Creationists, what experiments are you doing?

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs The point of this thread is to get the creationists/ID'ers to present us with their ideas and then explain why or why not their hypothesis are scientific or not. You've already jumped to a conclusion without even letting them speak.

It doesn't matter what they respond with- Intelligent Design simply does not fit the definition of a scientific hypothesis. This has been well established both in the scientific community (the U.S. National Academy of Science) as well as the Federal Judicial system (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District).



[edit on 29-9-2008 by SamuraiDrifter]

Dr. Craig Venter already proved that Intelligent Design is possible.
He created life from scratch in a lab.

I love it how base and surfacy evolutionists look at the topic of ID.

If you intelligently design something.. you'd be a fool not to implement a method of dynamic adaptation into the genome to evolve and adapt to circumstances.. otherwise your genetic invention would go kaput after a few generations.

All you guys are always like.. black .. or white.. black or white..

you want an experiment to prove creationism? rent out a fully staffed top level genetics lab.
and repeat Craig Venter's work.
or go a step further and try to create a human from scratch.. or from already existing primates and modulate their dna.


black or white black or white id of evo.. id or evo.. durr durr durrr..

//slams head into brick wall to simulate both evo and creationism stances////

soooo rediculous....




-

Originally posted by SamuraiDrifter
It doesn't matter what they respond with- Intelligent Design simply does not fit the definition of a scientific hypothesis. This has been well established both in the scientific community (the U.S. National Academy of Science) as well as the Federal Judicial system (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District).
[edit on 29-9-2008 by SamuraiDrifter]

Agreed.

But, why then do they still propose we teach it in science class and why do they keep proclaiming that it is science?

If your answer is because they won't give it because it happened in a court or scientific committee and not to them personally, then lets try and educate them and confront their beliefs in a more direct manner. Let's discuss what is wrong with their methodology, personally and not through a third party. Maybe everyone doesn't understand why the Judicial system ruled that way. Maybe we should try and explain to them what is scientific or not. Otherwise what's the point.


I wanted creationists and IDers to come in here and present their ideas and then collectively, with your help Samurai and others, discuss why their hypothesis isn't or is compatible with science.

My apologies for going beyond the confines of your desire for this thread. But I felt it necessary to correct the unfounded claims about evolution being incompatable with experiment, this is just ignorance in the precise meaning of the word.

You can do experiments to show evolution, even in a classroom.

One such experiment might be the recreation of the natural selection for changing white moths to black to compensate for pollution in forests.

This adaptation has been observed in nature.
You might select breed bean plants for certain qualities like flower color.
As I recall the earliest evolution / genetics experiments were performed by Monks on bean plants. (Yes Monks, Christian Monks!)

Now on to creationism, you might pray for your favorite deity to intervene and change the color of the flowers in the experimental group but not the control group. Then pray for this or another diety to change them back.

Perhaps a creationist could provide a better experiment. And defend their turf properly. I have tried my best to give a starting point for both views.


[edit on 30-9-2008 by Cyberbian]

"Irreducable Complexity" or however you spell it is a fallacious idea that has been passed around by Creationists for a long time, I'd just like to point out that all things are built from the ground up, wherein the simplest of things gradually become more complicated, IE I imagine that 'essential' systems like Eyes, which are frequently used as examples by proponents of the theory started in a more simple incarnation than we have at present, much in the same way that the opposable thumb developed.

To break it down further, let's say you remove a part from an engine in a 2008 vehicle, and the vehicle no longer works. Well there was a vehicle made in 1985 that never even had that part but it still got us from A to B. Do you see what I'm saying?

Agreed with above. For another perspective:

A stone arch is irreducibly complex. If one part is removed, it collapses. How, then, can they be built? It would be disingenuous to proclaim 'GDI'; not the least of which because there are a number of ways to build an arch, no miracles required. To simply declare 'GDI', without further examination, reveals a failure of the imagination, at best.

One way is to pile a wall of stones, then carefully subtract them as needed until one ends up with a arch. G did not DI. I don't know why I'm even talking about this... that "irreducible complexity" BS has been shown to be fallacious so... many... times...

[edit on 30-9-2008 by SlyCM]

Originally posted by Loki
To break it down further, let's say you remove a part from an engine in a 2008 vehicle, and the vehicle no longer works. Well there was a vehicle made in 1985 that never even had that part but it still got us from A to B. Do you see what I'm saying?

yes, however...

all working engines have a minimum of parts you can subtract before it becomes a non working lump of metal.

you cant have an engine without a piston, and a piston is pointless if your not designing it for an engine.

even the very first engine had a certain amount components necessary to perform its function. you simply can´t break it down into simpler and simpler forms and have it still an ¨engine¨

single cell life faces a similar paradox.

A stone arch is irreducibly complex. If one part is removed, it collapses. How, then, can they be built? It would be disingenuous to proclaim 'GDI'; not the least of which because there are a number of ways to build an arch, no miracles required. To simply declare 'GDI', without further examination, reveals a failure of the imagination, at best.

One way is to pile a wall of stones, then carefully subtract them as needed until one ends up with a arch. G did not DI. I don't know why I'm even talking about this... that "irreducible complexity" BS has been shown to be fallacious so... many... times...

totally true, however you are still talking about design. not design by god, but design.

--------------------------

i would like to submit an experiment.

HYPOTHESIS: creation from god is not impossible

i intend with this experiment to examine whether creation by the hand of god is in fact a impossible or even improbable.

MATERIALS NEEDED:

- string
- blue beads
- red beads
- green beads
- black beads

EXPERIMENT:

- tie one end of the string into a knot that is big enough to prevent beads from passing over it.
- start with a red bead. holding the string with one hand, thread the open end through the bead and let the bead rest on the knot.
- do the same with the green, then the blue, then the black. repeat this process until the string is filled with beads.
- tie open end so that beads dont fall off.

CONCLUSION:

Using ones hands and eyes for this experiment, a human was able to create a structure of minimal complexity. assuming that the human was not impaired in anyway, the chances of the human being able to make this structure is 99.999% leaving 0.001% for unforeseen variables like flying monkeys.

the structure although being of minimal complexity required a hefty amount of action to be made. the most complex of this action was the placing of the string through the whole of the bead. the probability of the thread positioning itself inside the bead by accident i suspect is 10433 to 1.

REVISED HYPOTHESIS: if god does exist and is more intelligent than us and more powerful, not only is it NOT impossible for him to create life, but it is probable when considering the complexity of said life

[edit on 30-9-2008 by miriam0566]

second experiment....

HYPOTHESIS: certain things are simply not possible in a random environment. (expanding on the first experiment)

MATERIALS NEEDED:

- the completed string of beads from the previous experiment.
- another string with no beads or knots.
- blue beads
- red beads
- green beads
- black beads
- a plastic tub with lid, small enough you can handle comfortably

EXPERIMENT:

- place completed string of beads on the side. (they are your control)
- place string and beads in tub
- close lid
- shake
- open from time to time to see in the items in the tub resemble your control
- if not repeat.

CONCLUSION:

- chances of string forming necessary knots so as to enclose beads: 10622 to 1.
- chances a bead will be in the correct postion so as to be ¨threaded¨: 10312 to 1.
- chances a second bead will be in the correct postion so as to be ¨threaded¨:10500 to 1.
- chances a all the beads will be in the correct postion so as to be ¨threaded¨:104985 to 1.
- chances a all the beads will be in correct order:1032998 to 1.
- chances that the second knot will not appear before the beads are finished being ¨threaded¨: 1-1
- chance of you getting anything that even remotely resembles your control string: ZERO

some things are impossible in random environments

Experiments That Prove Nothing, Part 1

Originally posted by irongunner
First; lets try re-creating that experiment to create a protein out of the environment that is thought to have existed. The first time it was done they got the available ingredients wrong.

What you think this would demonstrate?

If the experiment is successful, we'll have proved is that, under certain conditions, proteins form. Since the experimenter was smart enough to work out and provide the conditions, what we are looking at here is a case of intelligent design. But not that intelligent; there are more reliable ways to create proteins, even ones that don't exist in nature.

If the experiment fails, on the other hand, all it proves is that proteins don't form under those particular conditions. Which falsifies neither abiogenesis nor the ID hypothesis.

And anyway, why are we going with proteins in the first place? Wouldn't some kind of nucleic acid be a more promising candidate?

Your second and third suggestions share the deficiency of the first; their success would confirm the possibility of intelligent design, but they falsify neither abiogenesis nor ID.

Experiments That Prove Nothing, Part II

Originally posted by miriam0566
FIRST EXPERIMENT

HYPOTHESIS: creation from god is not impossible

This is not the hypothesis to be evaluated. It is a given. If there is indeed a God of the kind you believe in, then creation is part of His job description.

It is not the possibility of intelligent design that requires proof but the putative truth of it. You are required to prove that life as we know it was intelligently designed.

Originally posted by miriam0566
SECOND EXPERIMENT

HYPOTHESIS: certain things are simply not possible in a random environment (expanding on the first experiment).

Given infinite space and time, this hypothesis might be disputed, but the universe is not infinite and therefore this 'hypothesis' of yours is a mere statement of the obvious.

Your experiment merely proves that, given a finite number of experimenters and a fixed span of time, beads don't string themselves in order when you shake them together. I think most of us knew that already.

But why on earth do you imagine this tells us anything about biochemistry?

Experiments That Prove Nothing, Part III

Thank you, OP, for furnishing us with such an interesting talking point.

Some time ago, I started a thread on a related subject, asking people to propose experiments that could turn ID into a falsifiable hypothesis. The thread title was Proof of ID the World is Looking For. It turned out to be quite popular.

A lot of ID boosters participated in the thread. They were not always decorous, but they did propose some 'proofs'.

Sadly, they proved nothing other than how little they understood science.

Originally posted by Cyberbian
...One such experiment might be the recreation of the natural selection for changing white moths to black to compensate for pollution in forests.
...

And here we have a straw-man. Unintentional, I am sure, but a straw-man nonetheless. I do not know of any creationists, or ID people that deny that MICRO evolution takes place. MACRO evolution, however, is a different story.

Show me that white moth (or black for that matter) that changes into a dragonfly or beetle, then we can begin to talk about how MACRO evolution occurs.

Originally posted by Loki
"Irreducable Complexity" or however you spell it is a fallacious idea that has been passed around by Creationists for a long time, I'd just like to point out that all things are built from the ground up, wherein the simplest of things gradually become more complicated, IE I imagine that 'essential' systems like Eyes, which are frequently used as examples by proponents of the theory started in a more simple incarnation than we have at present, much in the same way that the opposable thumb developed.

To break it down further, let's say you remove a part from an engine in a 2008 vehicle, and the vehicle no longer works. Well there was a vehicle made in 1985 that never even had that part but it still got us from A to B. Do you see what I'm saying?

Life is built from DNA (RNA in some limited cases). DNA is the "blueprint". The problem for creationists is not that the 2008 vehicle had a part that the 1985 vehicle didn't have.

The problem is that the evolutionists cannot explain how the "blueprints" got changed so that part THAT NEVER EXISTED UNTIL 2008 got into that engine. Furthermore, evolutionists have a problem that goes even beyond that. That extra part in the 2008 engine cannot just spring up fully formed. It MUST have changed gradually from another part in the 1985 engine.

Here is my suggested experiment (courtesy of Michael Behe, sort of.). It is in blood clotting. There are some number of steps that have to occur in exact and precise sequence for blood to clot (22 or 26 I seem to recall, but do not quote me on that, as I can't remember exactly).

Block, remove, or prevent one of those steps, and see if the organism can overcome that factor and have it's blood clot. After an adequate number of experiments, move on to the next step. Repeat until all stages of the clotting have been examined. If clotting cannot be accomplished without the exact number of steps, you have a process that has to work as a whole.

The weakness of this experiment is that evolutionists could always say "but there may have been some factor in the past that is not accounted for".

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
Life is built from DNA (RNA in some limited cases). DNA is the "blueprint". The problem for creationists is not that the 2008 vehicle had a part that the 1985 vehicle didn't have.

The problem is that the evolutionists cannot explain how the "blueprints" got changed so that part THAT NEVER EXISTED UNTIL 2008 got into that engine. Furthermore, evolutionists have a problem that goes even beyond that. That extra part in the 2008 engine cannot just spring up fully formed. It MUST have changed gradually from another part in the 1985 engine.

That's not a problem, and has been explained by extra-species horizontal gene transfer.

For humans, we were actually missing a chromosome present in apes. If it hadn't been found, the theory of evolution would have been demolished. But, of course, it was not- two of the chromosomes fused together, which is why we have one less pair than apes. The exact point of the fusion is located in our chromosome number 2.

Also, PLEASE stop using the word "evolutionist." Evolution is a cornerstone of biology, not a religious faith.

[edit on 30-9-2008 by SamuraiDrifter]

Originally posted by Astyanax
This is not the hypothesis to be evaluated. It is a given. If there is indeed a God of the kind you believe in, then creation is part of His job description.

It is not the possibility of intelligent design that requires proof but the putative truth of it. You are required to prove that life as we know it was intelligently designed.

im not finished. it hard to prove something with just one experiment right?

if its truly scientific, then it must have a foundation, no matter how obvious that foundation is.

Given infinite space and time, this hypothesis might be disputed, but the universe is not infinite and therefore this 'hypothesis' of yours is a mere statement of the obvious.

Your experiment merely proves that, given a finite number of experimenters and a fixed span of time, beads don't string themselves in order when you shake them together. I think most of us knew that already.

But why on earth do you imagine this tells us anything about biochemistry?

in the end, we have 2 basic competing hypotheses. life is created and design vs. life is a random occurrence.

science is in practice a way of discerning how something works and how its working can be used to help you.

life coming from a random chain of actions has to be tested as to probability. the thing about life is that it hasnt just faced impossible odds once or twice, but many times.

let me illustrate this. there is a man at a casino, and he is being watched on a camera. he´s playing poker but he keeps on winning and winning and winning. the probability of him winning so much and not cheating is very very slim, in fact its near impossible. the house may not know exactly how he is cheating, but they can deduce by his winning that there is evidence of cheating.

its the same thing with life. many assert that life has NO scientific evidence of design. this assumption is flawed. simply looking at the variables that make life and calculating what the probability of all these components coming together at random are, one is forced to see that something else is going on. you may not know how or why, but it IS evidence of something besides randomness.

also like i said, i have a few more experiments to put up

in the end, we have 2 basic competing hypotheses. life is created and design vs. life is a random occurrence.

science is in practice a way of discerning how something works and how its working can be used to help you.

life coming from a random chain of actions has to be tested as to probability. the thing about life is that it hasnt just faced impossible odds once or twice, but many times.

All completely irrelevant to the topic. You say life is created and designed. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you to show:

How does the designer design?
Why does the designer do it in a certain way and what is the process of design?
How do we falsify the hypothesis?
And most importantly, what kind of predictions does the ID hypothesis present?


also like i said, i have a few more experiments to put up

Can't wait to see them.

[edit on 30-9-2008 by LuDaCrIs]

reply to post by LuDaCrIs


Well ,Ive taken all the people´s ages in the bible, added then up and then subtracted the number from todays date , hey presto-6000 year old earth.
As for intelligent design,I´ve observed monkeys in their natural habitat and therefore deduced we are more intelligent than them-ergo there is an intelligent designer.
Faultless logic in action.




[edit on 01/12/01 by karl 12]

reply to post by LuDaCrIs


The ID hypothesis is that life was intelligently designed. They have not put forward any way to disprove that, as even if they accept evolution, they can simply say "God did it", and their hypothesis still stands. There is no way to demonstrate through experimentation that life was not intelligently designed, hence it is an unfalsifiable, unscientific theory.

Unfortunately there's no getting round this one.

Originally posted by dave420
The ID hypothesis is that life was intelligently designed. They have not put forward any way to disprove that, as even if they accept evolution, they can simply say "God did it", and their hypothesis still stands. There is no way to demonstrate through experimentation that life was not intelligently designed, hence it is an unfalsifiable, unscientific theory.

Unfortunately there's no getting round this one.

So what does a creation scientist do all day?

I want a creationist to answer the above question and not an evolution proponent. I want to face these people head on.

When I ask for experiments to be put forward, I am not looking for anyone's own mental experiment or anecdote--unless of course you yourself is a scientist in the field. I would like to see what actual scientists on the field are doing. Lets see some references here. This is meant to be quite formal, not merely expressing ones views.

Is it really that hard for creationists to go on the web and find an experiment being performed by one of their scientists at some institution. I mean, if you believe in creation as science, you should have some knowledge of where to find such material.

It is not a hypothesis to say that life may have been intelligenly designed.
It is a hypothesis to say I believe the creator used such and such methodology to create / design life.

You can then set about recreate the original "Experiment".

A hypothesis which simply restates your original premis is not a hypothesis it is circular un-reasoning.