I never called your logic flawed. I called it too basic to be considered scientific, which it is. Simplifications aside, evolution has nothing to do with intelligence in specific. Intelligence is just a biological trait, much like any other. It is an advantageous one for us, but you are once again applying a subjective value in developing your opinions. While that is not necessarily unwise, it is again a tacit rejection of scientific reasoning. As such, it has no room in a high school biology class.

You yourself argue the exact same point; except you claim that a “Planter” spontaneously started all on it’s own.

There is no difference between the two, just the number of stages involved in our being here.

It is none the less subjective and riddled with holes. The large segments involve major morphological innovation that is impossible on a genetic basis without serious, and I do mean lethal consequences. Nothing in science fits perfectly into the data, that is why experimental data is so crucial. Notice that there is no mention of a particular scientific fact, hypothesis, theory or law.



So ID is entirely religious, then why is Darwinian philosophy given a free pass since it argues against a religious doctrine, namely special creation. Now as far as the latest edition of the Economist I'll take a pass since I am not a subscriber. What is even more important and typical of these discussion I never said that beneficial effects from mutations were impossible. What I said is that they cannot support natural selection to the level of a single common ancestor. Get it right next time.





What do you suppose is the only viable alternative to Intelligent Design? The evidence is irrelavant and I know that it is because it never enters these discussions. If it implies God then it must be psuedo science even though it was a part of science for 2.500 years before Darwin.





I don't like fairytales being passed off as science either, that is why I dispise Darwinism.






Yea, actual science, not the presumption of purely antithesistic causation that is presumed in this day and age.



Sure, lets pretend there are no selective coefficients or limits to the adaptive power of natural selection. We have to ignore Mendelian genetics when we do but just for the sake of argument lets assume no parameters exist.



Plenty, in fact when natural selection breaks all the way down there is only one alternative, Intelligent Design. You act as if you want some evidence but you have offered none to support your postion.






I'm afraid you are going to have to give me more then a vauge reference to the current edition of the Economist. I was not under the impression that they published peer reviewed scientific aritcles and you have given me no clue why I would be interested.



If these are such formidable challenges then perhaps you should tell me plainly what they are. I think the Economist article and the arguments you allude to are pretty vauge points of reference. I would expect something a little more tangible to go on in a debate like this.

Have a nice day
Phaedrus

Look, plainly if evolution had no fact to back it up, don’t you think that after all the time science has been studying such it would have come to light that it does not hold any truth in regards to the natural world.

As it stands now, evolution has more scientific fact to back it up then I really know about, and I do pay a good amount of attention to it. with that said, its why science holds on to it, because it does hold truth. The most simple expression of evolution is just the minor biological difference you see in homo sapiens, I mean not everyone looks the same right, why do you think this happens?

People that do not agree with evolution are not skeptics of it, simply because skeptics like the facts, and evolution has a lot of that. The people against evolution are irrational religious types, pure and simple, and that is a fact too.

Any person could go and get themselves a scientific text on evolution and see the light from the fact presented, heck someone won a Nobel prize close to a hundred years ago for making the basic building blocks of life come about, which also occur naturally if I might add.

Biologically, life in a way could be looked at like a flip book cartoon really in terms of structure, I mean am I the only one that has genitals on the planet, or blood and needs to eat. Its common sense that the base theory was going to come about in time.

This is an article I wrote in to an editorial section of my towns newspaper in response to the very issue at hand.


''Evolution is held by science for only one reason, fact, pure and simple. It would be actually impossible to apply the large mountain of factual support to evolution in this article but I can say one thing and I will. Science is as liberal and as conservative as truth about the natural world requires. This truth of course is restricted to our ability to observe and our perceptions respectively, but if something simply is false or not in line with the reality of the natural world, science will give up on it as false and move on.

Now that evolution has been held by science since basically Darwin, I would find it ill to suggest that all the biologists and every other scientific endeavor to deal with evolution by professionals would result with something lacking any fact to exist in the domain of science in general.

On the idea of creation, who knows, but I don’t find any truth for it while I use science for my understanding . The concept of people generally living in ignorance of some things like why are we here has spawned many religions and or ways to explain the natural world. I am sorry if science comes to learn things that does not support these perceptions overall.

So on a last note, if the universe in total is to complex to simply just exist, and thus needs a creator, would not that same criteria apply to the creator itself?"

This basically sums up my stance on it. Evolution has fact, it can be observed in the wild, it can be observed in a lab. Heck, there is now bacteria that has adapted to living in the toxic waste under Hanford. Such is only possible via genetic change to an organism, meaning its genetically different from what it was, its the same reason why you have such a diversity of life over the ecology or environment of the earth. Its up to people to follow the fact or even just go read on it. Evolution has been proven from just about every angle one can think of using science, again this is why its accepted by science, not the alternative pink elephant theory.

That’s just organic evolution, not the other forms of it like how old the earth is. Plus dinosaurs are just cool.

So you also want to claim that a Creator came from nothing? But that’s it’s foolish to consider that life on Earth mutated, from nothing, over the eons?

Have you considered that Darwin’s theory may also explain the evolution of a “Designer”?

Again, none of that is true.

It is not subjective, it is objective. It is not riddled with holes at all, the process has been proven, what we do not yet have is a complete record of the entire chain of development. I find it staggering however that you choose to ignore the long chains of development we DO have documented and proven.




That has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING. It does not even make sense. Evolution is not given a free pass, it is researched, developed, explored and modified by hundreds of thousands of unconnected researchers in different fields in different universities and research institutions in different countries all over the planet. Are all these scientists involved in some vast conspiracy?

Or perhaps they are simply, as scientists do, following the clear trail of evidence?



Thats too bad, as it clearly demonstrates that some of your points here are complete fiction. I chose it because it is available around the world and very cheap, if you don't wish to use the resources available, thats not my problem. However your unwillingness to look at the proof does not make it go away.

Mutation altering species and changing base charictaristics is not theory, it has been proven. To assert otherwise is simply falsehood.




Cute, but false. Evolution is not a fairy tale, evolution is a proven facet accepted by the entirety of the planet's secular scientific community taught in the entirety of the planets serious secular schools based on vast masses of solid, tangible evidence all along the chain from fossil evidence, DNA mapping, laboratory observations, and experimentation.

ID is... what exactly? What evidence supports this theory? You keep asserting it is thousands of years old, which is patently false, ID assumes guided evolution, and thus obviously could not have existed prior to the theory of evolution. It is however, based on NOTHING, a point nobody has managed to deal with, it is based on NO evidence, NO experimentation, NO observation, NO archeological record, NO science. It is a fairy tale in the strictest sense, a theory that comes from faith and nothing else.





A valient attempt at name dropping, but of course irrelevant, as anyone with a 101 study of biology will tell you. Since you seem not to know what the Mandelian laws of genetics are, allow me to assist you:

http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/instruct/mcclean...del/mendel1.htm

They have nothing to do with this, and certainly never state that there are some phantom 'limits' to evolution.




Ooops. And thats where your argument, such as it is, falls apart. Firstly, natural selection does not break down, there is no problem with it, and your repetition of a falsehood does not make it so.

But FAR more importantly, is the exposed vast fallacy of your 'argumentation' for ID. When challenged to give SOME evidence at ALL for B, the best you can do is say 'Not A'. Sorry, but basic logic here: thats not evidence. Is there ANY evidence for ID? Any science? Any foundation based in scientific method?

Please tell me, IN DETAIL, and with SPECIFICS, why ID should be given MORE weight than the Raelian theory that we were all deposited here by aliens 2000 years ago who forged the fossil record. Both are fantasies based on faith with NO scientific backing or logical foundation...

Unless you care to show me wrong and provide actual resoning based in science behind the idea of ID? After all, you just claimed there was 'Plenty'...




I did, I in fact listed them very carefully. But since you choose to pretend otherwise, I shall repeat them for your sake:


1- Can any ID supporter find a single serious secular academic institution in the world that doesn't teach it as a basic part of biology? Can any ID supported explain this unanimity of scientific opinion? Where is the Harvard, Oxford or Heidelburg institute of Intelligent Design?

2- If the design is so intelligent, then why is the human body so riddled with terrible design flaws? It is the hight of hubris to imagine we are the product of some divine meddling to produce us, because if so the 'creator' did a pretty crappy job of it...

3- Here is my favourite challenge. Can anyone produce any evidence, and I mean a single solitary argument, in FAVOUR of ID? I mean one?

All arguments for ID are not aguments for ID, they are arguments (and generally silly ones) against evolution. But setting evolution aside for the moment, can somebody give me a single, solitary piece of evidencial argumentation FOR Intelligent Design? Can anyone give me a scientific reason why it should be taken more seriously than an Aesop fairy tale?



As a final note, Evolution, and through it Darwinism is not Athiestic. Darwin himself was religious, and he believed that the creation of the Universe was done by a supreme being of sorts. Evolution is not Athiestic, it is not anti-anything. It is simply a scientific fact advanced based on evidence at the time, and supported by all evidence ever since.

This is the other great problem, there are masses of evidence, millions of items found, discovered dug up catalogued and so on of the history of life. Yes there are gaps we have not yet filled in, but interestingly, ALL of the evidence so far points in a single direction. ALL of it.

What evidence, exactly, points towards ID?

Vermillion,

Apparently there is a 20 quote block limit so I have to edit some of them out. I assume you know what you wrote, I don't really have any choice in the matter. I am ignoring something substantive I'm sure you will bring it to my attention.



Again, nothing supporting your statement besides your statement.



Taxonomy is subjective, that is what makes it so usefull, it is organised for the convienience of the user. I don't have a clue what you think is documented and proven but the statement seems to be suspended by pure supposition.



Ok, Darwinism and Intelligent Design have nothing to do with the topic at hand, or anything else for that matter. You did the same thing that brought my attention to this issue in the first place. You equated evolution with Darwinism, that is patently absurd. This reminds me of Aristotle during the Middle Ages, you were not allowed to contradict him or they dragged you to an inquistion. What is even more telling is that you have not offered one fact, theory, proof or law of science to support your postion...whats up with that? Could it be that it has absolutly nothing to do with science?



What evidence, what trail?





This great convincing and supposedly, scientific article was so wonderful that you didn't even bother to share the gist of it.



That's why you didn't bother to offer a shred of evidence to support you statement that mutations change characteristics and alter species. Do you know what causes speciation?



I wasn't talking about evolution, I know about the change of alleles in populations over time. What I am talking about is the single common ancestor model which is a nonessential part of the theory of evolution. You speak of evidence of various kinds and present none, very curious.



Irreducible complexity supports ID, didn't you bother to learn what ID was before you started critisizing it?



You seem to think that intelligent design is limited to evolution. You must of missed the quote from Newton who concluded intelligent design from cosmology. Want to know what is based on nothing, no evidence, no observation, no science...your posts. You have not offered one scientific fact, hypothesis, principle or law but insist that you are defending science and evolution...from what I have no idea.





A valient attempt at name dropping, but of course irrelevant, as anyone with a 101 study of biology will tell you. Since you seem not to know what the Mandelian laws of genetics are, allow me to assist you:

http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/instruct/mcclean...del/mendel1.htm



The selective coefficients have nothing to do with evolution? Now that's funny, you don't even know what the expression means because you didn't bother to ask, but conclude it has nothing to do with evolution. Now that is funny.

I'm just going to delete the rest of my response here, the expositive approach is becoming awkward. We seem to be going over the same ground again and again so I think it's just as well.

Have a nice day
Phaedrus

And what evidence would that be?

Phaedrus,

Intelligent design is logically flawed for one reason. Intelligent design postulates that "I don't know, therefore ____", in this case, God. It's an argument from ignorance. Irreducible complexity is a great term to throw around but not one thing in the world has accepted as being irreducibly complex, not one single thing. As an opinion, it can't be used to support your opinion that the world was intelligently designed.

But in general, I think most reasonable people would agree that nature and evolution to some degree are responsible for what we see in the world. I don't think anyone is going to argue that humans didn't descend from another ape or that some form of evolution doesn't occur. But eventually at some level, science doesn't know. Maybe we'd like to disagree about how much science doesn't know but there are fundamental questions science can't answer. Where do we come from? Why does anything exist? Great questions, but also impossible to answer. Since science can't deal with them, I don't think science classes should.

Do you agree with Judge Jones' decision?

Yes. ID does not work with testable hypotheses, and uses a chain of logic as its underlying evidence. It is therefore philosophy, not science. Personally, i've never run into an ID argument which I couldn't adequately refute, so I personally don't take stock in stuff. Philosophy in general, often seems to be a rather abstract thing, that seems to use all sorts of false axioms (IE: humans are innately good, people don't lie [what in gods name was Plato on when he inferred that...], etc) to support false conclusions (IE: Communism is the answer to everything, autocracy is the answer to everything, etc).

Does this indicate a turning of the tide away from unfounded superstitious clap-trap and back towards empirical science and rationalism?

Education, societal diversity, and clumsy upbringings, seem to be key driving factors behind the growth atheism. Education of course makes one think critically, diversity/lack of unified belief structure, makes one feel more at ease with dissent, and a clumsy upbringing means that one will not have his/her religious axioms properly fortified. This is why urbanization promotes atheism, and if you doubt that claim, look at how Secular Australia is (the majority of Australias people, live in just 5 major cities).

What are the implications for the rest of the country, if any?

A legal precedent barring the teaching of intelligent design, even when it presents itself as science, and endorses no specific establishment of religion (it is monotheistic though, isn't it?).

Should the President reconsider his view that "both sides" of the debate should be taught, now that one side has been found to be illegally unconstitutional?

It's his job to protect the constitution, not agree with it.

Finally, something tangable, the link is a discussion of Mendel's law of segregation. This is the paper the law is based on and the conclusion of the author:

"Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change. Although this opinion cannot be unconditionally accepted we find on the other hand in Gärtner's experiments a noteworthy confirmation of that supposition regarding variability of cultivated plants which has already been expressed."

Experiments in Plant Hybridization (1865), by Gregor Mendel

Mendel clearly states based on his experiments that the demonstrated mechanisms that are the bedrock of modern genetics had defining boundaries. These boundaries are the elementum (genes) that are separated from each other as gametes form. The gametes join at fertilization and would recombine at random. The traits are expressed in different ways because a gene can exist in alternative forms, or alleles. In summarizing after producing 70 hybrid crosses with each of the seven traits he studied, from 10,000 meticulous experiments, crossing and cataloging some 24,034 plants, over a six year period (1857-1863).

Clearly this scientific law recognizes limits beyond which species cannot change. If we are to reject Intelligent Design because it is not science then Darwinism should be rejected on the same basis.

Darwin proposed natural selection was the mechanism for the change of one species to another, the selection of most favored races, he called it. It was based on the 'geometric growth of populations', which claims that populations tend to populate beyond the ability of the resources to sustain them and there is a struggle to survive. The ones best 'fitted' would survive while the rest would die off, it is simplicity itself, natural selection is the elimination of the less fit. This is how Darwin and neodarwinians see nature, as a red in tooth and claw struggle for survival within a population yielding improved fitness. The only model Darwin offered in Origin of Species was what he called the tree of life starting with an undefined protoorganism and growing like a tree from that single stem into countless branches of living systems. The mechanism he proposed was natural selection:

"But if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterized will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will tend to produce offspring similarly characterized. This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection. Natural selection, on the principle of qualities being inherited at corresponding ages, can modify the egg, seed, or young, as easily as the adult." (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)

There is a lot of talk about Intelligent Design but not real interest in what Intelligent Design scientists have to say about it. I think they should at least be heard before rejecting their ideas.

"The transitional life forms that ostensibly occupy the nodes on Darwin's branching tree of life are unobservable, just as the postulated past activity of a Designer is unobservable. Transitional life forms are theoretical postulations that make possible evolutionary accounts of present biological data. An unobservable designing agent is, similarly, postulated to explain features of life such as its information content and irreducible complexity. Darwinian transitional, neo-Darwinian mutational events, punctuationalism's "rapid branching" events, the past action of a designing agent—none of these are directly observable. With respect to direct observability, each of these theoretical entities is equivalent."

The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories, By: Stephen C. Meyer

Darwinism has allways been in conflict with Medelian genetics and unless the limits of natural selection we are talking about supposition, not science. Any one care to hazard a guess how natural selection is measure in genomics?

Have a nice day
Mark

Phaedrus, I'm sorry but you've done nothing but confirm that the study of evolution is not yet complete. Yes, transitional events are entirely theoretical up until this point, but that does not preclude them from consideration as a possibility.

Now, before anyone goes and says "aha!" I have not just conceded that evolution occupies the same territory as ID. As I said before, evolution is a big idea with small holes. All ID theory is is a tiny theory that fits into those holes. The two are 100% incompatible in a scientific discourse because one depends on testing and replication (evolution) and the other depends on the failure of those same tests. Lets look at your case a bit more closely though:



I wrote a long and somewhat clever (I thought) explanation of how your example got away from you before I realized that the link in the passage you cited actually directed to a footnote on this passage. It is highly pertinent.



It's pretty clear that Gärtner's experiments were not conclusive and were based on a faulty premise, so their bearing on this discussion is nonexistant. Mendel may be more significant, but again you are using the poorly translated opinions of a scientist that were placed at the end of a 140 year old experiment. While Mendel has earned a rightful place amongst the Pantheon of 19th century scientists, he is one of those blokes who is recognized more for what he tried to do, and the elementary concepts he postulated than his actual work. Relying on his work to criticize contemporary evolutionary theory is as futile as using J.J. Thompson's "plum pudding" model to challenge current theories of atomic structure.

A word about your source now. While I am not trying to be dismissive, the fact is that you cannot rely on an organization with a clear and concise agenda, like the Discovery Institute as your only conclusive evidence for your position. If you will note, Meyer has a pHd not in biology or genetics, but in the Philosophy of Science, and while this isn't exactly a "rocks for jocks" type discipline, it in no way establishes him as a scientific authority on the subject. He is a scientist as much as Robert Oppenheimer was a philosopher. In fact, if you look at his essay, it is not a scientific refutation of Natural Selection, Darwinism, or even evolution. Rather it is a polemic directed at the scientific community at large; asserting that the conditions under which the life sciences are conducted merely reinforce the suppositions of "Origins." It's all well and good, but there's not two "scientific" sentences in the entire thing.

What the debate really boils down to is this... Meyer (as the Chairman of the dubious Discovery Institute) believes that: "Since there seems no reason to concede that assumption, I see no reason to concede that origins theories must be strictly naturalistic." The question is this, is there any evidence to believe otherwise. So far all you have done is demonstrate that there are at present areas of evolution theory which cannot be observed or tested. You have yet to actually bring forth any actual proof of the existance of an designer, or pattern of intelligent intervention. The fact that Intelligent Design Theory is carefully built around evolution without actually substantiating itself independently makes it pretty clear that the "proof" is either nonexistant, or exists in a non-scientific object, namely religion.

Ultimatejoe, intelligent design is not limited to religious conviction.

"A second prominent proponent of panspermia is Nobel prize winner Francis Crick, who along with Leslie Orgel proposed the theory of directed panspermia in 1973. This suggests that the seeds of life may have been purposely spread by an advanced extraterrestrial civilization. Crick argues that small grains containing DNA, or the building blocks of life, fired randomly in all directions is the best, most cost effective strategy for seeding life on a compatible planet at some time in the future. "

Panspermia

"No physical hypothesis founded on any indisputable fact has yet explained the origin of the primordial protoplasm, and, above all, of its marvellous properties, which render evolution possible—in heredity and in adaptability, for these properties are the cause and not the effect of evolution. For the cause of this cause we have sought in vain among the physical forces which surround us, until we are at last compelled to rest upon an independent volition, a far-seeing intelligent design."

( British Association for the Advancement of Science by Paleyite botanist George James Allman)

I could go on but the use of the term Intelligent Design has been historically used by scientists since ancient Greece.

"For millennia, philosophers have argued that the complexity of nature indicates the existence of a purposeful natural or supernatural designer/creator. The first recorded arguments for a natural designer come from Greek philosophy. The philosophical concept of the "Logos" is typically credited to Heraclitus (c. 535–c.475 BCE), a Pre-Socratic philosopher, and is briefly explained in his extant fragments.[8] Plato (c. 427–c. 347 BCE) posited a natural "demiurge" of supreme wisdom and intelligence as the formator of the cosmos in his work Timaeus. Aristotle (c. 384–322 BCE) also developed the idea of a natural formator of the cosmos, often referred to as the "Prime Mover" in his work Metaphysics. In his de Natura Deorum (On the Nature of the Gods) Cicero (c. 106–c. 43 BCE) stated, "The divine power is to be found in a principle of reason which pervades the whole of nature."

Intelligent Design

Notice this is the work of philosophers, ancient Greeks built the foundations of modern science without experimentation. Science for them was not derived from inductive factoids, they were deduced from philsophical premises. Now on to your points about Mendel and the quote from his paper.



Mendel continued the work of Gärtner who had occupied his postion previously. We are not talking about one experiement he did on the spur of the moment. There were in fact 28,000 meticulas experiments that yeilded the laws of inheritance that are the foundation of modern genetics. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I am criticizing the theory of evolution, or perhaps Mendel was, this is simply not the case. There are well defined limits to natural selection which is where this whole concept of irreducible complexity comes in.

Let us not take the work of Mendel lightly, who was highly praised in the Initial Seqeunce of the Human Genome paper.

"The rediscovery of Mendel's laws of heredity in the opening weeks of the 20th century sparked a scientific quest to understand the nature and content of genetic information that has propelled biology for the last hundred years. The scientific progress made falls naturally into four main phases, corresponding roughly to the four quarters of the century. The first established the cellular basis of heredity: the chromosomes. The second defined the molecular basis of heredity: the DNA double helix. The third unlocked the informational basis of heredity, with the discovery of the biological mechanism by which cells read the information contained in genes and with the invention of the recombinant DNA technologies of cloning and sequencing by which scientists can do the same."

Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome

Mendel's experiments were on how plants develop new hybrids. Darwin called this artificial selection and unless alleles stop changing in populations over time there will be evolution. This is not about the Theory of Evolution per se, this is about the limits of natural selection to explain the development of complexity from simple protoorganisms. I don't want creationism or intelligent design taught in the public schools. I don't want Darwian arguments against special creation taught either. It is possible to teach actual science without Darwinism but it would be utterly impossible without Mendelian genetics.



The word you are looking here isn't religion, its philosophy. I think we should stick to the actual science in science classes and leave the metaphysics of Darwin and neodarwians to the philsophers. There is no question that many of the molecular machines that make life possible are irreducibly complex. Throughout history scientists have concluded some kind of intelligent design as a reasonable explanation for the ultimate first cause. The only way this question gets settled is to go deeper then the factoids of empirical methodology. The philosophical foundations of modern science must be re-examined.

So, does anyone want to tell me how natural selection is measured in genomics?

Have a nice day
Phaedrus

Phaedrus, people keep asking you the same question, and you keep dodging it or simply ignoring it. It has reached the point where it has become transparent.

Let us try again then. Do you have any evidence for Intelligent Design? I asked before, and you avoidingly answered with the question: do I have eny evidence for evolution, which is of course silly.

Evolution is the status quo, it is universally accepted by every serious secular academic institution on the planet. I do not need to provide evidence for its existence when such evidence is available in every discipline in biological science. It is taught at every faculty and high school in the first world, and is on display at nearly every museum. Are you seriously suggesting there is no such evidence? On the other hand, I have asked for evidence (repeatedly) FOR Intelligent Design, I ask this because there IS NONE. It is not the status quo, it has not been accepted by any secular educational institutions, and every attempt to have it so has been thrown out as a thinly veiled disguise for religious rhetoric without evidence. I have asked you to present some evidence, ANY evidence, others have asked you to present some evidence, ANY evidence, and you consistently refuse or fail to do so.

The closest you have gotten is the absolutist and silly assertion that life is "irreducibly complex". You even last post claimed that "QThere is no question that it is irreducibly complex". That is nothing more than an unsubtantiated opinion, your unsubstantiated opinion, one rejected held by the planet's scientific community. It is by ANY stretch of the imagination, NOT an argument, and it is CERTAINLY not evidence.

So I go back to repeating the same question. Do you have any evidence FOR Intelligent Design?


I would like to remind you of something: I suggested three simple challenges to those who believe in ID, you posted "If you post them (which I had but you ignored) you would be happy to answer them". So I did. I am waiting. I will post them a third time, just for you.


1- Can any ID supporter find a single serious secular academic institution in the world that doesn't teach it as a basic part of biology? Can any ID supported explain this unanimity of scientific opinion? Where is the Harvard, Oxford or Heidelburg institute of Intelligent Design?

2- If the design is so 'intelligent', then why is the human body so riddled with terrible design flaws? It is the hight of hubris to imagine we are the product of some divine meddling to produce us, because if so the 'creator' did a pretty crappy job of it...

3- Here is my favourite challenge. Can anyone produce any evidence, and I mean a single solitary argument, in FAVOUR of ID? I mean one?

All arguments for ID are not aguments for ID, they are arguments (and generally silly ones) against Natural Evolution. But setting evolution aside for the moment, can somebody give me a single, solitary piece of evidencial argumentation FOR Intelligent Design? Can anyone give me a scientific reason why it should be taken more seriously than an Aesop fairy tale?




You keep repeating this, but you know it is not true. Many scientists believed in Divine Origins, yes. Including, by the way, Charles Darwin. Divine origins of the universe has NOTHING to do with the theory of modern Intelligent Design, which the slow evolutionary development over time of life guided by a divine power.

This 'Panspermia' example is exactly what I am talking about, it is about the divine, or in that case, extraterrestrial origin of life, which has nothing to do with modern ID.

None of your scientists thought anything close guided evolution, nor could they have as the discovery of the reality of evolution had not yet occurred. So please stop repeating this falsehood, unless of course you can post some quote from one of these scientists referring to his or her belief in guided evolution...

I did offer evidence for Intelligent Design, Newton concluded it from Cosmology. Panspermia is a theory of intelligent design that was developed with the help of Francis Crick, he just didn't conclude divine intelligence. Behe concluded intelligent design by the rotary motors that spin at 100,000 rpms. The thing is that Intelligent Design philosophers and scientists are not diputing the evidence, they are arguing against the underlying philosophy of modern scientific positivism. Behe and Meyer have both published peer reviewed scientific articles presenting meticulas evidence against Darwinian natural selection. Equating darwinism with the theory of evolution is patently absurd, it is clearly a philosophical argument against special creation.



Scientists and philosophers from Cambridge, the University of Chicogo, Berkley and the University of Idaho are part of the Intelligent Design movement. Western Science was built on the philosophical work of the ancient Greeks. Aristotle was considered final authority for matters pertaining to scientific reasoning for at least 1,000 years. Redefining science as an absense of God is a very modern point of view, one that was a minority view at best up until late in the 19th century.



The same logic applies to natural selection. It is supposed to be screening out the harmfull effects of mutations and keeping the beneficial ones. If that were true we would have an abundance of beneficial effects and negative effects would be rare, the opposite is in fact the case. Like I have been trying to get through to you, the scientific evidence is not being disputed. If you want to get to the heart of the matter you have to look at the philosophical moorings of Darwinism.



I could give you a half a dozen off the top of my head but none of the evidence persented gets any attention. The question is rethorical, your not asking a question you are repeating the same statement you made previously. You are saying all of the evidence points to natural causation and none of it to intelligent design. If that were true then why would Francis Crick say this?

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going" (Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88).

Evolutionary biology cannot explain everything in nature from purely natural causes. The expanatory power of natural selection and other evoutionary theory run into a wall at crucial points of natural history.

"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs.

Their success among certain biologists, philosophers, and sociologists notwithstanding, the explanatory doctrines of biological evolution do not stand up to an objective, in-depth criticism. They prove to be either in conflict with reality or else incapable of solving the major problems involved" (1977, Pierre-Paul Grassé, The Evolution of Living Organisms).

Dobzhansky one of the creators of the modern synthesis wrote of Grassé: “Now one can disagree with Grassé, but not ignore him. He is the most distinguished of French zoologists, the editor of the 28 volumes of Traité de Zoologie, author of numerous original investigations, and ex-president of the Academie des Sciences. His knowledge of the living world is encyclopedic”

You don't go into a lab and get testable hypothesis for God did it. You don't get one for God didn't do it either. The evidence is irrelavant, this is a philosophical and intellectual question. You have to look at the philosophical foundation of modern evolutionary biology to see the problem.

A testable theory or hypothesis must have certain elements: Falsifability, confirmation, predictablity, explanatory powers. That is not what we are talking about here I have made two points that seemed to have stuck pretty well.

1. There are quantifiable and qualifiable limits beyond which things cannot evolve.
2. It is the philosophical foundation of Darwinism and scientific positivism that is at issue.

"Ultimately, the main question that confronts scientists working on a theory of intelligent design is whether design provides powerful new insights and fruitful avenues of research. The metaphysics underlying such a theory, and in particular the ontological status of the designer, can then be taken up by philosophy and theology. Indeed, one's metaphysics ought to be a matter of indifference to one's scientific theorizing about design."

(William A. Dembski, Is Design Testable)

So if it's philosophical then is it science or is there such a thing as a philosophy of science apart from experimental methods? It would be like a computer without any software, it works fine but it just won't do anything. Darwinism is a philosophy of science, so is intelligent design. The real science is in Mendelian genetics not the philosophical musings of Darwians, creationists or scientists and philosophers who support intelligent design. So much talk about science when this whole issue has nothing to do with science, or evolution for that matter. This is as I have been saying all along a philosophical and intellectual question.

Have a nice day
Mark

Has nothing to do with redefing science. It has to do with ID supporters offering nothing that can support their views other than faith anf trying to claim because the complete working of Evolution are not fully understood it must therefore be false.
As for Behe even he has had to admit to the flaws in his IC work.

Again until you can offer anything concrete to support the theory of Intelligent design--it cannot be considered science. How do you test for it? I agree with Vermillion you keep restating the same empty arguments.

Proof please--other wise ID is just wishful thinking.

Here is another difference. Evolutionists rely on science and research while many of the strongest supprters of ID rely on misinformation and outright lies.
For a short list of some of the deliberate misquotes try this site
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/evolution.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html
link contains some very good articles about evolution and the problems with ID...try em.
Also the panda's thumb website is a very good source as well.

Mutations do happen. Mutations can be beneficial. Mutations are genetic, and can be inherited. The assertion that cumulative beneficial traits can eventually over time lead to the creation species, can therefore not be denied, and therefore, the theory of evolution is true. Has evolution been how all species have been created? Evidence seems to point to that, via genetic, and structural similaritys in all species, and a fossil record which can trace diverse species all back to common ancestors.

Why are we then not perfect? Because perfection can never be eternal in a changing environment. Trilobites ruled the world for many years, but were eventually overthrown by another species. Species that survive are adaptable, and in order for species to be adaptable, it must have variability. Also, traits deemed by you to be necessary for "perfection", may be wasteful from a survival standpoint. The sabertooth tiger, may have been the strongest cat in the world in its day, but it had to eat a lot of food to sustain itself. As such, when food became scarce, the sabertooth went extinct, while its lighter feline compatriots survived. GM engineers, have made it so cows produce more milk, but only at the expense of cow life-spans. In spending so much energy on creating milk, GMed cows find themselves with less energy to use on vital life functions.

No, you didn't, you most certainly didn't. You have been asked countless times, but you keep refusing to do so, or dodging the question. I admit you are very good at dodging question, usually by ignoring it or asking another question instead. In fact you did it several times just in your last post. However as I said, it is getting pretty obviously hollow, and I am just going to keep asking...

Oh, and I dealt with this Ad Nausium in my last post and you refused to deal with it, STOP referring to these ancient 'scientists' and ID. They believed in Divine origins of the universe, so did Darwin. That has NOTHING to do with Modern Intelligent Design.




Firstly, others have already had a field day with Meyer, who is not a scientist but the proprietor of a religious institute. But secondly, and far more importantly, this is just ANOTHER example of what people have been calling you on for pages now. We ask for evidence FOR Intelligent Design, you refer to some evidence pointing out possible problems with Darwinian evolution. I have said many times before, this is NOT evidence for Intelligent Design. It is negative evidence (weak at that) for one theory, you consistently refuse or are unable to supply a shred of positive evidence FOR Intelligent Design.



So your answer then is, NO, you cannot find any serious secular academic institutions where evolution is not a basic part of the program, and NO, you can't explain this unanimity of scientific opinion? While you certainly answered a question I never asked there, you didn't seem able to answer the one I DID ask. Some former academic philosophers support ID? Let me guess, religious ones? Fine. I have never, NEVER opposed teaching ID as one of the myriad of world religions in Philosophy or Religion class. But leave science to the scientists.





Firstly, STOP THAT. Stop dodging questions by asking others. You promised you would answer the challenges, so please try...

However, to the answer you did give, again an answer to a question other than was asked: This is priceless. Here in writing, is proof that you have NO idea how Darwinistic evolution is supposed to work. While reading all your 'peer-reviewed articles for fun' you might have wanted to read 'Origin of the Species'.

Darwinian Evolution does not screen out harmful mutations, there is no reason for harmful mutations which allow survival to vanish, unless specific characteristics are the focus of periods of demographic stress. The mutations which help a group survive are only beneficial to THAT situation, and might be considered harmful in another. Darwin never promised ideal or perfect organisms, just organisms better adapted to a certain specific environment.

On the other hand, Intelligent Design promises evolution guided by a divine hand, towards an ideal goal. Perfection and 'well guided' evolution is a requirement for this theory. So why does it not exist? Why is the design so shoddy? Why is the 'divine guide' doing such a crappy job? At best ID should be renamed 'semi-intelligent, half-hearted Design, or SIHHD. Can you explain this massive logical failing in your theory?



Oh believe me sir, if you presented a shred of positive evidence, even once, I guarantee you that it would get my attention. And the attention of everyone else here who have been asking, begging you to present an iota of positive evidence to support your theory. You have repeatedly claimed there is 'plenty' or you can 'think of half a dozen' yet seem singularly unable to commit any of those to your screen. Well, as I said your dodging is getting a bit transparent, so if its all the same to you I think the debate would be improved if you actually presented us with a single, solitary example, ANY example, of scientific evidence supporting ID.

You do understand WHY People keep asking for this right? Without evidence, without ANY evidence, then ID could never, NEVER be considered any kind of science, or anything close to it. It is at best another example of Christian religion and if it should be taught anywhere, teach it in comparative religion class, something I have never objected to. But for ID supporters to claim that ID is NORE than a relatively recent example of religious creationism, they need to present positive evidence of this fact. The onus is on them to defend why their theory is more than a religious fairy tale, same as the world being on the back of a giant space turtle. There IS evidence for Darwinian evolution, unquestionably, thats is why it is the scientific status quo. Pick up a biology textbook, ANY biology textbook and see for yourself.

Is there ANY positive evidence for ID? Any at all? It would seem not...



It is not rhetorical, it is in fact BEGGING for an answer. An answer you keep alluding to the fact that you have 'Plenty' of, but refuse to supply. It is the exact opposite of a rhetorical question, it is a simple, basic challenge, and without an answer this debate essentially ends. Without ANY positive evidential arguments FOR ID, then it clearly is nothing but religious theory.



Wrong. If this debate were about whether ID should be taught in religion class or not, then I would agree. But this debate started because some people felt ID had some scientific backing to it. Are you now conceding this is not true? Are you now conceding that there IS NO SCIENCE BEHIND ID? Once again you listed off some people who seem to have problems with aspects of Darwinian evolution (while ignoring the rest of the planet's scientific consensus that there is no problem) which as has been said repeatedly, is not the issue here.

The issue is the validity of ID as anything more than a modern fairy tale, and for it to BE anything more than a modern fairy tale, it needs science. So in fact the evidence is NOT irrelevant, the evidence is in fact key and critical to the whole debate.



That is blatant back-pedalling and you know it.

It is true that you never claimed in this thread that ID should be taught in the classroom, you did consistently try and put ID on the same level as Natural evolution. You tried to present arguments of some problems with aspects of evolution, most of which were capably dismissed, while ignoring the vast body of evidence supporting it which has made it a universal planetary status quo, something you were also unwilling to explain.

Let me put this another way. Even if your criticisms of Natural evolution held any water, which they don't, then you have a vast complicated science with voluminous mountains of evidence in a dozen different disciplines, which may have a few details still subject to questions to be explored as the science progresses.

And you counter with ID, a religious theory with no evidence at all behind it, none, and which cannot even survive the logical challenges I have posted it. Are you still claiming these should be dealt with on the same plane?



In the end, if your posts had been about potential problems with evolution, then they might have had more validity. While you consistently exaggerate these 'flaws' when in fact they just developing questions, same as exist in ANY science, at least there we have something about which to debate. Did you know that a week ago scientists finally proved Einstein’s E=MC2 equation? That was something that needed to be done, a question in physics, as there are HUNDREDS of unanswered questions in physics, but only a lunatic would suggest we throw out the discipline and replace it with a religious theory with no evidence at al.

If your posts had been discussing possible questions yet to be resolved in evolution, that would have been something else. But you tried to put ID, a religious theory with no evidential support whatsoever, on the same playing field, and that is why people have kept challenging you on it, and that’s why your consistent dodging of those challenges has become hollow.


I forgot to mention this earlier, so now its a day late, but to all in this thread and on this board, Merry Christmas and the best of the holiday season to everyone...

Do you agree with Judge Jones' decision?

No, the vast majority of the world believes in God as our Creator.


Does this indicate a turning of the tide away from unfounded superstitious clap-trap and back towards empirical science and rationalism?

The biased and smarmy wording of this question is not worthy of a response.

Or is it a mere hiccup in the necessary shift back towards a religious worldview in all aspects of education?


Eventually our activist judges will realize they have no standing in issues such as this.

What are the implications for the rest of the country, if any?

We will continue to practice our faith and to pray for those in black robes who have lost their way.

Should the President reconsider his view that "both sides" of the debate should be taught, now that one side has been found to be illegally unconstitutional?[/b]

[/quote]

I'm not so sure what 'illegally unconstitutional' means, but the debate should certainly continue. Afterall that is what freedom is all about, in spite of the efforts of some to stifle it.

This is factually incorrect. There are no genetically engineered cows producing milk. Cattle being used to produce milk come entirely from selective genetics, man induced evolution if you will. There have been experiments in cloning and genetic modification but only at a research level. This does not represent the world's cow population by any stretch of the imagination. Cows produce more milk because those that do have been selected for those genetic traits. These cows have normal lifespans.

Passion51, can you offer a legal assesment of the legal decision, or just your personal feelings? I went through the trouble of explaining how it was the correct legal decision and all you've done is say "well it's not the Christian thing to do." The law is in fact the law, and if you have some evidence to suggest that he didn't follow that law, we'd all love to hear it.

So basically because a horse does not give birth to a kangaroo evolution is then guided by a higher power. That is not how evolution works. If you look at organisms from a genetic point of view all the forensic evidence is there for evolution, its the same reason as to a few generations of great apes ago in our lineage the ability to internally produce vitamin C was turned off, but yet still exists. Its one of the many if not countless vestigial structures, like a blind mole, or more simply put, why there are so many types of ants.

Evolution is slow to our standards, millions of years again people. Biologically speaking something like a homo sapien has mechanisms to work with mutation, in a base sense almost to prevent them, but all organisms have mutation rates, and over time the mutations accumulate in a particular genetic makeup of a particular life form, thus blue eyes, brown eyes, etc...

Evolution is forced to occur in labs on bacteria, is ethical and the have fast mutation rates. Typically when this is done you get arbitrary results every time, meaning you can have large amounts of mutants occur in the population or small amounts, and success is not guaranteed. The amount of change can also very, as some changes can result with the bacteria looking largely different rather quick, but those organisms are less complex in terms of amount of genetic code, chemistry and all that stuff.

This is why again evolution is held by sciecne, fact.

There is no law or Constitutional basis for this decision. None whatsoever. Separation of and from are vastly different, in spite of what secularists want us to believe.

Well, thats almost true. The majority of the world believes in A god, though you may have noticed a great deal of debate, to say nothing of violence, regarding the specific nature, name, attributes and attitudes of said God. However, regardless of people's religious beliefs, the vast majority of the first world believes in Evolution, only in the US is there such a strong creationist or psudo-creationist component.

Not that this has to anything to do with anything of course. There is not supposed to be religion in the classroom, thus the decision. I don't really see how the fact that some people are religious alters that basic fact.



Why is it that the right only calls judges 'activist' when they make decisions that the right does not agree with? Anyways, considering the ID people chose to bring this before the courts, you can hardly presume to insult the 'standing of the courts' for rendering a decision when they were asked to do so.

Children should only be taught science in science class, I hardly call that decision 'activist' or having 'lost their way'.

And this has exactly what to do with the current discussion? The decision rendered, was about whether or not ID was verifiable science, and if it was not, should it be taught in a science classroom anyway. The decision here was the correct one.


I see. This judge is an "activist judge" because he rendered a decision you don't like, is that about it? You do know that the judge in this case was a conservative Republican, appointed by Bush, right?


Debate over what? Whether or not religion should replace good science in a science class? Hardly.

The fact is, I've read the entire decision in this case, Passion, and it was the right one. Why? Because even the ID "scientists" testifying for the defendants in this case, ended up having to admit under oath, that ID is little more than creationism dressed up. That there is no positive scientific proof for ID, and that the arguments for things like "irreducible complexity" isn't really proof of ID at all.

And most of all, because these school board members lied. They lied about just about everything in this case. They lied in private, they lied in public, and they lied in court, under oath. They lied about their motives, they lied about their actions, they lied about the content of the book they wanted taught in class alongside the standard biology classroom, and they lied about how they obtained and paid for that book. They bullied other board members, they held needed textbooks hostage until teachers relented, and they threatened teachers with their jobs for refusing to go along.

Yes, indeed, Passion, these "Christians" did just about every non-Christian thing you can think of to get their version of Christianity into the classroom, in direct contravention of prior Supreme Court rulings like Lemon.

I'm sorry, your biased and smarmy replys in this thread to the contrary, there is a necessary reason for not promoting a particular brand of religion into a classroom, funded by tax dollars, and delivered to students under the guise of government authority. And that's exactly what these school board members were trying to do. It was right that this case was decided the way it was, and it was right that they were eventually voted out of office.

If they really wanted to teach creation in the classroom, they were certainly free to start their own school, and have a go at it. They did not have the right to try and force their views on everyone else.

I'm not trying to dodge anything, you realize by now that you have not offered anything as supporting proof right? You allready rejected ID so any criteria for an irreducibly complex biological mechanism is ignored. I assure you there are plenty of examples where natural selection fails to support Darwinian natural selection but we have not gotten past the rethorical phase of the discussion.



You completly ignored the points made about Medelian genetics being far more substantive then Darwinian double talk. Here's the thing, Darwin is a lot of suppostion while Mendelian genomics is the only scientific basis for measuring the limits of natural selection. Intelligent Design. like natural selection are philosophical questions. You still have not answered the same question I have asked you again and again. How is natural selection measured scientifically? Either you don't know or don't care but at any rate the actual evidence has escaped your attention.



Who, where and when?




So is natural selection or have you never read the preface of On the Origin of Species?




Like I said, ID is represented by Scientists and Philosophers from the University of Chicogo, Berkley, the University of Idaho...etc. There is nothing religiously motivated about intelligent design per se. It is the scientific positivism on modern scientism that has a religious agenda, not the descenting view.



Enough of this, it's time to start over. We have argued in circles for several rounds, its time to focus on the actual science. I don't know how good you are at reading scientific papers but that is what is next.

Next stop, the physiological costs of adaptation. The holidays have me wiped out until then...

Have a nice day
Phaedrus

[quote=phaedrus,Dec 27 2005, 04:01 AM]
[quote=Vermillion,Dec 26 2005, 07:05 AM]No, you didn't, you most certainly didn't. You have been asked countless times, but you keep refusing to do so, or dodging the question. I admit you are very good at dodging question, usually by ignoring it or asking another question instead. In fact you did it several times just in your last post. However as I said, it is getting pretty obviously hollow, and I am just going to keep asking...[/quote]

I'm not trying to dodge anything, you realize by now that you have not offered anything as supporting proof right? You allready rejected ID so any criteria for an irreducibly complex biological mechanism is ignored. I assure you there are plenty of examples where natural selection fails to support Darwinian natural selection but we have not gotten past the rethorical phase of the discussion. [/quote]

I seriously cannot believe this. How many times do I and everyone else here have to ask the same question and make the same statements before you pay attention to them? How many ways do you have of ignoring the question?


YOU NEED TO PRESENT POSITIVE EVIDENCE FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN. I can easily list the number of times you have been asked to do this in this thread, and each time you either ignore the question entirely, or make references that there is 'plenty' of evidence, or you can think of 'half a dozen' evidences, but you consistently and universally fail to supply any.

You are suggesting that a religious theory should be considered in the same field as a science. For that to occur, it needs to be supported by some kind of evidence. I don't know why I am saying this, It has been repeated a dozen times and you singularily, steadfastly refuse to aknowledge it.

What is even better, is you once promised to address my challenges, but to date have refused to address any of the three, despite being asked countless times.


As to your post, I have rejected ID because there is no evidence for it, none. Without evidence it remains a religious theory, like the giant space turtle of Iroquois legend. You have been asked to supply evidence, and we can all see how quick you have been to come forth with it of course...

Also, now you say I have not provided proof? Proof of what? My point is that ID is a religious fairy tale unsupported by a shred of evidence. I am arguing the universal status quo. The onus to provide positive evidence FOR ID is on you, an onus you are spectacularily failing, I might add.


Oh, and I dealt with this Ad Nausium two posts ago and you refused to deal with it, STOP referring to these ancient 'scientists' and ID. They believed in Divine origins of the universe, so did Darwin. That has NOTHING to do with Modern Intelligent Design.



[quote][quote]So your answer then is, NO, you cannot find any serious secular academic institutions where evolution is not a basic part of the program, and NO, you can't explain this unanimity of scientific opinion? While you certainly answered a question I never asked there, you didn't seem able to answer the one I DID ask. Some former academic philosophers support ID? Let me guess, religious ones? Fine. I have never, NEVER opposed teaching ID as one of the myriad of world religions in Philosophy or Religion class. But leave science to the scientists. [/quote]

Like I said, ID is represented by Scientists and Philosophers from the University of Chicogo, Berkley, the University of Idaho...etc. There is nothing religiously motivated about intelligent design per se. It is the scientific positivism on modern scientism that has a religious agenda, not the descenting view. [/quote]

I applaud you here, this is the one of the three challenges you at least MENTION, even if you refuse to address it.

Firstly, no you are mistaken. You have stated several former-philosophers from academic institutionsstarted ID, you never mentioned scientists. Secondly, they are all religious. I asked for secular evidence. Thirdly, you of course ignored the substance of my challenge: Are there any secular scientific institutions on the planet that preach ID, and if not, then why not? Why the universal unanimity among the secular world?

I also like how you claim that the theory 'God did it' is not inherently religious. Thats amusing. Are you next going to claim that the Discovery institute is not at all religious either?

[quote]Firstly, STOP THAT. Stop dodging questions by asking others. You promised you would answer the challenges, so please try...[/quote]

Enough of this, it's time to start over. We have argued in circles for several rounds, its time to focus on the actual science. I don't know how good you are at reading scientific papers but that is what is next.
[/quote]

I agree enough of this. Once again, you didged the challenge you promised to answer, once again you refuse to deal with the most simple and basic question. I stated a page ago your rhetorical dodging to and fro had become tramsparent, and yet you continue. Now you have the gall to say we should 'focus on science'? Have you been involved in this debate?

I have been begging you for pages to focus on science. I have been begging you repeatedly to provide just a single, solitary shred of positive evidence for Intelligent Design, just one.

Stop endlessly repeating that you 'read scientific papers' by the way, it's bad form and the constant repition without substantiation makes it quite suspicious You have shown you have not read (or perhaps, just not understood) Origin of the species, and despite claiming to 'read peer-reviewed journals in your spare time (which ones pray tell?) you are still unable to provide any positive evidence for ID.


I'm still waiting for you to fulfil your promise and deal with these basic, root-cause chalenges, which without an answer to the debate is over. If you cannot provide a reason why ID should be treated as anything more than a fairy tale, then you concede the argument that is should not be. The onus is, and has ben throughout the thread, on you. I am defending the universally accepted status quo, represented by every biology textbook, academic institution and secular scientist on the planet.

You are arguing that ID needs to be placed on the same field. So I ask you again:



1- If the design is so intelligent, then why is the human body so riddled with terrible design flaws? It is the hight of hubris to imagine we are the product of some divine meddling to produce us, because if so the 'creator' did a pretty crappy job of it...


2-Here is my favourite challenge. Can anyone produce any positive evidence, and I mean a single solitary evidenced argument, in FAVOUR of ID? I mean one?

All arguments for ID are not aguments for ID, they are arguments (and generally stupid ones) [i]against[i/] evolution. But [i]setting evolution aside for the moment[i], can somebody give me a single, solitary piece of positive evidencial argumentation FOR Intelligent Design? Can anyone give me a reson why it should be taken more seriously than an Aesop fairy tale?



Nobody reading this thread is being fooled by your dodging about, everyone is waiting for you to provide this evidence, of which you have asserted there is 'plenty'... Well?

Yes, indeed, Passion, these "Christians" did just about every non-Christian thing you can think of to get their version of Christianity into the classroom, in direct contravention of prior Supreme Court rulings like Lemon.

This is the kind of overreaction that muddies the waters and misses the real issue. Attacking Christians because of their beliefs serves no purpose.

ID is all about God and the fact that He created this world we live in for this brief moment in time. The particular manner in which we worship God is not critical, the fact that we do worship Him is.

Efforts to keep 'religion' out of the public venue are wrong in that they mistakenly
deny God His rightful place. The Supreme Court is a man-made institution that surely can't be looked upon as superior to the Supreme Being Himself?

I think Dr. Michael Denton says it best. He's a senior research fellow in human molecular genetics at the University of Otago in New Zealand. After exhaustive research he concludes, "All the evidence available in the biological sciences supports the core proposition that the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose, a whole in which all facets of reality have their meaning and explanation in this central fact".

Don't allow those who deny God's existence to drive a wedge between those of us that do.

No, Passion, I'm sorry. I'm doing no such thing. I am attacking these particular people, not because of their beliefs, but because of their actions. Actions they claim to be above, because of their religion.

Once again, these people bullied teachers and other board members, they basically extorted teachers who needed new texbooks into accepting a non-science book into their classrooms, to obtain the new textbooks. They lied to other board members, the general public and committed perjury in open court.

It is you who is muddying up the discussion, and missing the real issue. To wit: the salient questions of this thread:


Thank you! Someone here finally admits that ID is all about God. By the way, this court case was all about certain board members trying to force their brand of religion on school system, as well. I urge you to read the full transcripts, and decision.

The question before the court was, is ID science, rather than religious in nature. And if it is religious, should it be taught in a strictly science class, with no supporting documentation? The correct answer, of course, is absolutely not. And the judge came to this conclusion rather easily, in this case.

You'll notice that I have not made this argument, Passion. Not once. As I have noted often here on this forum, I am religious myself, but even I can see that ID is not verifiable science. Not even close. Therefore, it should not be taught in a science classroom. If you want to have a comparative religions class, or a class that deals with the philosophical nature of creation, knock yourself out. But don't claim that creationism or ID is science, because it's not.

Why bother with a Constitution or Supreme Court at all then? We'll just appoint the Pope, or Jerry Fallwell or Pat Robertson the supreme ruler of the US. Then they can all tell us what to believe, and how to believe. We'll just get rid of that blasphemous thing called science in school. You know that small, insignificant bit of study that has given us computers, space travel, the cures for diseases, and all the rest. Would that be okay with you?

That's a really nice quote, Passion. Too bad it has nothing to do with what we are talking about, which is - Is creationism, or ID, if you prefer, real science, to be taught in a science classroom. Dr Denton's conclusions to the contrary, there is still no proof of ID as a qualified science.

Are there parts of evolutionary theory that science cannot explain right now? Certainly. Merely pointing out that there are problems at the present does not automatically mean that the only other explanation is ID. Not by a long shot. We are less than one hundred years into the really serious study of some of the sciences, biology among them, because up until fairly recently in history, we didn't have the tools to properly research these things, or even know what we would need to properly research them.

Yet, in that short time, we've come a remarkable distance, from being able to see bacteria and such, proving that it was "invisible organisms" that caused disease and spoiled food, to mapping the human genome. So, are there gaps in the knowledge? Sure. Does that mean we'll never know? Not necessarily.


I wasn't aware that keeping a non-science explanation for how we got here out of a science class did that. And, once again, that's the point, here Passion. And by the way, the only people in this whole mess I saw trying to drive a wedge anywhere, were the school board members who were intent on forcing their own brand of religion into the science classroom, using the wedge of "the contoversy of ID and evolution" to get their foot in the door. And they cheated and lied to do it.

Take humanity a few thousand years ago compared to what modern humanity knows and I am sure most everything we do is on some level that would be irreducible complex to humans of the past, heck even the steam engine just dropped off to ancient Rome would qualify I imagine.

I mean lets look at the sentence from a human factor point of view, its basically a statement that states favor for support of ID in the lack of fact, nothing more or less, that’s it reduced.

All one has to do is go to the tree of life website. Its a collaborative website made public by scientists to show the current understanding of evolutionary development of organisms as we currently know or understand it. It provides all the information one needs in order to learn why and how science is able to make the claims it does about evolution, which are of course all built around fact. I am sure in the category of slugs that some gaps exist, or that in general many gaps exist, it all use to be one big gap until people started looking, mainly thanks to Darwin.

Genetics and chemistry was put to use really in terms of proof for evolution. Its the prime reason why evolution is still around. IF there were no evidence genetically or biochemically speaking, or at some slow rate life did not mutate or evolve or adapt, evolution as its held by science would not exist. The simple point that’s so hard to grasp by many is science has learned otherwise, at that at great amounts factual support for evolution exists, yes, its even supported by the existence of our star or the sun.

I have read where people supporting ID have tried to do something scientific, basically trying to prove that the earth is not that old by debunking natural phenomena that takes millions of years to occur. These same people basically got in trouble by doing an experiment over and over until they got the reaction they wanted, then presented such to the world as proof, or basically the manufactured something false to support basically a religion.

I get sick of this stuff simply because I choose to follow fact, not emotion or some form of animism. This is the crux of the whole issue. Religious people are ultimately blinded by there psychological attachment to whatever religion they choose to support. I mean if I was coming from some angle that evolution did not exist, and all was the product of Odin, and I love the thunder because it means i am closer to Thor, many people might look at me a bit silly, even Christians. Many of the earths older religion in relation to humans are simple labeled at looked at as mythology, I feel the same is basically true for modern religions. The are explanations of issues in the absence of fact, or in the purest sense a vacuum of such.

Many people that need religion I feel do need it, psychologically, and feel that everyone else must share in that feeling, or that they will be wrong or miserable. To be perfectly honest I did not grow up in a religious home. I did not even know religion was as large as it was until i was about nineteen. I can say I did lose a lot of faith in people when I learned how big it was...

The prime motivation of ID has nothing to do with science and everything to deal with non science. ID is the product of religious types that would like to spread the idea or influence of religion. It will never require proof and never has, or never will really. ID I laugh at sometimes because I feel its almost like Christians or other religious types coming out of the closet on evolution, but not all the way, still needing that ultimate religious figure there. I would not mind at all if a religion was correct, live your life a certain way, then go to the happy place forever when you die on the material plane, aka reality.

That’s what’s being sold to small kids basically, or why some have trouble grasping at things that seems to counter it, I would probably want to reject such a notion too if I was a young animal

The simple point that gets lost in the whole debate is about the facts that surround evolution and why it is accepted as largely as it is and really in science truly. How do you debate fossils or any of the other proof we have to support evolution, its not like we are debating gun laws in the U.S, science really does give us the objective, thus my support for the natural law party.

Its right there in the open for anyone that wants to go and look. I mean do you truly think that all of science is some collective group of liars, its the largest hoax pulled by humanity to date then.

So you can make your choice, and say because we do not know it all yet, that is proof of ID and such should be taught to children in public school. I say public school should just stick to objective fact, which anyone with interest after learning about evolution in public school is free to research, and let that which is subjective stay at home or in private centers of education. After all, I mean ID really only supports genesis and Christian perspective being its those same people that made ID in the first place.

If anything science and being agnostic in regards to my personal being are just reflections of my only really caring about truth. I do not care to live a lie, no matter how good they say it will make you feel, its like taking a pill really, or doping yourself. If anyone driving a wedge in society its religious people, like always. I think currently its why America is at war too. If you want ID in the classroom, it should then be taught by magicians, it would be cool and I am sure more kids would like school then anyways.

It is adequately proven to me and maybe to you. But when I speak of scientism, I'm speaking of the mindset of people who accept the theory of evolution, not because they have made any examination of the preponderance of evidence that supports it, but because they have been told that it is what is believed by "well-educated people" or by "credible scientists".

Good Science isn't a religion. On that we are agreed. Good science is unbiased. But scientists are always biased, and good scientists try to keep their minds open, and remain vigilant about their own biases.
If you want to convince a flat-earther that the world is round, you may have to meet him half way. By sincerely considering the notion that he could be right and giving him the opportunity to convince you of his point of view. Simply stating to him that "only ignorant people believe the world to be flat" is not likely to convert him. Most likely he will wind up drawing a conclusion regarding your inability to think rationally.

So what's the difference between science and scientism?

A good scientist would say.
Look at those ships sailing over the horizon through this telescope.
Look at the shadow of the Earth cast upon the moon during a lunar eclipse.
Look at the photos taken by astronauts or at the curvature of the Earth, the next time you are very high on an airplane.
These observations persuade me that the world is round.
Why do you believe the Earth to be flat?


I practitioner of scientism would say.
Every well-educated person knows that the world is round. It is an established scientific fact and only a delusional person would say otherwise. Any other theory is contrary to the previously drawn conclusions of the scientific community. We shall not entertain any alternative theories as to the shape of the earth