Evolution questions from my creationist friend

[Coito ergo sum]

There is no evidence for it happening before recent human interventions. Therefore any musing about it is consigned to the pulling things out of your arse school of philosophy along with von daniken and the scientologists until such evidence is brought to light

Wrong. There is no evidence that we are aware of. This is substantially different from the statement "there is no evidence."

"That we are aware of" is implicit in every statement of fact. If I say - there is no evidence of life on the Moon, obviously I'm talking about evidence of which we are aware. We can't be aware of evidence of which we are not aware. That's axiomatic. Nobody knows anything they aren't aware of.

[Coito ergo sum]

And therein lies his error. He engages the Atheist's Fallacy to determine that God is a "supernatural" force,

That's not a "fallacy." That's what proponents of the God hypothesis say. God is outside of nature, not subject to the laws that govern the universe, etc. The Biblical God, by way of example, is clearly supernatural.

Now, it's possible to suppose a creature that created life on Earth without making that creature supernatural, of course. But, people who assert the God hypothesis aren't asserting a natural cause. They are generally speaking expressly asserting a supernatural cause.

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.

Then it wouldn't be God, as defined by the proponents of the God hypothesis 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.

That's not a fallacy. It's a perfectly logical argument. You're not using the word "fallacy" correctly.

And,it's not that "nothing supernatural can exist." It's that nothing supernatural can be falsified. See, Dragon in Carl Sagan's Garage.

The failure of this logic is clear.

The "logic" is flawless.

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.

Taking issue with the truth of the premise doesn't render the logic flawed, or fallacious.

All dogs are cats
Fido is a dog
Therefore Fido is a cat.

That's perfectly logical. The logic is flawless. There is no fallacy here. The premise is wrong, of course, because not all dogs are, in fact, cats. But, that doesn't mean it's not "logical." One can start with an erroneous premise and then proceed, perfectly logically, to an incorrect conclusion.

You are confusing the issue by incorrectly using the term "fallacy" and incorrectly claiming that the "logic" is flawed when what you're really doing is arguing with the truth of the premise.

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.

I don't know a single atheist, including Dawkins, who doesn't admit the possibility of monumentally advanced intelligence in the universe.

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.

It's not that there just isn't any "evidence" for ID - there is also no theoretical physics behind it. Nothing.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

Actually, the evidence I've viewed indicates that the vast majority of Atheists I've encountered in these sorts of fora presume precisely that.

Who has presumed that the design of organisms,or the genesis of life on this planet, could not possibly have been done by intelligent beings? We know we can create artificial life. We know there are other planets in the universe. We know there may be life on those planets. If there is intelligent life here, there may be intelligent life there. Scientists are seriously talking about "terraforming" worlds like Mars, etc. - so, if you call that "intelligent design" (we are intelligent - terraforming is design) then we have intelligent design. But, of course, that's not what ID proponents like Behe and the Discovery Institute are selling.

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.

Indeed. But just because they are guilty of fuzzy thinking doesn't mean I'm obliged to excuse them.

It's not about you. When I and most others refer to "ID" we are referring to the prevailing view of what ID is - that espouse by the "great thinkers" like Behe and the Discovery Institute. We are not obliged to go with your definition. Suffice to say, nobody that I've ever seen posting here or on RDF ever said that aliens couldn't do the equivalent of terraforming on a planet, including but not limited to Earth. Of course, there is no evidence that such an event happened. But, nobody - not Dawkins, not any of the "new atheists" - not any scientist I've ever heard of "presumes" it's not "possible." Quite the opposite - it's presumed to be possible.

I recall a blurb from Dawkins wherein he mentions this possibility. That's not what "ID" is.

Isn't it? As I've said, Atheists commonly conflate the term "Intelligent Design" with a specific set of arguments made by creationists in an attempt to justify injecting creationism into the public schools. The Kitzmiller v. Dover version of "ID" is just one particularly inept and deliberately mendacious iteration of the general concept of "intelligent design" (non-capitalized) that has been co-opted by both creationists and atheists as a battle cry for both sides.

When I use the term "ID" I mean the Behe/Discovery Institute variety. The hypothesis that intelligent aliens could terraform a planet and seed it with life is what you're calling "ID" but it is not what that word means in common English usage.

Thus, any invocation of the word combination "intelligent design," regardless of the actual context or scientific validity behind the utterance, is first knee-jerk conflated with the Dover crew and then excoriated and rejected out of hand, without any serious consideration whatsoever, merely because it might suggest something other than purely "naturalistic" processes in the evolution of life on this planet or the creation of our universe.

Nobody here has suggested that intelligent aliens couldn't have seeded the Earth with life, and/or terraformed it, or whatever.

As we can see from this discussion, and others here, it doesn't matter how sound the reasoning and logical inference I make are regarding the potential for intelligent design of organisms on this planet, the whole idea is simply rejected with all the reason and thought of a Muslim extremist rejecting anything that deviates from his Imam's version of the Qu'ran. It's positively medieval how mindlessly Atheists reject even the hint of a suggestion that superior intelligence might have been involved our universe.

What is it that you have persuasively argued? That it's possible to terraform a world? That complex chemicals could possibly be engineered into life forms? Everyone acknowledges that possibility. What they don't acknowledge is "ID," which in common English usage is not that.

Reason would dictate that the scientific response to my assertion of the possibility of intelligent design or manipulation of genes in our deep past be "Interesting hypothesis, and certainly possible, but we have, as yet, no confirmatory evidence of such intelligent involvement, although such evidence may turn up eventually, and we probably ought to keep a weather eye out for such evidence, just in case, so we won't miss it if it does show up."

Who is suggesting that such a possibility doesn't exist?

Why, I ponder, is this sort of rational, reasonable, scientific attitude almost never heard among the Atheist "intelligentsia" on these fora?

Because there is no evidence for it, and there is not much to say about it. All we can say is that it's possible. Nobody knows anything about who, what, where, when, why or how - and nobody even has any details of any kind. It's just speculation. Why do you insist that I or anyone else must spend our time speculating on matters you're interested in?

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."

Which means that he's actually just equivocating.

No. It means he's actually being accurate about the extent of knowledge, and the limits of our scientific learning.

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.

See, you're doing it again. "ID" is not just one thing, or one specific train of thought, and it's narrow-minded to be non-specific about rejecting "intelligent design" by thoughtlessly conflating it with the Dover School Board version of "ID."

I'm defining terms.

Nobody calls the creation of artificial life forms, or the terraforming of planets, "ID." Well, except you, apparently.

For example, there is nothing unscientific about suggesting that a bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex. It's a valid scientific hypothesis that has not been conclusively disproven through experimentation.

The bacterium flagellum has not been proven to be irreducibly complex through experimentation. There is an explanation for the evolution of the bacterium flagellum. Almost nothing in science is "conclusively disproven."

There are, as has been shown here, competing theories about how the flagellum might have evolved, but like any scientific dispute, each side now has opportunity to support their theory with research and evidence. The key point being that the proposition of irreducible complexity is NOT inherently a theistic concept.

That's true. It's not "inherently a theistic concept." I'd agree with that.

It may have at it's core the assertion that the bacterial flagellum, being irreducibly complex, cannot have occurred without intelligent intervention or design, but neither is THAT assertion inherently theistic, as I have pointed out.

So? Who is claiming that it is an "inherently theistic" concept?

The fact is that the argument that intelligent design could be responsible for any number of things, from the constants of physics to the design of the bacterial flagellum is an entirely scientific argument.

Could be? Sure. Could be.

That, of course, tells us nothing. Magic could be responsible for any number of things, too.

[Clinton Huxley]

It's intelligent design all the way down

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

Actually, that's largely philosophy, and there's nothing "bad" about examining myth for its connection to reality and science.[/quote]

Maybe it's awesome philosophy, but it's bad science.

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?

Could be.

Like I said - meaningless.

And, what's the point of that? Truth is truth, and not truth is not.

Ah, but the trick is discovering what is truth and what is not.

That's a trick, yes.

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.

The science comes in examining the myths to discover what hidden scientific truths may be found therein.

Archeology is a great science, yes. Have at it.

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.

True. So what? Other things are true, and remain science even when they are wrongfully conflated with myth.

Exactly my point. So what?

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.

Strange you should make this assertion, because I've been doing so for quite some time, and it seems there is no dearth of people willing to argue with me about it.[/quote]

They're not arguing with you about THAT specifically.

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?

I'm merely highlighting the irrationality of most of the Atheists I've ever become acquainted with, in hopes that perhaps they, or others, will recognize the irrationality involved and will resolve to eschew it in the future.

You're arguing something that is simply obvious and plain. Lots of things are "possible." So what?

It's "possible" there is a God - sure. Even Dawkins acknowledges that - that's why he puts himself at 6 on the scale of 1-7. It's a logical possibility, especially if one is hypothesizing a god of limitless power and ability. Obviously, nothing we say about that god could preclude its existence. "God can do anything" - well, if it can then we can't imagine a scenario that would logically preclude its existence. That doesn't mean we should believe in it.

Do you think Richard Dawkins doesn't know that?

I think Richard Dawkins is a competent biologist and a frothing-at-the-mouth anti-religious bigot whose antipathy towards religion poisons much of what should be an outstanding reputation in science.

I think he's a pompous, arrogant, ass who probably wasn't thought of as "cool" or in the in crowd during his youth, and probably was somewhat of an egghead and a bit antisocial in his youth, preferring to work long hours on his studies. As such, he developed a superiority complex over those who he deemed lesser minds. He has a giant ego, and seems a bit poor with people - little patience for those he doesn't view as his equal.

The God Delusion was great, though, as was Unweaving the Rainbow, Climbing Mt. Improbable, the Ancestor's Tale, and the Selfish Gene.

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.

But even Dawkins acknowledges outright that the question of whether God exists is absolutely a scientific question, and he's right. Why is something unscientific merely because it's highly improbable or not subject to falsification at the moment?

Where did I say it wasn't a scientific question? The existence of Santa Claus can be a scientific question. Precision in language, my good man....

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.

How do you know?

Because the statement itself is logically unfalsifiable. Whatever proof we have, someone can just say, "but, we may well have just been created a second ago, and what you think is proof that we didn't just blip into existence a second ago was planted there to fool you into thinking we weren't just blipped into existence a second ago." - there's that "logic" you claim to fancy...

That doesn't mean we are compelled to "acknowledge" everything we can't disprove.

Why doesn't it?

Because then we would be compelled to acknowledge an infinite number of things we can't disprove, since the number of non-disprovable things is infinite or virtually infinite, certainly indefinite. We can't disprove that time travel between now and the future of a different universe is possible....we can't disprove that Hell exists. We can't disprove the soul. We can't disprove that Uhura-Mazda exists. We can't disprove that there is a wormhole between my basement and the Andromeda galaxy, made up of an as yet undetected particle configuration.....

We aren't compelled to acknowledge those things. We are only compelled to acknowledge that we can't disprove those things. And, that's a very small thing.

Isn't the first step of scientific inquiry an acknowledgment of a hypothesis about the nature of the universe?

Focus. "That doesn't mean we are compelled to "acknowledge" everything we can't disprove." See the difference there.

Yes - scientific inquiry involves creating hypoetheses. But, hypotheses are not just things dreamed up while someone is drunk or high last night. There usually is some reason to suspect the hypothesis is true - that's why it's an interesting hypothesis.

And, we still don't just "acknowledge everything we can't disprove." That way lies madness. It would require us to acknowledge almost anything anyone ever says, so long as someone could couch it in unfalsifiable terms.

If one refuses to acknowledge that extraterrestrial may exist

I don't know of a single person who refuses to acknowledge that extraterrestrial life MAY exist.

and may have been involved in evolution on this planet,

I don't know of a single person who refuses to acknowledge that extraterrestrial life COULD have been involved in evolution on this planet."

then one will never bother to look for or accept evidence which points in that direction, should such evidence appear.

Since your premises are wrong, this conclusion is also incorrect.

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?

What chain of logical inferences lead you to the belief that Zenac exists in the 11th dimension?

The same chain of inferences you asserted to claim that some unnamed aliens designed life on Earth.

You think you have some persuasive logical chain for your arguments? Really?

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.

Funny, it seems to me that nearly everyone I've ever encountered at Ratskep and RDF dismisses it most vociferously and at length, and so do some people here.[/quote]

You're missing what they're disputing. They're not disputing THE POSSIBILITY. They're disputing the assertion that there is any reason to believe it.

It may be rejected as a cause for good and sufficient reason,

It may be rejected because there is no cause or reason to believe it, too.

but it should always be kept in mind,

Not all things that can't be disproven can be "kept in mind."

because if the notion of intelligent design is simply flatly rejected out of hand,

Not the notion you mention - about beings, like humans, terraforming and creating artificial life. That's not flatly rejected. The bullshit Behe/Discovery Institute nonsense is flatly rejected, and rightly so.

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.

See, there you go again, conflating the general proposition of intelligent design [/quote]

Yours is not the "general proposition of intelligent design."

with a specific iteration that uses the same terminology in a lame attempt to evade the consequences of your intransigence and unreason. We may agree that the Discovery Institute is fatally tainted by creationism, but that in no way impeaches the scientific status of the broader issue of intelligent design, or OLE, as I put it.

You'll have to be more specific about the "broader issue" of intelligent design. It's not what you claim it to be. It's not "terraforming" or "alien creation of artificial life forms." Those are testable hypotheses for which there is presently no reason to believe they occurred, because no observations on the planet Earth suggests that aliens terraformed the Earth or created life on Earth, or meddled with evolution in any way. It's possible, of course. It's even possible that Behe/DI versions of ID are correct. It's possible - not very, but possible.

[Azathoth]

If perhaps if if perhaps. In the absence of any evidence to prove it it is just wishful thinking Seth. As to your analogies with gravity and the big bang. There is testable evidence for both along with robust mathematical proofs.

NOW, there is testable evidence. There was nothing but "wishful thinking" when the question first came up. Just because we don't know how to detect, quantify or explain the possible intelligence involved today does not mean it does not, or did not exist nor that we may one day be able to do so.

OK so you have a hypothesis. Very nice. Now go away and find some evidence to support it or shut up about it.

[Coito ergo sum]

The theory is quite simple: Intelligence unknown to us may have, sometime, or from time to time in the deep past of Earth's history, deliberately manipulated DNA of organisms on earth in order to guide evolution down particular and intentional pathways.

Examine away.

That's not a theory, in fact it barely even qualifies as a hypothesis.

WhatEVER....

He's right.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Ask him why god created so many extinct species?

[Clinton Huxley]

Ask him why god created so many extinct species?

Intelligent weeding.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Ask him why god created so many extinct species?

Intelligent weeding.

Or he just made them out of stone for the fuck-all of it.

[Azathoth]

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Whenever I heard someone challenge evolution I ask them what other sciences they don't believe in. Do they post derogatory comments about Babbage on the Internet?

[Coito ergo sum]

Whenever I heard someone challenge evolution I ask them what other sciences they don't believe in. Do they post derogatory comments about Babbage on the Internet?

I don't mind if people challenge evolution. What bothers me is when they do so from ignorance - either they misstate what evolution is, or they make spurious claims like "there are no transitional fossils..." etc.

But, if they challenge evolution by saying that based on what they know they are unpersuaded, we can then look at what they know and see if we can persuade them.

I don't expect, or want, anyone to "believe in" evolution. All I would hope is that people try to "understand" it. Once they do that, they'll invariably accept it as a damn good theory, which is all they need to do.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Whenever I heard someone challenge evolution I ask them what other sciences they don't believe in. Do they post derogatory comments about Babbage on the Internet?

I don't mind if people challenge evolution. What bothers me is when they do so from ignorance - either they misstate what evolution is, or they make spurious claims like "there are no transitional fossils..." etc.

But, if they challenge evolution by saying that based on what they know they are unpersuaded, we can then look at what they know and see if we can persuade them.

I don't expect, or want, anyone to "believe in" evolution. All I would hope is that people try to "understand" it. Once they do that, they'll invariably accept it as a damn good theory, which is all they need to do.

I meant challenge as in "I don't believe it", not "I'm uncertain about it."