NationStates Jolt Archive

Most scientists feel that Intelligent design is a religious tool and the media always cries foul and claim that any scientist writing about intelligent design is trying to push religion onto the scientific community. Why is this? Look at the human hand for example: Its structure is complex and everything fits together in such a fashion that the hand can move, pick up objects and make inventive and insulting hand . If studying nature has taught me anything it's that often the most affective form of life is often the simplest. So why would evolution create such a complex thing? Theoretically evolution would produce more complex organisms to fit a changing environment. Practically, however, evolution would produce a rather simple organism that would go through different variations of basicly the same thing.

There seem to be a lot of threads on this forum about the theory of Intelligent Design but no one has spelt out what it is. I know there has been a lot of debate in the US but, as an ignorant foreigner, I have missed it all. Is ID just a way of saying that there is a higher purpose behind evolution or is it an argument for creationism? :confused:

Most scientists feel that Intelligent design is a religious tool and the media always cries foul and claim that any scientist writing about intelligent design is trying to push religion onto the scientific community. Why is this? Look at the human hand for example: Its structure is complex and everything fits together in such a fashion that the hand can move, pick up objects and make inventive and insulting hand . If studying nature has taught me anything it's that often the most affective form of life is often the simplest. So why would evolution create such a complex thing? Theoretically evolution would produce more complex organisms to fit a changing environment. Practically, however, evolution would produce a rather simple organism that would go through different variations of basicly the same thing.
How is the hand 'complex'? It's very well adapted to what it does (namely, pick up things), and without our hands we would most likely die from starvation. And you are right, to a fashion, simpler life does tend to be more sucessful, see prokaryotes who have all us eukaryotes beat hands down, but each to his niche.

Intelligent Design = Creationism sugarcoated

Fiction that is not backed up should not be taught in science classes. Intelligent Design isn't science. It is a hoax brought on by creationists who think they can sugarcoat falsehoods....

There seem to be a lot of threads on this forum about the theory of Intelligent Design but no one has spelt out what it is. I know there has been a lot of debate in the US but, as an ignorant foreigner, I have missed it all. Is ID just a way of saying that there is a higher purpose behind evolution or is it an argument for creationism? :confused:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

Intelligent design effectively argues that because something is complex, there has to be a designer. However, the inherent flaw in this argument is that its entire premise hinges on the existence of a designer; however, this designer cannot be proven to exist in any case or form, and so contradicts the definition of a scientific theory. Because it contradicts the scientific process, it is inherently in opposition to science and cannot be taught as such.

What affirmative predictions does intelligent design make? (I would think one would be that men wouldn't have nipples, and no humans would ever have more than two.) If it doesn't make them, or they're untestable, it's not even a theory. It's a philosophy or a religious philosophy. Not science.

As to why life in complex. Reliability. Fast code will often have the ability to take in inputs that will put it out of bounds. Reliable code, it has a minimum of overflows, the bounds are checked, contingencies exist for when things don't go as planed. It's dense, hard to understand, and complicated. And you can count on it when it's running.

Intelligent design effectively argues that because something is complex, there has to be a designer. However, the inherent flaw in this argument is that its entire premise hinges on the existence of a designer; however, this designer cannot be proven to exist in any case or form, and so contradicts the definition of a scientific theory. Because it contradicts the scientific process, it is inherently in opposition to science and cannot be taught as such.
Nor are there any such things as items that are 'irreducably complex'.

There are things which are science. There are things which are philosophy. Why is it so hard to get this across? There is no reason why students cannot learn about ID. But it doesn't belong in the science room.

Intelligent Design = Creationism sugarcoated

Fiction that is not backed up should not be taught in science classes. Intelligent Design isn't science. It is a hoax brought on by creationists who think they can sugarcoat falsehoods....

All that intelligent design assumes is that the universe is too complex to have originated on it's own. The "blind watchmaker" (where a divine being creates the universe and wanders off) is entirely different from the vast majority of religions.

Nothing so connected to religion should be taught in schools, I believe. However, Mesetecala, I see no purpose to your scorn and anger on the subject. Unless your actions or emotions can change something, there's no point to them.

Most scientists feel that Intelligent design is a religious tool and the media always cries foul and claim that any scientist writing about intelligent design is trying to push religion onto the scientific community. Why is this?
I'm sure the resident scientists will come alone to educate you in a while, but simply put, ID is not testable.

Scientific theory is testable, using it, we can make a series of predictions and test them to see if they are true or not. We can also back up the theory with evidence, and incorperate new evidence as our understanding changes.

All theories are tested to within an inch of their lives. That is scientific riggor and why Darwin has withstood the test of time. No one has even been able to show the orginal premies to be wrong, and new evidence just gives the theory more strenght.

ID however cannot be tested. How do you test the premies that, somewhere, sometime, we all were put together by something? You can't 'prove' this right or wrong. There's no evidence to support this. It fails as a scientific theory.

Like I said though, if you a wait a few, the better and more knowledgeable folks will be here to tell you all about theories and what they actually mean.

There are things which are science. There are things which are philosophy. Why is it so hard to get this across? There is no reason why students cannot learn about ID. But it doesn't belong in the science room.

It should be kept to an optional class because some of us don't want to learn about a idea that purports to be science.

Mahria: My anger is directed towards those advocates of this nonsense (argument from ignorance) who think it is science. It isn't a valid argument.

It should be kept to an optional class because some of us don't want to learn about a idea that purports to be science.

Mahria: My anger is directed towards those advocates of this nonsense (argument from ignorance) who think it is science. It isn't a valid argument.
No, it isn't, and worse, if they get their way they will seriously damage our childrens ability to learn biology and will be even worse prepared for college level biology/ecology.

What affirmative predictions does intelligent design make? (I would think one would be that men wouldn't have nipples, and no humans would ever have more than two.) If it doesn't make them, or they're untestable, it's not even a theory. It's a philosophy or a religious philosophy. Not science.


I've heard some ID people claiming that you can tell whether something has been intelligently designed by similar methods as those used to detect forgeries, but I've never seen it proven.

ID isn't a theory in my opinion, as that would imply it being scientific. It is, however, a hypothethesis. Unfortunately, it seems to me as though it is an untestable hypothesis.
Does that merit it being taught in science classes? I would say no, unless somebody comes up with some sort of evidence supporting it.

The funny thing is, is that when people talk about scientific explanations or religious explanations, it doesn't matter. They are in essence explaining the same exact thing; reality. All that differs is the dialectic, the words, the phrsases. But many of the metaphysical structures, concepts and processes of that which is describe actually correlates with each other. Especially with Taoism. (I advise the book 'The Tao of physics', it's quite commonly mentioned o nthe net, i expect many to of heard of it)

Science/reason is more or less the opposite of faith I feel. Science/reason is used to prove falsities, and faith is used to believe the truth. There will be a little science/reason in your faith and a little faith in your science/reason.

To marry the two is the great conundrum.
To dismiss either is stupid.

As for intelligent design being a theory, i'd have to say - yes.

If a crazy sceintist believed that his theory was correct even though him being unable to prove or convince others of proof; it would still be a theory until someone proved him wrong. And there are certain aspects to science that don't have an answer yet.

The funny thing is, is that when people talk about scientific explanations or religious explanations, it doesn't matter. They are in essence explaining the same exact thing; reality. All that differs is the dialectic, the words, the phrsases. But many of the metaphysical structures, concepts and processes of that which is describe actually correlates with each other. Especially with Taoism. (I advise the book 'The Tao of physics', it's quite commonly mentioned o nthe net, i expect many to of heard of it)

Science/reason is more or less the opposite of faith I feel. Science/reason is used to prove falsities, and faith is used to believe the truth. There will be a little science/reason in your faith and a little faith in your science/reason.

To marry the two is the great conundrum.
To dismiss either is stupid.

Opps. Evolution has never set out to prove or disprove the existence of God so marrying of the two will never happen as one side questions and the other takes things on faith.

There nothing wrong with ID being in a philosophy class or evena religion class but to pose it in the science class? Nope sorry.

As for intelligent design being a theory, i'd have to say - yes.

If a crazy sceintist believed that his theory was correct even though him being unable to prove or convince others of proof; it would still be a theory until someone proved him wrong. And there are certain aspects to science that don't have an answer yet.

For something to be a theory it has to be testable, so no it isn't a theory.

The funny thing is, is that when people talk about scientific explanations or religious explanations, it doesn't matter. They are in essence explaining the same exact thing; reality. All that differs is the dialectic, the words, the phrsases. But many of the metaphysical structures, concepts and processes of that which is describe actually correlates with each other. Especially with Taoism. (I advise the book 'The Tao of physics', it's quite commonly mentioned o nthe net, i expect many to of heard of it)

Science/reason is more or less the opposite of faith I feel. Science/reason is used to prove falsities, and faith is used to believe the truth. There will be a little science/reason in your faith and a little faith in your science/reason.

To marry the two is the great conundrum.
To dismiss either is stupid.

"Tao of Physics" isn't by Fritjof Capra, is it? The skeptical community hates that bastard!

How do you solve a problem like a Capra?
How do you catch a cloud and pin it down?
How do you find a word that means a Capra?
A flibbertigibbet a will'o'th'wisp a clown,
Many a thing you know you'd like to tell him,
Many a thing he ought to understand,
But how do you make him stay, and listen to all you say?
How do you keep a wave upon the sand?
How do you solve a problem like a Capra?
How do you hold Dr. Moonbeam in your hand?

Not my work. Sorry if it has no connection to what we're talking about.

As for intelligent design being a theory, i'd have to say - yes.

If a crazy sceintist believed that his theory was correct even though him being unable to prove or convince others of proof; it would still be a theory until someone proved him wrong. And there are certain aspects to science that don't have an answer yet.

No, it would be a hypothesis. A theory is a complex, conclusively tested body of proven scientific laws and their effects on the natural world. A hypothesis is just how you think things work.

"Tao of Physics" isn't by Fritjof Capra, is it?
Yes (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1570625190/102-5817757-3491368?v=glance)

Opps. Evolution has never set out to prove or disprove the existence of God so marrying of the two will never happen as one side questions and the other takes things on faith.

There nothing wrong with ID being in a philosophy class or evena religion class but to pose it in the science class? Nope sorry.

Thats exactly what I'm saying. It is the oppostie of science.
It's like classing 'Science' as a religion with sub-relgiions for each theory you follow. That doesn't fit either. How ever you can use a scientific dialectic to describe some of the patterns found in nature. Patterns that some people of faith use to uphold there opinion, like the formation of certain geometric shapes throughout nature.

But then in reverse you could use religious term of phrase to describe evolution, and still have the exact same processes of nature being described.

You will always have varying degrees of reason and faith within a person's arguement, it's almost polarised. To what degree determines whether you class them as being of religious mind set or scientifically inclined. But whatever logic or piece of reasoning which is used, should there be any, should definately be taught in a scince class. It's the only place that it will meet any scinetific scrutany.

Thats exactly what I'm saying. It is the oppostie of science.
It's like classing 'Science' as a religion with sub-relgiions for each theory you follow. That doesn't fit either. How ever you can use a scientific dialectic to describe some of the patterns found in nature. Patterns that some people of faith use to uphold there opinion, like the formation of certain geometric shapes throughout nature.

But then in reverse you could use religious term of phrase to describe evolution, and still have the exact same processes of nature being described.

You will always have varying degrees of reason and faith within a person's arguement, it's almost polarised. To what degree determines whether you class them as being of religious mind set or scientifically inclined. But whatever logic or piece of reasoning which is used, should there be any, should definately be taught in a scince class. It's the only place that it will meet any scinetific scrutany.
Then astrology should also be taught in Science class?

Mahria: My anger is directed towards those advocates of this nonsense (argument from ignorance) who think it is science.

Very well. I accept that, and I agree strongly with those believing it should be put out as a religious or philosophical idea.

However, I disagree with the idea that science and religion are all that far away in trying to explain the world. Both have their missionaries, their fanatics, and their assumptions that people hate to have questions. Both attempt to explain the world in a way people understand. One simply adds in a code of morals while the other adds in a code as to what's kosher as a scientific theory.

Then astrology should also be taught in Science class?

I said the aspects of religion that have been assigned a piece of reasoning. That doesn't mean I said that genesis gets taught in the classroom.

Simply that if anyone has a theory of intelligent design that has, lets says, an actual statistical basis, then teach it.

I said the aspects of religion that have been assigned a piece of reasoning. That doesn't mean I said that genesis gets taught in the classroom.

Simply that if anyone has a theory of intelligent design that has, lets says, an actual statistical basis, then teach it.
But that is exactly where it fails.

(I advise the book 'The Tao of physics', it's quite commonly mentioned o nthe net, i expect many to of heard of it)

"Tao of physics" = Total crap.

Science/reason is more or less the opposite of faith I feel. Science/reason is used to prove falsities, and faith is used to believe the truth.

Science tests reality to determine the truth, faith defines metaphysical nonsense as the truth.

If a crazy sceintist believed that his theory was correct even though him being unable to prove or convince others of proof; it would still be a theory until someone proved him wrong.

Confusion of hypothesis and theory. Minus 10 points.

And there are certain aspects to science that don't have an answer yet.

"God of the gaps" argument. Minus 30 points.

Intelligent Design is basically just Creationism desperately groping for credibility in a world that's pretty much realized just how silly and unnecessary the idea is. :)

IMO, "Intelligent Design" is based primarily on dishonest argumentation. "The hand is complex, therefore there must be a Desinger." "This protein is 'irreducibly complex,' therefore there must be a Designer." Etc.

But notice the steath assumption: *a* Designer. Why only one? Most complex technologies are designed by a number of people working together, so a committee of Designers as at least as "likely" as a single one. Well, there is only one Designer, because we in the West are so used to monotheism. Because monotheism is such a part of our "mental furniture" (even for atheists, who do not believe in "God"--and rarely deny "the gods" or "goddesses"), the reference to "a Designer" is automatically translated to "the Judeo-Christian God." The ID proponents will never come out and *say* that of course, but they can safely rely on that assumption.

I can only wonder what an ID proponent would say if you said, "Of course these things had to be designed. I think we need to teach children about the Designers. It's proof that the Heliopolitan Ennead really exists!"

ID is philosophy or religion and not science, because the Designer(s) are not scientifically modelable. What sort of entity is/are the Designer(s)? What are they made of? If they are not made of matter/energy, and/or do not reside within our space-time continuum, how do they interact with matter/energy? If they are not matter/energy beings in our space-time continuum, how do they become aware of our Universe and its nature? How do they go about "designing" proteins or hands, and seeing that their designs are implemented? Is there a way to test whether the Designers and/or whatever dimension (if not our own) they live in exists?

If the properties of the Designer(s) cannot be specified, they cannot be cited as the "explanation" for any scientific mystery. If a physicist wants to propose the existence of a new type of particle, s/he must be able to specify the properties of that particle, and show that its existence explains things better and more concisely than the idea that it does not exist.

Thus, you cannot say that "the Designer(s)" are the "explanation" for protein molecules or Monarch butterflies until you can: a) specify the nature and properties of the Designer(s) in such a way that an experiment could be constructed (if not now, eventually, with better technology) that could demonstrate whether or not it existed; and b) demonstrate that the Designer(s) provide a better and more concise explanation for the phenomena in question than other theories.

Furthermore, who says evolution is not an "intelligent" process? What is "intelligence?" I define "intelligence" as the ability to indentify, integrate, and utilize information. Using this definition, an electron is (very minimally) "intelligent." Because of its electrical charge, it can identify the proximity of another charge (e.g. another electron, a proton, or a larger electromagnetic field). If it's another electron, it responds by moving away. If it's a proton, the two mutually attract, and most likely, "get together" and form a hydrogen atom (a new, more complex entity with new properties). If it's a larger electromagnetic field, the electron will spiral around along the lines of force.

Get enough electrons and protons together, and their multitudinous interactions produce a cloud of hydrogen gas. Electromagnetism and gravity then concentrate the hydrogen (if there's enough of it) until a star and accretion disc are formed. Then, there's nuclear fusion that ultimately results in the creation of heavier elements, which are scattered when the first generation of stars explode. And so on, each stage resulting in a local increase in complexity balanced by entropic dispersion of energy, with the system increasing in "intelligence" and speed of evolution (it took billions of years to form the solar system, fewer billions to get from single cells to animals, only a few million to get from primates to humans, and only a few thousand for technologically-evolving humans to create the ability to live under the sea (submarines), at supersonic velicity (jets), and in space (rockets, space stations).

Even an "intelligent designer" uses an evolutionary process to "design" something. Say an architect is designing a bridge. She takes into account the materials available, the gulf to be bridged, the traffic the bridge must carry, etc.. Then she will consider existing designs (evolutionary ancestors). If an existing bridge design fills all her criteria (the "environment" in which the design must "seek" to survive), she can replicate it. In this case, the existing bridge design "survives" and "reproduces" itself.

If no design meets her criteria, she will try inventing new ones. Most likely, she will experiment with variations on existing designs--new types of suspension bridges, etc. She will then calculate whether the new designs can withstand the stresses they'll be subjected to, etc. Those that can't, she'll reject. Of those that can, she'll pick the one that best reflects her aesthetic values, the economic limits of the project, the site in which it is to be built, etc.

The biggest difference between this sort of "intelligent design" and natural evolution is that the evolutionary process of the former takes place within the mind(s) of the designer(s), while the latter takes place out in the "real world." The designer(s)' minds create a "simulated environment" (whether it's an imagined idea, blueprints and equations on paper, or a highly-realistic computer model) in which bridge designs evolve and compete for survival.

In fact, designers are now using "evolutionary algorythms" in computer models to create "designs" for things like jet engine turbines. These algorythms basically replicate evolution by natural selection in a computer model.

So, looking at it this way, we could say there's already an "Intelligent Design" theory--it's called "evolution."

First off, I think a lot of you assumne I believe in God. I do not.

It's simply that some people have formulated scientific explanation to explain their belief in Intelligent Design. I don't think that just because that desire to explain our origines, was in fact inspired by religion, means that it shouldn't face the same scrutany as any other theory.

Thats all.

As for you simply using a side issue of my not knowing the difference between a 'theory' and 'hypothesis' to refute my enitre arguement is just subversive.

Although I do actually know the difference, and nowhere in my text does is convey any information that may refute this crazy scientist having a complete and internally consistent set of results from tests he carried out. It merely states that no one believes him. So, maybe they are all stupid, you don't know and there wasn't enough information for you to make a judgement either way.
I said he couldn't prove it because you never really prove anything with science. You prove 'what is not' which then gives you closer parameters for 'what is'. It's like calculting Pi.

Should it be taught? I said yes, and this is why:

1) No one ever said "should it be taught as the definite way" or that it should be taught for an entire year as the definition of how things work.
2) Creationism has been taught to me in science class, simply as part of the history of how people thought people came to be. Alternatives ought to be taught simply for the information of what people think, and what there is out there. ID is not a backwards way of thinking or anything, although it is not scientifically accepted as THE answer.
Should it be taught as a theory in science class? Yes. Should it be taught as a scientific theory? No, as a philosophical one.

My view on this one,coming from an external position.

The scientific view is one paradigm. The religious view is another paradigm. Takign anything from one and trying to "prove "it within the contect of the other doesn't make sense. What's the point? They are different means of definining the world. Why try to teach one as the other? *scratches head*

But then, to me Nothing exists anyway :)

Intelligent Design can never be taught as a legitimate scientific theory.

A theory in the scientific sense means a hypothesis that can be proven or disproven with the scientific method and/or an experiment.

The only way to disprove Intelligent Design is to view our entire past and examine every detail. An impossiblity unless we invent time travel.

As for the Creationism part of it, we can't prove or disprove God now can we?

Therefore, Intelligent Design should be relegated to theology or philosophy classes, where unprovable or purely speculative things belong.

This thread is over. Go home now.

Intelligent design effectively argues that because something is complex, there has to be a designer. However, the inherent flaw in this argument is that its entire premise hinges on the existence of a designer; however, this designer cannot be proven to exist in any case or form, and so contradicts the definition of a scientific theory. Because it contradicts the scientific process, it is inherently in opposition to science and cannot be taught as such.



Well, the contemporary scientific paradigm is materialism which basically has this presupposition:

1. The Universe exists without the need for a Designer

2. Empiricism can effectively explain everything

3. Therefore, any theory implying a metaphysical entity is unscientific.



Like religion, science is founded upon an unprovable assertion. They need to get out of the territory of theology and philosophy, and cease their statements that science is the be-all-end-all of everything.

Well, the contemporary scientific paradigm is materialism which basically has this presupposition:

1. The Universe exists without the need for a Designer

2. Empiricism can effectively explain everything

3. Therefore, any theory implying a metaphysical entity is unscientific.



Like religion, science is founded upon an unprovable assertion. They need to get out of the territory of theology and philosophy, and cease their statements that science is the be-all-end-all of everything.

The reason a metaphysical entity is unscientific is because we can't prove, or disprove it. Since a metaphysical entity is way to hard to comprehend in classical physics and barely fits into our universe, occam's razor states there must be a simplier solution. And we have plenty of evidence that supports science's assertions. Its just that no matter how hard anyone asserts anything with any amount of proof, someone will always not believe them.

The reason a metaphysical entity is unscientific is because we can't prove, or disprove it. Since a metaphysical entity is way to hard to comprehend in classical physics and barely fits into our universe, occam's razor states there must be a simplier solution. And we have plenty of evidence that supports science's assertions. Its just that no matter how hard anyone asserts anything with any amount of proof, someone will always not believe them.



Of course we have plenty of evidence supporting science, any evidence which is observable through the 5 senses (which would be all evidence we can actually prove to exist lol) can be said to reinforce science.

Well, the contemporary scientific paradigm is materialism which basically has this presupposition:

1. The Universe exists without the need for a Designer

2. Empiricism can effectively explain everything

3. Therefore, any theory implying a metaphysical entity is unscientific.



Like religion, science is founded upon an unprovable assertion. They need to get out of the territory of theology and philosophy, and cease their statements that science is the be-all-end-all of everything.
Um, you're making the posulation that there must be a designer. The 'rest state' is that no such designer exists, that is, the state with the least number of postulations. Saying that a creator does not exist is not a postulation, no matter how many times you attempt to assert it.

Two people come upon a cake. The first person runs a series of tests on the cake and makes conclusions. I believe that the ingredients the made this cake are:
4 (1 oz.) squares unsweetened chocolate
1/2 cup butter
1 cup water
2 cups flour
2 cups sugar
pinch of salt
1/2 cup buttermilk
1-1/4 tsp. baking soda
2 eggs, beaten
1 tsp. vanilla
2 (1 oz.) squares unsweetened chocolate
1/4 cup butter
1/2 cup milk
4 cups powdered sugar
2 tsp. vanilla
I believe that it was made in an oven pre-heated to 350 degrees. I believe the frosting is chocolicious.

The second person, "This cake was made by God from the dust of the earth."

Intelligent Design can never be taught as a legitimate scientific theory.

A theory in the scientific sense means a hypothesis that can be proven or disproven with the scientific method and/or an experiment.

The only way to disprove Intelligent Design is to view our entire past and examine every detail. An impossiblity unless we invent time travel.

As for the Creationism part of it, we can't prove or disprove God now can we?

Therefore, Intelligent Design should be relegated to theology or philosophy classes, where unprovable or purely speculative things belong.

This thread is over. Go home now.

Under that logic, evolution shouldn't be taught either, as it is unprovable, although likely. To prove evolution, we'd have to view our entire past and examine every detail. An impossibility unless we invent time travel.

Both theories should be taught, but neither as fact.

Well, the contemporary scientific paradigm is materialism which basically has this presupposition:

1. The Universe exists without the need for a Designer

2. Empiricism can effectively explain everything

3. Therefore, any theory implying a metaphysical entity is unscientific.



Like religion, science is founded upon an unprovable assertion. They need to get out of the territory of theology and philosophy, and cease their statements that science is the be-all-end-all of everything.

The basic assumption of science is this and this only: That the world exists as we observe it, that our senses do not lie to us. Since, necessarily, we generally have to assume that things we observe exist, the assumption is substantiated by human nature.

By the way, I still think the whole catholic school girl thing is hot, it is a damned shame I don't know you.

Under that logic, evolution shouldn't be taught either, as it is unprovable, although likely. To prove evolution, we'd have to view our entire past and examine every detail. An impossibility unless we invent time travel.

Both theories should be taught, but neither as fact.
Do please show some evidence for ID.

Two people come upon a cake. The first person runs a series of tests on the cake and makes conclusions. I believe that the ingredients the made this cake are:
4 (1 oz.) squares unsweetened chocolate
1/2 cup butter
1 cup water
2 cups flour
2 cups sugar
pinch of salt
1/2 cup buttermilk
1-1/4 tsp. baking soda
2 eggs, beaten
1 tsp. vanilla
2 (1 oz.) squares unsweetened chocolate
1/4 cup butter
1/2 cup milk
4 cups powdered sugar
2 tsp. vanilla
I believe that it was made in an oven pre-heated to 350 degrees. I believe the frosting is chocolicious.

The second person, "This cake was made by God from the dust of the earth."



The second person is correct, because the ingredients must come from somewhere too :D

The second person is correct, because the ingredients must come from somewhere too :D
Prove it.

The second person is correct, because the ingredients must come from somewhere too :D
LOL. I have to catch a train but I'll think about that on the way home.

Under that logic, evolution shouldn't be taught either, as it is unprovable, although likely. To prove evolution, we'd have to view our entire past and examine every detail. An impossibility unless we invent time travel.

Both theories should be taught, but neither as fact.
Fine--you come up with an actual theory known as ID, and we'll consider teaching it. But you don't have a theory--you have myth dressed up with faulty logic.

Look--if people want creationism/ID taught, there's a class for it. It's called comparative religions. You can put the Christian creation myth right next to the Greek one, the Hindu one, the many variants of the Native American theme, and so on. As long as it stays way the hell away from a science class.

Under that logic, evolution shouldn't be taught either, as it is unprovable, although likely. To prove evolution, we'd have to view our entire past and examine every detail. An impossibility unless we invent time travel.

Both theories should be taught, but neither as fact.

Fossil. Record.

Prove it.



I'll leave that to the First Law of Thermodynamics :)

ID shouldnt be taught in public school because it endorses one RELIGIOUS view over another (say the one where god made the world in a literal 6 days)

as such it has to be unconstitutional doesnt it? does one guy get his religion taught in public school because its easier to dress up in scientific clothing than the next guys religion? not in the united states.

Fossil. Record.



ID relies on the fossil record too ;)

ID shouldnt be taught in public school because it endorses one RELIGIOUS view over another (say the one where god made the world in a literal 6 days)

as such it has to be unconstitutional doesnt it? does one guy get his religion taught in public school because its easier to dress up in scientific clothing than the next guys religion? not in the united states.


If science reinforces the notion of one religion's teachings, then wouldn't we have to ban science in schools too?

I'll leave that to the First Law of Thermodynamics :)
So you're postulating that god made all matter? Isn't that a violation of the first law of thermodynamics?



You'd be incredibly intellegent if you'd only actually learn something of scientific merit Rogolia. Tell you what, go down to your local University (or up to UVA) and talk to an evolutionary biology teacher, and discuss this with them. Maybe that will help you iron out your difficulties with the theory.

Do please show some evidence for ID.

www.ideacenter.org

Just one of many, many more. More ID links, as well as some evolution links:

http://www.ideacenter.org/resources/links.php

ID relies on the fossil record too ;)

IDs only connection to the fossil record is hand waving and "because I said so's".

Until it defines a mechanism, ID has no ability to make predictions and is thus untestable.

So you're postulating that god made all matter? Isn't that a violation of the first law of thermodynamics?



You'd be incredibly intellegent if you'd only actually learn something of scientific merit Rogolia. Tell you what, go down to your local University (or up to UVA) and talk to an evolutionary biology teacher, and discuss this with them. Maybe that will help you iron out your difficulties with the theory.



Well, someone or something eventually had to violate that law, or else we wouldn't exist. Big Bang theory has already proven (as much as a theory can) the universe isn't eternal, thus there had to be an origin somewhere.

www.ideacenter.org

Just one of many, many more. More ID links, as well as some evolution links:

http://www.ideacenter.org/resources/links.php

Still waiting.

Well, someone or something eventually had to violate that law, or else we wouldn't exist. Big Bang theory has already proven (as much as a theory can) the universe isn't eternal, thus there had to be an origin somewhere.

How has the Big Bang proven the universe isn't eternal?

www.ideacenter.org
(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures are commonly found. The bacterial flagellum is a prime example. Specified complexity found in the laws of the universe may be another.

# This is an example of argument from incredulity, because irreducible complexity can evolve naturally. Many of the proteins in the bacterial flagellum or eukaryotic cilium are similar to each other or to proteins for other functions. Their origins can easily be explained by a series of gene duplication events followed by modification and/or co-option, proceeding gradually through intermediate systems different from and simpler than the final flagellum.

One plausible path for the evolution of flagella goes through the following basic stages (keep in mind that this is a summary, and that each major co-option event would be followed by long periods of gradual optimization of function):

1. A passive, nonspecific pore evolves into a more specific passive pore by addition of gating protein(s). Passive transport converts to active transport by addition of an ATPase that couples ATP hydrolysis to improved export capability. This complex forms a primitive type-III export system.

2. The type-III export system is converted to a type-III secretion system (T3SS) by addition of outer membrane pore proteins (secretin and secretin chaperone) from the type-II secretion system. These eventually form the P- and L-rings, respectively, of modern flagella. The modern type-III secretory system forms a structure strikingly similar to the rod and ring structure of the flagellum (Hueck 1998; Blocker et al. 2003).

3. The T3SS secretes several proteins, one of which is an adhesin (a protein that sticks the cell to other cells or to a substrate). Polymerization of this adhesin forms a primitive pilus, an extension that gives the cell improved adhesive capability. After the evolution of the T3SS pilus, the pilus diversifies for various more specialized tasks by duplication and subfunctionalization of the pilus proteins (pilins).

4. An ion pump complex with another function in the cell fortuitously becomes associated with the base of the secretion system structure, converting the pilus into a primitive protoflagellum. The initial function of the protoflagellum is improved dispersal. Homologs of the motor proteins MotA and MotB are known to function in diverse prokaryotes independent of the flagellum.

5. The binding of a signal transduction protein to the base of the secretion system regulates the speed of rotation depending on the metabolic health of the cell. This imposes a drift toward favorable regions and away from nutrient-poor regions, such as those found in overcrowded habitats. This is the beginning of chemotactic motility.

6. Numerous improvements follow the origin of the crudely functioning flagellum. Notably, many of the different axial proteins (rod, hook, linkers, filament, caps) originate by duplication and subfunctionalization of pilins or the primitive flagellar axial structure. These proteins end up forming the axial protein family.


The eukaryotic cilium (also called the eukaryotic flagellum or undulipodium) is fundamentally different from the bacterial flagellum. It probably originated as an outgrowth of the mitotic spindle in a primitive eukaryote (both structures make use of sliding microtubules and dyneins). Cavalier-Smith (1987; 2002) has discussed the origin of these systems on several occasions.

# The bacterial flagellum is not even irreducible. Some bacterial flagella function without the L- and P-rings. In experiments with various bacteria, some components (e.g. FliH, FliD (cap), and the muramidase domain of FlgJ) have been found helpful but not absolutely essential (Matzke 2003). One third of the 497 amino acids of flagellin have been cut out without harming its function (Kuwajima 1988). Furthermore, many bacteria have additional proteins that are required for their own flagella but that are not required in the "standard" well-studied flagellum found in E. coli. Different bacteria have different numbers of flagellar proteins (in Helicobacter pylori, for example, only thirty-three proteins are necessary to produce a working flagellum), so Behe's favorite example of irreducibility seems actually to exhibit quite a bit of variability in terms of numbers of required parts (Ussery 1999).

Eukaryotic cilia are made by more than 200 distinct proteins, but even here irreducibility is illusive. Behe (1996) implied and Denton (1986, 108) claimed explicitly that the common 9+2 tubulin structure of cilia could not be substantially simplified. Yet functional 3+0 cilia, lacking many microtubules as well as some of the dynein linkers, are known to exist (Miller 2003, 2004).

Ding. Replace that "yes" to a "no"

(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.
Biological complexity (i.e. new species) tend to appear in the fossil record suddenly and without any similar precursors. The Cambrian explosion is a prime example.

# The idea that gradual change should appear throughout the fossil record is called phyletic gradualism. It is based on the following tenets:

1. New species arise by the transformation of an ancestral population into its modified descendants.
2. The transformation is even and slow.
3. The transformation involves most or all of the ancestral population.
4. The transformation occurs over most or all of the ancestral species' geographic range.


However, all but the first of these is false far more often that not. Studies of modern populations and incipient species show that new species arise mostly from the splitting of a small part of the original species into a new geographical area. The population genetics of small populations allow this new species to evolve relatively quickly. Its evolution may allow it to spread into new geographical areas. Since the actual transitions occur relatively quickly and in a relatively small area, the transitions do not often show up in the fossil record. Sudden appearance in the fossil record often simply reflects that an existing species moved into a new region.

Once species are well adapted to an environment, selective pressures tend to keep them that way. A change in the environment that alters the selective pressure would then end the "stasis" (or lead to extinction).

It should be noted that even Darwin did not expect the rate of evolutionary change to be constant.

[N]atural selection will generally act very slowly, only at long intervals of time, and only on a few of the inhabitants of the same region. I further believe that these slow, intermittent results accord well with what geology tells us of the rate and manner at which the inhabitants of the world have changed (Darwin 1872, 140-141, chap. 4).

"But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification (Darwin 1872, 152).

It is a more important consideration . . . that the period during which each species underwent modification, though long as measured by years, was probably short in comparison with that during which it remained without undergoing any change (Darwin 1872, 428, chap. 10).

"it might require a long succession of ages to adapt an organism to some new and peculiar line of life, for instance, to fly through the air; and consequently that the transitional forms would often long remain confined to some one region; but that, when this adaptation had once been effected, and a few species had thus acquired a great advantage over other organisms, a comparatively short time would be necessary to produce many divergent forms, which would spread rapidly and widely throughout the world (Darwin 1872, 433).

# The imperfection of the fossil record (due to erosion and periods unfavorable to fossil preservation) also causes gaps, although it probably cannot account for all of them.

# Some transitional sequences exist, which, despite an uneven rate of change, still show a gradual continuum of forms.

# The fossil record still shows a great deal of change over time. The creationists who make note of the many gaps almost never admit the logical conclusion: If they are due to creation, then there have been hundreds, perhaps even millions, of separate creation events scattered through time.

# The Cambrian explosion was the seemingly sudden appearance of a variety of complex animals about 540 million years ago (Mya), but it was not the origin of complex life. Evidence of multicellular life from about 590 and 560 Mya appears in the Doushantuo Formation in China (Chen et al. 2000, 2004), and diverse fossil forms occurred before 555 Mya (Martin et al. 2000). (The Cambrian began 543 Mya., and the Cambrian explosion is considered by many to start with the first trilobites, about 530 Mya.) Testate amoebae are known from about 750 Mya (Porter and Knoll 2000). There are tracelike fossils more than 1,200 Mya in the Stirling Range Formation of Australia (Rasmussen et al. 2002). Eukaryotes (which have relatively complex cells) may have arisen 2,700 Mya, according to fossil chemical evidence (Brocks et al. 1999). Fossil microorganisms have been found from 3,465 Mya (Schopf 1993). There is isotopic evidence of sulfur-reducing bacteria from 3,470 Mya (Shen et al. 2001) and possible evidence of microbial etching of volcanic glass from 3,480 Mya (Furnes et al. 2004).

# There are transitional fossils within the Cambrian explosion fossils. For example, there are lobopods (basically worms with legs) which are intermediate between arthropods and worms (Conway Morris 1998).

# Only some phyla appear in the Cambrian explosion. In particular, all plants postdate the Cambrian, and flowering plants, by far the dominant form of land life today, only appeared about 140 Mya (Brown 1999).

Even among animals, not all types appear in the Cambrian. Cnidarians, sponges, and probably other phyla appeared before the Cambrian. Molecular evidence shows that at least six animal phyla are Precambrian (Wang et al. 1999). Bryozoans appear first in the Ordovician. Many other soft-bodied phyla do not appear in the fossil record until much later. Although many new animal forms appeared during the Cambrian, not all did. According to one reference (Collins 1994), eleven of thirty-two metazoan phyla appear during the Cambrian, one appears Precambrian, eight after the Cambrian, and twelve have no fossil record.

And that just considers phyla. Almost none of the animal groups that people think of as groups, such as mammals, reptiles, birds, insects, and spiders, appeared in the Cambrian. The fish that appeared in the Cambrian was unlike any fish alive today.

# The length of the Cambrian explosion is ambiguous and uncertain, but five to ten million years is a reasonable estimate; some say the explosion spans forty million years or more, starting about 553 million years ago. Even the shortest estimate of five million years is hardly sudden.

# There are some plausible explanations for why diversification may have been relatively sudden:

* The evolution of active predators in the late Precambrian likely spurred the coevolution of hard parts on other animals. These hard parts fossilize much more easily than the previous soft-bodied animals, leading to many more fossils but not necessarily more animals.

* Early complex animals may have been nearly microscopic. Apparent fossil animals smaller than 0.2 mm have been found in the Doushantuo Formation, China, forty to fifty-five million years before the Cambrian (Chen et al. 2004). Much of the early evolution could have simply been too small to see.

* The earth was just coming out of a global ice age at the beginning of the Cambrian (Hoffman 1998; Kerr 2000). A "snowball earth" before the Cambrian explosion may have hindered development of complexity or kept populations down so that fossils would be too rare to expect to find today. The more favorable environment after the snowball earth would have opened new niches for life to evolve into.

* Hox genes, which control much of an animal's basic body plan, were likely first evolving around that time. Development of these genes might have just then allowed the raw materials for body plans to diversify (Carroll 1997).

* Atmospheric oxygen may have increased at the start of the Cambrian (Canfield and Teske 1996; Logan et al. 1995; Thomas 1997).

* Planktonic grazers began producing fecal pellets that fell to the bottom of the ocean rapidly, profoundly changing the ocean state, especially its oxygenation (Logan et al. 1995).

* Unusual amounts of phosphate were deposited in shallow seas at the start of the Cambrian (Cook and Shergold 1986; Lipps and Signor 1992).


# Cambrian life was still unlike almost everything alive today. Using number of cell types as a measure of complexity, we see that complexity has been increasing more or less constantly since the beginning of the Cambrian (Valentine et al. 1994).

# Major radiations of life forms have occurred at other times, too. One of the most extensive diversifications of life occurred in the Ordovician, for example (Miller 1997).

[/quote]
Replace that with a "no"

(3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
Similar parts found in different organisms. Many genes and functional parts not distributed in a manner predicted by ancestry, and are often found in clearly unrelated organisms. The "root" of the tree of life is a prime example.

This one is a bit weird. One wouldn't expect reuse, because genetic similarity is a weakness beyond all belief UNLESS they all shared a common anscestor. I fail to see how this provides any support for ID.

(4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".

Still doesn't change the fact that quite of bit of DNA is non-coding/non-functioning, nor does it directly imply design.


I've also noticed that most of these function to poke holes in evolution, not prove the existance of a creator.

ID relies on the fossil record too ;)

No it doesn't.

And there is no evidence for intelligent design. It like creationism science has been debunked.

Here are some sources:

http://www.talkorigins.org

http://www.textbookleague.org/id-hx-1.htm - This source discusses why intelligent design is a hoax.

Intelligent design has the tendency of covering up the reality by sugar coating its own fallacies (the fact that there is zero evidence for it, and there is no evidence for god).

Intelligent design is based on a logical fallacy called: Fallacy of Ignorant Argumentation.

If science reinforces the notion of one religion's teachings, then wouldn't we have to ban science in schools too?
nope
science doesnt choose one religious idea over another, it follows the scientific evidence to a logical conclusion (as opposed to having a logical conclusion and looking for evidence pointing to it)

If science reinforces the notion of one religion's teachings, then wouldn't we have to ban science in schools too?

Intelligent Design isn't backed by science. Intelligent Design does not qualify as a theory because it isn't testable and has no evidence.

nope
science doesnt choose one religious idea over another, it follows the scientific evidence to a logical conclusion (as opposed to having a logical conclusion and looking for evidence pointing to it)Precisely. The whole point of the scientific method is to ensure that the worlds of science and religion never--and I do mean never--come into contact. They don't deal with the same worlds. Science deals with empirical evidence--religion deals with faith, and never the twain shall meet.

So haloman, if we take your site to be correct, ID has just been disproven. Wonder why not many real scientists/biologists even have an inkling of a leaning towards ID?

As with any subject of controversy, I think people should investigate both sides before making a decision on this issue. That generally means reading books both for and against it, not just reading websites. As there are plenty of books and articles against ID, I'll just suggest one for it. Darwin's Black Box, by Michael J. Behe, is an excellent book on this subject, and I recommend it for anyone interested in doing their own research.

As with any subject of controversy, I think people should investigate both sides before making a decision on this issue. That generally means reading books both for and against it, not just reading websites. As there are plenty of books and articles against ID, I'll just suggest one for it. Darwin's Black Box, by Michael J. Behe, is an excellent book on this subject, and I recommend it for anyone interested in doing their own research.
Destroyed by enough biologists. I don't read trash.

This is getting ridiculous. Darwin's Black Box? Why are some people stuck in the 1920s (with regards to the Scopes Monkey Trial)? Why can't they get past the fact that creationism (AKA intelligent design) shouldn't be taught in public SECULAR schools? I think the only true research one can do is in evolution because it actually has evidence for it.

Inteligent Design: A story of how life came to inhabit the planet Earth based upon the idea that life (read, humanity) is so complex it must have been designed by someone or something.

The notion is not scientific theory, but does have a following by those who are too lazy to take a biology course, or slept through it. Also favored by those who deep down are insulted that science has proven that humanity is not the center of the universe and they may, in fact, be related to monkeys.

Main argument for it: "You can't prove that we were NOT designed"
Main argument againt: "You can't prove that we WERE designed" and humanity in general (do we really look intelligent to you?).
- Future Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy entry

(Apologies to the great one, and thanks for all the fish)

My main question is why evolution is still a theory. If scientists would follow the scientific method it would have been thrown out long ago. Microevolution is the only thing keeping in in there.

My main question is why evolution is still a theory. If scientists would follow the scientific method it would have been thrown out long ago. Microevolution is the only thing keeping in in there.

Fortunately your assumptions are incorrect and in fact you check talkorigins.org you can find a source for evidence for macro-evolution. Evolution is still a theory because it is testable, and has evidence.

My main question is why evolution is still a theory. If scientists would follow the scientific method it would have been thrown out long ago. Microevolution is the only thing keeping in in there.

Explain your position.

Also, define microevolution.

My main question is why evolution is still a theory. If scientists would follow the scientific method it would have been thrown out long ago. Microevolution is the only thing keeping in in there.
Macroevolution (speciation) has been observed, and there are several instances in which it appears to be happening in the wild. Quite neat really.

Thanks for all the explanations. It sounds as if ID is not too far removed from what most non-American Christians would believe i.e. that evolution is part of God's scheme. This is fairly similarthe Anthropic Principle. It is not exactly unscientific since it is more of a philosophical interpretation than a scientific theory. Wouldn't it be easiest just to cover it as part of the Religious Education curriculum?


p.s. The point about ID being untestable could also be applied to evolution. You can never prove that evolution is wrong nor can you observe it in action (unless you are prepared to wait around for a few million years).

Thanks for all the explanations. It sounds as if ID is not too far removed from what most non-American Christians would believe i.e. that evolution is part of God's scheme. This is fairly similarthe Anthropic Principle. It is not exactly unscientific since it is more of a philosophical interpretation than a scientific theory. Wouldn't it be easiest just to cover it as part of the Religious Education curriculum?


p.s. The point about ID being untestable could also be applied to evolution. You can never prove that evolution is wrong nor can you observe it in action (unless you are prepared to wait around for a few million years).
# New species have arisen in historical times. For example:

* A new species of mosquito, the molestus form isolated in London's Underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens (Byrne and Nichols 1999; Nuttall 1998).

* Helacyton gartleri is the HeLa cell culture, which evolved from a human cervical carcinoma in 1951. The culture grows indefinitely and has become widespread (Van Valen and Maiorana 1991).

* Several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy (when the chromosome count multiplies by two or more) (de Wet 1971). One example is Primula kewensis (Newton and Pellew 1929).


# Incipient speciation, where two subspecies interbreed rarely or with only little success, is common. Here are just a few examples:

* Rhagoletis pomonella, the apple maggot fly, is undergoing sympatric speciation. Its native host in North America is Hawthorn (Crataegus spp.), but in the mid-1800s, a new population formed on introduced domestic apples (Malus pumila). The two races are kept partially isolated by natural selection (Filchak et al. 2000).
* The mosquito Anopheles gambiae shows incipient speciation between its populations in northwestern and southeastern Africa (Fanello et al. 2003; Lehmann et al. 2003).
* Silverside fish show incipient speciation between marine and estuarine populations (Beheregaray and Sunnucks 2001).


# Ring species show the process of speciation in action. In ring species, the species is distributed more or less in a line, such as around the base of a mountain range. Each population is able to breed with its neighboring population, but the populations at the two ends are not able to interbreed. (In a true ring species, those two end populations are adjacent to each other, completing the ring.) Examples of ring species are

* the salamander Ensatina, with seven different subspecies on the west coast of the United States. They form a ring around California's central valley. At the south end, adjacent subspecies klauberi and eschscholtzi do not interbreed (Brown n.d.; Wake 1997).
* greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides), around the Himalayas. Their behavioral and genetic characteristics change gradually, starting from central Siberia, extending around the Himalayas, and back again, so two forms of the songbird coexist but do not interbreed in that part of their range (Irwin et al. 2001; Whitehouse 2001).
* the deer mouse (Peromyces maniculatus), with over fifty subspecies in North America.
* many species of birds, including Parus major and P. minor, Halcyon chloris, Zosterops, Lalage, Pernis, the Larus argentatus group, and Phylloscopus trochiloides (Mayr 1942, 182-183).
* the American bee Hoplitis (Alcidamea) producta (Mayr 1963, 510).
* the subterranean mole rat, Spalax ehrenbergi (Nevo 1999).


# Evidence of speciation occurs in the form of organisms that exist only in environments that did not exist a few hundreds or thousands of years ago. For example:

* In several Canadian lakes, which originated in the last 10,000 years following the last ice age, stickleback fish have diversified into separate species for shallow and deep water (Schilthuizen 2001, 146-151).
* Cichlids in Lake Malawi and Lake Victoria have diversified into hundreds of species. Lake Malawi in particular originated in the nineteenth century and has about 200 cichlid species (Schilthuizen 2001, 166-176).
* A Mimulus species adapted for soils high in copper exists only on the tailings of a copper mine that did not exist before 1859 (Macnair 1989).


There is further evidence that speciation can be caused by infection with a symbiont. A Wolbachia bacterium infects and causes postmating reproductive isolation between the wasps Nasonia vitripennis and N. giraulti (Bordenstein and Werren 1997).

How has the Big Bang proven the universe isn't eternal?



It implies a beginning, a singularity if you will, and the attempts to include infinity into the equation (expansion/contraction) have been disproven.

It is not exactly unscientific since it is more of a philosophical interpretation than a scientific theory.

It is unscientific because it is not testable.


p.s. The point about ID being untestable could also be applied to evolution. You can never prove that evolution is wrong nor can you observe it in action (unless you are prepared to wait around for a few million years).

No. Evolution is well noticed by several methods including looking at the fossil records. You can most definitely observe it in action.

nope
science doesnt choose one religious idea over another, it follows the scientific evidence to a logical conclusion (as opposed to having a logical conclusion and looking for evidence pointing to it)



No, science and religion both start with premises which cannot be proven, as I stated earlier. Both start with conclusions and search for evidence.

It implies a beginning, a singularity if you will, and the attempts to include infinity into the equation (expansion/contraction) have been disproven.

All that the Big Bang states is that, at one point, the universe was very hot and very dense. It says nothing about the beginning of the universe.

So haloman, if we take your site to be correct, ID has just been disproven. Wonder why not many real scientists/biologists even have an inkling of a leaning towards ID?

I refer you to this (http://www.iscid.org/papers/Griffith_IrreducibleComplexity_052504.pdf) article.

And all these. (http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-forum-f-10.html)

I don't think you've necesarily disproven ID, as ID does not try to disprove evolution. I believe neither can be proven/ disproven physically. Both should be taught, neither as fact, and let students decide as they wish.

No, science and religion both start with premises which cannot be proven, as I stated earlier. Both start with conclusions and search for evidence.

No.

Science finds evidence and makes conclusions on it (based on testing a hypothesis correct or incorrect). Religion finds a conclusions and has no evidence for it.

I refer you to this (http://www.iscid.org/papers/Griffith_IrreducibleComplexity_052504.pdf) article.

And all these. (http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-forum-f-10.html)

I don't think you've necesarily disproven ID, as ID does not try to disprove evolution. I believe neither can be proven/ disproven physically. Both should be taught, neither as fact, and let students decide as they wish.
They've all been disproven. Irreducable complexity DOES NOT EXIST. How many times must this be said?

I refer you to this (http://www.iscid.org/papers/Griffith_IrreducibleComplexity_052504.pdf) article.

And all these. (http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-forum-f-10.html)

I don't think you've necesarily disproven ID, as ID does not try to disprove evolution. I believe neither can be proven/ disproven physically. Both should be taught, neither as fact, and let students decide as they wish.

NO! We cannot teach intelligent design in public schools. Students should not be spoon-fed intelligent design because all it says is:

1) That god created the universe because we say so

2) Evolution is wrong because we say so

3) [And we don't need any evidence to back ourselves up)

That crap has to stay out of sachools.

Evolution can be proven physically and it has been numerous times. As far as I'm concerned intelligent design was debunked.

NO! We cannot teach intelligent design in public schools. Students should not be spoon-fed intelligent design because all it says is:

1) That god created the universe because we say so

2) Evolution is wrong because we say so

3) [And we don't need any evidence to back ourselves up)

That crap has to stay out of sachools.

Evolution can be proven physically and it has been numerous times. As far as I'm concerned intelligent design was debunked.

They shouldn't be spoon fed evolution, either. They should be taught both theories, with specific emphasis that none of it is fact, and both are only theories.

1) NO! It doesn't. It says that some intelligent power created the universe, not a specific God.

2) They use sceintific data, and nothing from the bible. ID does not attempt to discredit evolution at all, only that the origin of life must have had some designer at its helm.

They've all been disproven. Irreducable complexity DOES NOT EXIST. How many times must this be said?



Actually, alternatives have been posited, but it hasn't really ever been disproven, as we haven't observed it in the first place :D


And Mesa: If you're replying to me, your cries fall on deaf ears; the mods ordered me to put you on ignore :(

Actually, alternatives have been posited, but it hasn't really ever been disproven, as we haven't observed it in the first place :D
(
If an alternative has been posited, that means IC is disproven by definition. IC says that certain structures can't evolve. Since pathways for the evolution of all structures posited by IC have been shown, IC is false.

They shouldn't be spoon fed evolution, either. They should be taught both theories, with specific emphasis that none of it is fact, and both are only theories.

1) NO! It doesn't. It says that some intelligent power created the universe, not a specific God.

2) They use sceintific data, and nothing from the bible. ID does not attempt to discredit evolution at all, only that the origin of life must have had some designer at its helm.

FALSE!

Evolution is a factual theory. A theory must be testable. Intelligent design is not testable therefore is not a theory. The United States public school system is a secular system and religion should be strictly kept to history class where it isn't trying to indoctrinate a bunch of students. Evolution is based on substantial facts.

Intelligent Design doesn't use scientific data. It uses conjectures based on idiotic reasoning. Intelligent Design does not deserve to be a science class because it has zero evidence.

Your problem is you can't prove the designer/creator.

Actually, alternatives have been posited, but it hasn't really ever been disproven, as we haven't observed it in the first place :D

Neo... please do us all the favor of taking a Biology class, and pay attention this time.

If an alternative has been posited, that means IC is disproven by definition. IC says that certain structures can't evolve. Since pathways for the evolution of all structures posited by IC have been shown, IC is false.



Well, neither can be tested and thus either could be correct.

Actually, alternatives have been posited, but it hasn't really ever been disproven, as we haven't observed it in the first place :D


And Mesa: If you're replying to me, your cries fall on deaf ears; the mods ordered me to put you on ignore :(
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/icsic.html
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/Evolving_Immunity.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/#irred
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section3.html#IC

Neo... please do us all the favor of taking a Biology class, and pay attention this time.



Wha??? I've taken biology, and I'm familiar enough with the concept. Just because I believe evidence leans in a certain direction, does not mean I'm ignorant on the matter. I try to see both sides of the issue, and determine which is true, instead of dismissing ID/evolution as "unscientific" before even considering them.

FALSE!

Evolution is a factual theory. A theory must be testable. Intelligent design is not testable therefore is not a theory. The United States public school system is a secular system and religion should be strictly kept to history class where it isn't trying to indoctrinate a bunch of students. Evolution is based on substantial facts.

Intelligent Design doesn't use scientific data. It uses conjectures based on idiotic reasoning. Intelligent Design does not deserve to be a science class because it has zero evidence.

Your problem is you can't prove the designer/creator.

Yes, it does use scientific data! You can argue that it's claims ar false, just as with evolution, but you cannot deny that it uses scientific data. Just because you can make arguments against a theory does not make it false. You can make arguments against all theories, and even some laws, but it doesn't make them unscientific. There is no religion involved, and evolution has not been proven.

I repeat: THERE IS NO RELIGION INVOLVED, WHATSOEVER, IN ID.

Yes, it does use scientific data! You can argue that it's claims ar false, just as with evolution, but you cannot deny that it uses scientific data. Just because you can make arguments against a theory does not make it false. You can make arguments against all theories, and even some laws, but it doesn't make them unscientific. There is no religion involved, and evolution has not been proven.

I repeat: THERE IS NO RELIGION INVOLVED, WHATSOEVER, IN ID.
Who's the designer?

Fortunately your assumptions are incorrect and in fact you check talkorigins.org you can find a source for evidence for macro-evolution. Evolution is still a theory because it is testable, and has evidence.

After perusing that site, I found no instances of macroevolution being proven. In fact, I found many half truths especially in the realm of genetic mutation. Last I checked, science has not been able to recreate evolution. IIRC, one of the prerequisites for being a theory is that the hypothesis needs to have no evidence against it and there is evidence agains the assumptions put forth by evolution supporters.

What I object most to is that this is being taught in public schools and most of its support has already been proven falsified. The chart of man growing from ape has the not only the jawbone of an ape, but also the record dates have been doctored to make it appear more believeable.

Now, atleast in my mind, it makes sense that if something has been falsified at it's base, no matter how much we stack on top of it, it is still false. The fact that evolutionists have not addressed any of the problems with their theory should atleast put into question why we teach is exclusively at our schools.

Wha??? I've taken biology, and I'm familiar enough with the concept. Just because I believe evidence leans in a certain direction, does not mean I'm ignorant on the matter. I try to see both sides of the issue, and determine which is true, instead of dismissing ID/evolution as "unscientific" before even considering them.
Taken a college level biology course? They barely teach anything in regular high school biology...

Who's the designer?



ID doesn't imply a specific designer, just a designer in general.

After perusing that site, I found no instances of macroevolution being proven. In fact, I found many half truths especially in the realm of genetic mutation. Last I checked, science has not been able to recreate evolution. IIRC, one of the prerequisites for being a theory is that the hypothesis needs to have no evidence against it and there is evidence agains the assumptions put forth by evolution supporters.

What I object most to is that this is being taught in public schools and most of its support has already been proven falsified. The chart of man growing from ape has the not only the jawbone of an ape, but also the record dates have been doctored to make it appear more believeable.

Now, atleast in my mind, it makes sense that if something has been falsified at it's base, no matter how much we stack on top of it, it is still false. The fact that evolutionists have not addressed any of the problems with their theory should atleast put into question why we teach is exclusively at our schools.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Read.

Yes, it does use scientific data! You can argue that it's claims ar false, just as with evolution, but you cannot deny that it uses scientific data. Just because you can make arguments against a theory does not make it false. You can make arguments against all theories, and even some laws, but it doesn't make them unscientific. There is no religion involved, and evolution has not been proven.

I repeat: THERE IS NO RELIGION INVOLVED, WHATSOEVER, IN ID.

No it doesn't use scientific data because it has ALL BEEN PROVEN TO BE FALSE. You can't just say: It uses scientific data because I say so. That just doesn't fly anymore. You cannot teach this crap in schools. Evolution is factual and testable. Intelligent Design uses no scientific data as there is none to support it. Intelligent design I repeat is ALL NONSENSE AND BASED ON FALLACY OF IGNORANCE. I suggest taking classes in science again to get a better grasp and understanding on the issues.

Intelligent Design isn't a theory. It is nonsense.

Evolution has been proven.

Evidence: www.talkorigins.org

ID doesn't imply a specific designer, just a designer in general.
Oh come ON.

Taken a college level biology course? They barely teach anything in regular high school biology...



Yes, in fact, biology is my favorite scientific subject, second to cosmology. Chemistry, on the other hand, can go die :mad:

Yes, in fact, biology is my favorite scientific subject, second to cosmology. Chemistry, on the other hand, can go die :mad:
What textbook did you use?

Oh come ON.



Really though, just because Christians created the theory, it doesn't mean they said their designer was the one. For all we know, it could be a "force" or something.

After perusing that site, I found no instances of macroevolution being proven. In fact, I found many half truths especially in the realm of genetic mutation. Last I checked, science has not been able to recreate evolution. IIRC, one of the prerequisites for being a theory is that the hypothesis needs to have no evidence against it and there is evidence agains the assumptions put forth by evolution supporters.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Evidence: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

The only half truths are coming out of the mouths of intelligent design (creationism) advocates as yourself. There are no half truths on that website. It is fully based on substantial facts. Please re-examine the website before you jump to your arbitrary and wrong conclusions.

What I object most to is that this is being taught in public schools and most of its support has already been proven falsified. The chart of man growing from ape has the not only the jawbone of an ape, but also the record dates have been doctored to make it appear more believeable.

Evolution never has been falsified, in fact it has been solidified. So please stop trying to discredit a theory that has strong evidence behind it. You don't see to provide any evidence on your end. Which is typical.

The fact that evolutionists have not addressed any of the problems with their theory should atleast put into question why we teach is exclusively at our schools.

Oh please.. they most certainly have addressed questions. Problems? Start naming them. Only evolution should be taught in schools because it is based on fact, not crap.

Really though, just because Christians created the theory, it doesn't mean they said their designer was the one. For all we know, it could be a "force" or something.
That's really either the most naive or disingenuous thing that you've ever said Rogolia.

Yes, in fact, biology is my favorite scientific subject, second to cosmology. Chemistry, on the other hand, can go die :mad:
I have no idea what cosmology is, and biology is boring, if easy. However, chemistry should learn to leave us all alone.

My opinion on intelligent design, I don’t agree with it. I’m a young earth creationist.

I’m a young earth creationist.

Something that has been disproven about a hundred times more then intelligent design. How can you believe in that when dating methods put the earth at far more then 6,000 years old?

ID doesn't imply a specific designer, just a designer in general.

Fine then.

By what mechanism did the designer go about creating life?

What textbook did you use?



I don't remember, I sold it after completing the course since I'm on a tight budget. It was kind of new though.



Edit: And green :D

Fine then.

By what mechanism did the designer go about creating life?



Sheesh, how would I know? I'm not a scientist with decades of experience lol, ask one of the ID scientists :D

I don't remember, I sold it after completing the course since I'm on a tight budget. It was kind of new though.



Edit: And green :D
Campbell and Reece's Biology, Sixth Edition (big book, with CD in front cover).


Read the rather lengthy sections about the evolution of animals/plants/all life forms?

Sheesh, how would I know? I'm not a scientist with decades of experience lol, ask one of the ID scientists :D

I've asked several. They've stumbled all over their tails trying to hand wave themselves out of having to answer the question.

Define a mechanism by which intelligent design is governed and use this mechanism to make useful predictions that can be tested under laboratory conditions.

Something that has been disproven about a hundred times more then intelligent design. How can you believe in that when dating methods put the earth at far more then 6,000 years old?
I don’t have much faith in science, at all.

I don’t have much faith in science, at all.
You don't need faith, you only need eyes.

I don’t have much faith in science, at all.

Hahahah... science is based on solid evidence and facts.. if you don't have faith in science, why are you using a computer?

Really though, just because Christians created the theory, it doesn't mean they said their designer was the one. For all we know, it could be a "force" or something.

By necessity, ID proposes an "intelligent designer" of some sort outside of the universe controlling what goes on inside. Such a proposal is, by definition, untestable and unfalsifiable. As such, it is unscientific - by the definition of the scientific method.

That doesn't mean that there isn't an intelligent designer or God - it simply means that proposing such is not within the realm of science.

You don't need faith, you only need eyes.
There are plenty of assumption one must make, which I seen no reason to make. There are many aspects of science that I just don‘t understand, if everything is supposed to be provable. Concepts that many take for granted, I suppose. Like nuclear force or gravity. The only explanation by science for their existence is that it exists because of what they and others have observed. However, one unobserved anomaly could discredit both. Though, I wonder how many scientists would try to hide that anomaly if they discovered it.

There are plenty of assumption one must make, which I seen no reason to make. There are many aspects of science that I just don‘t understand, if everything is supposed to be provable. Concepts that many take for granted, I suppose. Like nuclear force or gravity. The only explanation by science for their existence is that it exists because of what they and others have observed. However, one unobserved anomaly could discredit both. Though, I wonder how many scientists would try to hide that anomaly if they discovered it.
So you're arguing that science is wrong because you don't understand it.

They shouldn't be spoon fed evolution, either. They should be taught both theories, with specific emphasis that none of it is fact, and both are only theories.

One is a scientific theory. The other is a layman's theory. Lay theories are fine in general - but can't be taught in a science class as science.

Now, as soon as there is a competing scientific theory, then students can be taught both.

1) NO! It doesn't. It says that some intelligent power created the universe, not a specific God.

This is a completely untestable and unverifiable statement, whether you narrow it down to a specific deity or not. As such, the statement itself is outside the realm of science. Any "theory" dependent upon it is unscientific on its face - being based completely upon an untestable conjecture.

2) They use sceintific data,

Point to the scientific data that measures something outside the Universe.

ID does not attempt to discredit evolution at all, only that the origin of life must have had some designer at its helm.

This is horribly incorrect. ID, at its very core, says, "This couldn't have happened through evolution at all, therefore some intelligent designer did it." Evolution is not concerned with the origin of life at all, but with the way in which species change.

Yes, it does use scientific data! You can argue that it's claims ar false, just as with evolution, but you cannot deny that it uses scientific data.

Actually, I can. Looking at something and going, "Wow, that is really complex," does not constitute "using scientific data."

No, science and religion both start with premises which cannot be proven, as I stated earlier. Both start with conclusions and search for evidence.

This is absolutely untrue. Any scientist beginning with a conclusion and looking for evidence of it has already broken the scientific method, and anything they publish will be laughed at.

intelligent design is a theory noting more.so is the big bang way not view it that way.it has not be proven wethout a theory and only as that.theory only mens that it is a mabe it happend that way. if it is a law the it is defanet.

Well, the contemporary scientific paradigm is materialism which basically has this presupposition:

1. The Universe exists without the need for a Designer

Incorrect. Science neither posits nor denies a designer or creator. It does not presuppose that one is necessary or unnecessary, as either suppostition would be without empirical support.

2. Empiricism can effectively explain everything

Incorrect again. Science holds that empiricism can explain everything within the realm of science - not everything completely.

3. Therefore, any theory implying a metaphysical entity is unscientific.

This has nothing to do with the above. The reason that an idea relying upon a metaphysical entity is unscientific is that it relies on an untestable, unfalsifiable supposition - for which the contrary supposition has the exact same amount of evidence. In order to remain scientific, science can presuppose nothing about the existence of God, or any other metaphysical entity.

Oh come ON.

Echoed by scientists everywhere...

This is absolutely untrue. Any scientist beginning with a conclusion and looking for evidence of it has already broken the scientific method, and anything they publish will be laughed at.



Modern science is based upon the premise that empiricism is the only true method of determining the truth and reality. I disagree.

There are plenty of assumption one must make, which I seen no reason to make. There are many aspects of science that I just don‘t understand, if everything is supposed to be provable. Concepts that many take for granted, I suppose. Like nuclear force or gravity. The only explanation by science for their existence is that it exists because of what they and others have observed. However, one unobserved anomaly could discredit both. Though, I wonder how many scientists would try to hide that anomaly if they discovered it.
http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2

So you're arguing that science is wrong because you don't understand it.
Didn’t say it was wrong or that I don‘t understand what they are trying to say. One can fake ones way through it quite easily. Just saying that I am not satisfied by what is considered conclusive. I also am very skeptical of people’s motives.

intelligent design is a theory noting more.so is the big bang way not view it that way.it has not be proven wethout a theory and only as that.theory only mens that it is a mabe it happend that way. if it is a law the it is defanet.

This entire statement is completely and utterly incorrect. Please refer to the first chapter of any science textbook - the one that explains the scientific method.

Nothing in science is "definite". Sometimes it has so much support that it seems definite, and then it may be referred to as a law. But even laws are open to falsification - and some have been falsified (ie. Newton's laws).

ID is a theory in the layman sense - a proposition that someone came up with. Evolution is a theory in the scientific sense - a hypothesis backed up by all available evidence.

Very well. I accept that, and I agree strongly with those believing it should be put out as a religious or philosophical idea.

However, I disagree with the idea that science and religion are all that far away in trying to explain the world. Both have their missionaries, their fanatics, and their assumptions that people hate to have questions. Both attempt to explain the world in a way people understand. One simply adds in a code of morals while the other adds in a code as to what's kosher as a scientific theory.
Here's the difference: Science claims to be on the careful search to uncover and describe all the truth of the natural world that reveals itself when pressed by the might of our reason. Religion claims to have descovered it all, and tells people to stop looking. One gave us bridges, energy distribution, cheap abundant clean food, microchips and communications networks. The other didn't. And that one doesn't have any future.

Incorrect. Science neither posits nor denies a designer or creator. It does not presuppose that one is necessary or unnecessary, as either suppostition would be without empirical support.



Incorrect again. Science holds that empiricism can explain everything within the realm of science - not everything completely.



This has nothing to do with the above. The reason that an idea relying upon a metaphysical entity is unscientific is that it relies on an untestable, unfalsifiable supposition - for which the contrary supposition has the exact same amount of evidence. In order to remain scientific, science can presuppose nothing about the existence of God, or any other metaphysical entity.


From what I've observed, many individuals believe that science can explain everything. That's really the only issue I have with it.

D One can fake ones way through it quite easily.
No. They. Can't! Look up peer review some time and you will see precisely why.

From what I've observed, many individuals believe that science can explain everything. That's really the only issue I have with it.
Thats the goal of science. But it is something that can never be achieved as long as there is something new to observe. I doubt we'll find ourselves in want of that.

There are plenty of assumption one must make, which I seen no reason to make. There are many aspects of science that I just don‘t understand, if everything is supposed to be provable. Concepts that many take for granted, I suppose. Like nuclear force or gravity. The only explanation by science for their existence is that it exists because of what they and others have observed. However, one unobserved anomaly could discredit both. Though, I wonder how many scientists would try to hide that anomaly if they discovered it.

The bold is a major problem in what you are saying here. Science does not claim to prove anything. In fact, using the scientific method, it is a logical impossibility to do so. One can only disprove something. If one tries over and over again to disprove a hypothesis, but cannot, then it is supported, but never proven.

Modern science is based upon the premise that empiricism is the only true method of determining the truth and reality. I disagree.

This statement is (a) completely unrelated to the quote you were replying to and (b) utterly untrue.

Science is based upon the premise that empiricism is the only scientific method of determining truth and reality. It says nothing about it being the only way to do so.

From what I've observed, many individuals believe that science can explain everything. That's really the only issue I have with it.

The vast majority of individuals that believe this are not scientists. They are laymen looking for something to place their belief in. Science, as a method, makes no such claims.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Evidence: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

The only half truths are coming out of the mouths of intelligent design (creationism) advocates as yourself. There are no half truths on that website. It is fully based on substantial facts. Please re-examine the website before you jump to your arbitrary and wrong conclusions.

None of my conclusion are arbitray or wrong. In fact, I have no qualms about listing a half truth. In a section on genetic defects, it listed a defect that decreases a person's chance for getting heart disease as beneficial. However, this same defect decreases a person's life by half. Erego, only half of what they post is true.

Evolution never has been falsified, in fact it has been solidified. So please stop trying to discredit a theory that has strong evidence behind it. You don't see to provide any evidence on your end. Which is typical.

Oh please.. they most certainly have addressed questions. Problems? Start naming them. Only evolution should be taught in schools because it is based on fact, not crap.

You have resorted to anger and base attacks, which seems to be typical.

The reason that I have not supported any facts is that my resources have been loaned to a friend and I am not going to try and remember any but a few of them.

PROBLEM: No missing link.
Answer:...

PROBLEM: One of the basis for evolution's evidence and ancient earth is that rock layers must form over time. However, in the eruption of Mt. St. Helens rock strata and entire canyone were formed by the heated water in less than five minutes. A flood of biblical proportions could also have caused this. A flood that is mentioned in the mythology of almost evey ancient nation.
Answer:....

PROBLEM:It is absurd to think that the human eye was made by chance. - Darwin (paraphrased)
Answer:....

These are probably blanket arguments that you have seen before, however the scientific community does not wish to address them or the problems that I listed in my above post.

Now, as this debate has been reduced to flaming and anger, I must bow out before I have time to ask my nuclear physicist and author of over 5 school textbooks friend.

Next time you argue over the internet, it would do you well to remember that there are people on both sides of the computer.

The bold is a major problem in what you are saying here. Science does not claim to prove anything. In fact, using the scientific method, it is a logical impossibility to do so. One can only disprove something. If one tries over and over again to disprove a hypothesis, but cannot, then it is supported, but never proven.



This statement is (a) completely unrelated to the quote you were replying to and (b) utterly untrue.

Science is based upon the premise that empiricism is the only scientific method of determining truth and reality. It says nothing about it being the only way to do so.




Tell that to some of the people on this forum :rolleyes:

The bold is a major problem in what you are saying here. Science does not claim to prove anything. In fact, using the scientific method, it is a logical impossibility to do so. One can only disprove something. If one tries over and over again to disprove a hypothesis, but cannot, then it is supported, but never proven.
That may be, but the attitude of people seems to be that it is proven.

Ahh crap, a scorpion just ran across my floor. Time to kill.

Tell that to some of the people on this forum :rolleyes:
It's the only way backed by facts. Religion is backed by faith. That's the main difference between the two. I haven't got a problem in what you believe, I do happen to have a problem with attempting to force faith into science...

Tell that to some of the people on this forum :rolleyes:

*shrug* It isn't my fault that people can't be bothered to learn grade-school science.

That may be, but the attitude of people seems to be that it is proven.

If the attitude of people was that 2+3=7, that wouldn't make it true, now would it?

It's the only way backed by facts. Religion is backed by faith. That's the main difference between the two. I haven't got a problem in what you believe, I do happen to have a problem with attempting to force faith into science...



Well, as long as people continue stating that science proves the nonexistence of God and that science is superior to philosophy and theology, we will never see an end to this. Personally, I'd rather all fields kept to themselves, as I believe science will itself reaffirm the claims of Christianity, thus we do not need to try and alter it.

Well, as long as people continue stating that science proves the nonexistence of God

Anyone who says this doesn't understand the basis of science. Why worry about them at all?

and that science is superior to philosophy and theology, we will never see an end to this.

Anyone who says this is stating a subjective opinion. Anyone else is free to hold their own. Why worry about them?

Anyone who says this doesn't understand the basis of science. Why worry about them at all?



Anyone who says this is stating a subjective opinion. Anyone else is free to hold their own. Why worry about them?



I don't know, I would try to have no association with dumb people if they weren't so vocal :D

PROBLEM:It is absurd to think that the human eye was made by chance. - Darwin (paraphrased)
Answer:....


1st edition On the Origin of Species:
"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real."

6th edition On the Origin of Species:
"Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/eyes.htm

Researchers provide concrete evidence about how the human eye evolved
http://www.embl.org/aboutus/news/press/2004/press28oct04.html

QUESTION #1:WHAT GOOD IS HALF AN EYE?
http://www.carlzimmer.com/articles/2005/articles_2005_Avida.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

For God's sake man! Google. It's free.

Well, as long as people continue stating that science proves the nonexistence of God and that science is superior to philosophy and theology, we will never see an end to this. Personally, I'd rather all fields kept to themselves, as I believe science will itself reaffirm the claims of Christianity, thus we do not need to try and alter it.
You know, there was a time when if science didn’t corresponded with the Bible, scientists assumed that their findings were incorrect.

You ever seen the fruit fly experiment??
easy and quick proof that evolution happens.

Well, as long as people continue stating that science proves the nonexistence of God and that science is superior to philosophy and theology, we will never see an end to this. Personally, I'd rather all fields kept to themselves, as I believe science will itself reaffirm the claims of Christianity, thus we do not need to try and alter it.
There is nothing wrong with this!

You know, there was a time when if science didn’t corresponded with the Bible, scientists assumed that their findings were incorrect.
Because their eyes would be gouged out if they didn't.

As a gentleman on either NPR or the NG channel recently put it, biological science should be focused primarily on the "science of design detection."


He summed up quite well everything ludicrous, disingenuous and fatally wrong with the "theory" of intelligent design.

You ever seen the fruit fly experiment??
easy and quick proof that evolution happens.
It's proof of Microevolution.
Did they turn into spiders or something?

It's proof of Microevolution.
Did they turn into spiders or something?
Sure.

Because their eyes would be gouged out if they didn't.
I was referring to the eighteen hundreds, when many scientists did it voluntarily, at least in the US. If you don’t like that, consider that those men were scientists. The same profession that you put so much faith into now.

It's proof of Microevolution.
No. It's proof of macroevolution. They speciated. Macroevolution is speciation.

I was referring to the eighteen hundreds, when many scientists did it voluntarily, at least in the US. If you don’t like that, consider that those men were scientists. The same profession that you put so much faith into now.
Faith has nothing to do with it. Look gravity. Science says it makes things fall down. So, now I can pick something up, let go of it... and it falls down. Theory has been realized. No faith was involved (in fact, I didn't believe it myself at first). If science says that something happened but it can't be recreated... that scientist is made fun of.
Where does faith come into a trust of what is observable? Unless we are all in God's dream...

No. It's proof of macroevolution. They speciated. Macroevolution is speciation.
Unless someone observed them being born with new useful organs and/or appendages, I’m not impressed. I understand change over time. That’s common sense, but the creation of new organs is something else.

Modern science is based upon the premise that empiricism is the only true method of determining the truth and reality. I disagree.

What's a better way of determining truth and reality, believing it, with more belief representing more truth?

Give me a break.

None of my conclusion are arbitray or wrong. In fact, I have no qualms about listing a half truth. In a section on genetic defects, it listed a defect that decreases a person's chance for getting heart disease as beneficial. However, this same defect decreases a person's life by half. Erego, only half of what they post is true.

You hear that? This guy has no evidence and none of your post happens to be true. All of which on talkorigins is fact and is substantiated by solid evidence.

You don't bother posting any sources for your own argument. And I'm not buying your "because I said so" argument.

You have resorted to anger and base attacks, which seems to be typical.

The reason that I have not supported any facts is that my resources have been loaned to a friend and I am not going to try and remember any but a few of them.

PROBLEM: No missing link.
Answer:...

There is no evidence to your claims. The missing link just hasn't been discovered yet. But based on common logic the link is in fact there. You aren't supported by any facts, and you don't bother backing yourself up. But that's typical of a creationist who attempts to poke holes in evolution (half-hearted, poor attempts).

PROBLEM: One of the basis for evolution's evidence and ancient earth is that rock layers must form over time. However, in the eruption of Mt. St. Helens rock strata and entire canyone were formed by the heated water in less than five minutes. A flood of biblical proportions could also have caused this. A flood that is mentioned in the mythology of almost evey ancient nation.

This is BS. For one you have no evidence for these claims and there is no flood of biblical floods. There is counter-evidence in fact to global floods. Don't ever try to spoon feed me this crap when you provide zero evidence for it.

As one said in this thread, you have eyes. Use them.

There was a large flood back then and the locals viewed it as a global flood. There was no global flood.


These are probably blanket arguments that you have seen before, however the scientific community does not wish to address them or the problems that I listed in my above post.

Yes false arguments that rely on argument of ignorance. You don't even bother backing yourself up and you don't even bother providing any evidence to counter evolution. All you attempt to do is poke holes, but you fall flat on your face.


Next time you argue over the internet, it would do you well to remember that there are people on both sides of the computer.

In this debate, there is a dead wrong side and there is a right side. And I stand on the right side. Use your eyes and don't lie.

What's a better way of determining truth and reality, believing it, with more belief representing more truth?

Give me a break.


There's the philosophical method, which relies on logic alone to deal with that which has not or cannot be experienced.

Faith has nothing to do with it. Look gravity. Science says it makes things fall down. So, now I can pick something up, let go of it... and it falls down. Theory has been realized. No faith was involved (in fact, I didn't believe it myself at first). If science says that something happened but it can't be recreated... that scientist is made fun of.
Where does faith come into a trust of what is observable? Unless we are all in God's dream...
Just because something happens one way once, doesn’t mean it will happen the same way again. Of course, there are probable outcomes, but that doesn’t prove the existence of gravity any more than one can prove the existence of God. It is something you believe. There are many scientific theories that can not be recreated.

Just because something happens one way once, doesn’t mean it will happen the same way again. Of course, there are probable outcomes, but that doesn’t prove the existence of gravity any more than one can prove the existence of God. It is something you believe. There are many scientific theories that can not be recreated.

That's ridiculous. Gravity exists. The existence of god... well.. I won't go into that..

Just because something happens one way once, doesn’t mean it will happen the same way again. Of course, there are probable outcomes, but that doesn’t prove the existence of gravity any more than one can prove the existence of God. It is something you believe. There are many scientific theories that can not be recreated.
Name one well regarded theory. Better make it off the topic of evolution... we'll end up on page one.

There's the philosophical method, which relies on logic alone to deal with that which has not or cannot be experienced.

True, but I really won't get into all of that. I thought the "discussion" was about intelligent design, i.e., spiritual masturbation, not philosophy, i.e., mental masturbation.

True, but I really won't get into all of that. I thought the "discussion" was about intelligent design, i.e., spiritual masturbation, not philosophy, i.e., mental masturbation.



I'll agree that ID does have some scientifically unverifiable premises (you can show plenty of evidence supporting a Creator, yet, unless said Creator decides to manifest Himself and say "Hey you all, I exist!", we can't really prove it, per se), but I just got kinda irked at the notion that ID was false itself. I usually try to stay out of these threads, since I'm just a college student, and not a scientist, but I just wanted to let others know that science and religion do have some things in common.

This is an interesting 4 min movie.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/real/l_034_04.html
Real player

Name one well regarded theory. Better make it off the topic of evolution... we'll end up on page one.
Well evolution was what I was thinking of, but I’m pretty sure we can’t prove many held scientific beliefs on the subject of physics, at least to my satisfaction.

The problem with ID isn't the hypothosis, its when that hypothosis pretends to be a theory. I don't belive ID is right but I respect many people do. What I don't respect is them pretending ID is a theory equal to or above Evolution. Its an idea that doesen't belong in public school science classrooms exept to demonstrate the differance between a hypothosis and a theory.

Well evolution was what I was thinking of, but I’m pretty sure we can’t prove many held scientific beliefs on the subject of physics, at least to my satisfaction.
Will you at least watch the movie? It probably won't sway you but it might make you question more things.

Why can't people realize that ID is really not either evolution or creationism. Just because you don't agree totally with evolution doesn't mean that you're a creationist. By the way evolution has been proven wrong, just look unbiasly at the fossil record. By mere chance and natural selection there is no possible way to prove most of the human body. The odds of the simplest cell happening in the body is 1 in 10 to 48 power something nearly mathematically impossible. Some other ones are 1 in 10 to 10 to 123 power, something so mathematically impossible a statstician would laugh their head off at if you said it was possible by mere chance. If they were honest anyways

What people can't realize is Intelligent Design is not a theory. What people can't realize is Intelligent Design has no evidence. What people can't realize is that it shouldn't be taught in public schools.

Why can't people realize that ID is really not either evolution or creationism. Just because you don't agree totally with evolution doesn't mean that you're a creationist. By the way evolution has been proven wrong, just look unbiasly at the fossil record. By mere chance and natural selection there is no possible way to prove most of the human body. The odds of the simplest cell happening in the body is 1 in 10 to 48 power something nearly mathematically impossible. Some other ones are 1 in 10 to 10 to 123 power, something so mathematically impossible a statstician would laugh their head off at if you said it was possible by mere chance. If they were honest anyways
Hmmm. You're right. 1 in 10 to 48 power of something nearly mathematically impossible, you say? What was I thinking?

Why can't people realize that ID is really not either evolution or creationism. Just because you don't agree totally with evolution doesn't mean that you're a creationist. By the way evolution has been proven wrong, just look unbiasly at the fossil record. By mere chance and natural selection there is no possible way to prove most of the human body. The odds of the simplest cell happening in the body is 1 in 10 to 48 power something nearly mathematically impossible. Some other ones are 1 in 10 to 10 to 123 power, something so mathematically impossible a statstician would laugh their head off at if you said it was possible by mere chance. If they were honest anyways
http://www.talkorigins.org

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/Fuzzums/randomimages.jpg

Why can't people realize that ID is really not either evolution or creationism. Just because you don't agree totally with evolution doesn't mean that you're a creationist. By the way evolution has been proven wrong, just look unbiasly at the fossil record. By mere chance and natural selection there is no possible way to prove most of the human body. The odds of the simplest cell happening in the body is 1 in 10 to 48 power something nearly mathematically impossible. Some other ones are 1 in 10 to 10 to 123 power, something so mathematically impossible a statstician would laugh their head off at if you said it was possible by mere chance. If they were honest anyways


Evidence please. Where did you find those numbers?

By mere chance and natural selection there is no possible way to prove most of the human body. The odds of the simplest cell happening in the body is 1 in 10 to 48 power something nearly mathematically impossible. Some other ones are 1 in 10 to 10 to 123 power, something so mathematically impossible a statstician would laugh their head off at if you said it was possible by mere chance. If they were honest anyways

Long odds are only impossible in small minds.
It's a big universe out there, we just happen to be at the far end of the bell-curve.

Evidence please. Where did you find those numbers?


I think he's referring to Sir Fred Hoyle's estimation for the probability of life arising in an infinitely hostile universe.

Long odds are only impossible in small minds.
It's a big universe out there, we just happen to be at the far end of the bell-curve.



Actually, most scientists have a cut-off point for when they consider things possible. I think 10^48 is a little ways beyond it, unless given infinity to occur :D

I'll agree that ID does have some scientifically unverifiable premises (you can show plenty of evidence supporting a Creator, yet, unless said Creator decides to manifest Himself and say "Hey you all, I exist!", we can't really prove it, per se), but I just got kinda irked at the notion that ID was false itself. I usually try to stay out of these threads, since I'm just a college student, and not a scientist, but I just wanted to let others know that science and religion do have some things in common.

That's cool and all, but I'm more for a "food on the table approach" to life: keeping gas in the car, driving a new, well-maintained car, buying plentiful shots for myself and friends when I'm at a show at the local dive, living on the 10th floor downtown, getting laid several times a week, and being promoted on a fairly-regular basis. Don't even know why I jumped in on this. Christians just piss me off, I guess, or at least those who keep trying to tell me to think like them.

I'll leave the thinking to you students and what-nots and whosits. I gotta make some more money...and then get laid.

There seem to be a lot of threads on this forum about the theory of Intelligent Design but no one has spelt out what it is. I know there has been a lot of debate in the US but, as an ignorant foreigner, I have missed it all. Is ID just a way of saying that there is a higher purpose behind evolution or is it an argument for creationism? :confused:

Intelligent design is scientific ignorance retreating to the shadows cast by the superstitious relics of discredited churches retreating before the light of reason.

It is the belief that evolution doesn't explain evolution.

It used to be the belief that the earth was somewhere between 10k and 6k years old and that God created everything that exists today then and nothing has ever gone extinct.

Then it admited that some things that used to exist now don't, but only very recently.

Then it acknowledged that natural selection can exist, but only to the point of things remaining largely the same, but changing size, or shades of color, and that God made, for example, all the bugs as bugs, the grazing herd animals as grazing herd animals, all the predators as predators etc. Also, humans were humans all along and our chemical similarity to chimps is just a crazy coincidence.

Now it pretty much acknowledges all the facts that the theory of evolution asserts, but claims that God set the whole thing in motion, and that that is a completly different scientific theory.

So baisicly, intelligent design is ignorant excuses.

Intelligent design is scientific ignorance retreating to the shadows cast by the superstitious relics of discredited churches retreating before the light of reason.

It is the belief that evolution doesn't explain evolution.

It used to be the belief that the earth was somewhere between 10k and 6k years old and that God created everything that exists today then and nothing has ever gone extinct.

Then it admited that some things that used to exist now don't, but only very recently.

Then it acknowledged that natural selection can exist, but only to the point of things remaining largely the same, but changing size, or shades of color, and that God made, for example, all the bugs as bugs, the grazing herd animals as grazing herd animals, all the predators as predators etc. Also, humans were humans all along and our chemical similarity to chimps is just a crazy coincidence.

Now it pretty much acknowledges all the facts that the theory of evolution asserts, but claims that God set the whole thing in motion, and that that is a completly different scientific theory.

So baisicly, intelligent design is ignorant excuses.



Feisty, aren't we? ;)

Will you at least watch the movie? It probably won't sway you but it might make you question more things.
The video is all stuff I was already aware of. I’m not ignorant, I just don’t accept that the “evidence” proves anything.
What people can't realize is Intelligent Design is not a theory.
It’s a theory in the context of, “I have a theory about egg creams.”
It isn’t a scientific theory.
What people can't realize is that it shouldn't be taught in public schools.
True.
If scientific theory is to be taught, then only accepted scientific theories should be.

Most scientists feel that Intelligent design is a religious tool and the media always cries foul and claim that any scientist writing about intelligent design is trying to push religion onto the scientific community. Why is this? Look at the human hand for example: Its structure is complex and everything fits together in such a fashion that the hand can move, pick up objects and make inventive and insulting hand . If studying nature has taught me anything it's that often the most affective form of life is often the simplest. So why would evolution create such a complex thing? Theoretically evolution would produce more complex organisms to fit a changing environment. Practically, however, evolution would produce a rather simple organism that would go through different variations of basicly the same thing.
ever herd of carple tunel ? tendinites ? the hand sucks if god was stupid enough to desighn such a bad hand...

I think he's referring to Sir Fred Hoyle's estimation for the probability of life arising in an infinitely hostile universe.
"Challenges to established science are not only possible, but a crucial component of the scientific endeavor. They are usually received with skepticism, some times even with acrimony, not only because people feel threatened whenever the accepted paradigm is challenged, but more importantly because scientists have to be conservative in order to minimize the likelihood that a crackpot theory might take over their field simply because it's new and sounds reasonable: a certain degree of resistance to new ideas is actually healthy. Nevertheless, I did take Hoyle's book seriously enough to read it to the end, which is probably more than a lot of other scientists will be inclined to do. His attempt is not a serious challenge to Darwinism, it is rather the simplistic outcome of an ego large enough to allow him to see himself far ahead of tens of thousands of others despite the fact that he has no training in the specific field and has obviously not bothered reading much about it. To overthrow a paradigm is much harder work than Fred Hoyle has been willing to put into his casual approach to biology, and his only lasting accomplishment will be to provide dubious justification to hordes of creationists whom, ironically enough, he despises as much as any evolutionist. This is not much of a legacy for one of the most brilliant minds of 20th century cosmology."
http://www.skeptic.com/archives44.html

I'll agree that ID does have some scientifically unverifiable premises (you can show plenty of evidence supporting a Creator, yet, unless said Creator decides to manifest Himself and say "Hey you all, I exist!", we can't really prove it, per se), but I just got kinda irked at the notion that ID was false itself. I usually try to stay out of these threads, since I'm just a college student, and not a scientist, but I just wanted to let others know that science and religion do have some things in common.

All you have to do to prove that there is a creator is figure out how the creator is likely to act in a given situation, arrange for that situation to occur, and then wait to see if anything happens that could only be reasonably attributed to the intervention of a creator.

That's not the same as going and looking for unlikely things that, if you were the creator, you would have created. That's like a puddle of water saying "wow, of all the holes I could have condensed in, I end up in a hole that's shaped just like me!"

"Challenges to established science are not only possible, but a crucial component of the scientific endeavor. They are usually received with skepticism, some times even with acrimony, not only because people feel threatened whenever the accepted paradigm is challenged, but more importantly because scientists have to be conservative in order to minimize the likelihood that a crackpot theory might take over their field simply because it's new and sounds reasonable: a certain degree of resistance to new ideas is actually healthy. Nevertheless, I did take Hoyle's book seriously enough to read it to the end, which is probably more than a lot of other scientists will be inclined to do. His attempt is not a serious challenge to Darwinism, it is rather the simplistic outcome of an ego large enough to allow him to see himself far ahead of tens of thousands of others despite the fact that he has no training in the specific field and has obviously not bothered reading much about it. To overthrow a paradigm is much harder work than Fred Hoyle has been willing to put into his casual approach to biology, and his only lasting accomplishment will be to provide dubious justification to hordes of creationists whom, ironically enough, he despises as much as any evolutionist. This is not much of a legacy for one of the most brilliant minds of 20th century cosmology."
http://www.skeptic.com/archives44.html



He said it, not me! Anyway, Hoyle spent quite a bit of time compounding the various factors and measuring their probability, so the author needs to give him a bit more credit.

He said it, not me! Anyway, Hoyle spent quite a bit of time compounding the various factors and measuring their probability, so the author needs to give him a bit more credit.
I just used you so the passage would be relevant. He actually does give him a lot of credit... that was the last paragraph.

ever herd of carple tunel ? tendinites ? the hand sucks if god was stupid enough to desighn such a bad hand...

No, that's God punishing you for using a device that you might also use to view pornography, substantiate an opinion with fact, or commit some other foul heresy.

All you have to do to prove that there is a creator is figure out how the creator is likely to act in a given situation, arrange for that situation to occur, and then wait to see if anything happens that could only be reasonably attributed to the intervention of a creator.

That's not the same as going and looking for unlikely things that, if you were the creator, you would have created. That's like a puddle of water saying "wow, of all the holes I could have condensed in, I end up in a hole that's shaped just like me!"



That's a poor analogy (and I'm suprised they're still using it), as the puddle conformed to the shape of the hole, not visa-versa. It's really odd that, given the sheer improbability of our existence, the universe seems specifically fine-tuned to permit life. Almost as if it were....designed :eek: ;)

I just used you so the passage would be relevant. He actually does give him a lot of credit... that was the last paragraph.
"However, Hoyle is not a naive creationist with no scientific background, so if he claims that he has a mathematical demonstration of the fact that evolution cannot occur, an honest skeptic has to give him a hear, read his book, and figure out if and where Hoyle is wrong. That is exactly what I did, and my conclusion is thatùlike other recent attempts at mathematically "proving" the errors of Darwin, the claim has been made a bit too hastily and without the necessary biological foundations. The major difference between Hoyle and, for example, William Dembski (author of The Design Inference), however, is that while the latter has a clear religious agenda which guides (and blinds) his efforts, Hoyle is in the business of doing real scienceùalbeit reaching once again the wrong conclusions."

Holy shit... I just quoted myself... I need to get to sleep.

hey I liked those numbers 10^48 or what have you well that means that a cell gets created an infinite number of time in an infinite univers

No, that's God punishing you for using a device that you might also use to view pornography, substantiate an opinion with fact, or commit some other foul heresy.



Mockery detracts from intelligent debate, instead of contributing to it. Need I go into an explanation of how original sin brought decay into the world?

Feisty, aren't we? ;)

When a "theory" must abandon so much of its ground that was, up until recently, a vital part of the theory then it's a little hard to think of it as anything other than the modern equivalent of "thar be dragons."

You must admit that the course of ID's evolution makes it look a bit like it's only purpose is to explain the stuff that noone's ever going to take a look at. It's a bit like a little kid proclaiming authoritativly that the light in the fridge stays on when you close it.

When a "theory" must abandon so much of its ground that was, up until recently, a vital part of the theory then it's a little hard to think of it as anything other than the modern equivalent of "thar be dragons."

You must admit that the course of ID's evolution makes it look a bit like it's only purpose is to explain the stuff that noone's ever going to take a look at. It's a bit like a little kid proclaiming authoritativly that the light in the fridge stays on when you close it.



Then keep it to ID, and leave the church out of it. I hear complaints directed at me for turning threads into religious debates all the time, yet how can I not do so?

Then keep it to ID, and leave the church out of it. I hear complaints directed at me for turning threads into religious debates all the time, yet how can I not do so?
You're one of the least aggressive religious people I've ever talked to. No "Because GOD said so!" at all. Which is impressive. Because I'd say that if I were religious.

You're one of the least aggressive religious people I've ever talked to. No "Because GOD said so!" at all. Which is impressive. Because I'd say that if I were religious.



I tend to save that for the gay marriage threads :D

I tend to save that for the gay marriage threads :D
Ok... now it's time for bed. :D

There exist several observed, proven facts upon which evolution rests:

Inheritance genotype over successive generations: When an organism has offspring, whether it be via sexual reproduction, mitosis, or several other versions of ways to create a new generation, the offspring will inevitably inherit the genetic data of its parent (in the case of sexual reproduction, conjugation, and several other methods, the offspring inherits the genetic material of both parents)

(Source: http://www.dna-geneticconnections.com/dna.html)

Genetic diversity within a given population: No two organisms can naturally be exact clones of each other, sharing the exact same genetic code. This is a given and a point I feel I do not need to substantiate; one need only look at one's siblings to see that even very closely related organisms are still vastly different.

Mutation in existing genetic code due to mistakes in reproduction: During the process of copying extant genetic code so that it may be passed on to offspring, mistakes are often made. These mistakes are known as mutations. There are several types of mutations, all which yield different results in the phenotype of the new organism: point mutations, where a single nucleotide (A, G, T, or C) is replaced by a different one; deletions, where a nucleotide or nucleotide sequence is removed permenantly from the extant gene sequence; insertions, where one or many nucleotides are added to a sequence; frame shift, which is a result of one of the above where such a thing shifts the sequence enough to completely change every codon in the entire gene; among other mutations. A good site to read the technical data on mutations is this one (http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/M/Mutations.html)

(Source: http://www.brooklyn.cuny.edu/bc/ahp/BioInfo/MUT/Mut.Types.html)

Natural selection of favored traits within a given niche's population: Within a given niche (specific available "job" within any one environment), the population that occupies it will be constantly in competition for survival and propogation of genetic material. Those members of the population which are better able to survive in the niche and better able to produce more offspring who can do the same will become the patriarchs/matriarchs of the entire population as their advantage, if it is severe enough, propogates throughout the entire niche. If the advantage is not severe enough or there exists no real advantage among the entire population, then the population will remain in relative stasis as the same traits persist generation after generation. Sharks and several other organisms suffer from this evolutionary stagnation.

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection)

Change of environmental conditions leading to new pressures within niches: As no clime on the Earth is truely stable, changes in a given environment will be enough to change which traits make a given organism better able to survive and propogate, changing environmental pressures and giving an advantage or disadvantage to a previously advantaged, disadvantaged, or static organism. Climate changes are another one that I feel need not be substantiated, one need only look at the cutting down of the rain-forests or other such things to see the changing and destruction of pre-existing niches.

What else can all these combined lead to but evolution?

My main question is why evolution is still a theory. If scientists would follow the scientific method it would have been thrown out long ago. Microevolution is the only thing keeping in in there.

Why do you assume being a theory is a bad thing?

The theory of gravity is much older should we throw that out?

No, science and religion both start with premises which cannot be proven, as I stated earlier. Both start with conclusions and search for evidence.

Actually that is not right at all. Science does not define the truth, it only offers explanations as to why. Religion defines the truth and then goes about explaning the proof.

[QUOTE=Haloman]They shouldn't be spoon fed evolution, either. They should be taught both theories, with specific emphasis that none of it is fact, and both are only theories.
[QUOTE]

Spoon fed? :rolleyes:

Sorry but you teach science in the science classroom. ID belongs in a religion class or a philosophy class.

Well, neither can be tested and thus either could be correct.

Please take a biology class and a physical anthropology class.

Spoon fed? :rolleyes:

Sorry but you teach science in the science classroom. ID belongs in a religion class or a philosophy class.

Maybe neither theories should be taught in the science classroom and in the history classroom for different interpretations for the beginning of life. After all, there has only been one beginning of life.

Who's the designer?

And who is pushing for it.....

ID doesn't imply a specific designer, just a designer in general.

Ewww would that be the Anicents?, the Nox?, or the Azgard?

Really though, just because Christians created the theory, it doesn't mean they said their designer was the one. For all we know, it could be a "force" or something.

Wow and you said that with a straight face?

For some reason, I really can't seem to believe somebody like you saying God was not the designer.

I have no idea what cosmology is, and biology is boring, if easy. However, chemistry should learn to leave us all alone.

My opinion on intelligent design, I don’t agree with it. I’m a young earth creationist.

Chemistry???? pffft child's play.

Take a look at organic chem. That will probably make you eat a bullet. ;)

A young earther eh? Hmmm at least you didn't say you were a flood geologist. ;)

What I object most to is that this is being taught in public schools and most of its support has already been proven falsified.

Really by whom? Theologians? :rolleyes:


The chart of man growing from ape has the not only the jawbone of an ape, but also the record dates have been doctored to make it appear more believeable.


:D yea right. Doctored in what way? While were at which jawbone are you talking about. Please don't tell me you are talking about the piltdown man.


Now, atleast in my mind, it makes sense that if something has been falsified at it's base, no matter how much we stack on top of it, it is still false. The fact that evolutionists have not addressed any of the problems with their theory should atleast put into question why we teach is exclusively at our schools.

Well you need to understand what a theory is for starters. A theory only tries to explain something. It's modified or thrown out when a perception is proven wrong.

I don't remember, I sold it after completing the course since I'm on a tight budget. It was kind of new though.



Edit: And green :D

It wasn't this one was it? :D

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0914513400/103-2648839-2655026?v=glance

However, one unobserved anomaly could discredit both. Though, I wonder how many scientists would try to hide that anomaly if they discovered it.

Well you don't know scientists. If you propose a theory for something, there are more then a few that will test the hell out of it just to prove you wrong.

If there is an anomaly, you can safely bet somebody will make noise about it.

Chemistry???? pffft child's play.

Take a look at organic chem. That will probably make you eat a bullet. ;)
I didn’t say chemistry is hard. Anything that can be memorized is easy. It’s just boring and abstract.

If there is an anomaly, you can safely bet somebody will make noise about it.

after all, nobody ever got famous by going out of their way to not revolutionize our scientific understandings of the world.

It's really odd that, given the sheer improbability of our existence, the universe seems specifically fine-tuned to permit life. Almost as if it were....designed :eek: ;)
The universe is fine-tuned to permit life? Um, where did you get that notion?

Seriously, if life was exploding across the galaxy I could accept that, but since we've only managed to confirm liquid water on one planet (though Mars and Europa look hopeful)...

PROBLEM: No missing link.
Answer:...

Missing link theory? That went out oh 10 years+? Your firend is reading outdated material.


PROBLEM: One of the basis for evolution's evidence and ancient earth is that rock layers must form over time. However, in the eruption of Mt. St. Helens rock strata and entire canyone were formed by the heated water in less than five minutes. A flood of biblical proportions could also have caused this. A flood that is mentioned in the mythology of almost evey ancient nation.
Answer:....

Flood geology? Is that still being preeched.


PROBLEM:It is absurd to think that the human eye was made by chance. - Darwin (paraphrased)
Answer:....

And yet we have examples of animals without the need for eyes. A species of porpose for example. So yes.....


These are probably blanket arguments that you have seen before, however the scientific community does not wish to address them or the problems that I listed in my above post.

Actually the strata question has been addressed.


Now, as this debate has been reduced to flaming and anger, I must bow out before I have time to ask my nuclear physicist and author of over 5 school textbooks friend.

Oh come on. If he is published, you can give a name so we can look up his over 5 school textbooks.


Next time you argue over the internet, it would do you well to remember that there are people on both sides of the computer.

Well that's not true if you belive Turing.

I think what scares me the most about the whole ID vs Evo discussion is the way that whenever the question is raised, those in support of the argument are mostly portrayed as extremist nut-cases that want to ban evolution education as the work of Satan and teach religion in the public school. Meanwhile those that stand in support of evolutionary theory are portrayed as thoughtful, reasoning "scientifically-minded" folks defending free thinking and poor school kids from shoddy science.

Any time a scientist reasons out the falacies in evolution, he is automatically assumed to have done his science wrong and come to the incorrect conclusion. If that automatic debunking of the scientists findings is not an example of someone doing as stated in an above post, namely reaching a conclusion and then making science fit, I don't know what is.

You cannot prove to me with any science or data available today that evolution is any more viable as a reason I exist right now than creation. Evolution is based on the conclusions drawn by a man observing his environment and attempting to figure out how things got to be the way they are. Microevolution is visible and provable. It is considered to be one of the evidences for Macro evolution.

Evolutional theory makes some assumptions based on visual evidence that are just not satisfactory to me. I don't expect defenders of evolution to give me evidence of what happened aeons ago, I know you don't have proof from millions of years ago in your back pocket that shows progress from single cell to multicell then dividing into separate kingdoms, phylums and species. It doesn't exist. I would like to know how some cells were influenced to become plants and which cells were influenced to become animals and how. I'd also like a reasonable argument, not attacks on my God.

The same holds true for my creation story. I have no evidence that what I believe really happened. All I have is a description of what happened that a man wrote with the inspiration of God.

That may be, but the attitude of people seems to be that it is proven.

Ahh crap, a scorpion just ran across my floor. Time to kill.

Ewwwww How big?

Well, as long as people continue stating that science proves the nonexistence of God and that science is superior to philosophy and theology, we will never see an end to this.


Science has never set out to prove or disprove the existence of God.

I challenge you to offer any "credible" scientist who has made that statement.

It's proof of Microevolution.
Did they turn into spiders or something?

Please don't tell you you are paraphrasing Kent Hovind....

Just because something happens one way once, doesn’t mean it will happen the same way again. Of course, there are probable outcomes, but that doesn’t prove the existence of gravity any more than one can prove the existence of God. It is something you believe. There are many scientific theories that can not be recreated.

Ok I am curious to where you are going. Which ones?

Any time a scientist reasons out the falacies in evolution, he is automatically assumed to have done his science wrong and come to the incorrect conclusion.

not assumed. conclusively demonstrated. if this wasn't the case, you'd think that at least one of these 'scientists' would have gotten their work published in a peer-reviewed science journal by now. but you cannot name one, because none of them even tries.

http://www.talkorigins.org

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/Fuzzums/randomimages.jpg

Damn evertime I see the King, I want to kick him in the nads and run. He just creeps me out.

Good picture though. :)

No, that's God punishing you for using a device that you might also use to view pornography, substantiate an opinion with fact, or commit some other foul heresy.

Keyboard? with both hands? ;)

Ok I am curious to where you are going. Which ones?
The infinity of the universe for one. It is a generally accepted by science, but you can’t prove it.
Ewwwww How big?
Maybe an inch and a half long. Nothing compared to the centipede I killed the other day.
Please don't tell you you are paraphrasing Kent Hovind....
I have no idea who that is.

The infinity of the universe for one. It is a generally accepted by science, but you can’t prove it.

Accepted as Hypothesis, not as Theory. Please learn the distinct and important difference.

I'd consider ID a valid Hypothesis, but one that is soon dismissed. I like it though, as its funny. The best part of ID is that i dont even see the supposed intelligent design it claims exists. Take just about any animal and you'll find a desgin flaw. Consider Mammals: why have the wind pipe and the esophagus cross over in the manner they do, allowing a mammal to choke. It makes no sence.

So ID, or rather the evident flaws in the designs we see, actually refute the concept of a perfect, infallible deity :D

Is ID the same as Theistic Evolutionism? Because if it is, then its really just a Atheist v Theist argument.

"You know...Jesus and Elvis have much in common. For instance, both of thier fans get on my nerves after a while."
-CWR.

"You know...Jesus and Elvis have much in common. For instance, both of thier fans get on my nerves after a while."
-CWR.

And neither are dead :D

It wasn't this one was it? :D

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0914513400/103-2648839-2655026?v=glance
Serious:

I think this:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805366245/qid=1124368611/sr=2-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/102-4983743-3684142

Which surprises me because evolution is that book. You simply can't teach college biology without basing it upon evolution.

Look at the human hand for example: Its structure is complex and everything fits together in such a fashion that the hand can move, pick up objects and make inventive and insulting hand .
Isn't that much like looking at a puddle and being amazed that the hole fitted the water perfectly?

Well evolution was what I was thinking of, but I’m pretty sure we can’t prove many held scientific beliefs on the subject of physics, at least to my satisfaction.

The ideas of physics have moved so far into speculation these days that much of it is in the realm of philosophy, rather than science.

This is not, of course, to say that there are not solid physics theories, just that much of what is debated at this point is more philosophy.

ID isn't a valid theory, as it is complete crap :D

But seriously though, why is evolution so scary? It doesn't remove a supernatural entity from the picture.

Isn't that much like looking at a puddle and being amazed that the hole fitted the water perfectly?

Excellent post... and one which sums up all that is wrong with the Intelligent Design argument.

All you have to do to prove that there is a creator is figure out how the creator is likely to act in a given situation, arrange for that situation to occur, and then wait to see if anything happens that could only be reasonably attributed to the intervention of a creator.

Of course, to do so, you would have to be able to measure said creator and find out things about it - which would mean that said creator was part of the universe - which would mean that said creator could not have created the universe.

Oops.

That's a poor analogy (and I'm suprised they're still using it), as the puddle conformed to the shape of the hole, not visa-versa. It's really odd that, given the sheer improbability of our existence, the universe seems specifically fine-tuned to permit life. Almost as if it were....designed

You say that the water-hole idea is a bad analogy, and then use the same fallacy. The probability of our existence is exactly 1 - it has occurred. Meanwhile, you are saying it seems odd that life developed in a universe and that means it was designed. This is exactly like the water in a puddle going, "Odd that there was a hole here that I fit into perfectly. It must have been designed just for me."

Actually that is not right at all. Science does not define the truth, it only offers explanations as to why. Religion defines the truth and then goes about explaning the proof.

I think it would be more clear to say that science offers explanations as to how. Why can get you into teleological questions that science, by definition, cannot answer.


Maybe neither theories should be taught in the science classroom and in the history classroom for different interpretations for the beginning of life. After all, there has only been one beginning of life.

Well, evolution isn't an "interpretation of the beginning of life." In fact, the theory has nothing at all to do with the beginning of life, only how it changed after it began.

Any time a scientist reasons out the falacies in evolution, he is automatically assumed to have done his science wrong and come to the incorrect conclusion. If that automatic debunking of the scientists findings is not an example of someone doing as stated in an above post, namely reaching a conclusion and then making science fit, I don't know what is.
Well, if that were happening, it would be unscientific. But, I haven't seen it happen as often as it seems you are claiming. What I have seen happen is people responding to the person who claims to have found major flaws and pointing out where they went wrong, that person ignoring those bits of the argument, and picking out only the first bits and claiming that everybody just dismissed his argument because he doesn't like the theory of evolution.

Note that I am not making a claim that all non-evolutionists do this, I am stating what I generally see happening in the situations that you are claiming happen.

I didn’t say chemistry is hard. Anything that can be memorized is easy. It’s just boring and abstract.

If you are still doing chemistry that only requires memorization, you aren't doing any real chemistry.

Any time a scientist reasons out the falacies in evolution, he is automatically assumed to have done his science wrong and come to the incorrect conclusion.

This is completely incorrect. When someone says they have found problems in evolutionary theory, their ideas are examined. As a general rule, it isn't hard to find a logical fallacy - often the fact that they are complaining about something that actual scientists already discounted years ago (like those who bring up piltdown man). In others, they are making unfounded and untestable assumptions without providing a reasoning for those assumptions. The main problem, however, is that someone "pointing out the fallacies in evolution" doesn't understand the theory of evolution in the first place and their so-called "fallacies" were never part of the theory in the first place.

When valid criticisms of evolutionary theory are brought up - the theory is examined, and often modified, to fit them.

You cannot prove to me with any science or data available today that evolution is any more viable as a reason I exist right now than creation.

Evolutionary theory does not seek to give you a reason for your existence. It simply gives an explanation of how the species came to be what it is. In fact, there is nothing in evolutionary theory to say that there wasn't a creator and that said creator didn't create the universe.

As for which can be a scientific theory, a postulation that there is a creator is untestable and unfalsifiable. Thus, no adequate theory can rely upon that postulate.

Evolution is based on the conclusions drawn by a man observing his environment and attempting to figure out how things got to be the way they are.

Yup, science! Of course it isn't "a man" that has created modern evolutionary theory, it is many men and women working in many different fields.

Evolutional theory makes some assumptions based on visual evidence that are just not satisfactory to me. I don't expect defenders of evolution to give me evidence of what happened aeons ago, I know you don't have proof from millions of years ago in your back pocket that shows progress from single cell to multicell then dividing into separate kingdoms, phylums and species.

Evidence and proof are not the same thing, my dear. There is quite a bit of evidence for evolutionary theory. Proof of anything, on the other hand, cannot be provided by science. Only evidence and support can.

I would like to know how some cells were influenced to become plants and which cells were influenced to become animals and how.

You can find the theories on this in any reasonable high-level biology textbook. Trying to explain them on an internet forum would be useless.

I'd also like a reasonable argument, not attacks on my God.

By definition, science can't make "attacks" on any God. Science can assume nothing at all about even the existence or non-existence of a deity.

Is ID the same as Theistic Evolutionism? Because if it is, then its really just a Atheist v Theist argument.

No, ID is based on the idea that evolution could not possibly have produced speciation, therefore a creator must have designed all the little pieces. Theistic evolutionism is the statement that evolution occurred as described, but God set it into motion.

If so, then so should Flying Spaghetti Monsterism!

Well I got to say after seeing the stats ….

At least 74 percent of people on here understand what constitutes a scientific theory lol

I think that whether you take it as a philosophy or a scientific theory is a bit of a moot point. Being a science student myself, I am constantly trying to point out to my classmates that science IS a philosophy, just one that concentrates on measurability, reproducability and factual arguements as opposed to semantics.
I also believe that ID could be classified as a theory. Especially considering that the most advanced studies in WHAT counts as intelligence are anything but agreed upon by the experts.
As a case example, in Richard Dawkins 'The Blind Watchmaker', he manages to convey a convincing arguement for describing inorganic crystalline structures as having many of the characteristics of life. Could a similar arguement not be put forward for intelligence?

Is ID actually that incompatible with Darwinian evolution?

My point is that we mustn't be too blinkered in our definitions of 'intelligent' or 'design'. Of course the proposers of the theory are primarily composed of those who believe it is a god or supernatural being. Thus it is untestable and unscientific, therefore not able to be called a scientific theory.

But I can't believe that I am alone in my belief that intelligence has many valid definitions. This theory I believe has grounds to be considered scientific as just because it is untestable now, does not mean it always will be, and that if we view nature as the 'unconcious intelligence' (a possibility), ID and evolution become simply two sides to the same coin.

There are many areas of modern science which are untestable, but accepted because of indirect observations, large chunks of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity to quote some famous examples, could the same not be true for ID?

Now what did I say about arguments that are overburdened with semantics...?!

Is ID actually that incompatible with Darwinian evolution?

According to the IDers, it is.

There are many areas of modern science which are untestable, but accepted because of indirect observations, large chunks of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity to quote some famous examples, could the same not be true for ID?

"Not yet tested" does not equate to untestable. "We do not yet have the technology to test it" does not equate to untestable. For something to be untestable, it would have to be logically impossible to ever test (ie. the existence of an omnipotent God).

According to most proposers of ID, yes, they are incompatible, as I later mentioned in that post, as for untestable, evolution is similarly untestable, unless you have someone willing to fund your research effort for a few million years (a VERY rare commodity!)
Evolution as a theory is just as untestable.
(Also, though I shudder to mention it as I think it's very silly but admittadly a slim possibility) Many IDers, such as Raelians believe it was an intelligence such as an alien lifeform rather than an omnipotent god (refer to the wikipedia article), proving this is scientifically possible.

as for untestable, evolution is similarly untestable, unless you have someone willing to fund your research effort for a few million years (a VERY rare commodity!)

One doesn't have to be able to see the entire process to test the parts of the process. Nor does one have to be there for a million years to be able to find out what has happened in a few million years.

Note that we catch murderers quite often with evidence - even when there are no witnesses to the murder.

Evolution as a theory is just as untestable.

Really? So I can't put antibiotic on bacteria to try and see what processes lead to a resistant strain? I can't examine the DNA of various creatures in order to see how closely related they are and what processes are conserved across all or most species? I can't look at morphological characteristics of fossils to see how they changed over time? I can't recognize the existance of bacteria that eat nylon, or termites that eat concrete?

All of these things and many more test evolution. If any of them come up incompatible with the theory, the theory is altered or discarded. That is the scientific method.

(Also, though I shudder to mention it as I think it's very silly but admittadly a slim possibility) Many IDers, such as Raelians believe it was an intelligence such as an alien lifeform rather than an omnipotent god (refer to the wikipedia article), proving this is scientifically possible.

No, proving it is not scientifically possible. However, were we to find evidence of such an involvement, then such an idea could be supported. Of course, then it wouldn't be the vague "intelligent designer" (usually assumed to have designed the entire universe with all life, and to exist outside said universe). It would be a specific designer of our own ecosystems with evidence behind it.

You confuse me, I do not for a minute claim that evolution is untestable, moths changing colour over a hundred years in Manchester, florida sticklebacks going from bright red to dull brown within a decade, all in response to evolutionary pressures.
What I say is that if we broaden our definition of 'intelligent' then the same arguements can be applied to ID. Does a system have to be conscious to be intelligent?

Note... just as untestable, not untestable... sorry for the semantics.

As for aliens, yes they are scientifically possible, but as of yet, unproven e.g SETI.

Should it be taught? I said yes, and this is why:

1) No one ever said "should it be taught as the definite way" or that it should be taught for an entire year as the definition of how things work.
2) Creationism has been taught to me in science class, simply as part of the history of how people thought people came to be. Alternatives ought to be taught simply for the information of what people think, and what there is out there. ID is not a backwards way of thinking or anything, although it is not scientifically accepted as THE answer.
Should it be taught as a theory in science class? Yes. Should it be taught as a scientific theory? No, as a philosophical one.
I don't see why you can't just teach it at home. It's not useful in any way in a science class. It has yet to produce any positive evidence. All of its claims about evolution are bunk and have been addressed many times over. The logic that it uses to poke tiny holes in evolution (which is that there are things in evolution that are not entirely understood, or that there is some disagreement about the intimate details) would utterly destroy it (can you explain where this intelligent designer came from? And why he created so many creatures with terribly fatal flaws?).

ID fails all of the requisites of a scientific theory. It is not falsifiable. It is not predictive. It is supported by no evidence. It is not science. Teach your kids to trust your religion on your own time, let my kid spend his time in school learning science instead please.

What I say is that if we broaden our definition of 'intelligent' then the same arguements can be applied to ID. Does a system have to be conscious to be intelligent?

If we have to change the definition of intelligent to make it work, I think we can just go ahead and steer away from it.

Does something have to be conscious to be intelligent? From the definition, it would seem so.

Main Entry: in·tel·li·gence
Pronunciation: in-'te-l&-j&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin intelligentia, from intelligent-, intelligens intelligent
1 a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : REASON; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests) b Christian Science : the basic eternal quality of divine Mind c : mental acuteness : SHREWDNESS
2 a : an intelligent entity; especially : ANGEL b : intelligent minds or mind <cosmic intelligence>
3 : the act of understanding : COMPREHENSION
4 a : INFORMATION, NEWS b : information concerning an enemy or possible enemy or an area; also : an agency engaged in obtaining such information
5 : the ability to perform computer functions

Things like understanding, the use of reason, the ability to use knowledge to manipulate one's environment, the ability to think abstractly all require some sort of consciousness.

Again, if we have to change the definition of intelligence, there is no point. It is like saying, "If we change the definition of square, might there not be some evidence that the Earth is square-shaped?"

I think it would be more clear to say that science offers explanations as to how. Why can get you into teleological questions that science, by definition, cannot answer.



Well, evolution isn't an "interpretation of the beginning of life." In fact, the theory has nothing at all to do with the beginning of life, only how it changed after it began.
In fact, there is really no current "theory" of abiogenesis, just several hypotheses.

You confuse me, I do not for a minute claim that evolution is untestable, moths changing colour over a hundred years in Manchester, florida sticklebacks going from bright red to dull brown within a decade, all in response to evolutionary pressures.
What I say is that if we broaden our definition of 'intelligent' then the same arguements can be applied to ID. Does a system have to be conscious to be intelligent?

Note... just as untestable, not untestable... sorry for the semantics.

As for aliens, yes they are scientifically possible, but as of yet, unproven e.g SETI.

I don't see how the word intelligent could apply to anything that is not conscious. Intelligence involves the capacity to learn and reason, while an unconscious system would adapt to change and follow rules, which I'd say is not the same thing. Also, ID theory seems to involve things being created for a purpose, which would have to involve consciousness.

A little puddle wakes up one morning and looking around it notices
that it exactly and perfectly fits all the irregularities and contours
of the surrounding earth.

The concept that it should somehow accidentally fit into such
an irregular and complex environment is surely ludicrous.

It may however go some of the way to explaining why
others with similar arguments might be described as wet.

The reason evolution is a theory is because there is proof in fossil records, sturctures, biochemical analysis and many others. Intelligent design, who is something I semi-believe in, as in I think God had a role in tsarting the process and guided it, but othwewise, nature is responsible. Its tough for me, as a person of faith and of science to reconcile both of my views, so I try to weave a melange of the two. However, Intelligent design cannot be listed as a theory because it has no actual proof.

Those that subsrcibe to it see DNA, a very complex molecule, that, granted, formed itself much as one would throw metal in the air and have a perfectly formed plane fall back down, must have been created by an intelligent entity. Its just trying to slap a religious label on science, because I think Christians have come to realize that creationism doesnt make sense.

Teaching ID would be akin to teaching that the earth might be flat.
If ID was real, men wouldn't have nipples.
my US$0.02

The reason evolution is a theory is because there is proof in fossil records, sturctures, biochemical analysis and many others. Intelligent design, who is something I semi-believe in, as in I think God had a role in tsarting the process and guided it, but othwewise, nature is responsible. Its tough for me, as a person of faith and of science to reconcile both of my views, so I try to weave a melange of the two. However, Intelligent design cannot be listed as a theory because it has no actual proof.

I don't see how reconciling faith and science is difficult. They "run in different circles", as it were. I study science - and I do so within the scientific method. I believe that God set it all off at the beginning and determined the rules by which it would run, but do not claim said belief to be scientific. It's relatively simple.

Those that subsrcibe to it see DNA, a very complex molecule, that, granted, formed itself much as one would throw metal in the air and have a perfectly formed plane fall back down, must have been created by an intelligent entity.

And, HERE is the misconception that allows ID to flourish...

WHY does the metal have to come down as a whole plane?

The problem with the ID view, and with ANY 'creationist' view, is that it views MAN (and DNA, etc.) as GOALS... something AIMED for.

From an evolutionary point of view, man is something that has happened, and not NECESSARILY the end product, at all.

From the evolutionary standpoint, you throw your metal in the air, and you get a toaster... which you keep, because it is a functional item... in our metaphor, it has 'survival' possibilities.

Then, you throw MORE metal... you get a wok, and two Universal Joints. You also get some tinfoil... which turns out to be non-sustainable... but you have three other 'working' entities.

The third throw yeilds a pocket calculator, and the engine from a Mini...

etc.

You get my drift... ID only works BECAUSE you assume that the plane was the INTENDED evolutionary point. If, instead, you allow that ANY functional component is 'vaild', ID becomes a nonsense.

Evolution, the theory (fact in my opinion) that life adapts to its environnment to survive,

Is is just me or is so called 'intelligent design' just turning this on its head and saying that in fact the environment was made to support a predetermined form of life, yeah the sahara desert was a really intelligent design to support life :headbang: ,

Im sure some christian fundamentalist was pondering a way to attack the theory of evolution on a long night ast his local KKK meeting and thought, why dont i just turn it upside down, yeah, since ive got no evidence for my idea and the fact that it defies logic i'll just fiddle with evolution, arent i smart

i wish i were here however many hundered years from now, when people finally drop these foolish religions and superstitions and we stop the hate, suffering and ignorance they cause

the intelligence thing...
I'm not saying that we need to change the definition of intelligence, the definition given is fine. Look at it, the ability to learn or reason to changing situations or something to that effect...
artificial intelligence is moving a pace and this nature of intelligence issue is quite active on the forums at www.a-i.com these are arguably not concious, yet also arguably intelligent, as the two terms are not necessarily interchangeable.
My point was that while the ludicrous version put forward by most IDers of 'well eveolution can't prove this, so it must be false' can't be tolerated by any reasonable person, let alone a scientist, but at the same time, the core of the theory being that an intelligence is responsible for much of what we see.
Maybe I'm warping this so much that I'm forming an entirely different theory, but I think it's reasonable to see the response of unconcious life to environmental pressures and evolving accordingly as a form of intelligence.

the intelligence thing...
I'm not saying that we need to change the definition of intelligence, the definition given is fine. Look at it, the ability to learn or reason to changing situations or something to that effect...
artificial intelligence is moving a pace and this nature of intelligence issue is quite active on the forums at www.a-i.com these are arguably not concious, yet also arguably intelligent, as the two terms are not necessarily interchangeable.
My point was that while the ludicrous version put forward by most IDers of 'well eveolution can't prove this, so it must be false' can't be tolerated by any reasonable person, let alone a scientist, but at the same time, the core of the theory being that an intelligence is responsible for much of what we see.
Maybe I'm warping this so much that I'm forming an entirely different theory, but I think it's reasonable to see the response of unconcious life to environmental pressures and evolving accordingly as a form of intelligence.

I still don't see how that works. There is no choice to evolve or adapt. You just combine the fact that life is variable with changing environmental pressures, and logically some forms will survive and others will not, and there will be gradual change.

It's like Relative Power's puddle, the fact that it adapts exactly to the ground doesn't imply intelligence.

It's not the puddle that's intelligent, it's the incredibly complex system of gravitation, friction, fluidic dynamics, pressure responsiveness etc which is performing the 'intelligent' operation of shaping the fluid. Just because the responsiveness leaps out of the environment logically and without a first cause doesn't mean it's incapable of intelligence. If we take the arguement that this process led through evolution to the creation of concious beings by a logical process (us), then can we not look at intelligence as something which is not sudden like a switch, but more like a dimmer switch. An unconcious system, being a system posesses an inteligence of sorts, but a concious system such as us posesses more.

I think it would be more clear to say that science offers explanations as to how. Why can get you into teleological questions that science, by definition, cannot answer.

Correct! I should re-read before I hit submit! It always sounds right in your head. ;) Thanks for the correction.

Most scientists feel that Intelligent design is a religious tool and the media always cries foul and claim that any scientist writing about intelligent design is trying to push religion onto the scientific community. Why is this? Look at the human hand for example: Its structure is complex and everything fits together in such a fashion that the hand can move, pick up objects and make inventive and insulting hand . If studying nature has taught me anything it's that often the most affective form of life is often the simplest. So why would evolution create such a complex thing? Theoretically evolution would produce more complex organisms to fit a changing environment. Practically, however, evolution would produce a rather simple organism that would go through different variations of basicly the same thing.

Again...using the hand as an example. It is a complex structure capable of all the things you say. but previous to it being a hand in land mammals, it was more than likely similar to the fin in a whale (see what anatomy and you will see that there propelling fines have hand-like bone structure). Prior to that it was something more simple.

Evolution is small steps to create more complex systems. And truly, is the most effective form of life the simplest? Last I checked Amoebas and bacterium weren't running the show. Apparently studying nature hasn't taught you anything.