Vicious, but probably necessary, Fifth Dentist.

That is all.

Most telling is Google's smart bots that added medical, bath and laudry product ads to the center of your "vicious but ... necessary" post.

Or you could find a less violent way -- perhaps studying the sciences and learning to think. That is intelligent design. If there is a design to thinking for oneself.

This time, Bravo, Booey!

The world is getting weirder by the minute. It's fun to watch.

Jon Stewart is having fun with it even as I type.

Darwinians have brooght all this on themselves, by promoting such a sitting duck theory as Darwin's natural selection fraud.

Dentist, have you read Dembski?

he can't hear you, he is still flushing

Excelsior!

really, this hate filled piece of "satire" is genius work. don't listen to dembski, he's not to be taken seriously- [edited] well, the rest is above.

it's this sort of juvenile, hate-filled stupidity that guarantees no one in their right mind will ever listen to anything you say again.

this is categorized under "humor/satire"- someone needs a lesson on humor and satire both, because this is neither. this is just the childish rant [edited]. nothing more, nothing less.

the comment policy says that you want to keep out insults and unfounded accusations. i'm wondering of your vile garbage post is considered an insult. let's see if you're the hypocrite i've no doubt you are. i say keep doing things they way you're doing- it's this reason that the great majority of americans aren't even listening to your arguments anymore, let alone taking you seriously.

Josh....while you have the absolute Right to not like his humour, you may be deceiving yourself a bit if you believe that anyone with an intellect in the double digits can take ID as anything more than a Metaphysical excercise

it certainly does not fall under the definition of either science, nor theory in that it cannot be either proven, nor disproven via empirical objective data...among other things

all that aside..it's just Humor...you don't like it, don't read it

freedom of choice and all thet

Excelsior!

Yeah, yeah, gonzo, tut-tut. The funny thing is, your lack of sympathy for a generation of students being led down the garden path by a bush-league philosopher who's arrogated meanings for design and intelligence and is riding a tradition of american piety and anti-intellectualism for all its worth. You have no moral compass, man.

Susan, honey :)

Why only religion topics for you?

You're too smart to be so obsessed with debates about God or denying God.

Who cares? Comment on other stuff. I like you.

That is all.

Yes, how productive and mature. Here's an idea - why not find out the science behind intelligent design and then try to engage in some meaningful discussion instead of childish and unimaginative vitriol? Just a thought. Unless of course you buy into the caricature of I.D. as perpetuated on COMEDY shows which consistently make the error of equating I.D. (good science) with pagan creation myths.

Intelligent Design reflects the latest in scientific discovery, whether you like it or not. But feel free to hang on to your civil-war-era Darwinian faith, if you feel so inclined.

While I appreciate your suggestion, I believe that "meaningful discussion" would be a waste of time on this topic. Mocking and derisive caricature seems much more appropriate to me here.

Bombadill..I would dearly LOVE to read of any actual science involved in ID.
Everything i have found so far is supposition and hypotheticals, without a single shred of empirical, objective data.

NO model for provable/disprovable experimentation, NO quantifiable or qualifiable axioms. Instead is seems ot be nothing more than attempting to prove negatives by pointing towards misunderstood parts of evolutionary Theory.

so please, point me towards some of the science involved, so far there has been none.

Excelsior!

Excelsior, here's just a starter:

1. Irreducible Complexity of Biological Machines: Like, the cell, or the bacterial flagellum. These molecular machines require all of their constituent parts simultaneously, in order to function. Remove one single component (from one of these impossibly complex nano-machines) and it stops functioning completely. The slow successive and unguided modifications of Darwinism cannot produce a machine like this, not even with all the time in the world. Natural selection would prevent these machines from being built. This is science, not Theology.

2. Information at the core of molecular life (DNA). Yes, information. More complex than a supercomputer. A single strand containing more data than an entire library. Darwin's unguided process does not possess a mechanism to generate information. And every example of information you will find, has a cognizant intelligent entity as it's source. This is science, not Theology.

3. The embarassment of the fossil record and the Cambrian Explosion. Our so-called ancestors amount to fragments of teeth and jaw bones with a femur mixed in here and there. The sum of which could fit in a "small box". This coupled with with the COMPLETE LACK of true transitional forms between species amounts to a pretty devistating blow to the Darwinian faith. Where are the transitions between our alleged fish ancestors and the ape-like ancestors? Where are the TRUE transitions (rather than extinct animal species) which demonstrate our descent from the ape-like ancestors? They should be in abundance. They are nil.
The Cambrian Explosion: several million years ago when all significant animal phyla suddenly appear in the fossil record without having enough time to have evolved. There's not sufficient explanation for this, outside of an Intelligent Designer.

This is science, not theology. Don't let your philosophical and political gurus fool you with their vitriol and rhetoric.

Is it necessary to get the entire book up the anus? I'm finding that I can at most fit about 2/3.

Why is the left nostril preferred? Being right handed it would be much easier to use the right to get proper leverage.

I broke the toilet seat before I could get through a full hour of the 700 club and only nod through about 45 minutes. Can I repeat this step after getting a new seat?

But thanks to your suggestions, I must admit I am finally starting to see Dembski's point of view!

ignorantdesign.com

Apparently Bombadill was able to complete the entire process succesfully.

to Bombadill,

thank you for the attempt, let's have a look , shall we?

1) supposition..you have NOT shown any proof or given any kind of experimental model to disprove either evolution's theory or put forward the ID contention...all you have done is shown an unsubstantiated statement
*The slow successive and unguided modifications of Darwinism cannot produce a machine like this, not even with all the time in the world. Natural selection would prevent these machines from being built. This is science, not Theology.*
yet you provide no scientific evidence to back up this claim, you merely state that "it cannot be"...show your Proof, or at least the empirical objective data to substantiate the position...

2)again, unsubstantiated claim...
*And every example of information you will find, has a cognizant intelligent entity as it's source. This is science, not Theology.*
i never stated that i thought ID was theology..rather i clearly stated it IS metaphysics..and still NOT science...perhaps you shoudl check your definitions?

3)you state...
*There's not sufficient explanation for this, outside of an Intelligent Designer.*
again..where is your Proof? i do agree that evolutionary theory does have sections that are not fully explained, which is why it is a Theory by definition and not a "fact", "law" or "axiom"

Bombadill sez..
*This is science, not theology.*
you keep repeating this ...allow me to help

American Heritage dictionary defines science as..."The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. "
do note the "experimental investigation" part...

metaphysics is defined as..."A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment. "

evolution = science

ID = metaphysics

by definition...

Bombadill sez..
*Don't let your philosophical and political gurus fool you with their vitriol and rhetoric.*

i would ask that you examine your words here, and apply them yourself...i am not "fooled" by anyone, but rather attempt to examine issues such as these as objectively as possible...

the first step it to accurately define the Terms used...science does...ID proponents do not

nuff said?

Excelsior!

Typical evolutionist crap. Evolution is so stupid it requires more faith to be believed upon. Faith that the minute particles of this world could somehow rearrange by themselves into your eye and brain--so that future scientists could reverse-engineer them. The reason why we get maniacal outrage from evolutionists is because their FAITH in this evolution religion of theirs is now being challenged by modern science and modern tools that know that Darwin's supposed basic and simple building blocks of nature are nothing but basic and simple. In fact, the cell is irreducibly complex and is as complicated as a small city, with its own power, maintenance, reproduction departments.

But of course, you here are free to stick to your toilet scenarios.

In all seriousness, meaningful scientific debate must take place among scientists in the field in peer- reviewed journals. Public schools should teach mainstream theories based on the expert consesus -- whatever that is at the time. Even if this crapola did not have a religious basis (and I think that's a ludicrous claim) you cannot seriously argue that this is mainstream science given the 999:1 ratio of scientists who think this is not just wrong but outrageous. You, I, and the Kansas school board are simply not qualified based on reading one or two books to argue this directly. (Please accept my apologies if you are in fact a PhD biologist working in this field.) We have to rely on the experts. If your arguments are correct then eventually they will become the mainstream opinion among scientists. That's how science works. But honestly this theory isn't even close and I'd bet my life that it never will be. Incidentally, do you see many school boards rejecting mainstream scientific thought based on theories proposed by a small minority of fringe "scientists" where the domain doesn't bridge territory also covered by religion (e.g, plate techtonics)? I think not.

i disagree Hal...scientific theory involves many things...but far less Faith is required than that of metaphysical concepts such as ID

you need to have "faith" in the Designer first...without ANY kind of empirical evidence, after all that is what "faith" is, by definition..

science , on the other hand..has such empirical, repeatable, observable , and objective data...and a Theory is ever changing to fit new Facts and quantifiable data as it is substantiated

if a Theory can be proven incorrect by the scientific method, the new Theory replaces it...as has been shown over and over again in the course of history

part of hte problem with ID, is that iot DOES raise some good Questions, but offers no scientific data to explain or replace it...merely "because someone did it" without any evidence, and then offers no experimental process to determine tha accuracy of such faith based assertations

look above for the definitions of science and metaphysics...then we can talk further...

Excelsior!

gonzo...

Aside from the fact that you were unable to respond to the very specific and very scientific examples I gave you in support of Intelligent Design (and those were just a few), I will humor you with another response...

There is nothing metaphysical about the clear and concrete observations of science. And what science actually observes is what I clearly demonstrated in my previous post. Namely, that biological systems possess irreducible complexity which Darwinism does not have a mechanism to produce. ID holds that certain features are not reducible to mechanisms alone, and must be an intelligent agent's intervention. It simply observes design in biological systems. It does not posit who or what that designer is. So, it does not make theological claims. It simply observes design and information(which Darwinism cannot produce)in nature. There is nothing unscientific about that. And it certainly is falsifiable. One can enter a lab and remove a component from the Bacteria flagellum and observe how it completely ceases to work. One can do the same with the blood clotting mechanism as well as the cell. And one can demonstrate that Darwinism cannot build one of these machines. In contrast, what science DOES NOT observe is the slow successive mutations of biological systems such that information is gained and ultimately you get goo-to-you-via-the-zoo. This is fantasy and more and more scientists are realizing it. Which is why the I.D. movement will continue to grow.

The ridicule you find on sites like these, only contribute to the growth of the I.D. movement, ultimately. People are able to see thru these attempts vitriol driven censorship. People like on this site are unable to deal with the irrefutible science behind I.D.. Let go of your steamboat-era science and embrace what it new science actually observes.

you refuse to understand that you have not "discovered" anything in your examination of evolutionary Theory other than areas which have yet to be accurately explained within the rigors of the scientific methodology

you are also attempting to attribute "vitriol" to my responses, when any obeserver can clearly see that such is not the case...

as to my response involving the points you raise..i DID respond to each, i am no scientist of evolutionary theory, what i did was show that your statements were merely that. they ARE good observations, but the suppositions you put forward for explanation are far frm being "scientific" as per definition of the terms...which i also provided

and that is the nut of it...as i have shown, any ID proponents and advocates i have conversed with all have the same difficulty..

definition of terms

Excelsior!

gonzo, dear, I think your use of "metaphysical" confused the ID proponent -- Bombadil appears to have heard "mystical" instead.

The arguments for ID stated in Comment 14 are straight out of Creationism doctrine. So much for ID not being that religion-based non-science.

So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species.

It is easy to get VERY complicated systems containing a tremendous amount of information starting from very simple, low information systems... Complexity does not imply design. Recursion or nonlinearity work quite well. And the world is recursive and very non-linear.

Those who reject the scientific method don't deserve to experience the benefits of it. By all rights, when such a person goes to the doctor he should not be treated with modern antibiotics. Instead, he should have leeches attached to his nutsack and receive a kerosene enema. Unfortunately, the world isn't entirely fair and such people continue to receive the benefits of science while still believing in their dumbass astrology. While the individual proceeds blissfully unscathed by his assault on science, society isn't fairing as well.

DrPat,

The arguments are straight out of current scientific observation. They are USED by creationists. This does not call into question their legitimacy. Again, it's what science observes.

The Cambrian explostion is scientific and poses a serious problem for Darwinism -
Cambrian Explosion - Origin of Biological Complexity

Transitional fossils - There are no true transitions between genomes. Only microevolutionary adaptaions WITHIN a genome (and information is never gained). Learn - Alleged Transitional forms

The fossil record has NEVER produced a specimen that truly represents something in between genomes. Again, where are the transitions between reptiles and ape, etc�?

On the origin of complexity and the inability of low information systems to self organize into irreducibly complex machines. - Complexity / Irreducible Complexity.pdf

easier linkage, sorry:

Cambrian Explosion - Origin of Biological Complexity

Alleged Transitional forms

Complexity / Irreducible Complexity

On the Darwinian myth of Abiogenesis (or, Poof! Nothing made something!):

Abiogenesis

You see what I'm saying about the pointlessness of trying to debate this? Oh you've got web links to the IDEA center? That's pretty irrefutable. You win. Let me flush all my graduate degrees down the toilet. I stand by my original statement that this shit should be mocked and derided and that these douchebags should be laughed at.

But, DDS-5, it's a maxim in such debates that if you can SAY it often enough, in enough venues, it MUST be true.

Based on that, our Bombadil is a master debater...

...Yes, but I'm a cunning linguist.
--Austin Powers

The linking started with "DrPat". I responded. Why not deal with what the scientists (yes, scientists) in the articles are positing?

Bombadill,

Please, you're hurling a bunch of creationist canards at us. Your points are fallacious and have long ago been debunked. The Cambrian explosion is not a major problem for evolutionary theory, and there are indeed many, many transitional fossils. Get the hence to Talkorigins.org!

See:

Here,

here, and

here.

Because it won't get us anywhere. The only issue we're qualified to address is: what do the vast majority of people who know what the fuck they're talking about think? The only skill involved here is simple arithmetic. So what do you think the numbers say?

Bombadil, it isn't about QUANTITY, it's about QUALITY of information. You cannot win this debate by citing Creationist arguments. All that does is reveal the source of your ID inclinations.

ah, but Dentist...it is not about numbers, rather ID proponents seek to redifine terms and thus establish ID as a "theory" rather than an unfounded hypothesis, hence attempting to lend credibility to the metaphysical excercise by equating it with science via the fallacious use of terminology

any time you really wish to open an honest debate, ask the ID proponent this simple Question

what repeatable, objective , Experimental process will you use to prove your hypothesis within the rigors of scientific method so it may be peer reviewed like any other scientific or mathematical Theory?

my next favorite is..please show me the mathematical model desribing the Theory...

neither have ever been done , to the best of my Knowledge by ID proponents..instead we always get the "seem like it had to be designed" argument...which is fine for philosophy or metaphysics, but does not pass muster when it comes to hard science...

Excelsior!

gonzo --
It's impossible to convince them of anything. The motivation of the Republican campaign to discredit science is that science is not controllable. It's always getting in the way of their attempts to make their own reality. So what do they do. First they fund their own "scientists" to sow doubt in the mind of Joe Sixpack. Then they tell Joe, hey you don't have to listen to Professor Egghead anymore. He thinks he's better than you. You can figure out science for yourself now. Here are some web links. When you get these two sides together to debate, the average person can't tell that one side is based on a mountain of research from peer-reviewed journals and the other was pulled out of some guy's ass over at the Discovery Institute. Game, Set and Match to them in the short run. In the long, run everyone comes to admit that global warming is real and that smoking causes cancer. They may even deny that they ever said otherwise. Hopefully, we won't be living in caves when that admission finally comes.

you mean you don't live in a cave?

wow...

so there is something beyond caves? next you will be telling me there is more ot entertainment than these nice wall paintings...

{8^P~~~~~~~~~~

Excelsior!

sigh... wrong on all counts.

First of all, Orac. You site Talkorigins.org which is as biased as any source I could post. They have a clear naturalistic/atheistic agenda and want nothing more than to censor the I.D. camp. And they have demonstrated time and again that they are willing to use blatant deceit (as well as out-dated data) to achieve their purpose. Furthermore, trueorigin.org was created in direct response to the lies perpetuated on Talk Origins. This is no secret. Now, we could fire links at each other until we are blue in the face. What matters is the actual data. The points I presented have not "long since been debunked". This is propaganda that the Darwinian Fundamentalists want you to believe. Again, for the most current and accurate scientific information on these issues and how they have not been debunked, please read carefully the following:

On transitional fossils


The testibility and legitimacy of I.D. as science


Probability & the mathematics

And what repeatable, objective, Experimental process will you use to prove your hypothesis that humans descended from a common ancestor since this is not testable or repeatable and since science has never observed a species evolving into a completely new genome?

Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design here

ah yes, self published books and books published by organizations backing ID...like the website itself...


nothing objective, nor within the scientific journals for such things..

as i have stated, so far ID has presented itself as a most excellenct source of Metaphysical discussion

but as science, it ranks just behind the phlogiston chemists

Excelsior!

How would this be taught in a curriculum?

*Teacher shows the inner workings of a human eye* and announces to the class "You see this? You see how complicated this thing is? Well this is easily explained as it was designed by a higher force... moving on"

What's the cutoff of how complicated an organism or system has to be before we say "that's not quite complicated enough to have been designed by a higher force" (tho religious fanatics will contend that everything was designed by a higher force). What about simple single celled organisms, bacteria, algae, etc.? Were those created by an intelligent designer? If they weren't why not and how did they come to be?

As has already been stated numerous times ID is not a scientific theory but at most a ludicrious hypothesis although it doesn't necessarily fall into this category either as the definition of a hypothesis is:
"A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation". Oops how do we test ID by further investigation? ID is untestable, not falsifiable and therefore is not a theory and sadly those who cling onto ID will do so for many centuries to come as we'll never be able to disprove something that we've never seen and don't have any evidence that shows it exists.

One more thing: every time I read or listen to an interview with dembski or behe they always bring up the watch analogy, the rushmore analogy and the mousetrap analogy. You never hear them back up their argument with hard scientific, empirical data but instead sugarcoats it with analogies that the religious right can latch on to and say "Yah thats right! My god even if I saw Rushmore for the first time and was unaware of its existence I'd know it had to have been designed!" Religion has always attempted to explain to people things they don't understand (and therefore fear). What's easier to explain to a child when he/she asks "What happens when we die?", "Where did we come from?", etc. You're not going to say "Well we're not sure what happens when we die as we don't have any hard proof and we've come about by natural selection and random gene mutation", instead it's easier to simply say "There's an afterlife awaiting you and God did it". The latter responses are much more comforting. I admit it's a bit unsettling thinking that we came about from "random" gene mutation and even I admit I'd so like to believe that we were created and have fates but sadly my skeptical and what I like to think logical mind just can't latch itself onto a pseudoscience hypothesis.

P.S. I don't care about ID as long as it's not forced upon our young generation. If you're going to teach it in class teach it in an elective philosophy class or your local sunday school.

See here

Intelligent design in the scientific literature

Science Citation Index* - the last 14 years (13 million articles, 5300 journals as of 8/8/04)

141 articles use the key phrase "intelligent design" in titles, keywords, or abstract.
....All but 43 are engineering articles.
....Of the 37 articles on biological ID, 32 are critical of ID.
....None of 6 articles promoting ID (primarily letters to the editor) is in a research journal.

For comparison 113,000 articles use the keyword "evolution", including 28,000 in 2003.
....Many refer to biological evolution and are in research journals.

The key ID concept "specified complexity" - 1 article (a book review)

Another key ID concept "irreducible complexity" - 9 articles.
....The two in research journals criticize irreducible complexity.

Key evolutionary term "natural selection" - 5400 articles

For comparison, "flat earth" returns 53 articles. "Cold fusion" returns 661 articles!

Intelligent Design is a probably as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The religious right is trying to take away SCIENCE.

That is a serious concern. I mean, in the old days it was booze or sex or kicking your dog that was bad. Now, they are eliminating science. This is criminal, and we are becoming the laughing stock of the world.

Don't you be dissing the Diety, Lono! (Long live the holy meatball!)

Gonzo, your redundancy is repeating itself. To my recollection, you've never addressed my position: that ID isn't a theory so much as a collection of evidence which challenges the prevailing theory of evolution.

ID isn't creationism; that's a straw man. Evolution isn't atheism either. But ID does raise some questions that creationists have been asking. ID is compatible with creationism, as atheism is compatible with evolution. But let's not confuse them.

You argue that ID hasn't presented a working model. Well, the point of ID is: "there doesn't seem to be a working model". Gaps in the fossil record argue against a gradual evolution. Statistical analysis argues against the standard evolutionary timeline. Irreducible complexity argues against the sufficiency of random mutation. Extinction theory argues against the standard model of natural selection.

(more later...)

Meanwhile, back in the rest of the world: they are teaching true science in science classes and kicking our collective asses in the educational arena -- something which was unheard of just 35 short years ago! Are they teaching creationism or ID? Hell, no! They're teaching science, and leaving religion to the parental units -- and laughing their asses off at us! This debate is strictly an American event, folks... ever wonder why?

(...i'm back)

I saw a special recently about the Clovis First theory of archaeology. Without going into it, it was the dominant theory about how humans came to North America. It was the theory I learned back in high school: that they crossed over from Asia to Alaska before the last Ice Age, then moved southward when everything froze up. I believe that this was supposed to happen 9500 years ago.

Great theory. Archaeologists accepted it, and only dug down 9500 years worth. One guy dug lower (12,500 years, I think), and found some arrowheads. When he published his results, he was attacked in academic circles. Eventually people started presenting evidence that man was in North America 12,500 years ago, and the old theory was discarded.

This is how science is supposed to work: new evidence revises old theories. But I was fascinated by two facts: one, that archaeologists weren't looking where they didn't expect to find things, and two, that when they did find things below the expected sediment levels, that they were afraid to publish the results.

---

There was a recent article about a British computer scientist named Rugg who may have solved one of the great medieval mysteries, the Voynich Manuscript. This document is written in a code that no one has been able to crack.

Rugg has developed an analytical technique which has nothing to do with decryption, but he may have solved this mystery. What he does is diagrams out all possible solutions to an "unsolvable" problem, all yes/no's and areas of expertise. Then he looks at the assumptions that people are making, and the specialists involved in the project. He then focuses on an area of research that isn't being explored. As he puts it, it's a scientific way of finding errors in science.

Well, it turns out that everyone who had been trying to break the cypher had been assuming that the code was real. Rugg decided to explore the alternative. He researched medieval forgery, and discovered that one of the manuscript's first owners was later suspected of forgeries. As for the code, Rugg found a 1600's document on how to create a fake language, which would yield very similar results to the Voynich document.

---

If this wasn't too long a post already, I'd tell stories about plate tectonics and steady-state theory that are very similar to the above.

---

The point here? Beware of orthodoxies. Many pro-evolution posts on this site have talked about how all scientists agree with the current evolutionary model. But the fact that this model fails to explain the evidence raised by ID'ers should tell you that something's wrong. And the resistance that scientists have to contrary evidence (out of fear that they'll look like creationists) is another red flag.

However, to qualify as an alternate scientific theory, it must first qualify AS as scientific theory. ID isn't science -- no more than the theory that dinosaurs died out due to allergies.

Not falsifiable. Not testable. Not science.

Oh please, you just have to watch a Godzilla movie to know that dinosaurs and people lived together. Haven't you ever seen that science show "the Flintstones?" T-Rexes were used by the ancient Bozoyians as steam shovels. How the hell do think the pyramids were built? Evolution smevolution!

Editor

Teachers who include Intelligent Design in science classes should also explain why science now rejects ID and all other versions of creationism.

Explanations in science differ from those in religion and theology. Scientific explanations are deemed worthy only when they reduce or eliminate the initial mystery and confusion that nature seems to present. The best way to do this is to interpret reality solely in terms of purely naturalistic concepts, agencies and processes; i.e., those things that can be understood through careful observation, study and experimental testing.

Explanations in theology and religion, by contrast, are considered acceptable even when they radically increase the levels of human befuddlement and confusion far beyond anything that nature alone can present. This happens because religious explanations use miracles and supernatural agencies (Divine or Intelligent Designer Gods and the like) thought capable of wholly unfathomable acts of caprice, malice or benevolence, depending on whatever whim meets their fancy. Religious explanations and interpretations of nature do not bode well for progress and understanding, whether it be scientific, technical or otherwise.

This is why the �Intelligent Watchmaker� idea of theologian Wm Paley (1802) never really caught on in science, even though he wrote it especially to convince scientists that the world truly is the handiwork of an infinitely intelligent, supernatural agent, namely God. By contrast, Darwin�s theory, published 57 years later without any understanding of genetic inheritability, was enthusiastically received by scientists�as well as a broad cross-section of educated lay people�almost as soon as it was released. Why? Because Darwin�s central idea�his explanatory mechanism of natural selection�was not only plausible and understandable, but could also be researched by means of artificial selection studies carried out on plants and animals under controlled conditions. Moreover, because Darwinian selection in nature would proceed in a completely blind fashion, the theory was free of those kinds of caprice�willful, malicious or otherwise�that can not be ruled out when intelligent agents are involved, supernatural or otherwise.

The current �theory� of Intelligent Design is even worse than Paley�s for several reasons. Not only do modern ID theorists hold the door open to the things that caused Paley�s theory to fail, they go out of their way to broaden the potential for mystery and confusion even further. Could the Designer be same Intelligent Watchmaker as Paley had in mind? Yes. Could it be one or more of the Gods in some polytheistic Pantheon of Paganism? Yes. What about one or more incredibly advanced space aliens from civilizations located in distant galaxies? Yes, yes, yes. However all of these possibilities have in common something that highlights yet another difference between genuine scientists and ID theorists like Prof. Gonzales and his co-author, theologian Jay Richards. Whereas genuine scientists will tell you there is no scientific evidence for the existence of any of the foregoing kinds of intelligent agents; Gonzalez, Richards and their colleagues think they have been amassing overwhelming evidence that any or all of them actually do exist.

I have explored here only one aspect of why genuine scientists reject all forms of creationism and Intelligent Design forthwith. However there is one valid reason for including Intelligent Design or creationism in science classes. They are some of the best examples of what science is NOT, what some refer to as counterexamples. For a useful discussion of this powerful teaching approach, I recommend the article entitled, �ESP: Teaching �scientific method� by counterexample,� on page 1079 in the December 1975 issue of the American Journal of Physics (Vol. 43, No. 12). It was written by S. L. Blatt, then a physics professor at The Ohio State University.

John W. Patterson
[Address and phone number removed]

John - We're pretty informal around here. No editors, no real names, making out behind the dumpster. That kind of thing.

"Explanations in science differ from those in religion and theology. Scientific explanations are deemed worthy only when they reduce or eliminate the initial mystery and confusion that nature seems to present. The best way to do this is to interpret reality solely in terms of purely naturalistic concepts, agencies and processes; i.e., those things that can be understood through careful observation, study and experimental testing."

But what if the naturalistic explanations are revealing themselves to be incomplete? ID, as I've described it here, is a body of evidence which points out the weak spots in modern evolutionary theory. There's a guy around here who always asks anti-ev's if they'd believe in evolution if science in 30 years could explain the gradual development of the eye. My question to you is the other side of the coin: if evidence were to consistently defy materialistic models, could science ever accept "not natural by our current understanding" as the final word?

"Explanations in theology and religion, by contrast, are considered acceptable even when they radically increase the levels of human befuddlement and confusion far beyond anything that nature alone can present. This happens because religious explanations use miracles and supernatural agencies (Divine or Intelligent Designer Gods and the like) thought capable of wholly unfathomable acts of caprice, malice or benevolence, depending on whatever whim meets their fancy. Religious explanations and interpretations of nature do not bode well for progress and understanding, whether it be scientific, technical or otherwise."

I've got a bone to pick with this paragraph as well. Historically, the booms of science have come from societies with monotheistic religions. Divine caprice doesn't lead someone to investigate the natural order. Divine structure does. Germans didn't start grinding lenses in the days of Odin, but when there's one God and one truth, we can learn about Him from His works. It was during the time of the great cathedrals that the scientific method was spreading.

Dr. Pat, were you talkin' to me? (he said in a bad DeNiro)

I have a less violent solution: move out of USA. ;)

In case you skipped over the long screed by John W. Patterson, here's the germ, emphasis added:

However there is one valid reason for including Intelligent Design or creationism in science classes. They are some of the best examples of what science is NOT, what some refer to as counterexamples. For a useful discussion of this powerful teaching approach, I recommend the article entitled, "ESP: Teaching 'scientific method' by counterexample," on page 1079 in the December 1975 issue of the American Journal of Physics (Vol. 43, No. 12)... John W. Patterson

Intelligent design is media hype. It a virus, an urban legend, it's not science, it's a joke played by right wing nut cases. The really sad thing is all this blathering makes it seem like there's something to it.

ID proponents seek to overthrow all science as we know it.

Their motivations are sociological and political, not scientific. All that follows is from one of their major proponents.

"CENTER FOR THE RENEWAL OF SCIENCE & CULTURE [an Intelligent Design think tank]

INTRODUCTION
The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.

Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud ...

Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies."

Link, please, Les -- not that I disagree, but it's crucial to state your sources!

Since I have posted extensively on this subject in this forum before, I will limit my observations to one idea not covered above. After 100 years of the scientific community controlling the information flow, the public isn't buying Darwin. Since I believe in the common folk, and have real issues with any inbedded elite, I would suggest to those who have a religious faith in Darwin to carefully consider why they are so unrelenting.

Please don't come back and talk about flat earth. This is no longer flat earth. The argument has been going on for over a century. Intelligent folks disagree. Get over it. Get on with checking out your assumptions. And consider sincerely and scientifically, the potential for a spiritual realm. That spiritual realm which is EXPERIENCED by well over half of human kind.

here

Baronius: Many pro-evolution posts on this site have talked about how all scientists agree with the current evolutionary model.

People making that claim are misinformed. There is almost never a theory that is unanimously accepted by the scientific community. That's part of what keeps the field honest and vital. Dogmatic acceptance obviates curiosity, which leads to the death of a scientific enterprise. Contrast that to religious dogma. Doctrinal revisions shake the faith of the believers, weakening the religious enterprise that relies so strongly on the veracity of "ancient wisdom."

Baronius: But the fact that this model fails to explain the evidence raised by ID'ers should tell you that something's wrong.

IDers are not responsible for discovering anything except the persistent gullibility of the American public. IDers derive their energy parasitically by latching themselves onto researchers working at the cutting edge (where there are -- guess what -- problems to be solved!), then, in public view, spit the problems back into the face of the scientific community. Haha. Sadly, this sneaky un-Christianlike tactic is working in some quarters.

Baronius: And the resistance that scientists have to contrary evidence (out of fear that they'll look like creationists) is another red flag.

If I were a biologist, and if I discovered scientific evidence supporting the intervention in Nature by an intelligent agent, I would win the Nobel Prize, since that would be the single greatest discovery in the history of humankind. It certainly has happened that ideas that later turn out to be correct have been squelched by scientists, since scientists are endowed with human frailties, like anyone else. But eventually, ideas with merit see the light of day. People who believe that the scientific community in its entirety is closed to new ideas lacks acquaintance with the history of science, and are poor judges of human nature.

Incontrovertible evidence supporting design would be the mother of all scientific advancements, and would be sought madly and single-mindedly by ego-driven scientists. But they don't know how to go about this. They only know how to do science. They have nothing to grab onto, no divers lines, no handles, no avenues of approach when it comes to ID. ID "theory" provides nothing to science beyond a call for pessimism, impatience, cynicism, and resignation to the defeatist attitude that the human mind is too feeble to answer questions it poses to itself.

But what I really think is that there are a lot of IDers who are perfectly aware of science and scientists, but who, nevertheless, peddle their anti-scientific wares in the interest of pushing their agendas, and in the interest of gaining a bigger piece of the pie for themselves. When their non-scientific, unoriginal ideas do not provide them with a platform in the scientific literature, they scream "dogma!" and "closed-mindedness!" and "establishment!" and "controversy!" And who do they scream to? The public at large, politicians, and religious organizations. They attempt to circumvent the scientific protocol, and instead appeal to their talent for rabble-rousing. Is it any wonder that scientists have no respect for IDers?

Randy: what Duane said, "But eventually, ideas with merit see the light of day."

What non-scientists feel about the process of science is less than useful in addressing this topic.

Come back to the topic when you have a testable, falsifiable concept to offer.

"IDers are not responsible for discovering anything except the persistent gullibility of the American public."

Duane, I'm trying to keep this above name-calling. I haven't said that ID'ers are discovering things, just presenting evidence which doesn't mesh with contemporary evolutionary theory. We've mentioned this evidence already: the biochemical presentation of Behe and the statistical work of I forget whom. To my recollection, you've never addressed this research.

"People who believe that the scientific community in its entirety is closed to new ideas lacks acquaintance with the history of science, and are poor judges of human nature."

I've given several examples of how that can occur. In any field of thought, people over a certain age become calcified. And they're usually in academia (mostly teaching Russian lit).

"Incontrovertible evidence supporting design would be the mother of all scientific advancements, and would be sought madly and single-mindedly by ego-driven scientists..."

...except that, as you note, they're not trained to recognize it. It's outside their assumptions. That's what makes Behe's argument so compelling: there isn't a tool on the paleontological ultility belt to deal with it.

There are people who want ID to prove God. There are people who will use any misrepresented fact to support their belief in a 6000-year-old universe. There are people who are pointing to errors in the random mutation / natural selection model. Why don't you and I laugh at the first two groups together, then look at the work of the third group.

Randy> After 100 years of the scientific community
Randy> controlling the information flow, the public
Randy> isn't buying Darwin.

This says more about our failure to educate the public on the theory of evolution, than it does about the theory itself.

It also says a lot about how difficult it is for people to accept an idea that they have been indoctrinated against believing.

Randy> Since I believe in the common folk, and
Randy> have real issues with any inbedded elite, I
Randy> would suggest to those who have a
Randy> religious faith in Darwin to carefully
Randy> consider why they are so unrelenting.

It's not a "religious faith in Darwin", it's a scientific agreement that his theory was a pretty damn good one. Why we're so keen on promoting it: because we're interested in moving human knowledge forward, instead of stagnating in the (distant) past?

Randy> And consider sincerely and scientifically,
Randy> the potential for a spiritual realm. That
Randy> spiritual realm which is EXPERIENCED by
Randy> well over half of human kind

As Duane and DrPat have pointed out, there is no way to consider your "spiritual realm" scientifically.

Besides, how do you explain the fact that a good number of us have never experienced this "spiritual realm". If you're right about ID, surely the capacity to experience would have been intelligently designed into all of us? Or have we micro-evolved immunity to it?

Baronius:
"I haven't said that ID'ers are discovering things..."

Finally, an admission.

Baronius:
"There are people who are pointing to errors in the random mutation / natural selection model"

No, there aren't. The people you're referring to are pointing to complex molecular structures, and saying "We don't believe these could have evolved", with the subtext of "Did I mention that I have a belief system that precludes me from believing in evolution" and "I'm a mathematician, so what the hell would I know about biology anyway" (no offence intended to thinking mathematicians).

They then go on to base flimsy arguments on premises that are so ridiculous that biologists have no option but to laugh in their faces. That's right, Baronius, it's not just the first two groups we're laughing at.

This argument is making me sorry we ever climbed out of the primordial slime in the first place ... er, I mean, were directed by the invisible man to climb out of the slime (if you swing that way.) Our side has no problem with a god who kicked off the big bang, set the laws of physics in motion, and locked himself in the closet. Believe in him if you must. You can even believe he watches you disapprovingly every time you beat off. Knock yourselves out. But please don't cloak this tripe in the language of science because science is the only thing we have left that's unsoiled by religion. Can you please just leave us with this one scrap? You'll still have NASCAR ...

Greg, was that a reference to Behe's "irreducible complexity"? Let me ask you, how would you explain the frequency of irreducibly complex structures?

Dentist, have you read Dembski?

Baronius:
"Let me ask you, how would you explain the frequency of irreducibly complex structures?"

Frequency? I've never even seen one "irreducibly" complex structure.

Even better than that, Baronius, Dembski's apparently read me. Dembski's blog actually links to this article under the headline "Can Something This Crass Still Be Satire?." I don't know if it's meant to be an endorsement, but I'm flattered nevertheless.

Actually, it turns out they weren't being flattering.

Here's a homework assignment for ID proponents like Bobmadill, Hal Jordan et al.

The Salk Institute in La Jolla, CA is recognized as one of the world's top bioscience research institutions (arguably *the* top institution in terms of scientific impact -- see this link for details).

So here's the assignment:

1) Go to the Salk Institute web-site.

2) Locate the "search" button (top-center of the Salk home-page).

3) Perform a search on "evolution". Bookmark the results.

4) Perform another search, this time on the key-phrase "intelligent design" (include the quotation marks in the search). Bookmark the results.

5) Compare the results of the "evolution" search with the results of the "intelligent design" search.

6) Then ask yourself, "Is it possible that the world-class researchers (including several Nobel Laureates) at the Salk Institute might know a few things that I don't?"

Bombadill's link to the "scientific" paper by Steve Meyer as if it were "scientific" support for intelligent design creationism is doubly ironic. First, Meyer is hardly a scientist- his degree was taken in history. Second, the article in in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington not only failed to provide evidence contradicting evolution, but was repudiated by the Board of Trustees of the BSW.

STATEMENT FROM THE COUNCIL OF THE BIOLOGICAL
SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON

The paper by Stephen C. Meyer in the Proceedings ("The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239) represents a significant departure from the nearly purely taxonomic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 124-year history. It was published without the prior knowledge of the Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, or the associate editors. We have met and determined that all of us would have deemed this paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings.

We endorse the spirit of a resolution on Intelligent Design set forth by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml), and that topic will not be addressed in future issues of the Proceedings. We are reviewing editorial policies to ensure that the goals of the Society, as reflected in its journal, are clearly understood by all. Through a web presence (www.biolsocwash.org) and contemplated improvements in the journal, the Society hopes not only to continue but to increase its service to the world community of taxonomic biologists.

The Council of the Biological Society of Washington
7 September 2004


It is even questionable that Meyer should have claimed sole authorship.

"why not find out the science behind intelligent design...?"

Because there is none.

It would be a great world for the science community if we lay people just accepted their theories as fact and went about doing our pea brained stuff. But, it turns out their are some really smart folks who aren't scientists, and some folks who are only moderately intelligent if measured by IQ tests, but who have great insite. And some of those, believe it or not, have even had extensive teaching in science, and indoctrination by schools, government, tv, and others.

As a marketing guy, if I had the resources that have been devoted to trying to sell Darwin, and the majority of the public still wasn't buying, I'd look at my assumptions.


s

It would be a great world for the believer community if we scientifically literate people just accepted their superstition as fact and went about doing our self-important sinful stuff. But, it turns out their are some really smart folks who aren't believers, and some folks who are only moderately religious if measured by church attendance, but who have great insight. And some of those, believe it or not, have even had extensive teaching in religion, and indoctrination by churches, government sloganeering, blog blather, TV preachers, and others.

As an anti-marketing guy, if I had the resources that have been devoted to trying to sell religion and creationism, and the majority of the scientific community still wasn't buying, I'd look at my assumptions.

One again the ID exponents return to bacterial flagella and blood-clotting sequences. These are classic ID arguments (in fact, there are none better) that have been pretty thoroughly smashed. (I have some links here.) Nevertheless, when someone offers an explanation, the IDer refuses to accept it. A reduced flagellum may no longer serve as a flagellum, but it might work perfectly fine as something else. IDers hate the idea of biological co-option because it kicks "irreducible" complexity in the teeth. Researchers have filled in many stages in the development of the blood-clotting sequence. That's okay, IDers point out that questions remain to be answered (so obviously God did it). ID is a hoax perpetrated for political purposes by those on a religious quest.

Why would you look at your assumptions? Science isn't a democracy, and "insight" from people who have at best a superficial understanding of what evolutionary theory even is means little:

here's the link

I am just going to make "one" comment. Someone brought of Abiogenesis. This hypothesis, while it has some potential to eventually give real explaination, it **not** currently sufficient to constitute proven and therefor, while it may be believed by many scientists as more likely than any other possibility, is *****not***** port of Evolution. Evolution by definition does not deal with life's origins, even if Darwin's book did talk about 'species' origin. This in itself makes half the argument between ID and Evolution pure bullshit. The other half that is bullshit is stupid claims like irreducible complexity, which projects like Avida have clearly shown can and do happen, at least in artificial conditions, in which only the most basic rules of evolution are implimented and without the external intervention of any 'guidence', beyond those rules. That the earth is a million times more complex simply means their are more rules to drive it, which means the results can be 'more' complex, just as adding more rules to Avida produces a wider variety of 'species' and more complexity.

Or to restate it. Half of ID's assumptions are *not* contradictory to evolution in the first place, since evolution itself makes no current or past claim about how life started, and the other half are purely based on incredulity.

"The slow successive and unguided modifications of Darwinism cannot produce a machine like this, not even with all the time in the world."

Now there's some good science! It is logically impossible to prove a negative, so simply assert the negative.

"And every example of information you will find..."

As long as you stop looking.

"The embarassment of the fossil record "

And an incomplete record of course means that nothing can be gleaned from the record that does exist.

"Nevertheless, when someone offers an explanation, the IDer refuses to accept it."

That's because research designed to support a predetermined result is not sciens. It is merely research designed to support a predetermined result. Any information that doesn't support that result is meaningless.

>"if I [Christianity] had the resources"

*time (thousands of years), money (billions of dollars), and a world-wide organizational structure (churches and preachers and priests)*

"that have been devoted to trying to sell Darwin"

Sell Darwin? Millions upon millions of hours have been spent by highly educated scientists (and a whole lot of non-scientists) to try and "un-sell" Darwin. i.e. To come up with a better model to describe what we observe on our planet.

Nothing else (no other Theory or explaination) that meets the rigors and requirements of science has been able to "Un-Sell" Darwin.

>"and the majority of the world's public still wasn't buying (christianity is not the biggest or the fastest growing god-worship system), I'd look at my assumptions"<

Yeah, lets worship Thor or Zeus or Some other God. Maybe the great billboard we call a "sky" will light up with glowing words of fire....

I tend to doubt that it will.

But I'm pretty sure that science will continue to uncover the reasons and the cures and the medicines.

Your God will do none of these things.

A few questions for the IDers:

If ID identifies an "inteligent designer," whose "inteligent designer" would it be? Christian, Navajo or Spaghetti Monster?

If ID proves an "inteligent designer," what does that do to the essential element of "faith" required by so many believers of an "inteligent designer?"

If science based ID proves an "inteligent designer," wouldn't this "scientific" proof then limit the "inteligent designer?"

Yes, of course, in the same way that Babel Fish proved the non-existence of god.

I think it is quite a simple matter. Scientists claim ID is not science. (Most) Republicans claim it is. Scientists say, "Science only deals with what is testable and falsifiable. If something can be disproved, it qualifies as a hypothesis, and can be investigated as science." (Most) Republicans say, "If you find a method by which one of the irreducibly complex systems we show you could have come into being through naturalistic processes, ID will be disproved. Thus, it is testable and falsifiable." Scientists told them how. They ignored it. And here is the clincher: if an irreducibly complex system was explained through evolution (which they all have been), Intelligent Design would still not be disproved. The possibility still exists that a guiding hand was involved in the process from self-replicating molecule to human being.

You sound confused.

Never mind, this is funny:

"The possibility still exists that a guiding hand was involved in the process from self-replicating molecule to human being."

Spaghetti Monsters from Outer Space.

Hey, the possibility exists...

Sorta.

POST 4 - John Landon: "Darwinians have brooght all this on themselves, by promoting such a sitting duck theory as Darwin's natural selection fraud."

John, Evolution doesn't begin and end with Mr. Darwin, anymore than physics begins and ends with Isaac Newton. Science can't simply look at patterns and say, "there's clearly a design here, an intelligence must have made it (codeword for GOD)" because that's taking the easy way out, even if GOD made it, scientists still must endeavor to find out how he did it, the fact that there's a design is the least important thing, discovering how the design came to exist is, if GOD used evolution as a design tool, then both theories are correct, however, evolutionists are the only scientists doing any actual research, ID proponents do nothing but sit around debunking evolution, you could in fact be shitting on GOD's wise choice to use evolution to create these designs.

Good stuff, Luke!

IDers say "Okay, no more science kiddies. It's all due to a GOD's plans and actions. Now back to church like good little lambs. No need to look behind the curtain!"

Heh!

A single strand containing more data than an entire library.

Nonsense, of course. Not counting even redundancy, the 3 billion base pairs in the human genome contain at most 6 billion bits of information. Assuming 72 characters per line, 60 lines per page, about 4 bits (slightly more, actually) per character, and 600 pages per book, that's about 10 million bits per book. So 600 books should do it.

Or maybe your library needs a few more books. ;-)

Try taking a few basic science courses before you start spouting creationist/ID propaganda almost verbatim....

Cheers,

Good evening everyone.

I've never posted here before. Let me introduce myself. I'm a systems engineer by profession, and tend towards the I.D. position both by conviction and by, well, reason. However, I am fascinated by the theory of naturalistic evolution and enjoy learning about it.

Maybe I tend towards "ID" because I think of myself as at least somewhat "intelligent" yet most of my professional life is spent figuring out how supposedly intelligently designed systems mess up! It's hard to make things work, especially new, more complicated things, even on purpose.

My take on ID is that, while it may not be provable insofar as we can't reproduce it, it becomes tenable due to the impossibility of the contrary. Basic logic.

I've had a look at some attempts to refute Behe's notion of irreducible complexity. From my practical perspective, some of them are flawed in some basic assumptions. Is this blog a reasonable place to discuss this? Please give me some feedback, as I've never engaged in this before.

Thank you.

ID holds that certain features are not reducible to mechanisms alone, and must be an intelligent agent's intervention.

Yeah, but then there's that little thing called "proof". You can "hold" it all you want (or at least until you go blind), but we're waiting for something more scientific in the way of "proof" than "I can't figger it out, so must be Gawddidit."

You do know, of course, that various IC examples posited by the ID folks have been shown to not be as "IC" as the ID folks would want you to believe (the blood clotting cascade, for instance).

Cheers,

"ID may not be provable insofar as we can't reproduce it, but it becomes tenable due to impossibility of the contrary"

You have links and references?

No, this is not a reasonable place to discuss ID if you arrive believing that anything other than ID is "impossible."

Most scientists who know about such things disagree with you.

Time to go back to school.

I don't think that is the purpose of it, but is a discussion area, and, as such, is as good a place as any (although perhaps not as good as ones specifically devoted to the topic). The "impossibility of the contrary" implies omniscience on your part, as you would have to know every single possible naturalistic explanation for the origin of species to make that statement accurately.

"You sound confused."

No, I was just demonstrating the untestability. Perhaps I was not as eloquent as I would have liked to be. To the claim of untestability, the standard ID response is that "showing a method by which an irreducibly complex biological system could have arisen through entirely naturalistic explanations would disprove (falsify) Intelligent Design. Therefore, it is falsifiable, and qualifies as a hypothesis." I was saying that it would not disprove it at all, as there would be no evidence saying there was no design involved. Therefore, it is not falsifiable, does not qualify as a hypothesis, and does not qualify as science.

Hobart, you're right, 99% of biologists are stupid, GOD is the ultimate irreducibly complex pattern, give me a theory for where he came from, or shut the fuck up, because scientists know more than you do.

You site Talkorigins.org [has] a clear naturalistic/atheistic agenda and want nothing more than to censor the I.D. camp. And they have demonstrated time and again that they are willing to use blatant deceit (as well as out-dated data) to achieve their purpose.

Oh, really? Care to cite an actual example of such?

Say, speaking of "out-dated data", isn't your Bible getting a bit dog-eared? IIRC, it says that bats are birds and insects have 4 legs, not to mention cute tricks for raising spotted lambs that certainly falsify Mendel's passe "genetics". Why you continue to rely on it as any authority at all is beyond me...

Cheers,

Thanks for the varied input.

Perhaps I should have written,

"it would become tenable if the contrary was shown to be essentially impossible."

I won't take the time to supply references for the laws of logic.

The point is that both evolution and ID are not reproducible, certainly as regards the question of origins. If either can be shown to be impossible, the other theory wins by default.

If naturalistic evolution is "impossible" (and I'm talking about macroscopic evolution that creates complex systems from basic building blocks) then something other than naturalistic evolution must be to blame. ID is one possibility. Perhaps there is another - that, somehow, we will find a naturalistic evolution someday? But, this is classified as faith, which is religious in nature.

But, certainly just because I can't figure it out doesn't mean no one can. That's one reason for a discussion, right?

That's not true, because science, by definition, does not allow appeals to the supernatural. Science looks for answers through observation and testing, and neither can be applied to God. Science does not rule out intervention by extraterrestrial agents, but there is no reason to believe that any have ever visited the Earth. And evolution (unlike ID) is reproducible. Bacteria constantly evolve resistance to antibiotic agents, one of the most common examples of selection, and, although speciation is rare, several examples have been observed. Also, evolution makes specific predictions that have been tested (e.g. general increase in complexity as one progresses from older strata to newer).

Not a lot of things can be proven or disproven unfortunately, except for a few obvious things, like the earth going around the sun, stuff made from atoms, the basic newtonian laws of physics (in stuff big enough to see with the naked eye) etc. And then there's the 99.99% of things that we DON'T understand, and probably never will, but evolution is still the best bet at trying to figure out biology, saying "god made it" is a cop out, in the worst possible way.

I'd ask Hobart why an intelligence would create diseases to kill off the more complex organisms, but he's probably waiting patiently to throw in a "satan did it" somewhere, or a "god did it so that humans would have an evil to fight against, because good can only exist as a flip-side to evil, and vice-versa"

Science does allow appeals to the intelligent. Forensics and archaeology, for example.

Evolution as applied to our own origins is not reproducible because we cannot model the initial conditions. We were not there to observe it. But, I certainly agree that if we could show that random processes are capable of producing life from non-life, then it would make a powerful case for evolution as being our raison d'etre.

But, I'm also interested in more macroscopic issues. I'm too simple-minded, perhaps ...

Some time ago I read the classic "The Naked Ape," every word of it. Very interesting. The author advances "the aquatic ape theory" to explain our external layer of fatty tissue. We have it. Apes don't have it. Whales do have it. So, he posits that prehumans went through an aquatic stage where we swam alot and thus developed this layer of fat, like whales.

This whole thing seems really funny to me. It's a just-so story. If I'm required to believe this sort of stuff in order to believe in evolution (like 99% of the biologists) then I'll just as well believe in Harry Potter.

But more germane to my own profession, I've been interested in the whole problem of the origin of flight for several years. Well before "ID" became well-known, I puzzled over how to "evolve" a cold-blooded, four-footed, fast crawling, diaphram-lunged reptile into a cross-flow lunged, hollow-boned, winged, feathered bird - all using a step-by-step process in which each generation was more performant than the preceding.

I can't do it. But, I'm not all-knowing. Maybe some of you can. If so, please sketch it out for me (10 or 15 generations at least) and tell me where to see the drawing. I'm quite serious.

Incidently, a belief in evolution can be scientifically blinding. Ask National Geographic. They were so ready to "prove" the evolution of flight that they paid 10 grand for a fake composite fossel from some chinese farmer and featured it several years ago, even in the face of dubious origins. They did make a formal retraction after the fossil was proved a fake.

The whole thing was fascinating, a case of self-deception.

The argument that aliens, etc., might be posited as the agents of design doesn't help the discussion. While ID wants to have a place at the table without the God of the Bible as the agent, right now I don't think anyone would have a better source of the intelligence.

It is not scientific to deny the observations of 2B people.

"The whole thing was fascinating, a case of self-deception."

Exactly like religion, imo.

That's the point, Bennett. Evolution can become a surrogate religion, based on faith and hostile to challenge.

My reasoning is that there're flightless birds, which to me suggests two scenarios, animals evolved winglike structures that were completely useless, and then some nifty evolution happened and they figured out they could fly, or you had some birds that flew, and for some reason it turned out they could survive better on land, so some nifty evolution made them (not aerodynamic enough to fly) I'm just guessing of course, but why would an intelligent agent design a bird that couldn't fly, seems like a stupid thing to do, if you could suggest ID in the origin of flight, maybe it's another case of a little from collumn A a little from collumn B an intelligent agent uses evolution or mutation of existing species to create something that can fly, and in a lot of the attempts made at a flying animal, it ended up with a goofy looking bipedle mammal with wings that didn't do anything, but it was aero dynamic as intended, but that only meant it could run fast, I'm thinking of emu's and ostriches here, and of course penguins<--they're aero-dynamic when sliding down the ice on their belly toboggan style.

I won't take the time to supply references for the laws of logic.

The point is that both evolution and ID are not reproducible, certainly as regards the question of origins. If either can be shown to be impossible, the other theory wins by default. [emphasis added]

Missed this little facet of "logic", I'd say.

But testing the theory of evolution is "reproducible", in the sense that we can repeat experiments which bear out facets of the theory of evolution, and in addition, can extend these experiments to other areas to show if the theory of evolution (or the part being tested) is in fact more general. Keep in mind that "experiment" here doesn't require that we start the observed process ourselves; merely that we can use the theory to make predictions about the results of observations, and then see if the actual observations bear out the predictions. A case in point is the theory of plate tectonics; quite a bit was known, and the theory won acceptance, before we developed means of measuremeny accurate enough to actually measure the current movement of the plates (not to mention, even the current movement doesn't say everything about what happened previously, so that Pangea was deduced from lots of evidence other than currently measured movements). Considering the means of "discovery" of the theory of plate tectonics should shed a bit of light as to what really constitutes "experiment" and what is possible in the scientific realm.

HTH.

Cheers,

Hobart, check out the theory of quantum evolution, there's a book about it which I'm thinking of getting (if i can't download a copy) the idea is that in quantum mechanics everything is probability, but at the sub-atomic level, all possibilities happen at the same time, however all except one of those possibilities actually physically effect us at a macroscopic level, (I'm putting it into terms that I understand, I actually can't get my mind around quantum mechanics, but it's fun to think about) The point is, a quantum action, has a number of possible reactions, in the case of biology, a number of possible mutations, so logical reasoning would suggest that there's a million to one shot that the mutation would be beneficial to the organism, but anything quantum doesn't follow normal logic, it's possible that all mutations happen at the same time, and through some miracle all the un-beneficial mutations are sifted out into the non-physical quantum dimensions, leaving behind the only one which is actually helpful to the organism as a whole, so you needn't end your "intelligent" opinion at the junction of creationism vs evolution, because there's a smorgasbord of nifty philosophical idea's about the origins of life on this planet to fill your head with, with just enough pseudo science to be considered a real theory, so don't be marginalized, because I think that's the only truely "unintelligent design" concerning the human psyche.

Arne, note that I've not invoked the "God of the Bible." The question is more general - materialism or not materialism. The law of logic to which I refer is the most basic: "If A then not not A," i.e., the existence of negation. Materialism is the negation of intelligence - or, the old "matter first, then mind" or "mind first, then matter." If there is another alternative, then please educate me.

Luke, you're saying (I think) that we observe surprising things in nature. Thus, any intelligent designer must be bizarre ...

That's not the question. I am asking if you (or anyone else) can realistically propose a scenario for how to get from lizard to bird. If no one can, then it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Even if all the world's scientists can't imagine how it happened, it doesn't mean it didn't happen. It does mean that we are required to accept that it did happen by faith.

I accept very much the need for any good theory to make predictions. The observed fact that all disease has a genetic component - a basic finding of the human genome project - is counter what one would expect from the theory of evolution. Think about it. Evolution says that mutations have added information and ultimately created all life. Observation says that mutations are related to disease - from cancer to heart problems. Mutations, according to observation today, are at best neutral. In some cases, a mutated gene gives better than a 95% chance of cancer before age 50. This is "de-evolution."

I've recently read in the media about how Darwin was proven right because chimp DNA is quite close to humans. Interesting. The whole field of taxonomy was established before Darwin, and it places apes and humans right next to each other. DNA tends to confirm taxonomy, not Darwin.

Furthermore, as regards DNA in general, it is terribly hazardous to the health of evolution as a theory. Darwinism in no way predicted the complexity of life on a macro biological level. On the contrary, the more specificity we find, the more displeasing becomes evolution as an explanation. Evolution tends to loose the prediction game.

Sorry, Luke, you're faster than I am. Your post touches on some of the points I just made ...

But, note that you used the word "miracle." Maybe just by habit?

And, note that mutations are generally bad, as I stated in my last post. I know of no mutation that increases the information content AND results in greater survivability.

You're referring to some stuff that tries to maintain that matter is self-organizing. I'm not too familiar with it. But, if it's true it must be verifiable, right? If it's true, then we should rather easily be able to duplicate conditions on the early earth and watch as life evolves. I'm all for prototyping and experimentation.

I'm not going to give you a realistic scenario because I'm not a biologist, so all I can do is tell you what I think, so here goes, a lizard evolves to have a flexible web like skin between it's front and back legs, so now it's a reptile version of a flying fox, it doesn't actually fly but it glides, then it evolves to have bones inside the skin and then evolves to have the web split from the back legs, then somewhere along the line it becomes a mini-teradactle, then evolves into a teradactle, then the teradactle evolves into a bird of some kind etc etc.

Mutations are bad, and then they die, natural selection is suppose to kill the ones who have bad mutations, the good ones lives and have babies, this is at least how I understand the concept.

A miracle is either a miracle, or something we haven't explained yet, and even if it's a miracle, in that the creator has done it, we still have to explain how he did it, and how it is he even exists in the first place, but having said that, it's verifiably impossible for humans to know everything.

As for the matter being self organizing, it is verifiable that sub-atomic particles can be in two places at once, this implies parallel dimensions, as for the implications of this in the field of biology, it's still just an idea, the guy who wrote the book is a biologist.

"This whole thing seems really funny to me."

Hey, ever hear of an argument from incredulity? "I can't figure it out, so it can't have happened." ID adds: "Therefore, God did it. Or space aliens." The point is, the argument relies on you having a thorough understanding of the subject matter. There are physicists who doubt string theory. Do you doubt string theory, Hobart? If so, why? If not, why not? Of course, that won't apply if you turn out to actually be a physicist, but I think you get the point. Argument from incredulity does not logic make.

Hobart: look here

Oh, sure, sure, you're just a disinterested commentator, and you're not a Christian. And I'm the pope. Glad to meet you. Now bless you, child, and sin no more.

The law of logic to which I refer is the most basic: "If A then not not A," i.e., the existence of negation.

Hmmm. (Leaving behond for a moment your rather poor expression of your idea here) that ol' binary thinking. Guess you didn't understand the "fallacy of bifurcation" link I gave above. There's things that are true even in formal logical systems that can't be "proved" true within the system (see Godel's work, for instance). They aren't necessarily false; in fact they aren't false at all. They're undeterminable. But we aren't talking about formal logical systems here, necessarily, and we certainly aren't talking about formal logical propositions where the only two alternatives are "true" and "false".

Hobart: "Materialism is the negation of intelligence - or, the old 'matter first, then mind' or 'mind first, then matter.'"

Huh? I suspect you need to look up "materialism". What possesses you to think that "[m]aterialism is the negation of intelligence"? Just as a fer'instance: If a factory is making watches to designs and specifications of (arguably) intelligent watchmakers, do you deny the "materialistic" nature of the manufacturing process? (Note, however, that just because materialistic processes are not incompatible with the existence of "intelligence", not all materialistic processes require intelligence as part of the process).

HTH.

Cheers,
Cheer

Hobart: The observed fact that all disease has a genetic component - a basic finding of the human genome project - is counter what one would expect from the theory of evolution.

Huh? Why? Please explain. In fact, wouldn't genetic susceptibility to disease be generally more of a strike against "intelligent design"? I don't see that it's a problem for evolutionary theory, though....

Cheers,

A lesson for you all: Never start a topic about Intelligent Design, even if it's satirical, because the religion weirdos will come and make it an endless, pointless discussion. I think they're like bugs who hide under tree trunks and wait to come out and spread their larvae and maggots all over the place after it rains.

That is all.

Hobart:

OBTW, ignore the Tom Torrow link (cut and paste error; I thought I'd cut and pasted this: "Arne, note that I've not invoked the 'God of the Bible.'", but had old cut buffer contents instead). But feel free to peruse Tom Tomorrow's comics; they're quite educational....

Sorry for the snafu.

Cheers,

Hobart, it's trait survival not individual's longevity that's important.

My limited understanding of natural selection is rule#1: get your genes to children who can reproduce. If a mutation causes you to produce more survivable progeny over a reduced lifespan, natural selection will prefer those genes regardless of the effect/disease to the parent.

BTW since we're both IT people I have to ask, have you every seen a purely designed system work completely as planned? The ghost is ALWAYS in the machine, the meta rules and behavior that govern a complex system can only be seen while the system is running. That in and of itself makes me dubious of a grand creator.

how about memetics(play on words, memory+genetics=memetics), that is tiny pieces of information which can be copied, memetics has led to extremely complex patterns with no creator in sight, all of human culture, art, language, and technology has simply sprung into existance in the endless choas of humanity's collective consciousness. Complete and utter choas, and all this complicated shit has come from it, so these tiny pieces of data that when strung together form words, memories, and idea's, basically anything that can be stored in your mind, are being copied from one mind to the next, and the meme's which help you to survive (information you literally can't live without) are more highly capable of being copied because of their neccessity to the organism that it is being copied to, the idea of religion is a series of memes that has survived for thousands of years due to mankinds need to understand the origin of existance, and to explain external forces which make no sense, where does wind come from, the wind god of course, meme's may change over time, but the worthless ones are erased, if i just start typing asdofkjhp9uyhtpoknlcgflkjhposaiujrlkjsadgkjidfjgijfg, what insentive do you have to remember that, the meme i just created has died almost imediately after i created it. So complex idea's are evolving constantly, and stupid idea's don't last much longer than it took to think of them. The point is, meme's form irreducibly complex patterns, for example, did a human one day suddenly split a rock by striking it against another at a particular angle so that a shard would break off, and then at the same time started twisting stringy vine type vegetation around itself to create some kind of twine, and then get the straightest fallen branch he could find and remove all of the twigs that were sticking out the sides, and then use the twine to tie the shard to the end of the stick to make a spear, if he never knew how to make a spear, then why would he bother to copy a meme about having a straight stick, or a meme about having a piece of twine, or a meme about making a sharp rock, individually they're useless, so it's an irreductibly complex pattern, therefore, god imparted on man the knowledge to create a spear.