Wernher von Braun and Intelligent Design in the '70s
21 Jul 2010, 4:40 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
How would you go about scientifically proving, through one of the scientific methods, that the pyramids had builders who designed them rather than them just being a natural occurrence?
There are no natural processes that we know of that fashion giant pyramids at of raw sand and stone.
Prior to the time of humans there were no pyramids or other such structures. After the time of humans there were in addition to which we modern humans build structures on the same design principles as the ancient pyramids and zaggarats. Since modern humans do it, it is a reasonable assumption that humans of the past could and in fact did do it.
It is true that our conclusion that the ancient structures were man-made is an inference, but it is a highly probable and reasonable inference. A lot more reasonable than assuming Intelligen Aliens built them or that a Supreme supernatural creator built them.
Many of the things we accept as known are not directly known. In fact, no one of use knows much directly compared to the things that are know to others and passed by way of witness, recounting, testimony etc.. The human race makes progress on hear say.
ruveyn
This is all well and good, but it is conjecture compared to The Scientific Method. LKL came closer, though, but even that relies more on speculation and circumstantial evidence then it does upon the scientific method.
I certainly believe that they were crafted by humans, but proving it by The Scientific Method is impossible. You are left with only speculation and conjecture, the one of which accepted is the one which you find most acceptable based upon the criteria that one currently values. It works more like a court of law in this regard then it does a laboratory.
'keet, aren't you basically outright rejecting the view of science put forward by Stephen Meyer in his talk earlier on whether ID was good science? Meyer actually denied a universal scientific process that would apply to all things as if they were laboratory science, instead bringing up the squishy nature of science.
As it stands, I do think that speculation, conjecture, and circumstantial evidence are perfectly valid even if our effort was to be scientific, just so long as we ended up formulating these elements more along the lines of hypotheses about what happened to be tested with empirical evidence and logical methods. It might not be as solid as a harder science, but I don't see the problem.
Even further, if you say that proving anything about historical design is outside of science, don't you basically invalidate the aim of "creation science", which does have a scientific aim?
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
21 Jul 2010, 4:54 pm
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
How would you go about scientifically proving, through one of the scientific methods, that the pyramids had builders who designed them rather than them just being a natural occurrence?
There are no natural processes that we know of that fashion giant pyramids at of raw sand and stone.
Prior to the time of humans there were no pyramids or other such structures. After the time of humans there were in addition to which we modern humans build structures on the same design principles as the ancient pyramids and zaggarats. Since modern humans do it, it is a reasonable assumption that humans of the past could and in fact did do it.
It is true that our conclusion that the ancient structures were man-made is an inference, but it is a highly probable and reasonable inference. A lot more reasonable than assuming Intelligen Aliens built them or that a Supreme supernatural creator built them.
Many of the things we accept as known are not directly known. In fact, no one of use knows much directly compared to the things that are know to others and passed by way of witness, recounting, testimony etc.. The human race makes progress on hear say.
ruveyn
This is all well and good, but it is conjecture compared to The Scientific Method. LKL came closer, though, but even that relies more on speculation and circumstantial evidence then it does upon the scientific method.
I certainly believe that they were crafted by humans, but proving it by The Scientific Method is impossible. You are left with only speculation and conjecture, the one of which accepted is the one which you find most acceptable based upon the criteria that one currently values. It works more like a court of law in this regard then it does a laboratory.
'keet, aren't you basically outright rejecting the view of science put forward by Stephen Meyer in his talk earlier on whether ID was good science? Meyer actually denied a universal scientific process that would apply to all things as if they were laboratory science, instead bringing up the squishy nature of science.
As it stands, I do think that speculation, conjecture, and circumstantial evidence are perfectly valid even if our effort was to be scientific, just so long as we ended up formulating these elements more along the lines of hypotheses about what happened to be tested with empirical evidence and logical methods. It might not be as solid as a harder science, but I don't see the problem.
Even further, if you say that proving anything about historical design is outside of science, don't you basically invalidate the aim of "creation science", which does have a scientific aim?
Actually, I'm more trying to emphasize a two-handed treatment of subjects. You just happened to mention it first, whether due to recognizing the point I was trying to make or otherwise.
21 Jul 2010, 6:28 pm
'Keet, proving anything by the scientific method is impossible. Even Newton's theory of gravity, one of the most elegant, influential, and explanatory theories ever invented, was later disproven by Einstein. This is where Occam's razor comes in: science shows us what is most likely based on the evidence available.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
21 Jul 2010, 10:55 pm
LKL wrote:
'Keet, proving anything by the scientific method is impossible. Even Newton's theory of gravity, one of the most elegant, influential, and explanatory theories ever invented, was later disproven by Einstein. This is where Occam's razor comes in: science shows us what is most likely based on the evidence available.
When using Occam's Razor though, you need to be certain to enumerate all the actual presuppositions and requirements for each interpretation, otherwise the manner of picking determines which interpretation is selected by application of this approach.
22 Jul 2010, 1:09 am
I am torn. I don't believe in Biblical creationism.
Yet I don't see how "random mutation" can add up to an eye, or teeth or wings. These things take thousands of generations and thousands or millions of "random" mutations to get us to where we are today.
The odds against "random mutations" in one individual at a time adding up are next to impossible.
22 Jul 2010, 1:13 am
Wombat wrote:
I am torn. I don't believe in Biblical creationism.
Yet I don't see how "random mutation" can add up to an eye, or teeth or wings. These things take thousands of generations and thousands or millions of "random" mutations to get us to where we are today.
The odds against "random mutations" in one individual at a time adding up are next to impossible.
Yet I don't see how "random mutation" can add up to an eye, or teeth or wings. These things take thousands of generations and thousands or millions of "random" mutations to get us to where we are today.
The odds against "random mutations" in one individual at a time adding up are next to impossible.
We've had thousands and thousands of generations. The world is older than 6000 years or even 10000 years.
As it stands, we have seen evolution in action within the modern life time.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 112433.htm
So, we have within a 36 year period, a lizard evolved into having a different social structure, a different head shape, a digestive tract with new structures allowing it to eat plants instead of insects, and so, does it seem "next to impossible"? Well, no, it seems empirically proven that mutations are a possible mechanism by just that one example, but also many others that others can bring up.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
22 Jul 2010, 2:01 pm
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Wombat wrote:
I am torn. I don't believe in Biblical creationism.
Yet I don't see how "random mutation" can add up to an eye, or teeth or wings. These things take thousands of generations and thousands or millions of "random" mutations to get us to where we are today.
The odds against "random mutations" in one individual at a time adding up are next to impossible.
Yet I don't see how "random mutation" can add up to an eye, or teeth or wings. These things take thousands of generations and thousands or millions of "random" mutations to get us to where we are today.
The odds against "random mutations" in one individual at a time adding up are next to impossible.
We've had thousands and thousands of generations. The world is older than 6000 years or even 10000 years.
As it stands, we have seen evolution in action within the modern life time.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 112433.htm
So, we have within a 36 year period, a lizard evolved into having a different social structure, a different head shape, a digestive tract with new structures allowing it to eat plants instead of insects, and so, does it seem "next to impossible"? Well, no, it seems empirically proven that mutations are a possible mechanism by just that one example, but also many others that others can bring up.
In the original creation all land dwelling air breathing creatures were commanded to eat plants anyway, so, I don't know how, but perhaps there's a mechanism which allows for certain functions to be activated or reactivated in the genome of the offspring depending on the diet of the parent while gestation occurs? IDK. I haven't gone to the link to see what the actual changes are, though I suspect it's far more minimal than made out to be in the title or the abstract as is always the case.
22 Jul 2010, 2:04 pm
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Wombat wrote:
I am torn. I don't believe in Biblical creationism.
Yet I don't see how "random mutation" can add up to an eye, or teeth or wings. These things take thousands of generations and thousands or millions of "random" mutations to get us to where we are today.
The odds against "random mutations" in one individual at a time adding up are next to impossible.
Yet I don't see how "random mutation" can add up to an eye, or teeth or wings. These things take thousands of generations and thousands or millions of "random" mutations to get us to where we are today.
The odds against "random mutations" in one individual at a time adding up are next to impossible.
We've had thousands and thousands of generations. The world is older than 6000 years or even 10000 years.
As it stands, we have seen evolution in action within the modern life time.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 112433.htm
So, we have within a 36 year period, a lizard evolved into having a different social structure, a different head shape, a digestive tract with new structures allowing it to eat plants instead of insects, and so, does it seem "next to impossible"? Well, no, it seems empirically proven that mutations are a possible mechanism by just that one example, but also many others that others can bring up.
I think what is really more impressive is just the 36 year period. I mean, yes, the changes are somewhat impressive, but it is sort of amazing to people that they could happen this quickly as often people think of evolution as "thousands of years/millions and the creature changes".
In the original creation all land dwelling air breathing creatures were commanded to eat plants anyway, so, I don't know how, but perhaps there's a mechanism which allows for certain functions to be activated or reactivated in the genome of the offspring depending on the diet of the parent while gestation occurs? IDK. I haven't gone to the link to see what the actual changes are, though I suspect it's far more minimal than made out to be in the title or the abstract as is always the case.
Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 22 Jul 2010, 2:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
22 Jul 2010, 2:14 pm
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Wombat wrote:
I am torn. I don't believe in Biblical creationism.
Yet I don't see how "random mutation" can add up to an eye, or teeth or wings. These things take thousands of generations and thousands or millions of "random" mutations to get us to where we are today.
The odds against "random mutations" in one individual at a time adding up are next to impossible.
Yet I don't see how "random mutation" can add up to an eye, or teeth or wings. These things take thousands of generations and thousands or millions of "random" mutations to get us to where we are today.
The odds against "random mutations" in one individual at a time adding up are next to impossible.
We've had thousands and thousands of generations. The world is older than 6000 years or even 10000 years.
As it stands, we have seen evolution in action within the modern life time.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 112433.htm
So, we have within a 36 year period, a lizard evolved into having a different social structure, a different head shape, a digestive tract with new structures allowing it to eat plants instead of insects, and so, does it seem "next to impossible"? Well, no, it seems empirically proven that mutations are a possible mechanism by just that one example, but also many others that others can bring up.
In the original creation all land dwelling air breathing creatures were commanded to eat plants anyway, so, I don't know how, but perhaps there's a mechanism which allows for certain functions to be activated or reactivated in the genome of the offspring depending on the diet of the parent while gestation occurs? IDK. I haven't gone to the link to see what the actual changes are, though I suspect it's far more minimal than made out to be in the title or the abstract as is always the case.
I think what is really more impressive is just the 36 year period. I mean, yes, the changes are somewhat impressive, but it is sort of amazing to people that they could happen this quickly as often people think of evolution as "thousands of years/millions and the creature changes".
Although since it is the changing of a diet, as would have occurred for humans at the latest about 1657 years from the original creation, the development of rapidly adapting to new/different food sources would also be posited in the Bible itself. It is probably a feature that is built into the genome of all creatures so as to reduce the extinction of as many animals as possible. Consider that in times of bad soil conditions plants will adjust to carnivory, or rather insectivory, in order to supplement their diet. They literally grow completely different types of "flowers" such as the Venus Fly Trap.
22 Jul 2010, 2:25 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Wombat wrote:
I am torn. I don't believe in Biblical creationism.
Yet I don't see how "random mutation" can add up to an eye, or teeth or wings. These things take thousands of generations and thousands or millions of "random" mutations to get us to where we are today.
The odds against "random mutations" in one individual at a time adding up are next to impossible.
Yet I don't see how "random mutation" can add up to an eye, or teeth or wings. These things take thousands of generations and thousands or millions of "random" mutations to get us to where we are today.
The odds against "random mutations" in one individual at a time adding up are next to impossible.
We've had thousands and thousands of generations. The world is older than 6000 years or even 10000 years.
As it stands, we have seen evolution in action within the modern life time.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 112433.htm
So, we have within a 36 year period, a lizard evolved into having a different social structure, a different head shape, a digestive tract with new structures allowing it to eat plants instead of insects, and so, does it seem "next to impossible"? Well, no, it seems empirically proven that mutations are a possible mechanism by just that one example, but also many others that others can bring up.
In the original creation all land dwelling air breathing creatures were commanded to eat plants anyway, so, I don't know how, but perhaps there's a mechanism which allows for certain functions to be activated or reactivated in the genome of the offspring depending on the diet of the parent while gestation occurs? IDK. I haven't gone to the link to see what the actual changes are, though I suspect it's far more minimal than made out to be in the title or the abstract as is always the case.
I think what is really more impressive is just the 36 year period. I mean, yes, the changes are somewhat impressive, but it is sort of amazing to people that they could happen this quickly as often people think of evolution as "thousands of years/millions and the creature changes".
Although since it is the changing of a diet, as would have occurred for humans at the latest about 1657 years from the original creation, the development of rapidly adapting to new/different food sources would also be posited in the Bible itself. It is probably a feature that is built into the genome of all creatures so as to reduce the extinction of as many animals as possible. Consider that in times of bad soil conditions plants will adjust to carnivory, or rather insectivory, in order to supplement their diet. They literally grow completely different types of "flowers" such as the Venus Fly Trap.
Ok, but the issue is that rapid change deals with the objection "not enough time", which is all that I am trying to deal with.
I do think that most people think that YECs both over and understate the power of evolution at the same time, by arguing that within kinds we have a rapid change, but the kinds themselves couldn't have evolved from more basic entities, which I think most evolutionary theorists will see as kind of ad hoc.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
22 Jul 2010, 3:23 pm
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Wombat wrote:
I am torn. I don't believe in Biblical creationism.
Yet I don't see how "random mutation" can add up to an eye, or teeth or wings. These things take thousands of generations and thousands or millions of "random" mutations to get us to where we are today.
The odds against "random mutations" in one individual at a time adding up are next to impossible.
Yet I don't see how "random mutation" can add up to an eye, or teeth or wings. These things take thousands of generations and thousands or millions of "random" mutations to get us to where we are today.
The odds against "random mutations" in one individual at a time adding up are next to impossible.
We've had thousands and thousands of generations. The world is older than 6000 years or even 10000 years.
As it stands, we have seen evolution in action within the modern life time.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 112433.htm
So, we have within a 36 year period, a lizard evolved into having a different social structure, a different head shape, a digestive tract with new structures allowing it to eat plants instead of insects, and so, does it seem "next to impossible"? Well, no, it seems empirically proven that mutations are a possible mechanism by just that one example, but also many others that others can bring up.
In the original creation all land dwelling air breathing creatures were commanded to eat plants anyway, so, I don't know how, but perhaps there's a mechanism which allows for certain functions to be activated or reactivated in the genome of the offspring depending on the diet of the parent while gestation occurs? IDK. I haven't gone to the link to see what the actual changes are, though I suspect it's far more minimal than made out to be in the title or the abstract as is always the case.
I think what is really more impressive is just the 36 year period. I mean, yes, the changes are somewhat impressive, but it is sort of amazing to people that they could happen this quickly as often people think of evolution as "thousands of years/millions and the creature changes".
Although since it is the changing of a diet, as would have occurred for humans at the latest about 1657 years from the original creation, the development of rapidly adapting to new/different food sources would also be posited in the Bible itself. It is probably a feature that is built into the genome of all creatures so as to reduce the extinction of as many animals as possible. Consider that in times of bad soil conditions plants will adjust to carnivory, or rather insectivory, in order to supplement their diet. They literally grow completely different types of "flowers" such as the Venus Fly Trap.
Ok, but the issue is that rapid change deals with the objection "not enough time", which is all that I am trying to deal with.
I do think that most people think that YECs both over and understate the power of evolution at the same time, by arguing that within kinds we have a rapid change, but the kinds themselves couldn't have evolved from more basic entities, which I think most evolutionary theorists will see as kind of ad hoc.
Actually, such as at CMI, they aren't arguing "not enough time", but that the changes are not the right type. Instead they act upon designs which already exist, and as such I think that the design for processing vegetables as food would actually have been first encoded, provided working from the history in Genesis as the paradigm, and that the information in the genome for processing vegetables just needed to be reactivated. I do not know whether it would have been before the Flood or after the Flood that this particular type of lizard shifted from herbivory to carnivory, but that shift would have been more of an impressive change than the current regression, possibly. Although if the regression required to re-addition of lost or deactivated components, then the first shift may have only required the deactivation of the genomic elements responsible.
22 Jul 2010, 6:01 pm
Even a casual inspection of a carnivore such as a lion is clear that the entire body structure including the nervous system, the digestive system, the muscular structure and general body arrangements are those of an animal specifically structured to apprehend and consume prey. That this animal with it's carnivore dental structure would subsist on plants is one of the more amusing mis-concepts of a theory that makes no sense at all. One does not have to be a scientist to immediately perceive this.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
22 Jul 2010, 6:42 pm
Sand wrote:
Even a casual inspection of a carnivore such as a lion is clear that the entire body structure including the nervous system, the digestive system, the muscular structure and general body arrangements are those of an animal specifically structured to apprehend and consume prey. That this animal with it's carnivore dental structure would subsist on plants is one of the more amusing mis-concepts of a theory that makes no sense at all. One does not have to be a scientist to immediately perceive this.
So, you would consider it impossible for a lion to live on a vegetarian diet or is it that you view the form of a lion in a teleological manner?
22 Jul 2010, 7:32 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
Even a casual inspection of a carnivore such as a lion is clear that the entire body structure including the nervous system, the digestive system, the muscular structure and general body arrangements are those of an animal specifically structured to apprehend and consume prey. That this animal with it's carnivore dental structure would subsist on plants is one of the more amusing mis-concepts of a theory that makes no sense at all. One does not have to be a scientist to immediately perceive this.
So, you would consider it impossible for a lion to live on a vegetarian diet or is it that you view the form of a lion in a teleological manner?
It is probably possible for a lion to have enough protein from vegetables to get by rather poorly but the gut of a vegetarian animal is much longer than that of a carnivore to permit a breakdown of cellulose tissue which a carnivore does not need. Also the tooth structure of a lion is formed to permit tearing and swallowing whereas a vegetarian animal has teeth formed for clipping and chewing. The muscular and nervous response of a lion is designed for hunting and capturing prey. Grazing animals have a totally different bone and muscular structure. You can drive a bulldozer down a highway but it is not designed for highway speeds and maneuverability and that is obvious from its structure. The same relationship of anatomy to function is obvious in all animals. The shape and dynamics of any living creature is formed by the strictures of function which permits evolution to modify structure to best adapt the animal to survive in its ecological niche. Those that do not conform do not survive or find another niche. Lions and lambs lie down together only with the lamb inside the lion.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
22 Jul 2010, 8:09 pm
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
Even a casual inspection of a carnivore such as a lion is clear that the entire body structure including the nervous system, the digestive system, the muscular structure and general body arrangements are those of an animal specifically structured to apprehend and consume prey. That this animal with it's carnivore dental structure would subsist on plants is one of the more amusing mis-concepts of a theory that makes no sense at all. One does not have to be a scientist to immediately perceive this.
So, you would consider it impossible for a lion to live on a vegetarian diet or is it that you view the form of a lion in a teleological manner?
It is probably possible for a lion to have enough protein from vegetables to get by rather poorly but the gut of a vegetarian animal is much longer than that of a carnivore to permit a breakdown of cellulose tissue which a carnivore does not need. Also the tooth structure of a lion is formed to permit tearing and swallowing whereas a vegetarian animal has teeth formed for clipping and chewing. The muscular and nervous response of a lion is designed for hunting and capturing prey. Grazing animals have a totally different bone and muscular structure. You can drive a bulldozer down a highway but it is not designed for highway speeds and maneuverability and that is obvious from its structure. The same relationship of anatomy to function is obvious in all animals. The shape and dynamics of any living creature is formed by the strictures of function which permits evolution to modify structure to best adapt the animal to survive in its ecological niche. Those that do not conform do not survive or find another niche. Lions and lambs lie down together only with the lamb inside the lion.
So, in other words you think in a teleological manner with regard to their morphology.
22 Jul 2010, 8:20 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
Even a casual inspection of a carnivore such as a lion is clear that the entire body structure including the nervous system, the digestive system, the muscular structure and general body arrangements are those of an animal specifically structured to apprehend and consume prey. That this animal with it's carnivore dental structure would subsist on plants is one of the more amusing mis-concepts of a theory that makes no sense at all. One does not have to be a scientist to immediately perceive this.
So, you would consider it impossible for a lion to live on a vegetarian diet or is it that you view the form of a lion in a teleological manner?
It is probably possible for a lion to have enough protein from vegetables to get by rather poorly but the gut of a vegetarian animal is much longer than that of a carnivore to permit a breakdown of cellulose tissue which a carnivore does not need. Also the tooth structure of a lion is formed to permit tearing and swallowing whereas a vegetarian animal has teeth formed for clipping and chewing. The muscular and nervous response of a lion is designed for hunting and capturing prey. Grazing animals have a totally different bone and muscular structure. You can drive a bulldozer down a highway but it is not designed for highway speeds and maneuverability and that is obvious from its structure. The same relationship of anatomy to function is obvious in all animals. The shape and dynamics of any living creature is formed by the strictures of function which permits evolution to modify structure to best adapt the animal to survive in its ecological niche. Those that do not conform do not survive or find another niche. Lions and lambs lie down together only with the lamb inside the lion.
So, in other words you think in a teleological manner with regard to their morphology.
Teleology is a term which describes a structure predesigned to fit a situation. It does not indicate that the situation itself forms the structure. I doubt that the term "teleological" is accurate in describing an environment that forms the structure. The structure is not formed before the environment demands it and eliminates all structures that do not function in the environment. Since the environment is never constant over a long time period, there is a continual modification of structure to survive in the dynamic environment. This process is in no way teleological.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Intelligent design has no place in science classrooms. |
17 Mar 2024, 8:20 pm |
| People That Swear Make Better Friends & Are More Intelligent |
20 Mar 2024, 11:08 am |
