Darwin's Influence

[Luigi]

Here is your false premise upon which all of your other arguments are based. Those aren't human concepts, per se. They are characteristics of intelligence, which science is getting a handle on. There is no reason to believe, IMO, that scientists can't create A.I., as intelligence is becoming that well understood. It's not Human Design. It's intelligent design. It's not that hard to identify the characteristics of intelligence, apparently, because it has been done. Intelligence is not human, per se, and it's influence is objectively (i.e. scientifically) measurable.

As of yet you only have human (or arguably other animals) intelligence to observe. Even artificial intelligence, if it comes to fruition, would be a human invention and would be built around human concepts of intelligence and intent.

[Luigi]

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.

You assume DNA is information intended to create a cell versus DNA being information which (again, with other components) results in a cell. One definition suggests human-like desire of creation the other does not attribute a first cause. One can be justified for ID the other cannot and is scientific.

The other problem with using intelligence as the creator of life is that intelligence, as we have observed it, only results FROM life. Even AI is a creation that came from life indirectly. So you are in essence, attributing a phenomenon we only observe as a result of life as the creator of life.

[Mordecai]

As of yet you only have human (or arguably other animals) intelligence to observe. Even artificial intelligence, if it comes to fruition, would be a human invention and would be built around human concepts of intelligence and intent.

So what's your point? If we had some aliens or gods to observe in a lab, we could do that. Sadly, we're stuck with the old-school science, where you can only draw inferences based on what is observable.

You assume DNA is information intended to create a cell versus DNA being information which (again, with other components) results in a cell. One definition suggests human-like desire of creation the other does not attribute a first cause. One can be justified for ID the other cannot and is scientific.

The other problem with using intelligence as the creator of life is that intelligence, as we have observed it, only results FROM life. Even AI is a creation that came from life indirectly.

I don't assume DNA is information intended to create a cell. You're delusional about what I'm saying. I infer that intelligence produced DNA, not because DNA is information that is intended to create a cell. I infer it, because DNA is functional information. I only discuss intent, because I have inferred that there is a designer(s) based on the nature of DNA.

You do have a point that life comes from life, so the designer(s) would logically have come from life, based on all current observations. However, I don't see that as a problem. So what if the designer(s) came from life? Or maybe they didn't. What of it? That's a separate issue.

[Luigi]

You do have a point that life comes from life, so the designer(s) would logically have come from life, based on all current observations. However, I don't see that as a problem. So what if the designer(s) came from life? Or maybe they didn't. What of it? That's a separate issue.

So life would have to be infinite. Again, not supported by the evidence.

EDIT: Also you would need to demonstrate that life (and intelligence) exist independent of DNA based life forms or without creation by DNA based life forms.

[Rob Osborn]

CFR

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Luigi,

Your argument is weak and leaves your own (evolution) theories just as weak. You claim that ID doesn't have evidence because it can't define who or what the intelligent designer is- that because we do not see it (or him, the "magical guy" etc) it is therefore not science. Your own theories fall in the same category though. If we call evolution a "force" and attribute it the same as our intelligent designer- the mechanism for how intelligence arose on this planet, then we can begin to see why evolution fails in the same dramatic fashion as far as "evidence" of the mechanism as does ID. They both rely on the same premise- finding the "mechanism" behind the origins of life. You cannot therefore call the mechanism of ID "magic" without calling your own mechanism- that of a proposed force, as "magic" itself. I say this in the strictest sense because no known force in scientific understanding can invent and carry out a biologic system complete with body plans, coding and reading operations, self repair and regulation, etc on its own. All science tells us with the "seen" evidence is that these complex biologic systems only exist because of the complex DNA code already present. No evidence exists either to scientifically explain how DNA came about on this planet. Brother, we are both in the same boat- call it magic if you will, but in doing so you must apply that same standard to evolution in attempting to explain the origins of life.

Is it not "magical" that DNA could have arose by some random unguided process? Yes my friend, that is just as magical as explaining that DNA was brought here by a supernatural being and was left here.

[Luigi]

Luigi,

Your argument is weak and leaves your own (evolution) theories just as weak. You claim that ID doesn't have evidence because it can't define who or what the intelligent designer is- that because we do not see it (or him, the "magical guy" etc) it is therefore not science. Your own theories fall in the same category though. If we call evolution a "force" and attribute it the same as our intelligent designer- the mechanism for how intelligence arose on this planet, then we can begin to see why evolution fails in the same dramatic fashion as far as "evidence" of the mechanism as does ID. They both rely on the same premise- finding the "mechanism" behind the origins of life. You cannot therefore call the mechanism of ID "magic" without calling your own mechanism- that of a proposed force, as "magic" itself. I say this in the strictest sense because no known force in scientific understanding can invent and carry out a biologic system complete with body plans, coding and reading operations, self repair and regulation, etc on its own. All science tells us with the "seen" evidence is that these complex biologic systems only exist because of the complex DNA code already present. No evidence exists either to scientifically explain how DNA came about on this planet. Brother, we are both in the same boat- call it magic if you will, but in doing so you must apply that same standard to evolution in attempting to explain the origins of life.

Is it not "magical" that DNA could have arose by some random unguided process? Yes my friend, that is just as magical as explaining that DNA was brought here by a supernatural being and was left here.

I don't know is honest and free of magic while attributing it to a supernatural being is not. ID takes a phenomenon which is only observed in DNA based life forms, ie intelligence, and claims it must be what created DNA. See the problem there?

[Rob Osborn]

So life would have to be infinite. Again, not supported by the evidence.

EDIT: Also you would need to demonstrate that life (and intelligence) exist independent of DNA based life forms or without creation by DNA based life forms.

Is this philosophy or biology science?

There isn't any evidence stating how long life has existed in the universe. For that matter there isn't any evidence showing the "end" of space, if there is even such a thing. There isn't evidence showing whether matter has always existed in the universe or if it had a beginning. The only evidence we do have shows-

The universe goes on as far as our most powerful telescopes allows us to see- we do not see an end to space.

As for life- we have no evidence showing it actually "started" in the universe at some point in time in some exact place.

Because "things" in the universe are made of matter, it is thus logical to assume that matter goes on for as long as our telescopes allow us to see.

So, I am curious as to why you say that infinite life is not supported by the evidence. You could only possibly say this if there was actual viable scientific evidence that life "began" somewhere in the universe and that it did not nor could not have existed anywhere else. You must realize this logic- If we can't see the end of the universe (if there is even an end to it) then we cannot state one way or the other what the "evidence" supports. All the evidence we have only states that we have not found life on other places in the universe from what little and limited research and evidence we have.

[Rob Osborn]

I don't know is honest and free of magic while attributing it to a supernatural being is not. ID takes a phenomenon which is only observed in DNA based life forms, ie intelligence, and claims it must be what created DNA. See the problem there?

Thats what the evidence supports though- can't you see your fallacy?

The point here is that the evidence shows that life exists only because intelligence existed first. Because intelligence is only derived from DNA forms, it can thus be said that intelligence in nature only comes from DNA derived substance and form. Your fallacy is in thinking that DNA (intelligence) must have an ultimate beginning. Why would you suppose this? Must it have a beginning? If it didn't how would that be outside of science?

[Mordecai]

So life would have to be infinite. Again, not supported by the evidence.

EDIT: Also you would need to demonstrate that life (and intelligence) exist independent of DNA based life forms or without creation by DNA based life forms.

Here's what Richard Dawkins, Darwinist extraordinaire, has to say about this:

I can't say that's illogical. Regardless, a different form of life seems to be a logical explanation for the creation of life on earth. How that came to be, obviously would have to have a logical explanation.

Science tells us that the universe has a supernatural origin that existed eternally, i.e. the singularity from which the Big Bang sprung. The universal constants also represent specified complexity, interestingly. Between life's specified complexity and the universal constants, we might infer that there is something beyond scientific explanation occurring. The conclusion is that scientifically, we're pretty close to impotent with regard to answering the big questions.

[littlechild]

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.

Agreed.

The objection known as 'god in the gaps' is most often promulgated by those who believe in 'naturalism in the gaps'. I find god in the gaps more logical than naturalism in the gaps. At least there are witnesses who claim to have seen God, and we have His handiwork all around us. We know of no person who can bear honest witness to evolution's theories. We know for sure that nobody has observed a species morphing into another species. We know for sure that no one witnessed abiogenesis. There are no 'scientific' experiments that validate the hypothesis. The 'evidence' put forth ad nauseum by the pro-naturalists is speculative, self-contradictory, conflicting, unproven, untested, and biased heavily towards their own philosophical prejudices. When you rule out a higher intelligence on philosophical grounds, on what basis can you call that good science? Only if you stack the deck can you do that.

[Arc]

Here's what Richard Dawkins, Darwinist extraordinaire, has to say about this:

I can't say that's illogical. Regardless, a different form of life seems to be a logical explanation for the creation of life on earth. How that came to be, obviously would have to have a logical explanation.

Science tells us that the universe has a supernatural origin that existed eternally, i.e. the singularity from which the Big Bang sprung. The universal constants also represent specified complexity, interestingly. Between life's specified complexity and the universal constants, we might infer that there is something beyond scientific explanation occurring. The conclusion is that scientifically, we're pretty close to impotent with regard to answering the big questions.

Mordecai,

What is it about the following factual statements that you do not understand?

- A Federal Judge, after hearing extensive arguments from creationists ID

[Rob Osborn]

Mordecai,

What is it about the following factual statements that you do not understand?

- A Federal Judge, after hearing extensive arguments from creationists ID

[Mordecai]

Mordecai,

What is it about the following factual statements that you do not understand?

- A Federal Judge, after hearing extensive arguments from creationists ID

[Mordecai]

Thankfully Federal judges do not have the authority to actually say what is or is not science but rather what they feel at the time about certain issues.

Don't you love arrogant scientists, writing with a condescending tone, making logical fallacies like appeals to authority, using huge font and making false claims of fact? It's funny how in their zeal to protect their political dogma, they reveal their insecurities and fallibility, dispelling the myth that scientists are special and above regular people?

Of course, it's good that they show their true colors, so people will stop worshiping them.

[Rob Osborn]

Don't you love arrogant scientists, writing with a condescending tone, making logical fallacies like appeals to authority, using huge font and making false claims of fact? It's funny how in their zeal to protect their political dogma, they reveal their insecurities and fallibility, dispelling the myth that scientists are special and above regular people?

Of course, it's good that they show their true colors, so people will stop worshiping them.

It's definately intriguing to me that instead of debating the nitty-gritty cellular functions, they would rather debate the philosophy of the "scientific method" and get so far hung up with semantics and philosophies of terms that I wonder if they really are afraid of the real honest truth staring back at them when they look into the microscope eyepiece. It's as if they too know the real plausibility of ID, that it is becoming ever so increasingly inescapable that they try to hide behind their Forfather Darwin and rant on and on about ID not being science. After all it is their only defense- a defense of careful and clever lies. If Darwin were alive today, he would probably look at the evidence in favor of ID and say- "Yes, it appears I was wrong".

[Mordecai]

If Darwin were alive today, he would probably look at the evidence in favor of ID and say- "Yes, it appears I was wrong".

I think so, too. Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention that scientists also smear ID by calling it creationism.

[littlechild]

Mordecai,

What is it about the following factual statements that you do not understand?

- A Federal Judge, after hearing extensive arguments from creationists ID

[Rob Osborn]

I think so, too. Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention that scientists also smear ID by calling it creationism.

I have followed the creationism movement over the years. There are parts of the movement itself that I support but I have never supported it as a "science" that could be taught in school. When my son was little he went to a private school and one of the science books they taught out of was creationism- a very strict account with Moses and a literal 7 day 24 hr. creation. At the time I thought it was pretty cool but also realized it was severely limited in what it could do and that in a lot of ways was more closeminded than evolution itself.

Anyone who has followed the movements over the years will know that ID and creationism are separate movements even though many of the ideas are the same- as far as the scientific content is concerned. Where they differ is where it matters most- ID leaves out the religious overtones while creationism is all about the religion aspect of it.

[Mordecai]

I have followed the creationism movement over the years. There are parts of the movement itself that I support but I have never supported it as a "science" that could be taught in school. When my son was little he went to a private school and one of the science books they taught out of was creationism- a very strict account with Moses and a literal 7 day 24 hr. creation. At the time I thought it was pretty cool but also realized it was severely limited in what it could do and that in a lot of ways was more closeminded than evolution itself.

Anyone who has followed the movements over the years will know that ID and creationism are separate movements even though many of the ideas are the same- as far as the scientific content is concerned. Where they differ is where it matters most- ID leaves out the religious overtones while creationism is all about the religion aspect of it.

I don't have an issue with creationism per se. But when a scientist calls ID, "creationism," it's like cussing and ranting about it. It's an expression of hatred and an attempt to lump people who believe in ID in with young creationists and the "god of the gaps" arguments. The "god of the gaps" argument is anti-science and the general public considers it to be on par with believing the earth is flat. It's extremely insulting to guys like Behe and Meyer who are brilliant scientists and appreciate good science in itself (as I do, in fact... I'm a fan of GOOD science).

[Arc]

I have followed the creationism movement over the years. There are parts of the movement itself that I support but I have never supported it as a "science" that could be taught in school. When my son was little he went to a private school and one of the science books they taught out of was creationism- a very strict account with Moses and a literal 7 day 24 hr. creation. At the time I thought it was pretty cool but also realized it was severely limited in what it could do and that in a lot of ways was more closeminded than evolution itself.

Anyone who has followed the movements over the years will know that ID and creationism are separate movements even though many of the ideas are the same- as far as the scientific content is concerned. Where they differ is where it matters most- ID leaves out the religious overtones while creationism is all about the religion aspect of it.

Rob,

Wrong again. In the Kitzmiller Federal Court case cited above, Judge Jones wrote: "Although contrary to Fuller, defense experts Professors Behe and Minnich testified that ID is not creationism, their testimony was primarily by way of bare assertion and it failed to directly rebut the creationist history of Pandas or other evidence presented by Plaintiffs showing the commonality between creationism and ID."

The main institutional proponent of ID theory is the Discovery Institute in Seattle. They became ID'ers about a week after they decided that their creationism position was wholly untenable in the face of advancing science. They did not even bother to change staff or change basic ideas. They just decided not to thump the Bible.

Their deletion of word "creation" and insertion of "ID" in its place in a proposed ID text book, and thereafter lying about what they did, was what got them in trouble in the Kansas School Board Federal Court case.

Here are some of the concepts associated with ID according to the Discovery Institute: irreducible complexity (wholly discredited by scientists), specified complexity (see irreducible complexity), Neo-Creationism (that about says it all), theistic realism (are you beginning to get the point?), fine-tuned universe (now we are into some really sloppy logic) Intelligent Designer (sounds like God to me).

You can argue that ID is different from creationism all you want, but your position has been undercut by the inventors of the whole concept, the Discovery Institute.

While we are on the subject of creationists in ID clothing, mainstream science completely discounts Behe's irreducible complexity . Behe's work is of no more value to science than that of "UFOlogists".

I would be happy to discuss (or debate) cellular structure and function as manifestations of evolution with you, if you had some evidence with which to defend you position. Problem is that all of your imagined irreducible or specified complexities are explained perfectly adequately by evolution, especially when one looks at the underlying genetic code.

In the final analysis, scientists understand that ID offers no more value to science than does creationism, Behe, Demski and their imaginative fellow travelers notwithstanding.

[ERayR]

Did Neanderthals have sex with modern man?

Mystery may be solved when entire Neanderthal genome is reported

By Charles Q. Choi

"...At an October conference in Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York, P

[Mordecai]

The main institutional proponent of ID theory is the Discovery Institute in Seattle. They became ID'ers about a week after they decided that their creationism position was wholly untenable in the face of advancing science. They did not even bother to change staff or change basic ideas. They just decided not to thump the Bible.

Their deletion of word "creation" and insertion of "ID" in its place in a proposed ID text book, and thereafter lying about what they did, was what got them in trouble in the Kansas School Board Federal Court case.

This is a myth. The guys that "got in trouble" were the ones who put Of Pandas and People together. Their staff was run by a minister. They're not the Discovery Institute. This is a myth that insecure advocates of Darwinian dogma have perpetuated to protect themselves from losing status and credibility to a competing theory.

Here are some of the concepts associated with ID according to the Discovery Institute: irreducible complexity (wholly discredited by scientists)

Prove it.

fine-tuned universe (now we are into some really sloppy logic)

Again, prove it.

Intelligent Designer (sounds like God to me).

Who cares what it sounds like to you? If there is a design, there must be a designer or designers. Doesn't sound too complicated to me.

While we are on the subject of creationists in ID clothing, mainstream science completely discounts Behe's irreducible complexity . Behe's work is of no more value to science than that of "UFOlogists".

To those who are ignorant and have had exposure through smear campaigns and straw man arguments, yes, it's crap. But people go to the effort to read the debate, including debate from Darwinist scientists (See here), ID is as good as Darwinism (which isn't saying much, since neither can be proven to explain the origin of species).

I would be happy to discuss (or debate) cellular structure and function as manifestations of evolution with you, if you had some evidence with which to defend you position. Problem is that all of your imagined irreducible or specified complexities are explained perfectly adequately by evolution, especially when one looks at the underlying genetic code.

In the final analysis, scientists understand that ID offers no more value to science than does creationism, Behe, Demski and their imaginative fellow travelers notwithstanding.

Darwinism explains irreducible complexity? All scientific knowledge suggests Darwinism is unable to explain a single increase in complexity in DNA. If it can't seem to do that, how could Darwinian processes create anything much less irreducible complexity? Darwinism is a weak theory, when it is used to explain the origin of species.

With regard to "the final analysis" (whose final analysis? And why are they more authoritative than Behe or Meyer, when they don't even seem to understand ID as far as I can tell?) Behe says that within the realm of microbiology, Darwinism has nothing published in peer-reviewed journals. While Meyer and others do have papers published in a peer-reviewed journal: http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

[rayhale]

Using Darwinism today to explain evolution is like still teaching exactly what Isaac Newton did about gravity. Charles Darwin was smart, but he knew NOTHING about DNA, or just how complex molecules and cells are. I voted yes, however, after reading some of the posts, I do realize how Intelligent Design is not only religious in nature, but has Christian theology ideas mixed in with it. If we are to teach Intelligent Design is to be taught in science class, then should all other Creation myth

[Arc]

This is a myth. The guys that "got in trouble" were the ones who put Of Pandas and People together. Their staff was run by a minister. They're not the Discovery Institute. This is a myth that insecure advocates of Darwinian dogma have perpetuated to protect themselves from losing status and credibility to a competing theory.

To those who are ignorant and have had exposure through smear campaigns and straw man arguments, yes, it's crap. But people go to the effort to read the debate, including debate from Darwinist scientists (See here), ID is as good as Darwinism (which isn't saying much, since neither can be proven to explain the origin of species).

Darwinism explains irreducible complexity? All scientific knowledge suggests Darwinism is unable to explain a single increase in complexity in DNA. If it can't seem to do that, how could Darwinian processes create anything much less irreducible complexity? Darwinism is a weak theory, when it is used to explain the origin of species.

With regard to "the final analysis" (whose final analysis? And why are they more authoritative than Behe or Meyer, when they don't even seem to understand ID as far as I can tell?) Behe says that within the realm of microbiology, Darwinism has nothing published in peer-reviewed journals. While Meyer and others do have papers published in a peer-reviewed journal: http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

Mordecai,

Behe is wrong. And your statement that (Behe said) there are no peer reviewed papers on evolution in the area of microbiology gives me the uneasy feeling that I have been wasting my time trying discuss science science with a couple of parrots.

Did it ever occur to you to type in "cellular evolution" as search terms into Google and see what came up? What about entire journals such as "Molecular Evolution" in the "Cell Biology" series by Springer? There are hundreds if not thousands of papers on evolution in microbiology. And with your statement that there are none, you are looking pretty silly right now.

Your quoting the Discovery Institute after my explanation that they are an anti-science organizatio (or a pseudo-science organization if one wants to be very kind) does not help your case.

When you say Behe has papers in peer reviewed journals you are being less than forthright. You fail to mention that the only peer reviewed journal he can get published in is a journal on philosophy of science, which is not exactly a scientific journal, is it? It is a journal about philosophy.

No reputable peer reviewed scientific journal would touch Behe's ID work (except perhaps to comment on how silliy it is in the editorial section). This is because Behe cannot develop testable hypotheses when it comes to ID, and therefore has no acceptable scientific evidence to support his position, regardless of his claims.

So let's end it here my friends. You have run the gambit of ID pseudoscience claims and are digging your selves in deeper with each new post. You clearly have no original thoughts on the subject and are simply parroting what the the totally discredited Discovery Institute posts on their website.

Have a nice delusion.

Adios.

[Arc]

Using Darwinism today to explain evolution is like still teaching exactly what Isaac Newton did about gravity. Charles Darwin was smart, but he knew NOTHING about DNA, or just how complex molecules and cells are. I voted yes, however, after reading some of the posts, I do realize how Intelligent Design is not only religious in nature, but has Christian theology ideas mixed in with it. If we are to teach Intelligent Design is to be taught in science class, then should all other Creation myth