing to accept that.
I know this sounds dense, but after reading that, I'm still not sure what ID is. I get "life begets life" but how does that describe macro evolution? How was the life that begat life created? Also not sure how the second law of thermodynamics fits in.
Rather than the compare/contrast with accepted scientific theory, can you just present the ID theory on its own? What it is, what it describes, etc. I'm not tryig to wade in on a great debate, but I can't really follow if I don't understand one of the key points.
Somebody please hold my hand.
Nothing to add to UBlo's reasonable request, other than to restate the following with addtional emphasis:
"Atmospheric electrical discharges occur naturally and are observable. Their presence in a primitive environment along with methane released from the earth, AMONG OTHER SUBSTANCES, is a POSSIBLE EXPLANATION of the origins of life on Earth.
It’s a reasonable theory because it’s based on and supported by what we can observe and demonstrate, from the outgassing of methane from naturally occurring deposits around the world to the creation of amino acids with methane and OTHER SUBSTANCES . . . "
Please--my interest from the start's been more than rhetorical--show some ID.
For clarity: ID is just us unproven as macroevolutionary origins. I cannot say that it is THE answer and show that scientifically. That is why I have been emphasizing the fact that that puts ID in exactly the same position as the primordial oozers. Can't prove it, but we believe it. Both of these positions have scientific failings due to those assumptions, which demonstrates that science has real limits for an inquisitive mind.
Now, ID is simply a micro evolutionary approach with the assumption of an intelligent designer (anything from the Judeo-Christian God to the Native American Great Spirit to Obi Wan's Force). The other side assumes no designer. It assumes this because there is no scientific evidence of this designer. The IDers say the world IS the evidence. Just as the scientists working on SETI will assume intelligent life if they recieve a complex signal from space, the IDers assume intelligent life when they view the complexity of our world and believe random chance can't explain it.
The second law of thermodynamics states that all systems tend towards entrophy. This means that without energy inputs (not just any energy inputs, but specific, properly applied inputs) systems become less orderly and break down. Which means the material world usually moves in the opposite direction of evolution. And that begs the question, "Why"? "Because" doesn't seem to be a great answer.
You seem to be implying that the theory of evolution is based upon a concept of ever-prevailing, optimum-level purpose (albeit arising from randomness)that would belie the phenomenon of entropy. Not so. Species did or did not (and do or do not) adapt successfully; those that did--like us and the whale, for example--adapted slowly and with inefficiency, and contain anatomical vestiges without purpose.
These vestiges, however, are complex, though not irreducibly so. I have nipples, Stalin; can you milk me? Well, maybe. Given enough hormonal or physical stimulation over a lengthy period of time, males have lactated, though not efficiently and certainly without purpose.
This, again, is microevolutionary, but it's these and a high school science text's compendium of other admittedly less silly examples that makes the macroevolutionist's perspective so compelling. It takes parts to make the whole make sense, and we're making more of it all the time, though little of it here.
Macroevolution is not "THE answer," to borrow your phrase, and that it's not makes the theory no less scientific, however dogmatic its defenders--primarily laypeople--can be. If nothing else, I hope it's clear that I'm arguing for evolution not on faith, but after careful consideration.
We share some common ground. It's every science teacher's duty to accept a parent's or student's challenge of ID (or old-school Genesis, for that matter)in or out of the classroom. That's simply good science and good teaching, though nothing you say about ID obligates its inclusion in curricula.
Yes, ID is science, but based on your defense so far, it's bad science. That you perhaps feel it's "as bad" as mainstream science doesn't make it so, or make it worth teaching. Sorry, Tennessee!
I never meant to imply that evolution claims to only move forward. However, it does claim to move inevitably forward, when taken in total. The stock market always moves up, given enough time, but it does not only move up. The eventual improvement of life forms is the opposite of entropy if one believes complexity and efficency are of a higher order than simplicity. Though that may be an arguable point.
I'm not sure I caught the proof that a macroevolutionary origins theory is scientifically valid. ID is not on the defensive. It no more has to prove it's validity than the alternatives do. The hang up is in assumptions and you haven't addressed those yet. Macroeveolution may be compelling to you, but that is subjective, which is the point I've been trying to communicate.
Is there good reason to believe it? Yes. Is there good reason to believe ID? Yes. Which is right? No one can say with scientific authority, which leads me to believe both would be considered by the open-minded until there is proof. Or until one steps out on faith. And faith is often arrived at only after careful consideration.
A theory "not on the defensive" is a bad theory, let alone forensic strategy.
You seem to equate "scientific authority" with "certainty," and this would explain why—despite your strong grasp of physics—you fundamentally misunderstand what makes a theory reasonable.
Origin is an open question within reason. A consciousness beyond ours could explain anything and reveal nothing by its very nature, but that's a triumph not of reason, but imagination.
There is nothing we now know that explains the origin of life with as large and as thoroughly tested a body of physical evidence as macroevolution.
A theory is as strong as the logic that takes it from it's assumptions to it's conclusions. And it remains plausible as long as it's assertions are observed.
The defensive comment was meant to be specific and not general. In general, your comments are exactly correct.
I don't see how your last paragraph can be accurate (unless you used the Royal "we"). Macroevolution has not explained the origins of life, only what it did once it showed up. The spontaneous appearance of the first cell is not addressed by macroevolution. It is a first cause assumption and one that is not even necessary for the theory to still remain intact. Which means, to make that assumption is not a logical deduction but a positive assertion of one whose imagination may just be limited.
OK. What do we now know that explains the origin of life with a larger and more thoroughly tested body of physical evidence than macroevolution?
Once again, I don't want to ruin a good debate but...
I still don't like ID. Near as I can tell, there are two arguments. One, there are gaps in evolutionary theory, and these gaps demonstrate ID. I think this is a long term loser. As the evolutionary model gets filled in, the ID component shrinks. While it may not, history says it will. Think of the sun. The greeks couldn't explain it, so clearly Apollo drove the sun chariot across the sky. Then, when it was discovered that it was an orb in space, clearly it revovled around the earth. Now, it revolves around the earth. We need to be careful using dieties/aliens to explain what we don't know, as it only leads to less and less religion. Using ID to explain gaps in an another theory doesn't prove ID, and I think it will ultimately lead to more people questioning religion as I believe the gaps will fill in (as they have so often in the past). Granted, the origin of species is a biggie, and ID has a catchy slogan here, "life begat life." Which leads me to...
That phrase doesn't settle anything if the goal is to explain the orign of life on the planet, it just pushes it to the extraterrestial. If you accept that life on earth came from a diety (although, I suppose using the ID argument aliens could also step in here), it only begs the question, where did that life come from? If life begat life, then what was the original "life" in that idea? The argument itself falls apart on its own merits.
I want to be clear, this is not to say I disagree at all with religious beliefs on the origin of our species, I just think ID is a losing proposition. Sort of like I think Jessica Alba is a cute girl, but if she wanted to shave her head, I would tell her its a bad idea. ID is a bad idea for something that doesn't need it.
Post a Comment