Life is outside the scope of biology?
Scientists attack 'intelligent design'
- Thread starter Huwy
- Start date
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
The origin of life is outside the scope of evolution, since evolution is not a field of study, but a paradigm.
The origin of life and the evolution of life are both proper topics for biologists to study.
You know this perfectly well spurious - don't dig a semantic hole for yourself. I push people into semantic holes.
The origin of life and the evolution of life are both proper topics for biologists to study.
You know this perfectly well spurious - don't dig a semantic hole for yourself. I push people into semantic holes.
C
charles cure
Guest
Ophiolite said:
a person can be a scientist and a christian. just like a person can be a jew and an anti-semite. some people have partitioned their minds so as to be able to divide the spheres of life in which they judge things with reason and evidence and where they accept irrationally ridiculous claims made by an ancient book. thats ok, but dont pretend that youre being a reasonable person when you use logic and rationality as the basis for knowledge in the secular world, but for some reason toss it overboard when it comes to anything unknown or of a spiritual nature.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, Oph..my reasoning would be that the origin of life is guided by evolutionary principles. I would like to postulate that the essence of 'pro-life' was not very different of 'life' itself.
So I do not believe that one moment there was no life (collection of organic molecules), the next moment there was (a self-replicating organism). From that viewpoint the study of the origin of life is not pinned down to a single event. Its a gradual process where evolution and biology are central in the understanding of the origin of life.
I hope this has shed some light on my viewpoints.
----
ID doesn't explain the origin of life at all. It presumes the existence of a creator. Obviously this creator must be an intelligent entity. But who created this entity then?
It's just not an explanation. It's a sky hook.
So I do not believe that one moment there was no life (collection of organic molecules), the next moment there was (a self-replicating organism). From that viewpoint the study of the origin of life is not pinned down to a single event. Its a gradual process where evolution and biology are central in the understanding of the origin of life.
I hope this has shed some light on my viewpoints.
----
ID doesn't explain the origin of life at all. It presumes the existence of a creator. Obviously this creator must be an intelligent entity. But who created this entity then?
It's just not an explanation. It's a sky hook.
Whether evolution is true or not is irrelevant, and whether ID is true or not is irrelevant, the issue that is being contested is whether ID should be taught in science classes.
Evolutionary theories are consistent with the scientific method and form a valid branch of science. ID does not pass the first hurdle required by science and cannot be considered science and hence should not be taught in science classes.
ID is theology and should take its place in religious classes, not science.
Evolutionary theories are consistent with the scientific method and form a valid branch of science. ID does not pass the first hurdle required by science and cannot be considered science and hence should not be taught in science classes.
ID is theology and should take its place in religious classes, not science.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
I don't tend to start threads. (I don't know if I've started any!) I may start one on this - sometime.spuriousmonkey said:
I understand your argument, but I don't agree, and I believe I could find a substantial body of biologists who would go with my view.
The differing views are partly governed by how we define the terms. No surprise there. I am thinking of evolution in a Darwinian or neo-Darwinian sense, so that natural selection is coming into play, acting on a phentoype derived from gene structure, that preserves and replicates.
With that definition, while pre-biotic chemicals and the metabolic systems that arise from them will be subject to selection there will be no gene memory at first. So the evolution that occurs then is quite different from what occurs after.
To me the point at which life truly begins, is the point at which replication of gene structure with an associated suite of metabolisms begins. From that point on classical evolution is possible.
I am certainly not arguing that they are unrelated, but based on our presence knowledge I think distinguishing between them is useful.
The Relgious zealots are already directly interfering with the way we do science.
This warning was given in an editorial in Evo-devo:
'Second, let us not play into the hands of ID prop-
agandists. For instance, be careful about using teleological
words to describe biological entities in our teaching and writ-
ing. Calling cells ‘‘machines that do X,’’ or describing biolog-
ical structures as ‘‘well designed to do Y’’ will be duly cited in
ID propaganda as one more biologist-supporting design. '
Evo devo, July 2005 - Vol. 7 Issue 4 Page 273
This warning was given in an editorial in Evo-devo:
'Second, let us not play into the hands of ID prop-
agandists. For instance, be careful about using teleological
words to describe biological entities in our teaching and writ-
ing. Calling cells ‘‘machines that do X,’’ or describing biolog-
ical structures as ‘‘well designed to do Y’’ will be duly cited in
ID propaganda as one more biologist-supporting design. '
Evo devo, July 2005 - Vol. 7 Issue 4 Page 273
S
sleeper555
Guest
Ophiolite,
Your point is a salient one. I believe distinction you are making is between natural selection and evolution. The formation of pre-biotic molecules is simple chemistry. However, natural selection would appear to favor the emergence of self-replication given the right conditions. The development of a single line of self-replicating entities can be considered evolution, although it is still governed by natural selection.
It is my hunch that genetic structures themselves have evolved mechanisms that favor further evolution, thus the random aspect has been limited somewhat in the development of complex organisms.
Your point is a salient one. I believe distinction you are making is between natural selection and evolution. The formation of pre-biotic molecules is simple chemistry. However, natural selection would appear to favor the emergence of self-replication given the right conditions. The development of a single line of self-replicating entities can be considered evolution, although it is still governed by natural selection.
It is my hunch that genetic structures themselves have evolved mechanisms that favor further evolution, thus the random aspect has been limited somewhat in the development of complex organisms.
The ID theory depends on there being complex structures like a radiolaria's rotary muscle, which, it is argued, are too complex to have occurred by chance. If Intelligent Design only starts at abiogenesis, where biological structures are much less complex, then it makes a less compelling argument.Baron Max said:
That's not strictly true.Cris said:
A believer could very well believe that God created all these creatures (including man) with the built in ability to evolve to adapt to surrounding environments and changing situations.
In fact, for someone to believe God is perfect, I don't see how they could come to any other conclusion.
How does intelligent design explain male nipples? Or the appendix in humans. Or Hemorrhoids in humans (bad design of blood circulation in the ass?)
A theory should be able to explain all, not just some things people find difficult to believe in on a personal level.
A theory should be able to explain all, not just some things people find difficult to believe in on a personal level.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Since there is little intelligence in Intelligent Design perhaps someone from the other side of the fence should lend a hand.spuriousmonkey said:
Male Nipples: it's simpler to follow a 'one size fits all' concept. i.e. having necessarily designed nipples for females it is easier to leave them in than add a further design that leaves them out. (Also it give lonely and sexually frustrated males something else to play with while they are fantasising. This is part of the God's plan to place many temptations in our way so that we may resist.)
Human appendix: It is a myth that it is an obsolete organ. (I could give you links that support that, but being in an IDist persona I'll just say, "why should I do the work for you?")
Haemorrhoids Just because God is omniscient and omnipotent does not mean he can't also be a pain in the ass. (He asked me personally to point that out.)
The appendix may not be obsolete as an organ, but it is a killer. I would not call it therefore a intelligently designed organ.
At the fetus stage all humans are identical. It is only the release of specific levels of testosterone that cause development to proceed along one of 3 primary lines, male, female and hermathrodite. This is independent of chromosome type although they tend to force a particular path but there is no guarantee, e.g. the XX, XY, factors.