NationStates Jolt Archive

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



All I have to say to that load of ignorant tripe is:

*breaks your keyboard*

If Intelligent Design works, why are we the created?

And why didn't any of those simpler lifeforms found religions?

Hell, without evolution, you wouldn't have had a religion to start a cockamamie idea like Intelligent Design (the artist formerly known as Creationism).

All I have to say to that load of ignorant tripe is:

/breaks your keyboard.
It's either /me breaks your keyboard or *breaks your keyboard*.


Get it right :-p

Last I checked Amoebas and bacterium weren't running the show.

Are you sure? They outnumber us billions to one and can kill us in our millions. Everyone of us is host to millions of bacteria.

It's either /me breaks your keyboard or *breaks your keyboard*.


Get it right :-p



Fixed it :D

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.

Well depending on where she went to school, it could be "Here is evolution and it's BS because......"

If they wan't to go into any research especially biotech, they have to have studied it. I know a couple companies that would not touch a person if the see or sense creationism/ID "training"

All I have to say to that load of ignorant tripe is:

*breaks your keyboard*

Hmmm that is a question. How many KKK members declare themselves Christians? I don't know myself.

Aren't they in Bama? :p

Hmmm that is a question. How many KKK members declare themselves Christians? I don't know myself.

Aren't they in Bama? :p



These aren't the 60's, that's not a black man hanging from a tree, and that isn't a preacher wearing the white hood! :mad:

Last I checked Amoebas and bacterium weren't running the show. Apparently studying nature hasn't taught you anything.
A very anthropocentric viewpoint, what defines 'success' as a lifeform, conciousness and culture as you seem to believe, or the ability to survive generation after generation, which simpler lifeforms admittedly do much better?
Every dog has his day, and every evolved lifeform has their niche.

Are you sure? They outnumber us billions to one and can kill us in our millions. Everyone of us is host to millions of bacteria.

Aye. In fact, as a general rule, there are more E. coli cells in a human being than there are human cells.

Edit: Hey! Maybe E. coli are intelligent beings and designed our bodies as great incubators for them!

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.

From where do you get that idea? I don't see how you can make a generalization like that based on the theory of natural selection. If complexity made something better adapted to its environment, then more complex organisms would flourish.

The thing is, these are valid questions, in a way, although I would dispute some of your assumptions. But these questions do not make a theory, they are just questions. They don't serve as evidence of an intelligent creator in any scientific sense.

I'd just like to comment on a paradox that is apaprent to me at this current moment in time, in regards to this thread of course.

Those of you that are using science, logic and reason as your primary base for judgement and understanding; all use your intelligence to support theories that suggest a great ineffeble force that controls everything and creates the Laws of Physics. Though it probably exists at a level of existence where these rules do not apply like that of a singularity in a black-hole, so should it's effects on the universe be proven, how it effects everything will never be able to be explained as it goes beyond the realms of explanation. But what does exist only exists on a material, physical level so no form of abstract thinking can occur.

Those of you that are using faith, religion, and theology as your primary base for judgement and understanding are all using your hope to support beliefs that suggest a great intelligent, logical, almost scientific being, that can use the highest forms of logic to create all forms of existence. Only it doesn't exist with any physical body what-so-ever.

It seems that many people are aiming to prove correct that which does not comply with their method.

Science aims to prove that the spark for existsence was either totally random or possibly determined from the start.
Religions that can seem totally random but totally determined in an aim to spread unfounded belief in the existence of a being that is of super intelligence who is in constant control.

As far as I can see both you (science boffins and religious scholars) without each other miss the mark. They are both unwholesome, because they both make up a part of the complete story.

Think of the defintion of 'intelligence'. Intelligence does require consciouness, but more importantly it also requires abstraction from this consciousness of physical matter. Now we usually think of these processes as existing simply on a metaphysical level, however what is the difference in the physical and metaphysical really? There has to be some ontological basis for your thoughts to exist upon, as in the actual formation and degradation of electrical impulses in your head. So even that which you regard as being purely logical/metaphysical must have a basis in reality by holding some form of physicality.

You see I think that many scientists have totally lost the plot and basically are trying to create internally consistent theories simply for the sake of it. It's internally justified but just doesn't offer even a hint of direction for a scientific study that is external to the study that was carried out. So contingency isn't apparent to any other scientific study which then means that the one in question is irrefutable and useless.

At the moment I see sciences veiws on the universe a bit like how I view a person infront of me.
I detect with my five senses that there is an object infront of me, it has what I call a head, two arms and two legs. I see that it also has motion only I did not set it into motion. The catalyst for motion is unknown to me, so assume that this body is conscious. I also presume that this body is intelligent from some of the motions that are carried out. Because there are other bodies that are in motion I can refer to them for comparison. I can also induce that this person's motion differs and therefore has indentity. But it still requires a degree of faith that there really is a person infront of me beyond what I can physically sense.

Now when I detect the universe, I can tell that it has motion. I did not initiate this motion that is in process. The catalyst for motion is not known to me so I assume that this physical matter is conscious (if it wasn't conscious then nothing would be aware of when and where it should be in relation to anything else, relativity requires consciousness). I can also determine (under my own criteria of course) that some of the motion that is taking place is extrememly complex but orderly. As that was one of my criteria when evaluating a person, I will call the universe intelligent. Now as I can never cross examine with another universe I don't know if this one is individual and therefore has indentity.

As far as there being intelligence being involved in my creation, I thought that being a fact is kind of a given to anyone with sense.

Science aims to prove that the spark for existsence was either totally random or possibly determined from the start.



"science" aims for nothing of the sort. Science searches for evidence and makes conclusions based on that evidence.

Science isn't a philosophy or a branch of sprituality, it's a tool. Most people base their beliefs on science to one extent or another, but every scientist will admit that there are things that science cannot explain. Getting the two confused is what causes stupid things like ID to worm its way into places it doesn't belong. Science class does not exist to endorse a type of spirituality, but simply to prepare students for a basic understanding of what our best scientific understanding is.

Another thread started about evolution by someone who doesn't understand evolution. *Sigh* When will it end?

"science" aims for nothing of the sort. Science searches for evidence and makes conclusions based on that evidence.

Ok Mr. Pedantic.

Science indirectly suggests that the spark for existsence was either totally random or possibly determined from the start with results that correlate to such a presumption being made.

Aye. In fact, as a general rule, there are more E. coli cells in a human being than there are human cells.

Edit: Hey! Maybe E. coli are intelligent beings and designed our bodies as great incubators for them!
Bet they're really pissed off about penicillin.



(yes, I know.)

Ok Mr. Pedantic.

Science indirectly suggests that the spark for existsence was either totally random or possibly determined from the start with results that correlate to such a presumption being made.
Science doesn't assume anything is random. That's the entire point about theorizing. We could throw up our hands and shout "god did it" at any point, but that would only be lying to ourselves.

Ok Mr. Pedantic.

Science indirectly suggests that the spark for existsence was either totally random or possibly determined from the start with results that correlate to such a presumption being made.
I've never heard any scientific evidence to support either of those ideas. Neither of those necessarily need to be assumed, and in general science doesn't concern itself with unfalsifiable hypotheses like that.

Ok Mr. Pedantic.

Science indirectly suggests that the spark for existsence was either totally random or possibly determined from the start with results that correlate to such a presumption being made.

Or that the universe is cyclic... or that the universe was created as a natural response to another stimulus...

Generalisations are hard to maintain in the face of actual research...

Science doesn't assume anything is random.

I know, it assumes the opposite purely by it's methods of testing contingency within systems. Consistent results suggest consistent theories. But it doesn't refute the possibility of an initial state randomness either, as in nobody has proved that the initial laws which everything applies to is not a subset to any other rules before hand.

Basically the laws we live our lives by (by this I mean the laws of physics) are all subsets of previous rules and laws we have inherited form earlier forms of reality.

However you can't have an endless chain of copies of copies, because at some point there needs to of been an original. This original probably started of in a state of flux where all possible outcomes were potentially possible, and after the first was chosen the next became determined and this caused a chain. However that doesn't mean that in it's initial state it wasn't random and could of taken any form from the potential forms available.

Your trying to mask the fact that science hasn't made any suggestions on what the first cause may be. Everything after the first moment of time is obviously contingent and determined from the previous moment that took place before.

But for there to be a state at which everything disolves then there must of been a period where everything exists was in a total state of randomness or else we would need an endless string of events, which is impossible.

I've never heard any scientific evidence to support either of those ideas. Neither of those necessarily need to be assumed, and in general science doesn't concern itself with unfalsifiable hypotheses like that.

I never said that there were scientific theories and studies that set out to prove of disprove either of those suspositions with evidence to show. But unless your willing to see outside of what a scientific study aims to say and what it does in fact say, then you'll never be able to think for youself at all.

For science to be the total truth it requires and endless chain of events where one always leads onto another. That concept is physically impossible and you all seem to be ignoring that fact as much as a Christian ignore carbon dating.

Or that the universe is cyclic... or that the universe was created as a natural response to another stimulus...

Generalisations are hard to maintain in the face of actual research...

My opinion is that the universe is cyclical in nature, and no where in my text does is set out any concepts that refute that being a possibility.
However if you take a wheel, it still needs something to power it for it to turn.

P.S. I'm finding that both people on this thread that are using religious backing as a base for opinions and people who use science are as closed minded as each other. Only your both at opposite ends of the spectrum.

Balance is best.

For science to be the total truth it requires and endless chain of events where one always leads onto another. That concept is physically impossible and you all seem to be ignoring that fact as much as a Christian ignore carbon dating.

Bold assertion...

Care to explain WHY it would be 'impossible'?

My opinion is that the universe is cyclical in nature, and no where in my text does is set out anything concepts that refute that being the case.

However if you take a wheel, it still needs something to power it.

And yet, you speak of a 'beginning' of the universe? Where does the wheel 'begin'?

And, WHY would a wheel need power? Surely, it ONLY needs power if it is attempting to go somewhere? And it needs no ADDITIONAL power, UNLESS it meets some kind of resistence?

But not nearly as cool as the the Spaghetti Monster.

Spaghetti Monster must be taught in schools! In science classes!

Bow before the spaghetti monster! (http://www.venganza.org/index.htm)

I never said that there were scientific theories and studies that set out to prove of disprove either of those suspositions with evidence to show. But unless your willing to see outside of what a scientific study aims to say and what it does in fact say, then you'll never be able to think for youself at all.

For science to be the total truth it requires and endless chain of events where one always leads onto another. That concept is physically impossible and you all seem to be ignoring that fact as much as a Christian ignore carbon dating.

I'm not really sure what you mean about an endless chain of events, but science can never be a total truth and is not intended to be. It can only provide the best explanation given the evidence.

And yet, you speak of a 'beginning' of the universe? Where does the wheel 'begin'?

And, WHY would a wheel need power? Surely, it ONLY needs power if it is attempting to go somewhere? And it needs no ADDITIONAL power, UNLESS it meets some kind of resistence?

This is a basic susposition that is quite easily comprehended by children below the age of 10.

I will quote ST.Thomas Aquinas' explanation taken form the Aristotilean theory.

"The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is potentially to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, at that by another again. But this cannot go on in infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands God"

It's like if you had a tube full of tennis balls. If you put an extra ball in you get one that falls out the other end. You repeat this process indefinately.

Science is explaining how the balls move through the tube, but has no comprehension of how the balls get form one end to another.

We don't even know how particles get to the centre of a singularity such as a blackhole really. As at the centre of these phenomena, matter particles can not reach the event horizon because at the middle time does not apply. Only time is needed for that object to move.

If science was the total truth and could explain the Truth totally; then that would mean we live within a totally internally reactionary universe. Which would mean that if we traced the chain of events that take place thorughout and all the way back through time, eventually we would retrace our steps. But this isn't possible for reason's already set out.

It takes someone to throw a pebble in still water to create the ripples.

Forgive me for putting forward my impression of what the basics of
this discussion are.

Science people: Science is our best understanding of the universe.

God people: Science doesn't explain everything. It doesn't explain
where the universe came from before the big bang

Science people: We never said it did, the more we find out the more we realise there is so much more to learn about

God People: Religion does give the answer to where everything came from.

Science people: really? not just that god made it?

God people: God did make it and that explains everything, religion is much better than science.

Science People: Why do you think you have proof that God made it

God people: Well it couldn't come from nowhere could it?

Science people: But then where did God come from?

God people: He didn't have to come from anywhere he's god.

Science people: gosh well you've won that argument, excuse me while I just
remove all sharp objects and step outside for a bit.

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....

Falsehoods? We won't know that till were both dead. :confused:

It's like if you had a tube full of tennis balls. If you put an extra ball in you get one that falls out the other end. You repeat this process indefinately.

Science is explaining how the balls move through the tube, but has no comprehension of how the balls get form one end to another.

We don't even know how particles get to the centre of a singularity such as a blackhole really. As at the centre of these phenomena, matter particles can not reach the event horizon because at the middle time does not apply. Only time is needed for that object to move.

If science was the total truth and could explain the Truth totally; then that would mean we live within a totally internally reactionary universe. Which would mean that if we traced the chain of events that take place thorughout and all the way back through time, eventually we would retrace our steps. But this isn't possible for reason's already set out.

It takes someone to throw a pebble in still water to create the ripples.

So what exactly is missing from the theory of evolution?

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?

No. We're all well aware that when Adam and Eve ate the "apple" they became capable of rational thought. In the Judeo-Christian world view this is a bad thing because it means that you're thinking for yourself instead of letting other people do your thinking for you. I prefer the original Babylonian version where people complain about the anguish of being aware of the fact that they're going to die, but realize that life is all the richer for 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?

Churches are very much a part of the ID debate, because it is esentially an argument between science and religion. The only argument for the idea that ID is a theory here has essentially said that it's only a theory if by theory you're using coloquial uses of the word.

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

What about Pat Robertson and most of the Popes. :)

So what exactly is missing from the theory of evolution?

You have assumeed that just because I am not ignorant enough to forget about these problems with science, that this definately means I am an evangelist who doesn't support evolution as a consistent theory for natural processes we all adhere to.
I've never even read all the Bible.

The only problem with evolution as a theory is not within the theory itself. It is internally consistent. But externally it doesn't stand to reason.

An endless line of copies made from copies with no original; is a physical impossibility.

You have assumeed that just because I am not ignorant enough to forget about these problems with science, that this definately means I am an evangelist who doesn't support evolution as a consistent theory for natural processes we all adhere to.
I've never even read all the Bible.

The only problem with evolution as a theory is not within the theory itself. It is internally consistent. But externally it doesn't stand to reason.

An endless line of copies made from copies with no original; is a physical impossibility.

Yet still no evidence from the anti-evolution people... what problems with science? Science is self-correcting. It has made small mistakes in the past, but it clears those up.

You anti-evolution people never provide facts or evidence to prove that evolution doesn't stand to reason (that's false).

"The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is potentially to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, at that by another again. But this cannot go on in infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands [is?] God."
That is a fascinating argument, in line with the principle of cause and effect. Of course, his conclusion is that the universe is finite because there is a first mover; if the universe is eternal, then there was no first mover.

You have assumeed that just because I am not ignorant enough to forget about these problems with science, that this definately means I am an evangelist who doesn't support evolution as a consistent theory for natural processes we all adhere to.
I've never even read all the Bible.

The only problem with evolution as a theory is not within the theory itself. It is internally consistent. But externally it doesn't stand to reason.

An endless line of copies made from copies with no original; is a physical impossibility.

I didn't assume that at all...

The 'original' would be the formation of life itself, which is a different theory to evolution. Of course every branch of physical science originates at the big bang and therefore science can't explain everything. I don't see why this is any problem towards science as an explanation of the universe though, why should we be able to explain everything?

I never said that there were scientific theories and studies that set out to prove of disprove either of those suspositions with evidence to show. But unless your willing to see outside of what a scientific study aims to say and what it does in fact say, then you'll never be able to think for youself at all.

For science to be the total truth it requires and endless chain of events where one always leads onto another. That concept is physically impossible and you all seem to be ignoring that fact as much as a Christian ignore carbon dating.
I don't think we ever know what is impossible. And anyway, I never said that "science was the total truth". Those words are entirely meaningless. Science isn't metaphysics. Some people base their metaphysics on science, but science itself is a tool. You examine evidence, you form hypotheses, and you do as much as you can to test it by trying to falsify it. It's not a perfect system, but it has been very successful for human beings. Metaphysics is your own business. The theory of evolution was a huge leap forward in our understanding of biology, which is currently reaping all kinds of rewards right now. What can we possibly benefit from learning the theory of intelligent design in a science class? The last time that biologists believed that, they believed that sick people should be bled with leeches. I don't think science needs to be the end all and be all of our view of existence. Everyone has to make those kinds of decisions on their own.

Falsehoods? We won't know that till were both dead. :confused:

If in fact the athiests are right and there is nothing after death, then how would you know?

This is a basic susposition that is quite easily comprehended by children below the age of 10.


Strange, isn't it... how one person can feel justified in such a partonising comment?

What about electricity? Strange leap in logic, I know... and yet, it is easily and intuitively understood by even a young child... and yet, it doesn't do what we 'think' it should. It seems obvious that, if electricity flows from left to right, in a material, then something physical about the material must be similarly moving from right to left... at a sub-atomic scale.

And yet, counter to intuitive reckoning, the 'material' change, is RIGHT to LEFT...

'Basic Suppositions' are not necessarily as 'basic' or 'intuitive' as you might think.


I will quote ST.Thomas Aquinas' explanation taken form the Aristotilean theory.


"The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is potentially to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, at that by another again. But this cannot go on in infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands God"
[/QUOTE]

And, while he was (no doubt) incredibly wise.. he was ALSO working from a presupposed position (i.e. he already 'knew' that 'god' was the motivator), which lends subjectivity to his thinking... AND he was wrong. It is clearly not logical (knowing what we know know) to suppose that there is any EMPIRICAL 'hot' or 'cold' state. It is obvious, even to the grade-school student, that a 60 degree reaction could be 'more hot' if it were a 90 degree reaction, no? Such would mean that, even 'hot' things have a potential to get hot... do you not agree?


It's like if you had a tube full of tennis balls. If you put an extra ball in you get one that falls out the other end. You repeat this process indefinately.

Science is explaining how the balls move through the tube, but has no comprehension of how the balls get form one end to another.

We don't even know how particles get to the centre of a singularity such as a blackhole really. As at the centre of these phenomena, matter particles can not reach the event horizon because at the middle time does not apply. Only time is needed for that object to move.

If science was the total truth and could explain the Truth totally; then that would mean we live within a totally internally reactionary universe. Which would mean that if we traced the chain of events that take place thorughout and all the way back through time, eventually we would retrace our steps. But this isn't possible for reason's already set out.


Science doesn't claim to trade in 'Truth'.

And, I still see no reason to justify your constant claims of 'impossibility'.

By his very definition, 'god' would be impossible, no?


It takes someone to throw a pebble in still water to create the ripples.

No. No, it doesn't. It really doesn't.

An endless line of copies made from copies with no original; is a physical impossibility.

Again, with the impossibility....

I do not think it means what you think it means.

If the first 'entity' is self-copied through a 'perfect' mechanism, then an endless line is, not only possible, but certain... UNLESS you provide some external stimulus to halt it.

It should be listed as hogwash. There are mountains of proof for evolution and if you wait a few years, I'll write a book.


We have hands because it would be much harder for us to live, so over time...many living things developed hands.

That is a fascinating argument, in line with the principle of cause and effect. Of course, his conclusion is that the universe is finite because there is a first mover; if the universe is eternal, then there was no first mover.

That's exactly what I used to think. But then I realised that the Universe can't be eternal at all. We already know it has a beginning. A point where that which we judge as 'time' began. Just because it's a possibility that 'the end', as it were, is like a loose-end that keeps stretching out further, forever more, to what ever eventualities that may bring. Doesn't mean that the starting point doesn't need a cause external to that process that took place afterwards.
So in that sense it's never ending, but it's not eternal as time is only measurable and definable internally through observations of how different objects such as light particles behave in relation to one another. If something is truly eternal then it is only definable as being so from existing external to that system/universe's contingency where time is something that effects objects.

Strange, isn't it... how one person can feel justified in such a partonising comment?

You have my sincerest apologies.

What about electricity? Strange leap in logic, I know... and yet, it is easily and intuitively understood by even a young child... and yet, it doesn't do what we 'think' it should. It seems obvious that, if electricity flows from left to right, in a material, then something physical about the material must be similarly moving from right to left... at a sub-atomic scale.

And yet, counter to intuitive reckoning, the 'material' change, is RIGHT to LEFT...

'Basic Suppositions' are not necessarily as 'basic' or 'intuitive' as you might think.

Ummm, but what your saying is simply that because 'the motion of electric currents defies our original supposition of how we thought it would move in relation to the sub-atomic particles in an object'; that this also means it isn't in need of a catalyst for movement originally.

I don't think that's refuting what I'm saying and if you point is simply 'how we percieve things at first is not necessarily how they turn out', then I agree. Only it still doesn't explain to me how things don't need to be set in motion by an external force first.

And, while he was (no doubt) incredibly wise.. he was ALSO working from a presupposed position (i.e. he already 'knew' that 'god' was the motivator), which lends subjectivity to his thinking... AND he was wrong. It is clearly not logical (knowing what we know know) to suppose that there is any EMPIRICAL 'hot' or 'cold' state. It is obvious, even to the grade-school student, that a 60 degree reaction could be 'more hot' if it were a 90 degree reaction, no? Such would mean that, even 'hot' things have a potential to get hot... do you not agree?

While I respect your points that St.Thomas Aquinas understandings of thermodynamics at this time was not exactly aiding his contemplations, it doesn't refute the basics of what he's saying.

Yes, something can be potentially hotter, but not just spontaneously. Thermodynamic demands that this energy increase must be accounted for, and can be. It's still means there is a contingent chain of events.


Again, with the impossibility....

I do not think it means what you think it means.

If the first 'entity' is self-copied through a 'perfect' mechanism, then an endless line is, not only possible, but certain... UNLESS you provide some external stimulus to halt it.

All I see is a car conveyer belt without anyone to design the prototype.

All I see is a car conveyer belt without anyone to design the prototype.

But that description fits a deity as well. Religion and science can never explain the very first event. This is a philosophical puzzle, but doesn't mean that scientific theories fail to explain the natural world.

But that description fits a deity as well. Religion and science can never explain the very first event. This is a philosophical puzzle, but doesn't mean that scientific theories fail to explain the natural world.


I'm not trying to make you think that science doesn't explain the natural world, I don't think that. Science is a perfect aid to deduce where contingency lays, to a certain point.

And I must add that I don't beleiev in any deities that any religion has to offer. I am totally open to whatever may lay beyond that frontier, and I don't think that should we cross it that science won't be needed. But if science can get across that Einstein-Rosen Bridge it will never acheive it by never trying to build it.

It's possible that it is just the end of the puzzle.... or the beginning rather, and whats beyond isn't suppsoe to make sense at all. But we won't know if we don't atleast try to reason with it, instead of creating dogma around the subject simply due to the majority who discuss it don't have undertsandings that are actually contingent to how it may of been caused.

Alienating this subject from classrooms may alienate some kids with a belief in a diety from science itself. I don't think that really helps anyone.

Alienating this subject from classrooms may alienate some kids with a belief in a diety from science itself. I don't think that really helps anyone.

The subject isn't being 'alienated' from classrooms, it IS alien to science classrooms, since it is NOT science.

Perhaps it doesn't 'help', to remove ID from classrooms of science, but it seems to me, it does less harm that TEACHING children 'god' in science-class.

At least, if you teach Christianity (or whatever) in Religion classes, and Evolution in Science classes, you allow the pupil to make their OWN decisions about matters of PERSONAL faith.

That's exactly what I used to think. But then I realised that the Universe can't be eternal at all. We already know it has a beginning.


No. We don't know it has a beginning. All we KNOW is that the Universe seems to have been around a while. Anything else is speculation.

Admittedly, some of that speculation has better 'evidence' behind it... but still, we KNOW nothing about the 'oriigins' of the Universe.


You have my sincerest apologies.


I thank you for that.


Ummm, but what your saying is simply that because 'the motion of electric currents defies our original supposition of how we thought it would move in relation to the sub-atomic particles in an object'; that this also means it isn't in need of a catalyst for movement originally.

I don't think that's refuting what I'm saying and if you point is simply 'how we percieve things at first is not necessarily how they turn out', then I agree. Only it still doesn't explain to me how things don't need to be set in motion by an external force first.


It depends on your definition of 'external' force.

What if the 'external force' that caused the spontaneous creation of our Universe, was the REACTION to the collapse of the previous incarnation of our Universe?


While I respect your points that St.Thomas Aquinas understandings of thermodynamics at this time was not exactly aiding his contemplations, it doesn't refute the basics of what he's saying.

Yes, something can be potentially hotter, but not just spontaneously. Thermodynamic demands that this energy increase must be accounted for, and can be. It's still means there is a contingent chain of events.


But you are drawing arbitrary restrictions around what constitutes a 'contingent chain of events', and declaring that MUST be true (because all else is 'impossible')... and backing it up with the writings of a guy who couldn't pass a thermodynamics module in today's science classroom.


All I see is a car conveyer belt without anyone to design the prototype.

And, because YOU can't work out how it works otherwise, that doesn't mean the 'intelligent design' is the answer.

Sorry, my friend, but you think in such three-dimensional terms.

The subject isn't being 'alienated' from classrooms, it IS alien to science classrooms, since it is NOT science.

Perhaps it doesn't 'help', to remove ID from classrooms of science, but it seems to me, it does less harm that TEACHING children 'god' in science-class.

At least, if you teach Christianity (or whatever) in Religion classes, and Evolution in Science classes, you allow the pupil to make their OWN decisions about matters of PERSONAL faith.

I'm not expecting that the Gospel be taught in classrooms, and I would never want anything other than scientific theories that have stood up to some scrutany.
But should a series of tests arise that is concluded to support 'Intelligent Design' as a plausible theory, then it can be taught in a classroom if you ask me. Not to let them teach such a theory simply for what it implies would be bias, but in the same respect if it was taught simply because of what it does imply (irrelevant of any scientific study), then that is bias aswell.

I'm not expecting that the Gospel be taught in classrooms, and I would never want anything other than scientific theories that have stood up to some scrutany.
But should a series of tests arise that is concluded to support 'Intelligent Design' as a plausible theory, then it can be taught in a classroom if you ask me. Not to let them teach such a theory simply for what it implies would be bias, but in the same respect if it was taught simply because of what it does imply (irrelevant of any scientific study), then that is bias aswell.
Which has yet to be done.

Alienating this subject from classrooms may alienate some kids with a belief in a diety from science itself. I don't think that really helps anyone.

If someone is going to ignore scientific evidence because it doesn't explicitly reinforce their religious beliefs, then they have no place in science. They can take their business back to the dark ages. The people who invented science were christians and it didn't keep them from learning science.

Parents are there to teach you religion. Schools teach reading, science, math, history, etc.

That's exactly what I used to think. But then I realised that the Universe can't be eternal at all. We already know it has a beginning. A point where that which we judge as 'time' began. Just because it's a possibility that 'the end', as it were, is like a loose-end that keeps stretching out further, forever more, to what ever eventualities that may bring. Doesn't mean that the starting point doesn't need a cause external to that process that took place afterwards.
So in that sense it's never ending, but it's not eternal as time is only measurable and definable internally through observations of how different objects such as light particles behave in relation to one another. If something is truly eternal then it is only definable as being so from existing external to that system/universe's contingency where time is something that effects objects.
I'm sorry, I don't undestand at all by what reasoning you think we know the universe had a beginning.

And, because YOU can't work out how it works otherwise, that doesn't mean the 'intelligent design' is the answer.

Sorry, my friend, but you think in such three-dimensional terms.


Ok, no one has ever figured it out to my knowledge, and you still presume that 'Intelligent Design' is the position I take just because I'm not blanking it out form a carriculum simply because of what it suggest. Regardless of any scientific study.

And it's funny because I just thinking your the one that can't think out of the box to anything beyond that which hasn't had a textbook written about it.

I'm not expecting that the Gospel be taught in classrooms, and I would never want anything other than scientific theories that have stood up to some scrutany.
But should a series of tests arise that is concluded to support 'Intelligent Design' as a plausible theory, then it can be taught in a classroom if you ask me. Not to let them teach such a theory simply for what it implies would be bias, but in the same respect if it was taught simply because of what it does imply (irrelevant of any scientific study), then that is bias aswell.

The ONLY restriction that SHOULD apply, on what can be taught in classrooms, SHOULD be: IS IT SCIENCE?

In order to qualify as science, it has to conform to scientific methodology.

It must be falsifiable... and that means ALL elements must be falsifiable. Anything that relies on an immesurable entity must, therefore, FAIL to be science.

So - ANY form of Intelligent Design, that relies on an entity that can exist outside of space/time limitations (be it god, goblin, ghost or green-man) FAILS to qualify as 'scientific'... and has NO place in our classrooms.

Ok, no one has ever figured it out to my knowledge, and you still presume that 'Intelligent Design' is the position I take just because I'm simply blanking it out form a carriculum simply because of what it suggest. Regardless of any scientific study.

And it's funny because I just thinking your the one that can't think out of the box to anything beyond that which hasn't a textbook written about it.

There IS no 'scientific' study on Intelligent Design... there CAN NOT BE any... it fails the most basic scientific requirements.

You think I can't think outside the box? Your opinion, my friend... and welcome to it.

(Believe it or not, I didn't arrive at my current perspective through a textbook... THIS qualification I acheived at the school of hard knocks).

I'm sorry, I don't undestand at all by what reasoning you think we know the universe had a beginning.

Agreed.

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.

It should be listed as a hypothesis, since theories need some degree of evidence behind them.

All I see is a car conveyer belt without anyone to design the prototype.
I originally had a much more involved response. But there's no need. This is what it all comes down to. The classic argument from incredulity. "I'm cursed with a poverty of imagination, so it must not be so. Emperical observation be damned." Is there magic in a full house? The winning lotto ticket? Betting in preseason which team will win the superbowl and being right? No one person makes a car conveyer (random choice btw), it's a community effort, each individual responding to the immediate needs as they observe and understand them. There's some poor bastard designing one of the kinds of bearings, then there's the bastards designing the process and procession of machines that produce them, and the poor bastards who make the bearings, and quality control, and the people who build and sell the machines for quality control. Sales, marketing, trade magazines, assholes filling those with content no one reads, human resources, building contrators, janitors, accountains, OSHA, IRS, aldermen. Then the people evaluating the bearings, purchasing, installing, maintaining. Some of them may know something about some of the bearings in the conveyer, but no one having anything to do with the conveyer KNOWS the whole story. Or even cares. And yet, they can all cooperate to make it with out any intent to realize the final specific vision (which may have to undergo a series of revisions as problems develope). In the end, the car conveyer is a very simple device produced by an extremely complicated and diffuse community of individuals, who didn't know exactly what the whole was doing.
Alienating this subject from classrooms may alienate some kids with a belief in a diety from science itself. I don't think that really helps anyone.
The same kids that will grow up to pray for a better microchip to be delivered, are the same ones that leave their homework out and pray that they'll wake up with it done. To similar effect. They quit on science before it quit on them. A shame, because it's a wonderous birthright. We've inherited a world where a child can know the story of the universe in rough detail from the first 10-43 of a second to 10^67th years, where they can know that nearly exactly between biggest and smallest they are. But better forsake that, if we delude ourselves, we can make faith less challenging. In which case, is that even faith at all? Or perhaps ignorance, being bliss, is its own reward.

I just think it's a religious twist on a scientific theory. It has happened for most all theories. I say, "The earth revolves around the sun, not vise-versa":They say,"Well God wanted it that way." It's always happened.

I just think it's a religious twist on a scientific theory. It has happened for most all theories. I say, "The earth revolves around the sun, not vise-versa":They say,"Well God wanted it that way." It's always happened.

Actually, you say "the earth revolves around the sun", and they kill you. And, when enoguh voices start saying it, they stop killing you, and torture or imprison you, instead. And when a few more voices join in, they grudgingly 'allow' it, although they still argue against it. And when enough voices join in, they pretend there was never a fuss... it's not a big deal, right?

Then... after everyone has forgotten the dead, and the blood... they say 'Well, God wanted it that way".... thus completing the cycle by CLAIMING the prize they killed for, before.

Nataljans,

I get what you're saying. What does the universe think about? If we think of the universe as a giant computer, what is it computing, and what's the result? I suppose the universe would be thinking about itself, when and how it's going to die, or perhaps another universe in the ekpyrotic model. I imagine googling for Universe + computer or "universe as a computer" would turn up far more interesting and involved meditations.

I just think it's a religious twist on a scientific theory. It has happened for most all theories. I say, "The earth revolves around the sun, not vise-versa":They say,"Well God wanted it that way." It's always happened.

And that's fine and dandy if religious folks want to adapt to changing scientific theories and laws and keep up with reality. However, that doesn't make their addition of "God wanted it that way" into real science just because its tacked onto the end of true theory.

Testable and falsifiable people. . .those are what make a hypothesis scientific. God, by his/her/it's very nature is UNTESTABLE and UNFALSIFIABLE since the idea of god means that he/she/it could interefere with the results of an experiement to make it appear that he/she/it does not exist!

Nataljans,

I get what you're saying. What does the universe think about? If we think of the universe as a giant computer, what is it computing, and what's the result? I suppose the universe would be thinking about itself, when and how it's going to die, or perhaps another universe in the ekpyrotic model. I imagine googling for Universe + computer or "universe as a computer" would turn up far more interesting and involved meditations.

Probably on The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. . .at least that's what sprang to my mind.

And that's fine and dandy if religious folks want to adapt to changing scientific theories and laws and keep up with reality. However, that doesn't make their addition of "God wanted it that way" into real science just because its tacked onto the end of true theory.

Testable and falsifiable people. . .those are what make a hypothesis scientific. God, by his/her/it's very nature is UNTESTABLE and UNFALSIFIABLE since the idea of god means that he/she/it could interefere with the results of an experiement to make it appear that he/she/it does not exist!

Exactly true, I agree if you didn't pick up on that ;)

Actually, you say "the earth revolves around the sun", and they kill you. And, when enoguh voices start saying it, they stop killing you, and torture or imprison you, instead. And when a few more voices join in, they grudgingly 'allow' it, although they still argue against it. And when enough voices join in, they pretend there was never a fuss... it's not a big deal, right?

Then... after everyone has forgotten the dead, and the blood... they say 'Well, God wanted it that way".... thus completing the cycle by CLAIMING the prize they killed for, before.
"...Turned the stone and looked beneath it
'Peace on Earth', was all it said"

The pursuit of scientific understanding never sets out to counter religion.
Lots of scientists are and lots of the historical greats have been religious.

What science does is much more dangerous to religion than being against it.

Science as opposed to scientists, doesn't take religion into account at all.

Science is based on evidence, observation and experiments to test hypotheses. Religion can add nothing to it.

Nothing is more damaging to religion than it being irrelevant and ignored.

Long may that be its fate.

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....

Darwinism isn't backed up, do you support removing it from science classes?

To dismiss something because you don't understand it isn't very scientific. Science is not about finding truth only if it fits your naturalistic viewpoint. Science is about finding truth in any form it may take. There is no scientific evidence that says ID is a falsehood, only your uninformed speculation which...isn't backed up so let's hope it won't be taught in science classes.

Darwinism isn't backed up, do you support removing it from science classes?

To dismiss something because you don't understand it isn't very scientific. Science is not about finding truth only if it fits your naturalistic viewpoint. Science is about finding truth in any form it may take. There is no scientific evidence that says ID is a falsehood, only your uninformed speculation which...isn't backed up so let's hope it won't be taught in science classes.

It's been dealt with before in detail but to summarise

The fact of evolution has plenty of good solid evidence to back it up.

ID doesn't

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.

Kinda like the beginning of the universe? You cannot get matter from nothing. It cannot be proven that you can in any case or form and therefor contradicts the definition of a scientific theory. Because it contradicts the scientific process, it is inherently in opposition... you get the idea?

When you were a kid, did you ever stand out on the curb in the summertime, eating a frozen push-up from the ice cream man when all of a sudden a planet appeared next to your head? Me neither.

Darwinism isn't backed up, do you support removing it from science classes?

To dismiss something because you don't understand it isn't very scientific. Science is not about finding truth only if it fits your naturalistic viewpoint. Science is about finding truth in any form it may take. There is no scientific evidence that says ID is a falsehood, only your uninformed speculation which...isn't backed up so let's hope it won't be taught in science classes.

Utter rubbish, I'm afraid.

" There is no scientific evidence that says ID is a falsehood"... the comment itself is an ridiculous... since Intelligent Design REQUIRES an entity that cannot be falsified, so ANY evidence about ID MUST be non-scientific.

We don't teach things in science classes based on "there is no evidence against"...

Unless you think we should ALSO teach Santa Claus in science class, and Fairies, Goblins, Ghosts, the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, Chupacabra, the existence of Brittany Spear's personality....

Nor are there any such things as items that are 'irreducably complex'.

sure there are. Flagellum is one.

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.

Which theories have been tested that support the origin of life? Which theories have been tested that explain what caused the big bang. How are they testing such theories? Matter did not spring from nothing on its own. It can't. It never happens and no scientist can say it does. Life did not spring from lifeless matter on its own. It never happens and no scientist can say it does. All these theories about what can and can't be tested ignore THE BEGINNING. Darwin has not stood the test of time. His form of evolution is debunked and has been for several years.

Kinda like the beginning of the universe? You cannot get matter from nothing. It cannot be proven that you can in any case or form and therefor contradicts the definition of a scientific theory. Because it contradicts the scientific process, it is inherently in opposition... you get the idea?

When you were a kid, did you ever stand out on the curb in the summertime, eating a frozen push-up from the ice cream man when all of a sudden a planet appeared next to your head? Me neither.


Surely you see the problem is that ascribing a creator does not answer
any questions at all, I seriously suggest that if you wish to put forward
any hypotheses that has a creator you first prove the existence of such a being.

Until then stay schtum while science continues to roll back the boundaries
between what we know and what we think is unknowable as saying
some god did it contributes nothing and has been used time and time
again to cover the areas that we didn't have a reasonable understanding
of at the time.
Put god there if you like but looking for places that science hasn't yet reached to plant the god flag has historically only damaged religion as
those gaps have had a tendency to be filled in and god/s have never
been part of the answer.

sure there are. Flagellum is one.


http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html


The assertion that cellular machines are irreducibly complex, and therefore provide proof of design, has not gone unnoticed by the scientific community. A number of detailed rebuttals have appeared in the literature, and many have pointed out the poor reasoning of recasting the classic argument from design in the modern language of biochemistry (Coyne 1996; Miller 1996; Depew 1998; Thornhill and Ussery 2000). I have suggested elsewhere that the scientific literature contains counter-examples to any assertion that evolution cannot explain biochemical complexity (Miller 1999, 147), and other workers have addressed the issue of how evolutionary mechanisms allow biological systems to increase in information content (Schneider 2000; Adami, Ofria, and Collier 2000).

The most powerful rebuttals to the flagellum story, however, have not come from direct attempts to answer the critics of evolution. Rather, they have emerged from the steady progress of scientific work on the genes and proteins associated with the flagellum and other cellular structures. Such studies have now established that the entire premise by which this molecular machine has been advanced as an argument against evolution is wrong – the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex

sure there are. Flagellum is one.

Not proved to be irreducibly complex - let me direct you to a source.

Research is your friend.

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html#bactflag

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.

If you're using science to study it, it is science. ID is not a theory that says "well you havn't proven this so have faith". That is not what ID is. ID uses physics, cosmology, paleontology, biology, astronomy, microbiology, and and other discipliines of science to find the truth no differently than any other science.

It's been dealt with before in detail but to summarise

The fact of evolution has plenty of good solid evidence to back it up.

ID doesn't


Sure it does, you're just not looking. Maybe you don't really understand what ID means

Utter rubbish, I'm afraid.

" There is no scientific evidence that says ID is a falsehood"... the comment itself is an ridiculous... since Intelligent Design REQUIRES an entity that cannot be falsified, so ANY evidence about ID MUST be non-scientific.

We don't teach things in science classes based on "there is no evidence against"...

Unless you think we should ALSO teach Santa Claus in science class, and Fairies, Goblins, Ghosts, the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, Chupacabra, the existence of Brittany Spear's personality....

you're saying that because ID requires an entity that cannot be falsified can't be science. How can you falsify the premise that everything in the universe sprang from nothing? How can you falsify dead matter sprang life? You can't. Therefor are these subjects restricted from science?

Sure it does, you're just not looking. Maybe you don't really understand what ID means


Most people would consider posting some of the evidence in these
circumstances.

But you are quite right, I don't understand ID.
It explains nothing, contributes nothing and helps our understanding
of the universe in no way at all.
Quite apart from there being no basis to believe it and it being
untestable.

If you're using science to study it, it is science. ID is not a theory that says "well you havn't proven this so have faith". That is not what ID is. ID uses physics, cosmology, paleontology, biology, astronomy, microbiology, and and other discipliines of science to find the truth no differently than any other science.


So if science is used to study a hamburger then the hamburger itself is science?

Presumably a course at the McDonalds university.

The only thing more ridiculous than ID is the fact that they're trying to make it mandatory in schools. George Bush's own staff have agreed that there is not nearly enough evidence to support ID to consider it a plausible theory yet. The ID proponents argue that it must be true because there are no fossils of the earliest creatures. Well I'll be damned if there was ever a single-celled organism or soft-bodied creature (the earliest organisms after single-celled organisms) which left behind fossils. Bush says that we should teach it in schools because students need to see all sides of the spectrum. That's odd. I don't see paganism or satanism in the curriculums.

An endless line of copies made from copies with no original; is a physical impossibility.

Of course, evolutionary theory doesn't claim any such thing. It doesn't explain where the original came from, but it is certainly there.

So if science is used to study a hamburger then the hamburger itself is science?

Presumably a course at the McDonalds university.

If the hamburger were something unknown, if there were unfound truths about a hamburger that needed to be found, yes, using science to answer those questions would make it a science. Not the hamburger itself. It is the object of the science. Just like a planet is not science or your anatomy is not science.

That's exactly what I used to think. But then I realised that the Universe can't be eternal at all. We already know it has a beginning. A point where that which we judge as 'time' began.

You are making assumptions here that cannot be seen as absolute. "Time" is a human concept. We perceive everything as having a beginning and an end because of our percetption of time. However, our perception is not perfect. Thus, while may think that the universe has a beginning, we cannot know that it does.

Well I'll be damned if there was ever a single-celled organism or soft-bodied creature (the earliest organisms after single-celled organisms) which left behind fossils.

And yet with this total absence of proof, you believe this to be true? What evidence do you have that the earliest organism after the single-celled organism was a soft-bodied creature?





Bush says that we should teach it in schools because students need to see all sides of the spectrum. That's odd. I don't see paganism or satanism in the curriculums.

Why? You're not seeing Christianity in the curriculums either. What relevance has this got on the subject? ID is not Christitanity. There are Jewish AND agnostic scientists who also support ID.

If this Intelligent Designer is so intelligent, why did he put our breathing hole next to our feeding hole? Why did he put our excreting hole next to our reproducing hole?

There is no evidence of any intelligence at work, in fact it would appear quite the opposite.

In mammals, for instance, the recurrent laryngeal nerve does not go directly from the cranium to the larynx, the way any competent engineer would have arranged it. Instead, it extends down the neck to the chest, loops around a lung ligament and then runs back up the neck to the larynx. In a giraffe, that means a 20-foot length of nerve where 1 foot would have done. If this is evidence of design, it would seem to be of the unintelligent variety.

If this Intelligent Designer is so intelligent, why did he put our breathing hole next to our feeding hole? Why did he put our excreting hole next to our reproducing hole?

There is no evidence of any intelligence at work, in fact it would appear quite the opposite.

In mammals, for instance, the recurrent laryngeal nerve does not go directly from the cranium to the larynx, the way any competent engineer would have arranged it. Instead, it extends down the neck to the chest, loops around a lung ligament and then runs back up the neck to the larynx. In a giraffe, that means a 20-foot length of nerve where 1 foot would have done. If this is evidence of design, it would seem to be of the unintelligent variety.

And just look at the really stupid way the blood carries oxygen and nutrients from the stomach and lungs to every part of the body that requires it.
An automobile has many things you could improve on. Yet we know they are designed by an intelligence. When a competent engineer creates a human being, let me know.

Darwinism isn't backed up, do you support removing it from science classes?

To dismiss something because you don't understand it isn't very scientific. Science is not about finding truth only if it fits your naturalistic viewpoint. Science is about finding truth in any form it may take. There is no scientific evidence that says ID is a falsehood, only your uninformed speculation which...isn't backed up so let's hope it won't be taught in science classes.

Nonsense. Evolution very much is backed up.

http://www.talkorigins.org

For one thing, intelligent design is a bunch of nonsense that isn't science. It could belong in a religion class but I don't support public schools even having them. There is plenty of evidence that counters intelligent design and the suggestions it makes. My statements are not uninformed, nor are they speculation at all. Evolution has an overwhelming amount of evidence to it, and intelligent design has ZERO evidence. In fact many of the statements that intelligent design advocates make are false.

Intelligent design does not use any of the sciences, but rather makes false statements that are based on lies. This is exactly why it should be kept out of the public school system. We cannot allow this crap into the system.

you're saying that because ID requires an entity that cannot be falsified can't be science. How can you falsify the premise that everything in the universe sprang from nothing? How can you falsify dead matter sprang life? You can't. Therefor are these subjects restricted from science?

Neither "everything in the universe sprang from nothing," nor "dead matter sprang life," are scientific premises or theories.

Now, if you can demonstrate a process by which one of these things might have happened, then you can take part in scientific discussions of them.

Why? You're not seeing Christianity in the curriculums either. What relevance has this got on the subject? ID is not Christitanity. There are Jewish AND agnostic scientists who also support ID.

ID is religion - plain and simiple. It is completely based on an unfalsifiable premise that some creator outside the rules of the universe created certain aspects of life.

Meanwhile, there are no scientists who support ID in their capacity as scientists, any more than there are lawyers who rob banks in their capacity as lawyers.

And just look at the really stupid way the blood carries oxygen and nutrients from the stomach and lungs to every part of the body that requires it.
An automobile has many things you could improve on. Yet we know they are designed by an intelligence. When a competent engineer creates a human being, let me know.

Is this supposed to be ironic? If so, it doesn't work.

you're saying that because ID requires an entity that cannot be falsified can't be science. How can you falsify the premise that everything in the universe sprang from nothing? How can you falsify dead matter sprang life? You can't. Therefor are these subjects restricted from science?

Yes.

Neither of those matters are covered by science.

Our science suggests our universe has a common origin, and may SPECULATE about what happened before that origin... but the 'science' starts with the Bang.

Similarly - science says nothing about 'dead matter springing life'... in fact, science doesn't really even know where to draw the line for life...

you're saying that because ID requires an entity that cannot be falsified can't be science. How can you falsify the premise that everything in the universe sprang from nothing? How can you falsify dead matter sprang life? You can't. Therefor are these subjects restricted from science?

How many times does it have to be explained that the theory of evolution doesn't tell us where life came from. Biology is the study of life, that is it.

If you want to challenge the teaching of abiogenesis (the idea that life sprang from non-living material) in public schools, be my guest. If schools are teaching that as fact, they aren't doing their job as it is a hypothesis and that's it. It may be that one day we will have a chance to test it, and then we might have the evidence to prove it.

If you want the idea of a creator to enter the realm of science, find scientific evidence for it. As it is, just call it your faith, let your kids learn science and teach them what to believe about creators at home. If that's not enough, there is this institution that has weekly meetings where they will teach your kids about god. I hear it's free, although all donations are appreciated.

Which theories have been tested that support the origin of life?
That's abiogenesis, not evolution.

Which theories have been tested that explain what caused the big bang.
That's cosmology, not evolution.

Matter did not spring from nothing on its own. It can't. It never happens
and your proof of this claim is?

and no scientist can say it does.
Well, at least you got one thing correct, scientists say it may and in the case of quantum fluctuations, they say it appears to. Not until they understand that it does and how it does would they say that.

Life did not spring from lifeless matter on its own. It never happens
and your proof of this claim is?

and no scientist can say it does.
Do I really need to repeat myself?

Although, it was shown long ago that proto-life structures can occur from hypothesized early earth environments (Uri-Meyer experiment, etc) so, there is a basis for scientists saying it may happen and their starting to figure out how.

All these theories about what can and can't be tested ignore THE BEGINNING.
Beginning of what or is "THE BEGINNING" something special and different from other beginnings?

Darwin has not stood the test of time. His form of evolution is debunked and has been for several years.
Hmmm, not any time in the last 150 or so years (you know, since he proposed it.) It's been modified and refined with new information but, that's how science works. Same way Newton's physics gave way to Einstein's, more detail yields a better picture and more accuracy. To paraphrase one of those famous quotes "Reports of the debunking of evolutionary theory are greatly exagerated."

Perhaps you should do some study time before posting since you apparently don't know what you're talking about. (BTW places like ICR and Patriot U are not useful for the study of evolution, they lack veracity and integrity.)

Neither "everything in the universe sprang from nothing," nor "dead matter sprang life," are scientific premises or theories.

They most certainly are. And scientists are trying their best to prove it. They just can't do it.

Now, if you can demonstrate a process by which one of these things might have happened, then you can take part in scientific discussions of them.

I believe i can take part in any discussion I please, but thanks for the invitation.



ID is religion - plain and simiple. It is completely based on an unfalsifiable premise that some creator outside the rules of the universe created certain aspects of life.

No its scientific study attempting to answer questions that science so far has been unable to. Both life and the universe have to have a beginning. ID is an attempt to find that beginning using many different disciplines of science and is done by many scientists (IN THEIR CAPACITY AS A SCIENTIST) from all sorts of backgrounds, educations, faiths/non-faiths and scientific disciplines.


Meanwhile, there are no scientists who support ID in their capacity as scientists, any more than there are lawyers who rob banks in their capacity as lawyers.

You are mistaken.

Is this supposed to be ironic? If so, it doesn't work.

no, not really. Not ironic, but sarcastic. Your statement was the human body couldn't have been designed by intelligence because it wasn't designed the way an engineer would do it. Ludicrous.

No its scientific study attempting to answer questions that science so far has been unable to. Both life and the universe have to have a beginning. ID is an attempt to find that beginning using many different disciplines of science and is done by many scientists (IN THEIR CAPACITY AS A SCIENTIST) from all sorts of backgrounds, educations, faiths/non-faiths and scientific disciplines.


You are sorely mistaken. ID is something made up by christians in this country in an attempt to salvage what is left of their creationist beliefs... so that they can put it in the school system brainwashing kids with their lies. ID is not supported by any scientists and in fact is only done by religious fundamentalists.

How many times does it have to be explained that the theory of evolution doesn't tell us where life came from. Biology is the study of life, that is it.

Is evolution the only science these days? So biology is the study of life, so what? I didnt' even mention evolution. The origin of life (in whatever discipline is trying to find it) can't be falsified. So I guess any mention of it should be removed from text books and prohibited in science classes.

If you want to challenge the teaching of abiogenesis (the idea that life sprang from non-living material) in public schools, be my guest. If schools are teaching that as fact, they aren't doing their job as it is a hypothesis and that's it. It may be that one day we will have a chance to test it, and then we might have the evidence to prove it.

If you want the idea of a creator to enter the realm of science, find scientific evidence for it. As it is, just call it your faith, let your kids learn science and teach them what to believe about creators at home. If that's not enough, there is this institution that has weekly meetings where they will teach your kids about god. I hear it's free, although all donations are appreciated.

That's what ID is attempting to do, find scientific evidence for it.

That's abiogenesis, not evolution.


That's cosmology, not evolution.

I didn't say they were evolution. I'm talking about science, not evolution. You're aware they're not synonomous aren't you?

and your proof of this claim is?

It is every bit as unfalsifiable as God.


Well, at least you got one thing correct, scientists say it may and in the case of quantum fluctuations, they say it appears to. Not until they understand that it does and how it does would they say that.

And deciding ID is false, when science hasn't a clue to what is and isn't true on the subject is scientific how?


and your proof of this claim is?

Do I really have to repeat myself?


Do I really need to repeat myself?

Although, it was shown long ago that proto-life structures can occur from hypothesized early earth environments (Uri-Meyer experiment, etc) so, there is a basis for scientists saying it may happen and their starting to figure out how.


Beginning of what or is "THE BEGINNING" something special and different from other beginnings?

Beginning as in the beginning of the universe and the beginning of life. What have we been talking about here?

You are sorely mistaken. ID is something made up by christians in this country in an attempt to salvage what is left of their creationist beliefs... so that they can put it in the school system brainwashing kids with their lies. ID is not supported by any scientists and in fact is only done by religious fundamentalists.

you are very closeminded and wrong. ID wasn't "made up" by Christians. It was theorized by scientists of many backgrounds and faiths AND non-faiths. Your brainwashing statement is just plain ignorant.

you are very closeminded and wrong. ID wasn't "made up" by Christians. It was theorized by scientists of many backgrounds and faiths AND non-faiths. Your brainwashing statement is just plain ignorant.
All of whom happen to be christians. Ever take an evolutionary biology course?

you are very closeminded and wrong. ID wasn't "made up" by Christians. It was theorized by scientists of many backgrounds and faiths AND non-faiths. Your brainwashing statement is just plain ignorant.

ID evolved from religious explanations of the origin of life. It is not science, but philosophy, and is NOT INCOMPATIBLE WITH EVOLUTIONISM.

All of whom happen to be christians. Ever take an evolutionary biology course?

No, they weren't. As I mentioned before there have also been Jewish and agnostic scientists supporting it. Intelligent Design doesn't point toward Jesus' Father. It points toward a Designer. That is as far as it claims.

Matter did not spring from nothing on its own. It can't.

Which kind of screws your whole ID theory. Where did the intelligent designer come from if matter did not and cannot spring from nothing?

Evolution and abiogenesis posit that life on earth as we know it today came about gradually through changes that follow the rules of physics. The likelihood of this happening is billions of billions to one, but the universe is so large and the time spans so great that odds of billions of billions to one are not that long.

Intelligent design posits that an intelligent designer formed out of nothing and then went on to create the universe and everything in it (or came about after the universe came into being?). The odds of this happening are infinitely greater than the odds against evolution.

It is of course possible and more probable that an intelligent designer evolved on another planet and then came to earth and created, or adapted, life on earth. If I wanted to believe an ID theory I'd go with Sitchin's Nephilim (http://www.planetxvideo.com/nephilim.htm), although I'm not so sure about Planet X.

ID evolved from religious explanations of the origin of life. It is not science, but philosophy, and is NOT INCOMPATIBLE WITH EVOLUTIONISM.

I'm not comparing it to evolution. I believe it goes way beyond evolution because it also deals with the origin of the universe and the origin of life.

No, they weren't. As I mentioned before there have also been Jewish and agnostic scientists supporting it. Intelligent Design doesn't point toward Jesus' Father. It points toward a Designer. That is as far as it claims.
And evolution has just about every damn biologist behind it.


And I doubt that an athiest scientist would believe in a 'designer'. Reeeeallly doubt it.

No, they weren't. As I mentioned before there have also been Jewish and agnostic scientists supporting it.
Then name them. As the saying goes, put up or shut up.

That's what ID is attempting to do, find scientific evidence for it.

no they aren't. or if they are, they are failing miserably. have they published any peer-reviewed articles about any of this evidence in science journals yet? they've had years at this point.

no they aren't. or if they are, they are failing miserably. have they published any peer-reviewed articles about any of this evidence in science journals yet? they've had years at this point.
I think they did in one. Some journals will publish anything. Nothing in any of the major ones though. Apparantly even that's gotten jumped on and torn to shreads.

Hell no. ID is an baseless idea that should in no way be considered any kind of science.

They most certainly are. And scientists are trying their best to prove it. They just can't do it.

Scientists aren't trying to prove anything, since science cannot be used to prove anything. The scientific method can only disprove things - and support others by not disproving them.

And, I repeat, neither of these things are scientific premises that any scientist is trying to prove. Even the Big Bang never states "everything in the universe sprang from nothing," as it begins with infinite mass.

I believe i can take part in any discussion I please, but thanks for the invitation.

You can't be useful in a discussion of something you so clearly have no understanding of.

No its scientific study attempting to answer questions that science so far has been unable to.

It cannot be called scientific study, as it doesn't use the scientific method. Sorry.

Both life and the universe have to have a beginning.

Speculation.

ID is an attempt to find that beginning using many different disciplines of science and is done by many scientists (IN THEIR CAPACITY AS A SCIENTIST) from all sorts of backgrounds, educations, faiths/non-faiths and scientific disciplines.

Incorrect. First off, ID isn't attempting to find the beginning. It is doing the same thing as evolution, explaining the progression.

Meanwhile, there are no actual scientists who study ID in their capacity as scientists. If an someone hung an accountant sign on their door, but instead did construction work for people, that wouldn't make them an accountant.

Someone is not acting in their capacity as a scientist unless they are following the scientific method. ID does not apply.

You are mistaken.

No, I just know what science is, and what it is not.

Is evolution the only science these days? So biology is the study of life, so what? I didnt' even mention evolution. The origin of life (in whatever discipline is trying to find it) can't be falsified. So I guess any mention of it should be removed from text books and prohibited in science classes.

"The origin of life" cannot be falsified, but it is also not a scientific theory, and it isn't taught in schools. Possible mechanisms for the origin of life are taught - as possible mechanisms. Each individual mechanism, so long as it does not, at its core, invoke unfalsifiable entities, can be falsified.

From a criticism of the paper:

The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (PBSW) is a respected, if somewhat obscure, biological journal specializing in papers of a systematic and taxonomic nature, such as the description of new species. A review of issues in evolutionary theory is decidedly not its typical fare, even disregarding the creationist nature of Meyer’s paper. The fact that the paper is both out of the journal’s typical sphere of publication, as well as dismal scientifically, raises the question of how it made it past peer review. The answer probably lies in the editor, Richard von Sternberg. Sternberg happens to be a creationist and ID fellow traveler who is on the editorial board of the Baraminology Study Group at Bryan College in Tennessee. (The BSG is a research group devoted to the determination of the created kinds of Genesis. We are NOT making this up!) Sternberg was also a signatory of the Discovery Institute’s “100 Scientists Who Doubt Darwinism” statement. [3] Given R. v. Sternberg’s creationist leanings, it seems plausible to surmise that the paper received some editorial shepherding through the peer review process. Given the abysmal quality of the science surrounding both information theory and the Cambrian explosion, it seems unlikely that it received review by experts in those fields. One wonders if the paper saw peer review at all.



Ouch.

They most certainly are. And scientists are trying their best to prove it. They just can't do it.


No... they are NOT scientific. They are not even assertions that I have EVER seen in peer-reviewed science material.

I disbelieve you, friend... and the law of debate is, YOU made the claim - so YOU have the burden of proof.

So, let's see some evidence for your ridiculous claims.


ID is an attempt to find that beginning using many different disciplines of science and is done by many scientists (IN THEIR CAPACITY AS A SCIENTIST) from all sorts of backgrounds, educations, faiths/non-faiths and scientific disciplines.


Again - let us see some evidence. Show us who 'INVENTED' Intelligent Design.

you are very closeminded and wrong. ID wasn't "made up" by Christians. It was theorized by scientists of many backgrounds and faiths AND non-faiths. Your brainwashing statement is just plain ignorant.

I'm not close minded at all. And I'm not wrong either. ID was made by christians in order to salvage what was left of "creationism science". It was not theorized by scientists. It has only to do with christians, not agnostics. So please stop making false statements.

http://www.venganza.org/

I believe the flying spaghetti monster more then I believe ID.

Scientists have to submit an idea for peer review, and ID has never been because they know it is a baseless and a stupid idea.

And evolution has just about every damn biologist behind it.


And I doubt that an athiest scientist would believe in a 'designer'. Reeeeallly doubt it.


We are not dammed, at least not because we study biology. And no, not every biologist goes along with every aspect of evolution.

Perhaps you could answer a question, if you will. (I am relatively new to this ID debate.) After reading a few pages of this thread, I have concluded that it is most one long bellyache about the evils of ID. But perhaps you could outline clearly what is so bad about ID--in an abbreviated form.

Or perhaps someone else would like to take up the task???

I'm not close minded at all. And I'm not wrong either. ID was made by christians in order to salvage what was left of "creationism science". It was not theorized by scientists. It has only to do with christians, not agnostics. So please stop making false statements.

http://www.venganza.org/

I believe the flying spaghetti monster more then I believe ID.

Scientists have to submit an idea for peer review, and ID has never been because they know it is a baseless and a stupid idea.

Wow, such passion! Are you just really fired up now, or do you always feel that way about ID?

Wow, such passion! Are you just really fired up now, or do you always feel that way about ID?

I'm always fired up about this topic. I can't stand people who claim this nonsense is science.

We are not dammed, at least not because we study biology. And no, not every biologist goes along with every aspect of evolution.

Darling, nowhere in that post did he say "every biologist goes along with every aspect of evolution." What he did say was that evolutionary theory was accepted by most biologists - which is true. None of us would say that the theory as it is is absolute truth, but at the moment it is certainly the best explanation we have.

But perhaps you could outline clearly what is so bad about ID--in an abbreviated form.

It isn't that ID is "bad", it is that it is blatantly unscientific. The entire concept is based on an unfasifiable statement - that an intelligent creator exists. If said creator exists, it cannot be tested for, and it cannot be falsified. By definition, it is outside the rules, and thus cannot be tested for.

Intelligent design is a total crock. It cannot be considered a theory until someone publishes a paper with a testable hypothesis in a peer reviewed journal, which isn't going to happen.

We are not dammed, at least not because we study biology. And no, not every biologist goes along with every aspect of evolution.

Perhaps you could answer a question, if you will. (I am relatively new to this ID debate.) After reading a few pages of this thread, I have concluded that it is most one long bellyache about the evils of ID. But perhaps you could outline clearly what is so bad about ID--in an abbreviated form.

Or perhaps someone else would like to take up the task???
Ever take a biology class? Most of biology, especially the more advanced problems, is heavily rooted in evolution.

I'll tell you what's wrong with "intelligent" design!
If Einstein, Kekule, Bacon, Lavoisier, Newton, and Copernicus were the kind of person to believe that swill, then they would have not done what they did. You're banging away on a computer about ID, do you think God came down to William Shockley and taught him how to make transistors?

I'll tell you what's wrong with "intelligent" design!
If Einstein, Kekule, Bacon, Lavoisier, Newton, and Copernicus were the kind of person to believe that swill, then they would have not done what they did. You're banging away on a computer about ID, do you think God came down to William Shockley and taught him how to make transistors?
Science is used in the realm of the phisical and observable

ID idealy should exist outside that world

So you could use both for your discription of reality

(BUT that still does not mean that ID belongs in a Science Class)

We are not dammed, at least not because we study biology. And no, not every biologist goes along with every aspect of evolution.

Perhaps you could answer a question, if you will. (I am relatively new to this ID debate.) After reading a few pages of this thread, I have concluded that it is most one long bellyache about the evils of ID. But perhaps you could outline clearly what is so bad about ID--in an abbreviated form.

Or perhaps someone else would like to take up the task???

If you were a teacher, and you taught... let's say... Spanish... what would you expect to find on your syllabus?

You'd want to teach grammar, and common usage... the changes of tense, then gendering of words, etc.

What you WOULDN'T want to find, is that you were being COMPELLED to spend half of the first semester talking about why Edam is better than Gorgonzola.... in Japanese.

THAT is the problem with the ID debate... they are trying to force Japanese cheese-rants into our Spanish classrooms.

snip

THAT is the problem with the ID debate... they are trying to force Japanese cheese-rants into our Spanish classrooms.
Lol I am going to have to remember that

Lol I am going to have to remember that

It's a T-Shirt waiting to happen. :)

(Hmmm... I think I've just worked out how I'm going to make my fortune....)

you are very closeminded and wrong. ID wasn't "made up" by Christians. It was theorized by scientists of many backgrounds and faiths AND non-faiths. Your brainwashing statement is just plain ignorant.

You should look before you comment.

Look at the major forces pushing for this:
Phillip Johnson - "A devout Christian"
http://www.origins.org/pjohnson/testmony.html

Michael J. Behe - "whose strong Christian faith"
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3Behe.htm

William A. Dembski - "Dembski, an Orthodox Christian"
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/014/18.20.html

Johnathan Wells - Well he is a Moonie but they claim to follow Christ.
http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Talks/Wells/MARRGE3.htm

Hmmmmm so 3 out of the 4 depending on where you think the moonies fall.....

I can't help but feel the supporters of ID are going backwards. Instead of wasting your time arguing with people over evolution, that time would be better spent developing your hypothesis into a theory. After, say, oh... 150 years of intense study and examination, why don't you bring it back to the table and the scientists will have a look at it.

No, they weren't. As I mentioned before there have also been Jewish and agnostic scientists supporting it. Intelligent Design doesn't point toward Jesus' Father. It points toward a Designer. That is as far as it claims.
So, it could have been an alien?

Somebody here should know.

I was going to mention something about Michael Denton (ID people like to quote him) reversing his stance on evolution. Somebody told me he changed some of his viewpoints but I haven't found an "official" comment.

Is that person high?

Thanks

So, it could have been an alien?

It was either the ancients are the azgard! ;)

So, it could have been an alien?

Only if the alien is capable of defying the laws of physics - your creator of EVERYTHING cannot be bound by those same 'rules of everything'.

And, when it comes down to it, how do you differentiate between an alien of godlike might, and a god?

Regardless - since BOTH theoretically exist BEYOND the constraints of space/time - neither is falsifiable...

I'm always fired up about this topic. I can't stand people who claim this nonsense is science.

One wonders whether your passion might be better directed at, say, something like illiteracy, or poverty, or starvation, or HIV. I just don't see how ID is making the world a worser place.


Darling, nowhere in that post did he say "every biologist goes along with every aspect of evolution." What he did say was that evolutionary theory was accepted by most biologists - which is true. None of us would say that the theory as it is is absolute truth, but at the moment it is certainly the best explanation we have.


Fair enough. But perhaps we could improve the theory somewhat. And perhaps allowing ID/evolution debates (perhaps even in our universities) is not a bad thing. At least, from the evolutionist point of view, it will reveal the weaknesses in their explanations, and likewise for the IDers.


It isn't that ID is "bad", it is that it is blatantly unscientific. The entire concept is based on an unfasifiable statement - that an intelligent creator exists. If said creator exists, it cannot be tested for, and it cannot be falsified. By definition, it is outside the rules, and thus cannot be tested for.

I agree that it seems to be more of a philosophy than a science. I think they are more focussed on constructing explanations than doing experiments. But, for me, it point to all the unscientific stuff that goes in the name of science. For example, popular evolutionary theory is not afraid to make an assumption that God had nothing to do with a particular biological development (e.g. parasitic bacteria turning into mitochondria). But in doing so, they should know that this is not 'science', but constructing an explanation, precisely what the IDers are up to. For all the criticism of ID, perhaps we should also be prepared to criticise evolutionary theory for all the parts that are included but cannot be tested of falsified.




Intelligent design is a total crock. It cannot be considered a theory until someone publishes a paper with a testable hypothesis in a peer reviewed journal, which isn't going to happen.


Perhaps you would like to suggest how that might happen, considering that any editor wanting to accept such a paper is likely to lose his job, even if the propositions in the paper were based on sound scientific principles. The bias prevents the publication, which in turn supports your bias.


Ever take a biology class? Most of biology, especially the more advanced problems, is heavily rooted in evolution.

Yes, I have. I actually have a PhD, and have done my fair share of teaching in classes.
I realize that much of biology is based on evolutionary thought. But that does nothing to demonstrate its truthfullness. Like much of the ancient thinking was based on a flat world, or that dead meat gave rise to living maggots.
What I was looking from you was some sort of sensible reason as to why ID was harmful or dangerous or stupid.


I'll tell you what's wrong with "intelligent" design!
If Einstein, Kekule, Bacon, Lavoisier, Newton, and Copernicus were the kind of person to believe that swill, then they would have not done what they did. You're banging away on a computer about ID, do you think God came down to William Shockley and taught him how to make transistors?

But I thought many of those chaps were Christians. And what is wrong with God giving William Shockley the brains to invent transistors?


Science is used in the realm of the phisical and observable

ID idealy should exist outside that world

So you could use both for your discription of reality

(BUT that still does not mean that ID belongs in a Science Class)


Sensible post. However, you have not solved the problem of the great deal of material within evolutionary thought that is neither repeatable nor observable and yet somehow accepted as science.

If you were a teacher, and you taught... let's say... Spanish... what would you expect to find on your syllabus?

You'd want to teach grammar, and common usage... the changes of tense, then gendering of words, etc.

What you WOULDN'T want to find, is that you were being COMPELLED to spend half of the first semester talking about why Edam is better than Gorgonzola.... in Japanese.

THAT is the problem with the ID debate... they are trying to force Japanese cheese-rants into our Spanish classrooms.

If you could give an example of this, it might help. As far as I know, they only introduce one new word, Designer. Hardly a new language, Grave. I know you have exaggerated to prove a point, but in this case, it would have helped you to be more accurate.

I can't help but feel the supporters of ID are going backwards. Instead of wasting your time arguing with people over evolution, that time would be better spent developing your hypothesis into a theory. After, say, oh... 150 years of intense study and examination, why don't you bring it back to the table and the scientists will have a look at it.

What better way to develope a theory than to argue it?

What better way to develope a theory than to argue it?
Science isn't sophistry. It's not about who can get to the Wookie defense first, it's about who can design a repeatable experiment that anyone (no kooks thx) can reproduce with the same results to illustrate a mechanism of Nature to definitively resolve arguments. It is a process of revealing truth not denying it. There can be no dialogue between science and ID, where the way is not clear ID's only opinion is that magic must have done it, and it would be fruitless to search. It is a philosophy of cowardice, poverty, ignorance, persecution and strife. The use of arguments in science is solely to define the boundries of the uncharted territory so that an experiment can be designed, and observation concieved that will survey it. And within MY LIFETIME, the might of human reason may reach such a pinnacle of achievment that we might make our first observations of a universe that may lay beyond, and we will peer further in to the tiniest, darkest, most remote reaches of our own. An achievement YOU would deny, and supplant with fairytales.

When ID makes affirmative predictions in contradiction to those made by evololution and is up held, then it will be worth talking about. But that will never happen. As its proponants and yourself so ably demonstrate, it's not about being right, it's about playing to the crowd, who hopefull doesn't know any better.

It's not as if things like this haven't happened before. It's not unlike China's great leap forward, and Soviet Russias shunning of a solid scientific pursuit of agriculture. Your moronic, and ancient, ideas, have crippled cultures and destroyed nations. If reason is the pursuit and support of truth, why is it this supposed christian god of truth is so adament his followers abandon it in favor of cloying emotional arguments? And why hasn't prayer to this god delivered unto any of the churches the plans for a vastly better microchip? The cure for ANY disease?

Science isn't sophistry. It's not about who can get to the Wookie defense first, it's about who can design a repeatable experiment that anyone (no kooks thx) can reproduce with the same results to illustrate a mechanism of Nature to definitively resolve arguments. It is a process of revealing truth not denying it.


So far, I agree, I think.


There can be no dialogue between science and ID, where the way is not clear ID's only opinion is that magic must have done it, and it would be fruitless to search. It is a philosophy of cowardice, poverty, ignorance, persecution and strife.

Well, if you could demonstrate that there was no truth to the claims of ID, I would be inclined to believe you. Currently, though, you have to admit that, based on scientific evidence, we are not in a position to rule out a Designer being involved in the creation process. Science cannot do this. Thus, logically speaking, we must be prepared to accept any argument that presents itself as feasible to our senses. I'm personally not that familiar with the theory of ID, but I can't see where ID claims modern science is a fruitless search. There have been plenty of major discoveries made by Christians. Most Christians I know hold that God had something to do with us being here, i.e., he is the Designer.

ID certainly doesn't appear to promote cowardice (what could be braver than standing up against the majority, in spite of being ridiculed and mocked), poverty (no idea how you get to that one, unless you think Christianity leads to poverty, and then you might like to compare the wealth of the 'Christian' nations with the communist ones), persecution (I think most of the persecution today is by the communists against the Muslims and Christians) and strife (belief systems derived from atheism, like communism and the Nazis, have caused more strife in the last hundred years than the religious ones).


The use of arguments in science is solely to define the boundries of the uncharted territory so that an experiment can be designed, and observation concieved that will survey it. And within MY LIFETIME, the might of human reason may reach such a pinnacle of achievment that we might make our first observations of a universe that may lay beyond, and we will peer further in to the tiniest, darkest, most remote reaches of our own. An achievement YOU would deny, and supplant with fairytales.

There is no need to get personal in this discussion. I've not made any suggestions to remove evolution and replace it with ID. I don't know if I would even call myself and IDer. But posts like yours suggest that there is more at stake here than just an argument. Looks like your life depends on it, judging by the way your are getting so emotive about ID. But since you have claimed that ID supports things like ignorance and superstition, prove it. At least give an example.


When ID makes affirmative predictions in contradiction to those made by evololution and is up held, then it will be worth talking about. But that will never happen. As its proponants and yourself so ably demonstrate, it's not about being right, it's about playing to the crowd, who hopefull doesn't know any better.


What! (gets alarmed) Have I been playing to the crowd? Where, I don't see where? (Scratches head). I'm missing something here.

One prediction that evolution never made was shrinking bacterial genomes. And it is one that ID would have predicted. The logic is simple. If bacteria began with complete genomes, over time, with accumulating mutations and natural selection, a logical conclusion is that as genes become mutated, and excised, the genome grows smaller, since only DNA that is necessary for survival remains. A classic example is Mycobacterium leprae, the bacterium that causes leprosy. It has lost so many genes that it can no longer survive without its host.
Evolution, however, predicted that bacterial genomes have been growing, in order for e.g. eukaryotes to arise from prokaryotes.
Another example is that evolution did not predict that plants would generally have more genes than humans (since humans would be considered more evolved) nor that nematodes (worms) would have almost as many genes as humans. It doesn't fit with evolutionary predictions, and as far as I know, nobody seems to be able to explain it in a way that the majority of geneticists would agree with. However, it is consistent with a Designer who numbered the genes according to the demands of the organism to suit its environment.



It's not as if things like this haven't happened before. It's not unlike China's great leap forward, and Soviet Russias shunning of a solid scientific pursuit of agriculture. Your moronic, and ancient, ideas, have crippled cultures and destroyed nations. If reason is the pursuit and support of truth, why is it this supposed christian god of truth is so adament his followers abandon it in favor of cloying emotional arguments? And why hasn't prayer to this god delivered unto any of the churches the plans for a vastly better microchip? The cure for ANY disease?


I would say it was the communistic ideals that have held China and Russia back. And communism in those countries, as you ought to know, is (was, in the case of Russia) the form that accepts atheism. Perhaps you are pointing the finger in the wrong direction.

Contrary to your claim, as a Christian, I do not embrace emotional arguments over reasonable ones, but believe that reason should rule over emotion. And if you are claiming that evolution has cured any disease or brought us microchips, I cannot agree. For I have never ever seen a single case of evolutionary theory helping humanity. I would say the science has helped, but not evolution.

You seem to be suggesting that a belief in God has brought nothing but pain and trouble to humanity. On the other hand, there were all those Christian chaps who did make great contributions to humanity, like William Wilberforce, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, William Booth--and these are just my favourites. All these chaps were Christians. Not IDers, but did believe in God.

One wonders whether your passion might be better directed at, say, something like illiteracy, or poverty, or starvation, or HIV. I just don't see how ID is making the world a worser place.


I'm always passionate about everything. I have the energy to do so.

Currently, though, you have to admit that, based on scientific evidence, we are not in a position to rule out a Designer being involved in the creation process. Science cannot do this. Thus, logically speaking, we must be prepared to accept any argument that presents itself as feasible to our senses. I'm personally not that familiar with the theory of ID, but I can't see where ID claims modern science is a fruitless search. There have been plenty of major discoveries made by Christians. Most Christians I know hold that God had something to do with us being here, i.e., he is the Designer.

Logically speaking, you cannot infer that intelligent design is a science because it isn't testable. Please get me one thing in intelligent design that is testable. Inteligent Design is the fruitless search as it has no evidence to back it up, and there are no scientists who are supporting it. Feasible? How is there being a creator feasible?

One prediction that evolution never made was shrinking bacterial genomes. And it is one that ID would have predicted. The logic is simple. If bacteria began with complete genomes, over time, with accumulating mutations and natural selection, a logical conclusion is that as genes become mutated, and excised, the genome grows smaller, since only DNA that is necessary for survival remains. A classic example is Mycobacterium leprae, the bacterium that causes leprosy.

Why would of ID predicted that when ID is not a science? How is the logic simple? As far as that is concerned check this source please:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#genetic_change

So again, please don't assume things about evolution, when you in reality don't know what evolution really is. It does in fact fit with evolution.

However, it is consistent with a Designer who numbered the genes according to the demands of the organism to suit its environment.

No it doesn't. And guess what? You can't prove me wrong, because you have to prove that there is a god in the first place.

And if you are claiming that evolution has cured any disease or brought us microchips, I cannot agree. For I have never ever seen a single case of evolutionary theory helping humanity. I would say the science has helped, but not evolution.

Evolution hasn't brought us those advances, but as far as I'm concerned, evolution has helped understand how we evolved and what the processes of life are. Intelligent Design is just nonsense that has not for once helped us understand anything. Evolution has helped us understand the animal kingdom. I think knowledge is a beautiful thing, and evolution is a beautiful factual theory. Intelligent Design is not. Intelligent Design is a hoax, a crock and the people pushing it are trying to brainwash kids in believeing in untestable lies.

You seem to be suggesting that a belief in God has brought nothing but pain and trouble to humanity.

I think it has. And I think religion is the cause of many wars.

If you could give an example of this, it might help. As far as I know, they only introduce one new word, Designer. Hardly a new language, Grave. I know you have exaggerated to prove a point, but in this case, it would have helped you to be more accurate.

On the contrary - 'accurate' would have been arguing that the 'mere changing of one word' is utterly irrelevent.

What is REALLY ebing done, is far worse than that.

Science relies on observation, repetition, validation, and the ability for assumptions to be falsified.

ID is not observable, cannot be repeated in a laboratory, cannot be validated, and has a wealth of unfalsifiable assumptions.

You are asking that the entire structure of science be skewed BEYOND BREAKING POINT, just to accomodate the political/religious aspirations of ONE group of individuals.

I'm always passionate about everything. I have the energy to do so.


Fair enough. But why the hatred for ID? I still don't see it.


Logically speaking, you cannot infer that intelligent design is a science because it isn't testable. Please get me one thing in intelligent design that is testable. Inteligent Design is the fruitless search as it has no evidence to back it up, and there are no scientists who are supporting it. Feasible? How is there being a creator feasible?


My understanding of ID is that it is the study of information systems. It seeks to establish the contrast between natural (random) causes and intelligent ones. It can do this by using methods, rules, etc. which determine whether natural causes are sufficient to account for the functionality of the complexity. An example is the human eye. ID looks at the information required for the funtion of a human eye, and investigates the likelihood of natural causes or intelligent causes being the better explanation. It doesn't always rule out natural causes. Rather, it seeks to determine whether an intelligent cause is a more likely explanation. In a sense, it is testable, because it can test an information system to see if naturistic causes are adequate to explain how it came to be.

There are many scientists who support it. To my knowledge, ID has arisen out of the inadequacy of naturistic explanations to account for the incredible complexity we see around us. What we know about natural selection and today's mutation rates are apparently altogether too simplistic for many scientists.

ID does not try to establish how the designer did it, or even who he is. They leave that to the theologists. Nor are they concerned with how feasible he is, what his origins are, etc. They are focussing on the natural world.


Why would of ID predicted that when ID is not a science? How is the logic simple? As far as that is concerned check this source please:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#genetic_change

So again, please don't assume things about evolution, when you in reality don't know what evolution really is. It does in fact fit with evolution.



None of these discussions in the links above addressed the issue of shrinking bacterial genomes, unless I missed it somewhere. I think you need to think things through for yourself, and perhaps not try to throw a link at my example, and hope the problem goes away. Just how does shrinking bacterial genomes fit in with the evolution of slime to man? If you have something sensible to say, I will listen. You will have the opportunity to persuade me. If not, who is going to listen to yet another tirade of rheotoric?

Why do you assume that I don't understand evolution? Are you convinced that anyone who understands it is automatically going to accept it. IDers claim that it is the holes in evolutionary theory that prompted their organisation, not their misunderstanding of the mechanims. Since you disagree, then perhaps you should demonstrate why.



No it doesn't. And guess what? You can't prove me wrong, because you have to prove that there is a god in the first place.


I said 'consistent with' not 'proves'. Science has uncovered a lot of evidence. But evidence for what? Evidence that can be explained in terms of evolution and creation will never 'prove' either argument, but is consistent with both.

You do have a point when you claim that I cannot prove God to you. But that is His wish, apparently, because he wants everyone to come to him by faith, not from empirical evidence. So I guess I would say that I have no wish to 'prove' God to you. However, that is hardly 'proof' that no god exists. There is plenty of evidence, and lots of 'stuff' that science cannot explain. For example, science will never be able to explain the changes in my life as I came to believe in Jesus. It just doesn't seem to fit in with natural selection or survival of the fittest.


Evolution hasn't brought us those advances, but as far as I'm concerned, evolution has helped understand how we evolved and what the processes of life are. Intelligent Design is just nonsense that has not for once helped us understand anything. Evolution has helped us understand the animal kingdom. I think knowledge is a beautiful thing, and evolution is a beautiful factual theory. Intelligent Design is not. Intelligent Design is a hoax, a crock and the people pushing it are trying to brainwash kids in believeing in untestable lies.


Believers will always find something beautiful about their theory, I suppose. But it does nothing to prove the truth of the theory. That evolution has given us nice sounding explanations that make us feel good about holding new relevations in our heads proves that we have an attraction to knowledge, regardless if it is true or not. No doubt many people are sure that evolution is true. But that doesn't prove it. The 'understanding' isn't worth a rotten fig if it is plain wrong.

I think I can hear your hatred for ID. But I wonder if you could give me a sensible answer to this question. What are the dangers of ID? And what are the grounds for hating it so much?


I think it has. And I think religion is the cause of many wars.

Blaming Christ for wars makes about as much sense as blaming Darwin for WWII. And what about all the communist wars, persecutions, etc. Can't blame that one on religion. War comes from people, just as your hatred for ID comes from you. Religion is only the excuse.

On the contrary - 'accurate' would have been arguing that the 'mere changing of one word' is utterly irrelevent.

What is REALLY ebing done, is far worse than that.

Science relies on observation, repetition, validation, and the ability for assumptions to be falsified.

ID is not observable, cannot be repeated in a laboratory, cannot be validated, and has a wealth of unfalsifiable assumptions.


You are asking that the entire structure of science be skewed BEYOND BREAKING POINT, just to accomodate the political/religious aspirations of ONE group of individuals.

Actually, I have not asked this, nor am I asking it now. Maybe you like trying to put words in my mouth.
All I actually do ask (though this is my first mention of this) is that ID be allowed discussion space--nothing about skewing anything. It would help us scientists to investigate the so-called holes in the naturistic explanations. That shouldn't hurt it at all. In fact, a sensible reaction to ID would be to say 'bring it on, let the debate begin', i.e., a positive reaction, rather than a negative one that wants to shut ID down. A negative reation, I feel, comes out of an insecurity, a sign that all is not well with evolutionary theory and that the proponents know it.

Grave, I suspect you have not understood ID. Perhaps you should read a book, Mere Creation. It explains what ID is, and where it comes from, and what it is about. Your claim that it is 'not observable, cannot be repeated in a laboratory, cannot be validated, and has a wealth of unfalsifiable assumptions' suggests you are waving your hand at it. Certainly doesn't come close to what I have read about it. Come on, man, demonstrate that you are not indulging in mere rheotoric here.

Fair enough. But why the hatred for ID? I still don't see it.


It isn't 'hatred' for ID... it is a backlash against a non-scientific principle being forced into science-education, despite failing to meet ANY requirements of the scientific principles.

Some people are just getting sick of being pushed around by religion... even when it masquerades as something else.


In a sense, it is testable, because it can test an information system to see if naturistic causes are adequate to explain how it came to be.


Sorry - totally untrue. There is no way in which 'Intelligent Design" is testable.

The BEST you could do, is question the validity of a non-ID mechanism... which wouldn't mean ID was any truer, or that the non-ID meachinism was wrong. All it does, is cloud the issue, by ADDING extra (and non-verifiable) parameters into an experiment.


There are many scientists who support it. To my knowledge, ID has arisen out of the inadequacy of naturistic explanations to account for the incredible complexity we see around us.

No. ID has arisen out of the fact that Creationism isn't scientific.

Fair enough. But why the hatred for ID? I still don't see it.

Because it is based on a foundation of lies.

My understanding of ID is that it is the study of information systems. It seeks to establish the contrast between natural (random) causes and intelligent ones. It can do this by using methods, rules, etc. which determine whether natural causes are sufficient to account for the functionality of the complexity. An example is the human eye. *sniped* In a sense, it is testable, because it can test an information system to see if naturistic causes are adequate to explain how it came to be.

ID is not the study of anything. I do not like it. I do not want to see it in schools. It is not a theory. It is religious propaganda harped up by people as yourself. There is no way ID is testable. It is not science. Please understand ID does not use evidence. It rather tries to poke holes in evolution and fails badly at it. It isn't testable at all. You have to wonder why it never has been submitted for peer review.

There are many scientists who support it. To my knowledge, ID has arisen out of the inadequacy of naturistic explanations to account for the incredible complexity we see around us. What we know about natural selection and today's mutation rates are apparently altogether too simplistic for many scientists.

Actually there are no scientists who support it and ID has never faced peer review. It is a hoax and is considered one. It does not explain anything. The incredible complexity? That's the typical creationist talking point:

There has to be a creator because things are too complex.

Nonsense. You need to provide some evidence, not just the typical "because I say so" comment. No scientists support this crap, and it should stay out of schools.

ID does not try to establish how the designer did it, or even who he is. They leave that to the theologists. Nor are they concerned with how feasible he is, what his origins are, etc. They are focussing on the natural world.

Intelligent Design is nonsense nonetheless because it falls back on a faulty premise.

None of these discussions in the links above addressed the issue of shrinking bacterial genomes, unless I missed it somewhere. I think you need to think things through for yourself, and perhaps not try to throw a link at my example, and hope the problem goes away. Just how does shrinking bacterial genomes fit in with the evolution of slime to man? If you have something sensible to say, I will listen. You will have the opportunity to persuade me. If not, who is going to listen to yet another tirade of rheotoric?

Please read the entire study there. Starting from page 1.

You have said nothing sensible. You fall back on the typical tirades of creationist (aka intelligent design) crap. You have attempted to even back yourself up. You instead rely on faulty and untestable statements. You have to understand what evolution is. And that goes onto my next refutation.

Why do you assume that I don't understand evolution? Are you convinced that anyone who understands it is automatically going to accept it. IDers claim that it is the holes in evolutionary theory that prompted their organisation, not their misunderstanding of the mechanims. Since you disagree, then perhaps you should demonstrate why.

Intelligent Design advocates are foolish and can't seem to grasp what evolution is. They poke holes but they can't because they do it without evidence. They claim there must be a creator because everything is too complex. But that's a strawman argument.... hey what do I expect.. that's all the (un)Intelligent Design argument is based on! Strawman arguments and slippery slopes! You need to provide evidence to back up your argument before you ask me to explain my position.

Science has uncovered a lot of evidence. But evidence for what? Evidence that can be explained in terms of evolution and creation will never 'prove' either argument, but is consistent with both.

You need to provide evidence for your arguments. Science has uncovered a lot of evidence for evolution. You want to continue being stubborn with that creationist nonsense? That's nice. You can continue denying evidence.

There is plenty of evidence, and lots of 'stuff' that science cannot explain. For example, science will never be able to explain the changes in my life as I came to believe in Jesus. It just doesn't seem to fit in with natural selection or survival of the fittest.

And what is this stuff? Science will never be able to explain the changes in your life as you came to believe in jesus? Well I don't care what you believe in, because I'm atheist. I could care less about some symbol or icon people believe in.

Believers will always find something beautiful about their theory, I suppose. But it does nothing to prove the truth of the theory. That evolution has given us nice sounding explanations that make us feel good about holding new relevations in our heads proves that we have an attraction to knowledge, regardless if it is true or not. No doubt many people are sure that evolution is true. But that doesn't prove it. The 'understanding' isn't worth a rotten fig if it is plain wrong.

Your issue is you cannot accept the fact that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. There are a few issues with evolution but those are being cleared up. Intelligent design on the other hand is backed by no scientists, and has never been submitted for peer review (which is required). Evolution is testable and proveable. Intelligent Design is not. Therefore evolutionists stand on better ground then you do. Evolution has mountains of evidence. And it is in fact proven. You are just plain wrong.

I think I can hear your hatred for ID. But I wonder if you could give me a sensible answer to this question. What are the dangers of ID? And what are the grounds for hating it so much?

ID is a moronic belief that can ruin someone's educational process. Those who back ID don't have any support for their arguments. Those who push it in the schools (pushy christian fundies) don't use common logic. Those are the dangers of ID. Teaching it in science, puts the system at perilous risk because ID isn't science. It should be kept out of schools. I provided sensible answers, but it isn't my fault you choose to be blind when I try to explain myself.

Blaming Christ for wars makes about as much sense as blaming Darwin for WWII. And what about all the communist wars, persecutions, etc. Can't blame that one on religion. War comes from people, just as your hatred for ID comes from you. Religion is only the excuse.

I never blamed christianity for WWII. I'm blaming christianing and other religions for causing many other wars throughout the world.

ID is a stupid excuse for christians to teach creationism. It is nothing more then sugarcoated creationism. Our schools are secular. This nonsense is not, therefore stays out of the school system.

REFUTED!

Actually, I have not asked this, nor am I asking it now. Maybe you like trying to put words in my mouth.
All I actually do ask (though this is my first mention of this) is that ID be allowed discussion space--nothing about skewing anything. It would help us scientists to investigate the so-called holes in the naturistic explanations. That shouldn't hurt it at all. In fact, a sensible reaction to ID would be to say 'bring it on, let the debate begin', i.e., a positive reaction, rather than a negative one that wants to shut ID down. A negative reation, I feel, comes out of an insecurity, a sign that all is not well with evolutionary theory and that the proponents know it.


Most of the venom aimed at ID is because it is being slowly forced into science classrooms, where it would be taught as though it were REAL science... DESPITE the fact that it doesn't adhere to even the most basic scientific principles.

For me - BRING IT ON, indeed. However, do I believe my children should be taught that IN SCIENCE CLASS? Hell, no. It isn't science, so don't rteach it in science class.

They don't teach "Easter Bunny" reproduction in science class... nor the "Aerodynamics of Santa's Sleigh" - because both of those concepts would involve unfalsifiable assumptions - and so are not science.

Similarly, ID has NO PLACE in science classrooms.

And, don't try to imply that the resistence to this enforced insertion of the unfalsifiable into science is INSECURITY. It is a defense against un illegal intrusion.


Grave, I suspect you have not understood ID. Perhaps you should read a book, Mere Creation. It explains what ID is, and where it comes from, and what it is about. Your claim that it is 'not observable, cannot be repeated in a laboratory, cannot be validated, and has a wealth of unfalsifiable assumptions' suggests you are waving your hand at it. Certainly doesn't come close to what I have read about it. Come on, man, demonstrate that you are not indulging in mere rheotoric here.

I have read more than 'a book' about ID, and have seen nothing to validate it AS SCIENCE. I have no objections to people indulging their idle philosophical time, pondering over an Intelligent Designer... but I refuse to accept it as 'science' UNTIL the 'Intelligent Designer' is proved to be falsifiable.

It is not MY claim that ID is "not observable, cannot be repeated in a laboratory, cannot be validated, and has a wealth of unfalsifiable assumptions" - it is just statement of truth.

Show me ONE example of ID being 'observed'? Show me ONE example of ID being 'repeated'.

Falsify the Intelligent Designer for me, and I'll accept it as science.

One wonders whether your passion might be better directed at, say, something like illiteracy, or poverty, or starvation, or HIV. I just don't see how ID is making the world a worser place.

Such can be said for the people pushing ID.

ID is a danger to biology. It introduces "faith" into the equation.


Fair enough. But perhaps we could improve the theory somewhat. And perhaps allowing ID/evolution debates (perhaps even in our universities) is not a bad thing. At least, from the evolutionist point of view, it will reveal the weaknesses in their explanations, and likewise for the IDers.

To attack ID is to attack somebodies religion.

It doesn't need to be in the science class room to be debated as it is already getting that.


But, for me, it point to all the unscientific stuff that goes in the name of science.


Oh do tell.....


For example, popular evolutionary theory is not afraid to make an assumption that God had nothing to do with a particular biological development (e.g. parasitic bacteria turning into mitochondria).

Evolution has never set out to prove or disprove the existence of God. You can offer a theory there was a God involved but how do you test for it? How do you tell what part was done? What was a random mutation?

Faith doesn't belong in science.


But in doing so, they should know that this is not 'science', but constructing an explanation, precisely what the IDers are up to.

An explanation based on faith is not science.


For all the criticism of ID, perhaps we should also be prepared to criticise evolutionary theory for all the parts that are included but cannot be tested of falsified.

Evolution has never said anything can't be tested. It is desired to be tested and it goes on all the time.

Ok I will bite. What was falsified?


Yes, I have. I actually have a PhD, and have done my fair share of teaching in classes.

In what?
Where did you get it?
What do you teach?


I realize that much of biology is based on evolutionary thought. But that does nothing to demonstrate its truthfullness.

Ok for what?


Like much of the ancient thinking was based on a flat world, or that dead meat gave rise to living maggots.
What I was looking from you was some sort of sensible reason as to why ID was harmful or dangerous or stupid.

People here have offered many reasons why it is bad. Have you read the thread?


But I thought many of those chaps were Christians. And what is wrong with God giving William Shockley the brains to invent transistors?

Ahhhh you just answered you question of why it is harmful, dangerous and stupid.


Sensible post. However, you have not solved the problem of the great deal of material within evolutionary thought that is neither repeatable nor observable and yet somehow accepted as science.

Ok what is not repeatable? As to observable If you mean Macro sure that is given but there isn't anything to say it is outright wrong. People in the evolutionary world argue of it all the time.

As to it being accepted as science? Of course, it still makes more sense then a guy/girl/whatever screaming HOCUS POCUS!

ID is the desperate attempt to discredit the fact of evolution
by focusing in on area where it believes the theory of the mechanisms
of evolution cannot be proven.

However, to date, every time they have put forward something
they believe to be irreducibly complex, flagella etc,
biologists have been able to put forward quite reasonable mechanisms
that would explain how the final complex form came about.

While sniping at weak points is a perfectly valid action for a scientist
and help to improve our understanding of the world
it does not make creationism or ID a scientific theory.

The only place where creationists attempt the use of any science is
where they attempt to spot a flaw in the mechanisms of evolution as
currently postulated.

Even if ID proponents successfully spotted a flaw in theories about the
mechanisms of evolution they don't actually have any theories themselves
but that some invisible unknowable being made things.

ID does not have any scientific or logical basis at all.

ID is the desperate attempt to discredit the fact of evolution
by focusing in on area where it believes the theory of the mechanisms
of evolution cannot be proven.

However, to date, every time they have put forward something
they believe to be irreducibly complex, flagella etc,
biologists have been able to put forward quite reasonable mechanisms
that would explain how the final complex form came about.

While sniping at weak points is a perfectly valid action for a scientist
and help to improve our understanding of the world
it does not make creationism or ID a scientific theory.

The only place where creationists attempt the use of any science is
where they attempt to spot a flaw in the mechanisms of evolution as
currently postulated.

Even if ID proponents successfully spotted a flaw in theories about the
mechanisms of evolution they don't actually have any theories themselves
but that some invisible unknowable being made things.

ID does not have any scientific or logical basis at all.

Agreed.

An Excellent Post.

ID is the desperate attempt to discredit the fact of evolution
by focusing in on area where it believes the theory of the mechanisms
of evolution cannot be proven.

However, to date, every time they have put forward something
they believe to be irreducibly complex, flagella etc,
biologists have been able to put forward quite reasonable mechanisms
that would explain how the final complex form came about.

While sniping at weak points is a perfectly valid action for a scientist
and help to improve our understanding of the world
it does not make creationism or ID a scientific theory.

The only place where creationists attempt the use of any science is
where they attempt to spot a flaw in the mechanisms of evolution as
currently postulated.

Even if ID proponents successfully spotted a flaw in theories about the
mechanisms of evolution they don't actually have any theories themselves
but that some invisible unknowable being made things.

ID does not have any scientific or logical basis at all.

Well said!

My view on Creationism and Intelligent Design is that they should be taught in classes concerning theology as a theory but kept out of science classes. I myself believe evolution is true.

Fair enough. But perhaps we could improve the theory somewhat.

Yes, that is what the study of biology is all about - improving upon the theories we already have and/or disproving them and finding new ones.

And perhaps allowing ID/evolution debates (perhaps even in our universities) is not a bad thing. At least, from the evolutionist point of view, it will reveal the weaknesses in their explanations, and likewise for the IDers.

That is like saying we should allow gravity vs. Intelligent Falling debate in our universities. Evolutionary theory will certainly be furthered by reasoned, scientific debate. However, debating science against non-science is simply masturbatory.

I agree that it seems to be more of a philosophy than a science. I think they are more focussed on constructing explanations than doing experiments. But, for me, it point to all the unscientific stuff that goes in the name of science. For example, popular evolutionary theory is not afraid to make an assumption that God had nothing to do with a particular biological development (e.g. parasitic bacteria turning into mitochondria).

No part of evolutionary theory assumes that God had nothing to do with anything. They simply don't assume that God did have something to do with it. The two are not equivalent.

By definition, the study of science can assume nothing regarding a God - not even an assumption of existence or non-existence.

But in doing so, they should know that this is not 'science', but constructing an explanation, precisely what the IDers are up to.

Anyone making the assumption that God is not involved is just as unscientific as someone making the assumption God was involved. Luckily, evolutionary theory assumes neither.

What I was looking from you was some sort of sensible reason as to why ID was harmful or dangerous or stupid.

Allowing non-science to pass as science id dangerous, as it opens the door to anything anyone ever says being called science.

Sensible post. However, you have not solved the problem of the great deal of material within evolutionary thought that is neither repeatable nor observable and yet somehow accepted as science.

The material is, however, falsifiable.

ID is not a theory, nor is it scientific in any way. at best its a hypothesis. These become thories after being empirically verified over and over again. In other words, proved. But you cant prove the existence of a creator. or disprove it. So you cant empirically verify it. so its not a theory.

Well, if you could demonstrate that there was no truth to the claims of ID, I would be inclined to believe you.

And that is exactly the problem! It is logically impossible to rule out a designer, no matter what we find out. It is completely and utterly unfalsifiable, and thus cannot be a part of science.

Currently, though, you have to admit that, based on scientific evidence, we are not in a position to rule out a Designer being involved in the creation process.

And thus, we do not rule it out. However, we also do not claim it to be true.

Science cannot do this. Thus, logically speaking, we must be prepared to accept any argument that presents itself as feasible to our senses.

Bullshit. If science cannot do it (which it can't), then science simply doesn't deal with it. Just as science cannot enter into a theological discussion, as theology is outside its realm, ID cannot enter into a scientific discussion, as it is completely based upon an unfalsifiable claim.

I'm personally not that familiar with the theory of ID, but I can't see where ID claims modern science is a fruitless search.

"This is so complicated, it must've been designed, so there's no point in trying to figure out how it came to be. The end. Let's go get coffee."

There have been plenty of major discoveries made by Christians. Most Christians I know hold that God had something to do with us being here, i.e., he is the Designer.

Yes, but those of us with any understanding of science at all (like those of us who are, in fact, scientists) don't claim that belief to be a scientific one.

One prediction that evolution never made was shrinking bacterial genomes. And it is one that ID would have predicted. The logic is simple. If bacteria began with complete genomes, over time, with accumulating mutations and natural selection, a logical conclusion is that as genes become mutated, and excised, the genome grows smaller, since only DNA that is necessary for survival remains. A classic example is Mycobacterium leprae, the bacterium that causes leprosy. It has lost so many genes that it can no longer survive without its host.
Evolution, however, predicted that bacterial genomes have been growing, in order for e.g. eukaryotes to arise from prokaryotes.
Another example is that evolution did not predict that plants would generally have more genes than humans (since humans would be considered more evolved) nor that nematodes (worms) would have almost as many genes as humans. It doesn't fit with evolutionary predictions, and as far as I know, nobody seems to be able to explain it in a way that the majority of geneticists would agree with. However, it is consistent with a Designer who numbered the genes according to the demands of the organism to suit its environment.

This demonstrates a lack of understanding. Evolution predicted that some bacterial genomes have been growing larger, because that growth conferred advantage upon them.

However, by the theory of evolution, a loss of genes that led to an advantage would also be passed on through natural selection.

Meanwhile, nothing in evolutionary theory says that human beings are "more evolved" than any other organism. The fact that you would make this statement demonstrates a complete ignorance of the theory. Plants are just as evolved for their niche as we are for ours. The same goes for worms, etc. We are more complex than some animals, but not more evolved.

On top of that, your suggestion that "more genes" = "more fit" = "more evolved" is not a part of evolutionary theory, nor would it hold with any geneticist out there.

And if you are claiming that evolution has cured any disease or brought us microchips, I cannot agree. For I have never ever seen a single case of evolutionary theory helping humanity. I would say the science has helped, but not evolution.

Study of the evolution of viruses has led to a greater understanding of the diseases they cause and how to treat them. Determination of which organisms are most closely related to human beings has led to better animal models for drug and disease reseach.

There's two.

ID does not try to establish how the designer did it, or even who he is. They leave that to the theologists. Nor are they concerned with how feasible he is, what his origins are, etc. They are focussing on the natural world.

And again, therein lies the problem. IDers have proposed a designer - in fact, their entire idea completely relies upon the idea that there is one. However, they cannot test for such a designer, and they cannot determine anything about such a designer. They make the assumption that a metaphysical entity exists (unscientific on its face) and then go from there.

Righto, I kinda asked something similar before, but I'll make this question more specific:

I call myself a theistic evolutionist. I believe in God (fervent Catholic), and I believe in evolution and Big Bang. I do believe that God has guided the process of evolution to its culmination in humanity, but I do not believe that the theory of evolution only makes sense and is valid if it was guided by God.

Am I an IDist?

Righto, I kinda asked something similar before, but I'll make this question more specific:

I call myself a theistic evolutionist. I believe in God (fervent Catholic), and I believe in evolution and Big Bang. I do believe that God has guided the process of evolution to its culmination in humanity, but I do not believe that the theory of evolution only makes sense and is valid if it was guided by God.

Am I an IDist?

You are somebody who doesn't want to take clear sides. -_-'

It isn't 'hatred' for ID... it is a backlash against a non-scientific principle being forced into science-education, despite failing to meet ANY requirements of the scientific principles.

Perhaps, in order to verify your statement about ID not having any scientific principles, we ought to come to an agreement on what those principles really are. If I remember correctly, you once said that you were a scientist of sorts. Care to name them?


Some people are just getting sick of being pushed around by religion... even when it masquerades as something else.

If that was true, then I could understand the people who are being educated by ID having that sort of attitude. But are you claiming that ID is personally pushing you around? Come off it.



Sorry - totally untrue. There is no way in which 'Intelligent Design" is testable.

My understanding of ID is that its a theory of information. The information, e.g., genes, can be detected, observed, measured, and tracing its 'flow', as many times as is necessary. In that sense, it can be tested, much like any other part of science.


The BEST you could do, is question the validity of a non-ID mechanism... which wouldn't mean ID was any truer, or that the non-ID meachinism was wrong. All it does, is cloud the issue, by ADDING extra (and non-verifiable) parameters into an experiment..

In addition to finding the holes (negative aspect), ID likes to reverse design. They look at the end product, and try to figure out how it got to that state. That involves separating the pieces of information, figuring out how they fit together, etc, etc. This is the positive contribution of ID.


No. ID has arisen out of the fact that Creationism isn't scientific.

That may be your claim, but it is not what they say.

The event of the "beginning of life" is over. Once and for all. Both evolution and creationism should be taught in the HISTORY class, not science. Unless somebody still insists that monkeys can still turn into humans. That I don't know. But I do see many humans degrading themselves into monkeys. :rolleyes:

Most of the venom aimed at ID is because it is being slowly forced into science classrooms, where it would be taught as though it were REAL science... DESPITE the fact that it doesn't adhere to even the most basic scientific principles.

But why doesn't anyone have venom for the just so stories of evolution? That if macroevolution is true, that somehow today's mutation rates and natural selection are supposed to account for it? All those stories about the origin of the genetic code, of multicellular life, the origin of sexuality, the biological big bang in the Cambrian era, the development of complex organ systems and of irreducibly complex molecular machines (e.g. flagella). These stories are not based on observation, repeatibility, nor are they falsifiable, and yet have been accepted within the hallowed halls of science a long time ago. How do you explain that?


For me - BRING IT ON, indeed. However, do I believe my children should be taught that IN SCIENCE CLASS? Hell, no. It isn't science, so don't rteach it in science class.

Interesting, I wonder if you are in the majority. If you keep ID out of the science class room, then to be consistent, there has to be a lot of other stuff removed as well.


They don't teach "Easter Bunny" reproduction in science class... nor the "Aerodynamics of Santa's Sleigh" - because both of those concepts would involve unfalsifiable assumptions - and so are not science.
Similarly, ID has NO PLACE in science classrooms.


So why do they teach that life comes from non-life in the classrooms? (I know, I know, it's not evolution, but the point remains.)


And, don't try to imply that the resistence to this enforced insertion of the unfalsifiable into science is INSECURITY. It is a defense against un illegal intrusion.

I'm not in a position to prove this, obviously, but I have to say that it does appear to be consistent. You may have no insecities about naturism, for one reason or another, but the same cannot be said about quite a lot of people, it seems.



I have read more than 'a book' about ID, and have seen nothing to validate it AS SCIENCE. I have no objections to people indulging their idle philosophical time, pondering over an Intelligent Designer... but I refuse to accept it as 'science' UNTIL the 'Intelligent Designer' is proved to be falsifiable.


They you will be waiting forever. Your solution won't work. The waiting won't help you. Unless you have never meant to wait in the first place, but have actually decided that there is no Designer. Out of interest, what would you say has helped you make that decision?

If you say that ID is not a science, then you have to say that bioinformatics and things like forensic science are not sciences. The methods are the same.


It is not MY claim that ID is "not observable, cannot be repeated in a laboratory, cannot be validated, and has a wealth of unfalsifiable assumptions" - it is just statement of truth.


God loves you. That is not my claim. Simply the truth.


Show me ONE example of ID being 'observed'? Show me ONE example of ID being 'repeated'.

Falsify the Intelligent Designer for me, and I'll accept it as science.

Isn't that a bit like saying, 'Show me one example of a bacteria turing into a mitochondria, or a prokaryote turing into a eukaryote'?

Actually, it's worse, in my books, because the methods of ID are to scrutinise information. That is repeatable, because any number of observations can arrive at the same conclusion: natural selection and today's mutation rates cannot account for the diversity and complexity that we currently observe.

'Intelligent design' (actually a misnommer for creationism, i. e. a belief - not a scientific theory - that the universe was created by some intelligent being -and we all know who that is suppose to be) can be easily disproven given the 'attempts' made by that unnamed creator. Simply take some of the ingenious 'designs' of our fellow mammals:

a) the giant sloth, at least four varieties in North America, as if slothdom was a niche crying out for the creation of an overgrown ground hog. The creator, realizing his error, decided to exterminate all of them (the eraser had not yet been invented).

b) the 17-year locust (actually a cicada) who emerges once every 17 years to procreate and then disappears into the earth for another 17 years. This may have been one of his more intelligent designs on one of his off days. But, this animal is not a model of the 'creator's' great aesthetic sense.

c) the rhinoceros, actually a wonderful animal with a bad disposition - and take it from me, if I had to carry one or two horns on my nose, I wouldn't be too happy either.

d) I leave the rest up to you. Look around. Judge the intelligent creation of such wonders as the mosquito, the leech, the tick, etc. And, lest we humans think that we're so much more intelligent than the 'creator' - remember that Noah was human and he must have taken at least a pair of mosquitos, leeches, ticks, etc. on board his ark. http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon12.gif

Such can be said for the people pushing ID.

The theory of naturism is inadequate, because it does not take into account the possibility that God was involved in the world being here. If the truth is that God was involved, then our science needs to be at least able to accomodate this. That is what I believe is the worthy contribution of ID.


ID is a danger to biology. It introduces "faith" into the equation.


I disagree. It certainly does not introduce faith, not according to the definition of ID, nor according to the definition of faith.


To attack ID is to attack somebodies religion.


No doubt some people see it that way. But I don't think it has to be necessarily so. At any rate, to attack naturism is to attack many people's belief in atheism. It was never going to be a debate that is free from emotions. There is quite a lot at stake.


It doesn't need to be in the science class room to be debated as it is already getting that.


True, but taking it into the class rooms may provide everyone the chance to debate it. One of my criticisms of kids that come out of schools today is that they believe in naturism without knowing it's strengths and weaknesses. Along with that comes this attitude that we modern humans know just about all there is to know about our world. This is certainly not helpful for the progress of science. We have to break that, when they come into the research lab. In my view, attitudes like that could be removed if we were prepared to allow the ID versus naturism debates in the classrooms.


Oh do tell.....


Well, without posting a huge amount of information, the origin of the genetic code, of multicellular life, the origin of sexuality, the biological big bang in the Cambrian era, the development of complex organ systems and of irreducibly complex molecular machines, that these all came about based on todays rate of genetic mutations and natural selection. That's not scientific. That is speculation, extrapolation, and guesswork. Necessary for forming an idea of the past, but not science, as it cannot be falsified, repeated, nor observed.



Evolution has never set out to prove or disprove the existence of God. You can offer a theory there was a God involved but how do you test for it? How do you tell what part was done? What was a random mutation?

Faith doesn't belong in science.


What IDers look at is information systems. They try to determine if random mutations and natural can explain how they come about. When they fall short of the requirements, they conclude that it was designed. That is where they stop with the God part. They don't try and figure out the exact amount of magic required to create a bug. I agree, science is great, but it is also limited. There is no room in it for faith.



An explanation based on faith is not science.


IDers would agree with that.


Evolution has never said anything can't be tested. It is desired to be tested and it goes on all the time.


I don't know how you can miss it. Can you test for the theory of prokaryotes turing into eukaryotes? Absolutely not. It is a necessary part of naturism? Absolutely.



Ok I will bite. What was falsified?


here is my quote from the my previous post
[/QUOTE]
For all the criticism of ID, perhaps we should also be prepared to criticise evolutionary theory for all the parts that are included but cannot be tested of falsified.
[/QUOTE]

But the last sentence should read.....'but cannot be tested OR falsified.' I'm not sure, but that may change your response. A blunder on my part. My apologies.
However, there have been plenty of examples of where naturism has made wrong predictions. But the naturists themselves are not perturbed by this. They say it is a normal part of scientific theory. Things are falsified all the time. And predictions are often wrong. Most of the time, it's because the scientist chooses the simplest explanation (Ockhams razor). But the simplest explanation is often not the best. Thus predictions based on the simplest explanation is sometimes, no often, wrong. I've been there myself, plenty of times.


In what?
Where did you get it?
What do you teach?


Bacterial biochemistry and genetics. Melbourne, Australia.


Ok for what?


my point was that just having a bias does not make one's theory true.


Ahhhh you just answered you question of why it is harmful, dangerous and stupid.


I don't see your point. Care to elaborate?



Ok what is not repeatable? As to observable If you mean Macro sure that is given but there isn't anything to say it is outright wrong. People in the evolutionary world argue of it all the time.

As to it being accepted as science? Of course, it still makes more sense then a guy/girl/whatever screaming HOCUS POCUS!

No, perhaps not outright wrong, because it's really hard to demonstrate a negative. (For example, how on earth can anyone demonstrate that non-life can never give rise to life, and that the new life cannot construct it's own methods for reproduction in the span of it's short life?) Your point that people would argue it demonstrates their bias, not that it is truth.

ID is the desperate attempt to discredit the fact of evolution
by focusing in on area where it believes the theory of the mechanisms
of evolution cannot be proven.

That is one way of looking at it. IDers would put it slightly different. That it isn't desperate, but on the contrary, an approach that appears quite reasonable and obvious. The argument of God from design in nature began with the theologians, the early church fathers. Only lately has it been arranged to conform with scientific principles.


However, to date, every time they have put forward something
they believe to be irreducibly complex, flagella etc,
biologists have been able to put forward quite reasonable mechanisms
that would explain how the final complex form came about.

Questionable computer models that fall hopelessly short of representing the real world are hardly 'reasonable mechanisms'. Natural selection and today's mutation rates are still no where near enough.


While sniping at weak points is a perfectly valid action for a scientist
and help to improve our understanding of the world
it does not make creationism or ID a scientific theory.


But if naturism is based on the weak points, then it is only right that scientific theory be honest enough to point them out, and be prepared to throw away naturism if it be found inadequate. And if naturism is wrong, then scientific theory would take a big step forward in letting it go.

ID does more than focus on the weak points. It encourages the reverse design concept, much like what we see in forensic sciences, or those chaps that try to figure out how the Egyptians built the pyramids.


The only place where creationists attempt the use of any science is
where they attempt to spot a flaw in the mechanisms of evolution as
currently postulated.

False. See above.


Even if ID proponents successfully spotted a flaw in theories about the
mechanisms of evolution they don't actually have any theories themselves
but that some invisible unknowable being made things.

ID does not have any scientific or logical basis at all.

The theory of ID does lead to a Designer. That means there will always be an entity within that theory that they can never measure, observe, or predict with any degree of accuracy. But if it's the truth, then it is the limitation of science. I realize people are reluctant to allow such a limitation, but reluctance (and the subsequent ridicule) does not prove it false.

To the best of my knowledge naturism is the term that
nudists now prefer for themselves.

ID is predicated on there being a designer and looking for
anything that might be difficult or impossible to explain without one.

That is not science and no matter how you dress it up to try
to make it look like science it can never be science.

You don't start with an hypothesis with no basis in observation even
and then stick with it regardless of much evidence to the contrary
in the hope that someday you will find the one special thing that clearly
cannot have come about by any evolutionary mechanism postulated.

I think you should take up someone elses suggestions here and put
your weight behind theory of gravity vs Intelligent Falling debates.

It makes as much sense but is slightly funnier.

That is like saying we should allow gravity vs. Intelligent Falling debate in our universities. Evolutionary theory will certainly be furthered by reasoned, scientific debate. However, debating science against non-science is simply masturbatory.


No quite. It would be a debate over which explanation is most likely. Your analogy is flawed, because you are comparing gravity (observable) with intelligent falling (intelligent part is unobservable). Whereas the debate between naturism and ID is between the parts that are unobservable, i.e. the designer doing the designing and eukaryotes somehow managing to rise from prokaryotes using todays mutation rates and natural selection. Neither is observable, nor repeatable, nor falsifiable.


No part of evolutionary theory assumes that God had nothing to do with anything. They simply don't assume that God did have something to do with it. The two are not equivalent.

But they are equivalent in effect. The end result is the same. Naturism doesn't rule out God, but does try to account for every aspect of the world based solely on natural causes. The result is to leave God completely out of the universe. Then, as a useless rider, he can be struck out, using Ockham's Razor, since he is unnecessary. Thus, he had nothing to do with putting this world here.


By definition, the study of science can assume nothing regarding a God - not even an assumption of existence or non-existence.


I understand your claim here, but I don't see why such a definition comes about. Who defined science anyway? Maybe you should elaborate on why science cannot possibly use evidence to point to a designer.


Anyone making the assumption that God is not involved is just as unscientific as someone making the assumption God was involved. Luckily, evolutionary theory assumes neither.


As I pointed out before, it avoids a direct assumption, but achieves the same result.


Allowing non-science to pass as science id dangerous, as it opens the door to anything anyone ever says being called science.


My understanding of ID tells me that it includes the same methods one might find in forensic science. I doubt anyone is going to claim that forensics is not science.


The material is, however, falsifiable.


Maybe you would like to demonstrate how it is possible to falsify the popular theory that bacteria turned into mitochondria.

Righto, I kinda asked something similar before, but I'll make this question more specific:

I call myself a theistic evolutionist. I believe in God (fervent Catholic), and I believe in evolution and Big Bang. I do believe that God has guided the process of evolution to its culmination in humanity, but I do not believe that the theory of evolution only makes sense and is valid if it was guided by God.

Am I an IDist?

Perhaps... however, people have believed that God instigated Evolution for many years. It is when this becomes a platform - a statmenet of faith - which is used to temper science, that you actually walk in to established ID territory.

There is nothing wrong with ID - it is far superior to the blanket assertion that a godlike being would cause all life to spring straight from the clay, in the face of much evidence to the contrary. But - is it the 'faith' side of your brain that trades in ID, or the 'reason' side?

To the best of my knowledge naturism is the term that
nudists now prefer for themselves.

I suppose nudism and science are far enough apart for everyone to not get too distracted by my use of the term naturism.


ID is predicated on there being a designer and looking for
anything that might be difficult or impossible to explain without one.


In their defense, they would say that they try to begin with the data analysis, and then decide whether it points to an intelligent cause or a natural cause(s). Thus, they do not base their research on there being a designer, but approach the material in the same way that any scientist would go about it. They are, of course, attracted to the weak points in naturism. But being attracted to a particular area of study is certainly not new, and happens all the time within naturism.


That is not science and no matter how you dress it up to try
to make it look like science it can never be science.

If it isn't science, then I doubt it is because of any of the points that you have raised. And if you choose to throw away the speculation side of science, you have to be consistent and throw away all the just so stories in naturism.


You don't start with an hypothesis with no basis in observation even
and then stick with it regardless of much evidence to the contrary
in the hope that someday you will find the one special thing that clearly
cannot have come about by any evolutionary mechanism postulated.


ID say that the flaws in naturism is what prompted them to create an organisation. However their approach is to investigate information systems, and observe whether today's mutation rates and natural selection are sufficient. There IS an observation process.


I think you should take up someone elses suggestions here and put
your weight behind theory of gravity vs Intelligent Falling debates.

It makes as much sense but is slightly funnier.

If you don't mind, I would much rather continue exploring the ID/naturism debate. It may not be as funny, but it is a lot more interesting.

The event of the "beginning of life" is over. Once and for all. Both evolution and creationism should be taught in the HISTORY class, not science. Unless somebody still insists that monkeys can still turn into humans. That I don't know. But I do see many humans degrading themselves into monkeys. :rolleyes:Degrading ourselves into monkeys? Hardly. Perhaps the cloest description would be to promote monkeys (and loads of other creatures) as not being as low a life form as everyone thougth they were.

In fact, technically, all liivng things alive today (from nemetode worms through cockroaches, blue whales, cabbage white butterflies, polar bears, rattlesnakes, petunias, e-coli, cats of all sorts and even, stretchig the word "living" beyond the standard usage, the influenza virus) are the current holders of the "best suited to be alive today" award.

Whether or not they'll live until a given tomorrow is another question (this includes humanity), but the ones that do, and any descendants of the current ones that arise, will be the "pinnacle" creatures of that tomorrow...

Being humans, we're very anthropocentric in nature, but those of us who aren't trading in bush-meat or destroying traditional forests can certainly encounter great-apes, primates, other mammals and indeed other living things and treat them as joint winners of the "we're alive today" trophy. (The fact that we're the only one with a mantlepiece to display it on is neither here nor there...)


And where didyou get the idea the evolution is 'history'?

Degrading ourselves into monkeys? Hardly. Perhaps the cloest description would be to promote monkeys (and loads of other creatures) as not being as low a life form as everyone thougth they were.

In fact, technically, all liivng things alive today (from nemetode worms through cockroaches, blue whales, cabbage white butterflies, polar bears, rattlesnakes, petunias, e-coli, cats of all sorts and even, stretchig the word "living" beyond the standard usage, the influenza virus) are the current holders of the "best suited to be alive today" award.

Whether or not they'll live until a given tomorrow is another question (this includes humanity), but the ones that do, and any descendants of the current ones that arise, will be the "pinnacle" creatures of that tomorrow...

Being humans, we're very anthropocentric in nature, but those of us who aren't trading in bush-meat or destroying traditional forests can certainly encounter great-apes, primates, other mammals and indeed other living things and treat them as joint winners of the "we're alive today" trophy. (The fact that we're the only one with a mantlepiece to display it on is neither here nor there...)


And where didyou get the idea the evolution is 'history'?

"Evolution" may not be history, but the suggestion that "life on Earth originated from evolution - or creation" is, strictly, history, because it has happened and done with and gone and it will never happen again.

And that is exactly the problem! It is logically impossible to rule out a designer, no matter what we find out. It is completely and utterly unfalsifiable, and thus cannot be a part of science.


Is that like saying that we can never rule out the possibilitiy of life arising from non-life, therefore it should never be part of science?


And thus, we do not rule it out. However, we also do not claim it to be true.


Right. Science is too limited for that. However, ID is not trying to prove God, only that information systems were designed. It's the answer to naturism, because where naturism subtly rules out interference from God, avoiding a direct assumption, ID does the opposite, but in the same way. It infers God indirectly.


Bullshit. If science cannot do it (which it can't), then science simply doesn't deal with it. Just as science cannot enter into a theological discussion, as theology is outside its realm, ID cannot enter into a scientific discussion, as it is completely based upon an unfalsifiable claim.


ID consists of two parts, or so it seems to me. One part is the observation, the investigation of information systems. That would be the science part. The other part is where it explains the design in the information systems as needing a designer. That is the explanation part. Observation and explanation. This goes on all the time in science. That's how we come up with the explanation that man evovled from slime. But that is only an explanation. Why don't you insist that it be removed from science?

Science does enter into theology. An example would be archeology. But theology cannot enter into science. That would make science a lot smaller than theology. But it is reasonable that science can point to theology as having the answers.


"This is so complicated, it must've been designed, so there's no point in trying to figure out how it came to be. The end. Let's go get coffee."


The positive contribution is to look at the design, and to work backwards in order to identify the components, understand how they interact, and make predictions about the purpose and function of the design, test the predictions, etc.


Yes, but those of us with any understanding of science at all (like those of us who are, in fact, scientists) don't claim that belief to be a scientific one.


I have never claimed that my belief in God was a scientific one. ID does not claim this either. In fact, those who believe in aliens being the cause of life would also support ID. ID just points to design and says there must have been a designer. In this way, it remains within science, because it makes no comment on the designer or his/her/its/their purposes, since they cannot me measured.



This demonstrates a lack of understanding. Evolution predicted that some bacterial genomes have been growing larger, because that growth conferred advantage upon them.

However, by the theory of evolution, a loss of genes that led to an advantage would also be passed on through natural selection.

Your posts suggests that you have not understood the implications of this problem. If you go to the NCBI webpages, you will find something like 420 microbial genomes, fully sequenced. The observation has been made that of each of the genomes studied, they are losing information, overall, in spite of the occassional additions (e.g. transposons, plasmids, etc.). In order for this to be consistent with naturism, the first bacterium must have had a lot more genes than the average bacterium today. That is preposterous. The direction is all wrong. It might be explained if the bacteria were, say, evenly divided between those with increasing genomes, and those with shrinking genomes. That would fit with natural selection. But this has not been observed.


Meanwhile, nothing in evolutionary theory says that human beings are "more evolved" than any other organism. The fact that you would make this statement demonstrates a complete ignorance of the theory. Plants are just as evolved for their niche as we are for ours. The same goes for worms, etc. We are more complex than some animals, but not more evolved.


More evolved in the sense that they have learned to control (in a limited way) their environment, as opposed to bacteria. More evolved in that they have undergone more changes. More evolved in that they are able to think, feel, laugh, love, pray, and even believe, carry out science. More complexity means a better ability to adapt to environment. Heck, even the concept of humans evolving from bacteria suggests that humans are more evolved than bacteria. Humans may not be more robust than bacteria. I suppose they are more likely to survive a bomb blast, for example. But I doubt that anyone would seriously argue that humans are not more evolved than bacteria. Your explanation does look a bit thin to me.


On top of that, your suggestion that "more genes" = "more fit" = "more evolved" is not a part of evolutionary theory, nor would it hold with any geneticist out there.


That was not my suggestiong 'darling', that was the prediction coming from naturism before we sat down and counted the number of genes. It is consistent with the idea that life just continues to get better all the time.


Study of the evolution of viruses has led to a greater understanding of the diseases they cause and how to treat them. Determination of which organisms are most closely related to human beings has led to better animal models for drug and disease reseach.

There's two.


A fully fledged IDer would have arrived at the same point. Relatedness is not necessarily a result of ancestry. A similarity in genes or physical traits may be a result of adaptation, or to fulful the purpose for which they were designed, both of which are well within the predictions of ID. This would have served equally well in such cases. Perhaps it was a conincidence that naturism got it right in this case.



And again, therein lies the problem. IDers have proposed a designer - in fact, their entire idea completely relies upon the idea that there is one. However, they cannot test for such a designer, and they cannot determine anything about such a designer. They make the assumption that a metaphysical entity exists (unscientific on its face) and then go from there.

They don't want to use science to determine anything about the designer (other than, perhaps, that he was good at it).

ID does not make this assumption. They search for design in nature. They say that design is evidence for a designer. Thus they avoid a direct assumption. The more I read your posts, the more it seems that you have read about ID only from what it's critics have written.

"Evolution" may not be history, but the suggestion that "life on Earth originated from evolution - or creation" is, strictly, history, because it has happened and done with and gone and it will never happen again.


You would be exactly right except that theory of evolution tells us
that evolution is an ongoing process.

You would be exactly right except that theory of evolution tells us
that evolution is an ongoing process.
That is a disputed event.

Anyway, "the creation/evolution of life from no-life" is over. Therefore it's "history", not "science".

That is a disputed event.

Anyway, "the creation/evolution of life from no-life" is over. Therefore it's "history", not "science".


And you know that it is over how?

for all you know somewhere in the universe life may be coming from non life
right now


also evolution isn't disputed in any meaningful sense anymore than
the earth not being flat;
there are flat earthers but no one actually takes them seriously and it certainly doesn't rate as dispute.

Funny how you never responded to my last post. You got proved wrong.


If it isn't science, then I doubt it is because of any of the points that you have raised. And if you choose to throw away the speculation side of science, you have to be consistent and throw away all the just so stories in naturism.

The issue is ID has no evidence and is not testable. It isn't the "speculation side of science" (nice one on making that line up). Since your beloved ID cannot be tested it is not considered science. It never has, and never will be. Science is a secular field too. That's why we need to keep the ID crap out of schools.

I refuted you big time and you didn't bother responding to it...

But why doesn't anyone have venom for the just so stories of evolution? *snip for BS* How do you explain that?

Do you ever bother backing yourself up here? I have not seen you bother posting any evidence for your rather weak argument.


Interesting, I wonder if you are in the majority. If you keep ID out of the science class room, then to be consistent, there has to be a lot of other stuff removed as well.

No, because ID is bad and based on a pack of lies. It is religion trying to squeeze its way in science. You cannot remove other facts.


If you say that ID is not a science, then you have to say that bioinformatics and things like forensic science are not sciences. The methods are the same.

No they are not. You're full of it and you need to start backing yourself up. ID is nothing like bioinformatics or forensic science. These are backed by facts, and ID is backed by nothing. ID is a hoax.

God loves you. That is not my claim. Simply the truth.

No it is not. It is a claim. And spewing out nonsense like that completely discredits you. I'm sorry, but you have no credibility to stand on.

All theories are respectable. I don't agree with creationism, I think that is the quest of the people (costumed to comfortable atheist stuff for decades) for replacing with religion the uncool things that material world can't give them.

The past is so unknown that every theory is valid, and intelligent design occupies from a God symbol of goodness to Extraterrestrial intelligent life.

Something hard to assume for me, BTW.

Perhaps, in order to verify your statement about ID not having any scientific principles, we ought to come to an agreement on what those principles really are. If I remember correctly, you once said that you were a scientist of sorts. Care to name them?


The 'HyperDictionary' gives a fairly basic, kiddy-frindly definition of the scientific method, from which we can draw some pointers:

"The universally-accepted, organized approach to the study of science, which consists of the following steps:
Observation - collecting data;
Hypothesis - forming a preliminary possible explanation of the data;
Testing - test the hypothesis by collecting more data;
Results - interpreting the results of the test and deciding if the hypothesis should be rejected. The hypothesis is rejected if the results contradict it, showing that it is wrong; and
Conclusion - stating a conclusion that can be evaluated independently by others. "

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=scientific+method

Obviously - the first stage of the scientific method, is the collection of data by observation... and THIS is the first hurdle at which ID falls down. In order to collect your data, you need to measure your experimental parameters - and yet ID calls for there to be an 'exterior' force or intelligence - which cannot be observed, and thus, cannot be collected as data.

The second stage is the formation of a hypothesis - which is ONLY valid to the scientific method, IF it is based upon reasonable observation.

The third stage is the testing stage - and there is no way to 'test' ID - since, as we have said before, it relies on an entity that resists all methods of testing... an 'unfalsifiable' quantity. Thus - ID cannot be 'tested' according to the scientific method, and no extra data can be obtained in support. Effectively EVERY ID 'datum' is n independent event... since you cannot complete the third stage.

The fourth stage is the result stage - where we compare our data obtained against our theoretical model, to see if the two are compatible. ID doesn't score here, either - since the 'hypothesis' can NEVER be shown to be wrong... no matter what the results.

The fifth stage is the conclusion. Unfortunately, ID is ONLY a conclusion... it skips ALL FOUR of the 'scientific' stages of the method, to arrive at a conclusion already formulated.

This is why ID is 'bad science': It starts with the assumption of an Intelligent Designer, which cannot be falsified, and then looks for evidence that might fit that conclusion.

You are a scientist, too, are you not? Do you not follow the scientific method in your work?


If that was true, then I could understand the people who are being educated by ID having that sort of attitude. But are you claiming that ID is personally pushing you around? Come off it.


No - ID is part of the 'pushing'. When someone shoots at you, you don't get hurt directly by the gun... it is the bullets that do the damage. Fundamentalists are the gun, and 'ID' is just one bullet.


My understanding of ID is that its a theory of information. The information, e.g., genes, can be detected, observed, measured, and tracing its 'flow', as many times as is necessary. In that sense, it can be tested, much like any other part of science.


No. ID is the idea that there is an Intelligetn Designer. No matter WHAT ELSE is in the 'theory'... there is ALWAYS that one assumption. In order for you to ascertain the 'flow' of genes through ID, they would need to be something that could NOT be also tracked through evolutionary genetics... because otherwise, you are just using the 'science' of evolution, with a 'label' of ID.


In addition to finding the holes (negative aspect), ID likes to reverse design. They look at the end product, and try to figure out how it got to that state. That involves separating the pieces of information, figuring out how they fit together, etc, etc. This is the positive contribution of ID.


Anyone can speculate as to HOW a given trait came to be... where is the useful end product from ID? Have you ever read the children's story "How the Elephant got it's Trunk"? Sure, it's a swell story - but it's not science... and it can't be used to rpedict scientific data.


That may be your claim, but it is not what they say.

That may not be what they say, but they have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary.

The event of the "beginning of life" is over. Once and for all. Both evolution and creationism should be taught in the HISTORY class, not science. Unless somebody still insists that monkeys can still turn into humans. That I don't know. But I do see many humans degrading themselves into monkeys. :rolleyes:

On the contrary - who is to say that evolution has ceased?

We are talking a process than can take millions of years. To assume there is no more, just because recorded science hasn't seen 'man' evolve into anything in the last few hundred years, is simplistic and flawed.

And, bear in mind, please... NOBODY ever claimed that 'monkeys turned into humans'.

But why doesn't anyone have venom for the just so stories of evolution? That if macroevolution is true, that somehow today's mutation rates and natural selection are supposed to account for it? All those stories about the origin of the genetic code, of multicellular life, the origin of sexuality, the biological big bang in the Cambrian era, the development of complex organ systems and of irreducibly complex molecular machines (e.g. flagella). These stories are not based on observation, repeatibility, nor are they falsifiable, and yet have been accepted within the hallowed halls of science a long time ago. How do you explain that?


Irreducibly complex molecular machines are not 'accepted within the hallowed halls of science'. Time and again, Irredubible complexity has been shown to be flawed. If it ever DOES manage to throw up a single 'irreducible' complexity, it is a valid datum... but nothing has yet qualified.

I suggest you do a web-search on the 'irreducibility' of complexity of bacterial flagella... it's ancient history... only those who NEVER research the matter would dare to inform you that it is still a valid concern.

I don't know how I can 'explain' things that you are arguing here... you seem to be lumping together theoretical material (like the origins of sexuality), with debunked pseudo-science.... I can't defend half of that, because it is invalid to begin with.


Interesting, I wonder if you are in the majority. If you keep ID out of the science class room, then to be consistent, there has to be a lot of other stuff removed as well.


Like what? And why? So that Ider's can claim a pyrric, yet somewhat petulant, victory? Everything should be judged on it's OWN merits. ID has none.


So why do they teach that life comes from non-life in the classrooms? (I know, I know, it's not evolution, but the point remains.)


They don't teach that.


I'm not in a position to prove this, obviously, but I have to say that it does appear to be consistent. You may have no insecities about naturism, for one reason or another, but the same cannot be said about quite a lot of people, it seems.


Naturism is taking your clothes off. Is that what you mean?


They you will be waiting forever. Your solution won't work. The waiting won't help you. Unless you have never meant to wait in the first place, but have actually decided that there is no Designer. Out of interest, what would you say has helped you make that decision?

If you say that ID is not a science, then you have to say that bioinformatics and things like forensic science are not sciences. The methods are the same.


Forensics is scientific... have you ever seen how a forensics lab runs?

And, I haven't decided there IS no designer... I just don't see any evidence to support one. But, THAT is irrelevent. Even when I WAS a Christian, I STILL didn't believe ID had any place in science classrooms.


God loves you. That is not my claim. Simply the truth.


I love god, too. Despite his failings. And the lack of evidence of his existence. I'm very easy-going like that.


Isn't that a bit like saying, 'Show me one example of a bacteria turing into a mitochondria, or a prokaryote turing into a eukaryote'?

Actually, it's worse, in my books, because the methods of ID are to scrutinise information. That is repeatable, because any number of observations can arrive at the same conclusion: natural selection and today's mutation rates cannot account for the diversity and complexity that we currently observe.

Even if mutation rates do not EASILY explain diversity... they do explain it. You just don't accept the PROBABILITY.

And, even if you were RIGHT, and 'evolution' could not entirely explain the rapidity of evolution... that STILL doesn't make any space for pseudo-science.

Natural selection and today's mutation rates are still no where near enough.


Prove it. Once you can PROVE that mutation cannot have created the visible diversity, THEN you might have found a flaw in the theory.

At the moment, all the ID community can do is say they 'think it unlikely'...


The theory of ID does lead to a Designer. That means there will always be an entity within that theory that they can never measure, observe, or predict with any degree of accuracy. But if it's the truth, then it is the limitation of science. I realize people are reluctant to allow such a limitation, but reluctance (and the subsequent ridicule) does not prove it false.

The simple fact that the so-called 'theory' of Intelligent Design is based on the idea of an Intelligent Designer that CANNOT BE FALSIFIED, is enough reason to consider it unscientific.

Yes, that IS a limitation of science! Science does not accept unfalsifiable premises. And ID is NOT scientific, so it can't get in.

The question is - why does ID WANT to be in 'science', if the instituion is so flawed?

The answer is - because sciencedoesn't NEED to calculate 'intelligent designers'... and there are people out there with an axe to grind.

"Evolution" may not be history, but the suggestion that "life on Earth originated from evolution - or creation" is, strictly, history, because it has happened and done with and gone and it will never happen again.

Why?

Right. Science is too limited for that. However, ID is not trying to prove God, only that information systems were designed. It's the answer to naturism, because where naturism subtly rules out interference from God, avoiding a direct assumption, ID does the opposite, but in the same way. It infers God indirectly.


No - it infers god (or a godlike entity) directly. It RELIES on teh assumption of an Intelligent Designer.

Hence the name.

If it were an honest attempt at science, it would purely be looking at the 'information systems'.... not speculating about non-falsifiable mechanisms.

The fact that ID STARTS with the assertion that there MUST be a designer, calls into question the validity of ANY alleged 'science' that ID-proponents might do.

The sensible practitioner of ID-belief, would leave his 'religion' in the church, and the privacy of his own home - not try to enforce it in the laboratory, and CERTAINLY not in the schoolroom.

Funny how you never responded to my last post. You got proved wrong.

I refuted you big time and you didn't bother responding to it... Because it is based on a foundation of lies.

I responded to about 4 or 5 other people....something like 4 hours of thinking and typing. Can't possibly respond to everyone. As much as I enjoy NS, I think one does need a break at times.

No, Mesatecala, you didn't prove me wrong. You just keep repeating the same message. I hate ID. You are talking rubbish. It's all lies. If I choose not to respond, it would be an assumption on your part to say that it is because I could not face your powers of reasoning.


ID is not the study of anything. I do not like it. I do not want to see it in schools. It is not a theory. It is religious propaganda harped up by people as yourself. There is no way ID is testable. It is not science. Please understand ID does not use evidence. It rather tries to poke holes in evolution and fails badly at it. It isn't testable at all. You have to wonder why it never has been submitted for peer review.

You may not like it. But that doesn't make it false. The problem with natralistic methodism (evolution) is that it takes the liberty of criticising everything, art, music, philosophy, religion, etc. It demands that every absolute, every cause, every assumption be held up to scrutiny. If something cannot be proven, then it is considered irrational. Thus it takes the place as 'truth' in our modern society. Anyone who disagrees with it's conclusions is considered insane or wicked. However, the moment someone wants to scrutinise it's assumptions, it responds by labelling it as non-science.
In short, naturism is prepared to criticise everything else, but cannot bear to undergo the same criticism. It's like we have created this 'thing', and it is taking us somewhere, but we don't know where, for we are not allowed to question it. We must accept it as truth. ID wants to challenge that assumption. If evolution is true, then the challenge will confirm it as truth. Digging up more facts will only present the truth more clearly.



Actually there are no scientists who support it and ID has never faced peer review. It is a hoax and is considered one. It does not explain anything. The incredible complexity? That's the typical creationist talking point:

There has to be a creator because things are too complex.

Nonsense. You need to provide some evidence, not just the typical "because I say so" comment. No scientists support this crap, and it should stay out of schools.


Some of the current leading IDers are Michael Behe (biological sciences), Walter Bradley (mechanical engineering), William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, and Stephen C. Meyer. Perhaps they are not all scientists, but some are, and they are all professionals and highly educated. I call them brave, because they carry most of the scorn and insults from the evolutionist camp.



Intelligent Design is nonsense nonetheless because it falls back on a faulty premise.


I suppose you mean it is faulty because it allows that there is a designer. But why should that be faulty? Science is supposed to deal with the real world, with real possibilities. If a Designer is real, it has to allow for this.


Please read the entire study there. Starting from page 1.


Why, I have heard it all before. I have even taught some of this stuff. It still doesn't answer the problem of shrinking bacterial genomes.


You have said nothing sensible. You fall back on the typical tirades of creationist (aka intelligent design) crap. You have attempted to even back yourself up. You instead rely on faulty and untestable statements. You have to understand what evolution is. And that goes onto my next refutation.


Like it or not, it is a real problem. Just type in 'shrinking genomes' in google, and see what happens.


Intelligent Design advocates are foolish and can't seem to grasp what evolution is. They poke holes but they can't because they do it without evidence. They claim there must be a creator because everything is too complex. But that's a strawman argument.... hey what do I expect.. that's all the (un)Intelligent Design argument is based on! Strawman arguments and slippery slopes! You need to provide evidence to back up your argument before you ask me to explain my position.


I think it is precisely because they understand evolution well enough to be able to see the holes that places them in a good position to make the criticisms.


And that is not a stawman argument. Stawmen arguments are where to take an argument that you think your opponent is hiding behind, and demolish it. The staw part is where the argument you selected was not one that the opponent uses.


You need to provide evidence for your arguments. Science has uncovered a lot of evidence for evolution. You want to continue being stubborn with that creationist nonsense? That's nice. You can continue denying evidence.


Do you mean you would like me to cite my references? I gave you one about the shrinking genomes. Go ahead. Look it up yourself. You should have google. But I should add that I did not get it from the IDers. I found it in my own readings of science literature.


Your issue is you cannot accept the fact that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. There are a few issues with evolution but those are being cleared up. Intelligent design on the other hand is backed by no scientists, and has never been submitted for peer review (which is required). Evolution is testable and proveable. Intelligent Design is not. Therefore evolutionists stand on better ground then you do. Evolution has mountains of evidence. And it is in fact proven. You are just plain wrong.


Do you mean that science has now proven that slime evolved into man? The evidence is hardly overwhelming. More like none existent.

A few issues being cleared up? If that were true, why on earth are the evolutionists getting all het about about ID? They look scared to me.

And perhaps you might like to suggest how to get a publication into a journal where the editor is likely to lose his job if he takes it? Or his reputation.


ID is a moronic belief that can ruin someone's educational process. Those who back ID don't have any support for their arguments. Those who push it in the schools (pushy christian fundies) don't use common logic. Those are the dangers of ID. Teaching it in science, puts the system at perilous risk because ID isn't science. It should be kept out of schools. I provided sensible answers, but it isn't my fault you choose to be blind when I try to explain myself.


Are they teaching ID in your school?



REFUTED!


But I thought we were only beginning.

You may not like it. But that doesn't make it false.


If ONLY the ID camp would take your advice...


I call them brave, because they carry most of the scorn and insults from the evolutionist camp.


I call them snake-oil salesmen, and charlatans - because they are peddling non-science as though it genuinely belonged in the science establishment.


Science is supposed to deal with the real world, with real possibilities. If a Designer is real, it has to allow for this.


No - you misunderstand what science does. 'Science' deals with the observable... not the ineffable.


Are they teaching ID in your school?


They have ratified it for science classes in Kansas, I believe... and certain other (mainly Bible Belt) school systems are looking it following suit.

No - it infers god (or a godlike entity) directly. It RELIES on teh assumption of an Intelligent Designer.

''Much as Darwin began with the commonsense recognition that artificial selection in animal and plant breeding experiments is capable of directing organismal variation (which he then bootstrapped into a general mechanism to account for all organismal variation), so too the intelligent design research program begins with the commonsense recognition that humans draw design inferences routinely in ordinary life, explaining some things in terms of purely natural causes and other things in terms of intelligence or design (cf. archeologists attributing rock formations in one case to erosion and in another to design--as with the megaliths at Stonehenge).'' William A. Dembski

This is a quite from an IDer, who points out that ID is based on commonsense. It doesn't start with assuming a designer, but rather ends with it.


If it were an honest attempt at science, it would purely be looking at the 'information systems'.... not speculating about non-falsifiable mechanisms.


According to the rules made up by who? the neo-Darwinian establishment. How convenient for them that the rules that they make happen to rule out any reference to a Designer within science--such is their definition of science. Maybe we ought to change the rules a bit. Perhaps we should criticise the assumptions of naturalistic evolution, just as the scientific method allows us, just as the neo-Darwin camp has been criticising everything else in our world.

This is not a matter of dishonesty in among the IDers. This is where science tries to study the real world as we find it, allowing the real possibility of a Designer.


The fact that ID STARTS with the assertion that there MUST be a designer, calls into question the validity of ANY alleged 'science' that ID-proponents might do.


What, then, are we to do with the assertion that only natural forces accounted for the evolution from slime to man? That knife cuts both ways.


The sensible practitioner of ID-belief, would leave his 'religion' in the church, and the privacy of his own home - not try to enforce it in the laboratory, and CERTAINLY not in the schoolroom.

once again, perhaps the neo-Dawin folk should leave their assumptions to themselves, and stop teaching our kids that ''we aint nothing but mammals, so lets do it like they do it on the discovery channel.''

Is ID a religous idea? I think that is the most basic question to ask and one that many who are promoting ID circumvent. If ID is true, then it requires faith. What I think I understand is that their argument is that they are not necessarily saying that there is a designer but that there is not evidence enough to say that there isn't one. Which brings us back to: if there is one, it requires faith. It seems to me to be circular thinking.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

''Much as Darwin began with the commonsense recognition that artificial selection in animal and plant breeding experiments is capable of directing organismal variation (which he then bootstrapped into a general mechanism to account for all organismal variation), so too the intelligent design research program begins with the commonsense recognition that humans draw design inferences routinely in ordinary life, explaining some things in terms of purely natural causes and other things in terms of intelligence or design (cf. archeologists attributing rock formations in one case to erosion and in another to design--as with the megaliths at Stonehenge).'' William A. Dembski

This is a quite from an IDer, who points out that ID is based on commonsense. It doesn't start with assuming a designer, but rather ends with it.


Rubbish. Sorry, but that was totally untrue.

Okay - we see a rock formation... we assume it is weather. We see a rock formation which appears to have symbols carved into it... we question our idea of weather... but we can't find any evidence of something else... so we are still stuck with weather.

It is only if we have EVIDENCE that there was a designer (as, for example, the WEALTH of evidence of possible designers at Stonehenge), that we can make ANY assertions about the rock formation being 'designed'.

ID relies on the assumption that there is a designer.

It finds genetic formations, and speculates a designer... despite the fact that it COULD EASILY have been 'the weather', and that there is NO VERIFICATION of the designer.


According to the rules made up by who? the neo-Darwinian establishment. How convenient for them that the rules that they make happen to rule out any reference to a Designer within science--such is their definition of science. Maybe we ought to change the rules a bit. Perhaps we should criticise the assumptions of naturalistic evolution, just as the scientific method allows us, just as the neo-Darwin camp has been criticising everything else in our world.

This is not a matter of dishonesty in among the IDers. This is where science tries to study the real world as we find it, allowing the real possibility of a Designer.


Science has been a 'thing' since long before Darwin. Trying to imply that it has somehow become Darwin's pet lapdog is ridiculous.

We are NOT going to change the rules. If you 'change the rules', you are no longer following the scientific method... and what you are doing is NOT science.

And, you need to stop going on about 'allowing the possibility of a designer'. Science DOES allow the possibility... in as much as it says that a designer cannot be proved OR disproved. What it does NOT do, however, is ALLOW that UNFALSIFIABLE quantity to be a factor in the methodology.


What, then, are we to do with the assertion that only natural forces accounted for the evolution from slime to man? That knife cuts both ways.


In the absence of FALSIFIABLE evidence to the contrary, the science establishment relies on the FALSIFIABLE evidence that IS available.

Currently, ALL the FALSIFIABLE evidence says that 'evolution' is a chance mechanism that favours the fittest entities.

Present VALID and VERIFIABLE evidence to the contrary, ans science will do what it always does: change to accomodate.

However, science will not, and SHOULD not, change to accomodate whatever fairytale is popular at any given moment.


once again, perhaps the neo-Dawin folk should leave their assumptions to themselves, and stop teaching our kids that ''we aint nothing but mammals, so lets do it like they do it on the discovery channel.''

Again with thye neo-Darwinians...

We have nipples. We give birth to live young. We have hair on our skin.

We ARE mammals... whether we got here by design or coincidence.

''Much as Darwin began with the commonsense recognition that artificial selection in animal and plant breeding experiments is capable of directing organismal variation (which he then bootstrapped into a general mechanism to account for all organismal variation), so too the intelligent design research program begins with the commonsense recognition that humans draw design inferences routinely in ordinary life, explaining some things in terms of purely natural causes and other things in terms of intelligence or design (cf. archeologists attributing rock formations in one case to erosion and in another to design--as with the megaliths at Stonehenge).'' William A. Dembski

This is a quite from an IDer, who points out that ID is based on commonsense. It doesn't start with assuming a designer, but rather ends with it.
And Dembski is a blithering, slobbering, moron for claiming that because the logic involved is self refuting.

Consider, I can tell a building is designed, I can tell an arrowhead was designed, I can tell this computer was designed, quite right. At the same time the only way the idea that they were designed makes sense is in the context that some things are designed and some things are not. The computer is designed to me, the tree is not. If we are to say that all things are designed or the byproduct of design which is the conclusion of intelligent design, it becomes impossible to make design inferences at all any more than a man could make color distinctions in an all black room. If we are to contrast the designed from the natural, there must be some of each.

Intelligent design, if held to be true, would conclude that design is omnipresent thus humans cannot tell design apart from non-design, thus the logic that we can test to see if the entire universe is designed is self refuting.


According to the rules made up by who? the neo-Darwinian establishment. How convenient for them that the rules that they make happen to rule out any reference to a Designer within science--such is their definition of science. Maybe we ought to change the rules a bit. Perhaps we should criticise the assumptions of naturalistic evolution, just as the scientific method allows us, just as the neo-Darwin camp has been criticising everything else in our world. Quite frankly, this is the most telling post you have made. You have essentially admitted that intelligent design is incapable of playing by the rules of science.

This is not a matter of dishonesty in among the IDers. This is where science tries to study the real world as we find it, allowing the real possibility of a Designer. Science does not allow the untestable and the unfalsifiable. Intelligent design is inherently both. Therefore Science doesn't allow them and IDist claiming otherwise are being dishonest at best.

What, then, are we to do with the assertion that only natural forces accounted for the evolution from slime to man? That knife cuts both ways.
Wrong again. There is no "assumption". We observe natural forces doing it, we attribute the effect to a naturalistic cause. There is no sign of a supernatural cause, we don't attribute it to one. It is that simple and no assumptions are involved on our part, only observations.


once again, perhaps the neo-Dawin folk should leave their assumptions to themselves, and stop teaching our kids that ''we aint nothing but mammals, so lets do it like they do it on the discovery channel.''
:rolleyes: Right, because that's what we do.

The 'HyperDictionary' gives a fairly basic, kiddy-frindly definition of the scientific method, from which we can draw some pointers:



http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=scientific+method

Obviously - the first stage of the scientific method, is the collection of data by observation... and THIS is the first hurdle at which ID falls down. In order to collect your data, you need to measure your experimental parameters - and yet ID calls for there to be an 'exterior' force or intelligence - which cannot be observed, and thus, cannot be collected as data.

Information systems is the data. You collect if, for example, by collecting gene sequences. The parameters are the definitions of the genes. No need for the Designer as this stage.



The second stage is the formation of a hypothesis - which is ONLY valid to the scientific method, IF it is based upon reasonable observation.


Obviously, no problem here, except that the neo-Dawin folk have constructed the rules of science to forbid the inclusion of anthing that is not a natural cause. I disagree with this rule.


The third stage is the testing stage - and there is no way to 'test' ID - since, as we have said before, it relies on an entity that resists all methods of testing... an 'unfalsifiable' quantity. Thus - ID cannot be 'tested' according to the scientific method, and no extra data can be obtained in support. Effectively EVERY ID 'datum' is n independent event... since you cannot complete the third stage.


Why? Test the theory that an information system was formed by natural causes or that it cannot be accounted for by natural causes, therefore the design points to a designer. It's only sensible. When you find a book on a deserted park bench, you assume that the information was put there, and that natural causes could not account for it. You keep infering that ID has to test the Designer. Looks like you are deliberately trying to fuzz up the issue. ID tests the information system. It is possible that ID concludes that some parts of information can be modified and contributed to, by natural causes. Or it finds that the system is irreducibly complex, and therefore makes the sensible conclusion that it was designed.


The fourth stage is the result stage - where we compare our data obtained against our theoretical model, to see if the two are compatible. ID doesn't score here, either - since the 'hypothesis' can NEVER be shown to be wrong... no matter what the results.


Like I said, you seem to be suggesting that ID is trying to study the designer, rather then the design.
What I think ID would do with the collection of results stage would be to see if a designer is required to explain the intelligence that they have discovered. No problem here.


The fifth stage is the conclusion. Unfortunately, ID is ONLY a conclusion... it skips ALL FOUR of the 'scientific' stages of the method, to arrive at a conclusion already formulated.

IDers will probably come to the conclusion that the Designer was, once again, required to explain the design. Naturalistic evolution does exactly the same thing. It will always conclude that the results can be accounted for by natural random causes. You will have to wear your own criticism.


This is why ID is 'bad science': It starts with the assumption of an Intelligent Designer, which cannot be falsified, and then looks for evidence that might fit that conclusion.

You are a scientist, too, are you not? Do you not follow the scientific method in your work?


Naturalistic evolution also starts with the assumption that natural causes explains everything, and will never conclude anything else. That is why it is 'bad science'.

Yes, I do follow the scientific method in my work. That is why I can imagine what the IDers are doing, and do not consider it any more 'bad science' than naturalistic evolutionism. The only point is where ID requires that the rules be changed to allow a reference in science to something that in not a natural cause.


No - ID is part of the 'pushing'. When someone shoots at you, you don't get hurt directly by the gun... it is the bullets that do the damage. Fundamentalists are the gun, and 'ID' is just one bullet.

Fundamentalists may be attracted to ID because they feel it supports their belief system and undermines the stronghold of evolution, but I understand that many of the leading IDers are not Fundamental. Michael Behe, for example, is a Catholic.
And no one is shooting or pushing. It's just a debate. Do you seriously think it will hurt the kids? Perhaps it will show them just where the assumptions in science really are.


No. ID is the idea that there is an Intelligetn Designer. No matter WHAT ELSE is in the 'theory'... there is ALWAYS that one assumption. In order for you to ascertain the 'flow' of genes through ID, they would need to be something that could NOT be also tracked through evolutionary genetics... because otherwise, you are just using the 'science' of evolution, with a 'label' of ID.


How come you reply with a 'no' to my post, and then post nothing to support your negative? The assumption of a designer is not the part that is constantly being tested, just as the assumption of only natural causes is not constantly being tested either.
And if you can't see that your own belief system has assumptions in it, you are blinder than I thought.


Anyone can speculate as to HOW a given trait came to be... where is the useful end product from ID? Have you ever read the children's story "How the Elephant got it's Trunk"? Sure, it's a swell story - but it's not science... and it can't be used to rpedict scientific data.


No, I haven't read that story. No, wait, was it the pre-elephant that got his nose pulled and pulled by the badie of the story? I think I vaguely remember it. So you think that ID is about making up stories. But I get same impression from the just so stories of evolution that come on our TVs every now and then. Scientific data is not predicted anyway. It is collected. Models are predicted. And ID has plenty of them, it seems.


That may not be what they say, but they have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary.

Or perhaps you are yet to read a single line of published pro-ID news. What was that you wrote about Christians not being too good at reading literature that does not support their position?

Why? Test the theory that an information system was formed by natural causes or that it cannot be accounted for by natural causes, therefore the design points to a designer. It's only sensible. When you find a book on a deserted park bench, you assume that the information was put there, and that natural causes could not account for it. You keep infering that ID has to test the Designer. Looks like you are deliberately trying to fuzz up the issue. ID tests the information system. It is possible that ID concludes that some parts of information can be modified and contributed to, by natural causes. Or it finds that the system is irreducibly complex, and therefore makes the sensible conclusion that it was designed.
How do you test the "therefore"? If you rule out natural causes, all you are left with is supernatural causes. Can a supernatural thing cause a natural thing? How do you explain/account for this? How do you test for that? Where is the data for this?

http://www.boingboing.net/2005/08/19/boing_boings_250000_.html

Prove that Jesus Christ is not the son of the Flying Spaghetti Monster with empirical evidence, and you will receive $1 million!

http://www.boingboing.net/2005/08/19/boing_boings_250000_.html

Prove that Jesus Christ is not the son of the Flying Spaghetti Monster with empirical evidence, and you will receive $1 million!
What if you prove that he is?

What if you prove that he is?

Lol, you probably won't receive a cash prize, but you will be rewarded in that you have solved a great theological mystery. :D

Lol, you probably won't receive a cash prize, but you will be rewarded in that you have solved a great theological mystery. :D
I really do think that I should become part of this religion. They even have a prayer that snuck through undetected for close to a century:

On top of spaghetti,
All covered with cheese,
I lost my poor meatball
When somebody sneezed

I mean, looked at a certain way... it does have much to say about living a moral and healthy life.

The event of the "beginning of life" is over. Once and for all. Both evolution and creationism should be taught in the HISTORY class, not science. Unless somebody still insists that monkeys can still turn into humans. That I don't know. But I do see many humans degrading themselves into monkeys. :rolleyes:

Well, since the "beginning of life" isn't a topic of evlolution, I don't really know what you are on about.

Meanwhile, no one who understands the theory of evolution has ever insisted that monkeys can ever or have ever turned into humans. Sorry.

But why doesn't anyone have venom for the just so stories of evolution?

The things you are calling "stories of evolution" are hypotheses based upon the theory, not the theory itself, which describes a mechanism.

These stories are not based on observation, repeatibility, nor are they falsifiable, and yet have been accepted within the hallowed halls of science a long time ago. How do you explain that?

This is incorrect. These stories are based on observation, simply not direct observation. These stories, actually are falsifiable, as it can possibly be demonstrated, through experimentation, that certain mutations are impossible, or that a given pathway is inadequate.

So why do they teach that life comes from non-life in the classrooms? (I know, I know, it's not evolution, but the point remains.)

They don't. Abiogenesis is taught as a possibility. It is introduced as a possible extension of other theories, but not as a tried-and-true theory itself. Classrooms don't teach that life comes from non-life, they teach that it might have done so at some point in time.

If you say that ID is not a science, then you have to say that bioinformatics and things like forensic science are not sciences. The methods are the same.

And another completely baseless claim. The methods of bioinformatics and forensic sciences are nothing like ID, which is to claim, "There is a creator." and then go about trying to "prove" something which cannot be tested.

The theory of naturism is inadequate, because it does not take into account the possibility that God was involved in the world being here. If the truth is that God was involved, then our science needs to be at least able to accomodate this. That is what I believe is the worthy contribution of ID.

And here you demonstrate that you are talking about religion, rather than science.

Our science is already able to accomodate the possibility that God was involved - and evolution does so. It does not assume that God was not involved, and it does not assume that God did. Science can never assume either, as both propositions are completely unfalsifiable and untestable, thus it assumes neither.

Individuals can believe that God was involved, but must accept that said belief is not scientific.

I disagree. It certainly does not introduce faith, not according to the definition of ID, nor according to the definition of faith.

Actually, it clearly does. Any assertion as to the existence or non-existence of a creator automatically introduces faith - as it cannot be tested or falsified.

True, but taking it into the class rooms may provide everyone the chance to debate it. One of my criticisms of kids that come out of schools today is that they believe in naturism without knowing it's strengths and weaknesses.

If a kid "believes in" science, rather than having learned how to use the method of science to examine evidence and come to conclusions, then they have not properly learned it.

Along with that comes this attitude that we modern humans know just about all there is to know about our world.

Again, an idiotic assumtion made by these kids, that has nothing to do with science. Anyone who has bothered to actually study science, even in a high school classroom, knows better.

This is certainly not helpful for the progress of science. We have to break that, when they come into the research lab. In my view, attitudes like that could be removed if we were prepared to allow the ID versus naturism debates in the classrooms.

Again, this is like saying we should allow Intelligent Falling to be debated when we talk about gravity. Like any theory, the theory of gravity has holes in it - scientists are trying to work them out. Having them debate something that cannot be scientific is not a useful propostion, however. It is like asking a cook to debate the merits of using copper wire v. fiber in phone lines.

Well, without posting a huge amount of information, the origin of the genetic code, of multicellular life, the origin of sexuality, the biological big bang in the Cambrian era, the development of complex organ systems and of irreducibly complex molecular machines, that these all came about based on todays rate of genetic mutations and natural selection.

First off, these are results of the theory of evolution, not part of the theory itself. They are plausible explanations based on the theory. However, even if the explanations that seem plausible now are eventually disproven (something that is possible), the underlying mechanisms are not.

Meanwhile, no one has ever claimed that all of these things came about based on today's rates. In fact, such a claim would be ludicrous, as today's mutation rates must take into account the proofreading mechanisms present in most cells, much longer lifespans of the creatures, and the fact that only a small subset of a creature's cells have anything at all to do with reproduction.

Also, I have yet to see anything that could actually possibly be conclsuively shown to be an "irreducibly complex molecular machine." Biology isn't a Rube-Guldberg machine. It is actually incredibly robust.

However, there have been plenty of examples of where naturism has made wrong predictions. But the naturists themselves are not perturbed by this. They say it is a normal part of scientific theory. Things are falsified all the time. And predictions are often wrong. Most of the time, it's because the scientist chooses the simplest explanation (Ockhams razor). But the simplest explanation is often not the best. Thus predictions based on the simplest explanation is sometimes, no often, wrong. I've been there myself, plenty of times.

And here you were saying that these prdictions couldn't be falsified. Going back on that, are we?

Bacterial biochemistry and genetics. Melbourne, Australia.

I used to believe you, but your claim that evolution relies on identical genetic mutation rates either shows that you are trying to intentionally deceive people, or that you never actually properly learned genetics.

No, perhaps not outright wrong, because it's really hard to demonstrate a negative. (For example, how on earth can anyone demonstrate that non-life can never give rise to life, and that the new life cannot construct it's own methods for reproduction in the span of it's short life?) Your point that people would argue it demonstrates their bias, not that it is truth.

You cannot demonstrate that non-life can never give rise to life, and no one has ever claimed that any new life ever constructed its own methods for reproduction.

However, what you can show is that the mechanism by which you suggest that non-life came from life is impossible.

No quite. It would be a debate over which explanation is most likely. Your analogy is flawed, because you are comparing gravity (observable) with intelligent falling (intelligent part is unobservable). Whereas the debate between naturism and ID is between the parts that are unobservable, i.e. the designer doing the designing and eukaryotes somehow managing to rise from prokaryotes using todays mutation rates and natural selection. Neither is observable, nor repeatable, nor falsifiable.

The analogy is perfect, as both Intelligent Falling and Intelligent Design introduce unfalsifiable concepts.

The idea that eukaryotes rose from prokaryotes (no one has ever claimed equal mutation rates or equal rates of natural selection - at least not credibly) is an exlpanation based on the mechanisms described by the theory of evolution. It is not the theory itself. The mechanism, which is the theory, can be falsified. Meanwhile, the entirety of ID "theory" is that an intelligent designer designed these things - something which is not falsifiable.

But they are equivalent in effect. The end result is the same. Naturism doesn't rule out God, but does try to account for every aspect of the world based solely on natural causes. The result is to leave God completely out of the universe.

Incorrect. The result is to get down to the core rules by which the universe operates. Whether or not these rules were created by a God, or even modified by a God, is outside the realm of science. All that we can study is that which we can measure - that which is inside the universe and the rules by which it operates.

Then, as a useless rider, he can be struck out, using Ockham's Razor, since he is unnecessary. Thus, he had nothing to do with putting this world here.

Again, you are going outside of science. A positive assumption of God can be kept out of any scientific theory - based on its untestability and unfalsifiability. However, science cannot logically make the jump to saying that there is no God. Ockham's Razor will keep God out of the theory, but will not make a statement that there truly is no God.

I understand your claim here, but I don't see why such a definition comes about. Who defined science anyway? Maybe you should elaborate on why science cannot possibly use evidence to point to a designer.

A designer would be, by definition, outside the universe, having created it. Science can only deal with that which is within our universe. If it can be measured, it is within our universe.

As I pointed out before, it avoids a direct assumption, but achieves the same result.

Incorrect, the entire idea of ID completely relies on the existence of an intelligent designer. Thus, it makes a direct assumption that said designer exists.

My understanding of ID tells me that it includes the same methods one might find in forensic science. I doubt anyone is going to claim that forensics is not science.

Possibly, but the difference here is that ID tries to use said methods to posit a designer outside the realm of that which science can discuss, while forensic science keeps its conclusions inside the universe, where we can logically assume that an event has a cause within the universe.

Maybe you would like to demonstrate how it is possible to falsify the popular theory that bacteria turned into mitochondria.

That is not a theory. It is an explanation based upon a theory.

However, it would be possible to do so, if one were to falsify the underlying assumptions. This particular mechanism is one that I know little more than the basics about.

The debate should not be over whether intelligent design is a theory but rather whether or not it is a good theory supported by evidence. "Intelligent design" is a theory, just a poor one that is incompatible with modern science.

Is that like saying that we can never rule out the possibilitiy of life arising from non-life, therefore it should never be part of science?

We can find evidence suggesting this, because this is an idea that begins and ends within our universe.

Right. Science is too limited for that. However, ID is not trying to prove God, only that information systems were designed.

....which eventually, by any logical means, gets back to God. Let's say aliens did it. They would have mechanisms of informations systems as well, so they would have been designed, so on and so forth back to somethign that designed all information systems in the universe - something that would have necessarily been outside the universe, and is thus untestable.

The entire idea of ID is completely based upon the premise that there is a designer.

ID consists of two parts, or so it seems to me. One part is the observation, the investigation of information systems. That would be the science part. The other part is where it explains the design in the information systems as needing a designer. That is the explanation part.

And the problem is that no evidence within the universe can possibly lead to such an explanation, as it would require measuring something outside of said universe. Saying that something looks inteligent to us doesnot make it correct, as intelligence is an abstract trait. Saying that we have measured mutation, reproduction, etc. is not abstract.

Science does enter into theology. An example would be archeology.

Archeology does not enter into theology, as it does not attempt to claim that any given theology is correct. It simply explains the lifestyle of people based upon what evidence we can find - which may explain what theology they believed in, but does not explore the accuracy of said theology.

The positive contribution is to look at the design, and to work backwards in order to identify the components, understand how they interact, and make predictions about the purpose and function of the design, test the predictions, etc.

Hmm, sounds like evolutionary theory, without the edition of the assumption that it has been actively designed.

I have never claimed that my belief in God was a scientific one. ID does not claim this either.

It doesn't matter what name you put on the "designer". In the end, it must go back to something which would, to human beings, be "God". And you have been arguing this entire time that the proposition of an intelligent designer is a scientific one - thus claiming that ID claims exactly that.

ID just points to design and says there must have been a designer. In this way, it remains within science, because it makes no comment on the designer or his/her/its/their purposes, since they cannot me measured.

You cannot claim that there is a designer if it cannot be measured. That becomes an assumption taken on faith.

Your posts suggests that you have not understood the implications of this problem. If you go to the NCBI webpages, you will find something like 420 microbial genomes, fully sequenced. The observation has been made that of each of the genomes studied, they are losing information, overall, in spite of the occassional additions (e.g. transposons, plasmids, etc.). In order for this to be consistent with naturism, the first bacterium must have had a lot more genes than the average bacterium today. That is preposterous.

You are making some pretty silly assumptions here. For instance, you are assuming that the environment, bacterium, and mutations seen today are exactly as they were in the past.

Under the theory of evolution, an observation of "shrinking genomes" today would mean that the bacteria are currently becoming better suited by decreasing genetic information. The assumption that this means that the only way to become better suited is to lose information is idiotic.

More evolved in the sense that they have learned to control (in a limited way) their environment, as opposed to bacteria.

This makes the assumption that all life would be better suited to its niche controlling its environment - an unsupportable assumption.

More evolved in that they have undergone more changes.

And again you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of evolutionary theory. It hardly claims that bacteria have undergone less changes than human beings.

More evolved in that they are able to think, feel, laugh, love, pray, and even believe, carry out science.

Again, you assume that all life would be better suited to its niche being able to think, fell, laugh, love, pray, believe, and carry out science. Again, it is an unsupportable assumption based on hubris.

More complexity means a better ability to adapt to environment.

First of all, this is an absurd statement. You are not taking into account that those organisms which are less complex mutate and reproduce at a faster rate - thus the species adapts faster to the environment than that of a more complex organism.

Meanwhile, more complexity does mean more vulnerability to certain types of challenges. Thus, an organism evolved in a niche that faces such challenges would likely be more fit if it were less complex.

Heck, even the concept of humans evolving from bacteria suggests that humans are more evolved than bacteria.

Incorrect. It assumes that humans are more evolved than the bacteria from which they evolved (which don't exist anymore), not more evolved than current bacteria. Again, you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the theory.

But I doubt that anyone would seriously argue that humans are not more evolved than bacteria. Your explanation does look a bit thin to me.

Anyone who understood the theory of evolution would seriously argue just that. My explanation may look thin to you, but it is because of your demonstrated complete lack of understanding of the theory.

A fully fledged IDer would have arrived at the same point.

Really? An IDer would have said, "These animals are more closely related to us because we share a common lineage."???

They don't want to use science to determine anything about the designer (other than, perhaps, that he was good at it).

That is the problem - they are already attempting to do so - to determine that the designer exists (which is something about the designer, now isn't it?).

ID does not make this assumption. They search for design in nature. They say that design is evidence for a designer. Thus they avoid a direct assumption.

That is logically backwards. To "find" design (and if they are "searching for design in nature", they have already broken the scientific method by assuming their hypothesis to be true), you have to first assume a designer. You cannot posit design without a designer, any more than you can posit that a book is fiction without assuming a writer.

This is a quite from an IDer, who points out that ID is based on commonsense. It doesn't start with assuming a designer, but rather ends with it.

You cannot posit a design without first positing a designer.

According to the rules made up by who? the neo-Darwinian establishment.

Incorrect. It is the basic rules of science. By definition, science can only be used to describe that which occurs within this universe, and by the rules of this universe. A designer cannot be posited because it would, of necessity, be outside of those rules and that universe.

Obviously, no problem here, except that the neo-Dawin folk have constructed the rules of science to forbid the inclusion of anthing that is not a natural cause. I disagree with this rule.

Again, this has nothing to do with evolution - it is a basic principle of science that science is limited to describing natural causes. Natural causes are all that we can possibly measure.

This is not a matter of dishonesty in among the IDers. This is where science tries to study the real world as we find it, allowing the real possibility of a Designer.

Science already does this - as does evolution. The possibility of a designer is there. Hell, many of us believe in such a designer. However, we recognize that such a designer is, by definition, outside the realm of science, so we seek onlly to describe the mechanisms by which the universe works. Anything behind those mechanisms is, by definition, outside the realm of science and in the realm of faith.

once again, perhaps the neo-Dawin folk should leave their assumptions to themselves, and stop teaching our kids that ''we aint nothing but mammals, so lets do it like they do it on the discovery channel.''

If there were anyone teaching our kids this in any official capacity, you might have a point. As it is, all you have are the Bloodhound Gang, who are hardly scientists or teachers.

How do you test the "therefore"? If you rule out natural causes, all you are left with is supernatural causes. Can a supernatural thing cause a natural thing? How do you explain/account for this? How do you test for that? Where is the data for this?

Precisely!

The debate should not be over whether intelligent design is a theory but rather whether or not it is a good theory supported by evidence. "Intelligent design" is a theory, just a poor one that is incompatible with modern science.

That depends on how you define theory. ID is a lay-theory, an idea. However, it is not a scientific theory - which is the type of theory we are discussing here.

''Much as Darwin began with the commonsense recognition that artificial selection in animal and plant breeding experiments is capable of directing organismal variation (which he then bootstrapped into a general mechanism to account for all organismal variation), so too the intelligent design research program begins with the commonsense recognition that humans draw design inferences routinely in ordinary life, explaining some things in terms of purely natural causes and other things in terms of intelligence or design (cf. archeologists attributing rock formations in one case to erosion and in another to design--as with the megaliths at Stonehenge).'' William A. Dembski

This is a quite from an IDer, who points out that ID is based on commonsense. It doesn't start with assuming a designer, but rather ends with it.
Actually, it suggests that the intelligence that infers order and design in nature is the observer. Such is the case. They come to the conclusion of design by assigning meaning to the patterns.

Actually, it suggests that the intelligence that infers order and design in nature is the observer. Such is the case. They come to the conclusion of design by assigning meaning to the patterns.


Ouch. . .that philosophical hurdle made me trip and sprain my forebrain. . . . .

Information systems is the data. You collect if, for example, by collecting gene sequences. The parameters are the definitions of the genes. No need for the Designer as this stage.


It is called "Intelligent Design". I don't NEED to say any more than that. Can you really not see that a principle CALLED "Intelligent Design" has an assumption built-in?


Obviously, no problem here, except that the neo-Dawin folk have constructed the rules of science to forbid the inclusion of anthing that is not a natural cause. I disagree with this rule.


What is it with you and 'neo-Darwin' folks? I do not 'follow' a 'darwinic' path. I am a scientist because I am interested in science... and I am following methodology that was ALREADY ancient long before Darwin was even born.

You are just labelling it thus to make it sound ridiculous... but all yuo are doing is hurting your own credibility.

The laws of science DO FORBID anything that cannot be FALSIFIED. If you don't want your pet theory exposed to THAT rigour, don't try to pretend it is real science.


Why? Test the theory that an information system was formed by natural causes or that it cannot be accounted for by natural causes, therefore the design points to a designer. It's only sensible. When you find a book on a deserted park bench, you assume that the information was put there, and that natural causes could not account for it. You keep infering that ID has to test the Designer. Looks like you are deliberately trying to fuzz up the issue. ID tests the information system. It is possible that ID concludes that some parts of information can be modified and contributed to, by natural causes. Or it finds that the system is irreducibly complex, and therefore makes the sensible conclusion that it was designed.


Your argument is the same as the Creationist one. i.e. "Well, I can't work out how it happened, therefore, God did it".

At least Creationism is honest enough to admit that it starts from an assumption, and that it is not science.


Like I said, you seem to be suggesting that ID is trying to study the designer, rather then the design.
What I think ID would do with the collection of results stage would be to see if a designer is required to explain the intelligence that they have discovered. No problem here.


Except, they may see a designer as necessary, where there wasn't one, no?

They may see the little round balls formed by salts precipitating water at the surface of rocks, and say such balls MUST be the evidence of a creator... and they instantly attribute a falsifiable phenomenon to an unfalsifiable cause.


IDers will probably come to the conclusion that the Designer was, once again, required to explain the design. Naturalistic evolution does exactly the same thing. It will always conclude that the results can be accounted for by natural random causes. You will have to wear your own criticism.


You are wrong. Just because 'science' HAS always found evidence of 'natural' cause, doesn't mean it always will.


Naturalistic evolution also starts with the assumption that natural causes explains everything, and will never conclude anything else. That is why it is 'bad science'.

Yes, I do follow the scientific method in my work. That is why I can imagine what the IDers are doing, and do not consider it any more 'bad science' than naturalistic evolutionism. The only point is where ID requires that the rules be changed to allow a reference in science to something that in not a natural cause.


I am alarmed. "..Starts with the assumption that natural causes explains everything" is not only ridiculous, but also patently untrue. Science starts with no such assumption. If you really follow the scientific method... how can you even pretend that ID follows that method?


Fundamentalists may be attracted to ID because they feel it supports their belief system and undermines the stronghold of evolution, but I understand that many of the leading IDers are not Fundamental. Michael Behe, for example, is a Catholic.
And no one is shooting or pushing. It's just a debate. Do you seriously think it will hurt the kids? Perhaps it will show them just where the assumptions in science really are.


Yes. I really think it will hurt the kids. If they start teaching ID in my daughter's school, I will home-school her.

Religious indoctrination of children is a form of abuse.


How come you reply with a 'no' to my post, and then post nothing to support your negative? The assumption of a designer is not the part that is constantly being tested, just as the assumption of only natural causes is not constantly being tested either.
And if you can't see that your own belief system has assumptions in it, you are blinder than I thought.


So, now I'm blind.... finding it hard to dignify that with a response.


No, I haven't read that story. No, wait, was it the pre-elephant that got his nose pulled and pulled by the badie of the story? I think I vaguely remember it. So you think that ID is about making up stories. But I get same impression from the just so stories of evolution that come on our TVs every now and then. Scientific data is not predicted anyway. It is collected. Models are predicted. And ID has plenty of them, it seems.


I am aware of no 'just so' stories of evolution. Elucidate, please?


Or perhaps you are yet to read a single line of published pro-ID news. What was that you wrote about Christians not being too good at reading literature that does not support their position?

I have read the literature. You assume a whole lot, my friend.

Just because I don't believe it, doesn't mean I haven't read it.

Actually, it suggests that the intelligence that infers order and design in nature is the observer. Such is the case. They come to the conclusion of design by assigning meaning to the patterns.

I'm beginning to think there COULD be a god... and they shall call her Willamena...

And, she'll have very shiny teeth. Apparently. :D

You are wrong. Just because 'science' HAS always found evidence of 'natural' cause, doesn't mean it always will.

I am alarmed. "..Starts with the assumption that natural causes explains everything" is not only ridiculous, but also patently untrue. Science starts with no such assumption. If you really follow the scientific method... how can you even pretend that ID follows that method?

In Bruarong's defense, while science does not start with the assumption that natural causes explain everything, it can only work within the realm in which natural causes are the only causes.

Anything supernatural is, by definition, outside of the realm of science. Science can find no evidence for such a cause, as such a cause is outside that realm. Thus, the only evidence science can possibly find, logically, is that of a natural cause.

What Bruarong is essentially telling us is that he/she is dissatisfied with the methods of science because those methods cannot give the Truth on everything. They can work towards an explanation of the natural, but cannot explain the supernatural - and this is a problem for Bruarong. Unfortunately, that is too bad. Science only works within the realm of the natural. Other methods (and faith) must be used to determine anything about the supernatural.

In Bruarong's defense, while science does not start with the assumption that natural causes explain everything, it can only work within the realm in which natural causes are the only causes.

Anything supernatural is, by definition, outside of the realm of science. Science can find no evidence for such a cause, as such a cause is outside that realm. Thus, the only evidence science can possibly find, logically, is that of a natural cause.

What Bruarong is essentially telling us is that he/she is dissatisfied with the methods of science because those methods cannot give the Truth on everything. They can work towards an explanation of the natural, but cannot explain the supernatural - and this is a problem for Bruarong. Unfortunately, that is too bad. Science only works within the realm of the natural. Other methods (and faith) must be used to determine anything about the supernatural.

In other words, science is not supreme and cannot explain all the events of the natural world. In other words, don't ever ask me to prove God with scientific terms. It's just redundant. :rolleyes:

In other words, science is not supreme and cannot explain all the events of the natural world.

That is an incredibly inadequate paraphrase. What I said was that science was not supreme because it can only explain the events of the natural world. What it cannot do is explain events outside that world.

In other words, don't ever ask me to prove God with scientific terms. It's just redundant. :rolleyes:

Why would I ask any such thing? God cannot be proven or disproven through scientific means. In science, we discuss that which is within nature, and the discussion is one of empiricism and evidence. In religion, we discuss God and that discussion is one of faith.

In other words, science is not supreme and cannot explain all the events of the natural world. In other words, don't ever ask me to prove God with scientific terms. It's just redundant. :rolleyes:

Science can with time explain all the events of the natural world
it just cannot give time to explanations that involve outside agencies
because for example if there were a god/goddess/supergoat
that interfered with causality then scientific observation would be meaningless.

I think it safe to say that relying on scientific observation without considering
supernatural agencies has worked well for human advancement so its obviously doing something right.

And I promise I won't ask you to prove god in scientific terms just as
long as you don't ask me to take the idea of a god seriously.

The event of the "beginning of life" is over. Once and for all. Both evolution and creationism should be taught in the HISTORY class, not science. Unless somebody still insists that monkeys can still turn into humans. That I don't know. But I do see many humans degrading themselves into monkeys. :rolleyes:

Actually. We don't compare ourselves to monkeys. We are apes. Our closest cousin is the chimp. 98.8% of our DNA is the same.

In other words, science is not supreme and cannot explain all the events of the natural world. In other words, don't ever ask me to prove God with scientific terms. It's just redundant. :rolleyes:

Science can explain all events in the natural world (according to the method, anyway), but cannot explain supernatural events.

And I don't believe anyone has ever asked someone to seriously prove or disprove a god using science, except when someone else is actually trying to make a god science.

The theory of naturism is inadequate, because it does not take into account the possibility that God was involved in the world being here. If the truth is that God was involved, then our science needs to be at least able to accomodate this. That is what I believe is the worthy contribution of ID.


What does a theory of nudity have to do with this discussion? I didn't even know there was one.

God isn't taken into account because how do you test that hypothesis? Since you can't define a proper test, it is not asked.

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


I disagree. It certainly does not introduce faith, not according to the definition of ID, nor according to the definition of faith.

To quote "Look at the eye. It is so complex there must be a designer at work"

That's faith.


No doubt some people see it that way. But I don't think it has to be necessarily so. At any rate, to attack naturism is to attack many people's belief in atheism. It was never going to be a debate that is free from emotions. There is quite a lot at stake.

Again nudity?

Atheism is not a part of evolution.

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

Say that a few more times.


True, but taking it into the class rooms may provide everyone the chance to debate it.

To be allowed in the classroom, it has to be accepted as a viable lesson. If we opened it to every quackery, then we would have lessons such as gravity is the affect of Angels holding you down(not made up).


One of my criticisms of kids that come out of schools today is that they believe in naturism without knowing it's strengths and weaknesses.


Well there isn't much to teach. Attractive people naked. Good. Unatractive naked people. Bad.


Along with that comes this attitude that we modern humans know just about all there is to know about our world.

Nobody has claimed that. I dare you to offer a "credible" person who has said that.


This is certainly not helpful for the progress of science. We have to break that, when they come into the research lab.

There is nothing to break. No scientist would ever say we know all there is to know.


In my view, attitudes like that could be removed if we were prepared to allow the ID versus naturism debates in the classrooms.

*Blinks* ID vs nudity?


Well, without posting a huge amount of information, the origin of the genetic code, of multicellular life, the origin of sexuality, the biological big bang in the Cambrian era, the development of complex organ systems and of irreducibly complex molecular machines, that these all came about based on todays rate of genetic mutations and natural selection. That's not scientific. That is speculation, extrapolation, and guesswork. Necessary for forming an idea of the past, but not science, as it cannot be falsified, repeated, nor observed.

Ahhhh ok. Sureeeeee.

Even if you were remotely correct on this; it is still light years away from the faithful argument of God designing everything.


What IDers look at is information systems.

And yet the main proponents know nothing of the subject of informational systems. Are you talking about computers or some new attempt of a wizbang phrase to make it sound credible.


They try to determine if random mutations and natural can explain how they come about. When they fall short of the requirements, they conclude that it was designed. That is where they stop with the God part. They don't try and figure out the exact amount of magic required to create a bug. I agree, science is great, but it is also limited. There is no room in it for faith.

This has already been answered by others.


So what is it with Christians and the use of "ism" words?

That is a disputed event.

Anyway, "the creation/evolution of life from no-life" is over. Therefore it's "history", not "science".

Ohhh ok.

Well I must say you have rather strange argument. I have never heard anybody say the two should be part of a history class.

Oh well.....

So what is it with Christians and the use of "ism" words?


Its to try to drag you down to their level.

As dilbert says

never argue with an idiot
they'll drag you down to their level
and then beat you with experience

''Much as Darwin began with the commonsense recognition that artificial selection in animal and plant breeding experiments is capable of directing organismal variation (which he then bootstrapped into a general mechanism to account for all organismal variation), so too the intelligent design research program begins with the commonsense recognition that humans draw design inferences routinely in ordinary life, explaining some things in terms of purely natural causes and other things in terms of intelligence or design (cf. archeologists attributing rock formations in one case to erosion and in another to design--as with the megaliths at Stonehenge).'' William A. Dembski

Ahh the orthedox christian.

Well the problem with his attempt. You can test Darwins claims. You can't prove God's design efforts.

Stonehenge was a bad choice. We are still guess as to the purpose. So how is "ID" involved there.

No cigar for that.


This is a quite from an IDer, who points out that ID is based on commonsense. It doesn't start with assuming a designer, but rather ends with it.

So an argument was presented and then something taken on faith at the end makes it right?


According to the rules made up by who? the neo-Darwinian establishment. How convenient for them that the rules that they make happen to rule out any reference to a Designer within science--

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

Again said that a few hundread times.


such is their definition of science. Maybe we ought to change the rules a bit. Perhaps we should criticise the assumptions of naturalistic evolution, just as the scientific method allows us, just as the neo-Darwin camp has been criticising everything else in our world.
[quote]
*Blinks* Ok maybe you and I live in different circles but evolution is always being argued from that very people that defend it.

[quote]
This is not a matter of dishonesty in among the IDers. This is where science tries to study the real world as we find it, allowing the real possibility of a Designer.

Sorry but taking something on faith is not science.


What, then, are we to do with the assertion that only natural forces accounted for the evolution from slime to man? That knife cuts both ways.

It is an attempt to explain why. It is still better then sitting back and saying the guy in the sky said hocus pocus and gentic mutations happen.


once again, perhaps the neo-Dawin folk should leave their assumptions to themselves, and stop teaching our kids that ''we aint nothing but mammals, so lets do it like they do it on the discovery channel.''

So we are not mammals? :rolleyes:

You are not making very strong points that ID belongs in the Science classroom.

Information systems is the data. You collect if, for example, by collecting gene sequences. The parameters are the definitions of the genes. No need for the Designer as this stage.


Information systems? You like that phrase don't you. It's almost like the scientologists talking about the technology they have to correct/heal things like dyslexia and depression.

As a supposed genticist you should know that "information systems" exist in the evil evolutional world.


Obviously, no problem here, except that the neo-Dawin folk have constructed the rules of science to forbid the inclusion of anthing that is not a natural cause. I disagree with this rule.

Faith based arguments have no place in science. How do you test of the existence of God?


Why? Test the theory that an information system *analogy snipped

Like I said, you seem to be suggesting that ID is trying to study the designer, rather then the design.
What I think ID would do with the collection of results stage would be to see if a designer is required to explain the intelligence that they have discovered. No problem here.

How do you test of the existence of God?


IDers will probably come to the conclusion that the Designer was, once again, required to explain the design.

Convient. You can't contact him so take it on faith?


Naturalistic evolution does exactly the same thing. It will always conclude that the results can be accounted for by natural random causes. You will have to wear your own criticism.

No it doesn't. Prove that claim


Naturalistic evolution also starts with the assumption that natural causes explains everything, and will never conclude anything else. That is why it is 'bad science'.

Evolution has never set out to prove or disprove the existence of God. Repeat 100 times.


Yes, I do follow the scientific method in my work. That is why I can imagine what the IDers are doing, and do not consider it any more 'bad science' than naturalistic evolutionism. The only point is where ID requires that the rules be changed to allow a reference in science to something that in not a natural cause.

Yes. Take it on faith God is designing everything.


Fundamentalists may be attracted to ID because they feel it supports their belief system and undermines the stronghold of evolution, but I understand that many of the leading IDers are not Fundamental. Michael Behe, for example, is a Catholic.
And no one is shooting or pushing. It's just a debate. Do you seriously think it will hurt the kids? Perhaps it will show them just where the assumptions in science really are.

Yes they are as my previous links have shown.

Yes they are pushing it. Why else would our idiot President mention it? You look in the background of some of his photo ops and you have some of the biggest fundi leaders of this country sitting front row.

ID is nothing more then creationism wearing a mask.

*snip*

In other words, science is not supreme and cannot explain all the events of the natural world.

It is limited by our understanding and by the fact science only offers an explanation to a process

In other words, don't ever ask me to prove God with scientific terms. It's just redundant. :rolleyes:

You don't understand science if you belive that. How do you test for the existence of God?

It is limited by our understanding and by the fact science only offers an explanation to a process
Science is just incapable of explaining everything in the world. It doesn't matter whether it will be discovered in the future or not, because, until today, it just doesn't.



You don't understand science if you belive that. How do you test for the existence of God?

There is so much more to "knowing" and than just by the five senses. We also learn through logic, emotion and experience. Science just deals with the five senses, about what you can see, what you can hear, what you can taste etc.

Science is just incapable of explaining everything in the world. It doesn't matter whether it will be discovered in the future or not, because, until today, it just doesn't.

No credible scientist will ever claim to know or that everything is known about an area.

Your claim has no merit.


There is so much more to "knowing" and than just by the five senses. We also learn through logic, emotion and experience. Science just deals with the five senses, about what you can see, what you can hear, what you can taste etc.
You are talking about faith. That is religion; not science.

There is so much more to "knowing" and than just by the five senses. We also learn through logic, emotion and experience. Science just deals with the five senses, about what you can see, what you can hear, what you can taste etc.
So ? lets ask again how do you TEST for a deity? thats what he asked yet you did not give a strait answer you reffered him back to faith

(psst a hint ... you cant not objectivly)

No, Mesatecala, you didn't prove me wrong. You just keep repeating the same message. I hate ID. You are talking rubbish. It's all lies. If I choose not to respond, it would be an assumption on your part to say that it is because I could not face your powers of reasoning.

Yes I did. And you proved yourself wrong by believeing in contraditions. That's your own problem. I'm not talking rubbish and I'm not talking lies. You are the one who is lying.

ID wants to challenge that assumption. If evolution is true, then the challenge will confirm it as truth. Digging up more facts will only present the truth more clearly.

ID can't challenge anything because it is invalid and inadequate. Evolution is proven true because it has substantial evidence behind it. ID has no evidence.


Some of the current leading IDers are Michael Behe (biological sciences), Walter Bradley (mechanical engineering), William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, and Stephen C. Meyer. Perhaps they are not all scientists, but some are, and they are all professionals and highly educated. I call them brave, because they carry most of the scorn and insults from the evolutionist camp.

They are not scientists or professionals, and have invalidated themselves by believeing contradictions. They cannot be scientists and believe in ID, because ID is a contradiction to common logic and science.

If a Designer is real, it has to allow for this.

Prove this ridiculous, arrogant notion of this designer.


Like it or not, it is a real problem. Just type in 'shrinking genomes' in google, and see what happens.

You don't know what you're talking about. You don't understand the facts. Your mind has been taken over by extreme religious elements.


And that is not a stawman argument. Stawmen arguments are where to take an argument that you think your opponent is hiding behind, and demolish it. The staw part is where the argument you selected was not one that the opponent uses.

You are the one who is relying on weak arguments and false premises. That is not my problem you choose to ignore the facts, and be ignorant. But hey, ignorant is bliss for many.

Do you mean you would like me to cite my references? I gave you one about the shrinking genomes. Go ahead. Look it up yourself. You should have google. But I should add that I did not get it from the IDers. I found it in my own readings of science literature.

Your sources are invalid. Anything from ID people are invalid.

Furthermore, shrinking genomes does not contradict evolution.

Do you mean that science has now proven that slime evolved into man? The evidence is hardly overwhelming. More like none existent.

This is the most ridiculous crap I have ever hear you spew yet. Evolution is backed by an overwhelming amount of evidence (source: www.talkorigins.org). ID is stupid and backed by nothing.

A few issues being cleared up? If that were true, why on earth are the evolutionists getting all het about about ID? They look scared to me.

Nope. You should stop being ignorant.

Stop assuming things about other people.

We want to stop this hijacking attempt of the education system.... in order to brainwash students into religious extremism. ID has no evidence, no recognized scientists back it, and it is based on false premises.

Are they teaching ID in your school?




But I thought we were only beginning.

You should stop lying.

Sorry if I repeat what someone else has already said. I did not read the entire thread as it is 400 some posts.

Evolution! Sounds plausible? Right? WRONG! How do you explain the origin of such complex organs like the eye? What about the gaps in the fossil record and sheer lack of fossils in the the Precambrain era? It can be mathematically proven that natural selection and chance mutations cannot lead to such biological innovations. Clearly this can be logically explained that some designer - call him God - at certain intervals helped evolution along. Makes a lot of sense?

Well, Intelligent Design is flat-out wrong and not accepted by credible scientists. If there are two schools of thought one is held by credible scientsists and the other by religious nut-jobs.

Development of complex organs can be explained because Evolution by natural selection is not by chance. Evolution is a theory of gradual, incremental change, eventually achieving greater complexity. Lets take the eye as an example! An organism eventually develops light sensitive cells. these light sensitive cells, help it notice changing light and therefore when a predator is approaching. Well, it evades the predators long enough to pass its genes to it children who inherit the light sensitive cells. After many generations, as organisms who lack said cells have a lower chance of passing on their genes die out, what we know as the Eye develops. I can also explain the giraffes long necks: only the ones who were able to reach the leaves on the tree were able to pass on their genes. Intelligent Design, in fact, removes the origin of complexity.

Lack of fossils in Precambrian Era? Why would their be?

As for the gaps in the fossil record, do detectives have to account for every second of a crime based on what they found on the scene to prove that it exists? Also scientists use the genetic code to back up evolution.

But what about everyone's good friend Math? Well, do we really have the information to guess the probability of the development of an eye? Also, Evolution, while random mutations do play a part, mostly relies on natural selection.


As a final note, Evolution did not seek to explain the origin of life, but rather to explain the origin of the variety of species on earth. In no way does science produce evidence against God. To quote Martin Nowak, a Harvard proffessor of mathematics, "Science and religion ask different questions."

In other words, science is not supreme and cannot explain all the events of the natural world. In other words, don't ever ask me to prove God with scientific terms. It's just redundant.

Originally Posted by The Black Forrest
You don't understand science if you belive that. How do you test for the existence of God?
There is so much more to "knowing" and than just by the five senses. We also learn through logic, emotion and experience. Science just deals with the five senses, about what you can see, what you can hear, what you can taste etc.
Right. And when you go beyond what science deals with, you are no longer doing science, so you are no longer dealing with what is natural. Hence proving God through science is impossible.

Nature, however, is something different. Nature is not God; nature stands in constrast to God as being in the realm of that which is knowable. Nature is the material world, and so it is possible for science to uncover it. Matter and energy are knowable.

In Bruarong's defense, while science does not start with the assumption that natural causes explain everything, it can only work within the realm in which natural causes are the only causes.

Anything supernatural is, by definition, outside of the realm of science. Science can find no evidence for such a cause, as such a cause is outside that realm. Thus, the only evidence science can possibly find, logically, is that of a natural cause.

What Bruarong is essentially telling us is that he/she is dissatisfied with the methods of science because those methods cannot give the Truth on everything. They can work towards an explanation of the natural, but cannot explain the supernatural - and this is a problem for Bruarong. Unfortunately, that is too bad. Science only works within the realm of the natural. Other methods (and faith) must be used to determine anything about the supernatural.

Again, I have to reiterate the same point, though... science works within a realm where there are only natural causes... but that doesn't mean that will ALWAYS be so.

If, at some point, 'god' or some other Intelligent Designer somehow became falsifiable, observable, etc... then science could at least CONCEPTUALISE it, even if such a thing still could not really be 'calculated'.

You are uterly right, though... science cannot deal with entities that are outside of the methodology. Perhaps that IS a failing of science.. or perhaps it is science's greatest strength.

If Braurong wants to analyse 'god', or 'godlike' designers... there is no space for that, within scientific methodology.

In other words, science is not supreme and cannot explain all the events of the natural world. In other words, don't ever ask me to prove God with scientific terms. It's just redundant. :rolleyes:

Did anyone ever claim science was 'supreme'?

I'm not sure where you got the 'cannot explain all the events of the natural world'.... I'm not sure how true that really is, but it certainly cannot explain all the events of the NOT-natural world.

Here's me NOT asking you to prove God with scientific terms.

For anyone interested. The best description available on intelligent design (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design).

This source (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Unintelligent_Design) should also be of assitance as ID attempts to show.

Did anyone ever claim science was 'supreme'?

I'm not sure where you got the 'cannot explain all the events of the natural world'.... I'm not sure how true that really is, but it certainly cannot explain all the events of the NOT-natural world.

Here's me NOT asking you to prove God with scientific terms.

Yes, quite a lot of people have made that claim.

And just like the natural events science can't explain can still be true and valid, so can the NOT-natural events also be true and valid.

Yes, quite a lot of people have made that claim.


Do you have sources? Let's see the specifics, shall we?


And just like the natural events science can't explain can still be true and valid, so can the NOT-natural events also be true and valid.

Which is utterly irrelevent.

Are you really not paying attention?

Science doesn't say god is 'untrue' or 'invalid'... science doesn't say there can be no intelligent designer.

What science 'says' is that SUCH THINGS are NOT scientific... they cannot be accomodated by the Scientific Method.

Maybe god IS true. maybe god is NOT. Science doesn't know. Science CAN'T know. And, to be honest.... for the most part, science doesn't care. Science makes NO assumptions about god, one way OR the other.

If god exists he doesn't feel the need to be 'proved' by lab-dwellers.

Yes, quite a lot of people have made that claim.

And just like the natural events science can't explain can still be true and valid, so can the NOT-natural events also be true and valid.

Instead of just trying to make a point by quoting 'quite a lot of people', why not actually give us a few examples? Web links, historical references, etc.

By 'natural events' I take it you mean things which we can observe in nature, and then go on to try to explain or understand (eg lightning, reproduction, etc.). You're right, there are a plethora of events in nature that science hasn't yet explained. Going by science's track record, though, it's fairly safe to say that there's a good chance it will explain these things over time, too.

By what you call 'NOT-natural events' you seem to be referring to abstract, man-made ideas, such as religion. Concepts which exist in our minds. How can an abstract concept possibly be said to be 'true and valid' if they are simply invented (or, to put it another way, taken on faith - the all-explaining, magical word). What I mean is, no one has ever 'seen' a creator, so why even seek to prove or explain it? Do you have a need to feel that someone created life? Does it make you feel better about our existence?

If god exists he doesn't feel the need to be 'proved' by lab-dwellers.
That's not how the evangelicals tell it. God, apparently, care deeply about what scientists do, and He thinks it's EVIL EVIL EEEEEVIL, and can't prove anything anyhow (not that He's got a case of sour grapes, or anything).

Unless, of course, the scientists are constructing a methodologically-flawed and ethically-challenged study on the power of prayer, and the results of that study show that whispering sweet nothings to your invisible sky daddy will cure cancer...in that case, science PROVES there is a God, and we told you so!!!!

No, we are getting off-track. This isn't about God(s) or all that. This is about Intelligent Design being taught as a legitimate scientific theory. However, like I said before, because it goes beyond the realm of science and is unfalsifiable it cannot fit the scientific meaning of what it is to be a theory. Theories are both provable and falsifiable. And one cannot validate a theory by attacking another. One must provide more proof than "the will of the God(s)".

And just by saying "out of the realm of science" you just threw out your last defense. If it is truly, out of the realm, then it can't be taught in a science class. Teach it somewhere else.

Now, lets say I believe that in my form of Intelligent Design, Keanu Reeves created us all with his Matrix bending powers. That is just as valid as creationism, I believe it, and I have words that were inspired by his works. So we'd have classrooms filled with this kinda thought be pranced around as "legitimate theory."

No. Keep it out of my science classes. I have no problem with it being taught in Social Studies classes, English classes, Theology classes, Philosophy classses, just keep it away from my cold, pure, exacting science.

That's not how the evangelicals tell it. God, apparently, care deeply about what scientists do, and He thinks it's EVIL EVIL EEEEEVIL, and can't prove anything anyhow (not that He's got a case of sour grapes, or anything).

Unless, of course, the scientists are constructing a methodologically-flawed and ethically-challenged study on the power of prayer, and the results of that study show that whispering sweet nothings to your invisible sky daddy will cure cancer...in that case, science PROVES there is a God, and we told you so!!!!

The Bible will contradict itself on several major points. Including how God doesn't want to be proved and God proves him/herself many times. Therefore, God contradicts him/herself and will disappear in a puff of his own ineffable logic.

Then we went on to prove that black is white, and nothing can be both, or grey, and we are all promptly stampeded by zebras.

Prove it. Once you can PROVE that mutation cannot have created the visible diversity, THEN you might have found a flaw in the theory.

At the moment, all the ID community can do is say they 'think it unlikely'...


The simple fact that the so-called 'theory' of Intelligent Design is based on the idea of an Intelligent Designer that CANNOT BE FALSIFIED, is enough reason to consider it unscientific.

Yes, that IS a limitation of science! Science does not accept unfalsifiable premises. And ID is NOT scientific, so it can't get in.

The question is - why does ID WANT to be in 'science', if the instituion is so flawed?

The answer is - because sciencedoesn't NEED to calculate 'intelligent designers'... and there are people out there with an axe to grind.

I'm not sure if you can see it, Grave, but naturalistic theory assumes that naturalistic causes (i.e. mutations and natural selection) account for every variation in life that we see today. It must assume it, because it does not consider any other alternative. It doesn't address the issue of whether there is a designer, but it does remove him from from the list of possible explanations. Why? Because science cannot study the designer, that doesn't mean that he therefore cannot have been involved. Do you see the assumption now? ID wants to allow for that possibility. It is not always going to conclude a particular design must have been exactly designed by a designer. Not always. Natural causes have certainly contributed to designs in nature.

When people like me find it hard to accept the almost impossible odds involved in the explanations that come out of naturalistic evolution (e.g. to explain the development of the eye using mutation rates and natural selection), we get told that science has explained it, so why bother bringing in a designer. But looking at such impossible odds means that it isn't explained, otherwise there wouldn't be any odds, or at least odds that we would accept in everyday life, like 1 in 2 or 1 in 10. It's not that I reject the odds, but that I feel that there must be a better explanation. So, the naturalistic evolutionist explains, we are waiting on more information to answer the question better, to even out the odds some more. I don't mind the waiting part. Indeed, much of our understanding of our world will have to wait. What bugs me is that naturalistic evolutionism assumes that it is ok to BASE the theory on the POSSIBILITY that future research will uncover the proof that their explanations have been right all along. That doesn't suit me. I don't think that is good science. Good science is not based on possibilities, but rather on what we can observe and repeat. It can allude to possibilities, but not be based on it. (I would argue that ID is based on observing information systems, not on observing the designer of the information systems, just as naturalism is based on observing nature, and not on the odds required to explain it.)

I realize that would mean some changes to what we currently consider to be science. We think that science can only study natural causes. Rightly so. I agree here. But is there a reason we have to remove the possibility of a designer? As a scientist, I want my field of study to be able to study the real world. If there is a designer, and if he has contributed, then our science should be able to take this into account, particularly if we cannot rule it out. Otherwise it is shutting out a possibility. But on what grounds? That science cannot study the designer. That is the reason you keep giving. But I fail to see (maybe it is I who am blind, who knows) why this limitation in science gives us the license to rule out a designer. It just does not seem reasonable to me. Limitations do not equal proof.
So let's change the rules. We do want science to be truthful, don't we? The new rules are not going to force anyone to believe in God. They will make them admit that there may be a designer. Will that hurt them? Will that change their lifestyle? Will they have to give anything up? Will it even change science?

We humans made the rules, after all, and we are entitled to change them. You have often said that allowing ID would be like allowing bad science. But if we change the rules, then it will no longer be bad science, since we can decide what is good science and what is bad. If we refuse to change the rules, making ID 'bad science' simply because our rules define it so, then that is circular reasoning.

I'm not sure if you can see it, Grave, but naturalistic theory assumes that naturalistic causes (i.e. mutations and natural selection) account for every variation in life that we see today. It must assume it, because it does not consider any other alternative. It doesn't address the issue of whether there is a designer, but it does remove him from from the list of possible explanations. Why? Because science cannot study the designer, that doesn't mean that he therefore cannot have been involved. Do you see the assumption now? ID wants to allow for that possibility. It is not always going to conclude a particular design must have been exactly designed by a designer. Not always. Natural causes have certainly contributed to designs in nature.

When people like me find it hard to accept the almost impossible odds involved in the explanations that come out of naturalistic evolution (e.g. to explain the development of the eye using mutation rates and natural selection), we get told that science has explained it, so why bother bringing in a designer. But looking at such impossible odds means that it isn't explained, otherwise there wouldn't be any odds, or at least odds that we would accept in everyday life, like 1 in 2 or 1 in 10. It's not that I reject the odds, but that I feel that there must be a better explanation. So, the naturalistic evolutionist explains, we are waiting on more information to answer the question better, to even out the odds some more. I don't mind the waiting part. Indeed, much of our understanding of our world will have to wait. What bugs me is that naturalistic evolutionism assumes that it is ok to BASE the theory on the POSSIBILITY that future research will uncover the proof that their explanations have been right all along. That doesn't suit me. I don't think that is good science. Good science is not based on possibilities, but rather on what we can observe and repeat. It can allude to possibilities, but not be based on it. (I would argue that ID is based on observing information systems, not on observing the designer of the information systems, just as naturalism is based on observing nature, and not on the odds required to explain it.)

I realize that would mean some changes to what we currently consider to be science. We think that science can only study natural causes. Rightly so. I agree here. But is there a reason we have to remove the possibility of a designer? As a scientist, I want my field of study to be able to study the real world. If there is a designer, and if he has contributed, then our science should be able to take this into account, particularly if we cannot rule it out. Otherwise it is shutting out a possibility. But on what grounds? That science cannot study the designer. That is the reason you keep giving. But I fail to see (maybe it is I who am blind, who knows) why this limitation in science gives us the license to rule out a designer. It just does not seem reasonable to me. Limitations do not equal proof.
So let's change the rules. We do want science to be truthful, don't we? The new rules are not going to force anyone to believe in God. They will make them admit that there may be a designer. Will that hurt them? Will that change their lifestyle? Will they have to give anything up? Will it even change science?

We humans made the rules, after all, and we are entitled to change them. You have often said that allowing ID would be like allowing bad science. But if we change the rules, then it will no longer be bad science, since we can decide what is good science and what is bad. If we refuse to change the rules, making ID 'bad science' simply because our rules define it so, then that is circular reasoning.

ID is not a good scientific theory, because the premises it gives: There is a designer" Can not be proven in any way shape or form. As soon as the IDists can prove the existence of a "designer" than (and only than) can ID be taken up as a true scientific theory and be tought in science classes, until this proof is provided, ID remains in the realm of hypothesis's (sp?) and so has no place in science classes, only in religion classes.

ID is not a good scientific theory, because the premises it gives: There is a designer" Can not be proven in any way shape or form. As soon as the IDists can prove the existence of a "designer" than (and only than) can ID be taken up as a true scientific theory and be tought in science classes, until this proof is provided, ID remains in the realm of hypothesis's (sp?) and so has no place in science classes, only in religion classes.

If those are your specifications, then I would have to include many aspects of String Theory and the TOE to be in the religious class too. One CAN measure and make assumptions that we are seeing the effects of the theory. This is the only way of proving String Theory. Likewise, one can argue that evolution is just the same observable of ID.

And by the way, I not too keen on throwing String Theory in to the religious catagory, how about you?

If those are your specifications, then I would have to include many aspects of String Theory and the TOE to be in the religious class too. One CAN measure and make assumptions that we are seeing the effects of the theory. This is the only way of proving String Theory. Likewise, one can argue that evolution is just the same observable of ID.

And by the way, I not too keen on throwing String Theory in to the religious catagory, how about you?

Personally, String Theory sounds good, as does Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Neutrinoes.... all good ideas.

But are they 'good' science... I'd say no. And, I'd be willing to leave them consigned to the philosophy-of-science pile, if it meant never having to look at ID being pushed into the boundaries of science.

Again, I have to reiterate the same point, though... science works within a realm where there are only natural causes... but that doesn't mean that will ALWAYS be so.

Actually, it does. The logic of science can only work within this universe, within the rules of this universe. Anything outside of that may not even follow our logic.

If, at some point, 'god' or some other Intelligent Designer somehow became falsifiable, observable, etc... then science could at least CONCEPTUALISE it, even if such a thing still could not really be 'calculated'.

That is like saying, "If black became white,..." By definition, such a being is outside of science. This isn't a current thing that will eventually go away - the methodology itself cannot be used as such a being is, itself, by definition, unfalsifiable.

You are uterly right, though... science cannot deal with entities that are outside of the methodology. Perhaps that IS a failing of science.. or perhaps it is science's greatest strength.

I wouldn't call it failing. There are simply some things science cannot address. Science doesn't have to be the study of everything, just what it was meant for.

I'm not sure if you can see it, Grave, but naturalistic theory assumes that naturalistic causes (i.e. mutations and natural selection) account for every variation in life that we see today. It must assume it, because it does not consider any other alternative. It doesn't address the issue of whether there is a designer, but it does remove him from from the list of possible explanations.

Incorrect. Science does not remove the idea of a designer, it simply does not include that idea. Again, the two are not equivalent. Science leaves open the idea that, behind every mechanism, behind every rule by which the universe runs, there is a designer. It simply does not discuss that possibility, because a discussion of that possiblilty is outside the realm of science and thus irrelevant to the study.

Why? Because science cannot study the designer, that doesn't mean that he therefore cannot have been involved.

This is exactly true - and this is why science does not assume the existence or non-existence of such a designer. It does not seek to determine whether there was a creator, it simply seeks to describe the rules and mechanisms. If there was a designer, science is simply studying how that designer worked. If there was not, science is simply studying how the processes worked.

Do you see the assumption now? ID wants to allow for that possibility.

Incorrect. ID does not "allow for that possibility". It makes a positive statement that the possibility is absolutely true. Surely you can see the difference?

So, the naturalistic evolutionist explains, we are waiting on more information to answer the question better, to even out the odds some more. I don't mind the waiting part. Indeed, much of our understanding of our world will have to wait. What bugs me is that naturalistic evolutionism assumes that it is ok to BASE the theory on the POSSIBILITY that future research will uncover the proof that their explanations have been right all along.

Actually, this isn't true either. The explanations are formed out of the evidence already at hand. The theory is based upon the observations already made. Some of those explanations, however, may not be correct. We are aware of this. They may be supported further by new evidence, or disproven by it. That is .

If you really have a problem with people constructing explanations for the workings of the universe based on the data at hand, with the possibility that future data might support or disprove it, you have a problem with [b]all of science. You do realize, for instance, that the theory of relativity is still being tested (and thus far, always supported)? Most of the experiments to really demonstrate it weren't even possible until recently - some still are not.

That doesn't suit me. I don't think that is good science. Good science is not based on possibilities, but rather on what we can observe and repeat. It can allude to possibilities, but not be based on it.

Oh look, you just described evolutionary theory. The theory is based on what we can observe and repeat. It then goes on to discuss possibilities for how the mechanisms observed could have led to those observations.

I realize that would mean some changes to what we currently consider to be science. We think that science can only study natural causes. Rightly so. I agree here. But is there a reason we have to remove the possibility of a designer?

No, there isn't - and that is why we don't.

As a scientist, I want my field of study to be able to study the real world. If there is a designer, and if he has contributed, then our science should be able to take this into account, particularly if we cannot rule it out.

You can't expect one methodology to explain everything. If you want an explanation of a designer, you turn to religion, as it is impossible to measure such an entity.

Otherwise it is shutting out a possibility. But on what grounds? That science cannot study the designer. That is the reason you keep giving. But I fail to see (maybe it is I who am blind, who knows) why this limitation in science gives us the license to rule out a designer. It just does not seem reasonable to me. Limitations do not equal proof.

AND THAT IS WHY SCIENCE DOES NOT RULE OUT A DESIGNER. IT SIMPLY DOES NOT ASSUME ONE Rinse and repeat about 100 times. See if you can figure this out.

So let's change the rules. We do want science to be truthful, don't we? The new rules are not going to force anyone to believe in God. They will make them admit that there may be a designer. Will that hurt them? Will that change their lifestyle? Will they have to give anything up? Will it even change science?

SCIENCE ALREADY ALLOWS FOR THE POSSIBILITY OF GOD. ANY HONEST SCIENTIST ALREADY ADMITS THAT THERE MAY BE A DESIGNER. NO "RULES CHANGE" IS NECESSARY Write this on the board 100 times. Get it through your thick skull.

We humans made the rules, after all, and we are entitled to change them. You have often said that allowing ID would be like allowing bad science. But if we change the rules, then it will no longer be bad science, since we can decide what is good science and what is bad. If we refuse to change the rules, making ID 'bad science' simply because our rules define it so, then that is circular reasoning.

Yes, and we should change medicine to allow chopping people's heads off as a therapy. We should change math to allow 2+4=99. We should change history to allow people to teach that the Holocaust didn't occur. We should change geography to teach that India is a part of Europe.

Sure, we can change the rules. And all we will do is weaken science, opening it up to any and every assumption (however untestable) that any scientist wants to make. Great idea!

If those are your specifications, then I would have to include many aspects of String Theory and the TOE to be in the religious class too. One CAN measure and make assumptions that we are seeing the effects of the theory. This is the only way of proving String Theory. Likewise, one can argue that evolution is just the same observable of ID.

And by the way, I not too keen on throwing String Theory in to the religious catagory, how about you?

And for the one millionth time, science cannot "prove" anything. It can either support a hypothesis, or disprove it. Period.

I'm not sure if you can see it, Grave, but naturalistic theory assumes that naturalistic causes (i.e. mutations and natural selection) account for every variation in life that we see today.


No. It STILL doesn't. No matter HOW many times you say it.

Evolution assumes nothing. It observes, and then it hypothesises. Then, it compares it's hypothesis to 'experimental' reality. Then it makes a conclusion.

There is no 'evidence' for any non-falsifiable sources, so they are not included.


When people like me find it hard to accept the almost impossible odds involved in the explanations that come out of naturalistic evolution


Statistical probability of an ALREADY established phenomenon, is redundant and nonsensical.


I realize that would mean some changes to what we currently consider to be science. We think that science can only study natural causes. Rightly so. I agree here. But is there a reason we have to remove the possibility of a designer?


If you change science, it is not science. It becomes something else. This just sounds like the David of ID design trying to kill the Goliath of Evolution, by turning him into a frog.

Is there a reason to remove a designer? No... which is why science DOESN'T remove the designer. It judges EVERY falsifiable and observable piece of evidence of the designer. But it makes NO comments or judgements on any designer... because a designer WOULD NOT BE in the equation.


But if we change the rules, then it will no longer be bad science, since we can decide what is good science and what is bad. If we refuse to change the rules, making ID 'bad science' simply because our rules define it so, then that is circular reasoning.

No - it is bad science because science needs TWO things. Objective Logic, and Observation.

The 'designer' fails to meet both criteria.

If you want to 'change the rules', and create your own little community where you can plug unprovable data into your mechanisms, go right ahead. It WON'T be science... and, in fact, they already HAVE a name for it.... they call it 'religion'.

Personally, String Theory sounds good, as does Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Neutrinoes.... all good ideas.

But are they 'good' science... I'd say no. And, I'd be willing to leave them consigned to the philosophy-of-science pile, if it meant never having to look at ID being pushed into the boundaries of science.

It is good science, it's Theoretical Science. Our greatest physicists never proved a thing in their lives. Let's review:

Newton: F=MA, hmm... creates equation based on observations, defines quantity which is self-consistant and all things after it are defined by the equation. Of course if you use a tool to measure gravitational force you will get mg, cause it's based solely on F=MA.

Einstein: E=mc^2 (and many more) Well known for his "thought experiements." Won Nobel Prize w/o and proof of his theory of relativity.

All the brave pioneers of quantum mechanic, including Einstein: Design atomic model off some psychotic idea of "quantizing" anything and everything.

The Beloved Stephen Hawkings: Formulates new mathematical results of General Relativity discussing the universe, black holes, and the like. Couldn't work in lab even if he wanted to.


Most all great scientific ideas come to those will the gall to propose something without the ability to prove it.

And for the one millionth time, science cannot "prove" anything. It can either support a hypothesis, or disprove it. Period.

For the one millionth and one time. It can, it just cannot prove everything.

To watch something fall, and to say it falls, then make an equation which correctly predicts how it falls. Gravity has been proven to exist.

To watch muons travel into the atmosphere, half-life supports that there should be much less muon count than recorded. Someone applied time dilation equations to the travelling muons and predicts correct results. Time Dilation has thus been proven to exist.

We may not be able to fully understand it, but we can prove something exists and likewise we can prove a theory exists in its repsective realm.

It is good science, it's Theoretical Science. Our greatest physicists never proved a thing in their lives. Let's review:

Newton: F=MA, hmm... creates equation based on observations, defines quantity which is self-consistant and all things after it are defined by the equation. Of course if you use a tool to measure gravitational force you will get mg, cause it's based solely on F=MA.

Einstein: E=mc^2 (and many more) Well known for his "thought experiements." Won Nobel Prize w/o and proof of his theory of relativity.

All the brave pioneers of quantum mechanic, including Einstein: Design atomic model off some psychotic idea of "quantizing" anything and everything.

The Beloved Stephen Hawkings: Formulates new mathematical results of General Relativity discussing the universe, black holes, and the like. Couldn't work in lab even if he wanted to.

Most all great scientific ideas come to those will the gall to propose something without the ability to prove it.

Science cannot prove anything. However, all of the above were based upon observation. When Einstein first started talking about his ideas, he was told to test them - and he did, and his findings supported his hypotheses. Others tested as well, and found support for his hypotheses. Thus, they eventually became theories. They are still testing and finding support for this theory - they have yet to disprove it.

Most of Stephen Hawking's work is hypothetical as well - not yet theory. It has not yet been tested enough, and we don't have the technology to test it. Of course, much of modern physics is more into the philosophical realm these days than the scientific one.

All I have to say is that the Christian god and intelligent design makes as much sense as a Flying Spaghetti Monster creating the universe. (But the FSM is a lot cooler)

Actually, it does. The logic of science can only work within this universe, within the rules of this universe. Anything outside of that may not even follow our logic.

That is like saying, "If black became white,..." By definition, such a being is outside of science. This isn't a current thing that will eventually go away - the methodology itself cannot be used as such a being is, itself, by definition, unfalsifiable.

I wouldn't call it failing. There are simply some things science cannot address. Science doesn't have to be the study of everything, just what it was meant for.


That's actually the point I was making. Science deals with the natural, NOT because of 'preference'... but because that is ALL there is that can be analysed scientifically.

IF (and you have to appreciate, I am NOT saying this is an expected outcome) something un-natural COULD be falsified, COULD be observed... that thing (even God, if he/she/it COULD be falsified) would become a component of scientific analysis.

I'm not saying that God COULD become falsifiable... I'm just saying that IF god DID....

I wouldn't call it a failing, either... but Braurong did... and I was responding to that.

For the one millionth and one time. It can, it just cannot prove everything.

No, it cannot prove anything. By the logical definitions of science, proof cannot be found, as the next time you try something, it could turn out differently.

To watch something fall, and to say it falls, then make an equation which correctly predicts how it falls. Gravity has been proven to exist.

Incorrect. Gravity has been supported, as every time we have tried to test it thus far, we have gotten results that support the theory. However, the next time we drop something, it just might fly out of the atmosphere. This is highly unlikely, considering how many times we have dropped things and how many times they have just fallen. However, there is still that chance that the rules actually work such that, 1 time out of 50 billion, the object flies up.

We may not be able to fully understand it, but we can prove something exists and likewise we can prove a theory exists in its repsective realm.

No, we can demonstrate that the world acts as if something exists. We cannot prove that what we think is there *actually* exists. It may sound like a semantic difference, but it is the way the logic of the scientific method works.

It is good science, it's Theoretical Science. Our greatest physicists never proved a thing in their lives. Let's review:

Newton: F=MA, hmm... creates equation based on observations, defines quantity which is self-consistant and all things after it are defined by the equation. Of course if you use a tool to measure gravitational force you will get mg, cause it's based solely on F=MA.

Einstein: E=mc^2 (and many more) Well known for his "thought experiements." Won Nobel Prize w/o and proof of his theory of relativity.

All the brave pioneers of quantum mechanic, including Einstein: Design atomic model off some psychotic idea of "quantizing" anything and everything.

The Beloved Stephen Hawkings: Formulates new mathematical results of General Relativity discussing the universe, black holes, and the like. Couldn't work in lab even if he wanted to.


Most all great scientific ideas come to those will the gall to propose something without the ability to prove it.

Newton and Einstein started with observation, formed hypotheses, and then tested those hypotheses against observed results... which results still continue to this day.

Thus - nebulous though their work may seem, it follows the scientific method.

Hawking - I'm not so sure about. I like the guy, but I'm not convinced as to the ascendency of his 'science'. But, as a scientific philosopher, my hat's off to him.

ID has no observation. The case rests.

Incorrect. Gravity has been supported, as every time we have tried to test it thus far, we have gotten results that support the theory. However, the next time we drop something, it just might fly out of the atmosphere. This is highly unlikely, considering how many times we have dropped things and how many times they have just fallen. However, there is still that chance that the rules actually work such that, 1 time out of 50 billion, the object flies up.


Gravity is assumed to be pretty accurate, because it seems to work.. but it is only ONE of the possible explanations.

One of my favourite little catchphrases: "Gravity doesn't exist. The Earth Sucks". :)

I'm not sure if you can see it, Grave, but naturalistic theory assumes that naturalistic causes (i.e. mutations and natural selection) account for every variation in life that we see today. It must assume it, because it does not consider any other alternative.
No, that's not the reason why it must rule out the supernatural. The reasons have been well-stated by Graves and others, even yourself: science only works with empirical data, period; therefore, it can only consider observable causes to observable effects. That is the only reason.

It doesn't address the issue of whether there is a designer, but it does remove him from from the list of possible explanations. Why? Because science cannot study the designer, that doesn't mean that he therefore cannot have been involved. Do you see the assumption now? ID wants to allow for that possibility.
...which makes it unscientific.

Science isn't about finding truth; rather, it is about defining it within the framework of reality. Something that exists beyond reality is beyond the scope of science. Now, if this designer chooses to present himself in reality, he can be considered by science. Until that happens, saying "there is an intelligent design but no intelligent designer" is not helpful.

It is not always going to conclude a particular design must have been exactly designed by a designer. Not always. Natural causes have certainly contributed to designs in nature.
Attributed. Designs made by nature are not intelligently put together. What is it that distinguishes an "intelligent desgin" from a natural one, like the spiral shape of a seashell?

When people like me find it hard to accept the almost impossible odds involved in the explanations that come out of naturalistic evolution (e.g. to explain the development of the eye using mutation rates and natural selection), we get told that science has explained it, so why bother bringing in a designer. But looking at such impossible odds means that it isn't explained, otherwise there wouldn't be any odds, or at least odds that we would accept in everyday life, like 1 in 2 or 1 in 10. It's not that I reject the odds, but that I feel that there must be a better explanation.

So, the naturalistic evolutionist explains, we are waiting on more information to answer the question better, to even out the odds some more. I don't mind the waiting part. Indeed, much of our understanding of our world will have to wait. What bugs me is that naturalistic evolutionism assumes that it is ok to BASE the theory on the POSSIBILITY that future research will uncover the proof that their explanations have been right all along. That doesn't suit me. I don't think that is good science.
It is the best science that holds the theory unformalized until that evidence is found. Wanting to realise expectations is the impetus to go out and find that evidence. It is the same force that drove scientists to create the Hubble telescope, so that we might turn it on other solar systems and verify that others stars have planets around them (which only happened last year).

Good science is not based on possibilities, but rather on what we can observe and repeat. It can allude to possibilities, but not be based on it. (I would argue that ID is based on observing information systems, not on observing the designer of the information systems, just as naturalism is based on observing nature, and not on the odds required to explain it.)
But if intelligent designer is "only a possibility", then its design is, too, necessarily.

I realize that would mean some changes to what we currently consider to be science. We think that science can only study natural causes. Rightly so. I agree here. But is there a reason we have to remove the possibility of a designer? As a scientist, I want my field of study to be able to study the real world. If there is a designer, and if he has contributed, then our science should be able to take this into account, particularly if we cannot rule it out. Otherwise it is shutting out a possibility.
When the designer becomes a reality, its design will; until then, nature is the best explanation provided.

But on what grounds? That science cannot study the designer. That is the reason you keep giving. But I fail to see (maybe it is I who am blind, who knows) why this limitation in science gives us the license to rule out a designer. It just does not seem reasonable to me. Limitations do not equal proof.
So let's change the rules. We do want science to be truthful, don't we? The new rules are not going to force anyone to believe in God. They will make them admit that there may be a designer. Will that hurt them? Will that change their lifestyle? Will they have to give anything up? Will it even change science?

We humans made the rules, after all, and we are entitled to change them. You have often said that allowing ID would be like allowing bad science. But if we change the rules, then it will no longer be bad science, since we can decide what is good science and what is bad. If we refuse to change the rules, making ID 'bad science' simply because our rules define it so, then that is circular reasoning.
If we change the rules of "what is science" then it won't be science anymore, no? We could create a new field of study that allows for causes outside of nature, but then we should give it a new name to distinguish it from science.

http://www.ozyandmillie.org/2005/om20050822.gif

Surely we should teach what we know, not what we think we know..... is anyone confused by statement, cos I am! :)

http://www.ozyandmillie.org/2005/om20050822.gif

Hehe. Very clever. I liked the wit.

http://www.ozyandmillie.org/2005/om20050822.gif
I will have to remember that one lol

No, that's not the reason why it must rule out the supernatural. The reasons have been well-stated by Graves and others, even yourself: science only works with empirical data, period; therefore, it can only consider observable causes to observable effects. That is the only reason.
...which makes it unscientific.


Well, willamena, what do you call the just so stories, with the incredible odds, that naturalistic science invokes? That is definitely not empirical data.


Science isn't about finding truth; rather, it is about defining it within the framework of reality. Something that exists beyond reality is beyond the scope of science. Now, if this designer chooses to present himself in reality, he can be considered by science. Until that happens, saying "there is an intelligent design but no intelligent designer" is not helpful.


I think you are quite wrong about science not attempting to find truth. But perhaps you and I are defining the word 'truth' somewhat differently. So perhaps you could agree with me that science is about finding out information about our world--information which it holds to be reliable and useful in our world, the world which we consider to be real. Of course, you may have some slight differences with my wording, maybe it could be better, but I suspect we need to agree what science is about before we can continue a sensible debate.


Attributed. Designs made by nature are not intelligently put together. What is it that distinguishes an "intelligent desgin" from a natural one, like the spiral shape of a seashell?


I think I see your point. For example, when a person looks at a flower, and sees the beautiful shape and colours and smells, and considers it a beautiful thing, how is that person to know if the beauty is in the person's mind only, or if it really is somehow contained within the flower. So that if that flower was never seen by a single person, would it still be beautiful? And now just replace the word 'beautiful' with 'design'. Well, that is a good point. Actually, the science that I am familiar with doesn't really deal with questions like that. They are more philosophical. But I think the IDers have a way of measuring their information systems to determine if natural causes are adequate. I'm not too familiar with their methodology yet.

But let's take an oversimplified example from forensic science, where the invesigator of a death has to decide where the deceased died from natural causes or human causes. He looks at every clue, in an attempt to find a conclusion. If he finds a knife handle sticking out the body, he is likely to think that someone put it there. Of course, it is possible that the dead person fell while carrying a knife (that would be akin to a natural cause), even though the odds of this are quite low, considering that the knife was inserted into the back, so he won't rule out either possibility until he finds more evidence. My feeling is that the naturalistic evolutionists are forever ruling out the possibility that someone put the design there, and ruling in favour of the impossible odds, because of the excuse about wanting only to deal with causes that they are able to observe. That doesn't appeal to my rational. If I have to perform science in this way, I feel that I am closing my mind a little.

As for your example of a sea shell pattern, I'm not sure if you think that it can be formed by natural causes or design. For example, we may understand how a sea creature (woops, wrong word, I mean animal) builds it's shell, and call that natural causes, but we don't understand how the animal came by the information necessary to build it. The fact that the pretty shell pattern appeals to our senses does not help us decide either way, for it appears that the pattern has a purpose in survival. So to say that the shell pattern is a combination of intelligent design and natural causes would be fine with me (in answer to your question).


It is the best science that holds the theory unformalized until that evidence is found. Wanting to realise expectations is the impetus to go out and find that evidence. It is the same force that drove scientists to create the Hubble telescope, so that we might turn it on other solar systems and verify that others stars have planets around them (which only happened last year).


But you didn't address my point. I said clearly that the wanting and waiting is something that am OK with. What I don't like is the attitude that says 'we can't prove it yet, but we are going to one day, so it may as well be considered proven.' That really sucks. And it's just not science.


But if intelligent designer is "only a possibility", then its design is, too, necessarily.


Right on, sister, that is what I would say too. IDers just want to get a possibility recognised within mainstream science.


When the designer becomes a reality, its design will; until then, nature is the best explanation provided.


You mean when proof for a designer becomes reality (if ever), then its design will also. It doesn't make sense to say when the designer becomes reality, because, as a possibility, he already exists. Nature is not the best explanation, it is the only explanation, and so long as science accepts, no, assumes this, it is not even trying to honestly explore reality as we find it.


If we change the rules of "what is science" then it won't be science anymore, no? We could create a new field of study that allows for causes outside of nature, but then we should give it a new name to distinguish it from science.

When we changed the laws on abortion, did that mean that it wasn't abortion any more? No, we kept using the word. We use the same terms. We all know what abortion is. (OK, not a very good example, but I hope it serves to make a point.) We humans are the ones who decide what good science is. Therefore, to change our ideas on what good science is won't necessarily mean that we do bad science. On the contrary, it may mean that we have seen an error with the current rules, and attempt to make them better. Your reason is not a reason I will accept for not changing the rules.

A further point on that. Those old chaps like Newton, Pasteur, Bacon, Bell, and lots of others were all scientists who believed in a designer. Even Darwin accepted that. Would you argue that their acceptance of a designer meant that their science was bad? The evidence would be against that argument.

No. It STILL doesn't. No matter HOW many times you say it.

Evolution assumes nothing. It observes, and then it hypothesises. Then, it compares it's hypothesis to 'experimental' reality. Then it makes a conclusion.

There is no 'evidence' for any non-falsifiable sources, so they are not included.


Grave, you are putting yourself at odds with a lot of scientists when you claim that science does not assume. Maybe you have a rather clever and special relevation that no one else can see, but most of the journal articles I read use assumptions. (There is a possibility that we are thinking of different definitions of the word 'assumption', but I find that unlikely, since you are supposed to be something of a scientist, so I will assume that you are familiar with the generally accepted version--no pun intended.)

I will try it again. You said that science makes conclusions. A conclusion would be a statement about an observation based on what appears to be the most likely explanation. Now, if a scientist wants to use that conclusion to help him with a second conclusion, he assumes that the first conclusion is correct. Unless he makes this assumption, then he cannot form any more conclusions.

I think we will have to sort this out before we can progress with any more sensible discussions.

Grave, you are putting yourself at odds with a lot of scientists when you claim that science does not assume. Maybe you have a rather clever and special relevation that no one else can see, but most of the journal articles I read use assumptions. (There is a possibility that we are thinking of different definitions of the word 'assumption', but I find that unlikely, since you are supposed to be something of a scientist, so I will assume that you are familiar with the generally accepted version--no pun intended.)

I will try it again. You said that science makes conclusions. A conclusion would be a statement about an observation based on what appears to be the most likely explanation. Now, if a scientist wants to use that conclusion to help him with a second conclusion, he assumes that the first conclusion is correct. Unless he makes this assumption, then he cannot form any more conclusions.

I think we will have to sort this out before we can progress with any more sensible discussions.

Well, first: one should never be afraid of being at odds with their community.

Second: You are playing mix and match... are we looking at first principles? In the first principle stage, we form the 'assumptions' that will be used in the latter stages.

Example: In the first principle stage, we ascertain an idea of a gravitational constant, THROUGH the scientific method, throw observation, calculation, and testing. It is now safe to use that 'acid-test' assumption on a second-stage calculation, wouldn't you agree?

Thus - we drop a ball from a window, we can 'assume' the gravitational constant. We aren't REALLY assuming, we are effectively recalling earlier date, or using an estimation.

But - if we were talking first principles: No - you can't just make an assumption and call it scientific - you can't just watch your descending object and say "erm... I reckon it falls at twenty miles an hour", and RELY on that assumption.

Unfortunately, ALL of ID is THAT kind of assumption.

Third: A conclusion is the experimental data compared with the hypothesis, to give a response.

Fourth: Yes - you are pretty close with your second paragraph. The scientifically acquired conclusion from the first tier of scientific methodology investigation, CAN be used in the second tier.

Yes I did. And you proved yourself wrong by believeing in contraditions. That's your own problem. I'm not talking rubbish and I'm not talking lies. You are the one who is lying.

snip

You should stop lying.

Mesatecala, I just wanted to point out something to you from my last post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruarong

No, Mesatecala, you didn't prove me wrong. You just keep repeating the same message. I hate ID. You are talking rubbish. It's all lies. If I choose not to respond, it would be an assumption on your part to say that it is because I could not face your powers of reasoning.

I think you got the message that I was claiming that you are talking rubbish and lies. My post should have read:

No, Mesatecala, you didn't prove me wrong. You just keep repeating the same message, ''I hate ID. You are talking rubbish. It's all lies.''
If I choose not to respond, it would be an assumption on your part to say that it is because I could not face your powers of reasoning.

I want to apologise to you for my sloppy post. I never meant to infer that you were lying and talking rubbish. What I meant was that since you were repeating the same message over and over again, it discouraged me from responding to you. My purpose in this thread, other than enjoying debating, is to learn more about ID and science from various points of view, not to win a debate.

We humans are the ones who decide what good science is. Therefore, to change our ideas on what good science is won't necessarily mean that we do bad science.

'Good' science is observation, and the application of logic. Bad science skips one or both of those.

If you change the definition of 'science' so that it allows things like unfalsified entities, your 'good' science is no longer worth what it was.

In fact, you'd still have a divide - because all those that practised 'real' science, would refuse the label of 'science' if it accepted mumbo-jumbo concepts like unfalsified data.

You'd end up with something like 'science' which housed ID, Creationism, and Pixie-science... and 'Reality Science' which would deal with everything that wasn't cobbled hokum.