Dick Dawk is actually coming to my town in the spring, and hopefully he'll hold an open-mic Q&A like Dembski did back in Sept 07. I'll be much nicer to the good professor than most anyone was to Dr Dembski, but I've been considering what to ask him.
Anyway, I came up with an interesting question that is maybe ready for some scrutiny, so we'll see where it leads. My first unfortunate subject was Tommy Holland, so let's see how it's gone down so far.
Note - I'll use "my side" as shorthand for Intelligent Design. I'm not a total fanboy of ID, but it's a fun argument tool at times like this.
------------
-
The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle states that we can't observe something without changing it. Stick a thermometer into a small vial of water to get its temperature, and the temperature of the thermometer will change the temperature of the water.
Therefore, to artificially constrain science by insisting that it must conduct science without observing the conditions ("No lab.") is unreasonable. Incidentally, your qualifications would be just as inhibiting to demonstrating Intelligent Design as it is to the Theory of Evolution.
Historical events can't be reproduced scientifically. I can't duplicate my birth or the Battle of Waterloo in a lab and study the results. However, we can study the mechanisms of historical events scientifically and learn from them about how the events came to pass.
For example, we can't reproduce Columbus' historic voyage across the Atlantic Ocean--it simply can't be done. But we do know his starting point, his ending point, and his mechanism for sailing the ocean waters (Mediterranean caravels). Even though we can't draw a dotted line across the Atlantic reproducing his exact path, we know beyond reasonable doubt that in the year 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue.
What's more, our inability to exactly reproduce Columbus' voyage does not allow us to declare that perhaps he teleported from Spain to the West Indies. "Magic" is not a better answer than "probable, but not completely certain."
That said, evolution has been observed both in the laboratory and in the wild. From a century and a half of observational science, we have a framework that can begin with a starting point, an ending point, and the mechanism that bridges the two--natural selection.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
-
Yeah, actually the Heisenberg principle did occur to me.
It makes, hmmm, drawing strong, hard-and-fast conclusions about the concepts to which it applies pretty much impossible.
But of course, you won't admit that about your precious theory of evolution, will you? Even though you admit that you have to inject intelligence into any study on this supposedly non-intelligent process. It's laughable, actually.
Historical events can't be reproduced scientifically
1) Hey, all this certainty and strong statements come from YOUR side, not mine. Would that your people would realise this and adjust their statements accordingly.
2) Of course, I'm not asking you to reproduce a historical event. I'm asking you for evidence that the processes you appeal to are still in operation TODAY.
That said, evolution has been observed both in the laboratory and in the wild.
Prove it. Where?
Laboratory is right out, for reasons I already explained.
Please describe the "observed" in the wild. I'm very curious.
Go read an article in talkorigins
1) Interesting - this is just confirmation that your side can't define "species", but you're always ready to jump down creationists' throats for not being able to define "kind" of animal...
2) Let's see what this yields.
5.1.1.1 - Nothing is mentioned on whether this variant was before present. And as you said, Tommy, there's little way to know. That's a draw.
5.1.1.2 - Intelligent Design. Point for my side. That's 1 to 0.
5.1.1.3 - See 5.1.1.1. That's 1 to 0, with 2 draws.
5.1.1.4 - See 5.1.1.2. That's 2 to 0, with 2 draws.
5.1.1.5 - See 5.1.1.2. That's 3 to 0, with 2 draws.
5.1.1.6 - See 5.1.1.2. That's 4 to 0, with 2 draws.
5.1.1.7 - See 5.1.1.2. That's 5 to 0, with 2 draws. This is not going well for you.
5.1.1.8 - See 5.1.1.2. That's 6 to 0, with 2 draws. Ouch.
5.1.1.9 - See 5.1.1.2. That's 6 to 0, with 3 draws.
5.2.1 - See 5.1.1.1. That's 6 to 0, with 4 draws.
5.2.2 - See 5.1.1.2. That's 7 to 0, with 4 draws.
5.2.3 - See 5.1.1.2. That's 8 to 0, with 4 draws.
Wow. At the rate this is going, it'll be a disaster for your side. That's embarrassing for you.
So, are you saying that you have no answer to my challenges?
I have two challenges to evolution I'm wondering if you'd be interested in addressing, then.
Challenge 1: Given the great care that the Darwinian camp has taken to differentiate itself from the Intelligent Design stuff, one would think that certainly said camp would be highly, strongly interested in providing evidence for its position, absent ANY INTELLIGENCE involved whatsoever. Given that, I'd like evidence that evolution from one type of organism to another is occurring TODAY with the following qualifications:
1) A laboratory injects intelligence into the equation. No lab.
2) Experiments observed on a REPEATED basis, as good science should be.
3) No intelligent (ie, human) manipulation of the events.
4) With ALL normal environmental factors present. No control group, no outside interference from intelligent agents (ie, humans).
5) With ALL normal other factors present, such as predators, weather, fluctuations in prey, water, and other nourishment.
6) And a good way of judging when the line of organism has become a different type.
Challenge 2.