ID rebuttal, did I do well?

LaCroix · Post by **LaCroix** » 2005-12-21 08:55am

How would you rate my rebuttal? What could be improved?

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=454983

Originally Posted by LTChip
Is it scientific to consider the theory that life exists outside our solar system?
If so, is it scientific to consider the theory that life much more advanced than ours could exist?
If so, is it scientific to consider that life on this planet could have been planted here by an intelligent being?
If so, is it scientific to consider that life on this planet could have been biogenetically engineered (designed) for survival on earth?
Would this line of study not be entirely scientific?
Would this line of study not be an alternate to the theory of evolution with its random mutation based natural selection?
Is this line of study (as I have described it) at all religious?
Is this line of study not equivalent to the ID curriculum or does all proposed ID curriculum have a biblical component where the Genesis story is the alternate to evolution?

To consider a theory is always scientific..

BUT! Scientific means to construct a theory which can be disproved. You state your theory and the facts supporting (!) them, and give an detailed descriton of experiments which would disprove your theory.

IF someone finds evidence that disproves your theory, these facts are used to refine the thory, if its a small error, or to totally dismiss the theory...

Also, "occams razor" says, the theory getting closest to the facts, using the smallest number of variables is the most valid. Also, a theory with an unknown/untestable variable to have it working is per definition NOT scientific. "We don'T know - aliens/god /a pink dragon in my closet must have done it" is NOT scientific.

Example (Pi 3,14159.....)
Theory 1: Pi = 3,1
Theory 2: Pi = 22/7
Therory 3: Pi is (23+4,5/(56 + c) c = correctional constant unknown

Theory 3 is void, since it requires many variable + an unknown constant.
theory 2 is better then theory 1, since it gets nearer to the obvserved facts.

Scientific approach would be to modify the 7 in T2 to get a better result. Thus the theory 2 will get disproved and improved.. thats how it works...

There are no proven theories, only actually undisproved theories.

Some theories like gravity, thermodynamics and evolution have been tried so many times until now that they are taken "solid", but still improveable, if someone can refine them.

Evolution is refined by finding the correct "lines" of evolution. It can be observed (mutation of virusses, breeding of different dogs(evolution, WE are the factor to evaluate the "fitness" of the product), history of horses, man, etc... ), thus it is a solid theory(there are gaps left, but knowing how rare it is to be conserved as fossil, these gaps con only be filled by luck, its like having a puzzle where all pieces are burried all around the planet.. have fun!).
It can't be dismissed without HUGE facts, only the beginning of live can be discussed.

Originally Posted by LTChip
Is it scientific to consider the theory that life exists outside our solar system?

Ther is a percentage of possibility based on the facts we know. The speculation is by now not supported by evidence, therefore not a theory.
First, you have to prove that you could be right by providing experiments that fail to disprove the speculation (= finding any life outside our solar system), thus making it (in that case an 100% proved) theory.

Originally Posted by LTChip
If so, is it scientific to consider the theory that life much more advanced than ours could exist?

A speculation based on the age of our solar system compared with others and our late occurrence of intelligence would make it possible, but still, there are no observed facts that would make this speculations a scientific theory...

Originally Posted by LTChip
If so, is it scientific to consider that life on this planet could have been planted here by an intelligent being?

We have two possibilities:
Our planet can support live, and live has formed & evolved into todays state.
It can support live to evolve into todays state, and some aliens dropped by to seed microbes on this planet..

1: Nature
2 Nature + aliens

Occam says = Victory Theory one, unless someone finds these aliens.

Originally Posted by LTChip
If so, is it scientific to consider that life on this planet could have been biogenetically engineered (designed) for survival on earth?

Theory 1: one out of billions of planets had by luck the right things to form live.
Theory 2: Some aliens did it.

Theory 2 is completely unproveable, because aliens have not been observed until now. So it is undisproveable = not scientific = Victory Theory 1, which can at least be proved mathematically by calculating statistics..

Originally Posted by LTChip
Would this line of study not be entirely scientific?
Nope, it relies on a speculation, based on a speculation, based on a speculation. Its like writing a fairytale until there is some proof supporting it. (As soon as alies are contacted, it can be a scientific theory, since aliens are then a known fact.)

Originally Posted by LTChip
Would this line of study not be an alternate to the theory of evolution with its random mutation based natural selection?
Nope, evolution has be proved by fact of fossil findings and their analyzation.
They also could only be an "alternative" if you say the alies planted live as it is now on earth and there has been no "evolution" of species, because evolution theory doesn't say anything about the creation of life, only that it began as microbes and formed into the present state.

Thus disproving the theory instantly, since evolution of species is observed.

Originally Posted by LTChip
Is this line of study (as I have described it) at all religious?
Yes, because you have to believe in things you have no proof for. You have to believe in alien life, have to believe it is more advanced, have to believe they came here to seed life....

Originally Posted by LTChip
Is this line of study not equivalent to the ID curriculum or does all proposed ID curriculum have a biblical component where the Genesis story is the alternate to evolution?

It is totally equivalent since it only replaces god by aliens.. Both are not proved to exist by now.

ID needs a GOD to work.

IF it says that all the facts about evolution currently observed are a hoax, since it all was created intentionally from the beginning on and no improvement occurred - it opposes a solid , observed Theory. (Evolution)

In that case, even if it had no element of an "designer", it would be opposing observed facts, thus be disproved instantly.

If it claims that all evolutionary steps are the work of an designer, we have:

T1 Natural selction
T2 God did it

God is an untestable variable, thus not scientific. Therefore flawless victory of T1, since natural selection is abserved.

Steel · Post by **Steel** » 2005-12-21 10:28am

Seems quite good, although your opponent appears to be mainly focusing on abiogeneses, which isnt really part of evolution. And in fact his logic can be entirely dismissed on the grounds that possils exist with intermediate stages of life that no longer exist, and so if all life was created as is then these fossils could not exist

You could mention explicitly the point that his theory assumes that aliens can evolve naturally on their world, but we couldnt on ours for some reason.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2005-12-21 02:06pm

Except for your last part, which needs rephrasing, it's not too bad. Instead of saying "Both are not proved to exist" I'd suggest saying "no one has put forth any compelling evidence for the existence of either", or something similar. As the original statement doesn't make much sense grammatically.

Just to nitpick, I'd also suggest investing in a spellchecker for some of the mistakes on there. But otherwise, it doesn't seem too bad.

LaCroix · Post by **LaCroix** » 2005-12-21 02:13pm

Thank you for the input.. I'm not native english speaking, so I should try to get a spellchecker. I just don't see those things properly.

It didn't occur to me that that last sentence was strange grammar, I'll improve my skills.

At least, I have not been ripped apart and flamed to glowing ash for doing everything wrong, which is quite an achievement for me...

Adrian Laguna · Post by **Adrian Laguna** » 2005-12-22 12:18am

I take issue with your statement that there are no proved theories only undisproved ones. That is completely incorrect. A scientific theory is not accepted unitl there is proof to support it. Unproven theories are worthless, that is one of the reasons ID fails, they have no proof.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-12-22 02:27am

You're mistaking (or misusing the word) proof for evidence. The colloquial usage of proof allows for that, but really, the word for that which supports theories is evidence.

ID doesn't fail because they have no evidence: indeed, many humans might percieve great order in nature. But ID is not a theory: it is an observation, and a disputed one at that (indeed nature always seemed haphazard and random to me). You can't provide evidence for an observation. ID fails because it IS evidence, not a mechanism.

Adrian Laguna · Post by **Adrian Laguna** » 2005-12-22 08:45am

You are right, I was misusing the word proof. With that in mind I would suggest to LaCroix that it might be best if you also add that a theory is not accepted unless there is supporting evidence.

As for the ID thing, I merely meant that there is no evidence for an intelligent creator, at least no non-subjective evidence.

LaCroix · Post by **LaCroix** » 2005-12-22 08:50am

Actually, I did say that.. without evidence supporting, it's no scientific thoery, only speculation.

The speculation is by now not supported by evidence, therefore not a theory.
First, you have to prove that you could be right by providing experiments that fail to disprove the speculation (= finding any life outside our solar system), thus making it (in that case an 100% proved) theory.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2005-12-22 07:26pm

I'd have pointed out the questions of "If aliens designed all life, how did those first aliens come about, if not by evolution? Afterall, there was nothig to design them"

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-12-22 10:35pm

Actually, the entire post takes no issue with evolution. Even if our current abiogenesis models our flawed, and aliens really did seed us, that doesn't prove that there are biological systems that could not come about through evolution, which is really what ID proponents say. This isn't really an ID vs Evolution debate: this is a panspermia vs abiogenesis debate.