Of Baramins and Baloney 19

[You will find reference to Christmas in the correspondence below. This speaks of the vintage of this dialogue, not our sanity.]
Don

In your last message you wrote: “Sometimes evidence may be for one theory AND for another. For example, similarities between body parts in one vertebrate and those in another supports the idea that they may had a common ancestor, because they could have been passed on to both from a common ancestor. On the other hand it is evidence for design, because the parts may have similarities due to a common designer. On the other hand, the human eye is strikingly similar to that of the octopus, but no one argues for their common decent, because of their distinct body plans (something that is there). The conclusion is that similar parts do not necessarily support common origin, but this has no implications against design theory. You can say this is evidence for design, or you can say it is against evolution, depending on your frame of reference. In either case I believe it fits your definition of positive evidence, because it is about what is there, not what is not there.”

This last sentence bespeaks a serious misunderstanding of what constitutes scientific evidence. When you previously wrote “I merely argued that design was the better explanation of the two for the evidence. I am not trying to disprove evolution; I am trying to demonstrate that ID has a legitimate (scientific) place in the discussion of origins”, you demonstrated that misunderstanding again. So here’s a simple question that should allow you to understand the nature of your problem. And we’ll use the Cambrian “explosion”, since you brought it up and presumably must think that it offers a chance for providing positive evidence for design.

Re the Cambrian “explosion”, please tell me* one testable scientific hypothesis*, derived from whatever “design” paradigm you prefer, that would lead to *an outcome unique to your position*. By that I mean that the experiment, if it supports the hypothesis, would generate new observations that are explained by the framework of your paradigm, but cannot be explained within the framework of evolutionary theory.

All I’m asking for is *one *testable scientific hypothesis from the framework of ID/creationism, that will help me understand why you think that this framework is a valid explanation for the observations you cited in your previous message. If you can do that, you will have provided positive evidence for design. If you can’t (and no ID/creationist has been able to do it yet), you will hopefully begin to understand why competent scientists with expertise in the appropriate fields consider ID/creationism to be scientifically vacuous. You should even begin to understand that all of your arguments are negative, and provide no positive support for your preferred paradigm.

Merry Christmas

Dave

Dave,
Again I will take two tacks on our dialog: One is an attempt to address an argument of yours (prediction), and one refocuses on what I find to be a less than satisfactory response to my argument (probability). I will take the latter first.
Probability. Declaring “gobbledygook” and “strawman” without explaining why you think so is not a satisfactory response to an argument. I was prepared to retract my comments about evolutionists ignoring probability when I checked on your Panda’s Thumb site, but found it to be merely an attack on Phillip Johnson’s writing ability. It had nothing to do with probability.
This points to one reason I don’t want to refer to the arguments of others to answer our questions. References to research and factual data is valuable. Referring to the arguments of others (without restating them as one’s own) raises all kinds of unknowable history and extraneous paths. Besides we have something most text responses don’t have, and that is a one-to-one, back-and-forth accountability for the arguments (a real dialog). I find our dialog stimulating, challenging me to think through and clarify my own position. I hope the same is true for you.
Starting from monomers instead of atoms, both of which do occur in nature, may be a step toward improving the odds. If you mean hydrocarbons, fine; if you mean nucleotides, they don’t occur except from organic sources or a scientist in a lab (whom I would argue is intelligent). Either way the probability of it generating a life form is about as much as starting from bricks instead of dirt to explain a house.
You have added “contingency” to your evolution equation. By that I assume you mean some form of constraint on probable options, such as a covarion-covariotide model. It proposes that only certain portions of a gene are subject to mutation and thus change. A random constraint on probabilities does not improve the probabilities, because the ratio of useful to harmful probabilities remains the same. If it is a biological mechanism that guides the option choice, something not yet found, then you have an arguably Lamarckian mechanism, which needs a bigger explanation. Evolution’s options remain a) chance with incredibly small probability, b) Lamarckian guided evolution (which begs a designer), or c) no generation of new information at all. Chance is certainly no more capable of telling us who, where, when, or how than is ID.
As for prediction, creationists can boast Nicolaus Steno, who developed today’s principles of geology, based on sedimentation from flood waters; and William Smith who predicted the location of coal seams for English mining companies. (Now don’t get hung up on whether there was a world-wide flood. The point is that these creationist models were and are predictive.) Then we must include Louis Pasteur, who’s convictions on the origins of life from his understanding of the Bible led him to develop experiments to refute spontaneous generation. History is replete with scientists who made later-substantiated predictions based on a design inference. Today you might consider the proposition of Astrophysicist Hugh Ross that physical life is only possible by an incredible number of constants and ratios that exist in the universe, most of which, if not all, have no known reason for their “settings,” other than their requirement for life. His website boasted 93 last time I checked, but the list has grown over the years since his prediction that there would be more. (Here you have someone with whom creationists strongly disagree, but his ID model predicts with results.) There is also the hypothesis of Gornzalez and Richards that the universe is designed to encourage discovery of its laws. As you know, their predictions led to findings published in the Privileged Planet. If you can refute any of these examples without attacking the character of the scientist, feel free. (I take attacking character as a sure sign that the objector has nothing to say on the real issue.) If you wish to offer any predictions that evolution makes that design doesn’t explain equally well, I’m open.
My all-time favorite evidence is observational. It is language. There are 6 to 7 thousand living languages, depending on who’s counting, 200 of which have internally-developed written forms, and 4000 of which have written language by intervention (computer-assisted Bible translators). Each contains a logic, a grammar, symbols with implications (meaning) based on composition, and the compositions are limitless. In no case, living or extinct, is there a known language that was not developed by intelligence. DNA is a written language. It too, contains a logic, a grammar, each character has specific meaning that depends on its composition, and the compositions are limitless. All our experiences tell us that pure chance produces only disorder (for example, glass) or eventually result in equal dispersion (for example, air). Pure rules produce only side-by-side repetition (for example, crystals). A combination of rules and randomness always produces chaos (fractals), which left to its own eventually leads to a recognizable, repeating pattern within itself. Only intelligence produces non-repeating order of any kind. The above principles are how we know when we discover an extinct written language instead of random marks on a rock. Which then holds the greater evidence for intelligence—DNA or the Rosetta Stone?
Now I’ll make a prediction: The universe has rules (laws of physics), and it is observed not to be a crystal. The only options remaining are therefore fractal structure or intelligent design. The atom is not the same structure as any molecule made of atoms, even though molecules have order. The earth is not the same order as the solar system, but it is ordered; the solar system is not the same order as our galaxy, but it too has order. The Milky Way is not organized the same as the galactic groupings, but the groupings seem to be in a consistent arrangement on that level, and the galactic groupings seem to be in a string or soap bubble arrangement. I predict that if another level of order is found beyond the soap bubbles, it will not be a repetition of any of the previous levels of order. What then should I conclude about the who, what, when, and how of the universe’s structure?
Don Mc

This entry was posted on February 16, 2009 at 1:18 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.