The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Technology, Science & Alt Science => Topic started by: Scroto Gaggins on February 04, 2015, 03:22:39 AM

Title: Intelligent design debate
Post by: Scroto Gaggins on February 04, 2015, 03:22:39 AM
This is for my homeboy st james
Lay down thy points my brotha
Title: Re: Intelligent design debate
Post by: ausGeoff on February 04, 2015, 06:11:11 AM
For starters, I'd suggest that anybody not familiar with the term "intelligent design" check out this site as a primer:

Not by Chance: From Bacterial Propulsion Systems to Human DNA, Evidence of Intelligent Design (ID) is Everywhere (http://bit.ly/1yH3Qgg)

It should also be made clear from the start that ID theory has no inherent connection with religion.  The modern theory of intelligent design was first formulated in the late 1970s and early 1980s by a group of scientists:  Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, Roger Olson, and Dean Kenyon—who were trying to account for an enduring mystery of modern biology: the origin of the digital information encoded along the spine of the DNA molecule.

Incidentally, and I hope it's obvious, I refute ID just as I do FET.
Title: Re: Intelligent design debate
Post by: Vauxhall on February 04, 2015, 12:34:27 PM
who were trying to account for an enduring mystery of modern biology: the origin of the digital information encoded along the spine of the DNA molecule.

Elaborate on this.
Title: Re: Intelligent design debate
Post by: Slemon on February 04, 2015, 12:44:20 PM
who were trying to account for an enduring mystery of modern biology: the origin of the digital information encoded along the spine of the DNA molecule.

Elaborate on this.
Oh god, I've heard someone make that argument wayy too much recently. The general idea is that the way DNA works is identical to how a language works: the various genetic bases could be modeled as letters, but the crucial fact is the order in which they occur. Letter-wise, taking A, C and T, ACT is a word made from them, but so is CAT: while CTA is just nonsense. This is similar to how DNA works; the bases must exist in a certain order, and in a non-repeating fashion, just like a book.
As such, DNA is reliant on digital information to work; formed of the same form of representation-as-symbols as language, and language must come from a mind.

It's hard to put an argument persuasively when you don't accept it, but this one most of all. the best way to put an argument is always in standard form, but this one quickly becomes circular if you do so:
R1: DNA is a language
R2: Language comes from a mind
C: DNA comes from a mind
Except R2 is a prerequisite of R1, not a standalone point, so what this argument actually says is:
R1: DNA comes from a mind
C: DNA comes from a mind
Marvelously convincing stuff, really.

Still, that's how it's meant to work. The design of DNA is too close to language to have come about without a designer.
Title: Re: Intelligent design debate
Post by: Rama Set on February 04, 2015, 02:15:00 PM
I don't agree with the premise that DNA is a language so for me this is all a non-starter. I can agree that language is a metaphor or approximation of how we understand DNA to function, but not literally so.
Title: Re: Intelligent design debate
Post by: Socratic Amusement on February 04, 2015, 03:00:04 PM
I don't agree with the premise that DNA is a language so for me this is all a non-starter. I can agree that language is a metaphor or approximation of how we understand DNA to function, but not literally so.

Bingo! Give this man a cookie!

Its not LITERALLY a language. Like, you couldn't transcribe it. It is more akin to going "This is rock A, and that is rock B" only in this we are going "This is strand A, Strand B, Strand C, Strand D, etc, etc, etc..."
Title: Re: Intelligent design debate
Post by: Slemon on February 04, 2015, 03:04:35 PM
I don't agree with the premise that DNA is a language so for me this is all a non-starter. I can agree that language is a metaphor or approximation of how we understand DNA to function, but not literally so.

Bingo! Give this man a cookie!

Its not LITERALLY a language. Like, you couldn't transcribe it. It is more akin to going "This is rock A, and that is rock B" only in this we are going "This is strand A, Strand B, Strand C, Strand D, etc, etc, etc..."

That's where the whole discussion of symbolic representation comes in: trying to establish that such things could not arise naturally, and must be designed.
The main issue is the argument seems meant more to bamboozle than educate. Anything said to a layperson which exceeds a certain quota of words like 'nucleotides' and 'telomerase' with no explanation is clearly not meant to be intelligible: it's an argument founded on the principle that they're likely talking to someone who hasn't spent years studying a certain, very tricky, area of biology.
Title: Re: Intelligent design debate
Post by: Socratic Amusement on February 04, 2015, 03:10:53 PM
I don't agree with the premise that DNA is a language so for me this is all a non-starter. I can agree that language is a metaphor or approximation of how we understand DNA to function, but not literally so.

Bingo! Give this man a cookie!

Its not LITERALLY a language. Like, you couldn't transcribe it. It is more akin to going "This is rock A, and that is rock B" only in this we are going "This is strand A, Strand B, Strand C, Strand D, etc, etc, etc..."

That's where the whole discussion of symbolic representation comes in: trying to establish that such things could not arise naturally, and must be designed.
The main issue is the argument seems meant more to bamboozle than educate. Anything said to a layperson which exceeds a certain quota of words like 'nucleotides' and 'telomerase' with no explanation is clearly not meant to be intelligible: it's an argument founded on the principle that they're likely talking to someone who hasn't spent years studying a certain, very tricky, area of biology.

Is the rock argument not simple enough for the layperson? Because I was seriously trying to give the whole things summed up with cave-man language.
Title: Re: Intelligent design debate
Post by: Slemon on February 04, 2015, 03:14:07 PM
I don't agree with the premise that DNA is a language so for me this is all a non-starter. I can agree that language is a metaphor or approximation of how we understand DNA to function, but not literally so.

Bingo! Give this man a cookie!

Its not LITERALLY a language. Like, you couldn't transcribe it. It is more akin to going "This is rock A, and that is rock B" only in this we are going "This is strand A, Strand B, Strand C, Strand D, etc, etc, etc..."

That's where the whole discussion of symbolic representation comes in: trying to establish that such things could not arise naturally, and must be designed.
The main issue is the argument seems meant more to bamboozle than educate. Anything said to a layperson which exceeds a certain quota of words like 'nucleotides' and 'telomerase' with no explanation is clearly not meant to be intelligible: it's an argument founded on the principle that they're likely talking to someone who hasn't spent years studying a certain, very tricky, area of biology.

Is the rock argument not simple enough for the layperson? Because I was seriously trying to give the whole things summed up with cave-man language.
I was talking about the argument from DNA being a language. I've had someone express it to me a fair bit recently, it's that kind of thing. Its strength lies in smokescreen: it hides the fact the main formulation is circular, and then uses jargon to hide nothing that's said implies design.
Title: Re: Intelligent design debate
Post by: Socratic Amusement on February 04, 2015, 03:16:05 PM
I don't agree with the premise that DNA is a language so for me this is all a non-starter. I can agree that language is a metaphor or approximation of how we understand DNA to function, but not literally so.

Bingo! Give this man a cookie!

Its not LITERALLY a language. Like, you couldn't transcribe it. It is more akin to going "This is rock A, and that is rock B" only in this we are going "This is strand A, Strand B, Strand C, Strand D, etc, etc, etc..."

That's where the whole discussion of symbolic representation comes in: trying to establish that such things could not arise naturally, and must be designed.
The main issue is the argument seems meant more to bamboozle than educate. Anything said to a layperson which exceeds a certain quota of words like 'nucleotides' and 'telomerase' with no explanation is clearly not meant to be intelligible: it's an argument founded on the principle that they're likely talking to someone who hasn't spent years studying a certain, very tricky, area of biology.

Is the rock argument not simple enough for the layperson? Because I was seriously trying to give the whole things summed up with cave-man language.
I was talking about the argument from DNA being a language. I've had someone express it to me a fair bit recently, it's that kind of thing. Its strength lies in smokescreen: it hides the fact the main formulation is circular, and then uses jargon to hide nothing that's said implies design.

Could you rephrase that? Because I can't tell if you are arguing for or against intelligent design based on the language of DNA.
Title: Re: Intelligent design debate
Post by: Slemon on February 04, 2015, 03:20:50 PM
I don't agree with the premise that DNA is a language so for me this is all a non-starter. I can agree that language is a metaphor or approximation of how we understand DNA to function, but not literally so.

Bingo! Give this man a cookie!

Its not LITERALLY a language. Like, you couldn't transcribe it. It is more akin to going "This is rock A, and that is rock B" only in this we are going "This is strand A, Strand B, Strand C, Strand D, etc, etc, etc..."

That's where the whole discussion of symbolic representation comes in: trying to establish that such things could not arise naturally, and must be designed.
The main issue is the argument seems meant more to bamboozle than educate. Anything said to a layperson which exceeds a certain quota of words like 'nucleotides' and 'telomerase' with no explanation is clearly not meant to be intelligible: it's an argument founded on the principle that they're likely talking to someone who hasn't spent years studying a certain, very tricky, area of biology.

Is the rock argument not simple enough for the layperson? Because I was seriously trying to give the whole things summed up with cave-man language.
I was talking about the argument from DNA being a language. I've had someone express it to me a fair bit recently, it's that kind of thing. Its strength lies in smokescreen: it hides the fact the main formulation is circular, and then uses jargon to hide nothing that's said implies design.

Could you rephrase that? Because I can't tell if you are arguing for or against intelligent design based on the language of DNA.
I'm not arguing either way, just expressing how the argument typically goes. I don't accept it.
The argument describes various technicalities (see the earlier-mentioned symbolic representation), and then spends a few paragraphs throwing in scientific jargon probably even the user of the argument doesn't understand.
Title: Re: Intelligent design debate
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on February 07, 2015, 09:41:11 AM
ID is God of the Gaps fallacy in it's purest form.   Terrible philosophy, terrible science.  A complete dead end.
Title: Re: Intelligent design debate
Post by: kman on February 07, 2015, 11:56:32 AM
The depressing thing is that young earth creationism is still accepted by about 50% of Americans, even though it is laughably impossible.
Title: Re: Intelligent design debate
Post by: BJ1234 on February 07, 2015, 01:20:48 PM
The depressing thing is that young earth creationism is still accepted by about 50% of Americans, even though it is laughably impossible.
Citation needed.
Title: Re: Intelligent design debate
Post by: kman on February 07, 2015, 01:54:37 PM
Gallup. It's actually closer to 40%

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx)
Title: Re: Intelligent design debate
Post by: BJ1234 on February 07, 2015, 01:59:45 PM
I do believe that the chart in the article is pretty telling.
The majority of people who believe this are 65 and older, attend church regularly, and have a high school or lower education.  But that would explain why most of my peers believe the Earth is billions of years old. 
Title: Re: Intelligent design debate
Post by: Lemmiwinks on February 07, 2015, 03:53:35 PM
I do believe that the chart in the article is pretty telling.
The majority of people who believe this are 65 and older, attend church regularly, and have a high school or lower education.  But that would explain why most of my peers believe the Earth is billions of years old.

It also shows why the radical right republicans are losing in the general elections. Their voting base is dying. :p