The Scientific Merit(s) of Intelligent Design

[.Andy]

Evolution threads vs intelligent design threads are old and busted around here. So let's just focus on Intelligent Design without straying into evolution at all. Pointing to what you perceive as wrong/what you don't understand about evolution does not in any way add merit to intelligent design.

Intelligent design proclaims to be science. To be a science it must stand on it's own merits, explain the natural phenomena and its assertions be backed by observation and experiment. Proponents also emphasise that the christian god is not required for intelligent design, so please no references to the bible or scriptures of any sort.

To quote wikipedia on what constitutes a scientific theory;
In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. For the scientist, "theory" is not in any way an antonym of "fact". For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the general theory of relativity.

A main aim of intelligent design proponents is to have intelligent design taught in schools as science. McCain's new VP pick is all for teaching it in science class. So what exactly makes intelligent design a viable scientific theory?

[Cave Man]

The designs in nature are rarely intelligent. They're frequently Rube Goldberg machines.

[EricNau]

By the very nature of their proposed "theory," there are no scientific merits to intelligent design. Absolutely none.

It's not testable, either by experiment or observation, and certainly has failed to make accurate predictions of the past (in the form of fossil records) and in no way can make predictions of the future.

[OutThere]

Clearly just about everything to do with religion, and specifically 'intelligent design' cannot even be discussed in a scientific framework. Simply stated you can't argue any religious point of view as 'science', because it cannot be tested or observed. That's the problem with 'faith'...it goes against much of what modern science is founded upon. You can't build a body of observable evidence to support the ideas of intelligent design, you can't provide concrete evidence of God's existence, you're just supposed to believe that he exists. As much as Christians would love to mesh their religious beliefs together with science, the differences are irreconcilable.

[Cleverboy]

A main aim of intelligent design proponents is to have intelligent design taught in schools as science. McCain's new VP pick is all for teaching it in science class. So what exactly makes intelligent design a viable scientific theory?Thanks. This question is a maddening one. I realize the concept of Intelligent Design was intended for political purposes, but its upsetting that its rooted in such a stark inability to distinguish itself as an actual set of laws and principles, which can be submitted to scientific study of investigation. Instead... its a generalization based on an observation. While Einstein has been popularly quoted as saying "God does not play dice with the Universe", ID leaps in to concur, without actually adding anything to the discussion except "I agree, but can't tell you why".

~ CB

[Chundles]

Intelligent Design has zero scientific merit. It is not based on science nor the scientific process at all. It should not be taught as a science in the same way that Chemistry should not be taught as a religion.

[djellison]

So what exactly makes intelligent design a viable scientific theory?

Nothing. It's a religious belief - not a scientific theory. Teaching it in science classes is nothing short of brainwashing.

[skunk]

It's not going to be much of a debate if we don't have any dissenters.

[Counterfit]

As much as Christians would love to mesh their religious beliefs together with science, the differences are irreconcilable.

Hold on there a second. Don't blame it on every Christian when the vast majority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution#Christianity) (at least officially) don't go for "Intelligent design".

[nanofrog]

It's not going to be much of a debate if we don't have any dissenters.
Maybe their flame retardant suits are at the cleaners. :p

[Cleverboy]

It's not going to be much of a debate if we don't have any dissenters.Methinks people would rather defend it when they can end all objection by calling the entire matter "Off Topic". My biggest issue discussing it, is that its SO INCREDIBLY vague, that I can't even form an opposing argument in my own head. My AOL screen name wasn't "Indefinite" for nothing... I enjoy routinely arguing with myself on any given issue, but this one has my devil's advocate shrugging and saying, "I got nuthin'." :p

~ CB

[skunk]

No intelligence required, only the will to become and a standing wave in entropic space.

[Sesshi]

The scientific merits probably come solely down to boosting the employability of devoutly Christian yet ultimately insecure geeks who feel a need to justify their existence in the God Space.

The truly righteous wouldn't even get involved in the justification of their beliefs in a scientific manner because for them, the world is the way it is because the Lord made it so. That at least to me is more consistent.

[redwarrior]

By the very nature of their proposed "theory," there are no scientific merits to intelligent design. Absolutely none.

It's not testable, either by experiment or observation, and certainly has failed to make accurate predictions of the past (in the form of fossil records) and in no way can make predictions of the future.
Intelligent Design is not a theory, it is a fact (http://drdino.com/readNews.php?id=53). But I will not debate; my flame retardant suit is at the cleaners.:p

[Cleverboy]

The scientific merits probably come solely down to boosting the employability of devoutly Christian yet ultimately insecure geeks who feel a need to justify their existence in the God Space.I think the scientific merits simply do not exist. The "concept" exists purely as an empty shell to occupy space reserved for competing theories that can be "taught" or "debated" in the school setting. NO ONE else cares about it. Not geeks, not intellectuals, not Christians, not Catholics... no one. The ONLY time it gains interest, even from its supporters, is when someone mentions the teaching of evolution and someone else feels that it undermines their religious beliefs.

Judge Rejects Teaching Intelligent Design
Article Posted December 21, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/education/21evolution.html
Judge Jones said that teaching intelligent design as science in public school violated the First Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits public officials from using their positions to impose or establish a particular religion.

"To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect," Judge Jones wrote. "However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions."

The six-week trial in Federal District Court in Harrisburg gave intelligent design the most thorough academic and legal airing since the movement's inception about 15 years ago, and was often likened to the momentous Scopes case that put evolution on trial 80 years earlier.

Intelligent design posits that biological life is so complex that it must have been designed by an intelligent source. Its adherents say that they refrain from identifying the designer, and that it could even be aliens or a time traveler.

But Judge Jones said the evidence in the trial proved that intelligent design was "creationism relabeled."

The Supreme Court has already ruled that creationism, which relies on the biblical account of the creation of life, cannot be taught as science in a public school.Lawyers for the plaintiffs said at a news conference in Harrisburg that the judge's decision should serve as a deterrent to other school boards and teachers considering teaching intelligent design.

"It's a carefully reasoned, highly detailed opinion," said Richard Katskee, assistant legal director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, "that goes through all of the issues that would be raised in any other school district."

Richard Thompson, the lead defense lawyer for the school board, derided the judge for issuing a sweeping judgment in a case that Mr. Thompson said merely involved a "one-minute statement" being read to students. He acknowledged that his side, too, had asked the judge to rule on the scientific merits of intelligent design, but only because it had to respond to the plaintiffs' arguments. Both Dr. Behe and Dr. Dembski are fellows with the Discovery Institute, a leading proponent of intelligent design.

"I think the big lesson is, let's go to work and really develop this theory and not try to win this in the court of public opinion," Dr. Dembski said. "The burden is on us to produce."In his opinion, Judge Jones traced the history of the intelligent design movement to what he said were its roots in Christian fundamentalism. He seemed especially convinced by the testimony of Barbara Forrest, a historian of science, that the authors of the "Pandas" textbook had removed the word "creationism" from an earlier draft and substituted it with "intelligent design" after the Supreme Court's ruling in 1987.

"We conclude that the religious nature of intelligent design would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child," the judge said. "The writings of leading I.D. proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." Almost three years after this ruling... we're still talking about it, and its as empty an assertion... an alternative theory... as ever. But, don't tell that to the Republican Party in the U.S. I thought, for 2008... this article (below) represented a sad place for us to be:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/30/MNSK12HD6J.DTL
David Campbell switched on the overhead projector and wrote "Evolution" in the rectangle of light on the screen.

He scanned the faces of the sophomores in his Biology I class. Many of them, he knew from years of teaching high school in this Jacksonville suburb, had been raised to take the biblical creation story as truth. His gaze rested for a moment on Bryce Haas, a football player who attended the 6 a.m. prayer meetings of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes in the school gymnasium.

"If I do this wrong," Campbell remembers thinking on that humid spring morning, "I'll lose him."

In February, the Florida Department of Education modified its standards to explicitly require, for the first time, the state's public schools to teach evolution, calling it "the organizing principle of life science." Spurred in part by legal rulings against school districts seeking to favor religious versions of natural history, over a dozen other states have also given more emphasis in recent years to what has long been the scientific consensus: that all of the diverse life forms on Earth descended from a common ancestor, through a process of mutation and natural selection, over billions of years. Such novel... NEW concepts... :rolleyes:

~ CB

[synth3tik]

In Minnesota we just got called out for our lack of science in public schools, now with out expanding science our governor wants intelligent design taught in our schools.

IMO there is a reason the University of Minnesota produces scientists and engineers and North Central which is a Catholic university does not.

[Cleverboy]

Intelligent Design is not a theory, it is a fact (http://drdino.com/readNews.php?id=53). But I will not debate; my flame retardant suit is at the cleaners.:p Oh, my God. This is as bad as the people leafing through statements to identify popular historical figures that were atheists. --Hey, instead of just trying to be validated by association, figure out WHAT "Inteligent Design" actually is. Here's the problem, you can be someone who believes God created the world, and STILL believe in EVOLUTION. It's TRUE! The distinction has to come, where someone disavows evolution and natural selection AND supports the narrative of the creation AND exists as a scientist. Such a tall order is a lot rarer than the distortions on the page you cited. Your unwillingness to "debate" is a shame. It's possible you could sway someone's mind with your reason.

~ CB

[calculus]

Intelligent Design is of course the truth. Just consider for a moment the following...


The raspberry - it's awesome, there is no way that it could have happened by 'accident'

Shoes - these are brilliant too, and have 'design' stamped all over them

Cheesy Chips! The potato and cheese were clearly designed with each other in mind.


I'm sure there are many other examples that people can contribute...

[skunk]

Intelligent Design is not a theory, it is a fact (http://drdino.com/readNews.php?id=53). But I will not debate; my flame retardant suit is at the cleaners.:pI think you'll need a bloody good thesis more than a flame-retardant suit. Come on, don't leave us hanging, Red. :)

[skunk]

I'm sure there are many other examples that people can contribute...Well of course there's also Love and Marriage and Horses and Carriages.

[djellison]

my flame retardant suit is at the cleaners.:p

Is your evidence at the cleaners as well?

[redwarrior]

I think you'll need a bloody good thesis more than a flame-retardant suit. Come on, don't leave us hanging, Red. :)
My God gave me a brain. I will not cast my pearls before swine (not speaking of any of you fine gentlemen, and ladies), nor will I throw myself to the wolves! Carry on; I will be reading.:):rolleyes:

[calculus]

Well of course there's also Love and Marriage and Horses and Carriages.

I believe that you can't have one without the other. Francis told me...

[skunk]

I believe that you can't have one without the other. Francis told me...Don't believe everything you hear: Francis is known for talking out of his Assisi.

[OutThere]

Intelligent Design is not a theory, it is a fact (http://drdino.com/readNews.php?id=53). But I will not debate; my flame retardant suit is at the cleaners.:p

To a creationist, science and the Bible were both authored by God: he therefore has no problem accepting the scientific method of observation to further validate that which he takes on faith.

http://www.drien.com/macrumors/random/gonemad.gif

[calculus]

Don't believe everything you hear: Francis is known for talking out of his Assisi.

I think I'm on to something...

132693

[skunk]

I believe.

The hat says it all.

[dukebound85]

i find these threads amusing

we do not know everything or really anything when it comes down to it. we still do not understand the concept of time or really the origin of gravity (we just know its a function of mass but why?)

we dont know if the universe is infinite or not. we have crazy theories like the big bang, while fits observations, why does that happen at all?

in fact, why is there anything at all? why not just nothingness

we still dont know the true makeup of atoms

we have all these scientists who develop these theories and will defend them like a religion when challenged with new ideas. instead of making new theories, they add loop holes to existing ones. why cant we explain physics at the quantum level with the same physics at the macro level? that alone makes no sense to me and tells me the present theories are bunk

i believe we as humans are incapable of understanding the truth, much like no matter how hard you try, a cockroach will not understand calculus. the inability of not being able to understand does not mean its not real

because of that, i have no issue believing in intelligent design and embrace it

i mean, what's the worst that can happen if you do believe and its not true? i'll tell ya,the same thing as not believing and it not being true. however, what if it was indeed true? what do you have to gain and lose then? quite a different story then

just some food for thought

[calculus]

a cockroach will not understand calculus

Oddly enough, I don't understand a cockroach..

;):p

[Lau]

I think I'm on to something...


:eek:

I think you might be.

When you realise this was a kind of "Voila!", it all clicks into place.

132695

[skunk]

why cant we explain physics at the quantum level with the same physics at the macro level?Actually, we possibly can. Try the Wave Structure of Matter theory.

[dukebound85]

Actually, we possibly can. Try the Wave Structure of Matter theory.

the intent of the point remains though

thanks for the theory, ill have to look into it

[NT1440]

i find these threads amusing

we do not know everything or really anything when it comes down to it. we still do not understand the concept of time or really the origin of gravity (we just know its a function of mass but why?)

we dont know if the universe is infinite or not. we have crazy theories like the big bang, while fits observations, why does that happen at all?

in fact, why is there anything at all? why not just nothingness

we still dont know the true makeup of atoms

we have all these scientists who develop these theories and will defend them like a religion when challenged with new ideas. instead of making new theories, they add loop holes to existing ones. why cant we explain physics at the quantum level with the same physics at the macro level? that alone makes no sense to me and tells me the present theories are bunk

i believe we as humans are incapable of understanding the truth, much like no matter how hard you try, a cockroach will not understand calculus. the inability of not being able to understand does not mean its not real

because of that, i have no issue believing in intelligent design and embrace it

i mean, what's the worst that can happen if you do believe and its not true? i'll tell ya,the same thing as not believing and it not being true. however, what if it was indeed true? what do you have to gain and lose then? quite a different story then

just some food for thought
i dont know about the rest of the people in here, but i cant choose to beleive something because "whats teh wors taht can happen?". Again, science is nothing but ongoing study, so using "we dont understand this or that" does not equate to there being an intelligent creator. Thinking logically, there cannot be some all powerful life form controlling us all, because there is no evidence to back it up.

i want evidence, therefore i cant beleive in ID(iotic thinking)

[EricNau]

i find these threads amusing

we do not know everything or really anything when it comes down to it. we still do not understand the concept of time or really the origin of gravity (we just know its a function of mass but why?)

we dont know if the universe is infinite or not. we have crazy theories like the big bang, while fits observations, why does that happen at all?

in fact, why is there anything at all? why not just nothingness

we still dont know the true makeup of atoms

we have all these scientists who develop these theories and will defend them like a religion when challenged with new ideas. instead of making new theories, they add loop holes to existing ones. why cant we explain physics at the quantum level with the same physics at the macro level? that alone makes no sense to me and tells me the present theories are bunk

i believe we as humans are incapable of understanding the truth, much like no matter how hard you try, a cockroach will not understand calculus. the inability of not being able to understand does not mean its not real

because of that, i have no issue believing in intelligent design and embrace it


Your entire post is a combination of three logical fallacies:


Ad ignorantiam: Just because we may not have an explanation for any given phenomena, doesn't mean you can assume divine intervention. The fact that we do have an alternative and scientific theory to creationism/ID just further weakens your case.

Argument from Personal Incredulity: Just because you can't understand or grasp a given concept, doesn't mean it isn't true.

Non-Sequitur: Your conclusions don't follow the premise. You can't conclude that creationism/ID is valid because we don't understand the spacial structure of the universe or the makeup of atoms (which we do, by the way).


i mean, what's the worst that can happen if you do believe and its not true? i'll tell ya,the same thing as not believing and it not being true. however, what if it was indeed true? what do you have to gain and lose then? quite a different story then

just some food for thought
This isn't about faith in a deity, but about the scientific evidence of a deity. You're more than welcome to believe in any God or gods you wish, but it's not science and as such, cannot be taught in any legitimate science classroom.

[Cave Man]

i find these threads amusing

Me too. Which is why we at the Church of the FSM (http://www.venganza.org/) want our ways introduced in public school science curricula as well.

we do not know everything or really anything when it comes down to it. we still do not understand the concept of time or really the origin of gravity (we just know its a function of mass but why?)

While this may be true in many instances, only science and the application of the scientific method will reveal the truth. Just because we don't know now, does not mean we cannot know. ID makes no such attempt and, by definition, is not science. Indeed, even the founders of contemporary ID recognize this limitation, thus they want to change the definition of science so that they can get ID in the classroom.

in fact, why is there anything at all? why not just nothingness

That's a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

we still dont know the true makeup of atoms

We know the best that we can know, no thanks to religious movements like ID.

we have all these scientists who develop these theories and will defend them like a religion when challenged with new ideas. instead of making new theories, they add loop holes to existing ones.

Scientific theories are all tentative. Scientists realize that and as new facts emerge theories are either revised (i.e., refined) or discarded. I'd like to know a religious organization that would say everything in the Bible is tentative.

why cant we explain physics at the quantum level with the same physics at the macro level? that alone makes no sense to me and tells me the present theories are bunk

Again, just because it isn't currently known doesn't mean it can't be known. New discoveries are made every day. Provided a phenomenon is natural, science can proffer an explanation (or even "I don't know").

because of that, i have no issue believing in intelligent design and embrace it

But there is no scientific basis to ID. Can you point to a single publication in the peer reviewed experimental literature that supports ID to the exclusion of other scientific explanations?

i mean, what's the worst that can happen if you do believe and its not true?

It's completely irrelevant. There are rules for what qualifies as science, and any subject that enters the scientific classroom must have earned its place. Otherwise, why not teach astrology or alchemy? After all, there are still people who believe in those.

[dukebound85]

the point of my post was to point out we dont know the grand workings of the universe

to say for sure there is or is not ID is all speculative

im all for the pursuit of finding the truth dont get me wrong

[Cave Man]

the point of my post was to point out we dont know the grand workings of the universe

But the point of science is to provide natural explanations for natural phenomena. As soon as you offer supernatural explanations, then it's no longer science (and does not belong in the science classroom).

to say for sure there is or is not ID is all speculative

ID is not science. The group that started it (see Republican money man Grover Norquist and the Discovery "Institute") has now come to realize this (see "wedge strategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy)"), so they're now spending their money on convincing state legislators adopt laws that mandate ID in the science classroom. If ID's so strong, why can't they do just one experiment that supports their position? ID isn't science, it's politics.

im all for the pursuit of finding the truth dont get me wrong

Your standards should be higher for what qualifies as science.

[RacerX]

i believe we as humans are incapable of understanding the truth, much like no matter how hard you try, a cockroach will not understand calculus. the inability of not being able to understand does not mean its not realHonestly, just because these things are outside your ability to understand isn't conclusive evidence that human beings in general are so handicapped.

I, for example, do not suffer from a lack of understanding of the concepts of time, gravity and how and why they are intertwined.

Much of what is needed to study those topics are readily available to us, but other topics aren't hampered by our ability to understand them, rather they are at the edges of our ability to interact and observe. General Relativity stands on a solid foundation because most aspects are testable and observable, but theories in areas with incomplete information are both blessed and cursed in that state of a lack of enough information.

Could this be made clear to you?

I'm thinking no... and not for a lack of potential (which, unlike a cockroach, you actually have). No, the problem here is that you've already set your limits. You've said I can know only so much, and no more, and wish to exist within that artificial boundary.

While I think I can understand how that might be comforting to some people, that type of artificial constraint would make me feel claustrophobic. But to each their own. :eek:

[dukebound85]

Honestly, just because these things are outside your ability to understand isn't conclusive evidence that human beings in general are so handicapped.

I, for example, do not suffer from a lack of understanding of the concepts of time, gravity and how and why they are intertwined.

Much of what is needed to study those topics are readily available to us, but other topics aren't hampered by our ability to understand them, rather they are at the edges of our ability to interact and observe. General Relativity stands on a solid foundation because most aspects are testable and observable, but theories in areas with incomplete information are both blessed and cursed in that state of a lack of enough information.

Could this be made clear to you?

I'm thinking no... and not for a lack of potential (which, unlike a cockroach, you actually have). No, the problem here is that you've already set your limits. You've said I can know only so much, and no more, and wish to exist within that artificial boundary.

While I think I can understand how that might be comforting to some people, that type of artificial constraint would make me feel claustrophobic. But to each their own. :eek:

i beg to differ you know the concepts of time. if so what is it? explain why gravity is a function of mass and what comprises it.

these are questions we're are trying to answer. sure we are all familiar with the forces of gravity or the passage of time but we do not know what causes it or what it is at its core...


as far as limits on our understanding, it is obscene to think we can understand it all. all we have to do is look at other forms of life and see their limitations. we are more capable than a chimp which is more capable than a dog and so on. who is to say that we are the end all creature capable of understanding everything? seriously

[NT1440]

as far as limits on our understanding, it is obscene to think we can understand it all. all we have to do is look at other forms of life and see their limitations. we are more capable than a chimp which is more capable than a dog and so on. who is to say that we are the end all creature capable of understanding everything? seriously

..... of course we wont understand everything, but is that an excuse for trying to learn as much as we can? We are gifted (not by god:rolleyes:) with an intelligence that is the highest of any organism on the planet, i think we should use it till we reach our peaks.

none of what you said there had anything to do with ID btw

[.Andy]

i beg to differ you know the concepts of time. if so what is it? explain why gravity is a function of mass and what comprises it.

these are questions we're are trying to answer. sure we are all familiar with the forces of gravity or the passage of time but we do not know what causes it or what it is at its core...


as far as limits on our understanding, it is obscene to think we can understand it all. all we have to do is look at other forms of life and see their limitations. we are more capable than a chimp which is more capable than a dog and so on. who is to say that we are the end all creature capable of understanding everything? seriously
Can we try and stay on topic? You haven't proposed why intelligent design should be considered 'scientific' at all. Instead you're attacking science and the human capactiy for knowledge. This does not in any way add any credence whatsoever to intelligent design. If you want to argue epistemology make your own thread.

[dukebound85]

..... of course we wont understand everything, but is that an excuse for trying to learn as much as we can?
no its not an excuse. im just saying some things will be inherently not able to be understood no matter how hard we try. what these are i dont know


We are gifted (not by god:rolleyes:) with an intelligence that is the highest of any organism on the planet, i think we should use it till we reach our peaks.

you cant say that for sure can you.

none of what you said there had anything to do with ID btw

i know, just replied to a point in another post

[NT1440]

you cant say that for sure can you.




from my personally logical and scientific standpoint i can. but if you believe by all means continue, i beleive people should beleive what they want, as long as they are educated on both sides of an issue/topic

[dukebound85]

Can we try and stay on topic? You haven't proposed why intelligent design should be considered 'scientific' at all. Instead you're attacking science and the human capactiy for knowledge. This does not in any way add any credence whatsoever to intelligent design. If you want to argue epistemology make your own thread.

i was just replying to a point in a previous post about someone saying he understood the concepts of time and gravity..........


im not attacking science, im just saying at this point, science cant explain everything

and human capacity for knowledge is limited, how can it not be?

you are trying to start an argument which all i did was state there are many things that science can not account for. so sorry for the tangent. im sure you have never done such a thing:rolleyes:

i guess my point is is that with science today, ID has no merit. this however does not prevent it from being a real possibility imo

[pooky]

i beg to differ you know the concepts of time. if so what is it? explain why gravity is a function of mass and what comprises it.

I'm not a physicist, but I'm pretty sure Einstein already did the first part. Gravity is a function of mass because gravity is a side-effect of the effect mass has on spacetime. Mass disrupts spacetime; the larger the mass, the larger the disruption.

As for "what comprises it," I think the jury is still out. Some have proposed some sort of particle, "gravitrons" or something like that. Others think they aren't necessary. But (and here's the key part), both have a testable hypothesis. If the particles exist, then there is some series of yet-to-be discovered experiements that will demonstrate this. If they don't, another series of experiments will rule them out and support some other mechanism. They can be disproved. Proposing that a guy with a a white beard is pulling the strings is a nice fairy-tale, but it is not testable, can't be ruled out, and thus is not scientific.

[mactastic]

we have all these scientists who develop these theories and will defend them like a religion when challenged with new ideas. instead of making new theories, they add loop holes to existing ones.
This is complete bollocks. Do you have any proof that "all these scientists" are making loopholes?

[rasmasyean]

Whatever "merit" you wish to give to Intelligent Design, note that it was obviously something made up in the face of science constantly disproving many religious beliefs throughout history. Instead of "traditionally" reinterpreting the "bible" or other equivalent scripture, etc. someone decided to make something that "compromises" between hard science and the existence of a supreme being. This would be a lot harder to disprove or prove hence making it a more "sustainable religion" since it is really vague to begin with in contrast to distinct claims like Earth Centricity, approximate year of Creation, and such. It was likely done in part to gain power and money by making a name and selling books.

Hence, ID is still a (new) religion that is best separated. Perhaps they can offer optional religions courses on it or after-school classes. But to force it upon all the kids is equivalent to selecting say "Christianity" to be taught in all schools. As a matter of fact, Christianity if anything has more grounds to be part of the curriculum since the majority of USA religion representation are based on Christianity. But as one of the main principles behind USA is freedom of religion, you know the rest...

[RacerX]

i beg to differ you know the concepts of time. if so what is it? explain why gravity is a function of mass and what comprises it.You may beg all you want, but you've already imposed your own limitations of your understanding of such things.

these are questions we're are trying to answer. sure we are all familiar with the forces of gravity or the passage of time but we do not know what causes it or what it is at its core...People are engaged in an attempt to unify disparate theories, which may or may not prove to be a waste of effort. That attempt to redefine what is known into alternate terms doesn't negate what is known.

Could I explain to you that gravity is not a force? I doubt it. Could I make it clear to you that the same constraints of the passage of time is why gravitation acts only in one direction? Most likely not. Could I get you to see time, space and mass/energy as geometry? No.

For a true understanding of these things you would need an education in mathematics that you were unwilling to take (as the information is freely available to all who wish to know it). I could outline what courses you should take (or subjects to learn), and in what order, to start reaching a level of understanding needed to have a conversation with you on such a subject, but without that background you really aren't in any position to speak (intellegently) to the subject at hand.

But think about it... you are asking me to define (in a post no less!) what required years of study in both math and physics. If you truly had even the slightest hint at what you are asking, I doubt you would have even made such a request.

You asked "if so what is it?" If you really wanted to know, why would you ask here and now? If you really wanted to know, why haven't you prepared for the answer? Anything I could put in a post would leave you no closer to an answer than you are right now.

as far as limits on our understanding, it is obscene to think we can understand it all. all we have to do is look at other forms of life and see their limitations. we are more capable than a chimp which is more capable than a dog and so on. who is to say that we are the end all creature capable of understanding everything? seriouslyI never said that we can know all. In fact the very idea that we could know everything that there is to know is a frightening concept. Why would we want no mystery in life?

So while it has no scientific foundation, I hope that there is always some unknown for future generations.

[EricNau]

i guess my point is is that with science today, ID has no merit. this however does not prevent it from being a real possibility imo
If creationism/ID has no scientific merit now, there's no reason to assume it ever will. In other words, just because it's a possibility, doesn't mean it should be taught in science classrooms.

As Stephen Jay Gould once said, "In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."

[rasmasyean]

no its not an excuse. im just saying some things will be inherently not able to be understood no matter how hard we try. what these are i dont know


I don't think it's as much of "understanding" than it is about "proving".

For example, you cannot understand gravity or why it's there or how masses attract another mass. But you can prove it exists and how much force it exerts based on some formula.

You can't understand what an atom actually came from but you can prove it exists because you can smash it to created more atoms and fuse it to created one atom and get heat out of it.

[hulugu]

i find these threads amusing

we do not know everything or really anything when it comes down to it. we still do not understand the concept of time or really the origin of gravity (we just know its a function of mass but why?)

we dont know if the universe is infinite or not. we have crazy theories like the big bang, while fits observations, why does that happen at all?

in fact, why is there anything at all? why not just nothingness

we still dont know the true makeup of atoms

we have all these scientists who develop these theories and will defend them like a religion when challenged with new ideas. instead of making new theories, they add loop holes to existing ones. why cant we explain physics at the quantum level with the same physics at the macro level? that alone makes no sense to me and tells me the present theories are bunk

i believe we as humans are incapable of understanding the truth, much like no matter how hard you try, a cockroach will not understand calculus. the inability of not being able to understand does not mean its not real

because of that, i have no issue believing in intelligent design and embrace it

i mean, what's the worst that can happen if you do believe and its not true? i'll tell ya,the same thing as not believing and it not being true. however, what if it was indeed true? what do you have to gain and lose then? quite a different story then

just some food for thought

You're talking about Pascal's Wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascals_wager). Of course, there are a number of philosophical problems with such a wager, including the assumption that one is worshipping the correct deity, but this is basically what you're talking about.

Your entire post is a combination of three logical fallacies:


Ad ignorantiam: Just because we may not have an explanation for any given phenomena, doesn't mean you can assume divine intervention. The fact that we do have an alternative and scientific theory to creationism/ID just further weakens your case.

Argument from Personal Incredulity: Just because you can't understand or grasp a given concept, doesn't mean it isn't true.

Non-Sequitur: Your conclusions don't follow the premise. You can't conclude that creationism/ID is valid because we don't understand the spacial structure of the universe or the makeup of atoms (which we do, by the way).



This isn't about faith in a deity, but about the scientific evidence of a deity. You're more than welcome to believe in any God or gods you wish, but it's not science and as such, cannot be taught in any legitimate science classroom.

Exactly. Every defender of ID immediately goes running out to the Beginning of Everything and then demands that for evolution to be true, you must also be able to simultaneously explain the entirety of existence itself. Of note, no other theory endures such scrutiny.

the point of my post was to point out we dont know the grand workings of the universe

to say for sure there is or is not ID is all speculative

im all for the pursuit of finding the truth dont get me wrong

Yes, but that's not necessary in order to try to understand evolution. You're demanding we explain the workings of the entire office building and the history of architecture when we're really just trying to explain how email works.

....im not attacking science, im just saying at this point, science cant explain everything...

Yes, you are attacking science, by insisting that it must explain everything or the theory of evolution is immediately invalidated. This attacks the very concept of the scientific method.

Once again: Evolution does not explain the beginnings of the universe, the structure of space-time, the relationship between gravity and time, the existence of Dark Matter, or Abiogenesis.

[RacerX]

For example, you cannot understand gravity or why it's there or how masses attract another mass. But you can prove it exists and how much force it exerts based on some formula.Actually, you can. The problem is that when people want an explanation of what something like this is, they want it in terms of something else. Gravitation, time and mass/energy are elemental in there nature (meaning that describing them in terms of something else isn't possible), but understanding what they are (specially with in their own interdependencies) is completely possible.

Easy... no. Understandable... yes. :D




I'd be happy to take another crack at explaining this stuff (if someone wants to start another thread), though the last time I attempted it (http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=1717548&postcount=4) I didn't get a very positive response. :eek:

[hulugu]

....
I'd be happy to take another crack at explaining this stuff (if someone wants to start another thread), though the last time I attempted it (http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=1717548&postcount=4) I didn't get a very positive response. :eek:

That's because any explanation of space-time should include an easy to understand metaphor. If you can have a plucky kid do it even better.

Haven't mathematicians learned anything from Star Trek?

[rasmasyean]

Actually, you can. The problem is that when people want an explanation of what something like this is, they want it in terms of something else. Gravitation, time and mass/energy are elemental in there nature (meaning that describing them in terms of something else isn't possible), but understanding what they are (specially with in their own interdependencies) is completely possible.

Easy... no. Understandable... yes. :D




I'd be happy to take another crack at explaining this stuff (if someone wants to start another thread), though the last time I attempted it (http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=1717548&postcount=4) I didn't get a very positive response. :eek:

Wow! That is so beautiful...that it will take too long to learn how to interpret that...assuming I have the mathematical aptitude. Screw it! It's easier to say that it was just 'designed'. :D

[RacerX]

Wow! That is so beautiful...that it will take too long to learn how to interpret that...assuming I have the mathematical aptitude. Screw it!I honestly think that anyone wanting to learn this can. I started a thread on how to access most of the subjects in math and physics that are at the foundation of this stuff (here (http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=53749)) and further tried to interest people in the ideas and concepts of mathematics behind this type of stuff (here (http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=60509)). Neither attempt was successful, and that was in a forum that I thought would be very open to science. :eek:

I do love sharing this stuff... it is just not always well received when I do.

[rasmasyean]

I honestly think that anyone wanting to learn this can. I started a thread on how to access most of the subjects in math and physics that are at the foundation of this stuff (here (http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=53749)) and further tried to interest people in the ideas and concepts of mathematics behind this type of stuff (here (http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=60509)). Neither attempt was successful, and that was in a forum that I thought would be very open to science. :eek:

I do love sharing this stuff... it is just not always well received when I do.

I disagree. My life experiences tell me that we are all not born equal. Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses built into the genes and altered by their environment. Savant Syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savant_syndrome) can be an example of a case that tips the scale. Incidentally, this happens to underpin one of the the bases of evolution! :D

That's why if there is someone who makes himself feel better by believing that God made gravity or whatever, he can. It may not be necessary for this person to see what you see in those equations for what he needs to do to contribute to the grand scheme of things. Is it worth it if he struggles for decades to accept that definition of gravity instead of spending that time working and supporting his lifestyle and just believing it's supernatural? He may be so good at "making shoes" (vs. theoretical physics) that he puts foot-locker out of business! That's what I believe is the core of freedom of religion.

[SMM]

i find these threads amusing

It must be swell to be so young, and already have all the answers.

we do not know everything or really anything when it comes down to it. we still do not understand the concept of time or really the origin of gravity (we just know its a function of mass but why?)

I get it - you seem to indicate you have all the answers, but it centers around the notion, we cannot/understand them.

we dont know if the universe is infinite or not. we have crazy theories like the big bang, while fits observations, why does that happen at all?

Modern human history is < 10K years old. Why you believe this is sufficient time to answer all of the questions, about the complex intricacies of the universe, completely baffles me. Who told you there is a time table, where if you have not answered a question, you cannot. You call the 'big bank' theory crazy. Well, it is just a theory, based on our knowledge right now. But, science is constantly striving to strengthen, or disprove it. In lieu of that, it certainly is the best answer we have.

in fact, why is there anything at all? why not just nothingness
we still dont know the true makeup of atoms

Because that is not the way it is.

we have all these scientists who develop these theories and will defend them like a religion when challenged with new ideas. instead of making new theories, they add loop holes to existing ones. why cant we explain physics at the quantum level with the same physics at the macro level? that alone makes no sense to me and tells me the present theories are bunk

It sure sounds like you have a general issue with science. I usually see that in fundamentalists, who feel threatened by it.

i believe we as humans are incapable of understanding the truth, much like no matter how hard you try, a cockroach will not understand calculus. the inability of not being able to understand does not mean its not real

I am at a loss to understand this sentence. It so full of pretzel logic, it makes me wonder whether you actually believe it.

because of that, i have no issue believing in intelligent design and embrace it

See previous answer.

i mean, what's the worst that can happen if you do believe and its not true? i'll tell ya,the same thing as not believing and it not being true. however, what if it was indeed true? what do you have to gain and lose then? quite a different story then

What, do you see this as some kind of contest - science vs the bible? Why do you limit yourself to one school of thought, when our knowledge is always improving? However, it is science which constantly seeks knowledge and understanding. Yet, you choose to reject it.

just some food for thought

I am never THAT hungry.


In summary, you reject science with the excuse it has not answered every question. Yet, you embrace a belief system, which has failed to answer even the most fundamental questions. That is a remarkable thing.

[zap2]

Intelligent Design is not a theory, it is a fact (http://drdino.com/readNews.php?id=53). But I will not debate; my flame retardant suit is at the cleaners.:p

that site you linked to called it evolutionism
:D:D:D:D

thats how you tell they are unbiased!

But seriously, there is no debate, claiming not to believe in evolution is similar to claiming to not believe in oxygen or the law of gravity. Its science, cold and hard.



you cant say that for sure can you.


You can't say we weren't created by the FSM, why not worship him?
The burden of proof is on believers!

[dukebound85]

In summary, you reject science with the excuse it has not answered every question. Yet, you embrace a belief system, which has failed to answer even the most fundamental questions. That is a remarkable thing.

i never claim to know all the answers in fact i state we dont know hardly any. can you not see what I'm saying? are you that arrogant? we just have theories that are constantly evolving to fit observations.

we have scientific paradigms in terms of how we fundamentally view the world. heck we used to think the world was flat and that we were the center of the universe and that sound was the fastest barrier one could reach. these are just some examples of trains of thought that used to be believed and now arent

im just saying, theories as we know it now are most likely wrong fundamentally and that we must always account new observations with new theories. this is how science progresses and its great

do i reject science as you say? absolutely not and i do not know where this came from....seriously. all i said is that there may be some concepts that no matter how hard we try, we may never fully know. how can someone not see that? will this stop us from trying to learn it? no and in the process we will learn many things undoubtedly. however me stating this has provoked so many remarks how i am attacking the human capacity to learn and with that i am somewhat amazed. do people on here really think they are capable of 100% understanding and any thought otherwise is on the verge of being lunacy?

i love science, heck its what i studied in college

however, you have no right to tell me religion has not answered big questions. it has answered so many more for me than you know. why you and others feel the need to criticize me for believing in something that to you would never qualify as having evidence is disheartening. im sure someone will post and mock me even further on this point saying how incredible it is that i put my belief in a system that they cant understand. i dont care. if anything religion has turned my life around for the better and if it is ultimately false, i have still gained from it immensely.

[djellison]

it has answered so many more for me than you know. why you and others feel the need to criticize me for believing in something that to you would never qualify as having evidence is disheartening..

I don't criticise. I pity you. How tragic that instead of just admitting we don't understand the whole universe, you have to cling to some fictional story created by people who knew even less than we do now. Religion has answered NO questions regarding our origin, fate, the laws of the universe, the way it all works. Infact, for centuries, religion has attempted to repress the actual answers as man furthers his understanding. It's still happening today - the religious right actively suppressing research into climate change - actively promoting the teaching of religious material in science classes - actively, desperately, trying to push us back to the dark ages. And you're supporting it.

You're living your life on a basis of fairy stories, wives tales and brainwashing. It's tragic. You're living a lie - and worst of all, you're lying to yourself.

Why are you so scared of 'don't know'. Why patch it over with fiction? We don't need 100% understanding. But whatever understanding we do have - you're trying to make it 100% by bring in religious fiction. YOU are demanding 100% understanding - and because science can not provide it - you top up with nonsense. I can live with 1%, 10%, 99% - however much we actually understand - and I'm loving it. Why make up the plot before you've finished the novel.

Religion itself is damaging and I think it is deserving of criticism. People who are unfortunately enough to believe in it - they are simply deserving of pity.

Doug

[EricNau]

we have scientific paradigms in terms of how we fundamentally view the world. heck we used to think the world was flat and that we were the center of the universe and that sound was the fastest barrier one could reach. these are just some examples of trains of thought that used to be believed and now arent

im just saying, theories as we know it now are most likely wrong fundamentally and that we must always account new observations with new theories. this is how science progresses and its great

do i reject science as you say? absolutely not and i do not know where this came from....seriously. all i said is that there may be some concepts that no matter how hard we try, we may never fully know. how can someone not see that? will this stop us from trying to learn it? no and in the process we will learn many things undoubtedly. however me stating this has provoked so many remarks how i am attacking the human capacity to learn and with that i am somewhat amazed. do people on here really think they are capable of 100% understanding and any thought otherwise is on the verge of being lunacy?
It's ironic that you should mention the belief that the earth was flat, a conviction that was never promoted by science, but rather an erroneous assumption by the general populous. However, it was most certainly science which proposed the proper theory of a round earth, which was founded on evidence.

This illustrates perfectly the difference between science and belief: one is based on evidence and the other is not.

(It's also worth noting that the earth was known to be spherical since the time of the ancient greeks, and maintained consistently by all scholars through biblical times, the middle ages, the renaissance, and up until today. The belief that the earth was flat was only held by the least educated.)

[RacerX]

however, you have no right to tell me religion has not answered big questions. it has answered so many more for me than you know. why you and others feel the need to criticize me for believing in something that to you would never qualify as having evidence is disheartening. im sure someone will post and mock me even further on this point saying how incredible it is that i put my belief in a system that they cant understand. i dont care. if anything religion has turned my life around for the better and if it is ultimately false, i have still gained from it immensely. I'm not mocking you, but I'll ask you how you can state that you have answers (gotten from religion) and yet you were so quick to rattle off the following response to me:"i beg to differ you know the concepts of time. if so what is it? explain why gravity is a function of mass and what comprises it."Sure, there was the outside chance that I was just some stranger on the net who didn't actually know what he was talking about... but even if that were the case, how could you make such a statement given what you just said?

Lets say that I hadn't spent years on an education, purposefully geared towards an understanding of these very questions. Let say that I had only ever read some intro/lay person's book on physics and believed that it had unlocked all the mysteries of the universe for me. How is that any different a position than what you are now saying you are in? And why, given the fact that you don't want to be attacked for that position, would you attack someone else who might have been in a position not all that different from you?

I'm not mocking or attacking you, just asking why you wouldn't have made the same considerations for others that you are now asking for for yourself.

[hulugu]

i never claim to know all the answers in fact i state we dont know hardly any. can you not see what I'm saying? are you that arrogant? we just have theories that are constantly evolving to fit observations.

Exactly. And, that's why Creationism (or it's kubuki cousin ID) cannot operate as a scientific theory, because it is fundamentally untestable using the scientific method.

we have scientific paradigms in terms of how we fundamentally view the world. heck we used to think the world was flat and that we were the center of the universe and that sound was the fastest barrier one could reach.

And, the reason we learned these previous paradigms were incorrect was because of the scientific method and a few brave men. The scientists who launched the Bell X-1, for example, didn't appeal to the unknowable. Instead, they tested, thought, and tested some more. And then, the ran experiments trying to understand just what the sound barrier was, why it seemed to impossible to break, and how to correct against it. Realizing that bullets broke the sound barrier rather easily, they designed a plane to follow this shape. And, then the built one and managed to find someone crazy enough to fly it.


do i reject science as you say? absolutely not and i do not know where this came from....seriously. all i said is that there may be some concepts that no matter how hard we try, we may never fully know....

Maybe, but evolution doesn't appear to be a system we can "never fully know" because we can observe it directly and indirectly and thus far our understanding has become increasingly well-defined since Darwin's voyage on the Beagle.

however, you have no right to tell me religion has not answered big questions. it has answered so many more for me than you know. why you and others feel the need to criticize me for believing in something that to you would never qualify as having evidence is disheartening. im sure someone will post and mock me even further on this point saying how incredible it is that i put my belief in a system that they cant understand. i dont care. if anything religion has turned my life around for the better and if it is ultimately false, i have still gained from it immensely.

I'm not to take potshots at your faith, believe in Legba for all I care, but I do think it matters when you insist that Evolution and ID are equivalent paradigms. They are not.

ID is not a fact, and neither is Creationism. They're faith, akin to believing in the Trinity or the grace of the Lotus flower.

[hulugu]

It's ironic that you should mention the belief that the earth was flat, a conviction that was never promoted by science, but rather an erroneous assumption by the general populous. However, it was most certainly science which proposed the proper theory of a round earth, which was founded on evidence.

This illustrates perfectly the difference between science and belief: one is based on evidence and the other is not.

(It's also worth noting that the earth was known to be spherical since the time of the ancient greeks, and maintained consistently by all scholars through biblical times, the middle ages, the renaissance, and up until today. The belief that the earth was flat was only held by the least educated.)

Not necessarily. In Europe, the theory had been broken down by Pliny the Elder and Ptolemy (not to mention Aristotle's and Pythagoras' initial thoughts), but the notion of a Flat Earth was maintained in China up until the Jesuits' arrival in the 17th century.

However, your point remains valid.

[oblomow]

after reading this discussion I can only think of this cartoon.

[alFR]

Intelligent Design is not a theory, it is a fact (http://drdino.com/readNews.php?id=53). But I will not debate; my flame retardant suit is at the cleaners.:p

My God gave me a brain. I will not cast my pearls before swine (not speaking of any of you fine gentlemen, and ladies), nor will I throw myself to the wolves! Carry on; I will be reading.:):rolleyes:

You see, that's the whole problem: by and large, ID advocates won't enter a debate. I hypothesise that it's because they have no evidence and know that by any rational standard they'd lose, but there we go.

FWIW the best thing I've ever read relating to ID is:

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that You do exist, and so therefore, by Your own arguments, You don't. Q.E.D."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

[tjcampbell]

Intelligent Design has zero scientific merit. It is not based on science nor the scientific process at all. It should not be taught as a science in the same way that Chemistry should not be taught as a religion.

EXACTLY!!!!! Now if only the Christians could read something other than their creepy fiction the world would be a lot less crazy.

[tjcampbell]

after reading this discussion I can only think of this cartoon.

That is brilliant!

[.Andy]

You see, that's the whole problem: by and large, ID advocates won't enter a debate. I hypothesise that it's because they have no evidence and know that by any rational standard they'd lose, but there we go.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. When there is a thread mentioning evolution there's a million and one dissenters jumping in with all sorts of weird ideas of what evolution is, the claims it makes, and what constitutes science. How many times have you read someone claiming evolution false but is actually mixing it up with abiogenesis? It's the same ridiculous statements over and over again that they've read in an opinion piece or picked up in an echo chamber. Or even worse propaganda pieces like Expelled. In a recent thread a poster (in all seriousness) asserted there is a mass conspiracy of scientists to oust those from their ranks who believe in intelligent design. It's laughable that such blatant propaganda gets picked up and repeated.

Not in a single thread do supporters of ID ever advance any scientific arguments as to why intelligent design should be considered a science. Even when they've got a thread to do it in. It's always evolution this and evolution that. It's the non-sequitur of if we attack and obfuscate X long enough and hard enough that will make Y true. It fails even the most basic logic.

It's blatantly obvious that intelligent design is just creationism under a different moniker. It's a transparent political movement to try and force christianity into schools to indoctrinate children. The last thing it is is science. The motivation to 'believe' or support ID does not come from a convincing argument based on scientific evidence, it comes from religion. It's the very embodiment of dishonesty coming from those that loudly profess their moral integrity.

[Much Ado]

If people would actually bother to go out and read-up on evolution, how it works and its intricacies then no-one would make the mistake of inventing such an ignorant, insulting and downright ludicrous 'theory' as Intelligent Design.

I'd imagine many of the more well-read Christians around here must laugh at this pathetic 'God-of-the-gaps' theology, which is all it is.

EDIT: Except, as .Andy points out, it's a political creation, so perhaps its advocates know this anyway. And it's not even a God-of-the-gaps theory, as it doesn't operate within any gap in scientific knowledge. Bah!!

[takao]

we dont know if the universe is infinite or not. we have crazy theories like the big bang, while fits observations, why does that happen at all?

crazy theories thought up by catholic priests who proved Einstein wrong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître

[RacerX]

crazy theories thought up by catholic priests who proved Einstein wrong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_LemaîtrePeople forget (or didn't know) that the theory faced a major uphill battle when introduced. When Einstein and Lemaître first met in 1927 Einstein said of Lemaître's theory:"Your calculations are correct, but your grasp of physics is abominable."But 6 years later (and after viewing Hubble's observations) Einstein said of Lemaître's theory:"This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened."The physics community doesn't shift views over night, but when faced with mounting evidence, changes can take place. I, personally, don't care for that slowness, which is why I find the mathematics community so much more engaging. :D

[djellison]

That's a stunning example of why science works. It will look at data. Old data, new data, come up with ways to find ever better data. And then - based on the best data - will try and understand the mechanisms and priciples of the universe.

ID/Creationists ( they're the same nonsense with a different cover ) just go 'It says so in this book'. And that's it. End of debate. It's pathetic.
Doug

[GorillaPaws]

I'm curious to hear what the community thinks about teaching the basics of ID in Science class for the purpose of dissecting the theory to show to students exactly why ID isn't science. I'm thinking this lesson would give students a better understanding of what science is and why ID is pseudoscience. I even think it might be worth the instructional time to make the point of how science doesn't exclude the idea of a creator but simply doesn't get involved with those questions because it's outside the scope of its definition. Perhaps a generation of kids with this knowledge will be smart enough not to try to push ID in public school onto their kids.

I personally think that teaching the reasoning process of good science may be more valuable than a lot of the facts that seem to be the focus of most science education. Additionally, explaining the divisions between the various academic disciplines, particularly philosophy and science would go a long way towards preventing these types of pseudo-scientific intrusions into science. This deficiency may be why there are so many adults who are confused about what science is and are therefore susceptible to the ID advocates.

[TheQuestion]

The only proof against Intelligent Design I can think of is the human spine, and that further proves that if there is a God, he's is a sadist. Going under the knife in three days (for the fourth time in a decade).

[rasmasyean]

If people would actually bother to go out and read-up on evolution, how it works and its intricacies then no-one would make the mistake of inventing such an ignorant, insulting and downright ludicrous 'theory' as Intelligent Design.

I'd imagine many of the more well-read Christians around here must laugh at this pathetic 'God-of-the-gaps' theology, which is all it is.


Not true. It depends on how much you believe in it. More often than not, people have read their own stories rather than the authors, especially when in involves "reasoning" to fill in the gaps. Depending on how rooted you are toward a certain view, you may even dispute the author's explanation, no matter how logical it seems to someone else.

And especially if you read some ideas that come out of "Politics, Religion, Social Issues". People tend to twist the story toward what they want to believe is true. Sometimes seeing an "alternate side" of what are generally accepted as facts. Sort of like "there's more to the story". Heck, a lot of Mac fanatics are like this since where here. Yeah, you know what I'm talking about! ;)

[Cromulent]

Intelligent Design is not a theory, it is a fact (http://drdino.com/readNews.php?id=53). But I will not debate; my flame retardant suit is at the cleaners.:p

That website made me laugh.

Evolutionists have often laughed at this idea, claiming that the 4,400 years between now and when we believe Noah left the ark simply do not allow enough time for such variation to take place within a kind. And yet they believe that in only a few million years, every plant and animal alive on the planet today was produced out of primordial mud.

Bit more than a few million mate. More like over a billion.

Evidence conclusively reveals that variation within a kind can take place in only a matter of decades. Dr. Dmitri Belyaev's work in breeding domesticated silver foxes that produced animals with dog-like characteristics in just forty years is a wonderful example of God's intelligent design in action.

How is that evidence of God's intelligent design?

See, while evolution would tell us that animals gain new genetic information and evolve into entirely different kinds—even though this is not observed in nature

Yes it is. What do you call genetic mutations then? Oh and they don't gain new genetic material it mutates over time. Big difference, but then I wouldn't expect them to understand it.

we do observe an amazing usage of the genetic information that is already present in the cell. In a world of such varying climates and habitats, the importance of the ability to adapt is paramount. And when God crafted the genetic material that would govern the growth of His creatures, the loving, all-knowing Creator also gave them the ability to adjust to their environments to ensure their survival. In this way, God's creatures continue to live their lives, and continue to be living testimonies to the intelligent Designer—God.

What a load of tosh. Despite the fact that humans have different genetics than they did two million years ago (arguably humans did not exist two million years ago but you get the point).

The early scientists—whose ranks include the likes of Galileo, Sir Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, and Robert Boyle—believed in an intelligent Designer/Creator who laid down not only laws of conduct for humanity, but also for nature.

You mean the same Gallieo who was put under house arrest by the Church for heretical beliefs? Belief in God was the norm at that time and certainly did not have the body of evidence against it that it does now. I'm not really surprised they believed in intelligent design especially considering the theory of evolution was not put forward until the mid 1800's.

This search resulted in the revolution of scientific information we now enjoy and the establishment of the major branches of scientific understanding. So the idea that creationists are not scientific is absurd. It mocks the great heritage of creationists that modern science harks back to—and upon whose work modern science now rests. Evolutionists allow evolutionism to govern their exploration of the natural world to the detriment of science, while creationists continue to merely demonstrate how the God of the Bible is also the true Architect of what we call science.

This paragraph just goes to prove why creationists aren't scientific. Science is about having an open mind until facts show that clearly one answer is true. Creationists work from the Bible and then try and fit what they observe into the framework that the Bible provides. This is not a scientific methodology!

[EricNau]

I'm curious to hear what the community thinks about teaching the basics of ID in Science class for the purpose of dissecting the theory to show to students exactly why ID isn't science. I'm thinking this lesson would give students a better understanding of what science is and why ID is pseudoscience. I even think it might be worth the instructional time to make the point of how science doesn't exclude the idea of a creator but simply doesn't get involved with those questions because it's outside the scope of its definition. Perhaps a generation of kids with this knowledge will be smart enough not to try to push ID in public school onto their kids.
In doing so, I'd be afraid that the students would take away the wrong message, and feel that their religious views were being personally attacked. Besides, anything beyond the obligatory one minute "this is why we don't address religion in science" spiel is giving Creationism/ID too much credit.

I personally think that teaching the reasoning process of good science may be more valuable than a lot of the facts that seem to be the focus of most science education. Additionally, explaining the divisions between the various academic disciplines, particularly philosophy and science would go a long way towards preventing these types of pseudo-scientific intrusions into science. This deficiency may be why there are so many adults who are confused about what science is and are therefore susceptible to the ID advocates.
I agree whole heartedly. Skepticism is a priceless tool for students to have from an early age.

[madfresh]

I'm no scientist and know next to nothing about science. But I do find it very interesting that single cells were smart enough, or whatever it may be, to form complex species such as humans over time. I'm not advocating intelligent design, as I am agnostic and not sure, but this is something I wish I had a clear answer on.

[Cromulent]

I'm no scientist and no next to nothing about science. But I do find it very interesting that single cells were smart enough, or whatever it may be, to form complex species such as humans over time. I'm not advocating intelligent design, as I am agnostic and not sure, but this is something I wish I had a clear answer on.

They weren't smart. How could they be? They were single cells. Evolution at the stage was just a bunch of chemical reactions, there was absolutely nothing intelligent in it at all.

[rasmasyean]

I don't criticise. I pity you. How tragic that instead of just admitting we don't understand the whole universe, you have to cling to some fictional story created by people who knew even less than we do now. Religion has answered NO questions regarding our origin, fate, the laws of the universe, the way it all works. Infact, for centuries, religion has attempted to repress the actual answers as man furthers his understanding. It's still happening today - the religious right actively suppressing research into climate change - actively promoting the teaching of religious material in science classes - actively, desperately, trying to push us back to the dark ages. And you're supporting it.

You're living your life on a basis of fairy stories, wives tales and brainwashing. It's tragic. You're living a lie - and worst of all, you're lying to yourself.

Why are you so scared of 'don't know'. Why patch it over with fiction? We don't need 100% understanding. But whatever understanding we do have - you're trying to make it 100% by bring in religious fiction. YOU are demanding 100% understanding - and because science can not provide it - you top up with nonsense. I can live with 1%, 10%, 99% - however much we actually understand - and I'm loving it. Why make up the plot before you've finished the novel.

Religion itself is damaging and I think it is deserving of criticism. People who are unfortunately enough to believe in it - they are simply deserving of pity.

Doug

You are being a little harsh on religion itself. The real purpose for most religions is not the "facts/fiction" in themselves. It's the philosophy by which one ultimately adopts to lead their lives.

For example, to spread conquest in the middle ages to compete for resources, people believed that they served the King who is ordained by God. You swear allegiance to fight to the death or else burn in hell for eternity. Is this bad? It causes people to sacrifice themselves readily for the survival of and propagation of the civilization. As a matter of fact, this is one of the theories of how religion morphed over the centuries as "bishops" and other society leaders changed the "bible/scripture interpretations" to meet the needs of circumstances.

Lets fast forward some centuries. So in modern society there will be have and have-nots. What happens if many more of those have-nots decide that it is OK to kill people for money for survival and even prosperity. Many Religions fill this need of a philosophical foundation to keep order in society. Now you may say that it's just "wrong" to kill for that but when you are desperate, will that notion of going to hell help? It turns out that more of the uneducated are religious as was mentioned. And incidentally, more of the uneducated are have-nots. Not everyone has the opportunity to become a physicist or make tons of money, but we still need to keep order in society.

As the human race advances, there are sectors where religion is counter-productive to the tasks at hand. However, to say that it is absolutely damaging, is not right either. There is more to it's usefulness if you understand more of the economics of the world. If we ever achieve "Star Trek" status when money, food, replicators are all a given, then maybe a "different" philosophical base will have evolved. We are not there yet. :o

[GorillaPaws]

In doing so, I'd be afraid that the students would take away the wrong message, and feel that their religious views were being personally attacked

I think if something like this were to ever be implemented in a curriculum, special emphasis would need to be made about how religion is outside the scope of science, and that science's "mission" isn't to beat up on religion. Perhaps it should be mentioned that many scientists do believe in a creator but that religion and science are like music theory and Latin--separate subjects.

[Much Ado]

Not true. It depends on how much you believe in it. More often than not, people have read their own stories rather than the authors, especially when in involves "reasoning" to fill in the gaps. Depending on how rooted you are toward a certain view, you may even dispute the author's explanation, no matter how logical it seems to someone else.


You what? :confused:

[rasmasyean]

You what? :confused:

All you have to do is look at the world around you. ;)

[GorillaPaws]

You are being a little harsh on religion itself. The real purpose for most religions is not the "facts/fiction" in themselves. It's the philosophy by which one ultimately adopts to lead their lives.

I agree. I think religion is responsible for a large percent of evil done in mankind's history, and that it has the potential to be an incredibly destructive force on a society. I also think that a lot of good has come out of religion and that it would be a mistake to judge religion completely upon the veracity of its claims. Look at the advancements in science/engineering/technology that came out of ancient egypt, would we say that their religion was a bad thing even though it was the underlying motivator behind those achievements.

EDIT: I realize this is getting pretty far off topic. Sorry for that

[Don't panic]

You are being a little harsh on religion itself. The real purpose for most religions is not the "facts/fiction" in themselves. It's the philosophy by which one ultimately adopts to lead their lives.

For example, to spread conquest in the middle ages to compete for resources, people believed that they served the King who is ordained by God. You swear allegiance to fight to the death or else burn in hell for eternity. Is this bad? It causes people to sacrifice themselves readily for the survival of and propagation of the civilization. As a matter of fact, this is one of the theories of how religion morphed over the centuries as "bishops" and other society leaders changed the "bible/scripture interpretations" to meet the needs of circumstances.

Lets fast forward some centuries. So in modern society there will be have and have-nots. What happens if many more of those have-nots decide that it is OK to kill people for money for survival and even prosperity. Many Religions fill this need of a philosophical foundation to keep order in society. Now you may say that it's just "wrong" to kill for that but when you are desperate, will that notion of going to hell help? It turns out that more of the uneducated are religious as was mentioned. And incidentally, more of the uneducated are have-nots. Not everyone has the opportunity to become a physicist or make tons of money, but we still need to keep order in society.

As the human race advances, there are sectors where religion is counter-productive to the tasks at hand. However, to say that it is absolutely damaging, is not right either. There is more to it's usefulness if you understand more of the economics of the world. If we ever achieve "Star Trek" status when money, food, replicators are all a given, then maybe a "different" philosophical base will have evolved. We are not there yet. :o

i partially agree with this view of religion as a "necessary lie", although i see it more as a "useful drag" to slowdown runaway, too radical and possibly destructive views. It works as a 'philosophical buffer' to moderate wild swing between political extremes, and it can provide identity, scope and an anchor, especially for the uneducated.
but this "usefulness" is maintained only when a religion can continuously "evolve" to maintain the medium of the political/social spectrum, but it is strongly reduced -or ceases completely- when religious occupies one end of the spectrum -such as for christian or islamic fundamentalist- where the actual damages greatly outweigh the putative benefits.
the trick is that while there is no underlying necessity for any actual 'divinity', there is a need for people to buy into the lie for the system to work.

[Cromulent]

but this "usefulness" is maintained only when a religion can continuously "evolve" to maintain the medium of the political/social spectrum, but it is strongly reduced -or ceases completely- when religious occupies one end of the spectrum -such as for christian or islamic fundamentalist- where the actual damages greatly outweigh the putative benefits.

True but Christianity is just an evolution of Paganism itself, it shares many characteristics with it including religious holidays and religious figures.

I'm sure in another 2,000 years Christianity will have changed substantially again. I don't have a problem with people believing in religion, after all we are each free to choose our own beliefs. What I do have a problem with is people forcing religion on others. Something, which thankfully has not gained the same kind of acceptance over here as it has in the States. Although from what I have heard we are heading in that direction.

[BoyBach]

To me it's quite simple; creationism belong in the Religious Studies classroom and nowhere near the Science classrooms.

[leekohler]

To me it's quite simple; creationism belong in the Religious Studies classroom and nowhere near the Science classrooms.

Thank you. I don't know why that's so hard for so many to understand.

[t0mat0]

True but Christianity is just an evolution of Paganism itself, it shares many characteristics with it including religious holidays and religious figures.

I'm sure in another 2,000 years Christianity will have changed substantially again. I don't have a problem with people believing in religion, after all we are each free to choose our own beliefs. What I do have a problem with is people forcing religion on others. Something, which thankfully has not gained the same kind of acceptance over here as it has in the States. Although from what I have heard we are heading in that direction.

In part because they stole and mimic Pagan ideas. e.g. timing religious festivals etc at the same times - Christmas & Yuletide etc. My view on religion being force on people is like Dawkins/Hicks - its a near crime to be done on a child. Children ain't religious so much as they've been brought up in a religious household.

[calculus]

In part because they stole and mimic Pagan ideas.

They also pinched their moral code from us heathens too. This is one thing that really irks me, except of course that us heathens behave decently because we know it's the right thing whereas Christians do it because they have been told to or are scared of the flames of hell...

[leekohler]

In part because they stole and mimic Pagan ideas. e.g. timing religious festivals etc at the same times - Christmas & Yuletide etc. My view on religion being force on people is like Dawkins/Hicks - its a near crime to be done on a child. Children ain't religious so much as they've been brought up in a religious household.

Agreed. I had it forced on me as a kid. That's the best way to make sure your kid grows up to be an atheist.

[Don't panic]

True but Christianity is just an evolution of Paganism itself, it shares many characteristics with it including religious holidays and religious figures.

I'm sure in another 2,000 years Christianity will have changed substantially again. I don't have a problem with people believing in religion, after all we are each free to choose our own beliefs. What I do have a problem with is people forcing religion on others. ...

i don't see where we disagree :)

as far as "the scientific merits of ID", there are none.
easy as that.

[SpaceMagic]

True but Christianity is just an evolution of Paganism itself, it shares many characteristics with it including religious holidays and religious figures.

I'm sure in another 2,000 years Christianity will have changed substantially again. I don't have a problem with people believing in religion, after all we are each free to choose our own beliefs. What I do have a problem with is people forcing religion on others. Something, which thankfully has not gained the same kind of acceptance over here as it has in the States. Although from what I have heard we are heading in that direction.


I disagree. Christianity doesn't celebrate any religious holidays or figures. That is the churches of christianity. For example, the Roman Catholic church is a big offender. Show me where it says to celebrate the birth or death of Jesus, show me where it says to make one man more holy than any other man (i.e. the pope). You will have a hard time finding it, because it's not there.


As for intelligent design, I think it should be actively pursued by the scientific community. In all experiments you should aim to test the alternative to make sure your test is significant (like a control). We must not forget that Darwin was working to prove God's existence and when he saw his work being used to disprove God he tried to retract everything.

[skunk]

They also pinched their moral code from us heathens too.Not only did they pinch it, but they also added a whole bunch of extraneous material. Why couldn't they just leave it as the Golden Rule ("Do as you would be done by"), which was good enough for countless philosophers and spiritual teachers before, and, in keeping with the premise in Another Thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=546114), will continue to be relevant as long as there are human beings. Everything else is window dressing.

Monotheistic religion is the problem, not religion in general. Until people started thinking their god had a monopoly, everyone could get along. There were no religious wars until monotheism reared its ugly head.

[Cromulent]

I disagree. Christianity doesn't celebrate any religious holidays or figures. That is the churches of christianity. For example, the Roman Catholic church is a big offender. Show me where it says to celebrate the birth or death of Jesus, show me where it says to make one man more holy than any other man (i.e. the pope). You will have a hard time finding it, because it's not there.

It celebrates God :). Just because the Bible does not say something does not mean it is not apart of the religion. This is coming back to evolution of religions again. Or are you claiming that Christmas is not a religious holiday?

As for intelligent design, I think it should be actively pursued by the scientific community. In all experiments you should aim to test the alternative to make sure your test is significant (like a control). We must not forget that Darwin was working to prove God's existence and when he saw his work being used to disprove God he tried to retract everything.

Science already has a perfectly adequate control subject. It is called disbelief or scepticism, oh and you are completely wrong about Darwin.

A little history. Darwin's wife was deeply Christian, in an effort to avoid hurting her he tried not to come out as anti-religious in public but rather wrote in a manner which ignored religion entirely.

[Raid]

The only argument that I can think of for Intelligent Design is that perhaps "God" designed life here to grow and adapt. However the creationist story doesn't exactly say this, and if that's the only reason you believe that Intelligent Design is correct, then how do you reconcile the existence of life that was here before man?

It's too bad most religions force you to 'believe' rather than to 'reflect' and/or 'interpret' the meaning. Most forget that these were stories made to inspire first, and faith comes from that inspiration.

[GorillaPaws]

As for intelligent design, I think it should be actively pursued by the scientific community. In all experiments you should aim to test the alternative to make sure your test is significant (like a control).

Could you give us an example of a scientific experiment (even a hypothetical one would do) where God is the control?

[hulugu]

....and if that's the only reason you believe that Intelligent Design is correct, then how do you reconcile the existence of life that was here before man?...

That was just Beta testing.

Could you give us an example of a scientific experiment (even a hypothetical one would do) where God is the control?

Well, I don't see the problem in controlling for an omniscient and omnipotent entity that exists outside our normal space-time.

Oh wait.

[iJohnHenry]

At the risk of going over old ground (I have been on sabbatical) I would offer Stumbling Design.

In the fullness of time, Mother Nature has tried all sort of permutations and combinations for each creature.

The successful ones go forward. The rest get swallowed-up, literally.

No big mystery really.

Now where all this effort came from, well no one can answer that one. Certainly not religions only a few thousand years old.

[rasmasyean]

It celebrates God :). Just because the Bible does not say something does not mean it is not apart of the religion. This is coming back to evolution of religions again. Or are you claiming that Christmas is not a religious holiday?

What planet are YOU from? Christmas is a retailers holiday. Except they don't get to take off! ;)

[Cave Man]

AIn the fullness of time, Mother Nature has tried all sort of permutations and combinations for each creature. The successful ones go forward. The rest get swallowed-up, literally. No big mystery really.

Just as important (and because of superfecundity, perhaps more important) are the lucky ones. It's pretty evident that genetic drift can have a more profound impact on emergent phenotypes than natural selection.

[Raid]

That was just Beta testing.:) Good one, I laughed out loud at that!

[SMM]

i never claim to know all the answers in fact i state we dont know hardly any. can you not see what I'm saying? are you that arrogant? we just have theories that are constantly evolving to fit observations.

we have scientific paradigms in terms of how we fundamentally view the world. heck we used to think the world was flat and that we were the center of the universe and that sound was the fastest barrier one could reach. these are just some examples of trains of thought that used to be believed and now arent

im just saying, theories as we know it now are most likely wrong fundamentally and that we must always account new observations with new theories. this is how science progresses and its great

do i reject science as you say? absolutely not and i do not know where this came from....seriously. all i said is that there may be some concepts that no matter how hard we try, we may never fully know. how can someone not see that? will this stop us from trying to learn it? no and in the process we will learn many things undoubtedly. however me stating this has provoked so many remarks how i am attacking the human capacity to learn and with that i am somewhat amazed. do people on here really think they are capable of 100% understanding and any thought otherwise is on the verge of being lunacy?

i love science, heck its what i studied in college

however, you have no right to tell me religion has not answered big questions. it has answered so many more for me than you know. why you and others feel the need to criticize me for believing in something that to you would never qualify as having evidence is disheartening. im sure someone will post and mock me even further on this point saying how incredible it is that i put my belief in a system that they cant understand. i dont care. if anything religion has turned my life around for the better and if it is ultimately false, i have still gained from it immensely.

To begin with, I am not arrogant. I also do not criticize others, for their religious beliefs, with a couple exceptions;

1.) I cannot embrace a religion which preaches hate, intolerance, creating a Theocracy in America and/or giving themselves the right, even obligation, to force their dogma on those who do not subscribe to it.

2.) I also distain these mega churches, who's preacher looks at religion as a cash cow. These fakir preachers live like royalty, while their 'flock' can barely pay their bills. Many tithe 10%-25% of their hard-earned money, going without many things, while their preacher wants for nothing, and drives a $250,000 Rolls-Royce. They get their followers whipped into a religious fervor, then 'pass the plate'. They promote their latest book, which "is free, with your love gift of $25, or more".

Notice, I have not made a single reference to an individuals right to worship as they please. My issues are mainly focused on churches and their leaders. But, I am a firm believer in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. So, my opinions seldom extend to members of a congregation. The lone exception is for those who break the law.

If you had just stated your religion believes in ID, so those are my beliefs, you would probably not get a single challenge to that. You certainly would not from me. But, that is not what you chose to do.

Instead you felt it necessary to justify your beliefs, mainly by attacking science (you claim that is not true, however I am not alone in reading your words and interpreting them so say exactly that). You must remember, you are posting in a public forum, where religion and politics are constantly debated. So, if you post things controversial, you are leaving yourself open to challenge.

With that being said, I hope this is enough to let us move on. You and I are miles apart in our beliefs. Maybe we should just leave it at that. :)

[r.j.s]

I remember hearing this audio lecture by some Rabbi, that was also a physicist, in which he explained how the creation theory fits into the big bang and evolution. I can try to find the link, but in short, he said that there were six "days" before the creation of man, but since man had not been created, the time reference wasn't there.

I can't remember all the details, but it took into account the speed of the universe changing after the big bang. It really made a lot of sense.

[Iscariot]

I remember hearing this audio lecture by some Rabbi, that was also a physicist, in which he explained how the creation theory fits into the big bang and evolution. I can try to find the link, but in short, he said that there were six "days" before the creation of man, but since man had not been created, the time reference wasn't there.

I can't remember all the details, but it took into account the speed of the universe changing after the big bang. It really made a lot of sense.

Then he was wrong. If you do not take "days" as it's literal meaning, then you're no longer taking the creation story literally. If you're no longer taking it literally, then, well, you're not longer taking it literally. Why stop there? Especially considering that the big bang, abiogenesis and evolution don't preclude a God of any sort, just an absolute literal interpretation of the bible. God and science are not mutually exclusive.

Also, "physicist" doesn't necessarily mean anything. Kent Hovind has a "Ph. D." which he got from a diploma mill. Incidentally, he's also the creator of that ridiculous website Redwarrior linked (and good Frodo, I hope there's no school teaching that kind of junk). He doesn't even have a basic understanding of what evolution isn't, let alone what it is, and he's certainly no scientist.

[Rodimus Prime]

While I accept intelligent Design as what I believe was done. I do not think it should be taught as a science because it is not.

I view intelligent design as what bridges the gap between creationism and evolution.
The theory of evolution is based on science and belongs in schools. Creationism does not nor does intelligent design because neither are a science.

Like I said I feel some higher being guide the hand of evolution but evolution is the science it is based on. From there the person can make their own theory.

I might like to point out I came to my own conclusion that lined up with what intelligent design claims long before it was really known to me.

It can not beproven or dis proven because it is not a true science.

[Rodimus Prime]

I remember hearing this audio lecture by some Rabbi, that was also a physicist, in which he explained how the creation theory fits into the big bang and evolution. I can try to find the link, but in short, he said that there were six "days" before the creation of man, but since man had not been created, the time reference wasn't there.

I can't remember all the details, but it took into account the speed of the universe changing after the big bang. It really made a lot of sense.


see the way around the "days" part is the "days" is relative to who's time frame. A day to God and a day to human can and more than likely are very different. We are nothing more than a blink of an eye in the passing of time to God.

[Iscariot]

While I accept intelligent Design as what I believe was done. I do not think it should be taught as a science because it is not.

I view intelligent design as what bridges the gap between creationism and evolution.
The theory of evolution is based on science and belongs in schools. Creationism does not nor does intelligent design because neither are a science.

Like I said I feel some higher being guide the hand of evolution but evolution is the science it is based on. From there the person can make their own theory.

I might like to point out I came to my own conclusion that lined up with what intelligent design claims long before it was really known to me.

It can not beproven or dis proven because it is not a true science.

That's not intelligent design, Hot Rod. "Intelligent design" posits that there was no evolution, and that everything was created more or less as is.

[djellison]

I think it should be actively pursued by the scientific community.

How? There's no difference between asking the scientific community to investigate intelligent design and asking them to investigate Lord of the Rings.

Both are just works of fiction found in a book.

[Iscariot]

How? There's no difference between asking the scientific community to investigate intelligent design and asking them to investigate Lord of the Rings.

Both are just works of fiction found in a book.

The battle for Middle Earth was way more bitchin' than the battle for my soul. If ID had any sense, they'd have cast Viggo Mortenson as Noah with an axe named "The Ark".

[tjcampbell]

To me it's quite simple; creationism belong in the Religious Studies classroom and nowhere near the Science classrooms.

Teaching creationism in Religious Studies still means that in one room in each school the kids are being lied to. Wake up people. There's no God, no Jesus, no Ark so just be a good person and don't live to please an invisible master. Duh!!!!!!!!!!!

[r.j.s]

Then he was wrong. If you do not take "days" as it's literal meaning, then you're no longer taking the creation story literally. If you're no longer taking it literally, then, well, you're not longer taking it literally. Why stop there? Especially considering that the big bang, abiogenesis and evolution don't preclude a God of any sort, just an absolute literal interpretation of the bible. God and science are not mutually exclusive.

Also, "physicist" doesn't necessarily mean anything. Kent Hovind has a "Ph. D." which he got from a diploma mill. Incidentally, he's also the creator of that ridiculous website Redwarrior linked (and good Frodo, I hope there's no school teaching that kind of junk). He doesn't even have a basic understanding of what evolution isn't, let alone what it is, and he's certainly no scientist.

Who ever said you had to take it literally? Besides, he did. They were still 24-hour days, there was just no human reference to what time was, and since the universe was still expanding at such a fast pace, time worked differently. I'd listen to the lecture before you decide to throw it out the window based on my summary of it.

I don't know why you automatically feel the need to attack this guy's credentials, without even knowing his name. You really should hear the lecture first.

BTW, his name is Dr. Gerald Schroeder.

The mp3 file can be found here. (http://audio.simpletoremember.com/misc/Dr_Gerald_Schroeder-Genesis_and_the_Big_Bang.mp3)

[Iscariot]

Who ever said you had to take it literally?

Young earth creationists, intelligent design proponents. If you don't take it literally, it pretty much ceases to be intelligent design. This isn't about disproving religion or the bible, it's about specifically one movement in which creation is taken literally and the earth and universe are only a few thousand years old. If you don't take the biblical accounts literally and instead view them spiritually/philosophically/metaphorically, then you're not coming into conflict with the difference between science and religion.

I don't know why you automatically feel the need to attack this guy's credentials, without even knowing his name. You really should hear the lecture first.

I couldn't hear the lecture when you didn't provide a name or link, and your summary was pretty lacklustre. I don't think it's a wise idea to come down on me for supposed assumptions when you didn't really provide any data or information to go off of. Additionally, I didn't automatically attack his credentials, but since we now know who "some Rabbi" is, I will attack his credentials thank you very much. And not automatically, no less. If Dr. Gerald Schroeder has an alternate theory that's worth it's weight, then he would have written some peer reviewed papers. Nothing on IOP, no peer reviewed papers on the net, but he was in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. The peer review process is in large part how science works, evolves and self-corrects, and if you're unable or unwilling to submit to that then it's not science.

His entire lecture can be summed up as "one thousand years ago a text states that "six days" is a parable". Which of course means that it's not scientific, that it's not at odds with science, and that it in fact has almost nothing to do with science, which is what this is ultimately about. Science does not preclude a God involved in creation, only an absolute literal translation of the bible.

[r.j.s]

...

I believe that the creation story found in a JPS translation of the Hebrew bible is a very simplistic view of what happened, which means, that when science finally figures everything out, they can peacefully coexist.

So, what would you call a theory that states evolution is being guided by a higher being?

[r.j.s]

... only an absolute literal translation of the bible.

But which bible? The original Hebrew? King James? New International? Mormon?

[djellison]

So, what would you call a theory that states evolution is being guided by a higher being?

Well - I know what I would call it, but I don't want to be rude.

Surely if one is believing-in-all-powerfull-god Christian, then the patterns in the bottom of my trash-bin, the shape of the cloud outside that looks like a crocodile, the level of charge on my cordless drill, whether this biro will work, and evolution...are simply 'God's work'. It's all just part of the same belief in a 'god'.

'Evolution' is a natural process. Man can play with it (specific species of tomato for example, or traits in dogs, particular breeds of cow, or genetic engineering of disease immune crops). If evolution is under the control of a higher being - then sorry - that being has only got one hand on the handle-bars and we, very very firmly, have our hand on the other.

Incidentally, he/she/it (aka 'god') is an utter bastard for putting my friends dog through surgery last week. I'd rather work of the basis that there is no god, rather than there is one, who is evil and/or incompetent.

[Iscariot]

I believe that the creation story found in a JPS translation of the Hebrew bible is a very simplistic view of what happened, which means, that when science finally figures everything out, they can peacefully coexist.

Never said they couldn't, nor was that the original intent of the thread. The intelligent design movement is trying to establish creationism within science classes in public school.

See my post #106

God and science are not mutually exclusive.

So, what would you call a theory that states evolution is being guided by a higher being?

I would call it anything other than "science" or "theory". "Personal belief" seems fitting.

But which bible? The original Hebrew? King James? New International? Mormon?

It doesn't matter which you choose, none of them are scientific, and none of them belong in a science classroom. Whatever else anyone chooses to glean from these texts is their business.

[r.j.s]

Well - I know what I would call it, but I don't want to be rude.

Surely if one is believing-in-all-powerfull-god Christian, then the patterns in the bottom of my trash-bin, the shape of the cloud outside that looks like a crocodile, the level of charge on my cordless drill, whether this biro will work, and evolution...are simply 'God's work'. It's all just part of the same belief in a 'god'.

Incidentally, he/she/it (aka 'god') is an utter bastard for putting my friends dog through surgery last week.

The way I see it is: God set the rules of nature, all living things follow the rules.

[r.j.s]

It doesn't matter which you choose, none of them are scientific, and none of them belong in a science classroom.

Agreed. I was only hoping to point out that creation shouldn't be taken word for word, as there are too many translations and interpretations.

I see what you are saying, and my beliefs are my beliefs, I am not christian, I was just curious about what a combination of evolution and ID would be.

[djellison]

The way I see it is: God set the rules of nature, all living things follow the rules.

Really? Wow. They're pure evil! Nature is full of battles, fighting, death, pain, suffering, hunting, killing, disease, gang warfare, young cheetah cubs freezing to a slow painfull death when they get seperated from their mother. Old Zebrah hunted to exhaustion by a pack of Lion before living to see its own bowels being eaten, the pigeon chick that falls from a tree and gets killed by a cat.

Anyone who would decide that's the way things should work is an utter bastard. There is much that is remarkable and beautiful in nature - but there is much that is horrific, painfull and barbaric. That's not the work of a designer. It's the work of chaos.

And courtesy of breeding, genetic engineering and medical intervention - we're breaking the rules. Does that mean we get a red card?

[skunk]

If there is a god guiding evolution, he or she is doing a crap job.

[Iscariot]

If there is a god guiding evolution, he or she is doing a crap job.

Maybe with us, but they got it dead on with sharks.

[r.j.s]

Really? Wow. They're pure evil! Nature is full of battles, fighting, death, pain, suffering, hunting, killing, disease, gang warfare, young cheetah cubs freezing to a slow painfull death when they get seperated from their mother. Old Zebrah hunted to exhaustion by a pack of Lion before living to see its own bowels being eaten, the pigeon chick that falls from a tree and gets killed by a cat.

Anyone who would decide that's the way things should work is an utter bastard. There is much that is remarkable and beautiful in nature - but there is much that is horrific, painfull and barbaric. That's not the work of a designer. It's the work of chaos.

I didn't say that is how things should work, I said that's how I believe it does work. That's all, nothing more. A belief in chaos doesn't change the way nature works.


And courtesy of breeding, genetic engineering and medical intervention - we're breaking the rules. Does that mean we get a red card?

That's not breaking the rules. When has a law of nature ever been broken? genetic engineering is still playing by the rules. Medical intervention cannot break any laws of nature either.

[r.j.s]

If there is a god guiding evolution, he or she is doing a crap job.

If it's happening by itself, then we're still screwed, so take your pick - the process is still the same.

[djellison]

If it's happening by itself, then we're still screwed

Who said we're screwed?

[skunk]

If it's happening by itself, then we're still screwed, so take your pick - the process is still the same.I never said we were screwed. For us to be screwed, there has to be an Agency to screw us. As I see it, we are a glorious but transient pustule on the face of the universal standing wave.

[Cromulent]

What planet are YOU from? Christmas is a retailers holiday. Except they don't get to take off! ;)

Oh please. Harvest is an excellent example of a Christian celebration that was stolen from the Pagans.

If you are seriously claiming that Christmas is not a religious holiday then I don't know how we can continue this.

[r.j.s]

Who said we're screwed?

I never said we were screwed. For us to be screwed, there has to be an Agency to screw us. As I see it, we are a glorious but transient pustule on the face of the universal standing wave.

Human beings are screwing themselves.

[Cromulent]

Wow, this thread has brought the Nihilists out in force :).

[skunk]

Human beings are screwing themselves.And each other. It's how we are. Just the occasional selfless interlude for light relief.

[r.j.s]

And each other. It's how we are. Just the occasional selfless interlude for light relief.

Yeah, I thought about rewording it, but decided to let it be.

[Iscariot]

Wow, this thread has brought the Nihilists out in force :).

Get a toe in the mail?

[djellison]

Human beings are screwing themselves.

In what way.

[GorillaPaws]

...I was just curious about what a combination of evolution and ID would be.

I think one could view ID being something like God invented the laws of evolution (they would have to be laws if God invented them;)) because he knew that it would produce the results he desired. Maybe God is tending billions of other planets with other intelligent life forms on them and doesn't want to micro-manage things so evolution was his way of having the cream rise to the top so-to-speak. But such an interpretation would necessitate a "laissez faire" view of God. I think many people hold beliefs along these lines which is fully compatible with modern science's understanding of evolution.

[Don't panic]

Human beings are screwing themselves.

pretty much the base for evolution to work on. ;)

[r.j.s]

I think one could view ID being something like God invented the laws of evolution (they would have to be laws if God invented them;)) because he knew that it would produce the results he desired. Maybe God is tending billions of other planets with other intelligent life forms on them and doesn't want to micro-manage things so evolution was his way of having the cream rise to the top so-to-speak. But such an interpretation would necessitate a "laissez faire" view of God. I think many people hold beliefs along these lines which is fully compatible with modern science's understanding of evolution.

Agreed. That is what I was trying to get at.

Human beings are screwing themselves in many ways, driving towards ultimate destruction. The final means is yet to be seen though.

[GorillaPaws]

Maybe with us, but they got it dead on with sharks.

Evidence to the contrary:

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/594967/who_is_going_to_be_eaten/

[djellison]

driving towards ultimate destruction. The final means is yet to be seen though.

Doom-mongering is so 18th Century :rolleyes:

[r.j.s]

Doom-mongering is so 18th Century :rolleyes:

Then call me old-fashioned. We are each entitled to our own opinion.

[djellison]

I just like to form mine based on facts and evidence.

[skunk]

Human beings are screwing themselves in many ways, driving towards ultimate destruction.Just because homo sapiens sapiens tends to be selfish, ultimate self-destruction is by no means a given. Humans are also self-redeeming. The best and the worst, side by side, and often in the same container. Anything is possible.

[.Andy]

Then call me old-fashioned. We are each entitled to our own opinion.
But some opinions are scientifically based and others are just pure fiction.

Again, this thread is about the scientific merits of intelligent design, not for the religious to illustrate how intelligent design is more easily reconciled with what they arbitrarily have chosen to believe.

So far not a single poster has advanced any argument or evidence that intelligent design has scientific merit. Rather surprising considering how vocal the intelligent design/creationist believers are in evolution threads. It goes to show intelligent design is nothing more than a movement that is palatable to the religious, as science and evidence flies in the face of their beliefs. It's supported with the dishonest motivation of forcing religion onto children.

[dsnort]

Just a few thoughts of my own. (Reaches for flame retardant underwear).

Intelligent Design has no basis in science. It is, in fact, merely Creationism re-labeled. It is not now, nor has it ever been, based in science. It is an article of faith.

Evolution has some basis in science, but as a science, Evolution is a fetid stinking dog turd. It's like the mentally challenged but unnaturally powerful cousin of chemistry and physics.

Much of what is accepted as "cold, hard facts" is often nothing more than some "eminent experts" subjective determination of what some piece of evidence means.

And don't get me started on the theories of why the evidence doesn't look like it should. " I'll take Punctuated Equilibrium as a rationalization for the lack of transitional species in the fossil record for a thousand, Alex".

Evidence that promotes the status quo goes largely unchallenged, while evidence that doesn't fit is often dismissed as a hoax, ( no evidence of hoax required, thank you). It all boils down to this IMO; a scientist is supposed to be a disinterested observer. IMO most evolutionary scientist's seem to have way too vested an interest in the outcome.

But let that be. It is a young science, with special challenges. Maybe one day it will be something worthy. But right now, it doesn't really matter, because at the root of this argument is not science, but philosophy.

IMO, evolution is just a mechanism that describes how something happened, it says nothing about why it happened.

For example, it is the accepted evolutionary thought that giraffes have long necks because sometime in the past a pre-giraffe had a genetic mutation that caused it neck to elongate. It was therefore able to forage higher up in trees, reaching food not available to it's shorter necked brethren. This made it stronger and more able to reproduce, passing on this gene. But why did the gene mutate?

A Theist will tell you the gene mutated because "God stretched forth his hand".

A Materialist will tell you the mutation "was the result of the random interaction of matter", aka "***** happens".

Point being, both the Theist and the Materialist are talking about what they believe, not what they can prove.

Dashes for nuke proof bunker.

[GorillaPaws]

Evolution has some basis in science, but as a science, Evolution is a fetid stinking dog turd. It's like the mentally challenged but unnaturally powerful cousin of chemistry and physics.

Much of what is accepted as "cold, hard facts" is often nothing more than some "eminent experts" subjective determination of what some piece of evidence means.

And don't get me started on the theories of why the evidence doesn't look like it should. " I'll take Punctuated Equilibrium as a rationalization for the lack of transitional species in the fossil record for a thousand, Alex".

Evidence that promotes the status quo goes largely unchallenged, while evidence that doesn't fit is often dismissed as a hoax, ( no evidence of hoax required, thank you). It all boils down to this IMO; a scientist is supposed to be a disinterested observer. IMO most evolutionary scientist's seem to have way too vested an interest in the outcome.

I was never under the impression that there was this massive amount of physical evidence that directly contradicted evolution; I'm assuming you can back up your assertion with some evidence? Furthermore, your point about scientists trying to cram things into a false evolutionary paradigm is just weak. If I made a discovery that seemed to contradict the theory of relativity, I would wouldn't assume it to be proof that relativity is wrong. I'd probably take a close look at my data and my experimental design, because in all likelihood, the problem is with me or my experiment--not with relativity.

[djellison]

A Materialist will tell you the mutation "was the result of the random interaction of matter", aka "***** happens".

Point being, both the Theist and the Materialist are talking about what they believe, not what they can prove.

Utter nonsense.

A meterologist can tell you if it's going to rain tomorrow. They can even tell you how clouds form, what happens inside them.

But they can't give you the exact details of a single rain drop.

A geologist can tell you how a rock on a mountain formed, what the conditions would have been when it was made, how old it is, what it contains and what will eventually happen to its material

But they can't give you the exact life history of a single grain of sand.

A cardiac surgeon can show you a heart, stop it, freeze a patient 20 degrees below normal, give them life with a machine, fix a flaw in that heart, stitch them back up and bring them back to life...

But they can't tell you where a specific blood cell was made.

An evolutionary biologist can tell you how species evolve, they can even show you a family tree of species, how they relate, and show you new species that have evolved within living memory.

But they can't give you the exact details of every single genetic mutation.


Meterologists, Geologists, Cardiac Surgeons and Evolutionary Biologists alike are NOT studying things they 'believe'. They are studying things that are facts.

[Don't panic]

Just a few thoughts of my own. (Reaches for flame retardant underwear).

Intelligent Design has no basis in science. It is, in fact, merely Creationism re-labeled. It is not now, nor has it ever been, based in science. It is an article of faith.

Evolution has some basis in science, but as a science, Evolution is a fetid stinking dog turd. It's like the mentally challenged but unnaturally powerful cousin of chemistry and physics.

Much of what is accepted as "cold, hard facts" is often nothing more than some "eminent experts" subjective determination of what some piece of evidence means.

And don't get me started on the theories of why the evidence doesn't look like it should. " I'll take Punctuated Equilibrium as a rationalization for the lack of transitional species in the fossil record for a thousand, Alex".

Evidence that promotes the status quo goes largely unchallenged, while evidence that doesn't fit is often dismissed as a hoax, ( no evidence of hoax required, thank you). It all boils down to this IMO; a scientist is supposed to be a disinterested observer. IMO most evolutionary scientist's seem to have way too vested an interest in the outcome.

But let that be. It is a young science, with special challenges. Maybe one day it will be something worthy. But right now, it doesn't really matter, because at the root of this argument is not science, but philosophy.

IMO, evolution is just a mechanism that describes how something happened, it says nothing about why it happened.

For example, it is the accepted evolutionary thought that giraffes have long necks because sometime in the past a pre-giraffe had a genetic mutation that caused it neck to elongate. It was therefore able to forage higher up in trees, reaching food not available to it's shorter necked brethren. This made it stronger and more able to reproduce, passing on this gene. But why did the gene mutate?

A Theist will tell you the gene mutated because "God stretched forth his hand".

A Materialist will tell you the mutation "was the result of the random interaction of matter", aka "***** happens".

Point being, both the Theist and the Materialist are talking about what they believe, not what they can prove.

Dashes for nuke proof bunker.

sorry, but your assertions are profoundly incorrect.
There are, indeed, tons of "hard facts" supporting evolution models that are just that: hard facts.
Not subjective philosophical ponderings.
Facts, based on the scientific method.

And don't get me started on the theories of why the evidence doesn't look like it should.
The aren't ways that "the evidence should look like".
The evidence is evidence. it "shouldn't" look like anything.
The conclusions are based on the evidence.
And the evidence points to evolution.
Millions of pieces of evidence.

Now i'll give you what should be a simple task. in front of the millions of pieces of evidence that support evolution, i simply ask you to present me
- one (1) piece of evidence that directly contradicts evolution, and
- one (1) piece of evidence that supports creationism

Finally, the crux of the problem is here:
evolution is just a mechanism that describes how something happened, it says nothing about why it happened.
this is a quite brilliant reduction of the entire issue. the reason evolution doesn't address the "why" is the same reason no other scientific discipline address the "why" in any field:
because there is no "why" in science.
There is only "how".

no amount of evidence will ever answer the "why" question.
The moment you ask "why", you are looking for a phylosophical explanation, not a scientific one.

[Cave Man]

And don't get me started on the theories of why the evidence doesn't look like it should. " I'll take Punctuated Equilibrium as a rationalization for the lack of transitional species in the fossil record for a thousand, Alex".

There are plenty of transitional fossils, particularly for hominids and cetaceans. The latter is the most beautiful example of evolution. Back in the 1970s and '80s a series of fossils were discovered that strongly suggested whales evolved from terrestrial mammals (even-toed ungulates, like cattle). Then with the age of molecular biology, DNA sequencing showed the exact same result - whales are more closely related to cattle than either is to horses (odd-toed ungulates). You have two independent lines of evidence that reach the same conclusion.

For example, it is the accepted evolutionary thought that giraffes have long necks because sometime in the past a pre-giraffe had a genetic mutation that caused it neck to elongate. It was therefore able to forage higher up in trees, reaching food not available to it's shorter necked brethren. This made it stronger...

Evolution isn't about strength, it's about being more efficient at exploiting your environment than your competitors (i.e., other members of your species), or being lucky (genetic drift/founder effect). You've been reading too much creationist literature.

...and more able to reproduce, passing on this gene. But why did the gene mutate?

DNA mutates all the time - even yours. Every DNA polymerase has an inherent mutation rate (for vertebrates it's about 10^-9), plus in the gametes, where all this is only meaningful, we have homologous recombination. There's your 'why'.

Point being, both the Theist and the Materialist are talking about what they believe, not what they can prove.

The mechanisms of mutation have been well described. Evolution occurs. There's no "belief" to it, in the sense that it's just a supposition (like the Bible). It is a cold, hard fact.

[r.j.s]

The mechanisms of mutation have been well described. Evolution occurs.

And yet we try to fight it through medical advances ...

[Cave Man]

And yet we try to fight it through medical advances ...

Would you like to elaborate?

[Don't panic]

Would you like to elaborate?

:confused: +1

[r.j.s]

Medical advances that work to cure diseases and prolong life are working directly against evolution, which is working to rid the species of weakness through said diseases.

Not that medical advances are a bad thing ...

[Don't panic]

Medical advances that work to cure diseases and prolong life are working directly against evolution, which is working to rid the species of weakness through said diseases.

Not that medical advances are a bad thing ...

evolution is not "working to" do anything. As Cave Man said, evolution occurs. but there is no "direction".

on the other hand, we are finalistic beings and there is a concerted effort (well, at least by some) to improve human condition. So in that sense yes, we work 'against' some of evolution's occurrences. But i still don get the "and yet" part.

[zap2]

Medical advances that work to cure diseases and prolong life are working directly against evolution, which is working to rid the species of weakness through said diseases.


:rolleyes:


Its all part of the system...evolution doesn't have a goal, anything we do falls inside the "plan" of evolution, because there isn't a "plan".

Also our medicines get help some people survive, but to say the weak are not getting taken out of our gene pool still wouldn't be true either, the requirements are simple changing, as they tend to do.

[Cave Man]

Medical advances that work to cure diseases and prolong life are working directly against evolution, which is working to rid the species of weakness through said diseases.

This is completely incorrect. Did you read this in some creationist literature? First, most diseases have no genetic basis (thus no selection) and getting them is due largely to chance. Second, some genetic diseases occur because of natural selection. Examples of these include sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis.

[dsnort]

Man, thats the last time I'll post in one of these threads and then go out to eat!:eek:

I'll try to keep this short.

I was never under the impression that there was this massive amount of physical evidence that directly contradicted evolution;

I never said there was a massive amount of contradictory evidence, I said evidence that challenges the status quo is denounced rapidly while evidence that supports the status quo is accepted and heralded, even when it is replete with red flags. For an example, study up on the sad case of Australopithecus afarensis and its place in the evolutionary tree of mankind.

Snip

Unfortunately for your argument, while the precise origin of an individual rain drop, blood cell, or sand grain is difficult to fix, the natural processes that create them can be observed, tested, measured, even replicated in a lab so they can be observed, tested, and measured some more.

A new characteristic arising in a species from genetic mutation has never been observed, and all attempts to replicate it in a lab have failed. Utterly.

Back in the 1970s and '80s a series of fossils were discovered that strongly suggested whales evolved from terrestrial mammals (even-toed ungulates, like cattle). Then with the age of molecular biology, DNA sequencing showed the exact same result - whales are more closely related to cattle than either is to horses (odd-toed ungulates). You have two independent lines of evidence that reach the same conclusion.


So, with Morphological Homology having been discredited, we've now moved on to Genetic Homology. Clever.

Evolution isn't about strength, it's about being more efficient at exploiting your environment than your competitors

Isn't that what I said?

DNA mutates all the time - even yours. Every DNA polymerase has an inherent mutation rate (for vertebrates it's about 10^-9), plus in the gametes, where all this is only meaningful, we have homologous recombination. There's your 'why'.

And yet, for all my mutating DNA, my kids look fairly much the same as I did at their age. No gills, no third eyes, no prehensile tails. In fact, all the people I know look, well, human.

32,000 year old cave drawings depict humans as, humans. Assuming that the cave drawers DNA mutated like our does, and we'd have to assume that or the whole theory falls down, thats a lot of mutating to not come with one meaningful characteristic difference.

The mechanisms of mutation have been well described.

Described yes. Tested, measured, or replicated, no. Therefore, difficult to prove that they occur on any meaningful level. And still no "why"!

Evolution occurs. There's no "belief" to it, in the sense that it's just a supposition (like the Bible). It is a cold, hard fact.

Please read my post again, carefully. Where exactly did I posit that Evolution does not occur? What I have said is that Evolutionary Science has become filled with junk and bad science in it's desperation to prove something it cannot possibly prove, the non-existence of a supernatural intellect. And as it tries to prove the impossible, it reveals that it does have a healthy dose of belief, even faith, built in.

[/SIZE]
sorry, but your assertions are profoundly incorrect.
There are, indeed, tons of "hard facts" supporting evolution models that are just that: hard facts.
Not subjective philosophical ponderings.
Facts, based on the scientific method.

Now, I didn't agree with Cave Man, but I respect that he brought something to the table more than bald assertions. Please try harder next time.

Now i'll give you what should be a simple task. in front of the millions of pieces of evidence that support evolution, i simply ask you to present me
- one (1) piece of evidence that directly contradicts evolution, and

Uh, a complete lack of the graduated changes in species that Darwin predicted the fossil record would eventually show? The closest they've come is to redefine transitional species to include vague subjective judgements based on Morphological Homology.

- one (1) piece of evidence that supports creationism

Why? Did you miss this part of my post?

Intelligent Design has no basis in science. It is, in fact, merely Creationism re-labeled. It is not now, nor has it ever been, based in science. It is an article of faith.

no amount of evidence will ever answer the "why" question.
The moment you ask "why", you are looking for a phylosophical explanation, not a scientific one.

Was I not clear enough?

But right now, it doesn't really matter, because at the root of this argument is not science, but philosophy.

Well, I see I've failed miserably in my efforts to keep this short. I'll leave you this one last quote:

"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London].

[benzslrpee]

somebody find me a peer reviewed paper that provides concrete evidence to prove that evolution is 100% correct.

somebody find me passages in the Bible that says intelligent design was how God created this universe.

the point is neither party can.

sooo...can't we just have a beer and move on to the next subject :D

[zap2]

somebody find me a peer reviewed paper that provides concrete evidence to prove that evolution is 100% correct.

somebody find me passages in the Bible that says intelligent design was how God created this universe.

the point is neither party can.

sooo...can't we just have a beer and move on to the next subject :D

Please...we're not putting the bible and science on the same level. Very simple, there is no debate in the scientific community about this, politics created this.

The theory of evolution is scientifically proven, just like gravity. Can we explain it all? No? Does that means its fake? No.

[EricNau]

somebody find me a peer reviewed paper that provides concrete evidence to prove that evolution is 100% correct.
No such paper exists for any topic in science; that's not the way science operates.

As Albert Einstein once said, "No amount of experiments can ever prove me right; a single experiment may at anytime prove me wrong."

Science is all about evidence, and for now, all of the evidence supports the theory of evolution.

[Iscariot]

And yet, for all my mutating DNA, my kids look fairly much the same as I did at their age. No gills, no third eyes, no prehensile tails. In fact, all the people I know look, well, human.


Is there any creature that has gone from no tail to a fully formed prehensile tail in a single generation? That comparison has the same level of scientific validity as irreducible complexity.

[Cave Man]

So, with Morphological Homology having been discredited, we've now moved on to Genetic Homology. Clever.

No, not at all. Morphologic homology (from the paleontologists) is congruent with the genetic similarities (molecular biologists). The both arrived at the exact same conclusion and their methodologies are completely independent of one another. That's why they are two independent lines of evidence that arrive at the same conclusion.

Isn't that what I said?

You used the word "stronger". While strength can influence breeding success (which is required for evolution), it is not exclusive in that regard. An organism can be "weaker" for some trait, and that can provide it with a greater chance of successfully breeding and passing along their genes (i.e., they are most "fit" for a given environment). Sickle cell heterozygotes in the malaria belt are an example of this.

And yet, for all my mutating DNA, my kids look fairly much the same as I did at their age. No gills, no third eyes, no prehensile tails. In fact, all the people I know look, well, human.

If what you suggest above were to occur, then the bulk of the theory of evolution would have to be discarded. In fact, ToE states this cannot happen.

32,000 year old cave drawings depict humans as, humans. Assuming that the cave drawers DNA mutated like our does, and we'd have to assume that or the whole theory falls down, thats a lot of mutating to not come with one meaningful characteristic difference.

But when you compare DNA sequences of Homo neanderthals with Homo sapiens (which coexisted 32,000 years ago) they clearly did not routinely interbreed. Your use of the word "meaningful" also cannot be quantified.

Described yes. Tested, measured, or replicated, no. Therefore, difficult to prove that they occur on any meaningful level. And still no "why"!

The mechanisms required for evolutionary processes are clearly defined. The changes in allele frequencies (i.e., "evolution") can be quantified. You seem to want to recreate the evolution of life for you to be satisfied. No one can do this (nor is it likely that evolution would proceed in the same manner because of genetic drift). According to your line of reasoning, we should not teach atomic theory since no one has really seen an atom (let alone seen an atom split) or electrons. Nor should we teach the gene theory or germ theory since we've never seen a gene or seen a microbe causing a disease.

Please read my post again, carefully. Where exactly did I posit that Evolution does not occur?

You stated evolution was a mechanism. It's not. Evolution is a process without a goal and governed by many mechanisms, including natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift, and a whole slew of other mechanisms. The changes in gene frequencies and the emergence of new species has been documented both in nature and in the lab.

What I have said is that Evolutionary Science has become filled with junk and bad science in it's desperation to prove...

Science cannot prove anything; it can only disprove. When you've disproved all other possibilities, whatever is left, no matter how bizarre it may sound, must be accepted as the scientific truth.

...something it cannot possibly prove, the non-existence of a supernatural intellect. And as it tries to prove the impossible, it reveals that it does have a healthy dose of belief, even faith, built in.

Science cannot address supernatural phenomena. It's not equipped to do so. It assumes that a set of rules governs the universe. By definition, a supernatural entity would be exempt from those rules, thus not testable. Evolution, on the other hand, has been experimentally tested many, many times.

Well, I see I've failed miserably in my efforts to keep this short. I'll leave you this one last quote:

"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London].

It is a typical creationist ploy to misquote (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html) (oftentimes intentionally) people. I'd hope you were above this. Creationists do this so frequently that one can only conclude they are liars.

[rasmasyean]

'Evolution' is a natural process. Man can play with it (specific species of tomato for example, or traits in dogs, particular breeds of cow, or genetic engineering of disease immune crops).
A prime example is corn (maize). Early Indians knew Mendelian genetics apparently and bred these things from a wheat-like plant.

That's not breaking the rules. When has a law of nature ever been broken? genetic engineering is still playing by the rules. Medical intervention cannot break any laws of nature either.

Genetic engineering is not “playing with evolution” however. It’s more like bypassing evolution by creating a new life that would never happen. Like making a crop produce a bug toxin that comes from a predator. The predator and the crop would have never “mated” to “evolve” that new crop.

[rasmasyean]

I think one could view ID being something like God invented the laws of evolution (they would have to be laws if God invented them;)) because he knew that it would produce the results he desired. Maybe God is tending billions of other planets with other intelligent life forms on them and doesn't want to micro-manage things so evolution was his way of having the cream rise to the top so-to-speak. But such an interpretation would necessitate a "laissez faire" view of God. I think many people hold beliefs along these lines which is fully compatible with modern science's understanding of evolution.

As far as I understand ID more likely says that God directed the evolution of Man to be superior like how the eye is so complex and stuff like that. But that is not true because our eyes don’t see in the dark like felines nor can they spot a rat from miles up in the sky. That’s because we’re not nocturnal nor are we flyers so we only evolved what we needed in our environment and settings. Whoever said some things like this clearly did not know how evolution works.

A bird’s lungs are so advanced that they can like inhale and exhale at the same time sort-of in order to extract enough oxygen high up in the air and power their wings. Why don’t we have that “superior lung” and instead we have to inhale and then exhale and repeat? We sure could have used it back in the days.

I'll take Punctuated Equilibrium as a rationalization for the lack of transitional species in the fossil record for a thousand, Alex".

Well, it’s also pretty rare to have a fossilization event so it’s more likely for us to find species that have been “successful for a long time”. But we do find a lot of what you can obviously conclude are transitions, though with a gap in between. Anyway, I’m sure there’s a lot more fossils out there but will we ever find enough to make a smooth worm-to-Man 100,000-frame movie? Probably not. :p

evolution is not "working to" do anything. As Cave Man said, evolution occurs. but there is no "direction".

An alternate way of looking at it is that the planet is like a beaker. It’s just a bunch of chemical reactions taking its course naturally.

Also our medicines get help some people survive, but to say the weak are not getting taken out of our gene pool still wouldn't be true either, the requirements are simple changing, as they tend to do.

For example, if you are rich, you can get better treatment for your constantly sick child. Therefore, the “wealth-acquiring genes” gets passed on to the next generation. :D

This is completely incorrect. Did you read this in some creationist literature? First, most diseases have no genetic basis (thus no selection) and getting them is due largely to chance. Second, some genetic diseases occur because of natural selection. Examples of these include sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis.
It actually is supposed to work like this…

If a bunch of ppl moved to a malaria infested environment, some will survive the disease and some will not. The ones who do survive will pass on the genes that make ppl immune to malaria.

This is the basis of the theory on the plague back in the day, which would have otherwise been an extinction event. Unfortunately, there’s no way to verify this now, naturally.

So this is how evolution depends on the environment as well. The sickle-cell and stuff like that are just mutations that don’t support life well in any circumstances. If a mutation was bad enough, it should result in miscarriage or even still-born.

[GorillaPaws]

As far as I understand ID more likely says that God directed the evolution of Man to be superior like how the eye is so complex and stuff like that. But that is not true because our eyes don’t see in the dark like felines nor can they spot a rat from miles up in the sky. That’s because we’re not nocturnal nor are we flyers so we only evolved what we needed in our environment and settings. Whoever said some things like this clearly did not know how evolution works.

I don't disagree that the political ID advocates are pushing the kinds of ideas you are talking about here. I was merely trying to help someone understand how you can reconcile evolution and belief in a creator. In other words, how a non-scientific philosophical ID can co-exist peacefully with modern science. Personally, I'm still undecided on the existence of God, but I know there are many people out there who believe in both a creator and evolution, which is certainly possible to do.

I think if scientists frame the discussion in such a way that people think they're force to choose between evolution and their personal faith, science is going to loose every time. I think more energy should be put into helping people understand how it's possible to have both as long as religion doesn't try to encroach into the realm of testable claims. I think crystalizing that simple point in the mind of the public would go a long way towards killing off this ID in science class nonsense.

[rasmasyean]

And yet, for all my mutating DNA, my kids look fairly much the same as I did at their age. No gills, no third eyes, no prehensile tails. In fact, all the people I know look, well, human.

32,000 year old cave drawings depict humans as, humans. Assuming that the cave drawers DNA mutated like our does, and we'd have to assume that or the whole theory falls down, thats a lot of mutating to not come with one meaningful characteristic difference.
Well, the chance of a drastic change like what you describe is really really really rare that it’s almost impossible. And if it did happen, you would have probably discard the child as a “demon” or whatever so it wouldn’t have propagated. But people do come out with dwarfism and gigantism, and extra toe, no arm, no eyes, etc.

One thing that you can find are drawings of humans that aren’t the same color as you.

No how would that evolve you may ask? Well, to understand that you would have to understand how the sun plays a role in the human race. Here’s a simple version.

Human skin produces Vitamin D using the UV rays from the sun.
But UV rays also mutate DNA to the point which it causes cancer and humans die from it.
So “black people” in “Africa” (where humans originated) have the dark pigment that prevents sun damage.
When humans migrated north to the cold, they covered themselves.
In doing so, they block the sun which they need.
So over time, the humans lost the pigment to absorb more UV and became “white people”.

[seenew]

Medical advances that work to cure diseases and prolong life are working directly against evolution, which is working to rid the species of weakness through said diseases.

Not that medical advances are a bad thing ...

We've gotten to the top and we've changed the rules. What used to get you kicked out of the game just a hundred years ago won't necessarily get you thrown out now. However, not everyone is passing on their genes, so we're still changing.


Also, just to counter whatever that moron in the first or second page said about us having a limit to our ability to learn and gain knowledge-- that's just *****. We're boundless in ambition and potential. We have never experienced a capacity limit in our brains, and if somehow we ever did, we'd just augment ourselves to achieve whatever we needed. We're at the top now, like I said. We make the rules, and we can change them whenever we want. If God started off the Big Bang or whatever began the chaos in the Universe, He/She/It (God) was certainly something similar to what we'll eventually become.

A little far fetched for some, maybe, but people don't give us enough credit. To see the limits people have voluntarily placed upon themselves as evidenced in this thread is really saddening. I don't understand this ID debate at all, it's totally ludicrous.

[djellison]

A new characteristic arising in a species from genetic mutation has never been observed, and all attempts to replicate it in a lab have failed. Utterly.



EPIC FAIL. Epic EPIC fail. Just a complete lie.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

"It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait."

Evolution is real. Get over it.

[.Andy]

but I know there are many people out there who believe in both a creator and evolution, which is certainly possible to do.
But this is only possible by compartmentalising 'religion' on the one hand and 'science' on the other. The only place religion can exist in science is the gaps between our knowledge (or if one suffers astounding cognitive dissonance). Those who reconcile the science of evolutionary theory by filling in gaps with 'god' are just going to watch the volume their god occupies further shrink until it vanishes altogether.

I think if scientists frame the discussion in such a way that people think they're force to choose between evolution and their personal faith, science is going to loose every time.
Only on those that are indoctrinated into religion when they're young (which is why intelligent design proponents are so desperate to target schools) or those who buy into faith somehow being virtuous. The rest of the world who aren't sold or seduced by religion will find their way just fine. You need to remember that in this regard the US is a terrible anomaly compared to the majority of the developed world.

I think more energy should be put into helping people understand how it's possible to have both as long as religion doesn't try to encroach into the realm of testable claims. I think crystalizing that simple point in the mind of the public would go a long way towards killing off this ID in science class nonsense.
But in the end this is just pandering for the sake of avoiding argument. Science's "testable claims" are growing every single day and the god meme is shrinking ever more rapidly. The indoctrinated religious aren't going to stand by and retreat as each and every one of their beliefs is disproven. After all they've arbitrarily chosen to believe what they do for the sake of personal convenience. They did not reach their decision through any logic, and therefore cannot be reasoned with logic. To poorly paraphrase a great quote: Religious faith is the unwavering belief in god without evidence or in spite of contrary evidence.

The absolute best thing to do is illustrate the stupidity of people who believe in intelligent design/creationism and expose their purposeful dishonesty. As per this thread there's been deafening silence from those who in other threads claim that intelligent design has any scientific merit and therefore should be taught in science class. As usual it's turned into a laughable attack on evolution by those without the faintest clue on what evolution claims. A reminder that this is the level if sophistication you're suggesting science makes peace with for expediency;
And yet, for all my mutating DNA, my kids look fairly much the same as I did at their age. No gills, no third eyes, no prehensile tails. In fact, all the people I know look, well, human.
Some times people chose to be uneducated and oblivious.

[Cromulent]

I never said there was a massive amount of contradictory evidence, I said evidence that challenges the status quo is denounced rapidly while evidence that supports the status quo is accepted and heralded, even when it is replete with red flags. For an example, study up on the sad case of Australopithecus afarensis and its place in the evolutionary tree of mankind.

Care to elaborate? As far as I can see the only thing mildly controversial to do with that species is that they reclassified it as nearer to Gorillas than Apes. Hardly evidence that evolution does not exist.

A new characteristic arising in a species from genetic mutation has never been observed, and all attempts to replicate it in a lab have failed. Utterly.

Incorrect. How about bacteria developing an immunity to certain drugs? That is evolution and has been observed regularly over the past 100 years.

Described yes. Tested, measured, or replicated, no. Therefore, difficult to prove that they occur on any meaningful level. And still no "why"!

Incorrect. See above. As for why, there is no why. Why does there need to be an overall reason? Believing there does is nieve in the extreme.

Please read my post again, carefully. Where exactly did I posit that Evolution does not occur? What I have said is that Evolutionary Science has become filled with junk and bad science in it's desperation to prove something it cannot possibly prove, the non-existence of a supernatural intellect. And as it tries to prove the impossible, it reveals that it does have a healthy dose of belief, even faith, built in.

What tosh. The basic scientific principle is to disbelieve everything until evidence has shown that it is true. Religion constantly fails to deliver that evidence while evolutionary science does provide evidence.

Uh, a complete lack of the graduated changes in species that Darwin predicted the fossil record would eventually show? The closest they've come is to redefine transitional species to include vague subjective judgements based on Morphological Homology.

Here is a transitional species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx). Just one of many.

[GorillaPaws]

But this is only possible by compartmentalising 'religion' on the one hand and 'science' on the other. The only place religion can exist in science is the gaps between our knowledge (or if one suffers astounding cognitive dissonance). Those who reconcile the science of evolutionary theory by filling in gaps with 'god' are just going to watch the volume their god occupies further shrink until it vanishes altogether.

Science is "compartmentalized" by definition to testable/falsifiable/observable claims about our physical universe no religion can increase or decrease those limits. There is plenty of room outside those parameters in the realm of philosophy as to "why are we here?" and "what is right and wrong?" etc. for religion to have its say. I don't see this as a "God of the gaps" scenario but more of religion sticking to the metaphysical.

[rasmasyean]

I don't disagree that the political ID advocates are pushing the kinds of ideas you are talking about here. I was merely trying to help someone understand how you can reconcile evolution and belief in a creator. In other words, how a non-scientific philosophical ID can co-exist peacefully with modern science. Personally, I'm still undecided on the existence of God, but I know there are many people out there who believe in both a creator and evolution, which is certainly possible to do.

I think if scientists frame the discussion in such a way that people think they're force to choose between evolution and their personal faith, science is going to loose every time. I think more energy should be put into helping people understand how it's possible to have both as long as religion doesn't try to encroach into the realm of testable claims. I think crystalizing that simple point in the mind of the public would go a long way towards killing off this ID in science class nonsense.

I don't know, but stuff like Intelligent Design of the Eye (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/grand/) just make me laugh. :p

The eye, like a top-of-the-line modern camera, contains a self-adjusting aperture, an automatic focus system, and an inner surface that minimizes the scattering of stray light. But the sensitivity range of the eye, which gives us excellent vision in both sunlight and moonlight, far surpasses that of any film. Its neural circuitry enables the eye to automatically enhance contrast. And its color-analysis system enables it to quickly adjust to lighting conditions (incandescent, fluorescent, or sunlight) that would require a photographer to change filters and films.

The proponents of intelligent design assert that the combination of nerves, sensory cells, muscles, and lens tissue in the eye could only have been "designed" from scratch. After all, how could evolution, acting on one gene at a time, start with a sightless organism and produce an eye with so many independent parts, such as a retina, which would itself be useless without a lens, or a lens, which would be useless without a retina?

[Cromulent]

EPIC FAIL. Epic EPIC fail. Just a complete lie.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

"It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait."

Evolution is real. Get over it.

Wow that is really interesting. Thanks for the link.

[rasmasyean]

Wow that is really interesting. Thanks for the link.

That's just some scientists trying to claim that their work is so "revolutionary". All you have to do is look at Aids, influenza, and a whole assortment of other stuff. Before we even knew about those things and everyone tried to poison cockroaches, you can witness evolution and natural selection in your house.

[blackfox]

you can witness evolution and natural selection in your house.
I only have to go as far as my fridge...

Btw, I could've sworn this thread was supposed to leave evolution out of the discussion...an impossibly high bar?

[GorillaPaws]

I don't know, but stuff like Intelligent Design of the Eye (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/grand/) just make me laugh. :p

It honestly makes me nervous because it takes a relatively sophisticated understanding of science to grasp why this argument is wrong. A lot of school board members are simply not intelligent enough (or willfully ignorant in many cases) to comprehend the faults in the logic of many of these ID arguments. It seems to them that hey this ID guy says one thing and this evolution guy says another, let's just have both theories taught and let the kids make up their minds.

[Cromulent]

That's just some scientists trying to claim that their work is so "revolutionary". All you have to do is look at Aids, influenza, and a whole assortment of other stuff. Before we even knew about those things and everyone tried to poison cockroaches, you can witness evolution and natural selection in your house.

True. Still an interesting link though :).

[.Andy]

Btw, I could've sworn this thread was supposed to leave evolution out of the discussion...an impossibly high bar?
Yeah it pretty much failed on the first page. It was obviously just a cynically transparent attempt to illustrate the obvious - that intelligent design has no scientific merit and it's supporters are motivated out of dishonesty and religion.

[djellison]

That's just some scientists trying to claim that their work is so "revolutionary". All you have to do is look at Aids, influenza, and a whole assortment of other stuff.

Oh - I agree - the gradual reduction of eficacy of antibiotics is a great example. But what is quite unique in this particular example is that we have a laboratory controlled family of bacteria that have evolved over several thousand generations. We can actually go back and see when it happened.

It's the perfect, documented, peer reviewed, published, unarguable example of what dsnort was saying we had never seen - a mutation introducing a new trait. We have. He is wrong. This is evolution, in action, observed doing its thing. Unarguable. Undebateable. Undeniable. Documented. Proven. Real.

With this sort of cold hard fact to hand - anyone denying evolution is simply a liar. There's no other word for it at this stage. If people want to believe their 'god' to be some sort of Evolutionary administrative assistent - that's fine. It's pointless and pitifull, but it's fine. Denying evolution occurs, doubting the scientific case for it is not.

[Cromulent]

Unarguable. Undebateable. Undeniable. Documented. Proven. Real.

Quoted for truth. Evolution has now reached the same stage as when the Church realised the Earth was not the centre of the solar system and it is just a matter of time now for that realisation of a lost cause filtering down through the system.

[Don't panic]

Quoted for truth. Evolution has now reached the same stage as when the Church realised the Earth was not the centre of the solar system and it is just a matter of time now for that realisation of a lost cause filtering down through the system.

the ironyis that it had already reached that same point several years ago, it's just the political agenda of the far-right in the united states that tried (with some success) to dishonestly re-introduce the ID "controversy" claiming that "there was a discussion within the scientific community", a completely fabricated lie.
check out this 1925 "scientific disprove of the evolution of man" (http://ldolphin.org/wmwilliams.html). it's almost sweet in ti naivete and in how it turns arguments on their head.
but it's illuminating, as it uses the exactly same arguments used today by IDers.

btw dsnort, i am still waiting for that one piece of evidence. lack of transitional fossil is not good because
a) plenty of transitional fossil have been found
b) even if there were none (again, not the case) lack of something doesn't show that it never existed, just that it was never found. Come back with an actual piece of evidence that contradicts evolution and than we can talk

[Cave Man]

It actually is supposed to work like this…

If a bunch of ppl moved to a malaria infested environment, some will survive the disease and some will not. The ones who do survive will pass on the genes that make ppl immune to malaria.

You are mistaken. Humans are required for the malaria parasite life cycle. The humans were there first, then malaria emerged.

This is the basis of the theory on the plague back in the day, which would have otherwise been an extinction event. Unfortunately, there’s no way to verify this now, naturally.

No, it isn't. Whether a person contracted the plague or not was principally due to random chance. I guarantee you, if a 1,000 people were inoculated with 10,000 colony forming units of Yersinia pestis (the plague bacterium), every single one of them would get plague. If you gave them 1 cfu then none of them would get it.

So this is how evolution depends on the environment as well. The sickle-cell and stuff like that are just mutations that don’t support life well in any circumstances. If a mutation was bad enough, it should result in miscarriage or even still-born.

You need to read up on balancing polymorphisms, because you clearly do not understand genetics and natural selection.

[rasmasyean]

You are mistaken. Humans are required for the malaria parasite life cycle. The humans were there first, then malaria emerged.
I never said that there were no other humans in the “malaria invested environment” to begin with. Sorry for not listing the entire experimental setup!

No, it isn't. Whether a person contracted the plague or not was principally due to random chance. I guarantee you, if a 1,000 people were inoculated with 10,000 colony forming units of Yersinia pestis (the plague bacterium), every single one of them would get plague. If you gave them 1 cfu then none of them would get it.
Well, like I said, it’s impossible really know now and I’m sure there are conflicting viewpoints. I actually saw this on the Discovery Channel. But of course sometimes it's a matter of how much of the disease causing material you get too, no matter how resistant you are.

The Black Death continued to strike parts of Europe sporadically until the 17th century, each time with reduced intensity and fatality, suggesting an increased resistance due to genetic selection.[15]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plague_(disease)

[rasmasyean]

It honestly makes me nervous because it takes a relatively sophisticated understanding of science to grasp why this argument is wrong. A lot of school board members are simply not intelligent enough (or willfully ignorant in many cases) to comprehend the faults in the logic of many of these ID arguments. It seems to them that hey this ID guy says one thing and this evolution guy says another, let's just have both theories taught and let the kids make up their minds.

Incidentally, it’s not really the human eye that is complex. It’s the brain. The human eye is actually a flawed “piece of work” if anything. But the brain compensates for it. See these eye tricks to show you how crappy your eye really is…
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/blindspot1.html
http://www.break.com/index/sexy-optical-illusion.html

Much of what you “see” relies of the brain’s short-term memory.

If you haven’t heard of this aspect of the eye/brain function…
Your color perception is only in the middle of your retina (cones) so that’s the only part that can truly see “color”. But short-term memory allows you to fill in your “surroundings” in color.

There was also an old screen saver with colored dots coming out of the screen…forgot what it was called. But if you put your face real close to the monitor, you would only see the dots coming out of the center in color. The dots coming out elsewhere would appear whitish, even though the program only uses non-white dots. It was pretty cool.

[Cromulent]

Man was made in the image of God. Man is imperfect ergo God is imperfect :p.

[skunk]

Does God have an appendix?

[Cromulent]

Does God have an appendix?

Probably had it out.

Edit : Good point though, the Intelligent Design brigade conveniently forget that one.

[seenew]

Does God have an appendix?

He does, and He uses it in ways that we cannot fathom. :p

[rasmasyean]

He does, and He uses it in ways that we cannot fathom. :p

Maybe god has a motor...
The Flagellum motor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGGC-1g4S3Y)

[Dont Hurt Me]

Probably had it out.

Edit : Good point though, the Intelligent Design brigade conveniently forget that one.
My sister is one of these nuts, what they dont get is everything is in a state of change unless its hit a dead end on the evolutionary ladder. There isnt Intelligent design because if there was man would have been built better.

[Cave Man]

Maybe god has a motor...

Yeah, it descended from the rotational catalyst of the Yersinia toxin syringe. The flagellum is hardly irreducibly complex. :rolleyes:

[rasmasyean]

Yeah, it descended from the rotational catalyst of the Yersinia toxin syringe. The flagellum is hardly irreducibly complex. :rolleyes:

OK that was pretty confusing...try this one...

The Evolution of the Flagellum (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w&feature=related)

It's not AS confusing... :o

[smwatson]

What, people actually believe Intelligent Design?

Holy ****.

Time for a cull.

[remmy]

People believe in lots of rubbish, the problem is when they force a belief on others which really pisses me off.

Some belief in things is fun such as Santa clause and your local football team but not when it is used in politics or to con people out of money or to take life.

[Iscariot]

What, people actually believe Intelligent Design?

Holy ****.

Time for a cull.

I don't know that anyone actually believes Intelligent Design as it's packaged, moreso it's an indication of the strength of appeal to emotion, appeal to consequence and bandwagoning over rational thought. If anyone actually believed in ID, they'd be making a strong case for it, instead of trying to marshal a case against evolution, but the former is difficult and the latter simply involves duplicity and a veritable sea of snake oil. It seems more like supporting it falls under the category of being a proactively religious person. I don't think ID sees the kind of support it does because it has any kind of legitimate believably amongst even the most gullible and woefully ignorant*, but because it's a convenient tool of Fundamentalists within the church and fraudsters like Kirk Cameron, Kent Hovind and Ted Haggard.

____________
* At least, I hope

[iJohnHenry]

Brother, you can believe in stones if you like.
Just don't throw them at me.

Wafa Sultan .

[jwt]

This thread is hillarious. I'll bet almost none of you have scientific backgrounds, yet nearly all of you take the side of evolution. Choosing a position without an understanding of that position is the embodiment of a fool. You have never studied biology, chemistry, ecology, physiology, or evolution deeply or maybe even at all. All of your knowledge and convictions come from what you've heard on TV or from what you were told in high school biology without thinking about it critically. This fits the very definition of indoctrination. Everyone sides with evolution because that is what mainstream media says is correct and accepted and people think they sound unintelligent by voicing any opinion to the contrary.

I'm a professional chemist. In school, I started in pre-med and eventually got my degree in biochemistry and chemistry. I knew the theory of evolution very well. I've read Origin of Species and one of Gould's books. And I knew enough about reproductive physiology and cellular biology and statistics to know that the things proposed in evolution relating to interspecies jumps is a stretch of the theory, and doesn't work, and has never and cannot be observed by any scientific process. Moths changing colors, arms and legs getting longer or shorter, and these types of changes are explained very well by the theory. One species changing to another is not.

You have to remember that science is done by people. The scientific process starts with a hypothesis based on some observation. The hypothesis is only as good as the scientist that imagines it. The theory of why are we here does not happen overnight. Science takes years and years and years to do. It takes strong convictions by the lead researcher and an enormous financial backing to make it happen. Scientists are some of the most prideful people I know, and they are wrong much more often than they will admit. I have had many heated debates with other much more educated scientists and provided strong sound arguments that they could not refute, but would not admit they were wrong in order to save face. To make science happen requires a lead researcher who is both highly intelligent and business savy. The said individual needs to convince investers that giving him/her their money will make them much more money in the future. It is very difficult to do that. When a lead researcher convinces investors to give him/her tons of money over many years and has nothing to show for it, they lose their reputation. So, rather than admit they were wrong, they remain convicted in their hypothesis to save face, and the money well dries up. Every time you see a scientist on TV discussing a new discovery, it is advertisement. You would be astounded to know how much interest and money pours into that group after appearing on TV.

Here's what's been scientifically observed: 1) Genetic mutation causes death or retardation of some physiological process, not super human strength or cool new features (Yes, I'm using human beings as an example because they are tangible. I'm aware that there are other organisms on the planet.) 2) New inheritable traits -- which is not an admission of interspecies transitions (think black vs. white skin) -- are not there because they make an organism better to handle a new environment. They are there because they didn't kill it, or prevent it from procreating and producing viable offspring.

Here's what needs to happen in order for a new species to form. Two members of the originating species need to be in the same region in space and time and need to be attracted to each other in order to mate. The mathematics of this are already staggering. Next the two need to mate. Using a human female as an example, she only has one egg per month and there is a very narrow window where she can conceive because the egg needs to be fertilized in a narrow region of the fallopian tube if it is to be developed enough to implant on the wall of the uterus by the time it gets there. The egg has only 1-2 days to be fertilized before it is disintegrated. Sperm survive 3 days. So, the window is 4-5 days per month that intercourse can lead to conception. Secondly, there cannot be any reproductive disorders present nor any gametic isolation. Next, we need to consider that there are two types of cells in our body: somatic cells (diploid) and germline cells or gametes (haploid). The mutation must occur in the haploid cell (think sperm or ova) in order for the change to be heritable. Now let's remember that of the 400 million sperm present in an ejaculation, only 100 make it to the fallopian tube and only 1 fertilizes the egg. One in 400 million. Let's not forget that the body has defense mechanisms built-in to recognize differences mutations in DNA and destroy the cell containing it. For the sake of argument, let's say that there is enough time in the universe that these events can happen. The conditions mentioned thus far are known as prezygotic barriers. Now on to the post zygotic barriers. Please read up on hybrid inviability, sterility, and breakdown. In short, there are a lot of things that have to happen in order for species formation to occur. It is highly improbable that they in fact do.

The fossil record and its corroboration with modern genetics is indisputable. These are fact. These, however, are snapshots in time. They do not explain how organisms got from A to B, or even if they did. Think about this simple example: Two photographs -- one of a tennis ball on the ground, and another of a tennis ball two inches from the location in the first photo. Explain how it got from point A to point B, or if it's the same tennis ball. Let's argue that it's the former. Did it move itself or did some outside force move it? Most people would say an outside force -- be that wind, gravity, or my finger -- is responsible for that change. Why? Because we all share the fundamental view that a tennis ball cannot move itself. The evolutionist point of view is that it can, yet there is no empirical evidence that it can, nor a scientifically provable and repeatable mechanism. So why do we believe it and perpetuate it as fact?

So if you understand, and agree that these events are too improbable to occur, and that their very nature is random, then the correct explanation for species origination must be non-random. That means that it must be designed. Scientists don't like this idea, because there's no work to be done, nor money to be made by perpetuating that idea. Therefore, ideas contrary to evolution are dismissed, and the only ones that are perpetuated are those supported by capitalism.

Cheers!

[skunk]

I'll bet almost none of you have scientific backgrounds, yet nearly all of you take the side of evolution. Choosing a position without an understanding of that position is the embodiment of a fool. You have never studied biology, chemistry, ecology, physiology, or evolution deeply or maybe even at all. All of your knowledge and convictions come from what you've heard on TV or from what you were told in high school biology without thinking about it critically. This fits the very definition of indoctrination. Everyone sides with evolution because that is what mainstream media says is correct and accepted and people think they sound unintelligent by voicing any opinion to the contrary.What a very longwinded straw man argument that was! You know absolutely nothing about those who have contributed to this thread or others like it.

I'm a professional chemist. In school, I started in pre-med and eventually got my degree in biochemistry and chemistry. I knew the theory of evolution very well.Obviously not, otherwise you would not post rubbish about "one species changing to another". It doesn't happen like that. It is a gradual, incremental adaptation. You don't go from amphibian one day to mammal the next.The fossil record and its corroboration with modern genetics is indisputable. These are fact. These, however, are snapshots in time. They do not explain how organisms got from A to B, or even if they did.The progressive development of different species contained in the fossil record speaks volumes. The theory of evolution is a far more likely explanation than that some divine being designed all the dead ends and false trails, all the incremental stages and redundant details. How "intelligent" was it to design the dinosaurs, the human appendix, the malaria-carrying mosquito or the dodo?

[iJohnHenry]

skunk, disinformation is alive and well at MacRumors.

[.Andy]

This thread is hillarious. I'll bet almost none of you have scientific backgrounds, yet nearly all of you take the side of evolution. Choosing a position without an understanding of that position is the embodiment of a fool. You have never studied biology, chemistry, ecology, physiology, or evolution deeply or maybe even at all. All of your knowledge and convictions come from what you've heard on TV or from what you were told in high school biology without thinking about it critically. This fits the very definition of indoctrination. Everyone sides with evolution because that is what mainstream media says is correct and accepted and people think they sound unintelligent by voicing any opinion to the contrary.

I'm a professional chemist. In school, I started in pre-med and eventually got my degree in biochemistry and chemistry. I knew the theory of evolution very well. I've read Origin of Species and one of Gould's books. And I knew enough about reproductive physiology and cellular biology and statistics to know that the things proposed in evolution relating to interspecies jumps is a stretch of the theory, and doesn't work, and has never and cannot be observed by any scientific process. Moths changing colors, arms and legs getting longer or shorter, and these types of changes are explained very well by the theory. One species changing to another is not.

You have to remember that science is done by people. The scientific process starts with a hypothesis based on some observation. The hypothesis is only as good as the scientist that imagines it. The theory of why are we here does not happen overnight. Science takes years and years and years to do. It takes strong convictions by the lead researcher and an enormous financial backing to make it happen. Scientists are some of the most prideful people I know, and they are wrong much more often than they will admit. I have had many heated debates with other much more educated scientists and provided strong sound arguments that they could not refute, but would not admit they were wrong in order to save face. To make science happen requires a lead researcher who is both highly intelligent and business savy. The said individual needs to convince investers that giving him/her their money will make them much more money in the future. It is very difficult to do that. When a lead researcher convinces investors to give him/her tons of money over many years and has nothing to show for it, they lose their reputation. So, rather than admit they were wrong, they remain convicted in their hypothesis to save face, and the money well dries up. Every time you see a scientist on TV discussing a new discovery, it is advertisement. You would be astounded to know how much interest and money pours into that group after appearing on TV.

Here's what's been scientifically observed: 1) Genetic mutation causes death or retardation of some physiological process, not super human strength or cool new features (Yes, I'm using human beings as an example because they are tangible. I'm aware that there are other organisms on the planet.) 2) New inheritable traits -- which is not an admission of interspecies transitions (think black vs. white skin) -- are not there because they make an organism better to handle a new environment. They are there because they didn't kill it, or prevent it from procreating and producing viable offspring.

Here's what needs to happen in order for a new species to form. Two members of the originating species need to be in the same region in space and time and need to be attracted to each other in order to mate. The mathematics of this are already staggering. Next the two need to mate. Using a human female as an example, she only has one egg per month and there is a very narrow window where she can conceive because the egg needs to be fertilized in a narrow region of the fallopian tube if it is to be developed enough to implant on the wall of the uterus by the time it gets there. The egg has only 1-2 days to be fertilized before it is disintegrated. Sperm survive 3 days. So, the window is 4-5 days per month that intercourse can lead to conception. Secondly, there cannot be any reproductive disorders present nor any gametic isolation. Next, we need to consider that there are two types of cells in our body: somatic cells (diploid) and germline cells or gametes (haploid). The mutation must occur in the haploid cell (think sperm or ova) in order for the change to be heritable. Now let's remember that of the 400 million sperm present in an ejaculation, only 100 make it to the fallopian tube and only 1 fertilizes the egg. One in 400 million. Let's not forget that the body has defense mechanisms built-in to recognize differences mutations in DNA and destroy the cell containing it. For the sake of argument, let's say that there is enough time in the universe that these events can happen. The conditions mentioned thus far are known as prezygotic barriers. Now on to the post zygotic barriers. Please read up on hybrid inviability, sterility, and breakdown. In short, there are a lot of things that have to happen in order for species formation to occur. It is highly improbable that they in fact do.

The fossil record and its corroboration with modern genetics is indisputable. These are fact. These, however, are snapshots in time. They do not explain how organisms got from A to B, or even if they did. Think about this simple example: Two photographs -- one of a tennis ball on the ground, and another of a tennis ball two inches from the location in the first photo. Explain how it got from point A to point B, or if it's the same tennis ball. Let's argue that it's the former. Did it move itself or did some outside force move it? Most people would say an outside force -- be that wind, gravity, or my finger -- is responsible for that change. Why? Because we all share the fundamental view that a tennis ball cannot move itself. The evolutionist point of view is that it can, yet there is no empirical evidence that it can, nor a scientifically provable and repeatable mechanism. So why do we believe it and perpetuate it as fact?

So if you understand, and agree that these events are too improbable to occur, and that their very nature is random, then the correct explanation for species origination must be non-random. That means that it must be designed. Scientists don't like this idea, because there's no work to be done, nor money to be made by perpetuating that idea. Therefore, ideas contrary to evolution are dismissed, and the only ones that are perpetuated are those supported by capitalism.

Cheers!

To save people the bother of reading this I'll summise it.

(a) everyone who believes in evolutionary theory is indoctrinated by the media.
(b) jwt is an expert on this topic because he read two books and went to university and is a chemist.
(c) Scientists and the scientific method don't work. jwt has to correct scientists all the time who are too proud. Scientists are driven by money.
(d) Some disingenuous misconceptions about what evolution is and what it claims. It's statistically improbable! Some biology facts thrown in to add credibility (facts assembled from the same flawed scientists as in (c)).
(e) Analogy about a tennis ball moving. It can only move by an outside force.
(f) QED god and intelligent design.

[Iscariot]

Scientists don't like this idea, because there's no work to be done, nor money to be made by perpetuating that idea. Therefore, ideas contrary to evolution are dismissed, and the only ones that are perpetuated are those supported by capitalism.

Either you're not a scientist, or you're a terrible one. Anyone with any scientific background wouldn't make such a huge error. Science doesn't dismiss ID because "there's no work to be done" (lmao) but because it fails the most basic principle of science. I know this might sound crazy, but anything that cannot be tested with the scientific method isn't scientific.

And, of course, an assault on evolution doesn't lend any validity to ID. That's a false dichotomy. Can you give us anything with scientific merit pertaining to ID?

[smwatson]

jwt, for the protection of my children and friends, which University did you study at, and where do you work?

[SMM]

What a very longwinded straw man argument that was! You know absolutely nothing about those who have contributed to this thread or others like it.

Obviously not, otherwise you would not post rubbish about "one species changing to another". It doesn't happen like that. It is a gradual, incremental adaptation. You don't go from amphibian one day to mammal the next.The progressive development of different species contained in the fossil record speaks volumes. The theory of evolution is a far more likely explanation than that some divine being designed all the dead ends and false trails, all the incremental stages and redundant details. How "intelligent" was it to design the dinosaurs, the human appendix, the malaria-carrying mosquito or the dodo?

I am with you, Skunk. I took the required college science courses, and left it at that. However, I have read numerous papers, and watched countless documentaries on anthropology, archeology, biology, microbiology and the natural sciences over they years. It certainly does not qualify me as an expert, or even close. However, I think I am learned enough to understand it, and/or discuss it. So, I will thank jwt to refrain from making broad group generalizations. There are many individuals, who post regularly on this forum, who I have a great deal of respect for. They are wise and very learned. It angers me to see them attacked so mindlessly, by someone who contributes little. I think he owes them an apology.

[Thanatoast]

Sorry I haven't gone through the entire thread...

Did anyone point out that one theory is based on neutral observation of the natural world and the scientific method whereas the other theory is based on a campfire story?

[iJohnHenry]

Countless times, if not in this thread, than in others. :rolleyes:

[Cromulent]

This thread is hillarious. I'll bet almost none of you have scientific backgrounds, yet nearly all of you take the side of evolution. Choosing a position without an understanding of that position is the embodiment of a fool. You have never studied biology, chemistry, ecology, physiology, or evolution deeply or maybe even at all. All of your knowledge and convictions come from what you've heard on TV or from what you were told in high school biology without thinking about it critically. This fits the very definition of indoctrination. Everyone sides with evolution because that is what mainstream media says is correct and accepted and people think they sound unintelligent by voicing any opinion to the contrary.

Nice ramble.

I'm a professional chemist. In school, I started in pre-med and eventually got my degree in biochemistry and chemistry. I knew the theory of evolution very well. I've read Origin of Species and one of Gould's books. And I knew enough about reproductive physiology and cellular biology and statistics to know that the things proposed in evolution relating to interspecies jumps is a stretch of the theory, and doesn't work, and has never and cannot be observed by any scientific process. Moths changing colors, arms and legs getting longer or shorter, and these types of changes are explained very well by the theory. One species changing to another is not.

You have to remember that science is done by people. The scientific process starts with a hypothesis based on some observation. The hypothesis is only as good as the scientist that imagines it.

Massively incorrect. The hypothesis is only as good as the evidence that backs it up. I'm surprised that someone who is obviously an intelligent person such as yourself could make such a fundamental mistake in their reasoning and interpretation of scientific method.

The theory of why are we here does not happen overnight. Science takes years and years and years to do. It takes strong convictions by the lead researcher and an enormous financial backing to make it happen. Scientists are some of the most prideful people I know, and they are wrong much more often than they will admit. I have had many heated debates with other much more educated scientists and provided strong sound arguments that they could not refute, but would not admit they were wrong in order to save face. To make science happen requires a lead researcher who is both highly intelligent and business savy. The said individual needs to convince investers that giving him/her their money will make them much more money in the future. It is very difficult to do that. When a lead researcher convinces investors to give him/her tons of money over many years and has nothing to show for it, they lose their reputation. So, rather than admit they were wrong, they remain convicted in their hypothesis to save face, and the money well dries up. Every time you see a scientist on TV discussing a new discovery, it is advertisement. You would be astounded to know how much interest and money pours into that group after appearing on TV.

What has this got to do with the theory of evolution?

Here's what's been scientifically observed: 1) Genetic mutation causes death or retardation of some physiological process, not super human strength or cool new features (Yes, I'm using human beings as an example because they are tangible. I'm aware that there are other organisms on the planet.) 2) New inheritable traits -- which is not an admission of interspecies transitions (think black vs. white skin) -- are not there because they make an organism better to handle a new environment. They are there because they didn't kill it, or prevent it from procreating and producing viable offspring.

In themselves they are not there because they make an organism better able to handle its environment that is true. But those traits which allow the organism to survive but make it harder for it deal with its environment inevitably die out due to natural selection. Those that are beneficial in some way survive because the organism is more likely to mate and thus pass those genetic mutations on to its offspring. Thus we have evolution.

Given long enough these mutations eventually lead to new species, often when two groups of the same species are separated in some way (for example flooding, or volcanic activity). You can often see wide diversification in terms of animals derived from the same species in a relatively short space of time.

Here's what needs to happen in order for a new species to form. Two members of the originating species need to be in the same region in space and time and need to be attracted to each other in order to mate. The mathematics of this are already staggering. Next the two need to mate. Using a human female as an example, she only has one egg per month and there is a very narrow window where she can conceive because the egg needs to be fertilized in a narrow region of the fallopian tube if it is to be developed enough to implant on the wall of the uterus by the time it gets there. The egg has only 1-2 days to be fertilized before it is disintegrated. Sperm survive 3 days. So, the window is 4-5 days per month that intercourse can lead to conception. Secondly, there cannot be any reproductive disorders present nor any gametic isolation. Next, we need to consider that there are two types of cells in our body: somatic cells (diploid) and germline cells or gametes (haploid). The mutation must occur in the haploid cell (think sperm or ova) in order for the change to be heritable. Now let's remember that of the 400 million sperm present in an ejaculation, only 100 make it to the fallopian tube and only 1 fertilizes the egg. One in 400 million. Let's not forget that the body has defense mechanisms built-in to recognize differences mutations in DNA and destroy the cell containing it. For the sake of argument, let's say that there is enough time in the universe that these events can happen. The conditions mentioned thus far are known as prezygotic barriers. Now on to the post zygotic barriers. Please read up on hybrid inviability, sterility, and breakdown. In short, there are a lot of things that have to happen in order for species formation to occur. It is highly improbable that they in fact do.

But they in fact do as the human race so aptly shows.

The fossil record and its corroboration with modern genetics is indisputable. These are fact. These, however, are snapshots in time. They do not explain how organisms got from A to B, or even if they did. Think about this simple example: Two photographs -- one of a tennis ball on the ground, and another of a tennis ball two inches from the location in the first photo. Explain how it got from point A to point B, or if it's the same tennis ball. Let's argue that it's the former. Did it move itself or did some outside force move it? Most people would say an outside force -- be that wind, gravity, or my finger -- is responsible for that change. Why? Because we all share the fundamental view that a tennis ball cannot move itself. The evolutionist point of view is that it can, yet there is no empirical evidence that it can, nor a scientifically provable and repeatable mechanism. So why do we believe it and perpetuate it as fact?

What? That argument makes no sense at all.

There is evidence of genetic mutations. That is basically all evolution is, a long line of genetic mutations.

So if you understand, and agree that these events are too improbable to occur, and that their very nature is random, then the correct explanation for species origination must be non-random. That means that it must be designed. Scientists don't like this idea, because there's no work to be done, nor money to be made by perpetuating that idea. Therefore, ideas contrary to evolution are dismissed, and the only ones that are perpetuated are those supported by capitalism.

Cheers!

Your logic fails at this point. A) it is not impossible therefore it is entirely in the realms of probability, B) ideas contray to evolution are dismissed only if they provide no cold hard empirical evidence backing them up. Something which intelligent design has never ever been able to provide. If it ever does come up with evidence then it shall be given considered study. Until that day it is a mere fairytale and deserves no respect from the scientific establishment.

[skunk]

What has this got to do with the theory of evolution?Well obviously Charles Darwin was only in it for the lucrative endorsement deals.

[Cromulent]

Well obviously Charles Darwin was only in it for the lucrative endorsement deals.

Nah he was in it for the TV appearances obviously :p.

[iJohnHenry]

I thought it was for a nice sea voyage??? :confused:

[Thanatoast]

Countless times, if not in this thread, than in others. :rolleyes:Then what more needs to be said? Should've been a short thread...

[CalBoy]

Then what more needs to be said? Should've been a short thread...

In fact, by the true nature of the question posed in the OP, the thread itself is incredibly short (as in zero posts) because no one has yet to identify any scientific characteristics of ID.

As .Andy predicted, theists merely attempted to attack science and evolution, rather than defend their positions.

[KingYaba]

science |ˈsīəns|
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment : the world of science and technology.

God = supernatural. My apologies if someone said this already. I can't read through the entire thread. I'm basically agreeing with the original post.

[remmy]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7613403.stm

I'm a bit scared.

I can't believe people support creationism because it makes them feel nice.

[Don't panic]

if anything, it's comforting to know that this side of the ocean doesn't have the exclusive on morons.

[iJohnHenry]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7613403.stm

I'm a bit scared.

I can't believe people support creationism because it makes them feel nice.

Geez, what a perverse God.

See Adam checking out Eve's rack?? Plus they had all the other necessary tools to procreate.

How absurd.

[SMM]

To my friends in the UK -

I am dreadfully sorry that this plague escaped our boundaries, and made it to your shores. Hopefully you can contain it.

[jwt]

Obviously not, otherwise you would not post rubbish about "one species changing to another". It doesn't happen like that. It is a gradual, incremental adaptation.
Is it? Profs. Eldredge and Gould would have to disagree. Read up on Punctuated Equilibrium. Then, come back and be specific on exactly how species form.

Showing of hands: Who that has argued against me is a scientist, and what is your background?

[skunk]

Really?
Common misconceptions

Punctuated equilibrium is often confused with George Gaylord Simpson's quantum evolution,[10] Richard Goldschmidt's saltationism,[11] pre-Lyellian catastrophism, and the phenomenon of mass extinction. Punctuated equilibrium is therefore mistakenly thought to oppose the concept of gradualism, when it is actually a form of gradualism, in the ecological sense of biological continuity.[3] This is because even though evolutionary change appears instantaneous between geological sediments, change is still occurring incrementally, with no great change from one generation to the next. To this end, Gould later commented that:
Most of our paleontological colleagues missed this insight because they had not studied evolutionary theory and either did not know about allopatric speciation or had not considered its translation to geological time. Our evolutionary colleagues also failed to grasp the implication, primarily because they did not think at geological scales.[5]
The relationship between punctuationism and gradualism can be better appreciated by considering an example. Suppose the average length of a limb in a particular species grows 50 centimeters (20 inches) over 70,000 years—a large amount in a geologically short period of time. If the average generation is seven years, then our given time span corresponds to 10,000 generations. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that if the limb size in our hypothetical population evolved in the most conservative manner, it need only increase at a rate of 0.005 cm per generation (= 50 cm/10,000), despite its abrupt appearance in the geological record.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

Your claim to be a "professional chemist" has no relevant merit in a discussion of evolution.

[leekohler]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7613403.stm

I'm a bit scared.

I can't believe people support creationism because it makes them feel nice.

This is beyond terrifying. I am so, so sorry for you all. Our madness is obviously contagious.

[Don't panic]

Showing of hands: Who that has argued against me is a scientist, and what is your background?

we are not here to parade credentials, but suffice to say that -form a large number of posting in related threads- there are plenty of scientists in these forums with highly relevant backgrounds.
from your post, you don't appear to be one of them.

[rasmasyean]

On the educational note, there is a pretty obvious difference between science and religion.

One thing science does is admit that there is no known answer for some things. It does not fill knowledge gaps in with a supernatural explanation. It just is accepted that it is unknown as of the writing.

For example, just because we do not understand how lightning forms, it does not allow one to teach...
"So it must be Zeus expressing his anger toward the human race!"

In addition to being based on "making up" an answer, the Zeus statement above also contradicts the freedom of religion. Not every religion is based on "God" or an equivalent all knowing and powerful supreme being.

If there is some strong evidence to link the origin of humanity to Christianity derivatives, then perhaps you can call it "science". As of today, the body of "religious evidence" (or whatever you want to call it) contradict each other...and even contradicts itself at times. And what's especially true is that most of that "evidence" is argumentative and is based on biases toward the arguing parties beliefs.

[Iscariot]

Who that has argued against me is a scientist, and what is your background?

99.85% of relevant scientists argue against you.

Not that it's at all relevant, as you've still provided zero scientific claims that give merit to intelligent design. As a "scientist" you should know that evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive.

[hulugu]

This thread is hillarious. I'll bet almost none of you have scientific backgrounds, yet nearly all of you take the side of evolution. Choosing a position without an understanding of that position is the embodiment of a fool. You have never studied biology, chemistry, ecology, physiology, or evolution deeply or maybe even at all. All of your knowledge and convictions come from what you've heard on TV or from what you were told in high school biology without thinking about it critically. This fits the very definition of indoctrination. Everyone sides with evolution because that is what mainstream media says is correct and accepted and people think they sound unintelligent by voicing any opinion to the contrary.

This is quite the ad hominem fusillade and there's no requirement to study every subject in order to have a yeoman's discussion about it.

Well, I can read. A lot. I can read papers and books by those who do study all these subjects. I can talk to those who do study these subjects and even interview them. Of course, they could all be part of some mainstream media conspiracy too.


I'm a professional chemist. In school, I started in pre-med and eventually got my degree in biochemistry and chemistry.

Would you like to submit your CV?

Using a human female as an example...

So if you understand, and agree that these events are too improbable to occur, and that their very nature is random, then the correct explanation for species origination must be non-random. That means that it must be designed....

This is a weird argument. There are 6.8 billion people, it can be nearly as unlikely as you make it out to be.

You may have been trained as a chemist, but as a logician you made need some additional education.

[djellison]

Showing of hands: Who that has argued against me is a scientist, and what is your background?

Whats the relevance of this? Creationism is not a science. Never has been. Never will be. One can not apply scientific process to creationism any more than one can apply scientific process to the Tooth Fairy, or Santa, or the works of Enid Blyton. By all means explain the appendix and the coccyx via creationism. Unless your creator is sick, twisted and incompetent I really don't see where you're going to start.

Creationism is fictional.

That you claim to be a scientists and yet still believe in fairy stories makes it all the more disturbing.

Dawkins - "To not believe in evolution, you must be ignorant, stupid, or insane." - I'd agree with that.

I echo smwatson's request to know if you teach chemistry anywhere, and if so, where. If and when I have a family, I wish to ensure they don't come within 1000 miles of someone like you. It's dangerous.

[t0mat0]

Evolution threads vs intelligent design threads are old and busted around here. So let's just focus on Intelligent Design without straying into evolution at all. Pointing to what you perceive as wrong/what you don't understand about evolution does not in any way add merit to intelligent design.

Intelligent design proclaims to be science. To be a science it must stand on it's own merits, explain the natural phenomena and its assertions be backed by observation and experiment. Proponents also emphasise that the christian god is not required for intelligent design, so please no references to the bible or scriptures of any sort.

To quote wikipedia on what constitutes a scientific theory;

[quote]A main aim of intelligent design proponents is to have intelligent design taught in schools as science. McCain's new VP pick is all for teaching it in science class. So what exactly makes intelligent design a viable scientific theory?

Guess this thread strayed a bit. Thought i'd throw in some light relief :)

[jwt]

Whats the relevance of this?

The relevance is that I wouldn't ask a plumber about a medical condition, would you? Anything someone with a non-scientific background voices about a scientific topic is irrelevant. Nobody here has specifically indicated what of my argument is factually incorrect, which leads me to believe that nobody here fully understands what they're talking about. You're just running your mouths with quotes from wikipedia. It's readily apparent that nobody here has ever studied evolution deeply and has never critically thought about it. You are all just vomiting up what you have passively read on wikipedia or saw on discovery channel, all of which are quaternary sources (not citable in professional journals, thus not relevant in scientific debate).

Science is constantly evolving. We don't know everything yet, which is why there is still no "Theory of Everything." Our best theories still fail at some point. Quantum mechanics fails when things get too big. Classical fails when things get too small. How do you describe things where they intersect? Our understanding of the world is still incomplete, and the Theory of Evolution is no exception. It works well within a range, but fails once you extrapolate it. This is my only argument.

I would love to debate this topic with any of you, but I'm not getting any logical rebuttals here. Instead, I'm being called a "scientist" and just being pissed on by people who don't seem to have any facts to base an opinion on. I respect people's opinions on this board regarding macs, but listening to people who don't know what they're talking about trash me is unfruitful. I'm done with this thread.

[djellison]

Our understanding of the world is still incomplete, and the Theory of Evolution is no exception. .

So Creationism is the answer then ?

After all, our understanding of Gravity is a long long way from being incomplete - perhaps the world really is on the back of a turtle. Maybe the world is flat

[.Andy]

Science is constantly evolving. We don't know everything yet, which is why there is still no "Theory of Everything." Our best theories still fail at some point. Quantum mechanics fails when things get too big. Classical fails when things get too small. How do you describe things where they intersect? Our understanding of the world is still incomplete, and the Theory of Evolution is no exception. It works well within a range, but fails once you extrapolate it. This is my only argument.

Rubbish. You spent a whole post dismissing the theory of evolution as BS (Your words in your first post title in this thread) with obviously only a rudimentary understanding yourself (two books!). It's too late to backpedal and claim 'your only argument' was that the evolution doesn't explain everything (there wouldn't be a single scientist who would claim this). That's patently false and dishonest. The truth is there in black and white for people to read from your previous post.

I'm done with this thread.
Good riddance. You do a disservice to the rest of us to represent yourself as a scientist. The misplaced superiority you exhibit over others here is disgraceful. It's that exact attitude that makes people wary of science.

[sushi]

Evolution threads vs intelligent design threads are old and busted around here. So let's just focus on Intelligent Design without straying into evolution at all. Pointing to what you perceive as wrong/what you don't understand about evolution does not in any way add merit to intelligent design.
Personally, I do not see why they cannot both be valid and complement each other.

[.Andy]

Personally, I do not see why they cannot both be valid and complement each other.
Intelligent design as you propose would be nothing more than a fictional adjunct tacked on to scientific principles ad hoc to make science more palatable and less offensive to religious sensibilities and dogma.

It's not science and has no place in scientific theories. To emphasise, the best "scientific" evidence put forward so far for intelligent design is an analogy with moving tennis balls from a poster of questionable honesty. And we're 10 pages and 229 posts in....

[djellison]

Personally, I do not see why they cannot both be valid

By all means present some evidence for Intelligent Design. Let's see some evidence for the validity of intelligent design and we can make some progress here.

[Diatribe]

Now here's a twist. (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14751-vatican-says-it-does-not-owe-darwin-an-apology.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news1_head_dn14751)

[sushi]

By all means present some evidence for Intelligent Design. Let's see some evidence for the validity of intelligent design and we can make some progress here.
The Bombardier beetle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_beetle) comes to mind.

This type of beetle has a very unique defense system. Did this system come to fruition via Evolution or through Intelligent Design? A quick search of the Internet found sources with conflicting views.

Could this be an example of where Intelligent Design created the initial blueprint from which these species function followed by Evolution which has improved this beetle's defense system over time?

What happens after we die? What were we before we were born? No one really knows 100%

Here are two books that are a fascinating read by Dr. Michael Newton:

Journey of Souls: Case Studies of Life Between Lives

Destiny of Souls: New Case Studies of Life Between Lives


What if we cannot describe something? Does that mean there is no scientific merit? Or does it mean we cannot understand the science behind something at our stage of evolution?

Anyhow, there are many things that man has not discovered nor knows about in the universe. Just think of the leaps and bounds that science has made in the past 200 -- heck 100 -- years. We still do not know atomic structure completely along with so many other things.

However, one thing is for sure, regardless of how this debate goes, we will all find out the answer someday. It may merely be blackness as in nothing or it could be what some describe as heaven or another life. The ultimate in a final exam. :)

[djellison]

T
Anyhow, there are many things that man has not discovered nor knows about in the universe.

So patch over the blanks with fiction?

[sushi]

So patch over the blanks with fiction?
That was not my point.

But since you sent this way, please prove that it is fiction.

State your scientific proof. Note lack of scientific proof is not the same as proving something doesn't exist via scientific methods. :)

[sushi]

If there is a god guiding evolution, he or she is doing a crap job.
Or maybe he has provided the tools for mankind to discover the future and is watching to see where we end up.

[iShater]

The answer is simple:

Take average life span for a person of your gender in your country - your age = how many years before you die.

We will all know the answer when we die.

[walangij]

I find a debate about Intelligent Design vs. Evolution almost impossible since Intelligent Design isn't really a science, but a psuedo-science that applies to those with Christian backgrounds, making it more of a belief than a refutable science. IMO, the context of Intelligent Design must include the acknowledgement of "sin", without it, it's hard to reason it, which is why I don't understand why some scientists and churches try so hard to interject it into modern scientific discourse. The whole nature of Intelligent Design goes much deeper than just science, but it delves into theological material that many do not have a background or interest in.

[floyde]

Or maybe he has provided the tools for mankind to discover the future and is watching to see where we end up.

Wouldn't an omniscient being know that already? What's the point then? Is he THAT bored? :p

[djellison]

That was not my point.

But since you sent this way, please prove that it is fiction.


Err - no - epic fail I'm afraid. If intelligent design has merit - show it.

[iShater]

Since there are tons of posts here, can someone post a link that describes what ID entails?

[t0mat0]

The Bombardier beetle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_beetle) comes to mind.

This type of beetle has a very unique defense system. Did this system come to fruition via Evolution or through Intelligent Design? A quick search of the Internet found sources with conflicting views.

Could this be an example of where Intelligent Design created the initial blueprint from which these species function followed by Evolution which has improved this beetle's defense system over time?

What happens after we die? What were we before we were born? No one really knows 100%

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html

Your body decomposes for starters. A foetus. ;)

It's not like we don't use hydrogen peroxide ourselves. It's just we might not know it is part of our immune system amongst other things.
http://www.nature.com/nchembio/journal/v3/n5/abs/nchembio871.html

Requiring the internet to have a coherent view on a matter before you judge it to be put to bed might have it's own problems!

[jplan2008]

What if we cannot describe something? Does that mean there is no scientific merit?

Yes, actually it does. I agree with you it's possible to acknowledge the scientific truths of evolution, and still BELIEVE in something else, whether you call it God, a Supreme Power, or whatever. Hey, I certainly would like to believe that there's more to life than I see with my eyes and can observe and "describe." But that doesn't make a BELIEF into science that should be taught in science class. The term itself "Intelligent Design" doesn't come from any religious teaching, it's a scam to get around the Constitution. I'd think religious people would be as upset about the scam as much as people who believe in the separation of church and state.

[skunk]

I'm done with this thread.Nice of you to drop by. Thanks for the input.

[skunk]

Since there are tons of posts here, can someone post a link that describes what ID entails?No link, but it seems that the chief merit of the Intelligent Design/Creationist hypothesis, for those who believe it to be true, is that it places (Christian) mankind at the centre of the universe, if not at the end of History. In other words, it is the sheerest vanity, nothing more. The fact that all available and testable evidence points to mankind being merely the current product of one particular evolutionary sequence on one particular small planet in one galaxy among billions seems not to impinge upon the consciousness of such believers. Or maybe it does, and maybe it is precisely the dread of such transience and anonymity which propels the believer to seize upon an entirely unsubstantiated belief system to support an entirely fictional construct with which to prop up their self-regard.

[iShater]

^^^ errr .... ok. :confused:

[skunk]

^^^ errr .... ok. :confused:Was that not what you wanted? :p

[jplan2008]

Since there are tons of posts here, can someone post a link that describes what ID entails?

I'm not sure if wikipedia is what you're after, since you could have found that yourself, but here it is:



"wedge strategy": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

article about most recent case http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1221/p01s01-ussc.html

Opponents of this view argue that intelligent design is but a gloss on creationism, a belief that the world was created by God as described in the book of Genesis. The US Supreme Court has ruled that creationism cannot be taught in public schools.

Beginning in the fall of 2004, Dover area ninth-grade students, per order of their school board, were read a four-paragraph statement that evolution is a theory, not a fact, and that this theory contains "gaps." The statement directed students interested in exploring this idea to the book "Of Pandas and People," a lengthy explanation of the intelligent-design view.

Eleven parents then sued the school board, claiming that this action had no place in a scientific curriculum.

Overview of Intelligent Design, copied in part below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2] It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer.[3] The idea was developed by certain United States creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science.[4][5][6] Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the U.S.-based Discovery Institute,[7][8] believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.[9][10] Advocates of intelligent design argue that it is a scientific theory,[11] and seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.[12]
The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is pseudoscience.[13][14][15][16] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."[17] The American Association for the Advancement of Science says "intelligent design has not been demonstrated to be a scientific theory."[18] The US National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.[19] Others have concurred, and some have called it junk science.[20]
"Intelligent design" originated in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling involving separation of church and state.[4] Its first significant published use was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes.[21] Several additional books on "intelligent design" were published in the 1990s. By the mid-1990s, intelligent design proponents had begun clustering around the Discovery Institute and more publicly advocating the inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula.[22] With the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture serving a central role in planning and funding, the "intelligent design movement" grew increasingly visible in the late 1990s and early 2000s, culminating in the 2005 "Dover trial" which challenged the intended use of intelligent design in public school science classes.[7]

[SMM]

[...]

I would love to debate this topic with any of you, but I'm not getting any logical rebuttals here. Instead, I'm being called a "scientist" and just being pissed on by people who don't seem to have any facts to base an opinion on. I respect people's opinions on this board regarding macs, but listening to people who don't know what they're talking about trash me is unfruitful. I'm done with this thread.



Are people calling you a scientist? That is odd, I thought most were doubtful of your scientific credentials. You seem, by reference, to be regarding all of us as clones of the same entity, who are lined up against you. Have you ever heard the saying, "The common denominator in all your failed relationships is you"? You should consider that carefully. I think it will help you deal with the emotional trauma, when others do not agree with you.

Even though you are leaving this thread, I do not think many people wish ill of you. Having read, and later participated in this forum for a few years now, I do not think the vast majority of the members here are mean, or malicious. I am pretty sure you can start afresh on another thread. ;)

[iJohnHenry]

Was that not what you wanted? :p

We are confused. We are scared. We make-up stories to allay this condition.

Is that better??

[Dont Hurt Me]

Scientist have been making some terrific discoveries with the fossil record. Things like discovering featherlike growth on dinosaurs,things like finding snakes with legs, things like finding genes that have been turned off in birds but when turned back on gave reptile features. on and on and on. Wisdom teeth in man, tail bones in man, appendix in man.
Religious types choose to ignore facts and its that simple. They want to explain away everything like bones in the earth from millions of years ago. or ignore the fact that the earth has been hit many times by rocks from space. Ignorance is bliss right?:D Knowledge is bliss.