NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems that the whole Intelligent Design (ID) in our classrooms' debate is being blown way out of proportion. As i see it most people who do not believe in Intelligent Design only have a problem with it being in the science classroom. ID in a history, philosophy, or religious studies classroom seems to be acceptable to all, as ID is derivative of Creationism. However, proponents of ID are vehement that it should be allowed into the science classroom and portrayed as a valid scientific theory.

So, here is your chance ID supporters. Here is where you get to show why ID is a science, and as such a valid topic for a science classroom.

Rules and Points-Of-Order:

1) Creationism here is specifically in reference to Christian creationism. Flexibility in old-earth/young earth/day-age etc is acceptable if you need any of it to explain or debate ID.

2) No mention, let alone attacks, on the Theory of Evolution. This is NOT an "evolution vs creationism" thread. This is merely a place to state the case for ID. As with other ideas in science it should be able to state a hypothesis independent of other theories.

3) You must supply a testable and falsifiable hypothesis that ID predicts. Without this vital requirement of scientific hypotheses, science would be entirely meaningless as we could come up with any reasonable sounding explanation we wanted without providing evidence to back it up....

4) Thus, you must provide evidence to back up your hypothesis. Science does not give absolute truth or "proof" of its theories and the same rule applies here. However, evidence supporting the hypothesis is vital.

*bump*

Apparently everyone is totally over Intelligent Design = Good thing
-or-
No one can provide the hypothesis and evidence needed = As expected.

I would suggest one further rule if they want to call ID a "theory". Scientific theories are backed up by large amouts of empirical evidence. If it is to be called a theory, empirical evidence should be presented.

I congratulate you on your first Bullet-proof pro-Science Post (tm), Children of Beer. Welcome to the sacred order. *Passes citronela candel*

I congratulate you on your first Bullet-proof pro-Science Post (tm), Children of Beer. Welcome to the sacred order. *Passes citronela candel*

I'm sure he'd rather just have a beer. I don't know why but I just have this feeling. :rolleyes:

It seems that the whole Intelligent Design (ID) in our classrooms' debate is being blown way out of proportion. As i see it most people who do not believe in Intelligent Design only have a problem with it being in the science classroom. ID in a history, philosophy, or religious studies classroom seems to be acceptable to all, as ID is derivative of Creationism. However, proponents of ID are vehement that it should be allowed into the science classroom and portrayed as a valid scientific theory.
Actually, I think those are just the Creation Science proponents who insist it be in a science class. By rough estimate (from what I've observed, only) they seem to be about half of the ID supporters.

I'm sure he'd rather just have a beer. I don't know why but I just have this feeling. :rolleyes:

Look, we can't even afford proper candles for our sacred order. What makes you think we can afford beer. And a dark circle of robed men (and women) passing beers, if we could afford them, would make us look like hippies, rather than a sacred order. Besides, as any good scientist knows, a child of beer will, naturally, be beer himself; beer is drunk, therefore he is already drunk, therefore it is us, not him, that should be drinking any beer we have money for.

Thankyou. Goodnight.

I congratulate you on your first Bullet-proof pro-Science Post (tm), Children of Beer. Welcome to the sacred order. *Passes citronela candel*

Thank you, great one. I most humbly accept this candle of honour and all it represents.

I'm sure he'd rather just have a beer. I don't know why but I just have this feeling.

mmm beer the reason i get up every afternoon.

How... deep.

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN:

I showed a picture of a human hand to a totally random group of people in the congragation of the Eternal Shining Jesus church and asked people if it looked like it had been designed or come about completely through random chance. Eighty-six percent of people said it looked designed, four percent tried to eat the picture, eight percent spake in tounges and two percent said, "Push off kid, I'm only here for the free food and to pick up dumb broads."

So as you can see, in a scientific, empirical study, the overwhelming majority says human hands "look" designed. I rest my case.

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN:

I showed a picture of a human hand to a totally random group of people in the congragation of the Eternal Shining Jesus church and asked people if it looked like it had been designed or come about completely through random chance. Eighty-six percent of people said it looked designed, four percent tried to eat the picture, eight percent spake in tounges and two percent said, "Push off kid, I'm only here for the free food and to pick up dumb broads."

So as you can see, in a scientific, empirical study, the overwhelming majority says human hands "look" designed. I rest my case.
Mockery is not helpful.

Mockery is not helpful.

Yes it is. Thank you, Mr. Phylum.

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN:

I showed a picture of a human hand to a totally random group of people in the congragation of the Eternal Shining Jesus church and asked people if it looked like it had been designed or come about completely through random chance. Eighty-six percent of people said it looked designed, four percent tried to eat the picture, eight percent spake in tounges and two percent said, "Push off kid, I'm only here for the free food and to pick up dumb broads."

So as you can see, in a scientific, empirical study, the overwhelming majority says human hands "look" designed. I rest my case.

So far this is standing as the best evidence this thread has to offer for Intelligent Design. I believe I may have made my point.

So now, in celebration of drinking and thinking, a song: http://www.library.adelaide.edu.au/guide/hum/philosophy/philos_song.html

So far this is standing as the best evidence this thread has to offer for Intelligent Design. I believe I may have made my point.

So now, in celebration of drinking and thinking, a song: http://www.library.adelaide.edu.au/guide/hum/philosophy/philos_song.html
I think it's gotten to the point where the IDers really don't give a crap anymore. I mean, if I hadn't already been through the school and studied the options and I felt my opinion would make a difference, and no offense here.....I'd still not want to post on your thread. Not because it's not a great opportunity to have a discussion that has been had a billion times over in a less civil manner, but more because I'd be sick by that point of the me-bashing and, regardless of the request of your original post, I'd be too wary of the possibility of that.

But then again, like I said, I've already studied all that I felt like studying on the topic, so I couldn't care much less if they post or not.

The time for intelligent design has come. A thousand years ago, people looked out at the world and said "This makes no sense at all!" Nowadays, through the advancement of chemistry, biology, and physics, people can see the world that is infinitely complex, containing previously unimagined order. Even looking at a pile of sand, one can appreciate the integration of geometry and an almost unimaginable number of precise forces that allow a pile of sand to exist as an engineering marvel rather than just any old pile of sand.

If anyone made the world into a mindbogglingly complex, yet efficient entity, it's the people talking about intelligent design rather than some supernatural force.

Simonist']I think it's gotten to the point where the IDers really don't give a crap anymore. I mean, if I hadn't already been through the school and studied the options and I felt my opinion would make a difference, and no offense here.....I'd still not want to post on your thread. Not because it's not a great opportunity to have a discussion that has been had a billion times over in a less civil manner, but more because I'd be sick by that point of the me-bashing and, regardless of the request of your original post, I'd be too wary of the possibility of that.

But then again, like I said, I've already studied all that I felt like studying on the topic, so I couldn't care much less if they post or not.


IDers certainly still give a crap here. A couple of Australian private schools have just become the first schools here to officially introduce ID into the science cirriculum. And there are certainly groups still pushing for it to be accepted into public policy. Now i appreciate and respect that you dont want to be drawn into this debate. But i'd like to hear from an ID supporter who is willing to discuss this. From my experiences so far there is no testable hypothesis put forth by ID. I havent found anything scientific about it.

And everytime ID puts forth 'evidence' its merely an attack on one of the myriad supporting points for evolution. I havent seen any evidence in support of ID that is indepentant of simply trying to nit-pick other theories or beliefs.

both ID and everythingelce are THEORYS...that means that no one knows for sure what is correct, therfor they should all be tought so that people arnt ignorant and stupid

both ID and everythingelce are THEORYS...that means that no one knows for sure what is correct, therfor they should all be tought so that people arnt ignorant and stupid


A theory requires a testable hypothesis and a large amount of supporting emperical evidence. From what i have seen thus far, ID fails to meet either of those two requirements. Hence why ID should not be considered a science. If you can go back to the original post and present a strong argument for why ID should be considered a science independent of other theories then you'll be on the right track for addressing this thread.

ID can, however, certainly be taught in a philosophy class or something similar.

both ID and everythingelce are THEORYS...that means that no one knows for sure what is correct, therfor they should all be tought so that people arnt ignorant and stupid

errr.. actually to be a theory it has to be testable.. it isn't.. so i think it only qualifies as a hypothesis... though I dont understand the need for a rule against Evolution vs ID.

ID dosn't contradict evolution, but rather works with it. If evolution is discounted, I would argue the idea of ID is weakened. Also, (though I am in no way in favor of it) if it was testable, if there was evidence on some scale that a design was inplace in nature, then there would be a place for it in the Science room. But it would only be on the lines of which to talk about structure, or randomness vs design, and would in now way lead to religion or what made that design. It could be a natural design in nature, or aliens or god.. what have you. Evolution dosn't serve to explain where we came from, only explain the process of how we got to where we are.

Originally Posted by Antikythera
both ID and everythingelce are THEORYS...that means that no one knows for sure what is correct, therfor they should all be tought so that people arnt ignorant and stupid

I have a theory that World War One was started by fairies and I demand that it be taught in history books along side all that nonsense about the Duke of Austro-Hungry being assasinated.

I mean, can you really believe that that the greatest conflict in history up to that point started because just one guy got shot? World War One was was an intelligently designed plot by fairies. School history books should have both theories so students can make up their own minds about what really happened.

I have a theory that World War One was started by fairies and I demand that it be taught in history books along side all that nonsense about the Duke of Austro-Hungry being assasinated.

I mean, can you really believe that that the greatest conflict in history up to that point started because just one guy got shot? World War One was was an intelligently designed plot by fairies. School history books should have both theories so students can make up their own minds about what really happened.

You need to check out the flying spaghetti monster theory, dude.

Forgot the link, but I'll be looking for it. You will laugh your ass off.

You need to check out the flying spaghetti monster theory, dude.

Forgot the link, but I'll be looking for it. You will laugh your ass off.

http://www.venganza.org/

Let's just hope that the Bible-thumpers don't institute ID in all of the US schools, because that would be a very sad day for us all.

And if the Creationists ruling the classroom ever happens, then it will be ME who's gonna have to choke a bitch, not Wayne Brady.

ID is retarded in every sense of the word.

Somebody had to say it.

ID is retarded in every sense of the word.

Somebody had to say it.

And here i was trying to be diplomatic :P

ID is retarded in every sense of the word.


"Occurring or developing later than desired or expected; delayed" ? :P

I tend to agree more with Michael Ruse's position as stated in his latest book "The Evolution-Creation Struggle". Both creationism and evolution are religious beliefs whose origins can be clearly traced to the enlightenment.

Evidence for intelligent design: We assume that Scientific laws were in place before the universe began. Definitions for how matter is formed, how energy is treated, how particles interact and how the structure of space-time holds it all together must have existed prior to the Big Bang; otherwise, how can we apply conventional scientific analysis to the singularity event?

The laws of particular interaction and the definition of fundamental particles (the quark) have not changed, as far as we can tell, since the universe began. This suggests that such definitions and laws have been somehow set in stone, which raises the question of how such laws can arise in the first place. Flexible or varying laws that govern our universe could be safely considered evidence for a raw evolutionary origin; rigid and unyielding laws appear to run contrary to the evolutionary origin theory.

This raises one of two possibilities. Either the laws that govern reality are, in fact, flexible, and the science that defines one day may change in the next, or that such laws must have an external origin.

(( Very shaky evidence, I know, but heck; I'm not an ID proponent ))

Hypothesis: It should therefore be possible to replicate the phenomenon of limited intelligent design through simulation. By defining raw physical laws that make up reality and executing them from within a constrained environment, it would be possible to, starting from a simple singularity, create a unique set of physical dimensions that would eventually result in replicating molecules, simple organisms through to complex, self-aware "life".

We could also suggest that only by defining such laws, however, would the eventual emergence of such organisms be possible. We could, at the same time, run a second simulation where the only defined physical law is that the universe is to seek a "dynamic stability" in response to the original click of the placement of the singularity, and is allowed to form its own laws in order to fulfil that criteria.

Comparing the progress of the two systems and likening them to our own concept of reality would bring a reasonable solution as to which beginning seems more likely given our own time scale. If it turns out that flexible laws can result in the same (or similar, given the possibility for immense variation) outcome as the predefined laws, the hypothesis can be considered disproven, as we have shown that design is not a necessity in universal creation. If the first simulation successfully results in a replicating, responsive, cognitive and self-aware organism, while the second fails to do so every single time, we can consider the hypothesis valid until such a time as the second results in a similar outcome. And, of course, if the second one consistently does so before the first does after several repetitions, the hypothesis can be safely regarded as soundly defeated.


How's that?

Evidence for intelligent design: We assume that Scientific laws were in place before the universe began.

I daresay that an overwhelming majority of the physics community would disagree with the assumption that the same, if any physical laws as exist now were present before the universes creation.
Best answer science has to the question "what was there before" currently is "we do not know (yet)". Could have been God. Could have been sentient noodles. Could have been a paperclip. Could have been nothing. Endless possibilities.

Science just doesn't make wild and untestable guesses ;)

Definitions for how matter is formed, how energy is treated, how particles interact and how the structure of space-time holds it all together must have existed prior to the Big Bang; otherwise, how can we apply conventional scientific analysis to the singularity event?

We can't. We can apply those to the things that happened right after the event though.

Flexible or varying laws that govern our universe could be safely considered evidence for a raw evolutionary origin; rigid and unyielding laws appear to run contrary to the evolutionary origin theory.

Why ?

Why ?Laws that form to match particular behaviour imply that no design is involved. Rigid laws run contrary to what particular behaviour would otherwise adopt, which implies external restriction.

As for testing it, that's why I suggested the simulation. It's not a "wild, untestable guess" if you can try it out, fiddle with the variables and chart the results, is it?

Both creationism and evolution are religious beliefs

Yes, that's right. Religion is science and science is religion. That's why scientists rely upon divine revelation instead of taking actual measurements when they do experiments and why the Catholic Church recently published a paper in the journal Nature where they chemically analysed communion wafer to see if it really had become flesh.

Evidence for intelligent design: We assume that Scientific laws were in place before the universe began.

Actually we assume that no such scientific laws existed before the singularity as space-time did not exist for such laws to exist within. We do not claim to know anything about pre big-bang conditions.

This raises one of two possibilities. Either the laws that govern reality are, in fact, flexible, and the science that defines one day may change in the next, or that such laws must have an external origin.

Not necessarily. That is merely speculation. I can also speculate that matter and energy cannot possibly exist in conditions other than what this universe have. And/or i could speculate that within the multiverse there are vast numbers of parallel universes with different physical constants. Thus our present conditions in our universe could merely be a matter or probability within the multiverse. Not, as you say, externally imposed. As we dont know the elemental nature of matter or the origins of the universe it is all speculation, however no more so than your assertation. Also not being too crash hot on my quantum physics i cant claim that any of it could be scientific speculation based on observation that could lead us to a true hypothesis.

(( Very shaky evidence, I know, but heck; I'm not an ID proponent ))

Playing nicely with the devil's advocate approach, and the evidence as you say is shaky. More like reasonable speculation to me.

Hypothesis: ... <snip>

How's that?

I'm not to proud to admit that i have no idea what you just said with your hypothesis. Although from what i gather it still rests on the assumption that rigid physical constants within hte universe must be the work of an intelligent external force.

Yes, that's right. Religion is science and science is religion. That's why scientists rely upon divine revelation instead of taking actual measurements when they do experiments and why the Catholic Church recently published a paper in the journal Nature where they chemically analysed communion wafer to see if it really had become flesh.

It would seem satire is one of your strong suits. Good work sir.

But how can you say no to the proposition when what did or sdid not cause the big bang?

*sniped*

Hypothesis: It should therefore be possible to replicate the phenomenon of limited intelligent design through simulation. By defining raw physical laws that make up reality and executing them from within a constrained environment, it would be possible to, starting from a simple singularity, create a unique set of physical dimensions that would eventually result in replicating molecules, simple organisms through to complex, self-aware "life".

You suggest feeding some computer with a set of existing physical laws and look if self-aware "life" comes into existence?
Wouldn't that merly show that the given laws can lead to intelligent life?

We could also suggest that only by defining such laws, however, would the eventual emergence of such organisms be possible.Could we :confused: We could, at the same time, run a second simulation where the only defined physical law is that the universe is to seek a "dynamic stability" in response to the original click of the placement of the singularity, and is allowed to form its own laws in order to fulfil that criteria.

Comparing the progress of the two systems and likening them to our own concept of reality would bring a reasonable solution as to which beginning seems more likely given our own time scale. If it turns out that flexible laws can result in the same (or similar, given the possibility for immense variation) outcome as the predefined laws, the hypothesis can be considered disproven, as we have shown that design is not a necessity in universal creation. If the first simulation successfully results in a replicating, responsive, cognitive and self-aware organism, while the second fails to do so every single time, we can consider the hypothesis valid until such a time as the second results in a similar outcome. And, of course, if the second one consistently does so before the first does after several repetitions, the hypothesis can be safely regarded as soundly defeated.


How's that?
I think that would only help us to define which set of laws is needed for the existence of intelligent life.

Playing nicely with the devil's advocate approach, and the evidence as you say is shaky. More like reasonable speculation to me.I do my best. Someone needs to say something here; I mean, the IDers are just going to ignore this thread as "Scientific evidence has nothing against the proof that I feel within me".

I'm not to proud to admit that i have no idea what you just said with your hypothesis. Although from what i gather it still rests on the assumption that rigid physical constants within hte universe must be the work of an intelligent external force.It's not so much rigid physical constants as much a rigid syntax structure. Basically, can the universe decide for itself how to deal with energy and matter, or does it need those laws to be decided for it? That's what the test is supposed to answer.

It's all done by computation. That's possibly where it might be a little hard to come to grips with, but it's still science. Beyond the simple setting up of the plane of execution, we're trying to see just how much predefined law governing the behaviour of matter and energy is required to create a stable yet dynamic and replicator-encouraging universe. We also run another simulation as a control; one where the laws have already been defined as we know it in our own universe.

If it turns out that the universe can pull itself together just fine without any explicit definitions of behaviour then we can state that an IDer is not required. If the undefined-rules simulation continues to fail, we can state that an IDer seems to be the more effective model.

Basically what I'm suggesting is running computer simulations of two self-contained universes, giving them varying degrees of control over their scientific structure, and comparing them. It's worth a try, no? Even if it doesn't prove anything in terms of universal origin, it would be an interesting experiment in reality-engineering.

I give it a chance.

I have a theory that World War One was started by fairies and I demand that it be taught in history books along side all that nonsense about the Duke of Austro-Hungry being assasinated.


you mean....the french wernt faries!?

oh my...this does change things.

Pixies started World War one Jewish,Left-handed Pixies.

I do my best. Someone needs to say something here; I mean, the IDers are just going to ignore this thread as "Scientific evidence has nothing against the proof that I feel within me".

It's not so much rigid physical constants as much a rigid syntax structure. Basically, can the universe decide for itself how to deal with energy and matter, or does it need those laws to be decided for it? That's what the test is supposed to answer.

It's all done by computation. That's possibly where it might be a little hard to come to grips with, but it's still science. Beyond the simple setting up of the plane of execution, we're trying to see just how much predefined law governing the behaviour of matter and energy is required to create a stable yet dynamic and replicator-encouraging universe. We also run another simulation as a control; one where the laws have already been defined as we know it in our own universe.

If it turns out that the universe can pull itself together just fine without any explicit definitions of behaviour then we can state that an IDer is not required. If the undefined-rules simulation continues to fail, we can state that an IDer seems to be the more effective model.

Basically what I'm suggesting is running computer simulations of two self-contained universes, giving them varying degrees of control over their scientific structure, and comparing them. It's worth a try, no? Even if it doesn't prove anything in terms of universal origin, it would be an interesting experiment in reality-engineering.
Please be aware that I'm far from sure I understood you.

Anyway, assuming I did get what you're saying, it seems to me you're switching around the experiments.

ID says that for this all to work, there must be something pulling the strings. So if could make a simulation like you suggest, the non-ID one should be the one where we apply the laws of the universe as we know them.

I'm not quite clear on what you mean by the first simulation? But if it's removing all natural laws from it, and waiting for them to make themselves, then I have two obvious comments. First & foremost, if we actually knew anything about how the laws governing our universe came to be, this would be incredibly interesting.. But I completely fail to see where ID or the lack of it would be shown. Sounds like guestimating a complex equation, and then run it through a computer to see how close you came to nailing it.
Secondly, supposing a more or less precise simulation of a collapsing singularity ran, but didn't result in any sort of universe, do you think this would be proof of God/ID, or would you simply say: "Alright. This probably wasn't what happened. Let's try something else."?

I heard some clown was complaining about the Vagina should be where the stomach is.

I do my best. Someone needs to say something here; I mean, the IDers are just going to ignore this thread as "Scientific evidence has nothing against the proof that I feel within me".

It's not so much rigid physical constants as much a rigid syntax structure. Basically, can the universe decide for itself how to deal with energy and matter, or does it need those laws to be decided for it? That's what the test is supposed to answer.

It's all done by computation. That's possibly where it might be a little hard to come to grips with, but it's still science. Beyond the simple setting up of the plane of execution, we're trying to see just how much predefined law governing the behaviour of matter and energy is required to create a stable yet dynamic and replicator-encouraging universe. We also run another simulation as a control; one where the laws have already been defined as we know it in our own universe.

If it turns out that the universe can pull itself together just fine without any explicit definitions of behaviour then we can state that an IDer is not required. If the undefined-rules simulation continues to fail, we can state that an IDer seems to be the more effective model.

Basically what I'm suggesting is running computer simulations of two self-contained universes, giving them varying degrees of control over their scientific structure, and comparing them. It's worth a try, no? Even if it doesn't prove anything in terms of universal origin, it would be an interesting experiment in reality-engineering.

It would certainly be an interesting experiment into the nature of self contained systems and how their intial limitations affect the course of their existance. However, since we dont know how our initial fundamental forces came into being, and since we dont know if there are other possible universes with different constants out there, I dont think it actually gets us any closer to answering the question of an intelligent designer. To assert that it was a god entity would just be playing the god-of-gaps game. Quite simply we dont know, but that merely indicates human ignorance, not divine power.

Please be aware that I'm far from sure I understood you.

Anyway, assuming I did get what you're saying, it seems to me you're switching around the experiments.

ID says that for this all to work, there must be something pulling the strings. So if could make a simulation like you suggest, the non-ID one should be the one where we apply the laws of the universe as we know them.I think you're thinking too much about creationism and Godship as Christianity put it. All intelligent design means is that the laws of the natural universe were put there by a designer. Anything else is severely stretching the definition. Intelligent Design isn't control over the universe; just that the laws of the universe have been put into place some how. In that respect, the ID one would be the applied laws.

I'm not quite clear on what you mean by the first simulation? But if it's removing all natural laws from it, and waiting for them to make themselves, then I have two obvious comments. First & foremost, if we actually knew anything about how the laws governing our universe came to be, this would be incredibly interesting.. But I completely fail to see where ID or the lack of it would be shown. Sounds like guestimating a complex equation, and then run it through a computer to see how close you came to nailing it.Again, we're not stating that ongoing control is a necessity.

The first Simulation is the control experiment; the one where we take our known laws and execute them. It is done to ensure that something that could be considered a universe can be created in such a manner and thus state that Intelligent Design is a reasonable theory for Universal Origin.
The second Simulation is where you remove natural laws and permit them to rearrange themselves to the ends that encourage stability. With any luck, it would be the start of an ongoing investigation into whether the laws that govern the universe are capable of rearranging themselves into a stable format that also allows a degree of dynamics to occur and thus allow the chemical rearranging that could result in replicator molecular substances.

The disproof of the "necessity of ID" theory would be the "free-range" simulation bringing that about; it would show that premeditated physical laws aren't a necessity to result in a universe similar to our own.

Secondly, supposing a more or less precise simulation of a collapsing singularity ran, but didn't result in any sort of universe, do you think this would be proof of God/ID, or would you simply say: "Alright. This probably wasn't what happened. Let's try something else."?Well, of course, you'd run the simulations multiple times over. Like all scientific theory, you don't exactly prove it correct except in the presence of overwhelming evidence against every possible suggestion to the contrary.

The idea is basically to continually refine the freeform model while retaining what is at heart an undefined physical structure. If, no matter what you try, no universe arises as a result of freeform physical laws, then it would be reasonable to maintain the theory as "undisproven".

It's sort of saying "Universes can be created by intelligent design, as the first simulation shows, but it might be possible for it to come about in other ways; the possibility of which the second simulation is trying to address".

It seems that the whole Intelligent Design (ID) in our classrooms' debate is being blown way out of proportion. As i see it most people who do not believe in Intelligent Design only have a problem with it being in the science classroom. ID in a history, philosophy, or religious studies classroom seems to be acceptable to all, as ID is derivative of Creationism. However, proponents of ID are vehement that it should be allowed into the science classroom and portrayed as a valid scientific theory.


Not all the proponents of ID are so vehement to get it into the science class room. Some feel that it would fit better in a separate class that deals with the explanations that rise from science, philosophy, and religion. I suppose the IDers are more concerned about how so much evolutionary speculation and Neo-Darwinism passes off as science. They would see it as unfair that the kids get taught one explanation in the science class, that the evolution from molecules to man was brought about by mutation, natural selection, and chance. Many scientists disagree with the idea that chance is enough, even though this is what is taught.

Perhaps it would be fairer if, within the science curriculum, there was a part that dealt with origins and explanations, both ID and neo-Darwinism. Then there rest of the curriculum could be devoted to real science, and leave the explanations out of it (though I have the feeling that this will be impossible, given that so much research is based on the assumption that e.g., man evolved from ape-like creatures).

Personally, I would much rather see science classes address the problem of origins. This would mean not teaching ID as truth, but using it as a way of introducing the whole problem of explaining our origins based on modern experiments, interpretation of results, bias, etc. Of course neo-Darwinism would be given just as much air time, and even presented as the most popular idea in science. But perhaps the teacher could explore some of the reasons why it is the most popular, from the point of view of both the neo-Darwinists and the IDers. I feel that this would provide the kids with an opportunity to see just how important the underlying issues are. Providing the teacher was worth his salt, it would most likely raise the interest in science, while allowing the kids to arrive at their own conclusions. This would mean that they would have to be old enough to be capable of making their own informed conclusions, perhaps at least 14 years (not sure about that one). I also think it important that the teacher emphasis that it isn't so necessary for the students take one side of the debate immediately, but that some conclusions can take years.



So, here is your chance ID supporters. Here is where you get to show why ID is a science, and as such a valid topic for a science classroom.


It is a valid topic because it is the second most popular explanation of origins. That would make it the best alternative next to neo-Darwinism. That argument is based on the fact that we need alternatives. Competition serves to stimulate research, rather than inhibit it. Having an alternative explanation of origin would help the criticism of neo-Darwinism be genuine. The heavy dominance of neo-Darwinism has usually meant that asking questions about it were considered in bad taste. That actually stifles progress. We have to be free to question and criticise. It's interesting how science promotes criticism of everything except neo-Darwinism. The method on which neo-Darwinism is based apparently cannot tolerate being applied to itself. No wonder so many people get upset with it. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why ID is becoming more popular. Perhaps it is a reaction against the 'dictator' of science, neo-Darwinism.


Rules and Points-Of-Order:

1) Creationism here is specifically in reference to Christian creationism. Flexibility in old-earth/young earth/day-age etc is acceptable if you need any of it to explain or debate ID.

2) No mention, let alone attacks, on the Theory of Evolution. This is NOT an "evolution vs creationism" thread. This is merely a place to state the case for ID. As with other ideas in science it should be able to state a hypothesis independent of other theories.


Isn't that like asking someone to stand up in the government house in Beijing and state the case for capitalism, without any mention of the current problems that communism is causing in that country? I can appreciate that you may think ID is all about the holes in neo-Dawinism. I think ID is far more than that. Although I do think the holes have certainly helped some people see the inadequacy of neo-Darwinism, as it is understood today. Perhaps that is why making the case for ID is rather pointless without the reference to the holes in neo-Darwinism, much like making a case for capitalism in a communistic setting won't make much sense without a reference to the problems with communism.



3) You must supply a testable and falsifiable hypothesis that ID predicts. Without this vital requirement of scientific hypotheses, science would be entirely meaningless as we could come up with any reasonable sounding explanation we wanted without providing evidence to back it up....


ID, as I see it, does not include a designer in its experiments, only in the explanations and interpretations of the results, i.e. the theory. An IDer would, for example, begin his experiment by collecting all the information necessary for e.g., a light sensitive cell. He would examine the components, and analyse the complexity required. He would examine the possibility that natural selection and mutations could move the complex system (consisting of complex parts) in a particular direction (evolution--something that ID doesn't rule out). He would also examine the possibility of the independent functionality of the complex parts. (So far as I know, this is an area that is not currently well covered by modern science, although that is beginning to change. Bioinformatics is a relatively new area, and deals mostly with genomics, transcriptomics, metabolomics, and proteomics. But looking at complex systems from the information point of view is rather difficult and complicated and therefore hasn't attracted lots of research money. It's the difference between looking at the interaction of individual proteins and genes, and looking at the interaction of several or even hundreds or thousands of proteins and genes.) Functionality of the complex parts of a system is an important requisite for evolution, at least to the point where each complex part was independent, before it became dependent on a complex system for functionality.

The IDer would also examine the possibility that the complex system was created, called into existence from nothing. This is the part that most neo-Darwinists don't like. But contrary to most accusations, this experiment is NOT dependent on a designer that is outside of nature, i.e. the supernatural. For example, if the IDer can understand the complex system (i.e. design) well enough, he may be able to reproduce it. Thus he demonstrates that the designer (in this case, himself) exists within nature, when he demonstrates that he can reproduce the design.

However, the question remains, is it possible for the design to come about by natural causes (natural selection and mutation)? That is something that cannot be proven or disproven. But that doesn't help either side of the argument, since it is impossible to prove that a one in a billion odds did or did not occur. We have to resort to making reasonable conclusions. That is the limitation of science. Not every aspect of scientific theory can be proven or disproven. Why, then, should this limitation be held only to ID and not to neo-Darwinism?




4) Thus, you must provide evidence to back up your hypothesis. Science does not give absolute truth or "proof" of its theories and the same rule applies here. However, evidence supporting the hypothesis is vital.

The evidence that ID holds is plain to see. Incredible complexity. Everywhere we look, we find life that is wonderfully complex. The 'big two' (natural selection and random mutation) does not explain in logical step by step process how this complex life emerged from molecules. Unless the big two becomes the big three, neo-Darwinism will probably never be able to explain the emergence at the detailed level. But sitting around waiting for someone to discover the extra natural cause(s) that explains the complexity is not very good science. On the other hand, invoking design arguments may not look like good science either, but it is only as ridiculous as the logic used by the neo-Darwinists. Perhaps by now one can begin to see how limited science is. It just isn't in a good position to decide our origins. I think this is a good message for the kids to learn in their science classes when they are being taught about our origins. Perhaps that is a good argument why lessons on origins should be a separate class.

Pixies started World War one Jewish,Left-handed Pixies.


No it wasnt Pixies.

It was Left handed, lesbian midget, eskimo, albinos.

and they were created by a bunch of dead milkmen.

I do my best. Someone needs to say something here; I mean, the IDers are just going to ignore this thread as "Scientific evidence has nothing against the proof that I feel within me".

It's not so much rigid physical constants as much a rigid syntax structure. Basically, can the universe decide for itself how to deal with energy and matter, or does it need those laws to be decided for it? That's what the test is supposed to answer.

It's all done by computation. That's possibly where it might be a little hard to come to grips with, but it's still science. Beyond the simple setting up of the plane of execution, we're trying to see just how much predefined law governing the behaviour of matter and energy is required to create a stable yet dynamic and replicator-encouraging universe. We also run another simulation as a control; one where the laws have already been defined as we know it in our own universe.

If it turns out that the universe can pull itself together just fine without any explicit definitions of behaviour then we can state that an IDer is not required. If the undefined-rules simulation continues to fail, we can state that an IDer seems to be the more effective model.

Basically what I'm suggesting is running computer simulations of two self-contained universes, giving them varying degrees of control over their scientific structure, and comparing them. It's worth a try, no? Even if it doesn't prove anything in terms of universal origin, it would be an interesting experiment in reality-engineering.
The universe doesn't decide things. What I mean is, what takes place is not a decision --a decision requires intelligence. So your stated premise that you are testing, "Can the universe decide for itself...," is flawed, as either way you are still testing for a sign of intelligence.

The physical laws that govern the universe do so without intent. They exist for no reason, just as matter and energy do. It is mankind who need them to have a reason: they have no such need for and unto themselves. It is mankind who assigns "reasoning" to them. It is mankind who looks at the positions of the planets in the solar system and says, "they are in place to support life here on Earth." They themselves have no such intent.

The physical laws come into existence when the matter and energy does, because they are a result of the nature of the matter and energy. They are not dictating what happens in the universe, but rather an observation of how the matter and energy interact. They are not deciding how the universe "puts itself together"; rather, they are the matter and energy interacting within space and time.

The universe doesn't decide things. What I mean is, what takes place is not a decision --a decision requires intelligence. So your stated premise that you are testing, "Can the universe decide for itself...," is flawed, as either way you are still testing for a sign of intelligence.

-snip-It's anthropomorphism. Substitute "decide" for "settle into" if it so guides you.

The universe doesn't decide things. What I mean is, what takes place is not a decision --a decision requires intelligence. So your stated premise that you are testing, "Can the universe decide for itself...," is flawed, as either way you are still testing for a sign of intelligence.

The physical laws that govern the universe do so without intent. They exist for no reason, just as matter and energy do. It is mankind who need them to have a reason: they have no such need for and unto themselves. It is mankind who assigns "reasoning" to them. It is mankind who looks at the positions of the planets in the solar system and says, "they are in place to support life here on Earth." They themselves have no such intent.

The physical laws come into existence when the matter and energy does, because they are a result of the nature of the matter and energy. They are not dictating what happens in the universe, but rather an observation of how the matter and energy interact. They are not deciding how the universe "puts itself together"; rather, they are the matter and energy interacting within space and time.


That's a rather apt perception. I would have to agree with what is said here. I believe that the problem of anthropomorphing the universe is what leads to the ideas behind intelligent design in the first place. Humans seem to feel the need to believe we have a purpose in existing. Yet there is nothing to provide us with a purpose or a reason for existence. So we create one.

That's a rather apt perception. I would have to agree with what is said here. I believe that the problem of anthropomorphing the universe is what leads to the ideas behind intelligent design in the first place. Humans seem to feel the need to believe we have a purpose in existing. Yet there is nothing to provide us with a purpose or a reason for existence. So we create one.


I agree that humans want meaning, and look for it everywhere, even inventing it to suit themselves (e.g. corrupt forms of religion). However, I disagree that this is what ID is solely about. The desire for meaning may certainly play a role in the pursuits of the IDers. But the idea itself is not dependent on the meaning being there. It focuses on the question of the apparent source of the designs found in nature.

Not all the proponents ... <snip>... some conclusions can take years.

ID definately doesnt belong in the science classroom as it isnt a scientific theory. As i said i have no problem having it in a serperate subject. You did however try to justify it by attacking evolution. That approach doesnt support ID. And is irrelevant to this discussion (i'll explain why when i repond to one of your points addressing that later on)

It is a valid topic because ...<sinp>... Perhaps it is a reaction against the 'dictator' of science, neo-Darwinism.

Alternatives are fine. But as far as i am concerned i think in a science class the only discussion for alternatives should be the acknowledgement that they exist alongside the encouragement for students to research for themselves the alternatives. Again I dont want to bring evolution into this, but whatever your opinions on its validty are it still remains the most scientifically supported of all explantions for diversity of life. Hence why it alone is in the science classroom. But on topic, this is supposed to be where you provide evidence for ID. NOT attack other views.

Isn't that like asking someone to stand up in ...<snip>...reference to the problems with communism.

Not at all. The politcal arena and the scientific community are entirely different. A scientific theory should be able to stand up by its own merits alone. Only then can it be compared with competing theories. ID still fails to meet the minimum requirements of a science. Hence why it should not be portrayed as a science.


ID, as I see it, ...<snip>... only to ID and not to neo-Darwinism?

That was basically a very thorough and detailed way of saying "nature looks designed, thus it must be designed". Science does not prove anything. It merely gathers supporting evidence for a hypothesis to demonstrate that the hypothesis is probable. As far as i can tell there is no evidence to suggest that each species was created independent of each other, nor is there evidenve to support ID other than the assumption that because its complex it must have been intelligently designed. ID hasnt provided a testable and falsifiable hypothesis that i can see. You say ID only includes a designer in its interpretations, but not its experiments. To add in factors after the event is unscientific in itself.

The evidence that ID holds is plain to see...<snip>... Perhaps that is a good argument why lessons on origins should be a separate class.

Irreducible complexity has been refuted time and time again. As i've said many many times about many many arguments for ID it falls in the god-of-gaps category. I'll leave your attack on evolution out of this since we are supposed to be talking about IDs validity anyway. I'm sure I've seen us both been involved in Evo V ID debates enough by now to know there are better threads for that discussion. However i will say that it is appalling science to invoke design arguments that rely on an unfalsifiable designing entity, simply because we currently do not have a definitive answer through our ongoing research.

Although you made some good points and it was a well written and well thought out post it still failed on two counts.
1) It kept attacking evolution to distract from the issue at hand. As i explicitedly stated shoudnt be done (and hopefully now have explained clearly why)
2) It still has not provided a testable hypothesis and evidence that does not just equate to god-of-gaps.

ID is still not a science

The universe doesn't decide things. What I mean is, what takes place is not a decision --a decision requires intelligence. So your stated premise that you are testing, "Can the universe decide for itself...," is flawed, as either way you are still testing for a sign of intelligence.

The physical laws that govern the universe do so without intent. They exist for no reason, just as matter and energy do. It is mankind who need them to have a reason: they have no such need for and unto themselves. It is mankind who assigns "reasoning" to them. It is mankind who looks at the positions of the planets in the solar system and says, "they are in place to support life here on Earth." They themselves have no such intent.

The physical laws come into existence when the matter and energy does, because they are a result of the nature of the matter and energy. They are not dictating what happens in the universe, but rather an observation of how the matter and energy interact. They are not deciding how the universe "puts itself together"; rather, they are the matter and energy interacting within space and time.

Very well put.

It would certainly be an interesting experiment into the nature of self contained systems and how their intial limitations affect the course of their existance. However, since we dont know how our initial fundamental forces came into being, and since we dont know if there are other possible universes with different constants out there, I dont think it actually gets us any closer to answering the question of an intelligent designer. To assert that it was a god entity would just be playing the god-of-gaps game. Quite simply we dont know, but that merely indicates human ignorance, not divine power.I don't think, if intelligent design is to work at all as a theory, the identity of the designer at all comes into it. The only way ID can function as science is if it analyses the way in which fundamental universal axioms are defined; the intelligent designer and any preconceptions of it can and must be completely ignored when looking at them.

I don't think, if intelligent design is to work at all as a theory, the identity of the designer at all comes into it. The only way ID can function as science is if it analyses the way in which fundamental universal axioms are defined; the intelligent designer and any preconceptions of it can and must be completely ignored when looking at them.

True. The identity of the designer is a moot point. But ID relies on some designer existing. Finding what universal fundamentals are required to support a universe that can eventually support life does not get us any closer to actually determining if any designing entity exists.

It's anthropomorphism. Substitute "decide" for "settle into" if it so guides you.
Actually, it's a metaphor, specifically intended to invoke such a comparision to intelligence, as if the universe had planned this. Much in our language is born of the archaic idea of fate being a force that directs our lives. The idea of such fate is no longer popular, but the language and methods of communicating live on, open to being taken too literally.

I think you're thinking too much about creationism and Godship as Christianity put it. All intelligent design means is that the laws of the natural universe were put there by a designer. Anything else is severely stretching the definition. Intelligent Design isn't control over the universe; just that the laws of the universe have been put into place some how. In that respect, the ID one would be the applied laws.

Again, we're not stating that ongoing control is a necessity.

Nah, it was just poor wording on my part. I wasn't assuming continuous control & adjustments. Just an initial design. But I agree that wasn't exactly obvious considering what I wrote. Sorry 'bout that :p



The first Simulation is the control experiment; the one where we take our known laws and execute them. It is done to ensure that something that could be considered a universe can be created in such a manner and thus state that Intelligent Design is a reasonable theory for Universal Origin.

This is where my mind boggles. In what way would this point to design?
I agree it's somewhat of a hopeless argument, as we don't know the first thing about <whatever the initial state was>. So far it looks a lot like we'll never be able to move beyond the first n^32 second of the big bang... Assuming that is what happened.
So without a clue about what brought on the universe - mechanical or metaphysical - I don't think it's at all reasonable to assume design or intelligence is involved. Every time we've ever attributed something to design/intelligence/divinity, and later accuired the know-how to understand the <whatever> we've proved ourselves wrong in attributing it to anything other than a strictly mechanical process. Thus, if we stretch the word "reasonable" so far as to use it about pure, unfounded speculation, about something we know absolutely nada about (and I think most english teachers would object to calling that reasonable), it's hardly reasonable to suspect design over a natural mechanism. I'm not saying it's impossible or anything, but considering past success rate on blaming stuff on design/intelligence/divinity, I'd say the odds are looking pretty bad.

Really though, given current knowledge about the universe, the only conclusion we'd be able to draw would be that we've pretty much nailed it so far. By the way, simulated universes have already been made several times, most notably in relation to dark matter theories. But these simulations, of course, doesn't concern themselves with the initial state of things. They're simulations running from very shortly after the big bang occured.

The second Simulation is where you remove natural laws and permit them to rearrange themselves to the ends that encourage stability. With any luck, it would be the start of an ongoing investigation into whether the laws that govern the universe are capable of rearranging themselves into a stable format that also allows a degree of dynamics to occur and thus allow the chemical rearranging that could result in replicator molecular substances.

The problem is that we can't do this. We might be able to do it if we knew how the big bang occured and how it worked. The problem is that it's pretty fucking tricky to work that out. We can say with a high degree of certainty that the laws of the universe as we know them, only kicked in shortly after the big bang occured, but that's pretty much all we can say, without resorting to wild guesswork. High ebergy physicists have been working on this for 50 years or so, but moving beyond the point where the laws of the universe breaks down is, for obvious reasons, not that easy.

The disproof of the "necessity of ID" theory would be the "free-range" simulation bringing that about; it would show that premeditated physical laws aren't a necessity to result in a universe similar to our own.

Supposing, for the sake of argument, that this is possible, how would that give an indication either way? You can - completely uncontested - say that a god created everything. It doesn't contradict anything we know. You can also say the opposite, that a mechanical process created everything, without anyone being able to contradict you.
Under the experiment you propose here, it would be the same thing. You just regress a step. The problem is that your experiment doesn't start beyond the initial state. Whether such a simulation works or not will only prove one of two things: Either we nailed how the initial state worked, or we're missing something. Whether the "something" we're missing is a designer or just a detail about the initial state, noone can say for certain.

That's the trouble with ID, it's completely hopeless to prove anything about it.

Well, of course, you'd run the simulations multiple times over. Like all scientific theory, you don't exactly prove it correct except in the presence of overwhelming evidence against every possible suggestion to the contrary.

And here's the problem with science.It's annoying as hell, but science just can't say something is a certainty. There's always a chance that a theory or law is 100% wrong, but just happens to achive the result of the real process 99.999% of the time. An obvious example would be gravity - our theory is so far 100% successful, but we've actually never seen a graviton - and even when we find them (probably within the next 3-5 years), we can't actually be sure that our understanding of how particles works is right. All we can say is that it "looks like it's what's going on".

The idea is basically to continually refine the freeform model while retaining what is at heart an undefined physical structure. If, no matter what you try, no universe arises as a result of freeform physical laws, then it would be reasonable to maintain the theory as "undisproven".

Well... No. It would be more accurate to say that we're either missing something, or we're misinterpreting how something works. It's reasonable to say "well ok, something fundamental is either wrong or missing here", but it's not reasonable to go from a defunk simulation to "Hmm, alright. Clearly the designer needs to be part of the equation". It's unreasonable, because you'll have no way of knowing what it is that prevents the simulation from working. It might be a designer, but it could be something else entirely. Blaming it on a designer is pure, unfounded speculation.

It's sort of saying "Universes can be created by intelligent design, as the first simulation shows, but it might be possible for it to come about in other ways; the possibility of which the second simulation is trying to address".

I fail to follow your logic. In my mind, neither one of the experiments will say anything what so ever about a designer.
- But I might still not understand you completely.

That's a rather apt perception. I would have to agree with what is said here. I believe that the problem of anthropomorphing the universe is what leads to the ideas behind intelligent design in the first place. Humans seem to feel the need to believe we have a purpose in existing. Yet there is nothing to provide us with a purpose or a reason for existence. So we create one.
Hehe, as someone (I forgot who) once said: "Man is surely stark raving mad; he cannot make a flea, yet he creates gods by the dozen."

Always makes me smile :)
(no offence anyone. It's just a bit of humour).

I agree that humans want meaning, and look for it everywhere, even inventing it to suit themselves (e.g. corrupt forms of religion).
Yes, and the sad thing is that is our greatest strength, if we can learn to discriminate between the literal and the non-literal meaning. All the problems for religion come from taking non-literal meaning too literally. Is Christ the literal son of God, or a figurative one? Which has more significance? I believe that modern religious people place more significance on literal truth because of science, because science makes sense. We want religion to make the same sort of sense. It doesn't have to; it has its own sense that has nothing to do with a real God creating a real child in a real virgin.

However, I disagree that this is what ID is solely about. The desire for meaning may certainly play a role in the pursuits of the IDers. But the idea itself is not dependent on the meaning being there. It focuses on the question of the apparent source of the designs found in nature.
No, it doesn't. It doesn't focus on the source at all, but carefully avoids it. If you read the literature, wading through all the nonsense that is nothing more than an attack on science, it focuses on the designs only. It claims a souce but avoids demonstrating any sort of source. "The intelligence in ID need not be God. We don't know what it is, just that it so obviously is."

ID looks at designs as if they had a source.

Alternatives are fine. But as far as i am concerned i think in a science class the only discussion for alternatives should be the acknowledgement that they exist alongside the encouragement for students to research for themselves the alternatives. Again I dont want to bring evolution into this, but whatever your opinions on its validty are it still remains the most scientifically supported of all explantions for diversity of life. Hence why it alone is in the science classroom. But on topic, this is supposed to be where you provide evidence for ID. NOT attack other views.


The problem with that is that evolutionism (i.e., the idea that only natural causes were involved in humans evolving from molecules) is NOT considered the most scientifically supported theory of origins by all scientists. Precisely there is what the whole debate is about. You can say that it is the most popular explanation, perhaps, but everyone should be aware the the majority is not always right. That is a very good reason why it should not be the only explanation presented in the science class, if it is to be presented at all.


Not at all. The politcal arena and the scientific community are entirely different. A scientific theory should be able to stand up by its own merits alone. Only then can it be compared with competing theories. ID still fails to meet the minimum requirements of a science. Hence why it should not be portrayed as a science.


I gave an example (although rather brief) of how science could work in the lab of an IDer in my previous post. A scientist could observe the design again and again, come to the same conclusions, without any reference to evolution. However, I believe that an IDer should consider the possibility of evolution, because science does have some evidence that a limited level of evolution has occurred. Thus, if he has to consider evolution, he has to be able to compare it with ID.

In the beginning of this thread, you announced that you wanted no criticism of evolution. I used the example from politics to show that you cannot really have an intelligent discussion about the merits of ID unless you compare it to evolutionism. From there one can highlight the pro's and cons of ID. It's not so much an attack on evolutionism, as using it as a reference. Another example would be a scientist who gives a really nice presentation of experimental data, interpretations, and modeling of a process found in nature but gives his listeners no indication of why he interested in the process, and it's relevancy to the world economics or progress in the standard of living. In the end, it will be an irritation to the listeners.



That was basically a very thorough and detailed way of saying "nature looks designed, thus it must be designed". Science does not prove anything. It merely gathers supporting evidence for a hypothesis to demonstrate that the hypothesis is probable. As far as i can tell there is no evidence to suggest that each species was created independent of each other, nor is there evidenve to support ID other than the assumption that because its complex it must have been intelligently designed. ID hasnt provided a testable and falsifiable hypothesis that i can see.


I'll take the 'very thorough and detailed' part as a compliment. Though I do not find it so. More like 'rough and ready'.
What you are presenting here is your opinion about nature and its origins on the basis of your bias. You see no evidence of intelligent design, therefore you feel that your conclusion of 'randomness generating design' to be quite secure. I would say it is about as secure as the opinion of the chap who looks at the same design and is convinced there had to be a designer. Your opinion is based on the opinions of others. I doubt you have personally investigated the design. (I'm not trying to be offensive, just making a point---bear with me here.) It's more likely that you have read the case for evolution, found it to be quite convincing, and therefore accepted it as the most likely explanation (some people think of it as truth). You probably have not handled the raw data yourself. Therefore, you are in the same position as religious people who have not seen God for themselves but have read the book (which contains an account of the 'raw data'), have found it convincing and go away believing it to be the most likely explanation (many people think of it as truth).

I suppose a sensible question to ask is 'What sort of evidence would you accept as supporting ID?' Just what would it take? It may be that the evidence is there, but that it is interpreted in the 'light' of evolution or ID, depending on the bias of the observer. Perhaps you can appreciate how hard it is to think of a falsifyable and testable hypothesis that would support either evolution or ID. The proponents of both theories are simply going to interpret the data in the 'light' of their favourite theory. If it doesn't quite fit, then they will modify their theory so that it does fit.



You say ID only includes a designer in its interpretations, but not its experiments. To add in factors after the event is unscientific in itself.


I think that is a little unfair, considering that this 'adding in factors after the event' is precisely what scientific theory does rather frequently. Consider an example from abiogenesis. How many times have you heard someone suggest that the earliest life forms were likely quite different from the way they are today? There is no evidence of alternative life forms. It's just an invention to explain a particular problem, to fill the gap between a modern bacterium and the first theoretical life form.


Irreducible complexity has been refuted time and time again. As i've said many many times about many many arguments for ID it falls in the god-of-gaps category. I'll leave your attack on evolution out of this since we are supposed to be talking about IDs validity anyway. I'm sure I've seen us both been involved in Evo V ID debates enough by now to know there are better threads for that discussion. However i will say that it is appalling science to invoke design arguments that rely on an unfalsifiable designing entity, simply because we currently do not have a definitive answer through our ongoing research.


Irreducible complexity has not been refuted. It has simply been argued against. For example, you cannot have a functional eye, without a functional nervous system. Sight is an example of irreducible complexity. It depends on both a nervous system and some sort of eye. Take one away, and you will not have sight. We are not merely dealing with a God of the gaps problem here. If evolutionism cannot explain a modern observation, its validity as an viable explanation is called into question. Actually, I have no interest in attacking evolutionism for the sake of making it look bad. However, I cannot avoid making comparisons between ID and evolutionism when defending ID. Incidentally, the same can be said of your position. If you want to defend evolutionism, you have to contrast it with other theories.

It is also 'appalling' science to invoke the argument of 'well, it's simply the best theory we have, therefore it must be right'. Especially when it is only the best theory because no other theory is 'allowed'.


Although you made some good points and it was a well written and well thought out post it still failed on two counts.
1) It kept attacking evolution to distract from the issue at hand. As i explicitedly stated shoudnt be done (and hopefully now have explained clearly why)
2) It still has not provided a testable hypothesis and evidence that does not just equate to god-of-gaps.

ID is still not a science


Thank you for your compliments. It certainly is a pleasant feeling to debate with a polite opponent.
As I have pointed out, my 'attacks' on evolution are not so much attacks as comparisons. They help my arguments make sense, particularly when you are criticising ID. I recommend that every criticism that you direct at ID should also be directed at evolutionism. Otherwise, those who are defending ID are certainly permitted (in the name of fairness) to do it for you.

There are some parts of both theories that will never be testable. Should we consider neither ID or evolutionism as science?

Not in a history classroom, as it isn't history.

I tend to agree more with Michael Ruse's position as stated in his latest book "The Evolution-Creation Struggle". Both creationism and evolution are religious beliefs whose origins can be clearly traced to the enlightenment.

i haven't read the book, but i have talked to him and seen a presentation of his, as well as read several articles by him, and it seems to me that this isn't exactly his position.

it's more that some people have made the science of evolution into a part of a secular belief system that comes out of an essentially theological debate several centuries ago. he clearly says that evolution is science and creationism isn't. he just thinks that some people take it a step too far and argue that evolution means that, for example, christianity in it's entirety is wrong, which brings them a little to close to holding theological positions and a little too far from the actual science of evolution. and the real problem is that he thinks people don't make the distinction between the two positions (the science of evolution, and what he calls 'evolutionism') clear enough.

I don't think, if intelligent design is to work at all as a theory, the identity of the designer at all comes into it. The only way ID can function as science is if it analyses the way in which fundamental universal axioms are defined; the intelligent designer and any preconceptions of it can and must be completely ignored when looking at them.
If the identity of the designer "does not come into it at all", then how do we determine its intelligence?

There is a story about taking a hundred monkeys, setting them down at typewriters to type. After a thousand years one of them may come up with a novel. The point is, can you really look at the novel and say the source is intelligent?

EDIT: They're very long-lived monkies.

Yes, and the sad thing is that is our greatest strength, if we can learn to discriminate between the literal and the non-literal meaning. All the problems for religion come from taking non-literal meaning too literally. Is Christ the literal son of God, or a figurative one? Which has more significance? I believe that modern religious people place more significance on literal truth because of science, because science makes sense. We want religion to make the same sort of sense. It doesn't have to; it has its own sense that has nothing to do with a real God creating a real child in a real virgin.


You say that all the problems for religion come from taking non-literal meaning too literally. But then who is to decide what is literal and what isn't? We are left with our common sense, I suppose. For example, when Jesus says that we are to eat his flesh and drink his blood, I suppose he wasn't wanting us to take it literally, but to see a deeper truth in it. However, one can't help wondering if the crusades could have been avoided if the leading religious chaps had taken Jesus' command to 'love your enemies' a little more literally.



No, it doesn't. It doesn't focus on the source at all, but carefully avoids it. If you read the literature, wading through all the nonsense that is nothing more than an attack on science, it focuses on the designs only. It claims a souce but avoids demonstrating any sort of source. "The intelligence in ID need not be God. We don't know what it is, just that it so obviously is."

ID looks at designs as if they had a source.


Does that mean you have actually read literature written by the IDers, Willamena? I am impressed. But I wonder if you have covered enough of it to make your conclusions about it fair. I hope it isn't a case of gathering your information from cheap sources.

As for the attack on science, I suppose you mean the attack on neo-Darwinism or evolutionism or naturalistic explanations. I see science as a good deal bigger than these. 'Attacks' are absolutely necessary. It is a form of criticism. If evolutionism doesn't like these 'attacks', it is departing from scientific principle.

The problem with that is that evolutionism (i.e., the idea that only natural causes were involved in humans evolving from molecules) is NOT considered the most scientifically supported theory of origins by all scientists. Precisely there is what the whole debate is about. You can say that it is the most popular explanation, perhaps, but everyone should be aware the the majority is not always right. That is a very good reason why it should not be the only explanation presented in the science class, if it is to be presented at all.

The reason evolution is the most widely accepted theory in the modern scientific communtity is because of the plethora of supporting evidence. It has often been said in these forums that science doesnt deal in absolute truths, and as such i agree with you that its sad when anyone takes evolution as gospel truth. I do however find the argument for evolution EXCESSIVELY convincing and the reasoning behind ID sadly lacking.


I gave an example (although rather brief) of how science could work in the lab of an IDer in my previous post. A scientist could observe the design again and again, come to the same conclusions, without any reference to evolution. However, I believe that an IDer should consider the possibility of evolution, because science does have some evidence that a limited level of evolution has occurred. Thus, if he has to consider evolution, he has to be able to compare it with ID.

Here you have to make the distinction between actual design and apparent desgin. I could show you a great many natural and non-organic things that look designed but arent. Crystal formations, natural bridges, perfectly smooth rocks, clouds that closely resemble recognisable shapes, patterns in rock strata that look like rude and amusing shapes (yes, i've actually seen that). And again to attribute complexity to a design you have to be able to explain how the designer has functioned to cause the complexity. It may sound like an unreasonable requirement but its equally unreasonable to place in the unneeded and unproven factor of a designer.

In the beginning of this thread, you announced that you wanted no criticism of evolution. I used the example from politics to show that you cannot really have an intelligent discussion about the merits of ID unless you compare it to evolutionism. From there one can highlight the pro's and cons of ID. It's not so much an attack on evolutionism, as using it as a reference. Another example would be a scientist who gives a really nice presentation of experimental data, interpretations, and modeling of a process found in nature but gives his listeners no indication of why he interested in the process, and it's relevancy to the world economics or progress in the standard of living. In the end, it will be an irritation to the listeners.

Point conceded to a certain extent. You personally have used evolution as a benchmark for comparison with ID. Most ID supporters merely highlight previous mistakes of evolutionary scientists to distract from the issue at hand.

I'll take the 'very thorough and detailed' part as a compliment. Though I do not find it so. More like 'rough and ready'.
What you are presenting here is your opinion about nature and its origins on the basis of your bias. You see no evidence of intelligent design, therefore you feel that your conclusion of 'randomness generating design' to be quite secure. I would say it is about as secure as the opinion of the chap who looks at the same design and is convinced there had to be a designer. Your opinion is based on the opinions of others. I doubt you have personally investigated the design. (I'm not trying to be offensive, just making a point---bear with me here.) It's more likely that you have read the case for evolution, found it to be quite convincing, and therefore accepted it as the most likely explanation (some people think of it as truth). You probably have not handled the raw data yourself. Therefore, you are in the same position as religious people who have not seen God for themselves but have read the book (which contains an account of the 'raw data'), have found it convincing and go away believing it to be the most likely explanation (many people think of it as truth).

I have certainly tried to look from both angles (excuse the implication that there are only two angles) at the issues of natural complexity. Admittedly i was first exposed to that of evolution in any depth. However i have handled and observed the raw data of what you would deem micro evolution, and i have looked at fossil displays showing the progressions that evolution predicts. For the most part you're right in that i have mainly just read the supporting evidence for the two explanations i am familiar with. This doesnt make my arguments invalid. In the examples i have been given i havent seen anything truly irreducibly complex.


I suppose a sensible question to ask is 'What sort of evidence would you accept as supporting ID?' Just what would it take? It may be that the evidence is there, but that it is interpreted in the 'light' of evolution or ID, depending on the bias of the observer. Perhaps you can appreciate how hard it is to think of a falsifyable and testable hypothesis that would support either evolution or ID. The proponents of both theories are simply going to interpret the data in the 'light' of their favourite theory. If it doesn't quite fit, then they will modify their theory so that it does fit.

I truly cannot think of a falsifiable and testable hypothesis for ID. I can think of several off the top of my head for evolution. (the following cut and paste from a post i made on another thread).

Evolution predicts various things about what should be observed if macroevolution occurs. Fossil records of progressive steps in species, fossil records showing a trend from simple to complex life forms as rock strata go from older to younger, genetic similarities between closely related species (including non-functional genes and 'junk' DNA), morphological similarites between similar species etc.. All of which have been observed in numerous examples.

If you found a cat fossil in the cretaceous period rock strata, or DNA shared by Man and Crocodile that wasnt found in Chimpanzees etc.. these would falsify current evolutionary theory.




I think that is a little unfair, considering that this 'adding in factors after the event' is precisely what scientific theory does rather frequently. Consider an example from abiogenesis. How many times have you heard someone suggest that the earliest life forms were likely quite different from the way they are today? There is no evidence of alternative life forms. It's just an invention to explain a particular problem, to fill the gap between a modern bacterium and the first theoretical life form.

Abiogenesis is an ongoing study. The have a hypothesis that they are currently working on testing, they have not definitely said anything about the bridge between non-life and life yet. As you said yourself, they "suggest" it. In the case of ID adding god or at least a designing entity is essential to the idea by Intelligent Designs very definition. Science suggests possibilities, ID is stating something as if its been firmly supported by ideas that imply it at best.

Irreducible complexity has not been refuted. It has simply been argued against. For example, you cannot have a functional eye, without a functional nervous system. Sight is an example of irreducible complexity. It depends on both a nervous system and some sort of eye. Take one away, and you will not have sight. We are not merely dealing with a God of the gaps problem here. If evolutionism cannot explain a modern observation, its validity as an viable explanation is called into question. Actually, I have no interest in attacking evolutionism for the sake of making it look bad. However, I cannot avoid making comparisons between ID and evolutionism when defending ID. Incidentally, the same can be said of your position. If you want to defend evolutionism, you have to contrast it with other theories.

It hasnt been fully refuted because for every system that is explained IDers will just pick another one. It will only be totally refuted when we've explained every system in nature. Now THAT is unreasonable. Sight does rely on a nervous system and some form of 'eye', true. However a nervous system does not require there to be a sight organ. Hence by evolutionary terms it is reasonable to assume that the nervous system developed first. For an explantion of the eye put far better than i could i'll direct you here -> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html

It is also 'appalling' science to invoke the argument of 'well, it's simply the best theory we have, therefore it must be right'. Especially when it is only the best theory because no other theory is 'allowed'.

'Its simply the best theory we have' is a gross injustice to evolution. Considering the 140 odd years of ammassed evidence and all the data from various fields that point to the same conclusion i would say it stands a good chance of being right. Even if we havent nailed the exact mechanisms behind it yet, it is still deserving of far better than 'simply the best theory we have'
Give us a falsifiable hypothesis we can work off for ID and evidence to support it and we'll treat it as a theory. The rules of scientific method were laid down totally independent of the evo/ID debarcle, evolution can fit into the definition of 'theory', ID, as of yet, cannot.


Thank you for your compliments. It certainly is a pleasant feeling to debate with a polite opponent.
As I have pointed out, my 'attacks' on evolution are not so much attacks as comparisons. They help my arguments make sense, particularly when you are criticising ID. I recommend that every criticism that you direct at ID should also be directed at evolutionism. Otherwise, those who are defending ID are certainly permitted (in the name of fairness) to do it for you.

There are some parts of both theories that will never be testable. Should we consider neither ID or evolutionism as science?

yes, certainly good to have an intelligent debate rather than a degeneration into ad hominem attacks and pedantry over etymology. Evolution can give evidence for itself without comparing itself to ID, hence ID should be able to do the same. However i understand that as evolution is the standard accepted theory in the scientific community you may feel the need for comparison. I would like it to be kept to an 'essentials only' level though, and independent ideas for ID to be put forth where possible.

excuse me if i'm not making much sense 2am where i am and work beckons in 7 hours. should really get some sleep.

Laws that form to match particular behaviour imply that no design is involved. Rigid laws run contrary to what particular behaviour would otherwise adopt, which implies external restriction.

That last part is an unfounded and illogical assumption. You are essentially assuming that anything with any type of set order must be designed. It is no different than saying, "Wow, DNA is awesome! And it's mechanisms are present in all life! It must have been designed!"

As for testing it, that's why I suggested the simulation. It's not a "wild, untestable guess" if you can try it out, fiddle with the variables and chart the results, is it?

Problem is, your simulation wouldn't prove anything, because you are relying on a flawed assumption - that any laws that don't change must be designed. It could very well be that the laws of the universe are simply a part of the way the universe works - with or without a designer or anything outside of them.

You say that all the problems for religion come from taking non-literal meaning too literally. But then who is to decide what is literal and what isn't? We are left with our common sense, I suppose. For example, when Jesus says that we are to eat his flesh and drink his blood, I suppose he wasn't wanting us to take it literally, but to see a deeper truth in it. However, one can't help wondering if the crusades could have been avoided if the leading religious chaps had taken Jesus' command to 'love your enemies' a little more literally.
Deciding what is literal and not is not a problem for most people, yourself included apparently. You easily recognize that we are not to literally cannibalize Jesus.

In non-literal interpretations the individual assigns meaning to things, meaning that has significance for him or her. The problem I mentioned is failing to recognize that there is no "one right meaning", and failing to recognize the value of having multiple interpretations. Every individual interpretation that has significance for someone else gives a symbol more depth of meaning.

Does that mean you have actually read literature written by the IDers, Willamena?
Yes, I have. More useful, though, are the criticisms of those articles by people who are expert in the fields discussed.

As for the attack on science, I suppose you mean the attack on neo-Darwinism or evolutionism or naturalistic explanations. I see science as a good deal bigger than these. 'Attacks' are absolutely necessary. It is a form of criticism. If evolutionism doesn't like these 'attacks', it is departing from scientific principle.
No, what I refer to as the attack on science is the attempt to get science to allow for the supernatural as a source of material effects. It undermines any authority science has to explain natural phenomenon.

EDIT: What you refer to as the attacks on "evolutionism" and "neo-Darwinism" (neither of which are proper scientific terms) are not about ID at all. Yes, these attempts to criticize science are attempts to undermine it by "debunking" it, but they do nothing to support ID.

I agree that humans want meaning, and look for it everywhere, even inventing it to suit themselves (e.g. corrupt forms of religion). However, I disagree that this is what ID is solely about. The desire for meaning may certainly play a role in the pursuits of the IDers. But the idea itself is not dependent on the meaning being there. It focuses on the question of the apparent source of the designs found in nature.

I don't think it was ID is solely about, but it is a major force behind the movment. Why cannot they accept that there is no purpose, hence no intelligence behind the evolution of humanity? ID also runs on the assumption that we are an end product, which I find highly unlikely.

There is also the feeling that ID says "We are the only possible life in the universe", which is mathematically improbable. Granted, there is no empirical evidence of other life (yet) that is due to the limits of our current abilities.

Not in a history classroom, as it isn't history.
I beg to differ it is defiantly part of history its roots are tied in history and their existences are historical

Just because it still exists does not mean it does not belong in a history class

That’s like saying we should not teach American history because America still exists

:rolleyes:

Providing the teacher was worth his salt, it would most likely raise the interest in science, while allowing the kids to arrive at their own conclusions.

If the teacher was worth his salt, he would use ID to demonstrate what not to do in science.

It is a valid topic because it is the second most popular explanation of origins. That would make it the best alternative next to neo-Darwinism.

That is the most idiotic thing you have ever said. "This is popular, so we should teach it in science." Cute. "This is best because a lot of people like it." Yeah, that makes logical sense.

The heavy dominance of neo-Darwinism has usually meant that asking questions about it were considered in bad taste.

Only someone who is pissed off that their pet "theory" isn't scientific would make this idiotic statement. Criticism of evolution is hardly considered bad taste. Criticism of all scientific theories IS THE BASIS OF SCIENCE.

Isn't that like asking someone to stand up in the government house in Beijing and state the case for capitalism, without any mention of the current problems that communism is causing in that country?

Yes. Logically, one cannot say that one thing is correct just because another is incorrect. If you think evolution is incorrect, fine. That doesn't lend any credibility at all to ID. You have to come up with credibility for ID separately from other ideas.

I can appreciate that you may think ID is all about the holes in neo-Dawinism. I think ID is far more than that.

You say this, and then you into a nice tirade about how ID is all about proving that evolution as we know it couldn't possibly have led to life as we know it.

The IDer would also examine the possibility that the complex system was created, called into existence from nothing.

Impossible to examine, as it is impossible to test.

The evidence that ID holds is plain to see. Incredible complexity.

No one has yet demonstrated anything that can be objectively said to be irreducibly complex. Meanwhile, even if we did find such an object, that would not logically lead to the conclusion that it was designed by an intelligence.

You were asked for scientific evidence my dear, not philosophical speculation.

The 'big two' (natural selection and random mutation) does not explain in logical step by step process how this complex life emerged from molecules.

What was that about how ID was not simply attacking "holes" in scientific theory?

If the identity of the designer "does not come into it at all", then how do we determine its intelligence?

There is a story about taking a hundred monkeys, setting them down at typewriters to type. After a thousand years one of them may come up with a novel. The point is, can you really look at the novel and say the source is intelligent?

EDIT: They're very long-lived monkies.

Jane Austin was a ten monkey 30 minute job.

That last part is an unfounded and illogical assumption. You are essentially assuming that anything with any type of set order must be designed. It is no different than saying, "Wow, DNA is awesome! And it's mechanisms are present in all life! It must have been designed!"Not really. Well, maybe I was. *Shrug* Either way, I am playing Devil's Advocate with pro-ID arguments, and since any sort of preconceived scientific basis in favour of it is slim, I'm making things up on the spot here. >_>;;

Anyway, I think that there is a significant difference between saying that Laws and Matter Constructs have arisen naturally. DNA has a very real and physical chemical construct, the eye is made up of cells, nerves and inorganic substances, planets and stars are comprised of elements that react with each other, consciousness has been shown to be driven by the brain's components all working together and pretty much any physical phenomenon can be explained through natural occurrance. But physics itself? The mind boggles at the possibility that the universe might settle into definitions of itself after it has come into existence (which it must do in order to define itself at all).

Problem is, your simulation wouldn't prove anything, because you are relying on a flawed assumption - that any laws that don't change must be designed. It could very well be that the laws of the universe are simply a part of the way the universe works - with or without a designer or anything outside of them.I think you missed the point of the simulation. The one in which the laws have been predefined is simply a control; just a way of saying "look, it can be done". It's with the one in which laws are flexible that we do the real hypothesis refutation. If it turns out that, either through variation in rules or settling on a stable set, the "freeform" universe can begin and play host to replicating molecules, thus possibly conscious entities, we've refuted the hypothesis. It should be mere computing power from then on, since if universal laws can originate without a designer, it'll happen eventually, no?

The only way to disprove intelligent design is to disprove the existance of a designer.

So, once you come up with an actual way to empirically demonstrate the non-existance of a deity, super advanced alien being, great spaghetti monster et c. Then you can claim that intelligent design is a theory.

Of course if such a demonstration succeeded, then that would eliminate the need for intelligent design as well as most of the world's religions as well as cause all the atheists of the world to sing "I was right and you were wrong" while the theists plug their ears and scream "I can't hear you!" and then discredit the entire experiment and blame it on the athesits despite the fact that it was their dumbass wanna-be theory they were trying to test and make scientific...

The only thing that makes sense to me in terms of cosmology is an eternal universe, and eternal reality.

The problem with that is that evolutionism (i.e., the idea that only natural causes were involved in humans evolving from molecules)

And once again you demonstrate that you don't even know what the theory of evolution is. The theory of evolution is that mutation and natural selection lead to speciation. The theory itself begins when there is already life on the planet. Thus, making a statement that evolution has anything at all to do with "evolving from molecules" is absolutely false.

Precisely there is what the whole debate is about. You can say that it is the most popular explanation, perhaps, but everyone should be aware the the majority is not always right. That is a very good reason why it should not be the only explanation presented in the science class, if it is to be presented at all.

Wow, now you have completely backtracked. Just a post ago you explicitly stated that ID should be taught because it has the second most support and is thus the second best theory - very clearly implying that the majority determines what is right. Now you are saying the opposite? Cute.

I gave an example (although rather brief) of how science could work in the lab of an IDer in my previous post.

No, you gave rhetoric that amounted to, "If current explanations don't work, we can invoke a designer."

In the beginning of this thread, you announced that you wanted no criticism of evolution. I used the example from politics to show that you cannot really have an intelligent discussion about the merits of ID unless you compare it to evolutionism.

If you can't discuss the merits of ID without comparing it to evolution, there are no merits to ID. It is completely illogical to state that a problem with one idea automatically supports another.

Another example would be a scientist who gives a really nice presentation of experimental data, interpretations, and modeling of a process found in nature but gives his listeners no indication of why he interested in the process, and it's relevancy to the world economics or progress in the standard of living. In the end, it will be an irritation to the listeners.

So IDers are only interested in the origin of the species because of evolution? You are admitting that the entire premise is, "Let's show what is wrong with evolutionary theory, and since there is something wrong, we can invoke a designer"?

You see no evidence of intelligent design, therefore you feel that your conclusion of 'randomness generating design' to be quite secure.

My dear, you have been asked to present evidence. If you cannot do so, then we cannot see it.

I suppose a sensible question to ask is 'What sort of evidence would you accept as supporting ID?'

How about something that logically leads to the conclusion that there is a designer? All you have presented, in this thread and others are the following:

"I don't feel that natural processes as we currently understand them could create the complexity we see. Thus, there must be a designer." This is logically flawed because it assumes that we actually know all we need to know about natural processes, and that we can thus rule them out.

And, my favorite, "I believe in a God, and I think my science should be able to describe reality as I believe it to be." This is an obvious logical flaw, as it is basically saying that you want to change science to fit your worldview, instead of using science to study the world.

Irreducible complexity has not been refuted. It has simply been argued against. For example, you cannot have a functional eye, without a functional nervous system. Sight is an example of irreducible complexity. It depends on both a nervous system and some sort of eye. Take one away, and you will not have sight.

Wow, aren't you captain obvious? However, if you take away the eye, the nervous system still does things, does it not? Eye-like light sensors have been found in single-celled organisms, so "some sort of eye" can exist apart from a nervous system and be useful.

Thus, this example is quite obviously not irreducibly complex. Both can exist in some form, and be useful, without the other.

We are not merely dealing with a God of the gaps problem here. If evolutionism cannot explain a modern observation, its validity as an viable explanation is called into question.

This is absolutely true. However, even if we were to completely disprove everything about evolutionary theory, that would not suddenly lend credibility to ID. ID has to stand alone as a theory. It cannot depend upon evolution being incorrect.

If you want to defend evolutionism, you have to contrast it with other theories.

Incorrect. To defend the theory of evolution, all one must do is look at the data and present it and explain the logical analyses that led to the theory. One does not have to even mention any other ideas, except those hypotheses that have been solidly disproven.

It is also 'appalling' science to invoke the argument of 'well, it's simply the best theory we have, therefore it must be right'. Especially when it is only the best theory because no other theory is 'allowed'.

Your first sentence is correct, and that is why scientists don't do it. No one is claiming that evolution is "right". At the moment, we can only say that it is the closest we have to "right" within the scientific method.

Meanwhile, the statement that no other theory is allowed is idiotic. If someone were to present a scientifically and logically sound theory, it would be scientific. That is exactly what you were asked to do in this thread. You have yet to do so.

There are some parts of both theories that will never be testable. Should we consider neither ID or evolutionism as science?

Mutation and natural selection are not testable? Hmmmm, this is news to me....

Anyway, I think that there is a significant difference between saying that Laws and Matter Constructs have arisen naturally. DNA has a very real and physical chemical construct, the eye is made up of cells, nerves and inorganic substances, planets and stars are comprised of elements that react with each other, consciousness has been shown to be driven by the brain's components all working together and pretty much any physical phenomenon can be explained through natural occurrance. But physics itself? The mind boggles at the possibility that the universe might settle into definitions of itself after it has come into existence (which it must do in order to define itself at all).

Your problem is in assuming that everything must have a beginning and an end. You assume that the fundamental laws on which the universe runs had to have either come to be, basically by trial and error, or that they must have been designed. You completely discount the equally logical argument that they simply are part of the universe. They simply are the way the universe, from its beginning (if it had a beginning at all) has worked.

I think you missed the point of the simulation. The one in which the laws have been predefined is simply a control; just a way of saying "look, it can be done". It's with the one in which laws are flexible that we do the real hypothesis refutation. If it turns out that, either through variation in rules or settling on a stable set, the "freeform" universe can begin and play host to replicating molecules, thus possibly conscious entities, we've refuted the hypothesis. It should be mere computing power from then on, since if universal laws can originate without a designer, it'll happen eventually, no?

Again, your entire hypothesis relies upon the assumption that, to be natural, the laws must have arisn through trial and error - that they could not have been there at the beginning without being designed. Otherwise, all you would "disprove" with this experiment is the hypothesis that the laws arose through variation in the way that you programmed the variation. You are still working off the assumption that your "control" implies design.

Evidence for intelligent design: We assume that Scientific laws were in place before the universe began. Definitions for how matter is formed, how energy is treated, how particles interact and how the structure of space-time holds it all together must have existed prior to the Big Bang; otherwise, how can we apply conventional scientific analysis to the singularity event?

The laws of particular interaction and the definition of fundamental particles (the quark) have not changed, as far as we can tell, since the universe began. This suggests that such definitions and laws have been somehow set in stone, which raises the question of how such laws can arise in the first place. Flexible or varying laws that govern our universe could be safely considered evidence for a raw evolutionary origin; rigid and unyielding laws appear to run contrary to the evolutionary origin theory.

This raises one of two possibilities. Either the laws that govern reality are, in fact, flexible, and the science that defines one day may change in the next, or that such laws must have an external origin.

(( Very shaky evidence, I know, but heck; I'm not an ID proponent ))

Hypothesis: It should therefore be possible to replicate the phenomenon of limited intelligent design through simulation. By defining raw physical laws that make up reality and executing them from within a constrained environment, it would be possible to, starting from a simple singularity, create a unique set of physical dimensions that would eventually result in replicating molecules, simple organisms through to complex, self-aware "life".

We could also suggest that only by defining such laws, however, would the eventual emergence of such organisms be possible. We could, at the same time, run a second simulation where the only defined physical law is that the universe is to seek a "dynamic stability" in response to the original click of the placement of the singularity, and is allowed to form its own laws in order to fulfil that criteria.

Comparing the progress of the two systems and likening them to our own concept of reality would bring a reasonable solution as to which beginning seems more likely given our own time scale. If it turns out that flexible laws can result in the same (or similar, given the possibility for immense variation) outcome as the predefined laws, the hypothesis can be considered disproven, as we have shown that design is not a necessity in universal creation. If the first simulation successfully results in a replicating, responsive, cognitive and self-aware organism, while the second fails to do so every single time, we can consider the hypothesis valid until such a time as the second results in a similar outcome. And, of course, if the second one consistently does so before the first does after several repetitions, the hypothesis can be safely regarded as soundly defeated.


How's that?
A few flaws, most notably a violation of the opening post. This is not an argument for ID, but rather an argument for deism.

((EDIT: I was originally going to stop here, but I'm in a debating mood, so I'll treat your statement as if it were an OP of its own (normally this is bad form, but there hasn't been a response yet that obeyed the rules set forth by the OP, so I don't mind going off topic. If the Original Poster wants me to get back on, he can say so, and I will))

Second: You add fallacies and rhetoric and stir until at a low boil. Notably Begging the question and/or false dillemma: "A, therefore B" without demonstrating why, or "either A or B" when option C is also present.

Your permise is sound: There are unchanging physical laws.

You then insert a random assumption: that they existed before there was a universe for them to exist in (a highly suspect assumption, since there was no BEFORE for them to exist durring), ignoring the option that the laws came into being at precisely the same time as the universe (which is far superior because it is actually possible, since there was a universe for them to exist in). Fallacy number 1: "defending the hypothesis" by ignoring a possibility that would be hostile to your hypothesis (that there is an invisible sky being who set these rules up).

You then make a (probably-accidental) rhetorical sneak-attack by using a tense for the laws of physics' existence that requires a person doing the action ("have been" as opposed to "are"). Handy in a verbal debate against novices, but it helps wins you the debate on rhetoric rather than logic, making you a BSer rather than a logical debater.

You then make another (probably accidental) rhetorical attack by offering to conceed if the opponent could demonstrate a changing law without specifying the terms under which the opponent's attempt would be reviewed. For instance, the expansion rate of the universe is changing. The passage of time changes near a gravity source. Do I win, or do you move the goalposts somewhere safer?

Then you take all your evidence, don't explain why it leads to your conclusion (you pre-state your conclusion several times, but never demonstrate that the evidence leads to that conclusion [if demonstrating God logically were this easy, it would have been done a long, long time ago]), and state your conclusion; this is a Begging the Question fallacy: "Why does A neccessitate B?". The conclusion itself is a fallacious False Dillema, because it ignores option C: the physical laws exist and do not have an outside origin. Fallacy #2 and 3.

Your hypothesis is essentially useless. No-one is contesting that intelligent design of something is possible. I can intelligently design a table. We are contesting that intelligent design does not fit the evidence, much like someone looking at a table, concluding that it was intelligently designed, then looking at a waterfall, and concluding that it was not intelligently designed. It is BECAUSE things follow predictable laws that the existence of a designer is not assumed. If nonrepeatable, inexplicable events happened on a recordable level (say, the earth and everything on it stops spinning every sunday morning at 5:30 GMT for 1 hour, violating every known law of conservation of energy and momentum), that would necessitate an outside actor. If things CAN work withOUT an unproved ouside actor, we apply Occam's Razor and conclude that things DO work without an unproved outside actor.

-----



The OP has a serious flaw aswell, though, that I realised a few hours ago, in that it specifies the requirements for ID to be considdered as a hypothesis, but not for it to be considdered as a theory: a theory must be better than or equal to all other theories on the same topic for it to be retained, even if it fits the observed phenomena equally well. The tools we use to determine which is better is the toolkit of Parsimony, the use of logic to determine the best of multiple options. (The primary tool of Parsimony is Occam's Razor). The OP provides for ID to be considdered as a hypothesis, but for it to be considdered as a theory it must be no less likely to be correct than the other leading option: the Theory of Evolution, which IDers are forbidden, by the OP, to so much as mention.

-----



The OP has a serious flaw aswell, though, that I realised a few hours ago, in that it specifies the requirements for ID to be considdered as a hypothesis, but not for it to be considdered as a theory: a theory must be better than or equal to all other theories on the same topic for it to be retained, even if it fits the observed phenomena equally well. The tools we use to determine which is better is the toolkit of Parsimony, the use of logic to determine the best of multiple options. (The primary tool of Parsimony is Occam's Razor). The OP provides for ID to be considdered as a hypothesis, but for it to be considdered as a theory it must be no less likely to be correct than the other leading option: the Theory of Evolution, which IDers are forbidden, by the OP, to so much as mention.

Feel free to stay off topic. Its been this long and no one has successfully posted a response to the original post. I figured since IDers have so much trouble getting to the point of providing an independent hypothesis it would be too much to ask and rather pointless to then go on to stipulate the conditions of making it into a scientific theory. Jumping the gun a little. First it has to be able to stand up on its own as science independent of comparison. Good point all the same though. If they come up with a reasonable hypothesis we can start explaining to them what they will then need to become a theory.

-Snip-A 5 paragraph argument for ID with only 3 logical fallousies? That's got to be some sort of landmark. ^^

By and large, you've all got it sussed as hardly any sort of evidence for ID in our own planes of reality. It's a start, though, and one on which genuine IDers could do with building on.

As I've said, I have no substance because this isn't my argument. I'm all about rhetoric here, simply because that's all I've got. You got me on the "BSer" comment. Though, incidentally, British debating technique focuses more on persuasion than logical consistency. Hehe...

By the way, the expansion rate of the universe isn't a law; it's a value that is defined as a result of a law with a variable input. You might be right about the nature of time as a law; I need to actually get through Hawking's Universe in a Nutshell some time...


One other thing. Occam's Razor has debatable value here; particularly when used as irrefutable methodology to state that the more complex answer is always incorrect. I could give all sorts of examples where the simple answer has been forced to give way to the bizarre imaginations of my peers' schemes.

You also assume that an outside factor is a complication; though you do add a new body into the equation, you're simplifying the nature of the universe itself in doing so. Whether a universe that pulls its own laws of interaction together out of necessity at the exact time that it comes into existence is less complex than a universe that has its laws defined for it by an external source is in itself an area of discussion. Simplicity is a very broad term, and not to be taken for granted.


But, well, if they want to, IDers can debate their own case from here on. The whole "attack the methodology of your opponent" idea seems both foreign and unnecessarily petty to me, so someone more versed in that style can take over. ^^;

"Occurring or developing later than desired or expected; delayed" ? :P
Wow... retarded applies suprisingly well...

A 5 paragraph argument for ID with only 3 logical fallousies? That's got to be some sort of landmark. ^^

By and large, you've all got it sussed as hardly any sort of evidence for ID in our own planes of reality. It's a start, though, and one on which genuine IDers could do with building on.

As I've said, I have no substance because this isn't my argument. I'm all about rhetoric here, simply because that's all I've got. You got me on the "BSer" comment. Though, incidentally, British debating technique focuses more on persuasion than logical consistency. Hehe...
Heh... Well, at least you're honest about it. I'll call you a BSer if you (hypothetically) try to BS me and I catch you, though, and if you were to (hypothetically) keep it up I'll call you a few more things that are more impolite... ;)

By the way, the expansion rate of the universe isn't a law; it's a value that is defined as a result of a law with a variable input. You might be right about the nature of time as a law; I need to actually get through Hawking's Universe in a Nutshell some time...
I was griping at your ability to easily move the goalposts to a safer level, not trying to provide true examples of fundamental laws changing. After all, I don't think that the fundamental laws change, so it would be quite silly for me to try to demonstrate that they do.


One other thing. Occam's Razor has debatable value here; particularly when used as irrefutable methodology to state that the more complex answer is always incorrect. I could give all sorts of examples where the simple answer has been forced to give way to the bizarre imaginations of my peers' schemes.
Occam's Razor does not say that the more complex answer is always incorrect. It says that, given two possibilities that fit the data equally well, the simpler is usually correct. This is a true statement. Scientists want to be usually correct because science is the quest for understanding, therefore scientists use Occam's Razor. The only case in which you should take the more complex possibility over the simpler is when it better fits the data. (ie, revision of the KE formula from Newtonian to Einsteinian, the institution of Quanta, revision of the atomic model over the years.)

You also assume that an outside factor is a complication; though you do add a new body into the equation, you're simplifying the nature of the universe itself in doing so. Whether a universe that pulls its own laws of interaction together out of necessity at the exact time that it comes into existence is less complex than a universe that has its laws defined for it by an external source is in itself an area of discussion. Simplicity is a very broad term, and not to be taken for granted.

I could make a big ugly description of Occam's Razor and how it applies to ID, but it is far more simple just to link to Mike Wong's handy essay about it. Note particularly the introduction and example 2. http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Occam.html


But, well, if they want to, IDers can debate their own case from here on. The whole "attack the methodology of your opponent" idea seems both foreign and unnecessarily petty to me, so someone more versed in that style can take over. ^^;

The nice thing about debating you is that you have nothing to lose, and therefore will listen reasonably. Debating someone whose belief in ID is tied to their entire worldview, or, even worse, has been conditioned since childhood to believe implicitly in it or one of its components is considerably more troublesome.



---

Ah, what the hell. A Devil's Advocate post from Feil. If I have to show the problems in this, I will be very sad...

Please note that I am completely and entierly ignoring everything needed to make this hypothesis valid as a theory. On we go.

In the beginning, the universe came into being by means of the Big Bang. God, a being of immence power, whose actions on Earth are somewhat mistakenly recorded in the Bible (in such a way that the accuracy increases as the number of times the story was retold decreases, much like the game "Telephone") came into being shortly after, on a cosmic scale of time, the Big Bang--say within the first hundred million years or so. He exists in the universe, and would be quantifyable if we had sufficient knowledge of the universe's activity and if he chose to allow us to come to the understanding. (He has the ability to srew with our heads) The Genisis story is a parable and nothing more.

God, wanting companionship, set out to rearange the universe he found himself stuck in in such a way that it would yield a group of beings worth spending some time with.

*I ponder for a bit as to how to go on without making logical fallacies...*

He notes that there were no planets in the Milky Way likely to produce highly advanced life (and not wanting to waste hundreds of millions of years, traveling at near-c, to visit another galaxy), so he took one of them, Earth, and, using some of his great capabilities, moved it slightly so that its orbit would be good for life, etc. After a few billions of years of tweaking DNA to reduce the number of false starts towards complex and eventually intelligent life, he gets fed up with these stupid bigger and bigger and bigger reptiles, notes that mammals posess the capabilities that would allow them to develop, if helped along, to the point of intelligence, he nudges a nearby asteroid into Earth to reduce the oxygen content and create a proper environment for the mammals. Whammo, KT boundary, pretty fireworks, T-Rex dies amid cheap opera music.

As mammals developed, God, using his immence powers, manipulated mutations in such a way as they would be likely to lead to a being that a-had a mind reasonably similar to His, and b-had an appearance reasonably similar to his. While the mutations were often random where he wasn't looking or where he didn't see the benefit of one over the other, He made sure to screw with the mutations from time to time to keep us on the track He wanted. As mankind progressed, there were inevitable offshoots in the evolutionary Bush of Life, which God decided to ignore, since, while capable of moving very fast, he can't be everywhere at once. Etc. etc., and continuing today, albiet at a slower rate.

We can predict from this that mankind should be somewhat different from other animals in intelligence, but that intelligence will exist elsewhere in the world to a lesser degree, because God did not surpress any species moving towards intelligence, but merely accelerated one particular one, and that, generally speaking, makind's close genetic relatives should be more intelligent than his distant genetic relatives, since numerous species broke from the original trunk, but God only chose one end of each fork in the winding and splitting branch that has eventually reached man to become his companion race.


Alright.... I tried to come as close as I could to the OP without making errors other than Occam's Razor violations. I think I did better than Lee Strobel in that regard, and I'm confident that I'm all 13.5 billion light-years between us and the most distant visible stellar object better than Jack Chick, may he be forced to play a thousand games of Dungeons and Dragons while quoting the Hail Mary and listening to The Origin of Species on audiocasette.

The reason evolution is the most widely accepted theory in the modern scientific communtity is because of the plethora of supporting evidence. It has often been said in these forums that science doesnt deal in absolute truths, and as such i agree with you that its sad when anyone takes evolution as gospel truth. I do however find the argument for evolution EXCESSIVELY convincing and the reasoning behind ID sadly lacking.


The 'supporting evidence' is rather the issue here. Evidence can often be interpreted to fit more than one explanation. The evidence that we are most interested in in this debate is that which can only be explained in terms of evolution or ID.

BTW, I hesitate to use that word (evolution), because of the multiple definitions that go with it. If you don't mind, I will use naturalism (and I don't mean nudism) or neo-Darwinism (ND) as the theory that explains how life came from the first life form and developed into complicated, thinking, self-conscious life forms such as humans, using only natural selection and random mutations. People tend to use the word evolution rather loosely, to describe such things as the development of e.g. a genomic database, the emergence of separate species (e.g. microevolution) and the emergence of eukaryotes from prokaryotes (macroevolution). That is why no one can claim that evolution is false (without closing their eyes to empirical scientific evidence). However, the debate here (as I see it) is about whether it is good science to allow that a designer may have directly interfered with nature. Neo-Darwinism (ND) is based on the thinking that only natural causes are sufficient, and specifically natural selection and random mutation can explain (or will eventually explain) all of nature.

Now, as you would know, ID hasn't been around that long, while ND has had several decades to develop, not to mention a good deal more money and people. So they are not on equal footing to begin with, in terms of developing explanations and generating experimental data. Of course, you are entitled to say that you find the reasoning behind ID 'sadly lacking', but remember that you are comparing the 'new kid on the block' to the 'seasoned warrior'. Your opinion could also mean that you don't understand ID very well (once again, I mention this as a possibility, not an insult). If you find the argument for ND excessively convincing, it does not necessarily mean that you have ever been in a good position to decide which is the better explanation. It could mean, for example, that you are opposed to any idea of God (perhaps you had a religious upbringing that ticked you off, or had a run-in with religious people). It could also mean that the arguments for ND had you well and truly conditioned or buffered against the arguments for ID. (Personally, I doubt ID will ever appeal to anyone who is an atheist. And as you probably know, people are certainly capable of being atheistic without knowing much about ND.)

But that is by the by, perhaps. You are entitled to hold your opinion. I am not interested in taking that away from you. What this debate is about is the question of whether we should recommend ID to be taught as part of the science subject in schools (that is how you opened the thread, after all). Imagine that you and I are part of a team of scientists that the government of Alabama (or Texas or wherever) has hired to give them advice over whether ID should be allowed into school curriculum, and in particular, if it should occupy any part of the science subject.


Here you have to make the distinction between actual design and apparent desgin. I could show you a great many natural and non-organic things that look designed but arent. Crystal formations, natural bridges, perfectly smooth rocks, clouds that closely resemble recognisable shapes, patterns in rock strata that look like rude and amusing shapes (yes, i've actually seen that). And again to attribute complexity to a design you have to be able to explain how the designer has functioned to cause the complexity. It may sound like an unreasonable requirement but its equally unreasonable to place in the unneeded and unproven factor of a designer.


Looking at patterns in crystal formations and so forth is not quite like seeing the complexity or 'design' in nature. Crystal formation is not a case of randomness, since the patterns are directly determined by the laws of nature, e.g., thermodynamics, most stable energy state, etc. ID would look at the patterns, recognise that they are not random and want to know what are the forces that cause the patterns. In this way, it would discover the laws of nature. Because it holds that there is a designer, it is a matter of finding the 'link' between the designer and the design. In that way, it would persue the law upon which the design is based, the law that was designed by a designer. It takes the same approach to the complexity of life, but there is a difference. Every time it looks at complexity, it will consider that design as a product of either solely the laws of nature (e.g. natural selection and random mutations being two of these) or BOTH a designer and the laws of nature. If, for example, you walk into a room and find a rock sitting in the middle of the table, you aren't going to assume that the rock got up there from the ground outside the room using only the laws of nature, but you may be right in concluding that the laws of nature keep it there. Thus, a rock sitting in the middle of a table is the combination of both the laws of nature and the 'thing/person' that brought it into the room and put it there. It is not necessary to investigate who put the rock there, or how they carried it. Neither it is necessary to investigate the characteristics of the carrier, other than noting if the rock was placed in the middle or toward one edge of the table.

Of course, it may not be necessary for the observations of the rock on the table to assume that there was someone who carried the rock into the room, but it does make sense. This is the sort of sense that ID relies on. But in case you think that ND does not do the same thing, I beg to differ. Consider, if you will, the case in genetics where a geneticist finds a new gene. The first thing he does is blast the sequence of the gene against the huge number of genomes available on the web, to get some sort of indication of the FUNCTION of the gene product. Why? Because it's sensible, and it has been a fairly good indication of functionality in the past. Now, an NDer will take things a step further and conclude that the homology is evidence for ANCESTRY of the gene. When he finds homology, the first thing he thinks of is ancestry. Why? Because this is the sort of sense upon which ND is based, that complex life developed from simple life, and that all of life is related by common ancestry. It sees homology and is quick to suggest ancestry, because it has been found to fit with the theory so often in the past. This isn't necessary for the original observation. But it does make sense.


My point is that both ID and ND are based on common sense. The difference is that one interprets the evidence in terms of only natural causes, and the other in terms of a designer.





Point conceded to a certain extent. You personally have used evolution as a benchmark for comparison with ID. Most ID supporters merely highlight previous mistakes of evolutionary scientists to distract from the issue at hand.


When the father comes home from work and announces to his wife and kids that he is quitting his job and getting a new one, the first question they might ask is 'why?' In the same way, when someone announces that they are dissatisfied with ND and are going to work with ID, the logical question is 'why?' In order to answer the 'why', one has to refer to ND and point out the reasons why he is dissatisfied.

BTW, while I may be some sort of scientist, I am not an IDer. My science does not deal with complexity in systems and the origin of that complexity. I like some of the aspects of ID. And I have enjoyed defending it, albeit somewhat poorly, I suspect. But I realize that I am quite ignorant of a good deal of their methods.


I truly cannot think of a falsifiable and testable hypothesis for ID. I can think of several off the top of my head for evolution. (the following cut and paste from a post i made on another thread).

Evolution predicts various things about what should be observed if macroevolution occurs. Fossil records of progressive steps in species, fossil records showing a trend from simple to complex life forms as rock strata go from older to younger, genetic similarities between closely related species (including non-functional genes and 'junk' DNA), morphological similarites between similar species etc.. All of which have been observed in numerous examples.

If you found a cat fossil in the cretaceous period rock strata, or DNA shared by Man and Crocodile that wasnt found in Chimpanzees etc.. these would falsify current evolutionary theory.


Mutations usually result in a loss of information, or less frequently, a transfer of information, but we are without any convincing examples of mutations resulting in a gain of information. (A transfer of an antibiotic resistance plasmid would be a transfer of information, not a gain.) Consider the idea that genomes were made by a designer. An ID hypothesis would be that genomes are generally getting smaller--i.e, shrinking. This is a hypothesis that we can measure and falsify. ND, on the other hand, predicts that there will be at least some organisms whose genomes are growing, otherwise you would never get the 35 000 genes of a human or the 45 000 genes of some plants from the 5 000 genes of a bacterium.

Sometimes, as I have heard, though I can't remember where, we do find unrelated (according to the time scale) fossilised species in the same strata. Rather than calling into question the theory of ND, it usually gets explained in terms of earth moments, local floods, volcanoes, etc., that have disrupted the original strata. My point is that although there are always the exceptions, that they just get explained nicely--no need to falsify current evolutionary theory.



Abiogenesis is an ongoing study. The have a hypothesis that they are currently working on testing, they have not definitely said anything about the bridge between non-life and life yet. As you said yourself, they "suggest" it. In the case of ID adding god or at least a designing entity is essential to the idea by Intelligent Designs very definition. Science suggests possibilities, ID is stating something as if its been firmly supported by ideas that imply it at best.


I accept your point. ID does depend on a designer, albeit a later addition to the theory (the designer is not part of the experiment, but is added in the theory). But in the same way, ND depends on a later addition also. For example, it looks at the incredible complexity of life, and then invokes an explanation in which natural selection and random mutations are supposed to account for it. Random mutations and natural selection, in many cases, are not part of the experiment, but are later additions in the theory and modeling.


It hasnt been fully refuted because for every system that is explained IDers will just pick another one. It will only be totally refuted when we've explained every system in nature. Now THAT is unreasonable. Sight does rely on a nervous system and some form of 'eye', true. However a nervous system does not require there to be a sight organ. Hence by evolutionary terms it is reasonable to assume that the nervous system developed first. For an explantion of the eye put far better than i could i'll direct you here -> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html

photosensitive cell
aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
pigment cells forming a small depression
pigment cells forming a deeper depression
the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
muscles allowing the lens to adjust

All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.

Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.



It would be rather interesting to have a good detailed look at each one of these steps that are supposed to account for the modern eye. The problem is that life cannot take even one of these steps. How do you move something as complicated as the nerves in a general direction by one random mutation at a time? Particularly as each mutation has to confer an advantage.

Perhaps it is worth noting that every mutation of the eye that we have ever examined has led to a loss of information. Thus, advantagous eye mutations are completely theoretical. Futhermore, the steps that they give above are rather limited. There is no way these steps describe the modern eye. I would say that there is many more steps, given that there is a good deal more to the modern eye than their steps suggest. Perhaps the finding that only these limited few steps have been found in nature is an indication of the vast distance between each step and the impossibility of bridging each step.

And what is more, we are not only talking about the development of the eye, but also of sight. That requires an eye, a nervous system to transmit signals to the brain, and an area of the brain where the signals can be turning into images. That sort of complexity has to develop, where each mutation confers an advantage, one mutation at a time. Take, for example, the muscle cells that control the lens. There has to be a great number of mutations for those muscle cells to get to the right place. But each mutation has to confer an advantage, or it will be lost. It's not just new proteins that are needed, but new cells--hundreds or perhaps thousands of changes in gene expression AND gene alteration. That is the problem with the way the NDers 'refute' the IDers. They don't go into the minute details of how each mutation affects the gene, what happens after protein translation, folding, modification, targeting, function, etc. (obviously they can't) The devil is in the detail, and my looking at the detail says that it will never work. The only way it can be made to seem to work is by using the last statement about each step being 1% and calculating the number of steps and generations needed to develop the eye. They are ignoring the biological details and turning to statistics to make their case presentable.

I regret to be attacking evolutionary theory again, but in posting this link, you did sort of ask for it, in a way.......

The 'supporting evidence' is rather the issue here. Evidence can often be interpreted to fit more than one explanation.
The thing is, with the Big Bang Theory, the evidence came first, and then the explanation. This lead to appropriate tests to verify or disprove the explanation, which lead to more discoveries that fit the explanation. To say that in this case the supporting evidence was made to fit the explanation does not appropriately describe what happened.

In the 1910's Vesto Slipher and Carl Wilhelm Wirtz observed spiral galaxies all moving away from the Earth, relatively speaking. The Big Bang theory was developed in 1927 by Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaître. He independently derived the same equations as Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker "and proposed, on the basis of the recession of spiral nebulae, that the universe began with the 'explosion' of a 'primeval atom'—what was later called the Big Bang." (quoting Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang_theory#History))

So, it began with observation and a hypothesis that fit the facts. Models were developed and tested, and the theory grew out of that.

BTW, I hesitate to use that word (evolution), because of the multiple definitions that go with it. If you don't mind, I will use naturalism (and I don't mean nudism) or neo-Darwinism (ND) as the theory that explains how life came from the first life form and developed into complicated, thinking, self-conscious life forms such as humans, using only natural selection and random mutations.
Good call, then, because there is no theory that explains how life came from the first life form and developed into complicated, thinking, self-conscious life forms such as humans, using only natural selection and random mutations.

It would be rather interesting to have a good detailed look at each one of these steps that are supposed to account for the modern eye. The problem is that life cannot take even one of these steps. How do you move something as complicated as the nerves in a general direction by one random mutation at a time? Particularly as each mutation has to confer an advantage.
Bullshit. Evolution is not about taking an existing component and moving it in a general direction over thousands of mutations. Learn the theory before you try to refute it.

Perhaps it is worth noting that every mutation of the eye that we have ever examined has led to a loss of information.
Bullshit. Thus, advantagous eye mutations are completely theoretical. I know someone, both of whose parents have vision worse than 20/20, whose eyesight is at an incredible 20/10 or so. This is a mutation leading to superior capabilities. It is also within the range of standard variation. Like 99% of all evolutionary steps. Darwin's finches are a prime example-the change in beak sizes is within the range of standard variation, and yet it is has long been a benchmark of evolution evidence. Learn the theory before trying to refute it.

Futhermore, the steps that they give above are rather limited. There is no way these steps describe the modern eye. I would say that there is many more steps, given that there is a good deal more to the modern eye than their steps suggest. Perhaps the finding that only these limited few steps have been found in nature is an indication of the vast distance between each step and the impossibility of bridging each step.

The way scientific understanding works is something like pixilation.

http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/4841/pixilation6sh.jpg

The picture on the left is obvious. It's Fluffy, Destroyer of Worlds. The picture on the right is a pixilated version of Fluffy, at 5% the original resolution.

What science is about is taking the picture on the right and guessing at the picture on the left. Each pixil represents a piece of data--one known fact. In our case, the picture on the left represents the evolution of the eye, and the picture on the left represents the examples of eyes in various forms, some of which are clearly more simple than others. If we had all 13000 data points that make up Fluffy on the left, it would be quite obvious. Even if we had fossil records to give us an additional thousand or two data points, we could make a much better judgement. Unfortunately, we don't; we only have the 300 or so of Fluffy on the right.

However, we know how evolution works, and we know that evolution works, because we have seen it working, much in the same way that we know what fluffy animals look like. So, we take our best guess as to what Fluffy looks like, and we draw him to the best of our ability. Probably we come somewhere pretty close to the real picture.

Learn the scientific method before trying to refute a theory.

And what is more, we are not only talking about the development of the eye, but also of sight. That requires an eye, a nervous system to transmit signals to the brain, and an area of the brain where the signals can be turning into images.
Which were described in the post you are trying to refute. Photosensitive cells > photosensitive cells attached to a nerve > ... > modern eye. The ability to take information from photosensitivity and convert it into action is as early as protozoans, and is no more special than the ability to take heat and convert it into a sensation.


I'll finish later if I feel like it.

*sniped*

Mutations usually result in a loss of information, or less frequently, a transfer of information, but we are without any convincing examples of mutations resulting in a gain of information. (A transfer of an antibiotic resistance plasmid would be a transfer of information, not a gain.) Consider the idea that genomes were made by a designer. An ID hypothesis would be that genomes are generally getting smaller--i.e, shrinking. This is a hypothesis that we can measure and falsify. ND, on the other hand, predicts that there will be at least some organisms whose genomes are growing, otherwise you would never get the 35 000 genes of a human or the 45 000 genes of some plants from the 5 000 genes of a bacterium.
I like to falsify this hypothesis. There is microsatellite expansion, which results in an elongation of a chromosome and hence an elongantion of the genome.
So genomes can't get smaller in general.


*sniped*
It would be rather interesting to have a good detailed look at each one of these steps that are supposed to account for the modern eye. The problem is that life cannot take even one of these steps. How do you move something as complicated as the nerves in a general direction by one random mutation at a time? Particularly as each mutation has to confer an advantage.
*sniped*
That's untrue. Not every mutation which is fixed in a population has to be advantageous. Take a look at the theory of neutral evolution. As long as a mutation is not lethal it has a probility of being fixed in a population. It's just simple stochastics.

That's untrue. Not every mutation which is fixed in a population has to be advantageous. Take a look at the theory of neutral evolution. As long as a mutation is not lethal it has a probility of being fixed in a population. It's just simple stochastics.
Like coloured Mohawks (http://www.gregr.org/Friends/Man%20Down/orange-mohawk.jpg)? Will they never fade away?

Like coloured Mohawks (http://www.gregr.org/Friends/Man%20Down/orange-mohawk.jpg)? Will they never fade away?

Mohawks or Mullets are appropriate examples.

Like coloured Mohawks (http://www.gregr.org/Friends/Man%20Down/orange-mohawk.jpg)? Will they never fade away?
LOL. Exactly :D To make it worse, even though there are not many today, they can be one day a characteristic shared by the whole population. So mabe not your children or the children of your children, but someday..who knows?
Maybe that's the reason why some people stick to ID.

But on the other hand maybe they will be gone in a few generations. We can't know, only calculate the probabilities.

I like to falsify this hypothesis. There is microsatellite expansion, which results in an elongation of a chromosome and hence an elongantion of the genome.
So genomes can't get smaller in general.


May I suggest that you type in 'shrinking genomes' in google.

I suppose you know that genomes generally don't shrink because of a mechanism that eats away at one end of the chromosome. Animal cells do appear to suffer from shorter and shorter chromosome, as the organism ages. But I doubt that this is a contributing factor to the shrinking genomes. A contributing factor might be that a mutation resulting in a useless gene would frequently lead to the loss of the gene altogether (negative selection). Perhaps the useless gene would remain for several generations or several thousand generations. Perhaps it accumulated more mutations, so that even if the first mutation could be reverted, it would still not be functional because of the subsequent mutations. Eventually, it would be unrecognisable as a gene, and perhaps relegated (by the scientists) to 'junk DNA' status (although I hesitate to use that word, because I find it somewhat offensive, as if the scientists who can't find the function have a right to call it junk). The so called junk DNA (introns) is important, but having too much of it is a disadvantage, therefore, the cell responds by removing it from the genome. Thus, any gene that is not essential for the survival of the organism in it's environment will be at risk of being lost. Consider the leprosy bacterium (Mycobacterium leprae). It was once capable of survival in both free living conditions and parasitic conditions. Nowadays, however, it appears to survive only under parasitic conditions. Apparently, it lost the genes that made it capable of independent survival.


That's untrue. Not every mutation which is fixed in a population has to be advantageous. Take a look at the theory of neutral evolution. As long as a mutation is not lethal it has a probility of being fixed in a population. It's just simple stochastics.

Perhaps. Point conceded. Not every mutation has to be advantageous in order for it to become fixed in a population. Take the albino mutation for example. However, in the development of the eye, where a mutation results in an uphill movement (i.e. gain of information), then this sort of mutation has to be an advantage, since it requires extra energy from the cell to sustain. No organism is going to invest extra energy in maintaining an expensive mutation, particularly when it has to be competitive in order to survive, and then tolerate an additional uphill mutation requiring even more energy to sustain, without the first mutation (or both mutations) providing some sort of advantage over the competitors. This would not be simple stochastics, this would be a phenomenal exception to what we observe today.

However, in the development of the eye, where a mutation results in an uphill movement (i.e. gain of information), then this sort of mutation has to be an advantage, since it requires extra energy from the cell to sustain. No organism is going to invest extra energy in maintaining an expensive mutation, particularly when it has to be competitive in order to survive, and then tolerate an additional uphill mutation requiring even more energy to sustain, without the first mutation (or both mutations) providing some sort of advantage over the competitors. This would not be simple stochastics, this would be a phenomenal exception to what we observe today.

Suppose the animal had two mutations - one positive and one neutral/slightly negative ? It would still be very succesful then, but the "negative" mutation would be passed on as well.

Aside: the eye intruigingly enough something both evolutionists and ID fans use to thow at eachother. Evolutionists point at the blind spot in the eye - which would be a "designflaw" - while ID fans say it is too complicated to have evolved.

Just to be awkward i'll start from the end before i come back to the start.

I regret to be attacking evolutionary theory again, but in posting this link, you did sort of ask for it, in a way.......

I did??!!?!?! WTF? I didnt ask for it. I permitted it, IF you needed it for some specific purpose that relates to the validity of ID. By simply trying to bring evolution (or ND as you prefer) into question all you merely take away from the issue at hand. And that is that ID doesnt stand up as a scientific theory.

The 'supporting evidence' is rather the issue here. Evidence can often be interpreted to fit more than one explanation. The evidence that we are most interested in in this debate is that which can only be explained in terms of evolution or ID.

If you want to talk about comparing interpretation of evidence we use occam's razor. In this ID fails as it introduces a need for an unfalsifiable designer. Whether the designer is added in the 'experiments' or the theory stage is irrelevant. Its still unscientific to add this factor.


BTW, I hesitate to use that word (evolution), because of the multiple definitions that go with it... <snip>... Neo-Darwinism (ND) is based on the thinking that only natural causes are sufficient, and specifically natural selection and random mutation can explain (or will eventually explain) all of nature.

add in neutral selection, sexual selection, etc and your edging ever so slightly closer the point. However absolutely positively NONE of that supports ID. Which is why we are here.

Now, as you would know, ID hasn't been around that long, while ND has had several decades to develop, not to mention a good deal more money and people. ...<SNIP>...(Personally, I doubt ID will ever appeal to anyone who is an atheist. And as you probably know, people are certainly capable of being atheistic without knowing much about ND.)

If science was just a matter of 'ideas with less time and money behind them get ignored' we would never make any progess. And again ID has to be able to stand up in its own right before we start comparing it to evolutionary theory. PLEASE if your still interested in posting here talk about ID and not about how you think evolution is unlikely.

But that is by the by, perhaps... <snip>... Imagine that you and I are part of a team of scientists that the government of Alabama (or Texas or wherever) has hired to give them advice over whether ID should be allowed into school curriculum, and in particular, if it should occupy any part of the science subject.

Thus far ID = unscientific. Answer = NO!

<snip>... Every time it looks at complexity, it will consider that design as a product of either solely the laws of nature (e.g. natural selection and random mutations being two of these) or BOTH a designer and the laws of nature. <snip>

<snip>...
My point is that both ID and ND are based on common sense. The difference is that one interprets the evidence in terms of only natural causes, and the other in terms of a designer.

I dont mean to be rude but, NEWSFLASH!!! science ONLY deals with NATURAL laws, a designer of this type would be SUPERNATURAL. Science explores natural laws and cannot explore, or involve, the supernatural. ID invokes the supernatural into its arguement. Hence it cannot be science. A designer MAY have set about doing these designs. BUT if he did there are two points to consider. Firstly with all the evidence around evolution has played the major part (whether you believe it to be entirely naturalistic or designer influenced). Secondly, The designer is totally untestable and unfalsifiable, and thus, not scientific.

To be diplomatic. This is not to say that ID is impossible. It may be true. However it cannot be scientifically assessed, measured, or observed.

When the father comes home from work and announces to his wife and kids that he is quitting his job and getting a new one, the first question they might ask is 'why?' In the same way, when someone announces that they are dissatisfied with ND and are going to work with ID, the logical question is 'why?' In order to answer the 'why', one has to refer to ND and point out the reasons why he is dissatisfied.

Think of his family as the scientific communtity. He doesnt tell them his plans until he has thought long and hard about the new job. BEFORE he compares the new job to the one he is thinking of giving up he will find out all about the new job first and see how good it is on its own merits. Only THEN will he compare it to his old job.... you see where we are coming from yet?

Mutations usually result in a loss of information... <snip>... otherwise you would never get the 35 000 genes of a human or the 45 000 genes of some plants from the 5 000 genes of a bacterium.

I beleive Myidealstate replied to that part that very accurately and concisely

Sometimes, as I have heard, though I can't remember where, we do find unrelated (according to the time scale) fossilised species in the same strata. ...<snip>...that they just get explained nicely--no need to falsify current evolutionary theory.

Yes they get explained nicely enough for the scientific community especially geologists to accept. Thats a fairly good indication for me.
EG.

palaeontologist: "Oh my god! a human buried in jurrasic strata"

geologist: "You see these tell-tale markers on the surrounding rocks *points to rocks and goes into lengthy technical talk*... that tells us that this was an intrusive burial. Carry on. Nothing to get yourself a Nobel Prize for just yet.

palaeontologist: "dang. i really could have used the fame and prize money"

I accept your point... <snip>... Random mutations and natural selection, in many cases, are not part of the experiment, but are later additions in the theory and modeling.

The difference is that before any of that a hypothesis is presented that predicts what should be observed if the standard evolutionary forces are at work. If the observations do not match then the hypothesis is falsified. ID does not provide a testable hypothesis, as the designer can do whatever he/she/it likes at whatever point in the process.

It would be rather interesting to have a good detailed look at each one of these steps that are supposed to account for the modern eye. ...<snip>... Perhaps the finding that only these limited few steps have been found in nature is an indication of the vast distance between each step and the impossibility of bridging each step.

See Feil's reply.

Also you're invoking God-of-Gaps in that last sentence. To repeat myself (yet again :rolleyes:) Lack of understanding only indicates humankinds ignorance, not proof of supernatural influence.

As for the next bit there is neutral selection that may not have any detremental effect when the mutation happens but can be advantageous when the effect is coupled with the effect of a later mutation. Also ANY even miniscule advantage helps to.....

hmmm wait a second. This is turning into another thread where in trying to promote ID you simply attack evolution and try getting us to defend evolution. We dont know all the answers, evolutionary scientists dont always agree on the mechanisms. But even if you disprove it somehow, against all the evidence and peer reviewed work of over 14 decades, it still doesnt give ID any more support.

You've just given us rhetoric and unsubtantiated, unsupported conjecture. Where is the solid hypotheses and evidence for ID?

*skols beer*

May I suggest that you type in 'shrinking genomes' in google. <snip>

Simple genetics tells us that there will be certain losses in the genome of a species. However the point here is that it IS possible to add to the total amount of genetic material. Secondly 'Junk' DNA is often named so because it CANT have function. These psuedogenes often have been damaged in such a way that they cannot produce proteins. EG mutations that insert or create stop codons midway through the gene sequence. Mutations that disable the start codons etc. Junk DNA such as this is totally unnecessary and if ID were true should not be shared between species as is commonly the case.

This is a little off the topic, but assuming you could somehow generate a *scientific* theory for ID, how exactly do you teach it without involving religion?

"ID is the theory that there exists a designer/s who created the universe and everything in it through deliberate design"

What more can you add to that outside of specific religions?

"ID is the theory that there exists a designer/s who created the universe and everything in it through deliberate design"

What more can you add to that outside of specific religions?

Note that ID does not require you to worship said designer(s), nor that it makes any claims as to what purpose he/she/it/they might have had. That distinguishes it somewhat from the main religions.

Suppose the animal had two mutations - one positive and one neutral/slightly negative ? It would still be very succesful then, but the "negative" mutation would be passed on as well..

The problem with that scenario is that the 'negative' mutation has to confer an advantage at some point, otherwise it will not become the dominant genotype in the population. So we still don't have a way around the problem.

Note that ID does not require you to worship said designer(s), nor that it makes any claims as to what purpose he/she/it/they might have had. That distinguishes it somewhat from the main religions.
Well - religious education (UK style) where you are taught about various world religions (or at least I was) does not require you to worship them either - however the science class is for science not religion and so religion has no place in it.

Without bringing a religion into the ID teaching what can be added to my origional statement?

The problem with that scenario is that the 'negative' mutation has to confer an advantage at some point, otherwise it will not become the dominant genotype in the population. So we still don't have a way around the problem.

Very true. This isnt a scenario i would personally adhere to. Neutral, Natural, and Sexual selection are much more likely.

However, if you can try to get back to trying to provide support for ID rather than just critiquing evolution it would be appreciated.

Bullshit. Evolution is not about taking an existing component and moving it in a general direction over thousands of mutations. Learn the theory before you try to refute it.

In order for the eye to develop from something like a fish eye into a human eye, it apparently needs a good deal of modification--gene modification. The general direction is clearly indicated. Fish eye----human eye. Evolutionary theory says that it happened. I don't see how I have demonstrated my lack of understanding of the theory here. Perhaps you could demonstrate.


Bullshit. Thus, advantagous eye mutations are completely theoretical. I know someone, both of whose parents have vision worse than 20/20, whose eyesight is at an incredible 20/10 or so. This is a mutation leading to superior capabilities. It is also within the range of standard variation. Like 99% of all evolutionary steps. Darwin's finches are a prime example-the change in beak sizes is within the range of standard variation, and yet it is has long been a benchmark of evolution evidence. Learn the theory before trying to refute it.


If you think this really is an example of evolution, I suggest that you do not understand evolutionary theory. For example, when two blue eye people get together and produce a brown eyed kid, no scientist in their right mind would point to this as evidence of evolution. That's called inheritance. It is possible (although very unlikely) that there was a mutation involved, but much more likely that it has something to do with the four copies of each chromosome of the parents interacting, exchanging DNA, in order to produce genetic variety. It's the normal process of meiosis, not evolution.

As for Darwin's example of beak size, this is an example of evolution, but a sort of limited evolution that may be already allowed for in the genome of the bird to help it survive. If this is the case, then the species of bird with e.g. a long beak will rapidly return to the average beak length, once the competition which required the long beak to evolved is removed. No new genes would be required for either adaptation. In order for this sort of evolution to explain how e.g. reptiles transformed into birds, one needs to demonstrate that novel genes that have arisen--i.e., the increase in information. That is the assumption behind evolutionary theory. It remains an assumption because nobody has produced a convincing example of a mutation giving rise to an increase in information.

Once again, if you want to claim that I do not understand the theory behind the evolutionary process, please be so kind as to point it out.


The way scientific understanding works is something like pixilation.

http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/4841/pixilation6sh.jpg

The picture on the left is obvious. It's Fluffy, Destroyer of Worlds. The picture on the right is a pixilated version of Fluffy, at 5% the original resolution.

What science is about is taking the picture on the right and guessing at the picture on the left. Each pixil represents a piece of data--one known fact. In our case, the picture on the left represents the evolution of the eye, and the picture on the left represents the examples of eyes in various forms, some of which are clearly more simple than others. If we had all 13000 data points that make up Fluffy on the left, it would be quite obvious. Even if we had fossil records to give us an additional thousand or two data points, we could make a much better judgement. Unfortunately, we don't; we only have the 300 or so of Fluffy on the right.

However, we know how evolution works, and we know that evolution works, because we have seen it working, much in the same way that we know what fluffy animals look like. So, we take our best guess as to what Fluffy looks like, and we draw him to the best of our ability. Probably we come somewhere pretty close to the real picture.

Learn the scientific method before trying to refute a theory.


I'm not suggesting that interpretations based on evolutionary theory do not make sense. They do. But the sense is based on the supposition that there was either no designer, or that he wasn't involved in any way, at least not directly. However, when someone wants to question the details of that 'sense' of evolutionary theory, he soon finds that the gaps in the evolutionary steps (that is, the lack of evidence for the missing links) are somewhat confronting. In order to believe that the theory is right, he has to acknowledge that he does so on the basis of belief, not evidence.
And once he is in that position, he must realize that his position is no better than that of an IDer, who includes a designer in his theory on the basis of 'it makes sense', not on the basis of evidence (at least not the 'look, there he/she/it is' sort of evidence).

Perhaps you might see that the belief of the involvement of a designer, or lack of one, is what determines which theory one accepts, rather than the evidence being what determines one's belief. Once someone settles on which theory he accepts, he will go about looking at the evidence to see if it fits with his theory, refining the theory continually in order to fit in with the evidence, as you have so ably pointed out above.


Which were described in the post you are trying to refute. Photosensitive cells > photosensitive cells attached to a nerve > ... > modern eye. The ability to take information from photosensitivity and convert it into action is as early as protozoans, and is no more special than the ability to take heat and convert it into a sensation.


My original point was that not only does the eye, as a complex of complex parts have to evolved, but likewise the nervous system and the image processing compartment of the brain. Sight essential complexes (with complex parts) have to evolved, not to mention things like eye ducts and eye lashes and all the other un-necessary (but very beneficial) components to the function of sight. We are talking about a fantastic amount of complexity. To accept that evolution can account for each step of progress in each complex part on which sight depends, using only random mutations and natural selection, is completely based on belief, not evidence. The evidence that is supposed to help is the fact that several less complicated forms of the eye are distributed throughout nature. But this evidence does not rule out a designer. Thus, this is an example of evidence that can be explained both in the context of a designer and without one. Personally, I find it a greater 'stretch of the imagination' to accept the evolutionary version, but I suppose that only reflects on my prior belief in a designer.

Well - religious education (UK style) where you are taught about various world religions (or at least I was) does not require you to worship them either - however the science class is for science not religion and so religion has no place in it.

Without bringing a religion into the ID teaching what can be added to my origional statement?

Ah.. I see your point. And it is a good one.

What indeed are you going to learn in "ID-class" ?

Very true. This isnt a scenario i would personally adhere to. Neutral, Natural, and Sexual selection are much more likely.

However, if you can try to get back to trying to provide support for ID rather than just critiquing evolution it would be appreciated.

Right, right, I will try to get back to ID, as you suggest. It's just jolly difficult to defend ID without pointing out the same weaknesses in evolutionary theory. Most people just don't seem to understand evolutionary theory, and how much belief is involved, when describing ID as a religion.

Perhaps you could appreciate how difficult it is to participate in a thread where only your theory is allowed to be attacked and criticised, and where you are not allowed to 'return the favour'.

Edit: It wouldn't be so bad if the criticisms were fair

This is a little off the topic, but assuming you could somehow generate a *scientific* theory for ID, how exactly do you teach it without involving religion?

"ID is the theory that there exists a designer/s who created the universe and everything in it through deliberate design"

What more can you add to that outside of specific religions?

You probably can't leave out a reference to religion, but you can ensure that it is only a reference, and that the kids have to go to the religious classes to find out more. I suppose a similar process happens already when the kids are being taught their various subjects.

The point is, you don't add anything religious to it, except for the presence of a designer. That is why ID has proponents from all sorts of religions.

Right, right, I will try to get back to ID, as you suggest. It's just jolly difficult to defend ID without pointing out the same weaknesses in evolutionary theory. Most people just don't seem to understand evolutionary theory, and how much belief is involved, when describing ID as a religion.

Perhaps you could appreciate how difficult it is to participate in a thread where only your theory is allowed to be attacked and criticised, and where you are not allowed to 'return the favour'.

Edit: It wouldn't be so bad if the criticisms were fair

Start a thread to debate the Evolutionary theory if you wish where no one is allowed to mention Intelligent Design.
When discussing the merits of evolution and the evidence that supports it I have very rarely heard anyone refer to Intelligent Design.

We 'believe' in the theory of gravity too.

The theory of evolution is so heavily supported by the evidence pointing to all kinds of examples and studies that even when we are faced with a puzzle we only know bits and pieces about it is reasonable to assume that it all fits in and we simply need to learn more about it and do more research.

As far as i am aware there is no solid scientific grounding to suggest that a designer exists. Or that organisms really are designed. You can speculate that because of natural complexity they must be designed. But you dont have actual evidence to link the complexity to a designer. You just have rhetoric and completely philosophical arguments. Hence its not reasonable to assume that more research will turn up evidence of a design plan in a system since there isnt any evidence so far anyway. ID still hasnt given a testable hypothesis necessary to be deemed scientific. And it still faces the problem that a designer powerful enough and intelligent enough to produce the systems we see today would be greatly more intelligent and powerful than us. Yet even we can point out a ton of design flaws in nearly every organism we can think of.

Edit: How are the criticisms not fair? I havent seen anything ad hominem so far. Or any invalid criticisms that havent been conceded or corrected. Correct me if i'm wrong, its entirely possible i missed some.

The thing is, with the Big Bang Theory, the evidence came first, and then the explanation. This lead to appropriate tests to verify or disprove the explanation, which lead to more discoveries that fit the explanation. To say that in this case the supporting evidence was made to fit the explanation does not appropriately describe what happened.

I disagree. The evidence that we discovered did not disprove the idea that a designer called the universe into existence (this was the popular theory at one stage). So why did someone feel the need to come up with a big bang theory? Or more importantly, why did the theory gain recognition as a workable theory? Sure the evidence was first, but the evidence fitted in with a designer who called the universe into existence (somewhat similar to the concept of a big bang). Thus the supporting evidence was made to fit in with a big bang in which a designer was not necessary. But there is not evidence to suggest that a designer was not involved.


In the 1910's Vesto Slipher and Carl Wilhelm Wirtz observed spiral galaxies all moving away from the Earth, relatively speaking. The Big Bang theory was developed in 1927 by Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaître. He independently derived the same equations as Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker "and proposed, on the basis of the recession of spiral nebulae, that the universe began with the 'explosion' of a 'primeval atom'—what was later called the Big Bang." (quoting Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang_theory#History))

So, it began with observation and a hypothesis that fit the facts. Models were developed and tested, and the theory grew out of that.


Thanks for the history lesson. I did not realize that a Catholic priest (once again) was involved.
Nevertheless, like I mentioned before, the evidence is not contrary to creation. But at some point, the big bang theory has been used to explain the origin of the universe without the involvement of a creator (I doubt that the priest was responsible for that). The evidence was first, I agree. But the evidence did not suggest the absence of God. The evidence has been interpreted according to a theory in which God is unnecessary.


Good call, then, because there is no theory that explains how life came from the first life form and developed into complicated, thinking, self-conscious life forms such as humans, using only natural selection and random mutations.

Sure, there is no theory that explicitly says this. However, let me make an example.

Since the evolutionary process is exceedingly slow, the diversity and complexity of modern life requires that the Earth be very old, on the order of billions of years. This is compatible with geological evidence that the Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old.--from wikipedia

This statement does not say that evolution accounts for all of the diversity and complexity of modern life, but it IMPLIES it. That implication is what I am referring to when I refer to neo-Darwinism or naturalistic explanations.

You probably can't leave out a reference to religion, but you can ensure that it is only a reference, and that the kids have to go to the religious classes to find out more. I suppose a similar process happens already when the kids are being taught their various subjects.

The point is, you don't add anything religious to it, except for the presence of a designer. That is why ID has proponents from all sorts of religions.

Well lets pretend for a second that ID gets to the point where it can be considered a true theory and where it can and should be taught in public schools... Since you classify the Theory of Evolution as a belief (that you portray as somewhat akin to a religion) should we then spend classtime in a religious studies class on evolution?

For evolution we probably can't leave out a reference to science, but you can ensure that it is only a reference, and that the kids have to go to the science classes to find out more.

I don't believe ID is good science, but I still think we should teach it in schools just for the sake of showing that it is bad science. The thing is, if we don't teach it kids are going to end up thinking it's as legitimate or even more so than the theory of evolution. If we teach children exactly why ID is flawed, and give them a more thurough understanding of evolution (the peoples' understanding of the theory is frighteningly bad) then hopefully by the time they're adults they can have a better understanding of what science is supposed to be.

For example, when two blue eye people get together and produce a brown eyed kid, no scientist in their right mind would point to this as evidence of evolution. That's called inheritance.
If two blue eyed parents produce a brown eyed child in most cases it would be called "infidelity" and would normally be considered reasonable grounds for divorce.
This is because the blue eye gene is recessive and in order for someone to have blue eyes they cannot have a brown eye gene, if both parents have blue eyes then neither has a brown eye gene to pass onto their child.


You probably can't leave out a reference to religion, but you can ensure that it is only a reference, and that the kids have to go to the religious classes to find out more. I suppose a similar process happens already when the kids are being taught their various subjects.

The point is, you don't add anything religious to it, except for the presence of a designer. That is why ID has proponents from all sorts of religions.
This still does not give any expansion on the origional statement:
"ID is the theory that there exists a designer/s who created the universe and everything in it through deliberate design"
I mean can you imagine exam questions?!

What is intelligent design?
"ID is the theory that there exists a designer/s who created the universe and everything in it through deliberate design"

How do we think it works?
A designer designs everything with purpose

What evidence is there for it?
Some things look designed

What else can you ask without involving religion?


True some subjects involve religion - literature, philosophy and history spring to mind but that is usually because religion played a large part in history and the influences of authors and philosophy deals with the supernatural. History focuses on specific religions as it looks at the relevent ones to the event being considered, as does literature (on occasion) and philosophy deals with the supernatural and relation of religion to our lives. However the sciences do not deal with religion, I don't see anyone trying to get religion into the chemistry class, or maths or much of physics (outside of the first moment of the universe). Likewise religion is not a part of sports class, or geography or art (outside of an historical sense) and so on.

<snip> But there is not evidence to suggest that a designer was not involved.
<snip>
That implication is what I am referring to when I refer to neo-Darwinism or naturalistic explanations.


Welcome to Repetition 101:

Science deals with nature not supernature. Hence, science will never give evidence to suggest a designer wasn't involved. And this is the very same reason that all science works by looking at naturalistic explantions. ID looks outside these explanations. Science, by its very definitions, cannot include ID as a science must not involve a supernatural influence.

I don't believe ID is good science, but I still think we should teach it in schools just for the sake of showing that it is bad science. The thing is, if we don't teach it kids are going to end up thinking it's as legitimate or even more so than the theory of evolution. If we teach children exactly why ID is flawed, and give them a more thurough understanding of evolution (the peoples' understanding of the theory is frighteningly bad) then hopefully by the time they're adults they can have a better understanding of what science is supposed to be.

This is the best argument for teaching Intelligent Design in science that i have heard. Well done.

Two cents:

Over 80% of the genome of all species on the planet earth is the same. I.E. 80% of the DNA sequence in a fish, is identical to the DNA sequence in humans.This points to a single common ancestor for all life on earth.

OR

This points to an all powerful being (God?) who was behind the design of all life on earth and used a template. Producing and using a generic template is hardly intelligent, look at any website developed on a template, yeesh. The fact that there are genetic 'mistakes' abnormalities and flaws also points to an 'unintelligent designer. Extinct animals also point to an 'unintelligent designer' , extinct animals are 'designs' that didn't work.

IF

Intelligent design is a fact, then we have to surmise that the designer was not all that intelligent and simply produced a flawed template to mass produce life on an assembly line. The designer also made thousands of 'mistakes' that are now extinct.

I am offended by 'Intelligent Design' it's very principles assert that God (whichever one you believe in) is flawed and obviously not omnipotent. After all an omniopotent, perfect creator would hardly make mistakes.

May I suggest that you type in 'shrinking genomes' in google.

I suppose you know that genomes generally don't shrink because of a mechanism that eats away at one end of the chromosome. I guess you are talking about telomers. You are aware that there is an enzyme named telomerase which repears this?Animal cells do appear to suffer from shorter and shorter chromosome, as the organism ages.A reason for cellaging. But I doubt that this is a contributing factor to the shrinking genomes.Rightfully so, because of telomerase. A contributing factor might be that a mutation resulting in a useless gene would frequently lead to the loss of the gene altogether (negative selection).Wrong, because of neutral evolution. The useless or corrupt gene can still be fixed in the population. Perhaps the useless gene would remain for several generations or several thousand generations. Perhaps it accumulated more mutations, so that even if the first mutation could be reverted, it would still not be functional because of the subsequent mutations.Why? Are you aware that not every mutation leads to the exchange of an amino acid? Or that not every amino acid exchange renders the protein useless? Eventually, it would be unrecognisable as a gene, and perhaps relegated (by the scientists) to 'junk DNA' status (although I hesitate to use that word, because I find it somewhat offensive, as if the scientists who can't find the function have a right to call it junk).It is widely agreed that there seems to be a function of junk DNA. We just don't know which. Besides junk-DNA is a sloppy term and shouldn't been taken that serious by you. The so called junk DNA (introns) is important, but having too much of it is a disadvantage, therefore, the cell responds by removing it from the genome. Thus, any gene that is not essential for the survival of the organism in it's environment will be at risk of being lost. That's riddiculous. Consider the leprosy bacterium (Mycobacterium leprae). It was once capable of survival in both free living conditions and parasitic conditions. Nowadays, however, it appears to survive only under parasitic conditions. Apparently, it lost the genes that made it capable of independent survival.

A phenomenon typical for parasites. You just showed one example of a shortened genome. That's by no means sufficient to back the thesis that genomes shorten in general.
I commented about microsatellite expansion which enlarges genomes. There is also gene dupplication and translocons which enlarge genomes. I now got three arguements against and you got no argument which backs this riddicolous hypothesis.


Perhaps. Point conceded. Not every mutation has to be advantageous in order for it to become fixed in a population. Take the albino mutation for example. However, in the development of the eye, where a mutation results in an uphill movement (i.e. gain of information),then this sort of mutation has to be an advantage, since it requires extra energy from the cell to sustain. No, you really have no idea about neutral evolution, have you? No organism is going to invest extra energy in maintaining an expensive mutation, Not as if they had a choice. I don't want to invest energy in facial hair, but I wasn't asked. Evolution doesn't works that way.particularly when it has to be competitive in order to survive, and then tolerate an additional uphill mutation requiring even more energy to sustain, without the first mutation (or both mutations) providing some sort of advantage over the competitors. This would not be simple stochastics, this would be a phenomenal exception to what we observe today.I suggest you take some time and take some lectures in biology and mathematics.

We 'believe' in the theory of gravity too.


The thing is that no one disputes that gravity is a force. We can observe it in action. We can describe it in terms of mathematical formulas. It is called a theory because we still don't know what causes it. We know it has a strict relationship to mass and distance (except for extremes), but we still don't know why the force appears to be instantaneous (faster than light) or how it can exert it's influence over such huge distances. No one debates that which we can observe. The difference with ID and ND is that neither macroevolution, nor the act of designing can be observed. It has to be indirectly explored by observing life forms available today (plus the fossil record). In that sense, we do not believe in the theory of gravity, we observe gravity in action every day of our lives. But we have to believe in order to account for the origin of life, since we cannot observe it's origin.


The theory of evolution is so heavily supported by the evidence pointing to all kinds of examples and studies that even when we are faced with a puzzle we only know bits and pieces about it is reasonable to assume that it all fits in and we simply need to learn more about it and do more research.


Sure, one can base his belief on reason. His belief only become unreasonable when criticising someone else's belief which is also based on reason.


As far as i am aware there is no solid scientific grounding to suggest that a designer exists. Or that organisms really are designed. You can speculate that because of natural complexity they must be designed. But you dont have actual evidence to link the complexity to a designer. You just have rhetoric and completely philosophical arguments. Hence its not reasonable to assume that more research will turn up evidence of a design plan in a system since there isnt any evidence so far anyway. ID still hasnt given a testable hypothesis necessary to be deemed scientific. And it still faces the problem that a designer powerful enough and intelligent enough to produce the systems we see today would be greatly more intelligent and powerful than us. Yet even we can point out a ton of design flaws in nearly every organism we can think of.


What sort of evidence would satisfy your demands?

In a previous post, I gave a hypothesis that ID might predict--shrinking genomes. Would you care to show me why it is not a hypothesis?



Edit: How are the criticisms not fair? I havent seen anything ad hominem so far. Or any invalid criticisms that havent been conceded or corrected. Correct me if i'm wrong, its entirely possible i missed some.

The repetitive claim that ID is a religion is one criticism. Perhaps you would like to explain how ID is a religion.

I don't believe ID is good science, but I still think we should teach it in schools just for the sake of showing that it is bad science. The thing is, if we don't teach it kids are going to end up thinking it's as legitimate or even more so than the theory of evolution. If we teach children exactly why ID is flawed, and give them a more thurough understanding of evolution (the peoples' understanding of the theory is frighteningly bad) then hopefully by the time they're adults they can have a better understanding of what science is supposed to be.
:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: This is going to be bookmarked for future refference

Welcome to Repetition 101:

Science deals with nature not supernature. Hence, science will never give evidence to suggest a designer wasn't involved. And this is the very same reason that all science works by looking at naturalistic explantions. ID looks outside these explanations. Science, by its very definitions, cannot include ID as a science must not involve a supernatural influence.

I hear you loud and clear. Calm down, please. It's just a debate. :)

This might be your definition of science, but plenty of people do not see it that way. Who is really in a position to decide what science is? You? Me? I think not.

We need a consensus. Perhaps wikipedia can do this for us (in this case).

Science refers to either:
Reasoned investigation or study of nature, aimed at finding out the truth. Such an investigation is normally felt to be necessarily methodical, or according to scientific method – a process for evaluating empirical knowledge; or
The organized body of knowledge gained by such research.
Science is knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method. Scientific knowledge relies heavily upon logic.
Areas of science may be classified in two major dimensions:
Pure (the development of theories) versus Applied (the application of theories to human needs); or
Natural (the study of the naturally occurring world) versus Social (the study of human behaviour and society).

Nowhere do I see that the definition of science is that we are only suppose to include naturalistic forces in our explanations of origins. Sure, it mentions that science is focussed on nature. But that is not the same as meaning that the supernatural must be removed from the explanations for the origin.

The repetitive claim that ID is a religion is one criticism. Perhaps you would like to explain how ID is a religion.

That's too easy. ID requires that a supernatural all powerful being designed all life. Supernatural all powerful beings are scientifically unverifiable and only appear as accepted theory in religious dogma. While ID proponents don't use 'God' or 'Allah' or 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' directly, they do base their 'scientific' theory on the existance of unidentifiable, unverifiable supernatural beings.

Basing theories on unverifiable data, in this case, supernatural beings, is not very scientific, therefore we must assume that the supernatural being theory comes from where it is accepted- religious dogma.

While ID itself is not a religion, it uses religious dogma to explain it's theory.

I like to direct your attention to my new developed Intelligent Raining (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9642478&postcount=441) theory.

The thing is that no one disputes that gravity is a force. We can observe it in action. We can describe it in terms of mathematical formulas. It is called a theory because we still don't know what causes it. We know it has a strict relationship to mass and distance (except for extremes), but we still don't know why the force appears to be instantaneous (faster than light) or how it can exert it's influence over such huge distances. No one debates that which we can observe. The difference with ID and ND is that neither macroevolution, nor the act of designing can be observed. It has to be indirectly explored by observing life forms available today (plus the fossil record). In that sense, we do not believe in the theory of gravity, we observe gravity in action every day of our lives. But we have to believe in order to account for the origin of life, since we cannot observe it's origin.

Quite right we reason these things through by observation. We observe how species can becoemm distinct from each other by isolation from each other. The fossil record shows progressions as are expected and predicted by evolution. ID is simply saying "that looks complex, must be designed." Its reasoning, but not scientific reasoning.



Sure, one can base his belief on reason. His belief only become unreasonable when criticising someone else's belief which is also based on reason.

How so? Criticising beliefs is how we adapt and strengthen those beliefs. Or dismiss them if they prove incorrect.

Look up 'intelligent falling'. That is reasoning too. Does my belief in gravtiy become unreasonable if i criticise Intelligent Falling?



What sort of evidence would satisfy your demands?

That is for you to provide.... Burden of proof, good sir.



In a previous post, I gave a hypothesis that ID might predict--shrinking genomes. Would you care to show me why it is not a hypothesis?

And as i recall, that hypothesis was quickly shown to be flawed. Credit to Myidealstate i believe.

The repetitive claim that ID is a religion is one criticism. Perhaps you would like to explain how ID is a religion.

I've personally never said ID is a religion. However it is based of religious beliefs. And it does rely on supernatural influences making it a non-scientific explanation. If its not a religion and it cant be a science i would suggest it is a philosophy.

Two cents:

Over 80% of the genome of all species on the planet earth is the same. I.E. 80% of the DNA sequence in a fish, is identical to the DNA sequence in humans.This points to a single common ancestor for all life on earth.

OR

This points to an all powerful being (God?) who was behind the design of all life on earth and used a template. Producing and using a generic template is hardly intelligent, look at any website developed on a template, yeesh. The fact that there are genetic 'mistakes' abnormalities and flaws also points to an 'unintelligent designer. Extinct animals also point to an 'unintelligent designer' , extinct animals are 'designs' that didn't work.

IF

Intelligent design is a fact, then we have to surmise that the designer was not all that intelligent and simply produced a flawed template to mass produce life on an assembly line. The designer also made thousands of 'mistakes' that are now extinct.

I am offended by 'Intelligent Design' it's very principles assert that God (whichever one you believe in) is flawed and obviously not omnipotent. After all an omniopotent, perfect creator would hardly make mistakes.

The argument that there could not have been a designer because of all the silly mistakes is based on 1) the assumption that one understands all the functions of each part of biology, the limitations, the balance between energy demands and survival, etc. I.e., there is the assumption that science knows better than the designer. Considering how little science really does know, that is a laughable argument.

2) From religion, we derive hints that the creator did not make things the way they are, but that they have 'fallen' from their original state.

Nowhere do I see that the definition of science is that we are only suppose to include naturalistic forces in our explanations of origins. Sure, it mentions that science is focussed on nature. But that is not the same as meaning that the supernatural must be removed from the explanations for the origin.
The Supernatural explinations probably fall outside the Scientific Method. Also the authors of wiki may have assumed that people realise that supernatural explinations that do not require proof are not a part of science - in the same way poetry and art are not foundations on which to build scientific theory

I like to direct your attention to my new developed Intelligent Raining (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9642478&postcount=441) theory.
Has anyone got the "Intelligent Falling" link?

The argument that there could not have been a designer because of all the silly mistakes is based on 1) the assumption that one understands all the functions of each part of biology, the limitations, the balance between energy demands and survival, etc. I.e., there is the assumption that science knows better than the designer. Considering how little science really does know, that is a laughable argument.

2) From religion, we derive hints that the creator did not make things the way they are, but that they have 'fallen' from their original state.

There! You just said it! Religion! You just got through saying that 'The repetitive claim that ID is a religion is one criticism. Perhaps you would like to explain how ID is a religion.' and now you are using religion to justify genetic 'mistakes'?

Wow.

I'm still waiting to hear exactly what would be taught in an ID class beyond :

"ID is the theory that there exists a designer/s who created the universe and everything in it through deliberate design"

Has anyone got the "Intelligent Falling" link?
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

Clasic onion

I hear you loud and clear. Calm down, please. It's just a debate. :)

This might be your definition of science, but plenty of people do not see it that way. Who is really in a position to decide what science is? You? Me? I think not.


As loath as i am to use the slippery slope argument...

If we can take science outside the realm of natural causes what then? We may as well just throw it all away when we come across a gap in our knowledge and just attribute it to supernatural causes. Flying Spaghetti Monsterism sounds as good as any to me.

So do you honestly belive we should include untestable, unfalsifiable, unverifiable, unattainable, unknowable influences into our scientific reasoning? I seem to recall in another thread that you said you were studying in a biological field... In the next research project you do would you be prepared to include supernatural influences in your experiment to account for unexpected data, or data you arent able to determine?

please take with grain of salt and healthy sense of humour

hypothetical Bruarong writing research report:
Due to inconsistencies in the data collected, and due to the absence of evidence for the mechanism behind the process, it can be concluded that it must have been influenced by an intelligent supernatural entity.

Peer reviewers/Tutor:
OMG!! WTF!!!?



Sorry, but in my experiences i have found most science students and people who consider themselves scientists to be much more inclined to agree with my definitions of what science is/should be.

I believe in intelligent design.
I believe that my God lets things happen not make things happen(free will and all).
I dont believe that ID is a science.
And furthermore, I think that the people who are trying to find proof that God exists are really darwainists in disguise. My reasoning is as follows:
The belief in God is faith based and cant be proved. Their are people out their who are trying to find proof that God exists. So in essense, the same people who are trying to find evidence that God exists are really attempting to disprove God.
:D

Quite right we reason these things through by observation. We observe how species can becoemm distinct from each other by isolation from each other. The fossil record shows progressions as are expected and predicted by evolution. ID is simply saying "that looks complex, must be designed." Its reasoning, but not scientific reasoning.


I suppose it's no surprise to you that the fossil record does not disprove ID, that ID can easily account for it. (Remember that ID does not rule out macroevolution, but that it also does not assume that macroevolution is the only way e.g. humans got here.)

The reasoning 'it looks complex, therefore it looks designed' is indeed dependent on some assumptions. But the other side of the argument 'it looks similar, therefore it must be related by ancestry' is no more 'scientific'.


How so? Criticising beliefs is how we adapt and strengthen those beliefs. Or dismiss them if they prove incorrect.

Look up 'intelligent falling'. That is reasoning too. Does my belief in gravtiy become unreasonable if i criticise Intelligent Falling?


Right. I am not against the criticism. But I think it silly for the kettle to call the pot black (while thinking itself clean).

Intelligent falling is based on reasoning too. Even though the reasoning uses some assumptions. If it cannot be refuted, then why ridicule it? Personally, I think it unnecessary to throw out the theory of gravity and replace it with the theory of intelligent falling. Being a religious person, I see God as the sustainer of all the laws of nature anyway, including gravity. I am happy with the theory of gravity as it is. However, I am not happy with evolutionary theory which is typically implying that God was not involved. If the reality is that He contributed, science, the pursuit of reality, must be able to either allow for this, or rule it out using proof. Currently, it removes God by implication and speculation only. That is most unsatisfactory.




That is for you to provide.... Burden of proof, good sir.


Indeed. As you pointed out at the beginning of the thread. But is it not a fair question for me to ask? Could you provide an example of what you would expect would be good proof for ID? You keep saying that ND (neo-Darwinism) has a mountain of evidence to support it. But is this evidence proof? Or would you have to concede that it may be also interpreted in the 'light' of ID also? If so, how do you expect anyone to come up with proof for ID that cannot be interpreted by ND? ND is such that it will always by modified to accomadate the new evidence.



And as i recall, that hypothesis was quickly shown to be flawed. Credit to Myidealstate i believe.


Myidealstate was better at flaming than refuting that hypothesis.


I've personally never said ID is a religion. However it is based of religious beliefs. And it does rely on supernatural influences making it a non-scientific explanation. If its not a religion and it cant be a science i would suggest it is a philosophy.

Religion—sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system—is commonly defined as belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions and rituals associated with such belief.--from wikipedia

ID is not concerned with the supernatural. It's experimental design is about attributing design in nature to either natural causes or a designer. It's experiments do not place the designer outside of nature. It's theory does, but not to the extent that it has anything to say about the designer. Whereas a religion is all about the supernatural and values etc. derived from the supernatural. In this way, ID is not a religion. ID focuses on nature. Religion focuses on the supernatural.

I grant that I have not seen you call ID a religion. I would agree that the theory is more of a philosophy. But that is not really a concession, since evolutionary theory is also more of a philosophy too.

I believe in intelligent design.
I believe that my God lets things happen not make things happen(free will and all).
I dont believe that ID is a science.
And furthermore, I think that the people who are trying to find proof that God exists are really darwainists in disguise. My reasoning is as follows:
The belief in God is faith based and cant be proved. Their are people out their who are trying to find proof that God exists. So in essense, the same people who are trying to find evidence that God exists are really attempting to disprove God.
:D

If you think ID is about attempting to prove the existence of God, you have misunderstood what ID is about.

I'm still waiting to hear exactly what would be taught in an ID class beyond :

"ID is the theory that there exists a designer/s who created the universe and everything in it through deliberate design"

Rather than demonstrating the lack of substance to ID, perhaps your question demonstrates how you don't know what processes ID uses, or how it could contribute to science. To find out, I suggest you take some literature that has been written by an IDer and find out what they have to say for themselves. In short, I think your question demonstrates your need to educate yourself on the subject, preferably before criticising it.

If you think ID is about attempting to prove the existence of God, you have misunderstood what ID is about.

Hmm.. explain it then ;) Preferably in the way it is going to be taught in classes.

Rather than demonstrating the lack of substance to ID, perhaps your question demonstrates how you don't know what processes ID uses, or how it could contribute to science.

As far as I know ID adds nothing to science, except the hypothesis. All its methods are not new.

If you think ID is about attempting to prove the existence of God, you have misunderstood what ID is about.

Actually i kindda just started to ramble. i do that sometimes. sorry. what i ment to say was that
ID cant be tested

*sniped*

Myidealstate was better at flaming than refuting that hypothesis.

*sniped*

Since when is showing arguements against a hypothesis flaming. I did not attacked you or something :confused: . If you show me where I flamed somebody I will happily report myself to the mods.

Rather than demonstrating the lack of substance to ID, perhaps your question demonstrates how you don't know what processes ID uses, or how it could contribute to science. To find out, I suggest you take some literature that has been written by an IDer and find out what they have to say for themselves. In short, I think your question demonstrates your need to educate yourself on the subject, preferably before criticising it.
I don't suppose you could summarise what you would like to see taught in an ID class?

There! You just said it! Religion! You just got through saying that 'The repetitive claim that ID is a religion is one criticism. Perhaps you would like to explain how ID is a religion.' and now you are using religion to justify genetic 'mistakes'?

Wow.

But there is not rule against science using hints from other fields of study. For example, anthropology takes hints from religion rather frequently when studying people. In taking hints from religion, I am not suggesting that science is based on religion, or that science should not question the validity of the hint.

The original argument was the nature is full of mistakes, therefore there could have been no designer. This argument was not based on science (but rather derived from it), therefore it is perfectly reasonable to answer it with a non-science based answer. If the argument is based on empirical scientific evidence, only then can the answer be required to be based on empirical scientific evidence.

Actually i kindda just started to ramble. i do that sometimes. sorry. what i ment to say was that
ID cant be tested

That is debatable. I think you mean that science cannot prove whether God (or an equivalent) designed life. I agree. But if humans could understand the design well enough to create another life, perhaps this would be a demonstration that design comes from design. It would not prove that design could not come from natural (random) causes, but it would be a kind of testing for ID. Do you agree?

I honestly don’t see how science can’t believe in god. If you are a person who is on the scientific side, you know about the cell theory. And if you know about this, then you know that nowhere in human history have we been able to replicate a cell, even with all our technology and accuracy. So don’t tell me that in all of nature’s randomness, that a functioning cell could be formed from primordial sludge.

I honestly don’t see how science can’t believe in god. If you are a person who is on the scientific side, you know about the cell theory. And if you know about this, then you know that nowhere in human history have we been able to replicate a cell, even with all our technology and accuracy.

The scientific answer to things we cannot reproduce is "we do not know" - not "it must be done by God".

I don't suppose you could summarise what you would like to see taught in an ID class?

Firstly, I am not an IDer, and still rather unfamiliar with their methods. But from what I have read, their method involved analysis of information. They take the approach of, e.g., the chaps who are trying to figure out how the pyramids were built. They don't have the design plans, just the pyramid. They don't know how the design works, but they have the real thing in front of them to study. The subject of ID would teach the students how to think about this type of 'reverse design' or studying design with the intent of discovering the function of the design. They could learn how the information could be analysed into design 'packets', so that each packet could interact with another in a way that contributed to the end goal. It's probably similar to a sort of computer science, seeing life as information, and the interaction of information with the environment. They would demonstrate that they understood the design when they have replicated it., ie. worked backwards from the information to find the design.

I suppose that is somewhat of a shabby summary, but I am learning still.

They take the approach of, e.g., the chaps who are trying to figure out how the pyramids were built. They don't have the design plans, just the pyramid. They don't know how the design works, but they have the real thing in front of them to study. The subject of ID would teach the students how to think about this type of 'reverse design' or studying design with the intent of discovering the function of the design.

Correct - but why teach that method through the hypothesis of ID, instead of through the reality of the pyramids ?

Since when is showing arguements against a hypothesis flaming. I did not attacked you or something :confused: . If you show me where I flamed somebody I will happily report myself to the mods.


No, you really have no idea about neutral evolution, have you?

I suggest you take some time and take some lectures in biology and mathematics.



I suppose this is a rather milder form of flaming, but still unnecessary. Certainly not something for the mods, I suppose, who are used to far more than this.

Actually, I realized that I got you mixed up with Feil.

I still don't think you have resolved the shrinking genomes very well. But I shall get to that, I hope.

I suppose it's no surprise to you that the fossil record does not disprove ID, that ID can easily account for it. (Remember that ID does not rule out macroevolution, but that it also does not assume that macroevolution is the only way e.g. humans got here.)

The reasoning 'it looks complex, therefore it looks designed' is indeed dependent on some assumptions. But the other side of the argument 'it looks similar, therefore it must be related by ancestry' is no more 'scientific'.
Of course we say morphology is similar, genetics are similar, behaviours are similar etc etc ad nauseum. There is also the obervable experiements that show genetic drifts and morphological changes that are possible within a handful of generations. This heavily implies macroevolution. In much the same way that measuring a few centimetres change in position on the san andreas fault line indicates that geographical features were vastly different millions of years ago. Where are the predictions and trends that ID provides us to examine?



Right. I am not against the criticism. But I think it silly for the kettle to call the pot black (while thinking itself clean).

Intelligent falling is based on reasoning too. Even though the reasoning uses some assumptions. If it cannot be refuted, then why ridicule it? Personally, I think it unnecessary to throw out the theory of gravity and replace it with the theory of intelligent falling. Being a religious person, I see God as the sustainer of all the laws of nature anyway, including gravity. I am happy with the theory of gravity as it is. However, I am not happy with evolutionary theory which is typically implying that God was not involved. If the reality is that He contributed, science, the pursuit of reality, must be able to either allow for this, or rule it out using proof. Currently, it removes God by implication and speculation only. That is most unsatisfactory.
No. If he contributed science can only determine what natural effects came about from his supernatural influence. the supernatural influences themselves, and subsequently God, are indeterminable.


Indeed. As you pointed out at the beginning of the thread. But is it not a fair question for me to ask? Could you provide an example of what you would expect would be good proof for ID? You keep saying that ND (neo-Darwinism) has a mountain of evidence to support it. But is this evidence proof? Or would you have to concede that it may be also interpreted in the 'light' of ID also? If so, how do you expect anyone to come up with proof for ID that cannot be interpreted by ND? ND is such that it will always by modified to accomadate the new evidence.

True Chimeras. IE mermaids, gripphons etc... these combinations would definately indicate design. Or a complex organism without flaw. Or a Fossil record that showed up all known species all appearing at once. Or organisms without ANY related species.... These kinds of things would show design. At the moment i cant think of more realistic examples.

Myidealstate was better at flaming than refuting that hypothesis.

Myidealstate wasn't exactly diplomatic, but he still came up with a good argument. Regardless of how it was presented.


Religion—sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system—is commonly defined as belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions and rituals associated with such belief.--from wikipedia

ID is not concerned with the supernatural. It's experimental design is about attributing design in nature to either natural causes or a designer. It's experiments do not place the designer outside of nature. It's theory does, but not to the extent that it has anything to say about the designer. Whereas a religion is all about the supernatural and values etc. derived from the supernatural. In this way, ID is not a religion. ID focuses on nature. Religion focuses on the supernatural.

I grant that I have not seen you call ID a religion. I would agree that the theory is more of a philosophy. But that is not really a concession, since evolutionary theory is also more of a philosophy too.

Intelligent Design... The very name of it suggests supernatural influence. Play it your way then... Give us the interpretations of nature that show ID, give us good evidence of why it is likely, and then respond as well as you can to critique without once mentioning God or another designer.

ID = at best philosophy, supported in general by small group of religious fundamentalists
ToE = Scientific Theory subject to constant debunking attempts and reviews by external sources and within the scientific community for 140-150 years. Supported by decades of emperical evidence as interpreted using the scientific method by the scientific community.

*deep breath*

But there is not rule against science using hints from other fields of study. For example, anthropology takes hints from religion rather frequently when studying people. In taking hints from religion, I am not suggesting that science is based on religion, or that science should not question the validity of the hint.

The original argument was the nature is full of mistakes, therefore there could have been no designer. This argument was not based on science (but rather derived from it), therefore it is perfectly reasonable to answer it with a non-science based answer. If the argument is based on empirical scientific evidence, only then can the answer be required to be based on empirical scientific evidence.

ummm. Of course Anthroplogy draws influence from religion. Peoples lives are influences by religion, its an observable, proven influence. Hence it has to be considered in Anthroplogy. But thats just it. It takes hints from religions influence. It doesnt base its evidence just by copying out of a religious text. Just because religion has influence doesnt mean that God has influence.

Shall we give you some examples of natures mistakes as emperical evidence for you, and explain how an intelligent designer wouldnt keep these in its 'products'? By your reasoning you will then be obilged to respond to them scientifically.

Correct - but why teach that method through the hypothesis of ID, instead of through the reality of the pyramids ?

Good question. Why indeed. I suppose that it is possible for evolutionary theory to take the same approach. It's just that, traditionally, it hasn't, although this has been changing dramatically of late. I wonder if it was some sort of reaction to ID.

Because ID assumes a designer, it approaches design from the point of view that it was designed. The evolution of the design will be viewed from the point of the designer giving it the necessary equipment to adjust it's design to survive in it's environment. That is the strength of ID. It makes the student approach the design from a different perspective--one that works backwards from the overall design, to the design of the parts. Evolutionary theory is also capable of this, but traditionally has not, but causes the student to look from a different perspective, that design was brought about by interaction with natural causes, indeed, caused by natural causes. In that way, he is working forward, from simple to more complex, continually asking the question, 'what happened next?'.

The other benefit of ID is that it directs the students to the differences between it and the more popular theory of ND (neo-Darwinism). In this way, it can highlight the weaknesses in ND. I feel that each student should be familiar with the weaknesses and the strengths of science and its popular theories.

I suppose this is a rather milder form of flaming, but still unnecessary. Certainly not something for the mods, I suppose, who are used to far more than this.

Actually, I realized that I got you mixed up with Feil.

I still don't think you have resolved the shrinking genomes very well. But I shall get to that, I hope.
I don't meant to attack you with that, so if you percieved it that way I am sorry. Just your assumptions what neutral evolution is seemed false to me. Maybe you know more about it as I recognised.Maybe I overreacted. So lets shake hands and be friends again. :)

ummm. Of course Anthroplogy draws influence from religion. Peoples lives are influences by religion, its an observable, proven influence. Hence it has to be considered in Anthroplogy. But thats just it. It takes hints from religions influence. It doesnt base its evidence just by copying out of a religious text. Just because religion has influence doesnt mean that God has influence.

Shall we give you some examples of natures mistakes as emperical evidence for you, and explain how an intelligent designer wouldnt keep these in its 'products'? By your reasoning you will then be obilged to respond to them scientifically.

I don't see ID as 'copying out of a religious text' either. My answer to the 'flaws in nature indicate the absence of God' does not come from ID. The answer comes from my perspective on reality--something each one of us has. ID does not include the Bible as one of its sources of knowledge. The theory of ID is somewhat separate from my personal views, although there is possibly a lot in common.

Perhaps you could go ahead and point out some of natures mistakes. No, let me do it for you. What about all of the human genetic diseases? Are they not mistakes? My answer is that they are mistakes, but not from the designer. What you need to demonstrate is the mistakes that come from the designer. Hop to it. I will be back tomorrow to check on your lengthy reply.

I don't meant to attack you with that, so if you percieved it that way I am sorry. Just your assumptions what neutral evolution is seemed false to me. Maybe you know more about it as I recognised.Maybe I overreacted. So lets shake hands and be friends again. :)

It's a deal. I like friends.

I don't see ID as 'copying out of a religious text' either. My answer to the 'flaws in nature indicate the absence of God' does not come from ID. The answer comes from my perspective on reality--something each one of us has. ID does not include the Bible as one of its sources of knowledge. The theory of ID is somewhat separate from my personal views, although there is possibly a lot in common.

Perhaps you could go ahead and point out some of natures mistakes. No, let me do it for you. What about all of the human genetic diseases? Are they not mistakes? My answer is that they are mistakes, but not from the designer. What you need to demonstrate is the mistakes that come from the designer. Hop to it. I will be back tomorrow to check on your lengthy reply.

Then i assume morphological mistakes and design function flaws would suffice???

Hopefully someone else can do this for me... Any takers?

I have to go get some sleep and dont have time for a lengthy reply just now. I look forward to seeing where this goes overnight (AEST +10GMT). And look forward to bumping this with some witty reply when i get home from work tomorrow.

It's a deal. I like friends.
I'm glad that this is settled.

I don't see ID as 'copying out of a religious text' either. My answer to the 'flaws in nature indicate the absence of God' does not come from ID. The answer comes from my perspective on reality--something each one of us has. ID does not include the Bible as one of its sources of knowledge. The theory of ID is somewhat separate from my personal views, although there is possibly a lot in common.

Perhaps you could go ahead and point out some of natures mistakes. No, let me do it for you. What about all of the human genetic diseases? Are they not mistakes? My answer is that they are mistakes, but not from the designer. What you need to demonstrate is the mistakes that come from the designer. Hop to it. I will be back tomorrow to check on your lengthy reply.

There are many apparent design flaws in the human body. How about the appendix for starters?

Then i assume morphological mistakes and design function flaws would suffice???

Hopefully someone else can do this for me... Any takers?

I have to go get some sleep and dont have time for a lengthy reply just now. I look forward to seeing where this goes overnight (AEST +10GMT). And look forward to bumping this with some witty reply when i get home from work tomorrow.
You mean something like the great panda? Feeds exclusively on bamboo but has the digestive system of a carnivore?

There are many apparent design flaws in the human body. How about the appendix for starters?

Or the fact that the human retina is inside out. Thank you for that blind spot, oh intelligent designer...

There are many apparent design flaws in the human body. How about the appendix for starters?

In order to demonstrate that the appendix is a design flaw, you have to demonstrate that you know what it is designed for, i.e., it's purpose. Simply not finding a purpose for the appendix is not a logical argument for declaring it without purpose, or that it was a mistake or that it doesn't fulfill it's purpose (whatever that is). I will only accept a design flaw if you can demonstrate what the original purpose was, and how the current design fails in that purpose AND that the current design isn't some 'diseased' form of the original design. The appendix is not a good example, since we are not sure as to what it's original purpose is. Evolutionary theory doesn't help, in this case, since why would humans evolve such an organ when it doesn't appear to have a purpose. Evolving organs is far too costly an excercise (in terms of energy) just to do it willy nilly.

You mean something like the great panda? Feeds exclusively on bamboo but has the digestive system of a carnivore?

Perhaps we should turn that around and ask whether the carnivores should all be eating bamboo, or some appropriate equivalent.

In order to demonstrate that the appendix is a design flaw, you have to demonstrate that you know what it is designed for, i.e., it's purpose. Simply not finding a purpose for the appendix is not a logical argument for declaring it without purpose, or that it was a mistake or that it doesn't fulfill it's purpose (whatever that is). I will only accept a design flaw if you can demonstrate what the original purpose was, and how the current design fails in that purpose AND that the current design isn't some 'diseased' form of the original design. The appendix is not a good example, since we are not sure as to what it's original purpose is. Evolutionary theory doesn't help, in this case, since why would humans evolve such an organ when it doesn't appear to have a purpose. Evolving organs is far too costly an excercise (in terms of energy) just to do it willy nilly.
I thought the evolutionary reply was simple. It is a remnant of the time when our diet was mainly grass and vegetation as it is still used by grazing animals today to digest grass. It hasnt dissappeared because the pressure on it to isnt great enough. So the evolutionary response is pretty clear. If you ever want ID to become more than a vague dream, it needs better answers.

Or the fact that the human retina is inside out. Thank you for that blind spot, oh intelligent designer...


The blind spot. Ah, I thought that would come up. But before you blame the intelligent designer, you have to establish that he was not responsible for the blind spot, i.e., that it isn't a product of an inferior form of the eye.
Secondly, you have to establish that there is no benefit to having such a blind spot (e.g. protection, or some other contribution to sight). Remember, if there was a designer, he had sight in mind, not necessarily the perfect eye, but the best vision that a human could have, all things considered (obviously it would be a disadvantage to have perfect vision, but eyes that are twice the size of your brain).

I thought the evolutionary reply was simple. It is a remnant of the time when our diet was mainly grass and vegetation as it is still used by grazing animals today to digest grass. It hasnt dissappeared because the pressure on it to isnt great enough. So the evolutionary response is pretty clear. If you ever want ID to become more than a vague dream, it needs better answers.

Did humans ever eat grass? Vegetation we do eat still.
But I have never head of the role that it plays in grass eating animals. Pray tell.

Perhaps we should turn that around and ask whether the carnivores should all be eating bamboo, or some appropriate equivalent.
You think of the "the lion resting beside the lamb" thing or however this translates to english?
At least from a biological point of view this is problematic. Besides the problems with population control, carnivores can't gain enough energy from grasses. The great panda would be good advised to eat fruit instead of bamboo, if it don't like to kill.

It is also problematic from a theological point of view in my eyes. I am no expert of this, but IRC humans are for christians the only creatures with souls and free will. So an animal can't choose to kill or not. It has to fullfill it's given task. So a panda can't choose to stop eating meat by his own, free will.

But beside this the "the lion resting beside the lamb" thing I a tempting idea.

Did humans ever eat grass? Vegetation we do eat still.
But I have never head of the role that it plays in grass eating animals. Pray tell.
At this issue I have to agree with you. I don't think humans ever ate grass. We have, like the great panda, simply not the digestive system for this.

Did humans ever eat grass? Vegetation we do eat still.
But I have never head of the role that it plays in grass eating animals. Pray tell.
I always understood it was to aid the digestion of fiberous foods - like grass. Mammels that eat grass as a main prt of their diet AFAIK have functioning and large appendixes.
did humans ever eat grass? Maybe the mammels they evolved from did... or the mammels those mammels evolved from.

/Please don't take that for serios. It's only a joke/

I have prove that pandas deliberately defy HIS name and rebel against their given place as carnivores. Just compare the fotos.
Panda (http://www.cs.bath.ac.uk/~pjw/Q3D/newroomflower/panda.jpg) Black Metal (http://www.wfmu.org/LCD/26/gfxlcd26/immortal.jpg)

I always understood it was to aid the digestion of fiberous foods - like grass. Mammels that eat grass as a main prt of their diet AFAIK have functioning and large appendixes.
did humans ever eat grass? Maybe the mammels they evolved from did... or the mammels those mammels evolved from.
Unfortunatly not. Our ancestors lived in the jungle and ate mainly fruits, with the addition of insects and occasionatly meat. Before this our ancestors ate insects. At least thats what I know.

You think of the "the lion resting beside the lamb" thing or however this translates to english?
At least from a biological point of view this is problematic. Besides the problems with population control, carnivores can't gain enough energy from grasses. The great panda would be good advised to eat fruit instead of bamboo, if it don't like to kill.

It is also problematic from a theological point of view in my eyes. I am no expert of this, but IRC humans are for christians the only creatures with souls and free will. So an animal can't choose to kill or not. It has to fullfill it's given task. So a panda can't choose to stop eating meat by his own, free will.

But beside this the "the lion resting beside the lamb" thing I a tempting idea.

That would be the wolf with the lamb. But no, that did not enter my mind until you pointed this out. It may be problematic for the way carnivore populations are now, but if it wasn't always that way......
That the panda gets enough energy from eating bamboo is a good indication that the carnivores could do likewise.

I have heard of cases where a sheep, for example, has taken up eating meat, and where a dog eats only vegetables. I once witnessed a horse eating a dead rabbit. Chickens turn into cannibals if hungry enough. There are always the exceptions, and how are we to know what the animals originally ate? (I am thinking of the garden of Eden.)

It's not a problem for God to make new animals e.g. a lion that is no longer a carnivore. In the Bible it talks about the new heaven and the new earth. The new animals would not want to eat meat, much like a sheep will usually not eat raw meat (although there are exceptions). This is certainly not a theological problem that I can see, though I am no theologian.

Warning: We are getting away from the original topic here.

Unfortunatly not. Our ancestors lived in the jungle and ate mainly fruits, with the addition of insects and occasionatly meat. Before this our ancestors ate insects. At least thats what I know.

While eating mostly fruits and insects, early hominids did make use of the portions of the digestive tract to break down the Cell Wall inherent in all flora. Whether it was grains or fruit, the appendix aided in the digestion of cellulose, which is possibly why it still exists, although at a severely limited capacity.

Remember, that not all those organs your High School science teacher dubbed "vestigial" are useless. For example, I was told the spleen was unnecessary in humans. When I lost mine it was explained that it helps to produce and process white blood cells. When infected, white blood cells go through the spleen to be "recycled". As I don't have one, thise doesn't happen so mine die. To quote my doctor (who had the bedside manner of a nazi) "It's kinda like you have AIDS, kid, but you didn't do anything 'wrong'."

/Please don't take that for serios. It's only a joke/

I have prove that pandas deliberately defy HIS name and rebel against their given place as carnivores. Just compare the fotos.
Panda (http://www.cs.bath.ac.uk/~pjw/Q3D/newroomflower/panda.jpg) Black Metal (http://www.wfmu.org/LCD/26/gfxlcd26/immortal.jpg)

Hehe.

I often wonder if God make the panda just to confuse the evolutionists. It looks like a carnivore, but it just eats leaves. But I suppose there is always the koala bear (also eating just leaves). Those little beggars can be quite fierce, and they can make an aweful racket when you are trying to sleep.

That would be the wolf with the lamb. But no, that did not enter my mind until you pointed this out. It may be problematic for the way carnivore populations are now, but if it wasn't always that way......
That the panda gets enough energy from eating bamboo is a good indication that the carnivores could do likewise.It can gain just enough energy to survive, but it has to feed perpetually. This is thought to be one reason for the great pandas to be on the brink of extinction

I have heard of cases where a sheep, for example, has taken up eating meat, and where a dog eats only vegetables. I once witnessed a horse eating a dead rabbit. Chickens turn into cannibals if hungry enough. There are always the exceptions, and how are we to know what the animals originally ate? (I am thinking of the garden of Eden.)
By looking at old dung. A fact totally unrelated to this thread and of no importence, I just think it is most exiting: Do you know that squirrels do eat meat?
It's not a problem for God to make new animals e.g. a lion that is no longer a carnivore. In the Bible it talks about the new heaven and the new earth. The new animals would not want to eat meat, much like a sheep will usually not eat raw meat (although there are exceptions). This is certainly not a theological problem that I can see, though I am no theologian.

Warning: We are getting away from the original topic here.
With this you are absolutly right.

Hehe.

I often wonder if God make the panda just to confuse the evolutionists. It looks like a carnivore, but it just eats leaves. But I suppose there is always the koala bear (also eating just leaves). Those little beggars can be quite fierce, and they can make an aweful racket when you are trying to sleep.
Or the tamarack (http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/ef/marcell/assets/images/photos/Marcell_plants/cmp_tamarack_1.JPG). It's a tree that looks like an evergreen, even has cones, but it's deciduous. Its "needles" are actually leaves that turn yellow in autumn, fall, and are renewed each year.

While eating mostly fruits and insects, early hominids did make use of the portions of the digestive tract to break down the Cell Wall inherent in all flora. Whether it was grains or fruit, the appendix aided in the digestion of cellulose, which is possibly why it still exists, although at a severely limited capacity.

Remember, that not all those organs your High School science teacher dubbed "vestigial" are useless. For example, I was told the spleen was unnecessary in humans. When I lost mine it was explained that it helps to produce and process white blood cells. When infected, white blood cells go through the spleen to be "recycled". As I don't have one, thise doesn't happen so mine die. To quote my doctor (who had the bedside manner of a nazi) "It's kinda like you have AIDS, kid, but you didn't do anything 'wrong'."
I know this and I know perfectly well about the function of the spleen.
Humans ate and still eat grains but not grass. There is a distingtion between this. We don't got a rumen to digest grass.

Or the tamarack (http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/ef/marcell/assets/images/photos/Marcell_plants/cmp_tamarack_1.JPG). It's a tree that looks like an evergreen, even has cones, but it's deciduous. Its "needles" are actually leaves that turn yellow in autumn, fall, and are renewed each year.
That's simple once every plant was gymnosperm. Angiosperms developed later. Of gymnosperms evergreen and deciduous species existed, much like the angiosperms today. The angiosperms replaced most of the gymnosperms exept the tamarackand the ginko for a reason I don't know and evergreen conifers because the are better adapted to cold and very hot climates.

To the panda: It's what you would call a transitional species. A carnivore which develops into a herbivore.

As loath as i am to use the slippery slope argument...

If we can take science outside the realm of natural causes what then? We may as well just throw it all away when we come across a gap in our knowledge and just attribute it to supernatural causes. Flying Spaghetti Monsterism sounds as good as any to me.

So do you honestly belive we should include untestable, unfalsifiable, unverifiable, unattainable, unknowable influences into our scientific reasoning? I seem to recall in another thread that you said you were studying in a biological field... In the next research project you do would you be prepared to include supernatural influences in your experiment to account for unexpected data, or data you arent able to determine?


No, I am not prepared to throw out my reason when I come across some part of nature that I cannot immediately understand. Nor should anyone else. If the flying spaghetti monster was a reasonable cause in placing life on this planet, I may be persuaded to consider it a viable option. If natural causes was argued as reasonably explaining how we got here, I might give that one a shot too. So far, much of evolutionary theory cannot be falsified, tested, observed, etc. You cannot possibly falsify the idea that eukaryotes evolved into prokaryotes, although this is generally accepted--even assumed. We might be able to find evidence that either fits or doesn't fit with this explanation, but we can never falsify the hypothesis itself. And yet modern science appears to be comfortable with allowing ND (neo-Darwinism) to exist as a viable theory. It looks like the science community will allow only testable, falsifiable, verifiable, attainable, knowable influences into our scientific reasoning, EXCEPT for when it allows evolutionary theory. ''Sorry ID, we will only allow one theory that is unfalsifiable. All others have to apply through the strict guidelines listed above.''

Personally, I think science would be in a much better position if it didn't hold the evolutionary theory so tightly. Why don't we ease up and relax a little? Science won't die if nobody believes in something like macroevolution. Fortunately, science is much bigger than evolutionary theory. Don't forget that many of the old chaps who contributed so much to science were around before evolutionary theory.



please take with grain of salt and healthy sense of humour

hypothetical Bruarong writing research report:
Due to inconsistencies in the data collected, and due to the absence of evidence for the mechanism behind the process, it can be concluded that it must have been influenced by an intelligent supernatural entity.

Peer reviewers/Tutor:
OMG!! WTF!!!?



Sorry, but in my experiences i have found most science students and people who consider themselves scientists to be much more inclined to agree with my definitions of what science is/should be.

That would not be the way I would write the report. More like 'Due to inconsistencies in the data collected, and due to the absence of evidence for the mechanism behind the process, it can be concluded that we don't know enough to make a conclusion on what was the cause, so we are prepared to allow speculation on any number of causes, provided they are sensible and logical.'

If most people prefer to believe evolutionary theory, it may suggest that they 1) haven't looked at the raw data themselves, 2) have accepted someone else's opinion rather than making their own conclusions, 3) have a good reason to rule out a designer that has nothing to do with science and therefore have made up their minds about God before learning about science, 4) don't understand what ID is really about.....did I miss anything? How about the complete lack of evidence from science that suggests that there isn't a supernatural?

Unfortunatly not. Our ancestors lived in the jungle and ate mainly fruits, with the addition of insects and occasionatly meat. Before this our ancestors ate insects. At least thats what I know.

Well maybe it was before that then. It was several years ago that i heard about this little factoid so i dont remember the details. I'm sure someone could find some details if they could be bothered to look it up.

Sorry about the derailing. This seems to happen to every ID thread. I dont even know exactly what ID is as it never gets exactly defined. I thought it was the same as evolution but with a supposed guiding hand but i heard some one talking about it in the 6000 y/o young earth sense so i have no idea. Someone care to define it exactly?

Well maybe it was before that then. It was several years ago that i heard about this little factoid so i dont remember the details. I'm sure someone could find some details if they could be bothered to look it up.I guess you are speaking of grains, which are the fruits of grasses.


Sorry about the derailing. This seems to happen to every ID thread. I dont even know exactly what ID is as it never gets exactly defined. I thought it was the same as evolution but with a supposed guiding hand but i heard some one talking about it in the 6000 y/o young earth sense so i have no idea. Someone care to define it exactly?
I'd also like to know this.

Sorry about the derailing. This seems to happen to every ID thread. I dont even know exactly what ID is as it never gets exactly defined. I thought it was the same as evolution but with a supposed guiding hand but i heard some one talking about it in the 6000 y/o young earth sense so i have no idea. Someone care to define it exactly?

Exactly ? No. But in short:

ID starts from the assumption that the universe, earth, every lifeform on it and so on did not develop by chance, but was pre-designed. It does in principle not speculate about the nature of said creator, but the overwhelming majority seems to think of the Christian God.

From this startingpoint, everything is explored based on the question "why was it designed this way". Patterns in nature are sought and linked to eachother. Keyconcepts are:
"irreducable complexity" - the supporters of ID claim there exist things in nature that could not have evolved randomly, since intermediate states would serve no purpose.
"design inference" -if something is both complex and specified at the same time, it is probably designed.

Try http://www.discovery.org/

The scientific answer to things we cannot reproduce is "we do not know" - not "it must be done by God".

Its funny how you left off the part about nature’s randomness. You honestly are going to tell me, and go against the cell theory that says all cells must come from preexisting cells, that multicultural organisms crawled out of an ocean, AFTER a huge dynamic explosion?

Exactly ? No. But in short:

ID starts from the assumption that the universe, earth, every lifeform on it and so on did not develop by chance, but was pre-designed. It does in principle not speculate about the nature of said creator, but the overwhelming majority seems to think of the Christian God.

From this startingpoint, everything is explored based on the question "why was it designed this way". Patterns in nature are sought and linked to eachother. Keyconcepts are:
"irreducable complexity" - the supporters of ID claim there exist things in nature that could not have evolved randomly, since intermediate states would serve no purpose.
"design inference" -if something is both complex and specified at the same time, it is probably designed.

Try http://www.discovery.org/

Based on what I know of ID, I would mostly agree with you. One point though. The 'old fashioned' creationism holds that the world is 6000 years old and that no macroevolution has occurred. ID does not say that there was no macroevolution (or that the world is 6000 years old). ID tends to unite both those who believe in macroevolution, and those who don't, both long agers and young agers. The only basis of agreement that I see is that designs within nature may be attributed to a designer.

Its funny how you left off the part about nature’s randomness. You honestly are going to tell me, and go against the cell theory that says all cells must come from preexisting cells, that multicultural organisms crawled out of an ocean, AFTER a huge dynamic explosion?

Again: "I don't know". I just refuse to make the problem more complex by imagining a designer, whose origins are a bigger mystery.

Again: "I don't know". I just refuse to make the problem more complex by imagining a designer, whose origins are a bigger mystery.

The 'I don't know' response is the most sensible one to make, and of course, the right one, from a science perspective.

It basically means, though, that science cannot adequately explain the origin of life, and, even more importantly, cannot refute any reasonable proposition. By 'refusing to make the problem more complex', you are not solving the problem of origins, but avoiding it.

*snip* ....did I miss anything? How about the complete lack of evidence from science that suggests that there isn't a supernatural?
How can there be evidence that something does not exist?

The 'I don't know' response is the most sensible one to make, and of course, the right one, from a science perspective.

It basically means, though, that science cannot adequately explain the origin of life, and, even more importantly, cannot refute any reasonable proposition. By 'refusing to make the problem more complex', you are not solving the problem of origins, but avoiding it.
But the intent of science is not to "solve the problem of origins", or, if it does tackle that issue someday, to do so within the bounds of nature.

How can there be evidence that something does not exist?

I think you misunderstood. Wot I said was,

How about the complete lack of evidence from science that suggests that there isn't a supernatural?

To put it another way, there is no evidence from science that proves that the supernatural does or does not exist. It begs the question then. Why rule it out? On what basis? That it makes your theory simpler? If that is the reason, then I call it silly.

But the intent of science is not to "solve the problem of origins", or, if it does tackle that issue someday, to do so within the bounds of nature.

Where have you been, Willamena? Science has been long trying to tackle the problem of the origin, both of life in general and of humans. It may not be the intent of all of science, but there are particular disciplines within science that is devoted to this. Human evolution would be one. It isn't a very recent one either.

I think you misunderstood. Wot I said was,

How about the complete lack of evidence from science that suggests that there isn't a supernatural?

To put it another way, there is no evidence from science that proves that the supernatural does or does not exist. It begs the question then. Why rule it out? On what basis? That it makes your theory simpler? If that is the reason, then I call it silly.
We don't want to rule out the existence of the supernatural. We just don't know how to measure the supernatural, so we refuse to make statements about it.

We don't want to rule out the existence of the supernatural. We just don't know how to measure the supernatural, so we refuse to make statements about it.

Don't bother. We have pointed this out to Bruarong at least 15 times. He knows it to be true, but doesn't care, because then it would destroy his entire argument.

I think you misunderstood. Wot I said was,

How about the complete lack of evidence from science that suggests that there isn't a supernatural?

To put it another way, there is no evidence from science that proves that the supernatural does or does not exist. It begs the question then. Why rule it out? On what basis? That it makes your theory simpler? If that is the reason, then I call it silly.
No, it should be ruled out of a scientific explanation on the basis that it is supernatural, not natural.

Its very nature (specifically a lack thereof) excludes it from being scientific.

Hmm...well, this is a rather biased thread. First, you made all the rules. That is why nobody posted until you started mildly flaming. This is not a chance for intelligent design, it is a chance for the opposition. This is apparent right from the title. :gundge:

Your rules (as I read them) stifle discussion, so I'm gonna go ahead and assume you meant something else; that you favor discussion over lame.

Rambling aside:

Ok, from a scientific standpoint, ID is valid only in that it is the only logical alternative (or add-on) to the theory of evolution (the only major scientific theory, and the only positively sanctioned conclusion to research). I could talk about the flaws in evolution such as timeframe (too short by most research), but the fact is that both Creationism (er...ID) and Evolution share a much more fundamental problem.

According to fundamental laws (yes, laws, not theories) of physics (ie. thermodynamics), the Big Bang theory doesn't work. Yes, BBT is not Evolution, but they're dependent on each other, logically. If either one fails, problems arise.

Now, there is an adequate amount of evidence to show that the universe is expanding, as if from a Big bang effect. This suggests an explosive start, which works for both BBT and ID equally.

Problem: BBT suggests either a one time event or a cyclic set of events that repeats eternally. Logically, it could not have been a one-time event, as our universe runs under the rules of time and causality. There had to be a before. If it is considered a continually cyclic event, not only will it run into the same causality problem, but physics steps in. Each repetition would slowly remove energy from the system.

Even then, the ability of the universe to pull itself back together is certainly in question. To make up for the numerical discrepancies, "dark matter" was hypothesized. I don't know much about it, though.

When ID is put to the same test, it's quite unfair. Christian apologetics are easily able to field these issues.


All in all, you're not going to have the luxury of facts in making your decision about truth. I would have a lot less trouble with evolution (which I had supported for years) if it hadn't become a governmentally/culturally sanctioned semi-religion. And yes, if you are a scientist and you want to say something about evolution, you can lose your grants if you go against evolution (not to mention getting attacked by seas of fundamentalist evolution hate-mail), leading many otherwise moderate scientists to keep their mouths shut.

Science has seen better days. Maybe the facts will come out and pwn, then later reconcile evolution. I hope so. It's so much more interesting and creative than classically viewed ID. :p Of course, this still doesn't say anything against ID itself. Or the Bible or Christianity etc.

Good Luck. Don't pick the wrong Grail, or you'll get owned by life (or death, same thing). That's tough, but I can't change it (life ain't fair, but I can at least affect that). Even by being opposed to it. Anyways, I think Christianity (not necessarily the corrupted side you may or may not have been disillusioned to in early childhood) shows the best way to live life, especially for most people. You basically are going to have to read the Bible to understand. C.S. Lewis is a great thinker and all, but it's no substitute.

-------
For now, don't forget to take on as much life as possible each day, one day at a time. :)

look you are leaving out all cats. cats are not christians. they never worship anything that was ever human...now we respect some humans. my slave? she is a pain always petting me and kissing me.

that is the main problem with the world today. not enough people keep on real important issues.

this sounds very humanlike.

Hmm...well, this is a rather biased thread. First, you made all the rules. That is why nobody posted until you started mildly flaming. This is not a chance for intelligent design, it is a chance for the opposition. This is apparent right from the title. :gundge:
No, it's a chance for ID to formulate a hypothesis, that can later be compared to other hypotheses and theories to see if it is worth keeping or revising until it qualifies for a theory. As a hypothesis, ID should be able to explain things independant of any other theory, because it only needs to state something that might work to explain things, not demonstrate that that something is right, and other somethings are wrong.

Your rules (as I read them) stifle discussion
Of course they do. They stifle evolution vs ID discussion, which was not the point of the thread. By stifling other discussion, they try to lead the discussion in the intended direction.

Ok, from a scientific standpoint, ID is valid only in that it is the only logical alternative (or add-on) to the theory of evolution (the only major scientific theory, and the only positively sanctioned conclusion to research).

Please do not make "only" statements unless you intend to prove that it is "only". Please do not make statements of "logical"-ness unless you intend to show that it is logical.

According to fundamental laws (yes, laws, not theories)
A law is a simple theory with so much evidence over such a range of data it is unlikely in the extreme that it would ever be altered, much less disproven. By simple I mean not that theories are simple, but that a law is a type of theory that is simple. There is nothing special about laws.

the Big Bang theory doesn't work.
That's a pretty big claim. Care to prove it?

Yes, BBT is not Evolution, but they're dependent on each other, logically. If either one fails, problems arise.
No, they aren't. Evolution would work perfectly fine in a steady-state universe. The big bang would work perfectly fine in a universe where all creatures sprouted out of the ground in their present genetic structure a thousand years ago. Evolution theory predates Big Bang theory by several decades.

Now, there is an adequate amount of evidence to show that the universe is expanding, as if from a Big bang effect. This suggests an explosive start, which works for both BBT and ID equally.
agreed.

Problem: BBT suggests either a one time event or a cyclic set of events that repeats eternally. Logically, it could not have been a one-time event, as our universe runs under the rules of time and causality. There had to be a before. If it is considered a continually cyclic event, not only will it run into the same causality problem, but physics steps in. Each repetition would slowly remove energy from the system.

link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=417875&page=1&pp=15&highlight=bang)
As to what came "before" the Big Bang.

First, get it through your head that time=space=time.
Next, that time is not constant from an interior frame of reference.

Precisely speaking, as one approaches the speed of light (~3.00(10)^8m/s), or a black hole (object so dense that at the surface the force of gravity is sufficient to keep light from escaping), time, for an observer at the speed/in the black hole does not pass. Things can happen, but the time they are percieved to happen at has absolutely no relation to an "outside" world.

Since everything at the time of the Big Bang would be subjected to the same gravitational intensity, time for anything in the universe at that time would be nonexistant.

Before, then, is meaningless. The universe existed because it existed. There was no "before" the Big Bang because before the Big Bang, there was no time. Conversely, you can say the universe before the Big Bang existed for a eternity that was precisely 0 seconds long.

Or you could say God caused it, or that it was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure.

As to your point that there would be energy loss, the big bang is the expansion of the universe itself. Matter and energy can be converted, but never destroyed. Nothing "leaks out" of the universe.

Even then, the ability of the universe to pull itself back together is certainly in question. To make up for the numerical discrepancies, "dark matter" was hypothesized. I don't know much about it, though.
Dark matter has been hypothesized, but not to explain the universe pulling itself together, but to explain why things look like they are being affected by masses that we cannot see. Black holes are one kind of dark matter.

Anyways, I think Christianity (not necessarily the corrupted side you may or may not have been disillusioned to in early childhood) shows the best way to live life, especially for most people. You basically are going to have to read the Bible to understand. C.S. Lewis is a great thinker and all, but it's no substitute.

If CS Lewis had written the Bible, I would probably still be a christian. I, however, have read the bible, and it tells me to murder my wiccan friends, opress women, oppose homosexuals, and support slavery. Christianity should drop everything but the Gospels and go from there if it wants to have my respect.


And we go through an entire post that presented nothing even slightly resembling a hypothesis.

What I'm reminded of everytime I argue with someone over ID:

"The Babel fish is small, yellow and leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy recieved not from its own carrier but from those around it, It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. the practical upshot of this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any language.

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anhthing so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes like this : "I refuse to prove that I exist", says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But", says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? it could not have evolved by chance. it proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear", says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic."

The catfish has the most taste buds of all animals, having over 27,000 of them. Why didn't the Intelligent Designer save that one for us humans? Food would taste orgasmic.

Hmm...well, this is a rather biased thread.

It is biased to say, "Tell me how your theory, which you claim to be scientific, meets the requirements for a scientific theory."??????? Really?

Ok, from a scientific standpoint, ID is valid only in that it is the only logical alternative (or add-on) to the theory of evolution (the only major scientific theory, and the only positively sanctioned conclusion to research).

What a silly statement. ID is the only logical alternative to the theory of evolution? Are you completely daft? You are basically making the statement, "If evolution is not correct, then it must have been designed.?

That is like me saying, "If there aren't four elements - earth, air, wind, and fire, then the elements must have been designed."

Disproof of evolution would in no way support ID. Thus, ID is not the only logical alternative.

According to fundamental laws (yes, laws, not theories) of physics (ie. thermodynamics), the Big Bang theory doesn't work. Yes, BBT is not Evolution, but they're dependent on each other, logically. If either one fails, problems arise.

Another completely illogical statement. The theory of evolution is not, in any way, shape, or form dependent upon the Big Bang theory, nor is the Big Bang dependent upon evolution. Try again.

Then there is also the fact that, in science, laws are still theories. That which we call law (or did in the past anyways, ever since Newton's laws were found to be wrong, science has shied away from using the term for anything non-traditional) is nothing more than a theory with so much backing that we figure we might as well call it proven. It is still open to be disproven, and any evidence that does so will change the "law".

Problem: BBT suggests either a one time event or a cyclic set of events that repeats eternally. Logically, it could not have been a one-time event, as our universe runs under the rules of time and causality.

Again, you are being illogical. You cannot logically apply the rules of our universe to something outside our universe. If there was a "before" our universe, then that before is, by definition, outside our universe. You thus cannot apply the rules of our universe to it.

There had to be a before. If it is considered a continually cyclic event, not only will it run into the same causality problem, but physics steps in. Each repetition would slowly remove energy from the system.

How so? And do remember that the only way to destroy energy is to convert it to mass. According to physics, the total of energy and mass in the universe is a constant.

When ID is put to the same test, it's quite unfair.

If ID wants to be called scientific, then it must be put to the same tests as any other scientific theory. Otherwise, it is not scientific.

And yes, if you are a scientist and you want to say something about evolution, you can lose your grants if you go against evolution (not to mention getting attacked by seas of fundamentalist evolution hate-mail), leading many otherwise moderate scientists to keep their mouths shut.

Bullshit. Aspects of evolution are questioned all the time in the literature. That is the point of research after all, to question things. Because questions are brought up, the theory has changed over the years - which is the self-correcting aspect of science. Now, if you say something illogical and untested against evolution, and try to get it published, you will be lambasted, and rightfully so.

We don't want to rule out the existence of the supernatural. We just don't know how to measure the supernatural, so we refuse to make statements about it.

Everyone agrees that science is focussed on measuring nature, and that it cannot measure the supernatural. The disagreement is over whether the supernatural can be 'allowed' in the explanations or the theory. ID says yes. Neo-Darwinism says no. ID says 'why not?' Neo-Darwinism says because......because our great 'Pooh-bahs' have spoken.

ND does not have the right to define science. Even the definition of science in wikipedia does not make any rule about invoking the supernatural as a cause that is involved in life as we know it. It gives the definition as a reasoned investigation or study of nature, aimed at finding out the truth. If the truth is that life was placed here by a designer, should not science be able to allow this possibility, and even construct scenarios where this could explain certain aspects of nature?

Don't forget that many of the old chaps who made great contributions to science certainly believed that God was the designer. There experiments were focussed on nature, but their explanations included God.

Don't bother. We have pointed this out to Bruarong at least 15 times. He knows it to be true, but doesn't care, because then it would destroy his entire argument.

Every time I have asked you why science is not allowed to include the supernatural in it's theory or explanations, you don't give me a straight answer. I can appreciate your patience in continually pointing out the above, but it won't help you unless you can give me a straight answer.

Bullshit. Aspects of evolution are questioned all the time in the literature. That is the point of research after all, to question things. Because questions are brought up, the theory has changed over the years - which is the self-correcting aspect of science. Now, if you say something illogical and untested against evolution, and try to get it published, you will be lambasted, and rightfully so.

http://www.discovery.org/csc/freeSpeechEvolCampMain.php

Every time I have asked you why science is not allowed to include the supernatural in it's theory or explanations, you don't give me a straight answer. I can appreciate your patience in continually pointing out the above, but it won't help you unless you can give me a straight answer.

This has in fact been answered multiple times in this thread and others. I will attempt to make this as simple as possible, seeing as that seems to be necessity:

sci·ence
Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s
Function: noun
: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method and concerned with the physical world and its phenomena

(From Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary)

Thus, supernatural != science. It can not be tested.

Righto, could someone people please explain to me the details of the ID theory?

ID has one central issue: life (and even the universe) as we see it results from an intelligence, and is thus the result of a directed process, not an undirected force like natural selection.

ID has one central issue: life (and even the universe) as we see it results from an intelligence, and is thus the result of a directed process, not an undirected force like natural selection.

Isn't that just theistic creationism?

Hole in one

Hole in one

Woops, sorry, I meant to say theistic evolutionism.

Theistic creationism, now there's a tautology and a half!

What I've never been able to understand is: you are a creationist? Fine, but why invest in a piece of crappy pseudo-science like ID? It diminishes your religion, and it has no scientific value.

This has in fact been answered multiple times in this thread and others. I will attempt to make this as simple as possible, seeing as that seems to be necessity:

sci·ence
Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s
Function: noun
: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method and concerned with the physical world and its phenomena

(From Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary)

Thus, supernatural != science. It can not be tested.

Nobody is trying to use science to measure the supernatural. The part where ID deals with the supernatural is in the explanations, not in the experiment. Surely, you have got to see the difference.

What I've never been able to understand is: you are a creationist? Fine, but why invest in a piece of crappy pseudo-science like ID? It diminishes your religion, and it has no scientific value.

Catholic born and bred. Believe it or not, I wasn't even aware creationism still existed until I came on NS General. I've always been told by my parents that the creation stories in Genesis were theologically vital but scientifically irrelevant.

I'm a Theistic Evolutionist: I believe in God, but I believe in evolution. I'm a bit concerned because ID seems to be cheapening Theistic Evolutionism.

Woops, sorry, I meant to say theistic evolutionism.

Theistic creationism, now there's a tautology and a half!

Theistic evolution and creationism have at least one thing in common, a source that is supernatural. ID is about science that allows the supernatural as one of the causes, indeed, the cause behind the cause. ID is not opposed to theistic evolution. In fact,
William Dembski, one of the main leaders of the movement, appears to be a theistic evolutionist (at least to a certain degree....he accepts macroevolution).

Nobody is trying to use science to measure the supernatural.

Oh?

Every time I have asked you why science is not allowed to include the supernatural in it's theory or explanations, you don't give me a straight answer...

The part where ID deals with the supernatural is in the explanations, not in the experiment. Surely, you have got to see the difference.

I do, but apparantly you do not. Science doesn't deal with 'why'. A scientific theory is based on observable fact. You can't just add on stuff that you make up based on nothing. This is why ID is not science.

Theistic evolution and creationism have at least one thing in common, a source that is supernatural. ID is about science that allows the supernatural as one of the causes, indeed, the cause behind the cause. ID is not opposed to theistic evolution. In fact,
William Dembski, one of the main leaders of the movement, appears to be a theistic evolutionist (at least to a certain degree....he accepts macroevolution).

Woa, you mean ID requires God in a scientific explanation? That is BAD science. I believe God has guided evolution, but evolution should never be explained in that way. It's just bad science, if science at all.

Oh?



I do, but apparantly you do not. Science doesn't deal with 'why'. A scientific theory is based on observable fact. You can't just add on stuff that you make up based on nothing. This is why ID is not science.

ID is not trying to answer 'why' either, but 'how'.

Woa, you mean ID requires God in a scientific explanation? That is BAD science. I believe God has guided evolution, but evolution should never be explained in that way. It's just bad science, if science at all.

So you are saying that your version of science is not allowed to include every cause in its explanations, that God may have been involved, but we can't mention him, because.......because......because that is bad science. Hmmmmm. Sorry, but I am not convinced.

You have got to show HOW it is bad science. Be careful. Anything you say is not allowed must also be applied to naturalistic evolution.

So you are saying that your version of science is not allowed to include every cause in its explanations, that God may have been involved, but we can't mention him, because.......because......because that is bad science. Hmmmmm. Sorry, but I am not convinced.

You have got to show HOW it is bad science. Be careful. Anything you say is not allowed must also be applied to naturalistic evolution.

Okay, how about this:

God's intervention in the running of the Universe is bad science because the purpose of science is to study the laws of the Universe. Things are laws in this sense (as opposed, say, to the legal sense) if they literally cannot be broken. If God intervenes - say, for example, He causes a mutation that leads, inevitably, down the line to evolution - then He's violated the First Law of Thermodynamics by creating enough energy to move atom X far enough for a mutation to occur. Now, by violating the laws He actually completely invalidates science, because if He's done it before what's to say He won't do it again? And if He could have done it at any time and in any way and there's no way of knowing if we'd notice, what's to say He hasn't, say, altered the experimental results upon which we base our knowledge of anything?

God can be involved with science, if it is postulated that He set the Universe in motion and left it alone from there on. Any intervention by God in the physical, atoms-hitting-each-other workings of the universe necessarily logically invalidates all science.

That's why He's bad science. There are plenty of other reasons too - not least being that postulations about His action are totally unfalsifiable (and without falsifiability, again, something is by definition not scientific) - but that's probably the best right there.

You show me a law which describes God's behaviour and you've just made Him worthless to worship. It can be done, but it'll invalidate your other objective. You tell me God is free to act and has done while the Universe has existed (as opposed to before) and you've just made science worthless to study.

Congratulations, you are the first poster that I have read that has honestly attempted to explain why ID might be considered bad science.


Okay, how about this:

God's intervention in the running of the Universe is bad science because the purpose of science is to study the laws of the Universe. Things are laws in this sense (as opposed, say, to the legal sense) if they literally cannot be broken. If God intervenes - say, for example, He causes a mutation that leads, inevitably, down the line to evolution - then He's violated the First Law of Thermodynamics by creating enough energy to move atom X far enough for a mutation to occur. Now, by violating the laws He actually completely invalidates science, because if He's done it before what's to say He won't do it again? And if He could have done it at any time and in any way and there's no way of knowing if we'd notice, what's to say He hasn't, say, altered the experimental results upon which we base our knowledge of anything?


If God breaks a law of nature, it is called a miracle. Science is not in a position to investigate miracles. However, if God, using a miracle, places a mountain in your backyard, you are certainly capable of investigating that mountain. You cannot investigate how it got there, at least not using science, without running into major problems. But you are free to investigate the mountain using science, and if your science tells you that it must have been a miracle that put it there, why should anyone declare that your science is bad? I suppose you can see the difference between investigating the miracle, and investigating the effects of the miracle and coming to a reasonable conclusion that it must have been a miracle.

You have declared that when God does a miracle, he invalidates science. But I don't see how. That he might do it again, that is true, but in that case science will always be able to investigate the results of the miracle, because it is based on principles of observation, and it observes the natural world. If God was to continually repeat a miracle, i.e., continually breaking the laws of science, say, every day, then science would recognise it as a new law, and continue with its observation and investigation. Sure it would have to modify some ideas about reality, but that is the nature of science anyway. Far from invalidating it, science would simply adapt, and get on with the job of investigation the natural world. If God was to break the law only once or twice, rather than invalidating science, science would be able to investigate the effects of the miracle based on what it understands of the natural laws.

Remember that some laws of nature appear to be so marvelous that they are probably thought of as miracles. Gravity is currently unexplained by science. Observed, but unexplained. When we investigate gravity at the extremes (e.g. relativity) we find deviations from what we thought gravity to be. That is sort of like encountering a new law. Science adapts its explanations, but does not become invalid.




God can be involved with science, if it is postulated that He set the Universe in motion and left it alone from there on. Any intervention by God in the physical, atoms-hitting-each-other workings of the universe necessarily logically invalidates all science.


Wait, you haven't demonstrated why it would necessarily invalidate science. Perhaps you could give an example.


That's why He's bad science. There are plenty of other reasons too - not least being that postulations about His action are totally unfalsifiable (and without falsifiability, again, something is by definition not scientific) - but that's probably the best right there.


Apparently, there is much within evolutionary theory that is not falsifiable, and yet science has managed to embrace it, or at least accept it. While you cannot falsify God, neither can you falsify the part of evolutionary theory that assumes that prokaryotes evolved into eukaryotes.



You show me a law which describes God's behaviour and you've just made Him worthless to worship. It can be done, but it'll invalidate your other objective. You tell me God is free to act and has done while the Universe has existed (as opposed to before) and you've just made science worthless to study.


Religion provides us with descriptions of God. In the Bible, in the letters of the Apostle John, it stands that God is love. ID does not need to describe God's behaviour, other than he was a master designer.

ID is not trying to answer 'why' either, but 'how'.

Stop contradicting yourself.

Nobody is trying to use science to measure the supernatural. The part where ID deals with the supernatural is in the explanations, not in the experiment. Surely, you have got to see the difference.

The explanations are the why, the experiments are the how.

You can keep trying to redefine science and scientific method all you want, that doesn't make it true.

So you are saying that your version of science is not allowed to include every cause in its explanations, that God may have been involved, but we can't mention him, because.......because......because that is bad science. Hmmmmm. Sorry, but I am not convinced.

You have got to show HOW it is bad science. Be careful. Anything you say is not allowed must also be applied to naturalistic evolution.
There is no other version of science.

Including the supernatural as an explanation of a cause of an effect is the same as saying, "It's magic!"

Every time I have asked you why science is not allowed to include the supernatural in it's theory or explanations, you don't give me a straight answer. I can appreciate your patience in continually pointing out the above, but it won't help you unless you can give me a straight answer.

Here is as straight an answer as i can give... I'm finding it difficult to even grasp your mindset so bear with me (statement not intended as flaming.. just how i really feel)

If you leave God out of the experiment but put him into the explantion that is fine if you leave it at that. But, once you come up with an explantion for the data you collect in your experiment you have to be able to continue that process and verify the data. You have to verify any factors you speculate on in the explanation.

I'll put it another way. If your explanation adds a new factor to account for the results on your experiment you must then go on to formulate a hypothesis to verify this new factor. And as the supernatural is not verifiable we shouldnt include it in science..

The mountain in your backyard.... If a mountain appeared in my backyard overnight we would expect to see various things if it happend naturally. My dead body scorched due to close proximity to lava, pumice radiating for miles around my backyard, or possibly large amounts of water around that have piled up debris into the mountain from some catastrophic wave..... It would be a fairly quick exercise to eliminate the possible falsifiable causes, then we could quite happily attribute it to a miracle.... However in theories such as origin of life, quantum theory, big bang etc we have to follow the same procedure. The only time we can add an unfalsifiable factor, such as the supernatural, is when we have exhausted ALL possible falsifiable explanations. Otherwise (whether you wish to admit it or not) you're just playing god-of-gaps again.

ID is fine as a philosophy because it is a reasonable, logical, explanation to complexity in nature. However the difference between philosophy and science is that philosophy relies purely on reason, logic, and abstract ideas. Science relies on reason, logic, and observable, verifiable evidence.

Basically if you ADD something in the EXPLANATION to explain the experimental data. You must be able to then go and form a hypothesis to verify that new added factor.

Hope that helps.

If God breaks a law of nature, it is called a miracle. Science is not in a position to investigate miracles. However, if God, using a miracle, places a mountain in your backyard, you are certainly capable of investigating that mountain. You cannot investigate how it got there, at least not using science, without running into major problems. But you are free to investigate the mountain using science, and if your science tells you that it must have been a miracle that put it there, why should anyone declare that your science is bad? I suppose you can see the difference between investigating the miracle, and investigating the effects of the miracle and coming to a reasonable conclusion that it must have been a miracle.
Investigating the nature of the mountain after it appeared would not be bad science. Investigating how the mountain appeared and coming to the conclusion that it was God would not be science at all. God has no nature, so it cannot be defined how God did what he apparently did. Science must, necessarily, try to find a natural explanation for the mountain's appearance, or fail.

But that is not an example of a real miracle, that is an example of magic, a speculative fantasy.

Show me a real miracle, not a fantasy one.

Nevermind, I'll show you one: humans with minds. The only place miracles can take place is in the imagination.

You have declared that when God does a miracle, he invalidates science. But I don't see how. That he might do it again, that is true, but in that case science will always be able to investigate the results of the miracle, because it is based on principles of observation, and it observes the natural world.
But investigating the result of the miracle is investigating a seperate event. It is not investigating the miracle itself.

If God was to continually repeat a miracle, i.e., continually breaking the laws of science, say, every day...
Then we would have a lot of frustrated and unhappy scientists on our hands.

...then science would recognise it as a new law, and continue with its observation and investigation.
Um, how can it be a law if it cannot be scientifically defined? If it continues to be labelled "miracle" then it cannot be defined, within nature. It continues to be a supernatural event.

Sure it would have to modify some ideas about reality, but that is the nature of science anyway. Far from invalidating it, science would simply adapt, and get on with the job of investigation the natural world. If God was to break the law only once or twice, rather than invalidating science, science would be able to investigate the effects of the miracle based on what it understands of the natural laws.

Remember that some laws of nature appear to be so marvelous that they are probably thought of as miracles. Gravity is currently unexplained by science. Observed, but unexplained. When we investigate gravity at the extremes (e.g. relativity) we find deviations from what we thought gravity to be. That is sort of like encountering a new law. Science adapts its explanations, but does not become invalid.
Yes, "...thought of as miracles." But not miracles, just "as if" miracles. That's a human construct.

Stop contradicting yourself.



The explanations are the why, the experiments are the how.

You can keep trying to redefine science and scientific method all you want, that doesn't make it true.

The experiment provides the data. The explanation fits the data to the theory. The theory is the 'how'. ID is not trying to say why the designer placed life on the planet. Its not even trying to say how he did it. It assumes that a designer was involved and tries to explain how the complexity and diversity points to a designer. It does answer some whys, but only the whys that evolutionary theory might seek to answer. For example, ID may answer the question why the human brain is bigger than that of the animals (compared to the body weight). But the why is answered in terms of the function of the human body, and the demands on the brain, and why the design of the human body requires a larger brain, not in terms of trying to figure out the purpose of human life on the planet. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, also answers the why (of the size of the human brain) in terms of the function of the human body, and the demands on the brain and why the survival of the human body requires a larger brain.

The main reason why ID is 'bad' science is because it doesn't generate testable hypotheses. Every hypothesis it might generate requires the existence of a designer, God. But God cannot be defined by science. You cannot prove God's existence, you cannot disprove God's existence. That's why we call the conviction that there is a God faith.

There is nothing wrong with religion. However, religion and science try to answer different questions. Mixing them into one system is an unholy union: scientifically it's less, religiously it's less.

Congratulations, you are the first poster that I have read that has honestly attempted to explain why ID might be considered bad science.

Thank you. I spent about half of last year's Philosophy of Science course on this, with about 8000 words' worth of coursework essay. Got a bit of a taste for the subject :)

If God breaks a law of nature, it is called a miracle. Science is not in a position to investigate miracles.

However, what this "miracle" is is something which does not behave according to the supposedly all-encompassing laws of nature, which as stated above are posited to be literally and logically unbreakable. By comparison, what you're saying is "God could add 2 and 2 to get 5, and there would be nothing wrong with this." I believe if God's Omnipotence is to be accepted then it must be in terms of what can logically be done: no square circles. You may disagree with me, in which case, unfortunately, this debate ends (without prejudice) here, as I personally don't want to get into a theodicy discussion.

However, if God, using a miracle, places a mountain in your backyard, you are certainly capable of investigating that mountain. You cannot investigate how it got there, at least not using science, without running into major problems. But you are free to investigate the mountain using science, and if your science tells you that it must have been a miracle that put it there, why should anyone declare that your science is bad? I suppose you can see the difference between investigating the miracle, and investigating the effects of the miracle and coming to a reasonable conclusion that it must have been a miracle.

But that's the problem; science seeks to explain everything using naturalistic methods. Anything super-natural at all means that science cannot explain everything, just like the existence of 10 invalidates the postulation that all numbers are =< 9. So suddenly there is a gap, and in that gap anything is possible. There must always remain a possibility that God could be doing anything at any time and in any way. While we would notice the mountain - and incidentally I wouldn't mind if it destroyed my bastard neighbour's house - we'd never notice tinier alterations drowned in statistical noise, such as if He, like stated, altered something's genome such that its descendents eventually evolved into an entirely different species (for example's sake, let's say it's the leopard). In that case we'd spend all existence investigating animals, looking for a rule which could not be solidly established because it had been violated in the past and we couldn't know. If 2+2 has at any point in the past been shown to =5, then 2+2=4 cannot be true. If God has at any point changed anything in the Universe then the First Law of Thermodynamics is not true. No offence intended at all, but often people who haven't studied them don't understand the sheer crushing force of logic and its daughter necessity.

You have declared that when God does a miracle, he invalidates science. But I don't see how. That he might do it again, that is true, but in that case science will always be able to investigate the results of the miracle, because it is based on principles of observation, and it observes the natural world.

He can set the laws, yes. I'm not denying that. But science cannot speak on anything involving God.

If God was to continually repeat a miracle, i.e., continually breaking the laws of science, say, every day, then science would recognise it as a new law, and continue with its observation and investigation.

So what, then, is the difference between God's action and the laws which just define the way existence is? You're making God an automaton, I believe - either that or a being which voluntarily causes all things in predictable fashions because it wants them to happen, which has moral implications as well as the worryingly groundless assertion that He's never going to change His mind.

Sure it would have to modify some ideas about reality, but that is the nature of science anyway. Far from invalidating it, science would simply adapt, and get on with the job of investigation the natural world. If God was to break the law only once or twice, rather than invalidating science, science would be able to investigate the effects of the miracle based on what it understands of the natural laws.

Ah, but that's the thing, it wouldn't be able to. A genuinely inexpicable exception to a theory provides a logical counterexample which invalidates the theory. That's just falsifiability. You need to include a new statement - "All these laws are subject to the Will of God" - into the scientific paradigm, which from a pragmatic point of view is destructive, saying "You're studying this force (that animal, this wave), but it could change at any time."

Remember that some laws of nature appear to be so marvelous that they are probably thought of as miracles. Gravity is currently unexplained by science. Observed, but unexplained. When we investigate gravity at the extremes (e.g. relativity) we find deviations from what we thought gravity to be. That is sort of like encountering a new law. Science adapts its explanations, but does not become invalid.

*cough* There's... different kinds of explanation at work here. It's enough, in science, to say that if A causes B then A in some way explains B. And you're right that the scientific paradigm changes its auxiliary statements all the time. But the very definition of science itself is that it must rest on prediction and predictability, and we cannot predict anything at all if God could alter the results at whim.

Apparently, there is much within evolutionary theory that is not falsifiable, and yet science has managed to embrace it, or at least accept it. While you cannot falsify God, neither can you falsify the part of evolutionary theory that assumes that prokaryotes evolved into eukaryotes.

No, you can't, which is why science itself can only be based on the available evidence, which is, of course, possibly wrong. However, if someone discovered something which invalidated the theory that prokaryotes evolved into eukaryotes - forgive my lack of evolutionary-biological knowledge in not being able to assert what that evidence could be - then that theory would be falsified and a gap would exist waiting for a new explanation. Postulations referring to God's intervention, on the other hand, cannot be falsified, as proven throughout centuries of human existence during which time He has become invisible, insensible, undetectable, until eventually Christianity at least has fallen back on "He doesn't want to be detected, as this would make faith into knowledge, and He wants you to have faith without having proof, because only faith without proof is worth anything."

Religion provides us with descriptions of God. In the Bible, in the letters of the Apostle John, it stands that God is love.

Show me the evidence that the Bible is to be taken as truth. We're being scientific here, on which grounds the Bible is as valid as the Epic of Gilgamesh, just with more numerous and better-financed supporters who can effectively rhetorise people into believing it.

ID does not need to describe God's behaviour, other than he was a master designer.

True, it doesn't. I'm comfortable with anyone saying that God designed the Universe, and vice versa. Science cannot postulate on the existence of God or on whether He designed the Universe - but there's a catch. If He did design it to turn out as it has now, He must have intended for it to be wholly deterministic. After all, if an atom could appear out of nothingness (I know, they do sometimes, but I mean it slightly differently here :P) at a crucial enough moment to affect the history of the Earth, life might have evolved on Mars instead. Then we'd outstrip our resources and have to colonise Earth in giant three-legged machines. So if God did design the Universe with a purpose in mind, He must have intended it - right up until the evolution of humans, at least - to be wholly deterministic.

Again, the other possibility there is that He is behind every movement of every atom in the Universe, by voluntary action.

You have got to show HOW it is bad science. Be careful. Anything you say is not allowed must also be applied to naturalistic evolution.

The scientific method requires you to attempt to disprove your hypothesis. You must not look for lots of things that fit neatly, but must concentrate on the cracks and flaws. If the hypothesis survives these attacks, then one starts taking it more seriously and it may eventually become a theory. This is also why anyone claiming that scientists would no longer get funding if they try to discredit evolution is talking "male cow excrement".

The testability of the truth of ID is entirely based on the concepts or irreducible complexity and design inference. Design inference can not be used to show the hypothesis is wrong, so that is out.
Irreducable complexity can in principle demonstrate the hypothesis wrong if there is nothing irreducable complex in nature. This however assumes that we are capable of judging that accuarately. And if something irreducable complex *is* found, that is still only one test. Insufficient to judge its merit.

Find a way to test ID, to let it make testable predictions and the validity of it can be subjected to the scientific method.

If you leave God out of the experiment but put him into the explantion that is fine if you leave it at that. But, once you come up with an explantion for the data you collect in your experiment you have to be able to continue that process and verify the data. You have to verify any factors you speculate on in the explanation.

I'll put it another way. If your explanation adds a new factor to account for the results on your experiment you must then go on to formulate a hypothesis to verify this new factor. And as the supernatural is not verifiable we shouldnt include it in science..


I tend to agree with you. It probably shouldn't be science. However (and it is a big however), evolutionary theory depends on some parts that cannot be falsifyable. To put both ID and evolutionary theory side by side, both are trying to come to reasonable explanations for ordinary observations using what they feel are reasonable factors. Rather frequently, I have observed science use this process. Let me use an example from abiogenesis (which, as I know, is not evolutionary theory, but is accepted as a valid scientific field of research--I could also use any number of other examples, but this one appears to make my point rather simply).

From wikipedia: abiogenesis — the generation of life from non-living matter — has never been observed, indicating that the origin of life from non-life is either extremely rare or only happens under conditions very unlike those of modern Earth.

Do you see that word 'indicating'. This is the point at which a new factor is added to the explanation. That is accepted within science. Can it be falsified. Nope. Certainly not. But it is there all the same. Now, how can you say that science does not allow the introduction of unfalsifyable factors in it's explanations?


The mountain in your backyard.... If a mountain appeared in my backyard overnight we would expect to see various things if it happend naturally. My dead body scorched due to close proximity to lava, pumice radiating for miles around my backyard, or possibly large amounts of water around that have piled up debris into the mountain from some catastrophic wave..... It would be a fairly quick exercise to eliminate the possible falsifiable causes, then we could quite happily attribute it to a miracle.... However in theories such as origin of life, quantum theory, big bang etc we have to follow the same procedure. The only time we can add an unfalsifiable factor, such as the supernatural, is when we have exhausted ALL possible falsifiable explanations. Otherwise (whether you wish to admit it or not) you're just playing god-of-gaps again.


The thing is, that is precisely what ID is about. It first looks to see if a design can be attributed to natural causes. If the natural cause explanation is lacking, it feels that it is more reasonable to invoke the supernatural. No, we don't know all the natural causes involved, but we are hardly likely to stumble over another major one, so that the big two (natural selection and random mutation) turns into the big three. Is it more reasonable to (a) wait for someone to find the third natural cause that will fill in the gaps (very unlikely) or to assume that it is there and invoke it anyway, (b) assume that somehow natural selection and random mutation can account for the origin and diversity of life (in that case it is dangerous to study the detail), or is it more reasonable to conclude that design requires a designer? That is what the debate is about. Which is the more reasonable answer? Sure, it is more of a philosophical debate. I agree with you there. But science is full of philosophy, and unless we remove much of evolutionary theory from science, it is only fair that we include ID in science. After all, if there really is a designer that caused the design, shouldn't our 'search for reality' be allowed to look in that direction?

[/QUOTE]

But science is full of philosophy, and unless we remove much of evolutionary theory from science, it is only fair that we include ID in science.

Apparently you think much of evolutionary theory lies outside the domain of science. Which parts should we remove?

I tend to agree with you. It probably shouldn't be science. However (and it is a big however), evolutionary theory depends on some parts that cannot be falsifyable. To put both ID and evolutionary theory side by side, both are trying to come to reasonable explanations for ordinary observations using what they feel are reasonable factors. Rather frequently, I have observed science use this process.
If it is an explanation within nature, then it is reasonable to include speculation within an explanation, because, as nature is scientifically defined we know that it will someday be demonstratable or falsified.

But the supernatural will never be demonstratable within nature. It will never be measurable, it will never be observable, it will never be falsifiable.

Let's take the example of your miraculous mountain from another post. Who's to say the supernatural put it there? We can never know for sure. And if someday science finds a natural explanation for how it appeared out of nowhere, and then the "miracle" explanation is invalidated.

The supernatural as an explanation will always be an unknown. Natural unknowns can become known. That is why nature is defined within science. That is why science sticks to natural explanations.

Unknowns of nature = speculation.
Unknowns of a supernatural kind = fantasy.

I tend to agree with you. It probably shouldn't be science. However (and it is a big however), evolutionary theory depends on some parts that cannot be falsifyable. To put both ID and evolutionary theory side by side, both are trying to come to reasonable explanations for ordinary observations using what they feel are reasonable factors. Rather frequently, I have observed science use this process. Let me use an example from abiogenesis (which, as I know, is not evolutionary theory, but is accepted as a valid scientific field of research--I could also use any number of other examples, but this one appears to make my point rather simply).

From wikipedia: abiogenesis — the generation of life from non-living matter — has never been observed, indicating that the origin of life from non-life is either extremely rare or only happens under conditions very unlike those of modern Earth.

Do you see that word 'indicating'. This is the point at which a new factor is added to the explanation. That is accepted within science. Can it be falsified. Nope. Certainly not. But it is there all the same. Now, how can you say that science does not allow the introduction of unfalsifyable factors in it's explanations?

Im sorry.. how is abiogeneis unfalsifiable? Its an ongoing field of research and as far as i am aware they still come up with hypotheses about how various chemical combinations can form naturalisitcally. They still do testing to determing if these hypotheses are false. "indicating" in this sense means we are speculating on what is happening while we continue our research with falsifiable hypotheses to verify any factors we add to our explanations.

The thing is, that is precisely what ID is about. It first looks to see if a design can be attributed to natural causes. If the natural cause explanation is lacking, it feels that it is more reasonable to invoke the supernatural. No, we don't know all the natural causes involved, but we are hardly likely to stumble over another major one, so that the big two (natural selection and random mutation) turns into the big three. Is it more reasonable to (a) wait for someone to find the third natural cause that will fill in the gaps (very unlikely) or to assume that it is there and invoke it anyway, (b) assume that somehow natural selection and random mutation can account for the origin and diversity of life (in that case it is dangerous to study the detail), or is it more reasonable to conclude that design requires a designer? That is what the debate is about. Which is the more reasonable answer? Sure, it is more of a philosophical debate. I agree with you there. But science is full of philosophy, and unless we remove much of evolutionary theory from science, it is only fair that we include ID in science. After all, if there really is a designer that caused the design, shouldn't our 'search for reality' be allowed to look in that direction?

"lacking"? No, sorry not good enough. To reasonably add in a supernatural influence you must completely invalidate all the natural causes. FRom the 'big two', through to all the tiny little ones that contribute in tiny tiny tiny nanoscopic ways. Your personal opinion that the naturalistic explanations are too hazy isnt good enough. Natural Selection, Random Mutation, Sexual Selection, Neutral Selections etc. still give us testable and falsifiable hypotheses. They are tweaked occassionally when peer review finds something lacking, however the predictions they make are widely observed and they can still be falsified.

And please give us some of the factors of evolution that you find unfalsifiable..... Hmm actually..... going back a step

I tend to agree with you. It probably shouldn't be science.

So you agree with the original point of the post that ID shouldnt be science? (answer this whilst disregarding what you think of evolution please)

By the way its really a rhetorical question as you've already answered it.

Now. You've debated well but it seems now that we can agree that ID should not be defended as a science. Which is the point of the thread. Although you seem quite adamant that evolution shouldnt be either... However, the place for that is a parallel thread to this one perhaps??? I'd be more than happy to participate in a thread defending evolution. I'll live by my own rules and not bring ID into my defense of it either, and i'll provide hypotheses, predictions and evidence too.

I'll even set up the new thread if you wish.

Im sorry.. how is abiogeneis unfalsifiable? Its an ongoing field of research and as far as i am aware they still come up with hypotheses about how various chemical combinations can form naturalisitcally. They still do testing to determing if these hypotheses are false. "indicating" in this sense means we are speculating on what is happening while we continue our research with falsifiable hypotheses to verify any factors we add to our explanations.


Abiogenesis is unfalsifyable because nobody can do an experiment which proves that life cannot come from non-life.


"lacking"? No, sorry not good enough. To reasonably add in a supernatural influence you must completely invalidate all the natural causes. FRom the 'big two', through to all the tiny little ones that contribute in tiny tiny tiny nanoscopic ways. Your personal opinion that the naturalistic explanations are too hazy isnt good enough. Natural Selection, Random Mutation, Sexual Selection, Neutral Selections etc. still give us testable and falsifiable hypotheses. They are tweaked occassionally when peer review finds something lacking, however the predictions they make are widely observed and they can still be falsified.


There is only natural selection and random mutations. Sexual selection and neutral selection are various forms of natural selection. Thus, when the naturalistic evolution folk are defending their theory, they tend to refer to all the known causes by abbreviating them to just these two points--mutation and selection, although they may call them by different names.


And please give us some of the factors of evolution that you find unfalsifiable..... Hmm actually..... going back a step


No one can falsify the conclusion that eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes. We can find evidence that can be interpreted as supporting it, or not, but that is not the same as falsifying it. The same goes for the early life forms. Never observed, but often invoked, in order to explain that gap between modern bacteria and the first theorized life form. Thus, not being observed, it cannot be falsified. Perhaps I could mention the human eye again. One theory has it that it evolved from the lower forms of the eye found in nature today. Is this explanation falsifyable? Absolutely not. We can find the data that might support it, or otherwise, but we shall never be able to falsify the hypothesis that the human eye developed from e.g. a light sensitive prokaryotic cell. What we would need in oder to 'prove' the theory is uncover some evidence that cannot be interpreted in any other way except that the eye evolved.


So you agree with the original point of the post that ID shouldnt be science? (answer this whilst disregarding what you think of evolution please)


I am pleased to see that you read the posts. What I meant by that statement was that the explanations that ID invokes is not science but more like a philosophy, in the sense that it cannot be included in an experiment, just as much of evolutionary theory falls in the same category. However, ID is certainly capable of scientific experiments.





Now. You've debated well but it seems now that we can agree that ID should not be defended as a science. Which is the point of the thread. Although you seem quite adamant that evolution shouldnt be either... However, the place for that is a parallel thread to this one perhaps??? I'd be more than happy to participate in a thread defending evolution. I'll live by my own rules and not bring ID into my defense of it either, and i'll provide hypotheses, predictions and evidence too.


You misunderstood me. The experiments that ID performs are science. The explanations where a designer is involved is more of a philosophy.

If it is an explanation within nature, then it is reasonable to include speculation within an explanation, because, as nature is scientifically defined we know that it will someday be demonstratable or falsified.

But the supernatural will never be demonstratable within nature. It will never be measurable, it will never be observable, it will never be falsifiable.

Let's take the example of your miraculous mountain from another post. Who's to say the supernatural put it there? We can never know for sure. And if someday science finds a natural explanation for how it appeared out of nowhere, and then the "miracle" explanation is invalidated.

The supernatural as an explanation will always be an unknown. Natural unknowns can become known. That is why nature is defined within science. That is why science sticks to natural explanations.

Unknowns of nature = speculation.
Unknowns of a supernatural kind = fantasy.


However, to use the approach so often used by naturalistic evolution, it may be possible one day for ID to demonstrate with empirical evidence that there had to be a designer involved.

Apparently you think much of evolutionary theory lies outside the domain of science. Which parts should we remove?

Well, if we were going to be really strictly scientific about it, we would include only that which we could demonstrate in an experiment, and anything that could not be demonstrated (and falsified) would be relegated to the 'I don't know' category. We would have to get rid of all that speculation about humans evolving from apes, for example. In fact, any sort of evolution that could not be demonstrated would have to go. Just that which we have directly observed and repeated would be considered science. The rest would be placed in a more philosophical theory of evolution.

The scientific method requires you to attempt to disprove your hypothesis. You must not look for lots of things that fit neatly, but must concentrate on the cracks and flaws. If the hypothesis survives these attacks, then one starts taking it more seriously and it may eventually become a theory. This is also why anyone claiming that scientists would no longer get funding if they try to discredit evolution is talking "male cow excrement".


I think you have misjudged the bias in the scientific community. People lose their jobs and places of study if they criticise evolution too loudly.


The testability of the truth of ID is entirely based on the concepts or irreducible complexity and design inference. Design inference can not be used to show the hypothesis is wrong, so that is out.
Irreducable complexity can in principle demonstrate the hypothesis wrong if there is nothing irreducable complex in nature. This however assumes that we are capable of judging that accuarately. And if something irreducable complex *is* found, that is still only one test. Insufficient to judge its merit.


I say, give it a chance to prove itself.



Find a way to test ID, to let it make testable predictions and the validity of it can be subjected to the scientific method.

I suppose that is where ID is at. Much of it's work would most likely get drowned in the uproar over it being allowed in the first place. Perhaps it does have some very good testable predictions. Would anybody want to know them? Would they really get a fair hearing? I agree with you here. Let's see what ID can do. Judge it by it's contribution to science. Give it 10 years to so to come up with something decent. From what I have observed, it seems to be capable of it, but I will wait and see. I suppose we shall judge the tree by its fruits, in the end.

However, to use the approach so often used by naturalistic evolution, it may be possible one day for ID to demonstrate with empirical evidence that there had to be a designer involved.
Then the designer would not be supernatural.

Well, if we were going to be really strictly scientific about it, we would include only that which we could demonstrate in an experiment, and anything that could not be demonstrated (and falsified) would be relegated to the 'I don't know' category. We would have to get rid of all that speculation about humans evolving from apes, for example. In fact, any sort of evolution that could not be demonstrated would have to go. Just that which we have directly observed and repeated would be considered science. The rest would be placed in a more philosophical theory of evolution.
Then there could be no hypotheses, as they are all speculation. No hypotheses, no scientific method, no theory, no science.

You are not distinguishing between what is false and what is falsifiable.

Abiogenesis is unfalsifyable because nobody can do an experiment which proves that life cannot come from non-life.

This is a major misunderstanding from your part. There are frighteningly few things in the universe that can be proven. Therefore, science operates on the principle that you try to falsify a hypothesis. You set up a hypothesis, do experiments, and if the results contradict your hypothesis, you discard it. So in order to investigate the origin of life you set up experiments that have falsifiable results. You design hypotheses about metabolic cycles, cell formation, some kind of hereditary system and you do experiments. Don't take my word for it, look up Wachtershauser, a zealous Popperian who works on these origin-of-life questions.

There is only natural selection and random mutations. Sexual selection and neutral selection are various forms of natural selection. Thus, when the naturalistic evolution folk are defending their theory, they tend to refer to all the known causes by abbreviating them to just these two points--mutation and selection, although they may call them by different names.


No, there is selection and variation. Selection comes in a plethora of forms. In many cases natural selection is very weak or even virtually absent. Sexual selection and assortative mating processes can be fierce forces, completely overshadowing natural selection.
Variation is needed for evolution, because you need something to select on. Of course mutation is the ultimate source of variation, but there are many population genetic processes that influence the amount of variation greatly: drift, migration etc. etc. And of course the majority of all variation is not selected on, it's neutral, meaning it has no selective advantage or disadvantage at the time.

Abiogenesis is unfalsifyable because nobody can do an experiment which proves that life cannot come from non-life.

Abiogenesis produces falsifiable hypotheses. We cant do an experiment to show that gravity ALWAYS affects ALL matter in the universe either.

Abiogensis will state "substances X+Y under condiitions A*B/C will create substance Z" they do an experiment... Is it possible to form Z? yes - hypothesis supported. No, there is a determinable factor stopping the process - falsified.

There is only natural selection and random mutations. Sexual selection and neutral selection are various forms of natural selection. Thus, when the naturalistic evolution folk are defending their theory, they tend to refer to all the known causes by abbreviating them to just these two points--mutation and selection, although they may call them by different names.

Well i'll go by your definition then. I havent seen why random mutation and (broad spectrum) selection do not work. The predicitons of what should be observed when these to factors are present to account for evolution have been verified by many experiments and obervations. You keep saying that none of us understand ID enough to recognise its value. I'm beginning to suspect that we could say the same about you and evolution.

No one can falsify the conclusion that eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes. We can find evidence that can be interpreted as supporting it, or not, but that is not the same as falsifying it. The same goes for the early life forms. Never observed, but often invoked, in order to explain that gap between modern bacteria and the first theorized life form. Thus, not being observed, it cannot be falsified. Perhaps I could mention the human eye again. One theory has it that it evolved from the lower forms of the eye found in nature today. Is this explanation falsifyable? Absolutely not. We can find the data that might support it, or otherwise, but we shall never be able to falsify the hypothesis that the human eye developed from e.g. a light sensitive prokaryotic cell. What we would need in oder to 'prove' the theory is uncover some evidence that cannot be interpreted in any other way except that the eye evolved.

We could falsify any of the above if we found a mechanism that would stop any of the progressions occurring. If we find that a mechanism within prokaryotes that stops the formation of the organelles required for eukaryotes we would have it falsified. I'm not a microbiologist so i wont give you specifics and pretend to know in depth about the topic. But these kinds of things are what we use to falsify any natural process we have a hypothesis about. If a step in eye development is found to have a fundamental flaw... eg we find that there is no way for step A to get to step C without first going through a phase (step B) that would be an evolutionary disadvantage. Then we would discard that step of the process as falsified.

I am pleased to see that you read the posts. What I meant by that statement was that the explanations that ID invokes is not science but more like a philosophy, in the sense that it cannot be included in an experiment, just as much of evolutionary theory falls in the same category. However, ID is certainly capable of scientific experiments.
Please explain an example of one of these scientific experiments to us.

You misunderstood me. The experiments that ID performs are science. The explanations where a designer is involved is more of a philosophy.

Whether ID invokes the supernatural in its experiments or its explanation is irrelevant. As i explained before, if you add in a factor to your explanation you should be able to test for that new factor and provide evidence for it. Hence, ID can only qualify as a philosophy.

I'm about to go to bed. But before i do Im going to start a new thread now where we can debate the merits of Evolution. Then we can try to keep these two arguments distinct from each other. I invite you to post early on to iron out any bias i may have in my ground rules. Then we can debate ID here as an independent theory, and evolution there independently as well. I hope this will suit you. I'll check next time i'm on to see i suppose. Happy debating all :)

I think you have misjudged the bias in the scientific community. People lose their jobs and places of study if they criticise evolution too loudly.

Cristicise without basis - yes. Actually doing research into evolution does not.

I say, give it a chance to prove itself.

If it wants to be called scientific, it must try to disprove itself and fail. The difference between those approaches is fundamental.

From what I have observed, it seems to be capable of it, but I will wait and see. I suppose we shall judge the tree by its fruits, in the end.

So far it is only trying to show it is right. As long as it keeps doing that, it cannot be considered science... even though it may all be completely true.

Abiogenesis is unfalsifyable because nobody can do an experiment which proves that life cannot come from non-life.
This makes no sense. No one sets up experiments to prove something cannot happen.

I think you have misjudged the bias in the scientific community. People lose their jobs and places of study if they criticise evolution too loudly.
That's because they are not dealing with scientists, they are dealing with human beings.

Bruarong, plus anyone else interested.

New thread started

A chance for Evolution
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=444427

Please use this to debate evolution and keep this forum for debate of ID as an independent idea.

This is a major misunderstanding from your part. There are frighteningly few things in the universe that can be proven. Therefore, science operates on the principle that you try to falsify a hypothesis. You set up a hypothesis, do experiments, and if the results contradict your hypothesis, you discard it. So in order to investigate the origin of life you set up experiments that have falsifiable results. You design hypotheses about metabolic cycles, cell formation, some kind of hereditary system and you do experiments. Don't take my word for it, look up Wachtershauser, a zealous Popperian who works on these origin-of-life questions.


I think you have misunderstood my point. What I meant was that no one can do an experiment to show that life did not come from non-life. You can't prove a negative, since you can never assume a single cause when you get a negative result.


No, there is selection and variation. Selection comes in a plethora of forms. In many cases natural selection is very weak or even virtually absent. Sexual selection and assortative mating processes can be fierce forces, completely overshadowing natural selection.
Variation is needed for evolution, because you need something to select on. Of course mutation is the ultimate source of variation, but there are many population genetic processes that influence the amount of variation greatly: drift, migration etc. etc. And of course the majority of all variation is not selected on, it's neutral, meaning it has no selective advantage or disadvantage at the time.

Reading and re-reading your posts tells me that you really don't disagree with my point. I said that natural selection and mutation are the natural causes available for the theory of evolution. Variation come from mutation (where else?) and natural selection is the interaction between the organism and it's environment and takes into account the variation in the organism with respect to its competitors. Neutral selection is only different in that the variation is not immediately selected on, but eventually is, otherwise it will never confer an advantage to the organism (and thus cannot be involved in selection), and therefore can be discounted as contributing to evolution. I understand that natural selection is rather complicated because it involves populations, migration, drift etc. However, my point remains, there are only two natural forces that we have discovered: mutation and selection.

That's because they are not dealing with scientists, they are dealing with human beings.

I suppose, Willamena, that this is rather a classic Willamena attempt at introducing humour by pointing out the obvious.

At any rate, you haven't resolved the original point. The science community is full of humans that are more biased than just.

This makes no sense. No one sets up experiments to prove something cannot happen.

Welcome to the limitations of science.

Bruarong, plus anyone else interested.

New thread started

A chance for Evolution
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=444427

Please use this to debate evolution and keep this forum for debate of ID as an independent idea.

Wouldn't it be sensible to develop the argument for or against something new like ID by comparing it to something established like evolutionary theory? I think you have to distinguish between attacks on evolutionary theory and comparison. Keeping the topics together means that when someone does make a criticism, he has to be able to defend his own theory when the same logic used in his criticism is applied to his theory. That is what I have been doing in supporting ID. It wouldn't be necessary if people understood evolutionary theory. Because very often they don't, they criticise ID without realizing that their own favourite theory cannot withstand the same criticism.

BTW, I am not personally anti-evolutionist. I am grateful for the contribution this theory has made to science. But I do feel that many proponents of the theory go too far when they criticise ID. Such criticisms sometimes show that they have not understood science or evolutionary theory. I suppose though, discussions like this help people to understand what science can and can't do. In that sense, they are good and necessary, so long as it doesn't turn into ridicule and flaming.

Then there could be no hypotheses, as they are all speculation. No hypotheses, no scientific method, no theory, no science.

You are not distinguishing between what is false and what is falsifiable.

Speculation, of course, would be allowed, but not anything that cannot be included in an experiment.

And before you accuse ID of trying to do exactly this, consider that in no part of the experiments to they include the supernatural, nor even a designer. They approach their experiments from the perspective of design leads to a purpose. The designer is not in the experiment. Neither does the experiment depend on a supernatural designer. Therefore, the supernatural is only a natural conclusion, intuitive, if you like, but necessary to the experiment.

Cristicise without basis - yes. Actually doing research into evolution does not.


Apparently, even criticism on the basis of the holes in the theory is enough to lose you your job. No mention of ID required.


So far it is only trying to show it is right. As long as it keeps doing that, it cannot be considered science... even though it may all be completely true.

Every theory is about trying to demonstrate how it is right. Evolutionary theory does not less.

Then the designer would not be supernatural.

ID does not place itself in the position of determining if the designer is within nature or outside of it.

Every theory is about trying to demonstrate how it is right. Evolutionary theory does not less.

Again: testing a scientific theory is trying to demonstrate it is wrong.
People do that with the theory of evolution (for instance through making predictions). They -sofar- do not do that with ID.

I suppose, Willamena, that this is rather a classic Willamena attempt at introducing humour by pointing out the obvious.

At any rate, you haven't resolved the original point. The science community is full of humans that are more biased than just.
It was not an attempt at humour at all. It just points out that bias is unavoidable in scientists, as they are human. That there is bias in the scientific community is to be expected, because they are human. That people will lose their jobs for suggesting ID be looked at is not surprising, because they are dealing with humans. Your observation is not a criticism of science, but of humans.

Nobody is trying to use science to measure the supernatural. The part where ID deals with the supernatural is in the explanations, not in the experiment. Surely, you have got to see the difference.

Science cannot invoke explanations that are untestable - any such explanations cannot be proven wrong. The explanation is simply another hypothesis, one that must be open to testing in the same way that the original hypothesis was.

This has been explained to you time and time again. I don't think you are really this dense.

ID does not place itself in the position of determining if the designer is within nature or outside of it.

You cannot scientifically propose a designer and then say, "But we don't know if there really is a designer. We don't have any evidence of a designer. We just think there is one there, somewhere. Maybe in the universe, maybe not, but it definitely exists."

This would be like me saying, "There might be a gene. There might not. It might be outside the universe. Maybe not. But that's my explanation and I'm sticking to it. Oh yeah, since I said it might be outside the universe, I can't test it, so you'll just have to take my word for it. After all, it's just part of my explanation, not part of my experiement."

Welcome to the limitations of science.
You make that sound like a bad thing.

Speculation, of course, would be allowed, but not anything that cannot be included in an experiment.

And before you accuse ID of trying to do exactly this, consider that in no part of the experiments to they include the supernatural, nor even a designer. They approach their experiments from the perspective of design leads to a purpose. The designer is not in the experiment. Neither does the experiment depend on a supernatural designer. Therefore, the supernatural is only a natural conclusion, intuitive, if you like, but necessary to the experiment.
And that's fine. I have no problem with ID as long as it does not propose a supernatural cause to the "design" it purports to find and still claim to identify itself with "science". This specifically excludes god.

Personally, I find the claims of design pointing to a designer ageeable, as they are very similar to what happens in divination, where "messages" are determined in natural phenomenon.

ID does not place itself in the position of determining if the designer is within nature or outside of it.
If it is outside nature, though, ID is not science.

Again: testing a scientific theory is trying to demonstrate it is wrong.
People do that with the theory of evolution (for instance through making predictions). They -sofar- do not do that with ID.

Falsifying a prediction is quite different from demonstrating that a theory is wrong. I think I know what you mean, however. But perhaps you are speaking from your lack of knowledge on ID, when you claim that it does not include the process of falsifying in it's experiments. That it cannot falsify the existence of a designer is something that it has never attempted to do in the first place.

It was not an attempt at humour at all. It just points out that bias is unavoidable in scientists, as they are human. That there is bias in the scientific community is to be expected, because they are human. That people will lose their jobs for suggesting ID be looked at is not surprising, because they are dealing with humans. Your observation is not a criticism of science, but of humans.

Right, I agree with you. But if every person who supported naturalistic evolution demonstrated the same sort of bias, would that not be an indication of the strong bias in the theory as well? And would that give one the feeling that the theory is no longer trustworthy as an objective attempt to discover reality?

Falsifying a prediction is quite different from demonstrating that a theory is wrong. I think I know what you mean, however. But perhaps you are speaking from your lack of knowledge on ID, when you claim that it does not include the process of falsifying in it's experiments. That it cannot falsify the existence of a designer is something that it has never attempted to do in the first place.

You know, this is getting boring. Maybe you can come up with a very simple ID-hypothesis, and we can gather round and see if we can devise an experiment that might falsify the hypothesis.

Science cannot invoke explanations that are untestable - any such explanations cannot be proven wrong. The explanation is simply another hypothesis, one that must be open to testing in the same way that the original hypothesis was.

This has been explained to you time and time again. I don't think you are really this dense.


Perhaps you mean that science is only allowed to invoke explanations that have the potential to be tested by science. If that is what you mean, then I have understood this a while ago, and you are right, I am not that dense. But in making such a claim, are you not forgetting the great deal of philosophy involved in naturalistic thinking that constructs hypotheses which, while theoretically having the potential to be tested by science (since it invokes explanations that are currently testable) are practically impossible to test. In this way, it is hiding behind a technicality, knowing full well that it holds only a theoretical advantage over ID, not a practical one. I don't see that as grounds enough to consider ID an non-science.


You cannot scientifically propose a designer and then say, "But we don't know if there really is a designer. We don't have any evidence of a designer. We just think there is one there, somewhere. Maybe in the universe, maybe not, but it definitely exists."

This would be like me saying, "There might be a gene. There might not. It might be outside the universe. Maybe not. But that's my explanation and I'm sticking to it. Oh yeah, since I said it might be outside the universe, I can't test it, so you'll just have to take my word for it. After all, it's just part of my explanation, not part of my experiement."

The experiments that ID conducts can be performed by anyone, regardless of their assumption of the existence or non-existence of a designer. In that sense, the supernatural does not affect the experiment. The philosophy of ID is different. There the designer is assumed, not tested (it can't be). It is the philosophy that helps a scientist design the experiment, and explain it's results.

Much like what we see in naturalistic thinking. The experiments can discover genes and find homology. But it is the philosophy that assumes naturalistic causes for the existence (and homology) in the gene. The philosophy means the scientist will look for ancestry by discovering homology.

If it is outside nature, though, ID is not science.

Have you forgotten how the chaps of old performed their science, believing that they were studying the creation of God? Would you say that what they did was not science?

You know, this is getting boring. Maybe you can come up with a very simple ID-hypothesis, and we can gather round and see if we can devise an experiment that might falsify the hypothesis.

Right. Tis rather repetitive. I agree. We seem to have reached a stalemate.

But I am a bit unsure about your proposal. Firstly, I am not an IDer, and am unfamiliar with their methods of studying information systems. Secondly, you want me to come up with an experimental plan on the spot, without much time to develop it and without a focus or an example from biology and then expect it to hold water. Scientists can take days or weeks to do that.
Thirdly, virtually every scientific experiment can be pulled apart and roundly criticised, which is exactly what you would do. But that is fine. What isn't fine is that you would take your successful? criticism to mean that ID is not science, which would not serve my purpose in defending ID in the slightest.

Not at all. Just devise a not-too-complex problem, draw a hypothesis around it, and let's see if we can get to a falsifiable experiment by using the main ideas from ID.

Hmm.. maybe this is the problem...

Most methods, reasoning and theories ID uses to analyse how the assumed designer made everything are valid. They can easily qualify as scientific. They are in fact used in other fields, like with the pyramid analyses mentioned earlier.

However, the methods, reasonings and theories ID uses to actually show there was a creator in the first place can not.

The distinction between these two is important.

Have you forgotten how the chaps of old performed their science, believing that they were studying the creation of God? Would you say that what they did was not science?
Yes.

For example, until Darwin came along, biology was not considered to be a science.

Right, I agree with you. But if every person who supported naturalistic evolution demonstrated the same sort of bias, would that not be an indication of the strong bias in the theory as well? And would that give one the feeling that the theory is no longer trustworthy as an objective attempt to discover reality?
Um, not really. The theory stands by itself. Objectivity is necessary in science, not in scientists.