Today on Blogcritics
Home » Intelligent Design Evolves!

Intelligent Design Evolves!

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

For awhile now we’ve been seeing an on-going war between scientific thinkers who view natural selection and evolution as the accepted theory of life on earth and the people who favor the ridiculous, yet strongly held belief in Creationism – which is basically the literal events of the book of Genesis.

Well since the Creationism idea wasn’t taking hold, despite years of politicking and sneaky things like putting disclaimer stickers on textbooks and such, the creationist minded folks came up with a new cause de celebre – Intelligent Design.

In a nutshell, Intelligent Design postulates that aspects of life are too complex to have come about by natural selection or evolutionary science or biology and thus must have an intelligent design source. ID supporter are quick to say (in an effort to deflect creationism in sheeps clothing attacks) that ID does not specify what the intelligence is. (Let’s come back to that)

So basically, these folks cannot believe that life evolved from a complex interaction between natural forces, but have no problem believing that some guy went “abracadabra” and made everything.

The concept of ID requires some form of “higher” intelligence to have designed life on earth. So who or what is the intelligence? By their own assertions, it could be God, Zeus, Hera, Klingons, pink unicorns or blue monkeys. But somewhere along the line some form of intelligence must have designed everything because we can’t currently answer every minute question. Well part of that is true, but part of it isn’t.

Natural Selection is a theory that has massive support and mountains of observable data to support it. ID does not. All it has is some unanswered questions that some folks have decided require an intelligent designer vs. just questions we have as yet been unable to answer.

Remember, it wasn’t all that long ago that people widely believed that illness was based on an imbalance of humors and that bleeding was the way to fix it. Of course this was before bacteria and germs were discovered so it seemed like a good idea at the time. Today, of course, we know differently, but only after time and science caught up enough to answer the question.

So back to the concept of ID. Do we really believe that ID supporters would be just as happy to have aliens be the intelligent designers as God? If the idea of being descended from a monkey is such a huge affront, how are they going to feel about being cooked up in a Petri dish in some alien lab on Helion Prime?

If ID were merely proposing an intelligent designer and not leaning toward anyone in particular, why do you suppose that the vast majority of ID supporters are all Christian Conservatives that would gleefully support Creationism being taught in schools if they hadn’t ruled against it?

ID recently got a boost when a pillar of the science community George W. Bush came out in support of it. This is, of course, the same guy who doesn’t believe we have a global warming problem or any environmental issues that need addressing.

What kind of message does this send to kids who look at the president who tells them to ignore science and rationality in favor of a cockamamie scheme?

Now we’ve got our pal Bill Frist jumping into the mix with his own support for teaching ID in schools. This is a Harvard-educated medical doctor we’re talking about now. Of course, this same renowned physician also testified that Terri Schaivo (a blind woman with severe brain damage) interacted with people in a meaningful way and responded to visual stimuli.

Now didn’t Frist just buck the president by supporting stem cell research because it was a “matter of science?” Guess what bro, so is this! You can’t support science one day and then scoff at it the next. This is a perfect example of the hypocrisy of this entire debate. All of the ID supporters have absolutely no trouble taking medicine, listening to weather reports, getting surgery or launching missiles all based on the exact same science that yielded evolution.

So what’s the problem? The problem is that ID is simply bad science used to counter evolution, a theory which explains life without giving credit to God. So we’re going to happily call the ID supporters on their claim that their idea is even worthy of the title of theory, much less be a competitive theory for natural selection worthy of being taught in schools. ID supporters themselves concede that “You can’t prove intelligent design by experiment.” How convenient. But here again, that very idea means that ID is not science at all, so holding it up against a real scientific theory is like comparing the bible to actual archaeological evidence … hmmm.

It’s complete crap people. I’ll be the first one to go on record and admit I was wrong if they ever succeed in offering a shred of proof for this hogwash. As for Frist, I’m sure this was simply a political tactic to make up for the stem cell thing – at best he’s pandering to the Christian Right in the hopes of saving his 2008 presidential bid or at worst to keep Bush from sending Karl Rove after him.

So to sum up, ID is complete malarky, but I assume they will succeed in getting it into classrooms as an alternative theory, which will only succeeding in making children in those states even dumber that they already are and increase our status as most hated nation as well as educational laughingstock of the first world. Nice work.

ED: TAS, fixed remaining mistakes

Powered by

About Rudicus

  • billy

    very well put. if there is an argument, it is within evolution itself as to the fine details of the theory, not between id and evolution. id proponents want to insert themselves into the debate but they have no theory to offer.

  • Kurt

    I invite everyone to check out http://www.venganza.org/index.htm
    The true intelligence behind ID is The Flying Spaghetti Monster.
    For proof of Unintelligent Design, I submit my (thankfully now absent) appendix, your wisdom teeth, and the generally idiotic design of our bodies.

  • billy

    i like the logic of the id proponent:

    its too much of a stretch to think that complexity developed over billions of years of interactions, where there is a ton of evidence that it did

    but is is feasible to an id proponent to belive:

    an invisible spaghetti monster snapped his fingers and created it all spontaneously, even though this is absurd and contrary to evidence.

  • apollos
  • alethinos59

    What is so sad in this debate – if you can call it that – is that a lot of people, including mentally and emotionally “mature” Christians don’t see this as an “either/or” situation.

    God’s a pretty clever fellow. I’m willing to bet dollars to donuts that He could set everything in motion, knowing the outcome of things. No need to snap fingers. No need to wave a wand. Since God, by definition is beyond the scope of Existence He is seeing things we can never hope to see.

    The issue then becomes simply a matter of Materialistic Philosophy or not. In other words, do you believe that there is Spirit suffusing Existence or not?

    There are plenty who accept that evolution is correct, but disagree with strict materialists who insist that Humans are “simply” a happy accident of evolution.

    They believe that humans DID evolve, because the evidence points to that. However, they contend that Human Beings have “always” been human – i.e., beings with a rational soul – no matter what our bodies might have been like…

    The point is this: science WITHOUT religion is base materialism… and religion WITHOUT science is base superstition…

  • http://www.rudicusreport.blogspot.com Rudicus

    Is there something wrong with base materialism?

    I see where you are going with this, but I just come back to Ockham’s Razor.

    The theory of natural selection could exist with God – as in God used evolution to create, but it is perfectly fine without it, so why do we need to add that extra layer in – especially for unproven supernatural beings.

    When considering ID or creationism, without God or supreme being or flying spaghetti monsters, there is no theory – it’s all gone.

  • http://www.rudicusreport.blogspot.com Rudicus

    And apollos, it is my practice to not take seriously any arguments whose premise involves the phrases “possibly” “most likely” “certainly” “would make sense that” or “must have been.”

    Thanks for the link though – very entertaining.

  • http://www.tbirdofparadise.blogspot.com Bird of Paradise

    After careful observation Aristotle concluded that maggots (and, subsequently, flies) emerged as living things from the non-living substance of dung. This theory, popular within science, endured all the way into the late 18th- early 19th centuries.

    Ironically, modern macro-evolutionary theory is dependent upon the exact same theory…..only hidden behind a longer time-frame of hundreds of millions/billions of years.

    I suppose anything is possible if you believe in it strongly enough. Oh….I’m sorry….now I really AM confused….It’s supposed to be the ID folks who are bringing religious belief into science….right?

  • Duane

    I love it when Christians use sarcasm in their “arguments.”

  • billy

    Ironically, modern macro-evolutionary theory is dependent upon the exact same theory…..only hidden behind a longer time-frame of hundreds of millions/billions of years.

    wrong, this has nothing to do with evolution, except in the warped mind of a person who does not understand it.

    and exactly how would ID explain this?

    oh yeah the invisible spaghetti monster did it by snapping his fingers.

  • Taloran

    Apollos in comment 4 links to The Institution for Creation Research.. Top right of the front page is what appears to be their mission statement:
    We believe God has raised up ICR to spearhead Biblical Christianity’s defense against the godless and compromising dogma of evolutionary humanism. Only by showing the scientific bankruptcy of evolution, while exalting Christ and the Bible, will Christians be successful in “the pulling down of strongholds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (II Corinthians 10:4,5).

    I don’t think this is site is likely to sway the minds of either the ID believers or the evolutionists.

    Not sure I much care for “bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” and I certainly don’t want them teaching that to my children in public school.

  • apollos

    Here’s another one for you:

    Evolution–Impossible.

    It’s sad how evolutionists can be so arrogant (no sarcasm intended).

  • Antfreeze

    The ID argument says that the universe is so slanted toward the existence of life that a creator must have made it. If any of thousands of different variables were even slightly different, life could not have arose. The smartest scientist I’ve ever heard of, don’t know his/her name said, but if any of these variables WERE any different, we wouldn’t be here to note the fact.

  • Duane

    It’s funny that Bird of Paradise would cite Aristotle to try to make a counter-argument to science, since he was one of the early proponents of Intelligent Design. If you’re trying to convince us that Aristotle was silly, at least be consistent.

  • billy

    if evolution is impossible, why is it used every day.

    its like saying, the earth being round is impossible, in the face of scierntists using that fact to do things succesfully.

    it cant be denied, because it is used in the lab every day and it qorks.

    anyone telling you different is on an ignorant rant and cant provide a shred of evidence to support their theory.

  • gonzo marx

    here we go again….

    go to your favorite source to look up the definitions of the following…

    postulate
    axiom
    hypothesis
    theory(scientific)
    science
    metaphysics
    evidence
    proof

    ok?…now following the bouncing ball here…it’s NOT that difficult

    evolution is a scientific Theory, as such it IS proper to be taught, while explaining and defining the terms and limitations, in a high school science class

    ID is an unfounded, and unproven..perhaps even unprovable, hypothesis that belongs in a Metaphysics class, but NOT in HS science(biology specifically) …since it has NOT passed the rigors fo scientific review

    Evolution = Science
    ID = Metaphysics

    nuff said?

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.rudicusreport.blogspot.com Rudicus

    While I hate to propagate websites that are not based in reality – I do have to send folks back to Apollos’ site for this:

    http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=2465

    In it is a discussion of how Noah’s Ark could have worked with all those animals.

    Detractors from the Bible story of the Flood have scoffed at the idea of just a few people carrying out all the duties of animal care for a year. Without a doubt, it would have been a daunting task considering the number of animals and the frightening circumstances, but would it have been impossible?

    Earlier studies have shown that the total number of animals in question are less than the millions the detractors envision. Noah was told to take two of each “kind” of animal on board, probably represented by today’s “families” or “genera” rather than species. For instance, the dog “kind” includes many species; wolf, domestic dog, dingo, coyote, etc. Furthermore, most animal types are small, only a few dozen are large, making the average size something on the order of a cat.

    Isn’t this taking apologetics just a bit too far – despite the fact that it presupposes that the story of noah’s ark is real and then it makes a case for it based on fuzzy reasoning and wild conjecture.

    If this is the type of “proof” and “science” and “facts” we can look forward to on this site – I don’t think we need to really look into it any further. But thanks though this site made my day shiny!

  • apollos

    It is easy to understand why evolutionists can be so hostile to creationists. Because if creationism is true the consequences can be overwhelming.

    We’ve yet to hear any sensible arguments made with respect to the above links. Or shall we just play the silly game of semantics+definitions+hostility = arrogance…

    Peace.

  • Taloran

    Apollos, that second link you posted goes to a different page of the same Institution for Creation Research you linked to previously. Those of us who dismissed the original link out of hand, attributing it to the ravings of some medievalists trying to explain lightning and other misunderstood forces of nature, are likely to have similarly dismissed the second one.

  • http://www.rudicusreport.blogspot.com Rudicus

    Well said Taloran, and frankly I’ll take arrogance over ignorance any day of the week.

    Also, and I can’t speak for everyone else, but I’m not in any way hostile, I just hold rampant lunacy and hypocrisy represented as truth in very low regard.

  • apollos

    Yes, very well put gentlemen.

    You just proved my equation.

    So much for an intelligent discussion.

  • billy

    apollos, what do you have to offer , what is your theory? how can we test it in science class as we do evolution every day? ill bet you dont answer other than to make a crazy story about noah’s ark or link to a religious site.

  • Taloran

    Apollos, people of faith have as little chance of convincing the rest of us as we do of convincing them. The difference is we don’t usually try.

    And as for “intelligent discussion,” you’ve posted two links, a bible-related threat, an unfounded equation, and a reference to said equation. There does not appear to be any intelligent discussion coming out of you.

    I looked over the ICR’s website briefly. I dismissed what they’re proselytizing, as they cannot back up any of their statements without referring to the Judeo-Christian god or the good book, in neither of which do I believe. There is no scientific evidence for either creationism nor ID – it’s all a bunch of faith-based hooey. The IDers mantra of “I don’t have to prove it, because I believe it” does not wash in an intelligent discussion.

    I do not mean to dissuade you from your beliefs – you’re welcome to them. But don’t pretend that you’re holding intelligent discourse here.

  • http://www.rudicusreport.blogspot.com Rudicus

    I’m confused, what would the intelligent discussion be about? That was the entire point of my article – that the Intelligent Design pseudotheory has no scientific merit.

    Subsequently your link to a site that likewise has no real scientific merit does not lead the discussion anywhere.

    If you can present anything to support your claim that is based on the scientific method or a reasonable preponderance of the evidence we could go from there, but I didn’t see anything that would meet that criteria on that site.

    And for the record, you have gone a long way to help establish that ID is creationism in disguise and should be treated as such.

  • velvet evolver

    Did God make allergies?
    Did God make a few people drop dead so he could watch the rest of sneeze in the middle of an arguement?
    Cuz if he did he’s kind of a rotten bastard, isn’t he?

  • http://religion-of-one.org/ Steve Brungard

    Faith is the active substitution of belief for knowledge. Evil is that which contravenes individuation. I began my existence, in this universe, in a state of total dependence. If any at all, my first decisions were about what noise to make in order to get food or a diaper change. I made an ever increasing number of decisions and the proportion and sophistication of those decisions increased as I established independence. Then it was possible for me to individuate. Then it was possible to claim sovereignty. This entire enterprise of personal development has but one method: juxtapose known with unknown, formulate belief, test belief, store knowledge, base decisions upon that knowledge, claim responsiblity, correct errors, cover cost, store wisdom. Faith contravenes this method at the outset. It substitutes belief for knowledge. It presents the unknown as known without trial. Nothing is learned. Responsibility cannot be claimed. Correction cannot be made. Cost cannot be covered. Wisdom cannot be earned. Independence cannot be established. Individuation cannot be accomplished. Sovereignty becomes a reserve for a self selected few who take advantage. A preponderance of evidence, presented by this humble universe itself, indicts faith as evil to that which is created.

  • apollos

    There are those who are more educated in science and much smarter than you or that happen to discount evolution, or at least to the extent it has been pushed down our collective throats until it has become almost a religion unto itself. That might also explain the fervency in which some such as yourselves harass others (i.e. yours truly) that hold to a different view.

    You like to make the claim your opinions are based in scientific merit, and yet there are creationist scientist that can debunk your belief systems scientifically. I will not pretend to know any better than they. Nor will cut and paste and pretend that they are mine. I will let the experts do the talking. Hence, why I have added the links.

    Some of the comments here are just plain hostile and ignorant. Full of bile as well as bias. I will not come down to your level and have said what I wanted to say. The rest is up to you, and if you have any kind of an open mind you will read them.

    We are fed evolution in our schools, and it is incumbent upon us all to at least look at an alternative view if we are truly seeking the truth.

    The point is gentlemen you do not have all the answers and cannot afford to be so hostile or arrogant towards those who are creationists.

    That is all.

    Peace.

  • JB

    In response to all the writers that have recently discussed their “interpretation” of evolution in the guise of scientists. Intelligent Design (ID) is clearly a manner of reintroducing creationism into the schools. A theory that supposes since “we cannot understand it, God must have done it,” is not science. There is absolutely nothing in such a “theory” that even comes close to true science. It is not published in peer reviewed journals and there is no manner to test it. Such a theory would have left us content “knowing” that the Earth is at the center of the universe or that the world was flat and 10,000 years old.

    Evolution theory (theory in science does not mean hunch, much like the Theory of Gravity is not a hunch) is one of the best supported ideas in science. Among scientists, there is no doubt. Check out the National Academy of Sciences website if you want to true scientific details. How would ID believers even go about dismantling the fossil record of previous humanoids? Or do they even deny that A. aferins even existed? Why would one design a species in a dead end?

    If you want to learn about ID, you should learn about it in a comparative religion class or Sunday school. But please leave only science in the science class. Our country is already sadly and seriously lagging in science behind India and China. Please don’t interject such rhetorically non science into the curriculum. Otherwise, we as a nation are doomed to finish last among the world’s educated.

  • http://none.com Bob A. Booey

    Oh HELL no.

    You are writing defending “creationist science,” an oxymoron if I ever heard one, and you dare to use my “That is all” too?

    We got problems, hombre.

    I will say what I’ve said on every “Intelligent Design” topic. Stop talking about this crap. It gives these ridiculous people credibility and makes it seem like there is a debate. There certainly isn’t one in academia or science — evolution is the best theory we have for how life works. Hundreds of thousands of years of fossil records, gene research, animal breeding, plant mixing, microbiology, biochemistry and now even genetic engineering and cloning experiments should prove to even the most nutty wackjob that your silly version of religious belief shouldn’t affect your adult responsibility to allow your kids to at least learn SOMETHING true and valuable that they could get a job with in the real world.

    That is all.

  • Taloran

    Apollos says in comment 27 “Some of the comments here are just plain hostile and ignorant. Full of bile as well as bias.”

    Perhaps. But this statement is not an answer to our collective replies that the commenter’s arguments are not intelligent discourse, simply links and biblical threats, “rampant lunacy and hypocrisy represented as truth,” and unprovable in a scientific environment.

    Having been around Blogcritics on and off for a couple of years, I didn’t even find the replies to Apollos’ comments all that vitriolic or hostile. He/she has had his/her say, been refuted, and thinks we’re being hostile, accusing us again of arrogance?

    I find it gallingly arrogant for Apollos to state “it is incumbent upon us all to at least look at an alternative view.” No, it’s not. You superstitionists steadfastly refuse to believe the scientific facts in front of you, and will not see any alternate view other than what the man at the pulpit tells you. It is not “incumbent upon” the rest of us to believe, or even consider, your medieval claptrap. I don’t need to invent imaginary friends to help explain the mysteries of the world around me – science does a great job with the explanations.

    Apollos also states that those who believe in evolution “cannot afford to be so hostile or arrogant towards… creationists.” We can’t? The Christian Right is universally hostile and arrogant to those who oppose them or disbelieve what they preach – is it unfair to turn the tables and treat their hostility in kind? Or can we “not afford” to do so because we might burn in hell? Neither argument worries me at all.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    I believe that the earth and all stars, solar systems and cosmic dust shot out of a great black hole during a cataclysmic event known as Ye Great Old Sneeze. I believe the force upon which we all were shot, was doubly strong, because a similiar nearby black hole was plugged up with a Mighty Digit. This helped to create life as we know it.

    I have no proof of this, but it is what I believe. I submit that if we are going to change the rules about promoting possible ways the universe can be created, then we be fair and include ALL ways. Mine too.

  • Taloran

    Your beliefs sound as reasonable as those on the sites linked by Apollos, Steve. If we’re going to include the Judeo-Christian mythos in science class, let’s include the beliefs of the Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Rosicrucians, Romans, Greeks, Norse, Babylonians, Sumerians et al. They are all equally worthy of scientific respect and study. The peyote (and other hallucinogen) -inspired creation myths of the Native Americans could provide a good learning environment as well.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    I burnt a bunch of grilled cheese sandwiches hoping that I could end up with one, with the scorch marks in the shape of the Grand Nostril, (hopefully to sell on eBay), but I gave it up, after 250 sandwiches, I was just ending up with the outline of some long haired guy over and over again.

  • thepragmatist

    There is relatively unknown equation by Pythagoras:

    HALF TRUTHS + ARROGANCE + A FALSE SENSE OF SUPERIORITY = IGNORANCE

  • Baronius

    If Gonzo and Bob can repeat themselves, I guess I can too (although it is boring).

    Michael Behe points out that no amount of gradual evolution can account for irreducible complexity. A structure that could serve no function with any portion missing could not develop over time.

    No claw -> slight claw -> modern claw

    The above example is fine. Slightly tougher skin on the end of the digit could help a creature. Even tougher skin would help more. The claw would be the most effective.

    No t-cell -> slight t-cell -> modern t-cell

    This example wouldn’t work. There are no intermediary steps between “no t-cell” and “modern t-cell” that could do anything. A partially-developed t-cell would offer no advantage, so the creature with one would have no reason to be selected over its earlier version. This is a different class of problem than the time and probability arguments, because it requires a fully-intact structure to appear. Statistically possible, but nothing you could call evolution.

    So while much of ID theory is argument about timelines and statistics, this question of irreducible complexity really puts the ball back in the evolutionists’ court.

  • albert

    DOES EVIL EXIST?

    The university professor challenged his students with this question. “Did God create everything that exists?”

    A student bravely replied “Yes, he did!”

    “God created everything?” The professor asked.

    “Yes sir,” the student replied.

    The professor answered, “If God created everything, then God created evil since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who we are – then God is evil.”

    The student became quiet before such an answer.

    The professor was quite pleased with himself and boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth.

    Another student raised his hand and said, “Can I ask you a question professor?”

    “Of course,” replied the professor.

    The student stood up and asked, “Professor, does cold exist?”

    “What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?” The students snickered at the young man’s question.

    The young man replied, “In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (- 460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat; all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction a that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat.

    The student continued. “Professor, does darkness exist?”

    The professor responded, “Of course it does.”

    The student replied, “Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton’s prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn’t this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present.”

    Finally the young man asked the professor. “Sir, does evil exist?”

    Now uncertain, the professor responded, “Of course as I have already said. We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man’s inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.”

    To this the student replied, “Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is not like faith, or love that exist just as does light and heat. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God’s love present in his heart. It’s like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.”

    The professor sat down.

    The young man’s name — Albert Einstein.

  • Baronius

    Taloran – As for the question of hostility, it’s something that doesn’t belong in well-reasoned science. Arrogance by creationists alienates people who are on the fence, as does arrogance by evolutionists. I personally don’t know who is correct, but I wouldn’t have given ID a second look if it weren’t for the anger of its opponents.

  • billy

    “irreducible complexity”

    this is no argument, because despite complexity, clearly nothing is irreducibly complex, so id falls flat again, by making a false claim to try to confuse people.

    similarly that “t-cell” argument is absurd. cells clearly developed under evolutionary theory before mamalls, fish, etc, so the idea you are positing makes sense only if you are very confused about what evolution proves.

  • http://www.worldwiderant.com andy

    Baronius –

    I’d recommend you check Snopes.com sometime.

    Next you’ll be posting urban legends about how rocket scientists once proved the Earth stood still for a day.

    Hey, did you know the word “gullible” isn’t in the dictionary?

  • http://www.tude.com/ Hal Pawluk

    I thought David Hume had covered this issue pretty well about 250 years ago:

    “If we see a house, Cleanthes, we conclude, with the greatest certainty, that it had an architect or builder; because this is precisely that species of effect which we have experienced to proceed from that species of cause. But surely you will not affirm, that the universe bears such a resemblance to a house that we can with the same certainty infer a similar cause, or that the analogy is here entire and perfect. The dissimilitude is so striking, that the utmost you can here pretend to is a guess, a conjecture, a presumption concerning a similar cause; and how that pretension will be received in the world, I leave you to consider.”

    There’s more, worth reading if you’re into this kind of time-wasting stuff.

  • ven

    To albert, Does anything called “evil” exist?

    World War 2 war perpertrated by the greatest evil known to man – Adolf Hitler. Yet the consequneces of that were liberation of erstwhile colonies. End of Imperialism. It is we who classify an event good or evil, based on our unique history and viewpoints. One mans terroist is another mans freedom fighter.

    Mutation of genes amongst many things causes cancer. It kills us absolutely. But some times it may bring about some good fortune.

    Does Evil exist? It depends on viewpoints. If absence of God is Evil then existence of God is purely relative to our experience.

  • Baronius

    Billy, you don’t seem to understand what I mean by “irreducible complexity” or by “t-cell”. A complex structure, like a car, can be missing bumpers, a roof, et cetera, and still operate. An irreducibly complex structure, like a car engine, is something that won’t function with a piece missing.

    A t-cell is a specialized cell which is part of the immune system. If a single chemical reaction is absent, t-cells accomplish nothing (or worse). It is impossible to chart out the development of such a mechanism. Marrow that sits around and produces non-functioning cells doesn’t seem like an advantage.

    Andy – I posted, then Albert, then me again. I didn’t post about Einstein, so I’m not spreading urban legends. And for your information, I checked seven online dictionaries for the word “gullible”, and…

  • http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html ven

    Evolution of an eye is supposed to be the flagship of ID proponents.

    Something here might interest the ID proponents which they might not have thought about. (Lack of ideas doesnt mean we should ascribe it to some supernatural intelligence!)

    Check this link out:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

    “Here’s how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made “vision” a little sharper. At the same time, the pit’s opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

    Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

    In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists’ hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist’s calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch. “

  • http://www.worldwiderant.com andy

    Baronius – apologies, as I forgot that Blogcritics has things a little backwards from most sites.

    Albert, consider that comment for you.

  • http://www.tude.com/ Hal Pawluk

    Maybe for you, Baronius, “It is impossible to chart out the development of such a mechanism [a t-cell].

    But for early man it was impossible to understand thunder and various other phenomena.

    Mankind’s usual response to this kind of ignorance has been to “deduce” the existence of a god.

    Today, thunder; tomorrow t-cells.

    ID isn’t.

  • Baronius

    Ven – Perfect argument, structurally. Weak argument, chemically. Questionable argument, genetically.

    The light-sensitivity on the front of a less-advanced creature would have benefits. As you note, we find examples of such today. Nerve endings are concentrated on the front of animals, because it helps to be able to sense what you’re moving toward. The structural precursers to vertebrates’ eye are numerous.

    What about the chemical precursers? The worm doesn’t have any of the dozen or so chemical reactions which transfer information from the optic nerve to the brain. And it doesn’t have any of the dozen or so chemicals which undo the reaction, to “reset” the nerve for new information.

    And then there’s genetic precursers. Structures (your argument) don’t mutate, and chemicals (my argument) don’t mutate. Genes do. It may be possible that the gene which created the chemical reactions in the eye could have developed from the genes that created a worm’s sensors. It seems unlikely, because the genes produce the chemicals, but I’ll admit that it’s possible.

    So that’s the gist of my argument. The structural analogy is too simplistic. The chemical processes hint at the genes which manufacture them, but even this falls short. We won’t be able to explain how an irreducibly complex structure develops until we crack its DNA sequence, and are able to trace it backwards. But the chemicals involved indicate an incompatibility with earlier forms.

  • http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html ven

    Baronius,

    I will slightly change the direction of this discussion but is very much related to this discussion.

    How can you ever explain the existence of some irrelavent features in our bodies.
    Take for example
    1) Appendix – An organ that can be taken out with no harm done. This organ is pretty large is used by primates to digest raw leaves.
    2) Tail bone – One vertebra in our backbone has no structural advantage. It is very similar to the tail bones of primates.
    3) Less developed toes on our feet. Why is there a need for human toes when we dont need them. If we x-ray our feet we see a lot of similarities with Apes.
    4) Hair on our bodies – Clearly there is no need for hair. We wear clothes that should protect us from the elements. Yet some people have hair very similar to apes.

    Getting back to the discussion, Did you know the following fact: That when some of the dormant genes are activated some ancient features that suggest our evolutanary path get expressed. Follow this link : http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/06/04/teeth.birds/

    Absence of Chemical precusors doesnt mean they didnt exist. Evolution acts in both ways. It removes unecassary features and introduces new features in a perfectly logical manner.

  • http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html ven

    Baronius,

    You also said:

    “It may be possible that the gene which created the chemical reactions in the eye could have developed from the genes that created a worm’s sensors. It seems unlikely, because the genes produce the chemicals, but I’ll admit that it’s possible.”

    Genes code for protiens, enzymes and maybe more. The physical features that genes are responsible are called phenotypes. Like having blue eyes etc. And the genes themselves are called genotype.

    If a structural feature (a phenotype ) ensures enhanced survival I dont see any reason why the genes underlying it have a greater chance of being passed on to future generation. Remember all the way that only way that genes can change is through random mutations in them.

    The Structural argument is deeply tied to the Chemical argument as well.

  • http://www.rudicusreport.blogspot.com rudicus

    I want to make sure we aren’t getting too far away from the point.

    Regardless of the irreducible complexity of anything or the falsely assumed belief that natural selection must somehow answer every question in the universe adequately or else it is null and void, the simple and irrefutable fact is that there isn’t a shred of proof to substantiate the claim that there is any form of supreme being or higher power or wookies or anything else supernatural or extraterrestrial or extradimensional or extraplanar, let alone that they have any powers or were in anyway involved in creating anything.

    We do not know everything about the universe, nor the earth, nor life, nor the sea, nor the brain. We probably don’t even know everything there is to know about bananas or pizza. But up to this point, natural slection is the best idea we have about life on earth.

    Proponents of ID are welcome to their idea, just as proponents of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are welcome to theirs, but the bottom line is that to teach it in science class as an alternative to evolution, then it has to be scientifically based, and it ain’t.

    And for Bush and especially Frist to give it any kind of validity as a scientific theory is irresponsible and just plain stupid.

    Now if you want to keep arguing, knock yourself out, but you cannot have a theory whose main premise cannot be proven(an intelligent designer). If you can find direct evidence of a creator or other designer then we can talk some more, but until then, all we have is some unanswered questions.

  • Duane

    Rudicus: … you cannot have a theory whose main premise cannot be proven …..

    That is not how science works. There are no “proofs” outside of mathematics and other logical systems. Scientists make models. Observational data is then deemed to be consistent or at odds with the model.

  • http://ezsgblog.com/vtdawson/index.php Bennett

    Yeah Duane, but you agree with Rudicus’ expressed points, right?

  • http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html ven

    I want to ask an unrelated question to the propents of ID to know their ulterior motives, Perhaps a mechanism to separate the sophisticates from idealogues:

    It is known that there never was a flood that submerged the whole of land on earth, would you still argue about?
    Even if all the polar ice caps melted there would still be substantial amount of dry land still left.

    Remember in Bible it talks about Noahs ark.

  • http://www.rudicusreport.blogspot.com rudicus

    Semantics, Duane.

    Before we can assert that a higher intelligence is responsible for designing life on earth, we have to establish that a higher intelligence exists to ascribe it to.

    Until that is established, then any discussion of intelligent design is moot.

  • Duane

    Bennett, yes I do. But I would make one small addition. I apologize if someone mentioned this already. I’ll go reread all the posts. The addition is obvious to all but the ID crowd, and that is that science has progressed dramatically since the introduction of the scientific method. There is no reason to expect that progress will not continue. So, while we don’t have all the answers yet, many of them will come. So, I’ll ask the question to IDers that I usually ask on these posts:

    If a science-based explanation for the evolution of the human eye is developed and is accepted by the consensus of the scientific community, will IDers change their minds about the viability of evolutionary biology?

  • Baronius

    Ven – I realize that there are many structural similarities, and chemical similarities, between humans and apes. The ability to stand erect (hee hee!) is a puzzle, and it relates to two of the things you mentioned, toes and tail. I don’t know the answer.

    – Evolutionary theory stumbles over posture because the opposable thumbs don’t offer a four-legged creature any advantage, and standing doesn’t offer any advantage to creatures without opposable thumbs. Either development slows down the animal.

    – Irreducible complexity doesn’t apply to macro structures such as the tailbone, but to the extent it applies to the chemical similarities between apes and men, it suggests that apes and men are related, but there’s an impassible barrier between both of us and fish.

    – Hardcore ID offers no explanation for any similarities between species.

    Like I said, I don’t know.

    I’m familiar with the issue of dormant genes, and it could provide some amazing information. It doesn’t solve the question of gradual evolution as far as I know.

    As for the nonexistence of chemical precursors, this is a perfect example of what drives creationists nuts when arguing with evolutionists. It’s a lack of evidence. You can’t cite lack of evidence as support for a theory. It’s like Gonzo’s fairly juvenile “equals theory” statement. Anything is proven if you dismiss contrary evidence or lack of supporting evidence.

  • Baronius

    Rudicus, I think we’re straying from the “Bush is stupid” topic, but staying on the “evidence of evolution vs. ID” topic.

    “Before we can assert that a higher intelligence is responsible for designing life on earth, we have to establish that a higher intelligence exists to ascribe it to.”

    Hardly. We assert that quarks are the basis of matter because of the evidence that they exist. We could thus assert that God exists because of intelligent design. I wouldn’t; but that argument is just too weak to ignore.

    ID is really less of a theory than a critique of the theory of evolution. Probably a lot of evolutionists believe that ID is a way of getting God into the school, and I’m certain that many creationists think the same thing. But as a critique, ID simply says what it says: evolution by random mutation and natural selection is incomplete.

  • http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html ven

    Baronius,

    How ironic you accuse evolutionists/modern science of pleading lack of evidence for holes in our theories. Can IDers explain the lack of evidence of an intelligent designer, which I believe is the biggest hole in the ID theory.

    What chemical precursors are you talking about that is needed for eyes?

    Genes > proteins/enzymes > eyes(phenotype).

    If a particular phenotype is best suitable for survival it is passed on. So whats wrong in this elegant argument. Practically every single consequence of this model/theory is explored and has been shown to exist in nature. Any alterate thoery/model is incapable of answering all the questions.

    We could as well argue that Earth moves around the sun on a tortoise. Yet Newtons laws/(or more advanced General Relativity) of gravity explains it in the most elegant and simplest manner. Practically all the consequenes of it have been explored. Any other thoery falls short.

    Certainly your understanding of evolution is far behind what mainstream scientists have agreed for a long time for some of things you mention.

    Check the links out:
    Evolution of human locomotion:
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/1/text_pop/l_071_04.html

    Evolution of human thumb:
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/4/l_074_01.html

  • http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html ven

    Baronius,

    To anwer your last post. The problem with ID philosophy of introducing a Designer is that science as such could have never progressed if it included it.

    Say for instance we could have always rationalized the motion of planets in the heavens by the acts of an intelligent designer. No need of Newtons laws which seem to be behind them.

    Same thing can be said of evolution. Why investigate the possible existence of underlying laws behind human creation if ever they exist?

  • Duane

    I don’t think that’s quite right, Ven. Scientists can study and learn from now until the heat death of universe, regardless of one’s belief of the existence of the Designer. This falls into line with the so-called eutaxiological argument that nature was set in motion by the Designer. That’s their King’s X. Science cannot prove that the Designer does not exist, so there will always be people who will believe It does.

  • http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html ven

    Duane,

    The very notion of introducing a Designer means ascribing something we cannot explain now to “never explainable”.

    If “never explainable” then why investigate?

    If “explainable” why the need of a designer?

    Science perhaps contradicts the existence of Designer.

  • Duane

    Never explainable? That’s interesting. If that’s the result from an ID argument, then you’re right, of course. But it’s not clear that “never explainable” can’t be replaced with “not yet explainable.” Newton believed in a Designer, but he spent much of his time trying to understand the workings of the machine, and did pretty well.

  • RKC

    “Here’s how SOME scientists THINK some eyes MAY have evolved…

    Is this SCIENCE?

  • http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html ven

    Duane, think about it

    “not yet explainable ” doesnt mean existence of a designer and every one would agree with that. Therefore, only reason some people need a designer means they already assume “never explainable”. (For things we havent yet found an explanation yet)

    Lets look at the argument in another way
    Conversely, our definition of a “Designer” always underwent a change
    whenever we understood some thing.

    Like before we used to believe that we were given the mercy of rain by “Designer” because he felt so. Now we know the reasons why rain happens. We no longer in our everyday language refer to the designer for rainfall. We rely on weather forecasts.

    As science is progressing, we in each step of human understanding relegated the “designer” to a smaller and smaller domain.

    So see whats happening, from the original concept of Biblical “Designer” we have reduced the “Designer” to a mathematical concept of perhaps the last thing that will not be explainable by mankind.

  • Duane

    Yes, it is. Is it any different than Einstein saying, “Hmmm. Maybe the speed of light is constant regardless of one’s state of motion” ? You guys are so impatient.

  • Duane

    Yes, Ven. That’s basically what I was saying. IDers will be pushed onto their King’s X.

    My comment 64 was to RKC, by the way.

  • http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html ven

    Duane,

    One more comment, If ever we reach a state when everything were explainable, will there be a need for a “Designer”

  • RKC

    “Someone who finds a rock can easily imagine how wind and rain shaped it.. But someone who finds a pocket watch lying on the ground instantly knows that it was not formed by natural processes.”

    — William Paley

  • http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html ven

    RKC,

    The problem is pocket watch is no different than a stone. It is we who ascribe a meaning to it. Remove us pocket watch is nothing but a bunch of chemicals

  • billy

    ven is my hero.

    how about that id theory? there is just one small TINY HOLE in that there theory. nowhere is an “intelligent designer” to be found, he cant be tested, measured, or otherwise used in any way in a theory?

    Geez, when the entire theory rests on this one small little piece of evidence for the cause of everything it claims, dont you think it is a problem when that piece of evidence isnt detectable?

  • Baronius

    Ven – Did you read the articles that you linked to? They portrayed theories of bipedalism as more confused than I realized:

    ‘Now the challenge — one of the ultimate questions in the study of human origins — is to understand why the earliest hominids stood up. “Bipedalism is a fundamental human characteristic,” said Dr. Bernard Wood, a paleontologist at the University of Liverpool in England, “yet virtually nothing is known about its origins.“‘ (italics mine)

    Four theories were offered for the development of walking erect (hee hee!):

    1) environmental changes in Africa (Vrba, Coppens)
    2) body cooling (Wheeler)
    3) ease of feeding (Hunt)
    4) freeing hands / behavioural (Lovejoy)

    The article then goes on to show each theory being shot down:

    ‘One problem with the environment hypothesis has arisen with the new fossil findings. Both the Leakey-Walker anamensis and the White ramidus bones were found in areas that were once densely wooded, not savanna…. Proponents of the hypothesis are not backing down. The soil measurements, they contend, may not be precise enough to reflect significant but short-term changes in vegetation. Nor do they think that the wooded setting in which the two sets of fossils were found necessarily represents the environment in which the species both lived and foraged.’

    ‘Dr. Ian Tattersall, an evolutionary biologist at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City finds the cooling hypothesis “particularly attractive,” if not the whole story. Dr. Wood of the University of Liverpool wonders if it really explains the origin of bipedalism, or merely explains why bipedalism was advantageous when hominids routinely foraged in more open habitats.’

    ‘Many such ideas are too narrow to account for something as broadly transforming as bipedality, in the opinion of Dr. C. Owen Lovejoy, an anatomist at Kent State University in Ohio who is a specialist in research on the origins of human locomotion.’

    ‘Of the Lovejoy hypothesis, Dr Tattersall said: “It makes a nice story. But I don’t think many people are convinced. We know so little about the lifestyles of those early hominids.”‘

    The article ends with a dab of hope amid the pessimism:

    ‘”We will always be driven to speculate,” he [Tattersall] said, “and, hopefully, our speculations will become more informed and insightful.”‘

    As to the irony of accusing evolutionists of failing to have/examine evidence an instead relying on faith, the irony is precisely my point. Scientists should never defend a theory by saying that they haven’t found the answer yet. That’s not a defense.

  • RKC

    The Biologic Institute looked at a protein, called penicillinase, that gives bacteria the ability to survive treatment with the antibiotic penicillin.

    This work shows that working proteins are so rare that evolution cannot by chance discover them.

    The probability of a protein with this ability existing in the universe of all possible proteins is staggering. The protein is Penicillinase, which is made up of a strand of chemicals called amino acids folded into a shape that binds to penicillin and thus disables it. Whether the protein folds up in the right way determines whether it works or not.

    The Institute calculated that of the plausible amino acid sequences, only one in 100,000 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion – (a number written as 1 followed by 77 zeroes) – would provide resistance to penicillin.

    In other words, the probability was essentially zero.

    The probability of no ID in THIS ONE INSTANCE ALONE should convince all but those who have a complete aversion to a Supreme Being.

  • http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html ven

    First to RKC,

    When you talk about probabilities consider that such probabilities may occur.

    1) Earth has been in existence for the last 126144000000000000 seconds (or 4 billion years) In terms of time scale of electronic transitions (10 to power of -18, typical of simple chemical transitions) it is 126,144,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 electronic transitions

    2) number of atoms in earth 8.87 x 10^49

    2) Our solar system belongs to Milkyway that has 100000000000 (~100 billion star)

    3) Our Milkyway belongs to one amongst 100000000000 (~100 billion) other galaxies

    So even if we base our argument only on probabilties we had enough time and space where such an event would have occured.

  • http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html ven

    Baronius,

    Thats typical of how science progresses. Before we understood the mechanism of how electrons moved in an atom in the early 20th century there were many theories of how it does.

    Yet, eventually science has settled with Quantum mechanics. Look there is no hint of a “Designer” anywhere to explain how the electron moves in an atom.

    To prevent repetition read my post 63 to duane. And also 58 about the fundamental problem with introducing a designer to Science.

  • alethinos59

    This is why the Founding Fathers insisted that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…

    Look at the ugliness that’s caused by those who INSIST that something like ID be “accepted” or “taught” along with biology and evolution as an alternative.

    If there isn’t enough “GOD” in society, or school, etc., my suggestion is that everyone who is frothing at the mouth in their rabid insistance of this try to live their DAILY life as if JESUS were standing right next to you… I wonder how impressed He’d be with your self-righteous insistance that everyone comform to YOUR concept of the Universe…

    GET RID OF THE PRIESTS – GET PEACE.

  • RKC

    “So even if we base our argument only on probabilities we had enough time and space were such an event would have occurred.”

    How so?

    Most of what has occurred has occurred in the recent past, not since “Earth has been in existence.”

    And stating that the “number of atoms in earth is 8.87 x 10^49” shows that you are simply throwing around numbers that have no meaning in this context.

    If you can’t argue facts, try confusing the issue.

  • RKC

    The ID theory is not about religion.

    Bringing up religion as an issue shows that the post is devoid of any intelligence.

  • http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html ven

    RKC,

    Number of atoms and amount of space is highly relevant to any calculation of occurance of an event.

    Purely based on randomness any event may occur ANYWHERE and ANYTIME. Including ANYWHERE matters as the reaction could occur to anyone of the specific atoms in this universe ( that are needed to make your compound).

  • RKC

    Since you profess to understand probability, can you state the probability of the occurrence of all known events since the first “piece” of matter came into existence?

  • Duane

    What’s your deal RKC? Sounds like Ven knows what he’s talking about.

    Ven, are you a biologist?

  • RKC

    Let’s see if ven can answer the question I presented…

    I’ll bet he can’t…

  • Believer

    Ven – your comment

    “Remove us pocket watch is nothing but a bunch of chemicals”

    Exactly ID’s point – remove “designer” and things are just a bunch of chemicals. It takes a designer to formulate/create/form/design them :)

    YOU were designed (like it or not)

  • Baronius

    Ven – In fact, it has nearly exclusively been monotheistic societies which have made scientific advances. A society which believes in nothing doesn’t look for explanations; a society which believes in multiple gods has an explanation for everything. Societies that believe in a creator god seek to understand him through his creations. That’s simply an historical fact.

    One exception: societies which worshipped fertility gods nearly all had great calendars.

    As Thomas Aquinas put it, faith points to truth; so does reason. If there is only one truth, science and faith should always be in agreement. If faith and reason seem to be pointing to different things, then one of them is being interpreted incorrectly. (Remember that Thomas Aquinas didn’t believe in biblical literalism; I think he’d be fine with evolutionary theory.)

    This compatibility of faith and reason was at the heart of the Enlightenment. It’s really only near the end of the Enlightenment, and on Star Trek, that your theory of God was espoused. Please don’t cite Galileo in your defense. Galileo’s is a long story, generally told incorrectly, but basically he got in trouble for denying the compatibility of faith and reason.

    All of which leads me to a quote from Schubert: ‘Man comes into the world with faith, which is far superior to knowledge and understanding, for in order to understand a thing one must first of all believe in it. Reason is nothing more than analyzed belief.’

    Dude, even I can tell that I’m off-topic. Ta.

  • ven

    Believer,

    It doesnt take a leap of imagination to see that we ourselves are no different than other complex phenomena in nature. You can think of us just like complex weather phenomena that result in hurricanes etc.

    In that sense if a rock can be argued as a creation of wind so can a watch on ground be thought of creation of a complex phenomenon in nature called human beings.

    We are products of this nature! Just like the wind.

  • ven

    Baronius,

    Regarding your comment about religion as such. It is more likely the case that man created GOD rather than the opposite.

    Perhaps only those societies that developed the concept of GOD had a better chances of survival than those societies that didnt.

    For example: 20000 years back there might have existed many societies including those that were completely atheistic. But as time went the strong societial glue tha Religion provided gave a strong impetus for those societies that believed in GOD. These societies for example were very caring for the weak. There was a strong sense of justice for the Good. Good enhanced the chances of a society to survive in times of conflict or hardship.

    Therefore all that you mention about the superiority of societies that believed in a particular form of religion is nothing but the manifestation of we being the descendents of those societies that survived the fittest!

  • ven

    RKC,

    Regarding probabilities, I brought up this issue to sanitize you to the fact that events that have extremely low probablilty of occurance can indeed occur. This however does not mean that evolution is only Randomness. Far from that.

    Think of the survival of fittest as an anology to something else.

    Imagine that you are in a mountaneous area. And the goal is to reach the point of lowest elevation from whereever you start. Clearly to reach that point randomly is an extremely unlikely event.

    But suppose you follow an algorithm. A simple algorithm: That is follow the path of steepest descent then what would happen?

    If you follow this simple algorithm first you will immediately reach the closest valley from the point where you start. Eventually as you travese the valley to reach the valleys lowest point. It maybe possible that the lowest point that you reach may not be the overall lowest point. However, if some event happens that is extremely random, you might get out of the local minima, then you can explore even more of this mountaineos terrian to get at the global minima.

    Think of the algorithm of following the path of sttepest descent as survival of the fittest. You can choose any path (MUTATION of GENES is random) but only that path is eventually taken that follows the path of steepest descent (SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST)!

    Every now and then a random event happens that takes us out of the local minimas – Like the hitting of the earth by a COMET that killed the dinasaurs. We start all over again in this great game of evolution to find a new minima.

  • ven

    Duane,

    No I am not a biologist, but I am scientist though. I Work with polymers.

    Its getting too late here. I have to go. See you all later. Its great having discussion with all you guys

  • http://www.dailyfisk.com/ BB

    Whoa! Interesting stuff and theories abound.

    It’s gratifying to see the trolls have left and this thread has evolved into an intelligently designed discussion (pun intended).

    I recognize that many of you may be more educated in the scientific realm than I. And admittedly both sides present compelling arguments.

    But for all of those who purport that God does not exist because of their belief in evolution theory or this that and the other, in the alternative I would be very interested to hear a compelling argument proving why God could not possibly exist.

    I believe that is a fair question to ask because creationists really don’t have to ‘prove’ that the universe was designed, because no matter what — it all comes down to faith for them. That is why they sit in the enviable position of poking holes in evolutionary theory. Because they already have faith. Whereas evolution is the new kid on the block so to speak, and the onus is therefore on it to provide proof thereof.

    So how would one go about doing that? If God is Spirit, would it be possible to define His essence in a mathematical formula? Or clone his essence in a test tube? Or build a telescope strong enough to see the beginning of time or even heaven itself? Or arguing for or against irreducible complexity?

    With all due respect, the discussions here have proven one thing to me — and that is neither side has a killer argument that will knock the other out unconditionally.

    I see intelligent people here going to great lengths to prove or disprove their personal belief systems. But isn’t that really the driving force that is behind all of our intellectual arguments?

    I suppose the point that I am trying to make is it all just comes down to our own personal bias one way or the other. What we really want to believe. That is the bottom line, and it is just a matter of faith one way or the other.

  • http://mistwereld.blogspot.com Floris Vermeir

    It depends what you understand under the word god ? Religion in my opinion, and I agree with ven, is a strong social bond, and that is what may look like it has given the monoteistic religions, or the country’s where that was the case and advantage.

    This is true but not completly. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the people from India, The inca and the maya also made advancements but where not monoetheisitic.

    God in one meaning is something men created to provide a comforting thought for all the things man did not understand at that particular time. The difference between a monotheistic religion and a religion with more then one god, is actually just that in the first case, one god is seen as being responsible for everything, and in the latter more then one god.

    The discussion about this in the past, has led to bloody civil wars and conflicts, some of which lasted long, and caused much distress. And long is like 60-80 years. After the reformation
    the baroque period came, and whith it some parts of science rejoiced.

    It must also be said that from around the 12 th century AD onwards, religion and science where seen as two seperate things. It took several centuries to get science not being seen as in the realm of religion. People were burned and prosecuted because of them willing to confront the ideas beheld by religion.

    For an example of how things would have become if that was not the case, look at the difficulties many muslim scientist have today in doing scientific research.

    You ask how we would go and prove god exist. And you mention that for people who believe in ID it all comes down to faith. But that is where the difference lays between ID/creationism and Evolution theory.

    Evolution theory is science, ID/creationism is not.

    Let me explain more clearly. In comment
    Comment 76 RKC writes:
    ” The ID theory is not about religion.
    Bringing up religion as an issue shows that the post is devoid of any intelligence. ”

    You remark that for the Id people it is all a question of faith.

    The link provided by Apollo states this on its main page :
    ” We believe God has raised up ICR to spearhead Biblical Christianity’s defense against the godless and compromising dogma of evolutionary humanism. Only by showing the scientific bankruptcy of evolution, while exalting Christ and the Bible, will Christians be successful in “the pulling down of strongholds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (II Corinthians 10:4,5).”

    Clearly ID is therefore about religion. And therefore comment 76 is logically invalid. Saying that Id has nothing to do with religion, yet when reading the following text, stating that the earth is only 6000 years old as the bible states, clearly show that ID is about religion. Why else the period of 6000 years ? Why else the talking about christianity ? If ID is not about religion, then any designer should do, including Aliens. Ruling them and others out, only proposing one specific type of designer , clearly indicates that it is about religion. Otherwise any time period would do. And as that is not the case, that is proof that Id has to do with religion.

    http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=news&action=view&ID=25

    Otherwise it could be 14000 years, 14 million years, 4 billion years. That wouldn’t make a difference then. The fact that it does, and that it is about one specific time period, that happens to be the same as in the bibble, is proof that its about religion.

    The reason I’m referring to this one article, is that if this would behold to be true, it would also means that rocks from the moon, should be redated, and that many more problems would arise in trying ot explain things. If this would be true, it would be posted in peer review journals, and it would be scrutinised and retested. If that will not be done then as all such claims it will not be taken as correct.

    If the same samples would be retested, and found the same thing, then depending of where those samples were formed, wich can be near earths surface making them relativly new, or in the earths core, but then they would have to survive the heath without changing.

    The fact is that many things only cristalise in the earths crust, and that part of the inner part of the earth is molten.

    So my first dount about this, if they can proive, and if that can be checked that the things they are measurirng indeed formed deed in the earth. Because if they didn’t, that puts there argument on a swamp.

    As for the evolution of the eye, proof of that was found not longer then 4 months ago. A species living in the sea, was found ot have aminiscule eye, next to light sensitive patches. It can be seen as an incomplete eye, one that does not work as well as or own. Yet it gives the species an advantage in survival, because the ability to post large staionary objects gives it a better chance of survival.

    Like gonzo marx wrote, and he’ right, again, Id isn’t sience.

    Rahter Id is using or trying to use science to prove a fixed scenario. If ID was science, and not about religion, then the time frame could be any time frame.

    As on how to porve god does exit ? I don’t think I know an answer onthat one, for now. But let me answer with another question: Why does a god need to exist in the first place ?

    Not originally mine, but something might have read in the origin of species.

    Evolution theory is not about belief, it is about facts, and proof. True it cannot yet explain everything, but knowledge progresses, and we can explain more things now then we could in the past.

    Its not, for me at matter of faith. Its about facts. The reason evolution theory In a previous post on blogcritics, entitled the three big questions,

    If this is indeed true,then how does it come that this is the first I hear about it. As for the

  • RKC

    RE: Comment 85

    “Think of the survival of fittest as an anology [sic] to something else.”

    “Imagine that you are in a mountainous [sic] area. And the goal is to reach the point of lowest elevation from whereever [sic] you start. Clearly to reach that point randomly is an extremely unlikely event.”

    “But suppose you follow an algorithm. A simple algorithm: That is follow the path of steepest descent then what would happen?”

    ANSWER: YOU WOULD FALL OFF A CLIFF.

    ___

    Re: Comment 78

    Since you profess to understand probability, can you state the probability of the occurrence of all known events since the first “piece” of matter came into existence?

    I STILL BET YOU CAN’T.

  • RKC

    RE: Comment 85

    Compounding your confused analogy…

    Where did you get the “algorithm” in your fairy tale?

    Doesn’t an algorithm have to be “designed”?

  • JR

    RKC, Comment 71: The probability of no ID in THIS ONE INSTANCE ALONE should convince all but those who have a complete aversion to a Supreme Being.

    And yet, the vast majority of scientists, many of whom worship a Supreme Being, aren’t convinced.

    Hmmm.

  • ven

    BB,

    About your assertion that the onus to disprove the existence of GOD/ Designer is on the Evolutionists/Modern Science.

    It never works that way. Again in the begining of the 20th century people thought that a medium called ether existed in which light travelled. They tried all possible experiements to prove its existence. They couldnt find it. Eventually Einstien came forward and put forth a beautiful theory that did away with ether (no absolute reference frame!)E=mc2 was born.

    Same is the case with a designer. You can do as many possible experiments to prove his existence. Till now the Designer has eluded us. Just like what the theory relativity did for ether, theory of evolution has removed the need for a designer.

  • RKC

    ven — when I did not get an answer to my probability question …

    I thought you had fallen off a cliff…

    But I see you are back…

    I was worried.

  • ven

    RKC,

    About the anology, I didnt mention about any need for us to prevent getting hurt. Its about how to find a minima in a mountaineous terrian.

    The minina can is our destination. Like the protien that you mentioned.

    What I said is not fantasy or a fairy tale. This kind of anology is frequently used in mathematics and thermodynamics to find solutions to equations or answers about the physical state of an object. (Method of steepest descent is a well known mathematical technique)

    The mountaineous terrian is equivalent to a “solution space”. Each point on the map represent possible outcomes. The elevation of points refers to “Gibbs free energy”. Some thing akin to potential.

  • rkc

    Regarding probabilities,

    Clearly I have shown you a technique that is simple and naturally occurs.

    So events that might apparently be extremely unlikely to occur are not that unlikely.

    So where is the need for a designer?

  • ven

    Sorry about posting the previous comment by the name of rkc. Its me ven

  • RKC

    Sorry ven — but your analogy still has you falling off a cliff…

  • ven

    RKC,

    Regarding your comment: “Doesn’t an algorithm have to be “designed”?”

    You have fallen into a trap. The moment you acknowledge a possible existence of an algorithm you have relagated the the task of the Designer to a smaller domain.

    It now becomes an issue of who designed the algorithm. It now becomes purely philosophical. So I ask you this question: how long would you guys make a last stand. This happened 400 years back in the trial of Galileo – widely considered the father of modern science. It is still continuing now.

    What happend to the Biblical Designer who created Adam and Eve?

  • Duane

    Many IDers do not believe in analogies either.

  • RKC

    Since ven cannot answer the question:

    “What is the probability of the occurrence of all known events
    since the first “piece” of matter came into existence?”

    I invite anyone else to try…

  • ven

    RKC,

    Adamant as ever. Your faith is strong. May God bless you.

    Just to remind you evolution is not only about Randomness. It also involves survival of the fittest. A crucial part that you miss

  • RKC

    So ven has given up on my question…

    I asked him first because he presented himself as being knowledgesble in probability.

    But others are welcome to answer the question.

  • Duane

    RKC, what are you trying to accomplish? Don’t you know how to carry on a conversation? Ven takes the trouble to try to explain something to you and you ignore his responses and keep coming back to this lame probability nonsense. Why don’t you take advantage of an opportunity to learn something from someone who knows more about the subject than you do? Stop trying to annoy. It makes you believers look bad.

  • ven

    Thanks Duane,

    Felt like quitting this blog, which I will soon. See you guys later. Nice discussion again.

  • http://Druxxx Druxxx

    IDer’s answer me this.

    If there is this mythical designer, why is there extinction?

    Did those species that became extinct suddenly out live their usefulness?

    Did this intelligent designer decide that dinasours and humans coul not cohabitate the earth, so they the dinasours had to go?

    Does it really make sence that we popped out of nowhere just as we are?

  • RKC

    What I am trying to accomplish is to get those who say they know
    something about probability to answer a simple probability question,

    Ven presented himself as someone who understands probability..

    And I would like to get a simple question answered.

    Don’t you know how to carry on a conversation?

    Why don’t you take advantage of an opportunity to learn something
    from someone who knows more about the subject than you do?

    Stop trying to annoy. It makes you non-believers in probability look bad.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    We don’t teach in school that the wheel was invented, without going over WHY the wheel was invented. ID would be the only time in school where we cover that something might be designed without going into why it was designed.

    That really isn’t possible, so when ID is introduced, WHY life is created would also have to be discussed. And that is the true problem.

  • Duane

    Another fine example of the believers technique.

    Believer makes a somewhat provocative and seemingly sincere suggestion that Evolution is all wrong.

    Person with knowledge of science indulges the believer by making an effort to educate the believer.

    Believer does not acknowledge but asks a different question instead.

    Science person takes the bait and responds.

    Believer does not acknowledge but instead challenges the expertise of science person.

    Science person sees that believer is unwilling and unable to concede a point based upon logical argument and gives up.

    Believer assumes he has “won” the argument by getting science person to go away.

    ————–

    Let’s just see if RKC can respond to this in a sincere and intelligent way. What’s the probability of that happening?

  • RKC

    RE: Comment 108

    Duane’s rantings —

    “Another fine example of the believers technique.”

    “Believer makes a somewhat provocative and seemingly sincere suggestion that Evolution is all wrong.”

    Who said, “evolution is all wrong“?

    “Person with knowledge of science indulges the believer by making an effort to educate the believer.”

    Who is the “Person with knowledge of science” in this context?

    Who is “the believer”? in this context?

    “Believer does not acknowledge but asks a different question instead.”

    What is the “different question “?

    “Science person takes the bait and responds.”

    Who is the “science person”?

    “Believer does not acknowledge but instead challenges the expertise of science person.”

    What is the alleged “expertise of science person”?

    “Science person sees that believer is unwilling and unable to concede a point based upon logical argument and gives up.”

    What valid “point based upon logical argument” was presented?

    “Believer assumes he has “won” the argument by getting science person to go away.”

    AND ALL THIS BECAUSE I DARED TO POST:

    Comment 78 posted by RKC on August 23, 2005 12:44 AM:

    Since you profess to understand probability, can you state the probability of the occurrence of all known events since the first “piece” of matter came into existence?

  • RKC

    What is the probability of the occurrence of all known events since the first “piece” of matter came into existence?

    THE PROBABILITY THAT “EVOLUTION” OCCURRED WITHOUT “INTELLIGENT DESIGN” IS ZERO.

  • RKC

    Now for the next question…

    What is the probability of the first “piece” of matter coming into existence?

  • http://mistwereld.blogspot.com Floris Vermeir

    I would like to know the answer on both probablitiy questions. But of for the first one, let say that there are certain possiblites, but they are limited.

    Once gravity, and the effects of gravity occur, a universe forms perhpas not one like the current one, but there will be matter.

    As for a number I’ll leave that to you RKC. I don’t know. But I would like to add that even if the probabbility of something happening is very low, then that still doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen, witouth a designer being there.

    why life was created is indeed an important question.

  • billy

    why do id proponents even debate. they dont belong here. the absolutely crucial piece of your “theory” doesnt exist and cant be proven. until you prove a designer exists, show where it is, and how we can detect it, you have NOTHING. You have absolutely no place in this discussion without any evidence for your theory. meanwhile there is a ton of evidence proving evolution. good luck trying to match up.

  • RKC

    We know “evolution” exists.

    The unanswered question is the probability of it existing.

  • http://www.dailyfisk.com/ BB

    Ok boys and girls play nice.

    Re: Comment #88:

    Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear. Yes I said that most ID people are also people of faith. But I would also add that so are the evolutionists, except they don’t realize it. They attack creationism with all the fervour of a jihadist to the point that evolutionists, atheists and human rights proponents have evolved into becoming the state religion because they are now attempting to redefine morality.

    Regarding the brief history of religion that you note, there is a huge difference between spirituality and religion. That will always be conundrum for people who are not spiritual and attacking past religious goofballs does not discredit genuine people of faith.

    Neither do I agree with your assertion that “clearly ID is therefore about religion”. Granted, it is probably comprised by mostly of people of faith, but it is not all about religion.

    There are scientists and educated people who use logical arguments against evolution and you cannot simply dismiss them all as religious airheads. In fact the article that you refer to certainly has a substantial number of people with credentials beside their names does it not?

    Regarding the dating of the earth, I am no expert as Duane will point out, but I have read enough material from educated scientists that do not accept on face value the billions of years evolutionists like to throw around.

    Nor am I concerned how you wish to define ID. The bottom line we should all be searching for the TRUTH, and dismissing one or the other because of our bias is unacceptable (and goes for both sides).

    The question that I asked was for proof that God does not exist. But as for your question why does God have to exist? I don’t believe man will ever find all the answers in a mathematical equation, studying adaptation of species, peering through a telescope, or an elixir in a test tube. It will be found within ourselves. That is where the truth is to be found.

    Comment #92:

    I knew this was going to happen and frankly it’s a cop-out. Ven, I respect your knowledge as a scientist but with all due respect when discussing a topic that seeks to find all of the answers – i.e. the TRUTH, I don’t think that any questions are out of bounds. Inverted thinking is a useful technique for getting out of the box.

    The bottom line is this topic borders on the metaphysical/spiritual or whatever label you wish to put on it. And that will always be a problem for non-spiritual scientists.

    Surely you do not believe that just because you cannot see it, touch it, smell it, test it, equate it, or have a current theorem for it, does not mean that it does not exist. All theories/inventions of man first started with a dream, an observation, a hunch, whatever, before it was proven. The point is we cannot discount the possibility that God may exist even though we cannot prove or disprove it.

    So what is the bottom line? Who really knows? There is enough argument for and against and it all comes down to a matter of faith. Who you want to believe.

    All I’m saying is until someone can absolutely prove to me one or the other I suggest that we all keep an open mind.

    Peace.

  • RKC

    RE: Comment 112

    “Once gravity, and the effects of gravity occur, a universe forms…”

    And once there is a forest, fairies and gnomes will dance in it.

    What is the probability of “gravity” occurring?

  • billy

    RKC, you say

    We know “evolution” exists.

    The unanswered question is the probability of it existing.

    well, to give you a first grade probability lesson, those odds would be 1/1

    or 100%. next question.

  • billy

    i dont mean to be flippant but it is a real problem for id proponents to base their theory solely on a designer, then have no evidence that the designer exists. it is absurd to try to insert that into a real debate.

    a more proper question

    does gravity evolve?

    if a designer existed, would he evolve?

    if not, he is probably not part of our universe, and as such cant be a part of a scientific study.

  • RKC

    RE: Comment 117

    “We know “evolution” exists.
    “The unanswered question is the probability of it existing.”
    “well, to give you a first grade probability lesson, those odds would be 1/1”
    or 100%.

    next question.

    NEXT QUESTION:

    What college courses in probability did you take and did you ever use probability in your professional career?

    To give billy a first grade probability lesson, those odds would be ZERO.

    Your answer is based on knowing the outcome.

    You fail.

    Probability is predicting a future event — not one whose outcome is known.

    Imagine playing poker and you gat a Royal Flush which had odds of 649,740 to 1 before getting the hand.

    But once you have the hand the odds are of course 1/1.

    Get it?

  • Baronius

    Is Ven RKC?

    Please explain post #95, where you used the wrong name. And now I notice that ven and RKC are going back-and-forth in a way that’s difficult to time on a posting board.

  • RKC

    It’s no mystery.

    Comment 96 posted by ven on August 23, 2005 12:57 PM:
    Sorry about posting the previous comment by the name of rkc. Its me ven

  • http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html ven

    BB & RKC,

    Have you anytime thought about the possibility that ideas themselves are products of evolutions/ natural selection that constantly occur in our own minds.

    Every day we come across something different yet we cling onto only some of the ideas that come our way.

    Do you think we cling onto some ideas because of some “DESIGNER” thought it to be so or something more mundane like those ideas that get reinforced again and again survive. (Survival of the fittest if it sounds familiar)

    What is the difference between an idea and a physical object in that sense?

    Why should the presence of a “DESIGNER” taken so important to us to matter so much if it is just another theory?

  • http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html ven

    To elaborate my point further, we know from archealogical records that use of Iron was not present amongst humans prior to around 1000BC. That is typically thought of as the beginning of Iron age.

    Do you think Iron usage amongst humans grew because of a Designer?

    Over time man has experiemented with different things and toyed around with different ideas. Not all have them have survived. One typical example of an idea that is dying out is communism. It is being out competed by Democracy and Capitalism.

    We always stuck to those ideas that improved our chances of survival. If those ideas were fruitless in enhancing our chances of survival they simply died out.

    ID is just another such theory that is dying out.

  • RKC

    RE: Comment 122

    “Have you anytime thought about the possibility
    that ideas themselves are products of evolutions/ natural
    selection that constantly occur in our own minds.”

    Ideas always present possibilities.

    “Every day we come across something different yet
    we cling onto only some of the ideas that come our way.”

    Of course, but most ideas do not change. We all have
    different intellects and that is the major determinant
    in what we think.

    “Do you think we cling onto some ideas because of
    some “DESIGNER” thought it to be so or something
    more mundane like those ideas that get reinforced again
    and again survive. (Survival of the fittest if it sounds familiar)”

    Confusing question.

    “What is the difference between an idea and a physical
    object in that sense?”

    In any REAL sense, of course there is a difference.

    “Why should the presence of a “DESIGNER” taken so
    important to us to matter so much if it is just another theory?”

    Some of us have curious minds and constantly search for truth.

  • http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html ven

    Look at Taliban in afganistan. They surely believed in a Designer. They called him using a different name. They disagreed with the rest about how to interact with the Designer. And in the name of the Designer were ready to kill others.

    Without scientific enquiry we will end up having our own definitions of a Designer. And in the name of the Designer we will fight.

    Till now science has found no reason to introduce a designer to explain things around us.

    Yet some people believe. Yet some people are ready to die in the name of that Designer. WHAT A PITY!

  • RKC

    RE: Comment 123

    “ID is just another such theory that is dying out.”

    Don’t you wish.

  • RKC

    RE: Comment 125

    “Look at Taliban in afganistan.”

    Ven has reached the bottom of his barrel of nonsense.

    WHAT A PITY!

  • http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html ven

    RKC

    are you a muslim?

  • RKC

    No — are you?

    Based on this question, do you see goblins around your bed at night?

  • http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html ven

    Well I brought up Taliban simply because of what blind faith does.

  • RKC

    “Well I brought up Taliban simply because of what blind faith does.”

    Poor choice.

    It does nothing to further the issue.

    I now have to do something constructive.

    This interaction has disintegated into trivia.

  • http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html ven

    RKC,

    Science tries to understand before it has faith in any thing.

    You and other ID proponents already have faith in something before you even try to understand.

    So may GOD bless you.

  • JR

    RKC: THE PROBABILITY THAT “EVOLUTION” OCCURRED WITHOUT “INTELLIGENT DESIGN” IS ZERO.

    You forgot to show your work.

  • RKC

    That was left for you as homework.

  • RKC

    I’ll give you a hint;

    If the probability of drawing a Royal Flush in a poker game is about one in 600,000, take each physical event in the universe which could not occur on its own, and compute that probability.

    Then multiply each probability by all the other probabilities and you will arrive at the answer.

    Keep in mind that you have to first identify each event which could not occur on its own.

    Since you know how it all happened, it should not take you very long.

  • http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html ven

    Fundamental Axiom of science is the phenomena of cause and effect.

    Every event in this universe has a cause. This is how we define time itself.

    Therefore no event could not occur on its own. Excepting perhaps the very first event (Which may turn out to be purely random occurance who knows?).
    (Big flaw in your argument!)

  • JAC

    Materialism assumes to take superstition and mysticism out of the realm of science.
    But micro evolutionists put it right back in, calling it “random variation”.

    Give me a true scientific model of microevolution, (no assumptions, no black boxes) and then I will call it science. Until then it’s only a philosophy, and a culturally destructive one at that.

    By the way, a bunch of words is not a true scientific model.

  • billy

    what is so superstitious about a random variation? are you blind? have you never seen someone born with unusually big feet, good eyesight, or very tall. are you dense?

    it is obvious an unusually fast animal would survuve and pass along the mutation. to deny this is to deny reality, then in the next breath you claim an invisible, undetectable spaghetti monster created the universe.

    thats real believable.

  • RKC

    This ridiculous example was given recently to argue against ID:

    “If you give a monkey a typewriter, eventually it will learn to type and then produce a perfect copy of the St. James Bible.”

    This overlooks one simple problem.

    Most of the garbage that the monkey types would fill the universe before the perfect copy was created.

    And if you gave the monkey the task of producing what is the world’s libraries, where would you put it?

    And that is only a start.

    Of course, all this assumes that the monkey exists.

  • http://www.dailyfisk.com/ BB

    #123: Ven, what you are describing is increased knowledge passed down from generations. So what is your point? How does that deter the concept of a “designer” as you put it that could have set it all in motion? ID is in fact gathering momentum from what I can see.

    Here is another conundrum. I was watching the history channel and they used the argument that Europeans have “evolved” pale skin because of living in colder climates. In the next breath they discussed a small tribe in northern Siberia whom they believe were the cradle of civilization after leaving Africa. Their DNA marker has apparently been traced to all living cultures on the earth including modern Europeans, Asians and North American Indians. They have been living above the Arctic circle for 40,000 years and yet they are still dark skinned.

  • JAC

    Billy,
    No I’m not blind or dense. What I see in micro- evolutionary theory is a lot of pseudo-science. I see inference turned into wild extrapolation. I see “facts” made up out of thin air. Give me true science or nothing at all. When it comes to origin’s why can’t science just say “Nobody knows” after all it is by definition not falsifiable. Let’s stop with the philosophy and get on with science.

  • http://www.dailyfisk.com/ BB

    “The fact is there ain’t no facts, and science is a best guess at best.”

    … © 2005, BB

  • JAC

    Billy,

    How did the incredibly complex molecular machines in each living cell come about?

    Was that random variation?

    Please explain.

  • JAC

    BB,
    No, science is “Truth from Facts”. repeatable, falsifiable, verifiable.

    Sounds like we need a “reformation” in science.

    The “priesthood” is getting too dogmatic.

  • Duane

    BB, did you actually say this? “The fact is there ain’t no facts, and science is a best guess at best.”

    Do you really think this is a defensible statement? Or are you just trying to be an instigator?

    How did the incredibly complex molecular machines in each living cell come about?

    That is an excellent question JAC. Why don’t you study up on that and explain to us what the current state of research is. We’ll be awaiting your report. See you in about 12 years.

    ———————

    But seriously, why do you guys have so much hostility towards science and scientists? When did it start? Are you guys Christians?

  • JB

    I wouldn’t even argue with these ID freaks. If you believe in ID…bottom line…you are just dumb. Leave it at that. You can gussy up some pseudoscience and play in LaLa land, but you have no true science background. When we scientists find the cure for disease through science and stems cells, please do not take the medicine. Go back to lala land instead!

  • RKC

    ” If you believe in ID…bottom line…you are just dumb. Leave it at that. ”

    “If you don’t believe in ID…bottom line…you are just smart. Leave it at that.

    i.e., my mind is made up — don’t confuse me with any new facts.

  • RKC

    The whole “evolution” picture consists of some pieces and many holes.

    There are more holes in what is being taught as “evolution” than there are pieces.

    But some don’t want to discuss the holes.

    They are satisfied with the pieces.

    Why?

  • http://Druxxx Druxxx

    You are filling the holes with “God”.

    That is not science.

    We may not have the answers yet, but we may have more in the future.

    If god is the answer to the question, why try to find another answer?

    You can believe what you want. It is still only a belief with no refutable evidense other then you can’t prove me wrong.

    Many things at one time were thought to be to complex, thus they hade to be the work of god. Now thanks to science, we have answers.

    In this counrty you are free to put god into your life whenever you want, you just can’t put him/her/it into public schools. No matter where you put a higher being(designer) into science it still should not be in the schools.

    Only the craziest of IDers/creationist deny all evolution. Is it so tough to say that evolution happened, but we IDer’s believe a designer had his/her/its hand behind it all?

    I still want to know where you IDer’s say we came from if we did not evolve?

    Did we apear from no where? Poof, we were here.

    I think you can argue the mechanism for evolution. Was it random chance, or was there a force pushing it in certain directions? I just think dismissing it entirely for some disgner makes little common sence.

  • JR

    RKC: If the probability of drawing a Royal Flush in a poker game is about one in 600,000, take each physical event in the universe which could not occur on its own, and compute that probability.

    Then multiply each probability by all the other probabilities and you will arrive at the answer.

    I wouldn’t pretend to know the probability of each event, nor do I believe you know. Therefore I don’t trust your conclusion.

  • RKC

    RE: Comment 149

    Druxxx says:

    “You are filling the holes with “God”.

    I didn’t fill the holes — that is in your imagination.

    “That is not science.”

    What is not science is your imagination.

    “We may not have the answers yet, but we may have more in the future.”

    The same is true for ID.

    “If god is the answer to the question, why try to find another answer?”

    Because questions and answers produce facts.

    “You can believe what you want. It is still only a belief with no refutable evidense other then you can’t prove me wrong. “

    Thank you for letting me believe what I want.

    “Many things at one time were thought to be to complex, thus they hade to be the work of god. Now thanks to science, we have answers. “

    But what remains are many more questions than there are answers. That is what you cannot see.

    “In this counrty you are free to put god into your life whenever you want, you just can’t put him/her/it into public schools. No matter where you put a higher being(designer) into science it still should not be in the schools.”

    I did not propose doing any of the above — just providing balance and not concealing the holes in a theory. What I said is to add the concept of “holes” to “pieces” when talking about the THEORY of “evolution”.

    “Only the craziest of IDers/creationist deny all evolution.”

    To deny all “evolution” is not realistic. But to say that “evolution” is the complete answer is not realistic.

    “Is it so tough to say that evolution happened, but we IDer’s believe a designer had his/her/its hand behind it all?”

    Not a problem. Who said it was?

    “I still want to know where you IDer’s say we came from if we did not evolve?”

    Where we came from is not answered by “evolution”. All you can get from “nothing” is “nothing“. “Evolution” does not “create” — it only describes changes that happen in a species over time.

    “Did we apear from no where? Poof, we were here. “

    At some point we did appear from nowhere. At some point we did not exist.

    “I think you can argue the mechanism for evolution. Was it random chance, or was there a force pushing it in certain directions? I just think dismissing it entirely for some disgner makes little common sence.”

    BOTH designer and randomness are the answer — keep mind that even “randomness” had to be designed — or if you will pardon the expression — it had to be “created”.

  • RKC

    RE: Comment 150

    JR says:

    “I wouldn’t pretend to know the probability of each event, nor do I believe you know. Therefore I don’t trust your conclusion.”

    Actually, you can produce your own conclusion with your own estimates.

    For example, take the event of an eye forming where there is no eye. Estimate the probability of that happening for the first time. Then estimate the probability of that same event happening for each species that is distinct.

    To continue this example, take the event of how blood clots and estimate the probability of that happening for the first time. Then estimate the probability of that same event happening for each species that is distinct.

    Repeat this for each distinct event for each distinct species.

    Continue until you have exhausted all known events which have occurred during the period during which we have “evolved” — limit the time span to what has transpired during the period of time which covers our “evolution”.

    Then multiply each probability by all the other probabilities and you will arrive at the your answer.”

    This should provide you with what you are looking for.

  • http://Druxxx Druxxx

    “At some point we did appear from nowhere. At some point we did not exist.”

    So basically poof, we exist.

    The fossil record shows that different species of humans existed at the same time. It just happens that what precieve as the more advanced one lived longer, and the other(s) died off.

    So when is the designer(god) going to design a new species better then us. Poof a more advanced species. Us current humans can start gettin’ extinct.

    Or are we just the most advanced humans can get so no new ones are neede?

    Or are you going to say the fossil record is myth and must not be trusted?

  • RKC

    RE: Comment 153

    Druxxx says:

    “So when is the designer(god) going to design a new species better then us. Poof a more advanced species. Us current humans can start gettin’ extinct.?”

    When?

    I’ll ask the next time I see him.

  • JR

    Okay, first off, I’d want to see a hell of a lot more background information before I believed any estimate of the probability of an eye forming. Determining all of the possible permutations of a deck of cards is trivial; determining all of the possible variations of an event in natural history is not. I don’t think an honest assessment is humanly possible. How can we ever know all the possibilities from which to choose, let alone the relative likelihood of each?

    Then multiply each probability by all the other probabilities and you will arrive at the your answer.”

    This should provide you with what you are looking for.

    That’s simple; the probability of a large number of specific events happening is essentially zero. That seems to be the number you are looking for.

    The problem is, it doesn’t tell us anything about the probability of some series of events driven by unguided evolution leading to the current state of life.

    For example, the probability that I will arrive home this afternoon at exactly 5:37 and 45.7465863 seconds is essentially zero. However, the odds that I will arrive home within ten minutes of that time are quite good. The odds of a very specific outcome is not indicative of the odds of a class of similar outcomes.

  • http://Druxxx Druxxx

    RKC

    You want to tell me that you think it is more likely we popped out of no where along with all other current species rather then us evolving from other species.

    I realize that we can’t be watching the entire surface of the earth at all times. But to get in on all this probability crap. What are the odds that someone at sometime will see a new species pop out of no where.

    Or is the intelligence behind this designer come from the fact that he/she/it can hide all this popping from us? It sure seems the intelligence ain’t in the design since so many species havn’t surrvived or that the human body is so flawed.

    Again I want to state that I have no problem with a “designer” being behind evolution. But to say evolution hasn’t happened make little sence.

  • RKC

    RE: Comment 155

    JR says:

    “Okay, first off, I’d want to see a hell of a lot more background information before I believed any estimate of the probability of an eye forming.“

    Now we are getting somewhere.

    When you accept the current “theory of evolution” you have accepted an “estimate of the probability of an eye forming” without knowing who made the estimate or what the estimate is.

    What you also have accepted is all the other estimates of probability of all other events — not just the forming of the eye.

    Why do you accept something without understanding what you have accepted?

    You also say:

    “I don’t think an honest assessment is humanly possible. How can we ever know all the possibilities from which to choose, let alone the relative likelihood of each?”

    Well, by accepting the “theory of evolution” without questioning it, you have accepted an assessment — and you don’t even know it.

  • RKC

    RE: Comment 156

    Druxxx says:

    “You want to tell me that you think it is more likely we popped out of no where…?”

    No.

    What I said was that — “at some point we did not exist.”

    Do you have a problem with that?

    Where was the human race, say… 20 billion years ago?

    From nothing comes nothing.

    Get it?

  • http://www.rudicusreport.blogspot.com Rudicus

    While I am deeply touched that you guys are still keeping this post alive, I want to throw out that this whole probability discussion and the previous mention of the monkeys coming up with the bible are non-sequiter.

    Evolution or Natural Selection as it is called is not a random occurrance nor is it based on probability – it is a series of biological/genetic changes occurring in direct association with the environment whether that be a change for adaption purposes of some kind or a mutation.

    To argue about probabilities of anything is not really on-topic and will not lead anyone closer to anything in this discussion.

  • http://Druxxx Druxxx

    RKC
    “From nothing comes nothing.”

    Then you admit we evolved from other life forms. We didn’t just show up one day.

    So your battle comes down to the how and why we evolved?

    Was it natural(random) or was there something behind it(Designer)?

    The fight for mosts evolutionists if you will, is that they think ID people like creationists believe we came from nothing. One day we did not exist, and the next day we did.

  • RKC

    “One day we did not exist, and the next day we did.”

    NO.

    I did not say that.

    Can’t you read?

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme ven

    Even ideas evolve just like biological evolution. These are MEMES. For the uneducated check out the following link.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme

    Consider the Watch lying on the ground parable which many IDers think points to a designer.

    Nobody, all of a sudden created a sophisticated watch. The design of watches has evolved in our minds over the past thousands of years From primitive hour glass to the present day atomic clocks. In response to comment 140 this entire thing is evolution of ideas.

    New ideas are created. Useless ideas are discared. The passing on of ideas is similar to passing of genes to the next generation in biology. The ideas that are useless simply die out. The best ideas survive.

    For generations mankind has copied and imitated from the works of others different ideas. Some caught on some didnt.

    Where is the “Designer”? The car design has evolved. The plane design has evolved. Think about anything that mankind has made you will not see a single evidence of the so called “IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY”.

    If complex things like a Space shuttle can be built on the evolution of ideas why cant we ourselves be made in a similar fashion?

  • RKC

    “If complex things like a Space shuttle can be built on the evolution of ideas why cant we ourselves be made in a similar fashion?”

    Show me how.

  • JAC

    Thank you Rudicus, lets get to some deterministic models.
    Where are they? Until someone calculates the reduction in entropy required to create the simplest of life forms and then calculates the reduction in entropy for each “random variation” on up the ladder to the highest form of life, then comes up with a reasonable model of exactly how all this entropy was removed, we do not have any science.
    Let’s get back to science, stop teaching philosophy, whether ID or Darwinism.

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme RKC

    RKC,

    In response to your “How”

    EVOLUTION

  • VEN

    Again I apologize to RKC for using his name above. Its me ven above. Making the same mistake all over agian

  • JAC

    I think you need pressure and at the same time you need to remove the heat created by the pressure in order to reduce entropy. So I think that means that our “random variations” need to take place in . . . maybe the middle of a glacier?

  • http://Druxxx Druxxx

    RKC

    You agree we could not posssibly come from no where.
    I know you never said we did come from no where.

    If we didn’t come from no where, where did we come from.

    Did a rock suddenly turn into a human being?

    Evolution is only the process by which we came to be at this point in time. Evolution is not trying answer why. That is a totally different question.

    You debate till the cows come home about how evolution happened, but I don’t get how some people can say it didn’t happen. A designer may be the one behind evolution. I am not arguing that question one way or the other.

    I just want to know how ID say humans came to be.

    Evolution says that some other species, through mutation, gave birth to a human. I am not asking how this happened or its probability.

    I want to know where an IDer says we came from.

  • ven

    JAC,

    What you talk about reduction of entropy needed to form life is a product of you knowing very little of science. And as you know half knowledge is dangerous!

    Do you know what drives processess in this nature? Its something called Gibbs free energy. It is not entropy. We would have never understood processess like – Spontaneous crystallization in many systems based only on entropy.

  • RKC

    “Comment 165 posted by RKC on August 24, 2005 02:52 PM:
    RKC,
    In response to your “How”
    EVOLUTION
    Comment 166 posted by VEN on August 24, 2005 02:55 PM:
    Again I apologize to RKC for using his name above. Its me ven above. Making the same mistake all over again”

    HOW CAN I ACCEPT WHAT VEN SAYS — WHEN HE DOESN’T KNOW WHO HE IS — AND GIVES A SIMPLE ONE-WORD ANSWER TO A QUESTION WHICH CANNOT BE ANSWERED WITH ONE WORD.

  • JAC

    Ven,
    Have you read Behe’s book and his rebuttals?

    He uses a simple mousetrap as an example of an irreducibly complex system.

    Have you seen the video put out by the Discovery Institute called “Unlocking the Mystery of Life”?

    It explains the problems with Darwin’s theory pretty well.

    Natural selection is not an issue.

    The issue is how these complex molecular machines came into existance.

    The machines are complex in themselves.
    But then adding the complexity of the manufacturing instructions via DNA has caused the man who wrote the “bible” of molecular evolution in the 1970’s (Prof. Dean Kenyon of CSUSF) to doubt his own theories.

    This stuff is only about 15 years old. You need to take a look at it.

  • ven

    JAC,

    To elucidate you even further. In open systems Entropy can decrease spontaneously. (By open I mean a system that can exchange energy and mass with sorroundings.)

    ONLY in CLOSED systems should ENTROPY always increase. This is what the second law of thermodynamics says.

    So taken as a whole, the whole universe can be considered to be a closed one as there can be nothing outside it. The Entropy of the whole universe always increases.

    SPONTANEOUS decrease in ENTROPY perhaps due to life is possible without the need of a DESIGNER!

  • http://rkc088@attbi.com RKC

    At one point in time, a reproducible cell was “created”.

    What happened to cause it?

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme ven

    As I mentioned in my post 162. Even the complex machines that HUMANS build are products of evolution of ideas. Then wherefrom comes the idea of “IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY”.

    JAC dont hide behind what others say about ID. Are you convinced of ID. Then prove it to me. Others could have ulterior motives.

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme ven

    RKC,

    you are defending a smaller and smaller domain.

    Who caused the first cell to divide? answer:Nobody.

    Those cells that didnt reproduce are of no consequence. Those that reproduced gave rise to the rest of us.

  • http://Druxxx Druxxx

    RKC

    No one on this post is arguing the original origin of life. We are arguing about how we got to where we are.

    Some day some scientist might be able to create living cells in a lab, or maybe not.

    Lifes original origin may never be answered.

    I just want to know, if evolution did not happen, how did we get to where we are know?

    Were we placed on earth by space aliens?
    Did rocks change into humans?
    Did god put Adam and Eve in the garden of edan?

    I want to know!

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme ven

    druxxx

    Have you anytime wondered about our similarities with the great apes ever?

    We share over 95% of our genes with them. The most amongst all the animals. What does that tell you?

    Have you anytime wondered about the genetic deformities that some people are born with? What does that tell you?

  • JAC

    Ven,
    Well then has anyone calc’ed the Gibb’s Free Energy for the simplest life form?
    Is it less than zero?

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme ven

    JAC,

    We talk about Gibbs free energy change for a process to occur.

    Talking about Gibbs free energy change rquired for life to occur is highly irrelevant.

    Nobody right now can define the meaning of life.

    The simplest life form known to man right now is a virus.

    When a virus is not attached to a host it is nothing but a bunch of molecules and totally inert. It is composed of a an outer wall whose chemical composition is known and inside it is a RNA (Ribo nucleic acid slightly different from DNA).

    The scietific quest to make the first artificial life is right underway as we speak. Check out the following links.

    The biggest question that you need to answer for yourself is: When modern science makes the first artificial lifeform as we know it what would you think about the existence of a designer?

    Clearly after that point we will easily know all the questions regarding the Gibbs free energy change required and what not.

    1) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4104483.stm

    2)
    http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-04t.html

    3)
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4636121.stm

  • JAC

    If you want to know about irreducible complexity read Behe’s book.

    I don’t hide, I try to open my mind to new ideas. I opened my mind to evolution many years ago and was (I believe now) deceived.

    My ‘beautiful’ science turned out to be a ‘lying bitch’ with an agenda.

    How many others will feel the same way if science continues with it’s philosophy instead of true science.

  • http://Druxxx Druxxx

    ven

    In case you missed it, I am on the side that says evolution happened.

    I agree with IDers, that there could be a designer behind evolution. But that is not a question science has to answer.

    I believe its science’s job to find out how things work. Let philosophers figure out why.

    Teach kids what can be proven. Science has proven many of the mechanics behind evolution, like gene mutation. Let the non scientists fight about whether or not there was a power that caused the mutation to happen.

    I think the IDers who say evolution didn’t happen are nut jobs. And they still haven’t answered my question about how does ID explains how we Humans came to be?

    And if you answer is space aliens, please leave this post.

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme ven

    JAC,

    Science is not based on philosophy. It was never. Whoever attempted to introduce metaphysics is automatically by definition out of science.

    Every single time the concept of irreducible complexity was not accepted on its scientific merits the proponents of it cry hoarse.

    The progress of science does not depend on someones need to be accepted as scientifically correct.

    Whether you like it or not, the theory of evolution is giving us answers. Right from testing for parenthood, to newer sophisticated genetic algorithms in computer science it has found its applications.

    Look there are still some people who cling to the idea that this world is flat. What can we say about them! The world has moved on.

    For you top avoid the pain that will accompany becoming irrelevant in the future, I suggest READ. READ scientific journals.

    Question every thing. Nothing is holy. Not even GOD. Observe. Hypothesize. Test. Show it to peers.

  • JAC

    I never fear a “god of the gaps” because for every question answered 10 more arise to be answered.

    I have no fear about creating life in a lab, because I’m sure it will point to a designer, just as the latest science has.

    Science has more at risk today from it’s own dogmatism than it ever had throughout history from lack of following the scientific method.

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme ven

    Druxxx,

    Didnt know you were on our side. I didnt follow your earlier comments. Thanks..

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme ven

    JAC,

    Ironic isnt it that you accuse science of Dogmatism.

    Remember all the advances that we have made including the computer on which that you are reading my comments are the products of this very science.

    Remeber what happened prior to the coming of what you think as “dogmatic science”. Dark ages in Europe. The trial of Galileo. The burning at stake of Bruno.

    The ideals that resulted in that still exist. It is in a different clothing -ID. Language has changed, times have changed, yet the intent the idea still remains.

  • JAC

    Science isn’t supposed to be about philosophy.

    Darwinism is history at best, and when it tries to be science, it becomes philosophy.

  • JAC

    My beef in not against science. My beef is against a philosophy (Darwinism) that tries to be science. It lies to me with (it seems) an agenda.

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme ven

    JAC,

    Coming to philosophy, I always wanted to ask this question to proponents of ID.

    Suppose that there is something hidden inside a room closed to most people. Suppose only few amongst us claim to know what is in the room.

    A test can be devised by writing down all the claims of what is inside the room. Clearly if people are lying that they know what is inside the room most of the accounts of what is inside the room would be uncorrelated. Some people may say they have seen a frog. Some may say a candle and so on.

    If on the other hand people actually saw what is inside in the room most of the claims would be highly correlated. Say if there was a candle some would say they saw a light. Some would argue they saw a lamp and so on.

    Based on this parable can I ask you one thing? Why is it that the concept of the “Designer” is so uncorrellated all across the wolrd. The Hindus donot believe in Heaven or hell but believe in Karma. Life on this earth again after death. Hindus worship Idols. Buddhists talk about problems and are not interested in the existence of a designer. Zoarastrians worship fire. The tribes of Africa and South America worship their own form of Designer.

    What do you say of all this lack of correlation?

  • gog

    Someday, you all are going to find out.

    God has spoken to me… and I understood exactly what he said.

    Move along… SSDD, there’s nothing of substance here, just opinion, muddled thought, smoke and mirrors.

    Please ma’am, take your child with you.

  • JAC

    You won’t like my answer. It’s not part of this blog anyway.

    I can tell you that I believe in God based on all the evidence I receive.

    Besides, I have nothing to lose. If I’m wrong, I’ve lived a life full of hope. And hence joy.

    If I’m right, then my life goal of hearing the words, “Well done, good and faithful servant” will be realized.

    I lived three years in China. Rumor is that of all the world’s religions, the Chinese Bureau of Religion has decided that Reformed Christianity is the path forward for China. How’s that for pragmatism.

  • http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html ven

    JAC,

    I have nothing against any religion. But our innocence in some of our beliefs leads us eventually to bloody Crusades and Jihad.

    ID is all about FAITH. Which will eventually morph into the question whose DESIGNER is the real DESIGNER. This is not science. It never was and it never will be.

  • RKC

    The “theory of evolution” as it is being stated, has so many gaps and holes, that if it were proposed today, would not be accepted as science.

    What has happened is that over the past 150 years, those opposed to the Bible version of creation have made Darwinism a cause célèbre, and will not admit any of its failings.

    Accepting a theory with more gaps and holes than facts, is not science. It never was and it never will be.

  • JAC

    Please don’t blame God or His truth for man’s corruption of it and man’s evil ways.

    I have a question for you Ven:
    Given that there are least 10 dimensions in this reality in which we live, given that a photon, split in halves are still connected by some force, given that the universe is expanding by some unknown force, and given the improbable conditions for not only life to exist, but in fact the entire universe to exist, and given the accuracy of the Jewish prophets, and the fulfillment of those prophecies in a man who called himself God, can’t you even wonder about the possibility that there is more than just what you see and hear?

    Materialism is so . . . empty.

  • JAC

    Ven,
    Finally I fully admit that ID is part philosophy and should not be taught as science as long as you admit that Darwinism is also part philosophy and should not be taught as science.

  • http://www.worldwiderant.com andy

    gog-

    God has spoken to me… and I understood exactly what he said.

    See a shrink? Do you often hear voices detached from the world around you?

    JAC –

    I’d advise doing a little research on Pascal’s wager and its inherent flaws before trotting out the “nothing to lose” argument. Hint: it’s not a binary decision.

  • http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html ven

    Talking about holes and gaps, Who were the wives of Cain and Abel the children of Adam and Eve? Remember Incest is wrong….

  • billy

    An invisible boggeyman living on the planet googol in the 5th nebula from the black hole at the center of the galaxy talks to me.

    he said there is no god, but a chaotic designer who created us by spitting across the river.

    can we teach that in school too?

    i know we can never prove or disprove it but there are just SO MANY holes in evolution. can we teach it too please?

  • JAC

    Billy,
    I say no, but don’t teach Darwinism either.

  • billy

    darwinism is a proven scientifc theory, why wouldnt you teach that? because it makes you incomfortable? too bad. thats science, become a priest if you dont like it.

    evolution is way beyond doubt other than a few small intricacies. overall evolution is a more solid theory than gravity, and i dont think we will be floating away anytime soon.

  • WTF

    Odd choice of words, in fact many Believers today are accepting what is called the “gap” theory. Which, in reality use accuratized scriptural renderings of Genesis 1:2, the translated phrase… “and the world was void” is said to render more appropriately as “and the world BECAME void”

    Which is interesting. Let’s see the world is created, and then it became void. That suggests events which changed the composition, volcanic, astronomical… what? Whatever it was turned the created earth into a void.

    That would/could explain extinction of many species, including early man.

    I’m just throwing that out there. Moses wasn’t a great scientist, and perhaps would have gone into greater detail if he had the verbiage… but he didn’t. We don’t know. Simply put, we have an idea, oral history (the pentatuch) was passed down many generations before it was put down on hides and scrolls. But the essence was there. Could Moses or the early patriarchs made it up? With that sort of early exactness? It also bears like mindedness to other cultures oral traditions of the beginnings or genesis of the planet.

    Probably UFO’s Battlestar Galactica or someother plausible explaination for that.

    Who invented iron? It was melted down wreckage of alien spacecraft…..

    A quick look at a Hubble picture of galactic spawn billions of light years away… verifies Big Bang. Does it make the rubber band theory plausable? We don’t know that either… but it certainly could be possible.

    Big bang… the outreaching and formation of galaxies… slowing rates of expansion… then a return of the mass to an origination point… Big bang.

    How many times has that happened? It’s unfathomable. But very cool.

  • JAC

    Ven,
    “Yet he goes on to claim that if you lose the wager that God is, then “you lose nothing”. Surely in that case you “lose the true”, which is just to say that you have made an error”

    Yeah but who cares after your dead?

  • gog

    “gog-

    God has spoken to me… and I understood exactly what he said.

    See a shrink? Do you often hear voices detached from the world around you?”

    JAC –

    Jac, No and no. And it hasn’t happen again, since. Actually once before that episode late at night, well 3am to be exact. God said “quit smoking, you’re killing yourself” I felt a profound understanding and peace…. and never smoked again (that was 15 years ago).

  • Deuce

    “darwinism is a proven scientifc theory”

    Billy… come’on with your bad self.

    think about what you just said here.

    Darwinism is what exactly? And please open the websters and define theory.

    Darwin had 2 theories (1) the theory of evolution and (2) the adaptation of the species.

    Which one are you talking about. The adaptation is easy to prove. The Galopigos expedition was proof in itself.

    The other theory is the one so hotly contested. It was a guess. Did Darwin’s theory of evolution happen EXACTLY the way Darwin said it did?

    No? Yes? Don’t know? Can’t prove it?

    that’s why it’s a theory, and theories aren’t provable, they’re scientific conjecture.

  • http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html ven

    JAC,

    Yes jac I do believe that there is more to this universe than what we see or hear. But I dont want to have preconcieved notions of what exists in places and areas of science that we dont know now. For each time we did that we were humbkled.(flat earth, earth center of universe etc,etc.)

    Understanding this universe is tough, this I am sure you also agree. But who says that the only way to understand it is in the terms of things that we already know of or are experienced?

    We know human beings design things. But why should we infer from it that the Universe needs a designer.

    The introduction of a designer is the easiest thing to explain off the existence of the universe. It perhaps tells us about the time in the past when we were not that intelligent in explaining things around us.

  • RKC

    Some of the loonies have taken over.

    The reality is we have three choices:

    1, Accept the literal Bible version of creation.

    2. Accept the current theory of evolution without question..

    3, Accept that neither of the above is complete or accurate.

  • billy

    Deuce, you show you no nothing of scince.

    do you think a theory formulated 100 years ago, or at any time for that matter is perfect, unchanging, and proven?

    of course not, so what? evolution has grown since then leaps and bounds. darwin isnt a demi god. he did a great job, and his basic ideas have built the modern science you see today. what is your point?

  • JAC

    WTF,
    I have a Discovery video that shows research by the Royal Observatory in Austrailia. They created a 3D picture of the universe. The universe looks more like a beautiful spider web than an explosion.

    Funny I haven’t heard of any peer review of their work. And I can’t find anything on the web about it.

    Maybe it just does’t fit into rhe predetermined mindset of current science pharisees and is rejected out of hand.

    Oh, but that doesn’t ever happen does it?

  • WTF

    Deuce.

    Slightly incorrect.

    Darwin had 1 theory – the Theory of Evolution.

    The adaptation of the species was a research project, observed and analyized at the Galopagos expedition.

    And I agree. Darwin’s theory of evolution was just a theory… not the exacting science that everyone claims it to be. Couldn’t have been. Merely a spark to the ensuing debate.

    I like the Battlestar Galactica scenario.

    A planet ravaged by war, it’s advanced culture traveling across the galaxie to find the fabled planet “Terra”

    Settling here on earth. In an effort to not repeat the mistakes of their past, they destroy the technology and begin anew. An Eden, a new beginning, Adam and Eve were merely 2 travelmates onboard the fleet of sojourning vessels, who were lucky enough to be written into history by their offspring Moses.

    That 5th nebula junk and spitting is amaturish, possessing little thought about a 4th or 5th grade level. Sorry Billy. It needs work. Polish it up a bit, it could work out okay, but the storyline is a bit worn out.

  • http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html ven

    JAC,

    About the structure of the universe: Check out the links at Nature. Nature, by the way is the best Scientific Peer review journal in this world.

    http://search.nature.com/search/?sp-q=structure+of+universe&submit=Search+journal&sp_a=sp1001702d&sp_sfvl_field=subject%7Cujournal&sp_t=results&sp_q_1=Nature&sp_x_1=ujournal&sp_p_1=phrase

  • Deuce

    Billy (the science guy),
    You’re the one who said the THEORY of Darwinism was proven. Check it out on number 199. You wrote it, not me.

  • http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html ven

    RKC,

    In response to comment 205, so what do you choose? Looks like you are really irritated!

  • JAC

    Ven,
    Kepler didn’t need a materialistic worldview to do science, nor did Newton, Galileo, etc.

    In fact the goal was to find out how God created the universe.

    Nobody is interested in explaining away anything.

    Speaking of explaining away, I’m still waiting for an explaination of how “random variation” created the marvelous molecular machinery in our cells.

  • JAC

    Whether you are IDer or Darwinite I highly recommend viewing the Discovery Institues DVD called “Unlocking the Mytery of Life” just to see the animated clip about how RNA is replicated and transported out of the cell nucleus.

    Nature is awesome.

    You might get your library to order it if they haven’t already.

  • http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html ven

    JAC,

    As long as it is a sincere quest of how GOD created this universe I have no problems. For GOD, if he exists looks like He created us through EVOLUTION, random mutations and survival of the fittest. But this does not go down well with religious conservatives. For all that they believed could be wrong.

    Again who says if theory of Evolution is correct GOD does not exist?

    I am sure given the evidence that modern science has even Kepler, Newton and Einstein would agree.

  • http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html ven

    JAC,

    What is so miraculous of “RNA is replicated and transported out of the cell nucleus”. We hardly know nature. Why ascribe the need for a desigener to explain it?

  • billy

    duece and youi said “that’s why it’s a theory, and theories aren’t provable, they’re scientific conjecture.”

    im waiting for the theory of gravity to fail too so i can fly off the earth since it isnt proven

    and im waiting to run off the edge of the earth since the theory about the earth being round isnt proven either.

  • http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html ven

    JAC,

    You talked about Pascals wager, Lets try this wager:

    “It is better to live your life as if there are no Gods, and try to make the world a better place for your being in it. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, He will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in Him.”

  • http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html ven

    JAC,

    And the problems of Believing in DESIGNER – more crusades and more Jihad.

    Do good to others and work hard.

    I wrote the comments above to show you an alternative if religious guilt is the only reason why you support ID.

  • billy

    design is a fraud. it is just a bunch of babble. in every id thread i have never once seen an id proponent put forth a theory that could be used in school.

    until then you are wasting time.

  • Deuce

    Billy,

    The Theory of gravity? What theory? It’s a physical law.

    Webster’s (the ultimate source) defines theory as (since you refuse to look it up I will do it for you)

    Theory: From the Greek Theoria a beholding, spectabcle, contemplation, speculation.

    The general or abstract principles of any body of facts, real or assumed; as distinguished from applied, science or art.

    Now if you wish to test the “theory” of Gravity… which is a physical law. Go to the top of a very tall building and jump. You will prove one if not two physical laws. (1) that gravity does in fact exist and is in fact a physical law. Or, (2) that humans can not fly on their own accord. Or both.

    But at least you would have proven something this evening.

    Good night.

  • RKC

    “What is so miraculous of “RNA is replicated and transported out of the cell nucleus”. We hardly know nature.”

    What is “nature”.?

    Is that a scientific term?

  • JAC

    Ven,
    You’ve got your theology wrong. Try starting with Pauls letter to the Ephesians.

    “Do good to others and work hard.”
    The Law didn’t work. That’s why Christ came. Again, try reading the Letter to the Hebrews.

    I’m afraid you’ll have wars until . . .

    Man is fallen.

    You don’t need religion to have senseless killing. Look at what the enlightenment gave us. The whole reason that Hilter was going to create a master race was to “help Darwinism along”. From Marx we got 15 million murdered in Soviet Russia, 30 million killed in China, the killing fields in Cambodia. I would venture to say that the enlightenment killed more people than all of previous history. I can’t prove it of course.

    The first thing Hitler did was to take over (silence) the church in Germany.

  • HG

    #217:

    “It is better to live your life as if there are no Gods, and try to make the world a better place for your being in it. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, He will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in Him.”

    Umm… perhaps in some eastern religions but certainly not according to the Bible.

    Rom 2:12 “For all who have sinned apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.”

    What is scientific FACT today wll be tommorrow’s theory. BUT God is eternal.

  • JAC

    Ven,
    By the way I tried to access Nature. I thnk I have to subsribe and pay money. Right?

  • JAC

    Whats the best place to go on the web to find arguments for Darwinism?

    I mean clean facts. Already verified, no philosophy, no errors, no black boxes.

  • http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html ven

    JAC,

    Look at whats happening in Isreal-palestine. In context of this blog, JEWS believe that their DESIGNER gave them the right to live there. Muslims believe the opposite. (The dome of Rock in Jerusalem is the place where their prophet ascended to the heaven)

    In the name of the DESIGNER they kill each other. A group of men thought America supports Isreal so they thought they will kill americans. – 9/11 attacks.

    All in the name of: whose DESIGNER is the correct DESIGNER.

    1) Kashmir issue in INDIA: problem of DESIGNER Islamic vs Hindu,

    2) Northern Ireland: problem of DESIGNER, protestant vs Catholic

    3) Tamil tigers in Srilanka: problem of DESIGNER, Hindu vs Buddist.

    4) East Timor in Indonesia: problem of DESIGNER, Christian vs Muslim

    5) Mindanoa in Phillipines: problem of DESIGNER, Muslim vs Christian

  • http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html ven

    JAC,

    Yes I noticed that nature journal needs subscription. But it is one of the best journal in science. Most of it is hardcore science though very tough to understand for people outside of the respective areas.

    Check out the BBC site for evolution. BBC is a well respected British news outlet. It gives you many more links.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/leghist/index.htm

  • Steve

    To Rudicus and some others out there: Believing in God(Christ) as an intelligent designer comes down to faith in the end. That’s what I believe-that he set things in motion. By the way Rudicus and others, don’t assume that all Christians are ignorant fools who know nothing of science or ever contribute to it in any way. I have been active in herpetology fieldwork for over twenty years and have found several new records and species. I have also done field research on one or two mammals. I also know of several others like myself. Our collective message to you is this: A. We believe in intelligent design and the necessity for teaching it in school. B. We are contributors to scientific knowledge and our work has been published in several reputable journals-among them “Nature”, “Herpetological Review” and “Bioscience”. I am also working on a similar project at the moment. C. WE ARE HERE TO STAY AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO GO AWAY. WE WILL CONTINUE TO CONTRIBUTE TO AND INFLUENCE THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE. If you respond-please do it politely and rationally, not with the unnecessarily caustic comments that I’ve seen above. God bless you-and I do mean that.

  • http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html ven

    Steve,

    So you study SNAKES.

    Maybe you are searching for the evidence that SNAKES caused ADAM and EVE to eat the forbidden fruit. If you do I find the evidence I will be on the look out, for I too happen to subscribe to the journal Nature.

  • WTF

    I guess I contributing to the evolution of the species, cuz every snake I see I lop its head off with a garden tool.

    But that’s me. I gotta be me… I gotta be me…

  • JAC

    I think many of these conflicts have gone way beyond “fighting for their designer”. Most are political now.

    What can I say, man is fallen.

    A good case can be made that the early American revolutionaries were motivated to die for their cause by a sense that God was on their side.

    In the Civil War: I believe righteousness prevailed because of belief in God. Knowledge of His word.
    Have you seen the movie Gettysburg? Excellent!

    In contrast, how do the Chinese people let themselves get fooled by their leaders again and again, generation after generation? Corruption is SOP in China. It’s a very different world view. Pure materialism (both kinds), “hope from dispair”, “might is right”, “do whatever you can get away with”, “1000 years is not too long to wait for revenge”, Saving face is most important.
    Grace? . . . Unknown concept.

    How did America stand against communism? A case could be made that the churches stood against Godlessness. The Cambodians were not so well informed. So they suffered the killings fields of the Khmer Rouge.

    No, overall I’ll take my America with it’s dose of Christianity, and pray for my brothers and sisters around the world who are not so blessed.

  • The Duke

    I read somewhere that the snake story evolved from a religion in the region that used the symbol of the snake and that the snake was theorized as a holy person, trying to entice Eve into believing in the god(s) he worshipped. It has something to do with the hebrew word for hiss, or beguile, it’s been a while. Interesting research nonetheless.

  • http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html ven

    JAC,

    I dont want to puncture your belief that religion is the only thing that made America outlast Communism. Its much more than that.

    Simply put Americans had more money than Soviets. They could not keep up the arms race. Materialism you see broke the back of Soviets. Money that Americans gained through CAPITALISM. CAPITALISM suvived the fittest!

    When you talk about pure faith and no money – Look at Taliban and how they were destroyed by the americans. Taliban had infinite faith, willing to die as suicide bombers yet were crushed by a very materialistic “Daisy cutter” dropped from a B52 bomber 10miles in the sky!

    Can you still see a designer?

  • JAC

    I remember when we came back to the US from China. My wife tells of how some stranger opened the door for her as she approached the store. She wasn’t used to that.

    People are nice in America. I can’t prove that it is a result of a Christian ethic. But after living in a non-Christian culture for 3 years, it sure seems that way.

    So why try to destroy that culture with a theory taught as fact that is not falsifiable, and is therefore not really science?

    Lee Strobel (author of The Case for Faith) says he remembers the day he became an atheist. He was sitting by the window in his 8th grade science class as the teacher explained the Miller-Urey experiment. No one had to tell him there was no god. He came to that conclusion on his own after listening to the ‘facts’.

    We know now, that experiment is ‘not applicable’. But the damage was already done for him and probably thousands like him.

  • JAC

    Ven,
    I know that money won the war. But don’t you see that people had to have a belief that the war was worth fighting. We lost the Vietnam war because we didn’t believe that communism was really so bad. That belief changed in the late 70’s as more people traveled to Russia, and people learned how bad it really was. People had to back their leaders.

    The war with the Taliban is still on going. It will continue until the people in Iraq and Afganistan no longer believe in it.

    I think we both agree that their beliefs are based on wrong mostly political information. Misguided leaders use misinformation about the Islamic religion to mislead the pawns.

  • http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html ven

    JAC,

    This is a new age. I dont think you need to worry that being good will be lost due a scientific theory if this is your only concern.

    Being good is an inherent nature of Humans. This is what separates us from animals.

    It is perhaps because of this characteristic that we animals called humans are masters of what we survey. We have lungs like animals, We have a heart like animals, we have a brain like animals, we have verterbra like all the vertibrates. We love our kids like other mammals.

    The only one thing that is different from other animals is that we care for others. The Sick and elderly.

    Clearly this gave us an evolutionary advantage over other species. This is in our genes. It wont be lost due to a simple theory.

  • http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html ven

    JAC,

    And the most important thing is the concept of justice. No Designer is going to come down to earth to do all the wrongs right. It is we who dispense justice.

    When a tsunami strikes, no designer comes to earth to clean up the mess and rebuild the homes. It is we who do it.

    When a child is born in poverty and destitution we dont question the Designer as to why he gave the child its fate. It is we who give aid to the poor.

    When someone suffers from cancer, no designer is going to solve the problem. It is we who try to solve the problem of cancer.

    When conflicts arise like in Isreal-palestine no designer is going to come to earth and tell solve our problems. It is we who have to find justice. Clearly in this specific case a designer creates a problem rather than solve it (because of different interpretations of a designer).

  • JAC

    Ven,
    “The only one thing that is different from other animals is that we care for others. The Sick and elderly.

    Clearly this gave us an evolutionary advantage over other species. This is in our genes. It wont be lost due to a simple theory”

    I disagree. Again, go live in a non-Christian culture. You will see people dying in an accident and everyone standing around galking. No one helps because it would create an indebtedness, and a loss of face for someone.

  • JAC

    Ven,

    “Clearly this gave us an evolutionary advantage over other species”

    It gives our culture an advantage. But that, I believe comes from our forefathers’ belief’s not our genes.

  • JAC

    Ven,
    “And the most important thing is the concept of justice. No Designer is going to come down to earth to do all the wrongs right. It is we who dispense justice.”

    Well I believe that it already happened 2000 years ago. But it wasn’t justice. It was grace. And therein lies the big differenet between America and the non-Christian cultures.

    Our sense of justice in America is much different because of our Christian hertitage.

    And yes, that can and is changing.

  • JAC

    Ven,

    “This is a new age. I dont think you need to worry that being good will be lost due a scientific theory if this is your only concern.”

    Yes, I see changes already. Please read some books by people who don’t share your worldview. A good one is “Reason in the Balance” by Philip Johnson.

  • JAC

    Ven,

    When a tsunami strikes, no designer comes to earth to clean up the mess and rebuild the homes. It is we who do it.

    When a child is born in poverty and destitution we dont question the Designer as to why he gave the child its fate. It is we who give aid to the poor.

    When someone suffers from cancer, no designer is going to solve the problem. It is we who try to solve the problem of cancer.

    “When conflicts arise like in Isreal-palestine no designer is going to come to earth and tell solve our problems. It is we who have to find justice. Clearly in this specific case a designer creates a problem rather than solve it (because of different interpretations of a designer).”

    Yes, we live in a fallen world.

    But, we can receive free gifts from the Designer. Grace is one, strength for the storms is another, freedom from our own self-destructive patterns of behaviour is another, hope for the future is another, the ability to love the unlovable is another. With these free gifts, we can overcome injustice, evil, and sometimes even the falleness of this world. But first comes the faith, the belief. Then comes the gifts.

  • JAC

    Ven,

    Yes the war against this fallen world is winable, but first we must believe. Then come the gifts, and the strength to overcome.

    Like I said earlier, the Chinese gain their “hope from dispair”.

    When I heard that I almost cried.

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme ven

    JAC,

    About goodness in non christian worlds. Your view is very subjective. Perhaps biased by what is indoctrinated by others.

    In bible practically every time there is a natural calamity it is told it occurs because of the wrath of GOD. Like how GOD flooded the whole world at the time of Noah. When all the people on this earth were fallen.

    But in reality it never works that way. When tsunami struck Indian ocean many innocents also died. Including many devout Christians and Catholics especially in southern India. (Saint Thomas one of the apostles went to India, specifically southern India where Tsunami struck)

    In Ethiopia where there are a lot of Christians there is a drought. Malnourished children are common sites there.

    Yet there is no natural calamity in places of biblical sin like in LAS VEGAS.

    Do you still see a designer?

  • RKC

    1. The Universe was created by the “Designer”.

    2. The Creation included basic matter and the rules for its combinations.

    3. The “Designer” set up all the self-sustaining rules at the outset.

    4, The “Designer” then rested.

    5. What followed has been dictated by these rules.

    6. The self-sustaining rules include randomness.

    7. Everything we now perceive is based on the original rules.

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme ven

    A Designer doesnot strike down evil people like Hitler. We do.

    When an evil being is left scot free a designer doesnt come down and catch him. It is we who catch him.

    How can you ever explain the properity of some east Asian countries like Japan where there is practically no christianity.

    How can you explain the presence of practically all of Worlds oil wealth in Middle east where people are predominantly Muslim. They used oil as a weapon against the west.

    Do you still see signs of a designer?

  • JAC

    Ven,

    One more big difference between America and non-Christian cultures is ‘rule of law’.

    People in America basically follow the rules.

    Ancient Jewish prophets predicted that “the law will be written on peoples hearts”

    I believe that because of our hertitage, and our beliefs that this prediction has been true, although it is waning in the past couple of generations. Cite Enron and Arthur Anderson.

    I believe capitalism can not survive without Christian ethics. Without Christian ethics, capitalism quickly turns into a feudal system.

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme ven

    RKC,

    No problem with your last post. You sure indeed have changed.

  • JAC

    Ven,
    “About goodness in non christian worlds. Your view is very subjective. Perhaps biased by what is indoctrinated by others.”

    Like I said before I can’t prove it, but I saw it myself, and heard about it first hand from others.

    On the other hand because of Confucianism, a friend will sacrifice nearly everything for a friend.

    My point is that “goodness” is a cultural construct, nothing to do with genes.

  • RKC

    I haven’t changed a bit

    Go back and re-read what I wrote.

    I think you have changed.

  • RKC

    Ven — take note;

    The “Designer” set up all the self-sustaining rules at the outset.

    THERE IS A DESIGNER.

  • JAC

    Ven,
    “In bible practically every time there is a natural calamity it is told it occurs because of the wrath of GOD. Like how GOD flooded the whole world at the time of Noah. When all the people on this earth were fallen.

    But in reality it never works that way. When tsunami struck Indian ocean many innocents also died. Including many devout Christians and Catholics especially in southern India. (Saint Thomas one of the apostles went to India, specifically southern India where Tsunami struck)

    In Ethiopia where there are a lot of Christians there is a drought. Malnourished children are common sites there.

    Yet there is no natural calamity in places of biblical sin like in LAS VEGAS.

    Do you still see a designer?”

    God doesn’t want to “buy” our love with an insurance policy against calamities.
    ‘If you love me, I’ll reward you.’ I hope you don’t bribe your loved ones to love you either. It wouldn’t be love would it?

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme ven

    JAC,

    In as much as maintaining social harmony amongst people I do beleive that religion in the PAST may have played a very important role. The very fact that practically all the societies in this world evolved to have some form of worship to a diety points to the success of the societies that believed in some form of GOD. But the fact that different cultures worship different forms of GODS points to a past EVOLUTION of our religious beliefs.

    I think we humans have grown up to realize we no longer need the crutches of religion to maintain harmony amongst ourselves. All that religion does now in this era is to provide a source of conflict like in Isreal -Palestine. At the very least it hampers the development of science. Which manifests itself like in interference of stem cell research, which could provide the cure to diseases like Alzhimers, parkinsons etc..

  • JAC

    RKC,

    “6. The self-sustaining rules include randomness.”

    I don’t see randomness as a part of reality. To me, its just a lazy scientists way of explaining the universe.

    I’m a determinist.

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme ven

    RKC,

    As I mentioned in one of the posts above, I dont want to have preconcieved notions about things in science that we still dont know about.

    As far as what we know now through science is that Evolution is what has happened. Who started this great game of evolution – I dont know. If you believe that a designer did I have no problems with that.

    By what I meant by you changed is the fact you no longer question the process in between the first step of creation and how we came to be.

  • RKC

    JAC:

    When two planes collide in mid-air — is is a random event — or was it planned by the pilots?

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme ven

    JAC,

    “I don’t see randomness as a part of reality. To me, its just a lazy scientists way of explaining the universe. I’m a determinist.”

    You have no idea what QUANTUM MECHANICS is then? Have heard about something called Heisenbergs uncertainity principle?

    Evolution is just the beginning you will encounter more problems with science!

  • RKC

    When a tsunami occurs — is it a random event?

  • JAC

    Ven,
    “A Designer doesnot strike down evil people like Hitler. We do.”

    Designer gives us strength to succeed.

    “How can you ever explain the prosperity of some east Asian countries like Japan where there is practically no christianity.”

    My impression of Japan is that their culture is still ‘under the law’. They have strict cultural rules, (that are slowly coming apart). When those rules do fall, so will their culture. France is under ‘the law’ too. They even have to make it a law to require people to stop to help an accident victim. The law never works for very long. That’s the lesson from the Old Testament stories about Israel. When the people followed God’s law, they prospered, but the people and the leaders always failed to follow God’s law. The were conquered.

  • JAC

    Ven,

    “You have no idea what QUANTUM MECHANICS is then? Have heard about something called Heisenbergs uncertainity principle?”

    I knew this would open up a can of worms.

    The Heisenburg Uncertainity Principle deals with measuring the location of an electron. I’ll give you the Schrodinger Equation, but don’t tell me that there is a finite probability of me shooting an arrow at a target in my backyard and having it land on Uranus.

    The HUC only applies to QM. Nothing else. I’ll give you Schrodinger equation just because it’s not worth arguing about. But I still maintain that it is bascially lazy science.

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme ven

    JAC,

    Let me try something else. Lets go back to past. How is it that dark ages in Europe were coincident with the presence of superiority of religious clergy?

    Remember there were no theory of evolution then.

    Yet Galileo was tried just because he knew the truth by the people who claimed that they had the greatest faith – Vatican.

  • RKC

    Based on the physics courses I took in college, I don’t believe we need to introduce QUANTUM MECHANICS or Heisenbergs uncertainity principle here.

    Please tell me how they apply.

    Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle:

    dp x dx > h / (2 x pi) = Planck’s constant / (2 x pi)

    The preceding is a statement of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. A consequence of the Uncertainty Principle is that if an object’s position x is defined precisely then the momentum of the object will be only weakly constrained, and vice versa. One cannot simultaneously find both the position and momentum of an object to arbitrary accuracy.

  • JAC

    RKC,
    “When a tsunami occurs — is it a random event?”

    No.

  • JAC

    Ven,

    “Let me try something else. Lets go back to past. How is it that dark ages in Europe were coincident with the presence of superiority of religious clergy?

    Remember there were no theory of evolution then.

    Yet Galileo was tried just because he knew the truth by the people who claimed that they had the greatest faith – Vatican.”

    The church was corrupt. Man is fallen.

    Did the “gates of hell prevail”? No.

  • RKC

    What is it?

  • RKC

    JAC:

    ran·dom ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rndm)
    adj.
    Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See Synonyms at chance.
    Mathematics & Statistics. Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.
    Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely, as in the testing of a blood sample for the presence of a substance.

  • JAC

    RKC,

    “When two planes collide in mid-air — is is a random event — or was it planned by the pilots?”

    No it’s an accident usually caused by human error, or weather.

  • JAC

    #265

    A tsumami is a natural event.

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme ven

    JAC,

    Yes indeed, there is a finite probabilty that it will land in Uranus.
    Check the link out here

    It is because of this wierd phenomena on which nature is based that instruments such as Scanning Tunnelling electron microscope (STEM) are built and work.

    As I told you before, nature works in mysterious ways. Dont let our past experiences bias us in understanding nature.

  • RKC

    Sorry JAC:

    The pattern of mid-air collisions is random and totally unpredictable.

    Factors which cause the collisions also occur in a random manner.

  • JAC

    Hey guys,
    I just don’t believe in randomness. OK?

    I’m a determinist. I think calling some event random is a science cop-out.
    That’s all.

    I think that using stochastic models to model a physical phenomenon is a poor modeling technique.

    Like I said, if I model the location of my arrow on the target using some kind of normal distribution, it will predict that there is a finite probaility that my arrow will land on Uranus.

    My arrow will never land on Uranus. My stochastic model is simply not correct.

    OK?

  • RKC

    Sorry JAC:

    The occurrence and attributes of tsunamis are random and totally unpredictable.

  • JAC

    Quantum Mechanics does not apply to macro physics

  • JAC

    RKC,
    They are “unpredictable” because we are too dumb.

    Right?

  • JAC

    Dont let our past experiences bias us in understanding nature.”

    How about lets not give up trying to understand the universe by calling it random!!!!

  • JAC

    Lets use equations of motion, Navier-Stokes, laws of physics to predict exactly where our arrow will land as it travels to its target, not a normal distribution.

    Hey if we do it right we’ll know exactly where it will land, not just a radius from the bulls-eye.

    Do you understand where I’m coming from?

  • RKC

    JAC:

    “How about lets not give up trying to understand the universe by calling it random!!!!”

    1. The “Designer” set up all the self-sustaining rules at the outset.

    2. The self-sustaining rules include randomness.

    How about that?

  • JAC

    Hey, it’s been real.

    I gotta go.

    I’ll check out that BBC cite on Darwinism.

    Meanwhile, please read Ephesians, its a good summary of Reform Christian Theology. Good stuff!

  • JAC

    Ven,

    Responding to:

    “In as much as maintaining social harmony amongst people I do beleive that religion in the PAST may have played a very important role. The very fact that practically all the societies in this world evolved to have some form of worship to a diety points to the success of the societies that believed in some form of GOD. But the fact that different cultures worship different forms of GODS points to a past EVOLUTION of our religious beliefs.

    I think we humans have grown up to realize we no longer need the crutches of religion to maintain harmony amongst ourselves. All that religion does now in this era is to provide a source of conflict like in Isreal -Palestine.”

    Religion’s always been a source of conflict. And it always will until the end of the age.

    You may not have a ‘God sized hole’ in your heart, but many do. Many need God now more than ever before because of the fragmentation of our society.

    I believe that the past century has proven the failure of the enlightenment. Scientific rationalism hasn’t lived up to it’s billing.

    Man is basically selfish and prideful. Science can’t change that. Modernism can’t change that either, The main difference between modern man and ancient man is technology and a little (tiny bit) better understanding of the universe.

    Knowledge alone doesn’t change a man’s heart.

    Read Ecclesiastes by Solomon.

    What did work at the beginning of our country was a wonderful mixture of deistic humanism raised up by a healthy dose (about 15 to 25% of the population) of Reform Christianity. That worked and I believe it will still work. But we won’t get there by telling our children that they came from slime, have no ultimate purpose, and that “goodness” is all relative.

    Do you agree?

    “At the very least it hampers the development of science. Which manifests itself like in interference of stem cell research, which could provide the cure to diseases like Alzhimers, parkinsons etc..”

    Have you read “Brave New World” Maybe that world sounds attrative to you. I think it is totally unrealistic. I think we need to watch out for the slippery slopes that denegrate man’s worth.

  • http://adamash.blogspot.com adam

    Maybe there should be a school curriculum called Christian Radicals. Then our children can learn why they should oppose the law of the land (abortion), why science is bad (stem cell research, evolution), why gays are bad, why condoms are bad, and why it is good to assassinate foreign leaders.
    Personally, I think it’s time for America to embrace the future, and not give any credence to the Talibans of life and science in our midst.

  • carl

    About a third of the way through the comments I began to feel the discussion wasn’t getting anywhere, so I did a keyword search on the whole page. None of the following terms were found: “complexity theory”, emergence, emergent, self-organization, “dynamic systems” or Dawkins (as in Richard Dawkins, author of The Blind Watchmaker and other books explaining how complex structures can evolve naturally). I don’t think ID’s criticisms of evolution can be answered without appeal to complexity or dynamic systems theory. But complexity theory is hard to understand, which is why I don’t think exposing school students to ID is a good idea. The criticism of evolution can be put into very simple terms: “the world is too complex to have come about by chance” whereas the response to the criticism cannot.

  • RKC

    Roulette is a game of chance — but someone had to design the wheel.

  • http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html ven

    Dont worry about who designed the wheel.

    If you worry about it then ever wondered who designed the designer himself.

    At some point one has to stop thinking and observe the nature.

  • RKC

    Don’t worry — just admit it.

  • RKC

    And don’t worry about “who designed the designer”.

    One step at a time.

    Time will tell us.

  • http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html ven

    RKC,

    Time and Science will tell us. As I said have no preconcieved notions about existence of the designer!

  • RKC

    Thanks for telling me.

  • Liberal

    If evolution actually worked, wouldn’t American Presidents get smarter over time as politics is inherently survival of the fittest? Obviously that hasn’t been the case, so we have to look at ID as an option.

    No, never mind. No God would be that cruel.

  • Patriot

    How about devolution?

    Going from the first George to the current George.

  • http://www.collisionbend.com Will Kessel

    I’m sorry, but I must:

    FSM is my chef; I shall not starve.
    He maketh me rigatoni with sweet sauces:
    He leadeth me inside the kitchen.
    He restoreth good taste:
    He leadeth me to the pasta strainer for al dente’s sake.

    Yea, though I walk through the foodcourt lacking pasta,
    I shall fear no burgers: for thou art with me;
    Thy noodley appendages, they comfort me.
    Thou preparest a table before me with marinara and alfredo;
    Thou annointest my spaghetti with meatballs; My plate runneth over.

    Surely cappucino and dessert shall follow pasta all the meals of my life,
    and I will eat in the Olive Garden forever.

    As a recent convert from Catholicism to Pastafarianism, can someone PLEASE prove it wrong??? ;-0

  • sammy

    We are what we say. We are a reflection of our words.

  • http://www.collisionbend.com Will Kessel

    Wait, sammy… you must mean, “Who are THESE idiots?”

    We settled this argument 150 years ago! Why in the Hell are we bringing it up again? If the public is paying for everyone’s education, and if the public has a varying belief in creation/evolution, then the public schools cannot (by the Constitution!) teach anything that is religious in nature, regardless of what discipline the professors pretend it belongs. What is “unreligious” science must remain that way. Separation of church and state, remember?

    (The BEST solution for all is to require a World Religion class to all high school age pupils so that they can learn and understand different philosophies. Let’s talk about learning to get along, OK?)

    In the absence of common sense, if folks decide they want ID taught in public school science classes, then they need to teach Pastafarianism as well, else they will fail to teach our children properly!

    So there.

    May you be forever Touched by His Noodly Appendage,

    Will K

  • sammy

    Glad I smoked you out.

  • sammy

    “To be conscious that you are ignorant is a great step to knowledge.”

    — Disraeli

  • Steve

    A few general comments for a few situations/arguments I’ve read. JAC-I agree with everything you’ve said-more power to you-and God! I think your comments about Chinese culture are very accurate-I spent 15 years in HK, Taiwan and China and I have also seen the massive corruption and hopelessness. Yes America has generally followed godly rules but that may change if we don’t shape up fast.In response to Will, it seems to me that some insertion of God in public schools would be just what the doctor ordered, along with some considerably more efficient discipline. Why? To turn some of these contemptible cesspools of public “education” into actual PRODUCTIVE schools that emphasize high quality education(rather than bare minimum subsistence math and science for example which make us the laughingstock of the developed world), respect for fair disciplinary rules(including the parents-some parents are the most professional whiners in existence), striving to do one’s best and a complete abandonment of bizarre and unacceptable “counseling” on sex to teens especially-that should be left to the parents. But I would think that advising teens to save sex for marriage makes the most sense. They CAN wait! Their organ won’t rot and fall off if it isn’t used sexually! Finally teaching a little general respect for God(Yes by teaching THE BIBLE or at the very least allowing students to have after school Bible studies) and country seems in order too. The horrendous problems seen now in many public schools arose as a result of excessively liberal policies in the 60’s and 70’s. It’s time for it to end. We need a lot more people like Joe Clark!

  • Brian Garrepy

    I’d like to make some general comments myself… China and Taiwan are definately NOT the types of countries I want to model our great nation after…China are a bunch of communist pigs and we have liberated plenty of countries,so there is no comparison! The other hand, Japan is highly spirtual country based on alot of disciplines and they are the ones who kick our asses in education,technology,Martial Arts,etc..
    If you are going to make any valid points about Catholicism or Christianity, then you have to understand the fact that God made us in his image, so Intelligent Design is a debacle… Unworthy of mention in any forum!! So,Keep guessing at why we keep getting shorter and losing our hair(evolution, or destruction of the planet and the foods we eat)and I’ll keep the truth in mind that were not supposed to be immortal and that we were created this way!!

  • Jonathan Scanlan

    RE: 279 JAC

    “What did work at the beginning of our country was a wonderful mixture of deistic humanism raised up by a healthy dose (about 15 to 25% of the population) of Reform Christianity. That worked and I believe it will still work. But we won’t get there by telling our children that they came from slime, have no ultimate purpose, and that “goodness” is all relative.”

    I would rather know the truth to be honest. And just because we came from slime doesn’t mean that we have no purpose. You do not need a God in order to have a purpose.

    Our purpose is to survive, multiply and be happy.

  • http://www.thegodreality.com John Heininger

    The fact that scientist need to apply vast amounts of intelligence and reason to understand the natural world necessitates that the natural world must itself be intelligent and rational. Similarly, as scientist instinctively recognize design when they see computer code or an electric motor, suggests vastly complex DNA code of the cell, and the functional motor of the flagella must also be designed. Indeed, it would be impossible to do science on any other principle. For no scientist operates on the principle that we live in an “unintelligent” “irrational” universe. Nor does any scientist conduct science on the premise that there is no order, regularity, structure or design in nature. This means that all of science functions on the foundational principle of Intelligent Design. And, therefore, to argue that Intelligent design has no place in science is to effectively saw off the limb all of science is sitting on. Yet that is precisely what is being suggested.

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    John, As logic and reason appear to be strangers to you, I’d go away and practice my rational thinking before going round web sites propounding your fun little theories.

    To correct just the first of your many errors, it simply doesn’t follow that the need to apply intelligence to understanding something implies that thing must itself be intelligent or rational…

  • Christopher

    It is simple:

    ID is JUST a philosophy.

    in the worst case: a mere opinion.