Ken Miller on Intelligent Design

[wildcat69410]

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)

 

There's evidence for ID. Mathematical probability, Behe's flagellum, etc etc. There's proof.

 

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.

 

No, that was my point. We're getting into an argument of fanboy vs fanboy. My original point was to try to shift away from that, and rather to an argument where we analyze the facts of both sides, and (hopefully, but unlikely), come to a somewhat reasonable conclusion.

 

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.

 

You're the only one ignoring anything here. I quite easily pointed out a situation where Scientists tried, using intelligent and logical methods, to even partially prove Evolution, but yet failed. Sure, it's difficult for us to imagine Evolution on a large scale, but it's much easier to imagine it and reproduce it on a much smaller scale, hence the Fruit Fly experiment. As much as scientists have tried to mutilate, disfigure, genetically enhance these poor pathetic creatures, they have failed to create even an inkling of experimental proof supporting Evolution.

 

My point is, if Evolution is apparently observable, then by simulating several thousand generations of genetically simple beings, we should be able to come to a scientfic consensus on whether or not Evolution is true or if it isn't. That's appears fairly logical to me.

[gwprod12]

You're pointing at "proof" that doesnt exist. There is no evidence for Intelligent Design. Period.

[rollcage]

hmm...life on earth being designed by a superior agent(s), wait a minute, you almost got me...that's just creationism!

 

Even intelligent design's own concepts have a tendency to prove itself wrong. for example, the ideal that "...a single system which is composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning". now, if a superior being were to have designed these systems, why make them so sensitive to missing parts? if i were to design a system, i would have backups built-in, so that the system would function if something went wrong. However, if the systems were developed by chance, they wouldn't have had the ability to develop backups, and would thus be sensitive to any minute change.

 

the concept of a fine-tuned universe declares that the many features that make life possible cannot be attributed to chance. Things like the strength of nuclear forces, electromagnetism, electron-neutron mass ratios, gravity, etc are more likely to be explained by an agent designing them (not likely). this is getting into more of how the universe was formed than the origin of life. the origin of the universe is one big mystery in itself, and any evidence thus far doesn't support any of this.

 

as for the whole idea of the designer, where did he/she/it come from? even if we move away from the basically implied "god", we could look at it as another alien species designing the life on earth. then we get to who created them, and the concept could repeat itself infinitely.

 

and my last point, intelligent design cannot be observed directly, the effects of the design must be observed. this makes id even less of a science, because a lot of those effects can be explained by evolution more clearly. so if we can't prove it and can only have faith that id is the truth, then it turns into a religious theory (creationism!).

[gwprod12]

rollcage: You're absolutely right. Intelligent design is based on one simple statement. That human life (indeed all life on the earth, and one would assume, the universe) could not have been created randomly, but must have been produced by a designer. Since it is impossible (because life had to be created) for extraterestrial beings to have created life on earth, then the designer must have arose outside the conventions of matter and life. Hence, the designer must be supernatural, thus the designer is God. It's creationism. And it's not science at all.

[killbot1000]

also, wildcat mentioned the bacterial flagellum, actually, if one takes pieces away from the flagellum, we get other pieces of the bacteria, the excretory system for example. If you take pieces away from the flagellum, they make other parts of the cell, so its not a stretch that a random mutation could have caused a cell with a flagellum. Just an observation there...

 

Despite what some people might think, theres actually quite a lot of evidence to support evolution, really...there is. And if people cant be rational about the science behind it, they have no right arguing it.

[wildcat69410]

You're pointing at "proof" that doesnt exist. There is no evidence for Intelligent Design. Period.

 

Really, here's a fairly unbiased article that examines both sides of the issue fairly well. You don't have to read it, although I did. The Article

 

Even intelligent design's own concepts have a tendency to prove itself wrong. for example, the ideal that "...a single system which is composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning". now, if a superior being were to have designed these systems, why make them so sensitive to missing parts? if i were to design a system, i would have backups built-in, so that the system would function if something went wrong. However, if the systems were developed by chance, they wouldn't have had the ability to develop backups, and would thus be sensitive to any minute change.

 

Actually, quite the opposite. Evolution and Natural Design is based upon the concept of a basic ancestral creature, over billions of years, that through countless genetic and physical mutations, has evolved into the creatures we see today. In order for that to happen, each of the genetic mutations has to not only create a working part, but also benefit the creature in some way so that it survives. So, each step of the process requires a fully working, and advantageous organism of some kind. Therefore, if we are to remove a piece of an organism, it should still function to some degree. However, when we cannot remove a piece and still have it work, then we're dealing with something that did not evolve from a less complex organism, hence Intelligent Design.

 

the concept of a fine-tuned universe declares that the many features that make life possible cannot be attributed to chance. Things like the strength of nuclear forces, electromagnetism, electron-neutron mass ratios, gravity, etc are more likely to be explained by an agent designing them (not likely). this is getting into more of how the universe was formed than the origin of life. the origin of the universe is one big mystery in itself, and any evidence thus far doesn't support any of this.

 

Intelligent Design deals solely with the creation of biological life, not with the orgin of the universe. Just as Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of the universe either, nor with any sort of electromagnetic forces.

 

as for the whole idea of the designer, where did he/she/it come from? even if we move away from the basically implied "god", we could look at it as another alien species designing the life on earth. then we get to who created them, and the concept could repeat itself infinitely.

 

In the same way, Evolution never explains where it all started. It just simply assumes that there were microbiological creatures on earth, that then began to evolve. The mystery of the Intelligent Designer is no more a mystery than the sudden appearance of submicrobiological organisms.

 

and my last point, intelligent design cannot be observed directly, the effects of the design must be observed. this makes id even less of a science, because a lot of those effects can be explained by evolution more clearly. so if we can't prove it and can only have faith that id is the truth, then it turns into a religious theory (creationism!).

 

And what part exactly can we observe of Evolution, or at least the main part of discussion here, macroevolution? We can't. Oh, and how exactly can Evolution explain the Flagellum? There hasn't been a reply by even Ken Miller against Behe's explaination of the Flagellum. So then, Evolution doesn't explain things more clearly, and asks you to assume just as much as ID has. Therefore, by your standards, should we then call Evolution a religious theory as well? Perhaps Darwinism, or Evolutionism sounds nice to me.

 

rollcage: You're absolutely right. Intelligent design is based on one simple statement. That human life (indeed all life on the earth, and one would assume, the universe) could not have been created randomly, but must have been produced by a designer. Since it is impossible (because life had to be created) for extraterestrial beings to have created life on earth, then the designer must have arose outside the conventions of matter and life. Hence, the designer must be supernatural, thus the designer is God. It's creationism. And it's not science at all.

 

The Intelligent Designer is generally left to interpretation, although the general acceptance is that it is God. However, there is science involved in it, Mathematical Probability and Improbability, Empirical Tests, etc etc. It's not the same as creationism, although there are some very close paralels.

 

also, wildcat mentioned the bacterial flagellum, actually, if one takes pieces away from the flagellum, we get other pieces of the bacteria, the excretory system for example. If you take pieces away from the flagellum, they make other parts of the cell, so its not a stretch that a random mutation could have caused a cell with a flagellum. Just an observation there...

 

Okay, but could each of these parts have lived and functioned on their own, as a unit together? Just because you and I are made of flesh, bone, sinew and muscle does not mean that we can take away a part of that, and still be left with a fully functioning organism. If it's not that much of a stretch, then how come evolutionists still can't explain it?

 

Despite what some people might think, theres actually quite a lot of evidence to support evolution, really...there is. And if people cant be rational about the science behind it, they have no right arguing it.

 

There's a good bit amounted, but for all the gaps there are to be had, I don't think it should be taken as the unbreakable law that it currently is.

 

As for rationality, I've been fairly rational here. At least I look at people's arguments, rather than simply ignoring them. And how exactly have I been irrational about ID?

[killbot1000]

Really, here's a fairly unbiased article that examines both sides of the issue fairly well. You don't have to read it, although I did. The Article

Actually, quite the opposite. Evolution and Natural Design is based upon the concept of a basic ancestral creature, over billions of years, that through countless genetic and physical mutations, has evolved into the creatures we see today. In order for that to happen, each of the genetic mutations has to not only create a working part, but also benefit the creature in some way so that it survives. So, each step of the process requires a fully working, and advantageous organism of some kind. Therefore, if we are to remove a piece of an organism, it should still function to some degree. However, when we cannot remove a piece and still have it work, then we're dealing with something that did not evolve from a less complex organism, hence Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design deals solely with the creation of biological life, not with the orgin of the universe. Just as Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of the universe either, nor with any sort of electromagnetic forces.

In the same way, Evolution never explains where it all started. It just simply assumes that there were microbiological creatures on earth, that then began to evolve. The mystery of the Intelligent Designer is no more a mystery than the sudden appearance of submicrobiological organisms.

And what part exactly can we observe of Evolution, or at least the main part of discussion here, macroevolution? We can't. Oh, and how exactly can Evolution explain the Flagellum? There hasn't been a reply by even Ken Miller against Behe's explaination of the Flagellum. So then, Evolution doesn't explain things more clearly, and asks you to assume just as much as ID has. Therefore, by your standards, should we then call Evolution a religious theory as well? Perhaps Darwinism, or Evolutionism sounds nice to me.

The Intelligent Designer is generally left to interpretation, although the general acceptance is that it is God. However, there is science involved in it, Mathematical Probability and Improbability, Empirical Tests, etc etc. It's not the same as creationism, although there are some very close paralels.

Okay, but could each of these parts have lived and functioned on their own, as a unit together? Just because you and I are made of flesh, bone, sinew and muscle does not mean that we can take away a part of that, and still be left with a fully functioning organism. If it's not that much of a stretch, then how come evolutionists still can't explain it?

There's a good bit amounted, but for all the gaps there are to be had, I don't think it should be taken as the unbreakable law that it currently is.

 

As for rationality, I've been fairly rational here. At least I look at people's arguments, rather than simply ignoring them. And how exactly have I been irrational about ID?

 

 

Ive already said this a billion times, we can observe evolution, the fossil record is abundant, you just choose to ignore it, atleast from what youre saying you choose to ignore it. It doesnt matter whether you have palientologist friends, that doesnt make you right, the fossil evidence is pretty much indisputable.

 

Im not saying evolution is an ironclad truth, I just see the evidence, and the evidence points to evolution, theres really not an argument here.

 

And back to the flagellum, lets say that the flagellum is made out of 20 pieces of data, when you take like 17 of those away and you only have 3 left, it just happens to be the sequence for another part of the cell that performs a different function, thats what I was trying to say, so to say that it doesnt operate without all its parts is only a half truth. The parts just perform different functions.

 

Blood clotting is another mechanism that has been greatly critisized in evolution, but if you take 1 component away, it works in other animals, because they have different conditions in their blood. Honestly, evolution just makes sense, youre just fighting vast scientific data, with nothing to support your own claims.

[gwprod12]

Wildcat: the article you referenced isnt unbiased. It's being posted on a Christian pseudoscience website.

[Gatot]

It is very interesting to see what's Vatican says about "dicotomy" science and religion, aka. "Darwin Evolution" vs. "Intelligent Design". This lecture of Pope Benedict, had trigged anger of many Moslems as he indirectly (by taking emperors conversation) stating that "due to concept of God is trancendent, then it brings Moslems blindly to do violence in the name of religion, as God's command is undeniable".

 

In fact, context of the lecture itself was not talking specifically on Islamic theology, furthermore violence on Islamic teaching. The whole idea is explaining church disagreement on dicotomy of above. The "moslem" is included in the lecture, maybe, just to show church's theology superiority compare to Islam. Well, he is catholic religious leader right?

 

I am moslem, btw.

 

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict...ensburg_en.html

APOSTOLIC JOURNEY OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI

TO MÜNCHEN, ALTÖTTING AND REGENSBURG

(SEPTEMBER 9-14, 2006)

 

MEETING WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF SCIENCE

 

LECTURE OF THE HOLY FATHER

 

Aula Magna of the University of Regensburg

Tuesday, 12 September 2006

[wildcat69410]

Ive already said this a billion times, we can observe evolution, the fossil record is abundant, you just choose to ignore it, atleast from what youre saying you choose to ignore it. It doesnt matter whether you have palientologist friends, that doesnt make you right, the fossil evidence is pretty much indisputable.

 

Really? Is the fossil record so indisputable? Check This out. It's unbiased as well, and for gwprod, it's also been posted on an unbiased website. It's fairly straightforward, and explains what the fossil record has, and seriously lacks. To simply claim that the fossil record is indisputable means nothing, and certainly doesn't make YOU right.

 

At the very most, the Fossil Record INDICATES that there was possibly some sort of progression through the different creatures over billions of years. But no more than that, at least not at the level necessary to truly have indisputable proof, or even close for the fossil record to support Evolution.

 

As for observing Evolution, I agree that we CAN observe it at a microevolutionary level. That's what Darwin observed with the Finches. However, we cannot observe macroevolution, simply due to its massive scope. That's generally the problem when dealing with theories about the progression and creation of life on Earth. So to say that we can actually observe it isn't exactly true.

 

Im not saying evolution is an ironclad truth, I just see the evidence, and the evidence points to evolution, theres really not an argument here.

 

Okay, some evidence points towards evolution, some points towards ID, and some point nowhere. (Just added that in for the balance). Your opinion that there is evidence pointed towards evolution is unarguable, simply because it's an opinion. In the same way, my opinion is really unarguable. It's all perspective with the evidence.

 

And back to the flagellum, lets say that the flagellum is made out of 20 pieces of data, when you take like 17 of those away and you only have 3 left, it just happens to be the sequence for another part of the cell that performs a different function, thats what I was trying to say, so to say that it doesnt operate without all its parts is only a half truth. The parts just perform different functions.

 

If that were the case, then evolution could still have been applied to it. However, there has been no other use or form found for the earlier flagellum. There has been no basic path, no sketchy path from a basic microbiological organism into the complex flagellum. If you begin to take away parts, you're simply left with a pointless jumble of microorganisms that accomplish nothing.

 

But even still, if the individual parts within the flagellum could perform individually different functions, then it would still be virtually impossible for each of these parts to have come together as they did over billions of years in the way they did for there to be a working prototype "flagellum" every step of the way. Individually they may work, but if you take one tiny mutation away, to give us evolution's predecessor to the flagellum, you get nothing. That's where evolution fails.

 

Blood clotting is another mechanism that has been greatly critisized in evolution, but if you take 1 component away, it works in other animals, because they have different conditions in their blood. Honestly, evolution just makes sense, youre just fighting vast scientific data, with nothing to support your own claims.

 

Actually, Evolutionists have still been unable to provide an Evolutionary pathway for the blood clot. Your statement may be a fact, but there has still been no scientific connection between it and evolution. The fact that blood clotting has to work perfectly, or the animal dies, is a situation that Evolution has a hard time dealing with. Something that has to work to perfection, with zero room for error, is something that a random series of mutations cannot produce. There has been no evolutionary pattern for the Eye, for the blood clot, the flagellum, many things. I'm not trying to say that that means that ID suddenly becomes right because Evolution can't explain it, I'm just saying that there isn't as vast a scientific data as you imply.

 

I have evidence to support my claims, mathematical forumlations and probability, irreducible complexity, logic, empiricallity, etc. Just because I'm fighting against something, doesn't mean it's wrong. Evolution, originally, was not widely scientifically acceptable. Primarily due to the lack of fossil evidence, which is an even larger issue today. Evolution fought "vast scientific data" and is currently winning, though for how long we have yet to see. I don't see the problem with fighting "vast" data, as long as I do it rationally and with an open mind. Of course, I have a few problems in those areas at times, which of course you have been always happy to point out to me...

 

Wildcat: the article you referenced isnt unbiased. It's being posted on a Christian pseudoscience website.

 

It doesn't matter where it's posted. It's an independent article that happens to further their ideals, so they post it up there. The site where it's up is just irrelevent.

[gwprod12]

I know it's asking a lot, but can you find a source for your science that doesnt call Abortion a holocaust and doesnt rail against the homosexual agenda?

 

Maybe we're all just misinterpreting you. I was under the impression that you were using your skepticism of organic evolution as evidence for intelligent design. Am I wrong?

[wildcat69410]

I know it's asking a lot, but can you find a source for your science that doesnt call Abortion a holocaust and doesnt rail against the homosexual agenda?

 

I wasn't aware of that site's overall radically conservative view, but yet that's not entirely the point. I have another link, that although is posted on another Christian site, it is focused primarily on education. It lists the qualifications of the writer of the article at the beginning, and although it may have been posted on a biased site, the man has quite a list of qualifications to boast.

 

Maybe we're all just misinterpreting you. I was under the impression that you were using your skepticism of organic evolution as evidence for intelligent design. Am I wrong?

 

My primary use of the lack of fossils was simply to show that Evolution isn't as indisputable as it is thought of. People argue the lack of evidence for ID, and how rediculous it sounds, but yet refuse to acknowledge the similar lack of evidence for Evolution. Basically, my point is that Evolution is still open for refinement, and it is still far from ironclad. Therefore, if it is being taught in schools, with this lack of evidence, then I see no problem in teaching ID at school, with a similar lack of evidnce.

 

That's not to say that Evolution doesn't boast some evidence, but ID has some evidence as well, albeit of different types. Arguably, it is possible for both theories to conicide to a point, especially on some of the microbiological levels. However, to what level they coincide is heavily debatable.

[gwprod12]

Okay....

 

Organic has this much evidence: >

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

<

Intelligent Design has this much evidence: ><

[james2mart]

I don't see why you can't take the bible as evidence, even the genaeology of it. Yes, it is a religious book. But why can't it be taken seriously? Everything we know about aristotle is all old ancient text, yet we take that to be solid fact... Why is the bible so different? Just because its a religious text? It doesn't conflict with other documentation of history...

[killbot1000]

I don't see why you can't take the bible as evidence, even the genaeology of it. Yes, it is a religious book. But why can't it be taken seriously? Everything we know about aristotle is all old ancient text, yet we take that to be solid fact... Why is the bible so different? Just because its a religious text? It doesn't conflict with other documentation of history...

 

 

Please stop talking...

[gwprod12]

from a philosophical point of view, I suppose you're right. But, if you're talking science, how would you (conceivably) put supernatural effects to the test? If God said "Let there be light" and the stars came into being, how would you determine if that was fact, or not? One of the prime tenets of science is skepticism. So, if you put anything you're told to the cynics fulcrum, what do you get? Either someone can independently verify what their told, or they cant. Anyone can independently look at the bible and see that it does in fact say what the preacher says it does, but no one can independently look at the universe, and, with the bible as a guide, verify the story as fact.

 

We're not arguing belief here. Belief is a fine thing. And I have no problem whatsoever with Intelligent Design as an idea. I actually like the idea, though 1) I dont like the general conclusions made by it and 2) I dont see it as having reasonable underpinnings.

 

If martians came to earth a billion years ago and designed the creatures who have lived here, or if the martians are continuously and consistently manipulating our genes to produce more advanced life forms... how would you ever tell? I guess finding a wounded Martian and putting it to the question would be one way. But still, it wouldnt be fact, just anecdote.

[killbot1000]

Main point is that Intelligent design and the bible are not scientific and should not be taught in biology classrooms, thats the issue here, not the teaching of intelligent design, keep it out of the science classrooms, thats all that matters. Should one teach math in an english class? Or PE in a history class? No of course not, and intelligent design doesnt belong in a science class. Theres not much more to it than that.

[wildcat69410]

Main point is that Intelligent design and the bible are not scientific and should not be taught in biology classrooms, thats the issue here, not the teaching of intelligent design, keep it out of the science classrooms, thats all that matters. Should one teach math in an english class? Or PE in a history class? No of course not, and intelligent design doesnt belong in a science class. Theres not much more to it than that.

 

You're equating Intelligent Design to the Bible, two entirely different things. Although ID may appear indeed to be a creationist hoax, it contains scientific information. To simply say that ID is religious jargon, and therefore should not be taught in a Science Class is weak, as ID has no basis on Religon. In fact, ID itself does not mention Religion, but yet an Intelligent Designer, which one could interpret in many ways.

[gwprod12]

The teleological argument doesnt make sense, unless a supernatural entity existing outside of the universe is the designer. Because the teleological argument (such is too complex, so such must have been designed) would have to, by necessity, be applied to a non-supernatural creator (martians or other advanced, but unknown beings).

 

If humans are too complex to have evolved naturally, and must have been designed, then so too must have the designer have been too complex to evolve naturally, and therefore must be designed, then so too must the designer's designer have been to complex to evolve naturally, and therefore must have been designed........ Eventually, for this logic to stand, the original designer (who designed the designer who designed the designer who designed the designer... who designed humans), must have been designed by a force or entity that does not follow the physical laws that supposedly make evolution impossible, hence, a supernatural being or force.

 

I dont see how this can possibly be construed as anything other than a theological argument, as all arguments which originate to some extent in the act of a deity are. Granted, this logic does not indicate whether Yahweh, Shiva, Thor, or some unknown supernatural entity is the creator. But it necessarily states that there is an outside influence on our closed system (the universe, or even the earth). An outside influence which can never under any circumstances be tested for or against.

 

Thus, since no experiment can show one way or another the makings of a supernatural entity, Intelligent Design cannot be construed as science.

 

HOWEVER. If one were to make the argument that intelligent life evolved once, 100 billion years ago in a galaxy far far away, and all live in the universe sprung ultimately from that intelligent life (through design), then you might have an argument. Except that if it is possible for intelligent life to have evolved once, there is no reason why it could not have evolved on Earth, as organic evolutionists believe.

 

HOWEVER. It is entirely within the realm of possibility that organic evolution is fundementally possible, but just didnt happen on earth. Beings who evolved organically might have designed the life on Earth. But until specific evidence of interference can be found, there cannot be much of an argument.

[markav28]

To simply say that ID is religious jargon, and therefore should not be taught in a Science Class is weak, as ID has no basis on Religon. In fact, ID itself does not mention Religion, but yet an Intelligent Designer, which one could interpret in many ways.

 

 

That is at the least being disingenuous. ID advocates do a very good job of assuring the public that what they are doing is good science, while at the same time assuring it's supporters that this is going to 'bring god back into the classroom'. This becomes evident simply by looking at what advocates of ID are actually saying.

 

The leading organization in support of ID right now is The Discovery Institute. An internal document that was leaked to the web and later acknowledged by the institute as authentic says the following: "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialistic worldview, and to replace it with a science consistent with Christian and theistic convictions."

 

We can also look at quotes from leading figures of the ID movement. Here's one by William Dembski, "Any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient."

One could go on and on with quotes like these.

 

The truth is, although many people would like you to believe otherwise, that the only reason anybody denies evolution is for religious reasons.

[wildcat69410]

If humans are too complex to have evolved naturally, and must have been designed, then so too must have the designer have been too complex to evolve naturally, and therefore must be designed, then so too must the designer's designer have been to complex to evolve naturally, and therefore must have been designed........ Eventually, for this logic to stand, the original designer (who designed the designer who designed the designer who designed the designer... who designed humans), must have been designed by a force or entity that does not follow the physical laws that supposedly make evolution impossible, hence, a supernatural being or force.

 

ID does not necessarily use Humans as an example of an Irreducibly Complex item. Primarily, ID deals with items on a much smaller level, such as the flagellum and submicrobiological items. Therefore, both ID and Evolution can live side by side, because one can say that ID produced the Flagellum and other tiny organisms, but Evolution brought them to the point we have them today. (Not necessarily my belief, but a fairly common one)

 

The problem with the creator in ID is the same with the existance of the first microbiological organism/amino acid for Evolution. No one has yet to scientifically explain how Evolution originally started. How did amino acids randomly appear, and then how did they slowly evolve to microbiological organisms, and then to micro-cellular organisms, and then eventually to what we have today. That still doesn't make Evolution impossible.

 

Thus, since no experiment can show one way or another the makings of a supernatural entity, Intelligent Design cannot be construed as science.

 

Again, no experiment can show the makings or creation of an amino acid spontaneously upon the earth's surface, yet Evolution is still construed as Science. In both theories, one can quite easily focus upon the lack of proof in the early phases of the Earth, yet the majority of proof lies with the mathematical probability/improbability along with Behe's Biological Theories for ID, and Evolution's Genetic Proof.

 

That is at the least being disingenuous. ID advocates do a very good job of assuring the public that what they are doing is good science, while at the same time assuring it's supporters that this is going to 'bring god back into the classroom'. This becomes evident simply by looking at what advocates of ID are actually saying.

 

And what exactly are Evolution advocates saying? They're playing to the left winged demographic, who are trying to keep any mentioning of God out of the classroom. Their goal isn't to teach a science, it's to fulfill their political agenda. That's the problem here, politics are getting in the way of education.

 

The leading organization in support of ID right now is The Discovery Institute. An internal document that was leaked to the web and later acknowledged by the institute as authentic says the following: "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialistic worldview, and to replace it with a science consistent with Christian and theistic convictions."

 

They simply support ID, and made an opinionated statement upon it. This has no bearing upon the validity of ID. If I were to support Evolution because I believed it furthered some neo-nazi world view, does that mean that Evolution is all about neo-naziism? Of course not.

 

We can also look at quotes from leading figures of the ID movement. Here's one by William Dembski, "Any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient."

One could go on and on with quotes like these.

 

Okay, so we have a scientist who is a Christian. Big whoop. You're just attacking the people behind the theory, not the theory itself.

 

The truth is, although many people would like you to believe otherwise, that the only reason anybody denies evolution is for religious reasons.

 

Incorrect statement, due to your logical fallacies above. People disagree with Evolution on a factual basis, some on fossil records, others on Irreducibly Complex beings, others on mathematical improbability. Whether or not these scientists are Christian isn't the point. In the same way, if a Darwinist is a liberal, does that mean that they're ALWAYS denying ID for political reasons? There's no link between the two. Period.

[markav28]

And what exactly are Evolution advocates saying? They're playing to the left winged demographic, who are trying to keep any mentioning of God out of the classroom. Their goal isn't to teach a science, it's to fulfill their political agenda. That's the problem here, politics are getting in the way of education.

 

To say that supporters of evolution are pushing some political agenda is false. They support evolution because they have reviewed the evidence for it and have found it to be the best explanation for the diversity of life that we have right now. If someone wants to present a better interpretation of the evidence, thats fine, thats what science is about. Most scientists have not found ID to be a better explanation because it does not meet the criteria of a scientific explanation

The problem here is not politics in the classroom (thats an entirely different problem), the problem here is religion in a science classroom. If you are going to have classes on religion, thats fine, but keep it in a philosophy class.

 

They simply support ID, and made an opinionated statement upon it. This has no bearing upon the validity of ID. If I were to support Evolution because I believed it furthered some neo-nazi world view, does that mean that Evolution is all about neo-naziism? Of course not.

Okay, so we have a scientist who is a Christian. Big whoop. You're just attacking the people behind the theory, not the theory itself.

 

My comments were not intended to attack any aspect of ID or its proponents. It was a response to your claim that ID has nothing to do with religion. My point here was simply that the majority of the supporters of ID have something more than just an Intelligent Designer in mind. Specifically, they have the Christian God in mind.

 

 

Lastly, you are right, I should not have said EVERYBODY denies evolution for religious reasons. What I am going to say is that everybody who I have ever encountered who denies evolution does so because it is not compatible with their religious worldview.

[gwprod12]

When I said "No experiment can show the existence or lack of existence of a supernatural being" I didnt mean for that to be interpreted (as you did) to say that "no experiment has been performed which can show the existence or lack of existence of a supernatural being". I meant to say that no experiment could ever be possible which would show the existence or lack of existence of objects or entities that do not conform to the natural world. The fact that there has never been an experiment that shows the spontaneous formation of amino acids (a point I'm not willing to concede), does not mean an experiment that can show that is impossible. It's not.

 

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/...ogy/miller.html

The above link is a little blurb on the Miller/Urey experiment that spontaneously produced amino acids.

 

When it comes to mathematical probability, one can easily say (as refutes the improbability argument) that everything that happens in daily life is mathematically improbable. Yet, somehow, it still happens.

 

And again, while IDers see things in nature that they believe cannot be explained by organic evolution, they make no attempt whatsoever to explain them in a scientifically rational way. IDers believe that if one were to unearth a statue in the middle of a glade, that the natural assumption would be that it did not naturally form, but was designed by someone. Yet, throughout history, objects that are natural phenomena have been anthropomorphized and attributed to intelligent beings. Such as lightning being Zeus' anger or the sun being the chariot of Apollo. We know for a fact that neither of these things is, strictly speaking, reasonable.

Also, unearthing a rock in the middle of a glade, an IDer would naturally assume that it wasnt designed, though there is no reason to believe that the unformed stone isnt a form of sculpture of a culture different than our own.

[wildcat69410]

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/...ogy/miller.html

The above link is a little blurb on the Miller/Urey experiment that spontaneously produced amino acids.

 

Unfortuantely, the Urey Miller Experiment is false, due to recent scientific developments over the past few years. The experiment was based upon the atmosphere of Jupiter, which was the estimated atmosphere of early Earth at the time of the experiment. However, I think in the 70's, maybe more recently, we've discovered that the early earth atmosphere was in fact widely different from the atmosphere used in the Urey Miller Experiment. One of the key parts of the experiment was that if the atmosphere was at all different, that the production of the Amino Acids would not have taken place. With this change, we can conclude that no amino acids would be produced if the experiment was reproduced using the correct compilation of gases that was actually in the Earth's Atmosphere.

 

When it comes to mathematical probability, one can easily say (as refutes the improbability argument) that everything that happens in daily life is mathematically improbable. Yet, somehow, it still happens.

 

What is something that happens every day that is mathematically improbable? By improbable, I'm talking 1 in every 10 to the 1 followed by 50 zeroes power. That is a serious improbability there.

 

And again, while IDers see things in nature that they believe cannot be explained by organic evolution, they make no attempt whatsoever to explain them in a scientifically rational way. IDers believe that if one were to unearth a statue in the middle of a glade, that the natural assumption would be that it did not naturally form, but was designed by someone. Yet, throughout history, objects that are natural phenomena have been anthropomorphized and attributed to intelligent beings. Such as lightning being Zeus' anger or the sun being the chariot of Apollo. We know for a fact that neither of these things is, strictly speaking, reasonable.

Also, unearthing a rock in the middle of a glade, an IDer would naturally assume that it wasnt designed, though there is no reason to believe that the unformed stone isnt a form of sculpture of a culture different than our own.

 

There's a large leap from comparing the lightning bolt and zeus to ID and an intelligent designer. Biological processes are far more complex than the earth's rotation, and lightning. To simply assume that Evolution happened as it did, but yet disregard a similar assumption of ID is a little hypocritical. Sure, Evolution has some forms of evidence, and ID has some but not as much, they both make similar assumptions. At a certain level, life is too complex to have come about randomly, but rather must have been created by an intelligent being.

[Proteo]

At a certain level, life is too complex to have come about randomly, but rather must have been created by an intelligent being.

 

No matter how much you spin the cat, the cat always remain the same. At the end, ID and creationism always fall back to this anti-scientific and really stupid idea (no offense please, the idea is not yours after all). No more interest into reading this post for me.