- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Impressive support for Intelligent Design
Posted on 2/25/26 at 6:17 pm to FooManChoo
Posted on 2/25/26 at 6:17 pm to FooManChoo
I agree that no one is a blank slate. Everyone brings background assumptions to interpretation.
The question isn’t whether presuppositions exist. It’s whether the method constrains them.
In science, the constraint is methodological naturalism. It does not assume “there is no God.” It requires explanations to appeal to regular, testable processes because those are the only ones that can be publicly evaluated. A scientist’s personal metaphysics is separate. The mechanisms of mutation, selection, and inheritance are inferred from measurable data, not from a prior commitment to atheism. So the issue isn’t whether lenses exist. It’s whether conclusions follow from evidence under shared rules.
It doesn’t assume there are no supernatural interventions. It brackets them. Evolutionary biology asks: given observable data and measurable processes, what explains the patterns we see? It does not add the premise “God never intervened.” It excludes untestable variables from the model. Assumptions matter. The key distinction is between methodological constraints and metaphysical claims. Methodological naturalism limits what counts as a scientific explanation. It does not assert what ultimate reality must be. If someone extends the method into metaphysics, that belongs to philosophy, not biology.
Different assumptions can lead to different conclusions only if they override shared evidentiary standards. “Non-observed history” is still constrained by present evidence. Fossils, radiometric dating, genetic sequences, mutation rates, and phylogenetic patterns are measurable. Historical sciences infer past causes from current data under stable physical laws. Introducing special revelation changes the framework. It does not invalidate the data or the internal coherence of the model. At that point, the disagreement is epistemological, not biological.
Interpretation involves assumptions, but they are constrained by explanatory power and consistency. If a single recent global flood produced the fossil record, we would expect hydrodynamic sorting rather than consistent stratigraphic order across continents. We would not expect in-place reefs, burrows, trackways, or nested ecological systems. We would not expect independent radiometric systems to converge on deep time. Alternative models must account for the full dataset without special pleading.
If the claim is that God may have intervened in ways that altered natural processes, that is a theological possibility. But unconstrained, ad hoc interventions render a model unfalsifiable. Historical sciences include catastrophes. What they require is that processes leave consistent signatures. If interventions can override regular processes at will, then evidence no longer constrains inference. The explanation can always be “a special act occurred here.” That does not refute divine action. It defines the limits of scientific inference.
All models share foundational assumptions. The question is whether they are minimal and whether the model makes risky predictions. Evolution predicts nested hierarchies, transitional forms in specific strata, genetic congruence across loci, and chromosomal signatures such as the human chromosome 2 fusion. These are testable expectations. A model can be strong and still be wrong. But repeated convergence across independent datasets lowers that probability. If the foundational assumptions are false, the burden is to show where they measurably fail.
Science can be overextended. That critique concerns misuse, not the validity of evolutionary biology. Treating science as the sole source of meaning is a philosophical move. Mutation and selection do not entail moral hierarchies. Those leaps occur outside the biology. Science is limited. That does not undermine its competence within its domain. Evolutionary theory explains population change under measurable processes. It does not prescribe morality or determine human worth.
The question isn’t whether presuppositions exist. It’s whether the method constrains them.
In science, the constraint is methodological naturalism. It does not assume “there is no God.” It requires explanations to appeal to regular, testable processes because those are the only ones that can be publicly evaluated. A scientist’s personal metaphysics is separate. The mechanisms of mutation, selection, and inheritance are inferred from measurable data, not from a prior commitment to atheism. So the issue isn’t whether lenses exist. It’s whether conclusions follow from evidence under shared rules.
It doesn’t assume there are no supernatural interventions. It brackets them. Evolutionary biology asks: given observable data and measurable processes, what explains the patterns we see? It does not add the premise “God never intervened.” It excludes untestable variables from the model. Assumptions matter. The key distinction is between methodological constraints and metaphysical claims. Methodological naturalism limits what counts as a scientific explanation. It does not assert what ultimate reality must be. If someone extends the method into metaphysics, that belongs to philosophy, not biology.
Different assumptions can lead to different conclusions only if they override shared evidentiary standards. “Non-observed history” is still constrained by present evidence. Fossils, radiometric dating, genetic sequences, mutation rates, and phylogenetic patterns are measurable. Historical sciences infer past causes from current data under stable physical laws. Introducing special revelation changes the framework. It does not invalidate the data or the internal coherence of the model. At that point, the disagreement is epistemological, not biological.
Interpretation involves assumptions, but they are constrained by explanatory power and consistency. If a single recent global flood produced the fossil record, we would expect hydrodynamic sorting rather than consistent stratigraphic order across continents. We would not expect in-place reefs, burrows, trackways, or nested ecological systems. We would not expect independent radiometric systems to converge on deep time. Alternative models must account for the full dataset without special pleading.
If the claim is that God may have intervened in ways that altered natural processes, that is a theological possibility. But unconstrained, ad hoc interventions render a model unfalsifiable. Historical sciences include catastrophes. What they require is that processes leave consistent signatures. If interventions can override regular processes at will, then evidence no longer constrains inference. The explanation can always be “a special act occurred here.” That does not refute divine action. It defines the limits of scientific inference.
All models share foundational assumptions. The question is whether they are minimal and whether the model makes risky predictions. Evolution predicts nested hierarchies, transitional forms in specific strata, genetic congruence across loci, and chromosomal signatures such as the human chromosome 2 fusion. These are testable expectations. A model can be strong and still be wrong. But repeated convergence across independent datasets lowers that probability. If the foundational assumptions are false, the burden is to show where they measurably fail.
Science can be overextended. That critique concerns misuse, not the validity of evolutionary biology. Treating science as the sole source of meaning is a philosophical move. Mutation and selection do not entail moral hierarchies. Those leaps occur outside the biology. Science is limited. That does not undermine its competence within its domain. Evolutionary theory explains population change under measurable processes. It does not prescribe morality or determine human worth.
This post was edited on 2/25/26 at 6:19 pm
0
Posted on 2/25/26 at 6:41 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
How could a scientific definition include the study of something untestable by science?
How does it do so for evolution? We have an observable mechanism, no question. Is it sufficient as a blanket theory of everything? It looks very questionable for explaining all of the life that ever existed descending from one cell that hit the cosmic jackpot. But that's not falsifiable nor can you put it in a lab and do a controlled experiment.
Posted on 2/25/26 at 6:44 pm to Flats
quote:huh?
Is it sufficient as a blanket theory of everything?
Posted on 2/25/26 at 6:45 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
huh?
I'm happy to clarify if you'll take a swing at addressing my questions.
Posted on 2/25/26 at 6:47 pm to Flats
Falsifiability in science does not mean “rerun the entire history of life in a lab.” It means the model makes predictions that could be wrong. Common ancestry predicts nested genetic hierarchies, transitional fossils in specific strata, shared endogenous retroviruses in the same chromosomal locations, and chromosomal signatures like the fusion seen in human chromosome 2. If we consistently found organisms that broke those patterns, the theory would be in serious trouble.
Posted on 2/25/26 at 6:48 pm to Flats
I was busy answering. Go on.
Posted on 2/25/26 at 6:56 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
Falsifiability in science does not mean “rerun the entire history of life in a lab.”
I know that, it means "falsifiable". We're all carbon-based, we have the same building blocks. I think our DNA has 30% in common with a dandelion. It's technically possible that materialistic evolution can produce anything from anything given the severity of the mutations. So yes, when you extrapolate that out something merely theoretically possible is being touted as a theory, implying that it's done with the same scientific rigor as observable science. It's not. It's technically possible that Paul Pelosi is just really gifted when it comes to picking stocks, but I don't believe that and I doubt you do either.
This also brings into question the meaning of "science". Is it scientism? Is it looking for actual truth about how the world works or does it only want to address topics that you can reduce to a materialistic formula?
Posted on 2/25/26 at 7:03 pm to Flats
Ok. While I'm answering that could you clarify 'theory of everything?'
Posted on 2/25/26 at 7:10 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
Ok. While I'm answering that could you clarify 'theory of everything?'
I was referring to the common claim of evolution: it's not a mechanism, it's THE mechanism no matter how big the gaps in knowledge are. There have been claims from the "evolution as dogma" crowd that tried to equate biological evolution with the fact that rocks erode and the universe changes and that's all "evolution". You didn't make them so I wasn't really referring to that.
Posted on 2/25/26 at 7:16 pm to Flats
quote:First, “materialistic evolution can produce anything from anything” is not what evolutionary theory claims. Evolution is constrained by genetics, developmental biology, physics, and selection. Mutations are random with respect to fitness, but the outcomes are heavily filtered. Not anything can become anything.
I know that, it means "falsifiable". We're all carbon-based, we have the same building blocks. I think our DNA has 30% in common with a dandelion. It's technically possible that materialistic evolution can produce anything from anything given the severity of the mutations. So yes, when you extrapolate that out something merely theoretically possible is being touted as a theory, implying that it's done with the same scientific rigor as observable science. It's not. It's technically possible that Paul Pelosi is just really gifted when it comes to picking stocks, but I don't believe that and I doubt you do either.
This also brings into question the meaning of "science". Is it scientism? Is it looking for actual truth about how the world works or does it only want to address topics that you can reduce to a materialistic formula?
This isn't 'Nam. This is science. There are rules.
Second, extrapolation is not guesswork. It is inference from known mechanisms operating over time. We directly observe mutation rates, selection pressures, genetic drift, and speciation events. Extending those mechanisms across geological time is not abandoning rigor. It's applying the same causal processes at larger scales.
The Paul Pelosi analogy doesn’t work. Evolutionary theory is not claiming “it’s technically possible.” It is claiming that specific patterns we observe today are best explained by descent with modification. That claim stands or falls on how well it explains the data compared to alternatives.
As for “scientism,” that’s a philosophical critique about how far science should extend. Evolutionary biology itself is not an ideology about truth. It's a model about biological change. Whether someone turns that model into a worldview is their own prerogative and a separate philosophical discussion.
So at its core: does common ancestry with modification best explain the genetic, fossil, and anatomical evidence we actually observe? That is a scientific question, not a statement about ultimate reality.
Posted on 2/25/26 at 7:21 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
Mutations are random
How do you know if you don't know anything about how frequently a specific mutation happens?
I prefer watching debates to learn about this topic because you can't bullshite someone like you can in a textbook. The other person gets to respond. I'll never forget Lewis Wolpert in a debate claim that there was nothing to be learned by figuring out how often mutations actually happen. I doubt he believe that, but that's the corner his dogma backed him into, which is my point. There is dogma on both sides of this discussion, not just one.
Posted on 2/25/26 at 7:24 pm to Flats
quote:Well, as you said, I've never made those claims, can't speak for anyone that thinks that, nor am I familiar with them.
I was referring to the common claim of evolution: it's not a mechanism, it's THE mechanism no matter how big the gaps in knowledge are. There have been claims from the "evolution as dogma" crowd that tried to equate biological evolution with the fact that rocks erode and the universe changes and that's all "evolution". You didn't make them so I wasn't really referring to that.
Evolution is a theory about biological diversification. It does not explain cosmology, abiogenesis, geology, gravity, consciousness, or morality, nor does it intend or claim to do so. It explains how populations change over time through mutation, selection, drift, and gene flow. Period.
Posted on 2/25/26 at 7:24 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
So at its core: does common ancestry with unguided modification best explain the genetic, fossil, and anatomical evidence we actually observe?
I think that's really what you're saying, aren't you? The word changes a lot.
Posted on 2/25/26 at 7:34 pm to Flats
quote:
How do you know if you don't know anything about how frequently a specific mutation happens?
Error rates in the different enzymes responsible for this (eg RNA polymerase) are well documented at this point.
Posted on 2/25/26 at 7:34 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
Well, as you said, I've never made those claims, can't speak for anyone that thinks that, nor am I familiar with them.
They can generally be found in places like NABT, AAAS, etc. Some are so blatant they've taken them down but there's still plenty of pseudo-science. I don't think it's an accident that the pseudo-science occurs in the two areas that people have strong worldviews about: evolution and climate.
In any event, when "experts" regurgitate dogma it's not good for anybody.
Posted on 2/25/26 at 7:35 pm to Flats
When you say “how do you know,” what specifically do you mean?
Are you questioning whether mutation rates can be measured at all, or are you arguing that differences in mutation frequency undermine the claim that mutations are random with respect to fitness?
And when you say “random,” what definition are you using? Random in the statistical sense, or random in the sense of “uncaused” or “patternless”?
I need to clarify the terms so we're not misunderstanding each other.
Are you questioning whether mutation rates can be measured at all, or are you arguing that differences in mutation frequency undermine the claim that mutations are random with respect to fitness?
And when you say “random,” what definition are you using? Random in the statistical sense, or random in the sense of “uncaused” or “patternless”?
I need to clarify the terms so we're not misunderstanding each other.
Posted on 2/25/26 at 7:40 pm to northshorebamaman
There is a saying in science that pretty much everyone not versed in any aspect of any science fails to understand and it is this: in science you cannot "prove" a theory, you can only disprove it.
Heck, when you get down to it, gravity is only a theory meaning we can't explain the how but no one questions that material objects attract each other.
Now as for evolution all of the evidence, the real evidence supports the "theory" such that for all intents and purposes it is proven and none of the evidence disproves it.
That science has yet to explain the mechanics of the origin of life on Earth, there are two main theories btw, to take that and automatically jump to the conclusion that an all-powerful being that amazingly looks exactly like us snapped it's fingers and presto there was life is childishly simplistic and harkens back to when early humans could not explain where the Sun went each night and what caused thunder, only that both events scared the hell out of them.
The fact is science is the only reason our standard of living is orders of magnitude better than how people lived 500 years ago and you should be damn glad some of us went to school and studied something other than how to be dumbshit redneck.
Heck, when you get down to it, gravity is only a theory meaning we can't explain the how but no one questions that material objects attract each other.
Now as for evolution all of the evidence, the real evidence supports the "theory" such that for all intents and purposes it is proven and none of the evidence disproves it.
That science has yet to explain the mechanics of the origin of life on Earth, there are two main theories btw, to take that and automatically jump to the conclusion that an all-powerful being that amazingly looks exactly like us snapped it's fingers and presto there was life is childishly simplistic and harkens back to when early humans could not explain where the Sun went each night and what caused thunder, only that both events scared the hell out of them.
The fact is science is the only reason our standard of living is orders of magnitude better than how people lived 500 years ago and you should be damn glad some of us went to school and studied something other than how to be dumbshit redneck.
Posted on 2/25/26 at 7:47 pm to JacieNY
quote:
Now as for evolution all of the evidence, the real evidence supports the "theory" such that for all intents and purposes it is proven and none of the evidence disproves it.
Out of curiosity, what evidence or observations would be required to disprove the theory of universal common ancestry, that all life on Earth descends from a single primordial single-celled organism?
Posted on 2/25/26 at 7:48 pm to Flats
quote:Again, I really need to define terms because much of the confusion around this topic comes from applying broader definitions to precise scientific terms. In biology, “unguided” means the mechanisms we can observe and test operate without foresight or goals. It’s not making a metaphysical claim that there is definitively no God involved anywhere, if that’s your reason for asking.
I think that's really what you're saying, aren't you? The word changes a lot.
So, do you mean unguided in the narrow, mechanistic sense used in biology, or unguided in the broader metaphysical sense? Those are very different claims.
Posted on 2/25/26 at 7:48 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
When you say “how do you know,” what specifically do you mean?
How do you know that a mutation is random? To even get an educated guess you'd need to know some sort of odds, would you not?
quote:
Random in the statistical sense, or random in the sense of “uncaused” or “patternless”?
Over time those should look exactly the same.
Page 19 of 20
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News