Nelson vs. Ruse "undebate"

Yes, I agree with all of that, including Ruse's good points.

With this ludicrous episode you have again the equation of a mostly good thinker, Ruse, with someone whose "thought" in these matters is always checked against his religion. Ruse will be mostly on target scientifically, while Nelson will do everything in his power to change what evidence is needed to "convince him" of evolution to move it away from the familiar 'make entailed predictions, and if these are borne out, accept the theory so long as a more predictive theory does not exist.'

The whole point of ID is to change science from a relatively unbiased evidence-based enterprise, into one in which assuming God's workings in nature (sans evidence) is every bit as good as relying upon what can be demonstrated. Ruse is entirely playing into Nelson's attempts to change science, by having the two exist side-by-side as if they were both reasonable positions.

It's as if Cotton Mather and Ruse were arguing over what should count as evidence of witchcraft, where the "witness" of the girls who saw the witchcraft is to be presented as being just as legitimate as hard evidence. Ruse has to tell of what would convince him that the witchcraft is real, when it isn't even a legitimate hypothesis, and Paul Nelson gets to demand that every single event has to be explained (including the girls' likely hallucinations), before he will be convinced that the accused aren't witches. To naive religionists, Nelson will sound reasonable, while Ruse will be trying to explain why the witchcraft isn't real after he's already essentially conceded the accusations to be at least sensible.

The only truly sensible debate would be where both debaters agree to the rules of science, and the two come up with sufficient evidence under those rules. What's the point of asking Nelson what the rules should be? He's only going to make the rules impossible for us to meet, while he'll write God into the rules so that God is assumed wherever God cannot be absolutely ruled out.

Yes, it's a propaganda gain for the IDists. Shame on you, Ruse.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

the comments section is amusing, with them speculating on how ruse might answer. of course, their speculations are absurdly simple-minded like "i want to meet the designer!"

for those of us that read talk.origins, you may remember my "CSI challenge" threads that offer a blind test for design detection. thats all i need! just pass a simple double blind test to prove that they can actually detect design.

Yes, it’s a propaganda gain for the IDists. Shame on you, Ruse.

Nelson did admit, back in 2002, that science teachers could teach an old age of the earth and ignore young earth claims, just as science ignores claims that UFOs demonstrate that extraterrestrials are visiting earth. I know that's not anywhere near a patch on what Nick would like Nelson to do, but it is something.

Nelson did admit, back in 2002, that science teachers could teach an old age of the earth and ignore young earth claims, just as science ignores claims that UFOs demonstrate that extraterrestrials are visiting earth. I know that’s not anywhere near a patch on what Nick would like Nelson to do, but it is something.

Nelson did admit, back in 2002, that science teachers could teach an old age of the earth and ignore young earth claims, just as science ignores claims that UFOs demonstrate that extraterrestrials are visiting earth.

Sorry, but I can not muster the energy to care what either Ruse or Nelson think.

More interesting would be what it would take to get Britney Spears to wear underwear.

Or, what it would take to get my cat to eat Tender Bits.

Move along. Nothing to see here.

Denying that the earth is "old" is the same as denying that the earth is round?! Only a Darwinist would think like that.
While we can empirically see that the earth is round, we cannot empirically see that the earth is "old". The age of the earth is more in line with "forensic science" (gathering a wide range of evidence to support a given hypothesis about something that happened IN THE PAST).

But even so, Nelson won't be discussing the age of the earth with Ruse, but Darwinism and ID.

As always, Darwinist Nick tries to point the debate elsewhere, since the central Darwinian claim (that living forms are the result of an impersonal, unguided, undirected natural force) is not that easy to scientifically defend.

Conversely, it would be interesting to see what kind of evidence Ruse thinks would falsify impersonal/unguided/undirected evolutionism.

That's funny, I walked outside just the other day and the Earth looked pretty flat to me.

Mats wrote:

"Conversely, it would be interesting to see what kind of evidence Ruse thinks would falsify impersonal/unguided/undirected evolutionism."

Well I don't know about Ruse, but I can sure think of lots of things that could potentially falsify the hypothesis that evolution has not been guided by an intelligent force that directs it towards certain goals.

For example, if humans used a genetic code that was drastically different from that used by other organisms, then they would not be susceptible to diseases caused by many types of viruses. That would certainly be hard to explain as an evolutionary adaptation and might be evidence of foresight and planning on the part of some designer. Likewiae, organisms using vastly different genetic codes that could not easily be derived from each other by ordinary evolutionary pathways might be taken as evidence against unguided evolution, especially if they were fundamentally similar in the rest of their molecular biology. In the same way, mitochondria that were not distinctly prokaryotic in nature would be difficult to explain, since that would be hard to reconcile with the endosymbiotic theory and would prevent many problems with certain types of antibiotics. That might also indicate some foresight and planning on the part of some designer for the benefit of mankind.

One could go on and on with such examples. However, there is no evidence of any such foresight or planning in nature. What we see is perfectly consistent with lack of planning and foresight and constraint due to historical contingency. Either that or the supposed designer is really ignorant, stupid, incompetent and just plain mean. The simple fact that evolution has already taken billions of years with no end in sight should be enough to at least call the competence of the supposed designer into question. Of course you are perfectly free to believe that nature can be interpreted as displaying design, foresight and planning. But in that case your opinion of the designer might be inflated by your own ignorance and lack of imagination.

In some ways that’s worse, because it indicates he *knows* the evidence is against him, and he holds the YEC position *in spite of* the evidence.

— Nick (Matzke)

Mats,

Exactly how old do you think the Earth is? I don’t care how you arrive at the answer, just give us a number. Not a range, but a single best-estimate. And while you are at it, do the same for the age of the first life on Earth. Then tell us whether or not you agree with Michael Behe that humans share common ancestors with broccoli. Like you, Behe (apparently) doubts that “impersonal/unguided/undirected evolutionism” is the driving force for species change, so if you have any disagreements, you can challenge him directly, without having to bait-and-switch the proximate causes with the ultimate ones.

Denying that the earth is “old” is the same as denying that the earth is round?! Only a Darwinist would think like that.

Is it just me, or is there something particularly ludicrous and pitiful about Ruse ...

No, it's not just you.

"There’s no crying in science."

LOL

That's a great line. I'll have to remember it.

When it comes to the evidence for evolution versus the evidence for ID, another line from the same movie comes to mind:

"well then, this would be more wouldn't it?"

Mats wrote: Conversely, it would be interesting to see what kind of evidence Ruse thinks would falsify impersonal/unguided/undirected evolutionism.

Denying that the earth is “old” is the same as denying that the earth is round?! Only a Darwinist would think like that. While we can empirically see that the earth is round, we cannot empirically see that the earth is “old”. The age of the earth is more in line with “forensic science” (gathering a wide range of evidence to support a given hypothesis about something that happened IN THE PAST).

...the argument along the lines of you can’t really say anything about it because it happened in the past is one of the most absolutely insane, virulently anti-science (and therefore anti-general-revelation, and therefore non-biblical) positions...

But even so, Nelson won’t be discussing the age of the earth with Ruse, but Darwinism and ID.

As always, Darwinist Nick tries to point the debate elsewhere, since the central Darwinian claim (that living forms are the result of an impersonal, unguided, undirected natural force) is not that easy to scientifically defend.

Conversely, it would be interesting to see what kind of evidence Ruse thinks would falsify impersonal/unguided/undirected evolutionism.

Re Nick

"n some ways that’s worse, because it indicates he *knows* the evidence is against him, and he holds the YEC position *in spite of* the evidence. And then he and the other IDers have the chutzpah to lecture real scientists about “following the evidence wherever it leads.”"

This is the position taken by Kurt Wise who admits that virtually all the scientific evidence points to an old earth but he continues to believe in a young earth anyway as a matter of faith.

Denying that the earth is “old” is the same as denying that the earth is round?! Only a Darwinist would think like that. While we can empirically see that the earth is round, we cannot empirically see that the earth is “old”.

As always, Darwinist Nick tries to point the debate elsewhere, since the central Darwinian claim (that living forms are the result of an impersonal, unguided, undirected natural force) is not that easy to scientifically defend.

Too bad Kurt Wise isn't in on the debate. I can just hear his answer now: "What would it take to convince me to change my mind and accept evolution? Why, a passage in the Bible that I have overlooked!"

You're right. Ruse does more challenging theologically than scientifically. But since Literal Creationists are really believing a religious belief and not a scientific one, this is exactly the approach, imo, that will work better with them. We can throw all the science at them we want, but since they are operating with a different worldview paradaigm that puts theology first, we need people like Ruse to speak to the theology first. I speak as one who was once a Literal Creationist and then saw the Light.

With this ludicrous episode you have again the equation of a mostly good thinker, Ruse, with someone whose “thought” in these matters is always checked against his religion.

The whole point of ID is to change science from a relatively unbiased evidence-based enterprise, into one in which assuming God’s workings in nature (sans evidence) is every bit as good as relying upon what can be demonstrated. Ruse is entirely playing into Nelson’s attempts to change science, by having the two exist side-by-side as if they were both reasonable positions.

Mats wrote:

“Conversely, it would be interesting to see what kind of evidence Ruse thinks would falsify impersonal/unguided/undirected evolutionism.”

Well I don’t know about Ruse, but I can sure think of lots of things that could potentially falsify the hypothesis that evolution has not been guided by an intelligent force that directs it towards certain goals. For example, if humans used a genetic code that was drastically different from that used by other organisms, then they would not be susceptible to diseases caused by many types of viruses.

Likewise, organisms using vastly different genetic codes that could not easily be derived from each other by ordinary evolutionary pathways might be taken as evidence against unguided evolution, especially if they were fundamentally similar in the rest of their molecular biology.

However, there is no evidence of any such foresight or planning in nature.

What we see is perfectly consistent with lack of planning and foresight and constraint due to historical contingency.

As always, Darwinist Nick tries to point the debate elsewhere, since the central Darwinian claim (that living forms are the result of an impersonal, unguided, undirected natural force) is not that easy to scientifically defend.

You are using imprecise terminology, as Ruse would quick to point out, Darwinian processes are hardly undirected or unguided.

In addition Mats seems to be creating a straw man of Darwinian theory which says nothing about impersonal… God may very well be using Darwinian processes to guide it all along…

It takes faith however to accept this…

Some seem to lack faith and instead have to confuse matters…

That’s ID to you in a nutshell, scientifically vacuous, theologically risky and devoid of faith.

What is unnatural about intelligence?

On the other hand, Darwinism is philosophically rich, anti-theologically clear and filled with faith (in naturalism).

So go and have your ID friends do some ID stuff or something so that PVM doesn't have to. That way you and they get all the credit. Problem solved!

Mats wrote: Different genetic codes would not falsify evolutionism, since Darwinists would make up an ad hoc story to explain it. Why do you think that Darwinists are in the front line in the search of extra terrestrial life? If they do find life out there, that would be used as evidence that, as I said above, “life was bound to happen”.

Mats wrote:

"Different genetic codes would not falsify evolutionism, since Darwinists would make up an ad hoc story to explain it."

You asked what evidence would be taken as evidence against unguided evolution. I provided you with an answer. I am the one who is claiming that this evidence could not be explained by conventional evolutionary theory. Are you claiming that it could be?

There are good theoretical reasons why we believe that it is very difficult to make even minor changes to an arbitrary genetic code once it has arisen. We have good models to explain the minor changes that have occurred and they all show that any major changes would be neartly impossible. To that you could add that certain types of changes could be interpreted as planning and foresight, therefore your criteria are more than met.

If evolutionary biologist did indeed discover such a thing and did indeed come up with an explanation, you would be free to challenge it, just as you are free to challenge any scientific theory presently being used. But "I don't trust you" is not an argument.

Completely unrelated to the post, but I just read 'Monkey Girl' which had some wondeful details about Nick Matzke's involvement in the Dover, Pennsylvania trial. I had no idea that you were that immersed in the plaintiff's case. Thank you for your efforts!

Unfortunately, it probably means you're on some creationist hit list somewhere...

Same as above. Different genetic codes would not falsify evolutionism, since Darwinists would make up an ad hoc story to explain it.

As opposed to say, Richard Dawkins, who “thought” on anything is always checked against his atheism?

now all you have to do, Quacky, is show that one, atheism is a religion (and not just your projections again), and two, that all of Dawkins work extends entirely from that.

uh, good luck.

idiot.

With this ludicrous episode you have again the equation of a mostly good thinker, Ruse, with someone whose “thought” in these matters is always checked against his religion.

Is the assumption that if you’re a philosophical naturalist (or outright atheist), then its perfectly okay for your “thought” to be checked against that, but if you’re a Christian you can’t? What if the atheists and philosophical naturalists are wrong – whose “thought” is off the rails, then?

The whole point of ID is to change science from a relatively unbiased evidence-based enterprise, into one in which assuming God’s workings in nature (sans evidence) is every bit as good as relying upon what can be demonstrated. Ruse is entirely playing into Nelson’s attempts to change science, by having the two exist side-by-side as if they were both reasonable positions.

Since it hasn’t ever been established or confirmed scientifically that either atheism or philosophical naturalism is true, there’s nothing “unreasonable” about at all Nelson’s theism…nothing at all.

Except it doesn’t sit well with some folks worldview. Why should Nelson, or any other theist for that matter, be taken to task simply because his theism informs his worldview?

Different genetic codes would not falsify evolutionism,

Evolution NEVER predicted biological universals.

Torbjorn wrote:

"Note that David Stanton describes different genetic codes without pathways, which would not be predicted by evolution. AFAIU different genetic codes with pathways could have been a possibility, by a failure of different genetic lineages deriving from different progenotic communities to compete efficiently. But today we observe a general code."

You are absolutely correct. The genetic code is largely arbitrary and thus a cannonized code is primarily due to stochastic lineage extinction and historical contingency. Many other codes are possible, but once a single code is cannonized it becomes very difficult to alter it significantly. This is in fact one of main lines of evidence that demonstrates that all known life forms had a single origin. Other origins could have occurred, but we don't find any trace of their descendants today.

The point is that discovery of a completely different genetic code, in an organism with no other close relatives would be almost impossible to explain as being derived from the cannonized code. It could certainly exist, but probably not as the result of descent with modification from the other known life forms on this planet. That would be something that modern evolutionary theory could not explain. Something more would be needed to account for the observation. If the new code were not simply arbitrary but somehow indicative of foresight and planning, then that could possibly imply a completely novel mechanism that has never been observed before.

Of course this is only one example of something that would be difficut to explain for modern evolutionary theory. Many other possibilities exist, they simply have never been discovered, at least not yet. That is because the theory is falsifiable but has not been falsified.

I guess that is why ID advocates are so obsessed with DNA sequencing and determining the genetic codes for so many different organisms. I guess that explains why they spend so much money on genetic research and have so many publications in this area. Wait ... never mind.

If humans had a genetic make up different from other organisms, that would be used as evidence for evolution. Evolutionists would say “See?!! Evolution has taken what was at hand, and made life with another genetic makeup. Life was *bound* to happen anyway!”

Secondly, biological universals is NOT an evolutionary prediction, but an evolutionary accommodation. Evolution NEVER predicted biological universals.

In the age of DNA, genetic codes (there is a reason it is called a CODE, you know),

and in the age where we use “applied mathematics, informatics, statistics, computer science, artificial intelligence, chemistry, and biochemistry to solve biological problems usually on the molecular level“, it’s a bit outdated to say “There is no evidence for planning in nature”.

The difference is that Darwiniacs say that such a design can be done by an impersonal force like natural selection.