Ken Miller on Intelligent Design

[Gatot]

Please watch this:

 

Not because I'm a fan of Ken Miller, its just because he created the presentation using Keynote in a Mac

 

What do you think about Permian Extinction Event???

[killbot1000]

I thought it was a good video, ID is full of {censored} anyway...

[wildcat69410]

I wouldn't say it's full of {censored}... There is a lot of scientific research put into it.

[killbot1000]

I wouldn't say it's full of {censored}... There is a lot of scientific research put into it.

 

No there isnt, its religion masquarading as science. Its creationism wrapped in a scientific skin. Express to me how ID can be scientific?

 

Explain how it can follow the scientific method, how it can be experimented on? IT cant. So even if ID is right, its still wrong according to science because it cant be tested.

 

Evolution however can be tested, it can be observed, theres not really an argument here, unless of course the argument is about ignorance.

[Gatot]

I love the idea of evolution, however not really sure whether "undirected sequence" or "coincidence events" could create such a beautiful and complex creatures (like human).

 

But again, it is difficult to say that ID is scientific, as if we finally conclude that the "grand designer" is a supernatural being, then there is no way to prove its existence. It means that our search for better answer will stop at that point.

 

All in all, I strongly agree that ID is about faith to GOD (or other supernatural being). There is no harm with it to be included in "science", in fact the faith helps us during difficult situation (at least during flight turbulence). However, as human tends to be selfish, arrogant and self-righteous, while there are lots of understanding/believing to God (multi/mono theism), will there be a competition between religion to prove that only one of them is right?

[gwprod12]

Intelligent Design isnt a theory and it isnt science.

 

However: That doesnt make it false. A Tautology or a Solipsism can lead directly to a theoretical framework.

[DrJägermeister]

I wouldn't say it's full of {censored}... There is a lot of scientific research put into it.

You forgot the ironie tags, it should be:

<ironie> There is a lot of scientific research put into it </ironie>

 

It should not be allowed for guys like Ken Miller to work at a university, this guy is a shame for the science.

[killbot1000]

I love the idea of evolution, however not really sure whether "undirected sequence" or "coincidence events" could create such a beautiful and complex creatures (like human).

 

But again, it is difficult to say that ID is scientific, as if we finally conclude that the "grand designer" is a supernatural being, then there is no way to prove its existence. It means that our search for better answer will stop at that point.

 

All in all, I strongly agree that ID is about faith to GOD (or other supernatural being). There is no harm with it to be included in "science", in fact the faith helps us during difficult situation (at least during flight turbulence). However, as human tends to be selfish, arrogant and self-righteous, while there are lots of understanding/believing to God (multi/mono theism), will there be a competition between religion to prove that only one of them is right?

 

There is harm with it being intermingled with science, its a great harm, because its NOT SCIENCE, even if its right, it has no place in a science classroom, it belongs in a philosophy classroom. Evolution however is science, so it DOES belong in a science classroom, am I missing something here? You would laugh if magic or witchcraft was taught in a science classroom, this is exactly the same thing, its supersticious, and has absolutely no place in a classroom, im really sorry but I absolutely cannot bend on this issue, I know in this case, that im right, study science a little more, find out what its about, and youll know that you CANT have this in a science classroom.

[Proteo]

ID is nothing but part of the republican's politic agenda. It's a shame that such a great country still discussing things like this.

 

I love the idea of evolution, however not really sure whether "undirected sequence" or "coincidence events" could create such a beautiful and complex creatures (like human).

 

Some hundreds of years ago, nobody would have believed that earth was rotating around the sun, or even that it was'nt flat. And there are other beautiful and complex creatures beside humans. Thinking that we are superior that others is just part of the misconceptions we have learned thanks to religion.

[killbot1000]

Some hundreds of years ago, nobody would have believed that earth was rotating around the sun, or even that it was'nt flat. And there are other beautiful and complex creatures beside humans. Thinking that we are superior that others is just part of the misconceptions we have learned thanks to religion.

 

Thank you! I totally agree.

[saintjude]

In the end, the argument of the Intelligent Design camp is 'if I don't understand how something could have happened naturally, it couldn't have happened naturally.' If they don't understand how a particular biological structure could have evolved, then they don't believe it could have evolved. If they don't know how a particular piece of geological evidence was formed, then it couldn't have formed naturally, etc. Intelligent Design is another manifestation of the 'God of the Gaps' phenominon, where Believers try to make their dogma the default answer for any question that doesn't have a definitive answer yet (gaps in knowledge.) Early 'gaps' that were populated with the supernatural included explanations of everything from the causes of disease to weather to success on a hunt.

 

To put it mildly, this is terrible logic in the first place, but it finds fertile soil in the broad gaps of knowledge left by the remarkably low level of scientific competence most IDers/creationists exibit. The next time you meet an IDer, ask them to explain how their computer works. If they can't explain it, demand that they admit that it must work by magic. :-)

[wildcat69410]

No there isnt, its religion masquarading as science. Its creationism wrapped in a scientific skin. Express to me how ID can be scientific?

 

Explain how it can follow the scientific method, how it can be experimented on? IT cant. So even if ID is right, its still wrong according to science because it cant be tested.

 

Evolution however can be tested, it can be observed, theres not really an argument here, unless of course the argument is about ignorance.

 

Really? How has evolution been observed? I'm not talking about microevolution, I'm talking about macroevolution, or the creation of a new species. Scientists have tried to simulate evolution with fruit flies in the lab by simulating natural occurances that wipe out species, etc. However, they didn't progress, didn't even bring a new species.

 

All that has been observed is of microevolution, specifically Darwin's Finches. And all they've ever done is to make different colored/shaped beaks.

 

Intelligent Design isnt a theory and it isnt science.

 

However: That doesnt make it false. A Tautology or a Solipsism can lead directly to a theoretical framework.

 

Very true. Some have argued that evolution is tautology, at least the natural selection part.

 

There is harm with it being intermingled with science, its a great harm, because its NOT SCIENCE, even if its right, it has no place in a science classroom, it belongs in a philosophy classroom. Evolution however is science, so it DOES belong in a science classroom, am I missing something here? You would laugh if magic or witchcraft was taught in a science classroom, this is exactly the same thing, its supersticious, and has absolutely no place in a classroom, im really sorry but I absolutely cannot bend on this issue, I know in this case, that im right, study science a little more, find out what its about, and youll know that you CANT have this in a science classroom.

 

So you're saying that ID is simply superstitious witchcraft? ID has both biological scientific proponents and proof, as well as mathematical proportional evidence. It's not like people don't understand science, that's why you end up having scientists like Michael Behe and Dembski, who understand science to a level far higher than you do.

 

The reason you don't see ID in classrooms is due to politics, not science. Are you aware that there are items being taught in High School Biology classes about Evolution, that uses commonly disproven "facts". For example, when I was in High School, I was taught about how the embryos look so similar in the embryonic state, and was shown pictures of "embryos". Guess what they were? Hoaxes, proven false for decades. My book was up to date, yet I was still being taught these fakes.

 

Students are still being taught things like that atmospheric experiment that "proved" that amino acids and other proteins can be formed by a lightning strike. Unfortunately, this was proven false since the 70's, yet still being taught in Biology classrooms across the United States. Science doesn't prohibit anything being taught in a classroom, politics does.

 

Some hundreds of years ago, nobody would have believed that earth was rotating around the sun, or even that it was'nt flat. And there are other beautiful and complex creatures beside humans. Thinking that we are superior that others is just part of the misconceptions we have learned thanks to religion.

 

If you understand ID at all, which by your post I can safely assume you don't, then you'd know that the majority of ID applies specifically to a microbiological level. We're talking at the celllular level. Unbeknowest to most, ID can live side by side with Evolution, not one or the other. ID isn't about teaching superiority to humans.

 

But if you want to talk about how religion causes that, I ask you, is there a single other creature on this earth, that has the same level of complexity not just physically, but mentally. That has the ability to both live individually, as well as in a society, and that thinks cognitively with logic. You can't sit here and tell me that there are tons of other creatures that are as complex as we are, because they're aren't. I'm not trying to preach superiority, I'm just telling you that we're very complex.

 

In the end, the argument of the Intelligent Design camp is 'if I don't understand how something could have happened naturally, it couldn't have happened naturally.' If they don't understand how a particular biological structure could have evolved, then they don't believe it could have evolved. If they don't know how a particular piece of geological evidence was formed, then it couldn't have formed naturally, etc. Intelligent Design is another manifestation of the 'God of the Gaps' phenominon, where Believers try to make their dogma the default answer for any question that doesn't have a definitive answer yet (gaps in knowledge.) Early 'gaps' that were populated with the supernatural included explanations of everything from the causes of disease to weather to success on a hunt.

 

And what exactly is evolution? Isn't evolution simply a theory to explain something that we cannot fully understand. Who we are, where we came from, why we are here? Evolution is simply something that explains the unknown, one of the ultimate gaps. We still don't have a definitive answer for where we came from, that's why we originally had evolution.

 

How is Evolution any different from ID? They both try to explain gaps, they both include some form of scientific research, they both have gaps of their own, difference being that Evolution has the political backing and scientific "groupies", who will die with evolution to the end. Simply because ID isn't as widely accepted as Evolution doesn't mean it's wrong.

 

To put it mildly, this is terrible logic in the first place, but it finds fertile soil in the broad gaps of knowledge left by the remarkably low level of scientific competence most IDers/creationists exibit. The next time you meet an IDer, ask them to explain how their computer works. If they can't explain it, demand that they admit that it must work by magic. :-)

 

Oh, you must be so qualified to judge the scientific prowess that most IDers exhibit. Funny though, the producers of the theory are scientists, with degrees from prestigous colleges worldwide. If you ask your average evolutionist supporter how to explain the holes in evolution, and they can't explain it, does that mean Evolution's wrong? Of course not! Don't make careless generalizations that you can't back up, just because you don't understand ID in the first place.

[killbot1000]

Seriously ID isnt big anywhere in the world, theres no scientific backing for it, theres no way to experiment.

 

With evolution, the problem isnt lack of fossil evidence, its actually TOO MUCH fossil evidence, theres so many transitional phases, that we dont know whether to categorize it as one species or another, many many many fossils.

 

Im not denying that evolution has holes, it does, but new discoveries are being made every day that fit evolution into place, you cant tell me that some wierd creator designing us makes more sense than actual chemical processes. I dont know how it all got started, lets do an experiment, but LETS NOT ASSUME!!! this is where our race runs into major trouble, when we assume. Dont assume a creator created us, find out for yourself.

 

ID isnt science as we understand it. There is absolutely NO emperical evidence to support it, while evolution DOES have evidence, therefore, evolution is better than ID, even if evolution is incorrect. ID should be taught, JUST NOT IN A SCIENCE CLASSROOM, because ITS NOT SCIENCE. Please, intermingling religion and science is a path to retardation...

[wildcat69410]

Seriously ID isnt big anywhere in the world, theres no scientific backing for it, theres no way to experiment.

 

Okay, when evolution was first brought forward, was it big anywhere in the world? No. And you still haven't pointed out to me where there's been a lab experiment proving evolution.

 

With evolution, the problem isnt lack of fossil evidence, its actually TOO MUCH fossil evidence, theres so many transitional phases, that we dont know whether to categorize it as one species or another, many many many fossils.

 

That's evolutionary BS. Seriously, I have several paleontologist friends who would absolutely skin you alive and classify your bones for fun for that. (Okay, not really, just thought that sounded funny) There is a serious lack of fossil evidence explaining evolution, that's why their called fossil gaps, not fossil jams. This isn't a categorizational issue, unless you count that there isn't anything to categorize.

 

Im not denying that evolution has holes, it does, but new discoveries are being made every day that fit evolution into place, you cant tell me that some wierd creator designing us makes more sense than actual chemical processes. I dont know how it all got started, lets do an experiment, but LETS NOT ASSUME!!! this is where our race runs into major trouble, when we assume. Dont assume a creator created us, find out for yourself.

 

Hold on a minute, let me get this straight. You don't want us to assume? I've got news for you, that's the entire basis of the theory of Evolution. How does Creature A evolve into Creature B? By a series of mutations that we must ASSUME were all necessary and actually helpful to survive. Well how did this all start? We must ASSUME that there were conditions right on earth to create amino acids by random natural occurances that we ASSUME slowly evolved over millenias to get to the creatures we know of today.

 

If you want us to find out for ourselves, you first. I'd like to see you try to fit together the pieces of Evolution without going insane. Do me a favor though, don't assume any of the countless mutations, find them and document them for me.

 

ID isnt science as we understand it. There is absolutely NO emperical evidence to support it, while evolution DOES have evidence, therefore, evolution is better than ID, even if evolution is incorrect. ID should be taught, JUST NOT IN A SCIENCE CLASSROOM, because ITS NOT SCIENCE. Please, intermingling religion and science is a path to retardation...

 

Evolution has proof? Apart from microevolution, macroevolution is simply jumps from one fossil to another that look somewhat similar to one another. Even then, Evolution lacks serious fossil evidence. Natural Selection is pure tautology. What exactly does Evolution have, apart from an army of insane Darwinists and Liberal Activist Judges that ID doesnt?

 

Intermingling Religion and Science isn't a path to retardation, unless you consider Galileo retarded.

[killbot1000]

Okay, when evolution was first brought forward, was it big anywhere in the world? No. And you still haven't pointed out to me where there's been a lab experiment proving evolution.

That's evolutionary BS. Seriously, I have several paleontologist friends who would absolutely skin you alive and classify your bones for fun for that. (Okay, not really, just thought that sounded funny) There is a serious lack of fossil evidence explaining evolution, that's why their called fossil gaps, not fossil jams. This isn't a categorizational issue, unless you count that there isn't anything to categorize.

Hold on a minute, let me get this straight. You don't want us to assume? I've got news for you, that's the entire basis of the theory of Evolution. How does Creature A evolve into Creature B? By a series of mutations that we must ASSUME were all necessary and actually helpful to survive. Well how did this all start? We must ASSUME that there were conditions right on earth to create amino acids by random natural occurances that we ASSUME slowly evolved over millenias to get to the creatures we know of today.

 

If you want us to find out for ourselves, you first. I'd like to see you try to fit together the pieces of Evolution without going insane. Do me a favor though, don't assume any of the countless mutations, find them and document them for me.

Evolution has proof? Apart from microevolution, macroevolution is simply jumps from one fossil to another that look somewhat similar to one another. Even then, Evolution lacks serious fossil evidence. Natural Selection is pure tautology. What exactly does Evolution have, apart from an army of insane Darwinists and Liberal Activist Judges that ID doesnt?

 

Intermingling Religion and Science isn't a path to retardation, unless you consider Galileo retarded.

 

 

Oh my god...evolution does have proof, look at the 46 chromasomes of humans vs the 48 of apes, one of our chromasomes is fused from two cromasomes and if you take those apart, we have 48, and almost the same genetic code as our ape cousins.

 

The bacterial flagellum, if you take pieces of the protien structure away, it performs other tasks, the secretory system for example.

 

Dolphins and whales, the skeletons of half dolphin, half land mammal remains have been found, in various transitional phases.

 

evolution takes millions of years, it cant be tested in a lab, but it can be observed. ID cant be observed, its creationist language wrapped in a psudo scientific blanket, how can you say theres science.

 

Even if theres a lack of evidence for evolution (which there isnt), atleast it has some, ID has ABSOLUTELY NONE, and I can feel confident in that statement.

 

Have you ever thought that you see what you want to see? that since faith is such a big part of your life, you see life through those lenses, almost like sunglasses? whenever you see a glimer of what you think agrees with you, you take it as absolute fact.

 

the vast majority of scientists will agree that evolution is a sound theory, if you have any idea what a theory actually is, youd understand, when somebody says "its a theory, not a fact" they dont understand science in the slightest, because a theory is actually a bunch of facts that come together, they are not separate things, to say that they are betrays science, ID is not a theory, its a guess, a guess with a baseless, egotistical assumption.

 

Everything in science that has been "proven" is a theory, things that haven been proven yet are hypothesis.

 

if evolution is "evolutionary" BS. then ID is "creationist" BS. Your argument is no better than mine, cant you see that?

[DeathChill]

While I don't want to get into a huge flame war here, it is certainly obvious that intelligent design is simply creationism without the attachment to a specific religion/God.

 

It really reminds me of the halloween Simpsons episode with Lucy Lawless:

 

Frink: Yes, over here, m-hay, m-haven... in episode BF12, you were battling Barbarians while riding a winged apoluser yet in the very next scene my dear, you're clearly atop a winged arabian! Please do explain it!

Lucy Lawless: Uh, yeah, well whenever you notice something like that.. a wizard did it!

Frink: Yes, alright, yes, in episode AG04..

Lucy Lawless: Wizard!

 

Yes I know it's slightly different but the general idea that if you can't explain it then a wizard (higher being) did it.

 

I'm not sure I understand the debate here, intelligent design hasn't proven anything while evolution has actual scientific backing. Does that make it foolproof? No.

 

I'm also not sure about how we're supposed to directly observe evolution when it's supposed to take A LOT of time. I don't understand why it's hard to extrapolate from the microevolution we've seen thus far:

 

"Hey, I see that over a bit of time you've changed very slightly to adapt to your environment...HOWEVER, bigger changes over a long period of time could never happen because that would actually fall in line with scientific claims..."

 

I just don't get how the hell anyone can believe that {censored}. Every day we learn more and more about thing's we did not know through science. To hell with it though, let's just throw it out in favour of saying that a higher power MUST have done it because it's too complicated to have been made any other way!

[gwprod12]

People can say "evolution" doesnt work, and find little smidgeons of evidence all day and all night. And they could be right.

 

What those who dont believe in "evolution" but rather in Intelligent Design should do is find evidence FOR Intelligent Design. (Scientific Evidence).

[killbot1000]

What those who dont believe in "evolution" but rather in Intelligent Design should do is find evidence FOR Intelligent Design. (Scientific Evidence).

 

precisely! because right now...theres absolutely ZERO, while evolution has a few holes, but a mountain of real evidence.

[VirtualGuitarist]

BS. All this ID movement is just an excuse for impose creationism in the classrooms. It smells like a perfume of totalitarism.

 

I don't mind if you have beliefs, i even think it's a really good thing.

 

But your convictions must remains in the private domain, you can deliberate as you want with friends, even do some conferences, meetings, etc.

 

But the doors of the schools must remain closed to your argues. You don't have any right to try impose your convictions in a place where we are supposed to learn to think by ourselves, to doubt and experiment, and a place where we're supposed to bring our children.

 

In fact, even if ever ID could be good idea (i really don't know and i don't care), even if ever there's some sort of begining of proof, i see that as a danger, as creationists (and GB, surely) are too receptive to your ideas to be an honest movement of thinking, or an simple philosophy.

 

I have to protect my kids.

[sarrahs]

Is there any small lab experiment you can do then to test evolution?

[gwprod12]

Not really. Just as there isnt a small lab experiment you can do to test Quantum Mechanics.

[wildcat69410]

Not really. Just as there isnt a small lab experiment you can do to test Quantum Mechanics.

 

Actually, you can do some experiments for Quantum Mechanics, however a large part of Quantum Mechanics does deal with untestable theories.

 

Scientists have tried, and yet again failed to produce even an inkling of Evolution in the labs. They have tested and tested again upon Fruit Flies, the very basic of all observable organisms, and yet have produced nothing of merit. The Fossil Record does not support their claim, even scientists have trouble finding definitive proof of Evolution. If evolution was such a definitive theory, do you think people would still try to find scientific alternatives?

 

In the same way, ID is in no way perfect. It has just as many gaps, just as many problems with scientific proof. It can't be proven in a lab. Yet why is there just as much opposition for ID? Is it because that ID has less proof? No. It's because of stubborn Darwinists who see their world drop away. In the same way that Christians have supported ID, Atheists have supported Evolution. Not because either side is right or wrong, but because each theory provides a backbone to their beliefs. For Christians, it provides the Scientific Theory backing their belief on the creation of the Universe, for Athiests, it provides the scientific backing for proving that God doesn't exist.

 

My point is, let's not polarize this into a Religious debate, and let's not make this an Evolution Fanboy vs ID Fanboy fight. Why don't we simply analyze the facts and debate them. Isn't that what this forum is all about?

[killbot1000]

First of all, im not a fanboy, if a better theory came along, that made more sense, I would believe it, but ID makes less sense than evolution, and has even less evidence to support it, so why should we move backwards?

 

Also, its my understanding that evolution takes millions of years. Its too gradual for a human to understand, we live maybe 80 years if were lucky, and we only realize things relative to our own lifetime, but really, thats nothing, thats but a blink of the eye for the earth, and its impossible to test something that takes millions of years. Again, there is evidence for it, otherwise it wouldnt be taught in a science classroom, simple.

 

All im saying is that ID follows NO scientific format, so it doesnt belong in any science classroom. period.

 

 

And there is evidence for macroevolution, some people see the world through a certain lense, and look for any reason to hold onto their lense of the world, maybe Im the same, I dunno, but to say there is no evidence is just lying to everybody here. Heres a page on it. I have a bunch more if somebody doesnt believe me, so yeah.

 

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/sp.evid.html

[wildcat69410]

First of all, im not a fanboy, if a better theory came along, that made more sense, I would believe it, but ID makes less sense than evolution, and has even less evidence to support it, so why should we move backwards?

 

That's pretty easy to say now, but if undeniable proof came along tomorrow that ID was a proven factual theory, I'd place a bet that you'd be first in line to try and disprove it.

 

Also, its my understanding that evolution takes millions of years. Its too gradual for a human to understand, we live maybe 80 years if were lucky, and we only realize things relative to our own lifetime, but really, thats nothing, thats but a blink of the eye for the earth, and its impossible to test something that takes millions of years. Again, there is evidence for it, otherwise it wouldnt be taught in a science classroom, simple.

 

If it's too "gradual" for a human to understand, then why the heck do we think we can teach it? I'm not asking for scientists to evolve a small creature into something incredibly better, I'm just asking for better than we have now. Seriously, by scientifically prodding some genetically simple creature, you'd think that Scientists would be able simulate hundreds of generations of that creature pretty quickly, and we'd be able to observe a reaction upon it. In fact, Scientists have indeed tried, and yet failed.

 

Come on, not everything taught in a science classroom is taught there because there is evidence for it. I've already brought up several examples of things I myself was taught at school that was incorrect, yet was kept in due to outside political measures. Not everything taught in school has educational merit. To assume that it's meritable simply because it's being taught in US School Systems is stupid.

 

All im saying is that ID follows NO scientific format, so it doesnt belong in any science classroom. period.

 

Natural Selection is tautology, so why is it being taught in a scientific classroom?

 

And there is evidence for macroevolution, some people see the world through a certain lense, and look for any reason to hold onto their lense of the world, maybe Im the same, I dunno, but to say there is no evidence is just lying to everybody here. Heres a page on it. I have a bunch more if somebody doesnt believe me, so yeah.

 

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/sp.evid.html

 

I never said that there was no proof, I just said there was a serious lack. And if you want to make a point, don't post links to endless pages of data, because if you don't have the time to read it and understand it, then I certainly won't.

[killbot1000]

I do have time to read it, and i have, all im saying is you have no reason to argue ID which has NO scientific evidence against something that does have scientific evidence (evolution)

 

Also, if more and more evidence on evolution came out tomorrow showing that its undeniably true, youd be the first in line to say its {censored}, so really that argument has no bearing here.

 

I did not mean that its beyond our ability TO UNDERSTAND intellectually, but that it was beyond our ability to understand in terms of chronology, we think our lives are a long time, but its nothing, and evolution takes millions of years, something our brains cant really comprehend. We cant just whip up a quick little experiment. Arguing with you is pointless since you refuse to listen to logic.