Evolution questions from my creationist friend

[Seth]

Seth, do you accept or reject Evolution?

Thank you.

Oh, I accept evolution as a natural process which does occur, that much has been conclusively shown. But that doesn't mean that I discount or discard the notion that evolution could have been interfered with by an intelligent entity at some point in history.

That's not saying much, though. Evolution is interfered with by an intelligent entity every day. Man is an intelligent entity and we have effected the evolution of everything on the planet, just about, for the last 10,000+ years.

Exactly. The point I'm trying to make is simply that it is not logical or rational to presume or insist that intelligent design of organisms, or indeed the genesis of life on this planet, is not possible or not factual. What bothers me about people like Dawkins is that they try to use what we know of the processes of evolution like a blunt instrument against the notion that aspects of this universe, or of life on earth or elsewhere could be the product, to some degree or other, of intelligent design. Dawkins in particular engages in this sort of unreason and mindless hatred of religion because of, evidently, some personal trauma inflicted on him in school. He has developed a pathological hatred of religion, which is his right, of course, but he allows that hatred and bias to manifest itself in unreason and illogic and a likewise pathological insistence that intelligent design simply cannot be the explanation for anything. He says as much in "The God Delusion," when he dismisses the idea of an extraterrestrial intelligence with hand-waving denial because he "prefers" not to think of himself as the pawn of some other intelligence. That's bad science no matter how you cut it.

I look at religion like an onion; layers of myth and dogma built around what may be a core scientific truth. I choose to remain open-minded about what the nature of the universe might actually be, rather than what science currently perceives it to be based on our extremely limited intellects and abilities. And so I use logical inferences based on what science we have to speculate about the possibility that an intelligent designer is somehow involved in the course of evolution on Earth. Does this mean that I have any solid evidence of such intelligence? No, of course not. But reason and logic still demand acknowledgment of the facts, which include the fact that in the deep past, it is certainly a possibility, no matter how remote one might think it is, that an intelligence meddled with evolution on one or more occasions.

Eventually, when our knowledge of the universe(s) is complete and perfected, we will know for certain whether this occurred or not. Until then, it's simply an unanswered, and presently unanswered, question. But it's neither theistic nor unscientific to pose such question.

Intelligent design as a concept is not mutually exclusive of evolution.

True. Catholics, for example, often accept evolution. They believe an intelligent being designed the universe. Most Protestant denominations officially allow for personal judgment to be used in determining things like the age of the universe and how it came to be - except they require belief in God as the creator. So, there are many examples.

Yup.

It's just that the specific iterations of ID that have been used as a stalking horse for injecting creationism into the schools are legally improper. The term "Intelligent Design" has, unfortunately, been co-oped by creationists and misused to the extent that the term is universally, but entirely improperly, conflated with creationism, which makes it useless as a term of art in discussions of the concept of intelligent design.

That's why I coined the phrase "the origin of life on Earth" or OLE as a new term to identify a formulation of "intelligent design" that does not contain or describe a creationist perspective, but rather relies on science, reason and logic in saying that intelligent design, or intelligent manipulation of species on Earth, cannot be ruled out at this point in our scientific understanding of the universe(s).

All correct. There's no evidence of alien interference or meddling with life on Earth, but it certainly can't be ruled out. Lots of things can't be ruled out. Saying something can't be ruled out, however, is rather pointless.

Well, I don't think it's pointless, and neither does the SETI project, among others. That we are not aware of genetic meddling in the deep past ought not blinder science to the possibility, or prevent it from considering that as a possible cause when examining phenomena. It may be rejected as a cause for good and sufficient reason, but it should always be kept in mind, because if the notion of intelligent design is simply flatly rejected out of hand, then any evidence of intelligent design maybe overlooked or discarded improperly due to bias and antipathy on the part of science. And that would be a great tragedy if such evidence actually does exist, now wouldn't it?

[Seth]

...intelligent design, or intelligent manipulation of species on Earth, cannot be ruled out at this point in our scientific understanding of the universe(s).

That's just Russell's teapot and invisible pink unicorns; you can do better than that...

No, it's not. Russel's teapot et al are analogies intended to justify poverty of imagination.

It's hardly irrational to suggest that intelligence exists elsewhere in this universe, or some other universe, now is it?

It's actually a perfectly logical inference we can draw based upon an observation of the existence of intelligence on Earth. Moreover, the intelligence that exists on earth, which is an objective fact, is capable of manipulating DNA and changing the course of evolution of living organisms, which is also an objective fact. Therefore, it is a rational inference to say that it is possible that intelligence capable of manipulating DNA exists elsewhere in this, or another universe. In fact, many scientists think it's inevitable that intelligence exists elsewhere in this universe, given its size and complexity. And there is no reason not to believe that such intelligence exists in other universes, if other universes exist.

And because it is a logical and rational inference to believe that intelligence exists elsewhere in this universe at this time, since it exists here in this time, it is likewise a rational inference to believe that intelligence may have existed in this universe at another time. Thus, it is rational and logical to believe that intelligence may have existed in this universe in our past. After all, our planet is only 4.5 billion years old, and our intelligence evolved substantially only in the last few million years, so there is no reason to suppose that other intelligences have not come and gone in the 14 billion years since the Big Bang. Perhaps millions or billions of times.

And that's ignoring entirely the possibility of an intelligence evolving over billions of billions of years in some OTHER universe that has existed for much, much longer than our own, which may have evolved sufficient knowledge and developed sufficient technology to allow it to travel between universes, or even create universes in the laboratory.

Finally, because we are unaware of any inherent scientific limits upon intelligence or knowledge, it is rational to conclude that if other intelligence exists, it may be either greater or lesser than our own, and may be much, much greater than our own, if it has had substantially longer to develop.

None of this requires a "Russel's Teapot" evasion. The metaphor is used to dismiss the possibility of the existence of "supernatural" forces through a fallacious argument from incredulity. While credulity may be strained by the notion that there is a teapot floating around outside the orbit of Neptune, the idea that intelligence exists, or has existed elsewhere is noting even remotely of the sort.

What strains credulity is the notion that there are people out there who actually believe we are ALONE in the universe(s) and that it is impossible for other intelligence to exist, or have existed, and that it is impossible for such intelligences to have meddled in genomics here on Earth. Whether we can prove such an event happened or not, it's illogical and mindlessly irrational not to accept it as a perfectly scientific and valid possibility, however remote.

[Azathoth]

You didn't answer me Seth. How about our modern nutters like Von Danniken and the Scientologists? Should we be looking at them seriously too or do you have to be an iron age crackpot to benefit from your tolerism?

[MrFungus420]

So, I ask what are the "natural" intermediate forms between the lancet and the flagellum, what is their purpose, and how did each intermediate form enhance the survival of the organism, causing it to survive better and propagate the change?

Paper here: http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

Video of the process outlined in the paper:

[MrFungus420]

None of which disproves the notion that some intelligence meddled in "natural" evolution from time to time.

So what?

There is nothing that supports that notion.

[Seth]

None of which disproves the notion that some intelligence meddled in "natural" evolution from time to time.

So what?

There is nothing that supports that notion.

There might be.

[Seth]

So, I ask what are the "natural" intermediate forms between the lancet and the flagellum, what is their purpose, and how did each intermediate form enhance the survival of the organism, causing it to survive better and propagate the change?

Paper here: http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

Video of the process outlined in the paper:

Thanks for the link and the video. Very informative.

[Seth]

You didn't answer me Seth. How about our modern nutters like Von Danniken and the Scientologists? Should we be looking at them seriously too or do you have to be an iron age crackpot to benefit from your tolerism?

What do you mean by "looking at them seriously?"

[Gallstones]

Evolution, as a force, is not negated or diminished or made "not"-evolution just because humans meddle with DNA.
Whatever manipulation we do will either have beneficial or neutral consequences, given conditions, and the affected organisms will have a good run before going extinct. Or it will have detrimental consequences and the organisms will never get a chance.

Evolution is greater than humans and humans are not necessary nor are our manipulations greater or fitter than anything evolution can produce. Human manipulation of DNA is as much a "tool" of evolution as oxygen, water, sunlight, and sex.

[Gallstones]

As with all questions; make decisions based on evidence and facts.
Speculation is an exercise, not a finished product.

There is no evidence of any creative entity or deity. There is no reason to assume that even if there is a creative--or initiating--entity that it would be a type of god.

[Coito ergo sum]

Seth, do you accept or reject Evolution?

Thank you.

Oh, I accept evolution as a natural process which does occur, that much has been conclusively shown. But that doesn't mean that I discount or discard the notion that evolution could have been interfered with by an intelligent entity at some point in history.

That's not saying much, though. Evolution is interfered with by an intelligent entity every day. Man is an intelligent entity and we have effected the evolution of everything on the planet, just about, for the last 10,000+ years.

Exactly. The point I'm trying to make is simply that it is not logical or rational to presume or insist that intelligent design of organisms, or indeed the genesis of life on this planet, is not possible or not factual.

Nobody really presumes that. What people are talking about when they talk about "ID" is not whether it's possible that life on this planet was seeded by some extraterrestrial life. I recall a blurb from Dawkins wherein he mentions this possibility. That's not what "ID" is.

What bothers me about people like Dawkins is that they try to use what we know of the processes of evolution like a blunt instrument against the notion that aspects of this universe, or of life on earth or elsewhere could be the product, to some degree or other, of intelligent design.

Your wording is what confuses this issue. Dawkins doesn't do that. He doesn't say that it "couldn't" be. He puts himself at 6 on the scale of 7 in terms of atheism, leaving just a bit of room for "could be."

Nobody, including Dawkins, thinks it's impossible for people to design life forms, or for terraforming of a planet to be possible. That would be "intelligent design" of a different sort, however, than that which "ID" is talking about.

Dawkins in particular engages in this sort of unreason and mindless hatred of religion because of, evidently, some personal trauma inflicted on him in school. He has developed a pathological hatred of religion, which is his right, of course, but he allows that hatred and bias to manifest itself in unreason and illogic and a likewise pathological insistence that intelligent design simply cannot be the explanation for anything. He says as much in "The God Delusion," when he dismisses the idea of an extraterrestrial intelligence with hand-waving denial because he "prefers" not to think of himself as the pawn of some other intelligence. That's bad science no matter how you cut it.

It's also not what he says in the God Delusion.

I look at religion like an onion; layers of myth and dogma built around what may be a core scientific truth.

That's bad science no matter how you cut it.

Your statement is meaningless anyway. You look at "religion" that way? What? Any religion? Or a specific assertion? What's the core of "scientific truth?" What principle? You look at Buddhism that way? It's layers of myth over a core of scientific truth?

And, what's the point of that? Truth is truth, and not truth is not. Nobody says that everything religion says isn't true. Religions have a lot of principles that are true - like - maybe there really was a Solomon's Temple or an Ark of the Covenant of some form in real life. Even if there is, so what? It's still not science and says nothing about whether there exists a god or "Designer." It's just a fact that happens to be true.

Science is not the same as truth. Science is a process - a method. Some things science discovers aren't true, but they're still science. And, just because something is true doesn't make it science.

I choose to remain open-minded about what the nature of the universe might actually be, rather than what science currently perceives it to be based on our extremely limited intellects and abilities. And so I use logical inferences based on what science we have to speculate about the possibility that an intelligent designer is somehow involved in the course of evolution on Earth. Does this mean that I have any solid evidence of such intelligence? No, of course not. But reason and logic still demand acknowledgment of the facts, which include the fact that in the deep past, it is certainly a possibility, no matter how remote one might think it is, that an intelligence meddled with evolution on one or more occasions.

And, to that extent, nobody would argue with you. But, it's likewise certainly a possibility, no matter how remote one might think it is, that we poofed into existence a second ago, built in with memories as if we lived our whole lives, even though we haven't. So what? Do you think you're saying something profound? Do you think Richard Dawkins doesn't know that? It's one thing to acknowledge some remote possibility and the inability to disprove certain assertions. It's quite another to call them science or take them seriously. When there is reason to subscribe to the idea, then it'll be worth subscribing to.

Eventually, when our knowledge of the universe(s) is complete and perfected, we will know for certain whether this occurred or not. Until then, it's simply an unanswered, and presently unanswered, question. But it's neither theistic nor unscientific to pose such question.

We will never no for sure that we didn't just blip into existence a second ago. Our knowledge will never be perfect. That doesn't mean we are compelled to "acknowledge" everything we can't disprove. Yes, judgment is reserved. But, I can't disprove that someone didn't just get spoken to by Zenac of the 11th dimension through an undetectable communication portal. Why would I "acknowledge" it, though?

Intelligent design as a concept is not mutually exclusive of evolution.

True. Catholics, for example, often accept evolution. They believe an intelligent being designed the universe. Most Protestant denominations officially allow for personal judgment to be used in determining things like the age of the universe and how it came to be - except they require belief in God as the creator. So, there are many examples.

Yup.

It's just that the specific iterations of ID that have been used as a stalking horse for injecting creationism into the schools are legally improper. The term "Intelligent Design" has, unfortunately, been co-oped by creationists and misused to the extent that the term is universally, but entirely improperly, conflated with creationism, which makes it useless as a term of art in discussions of the concept of intelligent design.

That's why I coined the phrase "the origin of life on Earth" or OLE as a new term to identify a formulation of "intelligent design" that does not contain or describe a creationist perspective, but rather relies on science, reason and logic in saying that intelligent design, or intelligent manipulation of species on Earth, cannot be ruled out at this point in our scientific understanding of the universe(s).

All correct. There's no evidence of alien interference or meddling with life on Earth, but it certainly can't be ruled out. Lots of things can't be ruled out. Saying something can't be ruled out, however, is rather pointless.

Well, I don't think it's pointless, and neither does the SETI project, among others.

SETI is different, though. They are working concretely, testing their hypothesis. We have planets here in this solar system. Part of the Search for Extraterrestrial life is going on by sending out craft to visit other worlds and see what's their. Similarly, one way we might test for alien life is to see if anyone is communicating out there. So, put up a receiver and see if anyone is talking. So far, nobody is.

That's not the same thing as gods and demons or some amorphous "maybe great intelligence designed the universe" hypothesis.

That we are not aware of genetic meddling in the deep past ought not blinder science to the possibility, or prevent it from considering that as a possible cause when examining phenomena.

Nobody dismisses that possibility.

It may be rejected as a cause for good and sufficient reason, but it should always be kept in mind, because if the notion of intelligent design is simply flatly rejected out of hand, then any evidence of intelligent design maybe overlooked or discarded improperly due to bias and antipathy on the part of science. And that would be a great tragedy if such evidence actually does exist, now wouldn't it?

Evidence of extraterrestrial interference, meddling or seeding of life on earth is not "evidence of intelligent design." At least not the intelligent design guys like Behe and those other numbskulls at the Discovery Institute are talking about.

[Animavore]

I don't think Dawkins even mentions extra-terrestrials in TGD (could be wrong, I don't remember anything like that). He did say in Expelled, and in The Ancestor's Tale before it, that it is possible that life could've been seeded on this planet by and extra-terrestrial life-form but that life-form itself would have to have evolved. At some stage life has to evolve and there's not really a way around it.
He never waves off the idea of extra-terrestrial life because he prefers not to think of himself as a "pawn" in some higher intelligence's plan. I'm not sure where this is coming from.
The only intelligent creation he dismisses is supernatural creation.

[Seth]

I don't think Dawkins even mentions extra-terrestrials in TGD (could be wrong, I don't remember anything like that).

You are, he did. I don't have my copy handy, but if I can find it I'll track down the reference.

He did say in Expelled, and in The Ancestor's Tale before it, that it is possible that life could've been seeded on this planet by and extra-terrestrial life-form but that life-form itself would have to have evolved. At some stage life has to evolve and there's not really a way around it.

Yes, that's what he said, but that is an evasion of the question of whether such an "evolved" intelligence could have designed either this universe, or merely life on this planet.

He never waves off the idea of extra-terrestrial life because he prefers not to think of himself as a "pawn" in some higher intelligence's plan. I'm not sure where this is coming from.

It comes from his statement in TGD.

The only intelligent creation he dismisses is supernatural creation.

And therein lies his error. He engages the Atheist's Fallacy to determine that God is a "supernatural" force, and then rejects the notion of intelligent design because God is alleged to be a supernatural force, when in fact, that which we might rationally refer to as "God" might be an entirely natural, and even evolved intelligence of a much higher order and capability than we can explain or understand right now.

It's circular reasoning on Dawkins part (and not his alone by any means) that exemplifies the Atheist's Fallacy:

P1: The Abrahamic God is described as a supernatural being by theists.
P2: Nothing supernatural can exist.
C1: Therefore, the Abrahamic God does not exist.

The failure of this logic is clear. Just because theists describe God as being "supernatural" does not mean that God, or something that might reasonably be referred to as God, is in fact supernatural. That entitity may be entirely natural, but of such advanced intelligence and technology that, to paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke, it would be indistinguishable from a supernatural deity by our puny human intellects.

Moreover, I've been making my argument for intelligent design as a scientific proposition for some years now, beginning at RDF, and it is all but universally met with unreasoning disdain by atheists simply because it threatens to upset the atheist applecart because I do not in any way reference theistic notions and everything I say is founded in science, reason and logic.

The best argument that atheists are able to present, ever, in "refutation" of my proposition is some form of, "well, there's no evidence of intelligent design, so I don't have to bother thinking about it," followed by either abandonment of the discussion (as seen here) or a resort to ad hominem in place of reason and debate.

I find that sort of attitude to be highly UNscientific, irrational, unreasonable and narrow-minded, every bit as much so as the worst of the narrow-minded and bigoted evangelical theist zealots I've encountered.

So, when I see evidence of this sort of mind-crevice, I like to challenge it vigorously. And if that does not suffice, I shall, on the Frabjous Day, futterwacken just as vigorously in defiance of such ignorance.

[Animavore]

You are, he did. I don't have my copy handy, but if I can find it I'll track down the reference.

I have a copy in my hand here. Nothing in the index on UFOs, extra-terrestrials or aliens.

Yes, that's what he said, but that is an evasion of the question of whether such an "evolved" intelligence could have designed either this universe, or merely life on this planet.

No it's not. He was specifically asked what he thought on the possibility that an intelligent design could be the answer to some issues in genetics and evolution.

It comes from his statement in TGD.

Which I can't find.

And therein lies his error. He engages the Atheist's Fallacy to determine that God is a "supernatural" force, and then rejects the notion of intelligent design because God is alleged to be a supernatural force, when in fact, that which we might rationally refer to as "God" might be an entirely natural, and even evolved intelligence of a much higher order and capability than we can explain or understand right now.

Well if that is the case it's not a fallacy to dismiss a supernatural entity, is it?
Yes it could be that our universe is a computer programme created by beings of an intellect way beyond us, it could be anything.

The best argument that atheists are able to present, ever, in "refutation" of my proposition is some form of, "well, there's no evidence of intelligent design, so I don't have to bother thinking about it," followed by either abandonment of the discussion (as seen here) or a resort to ad hominem in place of reason and debate.

Well there is no evidence for intelligent design. Nor have the proponents even bothered to form a theory we can examine. Their whole buzz seems to be trying to discredit evolution rather than do any research themselves and come up with falsifiable and empirical tests which can be studied. Until they do it's not likely to gain any credibility in science. That's the whole point. This is not being close minded. There is simply nothing to go on. I'm sure if someone does come up with something scientists will be all over that shit like flies.

[mistermack]

intelligent design as a scientific proposition

Wait a minute though, if there was such a phenomenal mind, that could achieve this incredible feat, it would logically leave it fourteen billion years, and then contact bronze-age humans, to tell them to cut off their foreskins and not to eat pork.
AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. !!!
This is pretty much scientific proof, as the predictions made by the theory can be demonstrated to have come true.
Case closed.