Darwin's Influence

[LeSellers]

You just keep believing that.

By the way, what is this "that" you are accusing me of believing?

I am not a racist, as thesometimes[but not now]saint keep intimating. (And in doing so, he breaks the rule against "Godwin's Law Violations".)

Lehi

[Luigi]

As I said, if we found writing that dated back 3.5 billion years, we would say it was the work of a time traveler or an alien, wouldn't we? What else could we say? DNA is a code, and we all know it's a code. The only known phenomenon that can produce codes stems from the ability to predict patterns, i.e. intelligence.

We would predict writing that dated to 3.5 billion years ago came from a human-like intelligence because we only observe writing being produced by, you guessed it, humans. We have no observation of a 'intelligent designer' creating DNA. DNA is a molecular chain that binds with other molecules which eventually leads to the formation of proteins which together create a cell. It is a chemical reaction, albeit a complicated one. There is no evidence to support that a designer created that molecular chain for the purpose of designing a cell and simply because humans, the only 'intelligence' of the sort you describe that is observable to modern scientists, happened to create writing which can be interpreted to convey a particular message does not lead us to conclude that DNA was formed by any similar intelligence.

No. ID differs from creationism and creation science in that it uses objectively measurable positive evidence.One can, fairly objectively, identify true complexity and patterns, the combination of which suggests intelligence at work.

Nonsense. How can you claim to collect positive evidence of an intelligent designer that you have no evidence for and consequently have no way of identifying his traits or trademarks of his work? All you are doing is claiming there is something like a human but more advanced that somehow tinkers with DNA in undefined ways for undefined reasons. We know that humans create writing and why they create writing. You cannot claim to know that an invisible designer creates DNA or the reasoning behind his changes in that DNA. Without identifying the intelligence and the motives and abilities of the intelligence you might as well call those DNA mutations random because the intelligence could just as likely be picking DNA mutations based on a dice roll for all you know and it just happens that he occasionally rolls a mutation which happens to be advantageous. You could perhaps look for trademarks of a human being creating intelligence because that is the only intelligence you have to observe. Good luck with that.

Also, who says ID suggests anthropomorphism to the designer or designers?

Because that is the only intelligence you have to observe.

[Mordecai]

We would predict writing that dated to 3.5 billion years ago came from a human-like intelligence because we only observe writing being produced by, you guessed it, humans.

Writing = functional information. DNA = functional information. You don't see the logical connection there? If not, there is no hope for you coming to any logical conclusions. It's a pretty straightforward line of reasoning.

We have no observation of a 'intelligent designer' creating DNA.

We also have no observations of aliens producing advanced technology. However, any scientist with 3/4's of a brain wouldn't assume that a piece of alien technology, far more advanced than human technology, could be regarded as, "We can't scientifically infer that there is any chance of this being alien technology, because we have never observed aliens." Similarly, you can't arbitrarily rule out aliens (or some other intelligence) seeding the earth with DNA.

It is a chemical reaction, albeit a complicated one.

This shows a fundamental ignorance of how DNA works. See, an RNA molecule, which is a molecular machine, reads the DNA and then carries the information to other molecular machines. The DNA itself, is in fact, arbitrary in itself, not unlike the word cow. Just as the word cow is an arbitrary combination of sounds that has nothing to do, in itself, with cows, a DNA molecule has no connection to producing proteins nor morphology, in itself. It's a code, which is why they call it a code. It requires an interpreter to do anything. Interpreting a code, obviously, requires a tremendous amount of complexity and specificity. You reduce it to being a chemical reaction, when you know it's a code. It has been called "a code" since its discovery. (David Berlinski discusses this in the section of "The Deniable Darwin," called, "The Book of Life," here.)

This is not simply a chemical reaction, that you see above. It's a tiny machine that reads DNA.

There is no evidence to support that a designer created that molecular chain for the purpose of designing a cell

No, there is no evidence that a designer created that molecular chain, other than the fact that the chain produces cells, when it shouldn't otherwise do so, unless an intelligent agent is involved. It's the proverbial "writing on the wall."

Nonsense. How can you claim to collect positive evidence of an intelligent designer that you have no evidence for and consequently have no way of identifying his traits or trademarks of his work?

Just as we would if we found an alien artifact. The artifact is the evidence.

All you are doing is claiming there is something like a human but more advanced that somehow tinkers with DNA in undefined ways for undefined reasons.

Actually, the reasons are pretty obvious. We can see the reasons in how the DNA expresses itself in life.

You cannot claim to know that an invisible designer creates DNA or the reasoning behind his changes in that DNA.

Well, scientifically, you can infer that there is an invisible designer or designers (seeing as we can't see them... pretty obviously invisible.) The reason for the changes is obvious, as I pointed out above.

Without identifying the intelligence and the motives and abilities of the intelligence you might as well call those DNA mutations random because the intelligence could just as likely be picking DNA mutations based on a dice roll for all you know and it just happens that he occasionally rolls a mutation which happens to be advantageous.

It's obviously not random, which is why we call it a code. So we might as well not say it's random, because it's not. Actually, we had better say it's not, because that is just flying in the face of the evidence. We know the motives and abilities. The motive is to produce life in various forms. The ability is to predict patterns in things, including tremendously complex patterns. We might try to figure out how such an intelligent agent or agents would put plan into action, via scientific experimentation. Maybe we can at least get a vague idea how something like that might be done.

[David Hume]

An undirected process, like microevolution, reveals what it can and can't do when we observe it, obviously. I am not trying to say this. This is a prediction made by advocates of ID, as in scientists. It's from Meyer's book Signature in the Cell.

What you're saying here is quite different from what you quoted/paraphrased from Meyers. Meyers' statement was either nonsensical or redundant. He said that "No undirected process will reveal X" was a prediction made by ID when he should have just said "~X".

Actually, ID does necessarily make this prediction, because it predicts that only an intelligence can produce specified complexity.

In that case, ID is dead in the water, because there are many naturalistic pathways to specified complexity.

The alluded to computer simulations produced specified complexity. If it is proven that evolution or some other natural process can produce specified complexity, there is no ID theory. It's dead. So ID must therefore predict the computer simulations to be guided by intelligence and not a true representation of Darwinian processes.

Well, unless you're willing to say that the computer simulations were themselves intelligent (which is really just another way to admit that Darwinism in its roughest sketches is true), then ID has lost.

This particular prediction does preclude tinkering by the designer after the original creation. So this particular prediction is not moot.

So you're saying that all of ID is incompatible with miracles? Somehow I doubt that.

I think it's a prediction ID has to make, ad hoc or not. If you already know this about prokaryotic cells, then Darwinism has been proven wrong as Darwinism predicts that evidence will show that prokaryotic cells were produced via a combination of chance and necessity. So you say you know that Darwinism is proven to not be the explanation for these characteristics in prokaryotic cells?

Uh, no. Darwinism is completely compatible with the characteristics of prokaryotic cells mentioned.

Well, pretty much nothing is incompatible with evolution, so that means nothing.

Nothing we've observed is incompatible with the basic principles of evolution (what you might refer to as "microevolution") because the logic behind them is so strong. Nothing we've observed is incompatible with the law of gravity either. You're right that the basic principles of Darwinism are unfalsifiable -- they are so in the same sense that sound syllogisms are unfalsifiable. But I think you're also trying to say that macroevolution is unfalsifiable. That's not true. Fossil rabbits in pre-Cambrian strata would falsify what Dawkins refers to as "the fact of evolution" quite well, for example.

There's no reason to suppose a designer would have acted discretely? Of course there is. It's discrete in that thought takes care of the work instead of natural selection. Pretty hard to find evidence of thought in the fossil record. It's part of the nature of intelligence. Hardly ad hoc since thinking is obviously discrete, which forces one to make the prediction that a designer's influence would be more discrete than Darwinian processes.

Thought can be employed continuously, so I'm not sure what you think you have here.

Top-down means that greater innovation occurs first with less variation as time goes on. We can see this pattern with technology and art. The fossil record reflects almost all phyla (which do represent the greatest innovation) appearing at the Cambrian explosion.

This is more compatible with evolution by natural selection, because everything is still ancestrally related, which is a more Darwinian idea than a ID one (and one that actively contradicts special creation, which I know is the conclusion you all are ultimately trying to defend through ID). Organisms have more "reason" to evolve when certain niches haven't yet been exploited. The evolution of one organism may set the stage for evolution by other organisms, as the first photosynthesizing algae (which pumped oxygen into the atmosphere) did for animals. This phenomenon of punctuated equilibrium is well-documented by ecologists, and has a firm Darwinian underpinning.

The designer or designers wouldn't be PRESUMED to be anything, much less omnipotent. It's inference. Do you think a stupid designer could produce the genetic code or the human brain? Obviously, if a designer is involved, the designer is highly intelligent. As far as benevolence, that is by necessity, because a designer who purposely produced bad designs would be hiding evidence of intelligence. Since the idea of ID is, "Some things in biology are best explained by intelligence," the hypotheses that fall into the realm of ID must necessarily predict there will be evidence.

Intelligence can still lead to bad design. The only time we would be able to properly infer that there's no such thing as bad initial design is if we knew the initial designer was omnipotent, at least in that sphere.

Yes, there are many examples to study, making it an interesting scientific prediction. No, ID would not be disproved, unless it were proven absolutely that the design was bad. How could one show that a design was not originally bad? The same way Darwinists prove that something has degenerated. They can find ancestry, like with the flagellum.

What do you define as "original"? Would the design of the first anatomically-modern humans be counted as the "original" design? Because if so, we've found plenty of instances of bad original design.

That's totally non sequitur. In fact, it's a great example of ID being science. Behe suggested that the best explanation for the flagellum is intelligence. Darwinists went about trying to disprove it. They predicted, in fact, that the type 3 secretory system would be ancestral in order to disprove Behe's hypothesis. But it turned out the flagellum was ancestral. Great example of ID being science.

Okay, I see what you're saying now. (You should be careful with your writing. You (or Meyers) have said "ID predicts (ID predicts (X))" when you should have just said "ID predicts (X)" a number of times.)

Anyway, you and Meyers are wrong on the facts here. The type III secretory system is ancestral only to the archaeal flagellum, which is significantly different from the flagellum that scientists think was an exaptation of the type III secretory system.

But the important thing to note here is that this would not a prediction of ID even if it were true. It would be an example of evolutionary biologists being wrong about some evolutionary pathway, and because IDers are mere contrarians to biologists, biologists' losses are IDers' gains. Even if IDers are right that biologists are wrong about some specific thing, that doesn't speak in favor of ID being a science unless the IDers can also say what is right. If biologists can't find an evolutionary pathway for some organelle, IDers don't get to claim superiority until they can give some non-evolutionary explanation. Remember that appealing to an ineffable designer is not an actual explanation unless it were explained HOW the designer effected his work. Insofar as IDers neglect to do this, they can never be scientists.

But if it's common, that's not evidence of ID. It therefore is evidence against the hypothesis that ID is the best explanation.

No, this is an elementary logical error. If Jupiter were aligned with Pluto in early 1995, that's not evidence that O.J. killed Nicole. But the fact that it's not evidence that O.J. killed Nicole doesn't mean that it's evidence against the hypothesis that O.J. killing Nicole is the best explanation for her death.

[Mordecai]

What you're saying here is quite different from what you quoted/paraphrased from Meyers. Meyers' statement was either nonsensical or redundant. He said that "No undirected process will reveal X" was a prediction made by ID when he should have just said "~X".

In that case, ID is dead in the water, because there are many naturalistic pathways to specified complexity.

Just keep telling yourself that. CFR, as always.

Well, unless you're willing to say that the computer simulations were themselves intelligent (which is really just another way to admit that Darwinism in its roughest sketches is true), then ID has lost.

Do ya' think maybe the simulations might have been programmed by people? Intelligent people? Yup.

So you're saying that all of ID is incompatible with miracles? Somehow I doubt that.

Uh, no. Darwinism is completely compatible with the characteristics of prokaryotic cells mentioned.

Really? Got any evidence that Darwinian processes can produce a genetic code, can then increase in complexity and can then produce life? Because scientists don't. Darwinian processes can't do any of those, judging by all current scientific knowledge. On top of that, cells--all cells--have internal machinery that goes way beyond what Darwinists predicted. Lastly, prokaryotic cells having the previously discussed characteristics is not remotely something a Darwinist would predict. It's the opposite. It supports ID a lot better than Darwinism. It is evidence against Darwinism.

But I think you're also trying to say that macroevolution is unfalsifiable. That's not true. Fossil rabbits in pre-Cambrian strata would falsify what Dawkins refers to as "the fact of evolution" quite well, for example.

I'm not impressed here. Also, I believe in the fact of evolution. I do not believe in Darwinian processes being responsible for anything like macroevolution, much less abiogenesis.

Thought can be employed continuously, so I'm not sure what you think you have here.

This is more compatible with evolution by natural selection, because everything is still ancestrally related, which is a more Darwinian idea than a ID one

It's not incompatible with ID at all. So there is no problem here.

(and one that actively contradicts special creation, which I know is the conclusion you all are ultimately trying to defend through ID).

Organisms have more "reason" to evolve when certain niches haven't yet been exploited. The evolution of one organism may set the stage for evolution by other organisms, as the first photosynthesizing algae (which pumped oxygen into the atmosphere) did for animals. This phenomenon of punctuated equilibrium is well-documented by ecologists, and has a firm Darwinian underpinning.

It's just a hypothesis. It saved Darwinism from the evidence, really. There is no documentation of ANY Darwinian processes being able to cause increases in complexity, much less producing new body plans. So unless Darwinian processes can do that, punctuated equilibrium means nothing. Since that is the case, punctuated equilibrium is not well documented as a defense of Darwinian processes causing macroevolution. It's simply an argument. I can make those, too.

Intelligence can still lead to bad design. The only time we would be able to properly infer that there's no such thing as bad initial design is if we knew the initial designer was omnipotent, at least in that sphere.

I would use another emoticon, but I will just say... no. Wrong. Non sequitur and pulled out of thin air.

What do you define as "original"? Would the design of the first anatomically-modern humans be counted as the "original" design? Because if so, we've found plenty of instances of bad original design.

Again. No.

But the important thing to note here is that this would not a prediction of ID even if it were true. It would be an example of evolutionary biologists being wrong about some evolutionary pathway, and because IDers are mere contrarians to biologists, biologists' losses are IDers' gains.

So very wrong. Again, so wrong, I won't bother. I don't enjoy holding people's hands in a debate. What's the point? You have your mind made up, despite not being able to follow a line of logic, much less produce a convincing one. Same goes for the rest of your post. Please. You ought to note that you're criticizing the work of Stephen Meyer, who got his PhD from Oxford in the philosophy of science. The guy is an expert in both logic and science. Your criticisms of his cited list of predictions are pretty lame. Not saying there are no valid criticisms, but yours are not remotely competent much less compelling.

[Luigi]

Writing = functional information.

Functional information for humans per human purposes

DNA = functional information.

Functional for creating life with, as you mentioned, the interaction other components. There is no evidence it is information as that implies human motives for human purposes.

You don't see the logical connection there? If not, there is no hope for you coming to any logical conclusions. It's a pretty straightforward line of reasoning.

If you can't see that you are ascribing human attributes of purpose, intent and creation to a process and then implying that you ascribing such attributes implies the intervention of a human like being, ie one with intelligence, there is no hope of overcoming your circular reasoning.

We also have no observations of aliens producing advanced technology. However, any scientist with 3/4's of a brain wouldn't assume that a piece of alien technology, far more advanced than human technology, could be regarded as, "We can't scientifically infer that there is any chance of this being alien technology, because we have never observed aliens."

If we found alien technology (though we never have) we would ascribe it to superior human-like intelligence if it bore attributes similar to human creations that was beyond our current technological ability. If we found a flying machine, for example, that is something that humans create and employ for a specific purpose and so we would assume a human like intelligence created it, like a human would, for similar purposes.

Similarly, you can't arbitrarily rule out aliens (or some other intelligence) seeding the earth with DNA.

I can't but given there is no evidence of alien life elsewhere in the universe that seems a rather ridiculous hypothesis to make. Even if life came from alien sources we still would have the problem of figuring out where the alien came from. We could similarly hypothesize that life has always existed in an infinite universe but the evidence for that is poor so we generally don't waste our time on that hypothesis either.

This shows a fundamental ignorance of how DNA works. See, an RNA molecule, which is a molecular machine, reads the DNA and then carries the information to other molecular machines. The DNA itself, is in fact, arbitrary in itself, not unlike the word cow. Just as the word cow is an arbitrary combination of sounds that has nothing to do, in itself, with cows, a DNA molecule has no connection to producing proteins nor morphology, in itself. It's a code, which is why they call it a code. It requires an interpreter to do anything. Interpreting a code, obviously, requires a tremendous amount of complexity and specificity. You reduce it to being a chemical reaction, when you know it's a code. It has been called "a code" since its discovery. (David Berlinski discusses this in the section of "The Deniable Darwin," called, "The Book of Life," here.)

Again, you are simply ascribing human concepts of intent and purpose to the process. A RNA molecule no more reads a DNA molecule than nitrogen reads hydrogen to create ammonia. RNA binds with DNA in specific ways because of how each amino acid binds with a specific amino acid. Calling the ribosome a 'machine' is again ascribing human intent to it's function and purpose. Ultimately these reactions are chemical regardless of whether they were 'created' or resulted randomly. The only difference is scientists do not attribute it's creation to an intelligent being in the absense of evidence of such.

No, there is no evidence that a designer created that molecular chain, other than the fact that the chain produces cells, when it shouldn't otherwise do so, unless an intelligent agent is involved. It's the proverbial "writing on the wall."

'It shouldn't do otherwise'? According to who?

Just as we would if we found an alien artifact. The artifact is the evidence.

There are no alien artifacts so your evidence, which I have already explained has no pertinent comparison to living things anyway, is purely hypothetical.

It's obviously not random, which is why we call it a code. So we might as well not say it's random, because it's not. Actually, we had better say it's not, because that is just flying in the face of the evidence. We know the motives and abilities.The motive is to produce life in various forms. The ability is to predict patterns in things, including tremendously complex patterns.

So you are now attributing intent to the designer based on outcomes. Ie. Whatever I observe was the intent of the designer.

We might try to figure out how such an intelligent agent or agents would put plan into action, via scientific experimentation. Maybe we can at least get a vague idea how something like that might be done.

How can you figure out how he would put a plan into action when you have no clue what it's plan is or even how it does anything it does? All you are doing is ascribing the function of a cell to human-like manufacturing (DNA is like computer code created to send a certain message, ribosomes are like computers designed to read that message) and then insisting because you have ascribed those events to human-like intent if you find those things you can claim that your invisible agent is responsible for it.

[Rob Osborn]

How can you figure out how he would put a plan into action when you have no clue what it's plan is or even how it does anything it does? All you are doing is ascribing the function of a cell to human-like manufacturing (DNA is like computer code created to send a certain message, ribosomes are like computers designed to read that message) and then insisting because you have ascribed those events to human-like intent if you find those things you can claim that your invisible agent is responsible for it.

Yes, much like evolutionists claim their invisible unseen, unknown force to abiogenesis. No known biological process carries out coding DNA information besides already manufactured DNA. All the evidence we have shows that DNA has always existed as long as life was on the planet. What it doesn't show is how that DNA first came about. For all we know and can tell, it "somehow" arrived on the planet in it's fully functional form. Can you prove me otherwise?

[Luigi]

Yes, much like evolutionists claim their invisible unseen, unknown force to abiogenesis. No known biological process carries out coding DNA information besides already manufactured DNA. All the evidence we have shows that DNA has always existed as long as life was on the planet. What it doesn't show is how that DNA first came about. For all we know and can tell, it "somehow" arrived on the planet in it's fully functional form. Can you prove me otherwise?

I can't prove how it got here. The textbooks readily acknowledge that all we currently have is various hypotheses based on what evidence we have about the environment of the early earth. Not knowing how life got here does not lead us to the conclusion that a magical guy with abilities beyond our comprehension is responsible. The point is that life currently perpetuates itself without the need of intelligent intervention and so the only logical extrapolation of that observation is that life's diversity also occured without intelligent intervention until we have evidence to the contrary.

[Mordecai]

Functional information for humans per human purposes

Functional for creating life with, as you mentioned, the interaction other components. There is no evidence it is information as that implies human motives for human purposes.

Depends on how you define information. The world's foremost experts accept it as information. For example, here's a paper I dug up quickly from a university website. Read the following excerpt: "...because DNA is an informational molecule, the information or sequence of DNA stored in a computer is subject to the same considerations as DNA itself."

If you can't see that you are ascribing human attributes of purpose, intent and creation to a process and then implying that you ascribing such attributes implies the intervention of a human like being, ie one with intelligence, there is no hope of overcoming your circular reasoning.

My reasoning is as follows: writing (and the like) is functional information. DNA is also functional information. The only observations we have suggest only intelligence produces functional information and undirected process's chances of producing such a thing are statistically prohibitive. You can connect the dots. A circular argument relies on a premise with an assumption based on the presupposition that the conclusion is true. That is not the case with this line of reasoning. Where is the assumption here? It can't be found. The only thing you have to dispute is the idea that DNA is functional information. But, in fact, it is. It functions. It's information, according to the definitions from the top experts on information. Did I mention it's been called "a code," since it's discovery? Is that circular, too?

If we found alien technology (though we never have) we would ascribe it to superior human-like intelligence if it bore attributes similar to human creations that was beyond our current technological ability. If we found a flying machine, for example, that is something that humans create and employ for a specific purpose and so we would assume a human like intelligence created it, like a human would, for similar purposes.

The question is, how did you rule out natural processes? You don't just assume it wasn't, do you? You can't say, "People do things like this here alien technology, so it must be human-like aliens behind its creation," unless you are willing to say, "People make things like flagella; therefore, intelligence was behind that, too." You can't have one without the other; the line of reasoning is identical. What is so different about a flagellum than a rotary motor? Alien technology might be so advanced, that their technology is more unlike human technology than a flagellum is.

Even Richard Dawkins, PhD and avid defender of Darwinism, says that life has the appearance of being intelligently designed. Doesn't that fit the description of alien technology? Clearly, he is not biased in my favor. It appears to be intelligently designed, because it has the same properties as that which is created via planning ahead and anticipating results.

I can't but given there is no evidence of alien life elsewhere in the universe that seems a rather ridiculous hypothesis to make. Even if life came from alien sources we still would have the problem of figuring out where the alien came from. We could similarly hypothesize that life has always existed in an infinite universe but the evidence for that is poor so we generally don't waste our time on that hypothesis either.

Given that biological systems represent irreducible or specified complexity, that is the evidence of another intelligence existing prior to humans, whether that be aliens or God.

Again, you are simply ascribing human concepts of intent and purpose to the process. A RNA molecule no more reads a DNA molecule than nitrogen reads hydrogen to create ammonia. RNA binds with DNA in specific ways because of how each amino acid binds with a specific amino acid. Calling the ribosome a 'machine' is again ascribing human intent to it's function and purpose.

Please. To read is to interpret and utilize information. That's what RNA molecules do, or they at least play a role in that process. Read what Behe, PhD says. Read the criticisms of Behe's proposals. The responses by the scientific community do not say he's wrong about molecular machines existing. He's not wrong about proteins being machines. Darwinists simply claim that Darwinian processes might be able to create machines... the evidence for that is basically absent, but it sounds good on paper.

Ultimately these reactions are chemical regardless of whether they were 'created' or resulted randomly. The only difference is scientists do not attribute it's creation to an intelligent being in the absense of evidence of such.

I don't suppose an authoritative source would help my case? Molecular machines inhabit cells:

The convergence of nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive sciences, officially encouraged by the NSF under the label NBIC since 2002, has been prepared by a number of multidisciplinary collaborations. Among them, the 1997 Albany Conference on

[littlechild]

Bacteria and viruses are not intelligent. Or do you think that bacteria and viruses go around plotting how to destroy humanity and engage in family planning? Even mult-cellular organisms do not employ their intelligence to replicate their cells or to create their reproductive cells. DNA reproduction in your body does not require you thinking about it.

Life does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics as it is not in a closed system. As long as the overall system (ie the universe) gains entropy the 2nd law is not violated. Even if it did violate the 2nd law all it would mean is that the 2nd law is not a law.

Actually, in the sense that I mean, both bacteria and viruses display intelligence in their design else they could not function in the realm of the living whatsoever. You may not agree with me but please at least interpret me in context - don't twist what I'm saying.

I said the theory of evolution is the opposite of what we would expect to see based on the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I did not state that life violates the 2nd law because, again, you must have mis-parsed me. But our observation of entropy and indeed our lack of the ability to explain in specifics how living creatures could theoretically grow more and more complex over time, when a mechanism for that has not been demonstrated, shows the inadequacy of the Darwinian rationale.

[Rob Osborn]

I can't prove how it got here. The textbooks readily acknowledge that all we currently have is various hypotheses based on what evidence we have about the environment of the early earth. Not knowing how life got here does not lead us to the conclusion that a magical guy with abilities beyond our comprehension is responsible. The point is that life currently perpetuates itself without the need of intelligent intervention and so the only logical extrapolation of that observation is that life's diversity also occured without intelligent intervention until we have evidence to the contrary.

There isn't much evidence about the early earth- it's environment. Evolutionists devise different environment scenerios that would best fit their predetermined hypothesis. They then look for this evidence, It's not the other way around. The whole god- gap theory that gets labled to ID is an evolutionists trick to discount the plausibility of ID before it can be explained. ID does not need to rely on a "magical guy" with incomprehensible abilities to explin it's theory- thats another evolutionist slight of hand against ID. ID challenges the Darwinian theories regarding the origins of life and complex systems in nature. For evolutionists they can't see what ID is really proposing because they are so set on the belief that life "must have" originated on i'ts entire own outside of any guided intelligent process. It's funny because they will readily admit that life itself exhibits a high degree of efficiency in both intelligence and design but yet disbelieve as a viable hypotheses that this whole intelligent design we see in nature may have started by some guided intelligent process which is viable as a scientific theory and very testable.

[Mordecai]

The whole god- gap theory that gets labled to ID is an evolutionists trick to discount the plausibility of ID before it can be explained.

The god of the gaps criticism is about what creationism did: "Science can't explain it. Therefore, God did it." ID uses positive evidence, so that criticism doesn't apply. Just FYI, in future debates.

[Mordecai]

Actually, in the sense that I mean, both bacteria and viruses display intelligence in their design else they could not function in the realm of the living whatsoever. You may not agree with me but please at least interpret me in context - don't twist what I'm saying.

I said the theory of evolution is the opposite of what we would expect to see based on the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I did not state that life violates the 2nd law because, again, you must have mis-parsed me. But our observation of entropy and indeed our lack of the ability to explain in specifics how living creatures could theoretically grow more and more complex over time, when a mechanism for that has not been demonstrated, shows the inadequacy of the Darwinian rationale.

[DH]

Which classroom?

In science class, alternatives to Darwin's theory should be taught if they're scientific. Creationism/ID is not scientific.

In a public school, I'd have no problem with religion being discussed in the context of something like a comparative religion class. But not in science class. You may as well teach algebra in art class.

In a private school, they can teach that the earth is flat, for all I care!

DH

[lostindc]

This thread stinks of terrible science and even worse philosophy. Darwinism is completely outdated and constantly will be revised if one chooses to hold to such a hypothesis.

There is nothing wrong with evolution. I consider it very real on many levels but Darwin is not the first to acknowledge and his theories are very weak in light of new knowledge. The problem with concrete evolutionists let alone darwinian evolutionists is magical thinking is very strong within the thought ooze in this arena than any other and this is seen in the light of adaptation. Something needs to cause adaptation, such as triggering the body to adapt to walking on the land, but what triggers the body to begin adaption is where science is brutally weak, at this point.

What is described in the Old Testament regarding the creation of the earth, man, etc is perfectly in line with science. But science has decided to not include intelligent design as a possibility utilizing the scientific method which is entirely wrong and ignorant.

[Rob Osborn]

Which classroom?

In science class, alternatives to Darwin's theory should be taught if they're scientific. Creationism/ID is not scientific.

In a public school, I'd have no problem with religion being discussed in the context of something like a comparative religion class. But not in science class. You may as well teach algebra in art class.

In a private school, they can teach that the earth is flat, for all I care!

DH

It's time for the critics to answer up. If ID is not science as you claim, then what makes it unscientific. The argument that it just isn't will not work. By the same standard you claim, then evolution itself cannot be scientific because both sides study the same exact data and material.

[lostindc]

I think Berlinski outlines some very good reasons from some very notable scientists and philosophers regarding the gross failure of "hard science" to limit the scientific method and limit possibilities. Adding to the fact that the majority of scientists that attempt to philosophize pose arguments/theories that are often ignorant or just plain silly we tend to have a perpetuated division between what they claim is testable or within the realms of science and what is cosmological.

Can someone explain how Darwinism is not more philosophy than science?

Can someone explain how the creation story contradicts science?

[Luigi]

Actually, in the sense that I mean, both bacteria and viruses display intelligence in their design else they could not function in the realm of the living whatsoever. You may not agree with me but please at least interpret me in context - don't twist what I'm saying.

I said the theory of evolution is the opposite of what we would expect to see based on the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I did not state that life violates the 2nd law because, again, you must have mis-parsed me. But our observation of entropy and indeed our lack of the ability to explain in specifics how living creatures could theoretically grow more and more complex over time, when a mechanism for that has not been demonstrated, shows the inadequacy of the Darwinian rationale.

Again, living things are not a closed system and so by there being energy from outside the system and going into the system entropy within the system itself can remain the same or even decrease.

I have no problem with Darwinism being proven false. I have yet to see good evidence that it is but I am all for evidence which would disprove it being presented. However even without Darwinism ID is pure nonsense because it attributes purely human concepts such as intent, purpose and planning to life when there is no evidence of an intelligence behind those processes. Even if our current scientific understanding is insufficient to explain the speciation of life (though I personally think it is) the fact remains that there is no scientific justification for attributing the processes of life to a being with human concepts of planning, designing and creating.

[Luigi]

There isn't much evidence about the early earth- it's environment. Evolutionists devise different environment scenerios that would best fit their predetermined hypothesis. They then look for this evidence, It's not the other way around.

CFR

The whole god- gap theory that gets labled to ID is an evolutionists trick to discount the plausibility of ID before it can be explained.

It's a summation of a common argument against ID because that is precisely what ID is. ID takes concepts that we only observe in humans, (design,planning and creating) and attributes it to life claiming that because we are incapable of fully understanding the processes of life or how life came into existence that it must have been the operation of some being with human-like intent of design, planning and creating.

thatID does not need to rely on a "magical guy" with incomprehensible abilities to explin it's theory- thats another evolutionist slight of hand against ID.

You have a intelligent designer, ie guy, that you claim created something without giving any plausible explanation to who the intelligent designer is or how he, she it would have done what it did, ie magic.

ID challenges the Darwinian theories regarding the origins of life and complex systems in nature.

Criticize evolution all you want. Publish viable scientific problems with evolutionary theory in textbooks. Go for it. Just don't insist including in science class that it must be some nondescript being when you have no evidence for it.

For evolutionists they can't see what ID is really proposing because they are so set on the belief that life "must have" originated on i'ts entire own outside of any guided intelligent process.

Because there is ZERO evidence of an intelligent designer of the type and at the time you describe and comparisons between machines and the functioning of a cell doesn't change that.

It's funny because they will readily admit that life itself exhibits a high degree of efficiency in both intelligence and design but yet disbelieve as a viable hypotheses that this whole intelligent design we see in nature may have started by some guided intelligent process which is viable as a scientific theory and very testable.

Demonstrating efficiency does not change the fact that there is no plausible designer. The fact that it can be compared to human-like processes does not lead us to believe that it was created by a human-like being with human-like intent because we observe how it perpetuates itself and see no intervention by a being of that description.

[lostindc]

Again, living things are not a closed system and so by their being energy from outside the system and going into the system entropy within the system itself can remain the same or even decrease.

I have no problem with Darwinism being proven false. I have yet to see good evidence that it is but I am all for evidence which would disprove it being presented. However even without Darwinism ID is pure nonsense because it attributes purely human concepts such as intent, purpose and planning to life when there is no evidence of an intelligence behind those processes. Even if our current scientific understanding is insufficient to explain the speciation of life (though I personally think it is) the fact remains that there is no scientific justification for attributing the processes of life to a being with human concepts of planning, designing and creating.

I agree, but on the flip side I too have no problem with evolution proven right. Does not bother me whatsoever. Genesis 2 states: "LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground." I have yet to find a more evolution (primordial ooze) supporting statement earlier than this declaration.

I disagree, that ID is purely and solely based on concepts such as intent, purpose, and planning. There are plenty of ID scientist that involve historical and present day scientific theories and concepts to support their conclusions.

Scientific understanding is not sufficient to explain speciation, at least not utilizing the largely accepted scientific method. But if you combine rhetoric, a keen imagination, and some staunch anti-creationists then you could be right. I for one find it rather limiting and empty.

[ERayR]

Again, living things are not a closed system and so by their being energy from outside the system and going into the system entropy within the system itself can remain the same or even decrease.

I have no problem with Darwinism being proven false. I have yet to see good evidence that it is but I am all for evidence which would disprove it being presented. However even without Darwinism ID is pure nonsense because it attributes purely human concepts such as intent, purpose and planning to life when there is no evidence of an intelligence behind those processes. Even if our current scientific understanding is insufficient to explain the speciation of life (though I personally think it is) the fact remains that there is no scientific justification for attributing the processes of life to a being with human concepts of planning, designing and creating.

I have no desire to attempt to prove darwinism either true or false. All I have is a question that bother me. Perhaps you can help.

I see a lot of evidence that evoulution (change) occurs within a species (different kinds of dogs, cats horses, etc), what I do not see is any evidence that one evolves into another or that they even came from a common ancestor. What I do see is sharp deliniations with no connecting link except for the fertile imagination of some researcher. Such statements as, this fossil clearly shows that at xxx million years we have these traits and by xx million years they have diverged to these traits in two different directions. Well I am sorry but the only thing that is clear is that we have two different specimans with different traits. It is nowhere clear nor is there any evidence that either one got there from the original speciman. What is clear is that someone has made a leap of faith with very little evidence and they have a very fertile imagination.

They are able to conjure up whole lifestyles, familail relationships, diets, thought patterns, etc from afew bones in an incomplete skeleton. And then I am told this is all supported by scientific method. Looks a lot like religious faith to me.

What is supported by scientific method is the change within species. With selective breeding I can develop and strengthen certain traits. I can change coloration of certain moths. What I can not do is to change a dog into cat or a bird or ???, nor can I change a moth into a bird.

The question. Where is the transition evidence? If these transitions were indeed fact we should be able to find living transitions because this should be a continious process.

[Luigi]

My reasoning is as follows: writing (and the like) is functional information. DNA is also functional information. The only observations we have suggest only intelligence produces functional information and undirected process's chances of producing such a thing are statistically prohibitive. We have an observation, life that You can connect the dots. A circular argument relies on a premise with an assumption based on the presupposition that the conclusion is true. That is not the case with this line of reasoning. Where is the assumption here? It can't be found. The only thing you have to dispute is the idea that DNA is functional information. But, in fact, it is. It functions. It's information, according to the definitions from the top experts on information. Did I mention it's been called "a code," since it's discovery? Is that circular, too?

Your circular reference is in your definition of information as you imply within it intent to produce a given outcome. That scientists make the comparison between information and DNA or snowflakes and 'designs' or suggesting that atoms 'seek' to fill their outer shell of electrons does not imply they are ascribing the full human meaning of those words. It would be like me saying an atom seeks to fill it's outer shell and only intelligence is observed to 'seek' things therefore atoms are intelligent.

[Luigi]

The question. Where is the transition evidence? If these transitions were indeed fact we should be able to find living transitions because this should be a continious process.

This is a topic that is covered so thorougly by others I would not really do it justice here. This is by no means comprehensive but I think these videos make some interesting points on your concerns:

[Mordecai]

Removed by author...

[Mordecai]

Your circular reference is in your definition of information as you imply within it intent to produce a given outcome. That scientists make the comparison between information and DNA or snowflakes and 'designs' or suggesting that atoms 'seek' to fill their outer shell of electrons does not imply they are ascribing the full human meaning of those words. It would be like me saying an atom seeks to fill it's outer shell and only intelligence is observed to 'seek' things therefore atoms are intelligent.

How have I implied within it an intent to produce a given outcome? Information is information, regardless of the existence of intent. Information exists independently of the designer or naturalistic processes that produced that information. Computers contain information, by my definition as well. Do I suppose that the designer of the computer code intended to produce the given results? Logically, I must. Does that mean that I have assumed that the computer code was produced by intelligence? No. I deduced it, because that is the nature of functional information. My premise involves no assumptions about intent whatsoever. ID merely identifies functional information and draws a logical conclusion.

Also, scientists don't just make comparisons. They call DNA an "informational molecule." They don't say it's LIKE information. They say it contains information. If you want to challenge the scientific community on this matter, be my guest. However, you're being absolutely ridiculous. Information for scientists, obviously has a different definition than you think it does. Information theory and all sciences that apply to information also apply to DNA. Clearly, it's not just a metaphor, but it's scientific applications are identical to the applications of the types of information that we know humans produce.

The bottom line is, my line of reasoning is hardly circular. It's basically identical to the line of reasoning I illustrated that allows us to come to the conclusion that aliens could have produced advanced technology. So clearly, ID is based on the combination of observation and LOGICAL inference, which is to say it is science.