Is atheism a scientific perspective?

[GUBU]

You are missing the point. I don't have to know how something was designed to rationally conclude that it was. And it isn't like we are just looking at biological systems and saying that it just looks designed, it is that we have dissected them to their most fundamental levels in many cases, and intelligent design currently stands alone as the only known force capable of producing it.

Incorrect.  You are the one who has missed the point, which is, the reason we know that cars are designed is BECAUSE we have overwhelming evidence of the design, as well as the designer.  You can't possibly be going for the watchmaker analogy, can you?  It's so famously flawed.  I would have thought a Christian who's been around the block about this as many times as you would have learned better by now...[emoji848]

It always amazes me how creatards are so wedded to that argument, especially when Darwin took the time to show why it's a bad one before elaborating his Theory of Evolution in On the Origin of Species. You'd think they'd be clever enough to not use an argument that's 150 years discredited, wouldn't you?

---

Hmmm links to those studies?

Here's the last paper: http://m.nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/5/1223.full, which is discussing the evolution of genetic repair mechanisms in strains of E Coli and a species of yeast.

Interesting how Junk Status, a self-described post-grad biology student, tries to use evidence of evolution happening to disprove evolution happening. If one were a cynical bastard, one would have to conclude that he lied about his educational achievements.

[Mermaid]

Incorrect.  You are the one who has missed the point, which is, the reason we know that cars are designed is BECAUSE we have overwhelming evidence of the design, as well as the designer.  You can't possibly be going for the watchmaker analogy, can you?  It's so famously flawed.  I would have thought a Christian who's been around the block about this as many times as you would have learned better by now...[emoji848]

It always amazes me how creatards are so wedded to that argument, especially when Darwin took the time to show why it's a bad one before elaborating his Theory of Evolution in On the Origin of Species. You'd think they'd be clever enough to not use an argument that's 150 years discredited, wouldn't you?

---

Hmmm links to those studies?

Here's the last paper: http://m.nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/5/1223.full, which is discussing the evolution of genetic repair mechanisms in strains of E Coli and a species of yeast.

Interesting how Junk Status, a self-described post-grad biology student, tries to use evidence of evolution happening to disprove evolution happening. If one were a cynical bastard, one would have to conclude that he lied about his educational achievements.

NO. Go on.

[AAA]

[quote pid='1477842' dateline='1483062448']

---

I appreciate the fact that you are actually evaluating the argument as opposed to name calling. 

Yes, I am aware that there are problems with the definition of specified. It is incredibly difficult to quantify information in the way that ID opponents demand. What I think Dembski is right about is that the quantity of information of a given sequence is directly proportional to the functionality that arises from said sequence. This is coupled with the fact that gene sequence exhibit an extremely high degree of functionality. While we don't know how to quantify it, this does not mean that we can't draw conclusions based on the qualitative features. I think he was premature in his attempt to draw probabilistic conclusions about these sequences when we don't know how much information we are talking about. However, I think the central argument that DNA contains information and that that information leads to specific functions is true.

So what?
DNA is a part of evolution like everything else.
I fail to see the import you are placing on this.
[/quote]

The argument that I have been making over and over again is that we don't know if the major mechanism of evolution is adequate to produce the information bearing DNA. You asserting that it does is not helpful.

---

It always amazes me how creatards are so wedded to that argument, especially when Darwin took the time to show why it's a bad one before elaborating his Theory of Evolution in On the Origin of Species. You'd think they'd be clever enough to not use an argument that's 150 years discredited, wouldn't you?

---

Here's the last paper: http://m.nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/5/1223.full, which is discussing the evolution of genetic repair mechanisms in strains of E Coli and a species of yeast.

Interesting how Junk Status, a self-described post-grad biology student, tries to use evidence of evolution happening to disprove evolution happening. If one were a cynical bastard, one would have to conclude that he lied about his educational achievements.

NO. Go on.

I'm not a post-grad biology student, I'm an undergraduate. I never said I wasn't.

---

I appreciate the fact that you are actually evaluating the argument as opposed to name calling. 

Yes, I am aware that there are problems with the definition of specified. It is incredibly difficult to quantify information in the way that ID opponents demand. What I think Dembski is right about is that the quantity of information of a given sequence is directly proportional to the functionality that arises from said sequence. This is coupled with the fact that gene sequence exhibit an extremely high degree of functionality. While we don't know how to quantify it, this does not mean that we can't draw conclusions based on the qualitative features. I think he was premature in his attempt to draw probabilistic conclusions about these sequences when we don't know how much information we are talking about. However, I think the central argument that DNA contains information and that that information leads to specific functions is true.

Your objections are a part of a larger argument that I have developed.  I would instead of dealing with them ex parte, include the whole.

---

Contra Design -- Against the argument for design from biology

For many, the question of design is as simple as Justice Stewart's observations on obscenity, to wit, "I'll know it when I see it."  They start from the presumption that certain things look designed and go directly to "was designed" (Do not pass Go, do not collect $200).  But it takes a little more than that to make an actual argument.  There has to be something connecting the premise that "It looks designed," to the conclusion, "Therefore it is designed."

Schematically, it goes something like this:

P1) It looks designed;
P2) . . . .
P3)
P4)
C1) Therefore it was designed.

Now a first gander at P2, etc. is to suggest the following:

P1) It looks designed;
P2) If it looks designed, then it was designed;
C1) Therefore it was designed.

Unfortunately we know that P2 is not true.  There are things which look designed that weren't designed and vice versa.

So we try a different tack:

P1) It looks designed;
P2) Things that look like an intelligence designed them, are designed;
P3) It looks like a thing an intelligence designed;
C1) Therefore it was designed.

But the key question here is what does it mean to say that it looks like a thing an intelligence designed?  This is entirely too vague to be of use when debating whether something like the DNA in a cell was designed, wherein the target is clearly removed from any direct traces of a designer.  And we still have the problem of false positives; we can't infer design if our argument is only 'sometimes' right.

So we attempt to narrow in on what it means for something to look like it was designed by an intelligence.  Perhaps:

P1) It looks designed;
P2) Things that look like an intelligence designed them, are designed;
P3) It looks like a thing an intelligence designed if it is similar to the way humans design things;
P4)  It is similar to that;
C1) Therefore it was designed.

This brings a little focus to the question, but again it's rather vague.  We have two problems.  One, it's not specified in what ways the item must be similar to count for a design inference; obviously the color of an object is irrelevant.  The other problem is that for compositions as complex as a cell, we don't have similar things from human designers -- we're not that intelligent, so it leaves open the question of what we mean by similar if there are no similarly complex works of human design.  As Hume remarks on the relevant rule of analogy, "wherever you depart in the least, from the similarity of the cases, you diminish proportionably the evidence; and may at last bring it to a very weak analogy, which is confessedly liable to error and uncertainty" (Hume, Dialogues, Part II).  What aspects of human design are we comparing to a cell?

This is where complex specified information, ala Dembski comes in:

P1) It looks designed;
P2) It looks designed because it has CSI;
P3) Things that have CSI, are designed;
C1) Therefore it was designed.

Unfortunately, as you seem to be admitting, and I'm claiming, Dembski jumped the gun in terms of a rigorous, usable definition for CSI.  So what happens if we adopt your language that "The specified part is indicating that the information is used to accomplish a desired function."  So being specified alludes to the item having specific functional significance.  Here's the problem with that.  Consider a bird's wing. Its function is to allow the bird to fly.  It's not information, supposedly that's in the DNA for the creation of the wing, but ceterus paribus, the cases are parallel.  Whether you agree with evolution or not, it is the case that we have mapped out how it is possible for this function to have arisen naturally.  Function isn't specific only to designed systems.  As I said before, function is in the eye of the beholder.  If there is a possibility that the function of the wing arose naturally, then obviously function cannot be used to split the baby.  For if it is even possible that specified information can arise naturally, it's no longer a flag for design.  Now you may think the situation is different with abiogenesis, but it's not.  All that has to be shown is that a possible sequence from a simpler organism without that function could lead to that more developed organism, all the way back to the first cell and beyond.  (Not directly relevant, but think of the bacterial flagellum and the Type III secretory system.) We don't have to show probability or even have a complete map of the process to conclude from the evidence of the past 100 years that abiogenesis is a significant possibility.

So, in a nutshell, talk of "used to accomplish a desired function" doesn't work as function can be attributed to intelligent and natural causes.  It's not a divider.

The first part of your argument seems really shallow. I think you know that we are not saying that "it looks designed therefore it was". It is "despite thorough search for another cause, only intelligence is a known cause that can produce what we see in designed systems". It is not that we are just appealing to our initial intuitions. These conclusions come after careful studying of the systems and proposed explanations. Your argument seems to be "because in the past we have seen apparent design turn out to be illusory, all apparent designs are illusory". 

And the functionality of the wing is the result of elaborate informational output by the cell.  Obviously the wing itself is not information, but I think it is impossible to argue that its functionality is not the result of information. And you say "For if it is even possible that specified information can arise natrually, it's no longer a flag for design." You seem to be suggesting that if it's possible that something arose without design, then it was not designed. This is illogical for several reasons. Also, we have no good reason to assume that it can arise without the help of a designing intelligence. If you have a reason that you think it was can you provide it? You say that abiogenesis is a significant possibility, but I think that's just wishful thinking. We don't have to assign probability to design either, because we know based on repeated experience that intelligence is adequate.

---

Look up scientific materialism:

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are results of material interactions. Materialism is closely related to physicalism, the view that all that exists is ultimately physical. 

That's how I was using the word, and it was used correctly. That takes care of about 99/100 ths of your reply.

You may have found that definition by typing 'scientific materialism' into Google, but it's the definition of metaphysical or philosophical materialism. The closest you can come to 'scientific materialism' is methodological naturalism, the position that science can only discover natural explanations for phenomena, not supernatural explanations...it's not the position that the supernatural doesn't exist, but that if it does, it's not something science can study.

Ok, that's fine with me. I just put that there because some person said that materialism meant collecting possessions and then went on to mock me for half a page about how I used the word wrong when in fact, this is how it was used.

---

I can appeal to peer-reviewed articles if you want.

That wasn't the point I was making.  Are you saying that these peer-reviewed articles are questioning the validity of the theory of evolution?  Have they found something that undermines some or all of the theory and is forcing the scientific community to scrap those ideas and seek answers elsewhere?

I know that's not the point you were making. Demanding that I peer-review my ideas before you take them seriously is a joke. If that is what you are waiting for, then we aren't going to get anywhere. 

And no, the authors almost certainly attribute the source of the amazing features and systems they describe to evolutionary forces. I just put those out to show that there are conclusions with what I believe to be theistic implications commonly presented in the peer-reviewed literature. 

And they don't find something that undermines the whole theory. This again is a ridiculous demand. However, one of the articles is attempting to explain the evolutionary origin of DNA repair enzymes, and one of the first things they note is that there are considerable differences in terms of the gene sequences that are present or absent in closely related species. Notice that we aren't talking about a few nucleotides being different. We are talking about entire gene sequences being different.

[Mermaid]

If you are an undergrad biology student, you aren't learning what you are supposed to learn.

Are you a student at a religious university, by chance?

[Chas]

The algorithm is sufficient to accomplish what we see.  Calculate the number of organisms and reproduction events that have existed in the last 3,000,000,000 years (they are staggeringly large numbers) and you will see that there has been plenty of room for the amount of evolution we observe.


Tell that to the Inuit. Pound for pound, there is far more nutrition in meat than in plant matter.


That is a ludicrously incorrect statement.  Pound for pound, there is far more energy content in meat than in plant matter.


See above.

You can't just assert that algorithms show it to be adequate.

The algorithm of imperfect replication and differential reproduction leads inexorably to evolution; it can go nowhere else.
Small changes accumulate and there is no limit to change that accumulation.

And I know that there have been a lot of reproductive opportunities, but we do not know how to accurately estimate the number. 

So you cannot claim that there hasn't been sufficient opportunity.

And when you say "there is far more nutrition in meat", you are showing that you don't understand what nutrition means. There are more calories, but you are ignoring the thousands of phytochemicals that we need to get from plant foods. Also, we need sugars, vitamins, minerals that are much more concentrated in plant foods. 

It is not either/or.
And you are ignoring the complex fats and proteins that meat provides that are far more difficult (or even impossible) to get from plant matter.
It does not matter to nutrition how much plant material went into producing the meat.

And when you say that is a ludicrously incorrect statement, you must be ignoring how energy moves through trophic levels. When we are eating meat, we are acting as secondary consumers.

It doesn't matter. Meat has properties that plants do not.

The primary consumer doesn't consume all the available energy from the producer. They don't assimilate all of the energy that they consume. Then we, as secondary consumers, have the same inefficiency. If we ate plants, we are acting as primary consumers and cutting out the wasted energy of the middle man.

You ignore the increased energy expended to gather and consume sufficient plant material as compared to meat.

[Angrboda]

The first part of your argument seems really shallow. I think you know that we are not saying that "it looks designed therefore it was". It is "despite thorough search for another cause, only intelligence is a known cause that can produce what we see in designed systems". It is not that we are just appealing to our initial intuitions. These conclusions come after careful studying of the systems and proposed explanations.

(emphasis mine)

But intelligence isn't a known cause for the type of complexity we see in the cell, so your argument can't be valid. No human on earth has the intelligence to create something like the cell. So you're just jerking off by saying that intelligence is an adequate cause for what we see in the cell. (And I'll note that what you've stated isn't an argument for your conclusion.) Even if properly stated, it's also still an argument from ignorance and fails on that count.

Your argument seems to be "because in the past we have seen apparent design turn out to be illusory, all apparent designs are illusory". 

No, my point is that if your procedure produces false positives, then it can't be reliably used to infer design.

And the functionality of the wing is the result of elaborate informational output by the cell.  Obviously the wing itself is not information, but I think it is impossible to argue that its functionality is not the result of information. And you say "For if it is even possible that specified information can arise natrually, it's no longer a flag for design." You seem to be suggesting that if it's possible that something arose without design, then it was not designed. This is illogical for several reasons.

No, I'm pointing out that if a particular property, specification, isn't exclusive to designed things, then it can't be used to determine whether the item was designed or not. It provides no probative value for the inquiry under consideration. If it being specified simply means that it was either designed or natural, if you can't rule out it being a possibility that the property has a natural cause, then it cannot be used to make an inference of design.

Also, we have no good reason to assume that it can arise without the help of a designing intelligence. If you have a reason that you think it was can you provide it?

Doubling down on the mere possibility that feathered wings evolved will not save your argument. But whatever. It's telling that you have to deny established science to make your inferences work at all.

You say that abiogenesis is a significant possibility, but I think that's just wishful thinking. We don't have to assign probability to design either, because we know based on repeated experience that intelligence is adequate.

Adequate for what? What exactly are you suggesting we are "seeing" that justifies this claim. That's why I went through the laborious exercise that I did, to point out the need to be specific about what properties indicate design. If you can't specify the properties which indicate design, then you've got nothing. As pointed out, specified information, even with your vague definitions, simply doesn't work.

[Tonus]

I know that's not the point you were making. Demanding that I peer-review my ideas before you take them seriously is a joke. If that is what you are waiting for, then we aren't going to get anywhere.

But that's how science is done. If you feel that the theory is flawed in any way you can post your concerns here --which as you note, doesn't get us anywhere-- or you can show how it's wrong using the mechanisms in place to do so and changing the course of biology for the better. I'm not waiting for you to do it. If you're right, someone else will eventually do it. If you're wrong, then my unwillingness to take your ideas seriously was justified.

And no, the authors almost certainly attribute the source of the amazing features and systems they describe to evolutionary forces. I just put those out to show that there are conclusions with what I believe to be theistic implications commonly presented in the peer-reviewed literature.

Do they really just attribute it? Because that should be challenged, it seems to me. If all they have is a belief in evolution and all they do is attribute their findings to evolution, they've left an immeasurably large amount of work undone. Why isn't anyone turning the scientific community on its ear by pointing out this enormous problem?

[Whateverist]

So, in a nutshell, talk of "used to accomplish a desired function" doesn't work as function can be attributed to intelligent and natural causes.  It's not a divider.

The first part of your argument seems really shallow. I think you know that we are not saying that "it looks designed therefore it was". It is "despite thorough search for another cause, only intelligence is a known cause that can produce what we see in designed systems". It is not that we are just appealing to our initial intuitions. These conclusions come after careful studying of the systems and proposed explanations. Your argument seems to be "because in the past we have seen apparent design turn out to be illusory, all apparent designs are illusory". 

And the functionality of the wing is the result of elaborate informational output by the cell.  Obviously the wing itself is not information, but I think it is impossible to argue that its functionality is not the result of information. And you say "For if it is even possible that specified information can arise natrually, it's no longer a flag for design." You seem to be suggesting that if it's possible that something arose without design, then it was not designed. This is illogical for several reasons. Also, we have no good reason to assume that it can arise without the help of a designing intelligence. If you have a reason that you think it was can you provide it? You say that abiogenesis is a significant possibility, but I think that's just wishful thinking. We don't have to assign probability to design either, because we know based on repeated experience that intelligence is adequate.

For anything to have been designed by an intelligent being you'd have to produce a being with the means, motive and opportunity.

In the first case you have produced no being, intelligent or otherwise.  Where is this alleged god exactly?  Your hearsay would be inadmissible.

Now the omni qualities you claim your god has might well establish the "means", but those qualities would have to be established too.  Your high appraisal of said god's beneficence might likewise be grounds for the finding of a motive provided He can be deposed.  There is no way to assess opportunity without an opportunity to deposition your god.  

We can't determine that this mysterious being you've defined as omni everything can actually design and produce life based only on the hearsay of a cult that practically worships that being.  Worshipers would have very little credibility.

Sorry.

[AAA]

You can't just assert that algorithms show it to be adequate.

The algorithm of imperfect replication and differential reproduction leads inexorably to evolution; it can go nowhere else.
Small changes accumulate and there is no limit to change that accumulation.

And I know that there have been a lot of reproductive opportunities, but we do not know how to accurately estimate the number. 

So you cannot claim that there hasn't been sufficient opportunity.

And when you say "there is far more nutrition in meat", you are showing that you don't understand what nutrition means. There are more calories, but you are ignoring the thousands of phytochemicals that we need to get from plant foods. Also, we need sugars, vitamins, minerals that are much more concentrated in plant foods. 

It is not either/or.
And you are ignoring the complex fats and proteins that meat provides that are far more difficult (or even impossible) to get from plant matter.
It does not matter to nutrition how much plant material went into producing the meat.

And when you say that is a ludicrously incorrect statement, you must be ignoring how energy moves through trophic levels. When we are eating meat, we are acting as secondary consumers.

It doesn't matter.  Meat has properties that plants do not.

The primary consumer doesn't consume all the available energy from the producer. They don't assimilate all of the energy that they consume. Then we, as secondary consumers, have the same inefficiency. If we ate plants, we are acting as primary consumers and cutting out the wasted energy of the middle man.

You ignore the increased energy expended to gather and consume sufficient plant material as compared to meat.

The problem with these algorithms is that the desired sequences (the ones that represent functionality and therefore evolution) are input beforehand by the people writing the algorithm. Without putting the desired sequences first, the simulation will not no what sequences to select for. If you do put them first, then you are no longer accurately simulating evolution, because it does not have that type of forward looking memory. 

And I don't think I claimed that there hasn't been sufficient time, but I did claim that we do not know enough to assume that there was.

And you're right about the fact that from a nutrition perspective it doesn't matter how much energy was lost in the intermediate species. But the fact is that people who eat only plants (I'm not one of them) do just fine. Meat has more concentrated protein, iron, and fat, but these things can easily come from beans and nuts and such. And are you suggesting that it takes more energy to gather plant food than meat? I'm not even sure why we are arguing about this, though.

---

I know that's not the point you were making. Demanding that I peer-review my ideas before you take them seriously is a joke. If that is what you are waiting for, then we aren't going to get anywhere.

But that's how science is done.  If you feel that the theory is flawed in any way you can post your concerns here --which as you note, doesn't get us anywhere-- or you can show how it's wrong using the mechanisms in place to do so and changing the course of biology for the better.  I'm not waiting for you to do it.  If you're right, someone else will eventually do it.  If you're wrong, then my unwillingness to take your ideas seriously was justified.

And no, the authors almost certainly attribute the source of the amazing features and systems they describe to evolutionary forces. I just put those out to show that there are conclusions with what I believe to be theistic implications commonly presented in the peer-reviewed literature.

Do they really just attribute it?  Because that should be challenged, it seems to me.  If all they have is a belief in evolution and all they do is attribute their findings to evolution, they've left an immeasurably large amount of work undone.  Why isn't anyone turning the scientific community on its ear by pointing out this enormous problem?

People are doing it. Read some of the peer-reviewed books by the ID community. You can label them all as religious fanatics and ignore them, but then don't say that no scientist is challenging the core evolutionary mechanism. I think that the more we are learning about molecular biology, the more we are seeing that natural selection and mutation do not seem to be an adequate explanation. I may make my case more formally when I'm older, but for now, I mainly want to see where people find flaw in the arguments.

[Tonus]

People are doing it. Read some of the peer-reviewed books by the ID community.

I am referring to peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals, not books or articles that are reviewed by fellow ID proponents in ID journals and not submitted to mainstream scientific publications. If they're submitting to traditional peer-review then it doesn't matter if they are religious fanatics or if I ignore them-- their work would be part of the record and they would be making progress in re-shaping or overturning the theory of evolution. If they're shielding their work from legitimate peer-review, why shouldn't I ignore them?