NationStates Jolt Archive

To each other, what are they?

Is Intelligent Design thinly deguised Creationalism or what?

ID is designed to try and slip under the Constitution.

They will argue that they are different.

ID is designed to try and slip under the Constitution.

They will argue that they are different.

This is, in fact, very true.

The reason ID thinks it can maybe get past the constitution is that it merely claims the presence of some intelligent hand behind creation and so on, not that it is the one Christian God. This is the only difference (basically). So, yes, Creationism, and so thinly disguised I would go so far to say it is not disguised at all.

The I.D. argument is an argument that is based on the teleological argument within philosophy and it has nothing to do with politics, creationism or anything else, other than the universe appears to be designed. Along with I.D. the teleological whats to make the claim that this design seems to be intelligent. However, and as Hume showed, what this intelligence is we do not know -- could be god, could be the devil, could be a scientist. Creationism, on the other hand, seems to be the claim that the universe was created by God -- i.e. all the omni's. So, there is an important difference between creationism and i.d. -- if used properly, i.d. can be a more objective investigation into the origins of the universe because it doesn't need a traditional God. Hope that makes sense.

The I.D. argument is an argument that is based on the teleological argument within philosophy...

No, it's based on the idea that if you don't understand how something evolved, then it must not have. It's based on a failure to understand the difference between gross genetic mutation, like a mutation that makes a tiger white, or a person hemopheliac, and the sort of statistical genetic variance that occurs within all members of a generation of a species.

In short I.D. is based on ignorance. That's why whenever you see someone defend it, they always do it by asking how evolution can account for something that evolution can account for easily.

Creationism is the litteral belief in one of the Christian genesis myths.

ID is the belief that critical thinking, honest curiousity, hard science & knowledge, is dangerous & subversive, and mustn't be allowed.

No, it's based on the idea that if you don't understand how something evolved, then it must not have. It's based on a failure to understand the difference between gross genetic mutation, like a mutation that makes a tiger white, or a person hemopheliac, and the sort of statistical genetic variance that occurs within all members of a generation of a species.

In short I.D. is based on ignorance. That's why whenever you see someone defend it, they always do it by asking how evolution can account for something that evolution can account for easily.


OK, you've given a negative definition of what I.D. is, but you haven't told me what it is. Look, someone could believe the universe has undergone millions of years of evolution and believe in every aspect of contemporary science, but still not believe that the naturalistic explanation is sufficent to account for life on earth. I don't see this as a problem. What is controversial is that the scientific method cannot be used to show God's existence, yet I.D. supporters want to incorporate a non-scientific enterprise into a science class.

Just remember, those that claim to support I.D. and the I.D. argument itself are two different things. By the way, saying something like "I.D. is ignorant" as a description isn't particularly helpful or useful.

Creationism is the litteral belief in one of the Christian genesis myths.

ID is the belief that critical thinking, honest curiousity, hard science & knowledge, is dangerous & subversive, and mustn't be allowed.

Yeah, I suspected that creationism is the endorsement of the Genesis story. It is clear that I.D. and Creationism are two very different enterprises.

In the creationist high school textbook Of Pandas and People, they simply replaced the word Creationism with ID Theory. I think that says enough.

One of these days I am going to have to pick that book up. I hear it's really bad.

So, there is an important difference between creationism and i.d.

I agree - they are only the same to ignorant creationists (who support it because it sounds "creationy" and ignorant atheists who link them because it sounds "creationy".

That being said I think there is overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution so they are both probably wrong.

One of these days I am going to have to pick that book up. I hear it's really bad.
There was a special order for it at the store where I work. It... had a nice cover.

Yeah, I suspected that creationism is the endorsement of the Genesis story. It is clear that I.D. and Creationism are two very different enterprises.

If that is the case, I don't understand why ID and Creationism appears to have such similar criticisms of biological evolution. Though I obviously don't buy it, you can have the "evolution by divine hand" explanation that couples modern biology with Catholic "intelligent origin".

Why don't the ID folk accept that?

Think about it like a kid wanting to buy beer. The kid has no money and has to ask his parents for it. He's not going to say, he needs money for beer. He's going to say he needs money for going to a movie.

They are trying to get God and Religion into a science class but they found out that it doesn't really work when you say it straight out. So, they try to find something Mom and Pop will accept so that they can get their drink on.

Think about like a kid wanting to buy beer. The kid has no money and has to ask his parents for it. He's not going to say, he needs money for beer. He's going to say he needs money for going to a movie.

They are trying to get God and Religion into a science class but they found out that it doesn't really work when you say it straight out. So, they try to find something Mom and Pop will accept so that they can get their drink on.

Erm, Desperate Measures, can I have some money for... for... for dessert? I'm craving some jelly lately. Especially wobbly fruit jellies with a cherry on top. :cool:

Erm, Desperate Measures, can I have some money for... for... for dessert? I'm craving some jelly lately. Especially wobbly fruit jellies with a cherry on top. :cool:
Wobbly fruit jellies, huh? Translating that, it sounds like you need money for LSD.

Just another way to introduce irrationalism in science. Scientific method is the only way to reliably increase our knowledge; speculation without experimental proof belongs to other areas, not science, and is of little help in understanding natural phenomena.

Wobbly fruit jellies, huh? Translating that, it sounds like you need money for LSD.

Actually I had in mind a visit to a ho for some boob meat. Guess we up from different ghettos.

Intellegent design is creationalists selling out to the man. Fight the power. :sniper:

To each other, what are they?

Is Intelligent Design thinly deguised Creationalism or what?
i go for what.

its a crock of shit.
can't your country catch up with the rest of the 21st century and put religion behind you? :rolleyes:

Intellegent design is creationalists selling out to the man. Fight the power. :sniper:
Yay! Your post made me lol! Thank you!

I agree - they are only the same to ignorant creationists (who support it because it sounds "creationy" and ignorant atheists who link them because it sounds "creationy".

That being said I think there is overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution so they are both probably wrong.

I am an atheist, but I first thought that from the description of ID that it was an honest enquiry into the origins of our universe, then I read straughn's thread, called something like "the evolution of intelligent design" which showed things like the majority of people supporting ID only doing so because its closer to their beleifs than evolution and the whole "of pandas and people" debacle.

Now I just think its as stupid as creationism.

those are the ignorant creationists...... :) But that really sums up the whole creationist argument so maybe I'll have to conced the point!!:D

Yeah, I suspected that creationism is the endorsement of the Genesis story. It is clear that I.D. and Creationism are two very different enterprises.Not quite. ID is creationism. The difference between the two, is that where creationism is simply superstition, ID is a deliberate attack on modern values like critical thinking & the quest for knowledge.
To be blunt: one is stupid, the other stupifying.

If that is the case, I don't understand why ID and Creationism appears to have such similar criticisms of biological evolution. Though I obviously don't buy it, you can have the "evolution by divine hand" explanation that couples modern biology with Catholic "intelligent origin".

Why don't the ID folk accept that?

What are these criticisms against evolution that you talk of?

Not quite. ID is creationism. The difference between the two, is that where creationism is simply superstition, ID is a deliberate attack on modern values like critical thinking & the quest for knowledge.
To be blunt: one is stupid, the other stupifying.

Oh, the abuse of logic. First you say that ID is Creationism and then you point out the differences between. So, in effect you are saying that I.D. is creationism and that I.D. is not creationism. Which is it, because ID cannot be and not creationism at the same time.

How is ID an attack on modern values such as critical thinking and the quest for knowledge (yes, these things didn't exist before modern times). I'm confused.

To each other, what are they?

Is Intelligent Design thinly deguised Creationalism or what?
Yes

Yes


Where's your argument?

Not quite. ID is creationism. The difference between the two, is that where creationism is simply superstition, ID is a deliberate attack on modern values like critical thinking & the quest for knowledge.
To be blunt: one is stupid, the other stupifying.

Sigworthy :)

Intelligent Design is the exact same as Creationism in all it's arguements, except it replaces "God" with "some random intellegent cosmic being" or the like.

How is ID an attack on modern values such as critical thinking and the quest for knowledge (yes, these things didn't exist before modern times). I'm confused.
Because it uses faulty logic and skewed statistics to "prove" its points, then attemps to discredit actual science with them.

No, it's based on the idea that if you don't understand how something evolved, then it must not have. It's based on a failure to understand the difference between gross genetic mutation, like a mutation that makes a tiger white, or a person hemopheliac, and the sort of statistical genetic variance that occurs within all members of a generation of a species.

In short I.D. is based on ignorance. That's why whenever you see someone defend it, they always do it by asking how evolution can account for something that evolution can account for easily.

You're wrong. It's not based on ignorance, it's based on believes. The popularity of ID shows just how through-and-through cultures are bonded to these believes. It's so goddamn dogmatic, that it's being assumed before one starts to think; you're raised with it. ID shows, mostly, that open-mindedness is not limitless in most situations.

It is not the same as creationism though, as they just have the same roots (religion).

Where's your argument?

Creationism: God did it!
ID: You can't prove God didn't do it, therefore he did!
Science: God may of done it, but we can't prove that.

Intelligent Design is the exact same as Creationism in all it's arguements, except it replaces "God" with "some random intellegent cosmic being" or the like.

No, no, no! The stratergy is very different. Creationism appeals to the bible or some other doctrine and belief about the origins of the universe are attained through this method. I.D. and any teleologically based attempt at an explanation of the universe is based upon evidence. That is, such arguments attempt to explain the existence of the universe by claiming that if we look to the universe, we will see that the best available idea or argument that can account for what we see around us is God (I.D.). It's clear, then, that they are different.

If you think that I.D. and creationism are the same, you are way off.

I think one of the problems here is that there are I.D.ers who are religious fundamentalist types -- whom, I think, some of you have in mind. These types will skew and bend facts, you claim, because, at base, they are creationists and they are merely hinding behind I.D. because it is more acceptable. However, there are also I.D.ers that are academics, who do not want to cheat anyone, but are actually interested in whether God created the universe and whether God is compatible with evolution. So, perhaps we can treat this argument like the academics might. Forget the more dishonest I.D. type.

I still prefer logic based on decades of evidence over arbitrary fantasy.

I think one of the problems here is that there are I.D.ers who are religious fundamentalist types -- whom, I think, some of you have in mind. These types will skew and bend facts, you claim, because, at base, they are creationists and they are merely hinding behind I.D. because it is more acceptable. However, there are also I.D.ers that are academics, who do not want to cheat anyone, but are actually interested in whether God created the universe and whether God is compatible with evolution. So, perhaps we can treat this argument like the academics might. Forget the more dishonest I.D. type.

As if there aren't any fundamental academics. Oh no, those people are sacred! Seriously, what do you think you're saying when calling IDers teleological? You already admit they base their investigations on the idea of "there's an ultimate purpose" or however to formulate it. If that isn't dogmatic, hit me (with arguments please) !

Oh, the abuse of logic. First you say that ID is Creationism and then you point out the differences between. So, in effect you are saying that I.D. is creationism and that I.D. is not creationism. Which is it, because ID cannot be and not creationism at the same time. Creationism is belief that one of the genesis stories of Christian scripture, is the literal truth.
ID is the belief that one of the genesis stories of Christian scripture, is the literal truth. ID also incorporates the agenda of actively subverting & destroying science, in order to prevent hard science & the tools that go with it from being taught to children - presumably because it's dangerous to teach kids to ask questions, evaluate evidence & employ critical thinking.How is ID an attack on modern values such as critical thinking and the quest for knowledge (yes, these things didn't exist before modern times). I'm confused.Check above for the how. The why of it, I can but speculate about. Perhaps orthodox Christians are just as vile & insane as other orthodox religious psychopaths?

Got something besides semantics you want to discuss?

To each other, what are they?

Is Intelligent Design thinly deguised Creationalism or what?
Same shit, different day.

Though I must admit, I absolutely LOVE the name "Intelligent Design," since it is the most un-intelligently designed 'theory' in modern science.

Like the majority of the world I don't care if they are the same thing or not. It does seem to me though that if such imbecilic anti-science views do end being part of the mainstream education system in the US, it can only spell disaster for the country both economically and militarily as inevitably they are both dependent on scientific discovery and innovation.

Same shit, different day.

Though I must admit, I absolutely LOVE the name "Intelligent Design," since it is the most un-intelligently designed 'theory' in modern science.Yups, yups. It's nigh impossible not to call it IDiocy.

The premise of ID is hinges on the idea that 'some things are too complicated to have evolved!'... a claim that is more of a copout than an idea with scientific basis. It's like saying, "Oh, I don't understand how this developed, so it must have been made by somebody!".

Pure failure of imagination fallacy.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Dover, PA, case from late last year. The judge's ruling was pretty clear about ID being stealth creationsism.

http://www.aclupa.org/education/intelligentdesignchallenge.htm

ID attempts to excise the Genesis Creation story from the "theory".

Regardless of the fundies that will attempt to jump on the ID bandwagon in order to try and keep a toehold in the school doors, it is a significant difference.

ID leaves behind the young earth created in 6 days literalist views that have so dominated the debate for decades and more.
This should be good news for those that have fought against such literal interpretations of articles of faith. You don't need to accept ID to recognise that it is a positive step in the direction away from reading scripture = scientific knowledge.
At it's heart, it is a rejection of the notion of random chance as a viable driver.

In my opinion, starting with a firm assumption that random chance either can or cannot handle origin questions is bad science. It stops us from asking; How?

To each other, what are they?

Is Intelligent Design thinly deguised Creationalism or what?

Same shit, different name.

In fact, same assholes, same shit.

The I.D. argument is an argument that is based on the teleological argument within philosophy and it has nothing to do with politics, creationism or anything else, other than the universe appears to be designed.

It is a bit of a stretch to claim it has nothing to do with Creationism, considering that those who came up with it and are pushing their "theory" fully believe they are proving that God designed the universe.

Along with I.D. the teleological whats to make the claim that this design seems to be intelligent.

It is impossible to have "design" without an intelligence, so that follows fairly well.

However, and as Hume showed, what this intelligence is we do not know -- could be god, could be the devil, could be a scientist.

Of course, he went before a court and stated that it was God.

Creationism, on the other hand, seems to be the claim that the universe was created by God -- i.e. all the omni's. So, there is an important difference between creationism and i.d. -- if used properly, i.d. can be a more objective investigation into the origins of the universe because it doesn't need a traditional God. Hope that makes sense.

More objective? Maybe. Scientific? No. In order to find evidence for intelligent design, you must first assume the existence of your designer - essentially assuming your conclusion.

No, no, no! The stratergy is very different. Creationism appeals to the bible or some other doctrine and belief about the origins of the universe are attained through this method. I.D. and any teleologically based attempt at an explanation of the universe is based upon evidence.

It is impossible to have evidence of design without first asuming the existence of the designer. ID isn't based on evidence. It's based on going, "We don't think evolutionary theory can explain 'x', so 'x' must have been designed intead."

That is, such arguments attempt to explain the existence of the universe by claiming that if we look to the universe, we will see that the best available idea or argument that can account for what we see around us is God (I.D.). It's clear, then, that they are different.

You are arguing semantics at this point. In other words, you are now saying that ID is akin to "Creation science", rather than Creationism. Never mind that "Creation Science" is nothing more than Creationists trying to pretend they can use science to prove their religion.

If you think that I.D. and creationism are the same, you are way off.[/QUOTE]

I think one of the problems here is that there are I.D.ers who are religious fundamentalist types -- whom, I think, some of you have in mind. These types will skew and bend facts, you claim, because, at base, they are creationists and they are merely hinding behind I.D. because it is more acceptable. However, there are also I.D.ers that are academics, who do not want to cheat anyone, but are actually interested in whether God created the universe and whether God is compatible with evolution. So, perhaps we can treat this argument like the academics might. Forget the more dishonest I.D. type.

The "academics" pushing ID are "skewing and bending" science to try and fit their beliefs into it. There really isn't much difference.

Meanwhile, they are not trying to see whether or not God is compatible with evolution. They are claiming that the evidence for God is that evolutionary theory is (they say) incorrect.

To each other, what are they?

Is Intelligent Design thinly deguised Creationalism or what?

Creationism is a movement of people that seek supporting evidence to demonstrate that the Biblical story of Creation is (literally) true.

ID is a movement of people that seek supporting evidence to demonstrate that life on earth is the result of Intelligent Design. They claim that this does not mean they wish to prove the Biblical version, even though they use the same materials as the creationists for many things, the method of design closely resembles the one mentioned in Genesis and alternatives to the Christian God like the flying spaghetti monster are considered "blasphemy".

Science is a movement of people that seek negating evidence for every hypothesis they devise: they in other words do not try to prove themselves right, but try to show themselves wrong. Sometimes they fail because a hypothesis just fits the facts too well (often after being adjusted multiple times). They will then start to call this hypothesis "theory".
Currently the overwhelming majority of scientists in the field of biology consider the theory of evolution to be the best explanation for the diversity of life.

Just another way to introduce irrationalism in science. Scientific method is the only way to reliably increase our knowledge; speculation without experimental proof belongs to other areas, not science, and is of little help in understanding natural phenomena.

Well, to be entirely precise, the scientific method is used to lessen our ignorance, not broaden our knowledge. As it's virtually impossible to prove something (virtually being the key word, of course), the scimeth is mostly used to disprove something. /nitpick


And what irks me is that many people on both fronts -- chaos and ID -- always forget that evolution of the species is compatable with Intelligent Design as well as one of its subcategories, Creationism. They deal with how things came to exist in the first place, while Darwin's theory of Natural Selection is the main theory of how beings came to develop, not exist.

I still prefer logic based on decades of evidence over arbitrary fantasy.

You are quite the rhetoritician. Decades of evidence has not shown that God does or doesn't exist. It may make it doubtful in your mind. How is a belief in God arbitrary fantasy -- I'm not sure what you mean here, but the idea of God as a creator, whether such an idea is true or false, has been around for a long time and seems to be quite the opposite of arbitrary fantasy.

If God does not require a designer, why should anything else?

You are quite the rhetoritician. Decades of evidence has not shown that God does or doesn't exist. It may make it doubtful in your mind. How is a belief in God arbitrary fantasy -- I'm not sure what you mean here, but the idea of God as a creator, whether such an idea is true or false, has been around for a long time and seems to be quite the opposite of arbitrary fantasy.

That... would be the fallacy of traditionalism. "We've always thought this was so, so it MUST be so." It doesn't matter how long something is believed for... if there's no solid evidence or even necessity for God, it's fantasy until such evidence or proof of necessity is given... and it's up to those claiming that God exists to supply said evidence that he exists or is needed. That's elementary logic, you know. ^^'

If God does not require a designer, why should anything else?


If there's a God, He would be the Prime cause. God would not be something from nothing, He would need to be always something.

If there's a God, He would be the Prime cause. God would not be something from nothing, He would need to be always something.

So then why cant everything else have always been "something"?

In other words, if it works for God, why doesnt it work for everything that is, you know, real?

Creationism is a movement of people that seek supporting evidence to demonstrate that the Biblical story of Creation is (literally) true.

Technically, that's "Creation Science." Creationism is simply the belief in some form of creation. It is most often (although not always) used to describe those with a literal belief in one or both of the Genesis creation accounts.


And what irks me is that many people on both fronts -- chaos and ID -- always forget that evolution of the species is compatable with Intelligent Design as well as one of its subcategories, Creationism. They deal with how things came to exist in the first place, while Darwin's theory of Natural Selection is the main theory of how beings came to develop, not exist.

In truth, the proponents of ID do claim to be describing development. Most often, they claim that bits and pieces of life evolved, while other bits and pieces were designed and injected into development intact.

You are quite the rhetoritician. Decades of evidence has not shown that God does or doesn't exist. It may make it doubtful in your mind. How is a belief in God arbitrary fantasy -- I'm not sure what you mean here, but the idea of God as a creator, whether such an idea is true or false, has been around for a long time and seems to be quite the opposite of arbitrary fantasy.

So your arguement is "a bunch of bronze age cavemen came up with it, so it can't be all wrong". :rolleyes:

*Sacrifices a mammoth to Ughheyo, the ancient god of bad logic*

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1]It is impossible to have evidence of design without first asuming the existence of the designer. ID isn't based on evidence. It's based on going, "We don't think evolutionary theory can explain 'x', so 'x' must have been designed intead.[QUOTE=Dempublicents1]

OK, let's do a little substitution here: "It is impossible to have evidence of 'evolution' without first assuming 'the theory of evolution'". This is known as begging the question and some question begging is dangerous and some is acceptable. Philosophers of science, like Daniel Dennet -- a staunch atheist -- agrees that evolutionary theory begs the question, which it does seem to do. Yet, so what? So, the very thing that you accuse a teleological or design type argument of commiting you are commiting yourself. Yet, one case may be more serious than the other. Nevertheless, your claim that a teleological type argument assumes the existence of a designer is, first of all, incorrect (this is actually the mistake the ontological argument for the existence of God makes). Design type arguments go from metaphysical premises about how the universe appears to some metaphysical lemma that it is LIKELY (because this is an inductive conclusion -- remember, this supposed to be an empirical argument) that God exists. Paley's watch is the most basic form of this type of argument. So, what you say is either false or hypocritical.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1]ID isn't based on evidence. It's based on going, "We don't think evolutionary theory can explain 'x', so 'x' must have been designed intead.[QUOTE=Dempublicents1]

Yes, you could gripe about the evidence aspect, but not in the way you are here. "Evidence" within a design type argument is merely evidence of the senses, not a rigourous evidential undertaking that the scientific method requires. Remember, this is about belief. We do not and probably cannot apply the scientific method to all of our beliefs. The decision as to whether to believe in God is something outside of science and I have not argued otherwise. I am merely claiming that Creationism and I.D. type arguments are very different -- mainly due to their argument's structure and metaphysical claims. Anyway, I don't see why someone shouldn't be able to base their belief in God on the fact that evolution has explained insufficiently, or at all, some significant aspect of the universe. I suppose you would say that because evolution has explained everything else that at some point it will explain 'X', as you call it, but this is an inductive claim which is yet to be demonstrated -- just because all ravens you have seen are black, doesn't mean that the next one you see will also be black. So, just as it isn't irrational to believe that the next raven I see will be white -- although it may be unlikely -- it also isn't irrational for someone to believe that God exists because that person believes that 'X' can be accounted for by a God-like being.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1]You are arguing semantics at this point. In other words, you are now saying that ID is akin to "Creation science", rather than Creationism. Never mind that "Creation Science" is nothing more than Creationists trying to pretend they can use science to prove their religion.[QUOTE=Dempublicents1]

What is "Creation Science" and where have I made this claim. I've made the relatively and, I thought, uncontroversial claim that Creationism is quite distinct from I.D. -- not matter who the curators (good or bad as they may be) of I.D. arguments are.

That... would be the fallacy of traditionalism. "We've always thought this was so, so it MUST be so." It doesn't matter how long something is believed for... if there's no solid evidence or even necessity for God, it's fantasy until such evidence or proof of necessity is given... and it's up to those claiming that God exists to supply said evidence that he exists or is needed. That's elementary logic, you know. ^^'

Yes, you may be right, but I'm merely saying that the concept of God is not arbitrary fantasy as the poster has claimed.

So then why cant everything else have always been "something"?

In other words, if it works for God, why doesnt it work for everything that is, you know, real?


Because we can observe that everything else has a cause and a beginning.
If God has a cause and a beginning, then God is not "God" in the sense we would need Him to be in order to create the universe.

Because we can observe that everything else has a cause and a beginning.
If God has a cause and a beginning, then God is not "God" in the sense we would need Him to be in order to create the universe.

Sounds like you just proved my point. Thanks.

To each other, what are they?

Is Intelligent Design thinly deguised Creationalism or what?
Yes.

OK, let's do a little substitution here: "It is impossible to have evidence of 'evolution' without first assuming 'the theory of evolution'".

Your comparison is valid in principle. However, the fact remains that the hypothesis of evolution was devised because observations strongly suggested it - while the hypothesis of intelligent design was first thought up and is currently still trying to find observational evidence that supports it.

Unfortuantely the suggested ways of testing for design, the principles of irreducible complexity and design inference, are both logically flawed.

What is "Creation Science" and where have I made this claim. I've made the relatively and, I thought, uncontroversial claim that Creationism is quite distinct from I.D. -- not matter who the curators (good or bad as they may be) of I.D. arguments are.
The same people arguing for ID are the same people who argued for Creation Science. Whatever your views are and you're allowed to hold any opinion you like, you can't refute this very simple fact. They argue for a theory one moment and they preach the Word of God the next.

Your comparison is valid in principle. However, the fact remains that the hypothesis of evolution was devised because observations strongly suggested it - while the hypothesis of intelligent design was first thought up and is currently still trying to find observational evidence that supports it.

Unfortuantely the suggested ways of testing for design, the principles of irreducible complexity and design inference, are both logically flawed.

Yes, I'm sure it is very difficult to find evidence that confirms that God exists using a scientific approach. I seriously doubt that the idea that God created the universe can be seen as a hypothesis at all -- i.e. in the scientific sense. Yet, I still do not believe that I.D. is thinly veiled creationism.

The same people arguing for ID are the same people who argued for Creation Science. Whatever your views are and you're allowed to hold any opinion you like, you can't refute this very simple fact. They argue for a theory one moment and they preach the Word of God the next.

and even more tellingly, they took up the IDiotic banner at the exact moment that it was no longer possible to hope that the u.s. supreme court would find the teaching of 'creation science' to be constitutional. we even have fossil evidence of a transitional species, preserved in a draft of the ID text book, "of pandas and people".

The same people arguing for ID are the same people who argued for Creation Science. Whatever your views are and you're allowed to hold any opinion you like, you can't refute this very simple fact. They argue for a theory one moment and they preach the Word of God the next.

I don't care what sophists, or fools happen to be arguing or misusing the argument for I.D. now. The basic form of the argument is independent of those people. Really, what you are talking about is politics and not the metaphysics of evolution v's design.

I don't care what sophists, or fools happen to be arguing or misusing the argument for I.D. now. The basic form of the argument is independent of those people.

so you don't want to talk about ID. you want to talk about the fucking awful, internally inconsistent, and soundly thrashed teleological argument. perhaps you'd have better luck in a thread that isn't about ID then?

To each other, what are they?

Is Intelligent Design thinly deguised Creationalism or what?

In my eyes, "intelligent design" is an evolution (pardon the pun) of "creation science", which is in turn a derivative of creationism. More exactly, ID is a mutated form of creationism that has a slightly better chance of slipping by the legal system and is considerably more virulent towards the scientific method.

The ID crowd is most vocal in denying evolution, but their attempts to subvert science only start there. If said crowd did manage to sneak their new version of creationism through the school and legal systems*, they would proceed to try to foist Big Bang denial, global warming denial, and old-Earth denial upon us as well. (Some creationists might go so far as to try to turn back the clock on basic astronomy (heliocentrism denial) and geography (round-Earth denial) as well, but they are probably a small enough minority that they would not succeed in such efforts.)

* - They wouldn't have to worry too much about convincing the populace, as a rather large percentage (50% is a good estimate) of the American) population are young-earth creationists to begin with.

OK, let's do a little substitution here: "It is impossible to have evidence of 'evolution' without first assuming 'the theory of evolution'".

Of course, in one case, it is true. In the other, it is not.

The only way you can possibly have design, under any circumstances, is if there is a designer. Therefore, in order to say that evidence leads to the conclusion of design, one must first assume that a designer capable of creating the object exists. The very concept of design necessitates a designer.

With evolutionary theory, however, you need not assume the theory is true to find supporting evidence. In fact, you cannot use the scientific method while assuming that a theory is true. The entire method is used to try and disprove a hypothesis, coming to the conclusion that it may be true only if the hypothesis is not disproven.

Nevertheless, your claim that a teleological type argument assumes the existence of a designer is, first of all, incorrect (this is actually the mistake the ontological argument for the existence of God makes).

Explain to me how something can be designed without a designer to design it.

Design type arguments go from metaphysical premises about how the universe appears to some metaphysical lemma that it is LIKELY (because this is an inductive conclusion -- remember, this supposed to be an empirical argument) that God exists.

It is logically impossible to draw a conclusion that God, who is said to be the creator of all the universe, exists from empirical evidence. Empirical evidence is limited to the universe. God, not being bound by the universe, is not limited by the empirical. Thus, we cannot claim that empirical evidence leads to a conclusion - even a "likely" one - that God exists. We may have "evidence", but it is not empirical evidence.

Yes, you could gripe about the evidence aspect, but not in the way you are here. "Evidence" within a design type argument is merely evidence of the senses, not a rigourous evidential undertaking that the scientific method requires. Remember, this is about belief.

Do make up your mind. A few posts ago you said the difference between Creationism and ID was that Creationism was about belief and ID was about evidence.

We do not and probably cannot apply the scientific method to all of our beliefs.

Certainly not. And yet there are those who try to claim that they can and should. We call them "Creation Scientists" or "IDers".

I am merely claiming that Creationism and I.D. type arguments are very different -- mainly due to their argument's structure and metaphysical claims.

The problem is that they are not. They use the *exact* same arguments, which all boil down to suggesting that other theories don't suffice, even though there is no evidence yet uncovered that is incompatible with them. Both are based in belief - as you already pointed out. Both begin with a conclusion.

Anyway, I don't see why someone shouldn't be able to base their belief in God on the fact that evolution has explained insufficiently, or at all, some significant aspect of the universe.

Someone can base their belief in God on anything they like. I never claimed otherwise. I would prefer, however, if their belief were not based in something untrue, like, "OMFG, Evolution can't explain the development of this beetle!"

Meanwhile, the role of evolutionary theory is not to explain the universe. It is actually much, much more limited than that. It is to explain the changes in species over time, as well as speciation.

I suppose you would say that because evolution has explained everything else that at some point it will explain 'X', as you call it, but this is an inductive claim which is yet to be demonstrated

Actually, pretty much all of the versions of 'x' that the ID proponents have brought up can quite neatly be explained by evolutionary theory. Much like Creationists claiming that the sun must have been contracting at the same rate for all of time (despite quite a bit of evidence to the contrary) in order to suggest that the world isn't really all that old, ID picks a part and claims that it is "irreducibly complex" and cannot be explained by evolutionary theory, even though it can. In this way, they support their preconceived belief that it was designed.

Meanwhile, *all* of science is based in inductive logic.

So, just as it isn't irrational to believe that the next raven I see will be white -- although it may be unlikely -- it also isn't irrational for someone to believe that God exists because that person believes that 'X' can be accounted for by a God-like being.

Once again, you have this crazy idea that I have a problem with someone's personal belief. I do not.

What is "Creation Science" and where have I made this claim. I've made the relatively and, I thought, uncontroversial claim that Creationism is quite distinct from I.D. -- not matter who the curators (good or bad as they may be) of I.D. arguments are.

Yes, and you have basically stated that ID is "Creation Science" - the practice of trying to prove that creation happened using "science" and empirical evidence.

As for where you said it - you said it in the quote I was responding to.

The idea of Creationism and ID are dissimilar in only one point. One claims "God did it." The other claims "Some higher order intelligence did it." To claim that they are "quite distinct" is, quite frankly, ridiculous. They use the exact same arguments and both attempt to claim empiricism where there is none. The argument usually boils down to, "Evolution doesn't explain 'x', therefore God (or some nebulous "intelligent designer) exists." Never mind that, from a purely logical point of view, "Theory A doesn't work," provides no evidence whatsoever for Theory B. All it does is disprove theory A. And, in these cases, they don't even show that theory A is insufficient. They simply don't like the explanation.

They are both beliefs - as you so aptly pointed out - that some sort of higher order being designed and created the universe.

so you don't want to talk about ID. you want to talk about the fucking awful, internally inconsistent, and soundly thrashed teleological argument. perhaps you'd have better luck in a thread that isn't about ID then?

What is it you want to talk about, the politics of I.D.? Please say something about I.D. then that I can argue for or against.

Sounds like you just proved my point. Thanks.


Glad I could help.
I'm a bit unsure what your point is now though.

they are the same thing, just renamed to try and claim that its not about being christian, its something else

Because we can observe that everything else has a cause and a beginning.

We can? How, exactly? Have you observed absolutely everything? Has the entire human race observed absolutely everything?

At best, we can say, "Everything we have personally observed has seemed to be temporal. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that everything must be so.

* - They wouldn't have to worry too much about convincing the populace, as a rather large percentage (50% is a good estimate) of the American) population are young-earth creationists to begin with.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I highly doubt that it is anywhere near 50%.

Glad I could help.
I'm a bit unsure what your point is now though.

Because we can observe that everything else has a cause and a beginning. If God has a cause and a beginning, then God is not "God" in the sense we would need Him to be in order to create the universe.

First, we cannot observe the absolute cause for anything.

Second, If everything else does have a cause and a beginning, what makes God exempt?

Third, If God does not have a beginning and a cause, why does anything else have to? These contradictions prove that God is not "God" in the sense we would need Him to be in order to create the universe.

I don't care what sophists, or fools happen to be arguing or misusing the argument for I.D. now. The basic form of the argument is independent of those people. Really, what you are talking about is politics and not the metaphysics of evolution v's design.
No, not really. ID is inseperable from Creationism. I suppose you could say that it is part of the theory's evolution.

The only way you can possibly have design, under any circumstances, is if there is a designer. Therefore, in order to say that evidence leads to the conclusion of design, one must first assume that a designer capable of creating the object exists. The very concept of design necessitates a designer.

and if there was in fact a designer who operated in a way that left evidence of design it would be perfectly scientific to say so. there isn't, of course, but that doesn't undermine the principle.


It is logically impossible to draw a conclusion that God, who is said to be the creator of all the universe, exists from empirical evidence. Empirical evidence is limited to the universe. God, not being bound by the universe, is not limited by the empirical. Thus, we cannot claim that empirical evidence leads to a conclusion - even a "likely" one - that God exists. We may have "evidence", but it is not empirical evidence.

the sort of god you have in mind is not the only logically conceivable one. and there is nothing logically impossible about a god that is empirically detectable - if anything, i'd say that sort of god is far mor logically consistent than one that isn't.

What is it you want to talk about, the politics of I.D.? Please say something about I.D. then that I can argue for or against.
That would be a nice thinking excercise but you cannot discuss the politically motivated theory without talking politics.

In conclusion ID is the new Epicycle theory. Its trying to level with science, but is completely wrong.

ID is as much a legit THEORY as Evolution is.

Faith is required for both theories...

Anyways.. the person who stated ID is an "evolved" form of creationism is correct. Except ID, in my opinion, focuses on more scientific data and methods.

ex: ID recongizes micro-evolution.. or inner special evolution.. yet discredits macro evolution.


Quick question... why is teaching evolution in schools ok, yet ID is not?

ID is as much a legit THEORY as Evolution is.

Faith is required for both theories...

Anyways.. the person who stated ID is an "evolved" form of creationism is correct. Except ID, in my opinion, focuses on more scientific data and methods.

ex: ID recongizes micro-evolution.. or inner special evolution.. yet discredits macro evolution.


Quick question... why is teaching evolution in schools ok, yet ID is not?
I'm all for teaching ID theory in schools. Just not in science classes.

What is it you want to talk about, the politics of I.D.?

and its history, evolution, funding, and whatever. you know, in order to answer the question at hand.

Please say something about I.D. then that I can argue for or against.

id is a second rate knock-off of an old bad argument adopted by creationists who needed to find a cheap suit to dress up in when the u.s. supreme court smacked them down back in 1987. they have admitted that their actual goals have nothing to do with scientific advancement, and are actually aimed at "the overthrow of scientific materialism and its cultural legacies" because of what they veiw as it's "devastating social consequances".

of course, the fact that it was a second rate knock-off meant that they didn't get too far before getting legally smacked down again, and hard. perhaps this time they should try to find a slightly less cheap looking cheap suit.

how's that do ya?

and if there was in fact a designer who operated in a way that left evidence of design it would be perfectly scientific to say so. there isn't, of course, but that doesn't undermine the principle.Eh?

Even if there was a god that left evidence of designing things, it'd be beyond any empirical discipline to ascertain that a god was indeed responsible. The problem with things like science, is that it can only be used to establish the relationships between things within the natural realm. No amount of magical evidence will ever matter, because it's beyond the capabilities of scientific methodology to examine magic.

The magic eightball might have some interesting things to say, but the only thing science will ever have to say about it, is a resounding "Odd".the sort of god you have in mind is not the only logically conceivable one. and there is nothing logically impossible about a god that is empirically detectable - if anything, i'd say that sort of god is far mor logically consistent than one that isn't.Perhaps. But non-supernatural gods aren't what's normally considered "gods". When speaking non-metaphorically, gods are entities with supernatural abilities. Wizzards, if you will.

ID is as much a legit THEORY as Evolution is.

no, it isn't. it has no theory at all. it's only psuedo-hypothesis has been utterly demolished (even worse, it was mostly demolished before it was published - poor behe, he should really have kept up with the lit.)

But non-supernatural gods aren't what's normally considered "gods".

people normally consider all sorts of stupid things - normal doesn't enter into it in this case.

there is nothing in having supernatural abilities that requires some gods to not have detectable natural effects. science wouldn't be able to tell us about the non-empirically detectable aspects of these gods, but it could tell us all sorts of empirically-based stuff.

ID is as much a legit THEORY as Evolution is.

Faith is required for both theories...
Except that one has evidence backing it and the other is pure conjecture.

Anyways.. the person who stated ID is an "evolved" form of creationism is correct. Except ID, in my opinion, focuses on more scientific data and methods.
more scientific, yes. Entirely scientific, no.

ex: ID recongizes micro-evolution.. or inner special evolution.. yet discredits macro evolution.
Macro evolution being many micro-evolution over time, I think the IDers are shooting themselves in the foot with that one.


Quick question... why is teaching evolution in schools ok, yet ID is not?
Oh, teaching ID in school is ok. Just not in a science class as it is more of a religious study topic. What with talking about a designer and all.

and if there was in fact a designer who operated in a way that left evidence of design it would be perfectly scientific to say so. there isn't, of course, but that doesn't undermine the principle.

The problem, of course, is that we ourselves and everything around us are part of the "design", if there is one. We are limited to investigating only that which is part of the "design". How then, could we find evidence of the designer? We don't even have evidence that there is anything outside the "design".

the sort of god you have in mind is not the only logically conceivable one. and there is nothing logically impossible about a god that is empirically detectable - if anything, i'd say that sort of god is far mor logically consistent than one that isn't.

One could certainly posit a "god" that wasn't the creator of the universe, but was, in fact, a part of it. In this case, one would expect there to be evidence for said god. Said god would be bound by the rules of the universe, same as everything else.

However, it is logically impossible to find empirical evidence for a God that is supernatural. And it is impossible for a God that is natural - that is part of the universe - to have designed or created the universe.

ID is as much a legit THEORY as Evolution is.

Not if we are talking about science. Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory, derived through use of the scientific method. ID is not.

Faith is required for both theories...

How is faith required for evolutionary theory? Faith in what, exactly?

Anyways.. the person who stated ID is an "evolved" form of creationism is correct. Except ID, in my opinion, focuses on more scientific data and methods.

ID, from the very start, breaks from the scientific method. It is no more scientific than Creationism. In fact, even those who propose ID have admitted that the scientific method would have to be changed to allow for it.

ex: ID recongizes micro-evolution.. or inner special evolution.. yet discredits macro evolution.

No, it rejects "macroevolution". It does nothing to discredit it, other than to suggest that it is impossible for lots and lots of small changes to lead to larger changes. Claiming that "microevolution" occurs but "macroevolution" cannot is like claiming that you can add 2+2, but cannot add 2000+2000.

Quick question... why is teaching evolution in schools ok, yet ID is not?

Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory, and therefore can be taught in science classes. ID is a religious idea, and therefore cannot be taught - not in the sense that it is taught as science or as true. It could certainly be mentioned, among other religious ideas, in some sort of religious survey course. However, most of those who push for the teaching of ID want it taught simply in a Christian form. They don't want other religious ideas presented.

people normally consider all sorts of stupid things - normal doesn't enter into it in this case.

there is nothing in having supernatural abilities that requires some gods to not have detectable natural effects. science wouldn't be able to tell us about the non-empirically detectable aspects of these gods, but it could tell us all sorts of empirically-based stuff.

But the empirically based stuff could never lead us to any evidence of the non-empirical stuff. This would mean that, from a scientific point of view, we would see the empirical things as simply the way the universe works. There would be no reason to make the leap to suggesting that a supernatural being was behind it.

The effects of a supernatural god might be detectable, but there would be nothing empirical to suggest that the effects were those of a supernatural god.

However, it is logically impossible to find empirical evidence for a God that is supernatural.

no, it isn't. nothing in being supernatural logically necessitates being undetectable. in fact, almost all of the claims of supernatural events that i know of would leave all sorts of empirical evidence of their occurance, if they had really happened.

And it is impossible for a God that is natural - that is part of the universe - to have designed or created the universe.

i fail to see how. especially since i fail to see how it is logically impossible for gods to exhibit both natural and supernatural attributes. it isn't contradictory for this to be the case, at the very least. and it appears to be the consensus view of the gods throughout human history that this was in fact the fact of the matter.

people normally consider all sorts of stupid things - normal doesn't enter into it in this case.I wish I had space in my sig for that :p

there is nothing in having supernatural abilities that requires some gods to not have detectable natural effects. science wouldn't be able to tell us about the non-empirically detectable aspects of these gods, but it could tell us all sorts of empirically-based stuff.Which would be proof of nothing, at least as far as gods are concerned. Supernatural abilities aren't compatible with science. Their effects might be, but the supernatural origin of those effects would forever remain unknown.

Let's say Bob the God conjures up a beachball. For all we'd know it's just be a beachball. We'd be unable to tell it was conjured up with magic. It's the same if Pat Ravingson suddenly got struck with lightning. Sure, most of us would probably have a hard time not entertaining the idea that some divine entity somewhere got fed up with Pat's bollox, but as far as science goes, it's just be a happy coincidence.

Of course, in one case, it is true. In the other, it is not. The only way you can possibly have design, under any circumstances, is if there is a designer. Therefore, in order to say that evidence leads to the conclusion of design, one must first assume that a designer capable of creating the object exists. The very concept of design necessitates a designer. With evolutionary theory, however, you need not assume the theory is true to find supporting evidence. In fact, you cannot use the scientific method while assuming that a theory is true. The entire method is used to try and disprove a hypothesis, coming to the conclusion that it may be true only if the hypothesis is not disproven.

No, but you come to your beetle with your theoretical framework. That is, you, as an evolutionist, come upon some biological entity and mean to explain it in terms of evolutionary theory. Of course, if you find something strange, which isn't explained by evolution, you will adjust your theory, but you will always adjust your theory in a certain way -- a way that is consistent with the scientific method, which you presume to yeild correct results, and with the basic assumptions of evolutionary theory. So, an I.D.er comes upon nature with certain background assumptions also. Why shouldn't an i.d.er come with a background assumption about a designer, if the naturalist scientist also comes with background assumptions. Of course, it is not necessary to assume any hypothesis is true before you test it, but this is merely the delay of giving a truth value to something -- i.e. your hypothesis. However, you are, in the case of evolution, giving a truth value to the theory before you come to your particular hypothesis, because you are working within a theoretical framework. I don't understand what is wrong with having the added belief assumption that there is a designer.

It is logically impossible to draw a conclusion that God, who is said to be the creator of all the universe, exists from empirical evidence. Empirical evidence is limited to the universe. God, not being bound by the universe, is not limited by the empirical. Thus, we cannot claim that empirical evidence leads to a conclusion - even a "likely" one - that God exists. We may have "evidence", but it is not empirical evidence.

No one is claiming that God exists from empirical evidence. What some people are interested in is that the universe appears to them to be designed and they want to investigate this matter to see whether it is something that is likely true. I'm a little confused about the connection between "God not being bound by the universe and not limited by the empirical" to the conclusion that "empirical evidence cannot confirm whether God exists". I'm not sure why any conclusion is precluded from that premise. One can claim that time is not limited to our universe, that does not mean that we do not experience time. Furthermore, I've made no claims about the properties of God -- could be some crazy scientist for all I know.



This whole thing is about belief -- that is why I've used the word so many times. One group comes to nature with some beliefs about nature and the other comes with another set of beliefs.


Actually, pretty much all of the versions of 'x' that the ID proponents have brought up can quite neatly be explained by evolutionary theory. Much like Creationists claiming that the sun must have been contracting at the same rate for all of time (despite quite a bit of evidence to the contrary) in order to suggest that the world isn't really all that old, ID picks a part and claims that it is "irreducibly complex" and cannot be explained by evolutionary theory, even though it can. In this way, they support their preconceived belief that it was designed .

And you have a preconceived idea about evolution. I.D. may have particular varients, the goodness and badness of which we can discuss. I mean, I'm not going to sit here and defend the book of genesis. However, I do not understand why an I.D.er shouldn't come to the table with an idea of God and attempt to look for signs of God's hand in nature.

The main question I think that we have come to is this: Why shouldn't someone include the assumption of design when evolutionsts also come with theoretical assumptions. If I am an agnostic, why should I reject the creationsts approach -- forgetting the political aspect, of course?



The idea of Creationism and ID are dissimilar in only one point. One claims "God did it." The other claims "Some higher order intelligence did it." To claim that they are "quite distinct" is, quite frankly, ridiculous. They use the exact same arguments and both attempt to claim empiricism where there is none. The argument usually boils down to, "Evolution doesn't explain 'x', therefore God (or some nebulous "intelligent designer) exists." Never mind that, from a purely logical point of view, "Theory A doesn't work," provides no evidence whatsoever for Theory B. All it does is disprove theory A. And, in these cases, they don't even show that theory A is insufficient. They simply don't like the explanation.


Actually, if Theory A and Theory B are incompatible and some new evidence places significant doubt upon Theory A, then Theory B becomes the favorite. I mean this something like a Reductio Ad Absurdum stratergy -- used a lot in theory choice.

OK, I'm tired, which probably shows here. Nevertheless, this is interesting and I will check tomorrow, so I hope you respond. Night.

Don't look at this thread, you will just get a bunch of bullshit assumptions and insults which couldn't be further from the truth.

But the empirically based stuff could never lead us to any evidence of the non-empirical stuff. This would mean that, from a scientific point of view, we would see the empirical things as simply the way the universe works. There would be no reason to make the leap to suggesting that a supernatural being was behind it.

The effects of a supernatural god might be detectable, but there would be nothing empirical to suggest that the effects were those of a supernatural god.

certainly there could be. !xu could show up and say "hey, watch this".

-snipped for brevity-

I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I highly doubt that it is anywhere near 50%.

I'll grant that my guiding source is a little old, but I consider the source reliable and the findings still relevant:

In March 2001 the Gallup News Service reported the results of their survey that found that 45 percent of Americans agree with the statement "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time in the last 10,000 years or so," while 37 percent preferred a blended belief that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process," and a paltry 12 percent accepted the standard scientific theory that human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.

The statement "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time in the last 10,000 years or so" is a pretty accurate description of the beliefs held by young-earth creationists.

ID is as much a legit THEORY as Evolution is.

No, it most certainly is not. "Theory" in the scientific sense means, roughly, "thing that every single piece of evidence we have thus far found supports." You cannot prove anything true, according to the scientific method - the best you can do is demonstrate that so far, there is no evidence to contradict your theory. There is, in fact, no stage in scientific enquiry that comes after "theory." Gravity is a theory. ID, however, is not a theory. It is a combination of a group of baseless hypotheses which have largely been discredited (e.g. "It is impossible for the eye to have evolved naturally.") and a philosophical argument ("If it is impossible for something to have evolved naturally, some outside force must have made it that way.") It meets none of the criteria for a scientific theory. You are, in other words, 100% incorrect.

Faith is required for both theories...

False. Science not only fails to require faith in a given theory, but actively requires a lack of "faith" in said theory. You cannot reasonably test a hypothesis if you cannot be convinced that said hypothesis is wrong in any way, shape, or form.

ex: ID recongizes micro-evolution.. or inner special evolution.. yet discredits macro evolution.

Which is, in fact, nonsensical. If 1+1=2, then 1+1+1+1+1=5, and 1+1+(2483 1's)+1=2486. If a species can gradually change over time, it can gradually change over time. Given a very long time, it can change sufficiently to constitute speciation. This is pretty obvious.


Quick question... why is teaching evolution in schools ok, yet ID is not?

Because the former is science, and the latter is not. I see no problem with teaching ID as one of many ideas in some sort of religious philosophy course, but non-science should clearly not be taught in science classes.

Don't look at this thread, you will just get a bunch of bullshit assumptions and insults which couldn't be further from the truth.

Enlighten us then.

And you have a preconceived idea about evolution. I.D. may have particular varients, the goodness and badness of which we can discuss. I mean, I'm not going to sit here and defend the book of genesis. However, I do not understand why an I.D.er shouldn't come to the table with an idea of God and attempt to look for signs of God's hand in nature.
Because natural patterns exist.

How does the I.D.er propose to distinguish between patterns and designs?

Enlighten us then.

I can't be bothered... I am just saying that this isn't the place, rather then addressing the issue people here try to be manipulative and brainwash people by making up lies about it's cause.

Evolution is a lie – we all know life was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

May he bless us with his sauce.


That being said…

ID is a perfectly acceptable view for people to hold – it is not one I ascribe to and certainly not something that should be taught as science – but just as valid a belief as anything else.

Some people simply cannot accept that evolution can do more than the most mundane variations (like hair color, freckles, skin tone, etc). Anything more complex must have come from a designer – because it is simply inconceivable to ID adherents that something as interesting as a peacocks tail could come about any way other than being specifically designed by a ‘creator’.

I think it is partly due to the inability of people to conceive of very large numbers – anything greater than 6 thousand years (or however old they say the earth is) is an unimaginable time, which they cannot accept – thus a process that would operate on the scale of millions of years is impossible to accept.

No, but you come to your beetle with your theoretical framework. That is, you, as an evolutionist, come upon some biological entity and mean to explain it in terms of evolutionary theory. Of course, if you find something strange, which isn't explained by evolution, you will adjust your theory, but you will always adjust your theory in a certain way -- a way that is consistent with the scientific method, which you presume to yeild correct results, and with the basic assumptions of evolutionary theory.
I'd like an example of when this has occurred using the scientific method. I'll read the rest of your post when you can do that.

I can't be bothered... I am just saying that this isn't the place, rather then addressing the issue people here try to be manipulative and brainwash people by making up lies about it's cause.
Look into my eyes...

certainly there could be. !xu could show up and say "hey, watch this".Yet we'd still be unable to check up on !xu using science.

Consider Thor showing up (I have no idea what or who !xu is, sorry). We'd be able to establish that when Thor wants lightningbolts, lightningbolts will occur. The why & how of it, however, will remain shrouded in mystery forever.

No, it most certainly is not. "Theory" in the scientific sense means, roughly, "thing that every single piece of evidence we have thus far found supports." You cannot prove anything true, according to the scientific method - the best you can do is demonstrate that so far, there is no evidence to contradict your theory. There is, in fact, no stage in scientific enquiry that comes after "theory." Gravity is a theory. ID, however, is not a theory. It is a combination of a group of baseless hypotheses which have largely been discredited (e.g. "It is impossible for the eye to have evolved naturally.") and a philosophical argument ("If it is impossible for something to have evolved naturally, some outside force must have made it that way.") It meets none of the criteria for a scientific theory. You are, in other words, 100% incorrect.

False. Science not only fails to require faith in a given theory, but actively requires a lack of "faith" in said theory. You cannot reasonably test a hypothesis if you cannot be convinced that said hypothesis is wrong in any way, shape, or form.

QFT. I know that I get annoyed when people keep saying 'It's only a theory' when the theory is the highest level of accuracy in science (i.e. something that has yet to be contradicted by evidence). You would think that such a massive demonstration of such an enormous lack of scientific education would embarass these people, but there you go.

When dealing with science, theories are intentionally attacked, beaten up, kicked around, and generally abused... and the ones that stay theories are the ones that don't break. For the core of evolution to have lasted as long as it has without breaking is an amazing feat for any theory and leaves it one of the strongest theories in all of science. Of course, in saying this, modern evolutionary theory is NOT the same as when Darwin first came up with the idea. It has expanded enormously, and has fused with mendelian heredity and genetics to become even stronger as the 'modern synthesis'.

... which brings me to all those idiots screaming 'Darwinism!' Evolution is NOT 'Darwinism' (whatever THAT is), and hasn't been 'Darwinism' for a very long time (assuming 'Darwinism' is the version of evolution published in 'The Origin of Species' which, given some of the arguments given against 'Darwinism' I've seen, it isn't.)

We can? How, exactly? Have you observed absolutely everything? Has the entire human race observed absolutely everything?

At best, we can say, "Everything we have personally observed has seemed to be temporal. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that everything must be so.


Apologies.
You're absolutely correct, I overstated myself.

First, we cannot observe the absolute cause for anything.


Splitting hairs.
My cup just fell to the floor.
The cause? I pushed it with my hand.
Simple cause and effect without the web of pseudo-chaos theory and butterflies in Asia is enough for the purposes of our discussion.


Second, If everything else does have a cause and a beginning, what makes God exempt?


??
Because He's God?
If God is not exempt, then the being in question, whether real or fictional, is not God.
You can't question whether God is exempt or not, else you've missed the point of God in the first place.
You can question whether God exists or not, which accomplishes the same thing.
If God exists, He is exempt.
If He is not exempt, God does not exist.


Third, If God does not have a beginning and a cause, why does anything else have to? These contradictions prove that God is not "God" in the sense we would need Him to be in order to create the universe.


That's not a contradiction. If God exists, He is the exception because He is the Prime cause of all.
I see it as similar to the fact that no matter what algorithm you program into a Turing machine, there will be at least ONE equation that it cannot solve. we can intuit the answer and incorporate it into the algorithm, but there will be another unsolvable equation always.

God, if He exists, is that one unsolvable equation.

OK, I'm tired, which probably shows here. Nevertheless, this is interesting and I will check tomorrow, so I hope you respond. Night.

It happens. Please do be a little more careful with quote tags, however. It is incredibly difficult to answer a post in which my comments run straight together with yours.

No, but you come to your beetle with your theoretical framework.

A theoretical framework which was derived from the evidence, and did not need to assume the existence of the beatle, or its explanation, for its own derivation.

That is, you, as an evolutionist, come upon some biological entity and mean to explain it in terms of evolutionary theory.

You seem to be confused as to how science works. That isn't it. We will examine the beetle to see if there is anything about it that is inconsistent with evolutionary theory. If it is, the theory will be modified or thrown out. Science is not about seeking to prove a hypothesis or theory, however, but seeking to disprove it. It is only through lack of being disproven that something becomes accepted.

So, an I.D.er comes upon nature with certain background assumptions also. Why shouldn't an i.d.er come with a background assumption about a designer, if the naturalist scientist also comes with background assumptions.

What is a "naturalist" scientist? Science has its own assumptions, yes. But science is not said to prove those assumptions correct. In ID, on the other hand, a person assumes a designer, and then looks for evidence of design. They have assumed their conclusion to be correct before even starting.

Of course, it is not necessary to assume any hypothesis is true before you test it,

Indeed, it is pretty much impossible. If you assume something to be true, there is no reason to test it. It is, for your purposes, true. All evidence will be arranged in light of that assumption. Therefore, you cannot possibly find evidence inconsistent with that assumption.

If I assume that God exists, anything I find will be viewed in light of that assumption. Thus, I cannot question the existence of God while simultaneously assuming that God exists. I must remove the assumption to examine the question - allowing for either existence or non-existence to be true.

However, you are, in the case of evolution, giving a truth value to the theory before you come to your particular hypothesis, because you are working within a theoretical framework.

Incorrect. First of all, within science, you can never mark a hypothesis as "true." It is either "untrue" or "supported". Second of all, evolutionary theory was not derived by assuming that evolutionary theory was true. Without any theoretical framework, evidence was observed. From that evidence, the phenomena known as natural selection and mutation were observed. From those phenomena, the theory of evolution was derived. Now, we test it by looking for something which is inconsistent with it. At no point in examining the theory do we assume it to be true.

I don't understand what is wrong with having the added belief assumption that there is a designer.

While it is certainly ok to have personal beliefs that are unsupported, it is not ok within an empirical study or proof to have such assumptions. The "belief" assumption is just that - a belief. It is unsupported by empirical evidence. As such, it has no place in an empirical discussion, although it certainly can in a religious one.

No one is claiming that God exists from empirical evidence.

That is exactly the argument you just claimed others were making - that one could make an empirical case for God.

What some people are interested in is that the universe appears to them to be designed and they want to investigate this matter to see whether it is something that is likely true.

...something they can only find if they first assume the existence of the designer, leading to them interpreting evidence that may or may not have to do with a designer under that assumption.

I'm a little confused about the connection between "God not being bound by the universe and not limited by the empirical" to the conclusion that "empirical evidence cannot confirm whether God exists".

If God is not bound by the empirical, then it is impossible to find evidence for God when we are. It's like looking for evidence of color using an auditory device.

This whole thing is about belief -- that is why I've used the word so many times. One group comes to nature with some beliefs about nature and the other comes with another set of beliefs.

However, IDers and Creationists come with the same belief - that the universe was designed and created by some other being.

I like how you automatically think it is untrue.

It isn't a matter of thinking. Evolutionary theory can and has been used to describe it. Is it correct? Maybe. But we have no contradictory evidence to lead us to conclude otherwise. Saying that evolutionary theory cannot explain it is like saying that gravitational theory cannot explain the movement of the Earth and moon. It certainly can, whether it is correct or not.

And you have a preconceived idea about evolution.

Evolutionary theory was not arrived at with the preconceived notion that evolutionary theory was true, no matter what you seem to think about it.

However, I do not understand why an I.D.er shouldn't come to the table with an idea of God and attempt to look for signs of God's hand in nature.

As long as they aren't calling it scientific or empirical, I don't care what an IDer does. I believe in God, and because of that, I see signs of God in nature. I, on the other hand, recognize this for what it is. I interpret evidence based on the axioms I have chosen. I do not claim that the evidence I see of God is empirical evidence of God.

The main question I think that we have come to is this: Why shouldn't someone include the assumption of design when evolutionsts also come with theoretical assumptions. If I am an agnostic, why should I reject the creationsts approach -- forgetting the political aspect, of course?

You cannot assume the thing you are trying to prove. Evolutionary theory is based in the assumptions of the scientific method. One need not assume evolutionary theory to be true to logically arrive at evolutionary theory. However, one must assume a designer - which one has no empirical evidence for - to arrive at the conclusions of ID. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, it is simply not a scientific or empirical conclusion. It is a faith-based conclusion, just like that of Creationists.

Meanwhile, you are using made-up words again. What, pray tell, is an "evolutionist"?

Actually, if Theory A and Theory B are incompatible and some new evidence places significant doubt upon Theory A, then Theory B becomes the favorite.

This is true if and only if Theory A and B already had equal amounts of supporting evidence. It may be that there is no "favorite" theory at this point. Of course, it still doesn't change the fact that disproving theory A does not lend evidence to theory B. It just means that theory B is still viable, while theory A is not.


no, it isn't. nothing in being supernatural logically necessitates being undetectable.

No, but something which is supernatural is, by definition, not empirically detectable. Empirical measurements are bound by the universe and its rules. The supernatural is not.

in fact, almost all of the claims of supernatural events that i know of would leave all sorts of empirical evidence of their occurance, if they had really happened.

All of those events occurred within nature. For instance, did God bring a plauge down on Egypt? That would certainly leave empirical evidence of its occurence, right? Of course, it would leave no empirical evidence whatsoever of God's involvement. We would know that there was a plague in Egypt. We would not have any empirical reason to believe that God was at all involved.

If a supernatural being causes things to happen within the natural, we will see those occurrences. We will not, however, be able to empirically measure the involvement of the supernatural being. As such, from a purely scientific point of view, without an assumption of the existence of the supernatural, we would not be able to conclude that the supernatural was in any way involved.

i fail to see how.

Any creator would, by definition, have to exist before the universe, and thus outside of it. It would not be bound by that universe or its rules, as it would have created both, beginning with the absence of either.

especially since i fail to see how it is logically impossible for gods to exhibit both natural and supernatural attributes.

It isn't. But that has little to do with the fact that an entity cannot be entirely natural and have created the universe. The point is that we can only empirically detect the natural. Without being able to detect the supernatural, there is no empirical reason to assume its existence. Thus, the natural would appear to us as just that - the natural order of things.

Evolution DOES require faith....


Understanding the origins of evolution pose the same questions and hurdles as proving the existance of God.

You cant "prove" the existance of God, scientifically,... nor can you explain the the origins of evolution.


Hence.. evolution requires faith in itself.

ID claims two things: 1. Intelligent causes exist... and 2. The Intelligent causes can be identified by looking for "specified complexity".

Personally.. it is common sense for me to believe that the hand was created and designed by someone or something possesing the knowledge of "mechanical engineering", then by an on-going accident.

certainly there could be. !xu could show up and say "hey, watch this".

And how exactly, empirically, would we know that !xu was supernatural in any way? How would we know that !xu as not operating under the boundaries of the same universe we are, but with more knowledge and ability to exploit that knowledge?


I'll grant that my guiding source is a little old, but I consider the source reliable and the findings still relevant:

Without a description of the survey other than its results, I can't really say that I find it reliable.

The statement "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time in the last 10,000 years or so" is a pretty accurate description of the beliefs held by young-earth creationists.

Not really. First of all, young-earth Creationists generally hold to a 6000 year timeline. They also hold a number of other beliefs that may or may not have been held by the people answering the poll - such as the literal occurrence of the flood, and so on. They also believe that God created all animals in "pretty much" their present forms, as well as the entire universe, in about 7 days.

There are those who believe that evolution occurred for all other creatures, but that human beings received "special" creation later on. Humans, in other words, are the only creatures that didn't evolve. Depending on the timeline they have adopted, these people might state that God created human beings in their present forms, but might also believe that the world has been around for millions of years.

When it comes right down to it, your poll says nothing clear at all about young-earth creationists.

Which is, in fact, nonsensical. If 1+1=2, then 1+1+1+1+1=5, and 1+1+(2483 1's)+1=2486. If a species can gradually change over time, it can gradually change over time. Given a very long time, it can change sufficiently to constitute speciation. This is pretty obvious.


It might be true, but it is not obvious.
I can walk across my street, I can walk across my suburb, my city and perhaps even my very large country of Canada with enough time and effort.

But, no matter how many steps I take, I will never circumnavigate the globe simply taking more steps.

Evolution DOES require faith....

Faith in what, pray tell?

You keep saying this, without demonstrating it to be true.

Understanding the origins of evolution pose the same questions and hurdles as proving the existance of God.

Evolutionary theory doesn't delve into origins. It speaks only of changes in life once life arose. How exactly does it pose the same questions and hurdles as proving the existence of God? What part of evolutionary theory is supernatural?

You cant "prove" the existance of God, scientifically

Of course not. You can't prove anything scientifically. You can only disprove or support a hypothesis - one rooted in empirical observation.

nor can you explain the the origins of evolution.

Sure I can. Scientists made observations of changes in species and of the fact that species seemed to be closely related. These changes seemed to correlate with environmental differences. It was hypothesized that creatures, through some changeable hereditary medium, evolve over time to suit their environments. Over generations, this hypothesis was tested and has yet to be disproven. Mixed with Mendeilian genetics and the discovery of DNA and DNA mutations, it has become modern evolutionary theory.

ID claims two things: 1. Intelligent causes exist... and 2. The Intelligent causes can be identified by looking for "specified complexity".

Alter #1 to say that a specifc intelligence that can and would design the unvierse exists.

Of course, you fail to see that this is circular. Once you assume #1, you can obviously find evidence for it. The problem is finding evidence for #1.

Personally.. it is common sense for me to believe that the hand was created and designed by someone or something possesing the knowledge of "mechanical engineering", then by an on-going accident.

Who said anything about an accident? And why is it common sense? Do you know for a fact that there is an intelligence, with a knowledge of mechanical engineering, with the capability to design and implement the hand?

It might be true, but it is not obvious.
I can walk across my street, I can walk across my suburb, my city and perhaps even my very large country of Canada with enough time and effort.

But, no matter how many steps I take, I will never circumnavigate the globe simply taking more steps.

Sure you could. It would involve either going underwater or walking on water, but if you could take the steps, you could get there.

It really isn't a good analogy, however, because it assumes more of a straight line progression. A better analogy would be this:

Can you take one sentence, and, with enough changes, create another? For instance:

The brown cow.
The prown cow.
The prowne cow.
The prowne pow.
The prowne pow .
The prowne pow e.
The puowne pow e.
The puowne pow et.
The puowne powp eat.
The purwne powp eat.
Th purwne powp eat.
Th purwne powpl eat.
T purwne powpl eat.
T purpne powpl eat.
T purpne powple eat.
T purpne powple eatr.
A purpne powple eatr.
A purple powple eatr.
A purple powple eater.
A purple poople eater.
A purple people eater.

Notice that I made a tiny change each time - no more than a change in one letter slot. And yet, I came to something quite different from what I had at the beginning, did I not?

Evolution DOES require faith....

It didn't require faith when I answered your previous post, and it still doesn't require faith. Reiterating arguments that have already been refuted doesn't exactly accomplish much.

Understanding the origins of evolution pose the same questions and hurdles as proving the existance of God.

You cant "prove" the existance of God, scientifically,... nor can you explain the the origins of evolution.

First, I have no idea what you mean by "the origins of evolution." Could you please clarify? You're quite right that one cannot prove the existence of God, but I find it entirely possible that one could explain the origins of evolution if one had the foggiest idea what you're trying to get at, or how it had to do with anything.

Personally.. it is common sense for me to believe that the hand was created and designed by someone or something possesing the knowledge of "mechanical engineering", then by an on-going accident.

"An ongoing accident" is hardly an accurate way to describe natural selection. Organisms do not "accidentally" die because they are poorly adapted to their environment, nor do they "accidentally" live and reproduce because they are particularly well-adapted. That's no more "accidental" than the strange phenomenon by which mentally retarded people are less likely to become nuclear physicists than intelligent people.

To each other, what are they?

Is Intelligent Design thinly deguised Creationalism or what?


No its not, they are two different things. You heard nothing, this is NOT a way to get around the first amendment! http://67.15.129.139/5982/21/emo/mad.gif

A purple people eater.Demp can I have one of those for my birthday? It sounds terribly cute :p

Demp can I have one of those for my birthday? It sounds terribly cute :p

*notes down request*

I'll see what I can do. =)

No its not, they are two different things. You heard nothing, this is NOT a way to get around the first amendment! http://67.15.129.139/5982/21/emo/mad.gif
As much as I take your smiley to be one of the more respected arguments in debate, you are still very much wrong.

*notes down request*

I'll see what I can do. =)Yay! It's in two weeks, but as long as it's alive when it arrives, I can cope with not getting it on time :p

Do you think it'll eat the UPS guys? - With a bit of planning, that could save a bit on postage, methinks. TG for the tedious details ;)

Do you think it'll eat the UPS guys?

Only if they're purple!

Evolution DOES require faith....


Understanding the origins of evolution pose the same questions and hurdles as proving the existance of God.

You cant "prove" the existance of God, scientifically,... nor can you explain the the origins of evolution.

Yes you can. Any self-perpetuating chemical reaction will consume materials present in the environment. Those that are most likely to consume materials that will be replaced before other things can consume them first will be the most likely to continue perpetuating. Just like a moderatly sized star will last longer than a really big one. And a big enough star will eventualy generate a core of iron, but if it's too small it won't generate the gravity needed to do that. So you end up with a selection for stars that are bigger than X but smaller than Y. In terrestrial chemistry, you end up selecting for chemical reactions that are capable of variation and limited chemical consumption. That way the variation will always shift to make use of available materials. Not because it's trying to, but because reactions that require materials that got used up will stop happening.


Hence.. evolution requires faith in itself.

ID claims two things: 1. Intelligent causes exist... and 2. The Intelligent causes can be identified by looking for "specified complexity".

But to be a theory it must predict, and then find, evidence of "specified complexity," which would have to be a biological trait that could not have evolved. So far the closest they IDists have been able to produce is an ignorance of how one trait or another could have evolved. A discipline that is based on ignorance could be argued to require faith. Evolution is not such a discipline.

Personally.. it is common sense for me to believe that the hand was created and designed by someone or something possesing the knowledge of "mechanical engineering", then by an on-going accident.

But the point of science is that it tells how a thing can happen according to laws of the universe. You're advocating a hypothesis that says that life can't happen according to the laws of the universe, and must necessarily violate them, but has no evidence for this.

Demp can I have one of those for my birthday? It sounds terribly cute :p

Have you ever seen the prices on those purple people you have to feed it?

Only if they're purple!After having failed to supress the urge to google an image of Purple People Eaters, I think it's safe to assume that you are indeed right.

The critter's gonna end up costing me a fortune in purple paint, but it'll be worth every cent :D

When I say origins of evolution, I am referring to the origins... or start of evolution. How did it all begin? How did the universe form? How does evolution explain how things came to be? I am talking about the origins of evolution... How did it all begin?

(hope thats clear enough :P)

I am asking how does evolution explain the beginnings of the planet, and of life?

To Dempublicents1: I told you.. Evolution requires FAITH in evolution itself..

To subscribe to the THEORY of evolution, a person has to have faith in the theory...

What do I mean by faith? Faith is believing but not seeing or knowing fully about a certain subject or thing.


Evolution has many holes in the theory.. hence why it is still a theory. In fact, there are different theories within evolution. Evolution contradicts certain scientific finds and theories... ex: Cambrian explosion...
Yet people still subscribe to evolution because they believe that they have seen enough evidence to prove it true to them. But isnt faith required to overcome the evidence against it?.. If you dont beleive there is any evidence contrary to the theory of evolution.. then thats blind faith! :P (jkng)

The point I was trying to make with the original statement was that ID and Evolution both require faith to subscribe to it, so why is it so wrong to teach ID in schools but not evolution?


In response to micro evolution proving macro evolution to be true... I have to respectfully disagree.

To start... Macro evoltuion has never been witnessed.. as it takes millions of years to occur. (supposedly) Also Micro evolution is "pre-programmed"... meaning nothing new is added to the genetic information..

ex: the moths in the UK that turned white.. from brown. They always had the ability to be born a lighter color or shade.. through natural selection the species micro-evolved. (they were moths right?)

But no new gentic code was introduced to them... DNA is too complicated, it doesnt work as simple as 1+1=2.

Secondly, there are no scientific finds to prove macro evolution... in fact scientific finds prove otherwise.. I will refer back to the Cambrian explosion.



I'll end with this... If a tornado ripped through a junk yard.. is it possible that in the aftermath.. you would have an assembled car? How about an assembled and WORKING car?

ID says thats impossible because to have a working and assembled car.. it takes purpose and intelligence to put the car togethor, to the point for it to work.

I think we are straying from the original topic of this thread... :)

When I say origins of evolution, I am referring to the origins... or start of evolution. How did it all begin? How did the universe form? How does evolution explain how things came to be? I am talking about the origins of evolution... How did it all begin?

(hope thats clear enough :P)

I am asking how does evolution explain the beginnings of the planet, and of life?

To Dempublicents1: I told you.. Evolution requires FAITH in evolution itself..

To subscribe to the THEORY of evolution, a person has to have faith in the theory...

What do I mean by faith? Faith is believing but not seeing or knowing fully about a certain subject or thing.


Evolution has many holes in the theory.. hence why it is still a theory. In fact, there are different theories within evolution. Evolution contradicts certain scientific finds and theories... ex: Cambrian explosion...
Yet people still subscribe to evolution because they believe that they have seen enough evidence to prove it true to them. But isnt faith required to overcome the evidence against it?.. If you dont beleive there is any evidence contrary to the theory of evolution.. then thats blind faith! :P (jkng)

The point I was trying to make with the original statement was that ID and Evolution both require faith to subscribe to it, so why is it so wrong to teach ID in schools but not evolution?


In response to micro evolution proving macro evolution to be true... I have to respectfully disagree.

To start... Macro evoltuion has never been witnessed.. as it takes millions of years to occur. (supposedly) Also Micro evolution is "pre-programmed"... meaning nothing new is added to the genetic information..

ex: the moths in the UK that turned white.. from brown. They always had the ability to be born a lighter color or shade.. through natural selection the species micro-evolved. (they were moths right?)

But no new gentic code was introduced to them... DNA is too complicated, it doesnt work as simple as 1+1=2.

Secondly, there are no scientific finds to prove macro evolution... in fact scientific finds prove otherwise.. I will refer back to the Cambrian explosion.



I'll end with this... If a tornado ripped through a junk yard.. is it possible that in the aftermath.. you would have an assembled car? How about an assembled and WORKING car?

ID says thats impossible because to have a working and assembled car.. it takes purpose and intelligence to put the car togethor, to the point for it to work.

I think we are straying from the original topic of this thread... :)
By your definition of theory, the Theory of Gravity also has many holes in it.

Sure you could. It would involve either going underwater or walking on water, but if you could take the steps, you could get there.


That's kind of the point, I can't take the steps.


It really isn't a good analogy, however, because it assumes more of a straight line progression.

The addition analogy I'm countering is also a straight line progression, thus this analogy. In fact, my analogy doesn't even require the staightness that the addition does. I could go around mountains and meander up and down coasts trying to find a route for my next steps, yet never succeed.

Saying that macro-anything must be true because micro-anything can be demonstrated is unwarrented free extrapolation.


A better analogy would be this:

Can you take one sentence, and, with enough changes, create another? For instance:

The brown cow.
The prown cow.
The prowne cow.
The prowne pow.
The prowne pow .
The prowne pow e.
The puowne pow e.
The puowne pow et.
The puowne powp eat.
The purwne powp eat.
Th purwne powp eat.
Th purwne powpl eat.
T purwne powpl eat.
T purpne powpl eat.
T purpne powple eat.
T purpne powple eatr.
A purpne powple eatr.
A purple powple eatr.
A purple powple eater.
A purple poople eater.
A purple people eater.

Notice that I made a tiny change each time - no more than a change in one letter slot. And yet, I came to something quite different from what I had at the beginning, did I not?

I also notice that you had 19 "non-viable" sentences inbetween, that makes for a horrible biological analogy.

I'll end with this... If a tornado ripped through a junk yard.. is it possible that in the aftermath.. you would have an assembled car? How about an assembled and WORKING car?

ID says thats impossible because to have a working and assembled car.. it takes purpose and intelligence to put the car togethor, to the point for it to work.

I think we are straying from the original topic of this thread... :)

Hope you don't mind if I address this part only, but it's something I've heard before. Yes, the chance of a tornado randonly assembling a working car is emtremely small and unlikely. Probably something on the order on 1,000,000,000 to 1. But, if that same junkyard is hit by a tornado every second for a year, then the odds are that a working part will be assembled. If tornadoes continued to hit that amazingly poorly placed junkyard for another century, then chances are you'll get another piece of the car. Finally, after a few millenia of these tornadoes hitting this junkyard, the pieces of the car may finally be assembled into a car. The point of all this is that, as improbable as an event like life coming into being is, it had millions of years to happen and those high odds even out.

Hope you don't mind if I address this part only, but it's something I've heard before. Yes, the chance of a tornado randonly assembling a working car is emtremely small and unlikely. Probably something on the order on 1,000,000,000 to 1. But, if that same junkyard is hit by a tornado every second for a year, then the odds are that a working part will be assembled. If tornadoes continued to hit that amazingly poorly placed junkyard for another century, then chances are you'll get another piece of the car. Finally, after a few millenia of these tornadoes hitting this junkyard, the pieces of the car may finally be assembled into a car. The point of all this is that, as improbable as an event like life coming into being is, it had millions of years to happen and those high odds even out.


1. 1,000,000,000 to 1 is not likely enough, but it's made up anyway, so no need to quibble it overly.

2. Why would you continue getting new pieces? Wouldn't it be more likely that you will get the same kinds pieces you already have?

3. A tornado hitting a pile of all the right pieces to assemble a car is going to smash those pieces, not assemble them.

4. Even if we ignore everything else, after millenia of tornadoes hitting the junkyard, all of the initial pieces would have long since rotted away.

1. 1,000,000,000 to 1 is not likely enough, but it's made up anyway, so no need to quibble it overly.

2. Why would you continue getting new pieces? Wouldn't it be more likely that you will get the same kinds pieces you already have?

3. A tornado hitting a pile of all the right pieces to assemble a car is going to smash those pieces, not assemble them.

4. Even if we ignore everything else, after millenia of tornadoes hitting the junkyard, all of the initial pieces would have long since rotted away.

1. I know its low, just didn't want to take the time to make calculations or type out more than nine zeros.

2/3/4. I know the analogy is shitty, but I just try to work with the quote I get. The analogy is extremely flawed in terms of evolution, especially in its assumption that chance works toward a goal like a car. But I just wanted to give him a response in terms of his analogy rather than take it apart. Yes, I am that lazy.:p

When I say origins of evolution, I am referring to the origins... or start of evolution. How did it all begin?

This is irrelevant to evolutionary theory, which only deals in the changes in life once it began.

How did the universe form?

This is also irrelevant to evolutionary theory. You must look to cosmology, rather than biology, if you want a scientific theory on this.

How does evolution explain how things came to be?

Mutation and natural selection, mainly.

I am asking how does evolution explain the beginnings of the planet, and of life?

It doesn't. Nor is it meant to.

I told you.. Evolution requires FAITH in evolution itself..

To subscribe to the THEORY of evolution, a person has to have faith in the theory...

Not by any standard definition of the word faith. All one must do is examine the evidence and come to the conclusion that the theory of evolution is supported.

Meanwhile, why is THEORY in all-caps? THEORY is the highest level of certainty that can be arrived at in science. Being a THEORY places evolution right up there with the THEORIES about the structure of atoms, gravity, and electricity.

What do I mean by faith? Faith is believing but not seeing or knowing fully about a certain subject or thing.

Well, since we can never "know fully about a certain subject or thing," you are basically stating that all knowledge is faith-based. Gravity? Faith-based. Existence? Faith-based.

You've made "faith" a rather useless word there.

Evolution has many holes in the theory..

What, exactly, do you mean by "holes"? There is, at this point, no evidence that is inconsistent with evolutionary theory. If there was, it would be discarded or modified for a new theory. That, my dear, is how science works.

hence why it is still a theory.

No, it is a theory because it is a hypothesis that has stood the test of time and scientific testing. At this point, it has reached the highest level of certainty labeled in science - that of theory.

You are mistaking the lay-man's definition of the word, which basically means "conjecture", with the scientific definition of the word, which requires a great deal of supporting evidence.

In fact, there are different theories within evolution. Evolution contradicts certain scientific finds and theories... ex: Cambrian explosion...

The Cambrian explosion does not in any way contradict evolutionary theory. No scientific evidence has found that disproves evolutionary theory. If such evidence were found, the theory would be discarded by science.

If you dont beleive there is any evidence contrary to the theory of evolution.. then thats blind faith!

No, it isn't. Blind faith is unquestioning faith in something with no evidence or contradicting evidence. Scientists do not fail to question evolutionary theory. It is constantly questioned. As of yet, no contradicting evidence has been found. If it is, then the theory will either be discarded altogether or modified.

In response to micro evolution proving macro evolution to be true... I have to respectfully disagree.

You don't think that lots of small changes will eventually add up to a rather large change?

To start... Macro evoltuion has never been witnessed.. as it takes millions of years to occur. (supposedly)

"Macroevolution" is simply the accumulation of a great deal of "microevolution". This certainly has been witnessed in organisms which reproduce often - such as bacteria.

Also Micro evolution is "pre-programmed"... meaning nothing new is added to the genetic information..

Incorrect. New information is added quite often, actually. In some cases, especially in bacteria, it is added from outside the cell. In others, it is added through mistakes in copying. In others, mechanisms within a cell copy an entire gene or a part of it and then resplice it into another section of the genetic code.

Your lack of knowledge of biology is astounding.

But no new gentic code was introduced to them... DNA is too complicated, it doesnt work as simple as 1+1=2.

DNA molecules are very complicated - hence the reason that suggesting they don't change over time is ridiculous.

I'll end with this... If a tornado ripped through a junk yard.. is it possible that in the aftermath.. you would have an assembled car? How about an assembled and WORKING car?

Probably not. However, evolutionary theory has nothing to do with such a question. A better question might be, "If you have a car, and you start replacing a single part at a time, always leaving the car working, might you eventually end up with a truck?"


The addition analogy I'm countering is also a straight line progression, thus this analogy. In fact, my analogy doesn't even require the staightness that the addition does. I could go around mountains and meander up and down coasts trying to find a route for my next steps, yet never succeed.

The straight-line progression I was referring to is the fact that you were looking for a set result - circumnavigating the world. This suggests that evolutionary theory is directed - that it must be heading for a specific goal. This suggestion is untrue.

Saying that macro-anything must be true because micro-anything can be demonstrated is unwarrented free extrapolation.

No one is saying that. But, to use your analogy, if you can walk to the end of your neighboorhood, taking more steps will get you to the end of your town. Taking more steps will take you across the continent. Thus, the accumulation of many small changes adds up to a very large one. No one is suggesting that all options are possible in biology.

I also notice that you had 19 "non-viable" sentences inbetween, that makes for a horrible biological analogy.

The sentence is much like genetic information. It is not imperative that all genetic information code for a "viable" protein. In addition, only a few base pairs within the code (comparitively) will actually alter the protein significantly if changed. As such, there is plenty of wiggle-room for changes.

The straight-line progression I was referring to is the fact that you were looking for a set result - circumnavigating the world. This suggests that evolutionary theory is directed - that it must be heading for a specific goal. This suggestion is untrue.


Of course it is untrue. I never suggested a set result, I suggested a path. The starting point, ending point and condition of those points are irrelevant.


No one is saying that.

Are you retracting your statements then that small changes will add up to the scale of changes required to support your position?

Both you and Poliwanacraca scoffed at the skepticism leveled at the Micro vs Macro issue and declared it easy with simply additive arithmetic statements. That leads any rational reader to presume that you are justifying macro by demonstrating micro to be true and extrapolating.


But, to use your analogy, if you can walk to the end of your neighboorhood, taking more steps will get you to the end of your town. Taking more steps will take you across the continent. Thus, the accumulation of many small changes adds up to a very large one. No one is suggesting that all options are possible in biology.


The analogy was never meant to imply that all options are possible. It demonstrates that simple straighht line progession can be easily demonstrated to NOT simply add up to big changes.
It might.
But that is not a given, nor obvious.



The sentence is much like genetic information. It is not imperative that all genetic information code for a "viable" protein. In addition, only a few base pairs within the code (comparitively) will actually alter the protein significantly if changed. As such, there is plenty of wiggle-room for changes.

OK, I presumed your sentence was analagous to an organism, not genetic code, but the critique is still valid.

If that is meant to represent the entire code, then once again, you have 19 iterations of garbage. Your organism will die, 19 times if it miraculously resurrected each time to try the next step.

If you mean to represent a single portion of code, then it is imperative that brown cows not be required in the genetic code and that purple perople eaters not be deleterioous and in fact, be an improvement over brown cows.
One might envision why purple people eaters would be an advantage over brown cows, but what organism would survive and thrive with Th purwne powp eat instead of browns cows or purple people eaters?

Again, the analogy is horrible, perhaps yopu can find a better one that will demonstrate your point.

Yet we'd still be unable to check up on !xu using science.

Consider Thor showing up (I have no idea what or who !xu is, sorry). We'd be able to establish that when Thor wants lightningbolts, lightningbolts will occur. The why & how of it, however, will remain shrouded in mystery forever.

!xu is one of the gods of the south african san.

and it depends on how much testing said god is willing to put up with - we could easily set up any number of tests to disprove any hypotheses on why and how by controlling various variables. eventually, assuming the god in question actually is supernatural, the supernatural hypothesis will appear to be very well supported. of course, there is always the possibility that we'll come up with yet more new hypotheses to test, but all things in science have that problem. but if the hypothesis is correct, then it will withstand all such tests.

as for more robust explanations of why and how it all works, well, in such a case science will have found a new semi-accessible realm to play in for awhile. i'm sure we'd figure it out eventually.

No, but something which is supernatural is, by definition, not empirically detectable. Empirical measurements are bound by the universe and its rules. The supernatural is not.

we are clearly using different definitions.

supernatural causation cannot be directly observed. this is obvious. but it is equally true that we cannot observe natural causes either. we merely observe correlation, and we infer causation. such is our epistemic lot in life.

a major task of science is to rule out false causes. if something supernatural is a real cause, then no amount of scientific testing will be able to disprove it - exactly as in cases of natural causation.

When I say origins of evolution, I am referring to the origins... or start of evolution. How did it all begin? How did the universe form? How does evolution explain how things came to be? I am talking about the origins of evolution... How did it all begin?

(hope thats clear enough :P)

I am asking how does evolution explain the beginnings of the planet, and of life?

It doesn't. What it (or more precisely, the modern synthesis of evolution and genetic heredity) does is explain, given observations of quite a lot of things (fossils, microorganismal adaption and speciation, observations of wildlife, selective breeding, among many many other things) is examine how biological traits are passed on from parent to child, how gradual changes in genes cause changes in these traits, and how those traits are selected by rates of survival and reproduction. It also examines how the accumulation of those changes cause a gradual changing of the organism over multiple generations results in the birth of new species from ancestors. It does NOT say that we evolved from monkeys, that gene sequences spontaneously form into higher life forms from scratch, or any of the other nonsense some people seem to attribute to evolution.

The origin of life would be covered by other theories, as evolution is only a description of how traits are passed on and how organisms change and speciate.


To Dempublicents1: I told you.. Evolution requires FAITH in evolution itself..

To subscribe to the THEORY of evolution, a person has to have faith in the theory...


And I tell you, straight out... you're wrong, due to the fact that you have the whole scientific process completely backwards. While science works by looking at observations and coming up with models describing what they see, you seem to be under the mistaken idea that scientists have the ideas already and take evidence that supports their own views. It is true that scientists often starts with hypotheses suggesting a possible outcome, but if the observations don't match the hypothesis is thrown out and replaced with one that is derived from observation. Scientists don't pick out facts to support their ideas, they use facts to build ideas that match the facts.

Evolution is only supported because there has been no evidence that shows that it cannot or does not happen, and all relevant observations support that evolution is in action. People DO pass on traits by genes, mutations in such genes cause changes in traits (addition, removal, or alteration). Such changes are either passed on to more, the same, or less offspring, causing those traits to spread or vanish depending on the benifits or problems they cause. A large number of these changes in an isolated group of members of a species causes the isolated group to become different from and eventually genetically incompatible with the rest of the group, forming a new species.

All of these have been observed either directly or indirectly, and to say otherwise is to ignore a hell of a lot of evidence. People don't accept evolution because they think it's pretty... they accept it because it works and hasn't been shown to be broken.


What do I mean by faith? Faith is believing but not seeing or knowing fully about a certain subject or thing.


Evolution is used because it fits the observations, and only because it fits the observations. Faith has nothing to do with it, and if some observation showed that it was broken, it would be discarded.

As a side note, I've seen so many different definitions for 'faith' that it really doesn't have a static definition common to everyone that I can see. You define it as 'believing but not seeing or knowing fully about a certain subject or thing'. I define it as 'belief without question or analysis'. I doubt even many dictionaries would agree on what the word means. To be honest, your given definition sounds more like 'assumption' than 'faith', as assumptions are always made given incomplete evidence.


Evolution has many holes in the theory.. hence why it is still a theory. In fact, there are different theories within evolution. Evolution contradicts certain scientific finds and theories... ex: Cambrian explosion...
Yet people still subscribe to evolution because they believe that they have seen enough evidence to prove it true to them. But isnt faith required to overcome the evidence against it?.. If you dont beleive there is any evidence contrary to the theory of evolution.. then thats blind faith! :P (jkng)

It is still a theory because that's as high as things get in science. At least three people have explained this repeatedly in this very topic... and every single science class worth it's credits will mention this fact. Thinking there's some level above 'theory' only demonstrates your glaring lack of understanding of science.

Also, I don't believe there's no evidence contrary to evolution... all I know is that evidence contrary to evolution hasn't shown up, and when (or if) it does, evolution will then be up for a revamp or discard. It's been almost 150 years without contrary evidence... I think it's pretty safe to say that evolution's on very sturdy ground.


The point I was trying to make with the original statement was that ID and Evolution both require faith to subscribe to it, so why is it so wrong to teach ID in schools but not evolution?

... and I think I (and others here) make it pretty clear why evolution doesn't require faith.

ID, on the other hand, automatically makes assumptions before even looking at data...

1) It assumes there is an intelligent designer instead of letting observations dictate whether there is an intelligent designer or not.
2) It assumes that some structures are irreducibly complex just because they are not fully understood by us... a failure of imagination fallacy. As an example, even the eye has been shown to have a steady progression of use right from the photosensitive skin point right up through to our own eyes.
3) Many ID supporters assert details about the intelligent designer without having these details supplied by observation, or claim that the exact nature of the designer is 'unimportant'... begging the question (assuming details about the intelligent designer automatically assumes that such a designer exists), and insufficient evidence.



In response to micro evolution proving macro evolution to be true... I have to respectfully disagree.

Multiple small changes become a big change, and big changes, if not shared throughout a whole population, will cause seperation and eventually speciation. This is observed.


To start... Macro evoltuion has never been witnessed.. as it takes millions of years to occur. (supposedly) Also Micro evolution is "pre-programmed"... meaning nothing new is added to the genetic information..

There are ways to model events without using your eyeballs, you know. Also, micro evolution is NOT 'pre programmed'... spontaneous single-gene mutations are relatively commonplace, and such changes can involve added genes, deleted genes, or genes moved around in the DNA. They can happen due to external influences or spontaneously. All of this is well known and well observed in the field of genetics.

This article (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html) talks about speciation and contains a list of observed cases of speciation (i.e. MACROEVOLUTION). Mind you, the explanations probably won't make much sense to you unless you happen to know a bit about genetics and their effect on breeding and fertility, so if you don't know squat about genetics, I guarantee your eyes will glaze over. Of course, lack of understanding of evidence due to insufficient education doesn't mean the evidence is wrong. ;)


ex: the moths in the UK that turned white.. from brown. They always had the ability to be born a lighter color or shade.. through natural selection the species micro-evolved. (they were moths right?)

But no new gentic code was introduced to them... DNA is too complicated, it doesnt work as simple as 1+1=2.


Right in some cases, wrong in others. It all depends on the gene and what it's effects are when expressed. Some genes can be knocked out or added with no visible effects (i.e. 'junk' DNA, of which there's a lot in pretty much all organisms), some can be knocked out / added / moved and have effects that are not fatal (and possibly be beneficial), and yet other genes will immediately lead to an inviable organism (i.e. it'll die, quite possibly at the zygote stage.)

All of this is basic genetics.


Secondly, there are no scientific finds to prove macro evolution... in fact scientific finds prove otherwise.. I will refer back to the Cambrian explosion.

There's more than enough evidence of observed speciation from the molecular to organismal levels that such periods are just icing on the cake.

Besides, how can an explosion of speciation and evolution be evidence AGAINST speciation and evolution? ^^'


I'll end with this... If a tornado ripped through a junk yard.. is it possible that in the aftermath.. you would have an assembled car? How about an assembled and WORKING car?
Too bad this has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. A car-related example that DOES match evolution is how cars like the Model-T (or even better, the very first steam-driven cars) have gradually changed due to cultural, aesthetic, and performance related selection influences to become the car of today.


ID says thats impossible because to have a working and assembled car.. it takes purpose and intelligence to put the car togethor, to the point for it to work.
... and evolution suggests that the creation of the car came from the gradual improvement of mechanical theory and scientific knowledge, selected for accuracy and usefulness.


I think we are straying from the original topic of this thread... :)

I don't. This IS a topic about ID and creationism, and those two hypotheses are almost completely defined by how they claim evolution doesn't work / isn't happening as opposed to putting forward their own falsifiable hypotheses. How can ID be considered a theory when it makes no predictions and supplies no mechanisms? It says there's an intelligent designer, but instead of giving evidence that leads to an intelligent designer as the simplest and most complete explanation, it instead tries to claim it's right because everything else is wrong. That, of course, is a false dilemma fallacy, because disproving all rivals does not make an idea right by default.

---

*whew* ... now THAT's a post.

"ID" and "Creationism" are two names for a single vandal barbarian impulse.

That is, you, as an evolutionist, come upon some biological entity and mean to explain it in terms of evolutionary theory. Of course, if you find something strange, which isn't explained by evolution, you will adjust your theory, but you will always adjust your theory in a certain way -- a way that is consistent with the scientific method, which you presume to yeild correct results, and with the basic assumptions of evolutionary theory.

Query: are IDers willing to change their basic hypothesis at all ?

ok... Dempublicents1 nice dodge on the question of the "origins of the universe" according to evoultionary theory.

That question was pertinent, as it helped make the case that evolution requires as much faith as ID does.
If you cant test.. observe.. something, for example the Big Bang.. then its requires "faith" to subscribe to it.

Same goes for macro-evolution.. jus cuz micro-evolution exists, doesnt mean macro is possible. Macro hasn't been tested nor proven. Back to the Cambrian explosion... if it took millions of years for special evolution back then to take place.. then, according to the fossil record... in 10 million years you have pretty much every major animal group within that period? (10 million years is a flash of time on the evolutionary time scale) There are alot of unknowns in evolution, thus "faith" is required. :)
I agree that you dont have to know everything about certain topics or subjects to find it true... I understand how the scientific method tests the ideas for legitimacy... yet scientifically, ID holds up just as well as evolution does.
*braces for the wrath of many...

...............................
As for the analogy of the tornado in a junk yard... that analogy was to help convey the idea that something which is dependant upon subparts, inorder to work, is based off an intelligent design.
..............................
I'm curious... what would you say about Stonehenge or the Easter Island Monuments? Does it make more sense to believe that time and weather erosion created those monuments? Or did someone design and create those monuments? I think its safe to assume they were created.

Same arguement goes towards everything else, wouldnt it be safe to assume the human eye, the hand and the heart were all created?


.................
In response to Ragun... I previously read a fun article from that website you suggested to read.

This is the fun article.. if anyone is bored and willing to trudge through half a page. :P http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/intro.html

Oh by the way... I found that article about speciation somewhat interesting.. but it doesnt prove marco-evolution. Noone is arguing that Mirco-evolution doesnt happen. The article is talking about speciation, specifically in plants via hybrids. Which sounds like micro-evolution to me.

Was this article supposed show the proof of macro-evolution? The article hinted at speciation occuring in animals.. but didnt get to it. Curious to read the next article on that...

I looked further for more instances of macro... I ended up on this site... http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html

I still didnt find anything proving macro.. all the given examples fall under the confines of Micro-evolution.


Bit tired now... sorry if this reply all over the place.

ok... Dempublicents1 nice dodge on the question of the "origins of the universe" according to evoultionary theory.


What dodge. Evolution doesn't explain the origins of the universe. Never set out to do it.


That question was pertinent, as it helped make the case that evolution requires as much faith as ID does.

Actually no it doesn't.

If you cant test.. observe.. something, for example the Big Bang.. then its requires "faith" to subscribe to it.

Evolution doesn't talk about the big bang. That's abiogensis.


Same goes for macro-evolution.. jus cuz micro-evolution exists, doesnt mean macro is possible. Macro hasn't been tested nor proven.


Science doesn't prove anything. It offers an explanation. "Proven" things can be disproven in time.


Back to the Cambrian explosion... if it took millions of years for special evolution back then to take place.. then, according to the fossil record... in 10 million years you have pretty much every major animal group within that period? (10 million years is a flash of time on the evolutionary time scale) There are alot of unknowns in evolution, thus "faith" is required. :)

There are unknowns. sure. We don't understand the genome; that doesn't disprove it.

I agree that you dont have to know everything about certain topics or subjects to find it true... I understand how the scientific method tests the ideas for legitimacy... yet scientifically, ID holds up just as well as evolution does.
*braces for the wrath of many...


What tests? I have looked for ID testing data and can't seem to find it. Even Dembski's book had NO data.

ID only tries to attack evolution. ID's only explanation is that it is very intricate so there must be a designer.

In other words; God did it.

Heres a site I found bout the tests.... http://www.human-evolution.org/intelligent_design.php

or atleast how ID uses the scientific method.

Anyways.. I suggest you re-read some of the quotes of mine you highlighted... I dont think you understood the context of them.

For example: The reason I mentioned the cambrian explosion record, and how it contradicts evolutionary theory (in my opinion), was not to discredit evoultion, but to make the point that there are some aspects of the the theory which are not fully explained, yet those who subscribe to the theory are undaunted. In my opinion, this is a form of "faith" in the theory itself.

Yet you seem to think I made that statement in order to discredit the theory of evolution completely.


Oh.. and the Big bang theory is one of many aspects of the theory of evolution, and its origins.

*sidenote.. I am curious on how evolutionists explain the origins of life.. not life specifically, but where the carbons.. ,materials.. ,organic substance.. etc.. came from. Do you guys have a theory on that?

Evolution doesn't talk about the big bang. That's abiogensis.Sure? I think it only refers to the creation of life from organic substances. Big Bang is another story all together...

I posted this in the other ID thread...

- Diversifying and development of organisms over time = Theory of Evolution

- Origin of life from non-life = Theory of Abiogenesis

- Beginning of the universe = Big Bang Theory

These Theories are completely independant of each other. Falsifying one will in no way affect the others.

Heres a site I found bout the tests.... http://www.human-evolution.org/intelligent_design.php

or atleast how ID uses the scientific method.
...

Hmm? Let's look at their "scientific method"


1. Observation:

The ways that intelligent agents act can be observed in the natural world and described. When intelligent agents act, it is observed that they produce high levels of "complex-specified information" (CSI). CSI is basically a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex), and conforms to a pattern (making it specified). Language and machines are good examples of things with much CSI. From our understanding of the world, high levels of CSI are always the product of intelligent design.

2. Hypothesis:

If an object in the natural world was designed, then we should be able to examine that object and find the same high levels of CSI in the natural world as we find in human-designed objects.

3. Experiment:

We can examine biological structures to test if high CSI exists. When we look at natural objects in biology, we find many machine-like structures which are specified, because they have a particular arrangement of parts which is necessary for them to function, and complex because they have an unlikely arrangement of many interacting parts. These biological machines are "irreducibly complex," for any change in the nature or arrangement of these parts would destroy their function. Irreducibly complex structures cannot be built up through an alternative theory, such as Darwinian evolution, because Darwinian evolution requires that a biological structure be functional along every small-step of its evolution. "Reverse engineering" of these structures shows that they cease to function if changed even slightly.

4. Conclusion:

Because they exhibit high levels of CSI, a quality known to be produced only by intelligent design, and because there is no other known mechanism to explain the origin of these "irreducibly complex" biological structures, proponents conclude that they were intelligently designed.


So, basically, they use a made up and entirely subjective unit, 'CSI', for their "scientific method", where they assume that just because something is complex, it must be designed. Also, the idea of "irreducibly complex" has been debunked time and time again.

This is not the scientific method. This is using made-up arbitrary measuring units to force the results to fit the hypothesis.

So, basically, they use a made up and entirely subjective unit, 'CSI', for their "scientific method", where they assume that just because something is complex, it must be designed. Also, the idea of "irreducibly complex" has been debunked time and time again.


what bullshit "experiment".
at least CSI is good as TV progrram.

Because He's God?
If God is not exempt, then the being in question, whether real or fictional, is not God.
You can't question whether God is exempt or not, else you've missed the point of God in the first place.
You can question whether God exists or not, which accomplishes the same thing.
If God exists, He is exempt.
If He is not exempt, God does not exist.





That's not a contradiction. If God exists, He is the exception because He is the Prime cause of all.
I see it as similar to the fact that no matter what algorithm you program into a Turing machine, there will be at least ONE equation that it cannot solve. we can intuit the answer and incorporate it into the algorithm, but there will be another unsolvable equation always.

God, if He exists, is that one unsolvable equation.
Listen, sport.

If you need a beginning to the universe in order to believe the theory of evolution, I need a beginning to God in order to believe in it. If you say that everything in the universe has a beginning, then God, being part of the universe, needs a beginning. Otherwise your logic is flawed.

If you don't need a beginning to God, you don't need a beginning to the universe. Oterwise, your logic is flawed.

Either way, if the logic is flawed, it can't be accepted as a scientific theory. Go take your conjecture elsewhere than in a science class. Science doesn't deal with exception with "but that's because he's an exception".

ID is nothing more than a ploy to get the Bible into the science class. I posted this in another thread, but I'll post it again for clarification. This is what Holy Mother Church says on the issue of evolution.

"the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36).

There ya have it. The Roman Catholic Church says there is nothing wrong with evolution. I don't blame those scientists who walked out of that meeting in Kansas over the discussion of ID. Think about this though...

Would you want an athiest pushing his views and agenda in a religion class instead of being objective and giving every religion a fair shot? Well that's what the evangelicals are exactly doing. They are pushing this ID bullshit in Biology classes and automatically dismissing evolution. A theory with much more evidence and proof than Creationism and ID combined!

Splitting hairs.
My cup just fell to the floor.
The cause? I pushed it with my hand.
Simple cause and effect without the web of pseudo-chaos theory and butterflies in Asia is enough for the purposes of our discussion.

What was the cause for the pushing?
What was the cause for that?
And the cause for that?

If God exists, He is exempt.
If He is not exempt, God does not exist.

For the 4th time:
If God is exempt, why isnt anything else?

Listen, sport.

If you need a beginning to the universe in order to believe the theory of evolution, I need a beginning to God in order to believe in it. If you say that everything in the universe has a beginning, then God, being part of the universe, needs a beginning. Otherwise your logic is flawed.

If you don't need a beginning to God, you don't need a beginning to the universe. Oterwise, your logic is flawed.

Either way, if the logic is flawed, it can't be accepted as a scientific theory. Go take your conjecture elsewhere than in a science class. Science doesn't deal with exception with "but that's because he's an exception".

Your intelligence is refreshing, but I dont think he will ever understand.

Listen, sport.

If you need a beginning to the universe in order to believe the theory of evolution, I need a beginning to God in order to believe in it. If you say that everything in the universe has a beginning, then God, being part of the universe, needs a beginning. Otherwise your logic is flawed.

If you don't need a beginning to God, you don't need a beginning to the universe. Oterwise, your logic is flawed.

Either way, if the logic is flawed, it can't be accepted as a scientific theory. Go take your conjecture elsewhere than in a science class. Science doesn't deal with exception with "but that's because he's an exception".

Hey sport,

I don't need a beginning to the universe in order to believe the theory of evolution.
If you need a beginning to God to believe in God, then you don't understand the concept of God we are discussing and are perhaps thinking of a god, which is essentially a Superman of sorts without the tights.

God isn't a part of the universe, which is the flaw in your reasoning. If God exists, and if God is the Creator of the Universe, then clearly He would of necessity exist apart from or beyond the unvierse because there must be a minimum of 2 states, one which includes God, but no Universe and one that includes God and the universe He created.

So, the logic is NOT flawed, but it is nothing like a scientific theory, so of course it shouldn't be accepted as scientific theory.

I'm not really sure where it is you me to "take" my "conjecture" anyway since I'm not in a science classroom? Perhaps that's where you read these discussions?

When I say origins of evolution, I am referring to the origins... or start of evolution. How did it all begin? How did the universe form? How does evolution explain how things came to be?
The current theory is that there was a big bang and then the universe started expanding. But the origin of evolution deal with much, much later. You can use it as soon as life takes hold. Not before.

I am talking about the origins of evolution... How did it all begin?

(hope thats clear enough :P)
The origins of evolution, is thankfully, much easier to explain: A fellow named Darwin was walking around one day and came with the idea that all species come from the same common unicellular ancestor. He proceeded to test this hypothesis and published his findings in a book. The rest is history.

I am asking how does evolution explain the beginnings of the planet, and of life?
It doesn't. But since it never claimed to do, I don't see a problem.

To Dempublicents1: I told you.. Evolution requires FAITH in evolution itself..
And when there is supporting evidence to back up your faith, it stops being faith and it starts becomming deduced reasoning.

To subscribe to the THEORY of evolution, a person has to have faith in the theory...
It would baffle you to learn that the most ardent defenders of this theory started out to proove it wrong. When they toiled enough, thay usually give up and start "believing".

Evolution has many holes in the theory..
Name two. :rolleyes:

hence why it is still a theory.
Go read up on what a scientific theory and get back to us. I swear, the next one who say "it's just a theory" will get me forumbanned for two weeks for the sheer weight of insult I will hurl upon him.

In fact, there are different theories within evolution. Evolution contradicts certain scientific finds and theories... ex: Cambrian explosion...
No it doesn't. The theory that changes occurs over time does in no way disproove that these changes cannot arrive at a rapid pace if the environment changes drastically.

Yet people still subscribe to evolution because they believe that they have seen enough evidence to prove it true to them. But isnt faith required to overcome the evidence against it?.. If you dont beleive there is any evidence contrary to the theory of evolution.. then thats blind faith! :P (jkng)
Show me evidence against evolution then I will disregard it and look elsewhere. One thing's for sure, disprooving evolution does in NO WAY validate your theory. Your theory has been shown to be bunk already. So I shall look elsewhere.

The point I was trying to make with the original statement was that ID and Evolution both require faith to subscribe to it, so why is it so wrong to teach ID in schools but not evolution?

WE NEVER SAID "ID" CANNOT BE TEACHED IN SCHOOL.
Is that clear? We merely said it cannot be teached as a scientific theory, so not in science classes.

In response to micro evolution proving macro evolution to be true... I have to respectfully disagree.

To start... Macro evoltuion has never been witnessed.. as it takes millions of years to occur. (supposedly) Also Micro evolution is "pre-programmed"... meaning nothing new is added to the genetic information..
We shall disagree then. In the meantime, I shall re-iterate that "macro" evolution is a buzzword invented to deny evolution while agreeing with what has been shown to exist despite the ID ideology's claim. They had no choice to agree with "micro" evolution so they invented "macro" to continue to disagree. What a load of rubbish.

ex: the moths in the UK that turned white.. from brown. They always had the ability to be born a lighter color or shade.. through natural selection the species micro-evolved. (they were moths right?)
In each generations, there were white and brown moths. One of them was easier to spot so it got eaten more so the next generation got more brown while soot covered the trees and got lighter when soot was gone in recent years. Explained phenomenon, next!


Secondly, there are no scientific finds to prove macro evolution...
Sure there is. You call them micro-evolution.

in fact scientific finds prove otherwise.. I will refer back to the Cambrian explosion.
I don't see what the Cambrian Explosion has got to do with it. Please explain.


I'll end with this... If a tornado ripped through a junk yard.. is it possible that in the aftermath.. you would have an assembled car? How about an assembled and WORKING car?

ID says thats impossible because to have a working and assembled car.. it takes purpose and intelligence to put the car togethor, to the point for it to work.

I think we are straying from the original topic of this thread... :)
Sure it is possible. Highly improbable, but still possilbe. In the meantime, if you got a thousands junkyard and a thousand tornadoes, it increase the odds. Now think big. Think an universe full of junkyard and tornadoes. Odds are good that one will eventually put a car in place. Life needs just one car...

Oh by the way... I found that article about speciation somewhat interesting.. but it doesnt prove marco-evolution. Noone is arguing that Mirco-evolution doesnt happen. The article is talking about speciation, specifically in plants via hybrids. Which sounds like micro-evolution to me.


*sigh* Speciation IS macroevolution. It means a new species has been born that cannot breed with it's ancestors. Enough small steps (or one big step) has removed it permanently from the gene pool of those that came before it. Those examples talk of the appearance of non-interbreedable new species that have sterile hybrids with their ancestor species at best (i.e. speciation and thus macroevolution).

Hey sport,

I don't need a beginning to the universe in order to believe the theory of evolution.
If you need a beginning to God to believe in God, then you don't understand the concept of God we are discussing and are perhaps thinking of a god, which is essentially a Superman of sorts without the tights.

God isn't a part of the universe, which is the flaw in your reasoning. If God exists, and if God is the Creator of the Universe, then clearly He would of necessity exist apart from or beyond the unvierse because there must be a minimum of 2 states, one which includes God, but no Universe and one that includes God and the universe He created.

So, the logic is NOT flawed, but it is nothing like a scientific theory, so of course it shouldn't be accepted as scientific theory.

I'm not really sure where it is you me to "take" my "conjecture" anyway since I'm not in a science classroom? Perhaps that's where you read these discussions?
Please, champ, can you state for the record your stance on the ID theory and it's place in the classroom. I feel we are working at cross purpose here.

Now, as for your argument,
God isn't a part of the universe, which is the flaw in your reasoning. If God exists, and if God is the Creator of the Universe, then clearly He would of necessity exist apart from or beyond the unvierse because there must be a minimum of 2 states, one which includes God, but no Universe and one that includes God and the universe He created.

So, the logic is NOT flawed, but it is nothing like a scientific theory, so of course it shouldn't be accepted as scientific theory.
So ID theory postulate that God exist and he created the universe. Now, please explain the MASSIVE flaw that is the reasoning behind thsi God. Surely anything out of this universe could have created it and not only God. So why does your theory purports that God of all things did it. Care to explain why I should think God did it and NOT a pan-dimensionnal super-intelligent version of the colour purple? YOur theory doesn't even cover that basic part.

I'm not really sure where it is you me to "take" my "conjecture" anyway since I'm not in a science classroom? Perhaps that's where you read these discussions?
Cute.

The point that ID theory should not be taught in class and that it was what I was refering to clearly passed over your head so I'll state it, again.

ID Theory is not scientific and should not be taught in science class.

What was the cause for the pushing?
What was the cause for that?
And the cause for that?


You're simply back stepping to different effects and we can determine the cause of those too if we wish.
How is that relevant?


For the 4th time:
If God is exempt, why isnt anything else?


The answers never going to change, although perhaps I'll stumble on the way to phrase that will finally allow enlightenment to dawn on you.

God is only exempt by the very nature of what God is, if God exists. Nothing else is God, so nothing else is exempt.
I imagine you're struggling withthe same concept that Canuck is, you want to place God IN the universe and subject to the same rules as everything else IN the Universe. If that were true, you would a powerful super-natural being, but you would not have God, Creator of the Universe.


Your intelligence is refreshing, but I dont think he will ever understand.

He understands just fine.

a few differences. but who cares, they are basically the same.

ok... Dempublicents1 nice dodge on the question of the "origins of the universe" according to evoultionary theory.

Its not a dodge. The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of the universe. The former is biology, the latter is cosmology.

That question was pertinent, as it helped make the case that evolution requires as much faith as ID does.
If you cant test.. observe.. something, for example the Big Bang.. then its requires "faith" to subscribe to it.
You can test for the Big Bang the same way you can test for any event that has happened, by observing its effects.

Please, champ, can you state for the record your stance on the ID theory and it's place in the classroom. I feel we are working at cross purpose here.


Sure thing chump, my stance on the ID theory is that it is a positive step forward for the religious to accept that Genesis may not be a literal account of creation. I don't believe it is a scientific theory even if it may be "true", so, if taught in a classroom, it may be casually mentioned in science class as what some people believe, but it's proper setting should be a philosphy class of some kind, or perhaps social studies for the younger crowd.


Now, as for your argument,

So ID theory postulate that God exist and he created the universe. Now, please explain the MASSIVE flaw that is the reasoning behind thsi God. Surely anything out of this universe could have created it and not only God. So why does your theory purports that God of all things did it. Care to explain why I should think God did it and NOT a pan-dimensionnal super-intelligent version of the colour purple? YOur theory doesn't even cover that basic part.


I'm not seeing the flaw there.
Maybe God is a pan-dimensionnal super-intelligent version of the colour purple.
I think what you're trying to say is that ID postulates that the Judeo-Christian God that we are familiar with from the Bibilical scriptures exists and He created the universe.
Then you're asking why that assumption is made.

So, first off, ID theory doesn't postulate that in the first place, although many ID proponents obviously do believe it, but that is apart from their ID belief.

There's no reason you can't have ID and your purple too.


Cute.

The point that ID theory should not be taught in class and that it was what I was refering to clearly passed over your head so I'll state it, again.

ID Theory is not scientific and should not be taught in science class.


It didn't pass over my head at all.
I never said it should be taught in science class and I fully agree it is not scientific

I'm not seeing the flaw there.
Maybe God is a pan-dimensionnal super-intelligent version of the colour purple.
I think what you're trying to say is that ID postulates that the Judeo-Christian God that we are familiar with from the Bibilical scriptures exists and He created the universe.
Then you're asking why that assumption is made.

So, first off, ID theory doesn't postulate that in the first place, although many ID proponents obviously do believe it, but that is apart from their ID belief.

There's no reason you can't have ID and your purple too.

Okay, I am not sure what purple has to do with it, but in order for purple to exist there must be light to display it with. As for pan-dimensional, if you are going to say "God just exists and didnt need to be created" then why cant the same be applied for all matter? If it is a special property only attributed to God, why? This is a point I dont think you are getting, and this point is why ID as well as creation fails.

You're simply back stepping to different effects and we can determine the cause of those too if we wish.
How is that relevant?

Well back step all the way and let me know what the initial base cause was.

The answers never going to change, although perhaps I'll stumble on the way to phrase that will finally allow enlightenment to dawn on you.

God is only exempt by the very nature of what God is, if God exists. Nothing else is God, so nothing else is exempt.
I imagine you're struggling withthe same concept that Canuck is, you want to place God IN the universe and subject to the same rules as everything else IN the Universe. If that were true, you would a powerful super-natural being, but you would not have God, Creator of the Universe.

Why is nothing else God? Why does God's alternate universe that he apparently exists in not follow the same properties as ours? You are making ridiculous assumptions. I know you arent arguing for this, but everyone else should be able to see why ID is not science at all from this discussion.

Okay, I am not sure what purple has to do with it, but in order for purple to exist there must be light to display it with.

You'll have to take that up with East Canuck. Purple is his thing.


As for pan-dimensional, if you are going to say "God just exists and didnt need to be created" then why cant the same be applied for all matter? If it is a special property only attributed to God, why? This is a point I dont think you are getting, and this point is why ID as well as creation fails.

We don't apply the same to all matter because that is contrary to what we observe regarding matter.
The special property is not something that we can attribute to God, as if we can have God with the attirbute, or God without the attribute.
That is where your thinking keeps falling down, I believe.
If there is a prime cause eternal being, that is God.
If there is no prime cause eternal being, then there is no God.

Any clearer yet?

We don't apply the same to all matter because that is contrary to what we observe regarding matter.

God creating is contrary to what we observe about matter as well.

How about this. If God can create, why didn't he just create Jesus? Why did he knock Mary up? Because he had to follow the rules of this universe.

Sure thing chump,
Listen, son, I might have looked condescending back there, but there's no need to resort to insult. Condescending, I can take. Let's keep the illusion of civility, shall we?


my stance on the ID theory is that it is a positive step forward for the religious to accept that Genesis may not be a literal account of creation. I don't believe it is a scientific theory even if it may be "true", so, if taught in a classroom, it may be casually mentioned in science class as what some people believe, but it's proper setting should be a philosphy class of some kind, or perhaps social studies for the younger crowd.
Yeah ,we were working on a wrong assumption. I figured you were for the teaching of ID in science. My bad, I suppose.




I'm not seeing the flaw there.
Maybe God is a pan-dimensionnal super-intelligent version of the colour purple.
I think what you're trying to say is that ID postulates that the Judeo-Christian God that we are familiar with from the Bibilical scriptures exists and He created the universe.
Then you're asking why that assumption is made.

So, first off, ID theory doesn't postulate that in the first place, although many ID proponents obviously do believe it, but that is apart from their ID belief.

There's no reason you can't have ID and your purple too.
Going with the definition of God as all-knowing, all-seeing, creator of the universe, we cannot postulate that god is only a colour. This is where my reference to purple comes into existence. ID proponent says SOMETHING had a design in mind when they created the universe. We find something else that can create a universe and we have punched a hole in their theory.

By the way, for the record, the "super-intelligent pan-dimensionnal shade of the colour purple" comes from the Hitchiker's Guide to the Universe. A fascinating read I recommend to everyone.




It didn't pass over my head at all.
I never said it should be taught in science class and I fully agree it is not scientific
We are in agreement then.

Creationism is the litteral belief in one of the Christian genesis myths.

ID is the belief that critical thinking, honest curiousity, hard science & knowledge, is dangerous & subversive, and mustn't be allowed.

This so called "Christian genesis myth" actually appears in the Old Testament or "Hebrew Scriptures", not the New Testament, or "Christian Scriptures". Christianity is not the only religion to believe in ID.

For someone who professes such a strong belief in "critical thinking and honest curiosity" you seem strangely close minded... Have you ever thought that the two ideas could be reconciled? ID and evolutionism aren't mutually exclussive, and science and religion don't have to be contradictory, they can be complimentry. For example, I believe that organisms originally created by ID can and have actually evolved over time.

Well back step all the way and let me know what the initial base cause was.


Under what criteria?

If we assume God exists, then easy, God.
If we assume God does not exist then... we don't know. The furthest back we can attempt is miniscule fractions of time after what we call the "Big Bang"

We can't determine any cause for that or anything before it. It's the stumper that science doesn't know the answer to and so far, doesn't know how to find an answer to.

Still, I'm unclear what your goal is on this base cause question.


Why is nothing else God?

What? That's a nonsense question. If something else is God, then you still have God and not something else.


Why does God's alternate universe that he apparently exists in not follow the same properties as ours?

Who said it's an alternate Universe?
If it is an "alternate Universe" one might assume it doesn't follow the same properties as ours, or else it would BE ours.


You are making ridiculous assumptions. I know you arent arguing for this, but everyone else should be able to see why ID is not science at all from this discussion.

No, I'm not making any ridiculous assumptions, you just haven't wrapped your head around some difficult concepts yet.
And yes, ID is not science. It attempts to apply some of the methodology of science to the creation origins question, but that's as far as it can go.

Not being science doesn't nessecarily make it incorrect either though.

We don't apply the same to all matter because that is contrary to what we observe regarding matter.
The special property is not something that we can attribute to God, as if we can have God with the attirbute, or God without the attribute.
That is where your thinking keeps falling down, I believe.
If there is a prime cause eternal being, that is God.
If there is no prime cause eternal being, then there is no God.

Any clearer yet?
And we are saying that those who say "God did it" must explain how are we to deduce that God is this designer and not someone else because evidence suggest there is nobody who designed the universe.

Under what criteria?

If we assume God exists, then easy, God.
If we assume God does not exist then... we don't know. The furthest back we can attempt is miniscule fractions of time after what we call the "Big Bang"

The Big Bang is creationism.

Still, I'm unclear what your goal is on this base cause question.

That we dont know what the root cause is for anything. And you cant just say God. It is an assumption. You dont KNOW for sure.

What? That's a nonsense question. If something else is God, then you still have God and not something else.

Then if God did not need to be created, that something else didnt either.

Who said it's an alternate Universe?
If it is an "alternate Universe" one might assume it doesn't follow the same properties as ours, or else it would BE ours.

Then how can God carry the rules of his universe over to ours? What makes the assumption of our universes having different rules correct?

No, I'm not making any ridiculous assumptions, you just haven't wrapped your head around some difficult concepts yet.
And yes, ID is not science. It attempts to apply some of the methodology of science to the creation origins question, but that's as far as it can go.

Not being science doesn't nessecarily make it incorrect either though.

You assume that God exists and God has special properties that are not available to anything else. The bottom line is, if God needs no creator, nothing else does.

This so called "Christian genesis myth" actually appears in the Old Testament or "Hebrew Scriptures", not the New Testament, or "Christian Scriptures". Christianity is not the only religion to believe in ID.
Please, show me one proponent of Intelligent Design Theory who is not a christian. We are not talking creation story/myth, we are talking about a scientific theory, here.

My observation is that only Christian push the idea of ID.

God creating is contrary to what we observe about matter as well.


That's why we presume matter does not simply create itself.
What we observe about matter won't help us decide what God does, just what matter does.


How about this. If God can create, why didn't he just create Jesus? Why did he knock Mary up? Because he had to follow the rules of this universe.

Well, now we're completely exitting the current conversation and straying into theology.

There's no reason to believe that God HAD to follow any rules, but the theology is that He chose to "knock Mary up" so that Jesus experiences life as Man, not God, in order for US to relate.

Listen, son, I might have looked condescending back there, but there's no need to resort to insult. Condescending, I can take. Let's keep the illusion of civility, shall we?


Must have been a typo, yeah, that's the ticket...
Oh, no one has had cause to refer to me as son in decades now.


Yeah ,we were working on a wrong assumption. I figured you were for the teaching of ID in science. My bad, I suppose.


That whole leaping and looking thing, catches them all the time.


Going with the definition of God as all-knowing, all-seeing, creator of the universe, we cannot postulate that god is only a colour. This is where my reference to purple comes into existence. ID proponent says SOMETHING had a design in mind when they created the universe. We find something else that can create a universe and we have punched a hole in their theory.


OK, sure. I don't know how that "something else" won't be the same as what we already theoreticall have now, but go for it.


By the way, for the record, the "super-intelligent pan-dimensionnal shade of the colour purple" comes from the Hitchiker's Guide to the Universe. A fascinating read I recommend to everyone.


My favourite trilogy, all 5 of them.

This so called "Christian genesis myth" actually appears in the Old Testament or "Hebrew Scriptures", not the New Testament, or "Christian Scriptures". Christianity is not the only religion to believe in ID.To the very best of my knowledge, Christian cults are the only ones that embrace Intelligent Design.

The wording you reel against is entirely accurate, and neither states nor implies that the Christian Genesis myths aren't common to all versions of Abrahamic religion. To claim that the OT isn't christian scripture, is dishonest in the extreme. Christianity is based on the Old Testament. Regardless of who wrote it & whatever other cults may consider it their own, the OT is Christian scripture in the literal sense of those words.

I guess I better point out, before you throw yourself a little hairsplitting party, that far from all Christian cults endorse any variation of IDism or creationism. The Catholic Church, for example, doesn't.For someone who professes such a strong belief in "critical thinking and honest curiosity" you seem strangely close minded...And that opinion is based on what? Nevermind. I don't actually care what you think of me.Have you ever thought that the two ideas could be reconciled?Yes. They can't. Not as hard science anyway.ID and evolutionism aren't mutually exclussive, and science and religion don't have to be contradictory, they can be complimentry.ID is a theological argument, the ToE a scientific theory. It is, of course, very damn hard to definitly say the two are mutually exclusive, because not only do they belong in entirely different spheres of philosophy, but IDisms are usually changed to suit the circumstances.
If I, for example, said that IDisms are irreconcilable with the ToE, because IDisms hold that the universe is a few thousand years old, chances are someone will claim that just today, ID doesn't involve a timeline.

The constant moving of goalposts bugs the hell out of me, but hey... We're talking pointless superstitions, so it's to be expected.For example, I believe that organisms originally created by ID can and have actually evolved over time.Let me guess... You believe in "micro" evolution, but not in "macro" evolution?
If that's the case I'm sure you can, at the very least, provide a theoretical argument for why evolving things suddenly stop evolving. OK, I lie. No IDist I've ever heard of has provided such an argument, so I'm actually pretty sure you can't either.

OK, sure. I don't know how that "something else" won't be the same as what we already theoreticall have now, but go for it.

Because a universe can start with a throw of a dice just as well as a god desgning planets and sending the plan with payment to Magrathea. So for the Intelligent Design to be true, we need concrete evidence of said intelligence. If the only evidence you can find is the numerous occurences of the number 3 appearing all over the place, one might as well conclude the throw of the dice fell on the 3 side.

If I, for example, said that IDisms are irreconcilable with the ToE, because IDisms hold that the universe is a few thousand years old, chances are someone will claim that just today, ID doesn't involve a timeline.

The constant moving of goalposts bugs the hell out of me, but hey... We're talking pointless superstitions, so it's to be expected.

Actually, THAT part of their behaviour can be said to have some scientific merit. Adapting your hypothesis if it turns out to be incompatible with the facts is good behaviour[tm].

Who knows... in a few years ID might have "evolved" sofar it actually is the ToE.

Actually, THAT part of their behaviour can be said to have some scientific merit. Adapting your hypothesis if it turns out to be incompatible with the facts is good behaviour[tm].If it was consistent & persistent, then yes. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case.Who knows... in a few years ID might have "evolved" sofar it actually is the ToE.I was considering making some sort of joke about creationism being the the most rapid example of evolution in motion known to man, but I can't shake the feeling that some would fail to see the humour.

As a side note, the Cambrian explosion has a good evolutionary explanation. Near the end of the precambrian, active multicellular predators started to show up, and thus the prey began to adapt in order to survive. The big burst of evolution was due to the predator / prey adaption cycle kicking into high gear. Things settled down into an equilibrium later on as active predators became a standard part of most ecosystems. Throw in climatic change and the breakup of Rodinia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodinia) to spread and isolate groups of critters and you've got a recipe for mass speciation and adaption.

These are shown by the fossil records, geological samplings, and plate tectonics.

If it was consistent & persistent, then yes. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case.I was considering making some sort of joke about creationism being the the most rapid example of evolution in motion known to man, but I can't shake the feeling that some would fail to see the humour.
The book The Tower of Babel (I've lost my copy & forgotten the author's name but not before reading & appreciating it) actually starts with the sentence "Creationism is evolving."

Heres a site I found bout the tests.... http://www.human-evolution.org/intelligent_design.php

*snip*

Hmm yet again talk; no data. I keep hearing about experiments but I can't find them.

Guess they don't want them to go through Peer review.

As to the rest?

Cromotar covered it so there is not much more to add....

Please, show me one proponent of Intelligent Design Theory who is not a christian. We are not talking creation story/myth, we are talking about a scientific theory, here.

My observation is that only Christian push the idea of ID.

Actually; Jonathan Wells is a Moonie. ;)

Actually; Jonathan Wells is a Moonie. ;)
:eek:

well, build me a rocketship and send me to the moon.

Of course it is untrue. I never suggested a set result, I suggested a path. The starting point, ending point and condition of those points are irrelevant.

Yes, you did suggest a set result. Your goal was to circumnavigate the world. It wasn't just to make a big change in your location, but to finish a very specific path. In other words, you made it directed.

Are you retracting your statements then that small changes will add up to the scale of changes required to support your position?

Hardly. Enough small changes will always add up to big changes. To suggest that they wouldn't is ludicrous.

Both you and Poliwanacraca scoffed at the skepticism leveled at the Micro vs Macro issue and declared it easy with simply additive arithmetic statements. That leads any rational reader to presume that you are justifying macro by demonstrating micro to be true and extrapolating.

Justifying and declaring to be necessarily true are two very different things.

The analogy was never meant to imply that all options are possible. It demonstrates that simple straighht line progession can be easily demonstrated to NOT simply add up to big changes.

Even your own example added up to some pretty huge changes. Enough steps could take you all the way across a continent. That's a pretty big change.

OK, I presumed your sentence was analagous to an organism, not genetic code, but the critique is still valid.

No, it isn't. As I pointed out, and you ignored, all portions of the code need not code for a protein. On top of that, small changes in the code are highly unlikely to make the resulting proteing unusable.

If you mean to represent a single portion of code, then it is imperative that brown cows not be required in the genetic code and that purple perople eaters not be deleterioous and in fact, be an improvement over brown cows.

Not really. As often happens, "the brown cow" might have gotten copied a second time into the code. As long as the first copy stays useful, the second is free to change. "Purple people eaters" need not be an improvement, necessarily, it simply must not be harmful. This is exactly how many genes are believed to have developed. For instance, the multiple globins all seem to have developed from a single beginning gene.

a major task of science is to rule out false causes. if something supernatural is a real cause, then no amount of scientific testing will be able to disprove it - exactly as in cases of natural causation.

The problem is that, by nature of being supernatural, no amount of scientific testing will be able to disprove even a *false* supernatural premise either.


ok... Dempublicents1 nice dodge on the question of the "origins of the universe" according to evoultionary theory.

It wasn't a dodge. It was a statement of fact. Evolutionary theory has absolutely nothing to do with the origins of the universe. It does not, in any way, attempt to explain the origins of the universe. Asking, "How does evolution explain the origins of the universe?" is like asking, "How does gravity explain the taste of ice cream?"

That question was pertinent, as it helped make the case that evolution requires as much faith as ID does.
If you cant test.. observe.. something, for example the Big Bang.. then its requires "faith" to subscribe to it.

The Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution are two completely different theories. Neither is dependent upon the other in any fashion. If the Big Bang theory is incorrect, that does not make evolutionary theory incorrect. If evolutionary theory is incorrect, the Big Bang theory will still stand. They describe two very different phenomena.

Meanwhile, you can test the Big Bang theory. It is done all the time, and it has been modified due to such tests.

Back to the Cambrian explosion... if it took millions of years for special evolution back then to take place.. then, according to the fossil record... in 10 million years you have pretty much every major animal group within that period? (10 million years is a flash of time on the evolutionary time scale)

No one has ever suggested (no one who understands the theory, anyways) that evolution cannot move quickly or slowly, depending on the inputs. In fact, the theory itself states that pressures will push a faster or slower evolutionary path. Meanwhile, what the heck is "special evolution"?

I agree that you dont have to know everything about certain topics or subjects to find it true... I understand how the scientific method tests the ideas for legitimacy... yet scientifically, ID holds up just as well as evolution does.

No, it doesn't. At it's very core, ID is based in a completely untestable assumption, while evolutionary theory is not. It is impossible to disprove ID using science, even if it is incorrect. For that reason, it is simply not scientific.

As for the analogy of the tornado in a junk yard... that analogy was to help convey the idea that something which is dependant upon subparts, inorder to work, is based off an intelligent design.

Now, find a non-man made example of something with subparts that we know was designed.

I'm curious... what would you say about Stonehenge or the Easter Island Monuments? Does it make more sense to believe that time and weather erosion created those monuments? Or did someone design and create those monuments? I think its safe to assume they were created.

The difference, of course, being that we know that human beings exist, and are capable of doing such things. We know this empirically. Do you have empirical evidence of a designer capable of designing the universe, or even just life in general?

Christianity is not the only religion to believe in ID.

Nor is it the only religion to believe in some form of Creation. The difference is that it is pretty much only a subset of fundamentalist Christians who are trying to get their religion taught as science.

Have you ever thought that the two ideas could be reconciled? ID and evolutionism aren't mutually exclussive,

Yes, they are. In fact, the entire "theory" of ID is built upon stating that evolutionary theory must be incorrect.

and science and religion don't have to be contradictory, they can be complimentry.

Indeed, they can. But religion cannot be brought into science without it ceasing to be science.

For example, I believe that organisms originally created by ID can and have actually evolved over time.

And that is fine, as a belief. You wouldn't try to claim that it was science, though, would you?

And we are saying that those who say "God did it" must explain how are we to deduce that God is this designer and not someone else


OK, "someone else" is the designer.
Now "someone else" is God.
God is still the designer.

See how that works?


because evidence suggest there is nobody who designed the universe.

Sure, but this part of your sentence is an entirely different argument than the first part.
If nobody designed the Universe, then there is no God.
That's a fair position to take.
The ID people reject that position because they believe that they see an ordered universe that they believe implies design and then necessarily a designer.

The ID people reject that position because they believe that they see an ordered universe that they believe implies design and then necessarily a designer.

Actually, you've got it backwards. You see, something cannot imply design unless you first assume the existence of a possible designer. Those who support ID do not support it because they have seen evidence of a design which then implied a designer. That would be logically backwards. Instead, they see evidence of design because they have assumed the existence of a designer.

The problem is that, by nature of being supernatural, no amount of scientific testing will be able to disprove even a *false* supernatural premise either.

sure it could. supernatural doesn't mean inscrutable. i suspect you are using 'supernatural' to mean 'untestable even in theory'. but that is not what the word means.

suppose i claimed to have the ability to use supernatural powers to bend spoons. people can - and have - set up all sorts of tests for this sort of power. so far they've been fairly easy to show as false, despite the supernatural claims involved.

The Big Bang is creationism.


Really? Since when? Most creationists attack the Big Bang with only slightly less vim and vigor than they reserve for evolution itself.


That we dont know what the root cause is for anything. And you cant just say God. It is an assumption. You dont KNOW for sure.


If we make the assumption that there is no God, then yes, we don't know the first cause for anything. Root cause is too vague. We're talking about a first cause.

Of course I can't KNOW for sure, that's a given for everyone.


Then if God did not need to be created, that something else didnt either.


Sure. But you're just playing a substitution game and getting no where.
Would it help if we stop calling the First Cause entity "God"? is that tripping you up?


Then how can God carry the rules of his universe over to ours?

Why is God carrying rules anywhere at all???
Besides, if we're talking about an entity that creates an entire universe, it's a given that He can do whatever He wishes.


What makes the assumption of our universes having different rules correct?


The simple fac that you have different universes would lead to that assumption. Correct or not, we can never know, but it's the best assumption.
There's really no need to get hung up on different universes anyways, no one is proposing that right now.


You assume that God exists and God has special properties that are not available to anything else. The bottom line is, if God needs no creator, nothing else does.

No. Once again, you get it out of order.
I don't assume God exists and THEN ascribe to Him special properties.

Let me try a weak analogy.

You assume polar bears exist and you assume they have special properties that other bears do not have. (let's just say white fur to have an example)

I'm saying no, polar bears HAVE white fur, if polar bears exist, they have white fur. If they don't have white fur, then polar bears don't exist, some other bear thing might and maybe it's a Kodiak or Black bear, or something, but not a Polar Bear.

Same thing, if you don't grant that God has these "special properties" then you don't grant that He exists.
That's ok.
It still doesn't mean that if God has no creator, nothing else has a creator either.

Because a universe can start with a throw of a dice just as well as a god desgning planets and sending the plan with payment to Magrathea. So for the Intelligent Design to be true, we need concrete evidence of said intelligence. If the only evidence you can find is the numerous occurences of the number 3 appearing all over the place, one might as well conclude the throw of the dice fell on the 3 side.


??
But, now you don't have a "something else".

You've changed your argument. This may be what you were intending, but it's not what you were saying.

I can't argue with this, because you're right. To accept ID as science, you need that evidence of a designer. They don't have it and can't see any way to get it.
The most ID can muster is what some people believe looks like design in the universe.
To some people, the design they see is strong enough for them to accept that a designer must exist.

By the way, for the record, the "super-intelligent pan-dimensionnal shade of the colour purple" comes from the Hitchiker's Guide to the Universe. A fascinating read I recommend to everyone.

Nitpick from a Hitchhiker's Guide fan: A Hooloovoo is a superintelligent shade of the color blue, not purple. Have a nice day! Yes, that was also a HGTTG reference.

sure it could. supernatural doesn't mean inscrutable. i suspect you are using 'supernatural' to mean 'untestable even in theory'. but that is not what the word means.

suppose i claimed to have the ability to use supernatural powers to bend spoons. people can - and have - set up all sorts of tests for this sort of power. so far they've been fairly easy to show as false, despite the supernatural claims involved.

Oddly enough, I thought that the word usually used by people who purport to bend spoons (among other claims) is "paranormal", not "supernatural".

sure it could. supernatural doesn't mean inscrutable. i suspect you are using 'supernatural' to mean 'untestable even in theory'. but that is not what the word means.

Supernatural means something outside of nature - outside of or uncontrolled by the universe. It is thus, by definition, untestable by science, as science is confined only to the natural.

suppose i claimed to have the ability to use supernatural powers to bend spoons.

If you could have it, unless you are claiming to have some existence outside the universe, it would not be a supernatural power.

You are making the common mistake of assuming that "supernatural" means "unexplained." If human beings had the power to bend spoons with their minds, then that power would still be bound by the rules of our universe, whatever they are. It would simply mean that we were, thus far, incorrect about the abilities of human beings or the laws of physics.

Something that is supernatural, on the other hand, is not bound by the universe or its rules.

Oddly enough, I thought that the word usually used by people who purport to bend spoons (among other claims) is "paranormal", not "supernatural".

It really isn't all that odd. Most people who believe they can bend spoons, or commune with ghosts, or any number of things that people incorrectly use the word "supernatural" for think that these abilities are perfectly natural. They think that ghosts do actually exist within this universe, and we can commune with them. They think that human minds really do have the power, within the rules of the universe, to bend spoons. Thus, they use the term "paranormal", rather than incorectly using the word "supernatural". Unfortunately, enough people have used the word this way that it has entered the public consciousness as meaning "unusual" or "not in line with current thinking", rather than truly meaning "supernatural".

Yes, you did suggest a set result. Your goal was to circumnavigate the world. It wasn't just to make a big change in your location, but to finish a very specific path. In other words, you made it directed.


That was not the intent, nor is it required. If you read that into it, then I retract that portion of it. There is no specific path nor direction other than to keeping going.


Hardly. Enough small changes will always add up to big changes. To suggest that they wouldn't is ludicrous.


Sure, until the small changes can't occur, or until they change backwards.
Enough small changes could "add up" to zero change.
You are taking a very simplistic view here.


Justifying and declaring to be necessarily true are two very different things.


Neither of which are valid.


Even your own example added up to some pretty huge changes. Enough steps could take you all the way across a continent. That's a pretty big change.


Of course.
I specifically set up the example to allow for some significant change.
That does not mean you can assume that because you can walk across a country, you can walk around a world.

Unwarrented extrapolation.


No, it isn't. As I pointed out, and you ignored, all portions of the code need not code for a protein. On top of that, small changes in the code are highly unlikely to make the resulting proteing unusable.


You didn't say "The zdfgsdfhgsdfh brown kjopgbolvpcvoighmn cow" and proceed to play with the bits inbetween. you gave meaningful words in a structured sentence.

You proceeded through progressively more gibberish, which in protein terms, even if it managed to survive the intial small changes, you're adding up to a BIG change (there's someplace that concept works well) long before you get people eaters. The initial code is unusable well before it is usable again.


Not really. As often happens, "the brown cow" might have gotten copied a second time into the code. As long as the first copy stays useful, the second is free to change. "Purple people eaters" need not be an improvement, necessarily, it simply must not be harmful. This is exactly how many genes are believed to have developed. For instance, the multiple globins all seem to have developed from a single beginning gene.

Sure, but you never suggested that in your example.
You changed the initial version, not a copy.
But now we're left with a situation where before we make any significant change, we're obligated to first make a copy and then mutate.
We know that happens in some instances, but it's not what happens regularly.

Actually, you've got it backwards. You see, something cannot imply design unless you first assume the existence of a possible designer. Those who support ID do not support it because they have seen evidence of a design which then implied a designer. That would be logically backwards. Instead, they see evidence of design because they have assumed the existence of a designer.

No, I don't have it backwards.
As long as you are aware that a designer is a possibility to consider you can decide if you see evidence of design.
You don't need to have assumed the designer actually exists first.

That was not the intent, nor is it required. If you read that into it, then I retract that portion of it. There is no specific path nor direction other than to keeping going.

And you could keep going, right until your feet fell off.

Sure, until the small changes can't occur,

If they can't occur, then they won't occur. They are, thus, irrelevant.

or until they change backwards.

There is nothing in evolutionary theory that says something cannot "change backwards", although it is highly unlikely.

Enough small changes could "add up" to zero change.
You are taking a very simplistic view here.

If you have "changes backwards", then you effectively cancel out some changes. Thus, it is as if said changes were never made.

Neither of which are valid.

They are from a scientific point of view. Science itself is based in inductive logic. Extrapolation, unless it can be shown to be invalid, is not unusual. In fact, extrapolation is absolutely necessary for prediction.

Of course.
I specifically set up the example to allow for some significant change.

And you chose a specific significant change.

Unwarrented extrapolation.

Not really. A continent is a land-mass, is it not? You said that you could not circumnavigate the world, because there is water in the way. A continent, on the other hand, you could walk all the way across.

Sure, but you never suggested that in your example.

Sorry if I made too many assumptions about what the readers of my post would and would not know.

But now we're left with a situation where before we make any significant change, we're obligated to first make a copy and then mutate.

No, that is one possibility. It is not the only one. But the analogy can't really be used as easily in the case of actual words, as language is much more complex. In DNA, you will have an ordered sequence of only 4 different "letters". Every three of these is like a "word" that becomes a part of a protein. However, you can generally change at least one of those three and still have the same "word". Often, you can change two of them and still have the same "word". Meanwhile, you can change many of the "words" and still get a perfectly functional protein. Even those "words" that are very important to the protein's function can often be changed with only a slight change in function.

No, I don't have it backwards.
As long as you are aware that a designer is a possibility to consider you can decide if you see evidence of design.
You don't need to have assumed the designer actually exists first.

Yes, you do. You don't have to assume that the designer actually designed, but you do have to assume that something capable of being the designer exists. If you do not first make this assumption, it is logically impossible to find evidence of design, as it is only evidence of design if there is, in fact, a designer.

Oddly enough, I thought that the word usually used by people who purport to bend spoons (among other claims) is "paranormal", not "supernatural".

in my experience the two are used nearly interchangebly - which makes sense because they both express the same concept, namely things outside our normal experience and explanation.

Nitpick from a Hitchhiker's Guide fan: A Hooloovoo is a superintelligent shade of the color blue, not purple. Have a nice day! Yes, that was also a HGTTG reference.


Actually he was the webmaster for 3do. :p

You are making the common mistake of assuming that "supernatural" means "unexplained."

no, that's not it at all. it's more like "contrary to the rules that govern the rest of the universe"

Supernatural means something outside of nature - outside of or uncontrolled by the universe. It is thus, by definition, untestable by science, as science is confined only to the natural.

so what happens if !xu actually does show up and says "go ahead, test me"? do you just say, "sorry, we can't as you're supernatural"? of course not. that's stupid and not at all how science would respond.

no, that's not it at all. it's more like "contrary to the rules that govern the rest of the universe"

In science, we assume that nothing which is within the universe can possibly be or behave in a way "contrary to the rules that govern the universe." It is one of the few fundamental assumptions within the scientific method.

What you really mean - and how it is used in general usage - is "contrary to the rules as we currently understand them to be." Of course, that is a layman's use. In science, we recognize that "the rules as we currently understand them to be," are not infallible, and thus we question them. From a scientific view, something that appeared to be contrary to the rules would not be seen as supernatural. It would be seen as a disproof of the what we thought the rules to be - leading to an alteration in theory.

so what happens if !xu actually does show up and says "go ahead, test me"? do you just say, "sorry, we can't as you're supernatural"? of course not. that's stupid and not at all how science would respond.

From a scientific point of view, if !xu showed up, we would have to assume that !xu is part of the natural universe, and is bound by its rules, whatever they may be. If !xu did something that was contrary to the rules as we currently understand them, we would see that as a disproof of current theory.

In other words, if !xu, showed up, !xu would be presumed to be natural, not supernatural.

In science, we assume that nothing which is within the universe can possibly be or behave in a way "contrary to the rules that govern the universe." It is one of the few fundamental assumptions within the scientific method.

science would not collapse if that assumption was demonstrated to be false. it's hardly fundamental at all since you can just go "nothing can behave contrary to the rules that govern the universe except observed entity x"

From a scientific view, something that appeared to be contrary to the rules would not be seen as supernatural. It would be seen as a disproof of the what we thought the rules to be - leading to an alteration in theory.

but only because science has been extraordinarily good at ruling out all sorts of proposed supernatural causes - it would be insane at this point to automatically jump to the existence of the supernatural when we came up to something strange. if it actually were the case that some thing was supernatural, then it would be perfectly scientific to say so.

In other words, if !xu, showed up, !xu would be presumed to be natural, not supernatural.

any science that would steadfastly be wrong in the face of evidence is not worthy of the name

science would not collapse if that assumption was demonstrated to be false.

Yes, it would. The scientific method relies upon inductive logic, which, itself, only works if we first assume that everything we can observe (ie. the universe) is governed by certain rules.

it's hardly fundamental at all since you can just go "nothing can behave contrary to the rules that govern the universe except observed entity x"

But when do we know the rules of the universe? This is the problem. In science, that which we think to be "the rules" is still under question - and always will be. By your logic, if I found something that, according to the scientific method, would disprove evolutionary theory, I could instead just say, "Oh, well, this one organism doesn't follow the rules of the universe." That isn't, however, how science works. If something contrary to "the rules" is found, then we know that "the rules" are not actually the rules. We were wrong, and we alter our theory.

but only because science has been extraordinarily good at ruling out all sorts of proposed supernatural causes - it would be insane at this point to automatically jump to the existence of the supernatural when we came up to something strange. if it actually were the case that some thing was supernatural, then it would be perfectly scientific to say so.

No, it wouldn't, as science, by definition, cannot be used to describe the supernatural. The minute we get outside of the natural - outside of the ordered universe - inductive logic ceases to be useful.

any science that would steadfastly be wrong in the face of evidence is not worthy of the name

It wouldn't be wrong in the face of evidence. It would simply interpret that evidence in the only way it can - under the assumptions in which it is based - as evidence that "the rules" as they were previously understood were, in fact, wrong.

When we noticed that Newton's Laws were not, in fact, entirely correct, should we have said, "OMFG! IT DOESN.T FOLLOW THE RUlES!! IT MUST BE SUPERNATURAL!!!"

Or were we, in fact, correct to simply realize that Newton's Laws weren't actually the rules. They were simply a close approximation in most cases. We then looked for an alternate theory that was, in fact, consistent with the data.

Your example of !xu would be no different. If !xu broke "the rules", we would be led to the conclusion that we were wrong about them. We would, instead, formulate a theory which incorporated the new data.

Could that theory be wrong? Of course it could, if the fundamental assumptions of a logical process are incorrect, then the conclusion reached is likely to be incorrect as well. If the universe is, in fact, not orderly and governed by specific rules, then science is not an accurate way to study it. Of course, I have seen no reason to believe that it is not.

Ah, I see we're dealing with the conflict between science and mythology again. Since I didn't read the whole thread (I'm just not masochistic enough to do that, I'm afraid), I'll just have to ask the following question: has the almighty and enigmatic FSM, or Flying Spaghetti Monster, already been mentioned? When we're talking about Intelligent Design, the FSM is just as viable as the Almighty one from the bible. It's even possible that the FSM is way better than the biblical God, since Jahweh started his career as a Semitic wind god, while the Flying Spaghetti Monster is way more tasty! Meat balls are an integral part of the body of the FSM... big, tasty balls of meat! All hail the FSM and his juicy balls, origin of all that exists!

Ah, I see we're dealing with the conflict between science and mythology again. Since I didn't read the whole thread (I'm just not masochistic enough to do that, I'm afraid), I'll just have to ask the following question: has the almighty and enigmatic FSM, or Flying Spaghetti Monster, already been mentioned? When we're talking about Intelligent Design, the FSM is just as viable as the Almighty one from the bible. It's even possible that the FSM is way better than the biblical God, since Jahweh started his career as a Semitic wind god, while the Flying Spaghetti Monster is way more tasty! Meat balls are an integral part of the body of the FSM... big, tasty balls of meat! All hail the FSM and his juicy balls, origin of all that exists!

Of course the FSM has been mentioned, but not in quite such loving detail. =)

Hey, what is there NOT to love about the FSM? Nobody ever killed or prosecuted other people in name of the FSM.

Yes, you do. You don't have to assume that the designer actually designed, but you do have to assume that something capable of being the designer exists. If you do not first make this assumption, it is logically impossible to find evidence of design, as it is only evidence of design if there is, in fact, a designer.

No, I don't.

The only assumption is that something capabale of being the designer POSSIBLY exists.

What you keep calling logically impossible is nothing more than your opinion on how to approach the question, or how not to.

Your example of !xu would be no different. If !xu broke "the rules", we would be led to the conclusion that we were wrong about them. We would, instead, formulate a theory which incorporated the new data.

Could that theory be wrong? Of course it could, if the fundamental assumptions of a logical process are incorrect, then the conclusion reached is likely to be incorrect as well. If the universe is, in fact, not orderly and governed by specific rules, then science is not an accurate way to study it. Of course, I have seen no reason to believe that it is not.

if !xu were in fact supernatural, then any theory that held that he wasn't would be false, and almost certainly demonstratably so (otherwise his supernaturalism wouldn't really amount to much). it would still be the case that science is a useful way of knowing about the universe, it would just be forced to include certain additional entities that were able to operate outside of the standard rules and which had been demonstrated to exist. this forms no problem whatsoever for science as an enterprise.

Hey, what is there NOT to love about the FSM? Nobody ever killed or prosecuted other people in name of the FSM.
...yet.

Yes, it would. The scientific method relies upon inductive logic, which, itself, only works if we first assume that everything we can observe (ie. the universe) is governed by certain rules.

induction doesn't stop working if one of the rules governing the universe is that there are a few supernatural entities running around mucking about.

??
But, now you don't have a "something else".

You've changed your argument. This may be what you were intending, but it's not what you were saying.

I can't argue with this, because you're right. To accept ID as science, you need that evidence of a designer. They don't have it and can't see any way to get it.
The most ID can muster is what some people believe looks like design in the universe.
To some people, the design they see is strong enough for them to accept that a designer must exist.
Yes and no.

My argument is: There is many ways that the universe could have been created, only one of them being a design for a purpose.

You seem to trip over my many other theories on how the universe could have been created. An ID proponent has to discredit and find evidence against all these other theories in order for their theory to become the default alternate to evolution.

Nitpick from a Hitchhiker's Guide fan: A Hooloovoo is a superintelligent shade of the color blue, not purple. Have a nice day! Yes, that was also a HGTTG reference.
I said it was inspired from HGTTG. I would never rip a concept from the book without making clear my sources so I decided to make an more obscure reference.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. It's not that it's been many years since I've read it.;)

No, I don't.

The only assumption is that something capabale of being the designer POSSIBLY exists.

Wrong. It has to *actually* exist, or it is impossible for any evidence to be interpreted as evidence of design.

For instance, if I am going to interpret evidence to say that one creature is the offspring of another, I must first assume that the "parent" creature exists. If it does not, then there is no evidence that could possibly lead me to believe that the offspring was its offspring.

Likewise, without assuming the existence of a being capable of being the designer, it is impossible for any evidence to lead to the conclusion that there is a design.

What you are arguing is for a case of circular logic.


if !xu were in fact supernatural, then any theory that held that he wasn't would be false, and almost certainly demonstratably so (otherwise his supernaturalism wouldn't really amount to much).

How would we demonstrate it? We couldn't possibly know that he wasn't simply working by the rules of the universe - rules that we just don't yet understand.

This is the whole point, because science itself is rooted in the universe - and in the assumption that the universe itself works by some set rules that cannot be broken, science cannot be used to examine anything that falls outside of that assumption.

it would still be the case that science is a useful way of knowing about the universe, it would just be forced to include certain additional entities that were able to operate outside of the standard rules and which had been demonstrated to exist. this forms no problem whatsoever for science as an enterprise.

The moment you include that possibility, you can no longer use inductive logic. If you can no longer use inductive logic, you can no longer use the scientific method.

induction doesn't stop working if one of the rules governing the universe is that there are a few supernatural entities running around mucking about.

If the actions of the entities are part of the universal rules, then the entities are nt supernatural. They are natural, and are acting within the rules. We simply don't understand the rules.

Yes and no.

My argument is: There is many ways that the universe could have been created, only one of them being a design for a purpose.

You seem to trip over my many other theories on how the universe could have been created. An ID proponent has to discredit and find evidence against all these other theories in order for their theory to become the default alternate to evolution.



OK, we're tangled up.
You proposed a creator other than God. Something Else.
If what you meant was some other theory, not some other creator, then we're alright now.

ID doesn't have to discredit other theories at all, it needs to find proof in the form of evidence of a designer, if not impossible, nearly so.

Wrong. It has to *actually* exist, or it is impossible for any evidence to be interpreted as evidence of design.

For instance, if I am going to interpret evidence to say that one creature is the offspring of another, I must first assume that the "parent" creature exists. If it does not, then there is no evidence that could possibly lead me to believe that the offspring was its offspring.

Likewise, without assuming the existence of a being capable of being the designer, it is impossible for any evidence to lead to the conclusion that there is a design.

What you are arguing is for a case of circular logic.


Wrong.
There is no circular logic.

To take from your example:
For instance, if I am going to interpret evidence to say that one creature is the offspring of an albino, I must first assume that the "parent" albino creature could possibly exist. I don't need to know that this albino parent ACTUALLY exists.
If I did, it would be a redundant question.

How would we demonstrate it? We couldn't possibly know that he wasn't simply working by the rules of the universe - rules that we just don't yet understand.

the same way we come to scientifically justified beliefs about anything - we run tests to rule out other possibilities. it is always the case that anything could be explained in a different way if the rules were actually different. but different rules have different testable effects. so we'd test for them. !xu, being in fact a supernatural being, would confound all of them.

the fact that there are quite a lot of possibilities you'd have to run through before proving that !xu actually is supernatural is no more a problem then the fact that there are actually an infinite number of possible scientific explanations for anything. all theories have this problem.

The moment you include that possibility, you can no longer use inductive logic.

bullshit. you could induce to your heart's content, you'd just have to add another rule to the set that allows you to make proper inductions. considering how often we induce incorrectly anyway, i see no problem here (the real problem is on the other end - induction isn't so much justified now).

If the actions of the entities are part of the universal rules, then the entities are nt supernatural. They are natural, and are acting within the rules. We simply don't understand the rules.

when has anyone ever held that the supernatural doesn't take part in the natural? this hard and fast divide has no necessary existence - the rules might simply include "...and entity x can do whatever it wants".

the universe would still largely operate by the same old rules, but every once in a while !xu might show up and do something weird - which, since it would in fact be the case, would itself be allowable by the rules of the universe.

science is about describing the emiprical reality of the universe, whatever that may be. in a universe that contains active supernatural forces (which so far doesn't appear to be this one), your version of science would be fundamentally flawed because it would refuse to accept empirical evidence when it conflicted with mere definitions. definitions are just constructs, and if they conflict with what actually is they must be abandoned.


it is better to just leave out a priori rejection of the supernatural in favor of testable consequences. lots of proposed supernatural entities have testable consequences - and so far all of them have failed these tests. this method has worked so well that for educated people who still retain any belief in the actual existence of pixies or whatever, they have pushed them back into the realm of not even affecting the world at all.

why bother ruling something out without checking, when checking seems to do a nice thorough job anyway?

Wrong. It has to *actually* exist, or it is impossible for any evidence to be interpreted as evidence of design.

For instance, if I am going to interpret evidence to say that one creature is the offspring of another, I must first assume that the "parent" creature exists. If it does not, then there is no evidence that could possibly lead me to believe that the offspring was its offspring.

"assuming something to exist" and "actually existing" are different things.

Wrong.
There is no circular logic.

Yes, there is.

To take from your example:
For instance, if I am going to interpret evidence to say that one creature is the offspring of an albino, I must first assume that the "parent" albino creature could possibly exist. I don't need to know that this albino parent ACTUALLY exists.
If I did, it would be a redundant question.

No, but you do have to assume that parents capable of producing an albino creature do exist. You don't have to assume that this creature has an albino parent, but you do have to assume that there is a creature capable of parenting it. Otherwise, no evidence would ever lead you to the conclusion that there was an albino parent.

the same way we come to scientifically justified beliefs about anything - we run tests to rule out other possibilities.

Actually, that isn't how we do things at all in science. What we do is attempt to disprove the hypothesized possibility. If it is not disproven by a given test, it is said to be supported. If it is disproven, well, it is disproven.

Nothing in science is based on "ruling out other possibilities." If it were, we would have to rule out an infinite number of possibilities to even have a preferred theory - an impossibility.

The problem here is that it is impossible to disprove a supernatural explanation. We cannot assume that the supernatural follows any rules, much less the ones that govern the universe. We cannot empirically measure the supernatural. As such, we cannot disprove it. Even if the empirical evidence leads to the exact opposite conclusion, the person positing the involvement of the supernatural could simply say, "But God/!xu/Jupiter doesn't leave behind evidence when he does something!" Since the supernatural is, by definition, not bound by the rules of the universe, there would be no way to counter this.

it is always the case that anything could be explained in a different way if the rules were actually different. but different rules have different testable effects. so we'd test for them. !xu, being in fact a supernatural being, would confound all of them.

Ah, so the "God of the gaps" argument is ok, as long as it is referring to !xu. Gotcha. As long as the rules as we know them don't explain an occurrence or entity, that occurrence or entity is supernatural.

the fact that there are quite a lot of possibilities you'd have to run through before proving that !xu actually is supernatural is no more a problem then the fact that there are actually an infinite number of possible scientific explanations for anything. all theories have this problem.

The difference, of course, is that all scientific theories can be disproven. There are an infinite number of other possibilities, but, if this one is wrong, we can possibly disprove it. "!xu is supernatural," cannot be disproven, as we can not make any empirical claims about the supernatural.

bullshit. you could induce to your heart's content, you'd just have to add another rule to the set that allows you to make proper inductions. considering how often we induce incorrectly anyway, i see no problem here (the real problem is on the other end - induction isn't so much justified now).

Inductive logic can only be used if you first assume a deterministic system - one in which specific rules are followed.

If the universe is run by such rules, it makes logical sense to say, "This happened the same way 1000 times, so it will most likely happen the same way on the 1001st." However, if there is true randomness in the universe - if there are no such rules - there is absolutley no way to make that logical leap. Something could happen the same way 1000000000000000 times, and there would be no reason whatsoever to assume that it would be the same the next time.

when has anyone ever held that the supernatural doesn't take part in the natural?

They haven't. However, from the point of view of science, if the supernatural was interacting with the natural, it would appear to be simply the way the natural works. New empirical data would be worked into the theory.

For instance, take chemistry. Two molecules might come together a certain way because some supernatural deity personally knits them together. However, we can't observe that supernatural deity. Thus, we observe what does happen and come up with hypotheses and theories of how chemicals react with one another. If chemical and reactions are, in fact, the knitting of some deity, our theories are incorrect. However, we would have no way of knowing this.

the universe would still largely operate by the same old rules, but every once in a while !xu might show up and do something weird - which, since it would in fact be the case, would itself be allowable by the rules of the universe.

If it is "allowable by the rules", then it is controlled by the rules, and is thus not supernatural. Thus, the rules themselves would allow for !xu, and !xu would just be part of the natural. The only way that !xu could be supernatural is if he was not bound by the rules of the universe. In other words, the rules of the universe would not allow for his powers. However, that is not something we could measure with science, specifically because science can only be used to examine that which does work by the rules of the universe.

science is about describing the emiprical reality of the universe, whatever that may be. in a universe that contains active supernatural forces (which so far doesn't appear to be this one), your version of science would be fundamentally flawed because it would refuse to accept empirical evidence when it conflicted with mere definitions. definitions are just constructs, and if they conflict with what actually is they must be abandoned.

No, once again, you are completely incorrect. Science would not refuse to accept any empirical evidence. It would accept all the evidence, and would modify its theories to be consistent with all of the evidence. However, since science itself is bound by the assumptions in which it is based, those theories would be based in the assumptions that the universe and everything in it is bound by certain rules which cannot be broken. As per the usual progression of science, when something showed up that appeared to break those rules, we wouldn't say, "SUPERNATURAL!" Instead, we would say, "Oh. I guess we were wrong about the rules, since they have now been disproven by this empirical evidence." If !xu is indeed supernatural and is thus not bound by the rules, the theories thus created would end up being incorrect. They wouldn't tbe incorrect because data was ignored - all empirical evidence would be included. They would be incorrect because the evidence would be interpreted in light of the base assumptions of science - which the creature being supernatural would contradict.

it is better to just leave out a priori rejection of the supernatural in favor of testable consequences.

We aren't talking about "a priori rejection" of anything. When it comes down to it, science cannot test the supernatural. You have admitted as much yourself, finally stating that the only way science could possibly claim that something was supernatural was to test every other infinite possibility first (an impossibility, as we would never know when all other possibilities have been tested). If the supernatural exists, science cannot test it. It might be there, it might not. If science attempts to do so, the evidence obtained will be interpreted in light of the base assumptions of science, and thus will not be seen as supernatural.

why bother ruling something out without checking, when checking seems to do a nice thorough job anyway?

Science has never been used to test the supernatural. It has been used to test the *natural* claims made by those who claimed a supernatural hand. If I said, "God just caused an earthquake," and there was no sign of an earthquake, scientists could say, "There is no empirical evidence of an earthquake occurring." This statement would not, however, make any strides towards disproving the existence of God. At best, it would disprove the statement that God had caused an earthquake.

Of course, they still would not have disproven even that much, as my statement was based in the supernatural. A being not bound by the rules of the universe could cause an earthquake to occur without leaving behind a shred of empirical evidence.

"assuming something to exist" and "actually existing" are different things.

Indeed. I misspoke.

You have to assume that a possible designer exists in order to interpret evidence to mean that something was designed. Otherwise, there is no way to make the logical leap to "design".

This is related to the fact that, in order for a design to exist, there must be a designer who designed it. Thus, in order to be *correct* about design, the designer must actually exist.

FS, let's take another direction.

What empirical evidence could !xu (should he exist) give that would definitively and scientifically demonstrate him to be supernatural? What would he have to do?

Keep in mind, of course, that science does not prove things. It disproves them. So another question would be, what test could science do to attempt to disprove that !xu was supernatural?

No, but you do have to assume that parents capable of producing an albino creature do exist. You don't have to assume that this creature has an albino parent, but you do have to assume that there is a creature capable of parenting it. Otherwise, no evidence would ever lead you to the conclusion that there was an albino parent.


You misread, I didn't say an albino creature, I said offspring of an albino, but it really doesn't matter since you prove my point further down to FS.


Indeed. I misspoke.

You have to assume that a possible designer exists in order to interpret evidence to mean that something was designed. Otherwise, there is no way to make the logical leap to "design".


Key words being, "assume" and "possible" just as I have been saying. There is no need to KNOW that it *actually* exists.


This is related to the fact that, in order for a design to exist, there must be a designer who designed it. Thus, in order to be *correct* about design, the designer must actually exist.

That rather goes without saying.
If anyone is correct about design, the designer must obviously exist, that's the thrust of the entire argument.
The tricky point is proving anyone is correct about design.

Glad we could finally agree, even if it has to be when you address someone other than me.

Key words being, "assume" and "possible" just as I have been saying. There is no need to KNOW that it *actually* exists.

There is a difference between what I am saying: "Assume that a possible designer exists," and what you are saying, which is, "Assume that it is possible that a designer exists."

The difference is that, in the first case, one is assuming that some being capable of doing the designing exists. And this is what one must do before any evidence can lead to the conclusion that something was designed - one must assume that there is an entity capable of such design.

In the second, one is actually doing what science does - saying that it is possible that a designer exists, but we will make no assumptions either way. And because we will make no assumptions, we cannot conclude that something is designed, as such a conclusion would require the assumption that something could design it.

Edited to remove an apparently confusing use of the word "you" to refer to "one", rather than a specific person.

Meanwhile, I never said anything about "KNOWING".

In science, however, even our assumptions, outside of those on which the method itself rests, must be falsifiable and based in empirical evidence. You yourself have admitted that the proponents of ID have no empirical evidence of such a designer. Thus, they are first assuming that such a being exists, and then interpreting evidence in light of that assumption - coming to the conclusion that there is a design.

So, tell me, what empirical evidence do the proponents of ID have that would lead them to assume that a being capable of such design exists?

Since nearly every proponent of ID believes that the designer is God, the process goes like this:

1 - Assume a God capable of designing the universe exists exists (note that this does not mean that you assume God designed anything).
2 - Observe the universe.
3 - Wow! This is cool and I can't explain how it came to be! It must have been designed by God!

Glad we could finally agree, even if it has to be when you address someone other than me.

We don't. You are still saying something other than what I am saying.

I'm saying no, polar bears HAVE white fur, if polar bears exist, they have white fur. If they don't have white fur, then polar bears don't exist, some other bear thing might and maybe it's a Kodiak or Black bear, or something, but not a Polar Bear.Polar Bears don't actually have white fur. It's actually highly unpigmented and essentially translucent, thus diffuses incidental light back out (but absorbs UV, hence why it doesn't look 'shinywhite', and instead is more yellowish) and gives no hint about their underlying black skin except around the nose.

It's a rather interesting adaptain to the arctic conditions it lives within (but not one, I must add before someone tries to make this intended aside tangentially relevant to the original discussion again, that cannot be perfectly well explained as having been derived through chance).

Hmmmm?

What about Albino Alligators?

Hmmmm?

What about Albino Alligators?On toast, or in a casserole?

On toast, or in a casserole?

Just throwing them out since there is all this albino talk.

Evolution can explain them. What about ID? If they were intelligently designed then why? It works against them.

Just throwing them out since there is all this albino talk.

Evolution can explain them. What about ID? If they were intelligently designed then why? It works against them.
God likes to fuck with reptiles?

Creationism. Fundamentalist Christianity masquerading as impartial science. When I first read the reasoning behind ID, I expected everyone to point and laugh at the idiots who invented it. How incredibly wrong I was. :(

God likes to fuck with reptiles?

Kinky.

ID is Creationism without Genesis.

Creationism. Fundamentalist Christianity masquerading as impartial science. When I first read the reasoning behind ID, I expected everyone to point and laugh at the idiots who invented it. How incredibly wrong I was. :(

15 pages later and still going strong. Proof positive that if you ever want to start an argument, stroll into a forum, shout "GOD" at the top of your voice, sit back and watch the fireworks.

And no, I would not regard anything that depends on Judeo-Christian mythology (or any other kind of dogma) to be worth any kind of serious discussion outside of a theology class. Let the flames begin...

Keep in mind, of course, that science does not prove things. It disproves them.

You make this claim about science, and you've made it a number of times, as if it is the gospel truth. Yet, it isn't. It merely based on a Popperesque interpretation of how science operates. That is, it is an interpretation of science amongst other interpretations and you are imposing it upon science. Don't, though, act like it's the truth. No matter how we claim that science operates, it will continue despite the philosophers. Off the top of my head, I can say that science doesn't just disprove things, because a hypothesis is either probably true or probably false, no matter whether it is tested or not. The test of a hypothesis and its result just lets us all know whether it is disproven. Another way of stating this, a hypothesis is true or false independent of our ability to test it, the test just confirms it for us, but doesn't alter its truth value (we can give a truth value of '1' or 'T' just based on a high probability). The truth value is independent. I know that there are many other theories and claims about the confirmation of hypothesis within the philosophy of science. I think I'll go read some over the weekend.

Keep in mind, of course, that science does not prove things. It disproves them.

You make this claim about science, and you've made it a number of times, as if it is the gospel truth. Yet, it isn't. It merely based on a Popperesque interpretation of how science operates. That is, it is an interpretation of science amongst other interpretations and you are imposing it upon science. Don't, though, act like it's the truth. No matter how we claim that science operates, it will continue despite the philosophers. Off the top of my head, I can say that science doesn't just disprove things, because a hypothesis is either probably true or probably false, no matter whether it is tested or not. The test of a hypothesis and its result just lets us all know whether it is disproven. Another way of stating this, a hypothesis is true or false independent of our ability to test it, the test just confirms it for us, but doesn't alter its truth value (we can give a truth value of '1' or 'T' just based on a high probability). The truth value is independent. I know that there are many other theories and claims about the confirmation of hypothesis within the philosophy of science. I think I'll go read some over the weekend.

Keep in mind, of course, that science does not prove things. It disproves them.

You make this claim about science, and you've made it a number of times, as if it is the gospel truth. Yet, it isn't. It merely based on a Popperesque interpretation of how science operates. That is, it is an interpretation of science amongst other interpretations and you are imposing it upon science. Don't, though, act like it's the truth. No matter how we claim that science operates, it will continue despite the philosophers. Off the top of my head, I can say that science doesn't just disprove things, because a hypothesis is either probably true or probably false, no matter whether it is tested or not. The test of a hypothesis and its result just lets us all know whether it is disproven. Another way of stating this, a hypothesis is true or false independent of our ability to test it, the test just confirms it for us, but doesn't alter its truth value (we can give a truth value of '1' or 'T' just based on a high probability). The truth value is independent. I know that there are many other theories and claims about the confirmation of hypothesis within the philosophy of science. I think I'll go read some over the weekend.

Sorry about the repeatition -- very slow computer and I kept hitting post -- I need to learn patience. Sorry.

There is a difference between what I am saying: "Assume that a possible designer exists," and what you are saying, which is, "Assume that it is possible that a designer exists."

The difference is that, in the first case, you are assuming that some being capable of doing the designing exists. And this is what you must do before any evidence can lead to the conclusion that something was designed - you must assume that there is an entity capable of such design.

You can say that as many times as you'd like, it still won't make it true.
That is not a must and you have in no way demonstrated it.
You do have to assume that it is possible, nothing more.
Once something is assumed possible, one can look for evidence of it.


In the second, you are actually doing what science does - saying that it is possible that a designer exists, but we will make no assumptions either way.

Well that's a bit surprising, I'm saying what science does, yet you argue it, how odd.


And because we will make no assumptions, we cannot conclude that something is designed, as such a conclusion would require the assumption that something could design it.


No, you cannot deny an observation because you're afraid of an assumption.
If design can be observed, it will prove a designer regardless of your feeling on assumptions.


Meanwhile, I never said anything about "KNOWING".


Your insistance on it being *actually* true implied it.


In science, however, even our assumptions, outside of those on which the method itself rests, must be falsifiable and based in empirical evidence. You yourself have admitted that the proponents of ID have no empirical evidence of such a designer.

All true.


Thus, they are first assuming that such a being exists, and then interpreting evidence in light of that assumption - coming to the conclusion that there is a design.


You believe they are, but that is not the theory. Are you critiqueing the theory or the people?
The theory is that design can be observed whether one believes a designer exists or not.
And if design exists, by necessity, a designer must exist.


So, tell me, what empirical evidence do the proponents of ID have that would lead them to assume that a being capable of such design exists?


Why would you ask this when you already know I don't believe there to be any empirical evidence? It's just 2 quotes up in this post.



Since nearly every proponent of ID believes that the designer is God, the process goes like this:


What beliefs proponents of ID may hold in addition to ID aren't relevant to ID.

You make this claim about science, and you've made it a number of times, as if it is the gospel truth. Yet, it isn't. It merely based on a Popperesque interpretation of how science operates. That is, it is an interpretation of science amongst other interpretations and you are imposing it upon science. Don't, though, act like it's the truth. No matter how we claim that science operates, it will continue despite the philosophers. Off the top of my head, I can say that science doesn't just disprove things, because a hypothesis is either probably true or probably false, no matter whether it is tested or not. The test of a hypothesis and its result just lets us all know whether it is disproven. Another way of stating this, a hypothesis is true or false independent of our ability to test it, the test just confirms it for us, but doesn't alter its truth value (we can give a truth value of '1' or 'T' just based on a high probability). The truth value is independent. I know that there are many other theories and claims about the confirmation of hypothesis within the philosophy of science. I think I'll go read some over the weekend.

It doesn't disprove things?

Then why are the tests of a hypothesis done with the purpose of disproving it?

You make this claim about science, and you've made it a number of times, as if it is the gospel truth. Yet, it isn't. It merely based on a Popperesque interpretation of how science operates. That is, it is an interpretation of science amongst other interpretations and you are imposing it upon science. Don't, though, act like it's the truth. No matter how we claim that science operates, it will continue despite the philosophers. Off the top of my head, I can say that science doesn't just disprove things, because a hypothesis is either probably true or probably false, no matter whether it is tested or not. The test of a hypothesis and its result just lets us all know whether it is disproven. Another way of stating this, a hypothesis is true or false independent of our ability to test it, the test just confirms it for us, but doesn't alter its truth value (we can give a truth value of '1' or 'T' just based on a high probability). The truth value is independent. I know that there are many other theories and claims about the confirmation of hypothesis within the philosophy of science. I think I'll go read some over the weekend.

The truth value of a hypothesis has no relevance to whether or not the scientific method can "prove" it true. It cannot do so, by the very definition of the scientific method. This is not a matter of subjective interpretation. A hypothesis can be true; it cannot be proven true scientifically. I can be really, really certain that when I drop a coin from my hand, it will fall towards the earth, but there always exists the possibility that this time the coin will spring out of my hand, sprout legs, and do a little tap dance on the table. It's pretty darn unlikely, but I can't prove it won't happen. Neither can I prove that no inanimate object in history has ever sprung onto a table, sprouted legs, and done a tap dance. I can simply say that, to my knowledge, inanimate objects have never done such a thing, and I can logically predict that they will continue to fall towards the earth rather than shuffling off to Buffalo. Similarly, I can say that absolutely every shred of evidence known to evolutionary biologists supports the theory of evolution in its present form, and that there is no logical reason to believe new evidence will crop up to radically contradict said theory, but I still can never, ever, ever prove it or any other theory to be true, by definition. Okay? :)

You make this claim about science, and you've made it a number of times, as if it is the gospel truth. Yet, it isn't. It merely based on a Popperesque interpretation of how science operates.

No, it merely is the fundamental idea behind the scientific method. Doesn't mean all scientists adhere to it; take the earlier example of mathematicians for instance.

But when one uses the scientific method, one tries to find flaws in ideas and conclusions.

Oh noes, this is still going? :(

It was just an argument between me and my brother, which I incidentally lost:(

You make this claim about science, and you've made it a number of times, as if it is the gospel truth. Yet, it isn't.

Yes, it is. It is the very basis of the scientific method. The method is used to disprove hypotheses. If a test does not disprove a hypothesis, we cannot say that the hypothesis is proven, because another test might actually disprove it. At most, we can say it has been supported.

Even the most "proven" of ideas in science seem to have a habit of eventually getting disproven. Of course, that is how science works. We come up with a theory that fits all available data. However, if new data disproves that theory, we modify it or discard it altogether. It's a self-correcting process.

Off the top of my head, I can say that science doesn't just disprove things, because a hypothesis is either probably true or probably false, no matter whether it is tested or not.

Irrelevant. The fact that a hypothesis does have a truth value does not mean that the scientific method can find that truth value in any case. As it is, the scientific method can only be used to find that truth value if the value is false. Otherwise, we just keep on testing.

The test of a hypothesis and its result just lets us all know whether it is disproven.

.....Exactly! But it will never let us know if it is actually proven, as another test might disprove it. It only takes one contradiction to disprove it, but it would take an infinite number of supporting tests to actually prove it.

You can say that as many times as you'd like, it still won't make it true.
That is not a must and you have in no way demonstrated it.
You do have to assume that it is possible, nothing more.
Once something is assumed possible, one can look for evidence of it.

But you said they weren't looking for evidence of a designer, but evidence of DESIGN. Thus, they have to assume that an entity capable of such design exists, as this is the only way that design itself would be possible.

Well that's a bit surprising, I'm saying what science does, yet you argue it, how odd.

"You" was not referring directly to you, considering that the second statement was my statement - one which you have not made. The first was actually yours.

No, you cannot deny an observation because you're afraid of an assumption.
If design can be observed, it will prove a designer regardless of your feeling on assumptions.

Wrong. You are doing this completely logically backwards. Design cannot be observed without first assuming an entity capable of design. Without that assumption, there is no way to make a logical leap from, "This is pretty cool," to "This must have been designed." The designer must come first.

You believe they are, but that is not the theory. Are you critiqueing the theory or the people?

The theory is, "This is really ordered, so it must be designed." The problem is that apparently even the ID proponents don't realize is that you cannot logically state that any evidence - even a great deal of order - leads to the conclusion of design without first assuming a being capable of doing the designing. Without that assumption, there is no design, only order.

The theory is that design can be observed whether one believes a designer exists or not.

Ok, so you are saying that ID theory doesn't follow basic logic? You cannot observe design unless a designer exists. Thus, any interpretation of evidence to say that "design" is present must be based in the assumption that something could do the designing.

And if design exists, by necessity, a designer must exist.

Once again, you are logically backwards. A design cannot exist without a designer. Thus, you cannot conclude that a design exists without first concluding that a designer exists. It doesn't work backwards, because it becomes circular logic at that point.

"This was designed."
"How do you know?"
"It is very ordered."
"How do you know that this order might lead to design?"
"Because there is a being capable of doing the desiging."
"How do you know there is such a being?"
"Because there is design."

*sigh*

Why would you ask this when you already know I don't believe there to be any empirical evidence? It's just 2 quotes up in this post.

If there is no such evidence, then the assumption itself is purely faith-based, and thus cannot be used in science.

What beliefs proponents of ID may hold in addition to ID aren't relevant to ID.

It isn't "in addition to". ID proponents support ID because of their other beliefs. Thus, they are very relevant.


No, it merely is the fundamental idea behind the scientific method. Doesn't mean all scientists adhere to it; take the earlier example of mathematicians for instance.

I would say that, for clarity, if mathematicians don't follow the scientific method (and they don't), then we should refer to them as scientists. Under a very, very broad definition of science, we might be able to, but that would just get confusing. It is best to remember that mathematics is its own logical construct, while the scientific method is another.

But you said they weren't looking for evidence of a designer, but evidence of DESIGN. Thus, they have to assume that an entity capable of such design exists, as this is the only way that design itself would be possible.


No, once again, They DO NOT have to assume that an entity capable of design exists, they have to assume that it is possible that an entity capable of design exists.
That's it.
If they FIND actual EVIDENCE of design, that would lead to a conclusion that a designer entity exists.



"You" was not referring directly to you, considering that the second statement was my statement - one which you have not made. The first was actually yours.


I'll just let you argue with yourself then, and if you decide that you are wrong and still say that I didn't make that statement, then I'll show you the quotes where I did.

Here you go, from Post# 213:

There is a difference between what I am saying: "Assume that a possible designer exists," and what you are saying, which is, "Assume that it is possible that a designer exists."

The difference is that, in the first case, you are assuming that some being capable of doing the designing exists. And this is what you must do before any evidence can lead to the conclusion that something was designed - you must assume that there is an entity capable of such design. In the second, you are actually doing what science does - saying that it is possible that a designer exists, but we will make no assumptions either way.


Once again, you are logically backwards. A design cannot exist without a designer. Thus, you cannot conclude that a design exists without first concluding that a designer exists. It doesn't work backwards, because it becomes circular logic at that point.

"This was designed."
"How do you know?"
"It is very ordered."
"How do you know that this order might lead to design?"
"Because there is a being capable of doing the desiging."


Your "Because" line is not valid.
You can either demonstrate the design, or you cannot. There is no appeal to a designer, because even if you assume that ther eis a designer and that some things are designed, that doesn't prove that the thing under discussion is designed.


It isn't "in addition to". ID proponents support ID because of their other beliefs. Thus, they are very relevant.


Ah, this must be a new science method I never learned. The one where you don't deal with the theory, you attack the beliefs of the people that support the theory.
Maybe we can just label them heretics and end it all there.

Your "Because" line is not valid.
You can either demonstrate the design, or you cannot.

Ok - query: is it actually possible to demonstrate design without assuming the designer ?

Example: here we have a watch. Please demonstrate design.

EDIT: a watch is actually a much better choice in this context, and makes Paley happier.

Ok - query: is it actually possible to demonstrate design without assuming the designer ?

Example: here we have a watch. Please demonstrate design.

EDIT: a watch is actually a much better choice in this context, and makes Paley happier.


Good question.
When we see a watch, we don't question whether there is a designer or not, but we all know that watches are designed, so our bias is substantial.
Does anyone wonder when they see a watch if THIS watch actually had no designer? Why not?
Just because some watches have designers, does that mean that all watches have designers? It sounds like nonsense doesn't it.

If we begin a dig on Mars, what artefacts would we need to find to convince us that there was once intelligent life on Mars that designed our discovered artefacts?
Would we need to assume that life actually existed on Mars in order to decide we have found artefacts, or would it not be enough to assume that it is POSSIBLE that life existed on Mars? And then, if the artefacts hold upto investigation, THEN we can conclude that intelligent life did exist on Mars.

Good question.
When we see a watch, we don't question whether there is a designer or not, but we all know that watches are designed, so our bias is substantial.


Sorry bad example.

For one thing it's easy to find who made since there is a label on them!

You find a made by or a product name on people, then you have an argument.


If we begin a dig on Mars, what artefacts would we need to find to convince us that there was once intelligent life on Mars that designed our discovered artefacts?
Would we need to assume that life actually existed on Mars in order to decide we have found artefacts, or would it not be enough to assume that it is POSSIBLE that life existed on Mars? And then, if the artefacts hold upto investigation, THEN we can conclude that intelligent life did exist on Mars.

Life on mars proves there is a God how?

If IDers can provide a test for God's envolvment then they would redefine science.

Too bad they can't.

Life on mars proves there is a God how?


It doesn't. Why do you ask?

Oh noes, this is still going? :(


You just chucked a snowball down Mt Everest, my friend. The avalanche has yet to settle. ;>

*Hands Dempublicents a flower of sympathy, and goes back to browsing*

No, once again, They DO NOT have to assume that an entity capable of design exists, they have to assume that it is possible that an entity capable of design exists.
That's it.
If they FIND actual EVIDENCE of design, that would lead to a conclusion that a designer entity exists.
Dude, what is a design? Is it something made? Or is it something someone made?

On the watch thing, where does the intelligent designer end and raw material begin? If I see a watch, I don't assume that the metal was created by a designer, I don't assume that the leather strap came from a cow made by a designer, I don't assume that the diamond stud above the 12 was created by a designer.

On the watch thing, where does the intelligent designer end and raw material begin? If I see a watch, I don't assume that the metal was created by a designer, I don't assume that the leather strap came from a cow made by a designer, I don't assume that the diamond stud above the 12 was created by a designer.
Nevertheless, you assume that the leather part is a 'strap', that the diamond is placed where it is for a reason, and that the 1 and the 2 concatenated mean something. These things allow you to detect design.

Design is about meaning.

Nevertheless, you assume that the leather part is a 'strap', that the diamond is placed where it is for a reason, and that the 1 and the 2 concatenated mean something. These things allow you to detect design.

Design is about meaning.
[Heading rapidly off topic] Now that's the fifth time I've seen that word used in three weeks. Yet I've never come across it before in my life.

What's with that?[/off topic]

Nevertheless, you assume that the leather part is a 'strap', that the diamond is placed where it is for a reason, and that the 1 and the 2 concatenated mean something. These things allow you to detect design.

Design is about meaning.
Yes, in a watch. But if you saw a lump of cold hard metal, would you assume a designer?

Nevertheless, you assume that the leather part is a 'strap', that the diamond is placed where it is for a reason, and that the 1 and the 2 concatenated mean something. These things allow you to detect design.

Design is about meaning.
[Heading rapidly off topic] Now that's the fifth time I've seen that word used in three weeks. Yet I've never come across it before in my life.

What's with that?[/off topic]
A brilliant example of meaning --I don't know whether to thank you, or me. :D

Out of my inherent generosity, I'll thank you.

It means that your education is lacking. :D But seriously, I first encountered the term in a programming language, it's not readily apparent elsewhere. In database language, two symbols tagged together are concatenated.

Yes, in a watch. But if you saw a lump of cold hard metal, would you assume a designer?
No, because it has no meaning other than the literal: "a lump of cold, hard metal".

No, because it has no meaning other than the literal: "a lump of cold, hard metal".
Right.

Wait.

How do we disagree?

Right.

Wait.

How do we disagree?
Grossly. :)

The meaning I referred to (but neglected to state) is non-literal.

No, because it has no meaning other than the literal: "a lump of cold, hard metal".
Doesn't that imply, then, that the need for a designer is entirely local to the observer rather than an inherent property of the thing itself?

A brilliant example of meaning --I don't know whether to thank you, or me. :D

Out of my inherent generosity, I'll thank you.

It means that your education is lacking. :D But seriously, I first encountered the term in a programming language, it's not readily apparent elsewhere. In database language, two symbols tagged together are concatenated.
Why thank you.;)

Yeah, the other places it's come up were in some database designs I've been checking. I wondered what it meant. It merely supports my theory that those pesky IT people are developing their own language so they can declare virtual UDI from the rest of humanity in twenty years time.

Alternatively, it reminds me of Thieves' Cant.