Information and Evolutionary Mechanisms

This is becoming comical.  You truly don't listen.  I have REPEATEDLY acknowledged the problem these in-built genetic evolvability mechanisms pose for their origin, but once organisms have them it enables cells to rapidly restructure genomes.  I have REPEATEDLY recognized and even provided you with additional evidence in support of your view and the conundrum that the complex information processing systems living things have cause for the origin of life.  It's comical because even when I provide you with evidence in support of your position and tell others that you have a valid point when it comes to the origin of life and the problem posed by specified complexity you still try to argue against me!  Even when I'm arguing for you on your behalf!  

I've also REPEATEDLY said for sake of argument let's go ahead and assume that EVERYTHING you say about PROCESS is correct.  Let's assume that you are ENTIRELY correct and that there is NO naturalistic mechanism for either the origin of life or evolution.  I've REPEATEDLY said let's assume for sake of argument that EVERYTHING is the result of INTELLIGENT DESIGN.  Even when I do this you still argue with me about PROCESS even when I say let's assume you're entirely correct.  Do we really have to do this again? 

Once again, let's say Intelligent Design is correct.  Problem solved.  There are now no problems with the PROCESS that you keep endlessly bringing up, because we now have an Intelligent Designer who will take care of it.

EVEN IF we accept an Intelligent Designer, it still doesn't change the fact that we have no evidence for special creation at the same time but have a historical record of life that shows different organisms appearing and going extinct at different times in earth's history.  And it still doesn't change the evidence we have that shows things are genetically related and have an evolutionary history---like the bacterial DNA that has been acquired and integrated into plant cells over time that you continue to ignore saying all you care about is process, process, process.  

Thus, as I've REPEATEDLY said even if we accept an intelligent designer the evidence would still show that life on this planet is the result of either progressive creation by an intelligent designer or evolutionary creation by an intelligent designer--both of which you're unwilling to accept, but also unwilling to deal with the problems because you're only concerned with process, process, process.

Now please go ahead and continue arguing with me about process so I can die laughing.

If we have evidence to say that a designer put life and the universe together to support life, then I think we can also lay to rest; there isn't evidence for a special event in creation. The only one who can design everything from electrical charges, gravity, down to putting together life's biological systems. Once again, you are giving me the reason to dismiss your argument by your own arguments. I'm not laughing at you; you do seem to make this a little more personal for you than me.

@TruthMuse

So you are finally acknowledging that if we assume an intelligent designer did everything that there is still no evidence for special creation around the same time (in six days), and that we're left with either progressive creation by an intelligent designer or evolutionary creation by an intelligent designer? 

If we acknowledge ID, we acknowledge ID in all of it. I believe in the six-day creation story, but I've never attempted to prove it. I'm of the mind that a singular special event isn't something that can be reproduced, therefore proving it will never be possible; it can only be shown credible. I'm also not completely convinced I'm right about the time. I am convinced God created out of nothing (ex nihilo) is the most credible explanation out, in my opinion. God creating the universe is the only explanation that can explain everything; we know it had a beginning and the functional complexity is impossible to calculate. Seeing the fine-tuning in the galactic and the microscopic, it all fits. Someone with far more intelligence and power than us is responsible. The difference between an intelligent designer and the two choices (ID/Evolution) is a distinction without a difference as far as I'm concern. A designed universe and life during a span of days, or billions of years, is still a designed universe created by a designer. The questions change when we acknowledge it was done for a reason versus otherwise. To suggest it must have been through evolutionary means then begs the question, can we see that process playing out slowly, quickly, or was it all done immediately? Can we tell the difference just by looking at things we see today or the past? What would the differences that could distinguish one from the other choices?

 If you've been trying to convince me of a supernatural higher power, then you've been wasting your time, because I've already told you I'm a theist.  So, obviously I already believe in a supernatural higher power who is ultimately responsible for all we see.

Your "if we acknowledge ID we acknowledge ID in all of it" doesn't logically follow, is vague, and leaves questions unanswered.  For example, that could mean anything from a deist view of God who started things out and then let them run to the other extreme of an ultra involved God who is involved in every physical action we observe from plant growth to objects falling because of God instead of gravity.  So even if ID is true you still can't just write everything else but need to deal with a whole new set of questions.  Perhaps those questions aren't important to you, but they will be to other people who will ask you to clarify what exactly you mean, and thus, you probably should delve further so you are prepared with a ready answer.

The level of involvement of an intelligent designer is the biggest question I can see.  Even if ID is true then you have an intelligent designer who at minimum created natural laws of the universe and fundamental forces like gravity and physical and chemical processes.  So, where does one begin and the other end? (Hold that question, I'll come back to it in a second) 

Also, even if you're right about ID you still need to recognize that it's not a scientific argument and there's no way to scientifically test or verify ID.  ID is less science and more philosophy and based on philosophical argument (that sometimes employs empirical results and study), and there's nothing wrong with that, but the distinction still needs to be recognized that it is not science and doesn't qualify as science.

ID also squelches scientific research.  This is illustrated by what seems to be your "OK, we're done here, those are the only important questions to me" response.  If every scientist suddenly accepts ID, then what?  What do we do now?  Does that mean all scientific inquiry stops?  Does that mean scientists should stop trying to find natural explanations?  What if it turns out there is a natural explanation that scientists simply haven't discovered yet?

This is why scientists are rightly skeptical of ID because a lot of ID arguments (though perhaps not all) are still "god-of-the-gaps" type arguments that remain unconvincing and to scientists little more than a substitute placeholder for ignorance.  Thus, for example, what at first may have seemed a convincing argument by Behe for the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum has now been completely dismantled and with additional study substantial evidence for a credible evolutionary history of the bacterial flagellum has been found.  This is why scientists remain unconvinced, because science has a good record of ultimately finding natural explanations.  Even with the origin of life it can't be ruled out that a credible natural explanation might still one day be discovered.

This brings us back to question of where exactly do you draw the line between the direct involvement of an intelligent designer vs. something that's the direct result of natural processes created by an intelligent designer?

Thus, as I've repeatedly said, the criticisms of Neo-Darwinian gradual step-wise evolution by random mutation and natural selection that you make to advance your argument for ID---as I've repeatedly said, your criticisms of Neo-Darwinism ARE legitimate.  But as I've also repeatedly said, those criticisms are also no longer relevant, because we now have abundant evidence that evolution doesn't work that way, and living things have built-in evolvability mechanisms.  So, this would not invalidate a belief in ID but like gravity and plant growth and star and galaxy formation, it adds yet another thing to the list that is the direct result of natural processes (even if those natural processes were created by an intelligent designer). 

We are both in agreement that a six day creation cannot be proven and is a matter of religious faith.  We are also in agreement that while it can't be proven it can still be shown to be credible.  And when we tackle that question the evidence shows that a six day creation is decidedly NOT credible.  The age of the earth is irrelevant.  Regardless of the earth's age, the fossil record still indisputably and inescapably shows that all life on this planet did not appear at the same time in history, but at different times throughout history, and that most forms of life have gone extinct before other forms of life have appeared.  The simplest most well-known example of this dinosaurs.  Even if ID is true there is still no way to say an intelligent designer all created life including humans and dinosaurs at the same time.  The fossil record shows this to be clearly false.  So even if ID is true, then the fossil record shows that an intelligent designer must have created dinosaurs which lived for awhile and then went extinct and then later created humans.  Thus, as I've said even if ID is true, a six day creation is clearly not credible and progressive creation is the only creationist view supported by the fossil record.

With regard to "suggesting evolution begs the question" I must again point out that evolution is not simply an idea or suggestion but what the facts support.  Genomes record evidence of past historical changes in the genome.  Now I know you will say that those similarities could just be the result of independent creation according to a common design, but the truth is scientists don't automatically assume that similarities must be due to common ancestry.  To the contrary, genomes allow us to determine which similarities are the result of common ancestry and which similarities aren't.

I will continue to use bacterial endosymbiosis in plant cells as an example.  The evidence makes it difficult to deny that the bacterial DNA acquired and integrated into plant cells is the result of evolutionary history and not the result of instantaneous creation. 

Here is an article by an IDer who argues that while he thinks bacterial endosymbiosis is the result of an intelligent designer that the evidence still convincingly shows that evolutionary history is supported (and not an instantaneous creation with no prior history).  And this is simply one example of innumerable ones that evolution had occurred---even if an intelligent designer was responsible for it.

I encourage you to take the time as much as is needed to read and reread and absorb what this ID article is saying--the logic, the arguments, the evidence for evolutionary history.  This is the type of evidence we have all the way around.  And this is why I say even if ID is true the evidence still shows that evolution has occurred (and not just "limited" evolution within "kinds")--if not by natural processes, then by an intelligent designer.

ID and Endosymbiosis pdf

"Based on the present available data, an endosymbiotic origin for mitochondria and chloroplasts seems to be a reasonable conclusion despite the unanswered questions that remain.  Chloroplasts from a variety of photosynthetic organisms show very similar features and have kept many of their bacterial features. It is difficult to convincingly explain these bacterial features in a nonhistorical manner."  

" We should keep in mind that
natural selection and ID need not be mutually exclusive,
since the two could just as easily work side-by-side.85
The difficulty is determining the contribution of natural
selection as opposed to a contribution from some sort of as
yet unidentified underlying principle that might guide
mitochondrial genomic evolution."

from page 109

I fail to see how ID "squelches scientific research" when the only major change besides the direct refutation of a purely materialistic world view would be altering the questions from how did this form over time through evolution, to why it was done this way? We can do science because we anticipate the universe makes sense; we look for truth in it that doesn't change without causes that make sense. In my opinion, as I have highlighted over and over, looking at the changes that would be required to go from a single life form into the wide variety we see today is unattainable from a Materialistic world view. Looking at the processes described for a common ancestor from a Theistic worldview is quite frankly a total waste of time, why take billions of years to do something that could be done in a week?

How does ID squelch scientific research?  Well, for starters, it's not scientific, it's philosophical.  It also can't make testable, reliable scientific predictions like again where do we draw the line between direct intervention by an intelligent designer vs. by natural processes created by an intelligent designer (just like the quote you cited makes the same point).  As I said it also employs "god-of-the-gaps" ignorance. Thus, your "refutation" of materialistic Neo-Darwinism is moot and irrelevant, because we have in fact discovered NON Neo-Darwinian natural mechanisms for evolution and genomic evidence that common ancestry isn't simply some hypothesis but an established fact beyond any reasonable doubt (except for those who choose to remain in ignorance) (You still don't seem to get it that "ID-is-true" does NOT equate to a refutation of evolution.  In order to do that, you're going to have to move beyond process like I keep telling you.  If you don't want to, that's your perogative, but then you can't claim you've refuted evolution).

And finally, what you see as a waste of time accomplishing by evolution over billions of years what could be done in a week--well, you may think that's a waste of time but the intelligent designer obviously didn't because all life does not appear at the same time on earth but at different times.  So, once again, at best ID shows progressive creationism where an intelligent designer created organisms that then went extinct and then created new organisms that then went extinct and then created new organisms that went extinct and for some reason continued repeating this process.  If you think that's a waste of time, then you need to take that up with the intelligent designer, and not me, because I didn't do it.

Searching for the best possible explanation is a scientific method. I fail to see how that is philosophical. It is no different than looking at life and seeing evolutionary lines if you think that is the best possible explanation. Looking at the universe around us and seeing what best fits as an explanation is what we do. ID is not a line of reasoning behind a god of the gaps. It is the best possible explanation for something you even claim to believe in from the information at hand, purely to acknowledge what is seen, not despite it.

We have come full circle where people just threw up their hands and explained phenomena that weren't understood, giving credit to gods as a gap explanation. This has flipped in modern days; now, the data seen by materialists cannot explain things, but many claim someday someone will find one when it comes to creating the universe and life. I don't believe you have ever shown evolutionary paths that are definitively undisputed, possibly different life with similar and distinct traits in times periods that you suggest shows you something that validates evolutionary change. Still, we don't have to go back in time to see that those types of things are all modern features types similar and dissimilar are here now; we can see all of that today.

I believe your own explanation for the dismissal of ID is purely philosophical and not very scientific. You refuse to think it is possible for evolution not to be the best explanation, so you dismiss ID out of hand even while professing to embrace the notion itself, which is very contradictory.

Inference to the best explanation IS a type of reasoning in philosophy called abductive reasoning that science sometimes employs, but abductive reasoning is not synonymous with the *scientific method*.  There is no scientific test for *intelligent design*.  There is no scientific test for supernatural intervention.   Just because I'm a theist doesn't mean I embrace the philosophical and religious ideology of ID.  I haven't dismissed ID out of hand, but only after careful consideration and weighing of the evidence.  I used to think evolution was wrong and impossible to explain life's diversity, but a careful study of the evidence showed I was wrong.  You keep saying evolution can't account for such and such, when empirical study has already shown that it has.  No amount of science denying and naysaying on your part will change the facts.  I can't do anything about your refusal to educate yourself beyond an early 20th century strawman conception of evolution that you continue wasting your time and energies attacking.  I already gave you an article by an IDer who accepts the evolutionary origin and history of plant cells by bacterial endosymbiosis.  If you won't even accept that evidence for evolution when it's even espoused by one of your own, then I don't know what to tell you.  Take it up with that IDer, not me.

There isn't a religious ideology in ID; it is simply acknowledging that what we see in life is better explained by design and cannot be explained outside of an Intelligence at work. If I wanted to go the religious route, and I do from time to time, I'll use scripture and talk about God creating the universe. The fact that religious ideologies and scientific methods sometimes cross paths is simply because we live in reality. The universe doesn't really allow for specific truths to be true in some cases and not others; what is true is true. We cannot say a scientific truth voids a religious truth the other way around. Truth is truth, and the topics that touch both will find that the truth will be truth in both of them without contradiction. Different methods reaching the same conclusions might be used, and if they indeed reflect reality, clearly, they will show the same results. 

Never said science voids religion or vice versa.  If you reject evolution, then again, you need to take that up with ID proponents who accept evolution, not me.

I don't reject evolution limited to small changes those we can see and measure, the leap of faith that suggests more can happen with lots of time I reject.

Well then you believe in a lot of large scale evolutionary change because we have observed and measured large scale evolutionary changes beyond your "small" "limited" misconception 

You have not observed large scale evolutionary changes. It may be suggest something found and dated represents the impression of what you believe occurred, but that is not observing it. 

If you bothered to read the articles I've given you, you'd know what I'm talking about.  Also, plant cell origin from bacterial endosymbiosis constitutes a major evolutionary transition---a much larger scale transition, in fact, than all the vertebrate transitions put together (which you'd already know if you understood genetics).

 But that aside, you cannot reject valid inferences from data that we do observe, and it's really quite hypocritical of you to reject such valid reasoning from observational data, when you're asking people to make inferences to an invisible intelligent designer that we cannot see.  Hypocritical indeed.  At least with genomics we have actual physical data we can observe.

You do live under the impression that given the same information you have everyone will see things the way you do, that is not the case just so you know.

You're in the minority on that one

Truth isn't decided by a vote.

Of course it's not, nor is a scientific consensus.  A scientific consensus occurs when scientists are convinced by the evidence just as they are here.  You're in the minority because you reject the evidence.

I am not at all rejecting evidence, your interpretation of it yes. What is scientific consensus if not a preference of those who think one thing over another?