NationStates Jolt Archive

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

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

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


Actually, the Ingredients don't need to come from anywhere, acording to the "Big Bang." Everything in the universe came in to being ex nihlio. The true problem is the ingredients combining themselves, using enough energy to heat them to the correct temperature for the correct amount of time, stacking the cake, icing it, and properly putting it on a plate without dumping it on the floor.

This would be the essence of ID. For the ingredients to form into a cake defies the Law of Entropy, an accepted law of physics. Ergo, the cake must have had order inserted into the system - something intelligent had to do it.

If a theory violates a law, then one of them is untrue. This must be reconciled.

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.

Nature does not exist. It is not a thing.

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.

It is impossible to have a way of "measuring their information systems to determine if natural causes are adequate" unless you know everything there is to know about nature. No reasonable scientist would claim that we know everything there is to know about nature, so there is no empirical way to "rule out" natural causes, as it were.

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.

Well, you can rest easy, since scientists don't do any such thing. We don't rule out the possibility that someone put the design there. We simply know that we can't assume anything about whether or not someone did. Thus, we don't seek to determine whether or not the processes and rules of the universe were designed, and instead seek to determine how those processes led to what we have today. It is entirely possible, within the theory of evolution, that evolution was designed, or even guided. However, that assumption cannot be made. Thus, we rely on what we can and cannot measure.

Even if evolution was "pushed along", as it were, it would appear to be random to us, unless we understood the mind of whatever entity was pushing it along.

You are still failing to see the incredibly clear difference between not assuming a designer and assuming that there is no designer.

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.

No, it isn't science. And there isn't a branch of science that says it.

Right on, sister, that is what I would say too. IDers just want to get a possibility recognised within mainstream science.

It is a possibility already recognized in mainstream science. However, because the possibility (one way or the other) is completely untestable and unfalsifiable (no matter which assumption you make), science leaves that question to other areas. The possiblity that there is a designer is not ruled out in mainstream science, or even in evolution. Again, they simply do not assume that there is a creator.

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.

I believe by "reality", Willamena is referring to that which we can interact with and measure. Something outside the rules of the universe is not something with which we can do so, and is thus not part of "reality", even if it 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.

Nature is what science studies, thus nature is all that science can use. Anything outside of nature is, by definition, outside the logical processes of science and thus, outside of 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.)

Actually, it is a horrible example. You aren't talking about changing the laws on abortion. You are talking about taking a liver transplant and beginning to call it an abortion.

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.

The only way to "change the rules" in the way that you want is to change the entire logical thought process of science. At that point, it will cease to be science.

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.

There is nothing wrong with believing in a designer. There is nothing wrong with having a personal belief outside of your scientific work. There is nothing wrong, in non-technical discussion, with talking about the theological ramifications of your scientific work.

It is when you attempt to make your personal belief in a designer the basis of your scientific work that it begins to become bad science.

Nature does not exist. It is not a thing.
Neither does God.

It is a concept of creation with intent (God) vs. creation without intent (Nature).

Nature does not exist. It is not a thing.

Is this one of those, "Nothing actually exists - you are all figments of my imagination," things?

So Kansas is going to allow ID. Not shocked by anything that state will allow.

Demp: Do you think Bruarong is a scientist as he claims? Reading his arguments; he comes across more like a theologian who has read some science....

Well, first: one should never be afraid of being at odds with their community.


I agree. Seems hard to believe, but we actually agree on a point.


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.


I was not mixing and matching. I was talking about the movement from conclusions to assumptions, for one must turn a conclusion into an assumption in order to build on it. Grave, what is the difference between your 'assuming' and my assuming. That's what assuming means.....recalling a conclusion from an earlier estimation in order to make another 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.


But you have the wrong picture in your head. Why do you suppose that an assumption must be a sloppy estimation, such as guessing at the speed of a falling object? Let me give you an example. I have a bacterium in my lab. It produces a polysaccharide. I put the genome of the organism through a process of random mutagenisis (e.g. transposon insertion). I select the mutants that do not produce the polysaccharide. I don't know for certain, but I conclude that these mutants do not produce polysaccharide because of their mutation(s). So, I assume this is the case, and press on with the next part of the experiment. I search for the integration of the mutation in the genome of the mutants. Then I discover that the transposon was inserted into several particular not-previously-identified genes. I don't know for certain, but I assume that the insertion caused the disfunction of the gene products, and thus disrupted polysaccharide production. Based on this assumption, I clone the genes, Then I compliment the mutated genes with the cloned genes. If my assumptions were right, the bacterium should be capable of production of polysaccharide. I don't know this for certain, but it is the best explanation that I have. It may be an assumption, but because it is repeatable and falsifyable, it looks like a good assumption. It's also what we call good science, though it is based on assumptions.

Unfortunately, there are some things in science that are not observable, nor repeatable, nor falsifyable. What do we do with these? Put them outside of science? We just can't do that, if we want science to be able to tell us anything about how the complexity of life got here.

You prefer your explanation. I prefer mine. But you are excluding mine on the basis that it cannot be observed, repeated, or falsified, when all along you know that you are in the same boat. That's unjust.

Demp: Do you think Bruarong is a scientist as he claims? Reading his arguments; he comes across more like a theologian who has read some science....

I realize this was not a question for me, but I can't resist a comment. I have said that I am a scientist, but whether you believe me or not is none of my concern. You may consider me a school boy, or less, if you prefer. I am certainly not a theologian, although I am somewhat attracted to the idea of becoming one. However, I have not sat a single class of theology yet.

My concern in this thread is that my posts are answered fairly, with reason and consideration for the implications of science. My point is that it doesn't matter if I am a scientist or not, as far as this debate is concerned. What does matter is that we are reasonable in our posts, and having manners helps too. When someone refuses to be reasonable, you cannot reply to him with reason, and expect to have a reasonable reply.

Better start reading something decent about the subject; maybe start here:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...9030584-4822046

(and leave us alone in the meantime)

It is impossible to have a way of "measuring their information systems to determine if natural causes are adequate" unless you know everything there is to know about nature. No reasonable scientist would claim that we know everything there is to know about nature, so there is no empirical way to "rule out" natural causes, as it were.


Not necessarily. From what I have read, they are able to identify 'packets' of information that rely on other 'packets' in order to be functional. This is called irreducible complexity.
It's not necessary to 'know everything' to arrive at this conclusion. You only have to understand the complexity of the system which you are studying. The naturalistic reply is that natural selection and mutations designed these 'packets' of information separately, for different purposes, without relying on each other, but at the right time, brought them together in a way that they contributed to produce a function that was completely new for the organism--enough to give a selection advantage, such as sight. Unfortunately for them, the only evidence that the naturalistic people give to such high odds happening is some mathematical models, computer simulations. The criticism of that is that they are unrealistic. They can be made to simulate things that we have observed already (e.g., antibiotic resistance) but not events that involve impossible odds.


Well, you can rest easy, since scientists don't do any such thing. We don't rule out the possibility that someone put the design there. We simply know that we can't assume anything about whether or not someone did. Thus, we don't seek to determine whether or not the processes and rules of the universe were designed, and instead seek to determine how those processes led to what we have today. It is entirely possible, within the theory of evolution, that evolution was designed, or even guided. However, that assumption cannot be made. Thus, we rely on what we can and cannot measure.


That is what you say. I realize that many scientist believe in God. Good for them, perhaps. But such scientists are generally carrying out their science as if God does not exist. Neither are they able to attribute anything to God without being shouted down for being unscientific. This is a far cry from chaps like Newton and Pastuer who attributed the principles of science (e.g., gravity, and life gives rise to life) to a designer.
Furthermore, you may claim that your science doesn't know about 'whether or not someone put the design there', but if you look at the wide open community of science, you will see that most science literature claims naturalistic causes, incredible odds, and just so stories (far out explanations) as being responsible for placing the design there. I don't think you represent the current science community in this point.


Even if evolution was "pushed along", as it were, it would appear to be random to us, unless we understood the mind of whatever entity was pushing it along.


Would it appear random? Do we really need to understand the mind behind it? How would one know? I guess that is the issue facing us. Perhaps we need a new discipline of science that looks into this a bit more. :)


You are still failing to see the incredibly clear difference between not assuming a designer and assuming that there is no designer.


On the contrary, I doubt that I am as stupid as you and some others appear make out. But who knows, perhaps. At any rate, I have read and received your point loud and clear. And I have replied to it before. Let me try again. No, first, let me say that when you don't assume that there is no designer, I believe you. But, sister, there is a lot of people out there that insist otherwise. For example, have you ever read a science publication that allows the possibility of a design being caused by intelligence? I have not. The editor would be shouted down as ridiculous to even allow any mention of a designer. So the only option left is to accredit design to natural causes. Sure, they don't assume that there was not a designer, but they do assume/conclude/propose that it was due to natural causes. By listing one option and not the other, they are effectively ruling out the 'other'. You, however, appear to be saying that they do not rule out the other, that they make no ruling at all. But I say they do make a ruling, since they attribute design to natural causes every time there is an 'attributing' to be made.


I believe by "reality", Willamena is referring to that which we can interact with and measure. Something outside the rules of the universe is not something with which we can do so, and is thus not part of "reality", even if it exists.


Yes, I was aware that there may have been a difference in our definitions of the word. However, the reality you speak of is more like perception. Perception can change. Reality, however, should be defined as that which does not change, IMO.


Nature is what science studies, thus nature is all that science can use. Anything outside of nature is, by definition, outside the logical processes of science and thus, outside of science.


But I keep arguing that science uses things like statistics and human-constructed explanations that are also outside of science.

I would argue that science relys on the 'humanity' of people. We need our creativity, persistence, courage, discipline, imagination. All these things are not defined by science, and yet leave their mark on it. In that sense they are within science, for if you take these things away, our science would collapse. It is using our humanity that we get to 'do' science. Thus it is only natural that 'science' does not only include that which we can observe and repeat, but it includes a great deal of judgement, understanding, wisdom that comes from experience. You are right to say that science FOCUSES on that which can be observed and repeated, e.g. designs. But by no means does that mean science is incapable of referring to processes that are outside of science, based on what it has observed within science.



Actually, it is a horrible example. You aren't talking about changing the laws on abortion. You are talking about taking a liver transplant and beginning to call it an abortion.


OK already. I had just played two hours of a tough game of soccor and all I could think of was a silly example of abortion. Not that I consider abortion silly, or that my analogy was poor, but that I failed in trying to communicate my point.


The only way to "change the rules" in the way that you want is to change the entire logical thought process of science. At that point, it will cease to be science.


Rubbish. Sounds like an illogical conclusion based on fear of the unknown. How many times have we already changed the rules in science? Did that make it any less science? Did it mean that we changed the entire logical thought process? Far out, Dem, pick a better reason than that. We change them all the time to suit us. Take an example of the big bang. We used to have a rule that matter cannot come from non-matter. But they changed/modified/mutated that rule to allow that it is possible, but only if the anti-matter equals the matter. We kept one rule, where for every reaction there is an opposite and equal reaction, but we broke the other, and allowed that matter can arise from nothing, even though it has never been observed, repeated, nor can it be currently falsified.


There is nothing wrong with believing in a designer. There is nothing wrong with having a personal belief outside of your scientific work. There is nothing wrong, in non-technical discussion, with talking about the theological ramifications of your scientific work.

It is when you attempt to make your personal belief in a designer the basis of your scientific work that it begins to become bad science.

But I am not attempting to make my personal belief in a designer the basis of my scientific work. Where did you get that from? I want to be able to look at nature and the designs that I find there, and at least allow for the possibility of a designer, without having to shut a part of my brain down and focus only on inadequate natural causes.

Better start reading something decent about the subject; maybe start here:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...9030584-4822046

(and leave us alone in the meantime)
Amazing the link does not work

Amazing the link does not work

Yeah, it was so unexpected!

;)

What the Kansas school board doesn't, or maybe does, realize is that now that they have permitted creationism to be taught in schools, whats to stop 'Intelligent Falling' from replacing gravity, or the theory of noodle creationism from entering the classroom? You can't say that there's any discerning difference between them, as after all they're all just "theories." The creationists sure did make a big point about that, it's all "theory."

We really are stupid. Perhaps it is meant that the race will die soon of any of the myriad problems facing us today. But by far the largest one is just plain stupidity.

Yeah, it was so unexpected!

;)
I know it snuck up on us

Well, willamena, what do you call the just so stories, with the incredible odds, that naturalistic science invokes? That is definitely not empirical data.
I'm not familiar with any "just so" stories. Can you provide an example?

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.
I agree that science collects data, but I do not think the purpose of science is a search for the truth. I imagine science as a kid in a playground, putting things together, taking others apart, putting things in his mouth to see if they're edible, and sticking his finger in the sand to see how cold and wet it is two inches below the surface. The "truth" that science finds is, "Hey! This works! …for now."

I think the ultimate purpose of science is discovery. But perhaps that's just me.

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).
My point was that humans assign meaning to things; you've said this yourself, and it isn't just an observation, it's your answer. We go a step beyond observation of a thing, to look to possible causes, a "why" for its existence. Patterns are extra-special not because they are beautiful or appealing, but because they stand out from the chaos by virtue of being repetitive. Because they are special we grant them significance, we assign them meaning, we assign them the label "design." We acknowledge that this design may have a designer, natural or supernatural, or be a nature-made one. If it is explainable by nature, whether intelligent or not, we need not look further, because nature is all that affects us. Nature is "what works."

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.
As well they should.

Consider this post:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9477687&postcount=184
If god created earth, why did he create a dead moon for it?

To maintain the rotation of the Earth, regulate tides and provide a goal for mankind to strive to - Expansion to the other bodies of the heavens
It provides a supernatural explanation for the existence of the moon in terms of God's purpose. It explains that purpose by describing natural effects that sustain us (that is a religious idea, that our environment has a purpose in sustaining us). Are we to accept this explanation, without evidence of a God? If so, why?

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.
The supernatural is not a part of reality, it is apart from it: it is "super"-natural. When or if that designer becomes reality (enters the material, physical world as a being) then he becomes a possibility; then it also becomes a possibility that the patterns we observe are of his design. When that happens, science can discover him.

Nature is the best explanation for us material, natural humans. What is supernatural is possible only to us unnatural, idealistic beings.

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.
Sorry, it serves to make no point. The "laws" about abortion are not defining abortion; they are outlining penalties for conducting an abortion. Changing the laws does not affect the thing. Science, on the other hand, is nothing more than a set of rules. If we change the rules, it is no longer science.

"Good" science is defined by following the rules as they currently exist; anything else is bad science or not science at all. You can bend the definition all you like in order to accept it, but then you will always be at odds with those who understand and practice "good" science. You create grief for no one but yourself.

The acceptance of a supernatural designer is not science at all; similarly, using the designer to explain a "cause" of a natural effect is not science at all.

Demp: Do you think Bruarong is a scientist as he claims? Reading his arguments; he comes across more like a theologian who has read some science....

I wouldn't say he sounds like a theologian, but I must admit I find his claims of a PhD in the biosciences hard to believe, considering the complete lack of understanding of evolutionary theory and genetics he has demonstrated here.

But you have the wrong picture in your head. Why do you suppose that an assumption must be a sloppy estimation, such as guessing at the speed of a falling object? Let me give you an example. I have a bacterium in my lab. It produces a polysaccharide. I put the genome of the organism through a process of random mutagenisis (e.g. transposon insertion). I select the mutants that do not produce the polysaccharide. I don't know for certain, but I conclude that these mutants do not produce polysaccharide because of their mutation(s). So, I assume this is the case, and press on with the next part of the experiment. I search for the integration of the mutation in the genome of the mutants. Then I discover that the transposon was inserted into several particular not-previously-identified genes. I don't know for certain, but I assume that the insertion caused the disfunction of the gene products, and thus disrupted polysaccharide production. Based on this assumption, I clone the genes, Then I compliment the mutated genes with the cloned genes. If my assumptions were right, the bacterium should be capable of production of polysaccharide. I don't know this for certain, but it is the best explanation that I have. It may be an assumption, but because it is repeatable and falsifyable, it looks like a good assumption. It's also what we call good science, though it is based on assumptions.

Again, a horribly innacurate analogy. You don't know these things for certain, that is true. However, you have completed a controlled test which provided fairly conclusive evidence for them. Thus, you have justified your later assumptions. Unless some piece of evidence which you did not consider is brought forth, they will remain justified.

ID is more like picking out a random gene and saying, "No one can explain this gene. Therefore it was designed."

Not necessarily. From what I have read, they are able to identify 'packets' of information that rely on other 'packets' in order to be functional. This is called irreducible complexity.

This includes the assumption that those "packets" have always, in every situation, been dependent on the other "packets". Interestingly enough, the individual components most of the so-called "irreducibly complex" systems have been demonstrated to be functional (albeit in other ways) on their own.

Meanwhile, irreducible complexity does not logically lead directly to a designer. Thus, even if it were possible, within the logic of science, to demonstrate that something could not possibly have ever been made up of component parts, rather than working as a whole, (which it is not, but that is beside the point), that still would not justifiy the assumption that there is a supernatural force controlling it.

It's not necessary to 'know everything' to arrive at this conclusion.

You have changed the conclusion. You said that IDers have found things which "cannot be explained by natural causes". Unless we know everything there is to know about nature, we can never say this about anything. Even if irreducible complexity had been demonstrated, we couldn't rule out natural causes. There could very well be natural causes that led to that complexity - and we simply don't know them.

The naturalistic reply is that natural selection and mutations designed these 'packets' of information separately, for different purposes, without relying on each other, but at the right time, brought them together in a way that they contributed to produce a function that was completely new for the organism--enough to give a selection advantage, such as sight.

No, that is the evolutionary model. The evolutionary model is not the entirety of possible natural causes.

Unfortunately for them, the only evidence that the naturalistic people give to such high odds happening is some mathematical models, computer simulations.

...eye-like sensors in lower-order creatures, light sensitive proteins even in prokaryotes, etc., etc.

That is what you say. I realize that many scientist believe in God. Good for them, perhaps. But such scientists are generally carrying out their science as if God does not exist.

Incorrect. We carry out science with no concern for God either way. It is kind of like taking a test. The teacher may be in the room, and the teacher may not be in the room. I'm still going to take the test the same way

Neither are they able to attribute anything to God without being shouted down for being unscientific.

We can attribute everything to God, personally. We simply cannot make that attribution a lynchpin of any theory, as we cannot scientifically justify such a conclusion.

This is a far cry from chaps like Newton and Pastuer who attributed the principles of science (e.g., gravity, and life gives rise to life) to a designer.

Actually, it is exactly the same. Newton, Pastuer, Darwin, Galileo, etc. all attributed creation and that which they were studying to God. However, they did not make that attribution necessary in their theories. Their theories did not require a designer because they were only studying nature - all we can study. They were studying how nature works. The fact that they think a designer made it is irrelevant.

Suppose I wanted to know how my computer works. I could study how it works by testing it and probing it and prodding it. It wouldn't matter to me that someone at Toshiba designed it, because I am not studying whether or not it was designed. I am studying how it works.

Furthermore, you may claim that your science doesn't know about 'whether or not someone put the design there', but if you look at the wide open community of science, you will see that most science literature claims naturalistic causes, incredible odds, and just so stories (far out explanations) as being responsible for placing the design there. I don't think you represent the current science community in this point.

You are missing the point. The vast majority of those scientists attribute those "naturalistic" causes to a higher being. However, that attribution is not, in and of itself, part of the theory. We aren't studying the designer, we are studying the mechanisms.

Would it appear random? Do we really need to understand the mind behind it? How would one know? I guess that is the issue facing us. Perhaps we need a new discipline of science that looks into this a bit more.

Again, you are trying to apply science to that which lies outside of its useful realm. We already have disciplines to address these questions - philosophy and theology.

But I keep arguing that science uses things like statistics and human-constructed explanations that are also outside of science.

Statistics are outside of science? Interesting point of view you have there, but not widely shared....

And the human-constructed explanations are based on evidence following the scientific method. Thus, they are science.

On the contrary, I doubt that I am as stupid as you and some others appear make out. But who knows, perhaps. At any rate, I have read and received your point loud and clear. And I have replied to it before. Let me try again. No, first, let me say that when you don't assume that there is no designer, I believe you. But, sister, there is a lot of people out there that insist otherwise. For example, have you ever read a science publication that allows the possibility of a design being caused by intelligence?

Every single science publication I have ever read - and I've read quite a few - allows that possibility. Every mechanism described in every paper could have been designed by a being with intelligence.

Have you ever read a scientific publication that said, "There is no way that the mechanism we are describing could have come from an intelligent design,"? If you were to write up an article about your polysaccharide example, would you say, "There is no possible way that these polysaccharide-affecting genes could have possibly developed as the result of an intelligent design,"?

I think not.

I have not.

Then you have never read a scientific publication.

The editor would be shouted down as ridiculous to even allow any mention of a designer.

Mention of a designer would not be "allowing for the possibility". It would be stating that there was a designer. Big difference there - and exactly the difference you fail to see but claim that you do. I do not have to explicitly say, "There might be a designer," for the possibility to be allowed. In fact, if I explicitly say anything, I have chosen a side, rather than simply allowing for the possibility.

So the only option left is to accredit design to natural causes. Sure, they don't assume that there was not a designer, but they do assume/conclude/propose that it was due to natural causes. By listing one option and not the other, they are effectively ruling out the 'other'.

Incorrect.

Science can only be used within the realm of natural causes, as nature is all we can study. Thus, we can seek to describe the mechanisms which run nature.

That does not, in any way, mean that there is no designer behind it all. You are trying to oppose "nature" to "designer", which is an improper opposition. They are not opposites.

Rubbish. Sounds like an illogical conclusion based on fear of the unknown. How many times have we already changed the rules in science? Did that make it any less science? Did it mean that we changed the entire logical thought process?

I'm not aware of any major rules changes in science since it truly began.

However, a simple rules change would not mean that the entire logical thought process had been changed. Allowing for a theory based on untestable and unfalsifiable premises would change the entire logical thought process.

Take an example of the big bang. We used to have a rule that matter cannot come from non-matter. But they changed/modified/mutated that rule to allow that it is possible, but only if the anti-matter equals the matter. We kept one rule, where for every reaction there is an opposite and equal reaction, but we broke the other, and allowed that matter can arise from nothing, even though it has never been observed, repeated, nor can it be currently falsified.

Those weren't rules of science. They were conclusions reached using science. By the rules of science (which weren't changed at all in this case), when new evidence was found, or when the conclusions were found to contradict reality, the conclusions and theories were changed. That is exactly how science has worked - it involves no change in the rules of science.

But I am not attempting to make my personal belief in a designer the basis of my scientific work. Where did you get that from? I want to be able to look at nature and the designs that I find there, and at least allow for the possibility of a designer, without having to shut a part of my brain down and focus only on inadequate natural causes.

ID, by definition, relies upon a belief in a designer. Thus, they are trying to make that belief the basis of their scientific work. If you want to be able to look at nature and allow for the possibility of a designer, all you have to do is follow the established scientific method.

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.

Your sloppiness seems to be drifting into your common sense, ruining your entire argument. I'm not the one repeating the same message over and over again. You simply are. You are like putting your fingers in your ears and saying "no, no, no evolution is wrong" blah blah blah. Please wake up and smell the coffee... ID isn't science, isn't related to science and has no place in the scientific field.

I was not mixing and matching. I was talking about the movement from conclusions to assumptions, for one must turn a conclusion into an assumption in order to build on it. Grave, what is the difference between your 'assuming' and my assuming. That's what assuming means.....recalling a conclusion from an earlier estimation in order to make another estimation.


The difference between us is that MY assumption is based on the conclusion of prior testing... it is DERIVED from first principles. YOUR definition of assumption allows you to take elements of a belief structure, and incorporate them into experimental data.


But you have the wrong picture in your head. Why do you suppose that an assumption must be a sloppy estimation, such as guessing at the speed of a falling object? Let me give you an example. I have a bacterium in my lab. It produces a polysaccharide. I put the genome of the organism through a process of random mutagenisis (e.g. transposon insertion). I select the mutants that do not produce the polysaccharide. I don't know for certain, but I conclude that these mutants do not produce polysaccharide because of their mutation(s). So, I assume this is the case, and press on with the next part of the experiment. I search for the integration of the mutation in the genome of the mutants. Then I discover that the transposon was inserted into several particular not-previously-identified genes. I don't know for certain, but I assume that the insertion caused the disfunction of the gene products, and thus disrupted polysaccharide production. Based on this assumption, I clone the genes, Then I compliment the mutated genes with the cloned genes. If my assumptions were right, the bacterium should be capable of production of polysaccharide. I don't know this for certain, but it is the best explanation that I have. It may be an assumption, but because it is repeatable and falsifyable, it looks like a good assumption. It's also what we call good science, though it is based on assumptions.

Unfortunately, there are some things in science that are not observable, nor repeatable, nor falsifyable. What do we do with these? Put them outside of science? We just can't do that, if we want science to be able to tell us anything about how the complexity of life got here.

You prefer your explanation. I prefer mine. But you are excluding mine on the basis that it cannot be observed, repeated, or falsified, when all along you know that you are in the same boat. That's unjust.

If you cause a mutation, and part of your sample displays a changed functionality, and no other reactions have visibly taken place, it is not an unfair assumption that the mutation caused the functionality change.

Thus - your hypothesis, basd on observation, is that mutation changes functionality. When you return the mutated material to it's earlier form, if the hypothesis is true - you will get returned functionality. This is the testing step. Comparing your 'returned functionality' sample with your hypothesis, you see evidence that supports your hypothesis. You COULD say, it is now safe to use your little hypothesis as an assumption, now.

I don't see what that has to do with your deus ex machina argument.

You need to understand... much as you WANT science to deal with what is non-falsifiable, non-repeatable, non-observable... it won't. THAT is not it's job. THAT is why we have OTHER disciplines, that do not follow the scientific method.

Rubbish. Sounds like an illogical conclusion based on fear of the unknown. How many times have we already changed the rules in science?

WHEN have we 'changed the rules' of science?

Neither does God.

It is a concept of creation with intent (God) vs. creation without intent (Nature).

Since neither exists, neither theory is valid. You can no sooner prove nature exists than you can Deity.

Since neither exists, neither theory is valid. You can no sooner prove nature exists than you can Deity.
And people throwing around “prove” can you really PROVE anything?

The answer would be no … you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt but never 100 percent

That’s why you attempt to DISPROVE theories/hypothesis

Is this one of those, "Nothing actually exists - you are all figments of my imagination," things?

Not at all. I just saw someone using "nature" as the force behind evolution. Since nature doesn't exist, it is a false statement.

What I was trying to do earlier was to goad someone into explaining to me how evolution (or the big bang, for that matter) overcomes entropy. There should be less organization, not more, in the universe. Matter should not coalese into stars, planets, galaxies, etc. Matter should not organize into DNA, cells, multi-cell animals & plants, etc.

What is it that stepped in and turned the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics on its ear?

Not at all. I just saw someone using "nature" as the force behind evolution. Since nature doesn't exist, it is a false statement.

What I was trying to do earlier was to goad someone into explaining to me how evolution (or the big bang, for that matter) overcomes entropy. There should be less organization, not more, in the universe. Matter should not coalese into stars, planets, galaxies, etc. Matter should not organize into DNA, cells, multi-cell animals & plants, etc.

What is it that stepped in and turned the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics on its ear?

You misunderstand entropy, my friend.

Entropy basically says that everything tends towards disorder... but it doesn't have to ALWAYS be tending towards disorder, everywhere.

You have to allow for stabilising effects. And locality... take, for example, the idea of a sealed box. Inside the box, things are perhaps tending towards disorder... but there is a finite limit as to how disordered this can be - because the box forms a limiting barrier. Once you open the box, the tendency towards disorder continues... but, until you open the box, there is a 'stability'.

Also - you have to allow for the fact that, while all things EVENTUALLY tend towards entroy, they don't have to be actively heading into chaos ALL THE TIME. Do people spontaneously evaporate off the streets? No - they are stable (ish) temporarily, because they are efficient. It is more 'stable' to be a living human, than to return to your component atoms. Thus - entropy is 'stayed' by efficiency.

Evolution only partially overcomes entropy... there is ALWAYS a tendency towards disorder, but the 'fittest' (i.e. the most efficient in a given niche) will survive - by being more 'stable' than the disordering forces of nature.

Thus - evolution is ACTUALLY, and example of entropy at work. Entropy is the 'engine' of evolution.

Not at all. I just saw someone using "nature" as the force behind evolution. Since nature doesn't exist, it is a false statement.

Nature = all that exists within the universe. Unless you are claiming that the universe doesn't exist, then nature exists. It does not exist as some sort of intelligent entity (at least not as far as we can tell) - this is true, but saying that "nature" does not exist is like saying that "humanity" does not exist.

What I was trying to do earlier was to goad someone into explaining to me how evolution (or the big bang, for that matter) overcomes entropy. There should be less organization, not more, in the universe. Matter should not coalese into stars, planets, galaxies, etc. Matter should not organize into DNA, cells, multi-cell animals & plants, etc.

You misunderstand the theory. First of all, entropy and organization are not equivalent terms. As a general rule, more organization = less entropy, but this is not always true. Second of all, if stars, planets, galaxies, organisms, etc. do account for a decrease in entropy, all that would mean is that the processes that lead to them would have to increase entropy elsewhere in the universe.

When I perform a chemical reaction to bind two things together, one might say that such a reaction seems to be decreasing entropy. However, the reaction, overall, will be increasing entropy in the system as a whole - by producing heat, or through some other means.

What is it that stepped in and turned the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics on its ear?

Nothing at all. You simply have a flawed understanding of the theory.

Since neither exists, neither theory is valid. You can no sooner prove nature exists than you can Deity.
It is not about proving anything. We are talking about concepts, only.

The statement was, "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."

"Nature is the material world," is a metaphor that says, what is material is natural. This, of course, is nature in the context of the natural sciences (physics, geology, biology, etc.) not psychology or philosophy.

Does that help?

I just saw someone using "nature" as the force behind evolution. Since nature doesn't exist, it is a false statement.

What I was trying to do earlier was to goad someone into explaining to me how evolution (or the big bang, for that matter) overcomes entropy. There should be less organization, not more, in the universe. Matter should not coalese into stars, planets, galaxies, etc. Matter should not organize into DNA, cells, multi-cell animals & plants, etc.

What is it that stepped in and turned the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics on its ear?
No clue about the entropy thing, sorry.

No clue about the entropy thing, sorry.

That's ok, Jarredites doesn't have a clue about the entropy thing either.

I wouldn't say he sounds like a theologian, but I must admit I find his claims of a PhD in the biosciences hard to believe, considering the complete lack of understanding of evolutionary theory and genetics he has demonstrated here.


Ouch! Oh well. Nevermind.



Again, a horribly innacurate analogy. You don't know these things for certain, that is true. However, you have completed a controlled test which provided fairly conclusive evidence for them. Thus, you have justified your later assumptions. Unless some piece of evidence which you did not consider is brought forth, they will remain justified.

ID is more like picking out a random gene and saying, "No one can explain this gene. Therefore it was designed."


To use your own words, I think you have a 'horribly inaccurate' description of the process that ID uses. ID focuses on an information system that appears to be rather complicated, looks at the current set of natural causes that we understand, and makes a comment on whether the natural causes that we have are enough, or if 'something else' is required.


This includes the assumption that those "packets" have always, in every situation, been dependent on the other "packets". Interestingly enough, the individual components most of the so-called "irreducibly complex" systems have been demonstrated to be functional (albeit in other ways) on their own.

Meanwhile, irreducible complexity does not logically lead directly to a designer. Thus, even if it were possible, within the logic of science, to demonstrate that something could not possibly have ever been made up of component parts, rather than working as a whole, (which it is not, but that is beside the point), that still would not justifiy the assumption that there is a supernatural force controlling it.


Perhaps there have been some cases where the parts of a complex (or the packets) have demonstrated independent functionality, but that would not be in the majority of cases, I suspect, and there is no reason to assume that independent functionality and dependent functionality are mutually exclusive, nor does it suggest that the part of the complex was once totally independent.

Dem, restating your opinion is unnecessary. I'm fully aware that you think that irreducible complexity does not logically lead directly to a designer. I have already agreed with that point, perhaps several times before. My question is whether it is logical to rule out a designer when no other source is adequate.


You have changed the conclusion. You said that IDers have found things which "cannot be explained by natural causes". Unless we know everything there is to know about nature, we can never say this about anything. Even if irreducible complexity had been demonstrated, we couldn't rule out natural causes. There could very well be natural causes that led to that complexity - and we simply don't know them.


That is a fair point. Why invoke a designer when we obviously haven't found out all there is to know about natural causes? I would agree with you, even though it would be unlikely that the big two natural causes (mutations and natural selection) turns into the big three. However, I have not been arguing that. I have been defending the point to ALLOW the possibility of a designer as a cause. It may be that the IDers discover more in their research which gives them a better idea of attributing causes to the designs.


No, that is the evolutionary model. The evolutionary model is not the entirety of possible natural causes.


That's your opinion, perhaps, but probably not commonly held in the science world.


...eye-like sensors in lower-order creatures, light sensitive proteins even in prokaryotes, etc., etc.


Interestingly, the naturistic evolutionists don't seem refer to such examples (in my readings anyway). They would rather use computer generated models to answer the problem. I suppose they know that using the models found in lower-order animals creates more problems of 'directed' mutations, by which I mean evolution's incredible ability to modify irreducible complexity in a particular direction using one mutation at a time.


Incorrect. We carry out science with no concern for God either way. It is kind of like taking a test. The teacher may be in the room, and the teacher may not be in the room. I'm still going to take the test the same way


Yes but every kid in the class room knows that there is a teacher, and while they know that the teacher wants them to focus on the lesson material, they wouldn't for a moment dream of refusing to acknowledge the teacher as their source of information. There is nothing wrong with answering a question in the test that asks 'where did you learn this information?' with the answer, 'the teacher told me so'. What you have in your mind is a classroom where the kids have been forbidden to mention any reference to the teacher.


We can attribute everything to God, personally. We simply cannot make that attribution a lynchpin of any theory, as we cannot scientifically justify such a conclusion.


You keep making that point, but you need to expand it some more. I think there is a difference between making a designer the lynchpin of a discipline of science, and allowing a direct reference to the designer as one of a list of causes. Your point seems to be that since we cannot allow science to attempt to study a designer, then we should not allow any attempt to allow a direct interference from a designer. That doesn't equate. So far you have shown, repeatedly, why science cannot study the designer. But you haven't shown why science cannot allow that he was a cause.


Actually, it is exactly the same. Newton, Pastuer, Darwin, Galileo, etc. all attributed creation and that which they were studying to God. However, they did not make that attribution necessary in their theories. Their theories did not require a designer because they were only studying nature - all we can study. They were studying how nature works. The fact that they think a designer made it is irrelevant.


You can make that claim, but I'm not so I agree. What you probably mean is that it is possible for them to have made their contributions to science without directly naming God as the designer of e.g. gravity. If that is what you say, then perhaps I agree. I don't really know them or their situations that well. But I'm pretty sure that Pasteur (Catholic) was delighted to show that non-life does not give rise to life (i.e. dead meat cannot produce maggots), and went on to show how it was consistent with what he believed. Likewise, with Kepler, he was convinced that God had made the Universe according to a mathematical plan and made no effort to hide this in his writings. That earned him the charge of being irrational by those who believe natural causes and God are mutually exclusive. At any rate, that shows that he thought it necessary to attribute his discoveries to God.


Suppose I wanted to know how my computer works. I could study how it works by testing it and probing it and prodding it. It wouldn't matter to me that someone at Toshiba designed it, because I am not studying whether or not it was designed. I am studying how it works.


Yes, yes, yes, I do see your point, Dem. But if you wanted to know how the computer came to be, you would be silly to refuse to allow the possibility of a designer. Why should science be restricted to trying to figure out 'how it works'? Perhaps you see science as a rather limited thing. Good for you. But lots of people see it as the search for reality. Particularly those who don't have a religion. But as a religious person, I would like my science to reflect reality as I see it.


You are missing the point. The vast majority of those scientists attribute those "naturalistic" causes to a higher being. However, that attribution is not, in and of itself, part of the theory. We aren't studying the designer, we are studying the mechanisms.


'The vast majority' might be stretching it. My experience in universities in Australia, Europe, and even good old Texas has shown me that the atheists far outnumber the religious or even the agnostics. Where do they get those statistics from anyway?
But that is beside the point. Currently, it is seen as bad science (what I have been calling breaking the rules) to allow a mention of a designer in one's publications. You are saying that since science deals with nature, there is no reason to include a designer as having any influence, even if one does believe that he has influenced nature. But I think such an argument reflects a point of view that God created the laws of nature and then sat back to watch everything begin from a 'big bang'. That is the popular point of view of the theistic evolutionists, if I have it right. In this point of view, it is perfectly ok to leave God out, since he ceased to have any direct influence on nature ever since the big bang. His laws (the natural causes) have ensured that humans would eventually come about.
That means that you pretty much agree with the naturalistic evolutionists with everything within science, and leaves your disagreements with them outside of science.
I feel that is a nice way to get along with everyone except those 'pesky right winged religious nuts' who are so unpopular that it doesn't matter what they think. I also feel that this is not necessarily a reflection of reality, or an honest attempt at finding out reality, but a perception that in influenced. I say it is influenced, because no Christian should ever have to defend a motive for God having to wait around billions of years for the first life form to evolve, although that is what the theistic evolutionists have to believe. But I digress.

I want my science to reflect reality, as close to it as I can get. And I won't allow some excuse about allowing for a designer being bad science preventing me from pursuing this. Why should I not ask where the design came from?



Again, you are trying to apply science to that which lies outside of its useful realm. We already have disciplines to address these questions - philosophy and theology.


The major recent advances in science come from interdisciplinary collaborations. For example my research on genetics is working with the physics department, to study binding forces between DNA and proteins. The principle is that when two areas of knowledge come together, progress is possible. Perhaps it's time for science and theology and philosophy to get together. Why not?

I acknowledge that in the last hundred years or so, science has gotten in the habit of leaving the possible contributions of e.g. life by a designer out of science. Imagine if that began to change. Perhaps we could discover so much more. Why not? Do you have any good reasons why not? (Instead of continually saying that it is bad science?) It would change some things, but we are not afraid of change, right?


Every single science publication I have ever read - and I've read quite a few - allows that possibility. Every mechanism described in every paper could have been designed by a being with intelligence.


Rubbish. 'No mention of a designer' does not equal 'a possibility of a designer'. The folks who wrote those papers would be horrified to hear you say that.


Have you ever read a scientific publication that said, "There is no way that the mechanism we are describing could have come from an intelligent design,"? If you were to write up an article about your polysaccharide example, would you say, "There is no possible way that these polysaccharide-affecting genes could have possibly developed as the result of an intelligent design,"?


That is a silly example. Most papers don't address the issue of how the intelligence got there. Neither would I want to address that issue in such a paper. For in doing that I would be bringing in a topic that I did not try to measure in my experimental procedures. There are, however, papers that do address causes. It's in these papers where the opportunity to explore the contribution of intelligent design is. Currently, though, none of those papers have this possibility. The fact that they list only the random natural causes to explain design suggests that didn't ask the question of whether the design came from intelligence. They have already ruled out that possibility, on the grounds that it isn't science, not that it isn't realistic.


Mention of a designer would not be "allowing for the possibility". It would be stating that there was a designer. Big difference there - and exactly the difference you fail to see but claim that you do. I do not have to explicitly say, "There might be a designer," for the possibility to be allowed. In fact, if I explicitly say anything, I have chosen a side, rather than simply allowing for the possibility.


On the contrary, a mention of a designer would be exactly that, a mention, a possibility. Hardly stating that there is a designer. To allow for a possibility is not the same as stating the existence as fact. To allow for the possibility means that the writers of the paper allow for the possibility. Perhaps it suggests that they have a belief in God that is based on something other than science (e.g. personal experience). But who knows, perhaps in the future it might be based on empirical evidence. At least we will never discover it if we refuse to study the possible involvement of a designer. It's like closing one's eyes.


Science can only be used within the realm of natural causes, as nature is all we can study. Thus, we can seek to describe the mechanisms which run nature.


So you keep saying, upon which I understand that you are convinced that nothing within nature can ever be shown by science to suggest intelligent design. That is your definition of science, and you are welcome to hold it. But you have to explain WHY the realm of natural causes will never point to design, in order to hold your ground on the basis of reason. Currently, your reason seems to be that it would be bad science, that it would involve change, that we can only study natural causes, that it would be outside it's useful realm, that we can only study mechanisms and not the designer.....did I leave any out? I agree that it would involve change. I agree that we can only study the mechanisms, not the designer. I agree that it is now considered bad science. But none of these reasons tell me why our explanations for design cannot point to a designer. Sure, we study the design only, not the designer. Just like the investigator studies the details in the room with a dead body. He can't study the murderer because he is either hidden or absent or non-existent. However, when some of the details point to a murderer, he would be a fool to rule them out and attribute them to natural causes. It would be science that many disapprove of. But on what basis? It is not bad science simply because it is bad science. Neither is it bad science because it means change. Darwin himself brought about much change, as did all the others that made major contributions to science.

In short, what I am saying is that you have to come up with better reasons for ruling ID out of science. Either I am blind (in that case please show me exactly where) or your reasons are too watery.


I'm not aware of any major rules changes in science since it truly began.


Of course there are no rules in science. Only reputations. By that I mean that good science earns a reputation, which in turn, helps science look better. I was using the word 'rules' to indicate approval, but I gathered that you knew enough about science to know what I meant. There is no legislative body that decides what good science is. There is only a community of scientists, in which word generally gets around about who is doing good science and who isn't. The journals are the acid-test indicators. Good scientists publish in good journals, and are far more likely to get accepted second time around, even before the content of the second paper is considered (generally). Good journals are rated according to impact factor, which in turn depends on the decisions of editors over what is good science and what isn't. But I suppose you know all that.

My point is that once upon a time, natural selection was considered bad science. It did take a while, but eventually it all changed, and now we consider those who reject natural selection as extreme religious types. I like to think that we have a few more changes ahead of us. After all, everyone knows that there are still lots of things that we observe that science cannot explain.


However, a simple rules change would not mean that the entire logical thought process had been changed. Allowing for a theory based on untestable and unfalsifiable premises would change the entire logical thought process.


For the hundredth time, that is not true. The fact that we have terms like anti-matter, macroevolution, biogenesis, etc. suggests that there is plenty in modern science that is untestable, and unfalsifiable.



ID, by definition, relies upon a belief in a designer. Thus, they are trying to make that belief the basis of their scientific work. If you want to be able to look at nature and allow for the possibility of a designer, all you have to do is follow the established scientific method.

We will never get empirical evidence for a designer unless we are prepared to allow that he exists. But if I follow the popular scientific method that assumes that natural causes were enough to design intelligence, I will never discover a designer.

To use your own words, I think you have a 'horribly inaccurate' description of the process that ID uses. ID focuses on an information system that appears to be rather complicated, looks at the current set of natural causes that we understand, and makes a comment on whether the natural causes that we have are enough, or if 'something else' is required.
That 'something else' would be more understanding on our part. This seems to be a very compromising explanation of ID. What is the justification that an intelligent being is what is required (hence the name, "Intelligent Design")?

That 'something else' would be more understanding on our part. This seems to be a very compromising explanation of ID. What is the justification that an intelligent being is what is required (hence the name, "Intelligent Design")?

Perhaps it is a compromising explanation. I don't know enough about ID to know. It is what I have understood. They are hoping that the 'something else' will lead to a reasonable suggestion of a designer. Perhaps in some cases, though, it will lead to a better understanding of the natural causes. I'm no expert on ID. I don't even call myself an IDer. (Maybe when I've 'grown up' a little more. Currently, I'm just a 'baby' scientist. )

But I think your question about the justification of an intelligent being would be better answered if I get around to your previous longer post. Perhaps you could be so kind to wait for it. Even if it does take a couple of days. You do ask some jolly good questions.

Perhaps it is a compromising explanation. I don't know enough about ID to know. It is what I have understood. They are hoping that the 'something else' will lead to a reasonable suggestion of a designer. Perhaps in some cases, though, it will lead to a better understanding of the natural causes. I'm no expert on ID. I don't even call myself an IDer. (Maybe when I've 'grown up' a little more. Currently, I'm just a 'baby' scientist. )

But I think your question about the justification of an intelligent being would be better answered if I get around to your previous longer post. Perhaps you could be so kind to wait for it. Even if it does take a couple of days. You do ask some jolly good questions.
No problem.

I think you are doing a splendid job of representing ID in a more thoughtful light. You have, if nothing else, peaked my curiosity about the nature of these 'information systems'.

I'm fully aware that you think that irreducible complexity does not logically lead directly to a designer.


There IS NO irreducible complexity.


I suppose they know that using the models found in lower-order animals creates more problems of 'directed' mutations,


This is a Creationist mistake... the assumption that the end product was somehow targetted. Instead of thinking of the eye, for example, as a directed mutation... perhaps you should look at it as the strongest running design in a whole race of competing evolutionary paths.


by which I mean evolution's incredible ability to modify irreducible complexity in a particular direction using one mutation at a time.


There IS NO irreducible complexity.


I want my science to reflect reality, as close to it as I can get. And I won't allow some excuse about allowing for a designer being bad science preventing me from pursuing this. Why should I not ask where the design came from?


Because ASSUMING the design, means ASSUMING the designer. The science is flawed before it even starts.


My point is that once upon a time, natural selection was considered bad science.


No - it was considered ridiculous, and it was mocked... but the scientific method WAS followed - so... unpopular or not, it still wasn't 'bad science'...

To use your own words, I think you have a 'horribly inaccurate' description of the process that ID uses. ID focuses on an information system that appears to be rather complicated, looks at the current set of natural causes that we understand, and makes a comment on whether the natural causes that we have are enough, or if 'something else' is required.

Incorrect. If all they did was say, "Something else is required," and they could back that up - then it would be good science. They would be pointing out that the workings of nature which we currently think we understand are inadequate - which would simply mean that we don't understand it as well as we think we do. Instead, what they do is immediately pawn anything that cannot be explained by our current understanding off to a nebulous designer, which they admit they cannot study, thus stunting any further study in that area. What they are basically saying is, "We already understand how everything in nature works. Our understanding won't accomodate this occurence. Therefore there must be something outside of nature pushing it." The problem is that the first part is horribly inaccurate.

Perhaps there have been some cases where the parts of a complex (or the packets) have demonstrated independent functionality, but that would not be in the majority of cases, I suspect, and there is no reason to assume that independent functionality and dependent functionality are mutually exclusive, nor does it suggest that the part of the complex was once totally independent.

Actually, it does suggest that part of the complex could have been totally independent at some point in time - something that IDers say is absolutely and completely impossible.

Dem, restating your opinion is unnecessary. I'm fully aware that you think that irreducible complexity does not logically lead directly to a designer. I have already agreed with that point, perhaps several times before. My question is whether it is logical to rule out a designer when no other source is adequate.

No, you cannot rule out a designer. However, you cannot posit one without better evidence than, "Our current models don't explain this," either, at least not logically.

That is a fair point. Why invoke a designer when we obviously haven't found out all there is to know about natural causes? I would agree with you, even though it would be unlikely that the big two natural causes (mutations and natural selection) turns into the big three. However, I have not been arguing that. I have been defending the point to ALLOW the possibility of a designer as a cause. It may be that the IDers discover more in their research which gives them a better idea of attributing causes to the designs.

And, as I have pointed out about a million times now, the scientific method already ALLOWS for the possibility of the designer, by neither positing it nor ruling it out.

That's your opinion, perhaps, but probably not commonly held in the science world.

There is not a single scientist who will tell you that evolutionary theory is perfect and that we know for certain it will never change.

Yes but every kid in the class room knows that there is a teacher, and while they know that the teacher wants them to focus on the lesson material, they wouldn't for a moment dream of refusing to acknowledge the teacher as their source of information. There is nothing wrong with answering a question in the test that asks 'where did you learn this information?' with the answer, 'the teacher told me so'. What you have in your mind is a classroom where the kids have been forbidden to mention any reference to the teacher.

No, they have not been forbidden to mention the teacher. They simply can't ask the teacher questions during the test. Thus, it doesn't matter if there is a teacher there or not, as they can have nothing to do with her.

You keep making that point, but you need to expand it some more. I think there is a difference between making a designer the lynchpin of a discipline of science, and allowing a direct reference to the designer as one of a list of causes.

To put a designer in your list of causes, you have to assume that one exists. To assume that one exists, you have stepped outside the logical process of science.

Your point seems to be that since we cannot allow science to attempt to study a designer, then we should not allow any attempt to allow a direct interference from a designer. That doesn't equate.

Actually, it equates perfectly. We can never directly measure a designer. We cannot study a designer. Thus, we cannot posit a designer. To do so is to introduce an unfalsifiable assumption.

But you haven't shown why science cannot allow that he was a cause.

Again, allowing and directly stating are two different things.

Yes, yes, yes, I do see your point, Dem. But if you wanted to know how the computer came to be, you would be silly to refuse to allow the possibility of a designer.

In this world, yes, I would. Why? Because I could find direct evidence of a designer. I could look it up and go talk to the designer. Thus, I can posit a designer as part of my idea on how the computer came to be and I can go look for evidence of the same.

However, by definition, no evidence of a designer outside of nature can ever be found. We can only find evidence within nature. It is logically impossible to find evidence of anything outside that.

Perhaps you see science as a rather limited thing.

It has nothing to do with how I see it. It has to do with the inherent limitations of the scientific method - on which all science is based.

But lots of people see it as the search for reality. Particularly those who don't have a religion. But as a religious person, I would like my science to reflect reality as I see it.

As a religious person, I like my science to reflect reality as I see it as well. And it does.

'The vast majority' might be stretching it. My experience in universities in Australia, Europe, and even good old Texas has shown me that the atheists far outnumber the religious or even the agnostics. Where do they get those statistics from anyway?

Religiosity studies have suggested that a scientist is no more or less likely to be an atheist than any other profession. They may have a tendency to be less likely to believe in a personal God, but are generally no more likely to be atheists.

I also feel that this is not necessarily a reflection of reality, or an honest attempt at finding out reality, but a perception that in influenced. I say it is influenced, because no Christian should ever have to defend a motive for God having to wait around billions of years for the first life form to evolve, although that is what the theistic evolutionists have to believe.

Anyone who tries to defend any motive for God is rather illogical - considering that God is, by definition, outside of our comprehension.

Meanwhile, it may not be the perfect description of reality, but it is the only description of reality that the scientific method can logically lead to. If you don't like the scientific method, go with something else.

I want my science to reflect reality, as close to it as I can get. And I won't allow some excuse about allowing for a designer being bad science preventing me from pursuing this. Why should I not ask where the design came from?

You can ask where the design came from all you want, but first you must make the assumption that there is a design, and thus a designer. This first assumption being unfalsifiable, you cannot use the scientific method in this endeavor. Thus, your questioning is not science.

What you fail to see is that it isn't an "excuse". It is a limitation on the logic of the scientific method. There are things that science simply cannot explain, because its methodology can only logically be used in a specified set of situations.

The major recent advances in science come from interdisciplinary collaborations. For example my research on genetics is working with the physics department, to study binding forces between DNA and proteins. The principle is that when two areas of knowledge come together, progress is possible. Perhaps it's time for science and theology and philosophy to get together. Why not?

There is a rather large difference here, and that is in methodology. Physics and Genetics both follow the scientific method. Neither theology nor philosophy are bound by that method. Thus, to allow collaborations between the two would be to do away with the scientific method, thus doing away with science altogether.

Do you have any good reasons why not? (Instead of continually saying that it is bad science?) It would change some things, but we are not afraid of change, right?

In order to allow scientists to invoke a designer (not just allow for the possibility, as they already do), we would have to throw out the scientific method and use an entirely different methodology. At that point, it ceases to be science.

Rubbish. 'No mention of a designer' does not equal 'a possibility of a designer'. The folks who wrote those papers would be horrified to hear you say that.

Actually, that is absolutely what it means. Unless you say, "There is no possible way there is a designer," you have allowed for the possibility that there is a designer. And no, unless the writers of every scientific paper in existence are militant atheists (which they aren't), then they would have no problem with that statement. Anyone with even an elementary understanding of the scientific method and basic logic would have no problem with that statement.

That is a silly example. Most papers don't address the issue of how the intelligence got there.

You cannot posit intelligence without positing where it came from. Intelligence doesn't just poof into existence - it is a property of an entity. To have it, you must posit such an entity.

For in doing that I would be bringing in a topic that I did not try to measure in my experimental procedures.

Exactly! And IDers cannot try to measure a designer either - you have admitted this yourself.

On the contrary, a mention of a designer would be exactly that, a mention, a possibility.

You would not mention a designer unless you were positing that one existed. There is no reason to. No mention at all leaves the possibility open, but undecided. A mention says that you are positing a designer. A mention in the negative says that you are positing that there can be no designer.

But who knows, perhaps in the future it might be based on empirical evidence. At least we will never discover it if we refuse to study the possible involvement of a designer. It's like closing one's eyes.

It is logically impossible to find empirical evidence of a designer unless that designer is within nature. If the designer is within nature, then we are talking about natural causes - something you are so very hell-bent against.

So you keep saying, upon which I understand that you are convinced that nothing within nature can ever be shown by science to suggest intelligent design. That is your definition of science, and you are welcome to hold it. But you have to explain WHY the realm of natural causes will never point to design, in order to hold your ground on the basis of reason.

I have explained it repeatedly - you simply don't want to hear it. A designer outside of nature is, by definition, outside of the universe. We can only measure that which is within our universe. We can only make the assumption that that which is within our universe follows our rules. We can thus only use the scientific method within our universe. Thus, we cannot ever measure something outside of nature.

Sure, we study the design only, not the designer.

The minute you posit a design, you have posited a designer, and attributed certain aspects to that designer - without evidence.

Just like the investigator studies the details in the room with a dead body. He can't study the murderer because he is either hidden or absent or non-existent. However, when some of the details point to a murderer, he would be a fool to rule them out and attribute them to natural causes.

The murderer is natural causes, as the murderer exists within nature. Thus, the investigator can find direct evidence of said murderer.

Of course there are no rules in science.

Incorrect. There are rules in science. They are referred to as the scientific method.

I was using the word 'rules' to indicate approval, but I gathered that you knew enough about science to know what I meant.

And you were using them incorrectly. I understood what you meant, but those things are not the rules of science. The scientific method is.

My point is that once upon a time, natural selection was considered bad science.

You are not listening to what is being said. We are not saying that ID is bad science because it is new, or not accepted. ID is bad science because it does not follow the scientific method.

For the hundredth time, that is not true. The fact that we have terms like anti-matter, macroevolution, biogenesis, etc. suggests that there is plenty in modern science that is untestable, and unfalsifiable.

There isn't a single one of those that is unfalsifiable. There isn't a single one that is untestable. We may not be able to test it now, but these things are within our universe, and are thus falsifiable and testable.

A designer outside of nature, on the other hand, is outside of nature. Thus, it is, by definition, unfalsifiable and untestable, no matter how much our technology progresses.

We will never get empirical evidence for a designer unless we are prepared to allow that he exists. But if I follow the popular scientific method that assumes that natural causes were enough to design intelligence, I will never discover a designer.

Again, the scientific method does not assume that natural causes were enough to design intelligence. It simply only studies those mechanisms which are within nature, because the logical process itself is limited to that area. Again, if you want to study something outside of nature, or even posit something outside of nature, it has to be done outside the confines of the scientific method - simply by the rules of logic.

I'm not familiar with any "just so" stories. Can you provide an example?


What I mean by just 'so stories' are explanations that have holes in them. For example, they say that the earth was once the size of a pea.
As the gases condensed, it grew larger, until we had something that was something like a planet. On the planet was seas of hot liquid stuff, in which life was supposed to have arisen. I call it 'just so' because the explanations don't go into a lot of detail. The simple reason is that they cannot. The first life was supposed to have been helped start by something like a lightening strike. We are supposed to believe it, even though we notice today that lightening strikes usually cause more disorder than anything else. The chance that a lightening strike was strong enough to split the first cell (and so kick off replication) without blowing the cell to smithereens is rather low. I don't think it has ever been demonstrated even with living cells, let alone the 'wonderfully' robust pre-cell. But that cell needed to have the equipment ready to replicate the DNA (or whatever the precursor was) to survive and go into another round of cell division. All this without having the benefits of natural selection and mutation (they require DNA repair mechanisms and cell replication already in place). I could go on, as could anyone with an understanding of biology and an imagination. The point is that it requires an incredible amount of 'something' (faith?) in order to believe all this stuff. Sure there are answers. The most common one is the the first life form was probably very different to the way they are today. No evidence for this, mind you. It's another 'just so' story. Possibly but highly unlikely. Pink unicorns are probably more likely to exist, I'm not sure. The more you look into the complexity of life, the more you find it quite incredible that it just happened from randomness happening in reverse. Though, apparently, it can have the opposite effect. I have heard another scientist once say that it was so incredible that it had to be true. Obviously, his science approaches the status of a religion. Something that is not altogether uncommon.


I agree that science collects data, but I do not think the purpose of science is a search for the truth. I imagine science as a kid in a playground, putting things together, taking others apart, putting things in his mouth to see if they're edible, and sticking his finger in the sand to see how cold and wet it is two inches below the surface. The "truth" that science finds is, "Hey! This works! …for now."

I think the ultimate purpose of science is discovery. But perhaps that's just me.

I also see science as a search, an opportunity for discovery. Perhaps truth is the wrong word to use (it gets misused far too often, like the word love, way overused). Maybe reality is better. Currently, science has a perception of reality. As we discover more, our perception changes to fit better with reality. (Reality being something that never changes.) Of course, it's a whole subject in itself as to what reality and truth are.



My point was that humans assign meaning to things; you've said this yourself, and it isn't just an observation, it's your answer. We go a step beyond observation of a thing, to look to possible causes, a "why" for its existence. Patterns are extra-special not because they are beautiful or appealing, but because they stand out from the chaos by virtue of being repetitive. Because they are special we grant them significance, we assign them meaning, we assign them the label "design." We acknowledge that this design may have a designer, natural or supernatural, or be a nature-made one. If it is explainable by nature, whether intelligent or not, we need not look further, because nature is all that affects us. Nature is "what works."


Humans assigning meaning to things....sounds like myth. (I don't mean that in a derogatory way, but on the contrary, I have a profound respect for myth--an essential part of what it means to be human). It's true that when we are satisfied with the cause for a particular design, it is unnecessary to look any further. But in looking into ID, I'm not so much interested in finding a higher cause for what we can already demonstrate with lower causes. Rather, ID provides another way at looking as things that cannot be currently explained. Many people don't like this, because they feel that science is only allowed to invoke natural causes, as if that were the definition of science. My definition of science is an attempt to discover and explain the natural world, wherever that takes us. Their definition of science is an attempt to discover and explain the natural world in terms of only natural causes. From my point of view, then, when they build the 'just so' stories based on natural causes to satisfy our curiosity of the natural world, they are limiting themselves. They have to go against our natural instinct of what is possible and what is impossible (like accepting rather low odds as possible), and they hope that future science will one day show them more natural causes to help their explanations. They see the limits as a part of science. My point is that I would like to take the scientific principles and modify them a little, as you may have gathered by now.

With ID, it's not so much an attempt to assign meaning to design, although that may have played an influencing part--I cannot tell at this stage, and scientists are human after all--but the idea that intelligence must come from intelligence. They don't rule out that natural causes themselves as a tool to be used by the designer. But by analysis of information systems (e.g. the genes required for control, assembly, operation, and maintenance of the human eye, not to mention the genes that control the genes, which are in turn controlled by other genes) it may be possible get an idea of how the information flows (from generation to generation) and, for example, to examine the naturalistic claim that information has been flowing from less complex versions of the eye to more complex versions.
Discoveries, such as shrinking genomes, fit in better with the idea that organisms are getting lest robust, rather than more, and that specialization is occurring at the same time (e.g., you can get a poodle from a wolf, but not a wolf from a poodle).


Consider this post:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9477687&postcount=184

It provides a supernatural explanation for the existence of the moon in terms of God's purpose. It explains that purpose by describing natural effects that sustain us (that is a religious idea, that our environment has a purpose in sustaining us). Are we to accept this explanation, without evidence of a God? If so, why?


Once again, we return to the issue of man needing to assign meaning to his observations. Perhaps it really is a big desire in us humans to find meaning in our existence. Personally, the concept that there is no meaning in this life is rather revolting to me. I have heard that other people profess that they prefer it that way. Is it really a part of human nature? Perhaps you know more about that than I. It could be, though, that science is driven by people who are looking for meaning.

As for the post that you quoted about the moon.....to answer your question, I personally would never accept such an explanation without questioning it. For example, I am a Christian. I became a Christian partly because I was not only interested in finding meaning in life, but also I questioned everything. My mother tells me that I developed an annoying (but not so uncommon) habit rather early in life for asking 'but why'. (It drove my mother and my brothers up the wall.) I suppose my desire for meaning has a lot to do with my being in science today. However, I realize that science cannot give such an explanation (such as the purpose of our environment being to sustain us), since it does not have that authority (although many people seem to think that it does). That answer (given in your post) comes to us from religion, which has no trouble with the authority problem, because, as the story goes, God himself gave us the scriptures. He is the authority. But the question was a religious one anyway, since it included God in it. Thus the answer was quite rightly a religious one, although IMO that doesn't mean that it cannot be questioned. Perhaps the Catholics would disagree with me at that point. But I feel that questioning often gives an opportunity of aligning one's perception closer to reality, or truth. And according to Christianity, Christ IS the Truth.


The supernatural is not a part of reality, it is apart from it: it is "super"-natural. When or if that designer becomes reality (enters the material, physical world as a being) then he becomes a possibility; then it also becomes a possibility that the patterns we observe are of his design. When that happens, science can discover him.


I suppose you mean that the supernatural is not part of the current perception of reality as detectable by science (to use my definitions). If that is what you mean, then I agree.
However, as a Christian, I see that the supernatural is the source of reality, and therefore more real than our perception of reality, perhaps too real for our limited ability to percieve. That would explain how God exists, even though we cannot see him.
As for God entering the phyiscal world, the only hope science has of detecting this is to take the approach of an investigator of a suspected murder. We have to look for the signs that he left behind. Rather than looking for the designer, we look at the design. Religion is the search for the designer. Science is the search for the design.


Nature is the best explanation for us material, natural humans. What is supernatural is possible only to us unnatural, idealistic beings.


Is that like separation science and religion? I've never been that comfortable with that idea, since, although we humans consist of many parts, we exist as a whole. We are not supposed to be schizophrenic. We are kidding ourselves if we think that our world view (e.g. religion) will not influence our idea of science. There are many people, for example, who think that our morals should be defined by natural selection (i.e. is whatever helps us survive the way to determine right from wrong?). If I insist on separation science from religion, I will never be able to search for an answer to this question. On the other hand, I realize the foolishness of trying to use science to investigate the designer (in the direct sense, like trying to use a telescope to see God up in the heavens). Furthermore, my experience of relgion has involved many of the principles of science. Firstly, I take what is supposed to be God's message to humans (the Bible), I see the promises in there (observation), I experiment (put them to the test) and observe the results (look at the difference it makes in my life) and compare the results with others (check out the lives of other Christians who have followed the same process). Obviously Christianity involves a good deal more than this, and somewhere along the line, one of the 'changes' is an introduction to God himself. But there is still the science principle being applied, with wonderful results.


Sorry, it serves to make no point. The "laws" about abortion are not defining abortion; they are outlining penalties for conducting an abortion. Changing the laws does not affect the thing. Science, on the other hand, is nothing more than a set of rules. If we change the rules, it is no longer science.


My point was that there was once laws that forbid abortion, and now they have been changed to allow it. It didn't change the practice of medicine, since medicine still exists to care for the health of people. The interesting thing is that they had to redefine people, by saying that up to a certain age, the unborn is not considered an individual with all the rights of an individual. (I'm not commenting on the ethics of abortion, that is for another thread.)



"Good" science is defined by following the rules as they currently exist; anything else is bad science or not science at all. You can bend the definition all you like in order to accept it, but then you will always be at odds with those who understand and practice "good" science. You create grief for no one but yourself.


Is that like saying it is bad science because it is bad science? That isn't providing the reason for why it is bad science. That is what you need to get at. As for creating grief, I wonder how many people said that to Darwin.


The acceptance of a supernatural designer is not science at all; similarly, using the designer to explain a "cause" of a natural effect is not science at all.


Acceptance of a designer is not a part of science, I agree, IF there is nothing in nature that indicates this. But what I think ID is trying to do is find the designs in nature that appear to be an indication of a designer. I would not be surprised if they find some good evidence for this, in spite of the opposition. The may well turn out to be the 'Darwin' of today.

What I mean by just 'so stories' are explanations that have holes in them. For example, they say that the earth was once the size of a pea.
As the gases condensed, it grew larger, until we had something that was something like a planet. On the planet was seas of hot liquid stuff, in which life was supposed to have arisen. I call it 'just so' because the explanations don't go into a lot of detail. The simple reason is that they cannot. The first life was supposed to have been helped start by something like a lightening strike. We are supposed to believe it, even though we notice today that lightening strikes usually cause more disorder than anything else. The chance that a lightening strike was strong enough to split the first cell (and so kick off replication) without blowing the cell to smithereens is rather low. I don't think it has ever been demonstrated even with living cells, let alone the 'wonderfully' robust pre-cell. But that cell needed to have the equipment ready to replicate the DNA (or whatever the precursor was) to survive and go into another round of cell division. All this without having the benefits of natural selection and mutation (they require DNA repair mechanisms and cell replication already in place). I could go on, as could anyone with an understanding of biology and an imagination. The point is that it requires an incredible amount of 'something' (faith?) in order to believe all this stuff. Sure there are answers. The most common one is the the first life form was probably very different to the way they are today. No evidence for this, mind you. It's another 'just so' story. Possibly but highly unlikely. Pink unicorns are probably more likely to exist, I'm not sure. The more you look into the complexity of life, the more you find it quite incredible that it just happened from randomness happening in reverse. Though, apparently, it can have the opposite effect. I have heard another scientist once say that it was so incredible that it had to be true. Obviously, his science approaches the status of a religion. Something that is not altogether uncommon.


Someone call the Emerald City... I think I've found the King of the Strawmen.

Why all the 'creation of earth' stuff? It has NOTHING to do with evolution... And the same goes for the 'abiogensis'...

And, even allowing for the fact that they are utterly irrelevent, you still manage to construct straw windmills to tilt against, anyway....

Speaking of ID, did anyone read the articles in the latest Skeptic magazine blowing holes in Dembski and whoever else it was in the other article?
They were rather good articles.

There IS NO irreducible complexity.

I think that is open for debate.



This is a Creationist mistake... the assumption that the end product was somehow targetted. Instead of thinking of the eye, for example, as a directed mutation... perhaps you should look at it as the strongest running design in a whole race of competing evolutionary paths.


It's not what they assume. It's what they think of when they are expected to believe that a fish eye can develop into a mammalian eye, one mutation at a time. It doesn't matter how you look at it, even the strongest runner cannot cannot get to the moon by running.


Because ASSUMING the design, means ASSUMING the designer. The science is flawed before it even starts.


We have been over this many times before. If you want to add to the debate, you will have to think of something better. Like I pointed out to you before, assumptions are all the way through science, some are based on good repeatable evidence, and some are not. If you want to take out all the ones that are not based on good evidence, we would have nothing more to say about precesses like macroevolution.

It would be more sensible of you, perhaps, to suggest that science is only 'allowed' to invoke naturalistic causes, no matter how poorly they explain and how inadequate they are. That seems to be what Dem keeps repeating. She obviously thinks science as a very limited thing. My answer is that if we change the 'rules' somewhat, we may discover something new about our world.


No - it was considered ridiculous, and it was mocked... but the scientific method WAS followed - so... unpopular or not, it still wasn't 'bad science'...


Quite so, it wasn't bad science. But we can see that in hindsight. Darwin made some incredibly huge assumptions, and now that we can see that he was at least partly right, we know that it wasn't bad science. However, the assumptions that he made at the time were mocked because his contemporaries thought it was bad science. ID, in making an assumption that a designer may be required to explain the design, is changing the rules somewhat, I suppose, in that they are making an assumption that cannot be proven. But like Darwin, it may be that time will show them right.

For example, they say that the earth was once the size of a pea. As the gases condensed, it grew larger, until we had something that was something like a planet. On the planet was seas of hot liquid stuff, in which life was supposed to have arisen. I call it 'just so' because the explanations don't go into a lot of detail. The simple reason is that they cannot.

There is also, of course, the fact that this is not a theory. It is a possible explanation among many, not a theory that has stood the test of time and gathered masses of evidence.

But that cell needed to have the equipment ready to replicate the DNA (or whatever the precursor was) to survive and go into another round of cell division.

Surely as a supposed biochemist you are aware that some nucleic acid strands, especially very small ones, can essentially self-replicate? DNA/RNA polymerase are enzymes that speed that process along quite well, but it can occur without their intervention.

All this without having the benefits of natural selection and mutation (they require DNA repair mechanisms and cell replication already in place).

Natural selection and mutation hardly require DNA repair mechanisms to already be in place.

The point is that it requires an incredible amount of 'something' (faith?) in order to believe all this stuff.

That's why you aren't asked to believe it or have faith in it. You are asked to examine the evidence and see if it fits with the story. If not, the story is thrown out with no chance of ever becoming a theory. If so, you keep testing and finding more evidence. If you keep backing up that story, it will become theory.

The most common one is the the first life form was probably very different to the way they are today. No evidence for this, mind you. It's another 'just so' story.

No evidence? You mean all of the fossil evidence indicating that the earliest lifeforms were quite different from most of those around today doesn't count?

I also see science as a search, an opportunity for discovery.

And it is, but only in certain realms.

Many people don't like this, because they feel that science is only allowed to invoke natural causes, as if that were the definition of science.

That is the definition of science. It can only invoke that which it can measure - and nature is all that it can measure.

My definition of science is an attempt to discover and explain the natural world, wherever that takes us.

If that definition of science doesn't restrict you to the scientific method, which in turn restricts you to only study nature, then don't expect your "science" to be accepted by the scientific community.

My point is that I would like to take the scientific principles and modify them a little, as you may have gathered by now.

You aren't talking about "modifying them a little". Your ideas require one of two things: (a) Throw out the scientific method altogether and use something else (thus, not science) or (b) Try and apply the scientific method to that which it cannot logically be implied (which is, of course, essentially the same thing as a)

Discoveries, such as shrinking genomes, fit in better with the idea that organisms are getting lest robust,

And once again, "less genes" != "less robust". It might be, or it might not be. In computer programming, for example, the program with the least extra code is generally much more robust.

As for God entering the phyiscal world, the only hope science has of detecting this is to take the approach of an investigator of a suspected murder. We have to look for the signs that he left behind. Rather than looking for the designer, we look at the design. Religion is the search for the designer. Science is the search for the design.

And yet you ignore how very flawed that analogy is. A forensic scientist or investigatory is still looking for natural causes, as a murderer is within that which is natural. It is illogical to take that same approach to the supernatural, as the supernatural is not bound by the natural rules.

There are many people, for example, who think that our morals should be defined by natural selection (i.e. is whatever helps us survive the way to determine right from wrong?). If I insist on separation science from religion, I will never be able to search for an answer to this question.

You have a brain, right? Then you can search for an answer to the question. Science is not the only way to search for answers, it is a way, only applicable within the measurable realm - in other words, within nature.

My point was that there was once laws that forbid abortion, and now they have been changed to allow it. It didn't change the practice of medicine, since medicine still exists to care for the health of people.

To go with your analogy, you aren't talking about changing the laws that regulate abortion, because we aren't talking about a subset of science here. You are wishing to change the entire thought process of science - the scientific method itself. It would be akin to the medical profession saying, "You know what, we're going to allow you to start injecting people with chemicals just because you believe it might help them. Testing won't be necessary."

The interesting thing is that they had to redefine people, by saying that up to a certain age, the unborn is not considered an individual with all the rights of an individual.

Not really, what they did is to go back to an earlier definition. Up until the early 20th century, a fetus wasn't defined as a person until the quickening - and abortion was perfectly legal (albeit not very safe) up until that point. Once a safe medical procedure was developed, they wanted to illegalize it and thus redefined what is human in order to do so. Roe v. Wade basically went back to the old definition.

Acceptance of a designer is not a part of science, I agree, IF there is nothing in nature that indicates this. But what I think ID is trying to do is find the designs in nature that appear to be an indication of a designer. I would not be surprised if they find some good evidence for this, in spite of the opposition. The may well turn out to be the 'Darwin' of today.

The problem is that this "evidence" is logically impossible to find. It is logically impossible to measure anything outside of nature, because of the fact that it is outside of nature. To determine if a designer existed, we would have to measure that designer.

Then there is the fact that a designer can only be concluded if we know, for a fact, that there is no other explanation. Until we know everything there is to know about natural processes (which will never happen), that simply isn't possible.

I think that is open for debate.


Not really. If you did any serious research on the matter, you'd see that every claim that the Creationist lobby has made about 'Irreducible Complexity' has been answered.

If, however, your ONLY sources are non-peer-reviewed, biased material that allows the constant repitition of disproved concepts - you won't know any more about Irredcible Complexity, than the propoganda version.

Do you also beleive that human and dinosaur fossils have been found in 'simultaneous' earth layers?


It's not what they assume. It's what they think of when they are expected to believe that a fish eye can develop into a mammalian eye, one mutation at a time. It doesn't matter how you look at it, even the strongest runner cannot cannot get to the moon by running.


Which has nothing to do with it.

The foetal eye developes over a much greater range of dis-similarity, than the small gap between fish-eye and human-eye.

I guess foetuses must not have any eyes then... it is FAR too unlikely...


We have been over this many times before. If you want to add to the debate, you will have to think of something better. Like I pointed out to you before, assumptions are all the way through science, some are based on good repeatable evidence, and some are not. If you want to take out all the ones that are not based on good evidence, we would have nothing more to say about precesses like macroevolution.

It would be more sensible of you, perhaps, to suggest that science is only 'allowed' to invoke naturalistic causes, no matter how poorly they explain and how inadequate they are. That seems to be what Dem keeps repeating. She obviously thinks science as a very limited thing. My answer is that if we change the 'rules' somewhat, we may discover something new about our world.


Science IS a limited thing. If you want a piece of science to be able to hold up to scrutiny, it must be capable of external verification.

ID isn't.


Quite so, it wasn't bad science. But we can see that in hindsight. Darwin made some incredibly huge assumptions, and now that we can see that he was at least partly right, we know that it wasn't bad science. However, the assumptions that he made at the time were mocked because his contemporaries thought it was bad science. ID, in making an assumption that a designer may be required to explain the design, is changing the rules somewhat, I suppose, in that they are making an assumption that cannot be proven. But like Darwin, it may be that time will show them right.

Rubbish. Darwin observed, formed a hypothesis, and found supporting evidence.

The science was good.

ID assumes something that cannot be observed or supported. Thus, ID is ALWAYS going to be BAD science.

Someone call the Emerald City... I think I've found the King of the Strawmen.

Why all the 'creation of earth' stuff? It has NOTHING to do with evolution... And the same goes for the 'abiogensis'...

And, even allowing for the fact that they are utterly irrelevent, you still manage to construct straw windmills to tilt against, anyway....

I gather that you don't like my version of 'just so' stories. The part about the lightening is not commonly stated in every biological text book, I admit, but I did find it there a couple of times in my readings. Once in a biological text book. Once on www.talkorigins.org.

As for mentioning abiogenesis, Willamena asked me for examples of what I meant by 'just so' stories that invoked natural causes to explain what we observe today. I felt I was free to mention any example I could think of in science, and was not restricted to evolution.

Awesome, 18.73% support the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

Not really. If you did any serious research on the matter, you'd see that every claim that the Creationist lobby has made about 'Irreducible Complexity' has been answered.

If, however, your ONLY sources are non-peer-reviewed, biased material that allows the constant repitition of disproved concepts - you won't know any more about Irredcible Complexity, than the propoganda version.

Do you also beleive that human and dinosaur fossils have been found in 'simultaneous' earth layers?


Quite an accusation you make there, Grave.

As for the story about dinosaur fossils or dinosaur footprints being found in the same or similar earth layers as human evidence, I have heard of that report. It would not surprise me if that turned out to be true, or if one day we did make another such discovery that was less controversial and more observable by the general science community. However, I am not holding my breath, and have learned not to believe everything I read. Got caught out too many times. :)



The foetal eye developes over a much greater range of dis-similarity, than the small gap between fish-eye and human-eye.

I guess foetuses must not have any eyes then... it is FAR too unlikely...


You can't be serious about using that point from the foetus. The development of the foetus eyes IS an example of directed development. The foetus has all the genes necessary, i.e., it already has the intelligence required to develop the eye from a single specialized cell into a fully functioning eye. I suppose you must be able to see a difference between this and that of the supposed path of evolution which does not have the genes already in place.


Science IS a limited thing. If you want a piece of science to be able to hold up to scrutiny, it must be capable of external verification.

ID isn't.


External verification.......which part of the development of bacteria into mitochondria can be externally verified? Come on, Grave, we have been here too many times before.


Rubbish. Darwin observed, formed a hypothesis, and found supporting evidence.

The science was good.

ID assumes something that cannot be observed or supported. Thus, ID is ALWAYS going to be BAD science.

How? Darwin didn't know about DNA? He only assumed there must be a medium for passing on adaptations. He had no idea whether his idea could be supported or observed by science. But that didn't stop him from going ahead with it anyway.

ID could be in the same situation. Sure, it will never find itself looking at God through a telescope. But it may find a strong case for a designer by looking at the information systems, so that one day people will laugh at todays scientists for being so close minded about it.

The foetus has all the genes necessary, i.e., it already has the intelligence required to develop the eye from a single specialized cell into a fully functioning eye.

Genes != intelligence

Information != inteliigence.

Unless the entity with the intelligence (and intelligence cannot exist without being possessed by an entity) is self-aware, can learn, can think abstractly, and can understand these things, then one cannot attribute intelligence.

External verification.......which part of the development of bacteria into mitochondria can be externally verified?

All of the evidence leading to that conclusion can be externally verified. Any evidence to the contrary will cause the idea to be thrown out/modified.

Tell me, how do you find evidence contrary to, "This was designed."?

How? Darwin didn't know about DNA? He only assumed there must be a medium for passing on adaptations.

First off, if I remember correctly, Mendel's work came before or concurrent to Darwin's? Thus, the idea that there was some medium for passing on traits to offspring was demonstrated.

What I mean by just 'so stories' are explanations that have holes in them. For example, they say that the earth was once the size of a pea.
As the gases condensed, it grew larger, until we had something that was something like a planet. On the planet was seas of hot liquid stuff, in which life was supposed to have arisen. I call it 'just so' because the explanations don't go into a lot of detail. The simple reason is that they cannot. The first life was supposed to have been helped start by something like a lightening strike. We are supposed to believe it, even though we notice today that lightening strikes usually cause more disorder than anything else. The chance that a lightening strike was strong enough to split the first cell (and so kick off replication) without blowing the cell to smithereens is rather low. I don't think it has ever been demonstrated even with living cells, let alone the 'wonderfully' robust pre-cell. But that cell needed to have the equipment ready to replicate the DNA (or whatever the precursor was) to survive and go into another round of cell division. All this without having the benefits of natural selection and mutation (they require DNA repair mechanisms and cell replication already in place). I could go on, as could anyone with an understanding of biology and an imagination. The point is that it requires an incredible amount of 'something' (faith?) in order to believe all this stuff. Sure there are answers. The most common one is the the first life form was probably very different to the way they are today. No evidence for this, mind you. It's another 'just so' story. Possibly but highly unlikely. Pink unicorns are probably more likely to exist, I'm not sure. The more you look into the complexity of life, the more you find it quite incredible that it just happened from randomness happening in reverse. Though, apparently, it can have the opposite effect. I have heard another scientist once say that it was so incredible that it had to be true. Obviously, his science approaches the status of a religion. Something that is not altogether uncommon.
So… "just so" stories are hypotheses and speculation. They are not intended to be believed without question. Disbelief is healthy for science, so that ideas like these might be tested by every means possible to see if they actually "work." People like you, who find it "highly unlikely," are on the right track. Well done. Now, go out test it. ;)

If something has been "undemonstrated" then that only means that testing (or more testing) needs to be done.

What is "randomness happening in reverse"?

I also see science as a search, an opportunity for discovery. Perhaps truth is the wrong word to use (it gets misused far too often, like the word love, way overused). Maybe reality is better. Currently, science has a perception of reality. As we discover more, our perception changes to fit better with reality. (Reality being something that never changes.) Of course, it's a whole subject in itself as to what reality and truth are.
Indeed; I would agree that science seeks to define, and works within, the bounds of reality (I mean reality, as you seem to, being all that has a materially real existence).

Humans assigning meaning to things....sounds like myth. (I don't mean that in a derogatory way, but on the contrary, I have a profound respect for myth--an essential part of what it means to be human). It's true that when we are satisfied with the cause for a particular design, it is unnecessary to look any further. But in looking into ID, I'm not so much interested in finding a higher cause for what we can already demonstrate with lower causes. Rather, ID provides another way at looking as things that cannot be currently explained. Many people don't like this, because they feel that science is only allowed to invoke natural causes, as if that were the definition of science. My definition of science is an attempt to discover and explain the natural world, wherever that takes us. Their definition of science is an attempt to discover and explain the natural world in terms of only natural causes. From my point of view, then, when they build the 'just so' stories based on natural causes to satisfy our curiosity of the natural world, they are limiting themselves. They have to go against our natural instinct of what is possible and what is impossible (like accepting rather low odds as possible), and they hope that future science will one day show them more natural causes to help their explanations. They see the limits as a part of science. My point is that I would like to take the scientific principles and modify them a little, as you may have gathered by now.
It is myth! Thank you! The meaning in the symbol, the metaphor in reality. The reality of being human.

"Another way of looking at things," beyond science, is a good thing; I'm just not convinced that ID is not doing what others say it is doing, trying to fit the evidence to "work" for a particular cause. If that is the case, it is a flaw.

Science is only allowed to invoke natural causes. Period. What you are saying is that you essentially want to incorporate philosophy into science. If you did this (and it would be a marvellous thing, indeed) you would have created a whole new field of exploration, and perhaps a new field of discovery, something that goes beyond science and that incorporates science.

But that's still not science. :) It is something new. Something I would love to see, too.

(It reminds me of what I am trying to accomplish in another venue: astrology that is not the astrology of charlatans, but divination incorporated with a philosophy and mythology.)

With ID, it's not so much an attempt to assign meaning to design, although that may have played an influencing part--I cannot tell at this stage, and scientists are human after all--but the idea that intelligence must come from intelligence. They don't rule out that natural causes themselves as a tool to be used by the designer. But by analysis of information systems (e.g. the genes required for control, assembly, operation, and maintenance of the human eye, not to mention the genes that control the genes, which are in turn controlled by other genes) it may be possible get an idea of how the information flows (from generation to generation) and, for example, to examine the naturalistic claim that information has been flowing from less complex versions of the eye to more complex versions.
Discoveries, such as shrinking genomes, fit in better with the idea that organisms are getting lest robust, rather than more, and that specialization is occurring at the same time (e.g., you can get a poodle from a wolf, but not a wolf from a poodle).
You've quite lost me on this part, sorry.

Once again, we return to the issue of man needing to assign meaning to his observations. Perhaps it really is a big desire in us humans to find meaning in our existence. Personally, the concept that there is no meaning in this life is rather revolting to me. I have heard that other people profess that they prefer it that way. Is it really a part of human nature? Perhaps you know more about that than I. It could be, though, that science is driven by people who are looking for meaning.
A search for meaning may be a driving force for individual scientists, but not science as a whole. Science, as a thing in itself, must remain objective (see below).

As for the post that you quoted about the moon.....to answer your question, I personally would never accept such an explanation without questioning it. For example, I am a Christian. I became a Christian partly because I was not only interested in finding meaning in life, but also I questioned everything. My mother tells me that I developed an annoying (but not so uncommon) habit rather early in life for asking 'but why'. (It drove my mother and my brothers up the wall.) I suppose my desire for meaning has a lot to do with my being in science today. However, I realize that science cannot give such an explanation (such as the purpose of our environment being to sustain us), since it does not have that authority (although many people seem to think that it does). That answer (given in your post) comes to us from religion, which has no trouble with the authority problem, because, as the story goes, God himself gave us the scriptures. He is the authority. But the question was a religious one anyway, since it included God in it. Thus the answer was quite rightly a religious one, although IMO that doesn't mean that it cannot be questioned. Perhaps the Catholics would disagree with me at that point. But I feel that questioning often gives an opportunity of aligning one's perception closer to reality, or truth. And according to Christianity, Christ IS the Truth.
Authority is an interesting concept, indeed. Where science does have the authority is in speaking within the bounds of nature (material reality) that we discussed earlier. This is the reason why is it so very important to hold science within these bounds: to maintain its authority there. If you violate its bounds, you weaken its authority.

I suppose you mean that the supernatural is not part of the current perception of reality as detectable by science (to use my definitions). If that is what you mean, then I agree.
However, as a Christian, I see that the supernatural is the source of reality, and therefore more real than our perception of reality, perhaps too real for our limited ability to percieve. That would explain how God exists, even though we cannot see him.
As for God entering the phyiscal world, the only hope science has of detecting this is to take the approach of an investigator of a suspected murder. We have to look for the signs that he left behind. Rather than looking for the designer, we look at the design. Religion is the search for the designer. Science is the search for the design.

Originally Posted by Willamena
Nature is the best explanation for us material, natural humans. What is supernatural is possible only to us unnatural, idealistic beings.
Is that like separation science and religion? I've never been that comfortable with that idea, since, although we humans consist of many parts, we exist as a whole. We are not supposed to be schizophrenic. We are kidding ourselves if we think that our world view (e.g. religion) will not influence our idea of science. There are many people, for example, who think that our morals should be defined by natural selection (i.e. is whatever helps us survive the way to determine right from wrong?). If I insist on separation science from religion, I will never be able to search for an answer to this question. On the other hand, I realize the foolishness of trying to use science to investigate the designer (in the direct sense, like trying to use a telescope to see God up in the heavens). Furthermore, my experience of relgion has involved many of the principles of science. Firstly, I take what is supposed to be God's message to humans (the Bible), I see the promises in there (observation), I experiment (put them to the test) and observe the results (look at the difference it makes in my life) and compare the results with others (check out the lives of other Christians who have followed the same process). Obviously Christianity involves a good deal more than this, and somewhere along the line, one of the 'changes' is an introduction to God himself. But there is still the science principle being applied, with wonderful results.
It is like the separation between science and religion, yes. Actually, it is a philosophical separation between the objective observer and the subjective one. Science does take the side of the objective observer alone. Religion is the one who is schizophrenic, claiming a purely spiritual existence for god (subjective only) and then insisting that he exists in reality. It is a result of a confusion of terminology, I believe, that leads people to expect that what their churches are telling them is to expect a physically real god who affects changes in the world. The only changes "He" affects in reality are through us, spiritually.

Anyway, you are on the right track if you resist the subject/object divide in terms of what are you are philosophically seeking through science; however, science does take sides. The scientist can only deal with the objective perspective, according to those rules of science.

My point was that there was once laws that forbid abortion, and now they have been changed to allow it. It didn't change the practice of medicine, since medicine still exists to care for the health of people. The interesting thing is that they had to redefine people, by saying that up to a certain age, the unborn is not considered an individual with all the rights of an individual. (I'm not commenting on the ethics of abortion, that is for another thread.)


Is that like saying it is bad science because it is bad science? That isn't providing the reason for why it is bad science. That is what you need to get at. As for creating grief, I wonder how many people said that to Darwin.
None. :) He's long dead. (trick question!) :p

Acceptance of a designer is not a part of science, I agree, IF there is nothing in nature that indicates this. But what I think ID is trying to do is find the designs in nature that appear to be an indication of a designer. I would not be surprised if they find some good evidence for this, in spite of the opposition. The may well turn out to be the 'Darwin' of today.
That would be something to see.

Quite an accusation you make there, Grave.

As for the story about dinosaur fossils or dinosaur footprints being found in the same or similar earth layers as human evidence, I have heard of that report. It would not surprise me if that turned out to be true, or if one day we did make another such discovery that was less controversial and more observable by the general science community. However, I am not holding my breath, and have learned not to believe everything I read. Got caught out too many times. :)


Not ENOUGH times, yet.


You can't be serious about using that point from the foetus. The development of the foetus eyes IS an example of directed development. The foetus has all the genes necessary, i.e., it already has the intelligence required to develop the eye from a single specialized cell into a fully functioning eye. I suppose you must be able to see a difference between this and that of the supposed path of evolution which does not have the genes already in place.


The point is - the variance WITHIN one lifeform is gerater than the difference between lifeforms. You appeal to probability... you say it is 'too unlikely' for a fish eye to evolve into a human eye.

By that logic, surely it must be 'too unlikely' for the foetal eye to develope as it does.


You choose to side with probability ONLY when it suits your argument.


External verification.......which part of the development of bacteria into mitochondria can be externally verified? Come on, Grave, we have been here too many times before.


Well I was never informed that bacteria became mitochondria... I was told that organelles and bacteria were so similar, that it looked as though mitochondria (organelles) must be bacteria in communities.


How? Darwin didn't know about DNA? He only assumed there must be a medium for passing on adaptations. He had no idea whether his idea could be supported or observed by science. But that didn't stop him from going ahead with it anyway.

ID could be in the same situation. Sure, it will never find itself looking at God through a telescope. But it may find a strong case for a designer by looking at the information systems, so that one day people will laugh at todays scientists for being so close minded about it.

Strawman. Darwin didn't say anything about DNA. He observed real traits, hypothesised a mechanism, and looked around for supporting evidence. DNA was merely a discovery that explains HOW Darwin's mechanism might work.

How? Darwin didn't know about DNA? He only assumed there must be a medium for passing on adaptations. He had no idea whether his idea could be supported or observed by science. But that didn't stop him from going ahead with it anyway.

he didn't know exactly what the meduim was, but only a moron would have thought that there wasn't one. or do you think that dog-breeding was some sort of mysterious magic to people 150 years ago? you don't need to understand exactly what the medium is in order to accurately describe its consequences.

Awesome, 18.73% support the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
Mmmm spaghetti.... *gets a far-away look*

Surely as a supposed biochemist you are aware that some nucleic acid strands, especially very small ones, can essentially self-replicate? DNA/RNA polymerase are enzymes that speed that process along quite well, but it can occur without their intervention.


Yes, I have heard about this. I suppose we should not be that surprised that some very small bits of RNA (a couple hundred base pairs, or so I've read) are able to fold in such a way that they facilitate a more rapid polymerisation of more strands. This is not to say that the new strands carry the same RNA sequence as the first strands. But that causes problems of it's own. And random polymerisation of RNA is exactly what the cells doesn't want. A waste of precious resources, not to mention a creation of junk information that would only get in the way and hinder the cells attempts to translate the meaningful RNA into protein. Translation of jumbled (nonsense) protein is a sure way to kill everything.
Futhermore, the conditions required for random polymerisation of RNA are not favourable for life.


Natural selection and mutation hardly require DNA repair mechanisms to already be in place.


Oh, but they do. Mutation occurs during replication of DNA. For example the leading enzyme makes a mistake when replicating the template (single) strand of the DNA (DNA is a double strand complex) so that A is replaced with G. Then when the two strands come together again A is mismatched with G. The proof reading enzyme doesn't know which base pair is right, and sometimes replaces the A with G, so now both are wrong, and the mutation is carried over to the next cell. Life needs replication in order to survive. It needs enzymes that are capable of reading the DNA and reproducing identical strands of DNA (or very close to it). Life also needs a proof reading system, since it cannot tolerate too high a mutation rate. It needs a slower mutation rate in order to adapt to it's environment. That's why we have a mutation rate of about 1 in 6 million --for every one bp that is mutated, six million are conserved. This rate is pretty much found throughout life. There is an example of a bacterium that has very low efficiency of proof reading systems,but has about six times as much replicates of its genomic material, and a mutation rate that is apparantly six times faster than the average bacterial species. I must look that reference up again, one of these days.


No evidence? You mean all of the fossil evidence indicating that the earliest lifeforms were quite different from most of those around today doesn't count?


I'm not arguing that the fossils don't indicate some strange life forms. Only that based on the most popular stories of abiogensis, the earliest lifeform would have to have been more like a silicon lifeform--something vastly different. And don't forget how many strange life forms thought of as fossils are still found to be alive today, and with all the same characteristics that is found everywhere.....DNA, RNA, proteins, lipids, carbohydrates, etc.


That is the definition of science. It can only invoke that which it can measure - and nature is all that it can measure.


ID only wants to measure nature also.

The problem with only invoking what one can measure is that science is prevented from measuring certain aspect of humans, such as that which is influenced by love. Being a religious person, you might know about the love which is self-sacrificial, the very highest and purest form. Can you explain this in terms of natural causes? Is such a love part of nature?

The use of the word 'design' does not infer a designer, since it is possible that natural causes have designed life also (or at least contributed). People use the word 'creature' to mean an animal, even though it implies a creator. It is not commonly meant that way. In that same way, I have been using the word 'design'.


You aren't talking about "modifying them a little". Your ideas require one of two things: (a) Throw out the scientific method altogether and use something else (thus, not science) or (b) Try and apply the scientific method to that which it cannot logically be implied (which is, of course, essentially the same thing as a)


Rather, it is more like making an assumption. Something science is not afraid to do. You are simply overreacting if you think it is doing away with the scientific method altogether. If you disagree, then at least show me step by step how you end up with the loss of the scientific method by allowing the possibility of a designer. Surely it is just one assumption.


And once again, "less genes" != "less robust". It might be, or it might not be. In computer programming, for example, the program with the least extra code is generally much more robust.


I think we know that a poodle is less robust than a wolf. The computer program is a silly example in this case, because more intelligence is the requirement for deliberately designing a smaller program that is more efficient and more robust. I think you are getting confused about bacteria being more advanced than humans.


And yet you ignore how very flawed that analogy is. A forensic scientist or investigatory is still looking for natural causes, as a murderer is within that which is natural. It is illogical to take that same approach to the supernatural, as the supernatural is not bound by the natural rules.


No, Dem, you are twising my example. As I stated in my first post using this example, a murderer was, for the purpose of my analogy, an example of a designer. The clues of the murder are the intelligence that point to the source of the intelligence, the murderer. In the real world, the murderer is part of the natural causes. But it was an analogy.

I don't think this approach is illogical. It is different. You give the reason for it being illogical because the supernatural is bound by different rules. That is NOT the point. ID is not studying the supernatural. They are studying nature.



You have a brain, right? Then you can search for an answer to the question. Science is not the only way to search for answers, it is a way, only applicable within the measurable realm - in other words, within nature.


I think you must know that science has an approach that can be taken into just about every aspect of life, though perhaps I would not recommend it on every occassion. I was referring to the approach that science uses.



To go with your analogy, you aren't talking about changing the laws that regulate abortion, because we aren't talking about a subset of science here. You are wishing to change the entire thought process of science - the scientific method itself. It would be akin to the medical profession saying, "You know what, we're going to allow you to start injecting people with chemicals just because you believe it might help them. Testing won't be necessary."


Like I said before, that appears to be an overreaction, depending on how well you can demonstrate how the entire thought process of science will be changed. Perhaps you could provide some examples--sensible ones please.


Not really, what they did is to go back to an earlier definition. Up until the early 20th century, a fetus wasn't defined as a person until the quickening - and abortion was perfectly legal (albeit not very safe) up until that point. Once a safe medical procedure was developed, they wanted to illegalize it and thus redefined what is human in order to do so. Roe v. Wade basically went back to the old definition.


OK. I didn't know all that.


The problem is that this "evidence" is logically impossible to find. It is logically impossible to measure anything outside of nature, because of the fact that it is outside of nature. To determine if a designer existed, we would have to measure that designer.

Then there is the fact that a designer can only be concluded if we know, for a fact, that there is no other explanation. Until we know everything there is to know about natural processes (which will never happen), that simply isn't possible.


Dem, you have it wrong again. ID is not trying to measure anything outside of nature. Maybe it would help to repeat that several times. It is only the explanation that invokes a cause that is not a part of nature.

Dem, you have it wrong again. ID is not trying to measure anything outside of nature. Maybe it would help to repeat that several times. It is only the explanation that invokes a cause that is not a part of nature.

Repeat it as many times as you like. It won't make it any more true.

If Intelligent Design says that there is an unfalsifiable, non-repeatable, unobservable entity that steers SOME processes, it IS allowing a quantity that is 'outside of nature'.

If it can have an effect, there must be a DEGREE to which it has an effect. If there is a degree, there MUST be a 'measurement' of the effective entity.

Yes, I have heard about this. I suppose we should not be that surprised that some very small bits of RNA (a couple hundred base pairs, or so I've read) are able to fold in such a way that they facilitate a more rapid polymerisation of more strands. This is not to say that the new strands carry the same RNA sequence as the first strands. But that causes problems of it's own. And random polymerisation of RNA is exactly what the cells doesn't want.

Of course, in the context of the conversation, we aren't talking about cells, not that actual cells "want" anything either. We are talking about something that might just have eventually become cells, by relying on processes that are similar, but not exactly the same, as those which we have today.

Oh, but they do. Mutation occurs during replication of DNA. For example the leading enzyme makes a mistake when replicating the template (single) strand of the DNA (DNA is a double strand complex) so that A is replaced with G. Then when the two strands come together again A is mismatched with G. The proof reading enzyme doesn't know which base pair is right, and sometimes replaces the A with G, so now both are wrong, and the mutation is carried over to the next cell.

Yup, that is mutation alright.

Life needs replication in order to survive. It needs enzymes that are capable of reading the DNA and reproducing identical strands of DNA (or very close to it).

No. In order to replicate the exact same type of life, it needs to create DNA that is nearly identical. Just to create some type of life, the DNA need not be as close.

Life also needs a proof reading system, since it cannot tolerate too high a mutation rate.

Incorrect again. You are making rather unsupportable assumptions. Extremely complex life cannot tolerate a high mutation rate and needs the proofreading systems. However, less complicated life have fewer proofreading mechanisms and more easily incorporate foreign DNA. They have higher mutation rates - and that is no problem for them. In fact, it helps them to change more quickly with a changing environment. By extrapolation, even less complicated life could have been able to withstand even higher mutation rates.

ID only wants to measure nature also.

If ID thought they were only measuring nature, then they wouldn't be positing something outside of nature.

The problem with only invoking what one can measure is that science is prevented from measuring certain aspect of humans, such as that which is influenced by love. Being a religious person, you might know about the love which is self-sacrificial, the very highest and purest form. Can you explain this in terms of natural causes? Is such a love part of nature?

One could explain it in terms of natural causes, yes. One could demonstrate chemical changes in the brain when such love is invoked. One could demonstrate the benefits to a species of organisms willing to commit altruistic acts. One could measure any increases in heart rate, etc. when a person the subject loved was spoken of. One could measure all sorts of effects of love, and could even posit reasons that it might exist in nature.

Personally, I think that love may actually transcend pure nature, as I think that God does. Nothing in any of the scientific explanations really changes that. The fact that one can demonstrate chemical changes in the brain simply means that those chemical changes occur when I love somebody. Same for the increased heart rate, etc. The fact that altruistic behavior can benefit species simply gives me a clue as to how God brough love into nature. In the end, we can describe the chemical processes that cause you to feel that you are in love, and we can posit ways in which those chemical processes might have developed. We won't ever know, however, if the capacity to love was "meant-to-be", as it were, or simply developed.

In much the same way, evolution allows for the possibility of a designer that transcends nature. When we look at mutations, at genetic changes, at reproduction, etc., we are describing processes. Those processes may very well have a designer behind them. We cannot measure that designer, so that designer doesn't come into the scientific part of the equation. We can only study processes, with the possibility that the particular results of those processes were "meant-to-be."

The use of the word 'design' does not infer a designer, since it is possible that natural causes have designed life also (or at least contributed).

Incorrect.

Main Entry: 1de·sign
Pronunciation: di-'zIn
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, to outline, indicate, mean, from Middle French & Medieval Latin; Middle French designer to designate, from Medieval Latin designare, from Latin, to mark out, from de- + signare to mark -- more at SIGN
transitive senses
1 : to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan : DEVISE, CONTRIVE
2 a : to conceive and plan out in the mind <he designed the perfect crime> b : to have as a purpose : INTEND <she designed to excel in her studies> c : to devise for a specific function or end <a book designed primarily as a college textbook>
3 archaic : to indicate with a distinctive mark, sign, or name
4 a : to make a drawing, pattern, or sketch of b : to draw the plans for

Every definition of design requires a purpose behind it - a driving force to get to a specific end. Thus, any concept of a design is impossible without a designer.

Rather, it is more like making an assumption. Something science is not afraid to do.

Science only makes assumptions that can be backed up with empirical evidence and can be falsified. This has been pointed out to you more than once.

You are simply overreacting if you think it is doing away with the scientific method altogether.

There is nothing in the scientific method that allows for ufalsifiable assumptions that cannot be backed up with empirical evidence.

If you disagree, then at least show me step by step how you end up with the loss of the scientific method by allowing the possibility of a designer. Surely it is just one assumption.

First off, we aren't talking about "allowing the possibility of a designer." As I have pointed out numerous times, science already does that. You are talking about allowing the designer to be assumed. That "one assumption" removes the requirement that an assumption be backed up by empirical evidence and be falsifiable.

I think we know that a poodle is less robust than a wolf.

That all depends on the environment and situation. A poodle could do things a wolf could not, and vice versa.

I think you are getting confused about bacteria being more advanced than humans.

Bacteria would be more advanced that humans.

Main Entry: ad·vanced
Function: adjective
1 : far on in time or course <a man advanced in years>
2 a : being beyond others in progress or ideas <tastes a bit too advanced for the times> b : being beyond the elementary or introductory <advanced chemistry> c : greatly developed beyond an initial stage <the most advanced scientific methods> <advanced weapons systems>

No, Dem, you are twising my example.

I'm not twisting it - I am demonstrating why it is an improper analogy. I understand that you are attempting to equate a murderer to a designer. However, you cannot, as a murderer is within nature, and thus by definition something we can find evidence of. A designer is not.

I don't think this approach is illogical. It is different. You give the reason for it being illogical because the supernatural is bound by different rules. That is NOT the point. ID is not studying the supernatural. They are studying nature.

The minute they invoke somethiing outside of nature, they have moved outside of nature.

I think you must know that science has an approach that can be taken into just about every aspect of life, though perhaps I would not recommend it on every occassion. I was referring to the approach that science uses.

Parts of the approach can be taken into most aspects of life. The entire approach cannot. Those parts of the approach that can be taken into the rest of life are those that are simple logic - something that is not restricted to science. Philosophy, mathematics, even some parts of theology are all based on logic as well. That doesn't make them science.

Dem, you have it wrong again. ID is not trying to measure anything outside of nature. Maybe it would help to repeat that several times. It is only the explanation that invokes a cause that is not a part of nature.

I am not wrong. In science, you cannot posit something which you cannot measure. Thus, if they have not measured something they think to be a designer, they cannot posit one. Invoking a cause that is not a part of nature can only be done within science if you can measure that cause. Of course, since that cause it outside of nature, you cannot measure it. This is exactly why ID is not science.

Of course, in the context of the conversation, we aren't talking about cells, not that actual cells "want" anything either. We are talking about something that might just have eventually become cells, by relying on processes that are similar, but not exactly the same, as those which we have today.


Life as we know it depends on the cell. The cell membrane/cell wall (i.e. division) is perhaps more important than hereditary material (i.e. nucleic acid). That is why many of the abiogenesis scientists feel that life must have began around underwater springs, where the hot liquid meets the cooler liquid and tiny bubble-like structures form based on the dissolved minerals coming out of solution. Every life form must be a cell, for it forms the basis of energy/potential 'harvesting'. Viruses don't have their own cells, but rely on the enegy generated by the host cell for survival. The assumption that the early life forms must have been different from life as we know it today is based only (as far as I can see) on the observation that it appears impossible for life as we know it to arise from non-life. Assuming that the life form was different is the best way out of a tricky situation. However, even this has problems, for whatever that life form must have looked like, scientists will still have lots of problems trying to discover the process by which it arrived at the ubiquitous state we find it today. Practically all of life, even that in the most extreme conditions, e.g., thermophiles, still follow the basic pattern that all life follows. There appears to be no 'remnants', no suggestions that life was anything but the way it is today (e.g, consisting of nucleic acid, proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, complex energy molecules like ATP, cell walls, etc. So far, I have not heard of anyone trying to even guess at the evolving pathway the early life may have taken, assuming the increase of things like oxygen in the atmosphere, and water, and the corresponding decrease of carbon dioxide, methane, hydrogen, etc. The reason why nobody ventures a guess is that, no matter how you look at it, it just can not be made to look possible, let alone likely. Thus you will often find the comment that science is about to find out the answer, that we are making progress, and have you head about the latest silicon lifeform theories, etc. I've been hearing things like that for the last ten years. It has slowly dawned on me that the state of expectation and anticipation is one of the best ways to answer the critics.


No. In order to replicate the exact same type of life, it needs to create DNA that is nearly identical. Just to create some type of life, the DNA need not be as close.


I would have expected the early life form to be less robust than the modern ones, based on naturalistic thinking, and that the more evolved a life form is, the better it gets at adaptation (up to a point, after which more complication is a disadvantage). Thus DNA replication needed to be more precise, since there was less already-present mechanisms to help cope with a mutation, and to help the organism adjust to changing habitats. If you understand biochemistry, you will quickly see that everything has to be rather precise. Most mutations are not tolerated, and result in the weakening or death of the cell. That is why it is even more important the the early life forms have precise replication because it would naturally be less able to adapt to its environment.


Incorrect again. You are making rather unsupportable assumptions. Extremely complex life cannot tolerate a high mutation rate and needs the proofreading systems. However, less complicated life have fewer proofreading mechanisms and more easily incorporate foreign DNA. They have higher mutation rates - and that is no problem for them. In fact, it helps them to change more quickly with a changing environment. By extrapolation, even less complicated life could have been able to withstand even higher mutation rates.


Actually, I think the so called 'higher' life forms are more able to incorporate foreign DNA. For example, you can shoot DNA into plant cells and expect that it gets incorporated into the genome. Do the same with bacteria, however, and you get a far lower rate of incorporation. The state of being diploid (having two copies of each gene) gives an organism this advantage over being haploid. Also, eukaryotes have quite a lot more intergenic DNA, in which insertions are more easily tolerated.


If ID thought they were only measuring nature, then they wouldn't be positing something outside of nature.


Not necessarily. It is actually a similar process to the abiogenesis story. A scientists makes the assumption that there was an earlier life form that looked totally different from what we have today. He can't study that earlier form. But he has to work with the data that he does have. He wouldn't be so stupid as to think that he had to observe that earlier form. Maybe he will find it, maybe he won't. But in the meanwhile, he has to do some observation, so he goes for what he thinks is the oldest surviving life form, and tries some sort of extrapolation. Similarly, ID is not looking for the designer. They only measure the information systems that are found in life. From there, they extrapolate to a designer. The difference I can see between the abiogenesis scientist and the IDer is that one is making guesses about how the earliest life form must have looked like, while the other is guessing at which points the designer contributed to the design. One invokes only natural causes. The other allows for a higher cause. And I know you think science is only allowed to name natural causes, so you don't have to repeat yourself.


One could explain it in terms of natural causes, yes. One could demonstrate chemical changes in the brain when such love is invoked. One could demonstrate the benefits to a species of organisms willing to commit altruistic acts. One could measure any increases in heart rate, etc. when a person the subject loved was spoken of. One could measure all sorts of effects of love, and could even posit reasons that it might exist in nature.

Personally, I think that love may actually transcend pure nature, as I think that God does. Nothing in any of the scientific explanations really changes that. The fact that one can demonstrate chemical changes in the brain simply means that those chemical changes occur when I love somebody. Same for the increased heart rate, etc. The fact that altruistic behavior can benefit species simply gives me a clue as to how God brough love into nature. In the end, we can describe the chemical processes that cause you to feel that you are in love, and we can posit ways in which those chemical processes might have developed. We won't ever know, however, if the capacity to love was "meant-to-be", as it were, or simply developed.

In much the same way, evolution allows for the possibility of a designer that transcends nature. When we look at mutations, at genetic changes, at reproduction, etc., we are describing processes. Those processes may very well have a designer behind them. We cannot measure that designer, so that designer doesn't come into the scientific part of the equation. We can only study processes, with the possibility that the particular results of those processes were "meant-to-be."


You sound like you know something of what it is like to be in love. Good for you. But I was not referring to that. I specifically said the unconditional self-sacrificing love that is known to humans, not necessarily what goes on between lovers. Let me give an example. Everyone knows how a mother can love her child. Most of us tend to think highly of such a love. It is often a very self-sacrificial love. But it is not unexplainable by naturalistic causes, since we also see it in nature, among the mammals, for example. However, imagine how that mother feels when her child is threatened, tortured, raped, killed, etc. How would that mother feel about the murderer/rapist? Understandably, she would demand justice. She would probably hate him. Her love for her child would fuel the hatred. If she was in a position to pull the trigger and end his life, she probably would. Who would blame her, particularly if the justice system failed? However, imagine if she chose to forgive him, and show him love instead. Such has been observed before. That is what I call love. Like Jesus commanded us...love our enemies. He would not have said this if it were impossible. The fact that such a love exists may or may not be explained by chaps like Stephen Dawkins, I'm not sure. I find it unlikely. My point to all this is that here we have a love that does exist. Is it outside of science? Should it be? Would you be able to define this in terms of chemical reactions in the brain? (Btw, how is one to know if 'chemical changes in the brain' are the cause or effect of love?) This sort of love is what I call a higher love. Unselfish. Even unjust. There appears to be no advantage for the giver of that love. Dawkins says it survived because it helps the community survive. Perhaps, but I would have thought that the community would be better off without a rapist. They would want the mother to pull the trigger. But I digress.

My point is that this sort of love is within nature. Perhaps it also transcends it too. But that is not the point. Given that science is restricted to natural causes (as you have said so often) do you think it could make inroads on that sort of love. The question is whether mutations and natural selection can account for it, for according to your idea of science, they must, or we must discover some other natural cause.


Every definition of design requires a purpose behind it - a driving force to get to a specific end. Thus, any concept of a design is impossible without a designer.


I disagree. Firstly, design can be seen as the information necessary to perform a function. The use of the word is not necessarily focussing the reader to the cause of the design, but the function. For example, when one thinks about the design of the eye, one is not focussing on the fact that the eye was designed, but that it has to be organised in a particular way in order to be functional. That order is recognised as design by atheists and theists alike. Secondly, a design may be a product of natural causes. Thus, for such a design, the designer is a naturalistic cause, or a combination of. This is widely recognised in science. If it were not so, the atheists that I 'rub shoulders with' everyday at my job would avoid using the word. Apparently, they do not.

At any rate, it is a bit irrelevant to our debate. If you really refused to use the word 'design', we would have to think of another one, like order, or form, or information. I suppose though, you could reject something like order, since it could imply an orderer. From then on, it would just get ridiculous.


Science only makes assumptions that can be backed up with empirical evidence and can be falsified. This has been pointed out to you more than once.


And I have replied more than once that science makes assumptions that cannot be falsified. Perhaps they can be potentially falsified. I think that is what you mean. It's another way of saying that science is limited to only speculating about natural causes. Currently, though, the potentially falsifiable assumptions are rather safe, given that we are not getting any closer to the past. Maybe we need a time traveller. At any rate, you have a nice little hiding-hole in your reasons against ID, because you insist only on naturalistic assumptions, since they are the only ones that are potentially falsifiable, and yet time is the thing that prevents us from falsifying them. No one can beat time. Great position. Unfortunate for the IDers. They will always have to face the accusation of 'bad' science, while only those who have thought the situation through will see that their accusers are not really playing fair.
From my point of view, they (the accusers) are trying to hold back the progress of discovery.


There is nothing in the scientific method that allows for ufalsifiable assumptions that cannot be backed up with empirical evidence.


How about the impossibility of trying to prove that something did not happen?


That all depends on the environment and situation. A poodle could do things a wolf could not, and vice versa.


I suppose I should assume that as an attempt at humour. But what I was getting at was that a poodle was less robust than a wolf because it has a more limited ability to adapt to numerous environments. For example, a wolf can live with a household, and have it's hair brushed every day, and eat meat out of a can. But a poodle would not survive in Siberia (probably get eaten pretty quick). But suppose the poodle species was given a thousand generations to adapt to life in the wild. It would have to overcome its eye and heart problems. It would have to put more effort into claws and paws and jaws. Could you picture this? Perhaps. But would the wolf be in a better position to adapt to, say, life in suburban America? I think so. The reason? Anybody would conclude that a wolf was more robust than a poodle. Perhaps it would help to see robust-ness as a measure of how quickly an organism can adapt to a changing environment. The major species extinction happening right now is happening to the less robust species.


I'm not twisting it - I am demonstrating why it is an improper analogy. I understand that you are attempting to equate a murderer to a designer. However, you cannot, as a murderer is within nature, and thus by definition something we can find evidence of. A designer is not.


As I explained previously, the analogy does work, IF the muderer is not present at the scene of the crime, or is hidden (undetectable) or does not exist. At that particular point in time, the investigator does not have the opportunity to investigate the murderer, and thus, for the purpose of my analogy, the muderer is outside of the situation, and may as well be outside of the universe.

Perhaps you, as a theistic evolutionist (if I have it right) would like to suggest just how God did contribute to us being here. Then you may like to justify that against the current theories of science.


Parts of the approach can be taken into most aspects of life. The entire approach cannot. Those parts of the approach that can be taken into the rest of life are those that are simple logic - something that is not restricted to science. Philosophy, mathematics, even some parts of theology are all based on logic as well. That doesn't make them science.


I agree with your point. But perhaps you missed my earlier point. Pehaps I did not explain myself clearly. Let me try again.

I would say that one can take more than logic from science (of course logic was around a long time before science). The science approach involves the principles of observing, repeating, making an explanation, testing the explanation, using logic to make a conclusion. This is pretty much what I do in my job. And I can apply all of these principles to most areas of my life, and most of them to all of my life, and as you said, that does not make them science. There are other things in my life, like character and personality and world view that are not strictly part of science. But they go with me when I do science. They influence my science, my sense of judgement, decision making. That is one sense in which science and religion cannot be separated, using the more loose definitions of science and religion.


But there is another more controversial sense.
I am uncomfortable when people say we should separate science and religion. If they mean that we should leave religion out of science, and science out of religion, using the strictest definitions of science and religion, I would agree. It sounds like a fair call, and anyone who disagrees is generally considered odd. But it would be impossible for someone who believed that God created humans (as humans) to leave God out of science. And for that matter, it is impossible for anyone who believes God had anything to do with us being here to leave him out of science (even the strictest theistic evolutionists accept that God made a contribution somewhere along the line). Thus, I agree with leaving religion out of science, but I cannot necessarily rule out God. Neither should anyone who wants to keep their minds open to the possibility that God was involved in any way.
(Btw, I do understand your point about the difference of allowing the possibility of God and assuming the possibility of God, so there is no need to repeat yourself. I am not going there with this point.)
So I distinguish between God and religion. My view of God is that he is far bigger than religion. I suppose that is why my belief in God will always clash with your idea of science, for I refuse to allow that God had nothing more to do with nature than the big bang. And if he has contributed, I feel that it should be detectable. That is why I want my science to reflect what I percieve as reality. To deny this would be dishonest of me, or, as I have pointed out before, as least shutting my mind to a potential discovery.

And this is really what it comes down to. Science is individuals in the act of pursuing knowledge. Individuals are not sterile clones, without bias. We cannot be. However, when we pretend to believe that our science is limited to what can be observed rather than what we believe, we only end up fooling ourselves. That is why almost nobody believes that science has nothing to say about our belief systems, except for, perhaps, a few well-meaning people like yourself. I do not mean to be belittling or insulting. But your ideal of science does not match very well with the real world, with the real people that make up science.

Repeat it as many times as you like. It won't make it any more true.

If Intelligent Design says that there is an unfalsifiable, non-repeatable, unobservable entity that steers SOME processes, it IS allowing a quantity that is 'outside of nature'.

If it can have an effect, there must be a DEGREE to which it has an effect. If there is a degree, there MUST be a 'measurement' of the effective entity.

Very well, then, to use your idea of science, we need to be able to measure the natural selection and mutations that brought about life from non-life, before these life forms had the ability to mutate and select advantagous mutations.

ID only wants to measure nature also.
Both effect and cause must be measurable within nature.

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

You can make the same case for evolution. :eek: :D

Very well, then, to use your idea of science, we need to be able to measure the natural selection and mutations that brought about life from non-life, before these life forms had the ability to mutate and select advantagous mutations.

Why?

There is no uniform theory being touted as to the ABSOLUTE start of life... EXCEPT by Creationists and/or IDer's. I don't see the relevence...

I suppose it ALSO depends on where you think the 'life' line is drawn... there is still some question as to whether virii are 'alive'.

You can make the same case for evolution. :eek: :D
If you believe that science is not worthwhile then lobby to get it removed or completely optional (though I will laugh when I see the employment and collage acceptance rates for those that select or are forced to not take science classes)

Both effect and cause must be measurable within nature.

Sure, if you want to be able to apply the rigorous scientific process of observation, repetition, and falsifying. However, you and I can agree that this process cannot be applied to a good deal of science. It cannot, because we are separated from applying that process to things like macroevolution by time. But that doesn't stop scientists believing in things like macroevolution. Therefore, what is the use of making a rule like 'cause and effect must be measureable within nature'? It entitles one to make fantastic assumptions based on naturalistic causes, and no sensible ones bases on unnatural causes. A rule like that favours those who want to show that there is no higher cause. And I still haven't heard from you a convincing reason why we cannot change the 'rules' to allow an assumption of a designer. Just how would that change all of science?

Similarly, ID is not looking for the designer. They only measure the information systems that are found in life.

The fact they bring one up suggests they think he already exists.

"Information systems" again. Nice phrase. Just like the Scientoligists talk about "technology" they have created.

To suggest an informational system is invalid as such as system is not the same for each invidual, plant, etc.


From there, they extrapolate to a designer.

But wait you just said ID is not looking for a designer.


The difference I can see between the abiogenesis scientist and the IDer is that one is making guesses about how the earliest life form must have looked like, while the other is guessing at which points the designer contributed to the design. One invokes only natural causes. The other allows for a higher cause. And I know you think science is only allowed to name natural causes, so you don't have to repeat yourself.

Problem is there is evidence that suggests the abiogensis theory. There is NOTHING that suggests GOD was in play.



The fact that such a love exists may or may not be explained by chaps like Stephen Dawkins, I'm not sure.

That is Stephen Hawkings and Richard Dawkins.


They will always have to face the accusation of 'bad' science, while only those who have thought the situation through will see that their accusers are not really playing fair.
From my point of view, they (the accusers) are trying to hold back the progress of discovery.

Playing fair has nothing to do with it. Bad Science is the introduction of faith based arguments. You can't prove of disprove the existence of God.

The major species extinction happening right now is happening to the less robust species.

You leave out one major issue. Human envolment in that extinction. Are they less robost because they were hunted out of existence(ie. Mrs. Waldrens Colobus)?


As I explained previously, the analogy does work, IF the muderer is not present at the scene of the crime, or is hidden (undetectable) or does not exist. At that particular point in time, the investigator does not have the opportunity to investigate the murderer, and thus, for the purpose of my analogy, the muderer is outside of the situation, and may as well be outside of the universe.

That is a rather simplistic analogy. The devil is in the details. If it is indeed a murder then there is evidence to suggest he was there(ie spent shells), prints, tracks, etc.


That is one sense in which science and religion cannot be separated, using the more loose definitions of science and religion.

Sure they can. You just refuse to do so.


But it would be impossible for someone who believed that God created humans (as humans) to leave God out of science. And for that matter, it is impossible for anyone who believes God had anything to do with us being here to leave him out of science (even the strictest theistic evolutionists accept that God made a contribution somewhere along the line).


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


Thus, I agree with leaving religion out of science, but I cannot necessarily rule out God. Neither should anyone who wants to keep their minds open to the possibility that God was involved in any way.

Until you can come up with a test to prove his involvement. It remains a philosophical question with is not science.


I refuse to allow that God had nothing more to do with nature than the big bang. And if he has contributed, I feel that it should be detectable. That is why I want my science to reflect what I percieve as reality. To deny this would be dishonest of me, or, as I have pointed out before, as least shutting my mind to a potential discovery.

Then as a "scientist" go out and find that proof instead of trying to force ID into the science classroom.


And this is really what it comes down to. Science is individuals in the act of pursuing knowledge. Individuals are not sterile clones, without bias. We cannot be. However, when we pretend to believe that our science is limited to what can be observed rather than what we believe, we only end up fooling ourselves.


Faith is a part of Religion.


That is why almost nobody believes that science has nothing to say about our belief systems, except for, perhaps, a few well-meaning people like yourself. I do not mean to be belittling or insulting. But your ideal of science does not match very well with the real world, with the real people that make up science.
:D

I don't mean to insult you but I will. :rolleyes:

Acutally if Demp was outside the real world then why are you IDers all bitching? If you were the dominant thought then evolution would have been tossed already.

Sure, if you want to be able to apply the rigorous scientific process of observation, repetition, and falsifying. However, you and I can agree that this process cannot be applied to a good deal of science. It cannot, because we are separated from applying that process to things like macroevolution by time. But that doesn't stop scientists believing in things like macroevolution.

The problem is there are things that suggest it's valid. For example the fossil record for primates.


Therefore, what is the use of making a rule like 'cause and effect must be measureable within nature'? It entitles one to make fantastic assumptions based on naturalistic causes, and no sensible ones bases on unnatural causes.

Until you can test for God, then you introduce faith.....


A rule like that favours those who want to show that there is no higher cause. And I still haven't heard from you a convincing reason why we cannot change the 'rules' to allow an assumption of a designer. Just how would that change all of science?

How do you test for God, what evidence exists that even remotely suggests he was involved?

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

Why?

There is no uniform theory being touted as to the ABSOLUTE start of life... EXCEPT by Creationists and/or IDer's. I don't see the relevence...

I suppose it ALSO depends on where you think the 'life' line is drawn... there is still some question as to whether virii are 'alive'.

I have been talking about science for a while now, not just evolution. That means I'm allowed to refer to the theory of abiogenesis, and to criticise it's acceptance within the 'hallowed halls of science'.

The theory is that life absolutely did come from non-life. Sure there is no one theory about how, but I have never said that. It certainly is part of scientific theory, though.

Most scientists don't think that life arose from viruses. Possibly because viruses need living hosts to survive, so they don't solve any problems.

I have been talking about science for a while now, not just evolution. That means I'm allowed to refer to the theory of abiogenesis, and to criticise it's acceptance within the 'hallowed halls of science'.

The theory is that life absolutely did come from non-life. Sure there is no one theory about how, but I have never said that. It certainly is part of scientific theory, though.

Most scientists don't think that life arose from viruses. Possibly because viruses need living hosts to survive, so they don't solve any problems.

No actually you are intermixing abiogenesis and evolution. They are different.
If you want to talk about abiogenesis then you shouldn't reference evolution.....

creationism is a religeon i agree. however, the "theory" of evolution is too. it was merely made up from darwin and some other people. darwin with a degree in philosophy (didnt even have a phd). the evidence for evolution simply is out dated (meaning its wrong), or it is simply not there, there is one last bit: the theory of evolution was made up by a guy with a theology degree and they call him a great scientist.

creationism is a religeon i agree. however, the "theory" of evolution is too. it was merely made up from darwin and some other people. darwin with a degree in philosophy (didnt even have a phd). the evidence for evolution simply is out dated (meaning its wrong), or it is simply not there, there is one last bit: the theory of evolution was made up by a guy with a theology degree and they call him a great scientist.
…Now why don’t you go out and do some research and maybe you will be able to find the errors you have made. (hint the theory of evolution is not Darwinism … you are getting the two confused … evolution has continued to grow much beyond Darwinism … in fact bet you cant name the three intertwining theories out there)
As such the rest of your argument is bunk

Sorry try again

creationism is a religeon i agree. however, the "theory" of evolution is too. it was merely made up from darwin and some other people. darwin with a degree in philosophy (didnt even have a phd). the evidence for evolution simply is out dated (meaning its wrong), or it is simply not there, there is one last bit: the theory of evolution was made up by a guy with a theology degree and they call him a great scientist.
Wha...? So... many... things... wrong...

I'll deal with one of them, and let someone else take the rest.
Of course Darwin didn't have a PhD. PhD's didn't exist back then. Biology wasn't even a unified discipline until years later.

does anyone have any proof of evolution that has been either never been proven wrong or, that has some updated NOT outdated info?

nobody?

you'll defend evolution by saying its not a religeon but, by not giving me proof its telling me im right, so any proof.

you'll defend evolution by saying its not a religeon but, by not giving me proof its telling me im right, so any proof.
You must be patient. People are not lurking in this thread 24/7.

creationism is a religeon i agree. however, the "theory" of evolution is too. it was merely made up from darwin and some other people. darwin with a degree in philosophy (didnt even have a phd). the evidence for evolution simply is out dated (meaning its wrong), or it is simply not there, there is one last bit: the theory of evolution was made up by a guy with a theology degree and they call him a great scientist.

Oh noooooooo Evolution is a religion arguement :headbang: Ok what is the mysticism and what are the methods of worship?

Darwin was actually a very religious man.

As to the PhD? Did you know it didn't exist in the UK in his time?

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Doctor-of-Philosophy

As to your great scientist comment?

Thomas Edison never went to university.

Einstein had an unimpressive school record.....

you'll defend evolution by saying its not a religeon but, by not giving me proof its telling me im right, so any proof.

Ok? I will bite.

You have declared it outdated and wrong.

How so?

Heh. I accidently voted "Yes" when I meant to vote "No". So just subtract one vote from "Yes" and add one vote to "No".

creationism is a religeon i agree. however, the "theory" of evolution is too. it was merely made up from darwin and some other people. darwin with a degree in philosophy (didnt even have a phd). the evidence for evolution simply is out dated (meaning its wrong), or it is simply not there, there is one last bit: the theory of evolution was made up by a guy with a theology degree and they call him a great scientist.
Creationism is not a religion in itself, it is drawn from the religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

What is it that makes the theory of evolution a religion? (And please, don't say "belief" because that is not what makes a religion.)

Heh. I accidently voted "Yes" when I meant to vote "No". So just subtract one vote from "Yes" and add one vote to "No".
Now there's a memorable first post. ;-)

creationism is a religeon i agree. however, the "theory" of evolution is too. it was merely made up from darwin and some other people. darwin with a degree in philosophy (didnt even have a phd). the evidence for evolution simply is out dated (meaning its wrong), or it is simply not there, there is one last bit: the theory of evolution was made up by a guy with a theology degree and they call him a great scientist.

I just now noticed the quotes on theory.

Are you suggesting that its a theory so it holds little or no weight?

does anyone have any proof of evolution that has been either never been proven wrong or, that has some updated NOT outdated info?

Outdated? What do you mean by that? Old? Hmm do we toss Newton since they are rather old?

creationism is a religeon i agree. however, the "theory" of evolution is too. it was merely made up from darwin and some other people. darwin with a degree in philosophy (didnt even have a phd). the evidence for evolution simply is out dated (meaning its wrong), or it is simply not there, there is one last bit: the theory of evolution was made up by a guy with a theology degree and they call him a great scientist.
I don't think you know anything about Darwin. Einstein completed his theory of relativity before he received his doctorate. Does that mean that what he stated is not important? Evolution is not something somebody just "made up."
It doesn't matter if Darwin went to school for the intense study of pig-latin, his ideas and observations have stood the test of time up til this very moment.
On a side note, if there is intelligent design, why are there imperfections? Why isn't one, superior type of eye present in all creatures? When man designs something, he takes the superior design and implements it where he can. It is like God (or the Great Architect or whatever) put a super computer into man's skull but put an Apple II into all other creatures. Why wouldn't He take the best design and use that in all things? Why the imperfections?

Why wouldn't He take the best design and use that in all things? Why the imperfections?

Uhm? That is what Goerr the designer intended! ;)

Uhm? That is what Goerr the designer intended! ;)
Damn it! Curse you, Goerr!!!

ok, if you got evidence that isnt outdated (dumbed down that means: has never been proven wrong) or you got proof that has been been proven right, then i need it in a quick words cuase i dont like to read much, ohh and btw i still have no proof for evolution.

you guys will luagh at my theory butim already luaghing at last nites show on how the earth and moon formed!! :) !! anyways, there are imperfections in this world, however before adam and eve sinned there was no pain suffering. the preflood world had a canopy of water over, and underground (massive) water chambers. so the atmospheric pressure and conditions were much better. did you know that the more oxygen in the air the faster you heal after an injury? some of the football teams actually use these pressurized high oxygen chambers to heal their teams better. now with the pressure and higher oxigen content in the air you could:
1. run further
2. run faster
3. live much longer
4. heal faster

So, the imperfections you see today? they werent so imperfect about say 5800-5900 years ago (noone knows the exact date and time, although i have a pretty good understanding of when the earth MIGHT end).

ok, if you got evidence that isnt outdated (dumbed down that means: has never been proven wrong) or you got proof that has been been proven right, then i need it in a quick words cuase i dont like to read much, ohh and btw i still have no proof for evolution.
Umm... OK, then. Stick to whatever you want to think.

Evolution is not something somebody just "made up."

actually it is:
charles lyle and some others made up the geologic time column. im pretty sure he just made it to fit his theory (back then there were a lot of revolutions, so when they read a book on how this world is millions [millions not billions or whatever] of years old they though "if theres no god then we must be god" [btw this all started in the garden of eden when the devil said "you shall be as gods"]).
i cant currently remember who it was right now who made up the millions of years theory.
now charles darwin was a christian (so ive heard). he had just graduated from bible colledge when he went to go collect some (im pretty sure) birds and/or info. he brought along the Bible and the book from Charles Lyle. he then turned from christianity to an thiest (which btw: thiest is a person who believes in god; add an a before that: an athiest is someone who BELIEVES there is no god [which btw; if you add an a before most stuf such as muse (to think) and add an a; amuse means to not think; thus you get your name amusment parks} anyways so he made a book called (did you know this?): Origin of species by means of natural selection or by the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life. did you know thats the whole title? its a little racist at that point, anyways you can see his hatred for creationism, or christians just ooze off every page.
on page (im pretty sure or close to it) 170 of his book he states that: "in all space and time... everything should be related to each other", that is basicly stating that us and bananas are related... what?? thats a little bit too far for me.

thus i leave you (for a little bit).

ohh and btw most branches of science have been started by creationists; there were a lot of branches started by creationists; and of course takin over by evolutionists. and yet no proof for your theory is here... i need evidence: and i was winning a debate over another evolutionist but i cant now cuase the ns server is down.

ok, if you got evidence that isnt outdated (dumbed down that means: has never been proven wrong) or you got proof that has been been proven right, then i need it in a quick words cuase i dont like to read much, ohh and btw i still have no proof for evolution.
Ok, well here's the thing. Evolution is an entire field of science that has been developing for close to 150 years. The evidence is cumulative and therefore it requires a long explanation. I suppose you would like Quantum Mechanics explained in a short paragraph, but it doesn't work that way. Sorry.

no i just want a simple little proof, like the fossil records (although bones dont prove a thing).

you guys and gals can put down creationism just finely, wheres the trouble in evidences fr evolution i gave some egzamples disproving it already.

no i just want a simple little proof, like the fossil records (although bones dont prove a thing).
I have a feeling that no proof could possibly be enough for you. The fossil record is pretty clear that evolution took place, hence the different organisms at different geological levels. But hey, I guess the devil could have put them there to trick us.

Also, where did you come up with evidence disproving anything? You had some insinuations about dark motives and whatnot, but nothing resembling evidence.

ohh and btw most branches of science have been started by creationists; there were a lot of branches started by creationists; and of course takin over by evolutionists. and yet no proof for your theory is here... i need evidence: and i was winning a debate over another evolutionist but i cant now cuase the ns server is down.
"A. Radiometric Dating and the Age of the Universe

The age of the earth is merely one chapter in the history of time. Radiometric dating can be harnessed to give a picture of the full history of time, i.e. the age of the universe. Because there are no available samples from the formation of the universe, scientists must take an indirect path to predict the age of the universe. Instead of measuring the ratio of parent and daughter isotope in a sample (the hourglass method), scientists studying the age of the universe compare present day isotope abundance ratios to the computed abundance ratios for red giants to determine when the heavy elements were formed. This approach is based on the idea that because two different isotopes have different half lives, their ratios will change with time. However, scientists can not use this approach and derive a number from a simple ratio because this would imply that all the heavy elements were created in one super-nova explosion. Instead, heavy elements are constantly being formed in super -nova explosions. If we assume that super-nova explode at a regular rate through time, the abundance of a heavy element increases with time until it is counteracted by radioactive decay. At this point the isotope abundances reach equilibrium. Three isotopes 235u, 238u, and 232Th are used to apply this principle. The ratios at the formation of the planets 100, 345, and 818 respectively, are compared to the steady state numbers of 100, 410, and 2460. The 235u is 100 in both cases demonstrating that it reached equilibrium at the formation of the planets 4.6 billion years ago. 238u has a ratio of 345/410 demonstrating that it is about 80% of the way to equilibrium, whereas 232Th has a ratio of 818/2460 showing it is roughly 30% of the way to steady state. By plotting the ratios for these two heavy elements against 235u from time 0 up to the formation of the universe, the time elapsed between the start of the universe and the formation of the planets can be measured. In both cases the time elapsed is roughly ten billion years. This gives an age of 15 billion years for the universe."
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/time.htm

"In 1929 Hubble [1, 2, 3] published a claim that the radial velocities of galaxies are proportional to their distance. The redshift of a galaxy is a measure of its radial velocity, and it can be measured using a spectrograph to determine the Doppler shift. The plot below shows Hubble's 1929 data:



The slope of the fitted line is 464 km/sec/Mpc, and is now known as the Hubble constant, Ho. [Sometimes I will use "TeX" mode, so A_x means that x is a subscript, Ax, while A^x means that x is a superscript, Ax.] Since both kilometers and Megaparsecs (1 Mpc = 3.086E24 cm [the "E24" means multiply the 3.086 by 10 to the 24th power]) are units of distance, the simplified units of Ho are 1/time, and the conversion is given by
1/Ho = (978 Gyr)/(Ho in km/sec/Mpc)

Thus Hubble's value is equivalent to approximately 2 Gyr. Since this should be close to the age of the Universe, and we know (and it was known in 1929) that the age of the Earth is larger than 2 billion years, Hubble's value for Ho led to considerable skepticism about cosmological models, and motivated the Steady State model. However, later work found that Hubble had confused two different kinds of Cepheid variable stars used for calibrating distances, and also that what Hubble thought were bright stars in distant galaxies were actually H II regions. Correcting for these errors has led to a lowering of the value of the Hubble constant: there are now primarily two groups using Cepheids: the HST Distance Scale Key Project team (Freedman, Kennicutt, Mould etal) which gets 72+/-8 km/sec/Mpc, while the Sandage team, also using HST observations of Cepheids to calibrate Type Ia supernovae, gets 57+/-4 km/sec/Mpc. Other methods to determine the distance scale include the time delay in gravitational lenses and the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect in distant clusters: both are independent of the Cepheid calibration and give values consistent with the average of the two HST groups: 65+/-8 km/sec/Mpc. These results are consistent with a combination of results from CMB anisotropy and the accelerating expansion of the Universe which give 71+/-3.5 km/sec/Mpc. With this value for Ho, the "age" 1/Ho is 14 Gyr while the actual age from the consistent model is 13.7+/-0.2 Gyr."
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm

The age of the Universe 13.7 + 0.2 Billion Years ( 13.7 Gy), source MAP spacecraft mapping the temperature fluctuations in the cosmic background microwave radiation, date reported in 2003.
http://www.exo.net/~pauld/summer_institute/geology%202003/originofearth.html

The current best estimate for the age of the Earth is about 4.5 billion years, not too dissimilar from what was known in 1953. These results are based on radioactive dating (e.g. uranium lead: U-Pb, lutetiumhafnium: Lu-Hf) of rocks and crystals from various sites in Greenland, Canada, Australia and Africa (Scherer et al. 2001, Harper and Jacobsen 1992). But it was another 12 years after 1953 before the remnant microwave background was discovered, providing direct evidence for a Big Bang origin for the universe. And with the intersection of particle physics and cosmology in the 1980s, and an explosion of observational and experimental results with which to test this infusion of theoretical ideas, cosmology has become a scientific field with a healthy interplay between theory and experiment
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.1468-4004.2002.43110.x/html?cookieSet=1

You should probably be aware that there is no evidence whatsoever
that argues for a young Earth. All the evidence argues quite the
other way. In fact, the thesis that the Earth had an origin at all --
that it has not always been here -- is what needs justification to the
skeptical mind. I don't know about you, but when I look around me the
Earth is the one thing that does not seem to change one iota over
time. The mountains I climbed in my youth don't look one particle
different today, 30 years later, which I wish I could say about the
face in the mirror. The contours of the coast of England look
precisely the same to me in photographs from orbit in A.D. 2000 as
they do on the maps of William the Conqueror drawn in A.D. 1066. Why
on Earth (so to speak) would I even conceive of the idea that the
Earth has changed drastically over time, that in fact it was once not
even here? The idea seems silly, on the face of it.
From this point of view, it would seem someone who argues that the
Earth came into being relatively recently has A LOT to explain, and
the person who thinks it has pretty much always been here has the
luxury of relying on the fact that this tentative conclusion is
supported by every fact our senses report to us.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/ast99/ast99441.htm

Oh wait. I forgot. You don't like to read.

(bare with me ive had a long day)
no, now think of it. if you find a bone and bring it to a court (although idk why youd do this?) and you say these bones are mans ancestors. a freshman law student could get up and say ' you dont know if that bone had any kids' what do you do then? see the flood is a pretty good explenation to my theory, see if the flood did happened then of course since humans are smarter, then wed be at the top of the 'geologic column'. see the fish would be last to now in days if were going by your assumsions. insects are still here of course. but if you read my post then i stated that the preflood world was better, now see the dinosours would actually live (they found out that the nostril of a braceousour had the same size as a current day horse; the friction would be so intense hed start on fire) now see the dinosours during the flood would die off, and they would become extinct soon after. now the fossil record proves nothing much.
and btw... why do now in days dogs prduce dogs cats produce cats? they always produce the same kind of animal. why? maybe evolution has a certain point to where it is not true. if
th dinosours lived to be over 800-900 as the bible says, and its proven that reptiles never stop growing, then the dinosours are simply big lizzards. now its either dragon (i think it tis) that its meaning in the original greek or english means terrible lizzard.

now in saying this, you better read it not just the short stuff. (reffering to the oppositte debator).

(bare with me ive had a long day)
no, now think of it. if you find a bone and bring it to a court (although idk why youd do this?) and you say these bones are mans ancestors. a freshman law student could get up and say ' you dont know if that bone had any kids' what do you do then? see the flood is a pretty good explenation to my theory, see if the flood did happened then of course since humans are smarter, then wed be at the top of the 'geologic column'. see the fish would be last to now in days if were going by your assumsions. insects are still here of course. but if you read my post then i stated that the preflood world was better, now see the dinosours would actually live (they found out that the nostril of a braceousour had the same size as a current day horse; the friction would be so intense hed start on fire) now see the dinosours during the flood would die off, and they would become extinct soon after. now the fossil record proves nothing much.
and btw... why do now in days dogs prduce dogs cats produce cats? they always produce the same kind of animal. why? maybe evolution has a certain point to where it is not true. if
th dinosours lived to be over 800-900 as the bible says, and its proven that reptiles never stop growing, then the dinosours are simply big lizzards. now its either dragon (i think it tis) that its meaning in the original greek or english means terrible lizzard.

now in saying this, you better read it not just the short stuff. (reffering to the oppositte debator).
Wait... did you just say that dinosaurs are dragons?

Life as we know it depends on the cell.

Key words bolded.

The assumption that the early life forms must have been different from life as we know it today is based only (as far as I can see) on the observation that it appears impossible for life as we know it to arise from non-life.

There you go misusing words again. The idea that early life forms must have been different from those we see today is a conclusion, not an assumption.

I would have expected the early life form to be less robust than the modern ones,

As a single form, it would have. A higher rate of mutation would have meant that more things died than lived - and only those that were mutated in an advantageous way would live. In this way, individual organisms and their offspring would not be very robust. However, with a high rate of mutation, there would most likely be some in every generation that survived and continued on. With very little around to compete, the low numbers would not have been the problem that they are now.

Thus DNA replication needed to be more precise, since there was less already-present mechanisms to help cope with a mutation, and to help the organism adjust to changing habitats. If you understand biochemistry, you will quickly see that everything has to be rather precise.

Actually, it is my understanding of biochemistry that rules out this idea. In a very complex system, very precise mechanisms are needed. However, even then, all sorts of weird little things happen on a regular basis. Sections of DNA copy themsleves into RNA and then reinsert themselves elsewhere in the genome. Genes are lost/altered in crossover. Point mutations occur and are never repaired.

Most mutations are not tolerated, and result in the weakening or death of the cell.

On the contrary, most mutations do nothing. They change little, if anything. In order to form a cancerous cell, for instance, a cell generally has to have at least five major mutations in important genes. The cell is much more resistant to mutation than you make out.

That is why it is even more important the the early life forms have precise replication because it would naturally be less able to adapt to its environment.

You forget the benefit of mutating fast with a changing environment. This is exactly how bacteria survive changing environments. Their rates of reproduction and mutation are so high that a large portion of their phenotype can change rather quickly - leading to something more fit for the current environment.

Actually, I think the so called 'higher' life forms are more able to incorporate foreign DNA. For example, you can shoot DNA into plant cells and expect that it gets incorporated into the genome.

This really isn't correct at all. You cannot shoot naked DNA into a plant or animal cell and expect it to incorporate into the genome. If you are lucky, you might get some that temporarily express the given gene that you have inserted. But, over time, the gene is broken down as it is not part of a chromosome. Now, if you encase it in a retrovirus, with the enzymes necessary to do so, then it will incorporate. Bacteria and some single-cell eukaryotes, like yeast, on the other hand, will incorporate naked DNA. They do so at a low rate, but not nearly as low as that of a more complex organism.

The state of being diploid (having two copies of each gene) gives an organism this advantage over being haploid.

Diploid and haploid only refer to eukaryotes.

Not necessarily. It is actually a similar process to the abiogenesis story. A scientists makes the assumption that there was an earlier life form that looked totally different from what we have today.

As I already pointed out, that is not an assumption, it is a conclusion. Evidence for that conclusion can be found today. Of course, like any conclusion, it can be changed if evidence points in another direction. There is a rather large difference.

And I know you think science is only allowed to name natural causes, so you don't have to repeat yourself.

I'll repeat myself until you stop completely twisting things. I didn't say I think science is "only allowed to name natural causes." I said that the logical process of the scientific method can only be applied to nature.

You sound like you know something of what it is like to be in love. Good for you. But I was not referring to that. I specifically said the unconditional self-sacrificing love that is known to humans, not necessarily what goes on between lovers.

I wasn't talking necessarily about what goes on between lovers either. That is a form of love, not the form of love.

My point is that this sort of love is within nature. Perhaps it also transcends it too. But that is not the point. Given that science is restricted to natural causes (as you have said so often) do you think it could make inroads on that sort of love. The question is whether mutations and natural selection can account for it, for according to your idea of science, they must, or we must discover some other natural cause.

You still have this strange idea that the process of science will explain everything there is to explain. It logically cannot, and that is not its purpose. Science can theorize about love. It can measure those things which can be measured in one who loves (although, in the end, the only way we know if someone is feeling love is to ask them). If we wanted to do a lot of unethical things, we could test the boundaries of love in a controlled environment. However, that does not mean that science could answer everything there is to know about love, any more than it can answer everything (or anything) there is to know about God.

At any rate, it is a bit irrelevant to our debate. If you really refused to use the word 'design', we would have to think of another one, like order, or form, or information. I suppose though, you could reject something like order, since it could imply an orderer. From then on, it would just get ridiculous.

Don't make ridiculous assumptions. A sentient "orderer" is not inherent in the definition of the word order. Such a "designer" is absolutely inherent in the definition of the word design.

And I have replied more than once that science makes assumptions that cannot be falsified.

You have yet to point one out. The few you have attempted have not been assumptions made by science at all.

Perhaps they can be potentially falsified. I think that is what you mean.

That is all that matters. When Einstein tested and proposed the theory of relativity, we did not yet have the technology necessary to continue to test and potentially falsify that theory. However, it was logically possible to do so. It is that possibility that matters. If something can possibly be falsified, then we can test it, and possibly falsify it.

A designer outside of nature, on the other hand, cannot be falsified under any circumstance. Since you have proposed something outside of nature, something you cannot measure, you can attribute any cause to them. No matter what the evidence demonstrates, you can say, "Well, that's the way the designer designed it."

How about the impossibility of trying to prove that something did not happen?

What about it? That is exactly what IDers are trying to do. They are saying, "We know of no natural causes that could have led to this. Therefore, no natural causes could have possibly led to this. We have proven that, so now we can say there is a designer."

I suppose I should assume that as an attempt at humour.

May as well be humorous, since you have invoked an example that does not fall within the bounds of evolutionary theory. Poodles didn't occur due to natural selection. They occurred do to human selection and inbreeding - causing all sorts of problems in them, as in all other purebred dogs.

But what I was getting at was that a poodle was less robust than a wolf because it has a more limited ability to adapt to numerous environments. For example, a wolf can live with a household, and have it's hair brushed every day, and eat meat out of a can. But a poodle would not survive in Siberia (probably get eaten pretty quick).

A toy poodle perhaps. A standard poodle would likely surive for a while. Of course, again, poodles of any sort are not the product of natural selection.

But suppose the poodle species was given a thousand generations to adapt to life in the wild.

There is no such thing as a poodle species.

As I explained previously, the analogy does work, IF the muderer is not present at the scene of the crime, or is hidden (undetectable) or does not exist.

By definition, the murderer is not undetectable. By definition, a designer outside of nature is.

Perhaps you, as a theistic evolutionist (if I have it right) would like to suggest just how God did contribute to us being here.

I don't claim to know how or what God did. I have my beliefs, but they are irrelevant to science, as they are just that - beliefs.

Then you may like to justify that against the current theories of science.

There is no need to justify belief in God or intervention from God against the current theories of science. By definition, God cannot be determined by science. In order to determine something about God, other methods must be used.

I am uncomfortable when people say we should separate science and religion. If they mean that we should leave religion out of science, and science out of religion, using the strictest definitions of science and religion, I would agree. It sounds like a fair call, and anyone who disagrees is generally considered odd.

Funny, considering that you have been disagreeing with that statement this entire thread.

But it would be impossible for someone who believed that God created humans (as humans) to leave God out of science.

That is a completely false statement. That is like saying, "You can't leave your mother out of your science." Well, guess what? I can. I can study what I am studying without even once involving my mother.

And for that matter, it is impossible for anyone who believes God had anything to do with us being here to leave him out of science (even the strictest theistic evolutionists accept that God made a contribution somewhere along the line).

Accepting that God made a contribution in your personal belief is very different from invoking that contribution in your science.

Thus, I agree with leaving religion out of science, but I cannot necessarily rule out God. Neither should anyone who wants to keep their minds open to the possibility that God was involved in any way.

No one is asking you to rule out God, my dear.

So I distinguish between God and religion. My view of God is that he is far bigger than religion. I suppose that is why my belief in God will always clash with your idea of science, for I refuse to allow that God had nothing more to do with nature than the big bang.

And here you were just arguing that one has to allow for everything. Go figure. There you go making unsupportable assumptions by automatically assuming that God didn't set things up and let them go.

Meanwhile, if what you meant was that you don't believe that God had nothing more to do with nature than the big bang, that is fine - no one is asking you to.

And if he has contributed, I feel that it should be detectable.

Should be, and is, just not by the methodology of science.

And this is really what it comes down to. Science is individuals in the act of pursuing knowledge. Individuals are not sterile clones, without bias.

Individuals are not without bias, this is true. It is also why scientists don't work in a vacuum. There is always someone else over your shoulder to point out your biases and how they have affected your work. Individuals may be biased, but the institution as a whole does not have to be.

But your ideal of science does not match very well with the real world, with the real people that make up science.

A group can be more than the individuals that are in it. Science is no different.

ok ive got to go to bed soon cuase im so tired and cant remember much of what ive been learning from kent hovind ( www.drdino.com ) so i have must got to get to bed sorry. ill be on tomaro to debate some more, telegram my country IN SIMPLER TERMS!!! sorry im kinda dull and am still in middle school.

(bare with me ive had a long day)
no, now think of it. if you find a bone and bring it to a court (although idk why youd do this?) and you say these bones are mans ancestors. a freshman law student could get up and say ' you dont know if that bone had any kids' what do you do then? see the flood is a pretty good explenation to my theory, see if the flood did happened then of course since humans are smarter, then wed be at the top of the 'geologic column'. see the fish would be last to now in days if were going by your assumsions. insects are still here of course. but if you read my post then i stated that the preflood world was better, now see the dinosours would actually live (they found out that the nostril of a braceousour had the same size as a current day horse; the friction would be so intense hed start on fire) now see the dinosours during the flood would die off, and they would become extinct soon after. now the fossil record proves nothing much.
and btw... why do now in days dogs prduce dogs cats produce cats? they always produce the same kind of animal. why? maybe evolution has a certain point to where it is not true. if
th dinosours lived to be over 800-900 as the bible says, and its proven that reptiles never stop growing, then the dinosours are simply big lizzards. now its either dragon (i think it tis) that its meaning in the original greek or english means terrible lizzard.

now in saying this, you better read it not just the short stuff. (reffering to the oppositte debator).


Now that is one fascinating load of sophistry.

Why would a single flood bury different species in miles of earth? Why wouldn't they all be together at the top?

How do you explain radiometric dating of fossils?

Are you saying that the tyrannsaurus Rex was just a really old common lizard? I'm sorry, I just realized that this is a waste of time. You really cannot be serious.

yes they didnt have the word dinosour til after they translated the king james version in the 1600's bye

ohh and btw most branches of science have been started by creationists;

Actually, very few have - and none have been started by those who were Creationists in their capacity as scientists.

Most branches of science were begun by those who believe in a creation - but then again, most scientists now believe in that as well.

Saw a good cartoon in the USA Today paper. A survey taker was asking a housewife if she believed in "intelligent design". The answer was "Yes, in automobiles".

yes they didnt have the word dinosour til after they translated the king james version in the 1600's bye
Right... just like the unicorn which is mentioned several times.

Numbers 23:22; 24:8; Deut. 33:17; Job 39:9,10; Psalms 22:21; 29:6; 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7

I'd like to print up a serious looking version of the bible but just plop in the tooth fairy every few hundred pages. I'd love to see the uproar and the dentists of the world would thank me.

ok let me say it this way... t h e r e w e r e d i f f e r e n t s p e c i e s b a c k be f o r e t h e f l o o d . do you understand? im tired, but even i know what i typed (that sounded dumb). so the t-rex was a differ species. now the flood was massive ok. now i cant debate you til youve at least read my post about the flood. cuase im not reexplaining. like it says in the postif the chambers had literaly tons of pressure and it rained for days and days, then the landscape would be changed, now another part i havent said yet is before the flood the 'preflood' world was mainly land (a little bit of water) ok. so the low spots filled in and the landscape would change thourolly. so youve got to read the other post to understand

you know what? im not debating an ignorant little person whos mocking me!! so bye forever.

I think that it should be taught in schools because a large majority of people do beleive in ID, it should be taught as one of the theorys.

you know what? im not debating an ignorant little person whos mocking me!! so bye forever.
Dude, how old are you?

Dude, how old are you?
Not quite old enough to figure out the shift key.

Not quite old enough to figure out the shift key.
I'm going to start asking for ages the next time I want to debate anything with anybody.

.... ok, no I won't.


But I want to.

I think this is bollocks, but thats because im an elitist atheist intelligent person educated in science (physics mostly), logic, philosophy, math, history and more than 3 languages. And i also read a lot.

I think they should teach this in school. The faster the population learns crap, the easier it will be for this society to crumble, because only a few people will know how things work. As so, there wont be enough people around to run this nation properly. This is going to be a nation of burger flippers, religious wackos, and i will have no qualms of leaving to a place where intelligence and knowledge is welcome.

Besides, in a nation where people are ignorant, the learned have an enormous advantage, so life will be easier for the educated people (like, educated in science, math, ... who become engineers, scientists, etc).

Besides, i think it would be hilarious if they do teach this. Imagine, this nation will become the laughing stock of the world.

One random thought that no-one seems to want to acknowledge, if their is an intellegent designer, who the heck said it had to be God? Its a big jump from the belief that someone smart created life to the belief that it was the Judeo-Christian God thats mentioned in the Bible, it could have been one of the other billions of God(s) or Godesses that are believed it, i dont think that you need to give the credit for life on earth to God if you dont want too (he gets enough credit as is really),

my prodestant work ethic says that it makes sense that something this well made was made by somethings that worked, but why should i believe that it was 'The Lord God Almighty', it could be some random God that no one actually believes in any more,

no one knows what the 'first' ever religion was, (if you aren't so dogmatic in your beliefs that reason is totally ignored) so following that thought logically we would have lost the knowledge of the intellegent designer, or possibily that mankind has never truly understood the divinity thats the architect and constructer of 'realility' so maybe we could just accept that their might be 'something' out their, let people believe in what they like and accept that maybe some people are right but that we can never be 100% sure untill we get 'their' (wherever 'their' is) so live in some kind of peace?

Would save a whole lot of reigious warfare...terror, genocide, torture, hate... all things that i think that this 'grand designer' wouldnt approve of... *sigh* i hope other people begin to see the bigger pricture..

My grandparents fled northern Ireland (Poms please go home!) and ive followed the Northern Ireland saga my whole life, i see that it would be a whole lot easier if people stopped being petty and accepted difference, i believe it was Jesus who said to 'Love one Another'...


p.s. Tyrannosaurus Rex
Tyranno - Terrible (Tyrant is derived from this)
Saurus - Lizard
Rex - King

ok let me say it this way... t h e r e w e r e d i f f e r e n t s p e c i e s b a c k be f o r e t h e f l o o d . do you understand? im tired, but even i know what i typed (that sounded dumb). so the t-rex was a differ species. now the flood was massive ok. now i cant debate you til youve at least read my post about the flood. cuase im not reexplaining. like it says in the postif the chambers had literaly tons of pressure and it rained for days and days, then the landscape would be changed, now another part i havent said yet is before the flood the 'preflood' world was mainly land (a little bit of water) ok. so the low spots filled in and the landscape would change thourolly. so youve got to read the other post to understand

So you just assume there was a flood when you have little actual proof (indeed, such an event is completely contradicted by everything we know about geology) of such an event?

In fact, here's a simple calculation:

Wait, someone is talking about the flood again?

Bah, I have to do my calculations AGAIN >_<

I thought the last time I did it would be enough to convince any fool that the flood is impossible without explicit divine intervention in the form of some rather hefty miracles.

NOTE: All numbers I use are common knowledge, something you can find on the web easily, unless I state otherwise, in which case I will either provide the calculation or a link to the calculation that I used to achieve the number.

Ok, as we know, there are 1.35882728 × 10^18 cubic meters of water on the Earth, spread between surface water, water vapor in the atmosphere, and ground water. This amount of water is indeed impressive, it's several hundred million trillion gallons.

However, the Earth herself is a big thing, she has a diameter of 12,756,300 meters. Also don't forget that this is only at sea level, since most other differences are negligable, but let us include them anyway, since the biblical flood claims all mountain tops were covered to a height of fifteen cubits, or about 7 meters.

Mount Everest is the tallest mountain on the planet, topping out at 8,850 m. It would be wise to add in those 7 meters, but let us be generous to our bewildered friends, the flood "geologists" and try and account for the fact that this was thousands of years ago and use a round figure of 8,800 m. We add this into the known diameter of 12,756,300 meters and we get 12,765,100 meters.

Now, this means that the flood waters would need to cover the partial volume of a sphere with radius 6,382,550 m and an exclusion at 6,378,150 m. All we need to do is find the volume of both spheres and then find the difference between them to get the volume of the partial sphere.

The equation for the volume of a sphere is 4πr^3/3.

For the larger sphere, we take the cube of the radius, which comes out to 2.60005 x 10^20, multiply this by four times π, or 12.5663 (roughly), which comes out to 3.26732 x 10^21. We then divide this total by 3, which ends us up with a volume of the larger sphere of 1.089108848 x 10^21 cubic meters.

We go through the same process for the smaller sphere:

4π(6,378,150)^3/3
4π(2.59468 x 10^20)/3
12.5663(2.59468 x 10^20)/3
3.26057 x 10^21/3
1.0868579725 x 10^21

which leaves us with 1.086857972 x 10^21 cubic meters (I'll refer to this as m3 from now on so I don't have to type out cubic meters all the time).

Then it's a simple matter of subtraction:

1.089108848 x 10^21 - 1.086857972 x 10^21
2.250876 x 10^18

which means the total volume the waters have to had covered was 2.250876 x 10^18 m3.

Since we know how much water there is on the Earth and that there isn't enough to cover this area, there is obviously missing water. But how much missing water? Well, let's find the difference.

2.250876 x 10^18 - 1.35882728 x 10^18
8.9204872 x 10^17

Meaning there is 8.9204872 x 10^17 m3 of water missing, that is 892,048,720,000,000,000 m3 of water that doesn't exist on Earth anymore.


Where would all that water go? Did it get blasted off into space? Did you know that that much water leaving the atmosphere would, by air friction alone, be enough to superheat the atmosphere and flash-burn the ark, Noah, and all his little animal-pairs?

very good point.

This, i hope, qualifies as another.

What about intelligent design theory?

I hope that Wendy Nothcutt doesn't mind me taking her words and using them on NationStates...

This is from The Darwin Awards II book by Wendy Northcutt

Religious critics of evolution champion creationism--the idea that a literal interpretation of the bible offers a more accurate account of human origins than does Darwininian theory. (skipping 2 paragraphs)

Critics of Darwinism have increasingly hard-pressed to support their objections. Enter Intelligent Design theory, or IDT. This "theory" was not brought to light in a reputable scientific journal, but rather by a self-described "intelligent design think tank" in Washington called The Discovery Institute. They argue that extremely complex systems, such as those with multiple interrelated parts like the lens and retina of an eye, or wings and feathers, could not have arisen spontaneously--and therefore must be the work of a supernaturally powerful designer.

After all, a watch doesn't repair itself.

Hypothesis (n) A attentive explanation for an observation that can be tested by further investigation.

Theory (n) A explanation for a set of facts that has been repeatedly tested, is widely accepted, and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Irreducible complexity is the cornerstone of IDT. They are referring to complexity too mind-boggling to have been created from infrequent random genetic mutations shaped by the pull of natural selection over billions of years—features that are obviously irreducibly complex and thus cannot have occlude without intelligent intervention.

At what point does one decide that a feature is irreducibly complex, proving that an unimaginably intelligent designer intervened? How do we know that human eyes, for example, are too complex to have evolved but for the intervention of an “intelligent designer”? Scientists can formulate persuasive explanations for the development of the eye, beginning as a light-sensitive patch of cells, but even the best attempts to explain any given complex system cannot disprove IDT.

The problem the idea of irreducible complexity is that it is not testable. And the cornerstone of science is that a hypothesis must be testable in order to determine how well it fits the facts. Because IDT is not testable, it will never achieve acceptance as a scientific theory.

The idea of an intelligent designer is alluring to those who believe in a literal interpretation of theological texts. But IDT cannot compete with the theory of evolution, an explanation for the diversity of life that is supported by extensive probing from the scientific community, and the contents of a vast experimental knowledge base.

Because it is not testable, the latest version of creationism—Intelligent Design Theory—is any thing but.

BTW: This is from the Book “The Darwin Awards: Volume 2”

ok ive got to go to bed soon cuase im so tired and cant remember much of what ive been learning from kent hovind ( www.drdino.com ) so i have must got to get to bed sorry. ill be on tomaro to debate some more, telegram my country IN SIMPLER TERMS!!! sorry im kinda dull and am still in middle school.

Oh noooooooooo :headbang:

Sorry but you just invalidated yourself. Kent Hovind is a crank and a liar.

If that is your evidence then there is nothing to discuss anymore......

One random thought that no-one seems to want to acknowledge, if their is an intellegent designer, who the heck said it had to be God? Its a big jump from the belief that someone smart created life to the belief that it was the Judeo-Christian God thats mentioned in the Bible, it could have been one of the other billions of God(s) or Godesses that are believed it, i dont think that you need to give the credit for life on earth to God if you dont want too (he gets enough credit as is really),


Well dembowski is an orthedox Christian and I really have a hard time beliving they will really belive somebody else was involved.

Of the four major forces pushing for this(as in published) 3 are christians and the 4th is a moonie(go figure)...

The question of God can't be proven or disproven so you don't ask.

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

ID is nothing more then the creationists trying to force God back into science again. Faith based arguments have no place.....

I think we better split this one.

About fossils:
(bare with me ive had a long day)
no, now think of it. if you find a bone and bring it to a court (although idk why youd do this?) and you say these bones are mans ancestors. a freshman law student could get up and say ' you dont know if that bone had any kids' what do you do then?


A scientist wouldn't think that specifically those bones belonged to the exact individual animal from which humanity derived, and no one in their serious mind would believe that that's what he means. What it means is that the bones come from an animal from the same species from which humanity derived.

Why would a scientist think that? They look at several things, like the hip bones, femurs, and teeth to find whether the fossil shares those characteristics with living species. Chimps, humans, and gorillas have differences that permit to tell their bones apart from each other. That's how they can say that such or such bones come from a human ancestor.


see the flood is a pretty good explenation to my theory, see if the flood did happened then of course since humans are smarter, then wed be at the top of the 'geologic column'. see the fish would be last to now in days if were going by your assumsions. insects are still here of course.

It would be, if it weren't for the fact that dinosaurs came in all sizes, from the giant ones you see in the museums to some no bigger than cats, some even lived in water, some flew, some lived on trees. If the flood had taken place, the smaller dinos could have gotten to higher ground and appear at higher strata. But that's not the case.

Why would the elephant and crocodile survive the flood and not the relatively small deinonychus? Noah was supposed to take one pair of each, after all.


and btw... why do now in days dogs prduce dogs cats produce cats? they always produce the same kind of animal. why? maybe evolution has a certain point to where it is not true. if


You need a very long time under stressful circumstances for speciation to happen. It just doesn't happen one day.


th dinosours lived to be over 800-900 as the bible says, and its proven that reptiles never stop growing, then the dinosours are simply big lizzards. now its either dragon (i think it tis) that its meaning in the original greek or english means terrible lizzard.


There are too many differences between dinosaurs and lizards, they weren't mere reptiles. In the absence of predators after the extinction of dinosaurs, some species of crocodile reached huge dimensions, about 15 - 20 m in length; and their fossils are clearly different to dinosaurs. Finally, some dinosaur fossils show growth rings, pretty much like mammals and birds, and a definite growth limit. The T-rex even underwent a teenage spurt.

The word is "dinosaur" from the greek "terrible lizard" because at first they thought they were reptiles.

Of the four major forces pushing for this(as in published) 3 are christians and the 4th is a moonie(go figure)...

Moonies... hmmm. Do you mean these guys?

Inignot: You and your third dimension.

Frylock: What about it?

Inignot: Oh, nothing, it's cute. We have five.
[Pause]
Err: Thousand.

Inignot: Yes, five thousand.

Err: Don't question it.

Frylock: Oh, yeah? Well, I only see two.

Inignot: Well, that sounds like a personal problem.

I think that it should be taught in schools because a large majority of people do beleive in ID, it should be taught as one of the theorys.

(a) A large majority do not believe in ID. ID is a minority opinion, even among laypersons.

(b) One cannot teach a lay-theory (ID) as a scientific theory in a science class. You want to teach it in a world religions class or a philosophy class -that's fine. But keep to science in the science classroom.

(a) A large majority do not believe in ID. ID is a minority opinion, even among laypersons.

(b) One cannot teach a lay-theory (ID) as a scientific theory in a science class. You want to teach it in a world religions class or a philosophy class -that's fine. But keep to science in the science classroom.
Sometimes I read the things you write and wonder if you are not me.

The fact they bring one up suggests they think he already exists.



I'm going to use an example to illustrate a point. Consider the possibility that a bunch of scientist could get together and design a virus, from scratch. Sure, they can use the ideas from other virsuses already living, but every part of their new virus was designed and built from scratch (amino acids and single nucleotides). That virus proves to be rather successful. Then it escapes to the environment, and successfully adapts to its environment.

Then, several years later, a bunch of scientists (who have never heard about the escaped virus) isolate what they think is a new virus (which happens to be our human designed virus). They happen to have some collegues who are IDers. The IDers investigate the information within this virus (i.e. genes and proteins). They come to the conclusion that this information could not have arisen from randomness using natural causes. They feel that it points to a designer, based on their process of information analysis. They don't realize that the designer was a bunch of scientists. And since the information they have doesn't tell them who the designer was, they are not required to say anything more about the designer. They have only concluded that there must have been one. They have used their observations to show that the information was designed, but they are not invoking unnatural causes, since the designer scientists would be considered part of the natural causes, as opposed to supernatural causes. It may be possible for them to falsify their conclusions, although, admittedly, I do not know enough about their processes to defend that comment. I don't know how they could show that a virus cannot evolve from randomness, but perhaps they could demonstrate that a virus could have been designed by humans.

I hope this demonstrates more clearly the process of ID.

Of course, someone is going to raise the point that it is a bit obvious that all of life could not have been designed by a bunch of scientists, and that it would be sensible to think that the designer was God (or some supernatural equivalent). Perhaps that is true, but this is not the role of ID. They cannot tell us about the designer. Thus, the assumption that the designer is supernatural comes from ones common sense, not from science.


"Information systems" again. Nice phrase. Just like the Scientoligists talk about "technology" they have created.


If you think that naturalistic evolutionists haven't invented their own phrases, I suggest you need to read a little more.


To suggest an informational system is invalid as such as system is not the same for each invidual, plant, etc.


The information system is simply the genome. Within the genome is the information required for life. The information is organised, for example, to ensure the development of an embryo to an adult. Inbuilt within this system of development is an anticipation, e.g., the genome of a baby anticipates that as the baby grows older, it will not rely only on the mother's milk, and thus grows things like teeth, necessary for extracting nutrients from solid food. Of course each species has variation in its informational system. How does that make it invalid?


Problem is there is evidence that suggests the abiogensis theory. There is NOTHING that suggests GOD was in play.


Assuming self-polymerising RNA molecules suggest abiogenesis is a bit like saying a rhinocerous horn suggests pink unicorns, only about 1000 times worse. Perhaps we don't have anything within science that can be shown to prove the existence of God (yet?), but depending on how you look at it, there is an awful lot that fits. Personally, I find it simply incredible that here we are today, thinking, breathing, debating, capable of faith, and it just happens to fit in with the religious idea that God made the world where people would be able to think, breath, debate, and have faith. What makes it kind of 'spooky' is that this religious concept was around long before modern science. And now that modern science tells us how critical the conditions of this world is for life, that it somehow fits perfectly....I find that a better suggestion for God than some scrambled RNA molecules for abiogenesis. But I realize that I am biased.


That is Stephen Hawkings and Richard Dawkins.


Right. I stand corrected. I'm frequently mixing up their names.


Playing fair has nothing to do with it. Bad Science is the introduction of faith based arguments. You can't prove of disprove the existence of God.


I explained earlier how ID does NOT introduce faith. It introduces a concept of a designer, who may or may not be supernatural. It is only common sense that assumes it to be a supernatural designer.



You leave out one major issue. Human envolment in that extinction. Are they less robost because they were hunted out of existence(ie. Mrs. Waldrens Colobus)?


Admittedly, humans have caused a good deal of extinction. But I was not referring to the case of deliberate hunting, but where, for example, the climate is changing, or the habitate changes too rapidly. I doubt you can demonstrate that humans are hunting our corals out of extinction, even though humans have probably contributed to its demise.



That is a rather simplistic analogy. The devil is in the details. If it is indeed a murder then there is evidence to suggest he was there(ie spent shells), prints, tracks, etc.


I'm glad you can see my point.


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


The promotors of naturalistic causes set out to explain how all of life today is possible without the interference of God. I never said that they are trying to disprove God. I said that they are looking for a way to make him unnecessary.


Until you can come up with a test to prove his involvement. It remains a philosophical question with is not science.


ID can only demonstrate a designer, not a supernatural designer. God is not involved at that point.


Then as a "scientist" go out and find that proof instead of trying to force ID into the science classroom.


I'm not forcing ID into the classroom. However, I'm not opposed to the idea. I would like to see teenagers making up their own minds. It would be great to see a class of kids debating it, much in the same way that we are. I actually think it would raise the interest in science for many kids. I often feel that the naturalistic evolutionists are keen to keep it away from the kids until they have been 'indoctrinated' enough to prevent them from considering it. If the initial introduction to science deliberately ignores one side of the debate, it becomes similar to indoctrination.



Acutally if Demp was outside the real world then why are you IDers all bitching? If you were the dominant thought then evolution would have been tossed already.


Dem has a very definite idealistic idea of science. But I'm not convinced that she has clearly separated the scientific process from the scientific community. The scientific process cannot address the issue of the supernatural, but the scientific community cannot avoid the issue of the supernatural.

Who says we are bitching? Is that what you call the side of the debate that you don't agree with?

I can accept is as another theory but I don't believe in it.

For me, this is only a part of the religious craze that travel across the USA these days.

After all, in the sixties a theory said that Jesus Christ was a mushroom... :D You see, craze.

I can accept is as another theory but I don't believe in it.

For me, this is only a part of the religious craze that travel across the USA these days.

After all, in the sixties a theory said that Jesus Christ was a mushroom... :D You see, craze.

It only fits the common usage of the word 'theory', not the scientific definiton of the word. ID attempts to pick holes in evolutionary theory, but does not provide a testable alternative. If ID was successful in disproving evolution, there would simply be NO theory to explain the diversity of species. That's the argument for ID not being taught in classrooms. However, I think the debates we have here shows that ID can be useful for explaining the philosophy of science. In my opinion, scientific facts are understood by many people but the philosophy of science is very poorly understood, even by a lot of scientists.

It only fits the common usage of the word 'theory', not the scientific definiton of the word. ID attempts to pick holes in evolutionary theory, but does not provide a testable alternative. If ID was successful in disproving evolution, there would simply be NO theory to explain the diversity of species. That's the argument for ID not being taught in classrooms. However, I think the debates we have here shows that ID can be useful for explaining the philosophy of science. In my opinion, scientific facts are understood by many people but the philosophy of science is very poorly understood, even by a lot of scientists.

Look, when I say that I accept it as a theory I mean that if somebody wants to believe in ID, he can; and if somebody wants to believe in Zeus throwing a ray and humans borning inside of it, he can.

But I add that I don't believe it, for the reasons you subsequently post.

BTW, Is true that notices of the building of a museum based on ID?

Originally Posted by Flood Calc
"Wait, someone is talking about the flood again?

Bah, I have to do my calculations AGAIN >_<

I thought the last time I did it would be enough to convince any fool that the flood is impossible without explicit divine intervention in the form of some rather hefty miracles.

NOTE: All numbers I use are common knowledge, something you can find on the web easily, unless I state otherwise, in which case I will either provide the calculation or a link to the calculation that I used to achieve the number.

Ok, as we know, there are 1.35882728 × 10^18 cubic meters of water on the Earth, spread between surface water, water vapor in the atmosphere, and ground water. This amount of water is indeed impressive, it's several hundred million trillion gallons.

However, the Earth herself is a big thing, she has a diameter of 12,756,300 meters. Also don't forget that this is only at sea level, since most other differences are negligable, but let us include them anyway, since the biblical flood claims all mountain tops were covered to a height of fifteen cubits, or about 7 meters.

Mount Everest is the tallest mountain on the planet, topping out at 8,850 m. It would be wise to add in those 7 meters, but let us be generous to our bewildered friends, the flood "geologists" and try and account for the fact that this was thousands of years ago and use a round figure of 8,800 m. We add this into the known diameter of 12,756,300 meters and we get 12,765,100 meters.

Now, this means that the flood waters would need to cover the partial volume of a sphere with radius 6,382,550 m and an exclusion at 6,378,150 m. All we need to do is find the volume of both spheres and then find the difference between them to get the volume of the partial sphere.

The equation for the volume of a sphere is 4πr^3/3.

For the larger sphere, we take the cube of the radius, which comes out to 2.60005 x 10^20, multiply this by four times π, or 12.5663 (roughly), which comes out to 3.26732 x 10^21. We then divide this total by 3, which ends us up with a volume of the larger sphere of 1.089108848 x 10^21 cubic meters.

We go through the same process for the smaller sphere:

4π(6,378,150)^3/3
4π(2.59468 x 10^20)/3
12.5663(2.59468 x 10^20)/3
3.26057 x 10^21/3
1.0868579725 x 10^21

which leaves us with 1.086857972 x 10^21 cubic meters (I'll refer to this as m3 from now on so I don't have to type out cubic meters all the time).

Then it's a simple matter of subtraction:

1.089108848 x 10^21 - 1.086857972 x 10^21
2.250876 x 10^18

which means the total volume the waters have to had covered was 2.250876 x 10^18 m3.

Since we know how much water there is on the Earth and that there isn't enough to cover this area, there is obviously missing water. But how much missing water? Well, let's find the difference.

2.250876 x 10^18 - 1.35882728 x 10^18
8.9204872 x 10^17

Meaning there is 8.9204872 x 10^17 m3 of water missing, that is 892,048,720,000,000,000 m3 of water that doesn't exist on Earth anymore."


[Sigh] With these calculations you of course assume that the earth's biosphere and landscape are the exact same today as it was before the flood. Most ID scientists believe that before the flood, the world was less mountainous, and the "mountains" that did exist were only hills in today' world. if this were true, then there need be no missing water, and the world could have easily been covered by the waters which are now in the ocean (and in the earth's crust).

Also, it says in the Bible that the waters were divided by God by a "firmament." It says the birds flew in the firmament, so this must be the sky/atmosphere. If this was true, then several things would happen.

1)The air pressure would increase.

With this increase in air pressure, the dinosaurs can now breath. (They are now believed to have nostrils the size of a horse's, and therefore could not survive in todays world at that size.) The insects and flora would grow to be enormous by today's standards. Also, with these hyperebaric conditions, wounds would heal faster, and many diseases would be kept at bay (in the least). Also, we would be able to run for a very long time, and tire very slowly.

I will continue later, as I currently must leave to go to the bank and a restaraunt.

you also have to remember that there are also way more ice caps in our post-flood world too. now the world is wobbling slightly, indicating that there must have been a pretty big hit on earth.now, the mamoths are found with food still in their: A. mouth and B. stomache so we must find out how long it takes to freeze a mamoth without letting the food rot. Kent Hovind called some people. now the food would start to rota little bit after say 5-6 hours. so how cold could it have been to freeze the big hippy elephants in 5 hours? -300 degrees. now in our world today it only gets to -100 or a little less. that means something cold must have past by us, maybe we went thru the tail of a comet, comets reach to be about -300 or much colder. now you see, if we passed thru the tail end of a comet we might wobble, now the mamoths would freeze fast and, also, the water from the flood would start to retract, it would suck into the massive glaciers we see today. and also, the terrain back then could have been very low, so the amount of water would be less, like i said in my other post, the massive underground chambers erupted, the water in the fermament fell (not all at once) so youd have a lot of water.

well im back but if you ask me to repeat anything ill just tell you to read my post.

see the preflood world could also be what you call a massive continent. not pangea, much bigger!! back then there werent much oceans mainly just ponds and lakes, and on the world, on this massive continent, there would be plants like crazy (which reminds me: how would you explain upside-down trees? or the fact that they found camels in the arctic?) massive plants. now during the flood, people, animals, and so on would get covered and squished, the heat and pressure gave us gas (natural and all that), and coal. now that solves another problem for creationists trying to prove the bible.

Also, with these hyperebaric conditions,
Ozone is poisonous, kid. Try again, this time without Carl Baugh's bullshit.

or the fact that they found camels in the arctic?)
Continental drift.

Sorry about not dealing with the rest, but I'm in a bad mood, and I don't want to get even more annoyed.

Oh noooooooooo :headbang:

Sorry but you just invalidated yourself. Kent Hovind is a crank and a liar.

If that is your evidence then there is nothing to discuss anymore......



now if your saying hes a lier then most of evolutionists are liers too. what did Kent Hovind lie about? (ohh and btw its not all of his theory its many credible creationist scientists). what he hurt your theory? made more sense of creationism? put down evolution? or maybe he simply lied about creationism being right and your theory being wrong. sorry bud but evolution is not testible in itself. we cant test that a dog will produce a non dog. so this could be a belief or a theory, not a science. if you call evolution a science then so is creationism. theyre both theories except that the bible is proven right more then the evolution theory.

now i believe in evolution to a certain point (if you call this evolution), dogs can produce dogs (different varieties) they always produce a dog, maybe different species but the same kind of animal.

you also have to remember that there are also way more ice caps in our post-flood world too. now the world is wobbling slightly, indicating that there must have been a pretty big hit on earth.now, the mamoths are found with food still in their: A. mouth and B. stomache so we must find out how long it takes to freeze a mamoth without letting the food rot. Kent Hovind called some people. now the food would start to rota little bit after say 5-6 hours. so how cold could it have been to freeze the big hippy elephants in 5 hours? -300 degrees. now in our world today it only gets to -100 or a little less. that means something cold must have past by us, maybe we went thru the tail of a comet, comets reach to be about -300 or much colder. now you see, if we passed thru the tail end of a comet we might wobble, now the mamoths would freeze fast and, also, the water from the flood would start to retract, it would suck into the massive glaciers we see today. and also, the terrain back then could have been very low, so the amount of water would be less, like i said in my other post, the massive underground chambers erupted, the water in the fermament fell (not all at once) so youd have a lot of water.

well im back but if you ask me to repeat anything ill just tell you to read my post.

So we passed through the tail of a comet that (according to your own data) drop the temperature in the polar regions by 200 degrees (farenheit i assume as -300C is below absolute zero). And then the earths surface rapidly rose and fell all over the place to give us our more 'extreme' geography? That about right?

Ok so my general fields of study were biological not in the realms of geology and physics but i'll give this a crack none-the-less.
A) Passing through the tail of a comet would have little effect on global temperatures. If anything it would INCREASE the temperature due to particles entering the atmosphere and creating heat via friction.
B) Comet particles would ADD to the total amount of water on earth as comets are basically a "dirty snowball".
C) If the earths surface changed as rapidly as you suggest there would be a great deal of geological evidence to support this. Also the geological community would have this widely published. As far as i am aware this is not the case (any true geologists feel free to correct me).
D) your original premise is incorrect anyway. The mammoth story is greatly exaggerated. So i dont have to plagerise and you can get greater detail than i can be bothered to give go to: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC361_2.html

EDIT:
E) If the temperature did as you claimed and dropped 200ish degrees in the polar regions it would be reasonable to assume that the rest of the earth underwent a similar experience.... We should find globably distributed evidence of this too. But dont. And if this did occur it would wipe out most of the species on earth, ark bound or not. And thus to diversify the planet with the number of species we have today from the low number of species that could possibly have survived such an incident would require evolution at a rate many times greater than evolutionists claim.

Ozone is poisonous, kid. Try again, this time without Carl Baugh's bullshit.

id like to see my brothers post as to get a better understanding of what he said before i start to disprove you, btw Carl Buagh is one of the major flood scientists and hes one out of three scientists im basing my theorys on.

what did Kent Hovind lie about?
He claims to have a PhD. He doesn't. 'Patriot University' is a bloody degree mill.
He doesn't know that the sun undergoes nuclear fusion. He thinks it's actually on fire.
He claims to have been a science teacher. He's not.
He claims that Lucy was a chimpanzee. Anyone who looks at her skeleton knows that this isn't the case.
Ah, what the hell. 300+ lies by Kent Hovind, as shown by Buddika (http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pier/1766/hovindlies/)

id like to see my brothers post as to get a better understanding of what he said before i start to disprove you, btw Carl Buagh is one of the major flood scientists and hes one out of three scientists im basing my theorys on.
Listen. Hyperbaric conditions refer to conditions with ozone instead of molecular oxygen. Ozone is extremely poisonous. It's simple. Hyberbaric conditions kill, not help. This was actually pointed out to Baugh, because he was ready to live in a hyperbaric chamber. He canceled it once he realized that it would kill him.

So we passed through the tail of a comet that (according to your own data) drop the temperature in the polar regions by 200 degrees (farenheit i assume as -300C is below absolute zero). And then the earths surface rapidly rose and fell all over the place to give us our more 'extreme' geography? That about right?

Ok so my general fields of study were biological not in the realms of geology and physics but i'll give this a crack none-the-less.
A) Passing through the tail of a comet would have little effect on global temperatures. If anything it would INCREASE the temperature due to particles entering the atmosphere and creating heat via friction.
B) Comet particles would ADD to the total amount of water on earth as comets are basically a "dirty snowball".
C) If the earths surface changed as rapidly as you suggest there would be a great deal of geological evidence to support this. Also the geological community would have this widely published. As far as i am aware this is not the case (any true geologists feel free to correct me).
D) your original premise is incorrect anyway. The mammoth story is greatly exaggerated. So i dont have to plagerise and you can get greater detail than i can be bothered to give go to: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC361_2.html

did i say that the comet had changed our geography? i simply said how cold it could have gotten.
see, the flood would change the geography pretty intensely. mountains would come from the movment of the completley soft ground and plates (i forgot the term).
no it isnt. they find frozen mamoths with food still in their mouths and not rotten. and they also find huge clams on top of these pretty tall moutains. elplain that one.

this is what i saw on the tv, explained by some good scientists:
20 billion years ago the earth came from a big bang!! (did you know that some of the galxies and planets are spinning in opposite directions, explain that)
4.6bya the earth formed out of particals
a couple million years later:
a mars size planet thing hits the earth
all the magma and rocks that lew of the earth (and btw, if this happened our earth would either be: flat, separated, and/or demolished)
25myl the moons forms.

now they find radio polonium halos in he rox.they tested the rox they were like, 4.6billion yo, and they test the halos over and over again, to find out it doesnt form in heat but goes away. now you see the world couldnt of formed by lava (and btw how does dust form into everything we see today? it doesnt form water thats for sure.)

Listen. Hyperbaric conditions refer to conditions with ozone instead of molecular oxygen. Ozone is extremely poisonous. It's simple. Hyberbaric conditions kill, not help. This was actually pointed out to Baugh, because he was ready to live in a hyperbaric chamber. He canceled it once he realized that it would kill him.

so what your saying is that pressurized air and almost pure oxygen kills? wow then Kent Hovind is dead!!! and all we see is an illusion produced by our minds to keep creationism alive, or is it that i SAW HIM IN PERSON?!?!?!?!?!
see he stayed in hyperbaric conditions for a little bit he even went to a resuarant. so is he did yet?

So we passed through the tail of a comet that (according to your own data) drop the temperature in the polar regions by 200 degrees (farenheit i assume as -300C is below absolute zero). And then the earths surface rapidly rose and fell all over the place to give us our more 'extreme' geography? That about right?

Ok so my general fields of study were biological not in the realms of geology and physics but i'll give this a crack none-the-less.
A) Passing through the tail of a comet would have little effect on global temperatures. If anything it would INCREASE the temperature due to particles entering the atmosphere and creating heat via friction.
B) Comet particles would ADD to the total amount of water on earth as comets are basically a "dirty snowball".
C) If the earths surface changed as rapidly as you suggest there would be a great deal of geological evidence to support this. Also the geological community would have this widely published. As far as i am aware this is not the case (any true geologists feel free to correct me).
D) your original premise is incorrect anyway. The mammoth story is greatly exaggerated. So i dont have to plagerise and you can get greater detail than i can be bothered to give go to: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC361_2.html

EDIT:
E) If the temperature did as you claimed and dropped 200ish degrees in the polar regions it would be reasonable to assume that the rest of the earth underwent a similar experience.... We should find globably distributed evidence of this too. But dont. And if this did occur it would wipe out most of the species on earth, ark bound or not. And thus to diversify the planet with the number of species we have today from the low number of species that could possibly have survived such an incident would require evolution at a rate many times greater than evolutionists claim.

we do find some evidence for a specific region of an ice age.

:) :) :) i gtg yall see you later :) :) :)

so what your saying is that pressurized air and almost pure oxygen kills? wow then Kent Hovind is dead!!! and all we see is an illusion produced by our minds to keep creationism alive, or is it that i SAW HIM IN PERSON?!?!?!?!?!
see he stayed in hyperbaric conditions for a little bit he even went to a resuarant. so is he did yet?
Pure oxygen does kill. And for the third goddamn time, hyperbaric conditions refer to ozone. Ozone! Hovind lied again. There are no restaurants in hyperbaric conditions.

did i say that the comet had changed our geography? i simply said how cold it could have gotten.
see, the flood would change the geography pretty intensely. mountains would come from the movment of the completley soft ground and plates (i forgot the term).
no it isnt. they find frozen mamoths with food still in their mouths and not rotten. and they also find huge clams on top of these pretty tall moutains. elplain that one.

this is what i saw on the tv, explained by some good scientists:
20 billion years ago the earth came from a big bang!! (did you know that some of the galxies and planets are spinning in opposite directions, explain that)
4.6bya the earth formed out of particals
a couple million years later:
a mars size planet thing hits the earth
all the magma and rocks that lew of the earth (and btw, if this happened our earth would either be: flat, separated, and/or demolished)
25myl the moons forms.

now they find radio polonium halos in he rox.they tested the rox they were like, 4.6billion yo, and they test the halos over and over again, to find out it doesnt form in heat but goes away. now you see the world couldnt of formed by lava (and btw how does dust form into everything we see today? it doesnt form water thats for sure.)

You didnt say that the comet caused the changes in geography. But you did state that "the terrain back then could have been very low". Hence you DID claim a change (for whatever reason) in global geological formations. Hence my point about the lack of geological evidence of a rapid and violent upheavel still stands as valid.

Secondly, the forzen mammoth story IS exaggerated. And even if it weren't frozen mammoths would in no way prove a global flood.
Clams on mountains would be due to the fact that many of these mountains started out at sea level. Just because it didnt happen in a 40day-40night time frame does not mean it doesnt happen. Talk to your neighbourhood geologist and he should be able to give you a much better explanation than i am qualified to give.

Retrograde rotation of planets has been covered so much within the scientific community that this really isnt worth replying too. Google it and you'll have more information than you can poke a stick at. To accept that as proof of creationism or a flood or whatever without doing even the slightest bit of research into scientific explanations that are freely, and easily, available is just plain lazy.

Collisions between protoplanets is expected in the nebular hypothesis for solar system formation. Earth most likely was 'demolished' and/or greatly disfigured many times in its formation. However gravitation accreation explains your issue rather nicely.

water = hydrogen + oxygen. Insert a myriad chemical reactions between various substances around at the time we are referring too and you've got water. water also comes from comets (as mentioned earlier). Various sources no worries. Its much more difficult to get the amount of water you're talking about for the flood to magically appear and disappear in 40 days without killing everything on the planet through simple heat exchange.

Again, to refer you to http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF201.html for your polonium haloes.

Pure oxygen does kill. And for the third goddamn time, hyperbaric conditions refer to ozone. Ozone! Hovind lied again. There are no restaurants in hyperbaric conditions.

I dont think theres much point trying to argue with the bobsville.

Maybe he could do with some pure oxygen for a while. See how he likes it. Or give him a nice tangy whiff of ozone. Or put him in a decompression chamber for more than a week and see how healthy he feels.

He should really get familiar with the concept of partial pressures.

If you believe that science is not worthwhile then lobby to get it removed or completely optional (though I will laugh when I see the employment and collage acceptance rates for those that select or are forced to not take science classes)

I think that science is ver worthwhile, i just get ticked, when science a supposedly nuetral source, at least it's supposd to be, only teaches one side of the story, evolution, which is a theory just as much as id, as fact instead of being unbiast and teaching both sides.

I think they should teach this in school. The faster the population learns crap, the easier it will be for this society to crumble..
lol :)

I think that science is ver worthwhile, i just get ticked, when science a supposedly nuetral source, at least it's supposd to be, only teaches one side of the story, evolution, which is a theory just as much as id, as fact instead of being unbiast and teaching both sides.
There is a reason that science classes don't teach ID. That reason is that ID is an untestable hypothesis, and outside the realm of science. Unless someone can come up with a test that works 100% of the time to prove whether something was designed by an intelligence or not, and prove that it always works, we can't test whether there is or is not a designer.

On the other hand, at least parts of evolution are verifiably true in experiments (novel traits appearing, natural selection, etc), and the rest of it is inferred from the bits which are true. It may be the case that we aren't entirely sure that evolution occurs, but it is assumed based on fact, as opposed to ID where it is assumed based on conjecture.
And for the third goddamn time, hyperbaric conditions refer to ozone. Ozone!
Really? When I look up 'hyperbaric', I get this:
"of, relating to, or utilizing greater than normal pressure (as of oxygen)"

id like to see my brothers post as to get a better understanding of what he said before i start to disprove you, btw Carl Buagh is one of the major flood scientists and hes one out of three scientists im basing my theorys on.
Do you know the difference between "theory" and "fantasy"? (They both seem to contain dragons...)

EDIT: Or a "theory" and a "guess", for that matter.

The term "intelligent design" is only used because christians know full well that if they say straight out that god created everything, then ANY religion and ANY person (like me) could argue that their god or whatever should be taught in school. I would use Leprecauns myself.

And really, how do you teach ignorance? How do you teach children to stop thinking and to ignore fact? And WHY? Just so you can feel better at night knowing someone else is being just as foolish as yourself?

I think the people who vote yes for this believe "theory of evolution" means it's a guess. Evolution is a fact. The theory surrounds what brings it on. And both can be tested and proven true. Creationism is neither fact nor theory.

I think the people who vote yes for this believe "theory of evolution" means it's a guess. Evolution is a fact. The theory surrounds what brings it on. And both can be tested and proven true. Creationism is neither fact nor theory.

Wrong. Strictly speaking, "Evolution" is still a theory. It may be a theory believed by many and seems to be supported by a lot of evidence, it still is a theory because there are also unanswerable holes in it. So is Creationism. Creationism may be supported by less "empirical" evidence, which I must stress, can be full of mistakes itself, but the idea as a whole is acceptable as a theory.

ID cannot be tested, therefore it is not a theory, it may be that it is true but there is no way of proving it. A theory requires some evidence to back it up whether or not the evidence is interpreted in the right way.

Really? When I look up 'hyperbaric', I get this:
"of, relating to, or utilizing greater than normal pressure (as of oxygen)"
Damn. My source was wrong. Or maybe I misremembered it. Of course, they maybe using it wrong as well, since they mean a higher concentration of oxygen.

I have been talking about science for a while now, not just evolution. That means I'm allowed to refer to the theory of abiogenesis, and to criticise it's acceptance within the 'hallowed halls of science'.

The theory is that life absolutely did come from non-life. Sure there is no one theory about how, but I have never said that. It certainly is part of scientific theory, though.

Most scientists don't think that life arose from viruses. Possibly because viruses need living hosts to survive, so they don't solve any problems.

See - this is where your faith blinds you, I'm afraid.

To the scientist, there are different fields of discovery. You could be researching evolution. Or the formation of the planet. Or the formation of the universe. Or the start of life. Or why yogurt goes all separatey if you leave it on the table for a week.....

All of those disciplines are inter-related, perhaps... but they are NOT the same thing - they are just bound by the same rules.

On the other hand, the 'creationist' mentality sees ONE answer for all these things... as though all were part of the same 'event', if you will.

You can never get a sensible debate for evolution, from a Creationist, because they always change the ballpark.

Still, you are wrong anyway - SOME of the theories tell that life on earth evolved from non-life... but not all of them. I thought we had covered this already with our mossy space rocks.

Outdated? What do you mean by that? Old? Hmm do we toss Newton since they are rather old?

That whole 'god' concept strikes me as a little dated, too....

you guys will luagh at my theory butim already luaghing at last nites show on how the earth and moon formed!! :) !! anyways, there are imperfections in this world, however before adam and eve sinned there was no pain suffering. the preflood world had a canopy of water over, and underground (massive) water chambers. so the atmospheric pressure and conditions were much better. did you know that the more oxygen in the air the faster you heal after an injury? some of the football teams actually use these pressurized high oxygen chambers to heal their teams better. now with the pressure and higher oxigen content in the air you could:
1. run further
2. run faster
3. live much longer
4. heal faster

So, the imperfections you see today? they werent so imperfect about say 5800-5900 years ago (noone knows the exact date and time, although i have a pretty good understanding of when the earth MIGHT end).

Wow. Hard to know which bit to refute first...

I'd argue scripture with you, but it appears you've never actually studied it...

Who on earth told you there was no pain before sin?

(I can show you Bible verses that prove THAT little statement untrue...)

Creationism may be supported by less "empirical" evidence, which I must stress, can be full of mistakes itself, but the idea as a whole is acceptable as a theory.

Creationism is supported by no empirical evidence. It is a crackpot theory, not a scientific theory.

Evolution is not something somebody just "made up."

actually it is:
charles lyle and some others made up the geologic time column. im pretty sure he just made it to fit his theory (back then there were a lot of revolutions, so when they read a book on how this world is millions [millions not billions or whatever] of years old they though "if theres no god then we must be god" [btw this all started in the garden of eden when the devil said "you shall be as gods"]).
i cant currently remember who it was right now who made up the millions of years theory.
now charles darwin was a christian (so ive heard). he had just graduated from bible colledge when he went to go collect some (im pretty sure) birds and/or info. he brought along the Bible and the book from Charles Lyle. he then turned from christianity to an thiest (which btw: thiest is a person who believes in god; add an a before that: an athiest is someone who BELIEVES there is no god [which btw; if you add an a before most stuf such as muse (to think) and add an a; amuse means to not think; thus you get your name amusment parks} anyways so he made a book called (did you know this?): Origin of species by means of natural selection or by the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life. did you know thats the whole title? its a little racist at that point, anyways you can see his hatred for creationism, or christians just ooze off every page.
on page (im pretty sure or close to it) 170 of his book he states that: "in all space and time... everything should be related to each other", that is basicly stating that us and bananas are related... what?? thats a little bit too far for me.

thus i leave you (for a little bit).

Ah well, if you don't LIKE the idea of being related to bananas, I guess that's JUST as good as evidence against....

Wrong. Strictly speaking, "Evolution" is still a theory. It may be a theory believed by many and seems to be supported by a lot of evidence, it still is a theory because there are also unanswerable holes in it. So is Creationism. Creationism may be supported by less "empirical" evidence, which I must stress, can be full of mistakes itself, but the idea as a whole is acceptable as a theory.

How do you believe this?

ID is not a scientific theory.... or are you just stating it as a LAY theory?

And, what are these 'unanswerable holes'? And, how would answering them, make evolution anything other than a 'theory'?

I hope this demonstrates more clearly the process of ID.

Bad analogy again. A team of scientists working to devise a virus would leave behind all sorts of things that would point to them. They would have to get money from somewhere, lab space, etc.

Assuming self-polymerising RNA molecules suggest abiogenesis

That isn't an assumption my dear. The fact that we have self-polymerizing nucleic acids, as well as self-copying proteins is evidence that these things could have contributed to the beginning of life. It is not an assumption.

Admittedly, humans have caused a good deal of extinction. But I was not referring to the case of deliberate hunting, but where, for example, the climate is changing, or the habitate changes too rapidly. I doubt you can demonstrate that humans are hunting our corals out of extinction, even though humans have probably contributed to its demise.

In fact, testing has demonstrated fairly conclusively that humans have contributed quite a bit.

The promotors of naturalistic causes set out to explain how all of life today is possible without the interference of God.

Incorrect.

I never said that they are trying to disprove God. I said that they are looking for a way to make him unnecessary.

Both statements are incorrect. No scientists has "set out" to make God unnecessary. We study the processes. If God interferes in them, we cannot demonstrate that, so the possibility is simply irrelevant to science.

ID can only demonstrate a designer, not a supernatural designer. God is not involved at that point.

ID can't demonstrate a designer either. The only way to do so would be to rule out all other possible causes - an impossible task. They can posit a designer, but the only "evidence" they could ever have (as you yourself have pointed out numerous times) is "It couldn't have happened this other way, so we're going to assume it was a designer."

I'm not forcing ID into the classroom. However, I'm not opposed to the idea.

So long as it isn't a science classroom.

I actually think it would raise the interest in science for many ids.

Yes, you are right. Kids today already don't understand the scientific method. We should make it absolutely sure that they don't by bringing in ideas that have clearly not followed it.

Dem has a very definite idealistic idea of science. But I'm not convinced that she has clearly separated the scientific process from the scientific community.

One cannot separate them. The scientific community is what ensures that the individual scientist sticks to the process.

The scientific process cannot address the issue of the supernatural, but the scientific community cannot avoid the issue of the supernatural.

Incorrect. The individual cannot avoid the issue of the supernatural. The community can.

As an example, every yard in my neighboorhood has a tree in the front yard. Some of them aren't doing well. I cannot avoid the issue that my tree is not doing well, and that I need to improve its conditions. However, when the Homeowner's Association meets, the community does not have to address the issue of my tree, or even of any of the trees.

Evolution is a fact, and that is needed for clarification sake. Some religious fundies are quick to say it is a theory, but apparently they know next to nothing about scientific theories and how they work. Dragon bay, Intelligent Design (creationism) is not a scientific theory as it has zero evidence.

The ID advocates are at it in California now.. peddling their lies and bullshit.. :mad:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050827/ap_on_re_us/creationism_lawsuit;_ylt=Ak4WF8KSygYPwUoZf9FxHkFvzwcF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

"LOS ANGELES - A group representing California religious schools has filed a lawsuit accusing the University of California system of discriminating against high schools that teach creationism and other conservative Christian viewpoints.

The Association of Christian Schools International, which represents more than 800 schools, filed a federal lawsuit Thursday claiming UC admissions officials have refused to certify high school science courses that use textbooks challenging Darwin's theory of evolution. Other rejected courses include "Christianity's Influence in American History."

According to the lawsuit, the Calvary Chapel Christian School in Murrieta was told its courses were rejected because they use textbooks printed by two Christian publishers, Bob Jones University Press and A Beka Books."

---

These schools are actually saying they are being discriminated against? What hypocrites.. they do more discriminating themselves.

Evolution is a fact, and that is needed for clarification sake. Some religious fundies are quick to say it is a theory, but apparently they know next to nothing about scientific theories and how they work. Dragon bay, Intelligent Design (creationism) is not a scientific theory as it has zero evidence.

The ID advocates are at it in California now.. peddling their lies and bullshit.. :mad:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050827/ap_on_re_us/creationism_lawsuit;_ylt=Ak4WF8KSygYPwUoZf9FxHkFvzwcF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

"LOS ANGELES - A group representing California religious schools has filed a lawsuit accusing the University of California system of discriminating against high schools that teach creationism and other conservative Christian viewpoints.

The Association of Christian Schools International, which represents more than 800 schools, filed a federal lawsuit Thursday claiming UC admissions officials have refused to certify high school science courses that use textbooks challenging Darwin's theory of evolution. Other rejected courses include "Christianity's Influence in American History."

According to the lawsuit, the Calvary Chapel Christian School in Murrieta was told its courses were rejected because they use textbooks printed by two Christian publishers, Bob Jones University Press and A Beka Books."

---

These schools are actually saying they are being discriminated against? What hypocrites.. they do more discriminating themselves.

"Evolution is a fact" is simply words put together to say something, and is not in fact a true statement, that is, a statement of what is true in the real world. Saying that evolution is a fact is akin to saying that "it is a fact that the earth is 6000 years old."

Just saying so does not make it so. And an appeal to "most" or "nearly all" or "many" is just another appeal to authority. And if the authorities are wrong, such as when Copernicus and Galileo were saying the authorities (scientists of the day, university professors and such) were wrong about the sun revolving around the earth, people get in trouble for pointing it out (as when the scientists got the Catholic Church to enforce the scientific "fact" of geocentrism).

And now we seem to be at that point again. Unfortunately, most "proofs" of evolution consist of just-so stories, people looking at empirical facts and supposing how they got that way. Evolution is totally unnecessary for the proven biological laws to work, for research on DNA, physiology, taxonomy,etc to proceed. I learned biology in high school many years ago, with no mention of evolution when the teacher was explaining cell function and biochemistry of ATP/ADP and all that stuff. And I remember that when my wife took biology more recently, in college, that we were surprised that the laws of biology listed on the first page of the book directly contradicted evolution, such as "life begets life, like begets like" and so on. However, being a standard biology text, the book still had its chapter on evolution as "fact."

But evolution is necessary to prove that materialism is true, that "the cosmos is all that ever was, is, and will be" (Sagan), and that we need no God. That is all the purpose evolution has, had, and will have.

And as far as discrimination, currently there is much intolerance and discrimination directed at public expression (meaning outside of one's own mind or church) of Christianity, much more than the other way. Institutions such as the ACLU are searching for the tiniest crosses they can find, that no one notices until they point them out, and then demanding that they be removed from public view. Businesses forbid their employees from having Christian bumper stickers on their personal vehicles, and try to restrict employees from reading Bibles on their own time (during unpaid breaks/lunches) on company property. And Christians get fired for writing articles or op/ed pieces on their own time, if it is brought to the attention of the business by offended non-Christians. But this is all to be expected. Hey, my wife once lost a job because a self-described pagan relative of the business owner asked my wife about her personal religious beliefs, and my wife told the truth, that she is a Christian. My wife did not bring it up, nor did she talk to others on the job about her beliefs.

Anyway, those are my two cents.

There seem to be a lot of threads on this forum about the theory of Intelligent Design but no one has spelt out what it is. I know there has been a lot of debate in the US but, as an ignorant foreigner, I have missed it all. Is ID just a way of saying that there is a higher purpose behind evolution or is it an argument for creationism? :confused:
I think it's what the republicans accused of John Kerry of being early in the campaign.
At least the same kind of thing.

And now we seem to be at that point again. Unfortunately, most "proofs" of evolution consist of just-so stories, people looking at empirical facts and supposing how they got that way. Evolution is totally unnecessary for the proven biological laws to work, for research on DNA, physiology, taxonomy,etc to proceed. I learned biology in high school many years ago, with no mention of evolution when the teacher was explaining cell function and biochemistry of ATP/ADP and all that stuff. And I remember that when my wife took biology more recently, in college, that we were surprised that the laws of biology listed on the first page of the book directly contradicted evolution, such as "life begets life, like begets like" and so on. However, being a standard biology text, the book still had its chapter on evolution as "fact."

It doesn't sound like you know/understand what you're talking about, maybe the value of a school "education" speaking, but there's definitely more to it than you attest to.

*ahem*
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down
real science, but their arguments don't hold up
By John Rennie

-
When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural
selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely,
but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular
biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond
reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere-except in the
public imagination. Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most
scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can
still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a
flawed, poorly supported fantasy. They lobby for creationist ideas such as
"intelligent design" to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science
classrooms. As this article goes to press, the Ohio Board of Education is
debating whether to mandate such a change. Some antievolutionists, such as
Philip E. Johnson, a law professor at the University of California at
Berkeley and author of Darwin on Trial, admit that they intend for
intelligent-design theory to serve as a "wedge" for reopening science
classrooms to discussions of God.Besieged teachers and others may
increasingly find themselves on the spot to defend evolution and refute
creationism. The arguments that creationists use are typically specious and
based on misunderstandings of (or outright lies about) evolution, but the
number and diversity of the objections can put even well-informed people at
a disadvantage. To help with answering them, the following list rebuts some
of the most common "scientific" arguments raised against evolution. It also
directs readers to further sources for information and explains why creation
science has no place in the classroom.
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is
not a fact or a scientific law.
Many people learned in elementary school
that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a
mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way,
however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific
theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural
world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."
No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive
generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of
evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that
matter -- they are not expressing reservations about its truth. In addition
to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification,
one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an
observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical
purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other
evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one
observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous
and compelling. All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence.
Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they
verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles
leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make
physicists' conclusions less certain.
2. Natural selection is based on
circular reasoning : the fittest are those who survive, and those who
survive are deemed fittest.
"Survival of the fittest" is a conversational
way to describe natural selection, but a more technical description speaks
of differential rates of survival and reproduction. That is, rather than
labeling species as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring
they are likely to leave under given circumstances. Drop a fast-breeding
pair of small-beaked finches and a slower-breeding pair of large-beaked
finches onto an island full of food seeds. Within a few generations the fast
breeders may control more of the food resources. Yet if large beaks more
easily crush seeds, the advantage may tip to the slow breeders. In a
pioneering study of finches on the Galápagos Islands, Peter R. Grant of
Princeton University observed these kinds of population shifts in the wild
[see his article "Natural Selection and Darwin's Finches"; Scientific
American, October 1991].The key is that adaptive fitness can be defined
without reference to survival : large beaks are better adapted for crushing
seeds, irrespective of whether that trait has survival value under the
circumstances.
3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or
falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can
never be re-created.
This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important
distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas :
microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within
species over time -- changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin
of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level
of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and
DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related. These
days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld
by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies)
and in the field (as in Grant's studies of evolving beak shapes among
Galápagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms -- such as
chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization -- can drive profound
changes in populations over time. The historical nature of macroevolutionary
study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct
observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy,
geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can
still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and
whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For
instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of
humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically
modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of
hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern,
which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not -- and does
not -- find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period
(144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions
far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them
constantly. Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from
inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record
might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and
claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the
purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet
produced such evidence. It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability
as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl
Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded
the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would
eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor.

.....

Out of repsect for readers and mods, and the fact i've already posted all these before, i'll stop here. For now.

Just saying so does not make it so. And an appeal to "most" or "nearly all" or "many" is just another appeal to authority. And if the authorities are wrong, such as when Copernicus and Galileo were saying the authorities (scientists of the day, university professors and such) were wrong about the sun revolving around the earth, people get in trouble for pointing it out (as when the scientists got the Catholic Church to enforce the scientific "fact" of geocentrism).

Interesting that you point that out, considering that the only reason scientists were teaching the geocentric idea of the Universe was that they were bringing religious belief into the equation. All evidence pointed the other way, but they still continued to create complicated and mathematically pretty impossible models of the universe to try and bolster their religious beliefs. Copernicus and Galileo, on the other hand, followed the scientific method, and came to a very different (and more correct) conclusion.

And now we seem to be at that point again. Unfortunately, most "proofs" of evolution consist of just-so stories,

The so-called "just-so stories" that have been discussed here are not used as evidence of evolution. They are conclusions drawn from empirical evidence. The theory of evolution is not the specific "story" of any given species' development, but in fact refers to a mechanism.

I learned biology in high school many years ago, with no mention of evolution when the teacher was explaining cell function and biochemistry of ATP/ADP and all that stuff.

You learned high school biology and so now you know all about it? That's like saying, "I learned how to add today, now I understand all of mathematics."

And I remember that when my wife took biology more recently, in college, that we were surprised that the laws of biology listed on the first page of the book directly contradicted evolution, such as "life begets life, like begets like" and so on. However, being a standard biology text, the book still had its chapter on evolution as "fact."

There is nothing at all in evolutionary theory that contradicts either of those statements. Sorry.

But evolution is necessary to prove that materialism is true, that "the cosmos is all that ever was, is, and will be" (Sagan), and that we need no God. That is all the purpose evolution has, had, and will have.

That is a truly idiotic statement, considering that no aspect of science can or has tried to disprove God or do away with the need for God.

And as far as discrimination, currently there is much intolerance and discrimination directed at public expression (meaning outside of one's own mind or church) of Christianity, much more than the other way. Institutions such as the ACLU are searching for the tiniest crosses they can find, that no one notices until they point them out, and then demanding that they be removed from public view.

I'm certain that you are aware fo the difference between "public view" and "public spaces" paid for by "public money"?

Businesses forbid their employees from having Christian bumper stickers on their personal vehicles, and try to restrict employees from reading Bibles on their own time (during unpaid breaks/lunches) on company property.

Not legally. Anyone who has that happen can sue - and win. In fact, the ACLU will likely help support their lawsuit.

And Christians get fired for writing articles or op/ed pieces on their own time, if it is brought to the attention of the business by offended non-Christians.

Again, not legally.

But this is all to be expected. Hey, my wife once lost a job because a self-described pagan relative of the business owner asked my wife about her personal religious beliefs, and my wife told the truth, that she is a Christian. My wife did not bring it up, nor did she talk to others on the job about her beliefs.

And she should have sued.

The so-called "just-so stories" that have been discussed here are not used as evidence of evolution. They are conclusions drawn from empirical evidence. The theory of evolution is not the specific "story" of any given species' development, but in fact refers to a mechanism.


In fact, "just-so stories" have had no place in evolutionary theory since the 'death' of Lamarckism.

I guess this gives a rough indicator of the chronological equivalence of ID...

There you go misusing words again. The idea that early life forms must have been different from those we see today is a conclusion, not an assumption.

Looks like you are hiding behind definitions. Perhaps we would have to agree on the definitions of both words before we could agree on the point. I have supposed that a conclusion turns into an assumption the moment it forms the basis of a new hypothesis. The idea that life came about only through natural causes relies the current 'conclusion' that it must have been a rather different life form to what we observe today. That was my point. Feel free to agree or disagree, but it's hardly fair to see one's points fuzzed over with technicalities.



As a single form, it would have. A higher rate of mutation would have meant that more things died than lived - and only those that were mutated in an advantageous way would live. In this way, individual organisms and their offspring would not be very robust. However, with a high rate of mutation, there would most likely be some in every generation that survived and continued on. With very little around to compete, the low numbers would not have been the problem that they are now.


From what I know of biochemistry, the chances of survival when a species' metabolic pathways keep changing from one generation to the next are not worth speaking of.


Actually, it is my understanding of biochemistry that rules out this idea. In a very complex system, very precise mechanisms are needed. However, even then, all sorts of weird little things happen on a regular basis. Sections of DNA copy themsleves into RNA and then reinsert themselves elsewhere in the genome. Genes are lost/altered in crossover. Point mutations occur and are never repaired.


But they don't tend to happen 'a dozen per generation'. That is what you are looking at when you don't have a proof-reading system to fix up all the mistakes that are made during replication of DNA.


On the contrary, most mutations do nothing. They change little, if anything. In order to form a cancerous cell, for instance, a cell generally has to have at least five major mutations in important genes. The cell is much more resistant to mutation than you make out.


True, most mutations are silent. But I was thinking of the mutations that cause an effect. I stand corrected.


This really isn't correct at all. You cannot shoot naked DNA into a plant or animal cell and expect it to incorporate into the genome. If you are lucky, you might get some that temporarily express the given gene that you have inserted. But, over time, the gene is broken down as it is not part of a chromosome. Now, if you encase it in a retrovirus, with the enzymes necessary to do so, then it will incorporate. Bacteria and some single-cell eukaryotes, like yeast, on the other hand, will incorporate naked DNA. They do so at a low rate, but not nearly as low as that of a more complex organism.


When I mentioned inserting DNA into plant cells and being taken up into the genome, I was not referring to the necessity of the DNA being expressed. I call it incorporation even if it gets inserted into an intron, the so called 'junk' DNA, a term which I find annoying and rather assumptious. The fact that bacteria don't have 'junk' DNA means that incorporation of naked DNA is tolerated far less, since incorporation generally means disruption of a gene. If that gene is not essential under those particular conditions, then it will be tolerated, although perhaps at the expense of the organism once it encounters new conditions. At any rate, in both eukaryotes and prokaryotes, insertion of naked DNA random is a rare event. To anticipate that it (with a random sequence) would have helped an early life form to develope a new gene, which in turn coded for a novel protein, seems like clutching at straws. It certainly has not been demonstrated.


Diploid and haploid only refer to eukaryotes.


That point is not really pertinent to our discussion. But I suppose you know that bacteria are variable or indefinite ploidy organisms. They are closer to the haploid state (single chromosome) because all the copies of the chromosome come from only one chromosome, not two (as in the case of diploid organisms) but are not strictly considered haploid because they tend to multiply continuously. Thus their chromosome number may be anywhere from one to several, depending on the stage of their life cycle.


As I already pointed out, that is not an assumption, it is a conclusion. Evidence for that conclusion can be found today. Of course, like any conclusion, it can be changed if evidence points in another direction. There is a rather large difference.


It's not an assumption for experimental design, perhaps, but abiogenesis is certainly one of the many assumptions to the theory that modern life arose from randomness via natural causes. This was my original point, and you are in danger of trying to fuzz the point using technicalities.



I'll repeat myself until you stop completely twisting things. I didn't say I think science is "only allowed to name natural causes." I said that the logical process of the scientific method can only be applied to nature.


Perhaps you would like to expand on the difference between these two expression.


You still have this strange idea that the process of science will explain everything there is to explain. It logically cannot, and that is not its purpose. Science can theorize about love. It can measure those things which can be measured in one who loves (although, in the end, the only way we know if someone is feeling love is to ask them). If we wanted to do a lot of unethical things, we could test the boundaries of love in a controlled environment. However, that does not mean that science could answer everything there is to know about love, any more than it can answer everything (or anything) there is to know about God.


I agree with you that science cannot explain everything there is to explain. But I don't know where you got that idea from, since I can't seem find where I suggested that. But, if you want to see my point, you have to acknowledge that there is difference between the scientific process (which can only measure what we observe and repeat, etc.) and the attempt of science to explain our world (based on it's authority derived from progress in understanding our material world). You can easily demonstate, logically, that the scientific process cannot experiment with something like love. I have heard you loud and clear a long time ago, Dem. I'm talking about the explanations that have become prevalent which are derived from scientific evidence.


Don't make ridiculous assumptions. A sentient "orderer" is not inherent in the definition of the word order. Such a "designer" is absolutely inherent in the definition of the word design.


I still don't agree with you, since for me, the words 'design' and 'order' are interchangeable (as far as science is concerned). They refer to the observation that there is a great deal of information in living organisms, precisely arranged, and yet capable of adapting to changes.


You have yet to point one out. The few you have attempted have not been assumptions made by science at all.


Like I pointed out before, assumptions in the scientific method are different from the assumptions made by those who interpret evidence from science as showing e.g., that humans are evolved from single celled organisms.


That is all that matters. When Einstein tested and proposed the theory of relativity, we did not yet have the technology necessary to continue to test and potentially falsify that theory. However, it was logically possible to do so. It is that possibility that matters. If something can possibly be falsified, then we can test it, and possibly falsify it.

A designer outside of nature, on the other hand, cannot be falsified under any circumstance. Since you have proposed something outside of nature, something you cannot measure, you can attribute any cause to them. No matter what the evidence demonstrates, you can say, "Well, that's the way the designer designed it."


My understanding of ID is that in attributing the design to a designer, they are not placing the designer outside of nature. Common sense may do that. But not when the are following the scientific method.


What about it? That is exactly what IDers are trying to do. They are saying, "We know of no natural causes that could have led to this. Therefore, no natural causes could have possibly led to this. We have proven that, so now we can say there is a designer."


Common sense will also tell you that it is unfair that the impossibility of demonstrating an impossibility allows some people within science to keep their unchallenged 'conclusions' (to use your favourite word) while preventing others from being seen as scientists.


May as well be humorous, since you have invoked an example that does not fall within the bounds of evolutionary theory. Poodles didn't occur due to natural selection. They occurred do to human selection and inbreeding - causing all sorts of problems in them, as in all other purebred dogs.
A toy poodle perhaps. A standard poodle would likely surive for a while. Of course, again, poodles of any sort are not the product of natural selection.
There is no such thing as a poodle species.


OK, granted that it is not natural selection. But it is selection, and the result is a weaker species. Inbreeding has clearly been the cause of the weakening. But if you go to populations in the wild (of various animals) you can easily find inbreeding has occurred there also, in spite of natural selection (or because of it). So I think my point stands.

As for poodles belonging to a separate species, that is debatable, since a poodle is incapable of reproduction with a wolf, without human interference. I understand that this is one of the major factors involved in the definition of a species. A poodle is reproductively isolated from a wolf--since it's legs are too short. However, it is possible that a poodle can reproduce with another breed of dog with slightly longer legs, which in turn could reproduce with a wolf. This is where the lines get blurred.

I always thought that poodles were living 'toys'.



By definition, the murderer is not undetectable. By definition, a designer outside of nature is.


Not true. If humans ever get to design a bacterium, it will be the humans who are the designers.


I don't claim to know how or what God did. I have my beliefs, but they are irrelevant to science, as they are just that - beliefs.


So you answer the question by saying 'I don't know.' How about if I ask you what you believe to be God's contribution to us being here, based on your beliefs?

And I don't believe you when you say that your beliefs are irrelevant to science. You may think so, but it has not escaped me that your beliefs happen to give you no cause to question the assumption by the scientific community that humans descended from some prehistoric ape-like creature. That is the influence of your belief on your science--making you comfortable with whatever they say.


That is a completely false statement. That is like saying, "You can't leave your mother out of your science." Well, guess what? I can. I can study what I am studying without even once involving my mother.


The difference between your mother and God is that everyone is comfortable with understanding the role your mother had in bringing you into this world (more or less), but belief in God's role is a whole lot more controvesial. Perhaps not within the context of the scientific method, but certainly in the context of the explanations/conclusions that some people like to use. If God created the world, how can one leave Him out of science when he wants to study the origins of the world?




Individuals are not without bias, this is true. It is also why scientists don't work in a vacuum. There is always someone else over your shoulder to point out your biases and how they have affected your work. Individuals may be biased, but the institution as a whole does not have to be.

A group can be more than the individuals that are in it. Science is no different.


If the person looking over your shoulder is as biased or more so than you are, that bias may go undetected, or ignored. Just having a community will not prevent bias. In fact, it may even encourage it, since the moment someone questions his bias, he gets suspected of madness.

Bad analogy again. A team of scientists working to devise a virus would leave behind all sorts of things that would point to them. They would have to get money from somewhere, lab space, etc.


You object to my analogy based on an irrelevant point. The whole point of the analogy was that the IDers could not know whether the designer of the virus was human or deity, not whether the lab of the designers was detectable. And to top it off, you have to call it a bad analogy. Cheeky.

Besides, there is plenty of research going on that is kept under wraps. Perhaps someone is even right now cloning humans. How could we know?



That isn't an assumption my dear. The fact that we have self-polymerizing nucleic acids, as well as self-copying proteins is evidence that these things could have contributed to the beginning of life. It is not an assumption.


Perhaps it doesn't form an assumption for the people who are exploring abiogenesis, but it certainly is an assumption for people who assume that life arose from randomness via natural causes. That was my original point.


Both statements are incorrect. No scientists has "set out" to make God unnecessary. We study the processes. If God interferes in them, we cannot demonstrate that, so the possibility is simply irrelevant to science.


''No scientist has 'set out' to make God unnecessary''.....one wonders where you get your authority from. I know people who are rather motivated by this idea. If a scientist studes the processes to see if God was necessary, he could be motivated by wanting to see God included, or wanting to see God as unnecessary, or some other motivation. I feel that you are making too many assumptions here. I grant you that science is not able to detect God, but the possibility of God is certainly very relevant to the explanations that come out of science.



ID can't demonstrate a designer either. The only way to do so would be to rule out all other possible causes - an impossible task. They can posit a designer, but the only "evidence" they could ever have (as you yourself have pointed out numerous times) is "It couldn't have happened this other way, so we're going to assume it was a designer."


This is not grounds enough to rule ID as non-science.



Yes, you are right. Kids today already don't understand the scientific method. We should make it absolutely sure that they don't by bringing in ideas that have clearly not followed it.


If you leave out ID from the classrooms, then you have to leave out the 'just so' stories too. Just give them the principles of the scientific proceedure, and leave out any talk about single cells evolving into humans.


Incorrect. The individual cannot avoid the issue of the supernatural. The community can.

As an example, every yard in my neighboorhood has a tree in the front yard. Some of them aren't doing well. I cannot avoid the issue that my tree is not doing well, and that I need to improve its conditions. However, when the Homeowner's Association meets, the community does not have to address the issue of my tree, or even of any of the trees.


However, if everyone's who has a tree in their yard that is not doing very well, it should be something that the community addresses. There may well be a single problem that affects each tree. In this way, if the problem is big enough, the community would be foolish to ignore the issue. Same goes with the supernatural.

See - this is where your faith blinds you, I'm afraid.

To the scientist, there are different fields of discovery. You could be researching evolution. Or the formation of the planet. Or the formation of the universe. Or the start of life. Or why yogurt goes all separatey if you leave it on the table for a week.....

All of those disciplines are inter-related, perhaps... but they are NOT the same thing - they are just bound by the same rules.

On the other hand, the 'creationist' mentality sees ONE answer for all these things... as though all were part of the same 'event', if you will.

You can never get a sensible debate for evolution, from a Creationist, because they always change the ballpark.

Still, you are wrong anyway - SOME of the theories tell that life on earth evolved from non-life... but not all of them. I thought we had covered this already with our mossy space rocks.

Grave, what on earth are you going on about? Your post hardly makes sense.
I certainly don't recall discussing mossy space rocks with you.

The suggestion that creationists tend to see God as the source of creation is hardly evidence that they cannot argue sensibly. And do they change the ballpark? Where? How? Who did this?

None of the creationists I know see creation as the one event. It is separated over several days, at least. :) For some, it appears to be much longer. As for the theories that do not invoke abiogenesis, my criticism of abiogenesis could hardly be directed at them.

Grave, what on earth are you going on about? Your post hardly makes sense.
I certainly don't recall discussing mossy space rocks with you.

The suggestion that creationists tend to see God as the source of creation is hardly evidence that they cannot argue sensibly. And do they change the ballpark? Where? How? Who did this?

None of the creationists I know see creation as the one event. It is separated over several days, at least. :) For some, it appears to be much longer. As for the theories that do not invoke abiogenesis, my criticism of abiogenesis could hardly be directed at them.

You don't remember the mossy space rocks? I could have sworn it was in this thread, but I'm not about to search back through the last god knows how many pages...

Space debris, with organic material on it, as a basis for earth-bound life: means that there is NEVER any absolute requirement for life to have originated on Earth at all... it can have arrived here pre-made.

You, yourself, are guilty of exactly the kind of 'ballpark' shenanigans I was talking about. The scientist talks evolution, the Creationist says "yes, but what about abiogenesis..." or whatever.... because, to the creationist both those things are the same story... this whole 'I made this" think that they attribute to 'god'.

You don't remember the mossy space rocks? I could have sworn it was in this thread, but I'm not about to search back through the last god knows how many pages...

Space debris, with organic material on it, as a basis for earth-bound life: means that there is NEVER any absolute requirement for life to have originated on Earth at all... it can have arrived here pre-made.

You, yourself, are guilty of exactly the kind of 'ballpark' shenanigans I was talking about. The scientist talks evolution, the Creationist says "yes, but what about abiogenesis..." or whatever.... because, to the creationist both those things are the same story... this whole 'I made this" think that they attribute to 'god'.

Sorry, Grave, I have absolutely no recollection of ever mentioning in a post to anyone, or recieving one from you about space debris with organic material. Complete nichts.

Aha, I see your point about the criticisms of the Creationist point of view. I agree. Abiogenesis and evolution are two different 'explanations'. However, only just. Because the very instant you have the first life form that somehow got itself together, it requires the process of evolution to make any progress. That is perhaps why most creationists will see the distinction as quite delicate, and perhaps even overlapping. (At which point does the pre-life form become life?) And furthermore, from a creationist point of view, both abiogenesis and evolution are part of an explanation that attempts to do God out of a job (though not all every evolutionists believes this). So it is perfectly normal to have similar criticisms for both. They both invoke rather impossible odds.

"Evolution is a fact" is simply words put together to say something, and is not in fact a true statement, that is, a statement of what is true in the real world. Saying that evolution is a fact is akin to saying that "it is a fact that the earth is 6000 years old."

Someone is full of it today.

www.talkorigins.org

Please go through that site and stop making yourself look bad. Evolution has an overwhelming amount of evidence and scientific authorities most definitely agree with me. The appeal to authority is coming from ignorant creationists who go to all means to reject the reality and mix up their own version of the reality, creating delusions.


And now we seem to be at that point again. Unfortunately, most "proofs" of evolution consist of just-so stories, people looking at empirical facts and supposing how they got that way. Evolution is totally unnecessary for the proven biological laws to work, for research on DNA, physiology, taxonomy,etc to proceed. I learned biology in high school many years ago, with no mention of evolution when the teacher was explaining cell function and biochemistry of ATP/ADP and all that stuff. And I remember that when my wife took biology more recently, in college, that we were surprised that the laws of biology listed on the first page of the book directly contradicted evolution, such as "life begets life, like begets like" and so on. However, being a standard biology text, the book still had its chapter on evolution as "fact."

This is funny because you don't really know what you're talking about. Evolution is something that explains how life progresses and it is very necessary. So understand this, I think your high school biology just doesn't cut it. Just because your teacher didn't bring up evolution does not mean it isn't related to it. So who is appealing to authority now? It seems like you put too much credibility into someone who could of possibly be making a mistake. Like one of my history professors.

That is all the purpose evolution has, had, and will have.

Bullshit. There is a lot more that evolution explains. You can find this on the website I specified.

And as far as discrimination, currently there is much intolerance and discrimination directed at public expression (meaning outside of one's own mind or church) of Christianity, much more than the other way. Institutions such as the ACLU are searching for the tiniest crosses they can find, that no one notices until they point them out, and then demanding that they be removed from public view. Businesses forbid their employees from having Christian bumper stickers on their personal vehicles, and try to restrict employees from reading Bibles on their own time (during unpaid breaks/lunches) on company property.

This is a secular country, and you can practice your religions amongst yourselves. You cannot push that on other people. The ACLU is correct in going after religious fanaticism that seeks to envoke their messages of insanity in public. I normally don't agree with the ACLU but this time I strongly see why they are doing it.

An interesting thought was brought up here I wish to reiterate. The idea that being a public Chrristian is considered politically incorrect, yet the idea of being a public atheist recieves no retribution, rather, it is encouraged and seen as ideal. Hypocrisy? I think so.
I ask you all now, why can't all three ideas, Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design be presented in schools as theories, as ideas, as possible explainations to the unanswerable question of human origin? Perhaps Evolution would be given more time, but as long as all options are explained fully and equally, what issue would there be?

An interesting thought was brought up here I wish to reiterate. The idea that being a public Chrristian is considered politically incorrect, yet the idea of being a public atheist recieves no retribution, rather, it is encouraged and seen as ideal. Hypocrisy? I think so.
If you think this is the case, you need to look around you. It's the exact opposite.

I ask you all now, why can't all three ideas, Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design be presented in schools as theories, as ideas, as possible explainations to the unanswerable question of human origin? Perhaps Evolution would be given more time, but as long as all options are explained fully and equally, what issue would there be?
Because ID and creationism are not theories. They're not even scientific.

An interesting thought was brought up here I wish to reiterate. The idea that being a public Chrristian is considered politically incorrect, yet the idea of being a public atheist recieves no retribution, rather, it is encouraged and seen as ideal. Hypocrisy? I think so.

No, because that's only the truth in the minds of those suffering from the christian persecution complex. Being a public christian isn't going to get you persecuted or considered politically incorrect, but trying to force your beleifs off on others will.


I ask you all now, why can't all three ideas, Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design be presented in schools as theories, as ideas, as possible explainations to the unanswerable question of human origin? Perhaps Evolution would be given more time, but as long as all options are explained fully and equally, what issue would there be?

Because ID and Creationism have nothing to do with science. They lack any supporting evidence, they cannot be prooved using science, and they are religious beleifs, which is a violation of the establishment clause.

Besides which, schools aren't supposed to teach falsehoods. :p

Teach all the crackpot theories about the creation of man and the origin of the universe you want in Religious Studies or Philosophy For Beginners. Keep the shit out of Science.

I personally (as a Minister in the Church of Lemon Meringue) believe that the universe was sneezed out by a giant elephant, floating through space on the back of a giant turtle. Do you see me ranting and raving about this theory not being taught in Science lessons?

Sorry, Grave, I have absolutely no recollection of ever mentioning in a post to anyone, or recieving one from you about space debris with organic material. Complete nichts.


Different thread, I guess... there are about 3 'evolution-related' threads running at any given time...


Aha, I see your point about the criticisms of the Creationist point of view. I agree. Abiogenesis and evolution are two different 'explanations'. However, only just. Because the very instant you have the first life form that somehow got itself together, it requires the process of evolution to make any progress. That is perhaps why most creationists will see the distinction as quite delicate, and perhaps even overlapping. (At which point does the pre-life form become life?) And furthermore, from a creationist point of view, both abiogenesis and evolution are part of an explanation that attempts to do God out of a job (though not all every evolutionists believes this).

What if the first lifeform on Earth never evolved? What if it came to Earth pre-evolved, and never evolved further? What if a life form came to Earth and THEN evolved? What if a life form ON Earth didn't evolve - because it was already ideal for it's niche?

All of those questions are reasons why, to science, abiogenesis and evolution are WORLDS apart.

Sure - if there was a 'first' native life form, and we all came from it - there MUST have been abiogenesis at some point, and a shed-load of biogenesis since then.

But, the two theories do not rely - even slightly - upon each other... both can stand perfectly functionally in utter isolation from the other - at least, to the scientist.

And yet - since Creationism REQUIRES that evolution be nothing more than 'an alternative view of where life comes from'.... and ALSO says the same thing about abiogenesis - Creationism makes the two disaparate entities into one concept.



So it is perfectly normal to have similar criticisms for both. They both invoke rather impossible odds.

You realise that is illogical? You can't refute a thing that HAS happened, on the basis of probability.

Whether or not we arrived by evolution - you must see that, if evolution proves true, the odds are precisely 1 to 1... there is no other probability, because it HAS happened.

Of course - the other point is that probability only REALLY matters if you have a time-limit. If you just get to roll again, over and over, eventually, you get the right result.

Of course, Creationists can't grasp this concept, because they have a feeble image of god, who has to get everything done in nice humanly-managable periods of time.

An interesting thought was brought up here I wish to reiterate. The idea that being a public Chrristian is considered politically incorrect, yet the idea of being a public atheist recieves no retribution, rather, it is encouraged and seen as ideal. Hypocrisy? I think so.
I ask you all now, why can't all three ideas, Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design be presented in schools as theories, as ideas, as possible explainations to the unanswerable question of human origin? Perhaps Evolution would be given more time, but as long as all options are explained fully and equally, what issue would there be?

When was the last time Atheists stopped you in the street and told you there was 'no place called Hell', and you were 'NOT going to go there for all eternity', unless you joined their 'gang'?

When was the last time Atheists stopped you in the street and told you there was 'no place called Hell', and you were 'NOT going to go there for all eternity', unless you joined their 'gang'?

I don't know about ahteists but Gary Glitter (and later - hilariously - Hulk Hogan) was notorious for trying to get people to join his gang. Bastard.

Looks like you are hiding behind definitions. Perhaps we would have to agree on the definitions of both words before we could agree on the point. I have supposed that a conclusion turns into an assumption the moment it forms the basis of a new hypothesis. The idea that life came about only through natural causes relies the current 'conclusion' that it must have been a rather different life form to what we observe today.

Your logic is so faulty I don't even know where to go with this one. First off, a conclusion doesn't become the basis of a new hypothesis until it has been backed up beyond reasonable doubt. The conclusions drawn from evidence for abiogenesis have remained just that - as they have not been backed up to the same point that evolutionary theory has.

Meanwhile, the statement that any idea that life came about through natural causes (whether it be only them or not) relies on a conclusion that the life must be different than that today is absolutely ludicrous. Again, you are discounting the fact that we don't know everything there is to know about nature, and do not know all possible natural causes.

From what I know of biochemistry, the chances of survival when a species' metabolic pathways keep changing from one generation to the next are not worth speaking of.

I know reading isn't really that hard for you. Reread what I wrote.

When I mentioned inserting DNA into plant cells and being taken up into the genome, I was not referring to the necessity of the DNA being expressed.

I wasn't talking about DNA being expressed either. Naked DNA may be taken up by a cell but, in a eukaryotic cell at least will not be incorporated into the genome without enzymes to do so. Some viral vectors carry these enzymes, but naked DNA does not.

Thus, in any case, you are looking at incorporation as a plasmid. In eukaryotic cells, a plasmid will not be copied into offspring and will most likely be broken down long before reproduction anyways. In a prokaryote, it is likely to be copied (maybe even multiple times), passed on to offspring, and expressed. It may insert itself into the genome at replication - which may or may not happen in such a way that it disrupts the life cycle of the cell.

It's not an assumption for experimental design, perhaps, but abiogenesis is certainly one of the many assumptions to the theory that modern life arose from randomness via natural causes. This was my original point, and you are in danger of trying to fuzz the point using technicalities.

There is no "theory that modern life arose from randomness via natural causes." There are particular hypotheses that describe mechanisms by which this might have happened, with supporting evidence behind them. However, there is no theory as you are demarcating it.

Meanwhile, if you don't like speaking of things by using the correct technical terms, science is definitely not the career for you.

Perhaps you would like to expand on the difference between these two expression.

To any person with an ounce of logic, it is obvious. In one case, you are trying to suggest that this is simply a rule that can be changed at any time without changing the logical process. In the actual case, it isn't that it is a rule, but is instead a consequence of the logical process used.

I agree with you that science cannot explain everything there is to explain. But I don't know where you got that idea from, since I can't seem find where I suggested that.

Throughout this entire thread, you have expressed that you think science should be able to fully describe your reality - and that this is why you wish to throw out the scientific method.

But, if you want to see my point, you have to acknowledge that there is difference between the scientific process (which can only measure what we observe and repeat, etc.) and the attempt of science to explain our world (based on it's authority derived from progress in understanding our material world).

I don't have to acknowledge any such thing. Science itself cannot be separated from the scientific process.

Like I pointed out before, assumptions in the scientific method are different from the assumptions made by those who interpret evidence from science as showing e.g., that humans are evolved from single celled organisms.

You didn't point out any such thing.

My understanding of ID is that in attributing the design to a designer, they are not placing the designer outside of nature.

If they are not pointing to a designer outside of nature - then the whole idea is even worse. Now they are invoking something that they should have actual evidence for, but don't.

OK, granted that it is not natural selection. But it is selection, and the result is a weaker species. Inbreeding has clearly been the cause of the weakening. But if you go to populations in the wild (of various animals) you can easily find inbreeding has occurred there also, in spite of natural selection (or because of it). So I think my point stands.

Not really. For one thing, there are very few, if any, animals you will find in the wild that have rampantly inbred to the point that breeds of dog have. For another, their breeding was not being directed to a given goal.

As for poodles belonging to a separate species, that is debatable, since a poodle is incapable of reproduction with a wolf, without human interference.

This is incorrect. There is no reason at all that a poodle cannot reproduce with a wolf, even a toy poodle, unless the wolf kills it first (which probably won't happen if one of them is in heat).

A poodle is reproductively isolated from a wolf--since it's legs are too short.

First off, a standard poodle has legs just as long (in fact, longer, I believe) as a wolf. And as for a toy poodle, darling, I've seen a chihuahua mate with a rotweiler. If the male is the smaller dog, all it takes is a jump up and a grab, or for the female to be laying down when the male first mounts her.

However, it is possible that a poodle can reproduce with another breed of dog with slightly longer legs, which in turn could reproduce with a wolf.

The fact that you think leg length makes that much of a difference is truly hilarious.

Not true. If humans ever get to design a bacterium, it will be the humans who are the designers.

That doesn't contradict what I said in any way. Humans are not outside of nature either.

So you answer the question by saying 'I don't know.' How about if I ask you what you believe to be God's contribution to us being here, based on your beliefs?

I believe that God works in the world in various ways, often using the rules of nature that God already set up, individually affecting human thought, and providing comfort when it is needed. I am intelligent enough, however, to realize that such intervention can't really be measured, at least not using the scientific method. Thus, I am content to have faith in my God and believe, without the need to prove it to myself through science.

And I don't believe you when you say that your beliefs are irrelevant to science. You may think so, but it has not escaped me that your beliefs happen to give you no cause to question the assumption by the scientific community that humans descended from some prehistoric ape-like creature.

First off, I question everything. That is my job as a scientist.

Secondly, that is not an assumption. It is not even a part of the theory of evolution. It is an explanation put forth using the mechanisms described by the theory of evolution.

If God created the world, how can one leave Him out of science when he wants to study the origins of the world?

One simply studies the mechanisms, without worrying about whether or not God is behind them. Individually, one can believe and have faith that God is behind them. However, one cannot demonstrate this to be true.

If the person looking over your shoulder is as biased or more so than you are, that bias may go undetected, or ignored.

We aren't talking about a person. We are talking about an entire community of persons, who are not all going to have the same biases.

You object to my analogy based on an irrelevant point. The whole point of the analogy was that the IDers could not know whether the designer of the virus was human or deity, not whether the lab of the designers was detectable. And to top it off, you have to call it a bad analogy. Cheeky.

It is, in fact, quite relevant, as we are talking about the difference between natural causes and supernatural ones. A team of scientists are a natural cause, and thus evidence of their interference would be around, even if they had tried to hide it. The same is not true of a supernatural force.

Besides, there is plenty of research going on that is kept under wraps. Perhaps someone is even right now cloning humans. How could we know?

There are signs of research, even that done under wraps, because it exists within this universe and thus can be found out.

Perhaps it doesn't form an assumption for the people who are exploring abiogenesis, but it certainly is an assumption for people who assume that life arose from randomness via natural causes. That was my original point.

And your "point" is completely illogical. The only assumption made here is that the self-copying molecules we have found actually exist and that the processes we have measured are actually as we have measured them. The rest are possible conclusions drawn from that evidence - some backed up more than others.

''No scientist has 'set out' to make God unnecessary''.....one wonders where you get your authority from. I know people who are rather motivated by this idea. If a scientist studes the processes to see if God was necessary, he could be motivated by wanting to see God included, or wanting to see God as unnecessary, or some other motivation.

If someone studies something with the intent of proving or disproving God, what they are doing is, by definition, not science.

This is not grounds enough to rule ID as non-science.

So you are saying that science allows for illogical statements?

Teach all the crackpot theories about the creation of man and the origin of the universe you want in Religious Studies or Philosophy For Beginners. Keep the shit out of Science.

I personally (as a Minister in the Church of Lemon Meringue) believe that the universe was sneezed out by a giant elephant, floating through space on the back of a giant turtle. Do you see me ranting and raving about this theory not being taught in Science lessons?
No way
http://www.venganza.org/

The flying spegetii monster is the one true god

You don't remember the mossy space rocks? I could have sworn it was in this thread, but I'm not about to search back through the last god knows how many pages...

Space debris, with organic material on it, as a basis for earth-bound life: means that there is NEVER any absolute requirement for life to have originated on Earth at all... it can have arrived here pre-made.

You, yourself, are guilty of exactly the kind of 'ballpark' shenanigans I was talking about. The scientist talks evolution, the Creationist says "yes, but what about abiogenesis..." or whatever.... because, to the creationist both those things are the same story... this whole 'I made this" think that they attribute to 'god'.

Yeah..! Like Grave said..! Yeahhhhh...!

Right,.. so God made some organo-gunk way out at the edge of space and
flung it, real hard like, at earth a long time ago,.... maybe even millions and
millions and gadjillions of years ago,.. and He managed to hit lower Arkansas
way back when lower Arkansas was on the equator, cause,... well,... He's
God and he's a really good shot...!

Anyway,.. after a relatively short time, in God hours, He fashioned this
organo-gunk into all the life forms and spun up the world-driver mechanism so
that it looked like it really took LOTS longer than He took to get it all working,
just to throw us off 'cause,.. well,.. I don't know why,.. BUT YOU DON'T
EITHER,.. so quit quizzing me on that 'cause it's ineffable,.. like lots of stuff in
the jesus book.

Anyway,.. again,.. so,.. God changed the ballpark so that all the bleachers
looked like mountains and valleys and stuff,.. so that it wouldn't be SO
obvious that He'd made all this stuff and set it in motion,.. and then He sat
back and waited for us to buy-a-vowel and figure out that He'd been really
clever to play this little hide-and-go-seek game with us.

But once we figured it out, and got lots and lots of people to believe it, then
he'd say "OK,.. good job Barbie and Ken and Mr. Potato Head,.. let's do
something else.."....

...and the world would end. And we'd all go to heaven,.. which was really just
another freakin' hide-and-go-seek game...

Amen.


-The REAL Iakeo

No way
http://www.venganza.org/

The flying spegetii monster is the one true god

Fool! There is no god! You are the product of cosmic elephant snot!

Fool! There is no god! You are the product of cosmic elephant snot!
SAYS YOU! i have FAITH I am right!

An interesting thought was brought up here I wish to reiterate. The idea that being a public Chrristian is considered politically incorrect, yet the idea of being a public atheist recieves no retribution, rather, it is encouraged and seen as ideal. Hypocrisy? I think so.
I ask you all now, why can't all three ideas, Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design be presented in schools as theories, as ideas, as possible explainations to the unanswerable question of human origin? Perhaps Evolution would be given more time, but as long as all options are explained fully and equally, what issue would there be?


I've noticed that Christians have an odd sense of persecution. I've been an atheist for years, and whenever I express that people look at me as if I'm some sort of Satan-worshipper. While this is completely missing the point, it happens all the time. Whether it is politically correct or not, I don't know, but I've never seen anyone where I have lived (now or in the past) persecuted for being Christian. I mean, you are in the majority.

The reason why all three ideas should not be presented in school is as follows:

1) Evolution is supported by evidence. The other two are not.

2) Intelligent Design, so-called, has yet to come up with an intelligent, scientific argument to their theories.

3) Creationism is a religious ideal for some. Different religions have different creation myths none of which are supported by fact. If you teach the Christian ideal of Creation, you should teach them all. And there simply are not enough days in the school year to teach every religion's creation myth.

Keep religion out of school.

Yeah..! Like Grave said..! Yeahhhhh...!

Right,.. so God made some organo-gunk way out at the edge of space and
flung it, real hard like, at earth a long time ago,.... maybe even millions and
millions and gadjillions of years ago,.. and He managed to hit lower Arkansas
way back when lower Arkansas was on the equator, cause,... well,... He's
God and he's a really good shot...!

Anyway,.. after a relatively short time, in God hours, He fashioned this
organo-gunk into all the life forms and spun up the world-driver mechanism so
that it looked like it really took LOTS longer than He took to get it all working,
just to throw us off 'cause,.. well,.. I don't know why,.. BUT YOU DON'T
EITHER,.. so quit quizzing me on that 'cause it's ineffable,.. like lots of stuff in
the jesus book.

Anyway,.. again,.. so,.. God changed the ballpark so that all the bleachers
looked like mountains and valleys and stuff,.. so that it wouldn't be SO
obvious that He'd made all this stuff and set it in motion,.. and then He sat
back and waited for us to buy-a-vowel and figure out that He'd been really
clever to play this little hide-and-go-seek game with us.

But once we figured it out, and got lots and lots of people to believe it, then
he'd say "OK,.. good job Barbie and Ken and Mr. Potato Head,.. let's do
something else.."....

...and the world would end. And we'd all go to heaven,.. which was really just
another freakin' hide-and-go-seek game...

Amen.


-The REAL Iakeo

Apart from the colour of the text, and the 'flavour' in which it is written.... this reminds me of an old (and oft lamented) friend, from days of yore... :)

Apart from the colour of the text, and the 'flavour' in which it is written.... this reminds me of an old (and oft lamented) friend, from days of yore... :)
I think I remember who you are talking about :p

How is the hand 'complex'? It's very well adapted to what it does (namely, pick up things), and without our hands we would most likely die from starvation. And you are right, to a fashion, simpler life does tend to be more sucessful, see prokaryotes who have all us eukaryotes beat hands down, but each to his niche.

one thing interesting about the hand is that it perfectly fits a banana. the ridges of our knuckles are perfectly adapted to hold a banana. cool

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....

I personally disagree with that, but it sounds something fundamentalists would do.
I treat Evoultion as how it happened, with "God" guiding it, but I 'm Deist. Creationism was either just some primitive trying to figure out how shit happened, or God showing him what happened and could not understand it.

I.D is a theory just like evolution and no creationism and I.D are different things

theory's
creationism = God made the universe
I.D = God made us (intentionally)
evolution= we evolved over time to what we are
big bang= singularity explosion

all of these aren't proven but like all science it's an educated guess

I.D is a theory just like evolution and no creationism and I.D are different things

theory's
creationism = God made the universe
I.D = God made us (intentionally)
evolution= we evolved over time to what we are
big bang= singularity explosion

all of these aren't proven but like all science it's an educated guess
And here is one of the fundamental differences
ID is NOT a SCIENTIFIC theory

People have become lazy and have thrown the term “theory” around when their meaning is closer to hypothesis or “idea”

I.D is a theory just like evolution and no creationism and I.D are different things

theory's
creationism = God made the universe
I.D = God made us (intentionally)
evolution= we evolved over time to what we are
big bang= singularity explosion

all of these aren't proven but like all science it's an educated guess

Sigh, once again, you prove that America is not educated.

ID is not a theory. Evolution is a theory. Gravity is a theory. Thermodynamics is a theory. All 3 of those are still theories, even though they might be called laws, because it's been so long that nobody has really been able to disprove them that they appear to be true.

However, all 3 do some things in common. They:

-Explain the past and current interactions of their respective fields
-Can be proven or disproven (in the latter 3's case, Gravity had to be amended when Einstein disproved a part of Newton's laws)
-Can be used to explain the future

Intelligent design, while able to explain the past and current interactions, cannot be proven or disprove (can you prove God?) nor can it be used to explain the future.

Therefore, ID is not a theory, unless you consider ID to explain how the flying spaghetti monster (http://www.venganza.org/) created the world, that which I whole heartedly believe.

Sigh, once again, you prove that America is not educated.

ID is not a theory. Evolution is a theory. Gravity is a theory. Thermodynamics is a theory. All 3 of those are still theories, even though they might be called laws, because it's been so long that nobody has really been able to disprove them that they appear to be true.

However, all 3 do some things in common. They:

-Explain the past and current interactions of their respective fields
-Can be proven or disproven (in the latter 3's case, Gravity had to be amended when Einstein disproved a part of Newton's laws)
-Can be used to explain the future

Intelligent design, while able to explain the past and current interactions, cannot be proven or disprove (can you prove God?) nor can it be used to explain the future.

Therefore, ID is not a theory, unless you consider ID to explain how the flying spaghetti monster (http://www.venganza.org/) created the world, that which I whole heartedly believe.


Have my child ... seriously :fluffle:

I wish to begin by thanking you all for some good responses.

Now then, onto the issue at hand. The main issue I see when distinguishing between ID, Evolution, and Creationism is the idea of evidence. Many claim Evolution has clear evidence, yet the same claim can easily be made by ID or Creationism, claims that have been made already on this thread. I'm going to go over a few of these themes.

Evidence for Evolution: A scientific reasoning comparing the notions of animal behaviors to those of early man. A distinct relation between anatomical structures of man and primates. Fossil records suggesting a possible connection between man and primate.

Evidence for Creationism and ID (Under proper Christian doctrine, I am too lazy to go into the deist perspective): Validity of holy text under literary scrutiny. Logical deduction of holy text. Lack of scientific understanding shows possiblility of a deity. So on and so forth, thus refer to holy text.

Thus stated, it appears that there is equal evidence for both sides of the issue. However, the evidence does address two completely different sectors educational instruction. Therefore, I would propose this for the educational system. In science evolution be taught as a theory as it properly is. When there is a hop, skip, and a leap of logic to fill in the holes, let the instructor note that due to these holes many outside theories have been proposed, and proceed to reference, in brief, the ideas of creationism and ID. This allows the student to see their ideas and also allows the student the ability to pursue the ideas further if they so choose. What say you to this method of origins education?
- Brian Chut
Official Religious Emissary

. When there is a hop, skip, and a leap of logic to fill in the holes, let the instructor note that due to these holes many outside theories have been proposed, and proceed to reference, in brief, the ideas of creationism and ID.
The problem being none of the two "outside" theories you propose are scientific theorys ... they do not belong in a science class

Have my child ... seriously :fluffle:

I might take you up on that one day.


The problem being none of the two "outside" theories you propose are scientific theorys ... they do not belong in a science class

At most, they belong in philosophy, under the category "why do we exist?"

I might take you up on that one day.



At most, they belong in philosophy, under the category "why do we exist?"
Exactly … I am all for philosophy and or theology courses specially if we let the kids pick some of the ones they want to learn about

I am all for knowledge but things are categorized for a reason … to facilitate self similar study of topics

Hence why math is in math class and science in science class and language in language class and THEOLOGY and PHILOSOPHY IN THEOLOGICAL and PHILOSOPHICAL courses

Evidence for Creationism and ID (Under proper Christian doctrine, I am too lazy to go into the deist perspective): Validity of holy text under literary scrutiny. Logical deduction of holy text. Lack of scientific understanding shows possiblility of a deity. So on and so forth, thus refer to holy text.
The problem that I see here is that that may or may not count as scientific evidence. The first two have a prerequisite of belief that the texts are true, don't they? And the third is more along the lines of showing a lack of evidence against something, rather than showing evidence for it.
Is it enough to justify its being taught as science?

I.D is a theory just like evolution and no creationism and I.D are different things

theory's
creationism = God made the universe
I.D = God made us (intentionally)
evolution= we evolved over time to what we are
big bang= singularity explosion

all of these aren't proven but like all science it's an educated guess

Okay...here's a theory...make sure it is taught in the schools along with Intelligent Design, since as long as you label it a theory crazy people think it should be taught at school:

Bruce Springsteen created the universe and all humanity when he recorder the Greetings from Asbury Park, NJ album. As he is "The Boss" there was no boss before him. Therefore, this should be taught as a theory along with ID.

ID = Creationism - the word God

They really are the same thing and your description above is grossly inaccurate. IDers steer away from saying god even though they mean it. Of what you have above, evolution and the big bang are the only 2 that are supported by evidence and research.

Evidence for Evolution: A scientific reasoning comparing the notions of animal behaviors to those of early man. A distinct relation between anatomical structures of man and primates. Fossil records suggesting a possible connection between man and primate.

...study of genetic similarities, conserved genes/proteins/enzymes, fossil records of all creatures, not just primates, similarities in cell structure, observation of mutation, observation of natural selection, existence of creatures that exist by digesting man-made materials, ..............

Evidence for Creationism and ID (Under proper Christian doctrine, I am too lazy to go into the deist perspective): Validity of holy text under literary scrutiny. Logical deduction of holy text. Lack of scientific understanding shows possiblility of a deity. So on and so forth, thus refer to holy text.

Validity is an assumption - not actual evidence.

Logical deduction is logic - but is not evidence.

The possibility of a deity has nothing to do with lack of scientific understanding. Even if science understood everything there was to know about the natural order of things, a deity could exist.

The text of any given religion is no more or less objectively valid than another, unless humans suddenly become infallible.

Thus stated, it appears that there is equal evidence for both sides of the issue.

In one case, you have personal evidence which cannot really be shared with another - as the faith-based assumption that a holy book is absolutely accurate must first be made.

In the second case, you have empirical evidence (and, in truth, much more of it), which any human being can examine.

Therefore, I would propose this for the educational system. In science evolution be taught as a theory as it properly is. When there is a hop, skip, and a leap of logic to fill in the holes, let the instructor note that due to these holes many outside theories have been proposed, and proceed to reference, in brief, the ideas of creationism and ID.

The professor would be lying. None of the "outside ideas (not theories" have been proposed because of holes in evolution. They have been proposed because (a) people want to believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, (b) people's faith is so weak that they have to have constant intervention and a scientific proof of it or they will lose faith or (c) people are offended by the idea that they might be linked to other animals.


Meanwhile, my science class briefly discussed Creationism and ID. They said, "Some people think a deity was involved in some shape or form. We won't speculate on that."

The end. It took less than 30 seconds.

I wish to begin by thanking you all for some good responses.

Now then, onto the issue at hand. The main issue I see when distinguishing between ID, Evolution, and Creationism is the idea of evidence. Many claim Evolution has clear evidence, yet the same claim can easily be made by ID or Creationism, claims that have been made already on this thread. I'm going to go over a few of these themes.

Evidence for Evolution: A scientific reasoning comparing the notions of animal behaviors to those of early man. A distinct relation between anatomical structures of man and primates. Fossil records suggesting a possible connection between man and primate.

You nailed that one, leaving more advanced details of course, but the basics are all there.


Evidence for Creationism and ID (Under proper Christian doctrine, I am too lazy to go into the deist perspective): Validity of holy text under literary scrutiny. Logical deduction of holy text. Lack of scientific understanding shows possiblility of a deity. So on and so forth, thus refer to holy text.

Holy text is neither scientific, nor accepted by everyone. So much for ID or Creationism being scientific theories as there is no science involved.

Thus stated, it appears that there is equal evidence for both sides of the issue. However, the evidence does address two completely different sectors educational instruction. Therefore, I would propose this for the educational system. In science evolution be taught as a theory as it properly is. When there is a hop, skip, and a leap of logic to fill in the holes, let the instructor note that due to these holes many outside theories have been proposed, and proceed to reference, in brief, the ideas of creationism and ID. This allows the student to see their ideas and also allows the student the ability to pursue the ideas further if they so choose. What say you to this method of origins education?

Thusly stated we see why ID and creationism is really just another porselytizing tool of the Church proper and should therefore not be taught in school.

Exactly, ID isn't even a theory, it's just an assumption because it can't explain the future or be proven/disproven.

I think, in order to give the ID'ers in this thread a fair chance, they should try to prove Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (http://www.venganza.org/) to be true.

None of the "outside ideas (not theories" have been proposed because of holes in evolution. They have been proposed because (a) people want to believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, (b) people's faith is so weak that they have to have constant intervention and a scientific proof of it or they will lose faith or (c) people are offended by the idea that they might be linked to other animals.


Meanwhile, my science class briefly discussed Creationism and ID. They said, "Some people think a deity was involved in some shape or form. We won't speculate on that."

The end. It took less than 30 seconds.

And that's about all the air time it should be given in a class room. I'm tired of seeing college professors trying to be PC by making the annoucement at the beginning of class "Not everyone believes this, but I have evidence and that is what will be taught" . Just teach the class, if people feel so strongly let them debate it in class or drop the course.

ID has created politics in the world of science...how awful and damaging. Indeed the US does look quite stupid even arguing the point.

And that's about all the air time it should be given in a class room. I'm tired of seeing college professors trying to be PC by making the annoucement at the beginning of class "Not everyone believes this, but I have evidence and that is what will be taught" . Just teach the class, if people feel so strongly let them debate it in class or drop the course.

ID has created politics in the world of science...how awful and damaging. Indeed the US does look quite stupid even arguing the point.

Exactly. Thanks to this, the US scientific community is the laughing stock of the world.

Exactly. Thanks to this, the US scientific community is the laughing stock of the world.

Even though they refuse to debate it. The actual scientists (not IDers) will not attend debates on the subject as it is not seen as a scientific debate.

IDers have no science.

Even though they refuse to debate it. The actual scientists (not IDers) will not attend debates on the subject as it is not seen as a scientific debate.

IDers have no science.

They have spaghetti, and it's probably enough for them. I propose we lock them up in Kansas and leave them there.

They have spaghetti, and it's probably enough for them. I propose we lock them up in Kansas and leave them there.

Or all the eastern, rational states with high levels of education simply secede. Viva NY

Or all the eastern, rational states with high levels of education simply secede. Viva NY

a) Do I get to relocate first...?

b) Can we keep California? They don't want it anyway...?

Originally Posted by Grave_n_idle
Apart from the colour of the text, and the 'flavour' in which it is written.... this reminds me of an old (and oft lamented) friend, from days of yore...

I think I remember who you are talking about :p

Yup, yup, yup,... that would indeed be moi..!! :D

I don't really NEED the red text,.. do I? It adds too much time to replies,
really.

BUT,.. I'm still the island savage of those days of yore,.. though I don't use
the "accent" as much.

..though I may in the future if they don't ban me again shortly,... which I'm
hoping they won't do.

So have things "changed" here, moderator wise? I'm rather hoping the post-
election radicalism has toned down a bit. :)

..Anyway,.. nice to be "back".

-The REAL Iakeo

Intelligent Design shouldn't be taught in science classes because it's faith, not science.

Your logic is so faulty I don't even know where to go with this one. First off, a conclusion doesn't become the basis of a new hypothesis until it has been backed up beyond reasonable doubt. The conclusions drawn from evidence for abiogenesis have remained just that - as they have not been backed up to the same point that evolutionary theory has.


I think there is a difference between the strict meaning of assumption, and how it often gets used in science. Let me give an example. Some scientists think that when the universe began, it was relatively smaller than it is now. These same people want to measure if the universe is still expanding. They measure the movements of the stars and constellations, and conclude that, since many constellations seem to be moving away from each other, the universe is still expanding. They call this evidence of an expanding universe. What you and I can see, I hope, is that this evidence is based on the assumption that the universe began with a big bang at a particular location, rather than being called into existence, directly from nothing into approximately the same size as we find it today. The assumption cannot be backed up by evidence and placed beyond reasonable doubt. But it becomes an assumption that many people are comfortable with because it gets used in many explanations. In this way, a conclusion gets to be an assumption, without passing the critical test of being observable and repeatable. It has only passed the 'beyond reasonable doubt' stage. (Which seems to be based on the consensus of the greater number of scientists.) From your posts, you seem to be considering examples like these as conclusions, not assumptions, even though the scientists themselves refer to them as assumptions.


Meanwhile, the statement that any idea that life came about through natural causes (whether it be only them or not) relies on a conclusion that the life must be different than that today is absolutely ludicrous. Again, you are discounting the fact that we don't know everything there is to know about nature, and do not know all possible natural causes.


That is not my conclusion. That would be the conclusion of those trying to defend abiogenesis, because they can see that life as we know it cannot arise from non-life. In fact, my everyday laboratory methods depend on life not coming from non-life.


There is no "theory that modern life arose from randomness via natural causes." There are particular hypotheses that describe mechanisms by which this might have happened, with supporting evidence behind them. However, there is no theory as you are demarcating it.


Of course evolutionary theory or neo-Darwinism is that life arose without the direct interference of a deity. One way to describe this is that life had to arise from randomness and develop into humans and every other form of life around today using only natural causes. Are you suggesting that this is not a theory?



To any person with an ounce of logic, it is obvious. In one case, you are trying to suggest that this is simply a rule that can be changed at any time without changing the logical process. In the actual case, it isn't that it is a rule, but is instead a consequence of the logical process used.


Previously, I gave an example of the process of ID. Let me try it again. There is the team of clever scientists, which I will call team A. They design a virus, from scratch. Then the virus escapes into the 'wild'. Years later, a second team of scientists isolate a novel virus (team B). Since they are IDers, they investigate the information encoded by the virus. The analyse the complexity, and decide that there had to be a designer, since according to their predictions, random natural causes cannot account for such complexity. At this point, they have not determined the designer to be a deity or a human. They have only arrived at the correct conclusion that the design came from a designer. There is no need to invoke faith, or to make a comment on the identity of the designer. This is essentially (as I understand it) the process of ID. In order to demonstrate that their conclusions are correct, they set about constructing an identical virus, based on the designs of the first one, but once again, with the objective of building it from scratch (i.e. amino acids and nucleotides). Would you say that this is science?



I don't have to acknowledge any such thing. Science itself cannot be separated from the scientific process.


I think it is important to distinguish between a scientific experiment and the speculations that go with science. An assumption in an experiment is not the same thing as an assumption in the speculation (at least not necessarily). Science has a big impact on things like philosophy and religion, and vice versa. For example, philosophy may determine what kind of experiments a scientist might do. God cannot be included in an experiment, I agree, but it is perfectly normal to include God in the speculation, and still be scientific.


If they are not pointing to a designer outside of nature - then the whole idea is even worse. Now they are invoking something that they should have actual evidence for, but don't.


I don't see why it should be worse. Please explain. An example might help.



I believe that God works in the world in various ways, often using the rules of nature that God already set up, individually affecting human thought, and providing comfort when it is needed. I am intelligent enough, however, to realize that such intervention can't really be measured, at least not using the scientific method. Thus, I am content to have faith in my God and believe, without the need to prove it to myself through science.


If, however, you are Christian enough to accept the deity of the Christ, you will have to accept God did (at least at one point) intervene in nature in a way that could be measured (e.g. Christ could be touched, heard, felt, and smelt too, I suppose). If He had done it once, it is possible for Him to do it again


First off, I question everything. That is my job as a scientist.

Secondly, that is not an assumption. It is not even a part of the theory of evolution. It is an explanation put forth using the mechanisms described by the theory of evolution.


I didn't realize that you are a scientist. What is your area of study?

I would say that it is definitely a part of evolutionary theory, that humans are descended from animals. It is not only an explanation, but it also forms an assumption for those scientists who put a lot of time and money in searching for the evidence, performing countless numbers of experiments based on the assumption that humans and apes are relatively close relatives.


One simply studies the mechanisms, without worrying about whether or not God is behind them. Individually, one can believe and have faith that God is behind them. However, one cannot demonstrate this to be true.


I agree that scientific experiments should produce the same results regardless of the belief of the scientist in the existence or non-existence of God. I will also agree that scientific experiments cannot establish the existence of God. However, this is not an issue for ID, since they are not trying to do this in their experiments. Their speculations may include a designer, but not the experiments.


We aren't talking about a person. We are talking about an entire community of persons, who are not all going to have the same biases.


You might be surprised. A bias can be maintained in a community to a far higher degree than in an individual, I suspect. Any individual that disagrees with the popular opinion is considered strange, and his judgements suspect. Far from correcting the bias, it has tended to make it stronger, since there is a division between the natural evolutionists and the others.


It is, in fact, quite relevant, as we are talking about the difference between natural causes and supernatural ones. A team of scientists are a natural cause, and thus evidence of their interference would be around, even if they had tried to hide it. The same is not true of a supernatural force. There are signs of research, even that done under wraps, because it exists within this universe and thus can be found out.


Actually, I find your point irrelevant. That fact that the evidence of the human interference is around is not relevant to the argument at all. My point was that ID restricts its experiments to what it can observe (the design), not to what may or may not be observed (the designer). The evidence of the act of designing may or may not be within the universe. This point is only relevant in the speculations and conclusions, not the experiment.



And your "point" is completely illogical. The only assumption made here is that the self-copying molecules we have found actually exist and that the processes we have measured are actually as we have measured them. The rest are possible conclusions drawn from that evidence - some backed up more than others.


That self-polymerising RNA does exist is not an assumption. It is an observation. The danger is trying to make this observation explain how life might arise from non-life. It really is incredible how widely believed this explanation is, considering how improbable it appears to be. It's a bit like finding a big rock and claiming that we have found a path to the moon.



So you are saying that science allows for illogical statements?


Apparently, the speculations that go on within the science community are completely OK with declaring that computer simulations can now explain how life arises from randomness. Do you not find this illogical?

...One man's Intelligent Design is another's Industrial Design...

a) Do I get to relocate first...?

b) Can we keep California? They don't want it anyway...?

We can keep California, but everyone there has to leave and move to Las Vegas . Or maybe we can build them an island.

You can relocate if you want. If you are smart enough to want to relocate you are allowed. ;)

We can keep California, but everyone there has to leave and move to Las Vegas . Or maybe we can build them an island.

You can relocate if you want. If you are smart enough to want to relocate you are allowed. ;)

Sounds good to me. :)

I think there is a difference between the strict meaning of assumption, and how it often gets used in science. Let me give an example. Some scientists think that when the universe began, it was relatively smaller than it is now. These same people want to measure if the universe is still expanding. They measure the movements of the stars and constellations, and conclude that, since many constellations seem to be moving away from each other, the universe is still expanding. They call this evidence of an expanding universe. What you and I can see, I hope, is that this evidence is based on the assumption that the universe began with a big bang at a particular location, rather than being called into existence, directly from nothing into approximately the same size as we find it today. The assumption cannot be backed up by evidence and placed beyond reasonable doubt.

You are wrong, my friend. The 'expansion of the universe' isn't based on the 'assumption of a Big Bang'.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

The observation that ALL universally measurable material seems to be expanding away from ONE point, and seems to have all started out at the same time.... implies that there was ONE local event... i.e. a Big Bang.

You have it backwards. You are saying the evidence is based on the assumption.

You are wrong, my friend. The 'expansion of the universe' isn't based on the 'assumption of a Big Bang'.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

The observation that ALL universally measurable material seems to be expanding away from ONE point, and seems to have all started out at the same time.... implies that there was ONE local event... i.e. a Big Bang.

You have it backwards. You are saying the evidence is based on the assumption.
But how far can they really measure? If the universe is infinitely large, couldn't it just be our small measurable portion that is expanding outward from some cataclysmic event?

But how far can they really measure? If the universe is infinitely large, couldn't it just be our small measurable portion that is expanding outward from some cataclysmic event?

That is an excellent point.

As for Graves' point about my having it the wrong way around, I personally see it as a sort of circular reasoning anyway, so it hard to know at which point to enter the circle.

But how far can they really measure? If the universe is infinitely large, couldn't it just be our small measurable portion that is expanding outward from some cataclysmic event?
Indeed it could. But our short-range measurements SEEM to be supported by longer and longer range measurements, as they become technologically available.

I guess... if you wake up on a lilypad, you can assume you are in a pond...

If you climb on a ladder on the pad, and see nothing but water, you might begin to think a lake...

If you climb a tower on the pad, and still see just water, you might start thinking you are all at sea.

We can only EVER make educated guesses about what goes on outside our lilypad. But, if all the water we see, no matter how far we look, seems to flow in one direction... we can certainly make educated guesses about which way it is flowing.

Indeed it could. But our short-range measurements SEEM to be supported by longer and longer range measurements, as they become technologically available.

I guess... if you wake up on a lilypad, you can assume you are in a pond...

If you climb on a ladder on the pad, and see nothing but water, you might begin to think a lake...

If you climb a tower on the pad, and still see just water, you might start thinking you are all at sea.

We can only EVER make educated guesses about what goes on outside our lilypad. But, if all the water we see, no matter how far we look, seems to flow in one direction... we can certainly make educated guesses about which way it is flowing.


I think the key here is "based on currently available data". IDers have none in regard to this debate. Evolution takes in new data and changes dependent upon the new data. Science admits its mistakes. Creationism doesn't.

Indeed it could. But our short-range measurements SEEM to be supported by longer and longer range measurements, as they become technologically available.

I guess... if you wake up on a lilypad, you can assume you are in a pond...

If you climb on a ladder on the pad, and see nothing but water, you might begin to think a lake...

If you climb a tower on the pad, and still see just water, you might start thinking you are all at sea.

We can only EVER make educated guesses about what goes on outside our lilypad. But, if all the water we see, no matter how far we look, seems to flow in one direction... we can certainly make educated guesses about which way it is flowing.

But if your assumption is that there was a big bang, all the observations in the world are going to be explained in terms of a big bang, which does nothing to question whether there was a big bang in the first place, unless someone is brave enough to question the big bang, and doesn't mind getting slammed for being non-scientific, not based on logic and observation, etc., etc.,

But if your assumption is that there was a big bang, all the observations in the world are going to be explained in terms of a big bang, which does nothing to question whether there was a big bang in the first place, unless someone is brave enough to question the big bang, and doesn't mind getting slammed for being non-scientific, not based on logic and observation, etc., etc.,

Someone who can attack the big bang based on logic, observation and so on is being a good scientist and will be heard. Science is all about proving ideas wrong - ideas and theories that survive that onslaught are not necessarily true, but they are definately a good approximation of the truth.

But if your assumption is that there was a big bang, all the observations in the world are going to be explained in terms of a big bang, which does nothing to question whether there was a big bang in the first place, unless someone is brave enough to question the big bang, and doesn't mind getting slammed for being non-scientific, not based on logic and observation, etc., etc.,
I am forced to agree with this. Until our measurements "reach the ocean" of Grave's analogy, until another theory supplants the Big Bang theory, scientists will continue to try to make observations make sense in terms of the Big Bang theory. This is not necessarily a bad thing, just an observation.

It seems it all comes down to this:
Quote from Wiki:This criticism is regarded by advocates of ID as a natural consequence of methodological naturalism which precludes by definition the possibility of supernatural causes as rational scientific explanations. As has been argued before in the context of the creation-evolution controversy, proponents of ID make the claim that there is a systemic bias within the scientific community against proponents' ideas and research based on the assumption of methodological naturalism that science can only make reference to natural causes.

How can you have a discussion about possible causes, when BY DEFINITION, you disregard one side? By not even allowing arguements, of course evolution is 'proven by science' - and yet, it really is not proven, but merely our best guess.
Evolution is a THEORY - yet it is taught as FACT - to me that is the main reason for allowing other theories - I especially like the FSM theory...

Beware the flying spaghetti monster! (you can google it if you wish to see what it is all about...)

But if your assumption is that there was a big bang, all the observations in the world are going to be explained in terms of a big bang, which does nothing to question whether there was a big bang in the first place, unless someone is brave enough to question the big bang, and doesn't mind getting slammed for being non-scientific, not based on logic and observation, etc., etc.,
Actually.. The trick to this is; people see weird shit they can't explain. People think long and hard. People eventually comes up with an explanation that cooperates with known facts.
After that, it becomes a process of elimination. Not the elimination of any & all other ideas, but the elimination of the "established" theory. People actively seek to debunk the theory, and failing that, to come up with an alternative theory that also cooperate our observations.

That's pretty much the opposite of what religion does. There you start off with a preconcieved idea, and when observations contradicts it, you either ignore it or claim it's because it's magic.
When people then come up with competitive theories, you won't recognise them, because.. Well, I don't know why exactly.. Because you're really stubborn maybe?

The only time a scientist can be sure to be slammed for being unscientific, is if he follows the usual religious approach, aka the "Nah nah nah can't hear you" approach.

I am forced to agree with this. Until our measurements "reach the ocean" of Grave's analogy, until another theory supplants the Big Bang theory, scientists will continue to try to make observations make sense in terms of the Big Bang theory. This is not necessarily a bad thing, just an observation.

And a correct one. However, the fact that the big bang theory has survived so long as a scientific theory is an indictation that it at least is a pretty good approximation of the truth. It has been tested, poked and prodded.

Intelligent design on the other hand has not. Nor can it be - since it answers every "why" question with "because it was designed that way".

It seems it all comes down to this:
Quote from Wiki:This criticism is regarded by advocates of ID as a natural consequence of methodological naturalism which precludes by definition the possibility of supernatural causes as rational scientific explanations. As has been argued before in the context of the creation-evolution controversy, proponents of ID make the claim that there is a systemic bias within the scientific community against proponents' ideas and research based on the assumption of methodological naturalism that science can only make reference to natural causes.

How can you have a discussion about possible causes, when BY DEFINITION, you disregard one side? By not even allowing arguements, of course evolution is 'proven by science' - and yet, it really is not proven, but merely our best guess.
Evolution is a THEORY - yet it is taught as FACT - to me that is the main reason for allowing other theories - I especially like the FSM theory...

Beware the flying spaghetti monster! (you can google it if you wish to see what it is all about...)
This is why we have seperate fields of thought & study. It's perfectly acceptable for a philosophy to rely on magic, or make unfounded or unverifiable claims. And while philosophy/religion is great, and highly useful for the human intellect, it's near useless in terms of practical applications.

So for that we have the scientific method. It can't deal with magic & pure conjecture. For something to be a scientific theory, it has to be verifiable... Or rather, falsifiable. The whole point of science, is that it's possible to throw various ideas out by proving them wrong. Otherwise it's fairly fucking hard to say something concrete & useful about how stuff works, ad apply that knowledge in practice.

I think there is a difference between the strict meaning of assumption, and how it often gets used in science. Let me give an example. Some scientists think that when the universe began, it was relatively smaller than it is now. These same people want to measure if the universe is still expanding. They measure the movements of the stars and constellations, and conclude that, since many constellations seem to be moving away from each other, the universe is still expanding. They call this evidence of an expanding universe. What you and I can see, I hope, is that this evidence is based on the assumption that the universe began with a big bang at a particular location, rather than being called into existence, directly from nothing into approximately the same size as we find it today.

No, my dear. As usual, you have the entire process completely backwards.

Scientists measured the distance between stars and constellations and found evidence that they are moving apart from one another. This, in turn, led to the likely conclusion that the universe is expanding, just as measuring the movement of molecules of a drop of water on a hydrophilic surface would suggest that the water droplet was spreading out over the surface. This, in turn, is evidence that the Universe was once smaller.

You don't assume the Big Bang to say that the Universe is expanding. The evidence that the Universe is expanding is, in fact, part of the evidence for the Big Bang.

From your posts, you seem to be considering examples like these as conclusions, not assumptions, even though the scientists themselves refer to them as assumptions.

Find me a single scientist who first assume the Big Bang and then uses that to determine that the universe is expanding, instead of the other way around.

That is not my conclusion. That would be the conclusion of those trying to defend abiogenesis, because they can see that life as we know it cannot arise from non-life.

You just proved that it is your conclusion. To say, "life as we know it cannot arise from non-life," is to assume that we know everything there is to know about nature and that something is thus impossible.

Of course evolutionary theory or neo-Darwinism is that life arose without the direct interference of a deity.

Incorrect. Evolutionary theory has nothing at all to do with how life arose, nor does any part of it assume that there was no interference, direct or otherwise, from a deity. Evolutionary theory describes the ways in which life changes. The hypotheses on how life arose are not part of evolutionary theory.

Previously, I gave an example of the process of ID.

I already demonstrated why this example is not relevant to the discussion at hand.

The analyse the complexity, and decide that there had to be a designer, since according to their predictions, random natural causes cannot account for such complexity.

This statement can only be made if one believes that they know all possible natural causes - a very poor assumption. You cannot say, "This cannot possibly have happened by natural causes," without making the assumption that you fully understand natural causes and what they can and cannot do.

They have only arrived at the correct conclusion that the design came from a designer. There is no need to invoke faith, or to make a comment on the identity of the designer.

Incorrect. To invoke a designer at all, one must have evidence that there is a designer. Order alone cannot be evidence that something has been designed. Thus, to invoke a designer, one either uses faith, or has direct evidence of said designer.

I don't see why it should be worse. Please explain. An example might help.

I already explained it. Read again.

If, however, you are Christian enough to accept the deity of the Christ, you will have to accept God did (at least at one point) intervene in nature in a way that could be measured (e.g. Christ could be touched, heard, felt, and smelt too, I suppose). If He had done it once, it is possible for Him to do it again

One can accept the deity of Christ and still realize that said deity could not be truly measured. To all who knew him, Christ seemed human. The church holds that he was fully human. Thus, we could have checked his blood, DNA, organs, etc. and seen something that would have, to human measurements, seemed to be completely human.

I didn't realize that you are a scientist. What is your area of study?

Bioengineering.

I would say that it is definitely a part of evolutionary theory, that humans are descended from animals.

Actually, humans are animals. Thus, it is part of genetics that humans are descended from animals.

What I was pointing out is that the particular lineage currently ascribed to human beings is not a part of evolutionary theory. The theory describes a process - one which includes genetics, mutation, and natural selection. In turn, that process may lead to an idea of the particular lineage of a given species. However, that lineage is not, in and of itself, evolutionary theory. The theory, again, describes the process itself, not the exact path it followed.

It is not only an explanation, but it also forms an assumption for those scientists who put a lot of time and money in searching for the evidence, performing countless numbers of experiments based on the assumption that humans and apes are relatively close relatives.

Once again, you are incorrectly using the word assumption. The only assumption described here is that similar DNA, morphology, social structure, etc. makes a group of creatures closely related to another group of creatures. This isn't a huge leap, we have found that human beings with very similar DNA, morphology, social structure, etc. are generally closely related. We group animals into families, classes, etc. based on these things.

Then, we look at DNA, morphology, social structure, etc. We see that apes are very close to humans in these things. Thus, we conclude that humans and apes are relatively close relatives.

Their speculations may include a designer, but not the experiments.

If the experiments don't directly point to a designer, there is no reason to speculate a designer. This is like saying it would be ok for me to grow my cells, put mechanical forces on them, and then say, "Someone must have designed the straight lines my cells are lining up in. Look how ordered it is!" According to you, it wouldn't matter at all that I had no evidence of a designer. The fact that there was order would mean I could conclude a designer was involved. And, when someone complained that I was invoking a designer where one was not indicated, I would say, "I didn't have a designer in my experiments, just in my conclusion!"

Actually, I find your point irrelevant. That fact that the evidence of the human interference is around is not relevant to the argument at all.

Yes, my dear, it is. To conclude that there is a designer (or even a design), one must have evidence of that designer. In the case you are describing, that is possible. In the case of ID, all you have is, "It is ordered and we don't currently know any natural processes that adequately explain this to us, so there must be a designer."

My point was that ID restricts its experiments to what it can observe (the design), not to what may or may not be observed (the designer).

If they cannot observe the designer, there is no reason to invoke a designer. Again, this would be like me saying, "I don't know of anything that would make my cells line up in such pretty straight lines. But there is a lot of order here, so I'm going to say that a designer must have lined them up. I don't have any evidence of such designer, but there must have been one."

The evidence of the act of designing may or may not be within the universe.

If they act of designing is in the universe, then evidence for that can be found - and then the IDers can invoke a designer all they want. If it is outside the universe, it is impossible to find evidence that any designing ocurred.

This point is only relevant in the speculations and conclusions, not the experiment.

In science, the conclusions must come out of the experiment. If the experiment does not have a way of measuring for a designer, then a designer cannot be logically concluded.

Apparently, the speculations that go on within the science community are completely OK with declaring that computer simulations can now explain how life arises from randomness. Do you not find this illogical?

I have yet to see anyone declare that computer simulations, especially the relatively low level ones we currently have, explain how life arises from randomness. There have been claims that a given computer simulation roughly describes the theory, but no actual scientist is using a computer simulation as evidence of evolution or abiogenesis. Now, when we have an insane amount of computing power, and fairly well understand exactly how the given molecules that make up life interact (something we have only thus far scratched the surface of), we might be able to use computer simulations as evidence.


But how far can they really measure? If the universe is infinitely large, couldn't it just be our small measurable portion that is expanding outward from some cataclysmic event?

It could be. Of course, the evidence for that would be within the Universe, now wouldn't it? That means that, if we had instruments that could measure out far enough, it would be possible to see that only a portion of the Universe is expanding, and thus the theory that the entire universe is expanding would be disproven.

Thus is science.

I think there is a difference between the strict meaning of assumption, and how it often gets used in science. Let me give an example. Some scientists think that when the universe began, it was relatively smaller than it is now. These same people want to measure if the universe is still expanding. They measure the movements of the stars and constellations, and conclude that, since many constellations seem to be moving away from each other, the universe is still expanding. They call this evidence of an expanding universe. What you and I can see, I hope, is that this evidence is based on the assumption that the universe began with a big bang at a particular location, rather than being called into existence, directly from nothing into approximately the same size as we find it today. The assumption cannot be backed up by evidence and placed beyond reasonable doubt. But it becomes an assumption that many people are comfortable with because it gets used in many explanations. In this way, a conclusion gets to be an assumption, without passing the critical test of being observable and repeatable. It has only passed the 'beyond reasonable doubt' stage. (Which seems to be based on the consensus of the greater number of scientists.) From your posts, you seem to be considering examples like these as conclusions, not assumptions, even though the scientists themselves refer to them as assumptions.
So.... I guess the significant difference is that the assumption a scientist makes can easily be discarded in favour of a better explanation of the facts. If the "truth" of the Big Bang is discarded in this way, it is without fault or harm. The assumption of a Creator, once adopted as truth, cannot be discarded without discarding the truth of the Creator?

Actually.. The trick to this is; people see weird shit they can't explain. People think long and hard. People eventually comes up with an explanation that cooperates with known facts.
After that, it becomes a process of elimination. Not the elimination of any & all other ideas, but the elimination of the "established" theory. People actively seek to debunk the theory, and failing that, to come up with an alternative theory that also cooperate our observations.

That's pretty much the opposite of what religion does. There you start off with a preconcieved idea, and when observations contradicts it, you either ignore it or claim it's because it's magic.
When people then come up with competitive theories, you won't recognise them, because.. Well, I don't know why exactly.. Because you're really stubborn maybe?

The only time a scientist can be sure to be slammed for being unscientific, is if he follows the usual religious approach, aka the "Nah nah nah can't hear you" approach.


Add in that a bunch of "proof of evolution" experiments have been shown to have been exactly what you call 'religious' - they start out with preconcieved notions and force the experiment to yield the results they desire.

For example, in my high school science book, teaching about evolution, was an experiment regarding generating amino acids with electrical charges in a 'pre-biotic soup' - this experiment 'proved' that it was possible to create amino acids (the basic building block of life) by 'lightning' (simulated of course) - only problem is that the experiment was entirely FAKED.

The scientist was so driven to prove his point, that he stacked the deck in favor of creating amino acids, and even then, they were only stable for a short period, too short to 'create life'.

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.
I'm sure this has been said before, but I'll say it again.

If you think that intelligent design is a scientific theory, then you are ignorant of what a scientific theory is.

By definition, a scientific theory can be disproven, one cannot conceivably disprove intelligent design. There is no way to test it, it doesn't make any predictions to test et c. The only way one could disprove intelligent design is to disprove the existance of a designer and that is scientifically impossible.

So no, intelligent design is not a theory and any scientist who claims it is is a poor excuse for a scientist.

Add in that a bunch of "proof of evolution" experiments have been shown to have been exactly what you call 'religious' - they start out with preconcieved notions and force the experiment to yield the results they desire.

For example, in my high school science book, teaching about evolution, was an experiment regarding generating amino acids with electrical charges in a 'pre-biotic soup' - this experiment 'proved' that it was possible to create amino acids (the basic building block of life) by 'lightning' (simulated of course) - only problem is that the experiment was entirely FAKED.

The scientist was so driven to prove his point, that he stacked the deck in favor of creating amino acids, and even then, they were only stable for a short period, too short to 'create life'.
Considering that amino acids have been discovered in meteorites and floating around distant stars... it's quite possible that they form naturally in the universe.

Not only that, but the theory of evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. It has to do with the change or evolution of existing life on this planet.

only problem is that the experiment was entirely FAKED.

The scientist was so driven to prove his point, that he stacked the deck in favor of creating amino acids, and even then, they were only stable for a short period, too short to 'create life'.

incorrect. what you meant to say (why is it you people can't even keep your own stories straight?) is that according to jonathan wells, the miller-urey experiment shouldn't be included in textbooks because the conditions used in it are no longer thought to be the conditions of early earth. the problem with that line is that pretty much every experiment using all sorts of possible conditions gives pretty much the same results (http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/Figure01.htm). organics and amino acids form quite easily under many conditions.

wells is an idiot. and you are misremembering his trivially false claims.

I thought this article was interesting in the argument against ID.

Brain still Evolving (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050909/ap_on_sc/brain_evolution;_ylt=AiEn5B5LD9USpW01802lfrsbr7sF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)

I would like to pose a question to those here who back Intelligent Design: How does the 'intelligent designer' design and construct life?

*eagerly awaits a reply*

Out of curiosity, how do you teach intelligent design without going into specific religions?

Surely the most you can say is "one theory says a god, godess, divine being/s or creature created life on earth as we see it through their own design"

what can you posibly add to that without promoting specific religions? which I think we can all agree should be something for the chruch, not the science class.

And if you are going to use an example from one specific religion then surely you should use examples from ALL religions, with equal weighting for each.

Can any one tell me why religion and science have to be exclusive?

Can any one tell me why religion and science have to be exclusive?

They aren't. They are two different ways of looking at the Universe: Science depending on observation, falsifiable hypotheses, experiments, etc. Religion deppending on intuition, personal experience, reflection, etc. Most religious scientists relize this and are able seperate personal belief from scientific theory.

Can any one tell me why religion and science have to be exclusive?

Science cannot include the assumption of a God, because there is no way to prove/disprove a God.

Thus, science cannot include religion.

Now, a scientist can be a scientist in her job and also believe in religion - the two simply have to be kept separate.

Can any one tell me why religion and science have to be exclusive?
Religion deals with spiritual matters, understanding and growth of the "inner being," that being the conceptual person who lives in a "world" of thought, feeling, and concepts like logic.

Science limits itself to, defines and deals with, the physical world.

Material and immaterial are exclusive, in that if something is in one "state" it cannot also be the other (I prefer to see it as perspectives rather than "states": subjective or objective).

That said, people attempt to look at the immaterial as if it was material, and treat it as a "real" thing, and demand evidence of this spiritual thing. It's not real. It's immaterial. It's a world that exists only in the imagination. It's a place we dwell in everyday, a place we operate from to view the world and manipulate our flesh and circumstances. It is a place the practical sciences do not tred.

Can any one tell me why religion and science have to be exclusive?

because it's the only way to keep the gods safe from empiricism. if you start making the gods testable by science, you give your gods a strong chance of being actively disproved. better to keep the gods out of the realm of the testable altogether.

Can any one tell me why religion and science have to be exclusive?That's a trick question. They are only at odds when they interfere with eachother.

*clicked on this thread expecting to find a discussion on art-deco or something*

*clicked on this thread expecting to find a discussion on art-deco or something*

You fool you have raised the dead!

*Grabs a stake and a mallet*

WHAM! WHAM! WHAM!

You fool you have raised the dead!

*Grabs a stake and a mallet*

WHAM! WHAM! WHAM!
That's not "art deco," that's performance art. ;)

You fool you have raised the dead!

*Grabs a stake and a mallet*

WHAM! WHAM! WHAM!

Hey! Is that a René Lalique hammer? I could tell by the streamline design of the head!

Ok, here are my beliefs, and what I meant by my previous post.

There will never be any proof that God exists, however there will never be any proof that He doesn't. This is the basis of faith and free will. If there was proof beyond reasonable doubt that God existed, it denies both faith and free will. Anyone who works to prove or disprove that God exists is wasting their time, and showing that they lack faith in their own beliefs.

That being said, I believe that there is evidence that God exists. I believe that God created the universe. When He created the universe, he laid down rules for everything, and put in place all the mechanisms in place for the universe to be self-sustaining. For matter and energy, the rules are what we call the laws of physics. He laid down rules to establish natural order, and mechanisms to help ensure the survival of life. I believe that God guided up to this point through small touches, not dropping everything into place as is.

The evidence of to me that God exists is in the sheer number of things that had to happen just right for us to exist. From the positioning of our planet, around our star in our galaxy, to the thousands of small chemical reactions that take place inside our cells every second. In quantum physics, to relative physics, to bio mechanics, the more we learn, the more we find out we don't know. But no side can say that this is solid proof one way or the other.

To me, science is the exploration of creation. It is discovering the mechanics of how the universe works. The more we learn, the better we understand God. This is why I believe that religion doesn't have to exclude science and vise versa.

Can any one tell me why religion and science have to be exclusive?

Because religion explains questions by saying: "God did it, now go pray" .

Would any of you anti religious folks like to explain to me what "theoretical physics" is? I see people saying science only deals with the physical universe. Then explain to me how string theory is a theory when it hypothesises 11 dementions? How does gravity effect time? When did time begin? Is science allowed to ask these questions? Will evolution eventually cause intellegent machines to come into existence? Why does life age? As far as I know there is no concrete evidence to explain aging cells.

Would any of you anti religious folks like to explain to me what "theoretical physics" is? I see people saying science only deals with the physical universe. Then explain to me how string theory is a theory when it hypothesises 11 dementions? How does gravity effect time? When did time begin? Is science allowed to ask these questions?

What's the formula for god? Is there a "god-factor"? (apart from the god-factor you have to take into account when having a conversation with an american)

Would any of you anti religious folks like to explain to me what "theoretical physics" is? I see people saying science only deals with the physical universe. Then explain to me how string theory is a theory when it hypothesises 11 dementions? How does gravity effect time? When did time begin? Is science allowed to ask these questions? Will evolution eventually cause intellegent machines to come into existence? Why does life age? As far as I know there is no concrete evidence to explain aging cells.

Dimensions, time, gravity, etc. are all within the physical universe.

And there is quite a bit of evidence to explain the aging of cells. Oxidative damage, loss of telomeres, changes in expression of protective agents have all been demonstrated in older cells.

Edit: I am not anti-religious, nor are most of the rest of the people who are in science. People who are militant atheists on their own time are just that - militant atheists on their own time. Most scientists are, in their personal lives, religious to some extent. They simply are not religious in their capacity as scientists - and cannot be if they are to follow the scientific method.

Would any of you anti religious folks like to explain to me what "theoretical physics" is? I see people saying science only deals with the physical universe. Then explain to me how string theory is a theory when it hypothesises 11 dementions? How does gravity effect time? When did time begin? Is science allowed to ask these questions?

I'm not anti religous, theroretical physics deal with phenomina that is mathmaticly feasable, but is on a scale that is impossible to test here on earth, but the interations with other objects shows that the interation takes place.

I'm not anti religous, theroretical physics deal with phenomina that is mathmaticly feasable, but is on a scale that is impossible to test here on earth, but the interations with other objects shows that the interation takes place.

It would be more correct to say that it is currently impossible to test. In other words, we don't have the technology to test these things. If they were truly impossible to test (like the existence/non-existence of God), they would be outside the realm of science.

Would any of you anti religious folks like to explain to me what "theoretical physics" is? I see people saying science only deals with the physical universe. Then explain to me how string theory is a theory when it hypothesises 11 dementions?
"Theoretical physics" makes hypothesis and theories to explain observed physical phenomena.

So string theory tries to explain some observed behaviour. It has been put up to mathematical tests, but still has to pass to the experimental stage. There are a number of facilities coming on-line in the next 2-3 years that will allow some experiments on string theory. If you ask me, though, I think string theory is becoming too complicated to be a reasonable explanation. Some scientist have been proposing a modified ether theory to explain the same things string theory does but in a much simpler way.

How does gravity effect time? When did time begin? Is science allowed to ask these questions? Will evolution eventually cause intellegent machines to come into existence? Why does life age? As far as I know there is no concrete evidence to explain aging cells.
Since it's still unknown what gravity is (although both the string and ether theories offer some ideas, it's uncertain just how gravity affects time. But it is a fact that it does.
Time began at the same time as the universe.
Yes.
Maybe.
Telomerase.

I'm not sure what you mean by g-d, but we are talking about creation right? For creation to exist, there must be a creator. A million monkeys typing on a million computers for 1 million years will never write a single sonnet. Where does Shakespear(sp) come from? Dna code is almost identical to computer code. If one thing in creation was different, life as we know it could not exist. Say for instance, gravity isn't the weakest force. If gravity wasn't the weakest force, there probably wouldn't even be matter density as we know it, things would keep falling and go straight through solid matter.

Because religion explains questions by saying: "God did it, now go pray" .

That is reason 1, though one could circumvent it by assuming science is discovering what and how God did it.

Reason 2 is that God is an assumption which is more complex than the question it is supposed to answer. To clarify:
Q: "The universe is so amazing ! Where did such energy come from, how did it all begin, how did everything come to be !"
A: Maybe an omnipotent being created it all.

At first sight this answer seems simple - but that is deceptive. What you just did is answering the question "how can something so amazing be" by assuming there is something even more amazing and defying explanation.

That is reason 1, though one could circumvent it by assuming science is discovering what and how God did it.

Reason 2 is that God is an assumption which is more complex than the question it is supposed to answer. To clarify:
Q: "The universe is so amazing ! Where did such energy come from, how did it all begin, how did everything come to be !"
A: Maybe an omnipotent being created it all.

At first sight this answer seems simple - but that is deceptive. What you just did is answering the question "how can something so amazing be" by assuming there is something even more amazing and defying explanation.

Read post 734, se seem to be mostly on the same page.

I'm not sure what you mean by g-d, but we are talking about creation right? For creation to exist, there must be a creator. A million monkeys typing on a million computers for 1 million years will never write a single sonnet. Where does Shakespear(sp) come from? Dna code is almost identical to computer code. If one thing in creation was different, life as we know it could not exist. Say for instance, gravity isn't the weakest force. If gravity wasn't the weakest force, there probably wouldn't even be matter density as we know it, things would keep falling and go straight through solid matter.

You are looking at it from the wrong angle, let me give you an example:
You have two parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, 16 great-great-grandparents, 32 great-great-great-grandparents, 64 great-great-great-great-grandparents, and so on and so forth. Try to imagine the number of your direct ancestors in the space of, say, 4000 years. Which really isn't that long, and yet the number would be somewhere in the tens of thousands.
Now, what are the odds that all those people actually met, liked each other and reproduced, what are the odds that their children survived deceases, hunger, war, prosecution, natural catastrophes and went on to meet your other ancestors and liked them and reproduced with them? The odds are so slim, they are almost inexistent.
And yet, they are no proof for god in any way. If history had been slightly different, you wouldn't be here. One rainy day that prevented a meeting about 800 years ago, and you would never have existed.

It's the same with our planet and species. We exist because the planet offered just the right conditions for carbon-based lifeforms. If it didn't, we wouldn't be here.

Evolution doesn't explain every thing and I just get upset when people place what I consider religious ferver to their belief in evolution. Every scientific theory that man has ever come up with had its critics. Anti-ID people are to me the same people who criticized Einstein, Hawking, and every other scientist. The man who discovered germs was criticized as well. I forget the cells name, but, there is a single celled organizism that has the most efficient engine ever known. It has gears and all. If one piece of it wasn't there the engine wouldn't work. The cells engine is also very complex. There is no way that evolution evolved all the components of the engine all at once and it wouldn't work at all if one piece was missing. I will in the future find out what the cell is called but, sorry to say, I can't remember it right now. That cell completely destroys the theory of evolution. So, what is wrong with coming up with a theory that explains the cell. I believe ID as imperfect as it is, comes closer to explain this observable cell. I personally believe the human eye kills evolutionary theory. What came first cornea, optic nerve, iris? They are all completely useless without the other. How many years did it take evolution to come up with an iris to go with the optic nerve? Wouldn't evolution have instead just wiped out the useless part? What came first, instinct or vision. Wouldn't the first animal with advanced binocular vision died from confusion with it's new sensory perception as it sit there waiting to be eaten.

You are looking at it from the wrong angle, let me give you an example:
You have two parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, 16 great-great-grandparents, 32 great-great-great-grandparents, 64 great-great-great-great-grandparents, and so on and so forth. Try to imagine the number of your direct ancestors in the space of, say, 4000 years. Which really isn't that long, and yet the number would be somewhere in the tens of thousands.
Now, what are the odds that all those people actually met, liked each other and reproduced, what are the odds that their children survived deceases, hunger, war, prosecution, natural catastrophes and went on to meet your other ancestors and liked them and reproduced with them? The odds are so slim, they are almost inexistent.
And yet, they are no proof for god in any way. If history had been slightly different, you wouldn't be here. One rainy day that prevented a meeting about 800 years ago, and you would never have existed.

It's the same with our planet and species. We exist because the planet offered just the right conditions for carbon-based lifeforms. If it didn't, we wouldn't be here.

Great post.

Evolution doesn't explain every thing and I just get upset when people place what I consider religious ferver to their belief in evolution. Every scientific theory that man has ever come up with had its critics. Anti-ID people are to me the same people who criticized Einstein, Hawking, and every other scientist. The man who discovered germs was criticized as well. I forget the cells name, but, there is a single celled organizism that has the most efficient engine ever known. It has gears and all. If one piece of it wasn't there the engine wouldn't work. The cells engine is also very complex. There is no way that evolution evolved all the components of the engine all at once and it wouldn't work at all if one piece was missing. I will in the future find out what the cell is called but, sorry to say, I can't remember it right now. That cell completely destroys the theory of evolution. So, what is wrong with coming up with a theory that explains the cell. I believe ID as imperfect as it is, comes closer to explain this observable cell. I personally believe the human eye kills evolutionary theory. What came first cornea, optic nerve, iris? They are all completely useless without the other. How many years did it take evolution to come up with an iris to go with the optic nerve? Wouldn't evolution have instead just wiped out the useless part? What came first, instinct or vision. Wouldn't the first animal with advanced binocular vision died from confusion with it's new sensory perception as it sit there waiting to be eaten.

It is so painfully obvious that you have no clue what evolution is that you've given me a headache. Thanks.

Evolution doesn't explain every thing and I just get upset when people place what I consider religious ferver to their belief in evolution. Every scientific theory that man has ever come up with had its critics. Anti-ID people are to me the same people who criticized Einstein, Hawking, and every other scientist. The man who discovered germs was criticized as well. I forget the cells name, but, there is a single celled organizism that has the most efficient engine ever known. It has gears and all. If one piece of it wasn't there the engine wouldn't work. The cells engine is also very complex. There is no way that evolution evolved all the components of the engine all at once and it wouldn't work at all if one piece was missing. I will in the future find out what the cell is called but, sorry to say, I can't remember it right now. That cell completely destroys the theory of evolution. So, what is wrong with coming up with a theory that explains the cell. I believe ID as imperfect as it is, comes closer to explain this observable cell. I personally believe the human eye kills evolutionary theory. What came first cornea, optic nerve, iris? They are all completely useless without the other. How many years did it take evolution to come up with an iris to go with the optic nerve? Wouldn't evolution have instead just wiped out the useless part? What came first, instinct or vision. Wouldn't the first animal with advanced binocular vision died from confusion with it's new sensory perception as it sit there waiting to be eaten.

You seem to understand evolution as a guided, linear process, which it isn't.
If that first confused animal was eaten, it wouldn't have reproduced. Evolution doesn't work with just one animal, it usually takes serveral hundreds of one species to evolve. And it doesn't do so step by step, it leaps in all directions at once, and the one direction that works in the given environment, survives.
So, animal can see, but animals brain can't cope with the visual impact -> animal dies. Animal can't see but brain would be capable of processing visual information -> useless brain function, not advantage in survival, may die or not.
Animal can see and brain can process information -> vital advantage for the animal, it thrives and reproduces, creating plenty of offspring to carry on its genes.

Irreducable complexity does in no way contradict the evolution thoery.

Great post.

Thanks :D