Evolution / Creationism / Intelligent Design

[Hal]

Something that doesn't exist (which itself is a contradiction in terms but is used here as an illustration) is nothing, a zero.  To say that I know 'A' does not exist is to, literally and metaphysically, say 'I know nothing.' (you may in fact be able to conceptualize 'A' but only as an antithesis to a conceptual opposite)

If a concept/name is well defined, then it makes sense to say that it doesnt exist (ie, that no existing entities are known to fall under that concept/name). For instance, modern scientists know that phlogiston and the aether dont exist, and I know there are no unicorns in Britain.

Also, the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that entropy increases within a closed system. As has been repeatedly pointed out to creationists, the earth is not a closed system due to the energy input from the sun.

Edited August 10, 2005 by Hal

[Proverb]

I understand.

But I have to ask did anyone ever 'know' that ether existed. From my understanding, ether was a hypothesis, so is it proper to say that anyone was ever knowledgeable as to the attributes of the ether? And what would be the value in saying 'I know there are no unicorns in britain'? Is there any point in saying you know that there are no unicorns in britain? Aren't there an infinite amount of such statements?

[jrs]

The second law ...  says that the UNIVERSE AS A WHOLE becomes more random.

Also, the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that entropy increases within a closed system. As has been repeatedly pointed out to creationists, the earth is not a closed system due to the energy input from the sun.

Thanks Hal, your formulation is more correct and useful. Actually instead of "entropy increases", one should say that entropy does not (well, almost never) decreases in an isolated system.

I think that many people have trouble understanding this because it is so abstract and requires a technical definition of entropy. First, one must distinguish between macro-states and micro-states of a system.

The macro-state is just what the system appears to be when observed in the usual way, that is, somewhat superficially.

What the parts of the system are: their masses, shapes, compositions, temperatures, pressures, electric polarization, magnetization, etc..

The micro-state is a complete description of the system including the position and velocity of each atom.

Entropy is a measure of the amount of information which must be added to the macro-state in order to determine the micro-state. It is Boltzmann's constant times the natural logarithm of the number of micro-states consistent with the observed macro-state.

[jrs]

Kant vs. Darwin: Creationism ("Intelligent Design") vs. Evolution is Philosophical Debate

by Don Watkins III  (August 8, 2005)

........

The division between the defenders and opponents of evolution is not rooted in disagreements over biology, but in opposite metaphysics and epistemologies.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4357

[Proverb]

It saddens me that people can even listen to themselves say the things that were quoted in that article.

[AisA]

The smashing success of the intelligent design theory has inspired another, equally valid theory. Read about it HERE.

[Caulfeild]

Wow, well, first of all, i stupidly joined this site not realizing it was an objectivist forum, then i realized it might be an opportunity to learn some more about it.

But to the topic at hand, since there are so many of you that accept the evolution theory, what proof has been given you that proves it? Or is it simply a last resort because ID is deemed impossible? I personally believe in ID, nothing else makes any sense, including evolution. the major experiment's that supposedly "proved" evolution have been shown to be worthless (Miller's experiment and the spotted moths are two examples).

First of all the 2nd law of thermodynamics can apply to the earth because the earth and the sun can be included in "the closed system." i don't mean to get relativistic on all of you, but a system is whatever you want it to be, if you're saying the earth is not a closed system, you can say that everything else in the universe is not a closed system, then what's the purpose of the law? You may say that a closed system is one in which one object is not affected by another, but this impossible unless you isolate every single atom in the universe.

Second, i'm not going to debate the probability of evolution, anything is probable...

Thirdly, i would love to start a forum on the contradictions of God, it might be a waste of time, but what the heck, i have too much of that anyway...

Oh and i like The Onion article, reminds me of the Family Guy episode, "Everybody knows Christians don't believe in gravity!"

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

But to the topic at hand, since there are so many of you that accept the evolution theory, what proof has been given you that proves it?

Firstly, Darwin's impressive observations as documented in "The Origin of Species," with the actual genetic mechanism for natural selection being subsequently provided by Gregor Mendel. And secondly, the existence of hundreds of thousands of other primary scientific articles since that time. Thirdly, the devotion of scores of entire journals to the theory of evolution (Evolution, Evolutionary Ecology, Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, Journal of Evolutionary Biochemistry and Physiology, Journal of Evolutionary Biology, Journal of Molecular Evolution, Molecular Biology and Evolution, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, Plant Systematics and Evolution, Human Evolution, Mammalian Evolution, etc.) and the total lack of any peer-reviewed scientific journals devoted to the theory of "Intelligent Design."

I personally believe in ID, nothing else makes any sense, including evolution.

Since I have shown where the weight of the evidence lies, please tell us why you think ID makes sense and why evolution doesn't.

the major experiment's that supposedly "proved" evolution have been shown to be worthless (Miller's experiment and the spotted moths are two examples).

Showing that data were deliberately falsified by the scientists in ONE scientific experiment is worthless in showing that a theory, with the support of hundreds of thousands of other experiments or observational studies, is false.

First of all the 2nd law of thermodynamics

Please see the above postings in this thread re: the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Edited October 3, 2005 by Liriodendron Tulipifera

[hunterrose]

Sir ID is not a religious view but one that can be embraced by all but atheists. It is a view that screams for acceptance on the grounds that it makes sense of all the things that evolution cannot!

I don't think atheists generally would have a problem with ID... in a philosophy classroom.

Most of the objections come when it is put into a science class - especially when laws are enacted that require a biology teacher to tell her pupils stuff like "evolution is a theory; it may be wrong."

I don't think it proper to put something that, almost by definition, can't be proven false into a classroom. To IDers, what kind of evidence could disprove intelligent design? If there is no way to disprove it, why should it be in science class, as opposed to philosophy?

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

Intelligent design can be defeated on philosophical grounds very easily. Here's how.

ID argument: Nature is so complex, it must have been designed.

Counter-argument: In order to infer effect from cause, repeated associations are needed. One cannot infer from effect (order of nature) to cause (intelligent designer) in a case of such singularity. We only have one universe and one earth to observe. Therefore one cannot imply the causal principle.

hunterrose, you are exactly right. Intelligent Design, as an idea (it is not a theory, as it has NO PROOF) is not acceptable scientifically because it posits that we stop looking for natural answers to explain natural phenomena. It posits that we should stop the process of science.

Science, fundamentally, is the search for natural answers to natural phenomena. Not supernatural answers to natural phenomena. So of course scientists, true scientists (those that do not place religion above science, mysticism above rationality), cannot accept that.

[Caulfeild]

I don't have time at the moment to respond to the above posts, but i would like to say that i believe in the process of microevolution, macroevolution is impossible.

[Adrian Hester]

The second law of thermodynamics, a well proven law of science, demonstrates that all things in nature tend to deteriorate and decay, whereas the evolutionary theory would have us believe that all living things evolve in an unbroken upward progression of complexity.

False. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that entropy increases in all closed systems. (And entropy is strictly defined only in systems infinitesimally removed from equilibrium.) The Earth is not a closed system since there's a net influx of solar energy. It's been known since the 1930s with the work of Lars Onsager that under the condition of a net influx of energy, local entropy can decrease, as in fact it does as living beings eat and build tissue. (Onsager won the Nobel Prize for his work on nonlinear and nonequilibrium thermodynamics, in fact.)

Intelligent Design embraces science, while evolution mocks it.

Bullshit. Your worthless argument for "Intelligent Design" has been entirely out of date since the 1930s; it was out of date when it was peddled by "Scientific Creationists" in the 1960s, and the fact that you can't do any better than that shows that proponents of "Intelligent Design" are equally unscientific and out of date.

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

So what you mean is that you believe there is genetic variation present that can be selected for, but that selection for those differences will never be great enough within a particular population to create some kind of mating barrier, thus creating a new species? I assume you believe that mutations are possible, which create some genetic variation amongst individuals that is selected for, right? This is usually what people mean by microoevolution.

This is what the theory of evolution says. It says that there is some genetic variation present in a population, and that nature selects the phenotypes that are the best suited to specific environmental conditions at that time. The phenotypes are partially a result of genetics.

If you accept this premise, let me ask you this: Let's assume that the genetic variation in one population can be held constant: the population is large, there is not much mutation, there is random mating and assortment of alleles. meanwhile, there is another population isolated from the first that is allowed to change: ideally, this would happen in a small population with non-random mating and lots of mutations creating genetic variability. Are you saying that the change in the second population, over time, even millions of years of being separated from the first population in a totally different environment, is not enough to create a significant difference in the group, so that a new species may arise?

Consider the case of dogs and domestic cats. About 10,000 years ago, humans started capturing wolves and training them for various purposes (a type of selection). People noticed traits that were useful, and selected those dogs for breeding, thus bringing those genes encoding those desired traits to a higher frequency in the dog population. Look at the incredible variation in dog populations and breeds today, with just 10,000 years of very fast evolutionary change. Could a chihuahua mate with a wolf and produce viable offspring? Are these organisms even similar in any way, really? Yet all of these different dog breeds were produced from wolves. So this is why dogs are considered a different species from wolves.

In any case, evolutionary biologists have made estimates for how long it takes for natural selection to 'create" new species, and it is on the order of hundreds of thousands to millions of years, not 10,000 years. This makes sense, of course, since natural selection, as you may well imagine, may be a bit weaker than that of humans selecting for specific traits - this is a very high selection coefficient! Nevertheless, it is not humans who created dogs of their own accord. There had to be some genetic variation there to act upon to create these dog breeds with different traits. the process of dog breeding was microevolution, while the existence of dogs as distinct from wolves is macroevolution.

So why would you not believe in macroevolution? I think you have simply not considered the time scale over which speciation (the splitting of one population into two genetically distinct populations) takes place. Remember that cells first appeared on Earth billions of years ago. There has been plenty of time for all of this diversity to arise, first through genetic variation created by mutation, and secondly, natural selection.

[Adrian Hester]

First of all the 2nd law of thermodynamics can apply to the earth because the earth and the sun can be included in "the closed system."

But then you'd have to be consistent about the system you're using. If you take the Earth and the Sun together as the closed system, then you have to calculate the entropy increase for the whole system, not just for the Earth. That's very simple physics, but apparently it's too intelligent for the Intelligent Design crowd.

i don't mean to get relativistic on all of you, but a system is whatever you want it to be, if you're saying the earth is not a closed system, you can say that everything else in the universe is not a closed system, then what's the purpose of the law?

Because it is possible to identify almost-closed systems, just as it is possible to identify systems which are almost friction-free or almost inertial, allowing Newton's laws to be used with as much accuracy as you need. Similarly, it is possible to set up systems which have a negligible energy flow across their boundaries (a beaker of liquid helium isolated in a thermos, for example), in which case you can treat it as completely closed for thermodynamic calculations. The Earth is not an almost-closed system, nor even close to one.

You may say that a closed system is one in which one object is not affected by another, but this impossible unless you isolate every single atom in the universe.

By that argument, no science would be possible that idealized a physical case by simplifying and isolating parts of reality. If you admit that science in general is possible even though it idealizes reality by ignoring all of the universe that only affects a system negligibly, then your argument doesn't hold for thermodynamics either. What is necessary for classical equilibrium thermodynamics to be applied to a system that you treat as closed is for the net energy flow (or its associated entropy flow) across the borders of the system to be negligible compared to the changes within the system. That doesn't hold for the Earth, especially in the case of the metabolisms of living beings; even in bulk, all living beings taken as a group, the energy changes involved in metabolism do not dwarf the energy flux from the Sun (to say the least). Hence, the Earth is not even approximately a closed system, and thus your use of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is utterly invalid.

Edited October 4, 2005 by Adrian Hester

[AisA]

ID argument: Nature is so complex, it must have been designed.

Note also that this argument invokes the fallacy of the "stolen concept". The concept of "complex" has meaning only in relation to the concept of "simple", i.e. it is only by comparing one thing to another that we arrive at the notions of "complex" and "simple". Since the universe (nature) is everything that exists, there is nothing to which it can be compared. Thus, the concept "complex" has no meaning in relation to the universe.

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

AisA, I had not even thought of this! Cool. So, score 2 against ID.

In any case, we are leaving out the entire law of identity, too. That the ID people posit an intelligent designer, but they cannot prove the existence of that designer. Score 3 against ID.

[Felix]

Note also that this argument invokes the fallacy of the "stolen concept". The concept of "complex" has meaning only in relation to the concept of "simple", i.e. it is only by comparing one thing to another that we arrive at the notions of "complex" and "simple". Since the universe (nature) is everything that exists, there is nothing to which it can be compared. Thus, the concept "complex" has no meaning in relation to the universe.

Wait a minute ... this means that you cannot say anything about the universe, like: It is big, it is empty, it is cold, etc. You clearly can compare the universe with a part of the universe. Just like you can say that a transistor is simple compared to the complexity of a Celeron processor.

[Caulfeild]

what about evolution's explanation for the origin of matter? i've asked a lot of people this and they all seem to talk about the big bang and other scientific explanations for the origin of matter, i know it might not be relevant to the debate, but i'd like to know.

AisA, I had not even thought of this! Cool. So, score 2 against ID.

In any case, we are leaving out the entire law of identity, too. That the ID people posit an intelligent designer, but they cannot prove the existence of that designer. Score 3 against ID.

of course they cannot prove the existence of it, every theory of an intelligent designer contains zero scientific fact, it is a philisophical argument, not a scientific one.

Note also that this argument invokes the fallacy of the "stolen concept". The concept of "complex" has meaning only in relation to the concept of "simple", i.e. it is only by comparing one thing to another that we arrive at the notions of "complex" and "simple". Since the universe (nature) is everything that exists, there is nothing to which it can be compared. Thus, the concept "complex" has no meaning in relation to the universe.

this also means that nothing can be simple. i see what you're tring to say, but it doesn't invoke a fallacy into the argument. it's like saying that it's harder to lift the eiffel tower than to pour milk on my cereal, than someone telling me that it's not from their point of view, which is totally acceptable under the theory of special relativity. something always has to be compared with something else.

[AisA]

Wait a minute ... this means that you cannot say anything about the universe, like: It is big, it is empty, it is cold, etc.

The universe is not an entity; it is a collection of all entities. Thus, one cannot ascribe to it attributes of entities, such as size, temperature or complexity. The universe is everything that exists. One would not say that "Everything that exists is complex", just as one would not say "Everything that exists is hot".

What we can say about the universe are very general things such as it exists, it possesses identity, it follows natural laws, etc.

You clearly can compare the universe with a part of the universe. Just like you can say that a transistor is simple compared to the complexity of a Celeron processor.

Comparing a transistor and a processor is a comparison of two entities. Comparing the universe to an entity is meaningless. For instance, which would you say is hotter: the universe or your stove?

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

It's not relevant to evolution since evolution is concerned with how life forms evolve, but it's certainly an interesting question.

So, maybe one of you mods will want to split this into a difft. thread now, or Caulfield, you might want to check out some other threads on this topic by using the search option. This may have been discussed before.

My answer to you is to ask you this: Why do you assume there must have been an origin for matter, that it must have arisen from nothing? There are two possibilities. 1) either matter (the universe) exists because someone intended it to be so or 2) the universe just is. It just exists.

Using the existence of the universe as proof for the existence of a designer or intender is a faulty use of the principle of causality, since we have only one universe. We do not have more than one universe to observe, and one cannot make a link between cause and effect without repeated associations.

Assitionally, you have to step over another hurdle, which is to prove the existence of this "someone," whoever or whatever that might be. You can say that the universe was created by a force, or a flying spaghetti monster, or a flying killer whale, or a three-headed dragon, or any infinite number of possibilities, but you have no evidence to support your claim that this being exists and you haven't shown why anyone should believe you. Any such statement that a being exists without proving it exists is a rejection of rationality and an acceptance of mysticism.

You have to choose for yourself. Mysticism or reason.

[gnargtharst]

AisA pointed out: "Note also that this ["the universe is complex"] argument invokes the fallacy of the "stolen concept". The concept of "complex" has meaning only in relation to the concept of "simple", i.e. it is only by comparing one thing to another that we arrive at the notions of "complex" and "simple". Since the universe (nature) is everything that exists, there is nothing to which it can be compared. Thus, the concept "complex" has no meaning in relation to the universe.

Not only is this concept stolen from the context of referents (i.e., "complex...compared to what?"), but is stolen from another context as well: "complexity" is an epistemological concept, not a metaphysical one. A thing is not complex, except in its relation to a conceptual faculty attempting to grasp it. When a creationist utters "a tiger is complex, and couldn't have just randomly formed without divine intervention", what he's really saying is "the theory of evolution is complex to me, and I don't grasp how a tiger might have evolved."

From a "metaphysical perspective", there's nothing essentially more or less complex about a tiger, and the rock upon which he naps. The universe and her laws, being somewhat more intelligent than the "intelligent design" crowd, sees no necessity to "explain" what already makes perfect sense.

[Felix]

Comparing a transistor and a processor is a comparison of two entities. Comparing the universe to an entity is meaningless. For instance, which would you say is hotter: the universe or your stove?

The stove. If you take a mean temperature of the universe known to man it is colder than my stove.

The universe is also bigger than any part it contains. Simply because it contains all the other stuff, too, like me for example.

[Caulfeild]

It's not relevant to evolution since evolution is concerned with how life forms evolve, but it's certainly an interesting question.

So, maybe one of you mods will want to split this into a difft. thread now, or Caulfield, you might want to check out some other threads on this topic by using the search option. This may have been discussed before.

My answer to you is to ask you this: Why do you assume there must have been an origin for matter, that it must have arisen from nothing? There are two possibilities. 1) either matter (the universe) exists because someone intended it to be so or 2) the universe just is. It just exists.

Using the existence of the universe as proof for the existence of a designer or intender is a faulty use of the principle of causality, since we have only one universe. We do not have more than one universe to observe, and one cannot make a link between cause and effect without repeated associations.

Assitionally, you have to step over another hurdle, which is to prove the existence of this "someone," whoever or whatever that might be. You can say that the universe was created by a force, or a flying spaghetti monster, or a flying killer whale, or a three-headed dragon, or any infinite number of possibilities, but you have no evidence to support your claim that this being exists and you haven't shown why anyone should believe you. Any such statement that a being exists without proving it exists is a rejection of rationality and an acceptance of mysticism.

You have to choose for yourself. Mysticism or reason.

i don't like those options, and i don't believe that the rest of mankind likes them either, but they are the only two we have to choose from (unless you happen to be carlos castaneda).

and like i've said before, i can't prove the existence of an intelligent designer, no one can; but then again, no one can prove that species have evolved from other species.

mysticism and reason cannot be seperated into two different entities of thought. whether you like it or not, reason is empirical, it cannot be taught.

[Proverb]

[...]mysticism and reason cannot be seperated into two different entities of thought. whether you like it or not, reason is empirical, it cannot be taught.

Why are you here? After saying that, you have no claim to any argument you have intended to make.

When you understand the error in your statement you will then be able to say something valid.

"Whether you like it or not."

Which I might add is not an argument, it's a statement.

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

i don't like those options, and i don't believe that the rest of mankind likes them either

Too bad, that's reality. Unless you choose not to live in it.

and like i've said before, i can't prove the existence of an intelligent designer...

May I ask why you would choose to believe that something exists when you can't prove that it exists? To satisfy an emotional whim, perhaps? Because of emotional needs you believe in an intelligent designer?

....no one can prove that species have evolved from other species.

I can assure you that people have proven this and will continue to do so. maybe you should pick up some of hte scientific journals about and start reading. Stop asserting, start reading. I showed how speciation happens a couple of paragraphs above. But you aren't listening, are you? No matter how much evidence I provide, you will not believe or accept. Yours are blind assertions not backed up by any facts. I have provided data and facts and resources for you to go look at, while you have provided assertions without facts, supported only by your emotional need to reject evolution.

If, by "prove", you mean that we would have to go back in time to see species changing into others, of course we cannot prove speciation in that way! That is impossible. This doesn't mean that extant species have not left evidence of speciation: we have the fossil record, changes in morphology, and DNA evidence.

That is all I have to say in this matter if you cannot start using the rational part of your brain.

Edited October 6, 2005 by Liriodendron Tulipifera