Is Id Science?

[PhysicsGuy]

I've never seen that definition of science personally. Science, basically, is the study/analysis of things based on objective evidence, reason and idealy experimentation. It's only a means of arriving at truth. Your defintion would eliminate aspects of mathematics and forenzics. IDers use the same methodology as any scientist to examine things like the flagellum. The way in which they differ is that they attempt to define what an intelligent being can do that is unique and that no other mechanism can produce. They then apply what they think they know about intelligent design and apply that knowledge to biology. The inference is based on observation of things in the real world and is testable to a degree. The conclusion is that the TYPE of thing that produces irreducible complexity was present prior to human beings, due to the fact that the flagellum is irreducibly complex. Since the ONLY type of thing capable of doing that is intelligent being(s), based on observations and based on what is known about Darwinism/nature/physics, then intelligent being(s) at least appear to be responsible for the flagellum and other irreducibly complex mechanisms in biology.

I still think it is a fair definition. Everything I can think of that would be included in the body of Science could be classified as effecting something in the natural world (Mathematics is often not classified in the same group as science, but as a tool used by science). I can't say that I'm intimately acquainted with forensics, but I think forensics could easily be satisfied by the definition I have given above.

The way I understand ID would clearly classify it as metaphysics. That is under the umbrella of philosophy, not what we would call science, although they are very closely related in that they both seek after truth (as you have said) and they both use logic and reason (as you have said).

[Mordecai]

I still think it is a fair definition. Everything I can think of that would be included in the body of Science could be classified as effecting something in the natural world (Mathematics is often not classified in the same group as science, but as a tool used by science). I can't say that I'm intimately acquainted with forensics, but I think forensics could easily be satisfied by the definition I have given above.

The way I understand ID would clearly classify it as metaphysics. That is under the umbrella of philosophy, not what we would call science, although they are very closely related in that they both seek after truth (as you have said) and they both use logic and reason (as you have said).

ID is not metaphysics and makes no mention of God or spirits or anything not observable in the physical world. It only infers that because of what we observe about intelligent beings in the observable, physical world, and what we observe about biology, we then can infer from these observations and analysis that the type of thing that produces irreducible complexity/specified complexity is responsible for some things in biology. No mention of God, angels, religion, etc. It has strong religious implications, however. Darwinism has strong religious implications as well. Statistics can confirm that certain observations of a combuination of pattern recognition and level of complexity/improbability is a strong indicator of intelligence at work. Statistics can also help eliminate or reduce the possibility that natural processes are responsible for irreducible complexity as well as the science of biology as a whole. Furthermore, biologists can use traditional science to confirm or affirm ID's claims to a good degree. Granted, the hypothesis that an intelligent being is responsible for some things found in life is only a scientific hypothesis and not one that easily testable, but the same is true of claiming that Darwinism is The Answer.

[Mordecai]

We assert that creature type X was respun (or whatever the appropaite word would be) into creature type Y. We believe this because of Z. We predict that no so-called transitional fossils will ever be found between creature type X and creature type Y. And here is a full description of what we consider to be a transitional fossil...

IDers have predicted that the fossil record will not illstrate Darwinism at work for the flagellar bacteria. Even if someone could design a Darwinian path for the development of the flagellum would strike a serious blow to the thery (in my view, it's clear by looking at it and looking at the debate, this will never happen). Or at least that there won't be gradual changes. It's possible (although current evidence suggests otherwise), that a bacterium with a type 2 secretory system could precede the flagellum. But then again, the number of steps between that and the complete flagellum that are not beneficial tell the story, in Behe's view, even if the type 2 secretory system preceded the flagellum. Finding multiple transitional forms to the flagellum that actually function at each level would absolutely destroy Behe's theory, obviously. In my mind, it's so clear that the flagellum is irreducibly complex, and so implausible to claim it developed through a circuitous route, this will never happen.

I think most advanced IDers (like Behe) do not oppose common descent. The evidence (especially the genetic evidence from the last decade of genome sequencing) is pretty overwhelming. I think Mordecai has told me he accepts common descent.

I also think they accept natural selection in many cases. What's important to them are a few cases where Darwinism doesn't seem to be possible. Even if it comes down to just one case, like a flagellum, that's enough of a platform to argue for ID.

Uncommon Dissent puts forth multiple attacks on Darwinism. If it were just one thing, there wouldn't be a movement... or at least, I wouldn't be onboard with it.

[Mordecai]

I think most advanced IDers (like Behe) do not oppose common descent. The evidence (especially the genetic evidence from the last decade of genome sequencing) is pretty overwhelming. I think Mordecai has told me he accepts common descent.

I also think they accept natural selection in many cases. What's important to them are a few cases where Darwinism doesn't seem to be possible. Even if it comes down to just one case, like a flagellum, that's enough of a platform to argue for ID.

Meyer says that IDers do accept common descent to some degree or another, although there are exceptions where some of them believe there are actual gaps. The first modern birds, bats and maybe hominids, for example, all are missing transitional forms. The first bats were nearly identical to modern bats, for example. No transitional forms found at all. (Hominids in the fossil record appear to predate apes, although this hasn't been acknowledged as it is only "due to missing evidence"... they assume older apes will be discovered. As far as I know, there are no transitional forms found between any lemur-like creatures and the first hominids.)

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

IDers have predicted that the fossil record will not illstrate Darwinism at work for the flagellar bacteria.

Thats a pretty convinient statement isnt it.

The evolution processes of flagellar organisms are going to be the furthest back in time to inspect.

Also, fossils for huge, multi-celled organisms can be hard enough to come by sometimes, let alone the kind of overwhelming, undeniable mountain of scantily-avaliable single-celled fossil evidence it would take to convince the likes of someone like yourself that the issue was finally settled.

So when you say that evidence will NEVER be found, what that really seems to equate to is I probably can buy myself a minimum amount of time by making such a claim, since its currently one of the toughest problems to crack, regardless of the actual truth of the matter....

If your stating that if a perfectly acceptable path for the evolution of the flagellar is either proposed or demonstrated .via evidence, then that means that ID is falsified (are you actually saying that?), then youd at least be taking this somewhat seriously.

...however, if your only going to make that particular one falsifiable claim - in one of the hardest areas for evoltionary science to currently inspect, when it obvious that you beleive the I.D. would / could have intervened at all kinds of other times - and yet you will not state any of THEM as falsifiable facts, then this whole excersise smells of just buying more time...

Oh - and looking at papers like this:

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/flag.pdf

I find plenty of reason to belevie that one of the last real hiding-places for your I.D. wont actually last as long as you hope it will.

Finding multiple transitional forms to the flagellum that actually function at each level would absolutely destroy Behes theory, obviously

Will only destroy the idea that the flagellum couldnt have evolved, so that you can freely move on to another gap?

...or it will falsify ID?

And that question is important. It would demonstrate whether ID is even trying to take itself seriously as anything other than anti-Natural Selection science.

Even if someone could design a Darwinian path for the development of the flagellum would strike a serious blow to the thery (in my view, its clear by looking at it and looking at the debate, this will never happen).

Is you doubt this will ever happen the same as I assert that the I.D. created the flagellum? If so, why cant IDers ever just say that, state it as a falsifiable fact, and then nail their true colours to the scrutiny of falsifiability?

What about the time when the eye was one of the biggest examples of Irreducable Complexity proposed?! What if IDers had said not just that they consider that the eye is Irreducably Complex, but had - again - stated unequivacebly and unambiguously that the I.D. was definetly involved in the development in the eye. Most probably at this stage and this stage and this stage. Heck, I wouldnt have minded if you had only said only probably at those specific stages. Saying that the eye definately did NOT evolve .via natural selection would show that you are willing to make a falsifiable statement. And then being willing to make at least some effort to specify exactly where the I.D. got involved in the development of the eye would show that you are willing to make educated predictions that - again - could be checked to see if they match up to future evidence.

I know perfectly well that the eye is not Irreducably Complex. Perfectly well. I didnt jump to that conclusion. Its taken me a lot longer to reach that conclusion that it would the more serious biologists Im sure. But I am perfectly confident in my apprasial that the eye is NOT an irreducably complex structure - under ANY definition of that term that I know of.

So, I want to know if you are willing to defend the eye as Irreducably Complex.

If you are, Ill be interested to hear your arguments.

If not, then its convinient that no IDer ever made the unambigous statement that the development of part or system X was definetly reliant upon the intervention of the unspecified I.D isnt it!

They seem to think its good enough to just make a lot of noise about any given system or part, and then convinvently move the main brunt of the attack onto another structure whenever they like.

Evolution always has to explain everything, and ID has to explain nothing. Well, that makes sense I suppose. Evolution is science and ID (as yet) isnt.

Instead of finding ANY ground that you are in fact willing to take an unwavering stand on, the idea of ID appears to be quite happy to just move the defenses back. Constantly. Ill give you that you ARE - probably - stimulating debate over evolution. To a certain extent. And thats quite admirable in a way. But if you think that if anything ID is currently doing is anything that moves towards proving the intervetion of an I.D. in the development of life on this planet, then Im afraid you are mistaken. You can make all the loud, brash statements you like. About how evolution is in serious trouble. About how scientists only still beleive it because of group-think and athiestic bias.

But unfortunately, you cant fool me. Because I know how science works...

(Hominids in the fossil record appear to predate apes, although this hasnt been acknowledged as it is only due to missing evidence... they assume older apes will be discovered. As far as I know, there are no transitional forms found between any lemur-like creatures and the first hominids.)

And here is - yet again - another chance for you to make a definitive statement, instead of just saying They havent found this evidence yet.

Make the statement that humanoids DID NOT evolve from other creatres. Can you actually state that as a falsifiable fact? And if not, why not?

Actually, I really cant see why you would want to make that claim. The biggest weapon you seem to have in your arsenal is IC (which conviniently happens to be one of the most debatable, subjective qualifications that I know of. Heck, even the people who disagreed on the Big Bang theory didnt need to debate for years on end what a true doppler shift was!).

So tell me - what new structure, or function, or part was added to humanoids from its closest idnetifiable ancestor? That could possibly be IC? Can you identify even one thing? If not, why would you think that the I.D. got involved there? What possible reason do you have to think that? Why do you think that plain old mundane Natural Selection couldnt have done the job?

...when are you going to start making predictions, rather than banging on about gaps in the fossil record? You dont need any brains, qualifications, or any other kind of smarts to realise that not only are there still gaps in the fossil record, but that there will always be gaps in the fossil record to some extent.

But evolution makes the claim that you shouldnt pick out any one gap and say This gap will NEVER be filled, because - in the long run - you may well be proved wrong when the appropiate piece of evidence is found. And this has been shown time and time again.

ID is practically identical to the overall ToE anyway! And the only thing you CAN do that could conclusively distinguish yourselves from it (i.e. predict gaps where no evidence will ever be filled), you blankly refuse to do...! You accept the basis of evoltion. You accept Common Descent. And you accept that Natural Selection had a major part to play in the development of life. You just think there were some nudges along the way, the exact proportion of which you wont specify, nor will you tie any of them down in a falsifiable manner...

You seem to be sticking your neck out to some extent with the flagellum, but you havent specified whether it would falsify ID. Neither have you specified whether I should consider this to be the standard ID position. (And not just your personal stance) And - most importantly - you havent specified why this is the only I.D. intervention you seem even close to betting the farm on.

It wouldnt be that its just the most fashionable gap in evolutionary knowledge you could find at this point in time would it?! No - surely not...!

[Mighty Curelom]

Meyer says that IDers do accept common dissent to some degree or another, although there are exceptions where some of them believe there are actual gaps. The first modern birds, bats and maybe hominids, for example, all are missing transitional forms. The first bats were nearly identical to modern bats, for example. No transitional forms found at all. (Hominids in the fossil record appear to predate apes, although this hasn't been acknowledged as it is only "due to missing evidence"... they assume older apes will be discovered. As far as I know, there are no transitional forms found between any lemur-like creatures and the first hominids.)

No transitional forms at all for bats. Which means...what? The obvious implication you're making without coming right out and saying it is that the first bats were created whole. Your assertion about hominid fossils predating ape fossils doesn't even make sense, since early hominids were apes, but if we were in a parallel universe in which it did make sense and was true, the implication would again be that humans were created whole. Now, tell me again why ID isn't creationism?

[Mordecai]

No transitional forms at all for bats. Which means...what? The obvious implication you're making without coming right out and saying it is that the first bats were created whole. Your assertion about hominid fossils predating ape fossils doesn't even make sense, since early hominids were apes, but if we were in a parallel universe in which it did make sense and was true, the implication would again be that humans were created whole. Now, tell me again why ID isn't creationism?

Early hominids were apes? Uh... why were they called hominids then? "Lucy" is only an upright ape, according to paleontological standards. Anyway, I'm not implying anything. I'm merely stating that there is no transitional form (that has been found at least). There might be one found eventually. But if not, I won't shed any tears. If there was no transition, then God must've done some serious genetic engineering. I believe in common descent. However, I don't know what role God plays, exactly, except that He is the "creator" whatever is meant by that. That there are no known transitional forms for some creatures suggests that perhaps God didn't always create things as gradually as He did others. And since when does a statement of absolute, incrontrovertible fact prove what ID is? Do you redefine words every time we hear a fact? Maybe if Barack Obama says, "I'm a Muslim," that proves all Democrats are Muslims. Some IDers do believe there were not transitions from one animal to some other animals. Some don't. The factual information I provided does nothing to define ID one way or another. In itself, it is not the claim that "God did it." It is the claim that there is objective evidence suggesting intelligence was at work in forming life.

[Mordecai]

Thats a pretty convinient statement isnt it.

The evolution processes of flagellar organisms are going to be the furthest back in time to inspect.

Also, fossils for huge, multi-celled organisms can be hard enough to come by sometimes, let alone the kind of overwhelming, undeniable mountain of scantily-avaliable single-celled fossil evidence it would take to convince the likes of someone like yourself that the issue was finally settled.

So when you say that evidence will NEVER be found, what that really seems to equate to is I probably can buy myself a minimum amount of time by making such a claim, since its currently one of the toughest problems to crack, regardless of the actual truth of the matter....

If your stating that if a perfectly acceptable path for the evolution of the flagellar is either proposed or demonstrated .via evidence, then that means that ID is falsified (are you actually saying that?), then youd at least be taking this somewhat seriously.

...however, if your only going to make that particular one falsifiable claim - in one of the hardest areas for evoltionary science to currently inspect, when it obvious that you beleive the I.D. would / could have intervened at all kinds of other times - and yet you will not state any of THEM as falsifiable facts, then this whole excersise smells of just buying more time...

That's absolutely not true. In fact, the flagllum is so complex, it should take tens or hundreds of millions of years to develop, if Darwinism produced it, at least. For Darwinism to produce it, it would have to be by way of a circuitous route, which would take MUCH longer. Thus, the prediction that we won't find any transitional forms that would illustrate Darwinism at work is a bold one (except that it came so late, long after much investigation of the fossil record). Darwin himself predicated that there should be multiple transitional animals in the fossil record and suggested that maybe the strata had melted together, hiding the evidence that he was right. They hadn't thought of a "punctuated equilibrium" hypothesis yet (that's about the only Darwinist book I'm interested in reading, honestly. At least it addresses a difficult problem instead of focusing on genes only and what they do.

...or it will falsify ID?

Illustrating that the flagellum is not irreducibly complex or that it evolved by way of a circuitous route will destroy ALL arguments about irreducible complexity. Because if Darwinism produced the flagellum it can pretty much produce anything. IDers have said it would very strongly damage their hypothesis. They'd fall back on, "Where did the genome come from, as Darwinism has never proven to produce increases in functional complexity and intelligence has." At that point, though, people won't take them seriously, in my view. I will not be a supporter of ID if that happens.

Is you doubt this will ever happen the same as I assert that the I.D. created the flagellum?

I don't just doubt it. I'm certain of it. And I do assert that ID is responsible for the flagellum.

If so, why cant IDers ever just say that, state it as a falsifiable fact, and then nail their true colours to the scrutiny of falsifiability?

They do say that. They've said it repeatedly.

What about the time when the eye was one of the biggest examples of Irreducable Complexity proposed?!

The eye is too complex to determine if it could have occured through Darwinism or not. That many parts are useful in themselves proves nothing one way or another. The evolutionary pathway that was followed may or may not have been Darwinism. To prove that it was, one would have to prove so many things, it's beyond imagination. That's why the flagellum is where the debate should be held. It's relatively simple and easy to study and understand. They eye only appears on a superficial level to be reducible. It may or not be, considering the complexity of proteins, the molecular machines that produce protiens, the genes to produce those and the number and comlpexity of the proteins and yada yada... Reading about just how complex the eye is, is truly mind-boggling. Everything said about the eye's evolution is 95% based on speculation. Darwinists will present all they know (which is substantial), but ultimately, they won't know in our lifetimes enough to prove Darwinism is a viable way to produce the eye. We just can't go back and time to check. See The Dude's and my discussion on the Cambrian explosion. Yes, there is an evolutionary path there. The important question is, though, how did such a versatile and consolidated evolutionary path get there? Does Darwinism do that? No one can prove it can produce ANY increases in functional information, much less information that is ready-made to change easily toward a more advanced form. As The Dude, pointed out, their hypothesis is that a genome can double itself and a life form can have twice the genetic information it needs. I don't see how this would be functional or how it would turn into more functional information, but I also am certain that they don't know if it really would work. Thus, we see that the Darwinists are dependent on scientific hypotheses like Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium and this other idea of a doubling-up of a genome, in order to explain how the diversity of species developed.

I know perfectly well that the eye is not Irreducably Complex. Perfectly well. I didnt jump to that conclusion. Its taken me a lot longer to reach that conclusion that it would the more serious biologists Im sure. But I am perfectly confident in my apprasial that the eye is NOT an irreducably complex structure - under ANY definition of that term that I know of.

It's reducible on a gross scale. Many parts of it appear to be largely useful in themselves. Then again, many steps in its evolution (or creation?) may not have had any selective value at all. So in that sense, it may have characteristics of irreducible complexity, although it hasn't been analyzed enough to know one way or another. You only think you know that it's not irreducibly complex.

So, I want to know if you are willing to defend the eye as Irreducably Complex.

Even if it isn't, that's not even relevant. We all know that intelligent beings can produce things with many parts that are useful in themselves. As I said, the flagellum is different. So much is known about it, it is true positive evidence. Science only can prove that a small percentage of what is needed to produce a Darwinian evolutionary path is present in the flagellum. If you go to Behe and let him explain his point, instead of reading Darwinists avoid all the important points Behe makes, you will see what I mean. Their responses are all accounted for. Darwinists sent their evidence to the N.Y. Times, after which The Discovery Institute did as well. The N.Y. Times made no proclamation of victory for the Darwinists after looking at both sides. What Darwinists have found is the evolutionary path for the type 2 secretory system. #1. That's just one part. #2. The secretory system appears to have come AFTER the flagellum. This is most of what Darwinists have to brag about. The secretory system as part of the flagellum. If it came AFTER the flagellum, as evidence suggests, Darwinists are essentially back to square one.

But unfortunately, you cant fool me. Because I know how science works...

You know how it should work. But when group-think is involved and when everyone is basing their work on people that came before them who weren't thinking clearly, then everyone is supporting everyone else's delusion. It happened in physics with string theory... for a while. The difference is, physics is a hard science. Darwinism, with regard to the origin of species, is not a hard science. It's mostly based on interpretation of evidence.

And here is - yet again - another chance for you to make a definitive statement, instead of just saying They havent found this evidence yet.

I did make a definitive statement. However, I don't beleive that the evidence is definitive. You can't prove a negative. No one knows if any transitional form will be found or not. If it's not, that's not proof of anything. We stll won't know if there was a transition or not. Lack of evidence is not proof against. No one knows if there was a transition. I'm not going to say there wasn't one. I'm only saying that the evidence appears to suggest that maybe there wasn't.

Make the statement that humanoids DID NOT evolve from other creatres. Can you actually state that as a falsifiable fact? And if not, why not?

But I don't know if they did or didn't. Why would I make any claim about that?

Actually, I really cant see why you would want to make that claim. The biggest weapon you seem to have in your arsenal is IC (which conviniently happens to be one of the most debatable, subjective qualifications that I know of.

It's not remotely subjective. Any one part can be removed and the whole thing is useless. That's subjective?

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Thus, the prediction that we wont find any transitional forms that would illustrate Darwinism at work is a bold one

Who made such a claim? Certainly wasnt me.

I stated that its harder to find fossil evidence for ancient tiny, single-celled organisms than it is for huge, relatively-recently-living multi-celled organisms. Im not using it as exuse as to why no evidence will ever be found. I didnt say I thought youd never be proved wrong, I accused you of buying time. And I still think you are. Im saying that it makes the flagellum the most convinient structure to bet the farm on right now. When there could be thousands or millions of other interventions in the history of the development of life (I have to guess, because you wont give me any estimate whatsoever) that you wont bet the farm on. And that - frankly - stinks to high heaven. Its a clear indication that your real interest is not - in fact - to advocate the most thorough science possible.

It should be obvious - with all the current evidence - that humans evolved from ape-like creatures via Natural Selection, with NO need of any external help. The small remaining gaps are no exuse to deny the clear evidence that indicates this - and Im saying that in the direct scientific sense. The theory made the prediction, and the evidence has followed the prediction consistently. Thats what allows you to interpolate between any remaining gaps with confidence. Thats how science works. Yet you STILL dont appear willing to conceed the point! If you wont conceed in this case, what kind of evidence is going to have to be produced to convince you of the evolution of the flagellum?!

...can an irresitable force move an unmoveable object?!

You spent a hell of a lot of time in previous posts trying to convince me that we never know the full story - with any scientific theory. That you always have to rely on analysis and analogy to some extent. Do you remember saying that? But apparently, evolution is the one theory in the history of science where this is not acceptable, even though it holds itself to the scientific method which CAN legitatamtely allow it (scientifically) to extrapolate and interpolate from current evidence...

Namely, it makes predictions and can be falsified. Not just in one, singular, isolated case - in ALL cases. It has done this since its beginning.

You would like evolution to keel over and die over IC claims, and yet we have just had a wishy-washy the eye may, or may not be IC speech in your last post. This is the benefit of having the most flaky falsification mechanism thats probably ever been proposed in the history of science...! And this is why no-ones going to be falsifing your idea of ID anytime soon. If you want to beleive it, youll be believing it for quite some time, regardless of any evidence that will be found...

The eye is too complex to determine if it could have occured through Darwinism or not.

This comment is fascinating.

The whole point of IC is that it points out structures too complex to have been created by Darwinism, and yet you say that the eye is too complex to determine if it could have occoured through Darwinism or not!

So the way you can tell non-Darwinian structures is to look at their complexity, and yet this structure is too complex for you to tell?! Huh? How does that work?

So yesterday its: The eye is IC and the flagellum is IC

Today its: The flagellum is IC. The eye? Hard to tell - too complex!

Tomorrow its: The eye? Still quite hard to tell. The flagellum? Well guys, you know the story ... too complex to tell!

This kind of effect is commonly known as a closed-feedback loop...

Darwin himself predicated that there should be multiple transitional animals in the fossil record and suggested that maybe the strata had melted together, hiding the evidence that he was right.

Right. So you read that Darwin made a guess about melted strata, and that gives you reason to ignore the fact that he made a prediction, and it has always matched all future evidence ever since he made it?!

One of the most hilarious things you will ever see in relation to science is watching a creationist trying to discredit a new, clear transitional fossil.

Illustrating that the flagellum is not irreducibly complex or that it evolved by way of a circuitous route will destroy ALL arguments about irreducible complexity.

Id really like to see an equivalent statement from an ID authority. If you can provide one, Id be grateful. And I mean specifically in regard to the flagellum.

Theyd fall back on, Where did the genome come from, as Darwinism has never proven to produce increases in functional complexity and intelligence has. At that point, though, people wont take them seriously, in my view. I will not be a supporter of ID if that happens.

Ahh - now this becomes a bit more clear. So Im not sure your ever going to be able to provide me with the quote from an ID authority figure of the nature Im asking for. What your essentially saying is that you will only follow ID so far.

Thats definelty a plus point for you individually. It doesnt say that much about the ID movement overall though.

Post split to get comments working...

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

...second part.

To prove that it was, one would have to prove so many things, its beyond imagination.

Or in other words all the gaps would have to be filled!. Ignore the fact that every single bit of new evidence falls completely in line with the tree of life predicted by Natural Selection decades ago! Forget all that, and just concentrate on all those lovely gaps to exploit!

You are trying to treat the ToE to a different standard than any other scientific theory in history!

See The Dudes and my discussion on the Cambrian explosion. Yes, there is an evolutionary path there. The important question is, though, how did such a versatile and consolidated evolutionary path get there? Does Darwinism do that?

Well, there could be another explination. But if ID isnt willing to predict anything past the flagellum, hard to see what revlance ID has. Therefore, evolution is the only scientific explination we have. And its a damn good one.

I dont beleive Darwin ever said that the increase in lifes diversity would be constant. In fact, didnt he specificallty say that its entirely probable that its not a set rate of increase? you might wanna double-check on that one...

No one can prove it can produce ANY increases in functional information

It becomes increasing clear that you have a skewed, non-scientific idea of proof. You are holding the ToE to a different standard to every other scientific theory that has ever existed.

So no, it will probably never be proved. To you that is... You really do need to read a bit of Karl Popper...

As The Dude, pointed out, their hypothesis is that a genome can double itself and a life form can have twice the genetic information it needs.

Do you know the difference between a hypothesis born from analogy, and interpolation from a theory with a proven track record?

Just so its clear, there is a massive difference. Its the difference that distinguishes science.

Its reducible on a gross scale. Many parts of it appear to be largely useful in themselves. Then again, many steps in its evolution (or creation?) may not have had any selective value at all. So in that sense, it may have characteristics of irreducible complexity, although it hasnt been analyzed enough to know one way or another. You only think you know that its not irreducibly complex.

And here is the crux of the matter - IC is not objectively discernable. Its a nice critique to get you thinking, but ultimately it fails as a falsification mechanism.

Even if it isnt, thats not even relevant.

More proof of my above point. In 5-10 years (perhaps even less), people will almost certainly be making the same statements about the flagellum. I certainly hope you wont be one of them, given the stance yove taken on it.

What Darwinists have found is the evolutionary path for the type 2 secretory system. #1. Thats just one part. #2. The secretory system appears to have come AFTER the flagellum. This is most of what Darwinists have to brag about. The secretory system as part of the flagellum. If it came AFTER the flagellum, as evidence suggests, Darwinists are essentially back to square one.

You appear to be implying that Darwinists think the issue of the flagellum is done and dusted. And I know full well this isnt true. It was one of the first admissions in the report I linked you to in my last post.

However, I dont beleive that the evidence is definitive. You cant prove a negative.

Exactly!! You know the only way you can prove anything?! To make predictions that can be falsified. And when I say falsified, I mean actually capable of being falsified. Not swatted away with too complex - cant possibly tell!

Thats why Natural Selection is actually a theory. And ID isnt.

I already made a prediction. There will never be transitional forms found to explain a Darwinian evolutionary path for the flagellum.

What happenned to the reasonable explination you mentioned in your last similar statement?!

Punctuated Equilibrium is a scientific hypothesis that is unproven.

Again, you mistake extrapolation from a solid theory for a meer hypothesis - to be considered on the same level as Abiogeneisis or String Theory.

I dont know what role God played.

I think that should be the new ID slogan.

ID: Telling you what we DONT know about Gods role in creation since the 90s

The most intelligent being, who lives outside of time would be a minimalist by nature. Why do a lot, when one can do a tiny thing and, being outside of time, instantaneously produces the desired results.

Of course, this is based on a large gap of evidence for Darwinism and my belief in the scriptures.

You do realise the irony of the two above claims right?

...that:

1. God may work as a minimalist, making tiny adjustments... and

2. Saying that - as far as your concerned - there are large gaps in Darwinism..?

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

However, I dont know what role God plays, exactly, except that He is the creator whatever is meant by that. That there are no known transitional forms for some creatures suggests that perhaps God didnt always create things as gradually as He did others...

...The factual information I provided does nothing to define ID one way or another. In itself, it is not the claim that God did it It is the claim that there is objective evidence suggesting intelligence was at work in forming life.

Mordecai, the title of this thread is Is ID science?.

If the above is - in fact - an admission that (certainly right now) ID doesnt really count as science, then lets pack up and go home.

Because thats all Im trying to determine here. And I can see us running in circles for quite a while yet if you really wanted to...

I accept that ID - while not science now - could become legitamte science in the future. Potentially. If IDers took a differnent approach and started making serious steps to take the hypothesis forward. There is no way I can possibly know that it couldnt.

In exactly the same way, while Abiogenesis is not science now, it could become legitamte science in the future. (Although it IS closer then ID right now, because its making far more solid, specific predictions that - while they cant be falsified now, could be definitively falsified in the future.)

I dont consider a scientific hypthesis actual current science. Its more potential science. Could be science in the future. Its like calling a boy a young man. But that doesnt mean he is a man. Only that he may become so one day...

[Mordecai]

Im saying that it makes the flagellum the most convinient structure to bet the farm on right now.

It has to be on the microscopic level, because those mechanisms are simple simple enough for scientists to get a thorough understanding of it. As far as your complaint that the eye is too complex, that's absolutely true. It's not relevant until biology advances to the point that it can properly identify an incremental pathway of slightly beneficial mutations that are reasonably likely for the given timeframe. This is especially true, since eyes developed independently of one another in the various phyla but have identical controlling genes... hmmm.

When there could be thousands or millions of other interventions in the history of the development of life (I have to guess, because you wont give me any estimate whatsoever) that you wont bet the farm on. And that - frankly - stinks to high heaven. Its a clear indication that your real interest is not - in fact - to advocate the most thorough science possible.

It stinks to high heaven that ID proponents won't advance a completely baseless theory? Darwinists would love that. It's a theory about intelligent design. Only knowing the designer well would allow for a complete theory on what a designer would do exactly. To make preditions based on NO scientific evidence whatsoever would make IDers exactly what Darwinists say they are: a bunch of creationists posing as scientists.

It should be obvious - with all the current evidence - that humans evolved from ape-like creatures via Natural Selection, with NO need of any external help.

Actually, far from it. That's no more obvious than what the transitional form of a bat will look like, what precursored that and whether or not there even is one. You're saying this based on scientific MYTH. LUCY is just an upright ape. She is not a transitional form. Being an upright ape doesn't prove anything. She was an ape in every other respect. Why wouldn't apes evolve from hominids? Apes are very evolved creatures compared to humans, aside from their brains. They're very specialized. Doesn't it make sense that apes evolved from early hominids? Just as likely, in my view, as hominids evolving from apes.

The small remaining gaps are no exuse to deny the clear evidence that indicates this - and Im saying that in the direct scientific sense. The theory made the prediction, and the evidence has followed the prediction consistently.

Not as far as macroevolution goes. There is a dearth of proper explanation. A theory explains MANY phenomenon. This is true with neo-Darwinism as far as simple breeding and natural selection go. The origin of species, however, is an entirely different matter.

Thats how science works. Yet you STILL dont appear willing to conceed the point! If you wont conceed in this case, what kind of evidence is going to have to be produced to convince you of the evolution of the flagellum?!

Hello? Darwin predicted his theory would fall apart if an irreducibly complex structure were discovered. Why can't scientists discover a transitional form? And why is it that each of many parts is useless in itself? Hmmm... Darwinism doesn't produce useless parts. Random mutations do. And Darwinism DEFINITELY doesn't produce several useless parts. Darwinism also wouldn't piece those parts together to work as a unit, completely with the instincts and energy source to make it run. The idea that Darwinism produced the flagellum seems completely proposterous to me. Probably because I understand the theory better than you. I understand why Darwin was so convincing to his peers. Today, it's easy to convince people, because "everyone is doing it."

But apparently, evolution is the one theory in the history of science where this is not acceptable, even though it holds itself to the scientific method which CAN legitatamtely allow it (scientifically) to extrapolate and interpolate from current evidence...

The strength of Darwinism is that it is observable on the biochemical level. And by analogy, one can surmize that the same was true for macroevolution. However, thus far, I consider this a scientific hypothesis and not a theory. A theory, as I said, explains a lot and has predictive power. Darwinism has extremely weak or non-existent predictive power with regard to macroevolution... At least the Bible predicts one would find punctuations, or suddent spurts of increases in complexity, as well as increasing complexity in macroevolution. That's 2/2 for the Bible. Oh, and microevolution doesn't extrapolate into macro. The types of mutations needed for macroevolution have never been seen.

Namely, it makes predictions and can be falsified. Not just in one, singular, isolated case - in ALL cases. It has done this since its beginning.

Yes, it can be falsified, not unlike how the assertion that life has irreducible complexity and that the only way this would be possible is through intelligent design. Scientists may prove that Darwinism produces IC through circuitous routes. It may prove that proposed examples of IC and SC can be produced randomly/through selective pressures. But considering the problem of "assembly instructions," and the evidence that the type 2 secretory system came after the flagellum and how there is no evidence of transitional forms, I wouldn't bet on it.

You would like evolution to keel over and die over IC claims

Not true. I'd like the claim that Darwinism is The Answer to not be accepted as fact without scrutuny. For example, you assuming it goes without saying that hominids evolved from apes. Why? Why not the other way around? Group think, sadly.

And this is why no-ones going to be falsifing your idea of ID anytime soon. If you want to beleive it, youll be believing it for quite some time, regardless of any evidence that will be found...

Why not remain conservative until more is known? For now, they have a case and are creating controversy in and out of scientific circles. It's good stuff and a good idea. Making wild claims is both stupid and unscientific.

So the way you can tell non-Darwinian structures is to look at their complexity, and yet this structure is too complex for you to tell?! Huh? How does that work?

No. The way to tell non-Darwinian structures is not by their complexity (unless you use Behe's specialized definition). The way to tell it is if it is supremely unlikely to occur, due to both complexity and lack of opportunity for selective pressures to act on it. Something developing in beneficial, relatively likely incremental mutations can clearly be produced through Darwinism. Without the beneficial mutations, it's not Darwinism. Darwinism is the production of orderly increases in complexity out of chaotic mutations through selective pressures ONLY. If selective pressurs can't act, only CHAOS is left.

Right. So you read that Darwin made a guess about melted strata, and that gives you reason to ignore the fact that he made a prediction, and it has always matched all future evidence ever since he made it?!

This isn't remotely true. That's why we have NEO-Darwinism. Many of his predictions were very wrong. Adaptive mutations contradict some of Darwinist's most basic assumptions. He also predicted random, beneficial mutations would be very common and thus transitional forms would be found in abundance. Not only that, birds that grow longer beaks during droughts, for example, don't KEEP their long beaks after a drought. He didn't predict that. And the lengthening beak isn't due to any known RANDOM mutation. It's due to previously existing variety within the species. In fact, prominent Darwinian experts have said macroevolution is no longer in progress (i.e. we have never observed the type of mutation that would extrapolate into it).

One of the most hilarious things you will ever see in relation to science is watching a creationist trying to discredit a new, clear transitional fossil.

Good thing I'm not a creationist. I believe in evoltuion. I question Darwinism. Transitional forms aren't surprising to me, and I have no reason to reject them as a reality. Since when have we been talking about creationism?

Id really like to see an equivalent statement from an ID authority. If you can provide one, Id be grateful. And I mean specifically in regard to the flagellum.

Nah, you can find it. You'll have to take my word for it, as one who has read a lot of it. Even without an overt statement, it is strongly implied though and a known fact that if the flagellum is proven to have evolved through a circuitous route or is not really IC, ID will have lost a great deal of credibility.

Thats definelty a plus point for you individually. It doesnt say that much about the ID movement overall though.

The ID movement is largely based on Meyer and Behe. They're the leaders and really reflect what it is. You should read them, before you start criticizing and jumping to conclusions.

[Mordecai]

...second part.

Or in other words all the gaps would have to be filled!. Ignore the fact that every single bit of new evidence falls completely in line with the tree of life predicted by Natural Selection decades ago! Forget all that, and just concentrate on all those lovely gaps to exploit!

Ha ha. Group think again. The tree is not there. It is more like a bush, where everything is an intertangled mass of confusion, leaving scientists entirely uncertain whether two similar species are related or not. As I pointed out, for some strange reason eyes developed in different phyla independently. True also, surprisingly of flight, which is immensely complex, requires enormous energy and requires an extremely light and relatively defenseless precursor. There have never been transitional forms found for this most unique and problematic (from a Darwinian standpoint) development. One would predict (at least one who understands Darwinism and were not aware of the facts) that the most complex and problematic developments would have the MOST transitional evidence, as it would require a very LONG evolutionary pathway. Very true of flight. Very true of a flagellum.

You are trying to treat the ToE to a different standard than any other scientific theory in history!

No. I accept that it is a theory. But it is only a scientific hypothesis to claim it is The Answer.

Well, there could be another explination. But if ID isnt willing to predict anything past the flagellum, hard to see what revlance ID has.

ID is also a theory about intelligence in the here and now, that human beings use pattern recognition/complexity to identify intelligent design and that only intelligent beings can produce truly complex (i.e. unlikely), independently given patterns. Pattern recognition is not the norm for AI development? And statistics doesn't have a long history of exploring the intelligently designed vs. random issue? This aspect of ID is theoryish, in my opinion. It makes predictions and has pretty decent explanatory power. It's not on the same level as Neo-Darwinism's predictive power with regard to microevolution, but it's not bad. Both Darwinism and ID are making scientific hypotheses (not remotely a theory at this time) about how life formed. Darwinism also insists that life formed without any intelligent design. That is certainly a hypothesis and not a theory. You can't make DArwinism's weak points strong by association with its strong points. Like Newton's theories are largely still true, some aspects have been abandoned due to people like Einstein. ASPECTS of Darwinism do not remotely have the have status of theory.

So no, it will probably never be proved. To you that is... You really do need to read a bit of Karl Popper...

Rhetoric is not science. Why read him?

Do you know the difference between a hypothesis born from analogy, and interpolation from a theory with a proven track record?

Statistics don't have a track record? Pattern recognition isn't a good way to identify intelligent design? ANALOGY is a comparison between two REAL things. In science, one wants more than an analogy, because analogy usually involves a superficial similarity. However, irreducible complexity/specified complexity are hardly superficial. The difference between a flagellum and a rotor is negligable. What they have in common really IS a good way to identify intelligent design. There really is very good reason to reject the flagellum as a product of Darwinism.

Just so its clear, there is a massive difference.

Analogy and obseration are massively different? Strange. I thought analogy was a TYPE of observation... hmmm.

And here is the crux of the matter - IC is not objectively discernable.

Only for idiots. As I said, you remove one of many parts and the whole thing becomes useless. Each part, in itself, is not useful. Assembly instructions would be required. What's subjective about identifying a ROTOR. We know what it is, what it does, how it works, what it can and can'd do, what each part consists of, etc. IC is hardly subjective.

You appear to be implying that Darwinists think the issue of the flagellum is done and dusted. And I know full well this isnt true. It was one of the first admissions in the report I linked you to in my last post.

Yeah, they won't give up. It's called cognitive dissonance.

You do realise the irony of the two above claims right?

...that:

1. God may work as a minimalist, making tiny adjustments... and

2. Saying that - as far as your concerned - there are large gaps in Darwinism..?

No. Because if the minimum to get a job accomplished in a reasonable amount of time is to periodically add information, that's what would be done. The adjustments are as small as is necessarily. It's possible God just produced abiogenesis and subtly nudged things along. On the other hand, it's possible that more was needed. I don't honestly know and currently, there is no way to know for certain. That will take time or it may never happen prior to the 2nd coming, when it won't matter anymore.

P.S., I finally got around to looking at your link, supposedly explaining the evolution of the flagellum. First of all, it basically comes out and says it's irreducible complexity (not in those words but it describes it in applicabley denotative terms). Second of all, it relies on the "change of function" idea, but that has been addressed. The IDers are so confident, they realeased a movie last year, with the flagellum as its certerpiece and directly assaulting the criticism that "change of function" is a good explanation. Change of function does not explain the assembly instructions remotely well enough to make the flagellum conceivablly producable through Darwinian mechanisms. IDers are making a strong scientific assertion, apparently, with enough confidence that they released their first movie with high production values largely about the flagellum itself. (It's called Unlocking the Mysteries of Life). So, they are really not wishy washy and have rested pretty much everything on the irreducible complexity of the flagellum. Rightly so, in my layman opinion, for what it's worth.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

It stinks to high heaven that ID proponents wont advance a completely baseless theory?

I think we have the quote to end the debate. At least on whether ID is to be considered current science or not.

As far as all the issues you have with macro-evolution, Im going to start winding down to summary answers. While I want to get my opinion on record, I think weve each said all that is required to say about whether ID is science. If you want to get properly onto the topic of whether macro-evolution .via Natural Selection is any stronger as a scientific idea, then perhaps you might want to start a new thread on that...

Anyway, to summarise:

* I dont personally beleive that evolution is The Answer. More accurately, I belevie it is the only scientific answer we currently have. The reason I dont beleive that it is THE ANSWER is because I have respect for what one of the most famous modern philosophers of Science - Karl Popper - had to say on this topic of proof. (You know, the one whos words you just fobbed off as retoric, when in fact what he had to say actually makes your case stronger on this particular point...! He wasnt some rabid anti-IDer. You made the wrong assumption there...)

* Your description of the tree of life as a bush, where everything is an intertangled mass of confusion is complete nonsense. The point of whether the eye developed further independantly on different branches has nothing to do with it...

* Natural Selection provides explinations of what happenned. Its true that some of the specific details for specific cases are based in interpolation of evidence combined with the predictions of the theory. But thats what science does. And it is a far stronger explanation than an idea that has its only basis in analogy. (And no - statistics and pattern recognition to make your analogy seem more sound also do not make a scientific theory. Weve been over this...)

* When you stated that only idiots cannot objectively discern whether structures are IC or not, you, unfortunately, called yourself one! Because you did not give me a clear YES or NO on whether the eye was IC. You said its too complex to tell.

* Humans, or human beings, are bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens (Latin: wise man or knowing man) under the family Hominidae (the great apes).

Humans are apes!

* Your current belief seems to range anywhere from Thiestic Evolution to The IDer is responsible for the flagellum, the eye, any other biological structures Im impressed by and every single gap in the fossil record we currently have. Looks like youve got plenty of space for your beliefs to alter and change over time.

* I mentioned Darwins prediction, on which point you started talking about what prominent Darwinian experts have said: And I thought Id been pretty clear.

* Yet again, Darwin himself predicted that the rate of increase in the variety of life over time could well not be constant. And yet you are trying to use this against him? Its perposterous. You get extra hilarity points for thinking that the Bible did a better prediction job! I appreciated that one...

* I did not even get near to claiming that the article I linked you to was explaining the evolution of the flagellum

* I have read some of both Behe and Meyer. And Ive never seen the admission that you have made in this thread. Which is why I asked you to provide it for me. Why is it always so hard for you to actually provide a reference when a call is made for one? You did it with the Dawkins statement. And youve done it here...

* When I refered to a creationist, I didnt say I was refering to your good self. No need to get so paranoid

Anyway - lets see you start the thread on Is macroevolution .via Natural Selection Science?. Itll be stuff thats been said over and over many times - sure. But at least the conversation will be on topic then.

Demonstrating that the Theory of Natural Selection still has understanding to gain does not show that ID is any more evidenced. And thats all this thread is about...

[Mordecai]

I think we have the quote to end the debate. At least on whether ID is to be considered current science or not.

You were insisting that IDers make more predictions than they have. I'm saying that making more predictions than they already do would be stupid. I didn't say that the ones they DO make are baseless. I'm saying that what you are demanding is baseless claims. They make conservative predictions. You're misconstruing what I'm saying here... just to be annoying?

Also, I never said ID is responsible for the eye. I said there is no way to know if Darwinism formed the eye or not. I don't believe Darwinism did, but that's not an opinion necessarily based on a lot of science. ID as a scientific hypothesis merely claims that SOME THINGS in biology suggest intelligent design. It also is, probably even moreso... at least for now, an attack on Darwinism being The Answer. These two things are scientific. Thus, ID is science. It's claims about what ID did or did not do is conservative, due to the nature of intelligence itself. Intelligence can produce things that are ambiguous with regard to judging intelligent design or not. If I place a leaf on your porch, you'll certainly think the wind blew it there unless of course you SAW me do it. Thus, making SCIENTIFIC claims about ID in biology is, in most cases, very difficult and requires one to be conservative. That's why the whole case rests on structures and mechanisms that are IC or SC. These are the only things that can be objectively (arguably in some cases) identified as coming from ID. Of course, the implication is that an intelligent being did MORE than that, but to SAY he/she/it/they did more is unscientific.

Another thing you don't understand is that ALL the Darwinism that has been observed is of a different sort than the Darwinism that is supposedly responsible for the diversity of species and phyla. That's why prominent Darwinists have said, "macroevolution is no longer in progress." In reality, they don't know if Darwinism can produce the kind of macroevolution necessary to produce life as we know it. They can't prove it, as it has never been observed. Current statistical analyses don't add up, given the limited timeframe, either. Thus, claiming Darwinism is The Answer is not a theory. You seem to agree with that. Darwinism on a microevolutionary scale, however, is a theory. It's just incomplete, according to ID, like Newton's model of the universe. When Einstein showed up, many scientists demanded everyone keep Newton's old model--people don't like being wrong, especially "experts."

That bias existed WITHOUT the religious implications. How much more bias is there WITH religious implications, especially since biology has been a secularist institution for generations. What theist would be excited about biology textbooks who make an anti-theist declaration right off the bat with their empty claims about a Godless abiogenesis and a Godless origin of species WITHOUT EVIDENCE. They add religion to their science and thus we end up with a secularist dominated world of biology. I was immediately turned off by the religious claims made in my biology book about how abiogenesis was not supervised and how "evolution is a fact" subtly using tricky wordplay to imply DARWINISM is a fact with regard to the origin of species. I could smell the anti-theism in the introductory rhetoric. Biology, in large part, weeds out certain types of religious thinkers in this way, in my opinion. I know from experience that I was turned off by it. Biology is dominated by a certain group of people, a lot like how the media is, not to mention most teachers/professors (Why did my English teachers always talk about feminism and lesbianism, anyway? Here, I thought I was studying language, not politics.)

On another note, that eyes developed independentently, concurrently and have the identical controlling genes has everything to do with the LACK of tree in the fossil record. This kind of thing illustrates that identical genes and extremely similar character do not necessarily illustrate common descent. Because of this example and others like it, Darwinists can't possible determine what is and isn't related. The Tazmanian wolf and the marsupial kangaroo rat have very nearly identical cousins that developed independently as well. Are they related? We know they're not. They evolved on seperate continents and their closest ancestor is supposed to be a shrew-like creature. Do you think Darwinists predicted that the genetic code would be hyper efficient and organized with hox genes and the like? In their view, Darwinism is based on lots and lots of accidents, where things get accomplished despite the chaos due to selective pressurs. An organized, predictable pattern in divergent evolutionary lines calls everything into question on so many levels. This is just another example of a contradiction in what Darwinists predicted.

Oh, and humans are apes? Strange. I thought they were hominids. If not, why do scientists insist apes came before hominids (despite lack of evidence), if they're the same? Hello?

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

How much more bias is there WITH religious implications

Please - enough with the bias stuff. Do not tell me that you or other IDers dont have bias towards the super-natural. For you especially to deny that would be futile - considering one of the first comments you made in this thread was that science will never detect consiousness!. That peged you for a supernatural thinker from the off. And super-natural thinking has NO place in science. Thiests who have respect for science will agree with this just as readily as athiests.

There are almost certainly more believers in Thiestic Evolution then Athiestic Evolution on this planet. Which also blows your continual athiest group-think accusations out of the water. But no doubt youll still continue to use it. Thats fine. My irrelavent background noise filter works just fine thanks...

When Einstein showed up, many scientists demanded everyone keep Newtons old model--people dont like being wrong, especially experts.

Some did. Ive already clearly stated as such earlier, so of course your not informing me of anything.

The difference when comparing Einstein <-> Newton is that Einstien provided a full-blown scientific theory to compete with the Newtonion Theories of Gravity. And while the new theory was initially opposed by some as you correctly state (but not rejected as science, obviously) it took far less time than the entire lifetime of the modern ID movement for it to be generally accepted by the entire worldwide scientific community.

The ID <-> evolution analogy doesnt work because - as yet - ID has not provided a full-blown scientific theory. And evolution NEEDS another full-blown theory to compete with it before it will have any competition. And the only way for ID to do this is to start consitently and accurately predicting where the IDer got involved in the development of life, because you have no other way to distinguish the idea of ID (which is practically identical to the overall ToE in many respects) from a universe where Natural Selection is the full explination, and where our knowledge on the exact details on every single point in the development of the tree of life is nessesarily limited. You insist that it is unreasonable to ask this, but your the guys who want to advance the idea into a theory here, and you have no other way to legitamtely distinguish yourselves from the basic ToE. Its not my problem - its yours. This is what you HAVE to do to make ID legitamete science.

As you continually state, you believe its good enough to attack the current gaps in evolution to move ID forward towards its goal of a full-blown theory. And as long as you hold this unscientific belief, you will never get anywhere closer to actually doing so. Before Darwin, nobody considered the possibility of Natural Selection (that we all agree had a major role to play) in relation to the development of life. So before Darwin, there was at least one possibility for the Origin Of the Species that existed, yet no-one considered. And yet now, you would have us beleive that if Darwninsm is toppled, that proves that ID is The Answer!. Nonsense. Rubbish. Tosh. There could be any number of other possibilities that -just like pre-Darwin - we simply havent noticed, or just arent smart enough to work out yet.

Anti-evolutionism DOES NOT EQUAL pro-IDism. You say that to ask you to propose the baseless theory is unreasonable. Well, youd better start giving the baseless theory some base. Some solid workings of a theory. Or evolution will continue to be - by far and away - the best explination we have. No amount of whining, complaining and crying from IDers can change that fact.

Youve also stated several times that it doesnt matter if ID does only attack Darwinism - thats still technically legitamte science. And, I would normally agree here. But unfortunately, thats not how ID advertises itself. It advertises itself as a competing theory to evolution. Which we have all agreed in this thread is simply not true. And that is totally dishonest on its part. And thats what disqualifies it as science on that count.

ID as a scientific hypothesis merely claims that SOME THINGS in biology suggest intelligent design.

Scientific hypothesies (Even if I were to qualify ID as such. I would normally have no problem with this, but hypothesies are usually meant to be pushing themsevles towards becoming theories. Iders make no such effort, and continue to attempt to bash evolution...) are not CURRENT science. They are FUTURE science at best. So no - ID does not count as science under this definition either. I also would not call abiogenesis science. Its potential science for the future...

Another thing you dont understand is that ALL the Darwinism that has been observed is of a different sort than the Darwinism that is supposedly responsible for the diversity of species and phyla.

No its not. Currently, the ToE has had its predictions fulfilled constantly (And if you disagree with that, start your thread on that subject already!). You are only looking at what is still yet to be observed. Even if all the stuff you are waiting to be observed and recorded never are, it would mean that Common Descent .via Natural Selection is less evidenced than it could be - I agree with that. But it would still be the only scientific explination we have.

ID could be a competing theory, but its not bothering to even step up to the plate. According to your good self, how could it advance a completely baseless theory?!

What theist would be excited about biology textbooks who make an anti-theist declaration right off the bat with their empty claims about a Godless abiogenesis and a Godless origin of species WITHOUT EVIDENCE

First, school science books should not talk about abiogenesis, because it is not current science. If it is being inserted into current science text books, I want that out as much as I would want ID out.

As far as evolution being the Origin of the Species, once ID has anything more concrete to oppose it, then it will get its day. But as yet it doesnt.

You want ID - which by your own admission is only a hypothesies - to be taken just as seriously (if not more so!) than the inerpolation of a solid scientific theory. That isnt scientific. Period. We will not teach a baseless theory (your own words) over a sound theory. And nobody should be making any apologies for that.

On another note, that eyes developed independentently, concurrently and have the identical controlling genes has everything to do with the LACK of tree in the fossil record. This kind of thing illustrates that identical genes and extremely similar character do not necessarily illustrate common descent.

You dont look at one feature to determine common descent. Stop trying to get everyone to think on this issue as simplistically as you do.

Because of this example and others like it, Darwinists cant possible determine what is and isnt related.

The fact that you dont accept evolutions findings on the relationships is immaterial. Its the fact that evoltion provides the explination in the first place thats the important point.

The Tazmanian wolf and the marsupial kangaroo rat have very nearly identical cousins that developed independently as well. Are they related? We know theyre not. They evolved on seperate continents and their closest ancestor is supposed to be a shrew-like creature.

You do know that the continents shifted right?

Do you think Darwinists predicted that the genetic code would be hyper efficient and organized with hox genes and the like?

Darwin was not required to predict the gene, not its makeup. No more than ID would be required to identify the designer.

Darwinism is based on lots and lots of accidents, where things get accomplished despite the chaos due to selective pressurs. An organized, predictable pattern in divergent evolutionary lines calls everything into question on so many levels.

Not at all. It shows that selection pressure is selection pressure wherever you find it.

This is just another example of a contradiction in what Darwinists predicted.

No. More accuratly, its another example of your misunderstanding of evolution and how it is theorised to work.

Oh, and humans are apes? Strange. I thought they were hominids.

Hominids are a type of ape. Pretty simple.

If not, why do scientists insist apes came before hominids (despite lack of evidence), if theyre the same?

Other types of apes existed before hominids. Again, very very simple.

Hello?

Just a quick question - do you really beleive that putting the word Hello on the end of a lot of your sentences helps your argument? Just curious.

Anyway - getting back to whether ID is science or not (misunderstandings in relation to evolution really isnt relavent on that point...), this issue has been put to bed. You spent the first 7 pages of this thread talking of ID theory, and insisting that ID was a legitamate scientific theory (because it had a decent analogy to base itself on). You made the concession on page 8 that - in fact - ID cannot be considered a scientific theory on that basis.

The question that has been posed by this thread has been answered. Current scientific knowledge is determined by scientific theory. And ID is not a scientific theory. End of story.

Since page 8 of this thread, youve changed tack. Instead of trying to move ID up to the same level of legitamecy as Natural Selection, you are now attempting to move the legitamcy of Natural Selection down to the same level as ID!

...well, your free to try and assert this. But this belongs in a new thread. Because this thread is about the legitamecy of ID. Not Natural Selection. By all means, feel free to start a new thread on that particular topic if you wish...

Thread closed at request of thread originator